The Colvin Report: Is The Senate A Proper Training Ground For A President?

Senators very seldom win Presidential elections.

In fact, only two sitting senators have ever been elected president. (1) John F. Kennedy, who ran against then Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1960, and (2) Warren G. Harding, an Ohio Republican who beat the Democratic governor from his home state to win the 1920 election.

This year, we have no choice, McCain, Obama, and Clinton are all sitting senators. But, does this position give the leadership and experience needed to become President of the United States?

To put things in perspective, a U.S. senator has 43 Staffers, while a Manager of Walmart Supercenter has 450 or more employees.

Is two (Obama) or six (Clinton) years of having 43 staffers under your control really enough experience to run a nation of 300 million people?

At least with McCain he has vast military (retired a Captain) and 25+ years of political experience, but does that help or hurt him? With McCain's 20+ years in the Senate he has built up a track record. Seems like a good thing at first, except that as a Forbes article points out:

"They often appear to flip-flop on issues, or will vote against a slightly different version of a bill. Other times, a senator will vote for a bill simply because there is an amendment attached that would be favorable to his or her constituents.

This amounts to a field day for opposition research teams: Few things are easier to twist in a 30-second campaign spot than a Senate voting record."

What will be the deciding factor?