Experience?

February 7, 2010

I’m thoroughly confused by Sarah Palin’s latest interview with Fox News. This is not to suggest that there are things she says which are non-confusing as that’s hardly the case, just that we seem to have crossed a new threshold of nonsensical living-in-the-pastness.

The former Alaska governor, in an interview Saturday on the sidelines of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, said President Obama’s “lack of experience” has held him back his first year in office and that she would put her credentials up against his any day.

Let’s say, just for arguments sake, that McCain’s experience campaign was valid in 2008. After all, he had been in the Senate much longer than Obama’s four years. And now let’s even say that Barack Obama circa 2008 and Sarah Palin circa 2008 had a similar amount of experience. I don’t believe that to be the case, but someone could make an argument for it.

But how is an experience campaign going to make any sense in 2012? Barack Obama does not have the experience to be president–because he has only been president for one term? Also, what credentials is she planning to match against President Obama? Four years as president vs. a resignation as governor of Alaska. If voters rejected an experience campaign when it was slightly valid, how is it going to work when it is patently false?

The vacuum chamber of conservative media may be hurting her here. She needs to understand the concerns of virtual Americans since there probably aren’t enough real ones to elect her.

Advertisements

One Response to “Experience?”


  1. Our homegirl Palin always specialized in divisive rumors that couldn’t hold water but caused cynical stirrings in her core constituency of “Birthers,” “Deathers,” and “Real Americans.” I can’t recall anything else she did to help the 2008 campaign besides providing a unique demographic appeal, so I wouldn’t expect her to provide intelligent party guidance now.

    I doubt the higher-ups in the Republican party still take her seriously as a politician. She’s just part of the noise machine now. It would be convenient for Democrats if I was wrong and she got a nomination, because she’s too reactionary to swing any independent voters.

    Of note: She was paid $100k to speak at the 2010 Tea Party Convention, which is now a for profit organization.

    I almost recommend disabling comments on political posts because everywhere on the internet they engender provocative, out-of-context bile far more often that decent discourse.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: