For those concerned that "Candidate ____ has no experience", here's a little something to chew on......
It's historical FACT that, since the 1960 Presidential election (Nixon/Kennedy), when Americans decided to elect the candidate of the political party NOT in power (in other words, if the incumbent was Democratic, we elected a Republican, and vice versa),
the candidate with the "LEAST" experience was elected.
Let's review; incumbent presidents/or parties are in blue:
1960: Kennedy-D elected over
Nixon-R (Eisenhower's VP) (Party Change)
1964:
Johnson-D (Kennedy's VP, assumed office upon Kennedy's assassination) elected over Goldwater-R, (NO Party Change)
1968: Nixon-R elected over
Humphrey-D (Johnson's VP after Johnson refused to seek second term) (Party Change)
1972:
Nixon-R re-elected over McGovern-D (No Change)
(Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew, resigns in 1973, Gerald Ford appointed VP)
(Nixon resigns in 1974, Ford becomes President, Nelson Rockefeller appointed VP)
1976: Carter-D elected over
Ford-R (Change)
1980: Reagan-R elected over
Carter-D (Change)
1984: Reagan-R re-elected over Mondale-D (No Change)
1988: Bush(41)-R (Reagan's VP) elected over Dukakis-D (No Change)
1992: Clinton-D elected over Bush(41)-R (Change)
1996: Clinton-D re-elected over Dole-R (No Change)
2000: Bush(43)-R elected over Gore-D (Clinton's VP) (Change)
2004: Bush(43)-R re-elected over Kerry-D (No Change)
I WON'T conclude whether this data bodes well or poorly for any particular candidate. The only conclusion that I will draw from this data is that, if Americans want a change in party power from the incumbent President, they don't care about experience as much as they care about change itself.
It'll be interesting to see if this trend remains consistent in November. 
regards,
jazz