the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:If that's so, then Republicans have some rather poor choices.

A Mayor, few governors, and a few businessmen. On the Dem side you essentially have Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. One has NO experience. One uses her husband's experience as her own....but doesn't want to take ownership of the failures. One was a f'n slimeball ambulance chaser.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have experience, as does former Senator Edwards.

Find the last time a mayor was elected president. You'll have to go back pretty far.

I must agree with you on this one Kev...the front running Dems are very slim on experience that counts...lots of packaging and no substance...Hell.... Joe Biden is vastly more qualified than any of these 3.

Unfortunately for y'all, 2008 is going to be a drastically anti-Washington, anti-incumbency, change election.

Years spent in Washington or elective office are not going to be seen as a positive come election day.

The ability to apply a fresh perspective will be.

"Experience" is a threshold question. You want someone who you think can handle the intellectual and organizational demands of the office, and has demonstrated sound judgment in the past. It is not a question of who has "the mostest" experience. Bill Richardson has a ton of experience but doesn't seem the least bit capable of ever filling the office of the presidency. Ditto Duncan Hunter. Again, its a threshold question. Once you cross the threshold in perception that you can handle the job, you've passed that test.

By 2008, the candidates will have been in front of the public for long enough that they will all pass the test.

Also, W. has really lowered the bar here on what we can imagine as "presidential".

Change will be the tone of the 08 election, not experience or resume on paper. Which is why you see Huckabee, Paul, and Obama doing so well as the primaries draw closer and people finally start focusing on who they will support.

OUGwave Wrote:Also, W. has really lowered the bar here on what we can imagine as "presidential".

I tend to agree with you on the "change aspect". I'm not a big fan of GW, but I think a lot of folks would argue that GW's predecessor did some things that weren't very presidential as well.

Crebman Wrote:I tend to agree with you on the "change aspect". I'm not a big fan of GW, but I think a lot of folks would argue that GW's predecessor did some things that weren't very presidential as well.

While GW didn't do anything to change that trend, he's not the one that got the ball rolling. Bill Clinton would have made a damn good car salesman.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:If that's so, then Republicans have some rather poor choices.

A Mayor, few governors, and a few businessmen. On the Dem side you essentially have Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. One has NO experience. One uses her husband's experience as her own....but doesn't want to take ownership of the failures. One was a f'n slimeball ambulance chaser.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have experience, as does former Senator Edwards.

Find the last time a mayor was elected president. You'll have to go back pretty far.

I must agree with you on this one Kev...the front running Dems are very slim on experience that counts...lots of packaging and no substance...Hell.... Joe Biden is vastly more qualified than any of these 3.

Actually, Governor Bill Richardson has more experience than any of the other candidates. Too bad he's a longshot.