Reply #28: "Fit for the Presidency" depends on the person not the State.

[napi21]

You used Shrub as an example of NOT being ready. Well, I'll use Clinton as one who was.

I can only go back so many Presidencies where I actually remember what a background means to the person and what they did with it.

Eisenhower was a Military General, and although he wasn't a rough and tough as some are, there's a tremendous amount of politics in the Military, and if you aren't good at it, you sure will NEVER be a General. Lots of people interaction and knowing how to command helped him in his leadership abilities.

I can only go back so many Presidencies where I actually remember what a background means to the person and what they did with it. Jack Kennedy did a fairly decent job, and his background was the Navy and being a Senator...both helped him, I'm sure.

Lyndon Johnson also got most of his experience in the Senate, and he presented himself as a Bigger than Life Man. You might have disagreed with his policies, but when he gave an order, it got done!

Nixon was a very smart man and gained his experience in the House & Senate, and through the VP under Ike. His major problem was his paranoia. I suspect he would never have had the scandal problems if he could have just followed his instincts and trusted, at least his supporters, not to try to hurt him.

Carter also had a strong Military background in the Navy, but he wasn't a strong leader. He worried about far too much of the little day to day stuff, and wasn't willing to delegate all that to the people he chose. I suspect ihe just never felt he could trust them completely. Carter is an interesting example of the kind of President the public THOUGHT they wanted. They elected him, mainly because he was a GOOD religious man, and they knew he would NEVER bring additional scandal to the WH. Well, he didn't bring scandal, but the public never really liked the man they got.

Reagan god his ledership ability mostly from being the Head of the Actors Guild. I don't recall how long he held that spot, but you can just imagine the leadership and negotiating ability one would need to do a good job. As far as President, he was an ACTOR, and probably played the best role of his life in the WH. He knew how to gt people to really like him!

GH Bush was the head of the CIA, and got a lot of foreign experience through that experience. He also was Reagans VP and that helped to teach him a lot obout how the WH really works.

Clinton got most of his experience by being Gov. of the fairly small State of Ar. He was one of our most intelligent Presidents, and a political natural. People liked him, and they weren't even sure why!

Then there's Shrub. Yes he was the Gov. of Tx, but that's really a figure head position. He had the least experience of ANY POTUS as far as I know. He also failed at almost ever venture he ever did in his past. Perhaps if the voters would have looked a little closer at that, they wouldn't have elected him, or at least made the election close enough to be stolen.

I think it's much more important for everyone to look closely at the 2008 Candidates and what they really are like. Campaigns are all Ads now, and we have to be able to get beyond that. Past accomplishmenets and positions are more important than if they were a Governor, and in which State.