I read a post written by Hagbard in another thread, McCain or Obama? Obama or McCain? and it started me thinking...

Here's the pertinent, thought inspiring portion of his post:

Quote Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine View Post
...I also agree that Obama isn't really qualified. It's always better imo if presidents have had military experience--it just seems natural. But keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln and FDR--two of the nation's most respected wartime leaders ever--had no military experience, so that's not really an issue with me. However, it is one of McCain's strengths...
As I said, it started me thinking, is anyone ever truly qualified for the office of the President? If you consider all that is expected of the President, the decisions he or she must make, the policies they must push, the interaction they must have with people they may not like, how can one prepare for the job? Considering the unexpected crises, both domestic and foreign, they may be confronted with, how does one prepare? The job is essentially a 24/7/365 position for a minimum of four years. Even when they go on "vacation" they're not really on vacation. They are the face of our nation, anything that goes wrong is their fault, the pressure must be immense.

Hag says that he believes military experience is a plus, and I understand that sentiment on a certain level. Those who have served and seek the office tend to have had experience leading men, giving orders, and dealing with adverse situations. Yet I wonder, during peacetime does that really matter?

Sure, the mere fact that a candidate/President has served honorably should garner him or her some extra respect points, and respect for the man or woman in the office is important, but is military experience really that important?

It seems to me that the best training for the job comes from being Vice President.

I almost feel as holding the job is how one becomes qualified.

So I ask you:

Can a person ever, truly be qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States?