McCain, Obama, and Experience

Remember during the primaries when Hillary Clinton said over and over again that she, unlike Barack Obama, would be "ready on day one"?

Hillary made the case that Obama lacked the experience necessary to be the president.

At the time Joe Biden agreed. He said Obama was not ready to be president because the "presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

The experience issue has taken a back seat in this election, I think mainly due to the magnitude of the economic meltdown.

That's a mistake.

Experience matters tremendously.

I agree with Patrick McIlheran's arguments and conclusion in his column, "For president, I'd go with the experience."

McIlheran writes:

I'll put it simply: Judgment is formed by experience. Obama has little and asks us to trust him anyhow.

McCain, by contrast, has a record you can judge. In 25 years of being in Washington but usually not of it, he's shown an inclination toward free markets, a regrettable soft spot for regulation, an admiration for personal responsibility and a solid conviction that if America's going to talk softly, it ought to not just carry a big stick but be clear about using it.

All true and convincing, say my doubting friends - until he showed poor judgment via Sarah Palin. How-.....-why-.....-?

How and why what? It's telling that many pundits say Palin's wrongness is self-evident. That way, they don't need to try to explain it.

The reality is that Palin won over the Republican base that never trusted McCain. None of the boring alternatives to her could have done this. Her choice was political, but it was a political necessity for McCain.

The rational argument against her is that she's unready, raw. She has merely two years' experience as governor - though during it, she defeated her own party's corrupt establishment, fixed a bad pipeline deal, passed bipartisan ethics reform and held an 82% approval rating this year. This suggests skill as an executive, and anyhow, she's got exactly the foreign policy résumé of previous ambitious governors, such as a smooth talker from Arkansas.

...In any event, Palin's immediate readiness is a question only if you assume McCain will drop dead by February. Obama's utter lack of executive experience starts mattering on Jan. 20. The fact is, the man has none.

I am so sick of the warnings of McCain's imminent death. How lame!

I am so sick of hearing Leftists talk about Palin's lack of accomplishments, constantly belittling her experience.

If Palin were a Democrat and Obama had selected her to be his running mate, Palin would be heralded as a super woman, a goddess at the side of Obama the messiah. There would be no doubts about her qualifications and there certainly would be no doubts about Obama's judgment in selecting her.

Picture the mainstream media drooling over Palin:

Palin brings executive experience to the ticket.

Palin and Obama have the youth and vigor to excite a new generation of Americans.

Palin is a courageous pioneer ready to take on a new frontier.

Obama's choice of running mate was a brilliant move.

Obama has tapped into the future of American politics by picking a strong woman.

Obama and Palin are the faces of change.

No, Obama's judgment wouldn't be questioned and neither would Palin's readiness.

The fact is the Dems and their media accomplices saw what a threat Palin posed so they set out to destroy her and simultaneously hit McCain for choosing such a loser, a two-pronged attack.

As McIlheran points out, Obama's judgment has time and again been shown to be disastrous.

In the past, Biden questioned both Obama's judgment and his experience.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman and presidential candidate Joe Biden has joined the gang piling on Barack Obama for proposing possible intervention in Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda -- using the same word Hillary Clinton used to criticize Obama's eagerness to negotiate with dictators: naïve.

In an interview on The Diane Rehm Show this morning, Biden told guest host Susan Page of USA Today the following:

"… in order to look tough, he's undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you're going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there's actionable intelligence -- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you're already going to say I'm going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you're getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It's a well intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy."

Discussion of Obama's naïveté on foreign policy came to the fore on July 23, 2007, during the YouTube Debate.

QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

Not good.

Bottom line: Obama isn't ready.

That's so obvious that even Biden, the guy who thinks "jobs" is a 3-letter word, knows it.

There's nothing Obama can do to change that. He can't buy experience. It can't be produced in an infomercial. All the Greek columns in the world won't help.

McCain has it. Obama doesn't.

If the woefully inexperienced Obama does become the next president of the United States, I think we would be wise to follow Joe Biden's advice: "Gird your loins."

It's going to be a bumpy ride.