Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?
On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.
(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)
|
Well, some of the most "experienced" presidents have been the worst. Nixon ran on experience for example. He has a decent amount of state legislative experience, he's familiar to politics without being an "insider" which appeals to me. And Senators don't usually do well in national elections because so many of the Senate votes are "bad" no matter which way you vote.
Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.