Free Republic

“Barack Obama didn’t have a lot of bread-and-butter accomplishments to point to, either. He had, in fact, less governing experience than Palin already has. So experience can be gotten around.”

That quote is the only thing that is not a fabrication in Mr Dick’s article. It’s a farce, a complete fiction.

Maybe it is just garden variety PDS, but maybe, worse, just a complete lack of integrity.

Now that would be a miracle if you know what a mean.

Dayum! Looks like the love child of Jimmy Carter and John Edwards.

- JP

That cartoon makes me an old perv I suppose. I notice they are all looking at Sarahs feet. I would have been looking up. LMAO

The only thing 0bama has more than Sarah Plain is, 0bama talks better. In fact there are 3 reasons 0bama won.
# 1. The MSM shamelessly campaigned for the sucker 24/7.
# 2. He talks a good talk.
# 3. He is black.

Personally, I think Sarah Palin may need to work on her speech delivery. Americans bought the garbage 0bozo was selling because of his delivery, more than the substance of what he was saying.

Bristol Palin's more qualified than King BO, Nobel Laureate....

In November 2012 Sarah Palin will continue to have more relevant and quality executive experience than Barack Obama.

Oh yeah!!! First time I ever saw that cartoon. Thanks!

Time to photo-shop Obama images with the “melanin” removed?

I bet America suddenly thinks differently of him.

Executive experience doesn’t mean legislative experience. Even Palin distinguishes between the two. She has very little respect for people touting legislative experience.

Obambi has something more important to democrats than experience.

Melanin.

For me what gives Sarah Palin an edge in experience over Obama (and for that matter an edge over Clinton, Gore, Biden, Kerry, and to some extent, many past Republican pols too) is that she actually has had a job in the private sector.

She and her husband have RUN A SMALL BUSINESS.

Executive experience, if you mean experience in the political sphere, is what we voters should treat as disqualifying experience, instead of something we should value.

Sarah Palin has had employees. She has had to set up payrolls and has seen, unlike the aforementioned "experienced ones", THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED DEDUCTIONS.

Bill Clinton never had a private sector job. Obama never had a private sector job, much less having had the experience of running a small business.

This is precisely where we should take the conversation when the Palin opponents bring up the experience topic, instead of allowing the subject to dwell on public service experience, which to me is worthless-no, detrimental experience when evaluating qualifications for the office of President of the United States.

I was reading this generally negative piece on her but this sentence stood out. It's the first time I can ever recall a liberal/msm writer openly admitting that Obama had less experience than Palin. IOW, should she run in the future she'd be more experienced than he was last year. You never would have seen them say anything like that during the campaign. I guess it's ok to tell the truth now, he already won, there's no harm in opening up.

Also with him now being below 50% approval I think you'll see more and more people begin to feel it's ok to go after him. SNL was even fairly tough on him this week. I think more and more people are waking up. All those independents and middle folks who were snookered and taken in and panicked last year once the market crashed are starting to realize their mistake.

After the election 45 said he'd be liberal and 45 said he'd be moderate in a Gallup Poll. In a Gallup Poll last month, 55 said he's liberal and only 34 said he's moderate. Basically, people realize they were had. That he was never the moderate centrist the media said he was. That he's a far left liberal.

He's in the mid to high 40s. I'd like to see him in the low 40s or even worse by the end of the year. That would be a great situation heading into 2010.