John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is spectacularly irresponsible. No sane person could believe that she is equipped to be President of the United States at the present time.

If John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as for the backup position is "spectacularly irresponsible" because of her inexperience, what exactly do you call the Dem Party's nomination and your support of Barack Obama for the top job with even less experience?

I will take Mrs. Palin's seven years of government executive experience plus private executive experience running a commercial fishing business as compared against Mr. Obama's zero executive experience and largely absentee legislative experience any day and twice on Saturday.

As a supporter of Mr. Obama, you do not even want to go there.

Perhaps your time would be better spent arguing that the Constitution is defective for allowing voters to act in a "spectacularly irresponsible" way in choosing someone with Mr. Obama's utter inexperience as President. I guess this entire democracy thing is "defective," huh?
 

The closest thing to something true in this ugly and sexist screed is this bit, which is only made true by wrenching it from context: "No sane person could believe that she is equipped to be President of the United States at this time." That, absent any context and any particular reference, is certainly true: no sane person could believe that she--or he--is equipped to be president. It's a job for which one cannot adequately prepare.

But of course we do have a president under our (defective, in Sandy's view) constitutional scheme, and we will elect a new president in November. And we have every four years a variety of insane people who insist that they are equipped for the job.

This year we have Barry Obama running for the Democrats, and Sandy supports him despite the obvious questions about Obama's sanity. So far as I can recall, Sandy has never questioned Obama's qualifications for the presidency. Sandy evidently believes that a law school education is the sort of thing that qualifies one for the presidency, and since Palin lacks it she's only minimally educated. For all this, Sandy has the gall to call Palin parochial! Sandy, get out of the law schools a bit, there are bright capable people all sorts of places. Sandy says that Palin doesn't have "any significant relevant experience in thinking about or responding to the great issues of the day." Since Sandy thinks that Obama has what Palin lacks, I can't help but think that Sandy is putting undue pressure on the meaning of "significant" and "relevant" and "experience" and "responding" and "great." At least, I have a hard time thinking that someone who had been in the Senate for only two years could, but for a lethal combination of insanity and megalomania, think himself to have "significant relevant experience" for the job. Now, to be fair, since that day Obama has had an infrastucture of advisers and staff to give him positions on a variety of issues, and the evidence suggests he's been a good student, as he was in law school. But Palin will now have the same--will that "experience" in "thinking about" the briefing books provided to her suffice? Or does she need a (D) after her name, or better, a penis?
 

One interpretation: This is the ultimate move in the steady march to dismantle and discredit and marginalize government itself. This is a move that says: Government is unimportant, so it makes absolutely no difference who is put in high positions. Of course the Fox News crowd is lining up behind this ...not simply because they are partisans, but rather because it is the boldest statement yet in the effort to discredit, dismantle and eliminate government itself.

- Gordon Silverstein
 

The easiest comparison is in the area of foreign affairs, one which, I hope we can agree, the Commander-in-Chief and Diplomat-in-Chief ought to have some understanding of. Obama has travelled extensively outside the United States. Palin has made two brief trips abroad. Obama lived for four years in Indonesia as a child. Palin has never lived anywhere outside of Alaska except for her university years in Idaho. Obama majored in Political Science with a focus on International Relations. Palin majored in journalism. Obama has spent four years in the US Senate where he has dealt in a variety of ways with foreign affairs, including sponsoring legislation. Palin has no experience whatever in foreign affairs and there is no evidence that she knows anything about the area. Obama wins hands down.

Another relevant aspect of experience is knowledge of how Washington works. Obama has been a Senator for four years. Palin has no Washington experience whatever. Again Obama wins hands down.

Yet another relevant aspect of experience is law. You don't have to be a lawyer to be President, but you need to know something about the law and the legal system, and a knowledge of constitutional law is particularly helpful. Obama is a lawyer and has taught constitutional law. Palin has no legal education whatever. Obama wins hands down.

From the limited information I can find on the Palin family fishing business, they appear to be actual fishermenThat is, they go out in a boat and catch fish which are then sold to a processing plant. They aren't the managers of a processing plant or owners of a fleet. That's a tough job, involving hard physical work and sometimes dangerous and frightening. I admire the people who do it, but it doesn't provide executive experience beyond possibly dealing with a few non-family crew members, keeping books, and paying taxes. It isn't like running a big company or a government agency.

In contrast, in addition to his campaign, Obama ran an urban development program for three years. That isn't on the scale of a government agency, but it is probably more closely comparable than running a fishing boat.

Palin does seem to have been an excellent mayor and to have cleaned up the state government. She appears to be honest and hardworking. But compared to Obama she has essentially no experience in or knowledge of several crucial areas.
 

I was interested to see that Professor Levinson entitled his post "Notes from our constitutional monarchy" - when this is precisely what the US Constitution is not.

In his seminal work, The English Constitution (1867), Walter Bagehot divided our institutions into the "dignified" and the "efficient" parts, and as Professor Levinson will well know, that is quite a useful analysis for most of the remaining constitutional monarchies in the world. Bagehot says that there are two parts to the English constitution:

"...first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population, - the dignified parts ... and next, the efficient parts, - those by which it, in fact, works and rules .... The dignified parts of government are those which bring it force, - which attact its motive power. ... the efficient parts only employ that power."

Bagehot approves the arrangement: "The brief description of the characteristic merit of the English Constitution is, that its dignified parts are very complicated and somewhat imposing, very old and rather venerable; while its efficient part, at least when in great and critical action, is decidedly simple and rather modern .... The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion of the executive and legislative powers [through Cabinet].

Interestingly, in his preface to the 1872 2nd Edition Bagehot said this:-

"In this essay I made many remarks on the American Constitution, in comparison with the English; and as to the American Constitution we have had a whole world of experience since I first wrote. My great object was to contrast the office of President as an executive officer and to compare it with that of a Prime Minister; and I devoted much space to showing that in one principal respect the English system is by far the best. The English Premier being appointed by the selection, and being removable at the pleasure, of the preponderant Legislative Assembly, is sure to be able to rely on that Assembly. If he wants legislation to aid his policy he can obtain that legislation; he can carry out that policy. But the American President has no similar security. He is elected in one way, at one time, and Congress (no matter which House) is elected in another way, at another time. The two have nothing to bind them together, and in matter of fact, they continually disagree.

This was written in the time of Mr. Lincoln, when Congress, the President, and all the North were united as one man in the war against the South. There was then no patent instance of mere disunion. But between the time when the essays were first written in the Fortnightly, and their subsequent junction into a book, Mr.Lincoln was assassinated, and Mr. Johnson, the Vice-President, became President, and so continued for nearly four years. At such a time the characteristic evils of the Presidential system were shown most conspicuously. The President and the Assembly, so far from being (as it is essential to good government that they should be) on terms of close union, were not on terms of common courtesy. So far from being capable of a continuous and concerted co-operation they were all the while trying to thwart one another."

Bagheot concluded:-

"The distinguishing quality of Parliamentary government is, that in each stage of a public transaction there is a discussion; that the public assist at this discussion; that it can, through Parliament, turn out an administration which is not doing as it likes, and can put in an administration which will do as it likes. But the characteristic of a Presidential government is, in a multitude of cases, that there is no such discussion; that when there is a discussion the fate of Government does not turn upon it, and, therefore, the people do not attend to it; that upon the whole the administration itself is pretty much doing as it likes, and neglecting as it likes, subject always to the check that it must not too much offend the mass of the nation. The nation commonly does not attend, but if by gigantic blunders you make it attend, it will remember it and turn you out when its time comes; it will show you that your power is short, and so on the instant weaken that power; it will make your present life in office unbearable and uncomfortable by the hundred modes in which a free people can, without ceasing, act upon the rulers which it elected yesterday, and will have to reject or re-elect to-morrow."

Were he alive, I wonder what Bagheot would conclude today. Certainly the Nixon Administration would fit the case of the last sentence quoted and, arguably, the Bush Administration also has come to the same pass.

Two more quotes from Bagheot on the US Constitution:-

"And lastly, the whole region of the very highest questions is withdrawn from the ordinary authorities of the State, and reserved for special authorities. The "Constitution" cannot be altered by any authorities within the Constitution, but only by authorities without it. Every alteration of it, however urgent or however trifling, must be sanctioned by a complicated proportion of States or legislatures. The consequence is that the most obvious evils cannot be quickly remedied; that the most absurd fictions must be framed to evade the plain sense of mischievous clauses; that a clumsy working and curious technicality mark the politics of a rough-and-ready people. The practical arguments and the legal disquisitions in America are often like those of trustees carrying out a misdrawn will--the sense of what they mean is good, but it can never be worked out fully or defended simply, so hampered is it by the old words of an old testament."

"The Americans now extol their institutions, and so defraud themselves of their due praise. But if they had not a genius for politics; if they had not a moderation in action singularly curious where superficial speech is so violent; if they had not a regard for law, such as no great people have yet evinced, and infinitely surpassing ours,--the multiplicity of authorities in the American Constitution would long ago have brought it to a bad end. Sensible shareholders, I have heard a shrewd attorney say, can work ANY deed of settlement; and so the men of Massachusetts could, I believe, work ANY Constitution.

[Footnote: Of course I am not speaking here of the South and South-East, as they now are. How any free government is to exist in
societies where so many bad elements are so much perturbed, I cannot imagine.]"

I suggest the observation in that footnote has certainly stood the test of time.

Like much in the US Constitution, the present procedure for nomination of the Vice President is illogical and undoubtedly defective - unless you work on the assumption that the election process will nullify an unwise choice by a presidential candidate.

I suspect few would dissent from the view that the choice of Senator Biden enhanced the Obama ticket. Likewise, I trust that the choice of Governor Palin will, for the majority of Americans, diminish the appeal of the McCain ticket.

There will, of course be the extreme right wing few who think otherwise. Bart wrote:-

I guess this entire democracy thing is "defective," huh?

Well, at least that's honest. It is a view commonly held by those of fascist disposition.

Back we come to Plato's "Guardians" who know what is good for us and will impose their will on the majority - be it the pro-life view of abortion, the Project for the New American Century, creationism, or whatever.
 

"No sane person could believe that she is equipped to be President of the United States at the present time."

I must say, the rapidly growing list of your positions which you're convinced only madmen could disagree with you about is somewhat disconcerting. You might consider that a conviction that most people around you are not merely mistaken, but mad, is not a good sign regarding your own mental health...
 

billposer:

Obama did almost nothing in his foreign relations subcommittee and has been running for President for much of his term.

Moreover, Obama did not run an urban development program. Rather, he convinced people to show up to meetings of the public housing bureaucracy to protest.

One does not learn how to be an executive at any level by occasionally showing up to vote in the Senate, obtaining a JD which he never used as a practicing lawyer or working as an adjunct con law professor.

Finally, who ever claimed that Obama ran his campaign? That is like claiming that the Rolling Stones run their tours. Plouffle and Axelrod run the campaign. Indeed, Axelrod has been instrumental in running most of Obama's campaigns.
 

Brett, WTF are you talking about? Can you cite an example? Or are you just talking out your ass? Don't make stuff up about me. I'm not the lousy candidate your party is running.

Bill, I'm not sure if you understand this, but your defense of Obama's "experience" isn't particularly helpful to him. Vacationing abroad and studying IR as an undergrad 25 years ago aren't particularly relevant to an understanding of the foreign policy issues we face. Obama was elected to the Senate, but that's no more a qualification for the presidency than winning the Democratic nomination is--it's an election. See Sandy's thoughts for the difference between a qualification and the results of an election.
 

In recent weeks Ms Palin questioned exactly what a Vice President does and said the job doesn’t seem meaningful. Former Vice-President John Nance Garner said the Vice Presidency wasn’t worth “a pitcher of warm spit.” Others argue that it’s the depth and breadth of experience of the person at the top of the ticket that matters. All of these seem to trivialize the importance of the Vice Presidency. The argument that the VP is just a heartbeat away from being the Commander-In-Chief is no exaggeration. We’ve had 43 Presidents in our 200-plus year history. Nine of the 43 were sitting Vice Presidents who got the top job through the death or, in the case of Gerald Ford, resignation of the President. A 9 in 43 probability is not exactly trivial. Granted, there have only been two Presidents who didn’t complete their terms during my lifetime (Kennedy and Nixon), and diseases like cholera and pleurisy aren’t the threats they were back in the 1800’s when they claimed Presidents Harrison and Taylor, but with an American male having an average life expectancy of about 75 years and Senator McCain now over the 72 year mark, the possibility of Ms Palin ascending to the Presidency is not just fanciful speculation.

It is not her experience as a Governor that raises questions about her qualifications: the highest office 4 of the last 5 Presidents held before moving to the Oval Office was Governor. Ms Palin took the oath of office in December 2006, just 20 months ago, and before that she was Mayor of a small town. There has been no reporting on what, if anything, she has done to prepare herself to potentially be one heartbeat away from the highest office in the free world. Generally, candidates at this level who lack real world experience in foreign affairs, national defense, and the scores of intricate issues a President faces spend many months, if not years, in in-depth preparation for the job. It appears at this point that she lacks the in-depth real world experience of Senators McCain and Biden, and the limited real world experience and in-depth preparation of Senator Obama. Perhaps the breadth and depth of her knowledge on the challenging issues we face will become more apparent in the days ahead and prove she is ready to take the reins as Commander-In-Chief, if required to do so, on Inauguration Day in 143 days.
 

Now who was it who said the Vice-Presidency isn't worth a bucket of spit? Maybe McCain was influenced by this. George Will likes this choice? Wonder why?
 

Now who was it who said the Vice-Presidency isn't worth a bucket of spit?

As Col. Davis noted, it was John Nance Garner. What he actually said was that the office wasn't worth a bucket of warm piss. It got cleaned up when reported.

Brett, WTF are you talking about? Can you cite an example? Or are you just talking out your ass? Don't make stuff up about me. I'm not the lousy candidate your party is running.

Brett was referring to Prof. Levinson, not to you.
 

"Brett was referring to Prof. Levinson, not to you."

Would have thought that was obvious. The good professor is getting increasingly shrill, a common problem among people who are absolutely convinced that they're not just right, but obviously so, about something they regard as remarkably important, and get the fact that most people don't agree with them rubbed in their faces. It's a nasty downward spiral: The louder you scream, the less they listen, and the more you scream.

In short, Prof, you're devolving into a crank.

I might note that cranks aren't necessarily wrong about their obsession. Crankdom isn't defined by being wrong about a subject, it's defined by a particularly destructive approach to communicating with other people.

You have my sympathy; I also hold a number of views, which I think obviously right, but which are not widely shared: I'm an anarchist and a cryonicist. (Though I had to suspend my membership with Alcor for financial reasons.)

The temptation to become a crank is ever-present for people who hold marginal views. It must, however, be fought.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The Palin pick may turn out to have been a bad idea, but at least it lets us enjoy the spectacle of Obama supporters, many of whom are raging credentialists by natural inclination, try to explain why Palin is obviously unqualified, while Obama is not. Professor Levinson, in all fairness, has acknowledged in the past some level of discomfort with Obama’s qualifications so I guess it is not surprising that he has come out with a particularly over the top assessment of Palin’s. This assessment, which I am sure was reached only after many minutes of careful study on the internet, is this: Palin is a small-town hick and former beauty pageant contestant who obviously should be a hairdresser or, at best, the manager of a local Wal-Mart, not the Republican candidate for VP.

But how to express this view without tarnishing Obama’s already thin resume? Some try to make fine distinctions about the amount of time Obama has been in the U.S. Senate (44 months) versus the amount of time Palin has been Governor (only 20 months). Of course, this ignores the fact that most, if not all, of Obama’s time in the Senate has been spent running for president. As Obama himself said in 2004: “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there’s some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people.”

To his credit, Professor Levinson does not try to nit-pick the differences between Obama’s and Palin’s resumes. Instead, he goes right to the core of the issue.

Palin is “minimally educated.” Obama went to Harvard Law School. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, did you hear? While he had the awesome responsibility of editing dozens of articles written by future law professors and big firm partners, Palin was probably struggling to learn the plays for the girl’s basketball team at some God-forsaken public high school in flyover country. Between the time she spent playing basketball, fishing, hunting, cooking moose pie, and, lets not forget, doing beauty pageant stuff, it would be a wonder if she learned how to spell her own name. I bet her college application (to the University of Idaho!) resembled a butch version of Reese Witherspoon's video in “Legally Blonde.”

Proposed constitutional amendment: No person shall be eligible to the Office of President who shall not have attained a post-graduate degree from a top tier academic institution as determined by U.S. News and World Report or its successor.

Palin is “without any significant relevant experience in thinking about or responding to the great issues of the day.” Obama has been required to do this since at least early 2007 when he declared his candidacy for president. Every morning when he gets up, he has to turn on CNN, MSNBC and Fox to find out what the great issues are for that day. Since these issues often involve something Obama has said, or something Obama may or may not have heard in church, or someone Obama may or may not be close friends with, it is obvious that he has spent a lot more time thinking about and responding to them has Palin, who presumably has been busy with frivolities like giving birth and running the State of Alaska.

Proposed constitutional amendment: No person shall be eligible to the Office of President who shall not have significant relevant experience in thinking about and responding to the great issues of the day, as determined by the number of appearances on major cable news networks, Sunday morning talk shows, and Larry King.

Palin is “incredibly parochial.” Obama has a Kenyan father, grew up in Indonesia, went to high school in Hawaii, and spent most of his adult life in a small hereditary monarchy ruled by the Daley family. Thus, his background is very international and exotic, unless being international and exotic is a bad thing, in which case Obama is all-American and anyone who suggests to the contrary is a narrow-minded bigot. Palin grew up in Idaho (think white supremacists) and moved to Alaska (think tough white people of all kinds). She is all-American in a bad way, and anyone who suggests to the contrary is a narrow-minded bigot.

Proposed constitutional amendment: No person shall be eligible to the Office of President who is a natural born citizen, or who has been fourteen years a resident within the United States, unless said person has (a) spent his or her junior year abroad, (b) speaks at least one foreign language or (c) has at least one brother or sister in a foreign country. For purposes of this amendment, Canada shall be deemed to be one of the United States.
 

I think the whole debate on "qualifications" is misguided. That applies to both sides.

The reason I say that is that everyone is too narrowly focused on the sort of formal qualifications that might constitute line items on a resume: went to X university; held such and such an office for Y many years; etc.

These, I suggest, are not the only "qualifications" for President, and they certainly are not the only ones the American people look at. Let's break this down.

Right now, today, the 6 most formally qualified people for the office of President are Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Dick Cheney, and Al Gore. Now maybe Clinton or Gore could get a majority vote from Americans today (though if they were running, I guarantee you'd never hear a word from Republicans about "qualifications"). But not one of these men is really what the electorate is looking for today, their "qualifications" notwithstanding.

Now consider what the American people actually do when faced with the choice. If formal qualifications were the most important consideration -- and actually being President is obviously the best such qualification -- Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson would not have been elected President.

The reason for this is simple: the American people are not such fools as to limit their decision to the candidates' formal qualifications. Yes, they want the candidates to meet some reasonable minimum. But what they really want is the opportunity to "interview" the candidate -- to see him (so far) perform in public so they can watch and gain confidence in his (so far) ability to handle the office. Similarly, few employers hire anyone based on a resume; they want an interview, and the higher the position, the more extensive the interview process. That's the only way they can judge things like policy proposals, temperment, judgment, and the myriad informal but far more important qualifications.

I'd suggest, in fact, that Lincoln -- the least formally qualified President we've ever had, and yet the greatest -- won election for exactly this reason. His extensive public appearances in the L-D debates, his speech at Cooper Union, and a great many other appearances allowed the people of that time the assurance that they could trust him.

Now, let's think about how this affects the candidates today. The presidential candidates go through a lenthy "interview" process because the long primary season demands that. By now, we've gotten a good handle on them, even Obama whom we've "known" for a much shorter period of time than McCain.

Vice-presidential candidates are a different matter. Their campaign time is limited to the period between the convention and the election. Most presidents therefore choose someone already well-known for VP; it provides a comfort level for the electorate. There doesn't need to be much, since the VP slot isn't all that important in making decisions, but it's something.

The choice of Biden falls into this category. The choice of Palin does not. She's unknown outside the state of Alaska except to a relatively small number of political junkies. That means she has a very short period of time to make an impression. Since it's the VP slot, this is of minor importance (see Dan Quayle), but perhaps more important because of McCain's age and health issues.

Does Palin meet the minimum for formal qualifications? I don't know, because there's no pre-existing list. I personally think it's borderline, but it's only one consideration among many, with the informal qualifications being far more important.

No, the real issue here is not whether Palin is formally qualified. The real issue is what her selection tells us about John McCain. Did he choose someone with strong formal qualifications so that we could nod our heads and approve? No. Did he have extensive personal experience with Palin, such that he could vouch for her to us? No. He basically went with his gut. That, in conjunction with what we already know about McCain, tells us he's likely to govern that way also.

Was there pandering involved in that "gut choice"? I think so, but not in the sense some people say. Some people say he's pandering to women. I don't think so. If he were pandering to women, he'd have picked one of the many female Republican office holders with far more extensive formal qualifications (Hutchinson, Dole, Snow, Whitman, Rice, et al.). Women aren't likely to see a less formally qualified choice as appealing to them, they're more likely to be insulted that better qualified candidates were (again) passed over in some weird form of affirmative action.

No, the real pandering is to the Republican base. Look around -- who's all excited about the choice? It's the extremists. They're the ones deluging the blogs and the talk shows with bizarre justifications for the pick. They're excited because she's one of them. That's their qualification, the only one they need.
 

Obama supporters, many of whom are raging credentialists by natural inclination

This certainly goes on the list as one of the silliest things said in this entire electoral cycle. If there's one thing Obama supporters have NOT done, it's harp on credentials. To the contrary, it's Obama's opponents (Hilary, other Dems, all the Republicans) who have denied his "credentials" for President. Obama's supporters have done their best to downplay this issue for good and obvious reasons.

How very Rovian of you to make this argument.
 

"If John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as for the backup position is "spectacularly irresponsible" because of her inexperience, what exactly do you call the Dem Party's nomination and your support of Barack Obama for the top job with even less experience?" -- Bart D.

After 18 months of campaigning, Obama's positions, temperament, and judgment have had more close scrutiny than just about anyone's in American history. The issue is not Palin per se so much as it is McCain vs. Obama and their judgment in who to propose as their replacements in the event of their deaths. One proposed a well known veteran, the other proposed an unknown tenderfoot. One chose conservatively, the other chose a news cycle bump. One chose to ensure the future of the country, the other chose to risk it.

That's really all there is to it.
 

"After 18 months of campaigning, Obama's positions, temperament, and judgment have had more close scrutiny than just about anyone's in American history."

I agree, he's been subject to a lot of close scrutiny. And the media embargo on the results of that scrutiny isn't going to hold up much longer...
 

"I will take Mrs. Palin's seven years of government executive experience plus private executive experience running a commercial fishing business as compared against Mr. Obama's zero executive experience and largely absentee legislative experience any day and twice on Saturday."

Um, then why isn't she running for president instead of McCain?

Look, I'm from a small town, and if anyone suggested that being mayor of St. Helens, Oregon was a qualification to be president, then I would pretty much cease to respect anything you said after that.

Does being student body president of San Jose State University give you more "executive experience" than John McCain?

Only in your world does 7 years in the Illinois state senate+ 4 years in the US senate+running a national campaign and actually thinking and articulating about issues of national importance pale in comparison to being a small town Alaska mayor.
 

Obama supporters, many of whom are raging credentialists by natural inclination

This certainly goes on the list as one of the silliest things said in this entire electoral cycle.


Mark- if I had said what you thought I said, I agree that it would be silly, but “one of the silliest things said in this entire electoral cycle?” I doubt it would even be one of the silliest things said on this thread.

What I was saying is that Obama supporters, who have been stifling their inner credentialist during this election cycle for precisely the reason you say, are now letting loose on Palin. The enjoyable part is watching them come up with reasons why the same arguments against Palin don’t also apply to Obama.

BTW, I agree with much of what you wrote in your post on qualifications. One implication of the difference between the McCain and Obama choices, though, is that McCain is much more likely than Obama to bring “real change” to Washington.
 

What MLS means by "bringing change to Washington" apparently means "putting Phil Gramm's policies on deregulation of banking into practice, operating the political wing of the White House with proteges of Karl Rove, throwing in the military every time it looks like it might work, and putting lobbyists in control of nearly everything else" -- that's the clear and unambiguous message from John McCain's campaign.

Wait! Isn't that the status quo under Bush?

Given MLS's obvious difficulties expressing himself coherently, I suggest that he not be taken seriously when he attempts to express the secret desires and inner feelings of the rest of us.
 

What I was saying is that Obama supporters, who have been stifling their inner credentialist during this election cycle for precisely the reason you say, are now letting loose on Palin. The enjoyable part is watching them come up with reasons why the same arguments against Palin don’t also apply to Obama.

I think even this, while closer, is still wrong. What Obama supporters have been doing is applying to Palin the same standards that were previously being applied to him. Let's be very clear about this: the credentialing argument did not start with Obama and he has avoided it as much as possible. It was Hilary first and McCain second who have harped on this issue. It's just flat out wrong to claim that Obama is somehow guilty either of starting this particular contest or of hypocrisy for engaging in it.

And btw, every party does this every time. Carter did it against Reagan, Nixon against Kennedy, etc. It's pretty standard stuff.
 

I don't disagree with Sandy that the VP office lacks a strong justification.

But commenting just on Palin -- how are we to make sense of her selection? Are candidates for national office generally selected or elected on their merits (such as educational merits)?

Not really. In our system, as Alan Ehrenhalt as argued, candidates select themselves. Then voters do the choosing. This means the most relevant consideration is whether McCain had good reason to think Palin would help his ticket relative to the alternatives. Today's NYT story makes a colorable case that he made a reasonable political decision.

Palin was not selected because she was "qualified" in the abstract sense of merit but because McCain thinks she can help win the election. That's the end of the story.

This doesn't mean we should ignore the question of merit. Notice the stark contrast with GWB's pick of Cheney. GWB picked Cheney not because of help in the general election but to help him run the government in a way that would not threaten GWB (because Cheney had no ambitions to be president). Obviously if McCain is elected, the Cheney scenario cannot recur. Palin's total lack of national experience means she would be no use as Cheney has but also no danger of her giving McCain unwelcome advice. Which is perhaps the way McCain wants it, something the press might be overlooking. It would be interesting to know McCain's opinion of Cheney as VP. Given their clash over the DTA, it probably isn't high.
 

In the interests of correctness, and to underscore Stephen's point, recall that Cheney picked Cheney.
 

Thomas,

If Obama's sole qualifications in the area of foreign affairs were vacationing abroad and studying International Relations 25 years ago, I would agree that he did not have strong credentials in foreign affairs. Even as it stands, I have to agree that his domestic background is much better than his foreign affairs background. However, I would make two points. First, his foreign affairs background is somewhat better than just the two factors that you mentioned. He did live in Indonesia as a child and he has had experience with foreign affairs in his four years as a Senator. He has, moreover, been required to think about foreign affairs and answer questions about it during his campaign. Second, the topic here is his experience in comparison to that of Sarah Palin. However weak Obama's foreign affairs background may be, it is still vastly superior to Palin's, since she has no background in the area whatsover.
 

An additional point with regard to Obama's foreign affairs experience is that the year following his graduation from college he was a research associate at Business International Corporation, a company that assisted American businesses with overseas operations.
 

Bart,

Obama's work with the Developing Communities Project in Chicago involved more than rounding up protesters. His accomplishments included helping to set up a tenant's rights organization (what you were presumably referring to), setting up a job training program, and setting up a college preparatory tutoring program. During his tenure the staff grew from one to thirteen and the budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000.
 

Brett, my apologies.
 

Sandy, Great post if you are a 6th grade girl.
 

Don’t walk behind me; I may not lead. Don’t walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya