Would a governor of Arkansas or Alaska make more sense as a president?

Question

Alaska is a huge state with surely its own set of unique challenges due to its location, isolation, etc.. It is a key producer of American energy. Arkansas is a small state in the American southeast that it is really not known for anything unique. Perhaps rice production and government school systems that rank it near the bottom.

If you had to choose a president who was governor of one of those states, neither one having foreign policy experience beforehand, which one would you choose?

Answer 1

If elections are about oil then an Alskan rep 'might' be useful, but it's better to have someone who represents broader interests than oil.

Answer 2

We have seen what a governor of arkansas can do, god help us, so I think an alaskan would be tougher and more capable.

Answer 3

The governor of neither state is running for president.  M'Kay?

Answer 4

We have already had a president that was an Arkansas Governor, and most people think he did a pretty good job. The economy sure was better during his tenure, that is for sure.

And a VERY important thing to remember about the Governor from Alaska--she is NOT running for president.  

Answer 5

I'd pick the guy from Arkansas.  He can actually win over a crowd.

Answer 6

Arkansas- we had one from there and he was extremely successful.  

Answer 7

Alaska, the South can never seem to get stuff right. (e.g. the Civil War)

Answer 8

Alaska may be somewhat large geographically, but it is the smallest populated state in the union.

Answer 9

Alaska we had one from Arkansas his name was Bill Clinton and he was horrible

Answer 10

Do you think McCain would be running for president if he had never been a POW?  Do you think he had any chance to get into the Senate?

Of course not.

So, since he has nothing else going for him, why is he here?