Reply #15: Clark has no service as an elected official, no work in the House or [View All]

[spooky3]

the Senate where one has to learn the ropes and must negotiate with others, rather than command. This is especially challenging at a time when the Republicans control both houses. He has never built a business from the ground up. He has no experience with domestic and social issues, and no voting record for which he can now be held accountable. He has never had to wage an uphill campaign battle against a Republican incumbent in a Republican state, so hasn't had the chance to learn those skills yet. It is a very legitimate concern to ask whether he is knowledgeable and can be trusted on anything but his very impressive (to me) military record.

Still, I consider him very qualified, and I would GLADLY support him if he is the nominee. My point is that I find it ironic that some people who support the candidate with what can reasonably argued is the least experience that is relevant to the job as President are the ones raising the concerns about Edwards' lifetime of success. I would like to ask that you be willing to be as open-minded re: Edwards experience, as you are about Clark's experience.

Bush has more relevant experience than any of our candidates: Three years as pResident. Does that make him more qualified?