Experience on either side?
 

OK - my second post in this forum, here goes:

First - I'd like to get some education on this. I'm not trying to play either side, it is more of an observation.

It seems like the Dems like to 'pick' on Palin's experience while ignoring McCain's experience. And the Reps like to 'pick' on Obama's experience while ignoring Biden's experience. Heck they both have good points. Palin is a first term gov of a very small (population wise) state and Obama is basically a political rookie (only 143 days so far on the senate floor).

I'd like someone to explain to me why the experience of the VP should mean more than the experience of the President? Yeah, McCain could croak two years into office but Obama would be president from day 1.

Let's remember that the majority of Presidents over the past 100 years have been governors. In fact the dems favorite son, Bill Clinton, was the governor of one of the worst performing states in the country at the time of his election and a lot of people think that he did a great job so maybe proven experience isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Is this just politics as usual or is there something more meaningful going on?

Russ

Same stuff - different election!

The norm is always to try to pick your opponent apart, and if the attacked issue happens to mirror yourself, who cares! The question is always who makes the accusation with the most conviction!

The trick is always trying to wash away the dung to find what actual gem exists. And if there is one thing that has progressed in politics overthe years, its been the use of technology to distort the truth.

What a way to make a living....

What a way to make a living....


My sister is a political strategist in DC for the dems. Let's just say that we don't talk about work at our Thansgiving get together!

Russ- obviously you have a smart sister - listen to her. hee hee