Because the rhetoric and debate aren't about accomplishments, they're about experience. I didn't frame the topic.
The rhetoric is that McCain's military experience would make him a better president. So my question is, for example, was Grant a better president that Lincoln? The rhetoric states that McCain's years in the senate make him more qualified than Obama, who has not served as long. So by that standard, was Johnson a better president than Kennedy? The rhetoric states that Obama's celebrity makes him less desirable than McCain. By that standard, would Ronald Reagan, a well known actor, be less qualified than Michael Dukakis, who was unknown before his presidential campaign? If you're going to state, as you have repeatedly, that experience, or lack there of, matters, show me why. On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another game. > Why not just list accomplishments? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268184 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
