Obama has three years of US Senatorial experience

Did I miss the special election held in 2005 for Illinois senator? No. Obama has held office exactly as long as Palin: 8 years in the minors (she was a mayor), 2 in the majors. Both had lower level community positions before those.

a state that has almost 20x the population of Alaska

I fail to see how this matters.
solid academic background which proves he is no intellectual lightweight

This matters only to intellectuals -- who largely are already in the tank for Obama. Palin has a solid record of personal achievement -- which will matter to PUMAs, who aren't.

he proved himself by running a brilliant campaign to win the nomination

Please. He ran an OK campaign which greatly benefited from him being the other minority in a lackluster field, and from having no record to speak of to prevent him from being the progressive Left's darling. Had South Carolina's primary come even a week later, we'd be talking about the Clinton-McCain race.

if she becomes VP she will be one heart attack away from being President.

Fortunately, the man who would need to have that heart attack looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators -- and winning.

Did I miss the special election held in 2005 for Illinois senator? No. Obama has held office exactly as long as Palin: 8 years in the minors (she was a mayor), 2 in the majors. Both had lower level community positions before those.

Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 and came into office on January 4th 2005, so he actually has almost four years of Senatorial experience, but I didn't want to overstate my case.  Palin was elected in 2006 and came into office on December 4th, 2006, so she has a few months less than two years experience.  It's also laughable to compare Palin's experience as a Mayor of a town of 9,000 with Obama's experience as a representative for an Illinois state congressional district of over 650,000.  My hometown growing up had 12,000 people, and it's a rinky-dink rural town.  It's current mayor is a college student.  Being mayor of a small rural town doesn't count for squat in terms of experience.

a state that has almost 20x the population of Alaska. I fail to see how this matters.

Then you either haven't thought it through or you're being disingenuous.  Let me put in it business terms, since that may make more sense to you.  If you were hiring someone to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, and you had two candidates, one who was the executive of a small company employing 1000 people, and one who had been the CFO of a Fortune 500 firm but didn't  have executive experience, which would you consider the stronger candidate?

Fortunately, the man who would need to have that heart attack looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators -- and winning.

Gene Upshaw looked like he could wrestle alligators too, right up until about three days before he died.  There's no guarantee McCain won't live another eight years, but the odds are definitely against.  Age catches up to you, no matter how careful you are or how good your conditioning is.

Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 and came into office on January 4th 2005, so he actually has almost four years of Senatorial experience

You're right. Sorry about that.

It's also laughable to compare Palin's experience as a Mayor of a town of 9,000 with Obama's experience as a representative for an Illinois state congressional district of over 650,000.

As do I; being one in a herd of 60 state legislators (especially in clout-heavy Illinois) is nothing like being the primary leader. Palin has 10 years of executive experience; Obama, none.

If you were hiring someone to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, and you had two candidates

I would look at their records. In this case, Obama's experience is largely unexceptional, with what few initiatives he did champion leaving a legacy of failure. The welfare homes he stood behind are a disaster area. The school program he worked on with Ayers, useless. I'd say Palin looks pretty good in comparison.

Then you either haven't thought it through or you're being disingenuous.

You must be new here.

looks like he spends his free time wrestling alligators

Yes, those melanoma scars on his face are worrisome.  I'm surprised you brought them up.

I haven't read much about Palin, but the first thing I thought when I heard the news of McCain's pick was... ALASKA???? Wha?

It's like this whole election is about candidates who represent very separate and bizarre American demographics. No one gives you that "status quo" feeling that you sorta got from Bill Clinton and the two Bush presidents. With Bill Clinton, you had the standard Southern white guy "alpha male" thing going on. Same with the two Bush Presidents. And those two had the Big Business background which is common in politics. But none of the candidates we have today have any of that going for them, from what I can tell.

 You got McCain, the old white guy war veteran, who represents some kinda 1950s/1960s attitude. He seems so behind the times and disconnected from the year 2008. And he doesn't seem to have any big business background at all, having left the military and entering politics immediately after wards. He seems like a guy who should be running for President in the 1980s while the movie Red Dawn was in theaters.

We had Hillary Clinton there for a bit. No big business background, no "alpha male" feeling obviously, and her personal background had a very "corrupt post-modern America" feeling to it, thanks to the Lewinsky scandal, the rise and fall of feminism, and so forth. I would've voted for her if it weren't for her initial support for the Iraq war, but she didn't have that American Hero image attached to her, that's for sure.

And now we have Palin, who is from Alaska of all places. The only place that feels less "American" than Alaska but is still technically American is Puerto Rico. Her resume seems stronger than Obama's, but the state she governed seems so disconnected from the realities of the mainland that she feels out of place as well. No big business background here, either.

Ironically, the guy who seems to be most in touch with mainstream America is a a black guy who's middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with America's arch enemy. No business background here.

Pretty interesting election, especially as it seems totally devoid of people with "capitalist hero" subtitles.

And now we have Palin, who is from Alaska of all places. The only place that feels less "American" than Alaska but is still technically American is Puerto Rico.

It produces a metric buttload of oil, which is important for the future. Self reliance, breaking addiction to foreign oil and all. Plus, Alaska is probably the one great frontier left on this nation's soil. What could be more American than that?

It produces a metric buttload of oil, which is important for the future.

T. Boone Pickens has it right.  By all means, drill, drill, drill, but anyone telling you that's any kind of solution is trying to pull a fast one one you.

Port1080:

I'm not a Republican - but I honestly don't believe Palin is any "less" qualified than Obama.

The difference lies in the duties of the office.

Senators are basically career politicians who study legal theory, attend lots of hearings and assisting in the making of laws.

By contrast, the Governorship is an EXECUTIVE position - it is administrative by nature. Governors have to make both major and minor decisions on a daily basis, be responsible for a multifaceted state budget, deal with municipalities (police, fire, schools, etc) speak to the local and national press on a weekly basis and perhaps most importantly, Governors bear the final responsibility should anything bad happen to the state.

Further, Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience.

The size of the state which the Governor manages is not really a huge issue. The budget may be bigger but all of the duties are essentially the same.

In Palin's case, the state of Alaska should not be considered a "boondock" state. Yes, it is remote and small in population, but it is the center of a huge energy industry which is an important national issue right now. It is also the closet state to Russia and Alaska often negotiates with Russia concerning fishing territory, etc.

In my opinion, the fact that she is 2000 miles away from Washington is a bonus. She's not an insider and she has a strong reputation for cleaning up corruption.

For those reasons, I'd say she's every bit as qualified  as Obama - if not more.

If you look over Palin's Wikipedia entry, it seems that her management style is "my way or the highway."  She fired the entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because they appointed a Creamery Board that advised an action (selling a non-profitable state-owned dairy) she didn't agree with, then ended up having to do what they advised anyway.  She pulled a very similar stunt as mayor, firing a couple of city employees because they had supported her opponent.

Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience

Senators are basically career politicians who study legal theory, attend lots of hearings and assisting in the making of laws.

By contrast, the Governorship is an EXECUTIVE position - it is administrative by nature. Governors have to make both major and minor decisions on a daily basis, be responsible for a multifaceted state budget, deal with municipalities (police, fire, schools, etc) speak to the local and national press on a weekly basis and perhaps most importantly, Governors bear the final responsibility should anything bad happen to the state.

I don't know why it is that so many people seem perfectly willing to denigrate the experience of being a US Senator and favor Governors over Senators for the presidency.  I guess years of hearing it said on the campaign trail have made the accusation stick, even though there's absolutely no empirical evidence that governors (especially small state, minimal experience governors) make better (or even good) presidents.  If we look at the historical consensus candidates for top US presidents (here's the group: "George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt -- are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Usually ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy"), you have an almost completely even mix of governors (3), senators (3), and military leaders (2).  There is no evidence at all that being a senator leaves one unprepared to take over the presidency.  Being president and governor may both be executive positions, but they're completely different ballgames with substantially different staffs, expectations, and responsibilities.  Saying that being governor of Alaska prepares you to be president of the US is like saying being CEO of a small furniture sales company in Iowa makes you the ideal candidate to take over Microsoft.  The job titles may be the same, but that's pretty much where the similarities end.

Further, Governors act as Commander in Chief of their state's National Guard, which could be considered a form of military experience.

The Alaskan National Guard has less than 2000 troops.  Managing it is only slightly more complex than managing a large urban high school (actually, nix that, I think the large urban high school is probably harder).

Every single president in your "top" list was either an officer in the military or a governor--and thus had executive experience.  Play along with the capsule biographies of the presidents:

Washington -- duh
Lincoln -- captain in the Black Hawk War
Franklin Roosevelt -- governor of New York
Thomas Jefferson -- governor of Virginia (post-independence); also count Secretary of State
Theodore Roosevelt -- lieutenant colonel during Spanish-American War
Truman -- captain during World War I
Eisenhower -- commander of Allied Forces during World War II; president of Columbia University
Jackson -- major general in the War of 1812
Wilson -- governor of New Jersey; president of Princeton University
Kennedy -- Navy Lieutenant during World War II

However, don't feel bad, because your methodology of consulting Wikipedia for a list of "top" US presidents, counting the number of governors, and drawing a conclusion about the usefulness of being a governor from that list has many flaws:

• People are "top" presidents for wildly varying reasons.  I was surprised to see Mr. Trail of Tears on your list.
  
• You are spanning centuries, when the job of president was very different.  Washington, and most 19th century presidents, presided over a microscopic federal government; it didn't really start to grow until Reconstruction.  These men needed fewer bureaucracy management skills.  (Note that the word "bureaucracy" did not enter English until 1818).

This is very true; as many presidents (including Clinton) have said, there is basically no adequate preparation for the job.  That might be why incumbent presidents usually win re-election; they have the killer experience argument working in their favor.  However, to follow your analogy, saying that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US is like saying... well, that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US.

You are spanning centuries, when the job of president was very different.  Washington, and most 19th century presidents, presided over a microscopic federal government; it didn't really start to grow until Reconstruction.  These men needed fewer bureaucracy management skills.  (Note that the word "bureaucracy" did not enter English until 1818).

True, but the list has a relatively equal distribution in terms of time.  In fact, focusing just on modern (World War II) presidents actually favors the senators somewhat, and removes all the governors on the list from contention (unless you count FDR as being a modern-era president, which is debatable since he sort of spans two eras and essentially invented the modern office of the presidency single-handed).

Every single president in your "top" list was either an officer in the military or a governor

While Truman, Kennedy, and Lincoln had some military experience, it was hardly what their political careers were based on, and I think it hardly served to make them "qualified" for high office - or if it does, there are hundreds of thousands of equally qualified ex-military folks out there right now.  It's very apparent that they got the chance at the top spot because of what they did in their political careers, not their military careers.  That's why I said there were two military-backgrounders on the list (although I guess you could say three - Jackson was a senator, but it's pretty apparent his political career was based mostly on his military career) - Washington & Eisenhower.  They were the only two that got to the position without any real pre-presidency political background.

However, to follow your analogy, saying that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US is like saying... well, that being a community organizer prepares you to be president of the US.

Did I ever say that it did?  I've leaned on Obama's Illinois State House experience & his US Senate experience far more than on his community organizing experience.  In any case, as I've said before, I'm not completely comfortable with Obama's level of experience - I would be much happier if he had more experience, but what he has is what I could consider to be the minimum requirement (or maybe just below the minimum).  Palin, on the other hand, is FAR below what I would consider to be the bare minimum.  If McCain was younger I might be willing to give that a pass, but considering his age there is a much higher likelihood than normal that he won't make it through his first term, meaning Palin could, potentially, be running this country with just a year or two (or even less - there's always that slight chance that McCain will be the next William Henry Harrison) of experience as being VP.  

That, in my opinion, makes this a stunningly irresponsible pick on McCain's part.  Palin may make a good president or she may not, but she has done nothing to prove that she will.  She is completely an unknown, as everyone has said time and again.  If she ends up being a great choice, it will be a surprise.  The performance of our second-to-top leader should not be a surprise.  McCain had a responsibility to pick a solid candidate who could take over and make sure things would run smoothly.  Instead he gambled on a blatantly political pick who is a complete unknown.  If McCain had picked someone with just that minimal amount of experience (Romney, Pawlenty, any of the other top contenders) this election would have been a difficult choice for me.  As it is, all I see here is that McCain is so desperate to get elected that he is willing to make irresponsible decisions just to get in power.  That to me says that he is no longer the man of character he (arguably) once was, and he no longer deserves my respect or my vote.  I just don't see how everyone is so blasé about, or even supportive of, this choice.

You're citing holding the ranks of captain and lieutenant as "executive experience" suitable to prepare one for the Presidency?  That's some reach you've got there.

Administrative skills at that level are essentially ones of delegation, and both senators and governors cannot be successful without those.

Senators bring an intimate knowledge of Congress and what needs to be done to get legislation through it to the office.

Governors bring experience in dealing with a legislature from the outside to the office.  

From what Wikipedia says about Palin, she brings neither.

It is also the closet state to Russia and Alaska often negotiates with Russia concerning fishing territory, etc.

Does Alaska negotiate or is this the job of the fed?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Barack is in touch, most connected to the American people? Wait, wha?

He's only in touch with the left wing nuttys who pushed him through the media as the clear choice, from the MOMENT he was elected to congress.  Since that time he has done nothing in congress, just like his 130 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature.  The only thing he's done since getting elected is begin his campaign for the presidency, backed by the far left, who is definitely out of touch with main stream America.

He's only in touch with the left wing nuttys who pushed him through the media as the clear choice, from the MOMENT he was elected to congress.

And here I was under the assumption that Hillary was the one running as the inevitable.

Obama transcends voting.

There is a big difference between Alaska politics and national politics -- I don't deny it.  But there is also a big difference between being a Senator, where you run an office of maybe 75 staffers, occasionally make speeches, go on Sunday shows, and (if you like) introduce bills written by lawyers you hired, and being a President.  Senators do not have to make decisions between warring camps in their own organization, do not have to appoint people, do not have to know how to steer the largest bureaucracy in the world toward their policy objectives.  Governors do.

What is the experience of a Senator?  They might know a lot about policy issues.  I'll grant you that.

Profwhat - Good point, see my comments above.

Thanks for the compliment, and welcome to the site!  Hope you stick around.

Senators do not have to make decisions between warring camps in their own organization, do not have to appoint people

Perhaps not. But, they have to balance their base versus reaching out to independents and other voters. They have to keep all the disparate groups back home happy. They have to avoid pissing off their party leadership when going against them on roll calls.

Senators do have to deal with warring camps, just not inside a bureaucracy.

But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

Are you sure about that?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Sorry  but I suffer from an advanced case of paleo-sexism. To me, only women can be "bimbos". Men (like your example) who exhibit similar characteristics are "morons".

I know a whole shitload of morons have been elected state governors, but I still think a bimbo would be a harder sell. :)

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I appreciate what you're saying...I just feel that "Bush the Cheerleader" puts him squarely in the bimbo column.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

Oooh...you haven't been to Alaska, I see.

I don't really think he called her a bimbo. Yes he pointed out she is physically attractive (in another sub thread), but I don't think his comment was obnoxious on its face.

I think he was trying to point out that Biden has a bunch of foreign policy experience and is well traveled. On the other hand, Palin has been mostly occupied with internal issues (she even sold the state executive jet on eBay). Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Whatever he was trying to point out, claiming she can't find countries on a map is way over the top.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Whatever he was trying to point out, claiming she can't find countries on a map is way over the top.

Is it really?  If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?  I don't think I could, although I would hope that a serious US presidential candidate could.  I expect Palin could point out where Iraq is, and hopefully Pakistan and Afghanistan, but Uzbekistan?  Armenia?  South Ossetia (if it hadn't been in the news lately)?  I don't think it's crazy to think that Biden's probably been to some countries that Palin couldn't identify on a blank world map.

If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?

Only one way to find out.

Great find!

{Insert amusing quotation here}

I got 42 out of 48, not too bad I guess.  I would have got three more (Singapore, Brunei, & East Timor) but they're so small I couldn't see them on the map, and hence forgot about them.  Totally missed Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Bahrain, though.

I gave up after 7 minutes. I got 39/48 right (no cheating), which isn't too shabby I guess since I am not running for anything. Even more frustrating was that you had to spell it exactly correct, so that was a pain in the butt.

But yeah, I'm satisfied. Run me for VP of something.

43 out of 48
I missed Qatar, Brunei, East Timor, Bahrain and the Maldives....

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Man, I only got 23 out of 48. I suck. Those 'stans are particularly difficult, though.

----- The earth may burn, but we will quiver

Is it really?  If I gave you a blank map, could you name every country on it?  I don't think I could, although I would hope that a serious US presidential candidate could.

Damn port, are you high? That's got to be about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post here.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Damn port, are you high? That's got to be about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post here.

You don't think knowledge of the world around us should be a qualification for president, or are you knocking me because Palin is just running as VP?  I've already made my case that I think she should be held to a higher standard, because of McCain's advanced age, but I guess we could argue about that.  I don't see how that makes what I said "silly", though.

What is "silly" is your assertion that ANY Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate of the last 40 years or so anyway could pull off that feat. Sorry if my response didn't make that clear. :)

Look I don't think Palin is qualified for either job. To be totally honest, if you take all four of 'em Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, I'd say that Biden is the only who who is actually "qualified" for either job.

But you know as well as I do that American politics doesn't work like that.

Honestly I was only giving you a hard time because I felt your criticism of Palin was based almost solely on the fact that she is, admittedly, a serious milf. If I was wrong about that, I do sincerely apologize.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Sixth line should read "...only one who..."

{Insert amusing quotation here}

What is "silly" is your assertion that ANY Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate of the last 40 years or so anyway could pull off that feat. Sorry if my response didn't make that clear. :)

I guess it's asking for too much, but I wish it wasn't.  

But you know as well as I do that American politics doesn't work like that.

That just depresses me.

Now wait a minute. I was going to stay out of this but this is just over the top. She doesn't know basic geography because she's a "young good-looking woman"? You are just assuming she's a bimbo.

I know as you have painstakingly pointed out Alaska has a tiny population. But I don't think that any state regardless of size is going to elect a bimbo as governor.

No, I'm saying it because of her lack of experience and her provincial roots.  Bush famously didn't know who the President of Pakistan was when quizzed during the 2000 campaign, and he clearly wasn't a bimbo - he just had no foreign policy experience and didn't keep up on current events.  I imagine the same is true of Palin.  It doesn't really require any foreign policy experience or knowledge to be governor of Alaska, and keeping up on such things isn't something that I would expert her to do.  That's not a dig at her qualification to be governor of Alaska (or any state, really), but it's certainly a dig at her qualifications to be President of the United States.

Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was because he was (and remains) a fucking moron who is lost without his handlers.

I can find even most obscure former Soviet Republics and failed-state African countries on a map. I know the names of most world leaders. Does that qualify me to be president?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events. Saying Palin can't is saying a lot more than she lacks foreign policy experience.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was because he was (and remains) a fucking moron who is lost without his handlers.

....and yet Bush in 2000 had FAR more proven executive and political experience than Palin, and also a much better educational pedigree.  Given that, why is it crazy for me to think that Palin's foreign policy chops may be lacking?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events. Saying Palin can't is saying a lot more than she lacks foreign policy experience.

Now you're extrapolating far more than what I said.  I said that there are probably countries Biden has been to that she couldn't find on a map (and I meant a blank map, although I should have made that clear from the beginning).  I never said I thought she was a complete moron.  See some of my other replies to you for further clarification.

I can find even most obscure former Soviet Republics and failed-state African countries on a map. I know the names of most world leaders. Does that qualify me to be president?

My point is that any reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-educated person  - regardless of political experience - should be able to find countries on a map and answer simple questions about current events.

I should also point out that I teach political science, and I'm well aware (and depressed by the fact) that a large portion of the kids who graduate with a BA in political science are not capable of finding countries on a map and answering simple questions about current events.  If you go out of political science it gets even worse.  People like you and I are the exception, not the rule, when it comes to knowledge of international relations.  It wouldn't shock me at all to find out that you would do better on a quiz of international affairs than many US Senators, and probably most state governors.  So, yes, I have a low opinion of Palin, but not just of her.  I'm pretty pessimistic about most politicians when it comes to those sorts of things.

Considering that Obama and Clinton were so close in their policies that they were nearly indistinguishable,no doubt there were a significant number of women who gave her their vote only because of her gender.  But McCain and Obama have some very significant policy differences, so I doubt that the gender of the second spot will be quite so compelling.

McCain only needs a handful of votes in key states.

and the race was decided by women who, apparently, voted for Clinton mostly based on her gender.

Well, yeah. But those were Democratic women voting in a Democratic primary, so all other things considered equal, that's to be expected. 99% of those same women will not make the change to McCain on the basis of Palin's gender alone. I just don't see any appreciable number of Dems, regardless of gender, embracing the extension of GOP policies that McCain ultimately represents. Given what McCain represents, it'll be interesting to see how many conservatives Obama reels in. There looks to be quite a few.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

99% of those same women will not make the change to McCain on the basis of Palin's gender alone

1% may be all McCain needs

True enough. On the other hand, 1% of Obamacons may represent all that Obama needs.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

    disgruntled, right of center HRC supporters . . .

    And how a large a percentage of the electorate do you really place that figure at? Just curious, because after living through the 90s, the conservative CW would say that you couldn't even fill a regular season Arena Football League game with those numbers. Seriously, this could have some slight impact in Ohio- which is a big swing state, obviously- but I can't see it taking much away from the debate at the top of the ticket.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

By itself, it probably won't mean much...but if we look at it as a pebble in a pond...

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You're probably right. If anything this neutralizes the HRC '12 run. If McCain/Palin lose then she has a legit contention in the primary during the next cycle. In that case I assume the Dem powers that be would be hesitant to allow HRC to mount a primary challenge against an incumbent Obama.

If McCain/Palin wins then one of HRC's big selling points is also taken off the table.

Is Palin the best possible running mate for McCain right now? I don't know. But in the long run it is a good move for the GOP.