Probably the reason Bush's experience was so misjudged.

You Have a spelling error in the headline. Feel free to delete this comment.

You Have a spelling error in the headline. Feel free to delete this comment.

Dan,

I think that experience is still the more important characteristic, because judgment comes from experience.

I understand your point that the best experience to be had as president is "the ability to successfully cope with the unknown," or "judgment." But, if judgment doesn't come from experience, then it comes from a deep conviction in something else (i.e. faith in a greater power) and the person who displays judgment is the one who acts most closely to how he/she interprets the guidance of the greater power. If there is a third way to gain judgment, perhaps another commenter can make an argument.

So, if judgment (the kind that does not come from a conviction in an outside 'guiding principle'), then judgment still comes from experience. The question then, is, what is the type of experience that one needs?

It could be:
1) Managerial experience. The ability to run an organization/leadership or management experience/understanding how to work with limited resources/etc. I would say that this type of experience includes the ability listen to one's advisers, think creatively, and be able to use the full human resources available (i.e., listening to all points of view and being able to compare them to each other).
2) Policy experience. The ability to know the ins and outs of a particular policy (McCain arguably has the most foreign policy experience, Clinton maybe has the health care experience, etc.--however, it does not mean that a voter supports the person's opinions on the policy).
3) Diplomatic experience. I use diplomatic in a very broad way, meaning "the ability to communicate , influence, or build support" with people from both the domestic constituency, as well as international leaders and/or general populations. This includes the ability understand one's own culture and how it informs one's way of thinking, as well as understanding the nuances of other cultures.

There might be other kinds of experience, but these three seem most appropriate for a president. And because judgment is gained over time and experience (I can't think of how it is not, unless it is just luck or if a person completely trusts someone else, like a close adviser, who does have experience), then experience is the more important characteristic.

Best,
Josh

Well, Time's also onto the experience thing: "Does Experience Matter in a President?"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html

I guess you've got a true pundit's eye for the hot topic of the week!!

The quality most needed in a President is the ability to see the forest as well as the trees. The great danger is leadership that tries to optimize the details of a policy or strategy that is flawed in a deeper sense. The task of a President is to set or change an overall direction and then make sure that results follow in a timely manner.

Pigmentation and gender are far more important than experience or judgment and most Americans agree with me on that.

I agree with your assessment of what we need in a President, but not in your claim that what you're describing constitutes "judgment." (There is such a thing as bad judgment, you know.)

I think what you're describing is "discernment" -the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure, in this case, how the US ought to respond to any of a myriad of possible issues and threats in the future.