I think it's interesting that Sarah Palin is being criticized for some sort of perceived lack of experience. I would argue that she has more experience and is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama.

Palin is the Chief Executive of an entire state. Obama never was chief executive of anything.

Palin is commander of the Alaska National Guard. Obama has no similar experience.

Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Obama has no similar experience.

Palin is chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee. Obama has no similar experience.

In fact, in the last 18 months while Palin was working on solutions to the energy problem Obama has been running for office.

Can anybody argue with a straight face that Obama's experience is substantially greater than Palin's?

I consider it to basically be a wash. Obama might have a very slight advantage since his experience was at a national level, but by contrast, he has no experience whatsoever in the executive branch while Palin does, both as governor and as Ethics Chair for the state Oil and Gas Commission (and the Dems are stupidly attacking her on this last point; she FOUGHT Big Oil on this ; more evidence that they're just flailing wildly to find something to criticize with this candidate).


But the big, BIG difference. Palin is not at the top of the ticket. Obama is. His lack of experience (and they both have one, no doubt) is more of an immediate issue and accentuated by that fact.


[edit on 29-8-2008 by vor78]

Mate with the current idea of solving the Oil crisis in US (Iraq) another rep. who are willing to sacrifice life and mother earth is not needed.. sry epic fail there..

Best Regards

Loke.

Can anyone argue that Palin's experience is greater than Biden's? I can.

Good move for Mclame, shinny apple for all the intellectuals...

Anyway, Obama has about seven years experience as a Illinois State Senator and been in the US Senate for about three years. So that's about ten years of government experience compared to Palin's three to four years of experience overall in Alaska. If you count her City Council career that's about eight years of experience, which is still less than Obamas.

So much for McCain preaching experience, now his running mate has even less experience than Obama.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by jamie83

Palin is commander of the Alaska National Guard. Obama has no similar experience.

I don't believe she actually has any military experience. (someone please correct me if I am wrong) The possition comes as part of being the Governor of Alaska.

If you look at the numbers, the population of Alaska is about 20% of Chicago. And that's just one city in Illinois. Does that count?

Originally posted by intrepid
If you look at the numbers, the population of Alaska is about 20% of Chicago. And that's just one city in Illinois. Does that count?

When you're grasping for anything, yes.

Ahh, not at all! I'm sorry I came off that way. I read the original post more as a literal "she was in the military, he was not". I see your point and understand what the OP meant now

Originally posted by intrepid
If you look at the numbers, the population of Alaska is about 20% of Chicago. And that's just one city in Illinois. Does that count?

Running a state 20% of the size of Chicago is still more than the ZERO number of people that Obama has governed.

And what does Chicago have to do with this? Obama has never even run a small township, let alone an entire city. If Obama were the mayor of Chicago it might be a fair comparison, but he's not.

The difference between the executive branch and legislative branch is no small difference. Obama continually talks, like he did last night, about how HE will pay for all the programs he wants. Sorry, he will not pay for anything. We will. Somebody with the executive experience of being responsible for the entire state budget might not be so flippant about who is paying for what.

And besides, it's not Palin running against Obama. It's McCain, who has 30 years of experience vs. Obama's thin resume.

eeny, meeny, miny, moe i'll go with palin...yeah sure

still waiting on that crazy little thing called proof

it takes proof to make an intelligent statement ... it takes an intelligent statement to become a credible talking head.

I just want to see the source from whence comes the numbers and statistics you use to create your argument.

Knowledge is power.

Help me become as smart as you....

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

First, Obama wasnt experienced enough as a senator. He didnt understand how to run things globablly because McCain had more experience

Yes, that is still VERY true. McCain is far more experienced at many things than Obama.

why is it that 2 yeras as an Alaskan governor make her more qualified than Obama?

Palin has experience being the Chief Executive of an entire state. Obama has zero experience managing anything. It's like comparing a consultant (Obama) with a CEO of a company.

Perhaps you can provide proof to back this claim/ Because everything i know of mccain says he doesnt have 30 years....

You must have overlooked McCain's 28 years of experience in the Navy before he entered politics. See, unlike Obama, McCain had an entire career's worth of experience before he even decided to run for office. Obama's career IS running for office.

why is it that you have to lie to make mccain look better?

Andy, there are no lies here. If McCain never even ran for the Senate, his 28 years in the Navy would still dwarf Obama's experience as a community organizer, state senator, and U.S. senator.

The truth is Palin and Obama have comparable resumes, and I would argue that Palin's experience is more suited for Commander in Chief than Obama's.

This is about Palin vs. Obama in terms of experience. Do you have anything to add regarding Obama's resume that I've missed?