The 35 years of experience that Clinton often touts on and off the campaign trail while disparaging Obama as an inexperienced candidate with just 2 years on the US Senate is at best laughable. This should be "the biggest fairy tale" we have ever heard of.

Clinton is 60 now. 35 years ago, when she was 25, she was still in law school. Of course, that might have been one of her transformative years in life, but how does that really count as an experience? And even if she counts her time in law school as experience, why not count Obama's time in law school as well?

Included in that 35 years of experience is  6 years of expereince sitting on the board of Wal-Mart, which she rarely mentions.

Then there is 8 years of her experience in the White House, which the public doesn't exactly know what her role was. How can she pull 8 years of experience from those years when the public don't know what exactly she did. Her role during those 8 years is as mysterious as her claim of 35 years of experience is. Why not make the archives public sooner than 2010??

Ok..you would think that with 30 years of experience, in 2003 in the run-up to the vote to authorize the Iraq war, she would make a good judgment in one of the biggest test of her life! So, much for her experience!

And then she goes on to dismiss Obama's 8 years on the state senate as if that was some kind of part time job, which should not count for any experience. His time spent organizing community isn't the "right" kind of experience (her implication). Give me a break!!

Clinton, definitely, has solid experience but nothing far superior than that of Obama. Obama has spent more time in the elected office than Clinton, so to speak.