What experience is needed to be POTUS...?

[Chocaholic]

With all this talk about Obama's lack of experience to be POTUS...and McCain's lifetime in DC making him too much of an insider...and Hillary's self proclaimed proper experience, I believe it's only appropriate that we define exactly what experience is necessary to be a viable candidate for POTUS.

Once we clearly define the character, practical experience and accomplishments needed to be a viable candidate, can we then assess the critters competing for the top job in Washington. Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors (hmmmm) with no basis for said evaluation. So...please, submit your scope of criteria that a proper candidate should exhibit.

[MRM]

A lot has been written on this lately. The concensus of historians seems to be that there is no experience that prepares you for being president and whether the person becomes a successful president depends on his (or her) personal qualities. Unfortunately, those personal qualities are intangible and are impossible to quantify in advance. We can make educated guesses, but in the end, it seems that our gut reactions to the candidates is as good of a predictor of success as anything. The reason for that might be because a campaign does reflect the candidate on some level and the campaign noise does offer some intuitive insight into what that candidate's administration would be like.

In my opinion, executive governmental experience is the most relevant to being president, but there is no real comparison to being president, so even that doesnt mean much.

Setting aside ideology for a minute and judging just on capabilities, what I think I see about Hillary is a petty, vindictive person who would pursue a liberal adgenda while rewarding her friends and punishing her enemies and saying F you to the rest. Kind of like LBJ or Nixon. I don't think she would get much done because she would offend enough people that her oponents would band together against her just to spite her. Kind of like they did to Nixon and LBJ. I see both McCain and Obama as much more reasonable in their approaches, and would probably be far more successful. Being president requires building concesus, rallying public support, pushing when you have to, gaining their support when you don't have to. Very much like Reagan did. I can see both McCain and Obama doing that. I suspect that either one would be quite successful as president, albiet with completely different agendas.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by MRM

A lot has been written on this lately.....

Well......THAT was rather well stated !

[pwd72s]

MRM nailed it...especially about Reagan. Prior to he being elected, I was in Heathrow airport...a snooty NY liberal said to me: "Surely you can't vote for that 'Cowboy""?? My response: "Just watch me!".

But as a conservative? This year? With apologies to Simon & Garfunkle...

"Any way you look at it, you lose..."

[MRM]

If you looked closely, you could see that Bill Clinton really governed like Reagan, after his heath care initiative fiasco. He went over Congresses' head over the government shut down and from then on stayed pretty in tune with public opinion, dealing with Congress with just the right amount of carrot and stick. He wasn't nearly as successful as Reagan because he wasn't as good at it, but he was following the same play book.

Whatever Reagan had is what we need our next president to have. A clear vision of what the country and world should look like, a plan for getting there, and the ability to give and take enough to keep people moving in the right direction. Reagan looked the fool to the Democrats, but by all accounts he worked closely and well with Tip O'Neil. Both got something out of the deal, but Reagan usually came out best.

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by MRM

If you looked closely, you could see that Bill Clinton really governed like Reagan, after his heath care initiative fiasco. He went over Congresses' head over the government shut down and from then on stayed pretty in tune with public opinion, dealing with Congress with just the right amount of carrot and stick. He wasn't nearly as successful as Reagan because he wasn't as good at it, but he was following the same play book.

Whatever Reagan had is what we need our next president to have. A clear vision of what the country and world should look like, a plan for getting there, and the ability to give and take enough to keep people moving in the right direction. Reagan looked the fool to the Democrats, but by all accounts he worked closely and well with Tip O'Neil. Both got something out of the deal, but Reagan usually came out best.

Yep..Reagan did VERY well,considering that some viewed him as a "dumb cowboy", didn't he?

Honestly...do you see any Reagan qualities in the "final three" this year?

I don't.

[911Freak]

Originally Posted by MRM

If you looked closely, you could see that Bill Clinton really governed like Reagan, after his heath care initiative fiasco. He went over Congresses' head over the government shut down and from then on stayed pretty in tune with public opinion, dealing with Congress with just the right amount of carrot and stick. He wasn't nearly as successful as Reagan because he wasn't as good at it, but he was following the same play book.

Whatever Reagan had is what we need our next president to have. A clear vision of what the country and world should look like, a plan for getting there, and the ability to give and take enough to keep people moving in the right direction. Reagan looked the fool to the Democrats, but by all accounts he worked closely and well with Tip O'Neil. Both got something out of the deal, but Reagan usually came out best.

+1

specificaly " a clear vision of what the country and world should look like..."

[Hugh R]

I find it madness that the last remaining superpower is actually looking at the three that have been presented to us. A 70 y/o man, a women with a few years experience whose only qualiifcation is that she might have sucked a presidents dick, and a 43 y/o extremely junior senator. What we need is a Bob Iger of Disney (15.9% growth the last five years,) or a Jack Welch-type who used to run General Electric.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

I find it madness that the last remaining superpower is actually looking at the three that have been presented to us. A 70 y/o man, a women with a few years experience whose only qualiifcation is that she might have sucked a presidents dick, and a 43 y/o extremely junior senator. What we need is a Bob Iger of Disney (15.9% growth the last five years,) or a Jack Welch-type who used to run General Electric.

I respectively have to disagree with you on this Hugh ( I can't imagine she ever sucked Bills dick).. You have all the other stuff right on the money however...

[Mule]

Something that shows some personal integrity would be nice.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Mule

Something that shows some personal integrity would be nice.

like your fundraiser guy getting indicted maybe and you giving the money he gave you to charity, not just what he gave you this year.

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

McCain may not be perfect, but he's a pretty righteous dude when it comes to principles, honor and integrity.

-Wayne

You may have just answered the question!

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

I believe it's only appropriate that we define exactly what experience is necessary to be a viable candidate for POTUS.

Based on how many VP's eventually became President, I'd say that many people think being next to power is "experience".

I'm still not accepting Hillary's definition of experience though.

Bill Richardson had the best/most experience of any of them.

How far did that get him this time around?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Based on how many VP's eventually became President, I'd say that many people think being next to power is "experience".

I'm still not accepting Hillary's definition of experience though.

Bill Richardson had the best/most experience of any of them.

How far did that get him this time around?

Yep, I hear Green Bay is just about to sign Deanna Favre.

[MRM]

I heard Hillary intereviewed on NPR recently and she was pushed pretty hard to come up with examples of her experience. She was asked point blank if she was in the room when the decisions were being made. The best Hillary could come up with was that she "was on the team" and was part of all decisions that were made.

As Kach pointed out, VPs are about as close to power as you can get. But they have been a mixed bag. TR was a fabulous president. Truman's legacy can be debated endlessly. LBJ and Nixon shared common traits of a certain bitterness and burning desire to be "The One" and get to make all the decisions.

I think being that close to power but not being the one either educates the person or makes them bitter and overreaching when it is their turn. I have to say I think I see those traits in Clinton and I think they are at least partly related to her being so close to power but without any power herself.

[widebody911]

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle

[Gogar]

I've heard that being able to answer a red telephone is very important.

[MRM]

Hillary wishes she had the influence over Bill's administration that Yoko had over the Beatles.

[Zef]

No experience required...

[kach22i]

The Beatles rock!