From: "Gary Britt" 

True, but Clinton's experience was of a very minor state with a total
population less than that Houston, Texas alone and several other major
cities.

Clinton's experience was much more akin to that of being Mayor of a large
city, not governor.

Texas is what the top 3rd state in terms of size, population, diversity,
etc.  A MUCH different level of experience in executive management. 
Further Bush had substantial executive management experience in the private
sector which is very important for being a good President.  Clinton had no
private sector experience.

Gary

"Dave"  wrote in message
news:4hc8m0p2dksdcc47nc8q6kk087ej5461s2{at}4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:42:19 -0400, Richard B. 
> wrote in message :
>
> | >Actually, it is much less scary than the thought that W, with so
> | >little experience, was actually assuming the office in 2000.
> |
> | Governor of a state is quite a bit more difficult than rarely showing
> | up for work in the Senate.
>
> Clinton had twelve years experience as a governor, vs. Bush's four
> years.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5