I know some here, and elsewhere, would poo-poo the idea that the person who holds the title of "Most Powerful Person in the World" should have some relevant experience before getting that job.  Some of those people would even write emotional articles directed at me to shout down my arguments- I'm flattered guys.  They use rhetoric, irrelevant historical blurbs, logical leaps and emotion to promote something that feels good to them.  I think that approach to politics is extremely dangerous.  Frankly, it's not unlike what the neo-cons have done from the other side.  As progressives, we need to have a better approach. 

Back on topic, when we elect a President, we as a people, need to understand what the President's job really is.  First and foremost, it is to keep the nation safe, both from external threats, and internal.  Anybody who seeks that post, in my humble opinion, should have some credentials.  Simply having a vision that feels good isn't enough.  Vision, as wonderful as that is, won't keep me safe.  Would we hire a police chief in our city who has only been a street cop a few years?  Neither should we hire a President that has little or no experience in issues of national security. 

Get used to that argument, because if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, we'll be hearing it a lot.  And rightly so, junior Senator Obama is woefully short on experience.  Republicans will be right to hammer that home. 

Next, the President must grease the wheels of socio-economic change.  The President has to be able to cut deals with Congress that get most of what is good for the nation put into place.  A President can not be limited by ideology, or we get, what we have gotten the past seven years.  A President must have experience with administrative matters, it's why governors have traditionally been strong in Presidential politics. 

Further, a President, the most powerful person in the world don't forget, must have a good team of advisors.  This is rarely talked about, but it is imperative for the President to surround him or herself with good people who are experienced and wise, not just academically strong. 

In all of these instances, it is not difficult to see the contrasts between Senator's Obama and Clinton.

Senator Hillary Clinton has been in politics for decades, has significant administrative and representative experience, and a who's who of the top minds in America as advisors.  Senator Barack Obama is not only less experienced, but arguably inexperienced, and primarily consults with a group of 30-something advisors.

In my humble opinion, Barack Obama might be a great Presidential candidate, but not in 2008.  I'm going to vote the safer route, I'm voting Hillary Clinton.

P.S. I am a financial advisor.  One thing I see that as relevant is that the Obama advisor's lack of experience is likely to lead to some very dangerous experimentation with the economy, which has too high a probability of being dangerous for the middle class.  I am concerned, though not convinced, that an Obama administration will be as bad for the middle class financially as the Bush administration, just with pressure coming from the other side.  What I know is that the Clinton administration was very good for the middle class. For my part, I'd like some more of that.