If I'm an executive at GM in 1969, experience is my friend because the road ahead isn't going to change much.

If I'm at GM in 1989, different story all together.

Corporations don't hire kids out of collage, as turn around CEO's. However they do something fairly radical. They hire CEOs from outside the company or even outside the industry, who don't have "experience" running a failing ship.

If elected, McCain will simply be the head of a group that includes, republican washinton insiders, think tank weanies, major donors and other republican wise men and women. They've been running a failing ship for quite a while and unfortunately, America ahead is more like GM 1989 than 1969.

Experience will help someone decide a over b. However it's of no use in helping them see option c.

I doubt seriously that anybody has the experience necessary to be President of the United States. It's not a job that anybody can just jump into.

I think what a president needs, more than anything else, are eyes that can see through bullshit and a steadfast dedication to solid ideals. The president is always going to be surrounded by advisers, and he's got to have the courage to cut through all that.

George W. Bush's biggest flaw is not his lack of experience (and he was certainly less experienced than Obama is). Dubya's biggest problem is his lack of courage. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been running this show for eight years while Bush has willingly done as he is told. I really think if Bush had taken a firmer hand with his entourage, things might have turned out differently.

Stop using logic.

You're just enrage Guggah and his neanderthal buddies.

I'm not sure your analogy holds, Bullspotter.

Corporations in trouble still seek someone with experience, even if it's of a different sort. They don't seek someone INexperienced.

While one could easily argue that McCain has the wrong type of experience (too tied to Washington, blah, blah), it's harder to rebut a charge of inexperience, as Obama must for many voters. It's hard because he's young, and so has to convince people that he's somehow crammed into those years a certain quality of experience. I'm sure Obama believes this (one, after all, does not run for President without at least a little megalomania), but he must convince others of it.

Bill Clinton could point to his years as governor to rebut the "too young" charge. JFK, awful president though he was, could point to his military experience, and so on...

Anse:

I doubt seriously that anybody has the experience necessary to be President of the United States. It's not a job that anybody can just jump into.

I agree with that. It's job like no other and nothing can really prepare anyone for it. We've have presidents who were seasoned politicians who turned out to be terrible presidents and others who lacked much experience in politics (Lincoln) who are ranked as "great" by historians.

I think, however, that Bush has had a bigger problem besides lack of courage. There's no doubt that a man who has admitted that he did everything short of puncturing his own eardrum to avoid going to Vietnam is a coward. But his main problem as president is myopia. He tends to stick to a a decision and refuse to even consider changing long past when everyone else realizes his going in the wrong direction. He strikes me as someone who would refuse to consult a map while driving from NY to Philadelphia and ending in Canada before admitting he took a wrong turn.

Arashi, thanks for your comments.

My example holds perfectly. Obama doesn't have "washington expereince". However he does have experience as a state senator, community organizer, et al. It isn't sexy, but is still valid.

The Presidency was never supposed to be royalty. Unfortunately, that's what's it's turning into. worshippiing "Washington Brahmins" is just part of the problem.

All well said. The idea of 'experience' has been way overplayed in this campaign. The truth is neither Obama or McCain (or Clinton) for that matter has a single bit of executive experience, they have not been a governor, they have not been a CEO, they have not owned a buisness. This direct leadership experience may be most applicable to the job of POTUS. Is this a negative, not necassarily, but it is a fact shared by both candidates.

To me the more important question is who has shown the ability to lead best? McCains staff has been disgruntled by his erratic behavior and quickly changing mind. He is unable to stay on a topic and see it through. This has been discussed by several major media outlets.

Obama's staff has been very quiet about how the behind the scenes runs, yet his winning the primary offers proof of the smoothness in which it runs. His ability to inspire the best in people is evident in the crowds he has drawn.