One of the predominant memes in this campaign is that Hillary Clinton has more experience (35 years she says) than Barack Obama, and thus better able to handle the rigors of the Presidency. I don't necessarily give her all the credit she claims for experience - Obama's 8 years in the Illinois state legislature and 4 years as U.S. Senator are comparable to Clinton's 8 years as U.S Senator. There is an interesting article today on Electoral-Vote.Com which examines how President's have been judged compared to the amount of experience they had coming in.
The article uses a ranking on Wikipedia of perception of U.S. Presidents' "greatness" and compares it to amount of legislative, governing, and military experience to see if there is a correlation:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
The upshot is that a slight correlation is found, showing that fewer years of experience tends to produce better Presidents. Shining examples are Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So what about Clinton and Obama? Well, according to the criteria used for the article, Clinton has 8 years of experience and Obama 12 years. So we should conclude she will be a better President! Unless, of course, you give her credit for those 35 years of experience!