tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post4862177948050932515..comments2008-05-22T10:33:37.757-07:00David Braybrookehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04874482146872731484noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post-64992505036423088792008-05-20T08:34:00.000-07:002008-05-20T08:34:00.000-07:00The proposition that Presidential candidates demonstrate their judgment when they pick advisors does not seem to address the tension in the experience/judgment debate. Should we say that a candidate with more experience at picking assistants and advisors will make a better president, a al Bush and Romney? Or, are we to say that judgment on these matters is indpendent of experience, or at least extensive experience, which would allow someone to still support Obama even though he lacks such experience? How would potential voters use this information to help them in their decisions? How would having a list of cabinet appointments for Clinton prior to the election help me evaluate her unless I already knew all there was to know about the potential cabinet official and the post s/he was nominated to fill? Can one even possess such knowledge? It seems that one does not have to move much beyond the Republic to begin the investigation. But to resolve it perhaps we do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com