How Much is Experience?

IMO, there is experience and then there is experience... "Years in a job" don't mean a whole heck of a lot as far as I'm concerned. It does count for something but I know a lot of government employees that had 30 or 40 years in their careers and still couldn't figure out some pretty basic stuff while people came in with no experience and picked it up and knew more in 2 or 3 years.

But every one of the people you listed had some government experience - they all end up bringing different perspectives into the Whitehouse. A mayor from a large city is more likely to know more details about urban transit systems than a gov. or state level rep from a rural area. But a mayor probably doesn't know much about how the Feds and the States work together on things like Medicare either so they balance out in the end. Someone who's been in Congress may understand how the Congress gets business done but they may also not have to deal with the results of their decisions.

I guess if I were forced to chose between people I'd look for the widest range of experiences and well as depth.

You bring up a good point and that is asymptote. Every one has a potential. If your potential is low, you can achieve it quickly or work to it forever and you are still not doing very well. If you are brilliant at what you do (high asymptote), in a short period of time you can surpass those with many years of experience. Should we be evaluating candidates on their potential rather than their experience? Or should we be looking for the candidate that is "ready on day one" even if the performance in year four might be lower? Maybe a mix?

Since it is the Executive branch of the government, some executive experience would be helpful. That is why voters tend to gravitate towards governors.
But seeing as how it looks like we are going to break a trend and be forced to elect a Senator (JFK was the last one to make the move directly), then I would have to say experience at the federal level. Not only do you have to look at the time spent in congress, but at what the person did while there. Bills, voting record, committees that they have been a part of and/or chaired.
In addition to the amount of years, one should look at what the person has accomplished in the amount of time served. Some have been there for years, but had no real impact (Barbara Boxer), while others have been there shorter amounts of time, and had impact on legislature or influence uncommon with someone that hasn't been there most of thier adult life (Bill Frist comes to mind).
There are exceptions though. Teddy Roosevelt had less than 2 years as governor, less that 1 year as vice president, and still did a pretty good job.

I believe relevant experience is important for a President to have coming into Office. The problem is in figuring out what is "relevant".

Experience as an Executive. This might be as the head of a major business, as a Governor, or as Vice-President who had been vitally involved in conduct of the Administration's business. Historically this is an important quality voters consider. Presidents who were previously Governors, Vice-Presidents, or Military General Officers have been the rule. Wilson was President of Princeton.

Experience in Practical Politics. Lengthy government service as an elected official is about the only way a President gets this sort of experience. Mayors, like Grover Cleveland, tend to fit this category. Chester Arthur and Truman were among the many machine politicians who eventually became President. LBJ was a master of political maneuver.

Experience with Domestic Policy. Governors, and senior Federal legislators have the inside track on Domestic Policy experience. However, individuals involved with national-level economics would score well on this item. Its remarkable how little experience Presidential candidates have in what is often most important to the voters. Teddy Roosevelt, a maverick reformer with strong interest in domestic affairs was one exception. LBJ is another. LBJ's primary goals were almost exclusively domestic, but he was sidetracked and ultimately defeated by his weakness in foreign affairs. Eisenhower was no expert on domestic policy, but both he and Ford both understood the need of a "time out" in the wake of turbulent times.

Experience with Foreign Policy Traditionally former heads of the State Department get the highest marks for this item. High ranking military men generally have experience in Foreign Affairs, and how the nation's policies play out around the globe. Senior Senators and Congressmen who have served several terms on a relevant committee also have the sort of experience we would prize. Nixon sucked with domestic affairs, but had a pretty sound grasp of international politics.

Experience in handling stressful high-risk decision-making. Former chief executives of large organizations where decisions have to be made under very unfavorable conditions, and high-ranking military officers probably score best. As voters, we can look at how the candidates have handled stress and adversity in their personal lives. It is in this are where valuable experience doesn't necessarily come from lengthy involvement in the political life of our nation. We have to wonder if FDR or JFK would have had the as much public confidence if they hadn't been given serious challenges to overcome. Teddy Roosevelt was a sickly lad, but he over came that to typify vigor and willingness to enthusiastically face every challenge.

These aren't probably the only categories of "experience" that we should take a hard look at, but they are a start. Having experience in multiple categories is almost certainly better than having experience in only a few areas, or no experience at all. It has been rightly pointed out that length of experience alone is not a reliable test, and that there is no direct correlation between "experienced" Presidents and their approval ratings. Still, this is something that is more substantive than slick TV advertising, celebrity endorsements, stump speeches, or charisma and popularity.

Could be a bad thing, like in the case of Ted Kennedy, just entitled and used to playing the game, sold out decades ago. And I disagree with the profession of politics/government/leadership and all that. I prefer the idea of a statesman hearing the call of duty. Blue-eyed of me of course but it's something to bear in mind.

It's more like picking the right person for the job I think and therein I'd place a lot of weight on the track record, or say what the effect of the experience would be. Like with McCain (you knew it was coming) I see a guy who knows the game, knows what to do therein, yet has seen things from different perspectives, and can still think for himself and bring new insight, and that the whole thing's not just a scheme to throw his weight around.

How is it that folks who actually seem to be sentient get fooled so easily. Could this possibly be another "How could 54 million people be so dumb?" moment?

Surely, an aberration such as this just simply could not occur.

You are giving Ted a bad rap. First, I don't see where he has sold out. Second, I think that all who are unbiased would say that he was a highly successful and effective senator. He accomplishes more in six months that most others do throughout their tenures.

There's also experience in swimming with the sharks and not succumbing to them. That's important because government... in the real world... is a particularly vicious shark tank.

Particularly vicious indeed.

Must I bring up the Chappaquiddick incident?

Is it a requirement that you become a shark or just that you can fend them off? If you make it to run for President, does that imply that you can either eat them or swim with them already?

yep