Well, didn't vote for him the first time, did the second as the lesser of two BSers.

Again, I want to trust the person in the office to actually do the job. Yes, at this moment I'm leaning (and that's all it is) to Sen. McCain because he has fulfilled his duties as a Senator, making the votes, participating in the tough debates, and all of the unglamourous parts of the job. The other two seemed only interested in getting the titles of Senator so they could use it as credential for a higher title.

If they won't do the job as Senator because they are "too busy," I have a hard time believing they want to be President to actually do the job. Again, it seems they have more of a concern to later say "look at me, I'm President!"

All of the salesmanship on the campaign trail doesn't stack up to the track record to date. Actions do speak louder than words, and skating out of your current job's responsibilities doesn't demonstrate that you'll honor the next job's responsibilities.

Intellect is one thing, but true commitment to the job is another. That tell's me who will take the time to study the analyses, meet constantly with the advisors, and burn the midnight oil to keep up with the requirements of the job. Acquisition of the trappings (e.g., Senator ___ as a title) while shirking the responsibilities is not what I want in an employee - and the President is one of my (and millions of others') employees.

How anyone can label Sen. McCain as a war-monger is puzzling? Is it because he is a combat veteran? or because his academics have included military science? Or is it because he is honest enough to state the obvious as to the effects of military commitment? No one is more cautious and wary of committing the military to anything than someone who has smelt the cordite and experienced the results firsthand. The difference between the theorist and pragmatist is usually personal experience.