Negative. I don't feel comfortable with electing someone with so little experience, after eight years of Bush.
Have our most experienced presidents been our best ones? Second, I would implore you, despite the oddness of the self-fulfilling prophesy, to imagine what kind of managerial skill Obama's had to manage to defeat Hillary Clinton (huge hill) and John McCain (moderate hill). ~700 million dollars, hundreds of thousands of paid and unpaid staff, one mistake and you're gone. Even in the business world if you're 0.1% less effective than your nearest competitor then you're fine, but in the US Primaries, that means you're toast. I know it's heresy to say it, but I'm more impressed with John McCain's and Barack Obama's managerial skills running their campaigns than Palin's skills running Alaska (with little crime and zero budget issues). Although I'm more impressed with the Obama's since he defeated the inevitable instead of McCain who was inevitable and collapsed, but then emerged as everyone's Plan B. But whatever, both campaigns involved a lot of the same skills involved in choosing a good cabinet and advisors and responding to pressure and even meeting with foreign leaders. That involves about some of the most intense managerial experience anywhere.
Still, the experience critique has its validity. The inverse is that more Washington experience is bad for the soul. The inverse of the "Executive Experience" argument is that most of what a president does is work with Congress and having connections there and being aware of the process is of a great asset to him (I think Joe Biden would be a far more effective president).
Poll
