Refuting a Bushie or why "experience" doesn't necessarily matter too much

Recently my Bushie friend claimed that "no white candidate with as little experience as Barack Obama had ever been remotely considered" for the office of PResident of the USA. I pointed out that Eisenhower had never held an elected office, but obviously had great leadership skills. Also pointed out various other presidents with no political experience. But then I did some serious research and I came up with the follow.

To be clear, I am comparing nothing but EXPERIENCE of these two men PRIOR to their “consideration” for the nomination of President. I’m not making predictions of what type of President Obama might be nor any judgments of either man’s character, I’m basing this SOLELY on experience prior to consideration.

So, I did this comparison because the parallels are so striking.

Enjoy

Facts

Lincoln, considered by most historians as one greatest Presidents in US history, never attended college or law school, served two more years that Obama in the Illinois Legislature, but fewer years in the US Congress. Professionally, they are probably a wash considering they both worked as lawyers for about the same amount of time.

So, it’s obviously untrue that “No one with Obama’s experience has been remotely considered” when Lincoln, who has the same level or experience (or LESS), was not only considered, but was elected and then saved America.

I’m going to save you some time now , so don’t respond with “you’re comparing Lincoln to Obama?” response. Just like you did with Eisenhower. You’re claim was about experience, I’ve disproved your claim with 5 Presidents now(a couple of guys were only nominees), and proven to you that Lincoln PRIOR TO BE ELECTED President had the same or less experience than Obama has.