Republicans have experience at the top of the ticket. That's where it really needs to be.

But, if you must look at Palin's experience: Even if it is thin, it's still more than Biden or Obama. She has 20 months' more as a government executive than either of them. She runs a state that borders Russia. She's negotiated one international treaty, a gas pipeline with Canada... and Biden, in his long and dreary career, has negotiated NONE.

Here's the truth: Experience does matter, and no Republican is pretending otherwise. Because the Republicans have it. McCain and Palin both (or each independently) have more experience relevant to the Presidency than either Biden or Obama. Biden-Obama remain dangerously inexperienced.

I love it when Libs point to Biden when speaking of experience. Experience in what? Managing to get elected every six years? This guy has accomplished virtually nothing except bore the American people with his long winded speeches and self importance.

"She's negotiated one international treaty, a gas pipeline with Canada."

Nope. Governors don't negotiate treaties. It was a license. Boy, that's a great example, confusing a construction license with an international treaty.

As Barack Obama could explain, having taught constitutional law, a governor cannot legally sign a treaty.

The problem with the 'executive experience" argument is that McCain doesn't have any either. How can you put someone like that at the top of the ticket? It may be the only argument you have, but it doesn't work.

You're right that the wrong word flew out of my fingers as I typed. The point remains: BIDEN HAS NO FORMAL DIPLOMATIC EXPERIENCE. As thin as Palin's resume is - and it is uncomfortably thin - it is *still* thicker than either Obama's or Biden's.

So, no... the Republicans haven't given up on experience. That's what Kinsley got wrong. McCain and Palin are still both more qualified, in things relevant to the Presidency, than either Obama or Biden.

Sorry, but McCain has executive experience as a Navy officer. He retired with the rank of Captain. It isn't the same as being Governor of a State, but again, it's still more relevant to the Presidency (for example, the C-in-C role) than anything possessed by either Biden or Obama.

Unfortunately, you all forget that "experience" was never the Democratic attack line -- if you listen to the Obama-Biden strategy even now, they're not talking about experience. It was the REPUBLICAN criticism about Obama. And if you choose to take acid and believe that Palin has more experience than Obama because she was the governor of a state with a fraction of the population of Chicago, that's your self-deluded and intellectually dishonest choice. But even if you concede that Obama and Palin are in the same strata of experience (i.e., they're both up-and-coming), McCain still took his chief and most effective criticism of Obama off the table -- that he's not ready to be President. The McCain campaign just exploded its own story. How incredibly, incredibly stupid.

"you all forget that 'experience' was never the Democratic attack line" - Um, it sure is now :-)

Fact: As Governor of a State, Palin has more relevant experience than Obama. Thin as her resume is, she is still more qualified for the Presidency than Obama. Get over it. You'll have to change the conversation to something else, if you want Obama to win.

And no, Republicans *are not* saying experience is unimportant now. Nothing's changed. Experience remains important. Obama and Biden remain dangerously inexperienced.

To put it another way: Palin may be kind of inexperienced - but whatever she is, she is still a little better, in that area, than either Biden or Obama. "Experience" remains a Republican asset, or a conversation where the Democrats will not win.

"Fact: As Governor of a State, Palin has more relevant experience than Obama."

Sorry my friend, but that is what you call an opinion.

"The problem with the 'executive experience" argument is that McCain doesn't have any either. How can you put someone like that at the top of the ticket? It may be the only argument you have, but it doesn't work."

This is laughable if pushed as a logical argument. McCain is matched up against Obama in the Executive column. And Obama does not even compare in a match up of that.

Furthermore, anythime a Obama supporter wants to knock Palin's experience to the #2 position - by default brings scrutiny to Obama, that justifies his #1 position credentials.

In addition there is only like an apx 16.5% chance of Palin having to take over, and that would be later in term (statistically speaking) vs a 100% guarentee that Obama (with less executive experience than Palin) will take the helm at day one. - LOL

It is unbelivable that some people will try to push such flawed arguments, and expect others' to agree with them. Sadly, some do.

tjmmz9843 wrote the following post at 08/31/2008 3:42 PM: To put it another way: Palin may be kind of inexperienced - but whatever she is, she is still a little better, in that area, than either Biden or Obama. "Experience" remains a Republican asset, or a conversation where the Democrats will not win.

This is why the Republican convention just pulled the "Not Ready '08" tagline from the proceedings. Because they are extremely confident now with Palin on the ticket. Is that right? As I said (since you didn't seem to read it the first time), Dems would love to stop talking about experience (regardless of what you read in blogs and the Fray). And McCain just helped them do that. Stupid, and desperate.

And please keep bringing Biden into this. I hope the pundits actually try your angle that Palin is not only more experienced than Obama, but also Biden. That would be so awesome, better than anything on television.

I give up. If you can't see why it is silly to use the "executive experience" argument when it cuts against your own presidential candidate, what more can I say?

Republicans, conveniently, forget that Obama had eight years in the Illinois legislature behind him before he became the Junior Senator. You can argue that this isn't the same as being the Governor, but then I would note that Obama was a hell of a lot more hands-on as a legislator than Palin has been as a Governor (she picked a good cabinet and leaves most of the actual work to them, apparently). Also, being an Illinois legislator is no doubt a lot more complicated than being an Alaska governor, given the fact that most of Alaska is run by the federal government . . .