And, for some reason, Republican values seem to spread.
However, if you look at lists of the ten best Presidents in US history about whom historians from both sides agree, being a Governor (or executive in the private sector) is no guaranty of being a good President.
As for being VP, Truman, like a lot of Vice Presidents, was kept out of the loop. So far, in Truman's case that he did not know of the Manhattan Project until after FDR died--even though FDR was terminally ill and the nation was at war. LBJ, as huge and experienced a personality as he was, was kept out of the loop by JFK. And so on.
The two Presidents who faced the greatest challenges were probably Washington and Lincoln. Lincoln didn't even make it to U.S. I think he had a term as Congressman.
One Republican on another board argued that Lincoln had military service (militia). Googling led me to Lincoln's own account of his military service, the sum total of which had been standing in a field for three hours doing nothing, then going home.
I very much resist formulae. They may help get someone elected. However, the more important consideration for the nation is what happens after Inauguration Day. Yes, I know you have to get elected first.
But, rather than reinforce the validity of a formula, maybe we should reinforce that the best Presidents in history have not fit neatly into one category or another.
Truman, for example, failed at just about every career he attempted, except for President of the United States, where he makes both Republican and Democratic best lists. And, no, I am not advocating finding people who have failed at everything. I'm just saying, using a formula is no guaranty of a good President and may do us out of some great Presidents
I should note that none of the above is intended to detract from O'Malley. It's just a general point.
As things now stand, if for any reason, O'Malley is in the primary longer than Bernie, I may well support O'Malley.
= new reply since forum marked as read