this whole lack of experience argument is wrong. for your next president, would you rather have someone who can lead or someone who can manage day to day affairs.
i would argue that the role of the president is to lead and to get others to manage day to day. leadership involves setting a vision and then having others execute that vision. leaders have charisma and are able to get people to do what they want. leadership is something that you either have or you don't. management is something you can learn.
though, i think obama has proven he is skilled at both. you only need to look at how he's run his campaign.
bush is the antithesis of a leader. though in a leadership role, he has been awkward and unable to unify anyone for anything. judging his trillion dollar budget and mismanagement of the war, he's probably not a manager either.
this question of leadership vs. management is often posed by college professors at business schools and then a debate ensues on which is better to head a company and whether someone can learn to be a leader.
leaders have charisma, passion, vision, the ability to sell, and inspire people to follow.
managers react to problems, manage day to day, they tell people what to do (as opposed to inspire), they are more interested in the short term.
a president should be a leader. his or her cabinet should be the managers.
here's a bit of business school wisdom: leaders represent change. managers represent stability.
Popular vote count
Poll Obama vs. McCain
Obama newspaper endorsements
Yes We Can Lyrics
Upcoming primary and caucus schedule
Everything barack obama
Imagine President Obama
Blueprint for change