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.)
|
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Reading your post made me think about this because I have heard this before
.
"Experience" is very objective depending on who you talk to. And even because you have "experience," it still does not make you the
better candidate.
I wonder if George W. was considered an "experienced" candidate prior to his first election. Well, that was all shot to hell huh...so whether Obama
is the SENATOR (D) of Illinois or the governer and Hillary is a former first-lady and Senator of New York....at the end of the day...it doesn't seem that "experience" really matters judging on what we as a country has "experienced" for almost eight years with the
same President.
McCain...I would just hope that if he is elected he would live through his term...he is too old to me...that probably shouldn't matter very much but...hey...oh well...
This is just
my opinion on this concern of "experience." Oh well, time to go to the library...