I found the following test from kos on the the votemaster website:
Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom
had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience
and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state
legislature and 2 years in Congress.
Which one do you think would make a better President?
If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham
Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the
greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than
Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding.
In other words, experience in hanging around Washington, D.C. should not be the main reason to pick a president. If that were true, then Washington must be working very well, and you would want to continue along the same course by picking the people with the most experience. If you want to change the way that the government is working, then you should not pick someone who has been a big part of the government for a long time. That's just common sense.
It's more important to pick a candidate based on their ability to lead and the judgment they show.