>Some people consider that the whole "experience" issue is around the wrong way. Whoever wins is going to be surrounded by party aparatchiks as well as policy and intelligence experts to assist their every potential decision; it's not as if they'll be acting alone with only their own experience to rely upon. What if the opposite is true- what if experience in politics actually leads towards institutionalized behaviors including expediency, loss of awareness of the common lot, attack-dog politics and relish for intrigue and factionalism as the most exciting tools of policy. If that is true then perhaps a less-institutionalized candidate will bring a refreshing change with which normal Americans may feel comfortable, even if they don't agree with all his/her policies. It appears that the number of American people thinking that way may be on the increase, especially now that the VPs have joined the fray. ;-)
>
>FWIW, check this out:
http://www.polartrec.com/node/3944I think she was a good choice. I'm very impressed by her.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
