Political Experience: What Matters, and Why?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

KSig and Ksig kid....

Both of you brought up very good points which in that case...the broad word of 'experience' alone without a clear and agreeable definition of what that is, good or bad, qualitive vs quantitive and whose judgement it is of what weighs the most in making 'experience' counts, renders discussing this subject, moot.

I don't see why it renders the discussion moot. It was a general question, asking for personal opinions on the subject; I don't think it was meant to start some debate on whether one type of experience matters more than another.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't see why it renders the discussion moot. It was a general question, asking for personal opinions on the subject; I don't think it was meant to start some debate on whether one type of experience matters more than another.

" without a clear and agreeable definition "

I think it does, is saying that we need to have a few guidelines in place...and to a degree, I agree...what qualities are we looking for that would have rendered past POTUS'es more or less experienced than others?

I mean starting with both Clinton and Bush, there are various degrees of their experience we could debate over and their final out come upon leaving office.

Basically as you said, it would be difficult to even have a general discussion without more detail....

So...would you like to think of some ideas?

and actually looking back on it, the title more or less does ask the very question...what do we consider 'experience'?