Someone please expalin this one to me.

According to our right wing friends, Arnold, an actor is qualified to be governor of California but Clark, a retired 4-star general who graduated first in his class from West Point and a Rhodes scholar does not have the experience to be president.

WTF?

I'd be ecstatic if they'd just stop lying

NT

Did he get form being a general that makes him qualified to be president?

Commander in chief? Yes I suppose in a military dictatorship or in a third world country run by military juntas but in America?
It was intended by the founding fathers that the executive branch of government was to be civilian. If they would have thought it important they could just as easily made the highest-ranking general president. Checks and balances are important to a free country.

And in fact they did. His name was George Washington Commanding General of the Army of United States of America. Out of forty three Presidents at least a third have been Generals.

But George Washington was a farmer. He was only a general for a few years not a whole lifetime. He was not a career military man, and had may other experiences to draw on.

Continental Army?

His experience in the Militia!

G. Washington may have only been a General for 7 years, but he had long term military service before he ever made General.

army during colonial times, and served during the French and Indian War. He was busted down from major when he managed to piss off the entire Iroquois nation and send them over to the French side.

Farming seemed like a good idea after that.

He was a Rhodes Schoalar who studied and taught economics and that could be all the practical experience America needs

He is retired and holds no current military position. For what that's worth to you.

Frankly, I think we have too many lawyers in government right now! I'd much rather elect a farmer or a doctor.

Why are so many at DU anti-military? It really seems to push a lot of buttons out there. Do they think the colonists gained independence via active non-violence or civil disobedience?

I'll talk specifically from Clark's experiences in the military.

Obviously, knowledge of defense issues.
He's been a senior member of a peace treaty negotiation team (Dayton)
He's worked at OMB, he's had to draw up federal budgets.
He's already worked in the White House.
He's served as the Joint Chiefs' point man for cong. relations.
He's had to run a large staff.
He's had to work with representatives of other nations.
Taught economics.

As to the intentions of our founding fathers, they passed over a number of men of superior political thought and experience to choose the Continental Army's top general to preside over the Constitutional Convention, and then chose him unanimously to become the first president.

Clark's experience is certainly different than that of most politicians, but not entirely out of the ordinary. 10 of our 43 presidents were generals.

In this case, it won't wash; we can worry about something else.