As I’ve been reviewing past presidents’ experience prior to becoming president, the topic has come up a few times in the media recently. As we head for a Tuesday penultimate in its Superness, it’s been in some of the political coverage.

The question was raised directly by George Will on This Week: Does that experience count for anything? Of course he had to do it such a was as to attempt to show himself to be the smartest Ass in the room. Who was the most “experienced and prepared” president? James Bucannan, generally judged one of the worst. Because it was such an obviously researched and prepared fact and delivered with much smugness, it failed at making Will seem superior. Not that it’s not an interesting data point.

Also in Slate.com this week, John Dickerson broached the subject in Tough Call, Will Clinton or Obama Protect Your Children.

… the essential question the ad asks is a fair one: Which of the candidates do you trust to keep his or her head when everyone around them is lighting theirs on fire, and at a time when your kid’s safety could be on the line?

The answer touches on the elements of experience as we’ve batted them around so far this election—who has broader exposure to the world, who has dealt with more foreign leaders, and who knows more about the military. But the ad also raises a new question the Clinton campaign has been stressing over the last few days: Who has been tested?