What makes Clinton so experienced?

Joel Rector, North Las Vegas

Sunday, May 25, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.

For months I’ve been listening to and reading opinions from people who tout Sen. Hillary Clinton’s experience. My question is, other than her time as senator, what executive experience does she have? What specifically does she bring to the table that’s overwhelmingly superior to her opponents’ abilities? Has she held any other elected office? Has she operated a business?

I can surmise only that her backers are counting her time as first lady and consider her White House residency as somehow equivalent to “experience” that makes her the best choice for president. If that’s the case, Nancy Reagan and Rosalynn Carter are also extremely qualified.

Madelyn Olds in her Friday letter (headlined “Obama’s youthful backers are naive”) compared Clinton to “a teacher who knows all the answers” and called Obama someone who “will have to study” prior to decision making.

I would suggest, with all due respect to Ms. Olds, that no president has all the answers (we’ve become painfully aware of that over the past seven-plus years) and that careful study and deliberation before decision making is a responsible course of action.

The fact is that no candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, has Oval Office experience. Given it’s the toughest job in the world, I don’t believe there’s any “experience” that can truly prepare a candidate for the awesome responsibilities that come with it.

Sure, Obama is young and comes to this election with a great deal of energy and idealism. That kind of attitude certainly attracts young people who have seen the results of years of failed policies and leaders who believe they’re beyond reproach and arrogant to the point of blindness to any who don’t fall in lock-step with their view of the world.

Maybe it is time for change: a true changing of the guard.