IS INEXPERIENCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY?

As I hear criticism of Hillary and Jeb as being too "old school" or whatever the words, it seems that being president requires that the successful candidate be inexperienced.  Consider George W. Bush (Bush-43) and Barack Obama who really had very little experience in the various aspects of the presidency, especially foreign policy, before becoming president.  And Bush-43 managed to not only get us into the quagmire of Iraq but preside over the greatest economic collapse of the country since 1929.*

Now look at the Republican candidates for president.  A number of them won't even have survived a whole term as Senator by 2016 (Marco Rudio-elected 2011, Rand Paul-2011, Ted Cruz-2013).  None of these will have completed even one term as Senator by the time of the 2016 election.

And then there is Tom Cotton, though not a presidential candidate yet, who has been a Senator for barely more than 2 mo. who managed to stampede 46 of his colleagues into sending a letter to the Iranian Ayatollah and create an international incident.  Even senile John McCain now has reservations about doing this.

Though I feel Bobby Jindal has no chance to obtaining the Republican nomination, he seems to want to be a candidate and is somewhat more experienced than those mentioned above having served two terms in Congress and now as governor of Louisiana.

I don't know how good a president either of Hillary or Jeb will be (You won't know until they do it if elected.), but at least they have experience relevant to running things.

* Many assume that everything in Iraq would be all right if only Obama had left 10 or 15 thousand troops there (presumably under Sharia law).  We did leave 10-20 thousand troops in Afghanistan after running the Taliban into Pakistan, however, and they came back stronger than ever.  So I have my doubts.  We'll never know.

WANT TO RELIVE THE 90S?

Do you want to relive the 1990s we are asked about Hillary and Jeb?  Well, yes.  Who wouldn't.  They didn't start out all that well, but certainly gathered steam and had the greatest stock market ever with 5 yrs of 20% or more gains (Yes, a bubble, but it went on for years.).  The Federal budget had positive cash flow for four straight years, once even without "borrowing" from Social Security.  There was lots of job creation.  We were even worried about paying off the Federal debt too fast! Remember that?

It had the only war won by air power alone without "boots on the ground" (Kosvo, remember that?).

The 90s had the only president (Bill Clinton) who didn't have a recession.  In fact, the only president who didn't have a recession in his first term, but added the second term for good measure.

There was only a low-level war in Iraq called "drive by shootings" where our aircraft would take out radar installations.  It began with president George H.W. Bush (Bush-41) kicking Saddam Hussein out of  Kuwait, but who was smart enough not to overthrow the Iraq government in the process.  We only had a silly impeachment proceeding and the usual silly attacks on a president (e.g. the travel office, Whitewater, commodity futures), but, granted, these sorts of attacks have seemed to get worse with time.

It was the only period when I felt prosperous.  My wife was yet to have a stroke, and we did a lot of travel.  Even my being fired by the government in Al Gore's Reinventing America crusade ended up being more of a blessing in that I was no longer involved in being a Civil Servant "political football."  Yes, I would take the 90s in a heartbeat.