The benefit of Democracy always seemed to be in how inefficient it is. If we had good leaders, a dictatorship would be best, but as we cannot trust a single leader to be good, it is better to muddle the corrupt and virtuous at the same time. It gives the average citizen a chance to live in a semblance of peace.
As for Obama, it isn't just that he doesn't have experience as the President, it is that he doesn't have much political experience in general. He was part of the state senate for about 6 years, the US senate for about another 4. Of course, he has the same or more practical experience as Hillary (8 years as a US Senator and 8 years as a mildly productive First Lady). However, to compare, Bill Clinton had 14ish years of public service before he was elected. Thus, arguments of lack of experience seem to be an excuse to distrust him for other reasons.
To offer a look at the opposite, Romney only has about 4 years as governor (I haven't heard people lamenting over his lack of experience). Huckabee, for all the tomfoolery he has presented during the primaries, has 3ish years a Lt. Governor and 11ish as governor. McCain, however, has about 25ish years (3 as a House Rep, the rest as a Senator).
People find that sort of experience reassuring... and disturbing. People want someone who is experienced with the system so that they don't make any faux pas, but they always want someone who is distant enough to be a breath of fresh air.
It is rather curious that this election has three minorities as serious contenders (an African American, a woman, and a Mormon). Speaks well of America's cultural advancement, if nothing else.
