Experience only matters to the MSM if you are a Republican. It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL if you are a Conservative candidate for the presidency.

Do you know what happens when a man with experience meets up with a man with money????? The man who had the experience, leaves with the money and the man who had the money, leaves with the experience.

They're so shallow, and they still don't get it. Real character comes from experience, usually bad experience. In that respect, Lincoln had a lot of experience, since he went through all kinds of adversity, and came though with the ability to weather a storm.

• So far, the Obama campaign is trying to spin the idea that Obama's vote against the invasion of Iraq shows his "character."
  • Of course, logically, that's just nonsense. All of the intelligence about the war was presented to the president and chief leaders of the senate, on both sides of the aisle, and all of it pointed to the need to stop Saddam as soon as possible. What Obama is saying is that he ... somehow ... magically ... knew better, despite the available evidence.
  • It doesn't matter that the evidence turned out to be wrong, because Obama didn't know that at the time.
• Can some reporter please ask Obama how he knew that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq? It's easy to brag now about the result, but let's see how he answers questions about his rationale. Make him explain himself. Senator, are you against all military action, and when would it be appropriate?
• Further, the problems in Iraq were more about execution than strategy. The post-invasion strategy was more worried about "leaving a footprint" than about security. The forces were kept deliberately light to keep a low profile, but we now understand that in Iraq, security is (and was) far more important. The surge proves it.
  • If the surge strategy had been used at first, Obama would look pretty silly now, wouldn't he? 
  • And for all his "character," Obama proves yet again that he really doesn't understand what's going on over there. Experience would have told him.
  • Hate to admit it, but you know who's infinitely wiser about what's going on over there? Joe Biden. (And doesn't it scare you that Obama is being blown away intellectually by Joe Biden ??) 

Obama, in fact, betrays his true "character" when he talks about the war. When times got tough, he bragged about how he didn't want to go there in the first place, and how eager he is to run from it ... just when the proper strategy is proving what we should have done in the first place. Is that the kind of "character" we want in a president?

Lets see, would I look for an experienced person to do:

 brain surgery?

To work on your wife’s car?

To work on your gas furnace?

To pilot your airplane?

To teach you how to Scuba dive?

To do your tax returns?

To fix a hole in the bottom of your boat?

To cut down a large oak tree that towers over your house?

To teach your son or daughter how to become a soldier?

 To drive a semi tractor trailer 65 mph down a interstate.

BUT..

To run the most powerful country in the world, with nucular wepons and the most powerful army/navy/airforce. With the economy that makes the word go. With radical Muslims wanting to nuke one of our citys. A country with the population of: 301,139,944 with all the problems that comes with this job: No experience required..

ONLY IN AMERICA...

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Romney / Jendil  2012 (if,we survive)

"I feel that people who have ideas and solutions are far netter than people who have experience in respect to the presidency."

How can someone with little or no experience be better than someone that has actually implemented their ideas and solutions while governing an administration? Wouldn't it be preferable that someone be able to demonstrate that they know how to implement their ideas into action?

Barack Obama's #1 cheerleader, Michelle Obama, just gave a speech where
she told America's young people not to look for the better paying jobs.

I assume you're talking about the Ohio speech referenced on NRO's The Corner. She told an audience at a Zanesville day care center: (emphasis added)

“Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”

[I assume she meant they respond negatively, because she then said: Faced with that reality.....many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”]

Back to the NRO piece:

What she doesn’t mention is that the helping industry has treated her pretty well. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.

Mrs. Obama didn't explain how being on the board of a hospital and her husband's political carreer are "helping" professions. It's not like she's a nurse and he's a social worker. But she thinks that others should eschew money-making careers to go into "helping" professions. Top that off with the fact that, in spite of her own exorbitant salary in addition to her husband's, she whined about the cost of dance, piano and other lessons for her daughters (shades of Couric's "I had to take out a loan to fill my minivan" whine) and it shows she truly has no clue how most people live.

The Civil War was about the ascendency of an overpowering Federal Government supeceding the individual State's rights. Abolishionism was a weapon to further weaken the Agrarian South.

Men running industrial companies from the North would have been fools not to know that war would profit them greatly, with little risk to themselves or their scions.

Had there been a peaceful resolution, it would have been required to properly address the States vs. Federal issue as the Constitution was written, and many of the failures of America would have been addressed by those further Checks and Balances.

Slavery would have ended soon with the mechanization of agriculture. but that would have required investment and partnership from the fledgling mega-banks of the North-instead of complete dominance and ownership. It was better to wait until infrastructure was crushed, till spirits were broken, then move in and take advantage of the starving and the desperate for pennies on the dollar.

But that's not as cool a "good vs. evil" story as those "evil racist white southern folk" getting stomped by "noble Honest Abe". Especially when there's contention as to whether the winning party was the "good guys" in the long run.

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".