1.) Capitalize or Italicize “real,” and that’s about it. You could also read in context by how I described Bush as lacking national experience and realize where I was going with it.

2.) I knew that if you commented you would point this out, and I thought about changing it to read more like “He’s one-sidedly chummy with the press like a cool kid followed around by douchy nerds waiting to touch his letterman’s jacket,” but then decidedly it’s hard to capture subtle (though largely meaningless) distinctions when you are writing a 5 line long description of one person. Point is, he’s skated on criticism because he is well-liked or revered to the point of sickness by the press. No matter whether he courts it or not.

3.) I think it’d be more effective to argue how important experience actually IS rather than arguing about who has more of it.
I don’t think HRC was dusting the mantles during those 8 years in the White House…if anything, her constant self-interjection into politics as a mere First Lady is half the reason she’s detested so much on the right (WOMEN?!?!? IN POLITICS?!?!?). That time matters.
And yes, she has four more years of experience in the only legislative body that matters to a President, which, given that they both announced for the Presidency (and have been largely useless legislatively since) in February 2007, is also TRIPLE the amount of time that Obama has. Four years DOES matter. So does her relatively strong record (especially for a junior Senator..maybe suggesting something about how her prior experience matters???) in bipartisan agreements. If at the end of the day, her lack of judgment in issues of national importance is just code for “she voted for Iraq,” then to me that’s no better than reverse 9/11ing on par with Giuliani. If you think her record absent Iraq is substantially different than Obama’s was or would have been, I’d like to see it/know why.
Also, contacts matter. The phrase “ultimately they’ll be roughly the same” is question begging to say the least. Yes, if he wins the White House, his contacts will be roughly the same a few years in as HRCs are now. Great…that uh, doesn’t mean anything.

As for the last paragraph, it might all be true. However, it doesn’t have anything to do with the post. You may very well have all those reasons to support Obama. Good for you, and I am not faulting you for believing he’d be a good president for those reasons. But if you could look me in the face and tell me you think that even 30% of his current supporters could explain ANY of those things (save the general electability) to you and liked him for any reason other than his pretty words and personal appeal, I would laugh in your face…which would be convenient, since it’d be right there. The point isn’t that these guys are bad candidates, although I happen to think they both are (I would also prefer to have a robot as president, but so it goes). The point is that people DON’T CARE that they are/are not bad candidates to run a country. They care whether they are nice, funny, or not a woman.

1) “[Obama has] little to no real political experience.”
He actually has fairly extensive [i]political[/i] experience, albeit on a small/local level (which is a positive to some people who care strongly about grassroots politics*). He also has a pretty decent amount of legislative experience at the same level. What he lacks is executive experience, foreign policy experience, and experience on the national level.
That doesn’t invalidate your intended criticism, but it does make your expressed criticism rather inaccurate.
2) Obama is labeled chummy with the press.
Actually, one of the weirdest aspects of this campaign to people who obsess over these things** is that Obama is even more distant from the press than HRC when it comes to interacting with them directly, but they love him anyway. He holds almost no standard press conferences, let alone the frequent buddy-buddy chats that McCain engages in daily. But again, the press seems to love him anyway.
Again, this doesn’t really attack your central criticism. I just find your central criticism a) irrelevant (guys like FDR were perfectly chummy with the press and b) factually a bit off.
3) Obama has beaten back a “leftover Clintonite with actual experience”.
Leftover Clintonite, sure. I still don’t understand why Clinton is the “experienced” candidate, though. No one seems able to explain this one; they just assert its truth and move on. She’s never written a law and gotten it through the legislature (until her Senate term, which gives her exactly 4 more years of experience than Obama), she’s never negotiated with foreign leaders, and she’s never shown particularly good judgment on issues of national importance.
If you’re talking about connections and eventual appointees to key positions, then hers might be slightly better than Obama’s right now, but ultimately they’ll be roughly the same.

Finally, I just object to the notion that Obama voters don’t really have any good reasons for supporting him beyond pretty words. I also like the focus of his theoretical foreign policy should he win much better than HRC’s. I like his approach to building the Democratic Party and a liberal governing coalition. I like the fact that independents seem to trust him a lot more than they trust Hillary, which will be a huge factor running against someone with the reputation of McCain. And yes, again, I love his pretty pretty words.

*Shouldn’t be assumed to include me, since it doesn’t.
**Does include me.