Start with the fact that libertarians don’t have good choices in this year’s presidential election — Obama is too liberal, McCain is too ready to go to war, and the actual Libertarian candidate doesn’t have a chance of winning. All that aside, I think both the Democratic and Republican tickets are woefully lacking in experience. Obama and Palin would both be much better candidates eight years from now. By then we would simply know a lot more about them.

How did we get to this point? I blame it on New York voters.

They elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator when she had very little experience of her own and little interest in representing New York. Sure, I know she was the First Lady of Arkansas and of the U.S., but that didn’t amount to real accountable experience. However much influence she had on Bill Clinton, she wasn’t the one on the line.

Then Hillary Clinton became the “inevitable” Democratic nominee. Against someone with such thin experience, Barack Obama didn’t look so bad. And without Obama in the race, McCain would never have taken the chance of picking someone as inexperienced as Palin. See? It all goes back to the mistake that New York voters made by electing a “celebrity” rather than a leader. Naturally, that was their democratic choice and they exercised it. Still, we are now left with inexperience — at the top of the Democratic ticket and the second place of the Republican ticket. This would all be OK from a libertarian viewpoint if bumbling government led to smaller government, but I rather think the reverse is true.