It's getting a bit tiresome listening to both presidential campaigns and their surrogates in the media tout experience as the paramount issue in this election.  Yes, one's experience in politics, in governing, in life shapes who a person is and how (s)he reacts to an array of situations.  Yes, there is no doubt that experience or the lack thereof can be the catalyst of a successful or failed presidency. 

But there is a greater truth: Experience alone does not a good leader and president make. 

To understand this fact all one needs to do is look at American history and our past presidents.  Many have been quite experienced in politics and international affairs upon running for office, while others left much to be desired in that arena.  For instance,

Experienced

Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Martin Van Buren
Andrew Johnson
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Warren G. Harding
Herbert Hoover
George H.W. Bush

Inexperienced

Bill Clinton (foreign affairs, anyway)
George W. Bush
Ulysses S. Grant
George Washington (as far as public office)
John F. Kennedy (in many ways)
Ronald Reagan (in many other ways)
Andrew Jackson
Woodrow Wilson

Say what you want about any of the above names.  Some were good presidents, some were bad.  Experience has brought us some of the worst policies in American history while inexperience has led to some of the best times the country has seen.  And of course, there can be arguments made about the above listed presidents to be placed in a different category depending on what issue we're talking about. 

So let's take the most recent, most glaring example.  The George W. Bush Administration is a fine representation of both experience and inexperience.  W himself had zero foreign policy experience and his tenure as governor of Texas, if you know anything about Texas politics and the role of the office of governor there, did little to prepare him for running the country.  So chalk this one up to inexperience.  But yet, Bush surrounded himself with some of the most experienced, seasoned political veterans with roots dating back to the Nixon and Ford Administrations.  The collective experience of those who counseled the president and no doubt crafted American domestic and foreign policy over the last 8 years can be considered unrivaled by any recent administration.  Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Powell, Rice - all of them were active in the Ford Administration and many were part of both the Reagan and Bush I White House.

But if experience equals sound policy, then why have the last 8 years been such an abysmal failure?  Simple: The experience Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company have amassed over the last three decades has enabled them to create policies driven by economic and corporate greed, ideological madness, and attention to American aggrandizement regardless of the international and human consequences.  Is that the experience we want?

In the end, experience is but a small piece of the larger puzzle.  It's to what end that experience is used that is most important.  And frankly, if the last 8 years are any measure and experience is all that counts, please give me the least experienced candidate available.