Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Once more into the breach: The "experience" canard
Bret Stephens pretty much destroys the argument that Sarah Palin's experience is different in any material way from vice presidential nominees of yore, and he does so without once mentioning John Edwards (which must have taken great self-control). That is because he limits himself to nominees who were ultimately elected and then became president. Why, then, are there so few people on the left and in the media willing admit that Palin has experience equal to the requirements of history? Is it because she does not "seem" presidential? And why is that?
13 Comments:
By 
clint, at
Tue Sep 16, 07:56:00 AM:
It's the so-called "hypocrisy" of the experience issue that gets under their skin and drives them absolutely batty.
For over a year they've been listening to opponents -- first Hillary, then McCain -- calling their golden boy "inexperienced" and "unprepared". They didn't like it...
By 
, at
Tue Sep 16, 08:09:00 AM:
Palin doesn't seem presidential? How can we really judge that, though, since we've never had a woman President. The closest we can come is to look to other countries, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Benizar Bhutto, Corazon Aquino, Angela Merkel. I don't think Palin seems too terribly out of place in that line-up. At least it's possible to see her assuming a certain gravitas that's needed to be taken seriously in a high position without losing her likeability (which I'm not so sure that all those women ever really had that anyway).
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Sep 16, 09:40:00 AM:
Gibson is from Princeton? Oh the shame...
Realistically the only candidate in the race with elected Executive experience (both local and statewide) is the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, a strong woman who is not Hillary. And it drives the Dems nuts.
By , at
Tue Sep 16, 10:42:00 AM:
I would concede a small amount of hypocrisy has been displayed, but that's not what drives us batty. The issue is given her relative inexperience, particularly in regards to federal governance, we have so little time to judge her and determine whether she's really fit to carry around the keys to Armageddon. You might say Obama is inexperienced, but he has certainly not been afraid to debate, or be interviewed, questioned, probed, and press-conferenced to death. I believe Palin is a liar of the first order and her behavior and response to those who seek more information demonstrates she is hiding something.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 16, 11:07:00 AM:
"The issue is given her relative inexperience, particularly in regards to federal governance"
The exact same issue exists with Obama. And, lest we forget (again), she is not running for the Presidency. He is.
"response to those who seek more information demonstrates she is hiding something."
Oh, you mean those people who claimed that she faked her latest pregnancy to cover up an incestuous relationship between her eldest daughter and her husband?
Or the people that have mis-represented her words, even when challenged as to the accuracy of the representation?
How about the people who wrote many, many articles that were *published* within the week of her nomination that called her, among other things, a bimbo, a religious fanatic, and a dominatrix?
Then there's the latest one about how she sleeps with teenage boys.
I can't imagine why she'd be reticent to talk to those people.
"You might say Obama is inexperienced, but he has certainly not been afraid to debate, or be interviewed, questioned, probed, and press-conferenced to death."
But when was he ever accused of taking it up the ass from Michelle's strap on while his two daughters watched?
Or, perhaps, how he sacrifices neighbors' cats to dark gods in return for charisma?
Or does he have a strange hesitation to sit and chat with the media who have called him 'magic negro,' 'girly man,' and on Limbaugh's show, 'uppity douchebag.'
He must be [i]hiding[/i] something.
But no, the press treat him with kid gloves. They can bother to send people to dig up crap on Palin in Wasilla, Alaska, (pop. 9000) but can't be bothered to look into a known and long-term relationship between Obama and an unrepentant terrorist who revels in anti-Americanism.
No one knows if he's hiding something, because no one in the press seems to give enough of a shit to go looking.
The comparison is *not* apt.
By , at
Tue Sep 16, 12:12:00 PM:
Suppose McCain had nominated some other Republican with fairly social conservative views. Would they really have been treated much better?
To Dems and media, the R's are the locus of evil in the world. Any VP would have been savaged as much as possible.
Perhaps if McCain had nominated Hillary.....
By , at
Tue Sep 16, 12:45:00 PM:
If y'all are honest with yourselves (and each other), you'll admit that Rich Lowry's review at the NRO summed it up best:
But this was a merely adequate performance. The foreign-policy session was a white-knuckle affair. She barely got through it and showed no knowledge more than an inch deep.
The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can't imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities.
I hope she got up from the foreign policy session and said to her aides, "Dammit. That wasn't good enough and I'm not letting it happen again. I'm not going to allow myself to be so under-prepared for another high-profile interview again."
I understand how we all want to be protective of her—I feel the same impulse—but let's not be patronizing. I believe the truly pro-Palin position is to think she can, should, and will do better than this.
By clint, at
Tue Sep 16, 12:49:00 PM:
RPD-
Any choice would have resulted in attacks on McCain-Whoever.
But the lines of attack would have been different. You can see the prep work the Obama campaign and the MSM were doing in the weeks leading up to the pick...
Romney: Two Rich White Men!!! They just don't get it!!! "How many houses does he add to the ticket?"
Lieberman: Warmongers!!! with a side dish of anti-semitic neocon stuff. "Country first? Which country?"
Ridge: Bush III!!!!! Ridge would have been tarred with all of the Bush administration's record on anti-terrorism policies.
Honestly, a bunch of the anger was likely because they hadn't prepared a line of attack against Sarah Palin, thinking there was no chance McCain would pick her. (Because they thought it would take the Experience issue off the table.)
By SR, at
Tue Sep 16, 02:16:00 PM:
Sarah Palin could not have hit the bullseye better, Clint. Palin wasn't merely an interesting, bold choice by McCain, but rather she is the only choice that gives him a real chance to win.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Sep 16, 07:52:00 PM:
I've listened to the Palin/Gibson interview and I frankly DO NOT see where she demonstrated anywhere that she didn't know what "the Bush Doctrine" was. Since it was a multifaceted series of policy issues (and NOT a single policy as Gibson erroneously thought it was)she correctly inquired as to what aspect of it he was referring to.
I have referred in other blogs to Charles Krauthammer's rebuke of Gibson's demonstrated lack of understanding of the issue. Krauthammer should know as he coined the term "Bush Doctrine".
Now, of course, it is media history that Palin "didn't know"...the sort of self-serving, arrogant attitude that has pretty much destroyed the NYT subscriber list and the viewer ratings of the big three non cable news channels.
You know, one of the things about our founding fathers that many find appealing is the fact that they were actual working citizens who answered the call from their country to serve and did so with every intention of returning to their regular lives thereafter.
I find it troubling that Palin receives such media scorn for NOT being a career politician. It is interesting that that fact is EXACTLY what I find attractive about her...me and a whole lot of other people.
I think our country has a LOT more to gain from a leader with a fresh attitude than it does from a product of an Ivy league left wing think tank who has been preened for a political career...especially someone with actual core values and integrity...BOY, that would really be refreshing!
By , at
Wed Sep 17, 03:05:00 AM:
What I'd draw from the article is that anyone with an ounce of brains knows that only a fool bets real money at craps, even though the bettor wins sometimes. Calling Silent Cal a winning bet is pushing things a little though.
So if inexperience is attractive to you, go ahead and tell voters that your game is craps, and they should roll with you.
(BTW, I'd agree this applies somewhat to Obama as well, despite him having ten years of state/federal experience v. Palin's five years of state experience (giving her credit for Oil Commission time).)
By JPMcT, at
Wed Sep 17, 07:20:00 AM:
Brian, Obama's "ten years" experience may look good on the CV, but not when one looks at the job descriptions. Take away his advisors and his teleprompter and all that is left is a suit and a wire hanger.
To quote Jesse Jackson, all he ever ran was his mouth.
I do agree with you on the crapshoot mentality.
By , at
Wed Sep 17, 10:00:00 AM:
No matter how much experience Palin had, it would not be enough because she is a woman; no matter how little experience Obama has, it doesn't matter because he is black.
