Common sense seems to say that experience is an important consideration in choosing a president - however, history indicates that it is just not a useful indicator of how good a president will be. Within every category of previous experience, we have had good presidents, decent presidents, and not very good presidents.
For example, look at the presidents who had been army generals: we have had Washington (a great president), we have had Eisenhower, and we have had Ulysses S. Grant (generally considered one our worse presidents).
If we pick a former vice president, we might get a Thomas Jefferson, but we might get a Richard Nixon instead.
Pick a senator, we might get JFK, or we might get Warren G. Harding.
Pick a cabinet member, and we get James Madison or Herbert Hoover.
We don't have to look very far to see what happens when we pick a governor: we can get a good one (take your choice: Reagan or Clinton) or we can get a poor one (your choice again: G. W. Bush or Carter.)
Here is an excellent resume: ten years in the House of Representatives, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, ambassador to Russia and minister to Great Britain, ten years in the Senate, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, four years as Secretary of State. An excellent resume, indeed. However, it belonged to James Buchanan, one of the worse presidents we ever had (a 2005 Wall Street Journal list of great presidents compiled from a poll of historians put him dead last.)
Sarah Palin's experience (mayor and two years as governor) most nearly resembles that of Grover Cleveland, who is considered to be a good president.
Barack Obama's experience (state legislator and two years in Congress) most nearly resembles that of Abraham Lincoln.
Clearly, then experience should not be the defining factor in picking a president. Policy and judgment should be our most important criteria.
Miriam Fauteck