All day on CNN.com I've seen commentary on why Sarah Palin is a mistake. I've also read attack after attack on her lack of experience. Are you serious?
Why would you even bring that up? I feel like telling the Democrats to "shush" and keep it quiet. The moment the Democrats attack her on her lack of experience, they can turn it back on Obama. Yes, she's a heartbeat away from being President. But, she's not running for President! On the other hand, Obama IS running for President. And he has less experience than she does!
She was elected into her City Council in 1992. He was elected for the first time to the State Senate in 1997. Five years later! She has five years more experience than he does! If Democrats claim that she doesn't have experience, he certainly does not!
And, if you want to discuss the quality of experience, you lose also. She has executive experience as a Mayor and a Governor. Obama has experience as a US Senator, but let's not forget that he voted "Present" in the Senate over 100 times (not making a decision on legislation one way or another) and that half of his time as Senator has been spent campaigning for President.
MEMO TO THE DEMOCRATS: DO NOT ATTACK SARAH PALIN ON EXPERIENCE!
If you want to chip away at her, go for her conservative stance on issues. Point out the differences and why you think she's wrong. Get Biden to run circles around her during the debates. But, do not attack her on experience. That's the wrong way to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think you're missing the point on this one. There have been some, albeit very few, attacks on Palin's inexperience aimed directly at her. Where the criticisms, and they are completely justified, are being centered at are towards John McCain.
Because let's be honest, this was a completely politically calculated pick. He's going after the large social conservative base (I pray they don't exploit her Down Syndrome child, but I'm not holding my breath) and the Hillary Clinton-PUMA's. That's really the only card she has to play.
It's certainly a legitimate point to bring up about Obama's experience versus Palin's, but there's two things you have to consider. First, Obama took down one of the biggest, strongest and most well organized political machines - the Clintons - this country has ever seen. He has shown that he can stand up to a political fight with just about anybody, and his recent trip to Europe shows the admiration he receives from the international community. In short, Obama has earned his position at the top of the ticket. Nobody picked or vetted him.
Second, if you listen to Obama speak you can tell that he understands foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with his views on Iraq or Afghanistan, he at least understands the particulars of what is going on. I dare you to read and listen to some of what Palin has said regarding Iraq lately. Here's a sample:
"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place."
And that was said less than a year ago.
And finally, and I didn't want to go here, but her pick as VP has to bring it front and center: McCain could be the oldest President of the United States. He will be 73 when he take the oath of office and he has a history of health problems. His own state of Arizona will not allow state Supreme Court justices to serve past 70, but that's another matter. And here is a guy who has said, repeatedly, that Obama is not ready to lead on day one, especially in these perilous times. Do you honestly think that Palin is ready to take the mantle should something happen to McCain? Compare that with, say, Joe Biden?
I don't think the Dems will make her inexperience a key issue, but they will question McCain's judgment in picking her. As they should. It's relevant point and it will, ultimately I feel, be McCain's undoing.
Obama has specifically said that he doesn't want to go after Palin. The new ad barely mentions her: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/30/first-obama-ad-on-palin-avoids-mentioning-her-at-all/#more-15505
But, I've seen Rahm Emanuel, Chuck Schumer, Paul Begala, James Carville, Barbara Boxer, and Jim Clyburn all go after her within the first 12 hours. Obama's people seemed to have called them off because there's been no mention of her experience today.
You should go after McCain. But also, I don't think you should go after his age. It's just not nice :)
Btw, have you signed up for Kickball?
It' not nice? I really hope that was a joke. McCain has insinuated that Obama doesn't love his country, and is more interested in winning an election that what's best for the United States. I don't think we should be comparing who's been nice.
And moreover, I think his age is a completely relevant issue. You cannot carry certain positions after a certain age, for instance, a commercial air pilot. John McCain is 73 years old and has a history of medical problems. And no, he can't trot out his mother to prove he has longevity.
I was willing to leave age alone, but since he has appointed his second-in-command someone who clearly does not fully grasp and understand the complexity of what is happening in the Middle East, I have to put his age front and center. At least with Lieberman you had someone who could whisper the correct facts in McCain's ear when he happened to have a senior moment and forget the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
Post a Comment