The candidates "experience".......
 

Let's inject a bit of truth in the "experience" debate. Most of the rhetoric about who is the most "experienced" candidate is almost laughable.

Clinton likes to take shots at Obama's obviously sparser resume while McCain trys to pretend that he is somehow the candidate with the great experience benefit. This is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that none of them have diddly ***** "experience" on any level that might prepare them for a presidency that requires executive decisions on domestic and international issues. The biggest decision that all three have ever had to make was per their Senate staffing and political campaigning. If you doubt this try to name any major executive or policy decision that any of them have ever made? Voted...yes. But never any true and positive decisions on an executive level.

It is ludicrous to pretend that any of them have any true presidential qualifications. None of them has ever held a true job or ran anything of note. We simply have to hope for the best regardless of who gets elected.

Obama probably has the least negatives since he has the smallest record. Clinton and McCain's resume are strikingly similar.
Clinton's "experience" per being in the White House with Bill is similar to McCain's "experience" in the military.

McCain was nothing more than pilot who unfortunately got captured and spent almost 6 years of his short military "career" in captivity. After being released in 1973 he did virtually nothing until he retired in 1981 and entered politics.

just watched the press conference where Mccain and Bush had their chitchat bout Bush supporting McCain's candidacy...

aside from McCain being republican, aside from agenda, i felt he didn't have a strong presence..

You can argue that he's standing next to the president , and Bush is a big shot and what not
but McCain is supposed to replace Bush, same spot

So i felt he came over pretty weak
first question : How will this go down, when everybody want's change?
Bush answers, with the bogstandard spin "steadfast, evildoe'ers, yaddiyaddiyaadi, McCain will do just fine on that
McCain just mumbles" i don't have anything to add"

swell

second question :i kinda forgot what they asked
McCain mumbles something about how great it is , and how he's glad that Bush will campain for him , if he's not to busy and what not...


i zoned out, seriously , he came over as a lackey to Bush... like Medvedev in Russia who is brought forward to take over from Putin...

was he McCain star struck or something?? what's he going to do when he is the president and some other strong character who he has to negotiate and deal with comes forward??

Whether or not you agree with his policies any objective look at the three would say that McCain is BY FAR the most experienced. He can do the job and I think he's proved it. I do not for a minute discount his military experience but am sure most liberals will give it short shrift.

Hillary's experience, such as it is, is overwhelmingly negative (recall that her first act as First Lady was to fire the travel staff and bring in her cronies). She can barely run a campaign.

Obama doesn't have a whit's worth of experience- and while I deplore his policies that doesn't mean I don't think he could do the job. I do.

if you put the BS behind you, we had a good run with the first clinton, and we could do that again. same administration, different face. more presidential experience than the others by a long shot. all the petty losers that chalk him off because of a BJ need to get over it.

I hear that all the time about McCain being the "most" experienced. But except for being older what exactly has he ever done or accomplished?

Don't get me wrong, I kinda like the guy but he's every bit as superficial as the other two.

Yeah, it does look like McCain is riding a dead horse by attaching himself to a basically failed and unpopular president.

But if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it is the goofball Dems!

You have hit on something that a couple of us old guys were talking about the other day. Hillary seems so damn dumb that she keeps pretending that Slick Willy is not going to be a big player if she gets elected.

What she should do is say that her presidency isgoing to more of Bill since about 40 percent of the voters still like how our country went during his term. Then when you add in the extra 10 or 20 percent she is going to get just because of being the first woman prez and she might be a certain winner!

it's not the choice to attach him to Bush i was noting

it was that he looked so damned weak side by side with Bush

It looked more like Bush presenting a new Secretary of whatever, then Bush being there with the next President....

Maybe McCain was remembering what Team Bush did to him in South Carolina in the 2000 primary!:(

could be , but then later this evening, i noticed him speeching at a party rally on CNN..
similar feeling, dude looks more like he's ready for retirement then for a hot presidency...

there just isn't much oomph when he speaks...

Yeah, he really does look like an old man at times. And that's after he is made up for the public. Imagine what he might be like in private. Little chance of completing 4 years much less 8.

That's why if he gets elected his choice of running mate will be extremely important.

again ,i'm not taking sides as to which kandidate or agenda is better
but this lack of oomph might just bite him in the wrinkled @ss if he had to go head2head with a one of the 2 remaining Dem's, and i think Obama would be his worst nightmare in that scenario, because the dude does come over a lot better in that department...

Obama is certainly the most dynamic of the three, the most able to energize voters or the populus. I think he has more leadership ability than the other two. Sadly, I hate his socialist policies.

If you want to talk real, firsthand experience, McCain wins hands down. He has what, 22 years in the senate? More than Obama and Hillary combined. I'm not claiming that senate experience makes a good president, but that's the only real experience any of them have.

Last week there was a pretty good article in TIME about how unimportant supposed "experience" really was per a future prez.

Mentioned the great presidents such as Lincoln and FDR who had little experience along with lowly regarded VP's such as Chester Arthur and Truman who also became very highly rated presidents.

Then there were the LBJ and James Buchanan types with a mountain of experience who basically "failed miserably."

Most good leaders are good orators. The ability to express ideas and motivate/inspire others can be very important. Not saying that all good speakers are good leaders, but don't underestimate that ability.

A debate between Obama and McCain would almost be unfair.

Obama isn't nearly as slick when the topic moves outside his comfort zones.

Nor is McCain...but the difference is that mcCain doesn't hide it as well.

I would argue that McCain is never slick. He always manages to fully express his thoughts, but never in the polished fashion that Obama manages.

I would disagree...to wit: his comments on staying in Iraq for 100 years. I think I knew what he meant (i.e., as long as it takes if there is instability in the region that threatens us) but he damn sure mucked up the sentiment. I fear he will continue to make such gaffes and spend his time defending himself in the general...especially if Hillary gets the dem nom. Obama would likely tactfully diffuse it but still I feel McCain will be made to look dense.

Hey, I made a funny...If hillary gets the dem nom she'll be a fem dom:D