<<The comparison was with Obama. She has more experience. Period.>>
McCain's complaint about Obama was that he lacked an important qualification, experience. The candidate McCain then picked to replace him at any point in his term if necessary may have had marginally more experience than Obama (although that is highly doubtful, considering all of Obama's experience) but in any event, for all practical purposes, was still unqualified.
It's as if the job required 100 hours of course credits and Obama was unqualified because he had only 20 hours. Fair enough, but to then pick someone with 25 hours only (when there were other available candidates who could have been picked who had the qualifying 100 hours) indicates the initial objection to Obama was phony. The lack of the 100 hours was meaningless, yet McCain had portrayed it as key.
Either lots of experience was a necessary qualification for the job in the first place or it was not. Picking a candidate without lots of experience indicates that it was never a necessary qualification. The fact that the candidate picked had marginally more experience than Obama still cannot negate the fact that McCain did pick someone without a lot of experience and pronounced her as capable as he would be to fill the job if need be the day after he was sworn in.
<<Doesn't matter whether McCain could have picked someone else. He didn't and unless something happens between now and Thursday she is the one.>>
Of course it matters. The fact is he passed over candidates with plenty of experience to pick one with virtually none. Yet prior to his pick, his main beef with Obama was "lack of experience." Obviously an insignificant shortcoming if he could pick Palin;
<<Just remember, Palin is the second seat . She has more experience than your first seat.>>
So what? McCain says Obama is not qualified as first seat because he's inexperienced. And in the same breath, says that Palin could step into his shoes the day or the week after his inauguration if need be. She obviously CAN'T, if experience is as important as he makes it out to be when criticizing Obama.
<<And unless you are saying Biden will be calling the shots in an Obama administration i strongly suggest you drop the experience argument . . . >>
This isn't about Biden and it's not even about Obama. It's about the hypocrisy of John Insane ranting about how Obama's "inexperience" disqualifies him for the Presidency and then picks Palin to succeed him on a second's notice at any time, despite an "experience" level equal to or marginally superior to Obama's.
<< . . . and concentrate on what a harlot Palin's daughter is. >>
Nor is this about Palin's daughter. It's about the arrogance and hypocrisy of the "Moral Majority" or "Family Values" crowd that courts fundamentalist votes with "pro-family" positions and yet turns out to be lying, cheating adulterous husbands and incompetent parents, major contributors to familial dysfunction and yet pandering to all those who want the law to enforce their own particular version of family values.
<<That seems to be the extent of your political debate skills.>>
And what's the extent of yours? Raising irrelevant issues, continually missing the point, and misrepresenting the arguments of your opponents?
<<Oh and McCain is old. And therefore must be senile.>>
And speaking of missing the point
AND misrepresenting opponents' arguments . . .
senile he may well be, but in this and other Palin-related threads, it's more like "McCain is old
and a three-time cancer survivor with a huge growth on the side of his head who might have to be replaced by Palin at any time in his term." THAT was the argument I had been making, not the one you were kind enough to fabricate for me.
