Some food for thought on presidential "qualifications"

Who would you rather have as your President?

a) A seasoned and highly respected politician who has been regarded as a hero in many circles for serving valiantly in an unpopular war decades ago. In addition to descending from a politically influential family, this man has served close to two decades in the Senate and even more time in Washington, and has effective working relationships with political leaders of both major parties. He is considered highly qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief during a period of great turmoil.

b) A relative newcomer to the national scene, with most of his prior professional experience arising from work in the Illinois state legislature and a stint as a private sector attorney. He has come to be renowned for his oratory prowess but is largely untested in matters of policy. Indeed, perhaps his most salient claim to fame is a speech he gave a couple years ago upon accepting his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate. Although he has the potential to enrich the national discourse and campaigns on the necessity for national unity, he is also lambasting a failed status quo and thus firing up supporters of change.

If you picked Politician A, congratulations. You just elected James Buchanan, widely considered one of the worst presidents ever, over Abraham Lincoln, his successor.

Lincoln's "speech he gave a couple years ago":

'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Remind you of anything? (hint: see the post immediately below this one)