Now that the vetting process of the candidates has began in earnest (cough cough), we are expected to consider what constitutes relevant experience for the job of the president.
How is it possible that we are having this ridiculous argument on experience as ultimate test for qualification to become president when the constitution only stipulates citizenship and age criteria? Why are we allowing this to even be an issue? It is amazing what politics can do to normally rational and reality based people. Granted that it's almost impossible to not look at these sorts of arbitrary measures when deciding on which candidate to choose/support. The fact of the matter is that there is little solace one can take from history on these issues. It's a mixed bag at best when these things are examined as predictors of a good presidency. So, why should democrats who most likely would not vote for republican candidates regardless of their qualifications falling for this crap?
While the relevance of the experience is tenuous at best to qualification discussion, what is even more astounding is what some of us even consider to be 'experience'. The idea that experience by osmosis or experience by proxy/proximity is relevant is laughable. Now don't get me wrong, it's quite possible that you've got a better sense of things being around the presidency as in the case of HRC, but that is no guarantee that you've learnt how things are done properly or that you've learnt the wrong things. More so when you are not actually in the thick of things. Sometimes, the wrong experience may actually be worse than no experience. If you don’t believe me, look at Dubya. After his first term in office, one would think that he is more experience now. Alas, his second term may actually turn out to be worse than his first term. Here is somebody with real presidential experience.
I'd rather we talked about policy related issues, track records, past decisions/outcomes, and other 'quantifiable' and verifiable measures of qualification and not this CIC experience nonsense. This is the type of framing that the MSM likes. It allows them to get away with not discussing issues. We should not be falling into this traps. Be it in our primaries or in the general election. I suspect that if we can frame our primaris in a way that forces both the public and the MSM to focus on issues rather that this pissy type beauty contest, we may actually be able to elevate the level of discuss in the general election away from the 'whom you wanna have a buy with' type discussions. HOPING FOR A
BETTER AND MORE SERIOUS ELECTORAL PROCESS.