Does it matter how experienced you are if you are wrong and out of touch?

Now that Sunday afternoon football is behind us (with the Titans winning a punishing brawl only paralled by modern partisan politics... and all thanks to the the arm and experience of the second-string journeyman QB, Collins who replaced Vince Young, the superstar with potential but undeveloped leadership), I am starting to shift my thoughts to Tuesday's presidential debate - where unlike the NFL, experience does not seem to be winning out. As Nashville's own Belmont University is navigating it's recent controversial departure from it's conservative Baptist roots, it is preparring to host Senators McCain and Obama as they too offer a contrast of republican traditionalism and democratic relevance, and the risks of each. For all the critique of both Obama and Palin as too inexperienced, how can it be that they are the ones who have captured the hearts and minds of voters on their respective sides? Is it due to thier shared "out-sider" perspective? Is it Palin's folksy approach and Obama's new language and vision for this country? It's telling that while America may find valid comfort in experience, we are now even more motivated by the opportunity to see real change, and we are seeing it in the persons of Sara and Barack... the only challenge is that you really don't want the draw of your ticket to be the VP... so Obama has a decided edge. Obama's inexperience was challenged early on as a liability (and his presidency is certainly a calculated risk), but if the choice is between experienced, but wrong or inexperienced, and right... then maybe experience does not matter.