Obama has more experience than Palin. No, Palin has more experience than Obama. McCain has more experience than both of them, but Biden is the most experienced of them all...jeez, what does all this even mean?
Good thing you've got a little Low Genius to sort it out for you! 
The experience question has two major problems. The first is that this is, above all else, an election about change. The people of the US are almost universally agreed that this country is headed in the wrong direction, that our current leadership has failed in any number of ways, and that We Gotta Do Something. So first and foremost, leaning on one's 'experience' under those circumstances is an approach that is seeded with landmines every step of the way. Every time you talk about your 'experience,' the other guy (or gal) gets to day 'well then why didn't YOU fix this before it became a problem?' This is an oft-recurring theme in the current debate over the federal investment bank bailout. If you are experienced (so goes the logic) then you aren't bringing change to the table; You Are The Problem. So we have both candidates playing this sort of hot-potato game with the experience issue; when it comes up in the context of 'do you have the experience necessary to be the President,' then they talk about their time served. Otherwise, it's whistle innocently and pretend that both our major candidates aren't members of the same legislative body that has even lower approval ratings than our least-favorite modern president.
The other problem with the experience question is more subtle and nuanced, but can be summarized thus: Exactly what non-presidential experience constitutes 'presidential experience?' Only 43 men in the history of this country actually have presidential experience, and none of them are running. Furthermore, some of them have track records suggesting that we'd be better off without their 'experience.' So let's look at the various requirements of the presidency and how one might go about gaining the necessary experience to fulfill them.
- Leadership Skills - This is obvious, but not always clear. The office of the Presidency requires not only leadership in the sense of taking people where you want them to go, but also in building alliances, understanding issues, having the strength of will to resist the temptation to abuse your power, having the wisdom to make decisions based on all available input, including that which you may not personally agree with. There are many who would suggest that we haven't had a real leader in the White House since Kennedy; others would name Reagan. Personally, I feel that Reagan was just a bit too 'do it my way' to score as a genuine leader, although he was certainly an inspirational speaker. Still, on major issues like the AIDS crisis, drug abuse, and regulation of banking and industry, Reagan didn't do so well. Leadership doesn't just mean telling people what to do, but making them want to do it.
The office of the Presidency demands a certain level of respect. The President himself (or herself), ideally, commands respect. That is to say, the respect is gained when one's actions and behaviors are weighed in the minds of the public, they are found worthy of respect. This is an intensely personal thing; some people believe, for instance, that John McCain's experience as a POW trumps all else; that nothing could be more respectable than that.
I happen to believe that, while respectable, this experience does not automatically mean that McCain would be a good president. I find that Obama's ability to inspire, his work as a community organizer and as a leader in the state and federal legislature are more meaningful in this context, not the least because of the things he's done while he was there. McCain's senate experience has been pockmarked by missteps and wavering back and forth between 'bucking the system' and 'following the crowd.' Perhaps the thing that strikes me most on this point is that McCain has consistently railed against special interests, pandering to the religious right, lobbyists, and so forth, but when it's come time for him to gather votes he has no problem reversing these positions (i.e. speaking at Bob Jones University, working for deregulation of the S&L industry in the 80's at the behest of his friend John Keating, or voting without comment in favor of opening the Iraq war). I'm all for the ability to change one's mind in the face of new information, but McCain's changes seem to me to be motivated primarily out of political expedience rather than any change of heart due to a change in circumstances.
- "Executive Experience" - This one gets a little difficult, because one must consider the difference between 'experience in an executive office' and 'experience being an executive.' An executive is not an empty suit; an executive executes, makes things happen. The executive branch of the US government, for example, has as its primary purpose enforcing or executing the laws that are created by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. It's possible to be an executive in name, but have little or no real executive experience. We've all had managers like this - people who do nothing but delegate responsibility to their employees, take credit when things go well, and pass blame when they don't. Real executive experience, in my eyes, comes from being faced with an issue, learning to understand the issue, and then making decisions or proposing and/or enacting solutions to that issue based on your understanding. It means the ability to surround yourself with people who you may not always agree with, but whose opinions you always respect enough to take in to conseration during your decision-making process. It also means taking responsibility for your mistakes, being able to admit when you have been wrong. You can't correct a mistake without first being able to identify and acknowledge the mistake. This last is a key factor in being a true leader, rather than just an egomaniac with some power.
- "Trial by fire" - What has a person done in the past when faced with a situation that must be confronted immediately? Do they approach with steady, thoughtful consideration, or are they prone to snap judgments or a short temper? When the situation demands an immediate response, and that response proves over time to be inadequate or improper, do they explain their error and change their position to meet the requirements of due consideration, or do they stubbornly stick to their first reaction, justifying it even in the face of clear evidence that, while it may have seemed like the right answer at the time and it addressed the immediate demands of the situation, in retrospect a better decision could have been made, or perhaps a new decision could be made that mitigates the negative impact of the earlier, erroneous decision?
- Breadth of knowledge - The office of the presidency requires an understanding of the experiences of a wide range of constituents, from the upper-crust establishment to the ghetto homeless. From the intricacies of high finance to the struggle many Americans face every month in choosing between medication, gasoline, and food, these issues and more are going to land on the desk of the President; even in situations where there is no direct action to be taken by the Presidency, the people demand leadership, explanation, and reasoning for their troubles from The Head Honcho. Can we reasonably expect someone who has never experienced poverty to understand it? Can we expect someone who has never experienced wealth to understand that? Will our president have enough breadth of experience to understand both?
- Separation of personal belief from public policy - Our leaders are human beings, and they all have opinion on abortion, religion, guns, drugs, gay marriage, and a host of other issues large and small. However, as our elected leader, their job is not to enforce their beliefs, but to act consistently in the interests of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people in both the long and short term. Which candidate appears best equipped or most able to put their own personal beliefs aside when making decisions that impact the lives of three hundred fifty million people?
- Seeing the big picture - Oftentimes in the heat of the moment, decisions are made with short-term thinking that have long-term impact. Which of our candidates has the proven experience of making decisions that are right, rather than simply making decisions that are right now? Which of our candidates demonstrates an ability to change their plans and goals in response to a changing world? Which of our candidates has demonstrated the greater ability to think in terms of ten, twenty, or fifty years from now, rather than just until the next election cycle?
- Resisting the temptations of power - The office of the Presidency has a great deal of power to make things happen. This can include influencing legislative decisions, hiring friends to fill cabinet positions, or taking action that can result in personal financial gain. Which of our candidates has proven willing to fill a position with the best qualified candidate, rather than with the most loyal one? Which of our candidates has proven willing to risk the loss of a personal friendship for the sake of making the right decision for their constituents? Which of our candidates has most consistently use the power he or she already has to benefit the people who elected them to that power, rather than the special interests who can throw money at them to help them maintain it? Which of our candidates has least often acted in a manner that had personal benefit to them, when the long-term impact to their constituents was negative? Which candidates have been most transparent in their behavior?
The bottom line: Nobody can possibly have 'the experience to be President' unless they have already been president. To suggest that being a governor or senator, in and of itelf, is experience enough to justify the Presidency is naive and short-sighted. We must consider all of the factors above, and much more, when we speak of 'experience.'
My personal preference is no secret, but I hope that if you're reading this, no matter who you want to vote for now, you will hold your candidates up in front of this lens to assess their genuine experience, and from that their merit as a Presidential candidate.