Can somebody tell me why on earth anyone would consider the two Democrats leading the pack for 2008 even remotely qualified for the job?
One is a junior senator from New York in the middle of her second term, with exactly zero political experience of her own before running for her senate seat. She was the First Lady for eight years, but that's not exactly an elected position, regardless of the clout she may have wielded. (I wouldn't want my dentist's husband to perform my dental work, no matter how much he's looked over her shoulder on the job.)
The other is a junior senator from Illinois in the middle of his first term. Politically speaking, he still has eggshells behind his ears. At least he's served almost two terms in the Illinois state senate before running for his current job, which means that even with his very short resume, he has about twice the hands-on experience as the aforementioned carpetbagger from New York.
It's a small consolation that Americans in general don't like to elect their presidents straight out of the U.S. Senate. The last senator to be elected President was John F. Kennedy, and since then, the record has been seventy-two runners for zero wins. Let's not mess up a good streak here.Not that I'm terribly fond of any of the Republican muppets, mind you--the only declared candidate from either side of the aisle that wouldn't make me retch while I pull the lever is Ron Paul--but let's at least give the job to someone who has some experience running something.