C is for Cookie, but that's not good enough for me!

Well, to start with, if I called for the pick, I'm hardly toeing the party line-- rather seems like the party is toeing my line!

Let's begin, for the sake of comparison, by having a look at your words about Ms. Palin a month ago, when you most probably weren't too worried about McCain selecting her:

"Palin is young (44), conservative, and tough: three things that John McCain could use some of on his ticket. Her sky-high approval ratings in her homestate, and her image as a reformer, would also greatly boost McCain's argument. Her age, unlike Jindal's, isn't a great concern, but she's relatively inexperienced, and recently gave birth, making it unlikely she'll want to spend a great deal of time away from home."

Now that, for the most part, is some astute analysis. Admittedly, you did mention in passing that she's relatively inexperienced. Actually, rather to the contrary, she could be seen as inexperienced-- but NOT relative to Mr. Obama.


I'm surprised I have to defend her reputation as a reformer, since you yourself didn't seem to express any doubt in your analysis above. Nonetheless, she's clearly taken risks beyond fighting the former Governor, who, as you say, was unpopular. When you're interested in running for Governor, joining a Democrat in exposing the State GOP Chairman for corruption isn't always a great idea. Nor is resigning from the State Oil and Gas Commission because of rampant ethics violations by its leaders. (And Harry, that’s what I’m talking about when I say “energy experience”, too). The point about Ted Stevens is moot. As you say, no one could be certain he was corrupt in 2006-- the point is only that in a state with a clearly questionable history of political ethics, Sarah Palin has fought her own party-- at times, to her own political risk. She just happened to be vindicated every time.


Now to experience. How Democrats have the chutzpah (forgive the Yiddish, as well as the cheesy title of this post) to even bring up experience in this campaign is ridiculous, but anyway, you've made your point-- let me respond to it. Barack Obama has missed 54% of senate votes since April 2007. If you really expect me to count Senate years in which he hasn't even showed up half the time, that's ridiculous.If you had that kind of attendance record at Dalton... you'd be thrown out. He’s served in a serious capacity for one year—and so granted, he’s had a year’s more experience at the national level.


More to the point, now would be an appropriate time for a discussion about the difference between EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE experience. Despite the fact that Obama represented a few more people as a State Senator, he didn't have decision making authority. In other words, he didn't have any power without his fellow legislators. As a Mayor, Sarah Palin had CONTROL over a city-- and, it should be noted, used it very wisely; that’s how she rose politically so quickly. She hasn’t done anything with her experience? You don't get approval ratings of 90% by doing nothing-- and building oil pipelines, rescinding political appoitments made by a corrupt Governor, and creating the largest operating budget in the state's history generally helps.

I don’t think I need to delve into what categorizes legitimate political experience, but the argument that being a State Legislator (and, it should be noted, doing remarkably little to fight a famously corrupt Chicago/Illinois political machine) should count but being on a City Council shouldn’t strikes me as being a little weak.


The only reason this is all really important is because Gabe, you don’t get the cookie. In general, it’s about even in terms of experience. I think being a Governor gives one far more experience to be President than being a Senator (which is probably why 2008 will be the first time since 1960 a sitting Senator wins the Presidency). But regardless, it’s about even. The point is only that it’s ridiculous for someone whose owes his entire bid for the Presidency to a very good convention speech he gave to criticize anyone for having a lack of experience.


And the dumbest thing you could possibly have done was try and make a case against her using GOP quotes. Cause the Dems… ummm… haven’t always been such lovers of Mr. Obama. And not just random State leaders from Illinois… Since Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton seem to be the two people in fashion right now, so how about the latest offerings?

Hillary: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."


Biden: Have a look! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8


Gabe, you lose credibility when you start contradicting yourself the way you have just in your posts on this blog. You’ll notice I didn’t come here to hate on Biden, because he was a solid pick. I didn’t bring up the plagiarism thing (though I’m still not getting your “accidental” qualification), or the gaffes, or anything like that, because it was clear that he was a good pick.


There are a few good reasons not to like Palin—her flip-flop on the Bridge to Nowhere baffles me, and I’m not thrilled with this hockey mom nonsense. But when you’ve got a guy like Obama as the nominee, attacking anyone for a lack of experience is ludicrous.