Like I said previously, compare the two; what she did in Alaska to what she is doing now.
You made the distinction and the assertion, back it up with specifics.
You haven’t stated what she has done in Alaska to prove your point.
What?
I gave you a full list of what she is doing now on the national scene that would give here added experience and qualifications for a presidential run.
A list of what she "did" in Alaska isn't relevant to the point, because it isn't a list of additional experience she could be gaining.
What is missing is a list of things that she would have been doing in Alaska as governor, that she has not already done there.
My point is there is little to no additional presidential experience she could have gained as governor of Alaska
What she is doing now on the national scene is more valuable.
So it's now up to you and I have now asked this numerous times, document the specific things she would have been doing in Alaska as governor that would have increase her qualifications for a presidential run?