You are correct, Ms. Cromer, that "...it is incumbent upon us, as voters, to inform ourselves."

However, you are off-base when you say, "Perhaps the media is to blame ...." I'm quite certain that somewhere in the Constitution it is written, "Thou shalt NOT blame the media." I feel sure the N&R can steer you to the correct chapter and verse. Ahem.

In any event, back to informing ourselves: As I have mentioned before, from an "experience" standpoint, on the whole, governors and generals make better Presidents because they have executive and/or command experience, whereas congressmen and senators, as legislators, do not. Governors and generals have experience in making final decisions ... sometimes including life and death decisions, that legislators will never have, as legislators are simply one vote among many.

Yes, I'm sure you can trot out exceptions. Nonetheless, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Biden, Brownback, Clinton, etc., have NEVER had "The Buck Stops Here" experience, whereas, Richardson, Huckabee, Clark, Romney, Dean, etc. have.

Just a little bi-partisan food for thought.

It's that darned old "liberal" media that got George Bush elected. It's all their fault.
:)

"Might we remember that our current president had no national leadership experience, had not traveled beyond North America, and was also considered handsome by many when he sought the highest office in our country?"

I've heard it said that Bush never travelled outside the US before becoming President. Is that really true or just some kind of campaign smear? I do see that this one says North America so perhaps the story has changed since the first time I heard it.

Regardless, my best guess is that the writer is no fan of Bush or his record. Therefore, if she's using the statement above to support Obama or Edwards, she's just severely damaged her own case.

Jackson, you've made an interesting point, but it is somewhat nebulous. Jefferson, Lincoln, Monroe, Madison, Adams, Kennedy- I don't think any of them were governors or generals. Woodrow Wilson is regarded as a good president, but he was governor of NJ for only a year, and regreted giving up his role at Princeton. US Grant was a great general, but a horrible president. Warren G. Harding, Lt. Governor and "depressing" president. Eisenhower and Washington were great generals and solid presidents, the latter primarily because they knew how to delegate.

FDR was perhaps our greatest president. He was a governor, but, then again, so was George W. Bush. Inference intended.

Hope all's well, Jack.

If one thinks back to Jack Kennedy and the Cuban Missle Crisis, one can see how an inexperienced leader handled things. Difference in Kennedy and Bush is about 100 IQ points.

Conclusion: Just because "daddy" was President doesn't mean little George is deserving. Same with the Clintons.

Let's look for smart people who love Americans and not just America.

As I stated, anyone can point out exceptions to otherwise valid points. Very few things in this world are black or white. To wit:

When I think of President Kennedy, DemonDeacon, I too think of the Cuban Missile Crisis and his competent handling of the situation. Well done.

But I also think of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his Secretary of Defense (McNamara) and Vice Presidential (Johnson) selections and their collective hand in the Viet Nam debacle, his dalliances with Norma Jean and others, etc.

See ... no particular difficulty in taking cheap shots, is there? But then, I don't need to tell you that.

Oh, and on the I.Q. thing ... do you have a VALID source on that, or is it just another cheap shot.? And don't trot out that discredited Lovenstein Institute baloney. Snopes, Truth or Fiction and others have blown the cover off of that myth.

Although neither governor nor general, I think John Larsh would make a terrific president. A gorilla of a man, he'd appeal to voters aged 35 to 64. I mean it. That's no Snow job.

It is possible that the Bay of Pigs and other failed attempts to undermine or overthrow Castro is what created the climate for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I think things could have easily gone either way regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was smart to listen to his advisors and fortunately cooler eads prevailed and we didn't have a nuclear war over it. Regardless of who had the upper hand, nobody would have won that one.

Jack,
The IQ comment was "humor" not meant as fact. I'd still take Kennedy or Herbert Hoover over our current President, who has little or no intellectual curiosity---by his own admission. Reagan was lampooned because of his naps, and his public deafness---but he had a curiosity of intellect. He was an after dinner speaker extraordinaire and communicator unexcelled by any I have seen. Jerry Ford had intellectual curiosity, and although he was lampooned as a "jock", he was well read, and grounded.

If we do not change our system of selecting candidates, we will continue to get the mediocre thinkers such as we have today. Clinton had a brilliant mind and a super charged libido. Can you imagine if our current President had the libido of Clinton!! When you couple that libido with the mind of Bush, you have the rush chairman from Delta House...or maybe Bluto! So, we can at least thank our lucky stars and just hope George doesn't start drinking again!

Seems like intellectual curiosity would have kept Kennedy from riding in a convertible through Dallas.

Here's a good start to get informed on someone truly qualified but who, so far anyway, has been all but blacked-out by the media and there's a reason why... TX Rep. Ron Paul
www.ronpaul.org
www.ronpaulexplore.com