He has no experience!

[madmunchie]

This guy didn't finish one term as a Senator (you know the job that people elected him to serve) before he was running for the #1 spot in this country and arguably the world. Why do people think that being POTUS is ok for on the job training???????

Don't you think that our problems are serious enough for somebody who acutally has some experience in international affairs?

He voted for the resolution to go to war in Iraq. I EVEN KNEW THAT WAS handing a crazy man a loaded gun. He backed up his vote as late at 2004, how does that hit you on the learning curve?????

Tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed in this war. I want a leader who spoke out against it strongly and from the beginning, not just when it was "politically safe" for him to do so, as Edwards did.

God, I cannot believe how people will swallow anything just because it comes in a nice package. LOOK beyond that and ask some difficult deep questions about the state of where our country is and what EXACTLY this man has as far as QUALIFICATIONS to solve and handle some of these problems.....

Just cause he was a smart attorney, doesn't mean that he would be a good President. His votes show that his lack of experience had him voting for wrong things.

[rubberducky]

1. Did Ya just forget to mention a name??

[jenmito]

5. I KNEW s/he wasn't talking about Wesley Clark...

When I saw this sentence:

"Don't you think that our problems are serious enough for somebody who acutally has some experience in international affairs?" :D

[madmunchie]

9. You are sooooooooo very right!

[jenmito]

27. Thank you...

And I have to agree with you. I see Edwards as more of a "polished" politician with not enough beneath the surface experience-wise. To tell you the truth, and I've said this here before, I don't really like him much because it seems like he's been coached in body language or something, the predictable way he wipes his mouth or rubs his face or chin, pumps his fist in the air, etc. I think he thinks he can remind people of Kennedy just by his looks. Sorry if I offended any of his supporters! :hi:

[Protagoras]

2. what a tease :P

but we're a long way out and I don't think it's worth worrying about much for at least another 9 months so don't lose sleep over it...yet.

His wife is someone I'd vote for though :D

[jobycom]

3. I agree in principle, but with less anger.

Though we are going to have trouble finding someone who opposed the war from the beginning. Edwards was pretty gung-ho even while he was running for the nomination.

He's smart, he's got a lot of great qualities, but his lack of experience is a killer for me. Not that I dislike Edwards, just that there are better choices with less risk out there.

[baldguy]

4. Eisenhower had no political experience.

Grover Cleveland was elected Mayor of Buffalo in 1881, Governor of New York in 1882, and President in 1884.

Some of the most experienced politicians who have been elected President have been the worst: LBJ spent 25 years in Washington before becoming President. Nixon was a congressman, senator & VP. Reagan had two terms a Governor. Bush I had all sorts of elected and appointed positions at every level of govt.

[Jai4WKC08]

7. Not true

Eisenhower had political experience. He had served in public office for 30-some years. At the highest levels, his duties included a LOT of politics (altho not as much as his counterparts today, to be sure). He just didn't have campaign experience. Perhaps it didn't matter as much back then.

Fwiw, I don't think Ike could get elected today. But then, I don't think Lincoln could get elected today either.

[madmunchie]

12. So true! On both counts.....Unfortunately on the Lincoln part

[madmunchie]

11. LBJ wasn't a bad President,

His domestic policies were tops.

Eisenhower at least knew the Government from being in the military and knew international policy.

**had made some serious misjudgments with his votes
**has very little experience in the public sector
**was elected to a job and then didn't even finish serving his term before he was politiking for a huge promotion (big ego on that)
I question his integrity and his actual qualifications to be POTUS, charisma isn't everything.

Nixon while he had many flaws, his problems didn't result from lack of experience, as Bush's, in part, have. Again, Bush I didn't have problems resulting from lack of experience. Their problems were ethical, philosophical...Their ability, for the most part to get things done, was no where near as bad as Bush's II, his record, truly has to be the worst ever.

I want somebody with some EXPERIENCE so that they can start to try to do something that will help this country. I don't want another ojt President. We are in too serious of trouble to look seriously at somebody like that.

[tkmorris]

6. Some legitimate points, BUT

There are two things I want to say here.

1) Experience in government is over-rated. As was pointed out above, some of our worst presidents were career politicians, while others who were pretty decent were not. So out that goes.

2) I gotta tell you I am REALLY cheesed about your assumption that people who support him, and I quote, "will swallow anything just because it comes in a nice package." I don't give a tinker's damn what the man looks like. I voted for Kucinich, and he looks like he belongs on a box of graham crackers. I like what Edwards has to SAY, and I like what he is doing now.

If you want people to pay any attention to your opinion you really ought to try not to be so insulting about it.

[madmunchie]

8. One term as a Senator should tell you,

needless to say, I was actually responding to a post and really messed up!

[Capn Sunshine]

10. So articulation on the issues, ability, and charisma don't count?

You need to ne an EXPERIENCED insider, and your criteria is um, longer than one term?

No wonder there's a disconnect out there. Ordinary citizens can't run for office any more.

[madmunchie]

14. Office, YES, POTUS, no

POTUS is more than just a talking head with charisma. Ability needs to be shown in accomplishments - at least in the same field that you have chosen to be CEO.

Articulation and Charisma applied to Reagan and Bush (although, I can't figure that one out, unless, you are just attracted to empty suits and dumbasses) That also applies to talk show, radio show, movie stars.....are all of them qualified to be POTUS????

Ability??? Many many people have ability, but how do you know that they have the ability needed when they haven't proven themselves in that particular field? When you analyze something, you need concrete evidence to make a conclusion. Where is the concrete evidence on this person possessing the abilities required for this type of job?

Furthermore, what, exactly are the abilities needed? Be specific. If you were listing this job in a newspaper, what qualifications would you list and how would describe the "perfect candidate", AND how would you describe the position as POTUS?

[butterfly77]

13. You are right and I agree...

this is the reason why good candidates never not heard enough and the media always follow behind someone like him because he gives a good message, and then they drown out others. Some only will vote because of looks. Some of the same points you mentioned like "Don't you think that our problems are serious enough for somebody who acutally has some experience in international affairs? "

This was the question I asked when they wanted to run Dumya, and look at the situation today.

I couldn't believe it when he got as far as he did in the primaries, that is when I realized how silly some in this country really are.

[madmunchie]

15. I still think that the fix was in on that decision, which makes me really

worried about 08'.

[butterfly77]

23. I believe that the fix was in and...

I am wondering why the dems aren't saying anything that amounts to much and if why are they waiting until the last minute to ask for a paper trail. I also believe that more states should have a chance to choose the candidate.

[svpadgham]

17. What about Clinton?

He didn't have a bunch of foreign policy experience, but he turned out pretty good. IMO

[madmunchie]

18. Governors USUSALLY make pretty good Presidents

He at least served more than 1 term before he ran for POTUS. So he did have more Governmental experience as a whole. I understand that you will not be able to find the perfect candidate most of the time, but at least somebody with at least more than part of 1 term in a Governmental position.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I don't recall there being 2 or 3 wars going on in 1993......

and so, "a bunch of foreign policy experience" may not have been as required then as it is now.

We must look for one who fits the time....not attempt to ignore what we are facing.

[butterfly77]

24. Clinton had good sense and ,,,

he knew something about other countries. Bush is my way or the highway.

[svpadgham]

16. I disagree with needing experience

Being intelligent, levelheaded, and well spoken are much more important than having experience. Being Governor, Senator, Representative, guy in charge of the FEMA, or whatever are completely different from being POTUS. Integrity, and open-mindedness help a lot too.

[madmunchie]

19. Being intelligent, levelheaded and well spoken would describe

millions of people. Yet, not all of them would be qualified to be good POTUS. I want the leader of the free world to be LOADED with qualifications.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I don't think that these qualities need be mutually exclusive....

I believe that an intelligent, levelheaded, well spoken individual knowledgeable in the various situations that our nation faces from a leadership point of view with integrity and open mindedness armed with the competence to come up with workable solutions is a great part of what we need.

To say that we must choose one set of qualities over another is selling us short.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I do not believe lack of experience was the reason that

"He" voted for the wrong things.....

I believe that it was a clear lack of strategical, political and ethical instinct and fortitude; which are the qualities that a good leader should have.

I, for one, do not believe that supporting the Patriot Act (and authoring parts of it) AND/OR co-sponsoring, strongly backing by faulty rationalition, and voting for the IWR demonstrated the "right stuff" IMHO....

I want someone who would lead this country in the future to have demonstrated the right instincts to do the right thing....when it most counted, no matter how unpopular...during crunchtime when faced with a crisis......

not one who determines what should have been way years later....for that matter, one who selects what "issues" to highlight based on what a PR team might determine seems popular and might make one different from "the pack" as an election strategy.

The real test of leadership has got to be based on actions taken on issues that actually came up via unforeseen events, not those baked up and pre-tested in a PR lab.

It is true that folks make mistakes, and should be "forgiven", once they make the admission....however, I don't believe that it should all be "forgotten"....and somehow be rewarded with the highest office in the land.

One cannot lead from the rear, years after the fact.

[madmunchie]

26. Ditto!

[Greyhound]

25. There is no experience that can train anybody to be POTUS.

it is a unique position. Holding other offices only qualifies a person for the campaign, not for the job, so we are left with electing the person we feel will bring the tools most likely to be of use in the time they will serve.

Military experience can be useful insofar as that person has an understanding of military operations and chain of command issues.

Governors have an inkling of the responsibilities that come with being the chief executive, but many states (Texas comes to mind) have severely limited the power of the governors office and the real power lies in the legislature, so those governors are generally unprepared for the rigors of the office of POTUS.

Ambassadors might have useful knowledge in dealing with foreign governments, but really only those they have worked with.

Long-term legislators tend to be so mired in partisanship that they cannot become the representative of all The People.

Ruling class people have no knowledge, nor understanding, of the lives the majority of The People live.

Working class people have no chance at gaining the attention necessary to actually be elected and if they did manage somehow to get it, would never be elected by the sheeple that demand social stature in their leaders, regardless of leadership skills.

So, what we are left with is basically a crap-shoot, you pays your money and you takes your chances. IMO.