Excellent editorial. It should be a point of pride to all Americans that we have never had a military coup, we have never had a government in exile, and no loser of a presidential race, including the four men who won the popular vote bur lost the presidency, has ever tried to raise an army to overthrow the winner. These are not uncommon events in much of the world. I will be voting for Obama/Biden, but if McCain/Palin wins, I will accept the result and offer them congratulations. (Although I will probably carp about their administration in this forum.)

This kind of puts the final nail in the coffin for the "experience" debate in this forum.

Nothing prepares a man or woman to become President of the United States except having an excellent group of advisors (see Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Lincoln, "Team of Rivals") and the knowledge, wisdom, and dedication to work in the interests of all the American people.

The past eight years of extremely partisan and unaccountable governance will fade into history if there is, indeed, reform within the Republican Party. Although the mood of the country is very angry that the people have been taken for granted and victimized by a inept and corrupt Bush/Cheney White House, it will be remarkable to have the "E Pluribus Unum" again rise from the ashes and become again the signiature ideal of America.

The Democratic Party has an excellent ticket to present to the American people. Hopefully, the Republican Party will provide a meaningful contrast in ideas. Perhaps, then, the best decision in the interests of the American people can be made.

The article makes some interesting points. However, when you have a candidate with incredible life experiences as John McCain has had and another candidate who speaks well and has written two memoirs and nothing more the choice is a no brainer. If you were hiring one of these guys to do the most important job in the world who would you hire? John McCain.

No, Dutchman, I would not hire John McCain. I admire McCain's grit and strength, as displayed in his awful experience as a POW. That does not qualify him to be President of the United States. I choose the candidate who is clearly the most intelligent, the best educated, the most able to speak persuasively, the most capable of serious analysis of complex situations, the most able to function as a world statesman: Barak Obama. I've had "life experiences" and so have you. I'm not qualified to be president. Americans have had enough of the Republicans' under-educated, inarticulate, simplistic offerings: The two Bushes. We have had enough of the Reagan-style "analysis" of reducing complicated issues to bumper sticker slogans. This country needs someone who can think!

There is no perfect candidate out there in this world. No matter how long we've worked in any particular area of decipline, there is always the first time for everything that we do.

I cannot believe that your column is "serious". If you believe what you wrote, my respect just dropped considerably. Ronald Reagan was probably the "most" experienced to ever lead this country. In addition to seeing the error of his ways; and moving to the RP, he stopped the liberal slide of the largest state in the union; and put it on the right path, then did the same in the White House.

Yes, Harry Truman had an exceptional feel for the crises of his position. However, he was tutored by FDR before inheriting that position. Your thinking reflects the one thing that I fear today. The young "don't get it"; and too many may vote for the Demo candidate without understanding where the world stands in history at this very moment.

This editorial is dismissive of the fact that Truman served as an artillery officer in WWI, served as a judge, a US Senator for 10 years, oversaw his commission investigating corporate greed prior to his selection as Vice President. Truman was not inexperienced.

I notice how Hughes terms Obama a "one term senator" and Palin a "short term governor." The simple fact is that both have served about the same time if office (sorry, you don't get credit for senate attendance if you are too busy campaigning to attend).

The simple fact remains that Palin is not running for the top job; Obama is.

It's not hard to see who Hughes slants his editorial toward.