What life experience would qualify you to do this?

Having a person lead a country that will have to live for a longer time with their decisions doesn't strike me as bad.

Through the history, there were lots of young leaders and I don't think that age had much to with how successful they were.

She does have a Masters degree in political administration and experience at various levels of government. It's not like she's come in from the cold.

On some level it could help getting another approach to governing a country.

60~70 yo people also don’t have nearly enough knowledge and/or wisdom to operate at that scale, and if we’re speaking about impacting the lives of millions of people the difference between 34 and 70 is marginal I think. It should all come down to the system they operate in and how they use it, at the end of the day.

Aside from experience, there's also the notion of a change in demeanor, to something more pragmatic and measured, that happens later in life.

I don't know if there's credible research that confirms it, but it seems true...of course with notable exceptions.

In the United States, the minimum age was set to prevent "dynasties." Which means that today, they may have set the age even older, because of extended lifetimes.

your lack of confidence is actually a positive indicator if you take into account the inverse of dunning-kruger

Agreed. For a long time I had thought the age requirement for being president in the US was kind of dumb - why don't we just get the right person for the job, no matter the age? But as I've grown older I realized what you have - it's extremely difficult to run anything, and I would prefer leaders that have been in extremely high, laborious, and difficult leadership positions before over those who are outlier-level young (such as Mrs. Marin). But then again I'm basing this judgement purely on age and not on many other factors so this is a very shallow analysis.