I don't understand what your criticisim is here. he's spending the same time as hillary or mccain, his is only a high percentage because of the time he's been in the senate. we know he hasn't been a senator long, if you want to criticize that fine, but criticizing what percentage of his time has been spent on this campaign is silly because its just another way of saying he hasn't been a senator for a long time. which really isn't a criticism because longer term senators don't become presidents
Is this the team that has horribly mismanaged campaign funds, owes money to small businesses across the US, and has had several changes of leadership in the last several months?
That post was a criticism toward the comparison. I was pointing out that this fact weakens the validity of this comparison.
