A potential weakness for Kerry: being a senator

In the presidential contest, there's one element about Kerry - even though I'm vying for him - that always nagged me. It's that as a senator, he never quite seemed, in my mind, to fit 100 percent with the Presidency.

I don't know if this has been covered. If so, forgive me. But looking at the history of the Presidency, only two senators have become Presidents: Warren G. Harding (1920), and John F. Kennedy (1960). The other senators or members of Congress who became Presidents did so after serving as Vice President (Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, to name only a few).

In your view, could this precedent hurt Kerry? Would the Democratic party have been better off nominating a governor?

It can be a bit harmful because of one's senate records being to badly scrutinized, while to me it seems that a govenor would be less scrutinized about his previous policies, and more on his policies should he be elected.

Senators are legislators. Governors are managers and administrators. Senators argue with other Senators and do not have to make quick decisions with immediate far reaching consequences while Governors (and Presidents) do. Governors delegate and initiate action. Senators consider and float ideas.

Bottom Line, the qualities that make a good Senator probably aren't the same ones that make a good President.

Look at history, everytime we elect a legislator for president they die in office. Just something to think about. With that said, society being divided, the level of fanaticism rises. Which ever way the election goes, the Secret Service has their hands full.