in government. They can run for some state or local office, or for Congress, or whatever. I don't care how knowledgeable they are as a result of their work in the media; they need to have been on the inside for awhile. Lawrence O'Donnell (if he were so inclined) might qualify although he's never held elected office, because he was an aide to Senator Moynihan and staff director for the Senate Finance Committee before he got into show biz as the lead writer for The West Wing. I can't think of anyone else, though.

I don't mean to be negative, just asking.

election.

That's the first priority. The candidate has to be able to draw and hold the attention of voters, of a crowd.

The vice president can handle dealing with Congress, etc.

I remember when I thought that Obama was too inexperienced but voted for him anyway because I liked him. He chose Biden who is very experienced in Congress as his vice president and then learned the ropes very quickly.

So experience is important, but not the decisive factor.

Obama had experience in the Illinois political scene, but not really in D.C. He was in the Senate only a short time before becoming president.

Of our past presidents, maybe LBJ had the most experience in D.C. At least he had a lot of experience. Yet he made a lot of mistakes as president. Did amazing, wonderful things too. The Civil Rights bill got passed partly because of his political experience. Then there is Medicare. LBJ -- experience, yet mistakes mixed with amazing accomplishments.

Experience does not guarantee a good presidency.
It helps. But personality is very, very important.

A true leader is a rare person. FDR was a true leader. And he became president at a time when we needed him. We need a true leader now, one who will be loved by the American people and the world.

the rift in the Democratic Party much better than HRC did. Bill Clinton was good at bringing in all Democrats. But somehow, HRC was not able to do that. I don't know whether it was the sexism, but even if it was, the right candidate has to be able to overcome any negative aspects of his or her candidacy.

I don't have a specific person in mind, but we Democrats tend to overemphasize competency and underemphasize personality. But as we saw with Trump (and
I can't stand his personality myself), the candidate with the big personality won. We need to remember that.

Personality is very, very important. Obama had it. His was unique, but it won over all kinds of problems. Obama was able to win in spite of racism, in spite of his comparative lack of experience, in spite of a lot of drawbacks. He won because he has a great personality and is a very loving person. We need to keep that in mind.

He is always way ahead of every one else, but takes care to meet others where they are.
A difficult task he pulls off with ease.
In addition to being a decent human being and knowing what it means to be a public servant.

He otherwise is that rare exception. He is a true global citizen who has taken significant initiatives on important issues and he has held his own with numerous world leaders over decades.

Seriously, unless a celebrity has a long track record of deep and significant involvement in important issues beyond just lending their name to a cause, i simply am not interested in considering one for President. For the Senate or a Governorship, maybe, but they would have to be damn impressive as well as famous.

This administration has been an utter shit show! The last thing we need is more inexperienced and unqualified celebrities in power!

And this is coming from someone who suggested a celebrity runs against her congressman