...I'm not seeing your point. Every President came from VASTLY different roots, and those roots were often independent of how they served their country.

George Washington, John Adams, and many of the early presidents were farmers with limited diplomatic experience. Many of them great.

Ronald Reagan was an actor, good president.

Jimmy Carter was a farmer and a politician for 15 years, not so good president.

George W. Bush had a Yale and Harvard Education. He was governor of Texas for only 5 years (no national experience AT ALL) and look at what a miserable failure he has been.

Abraham Lincoln was one of the leading causes the country BROKE UP!

JFK was the first president elected on looks alone (read up on how they made Nixon look sickly and gaunt while JFK beamed)

Why do you think this perceived "lack of experience" would affect his ability to run the country. He's been in politics for 11 years (longer than Bush). Do you think that one day he's just going to collapse and start crying because he doesn't know what to do? Get real.

And why do you think that McCain's service in the military and imprisonment in Hanoi would make him a good president? Military service has NO BEARING on how one does during their presidency. Similarly, he's 71 years old. That's not "in his prime" that's fucking old. Should he get elected and serve two terms, he'll be 80. Is that still "in his prime"? I agree that some people can live to be 100 without any signs of mental aging, but is that a risk we could take? America does not need a feeble leader.

It may sound like I have a bias toward Obama, but I don't. I think both candidates would make crappy presidents, and I think we need a do over. I just HATE it when people make unsubstantiated claims that have no bearing in reality. Obama's limited experience and McCain's age may have NOTHING to do with how they run the presidency, but we just don't FUCKING KNOW.