[perfect_rovian_storm]

Well, I should phrase it better. The same exact argument could be made for Barack Obama. Sarah HAS experience. Running down others who had experience and saying that others who had experience previously failed isn’t a helpful pro-Palin argument IMHO. It seems, Laura bought the false premise that Brooks offered, which means he basically won the argument before it started.

[UCANSEE2]

“It seems, Laura bought the false premise that Brooks offered, which means he basically won the argument before it started.”

---

True. If we are going to dismiss ‘experience’, then both Palin and Obama qualify.....for Vice President.

Not President.

(P.S. Obama is a two-bit,two-faced neighborhood enforcer (I mean community organizer) who will step on anyone he has to to win. If you count that, then it doesn’t matter about experience)

[AndyJackson]

Brooks exact words were "Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

I think that is fair, actually. Now, I would point out that she is only running for VP, and the same arguments apply to 0 who is running for P, and our real candidate is McCain who has a wealth of experience.