Have to disagree with the great Paul Mirengoff at Powerline today.
Says Paul:
Sarah Palin's fans have had a ready response to those who criticize her addition to the ticket on grounds of inexperience: she has, they say, as much or more relevant experience as Barack Obama.
This argument has considerable merit. However, it overlooks the fact that over the past year and a half Obama the candidate has been thinking and talking about the full range of policy issues that are expected to confront the next president. Palin, by virtue of her status as a new governor and non-candidate, has not been doing this.
It's extremely doubtful that thinking and talking about a wide range of issues counts as experience that will materially assist Obama if he is elected president. But it does give him at least one significant advantage in his electoral quest -- it enables to come across as knowledgeable during debates.
Obama has often, as Powerline routinely points out, been breathtakingly naive on foreign policy issues (meeting despots without preconditions, "bluster and bombast" leading up to OIF, and many others) . In short, Obama is an narcissistic idealist and a fool. If the Democrats had the foresight to nominate someone like Joe Lieberman or Bill Richardson, then ok - I'd follow that line of reasoning. Obama, however, is as Peter Paul and Mary as they get in terms of his worldview, and this "preparation" in foreign policy while campaigning hasn't made him much of a worth opponent for McCain on that front. I think the debate last Friday, if nothing else, made that clear.
So, as much as I love Paul's work, I have to stand by the position that I've been making on these pages for weeks now: Palin has more experience in making hard decisions and, when pressed and not in a "gotcha" situation but an honest discussion, I think can easily demonstrate her superior qualification for a seat at the White House - including in areas of foreign policy.
