See comments inline:

>>Hi Tamar,
>>
>>>Okay, I just read the article you mentioned. I don't see it waying that military service shouldn't count, simply that like all other experience, you have to evaluate it and see whether it provide valuable lessons that would make the person a better president.
>>>
>>>That makes perfect sense to me. McCain's fortitude in his captivity is clearly a plus. OTOH, the fact that he missed 5 years of what was going on in the US and the world (through no fault of his own) and may, therefore, not understand certain people, ideas or movements, is a negative. Getting shot down is a neutral--doesn't make him any more or less of a leader.
>>>
>>>But we need to apply the same judgment to candidate's other experiences. Serving in Congress, as we know, doesn't in and of itself, qualify one to be President. It's what you do there that matters. Ditto for experiences outside of government.
>>
>>Jesus Christ, Tamar, what exactly do you see as presidential qualifications?? McCain lost 5 years of exposure to hippydom and, somehow, that puts him out of touch and not able to understand?? Understand WHOM? Revanchist hippies from 1972??
>>
>>So, you've not only discounted his service, but also his courage, and also his time in Congress which includes several key committees.
>
>Read what I said again. I said his fortitude (which certainly includes courage) is a plus. I do think missing those 5 years is a minus. Is it as large a negative as the fortitude is a positive? Probably not. As for his Congressional service, what I said is that it's not _by itself_ a qualification. It's what you do there. McCain certainly has some positives there, especially his willingness to work across the aisle. (Based on what the folks he served with in the Illinois legislature have to say, Obama has the same plus.)

I'm confused - McCain's missing 5 years is a minus, but Obama's lack of experience serving in the Senate is not?

>
>>Meanwhile, Mr. Hope and Change, with practically ZERO experience in any area needed for a leader captures your imagination.
>
>What invigorates me most about Obama is his obvious intelligence and his apparent willingness to listen to new evidence and change his mind based on it. After the current administration, I consider that an absolute necessity.
>

I'm confused again. With McCain, changing his mind is called 'flip flopping on the issues' but with Obama it demonstrates his apparent willingness to listen to new evidence?'


>As for issues, frankly, Obama's a little conservative for me, but McCain is way too conservative for me. Unlike Mike, I didn't consider him a good alternative in 2000 (though he was certainly a better choice than GWB) and don't consider him a good option now.
>
>I'll be honest here and say that there wasn't a Republican running this year that I would have comfortably voted for in the general. Anybody here who's supporting McCain willing to say the reverse--that no matter who the Democratic nominee was (from the group that was running), they wouldn't have voted for him/her?
>
>Tamar