If Sarah Palin Doesn’t Have Enough Experience To Be VP, How Does Obama Have Enough To Be President?
Upon the surprising news yesterday that McCain was picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be on his ticket the immediate talking point from the left, emanating specifically from the Obama campaign, was that Palin was too inexperienced. After all, according to the left, wasn’t Palin just a small town mayor a few years ago?
Well now the liberals, including Obama himself, have figured out that bashing a VP pick as “too inexperienced” might not be a good idea when your Presidential nominee is a Senator who hasn’t even completed one term yet.
Obama doesn’t want to go too far down that road.
[Obama] spokesman, Bill Burton, issued a statement suggesting Palin was too inexperienced to be vice president. “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” it said.
The McCain campaign quickly shot back that it was “audacious” for aides to the 47-year-old first-term Illinois senator to accuse Palin of inexperience.
Later in the day, Obama told reporters that the campaign’s early statement was “hair-trigger” and did not reflect his sentiments.
“I haven’t met her before. She seems like a compelling person. Obviously, a terrific story, personal story,” he said while touring a biodiesel plant in Monaca, Pennsylvania.
Obama is clearly going to leave the Palin-bashing to his surrogates, but riddle me this: If Palin is too inexperienced to be VP, how in the world is Obama experienced enough to be President?
What experiences has Obama had that make him more qualified to run the country than Palin? The liberals seem bent out of shape about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, but what has he done in that regard that makes him such a better candidate than Palin? Time and again squirming liberals who are pressed to name Obama’s major accomplishments tell us about his having presided over the Harvard Law Review and having worked as a “community organizer” (whatever that is). Comparing those “accomplishments” to Palin’s shows that she’s got a lot more under her belt than Obama.
Palin cut wasteful spending in the Alaska budget. She pushed through a natural gas pipeline that her predecessors in Alaska had been trying to get built for thirty years. She’s refused federal earmarks for her state when she felt they weren’t necessary saying that she didn’t think it was right for people in the “lower 48″ to pay for Alaskan projects. She’s fought to expand domestic drilling. She stood up to corrupt members of her own party (most notably Senator Ted Stevens). What has Obama done that rivals any of these?
He gave a good speech at the 2004 Democrat convention? He’s spent most of a partial Senate term campaigning for President?
Give me a break.
