Anybody concerned about Democrats' age?

[RDKirk]

I believe that I said there is, in effect, no iron rule about this. However, it is the case that people in their thirties are still learning and have not had the time or opportunity to be wise and comfortable with such duties as come with the presidency. So, if the voters reflect that on election day, it's not a surprise.


But he was an international business mogul and had dealings with politicians across the globe, with courts, accountants, and legislatures, etc. A mayor of a middle-sized city in the Midwest, for example, can say he has held an elective office, it's true, but he doesn't have the breadth or level of experience that is equal to this.

Nobody has the experience required to be "wise and comfortable" with the duties of the President of the United States except someone who has been President of the United States.

I would argue that anyone who has held almost any elected executive position has better experience for the presidency than anyone who has had only legislative experience at any level. It's not a different job, just a more complex level of the same job.

 

[Albion]

Nobody has the experience required to be "wise and comfortable" with the duties of the President of the United States except someone who has been President of the United States.

Awww, RD. Don't pick apart a simple observation in the attempt to find a way to make some exception be the rule. It is not for nothing that people want a certain level of experience and savvy that 35 year olds do not usually have, certainly not as often as someone who has been around a bit longer. So if that caution affects their choice of office-seeker, it is understandable, that's all.