I've heard the charge that Barack Obama is unfit to be President of the United States because he served only 143 days in the Senate prior to announcing his candidacy. For some this should preclude him from consideration.
Never mind that the Founders saw fit only to set citizenship and attaining 35 years of age as their only requirements (or that there hasn't been a move to modify the requirements in 219 years). Would these critics feel any differently about Obama had he, say, 500 days of Senate experience? 250? Or is 300 more like it? I'm thinking no.
He was a community organizer (which I still don't know exactly what that is, or if society even needs them, but whatever); he did attend one of the finest law schools in the world, graduating magna cum laude; he did edit the Harvard Law Review (sadly, he hasn't published any law review articles, which is a shame for those who would like to know the substance to his stances and odd considering that he:); taught Constitutional Law at one of the other finest Law Schools in the world; he did have a private practice as an attorney and was a state legislator. He did not emerge from the womb and alight straight to the Senate for his 143 days.
The most "experienced" President we had was James Buchanan (House of Representatives, 1814-1831; Senate, 1834-1845; minister to Russia; minister to Great Britain; nominated for and refused a seat on the Supreme Court, 1844; Secretary of State in Polk Administration, 1845-1849; President (15), 1857-1861). He was also, arguably, the worst (ranked DFL in Presidential Leadership among other rankings).
He was succeeded, of course, by one of the least experienced men to take the helm and one of the greatest ever to do so, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan said to Lincoln on the latter's inauguration, "My dear sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I am on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."
Now, I don't think Obama is the next Lincoln (and certainly not the next Jesus, as some would have it). But before making a big deal about something, it might help to know what you're talking about. If some other quanta were necessary to being president the Founders would have included them. If anyone feels strongly enough about it now, propose an amendment to the Constitution adding them. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.
I'm not going to vote for him and I don't like many of the policies he's espoused, but this is nonsense and deserves to be called such.
So from the top: natural citizen and >35 years old=qualified. More electoral votes than competition=win.
N.B.--Nor do I think it is wise to denigrate Sarah Palin (as noted here) on her experience. Regardless of the size, she has been elected to serve two separate executive posts. It an't nothin'.