My opinion on experience is that you do need some to be a strong leader in Washington. If you don't have the experience, you can't navigate through the shark-infested waters and won't have the leverage to push through your agenda. Congress will eat you alive as it did Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, and a country cannot be successfully led by a committee of 535. While Carter did have experience as Georgia governor it apparently did him no good as even the Democrat-controlled House and Senate pretty much ignored him and ran roughshod over him. Strong chief executives can pass their agenda even through a hostile Congress.
Agree with a president's agenda or not, the country needs a strong leader, especially in times of danger and turmoil. The Founding Fathers recognized that and placed great powers in the hands of the presidency where parliamentary systems tend to dilute the powers of the chief executive.
In general, having some executive experience tends to be a great positive. Senators looking for the White House have tended to have poor records. And here all three front runners are Senators. Sigh.
At least McCain knows how to get things done even if you may disagree with what he wants. Both Clinton and Obama have relatively no record, Clinton's biggest successes being the naming of a few federal buildings. Obama doesn't even have that. And none of the three has any executive experience at all.
-- Roger
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
