> Call me an elitist - and I mean that, it's ok with me -
> but criticizing Palin for her lack of experience is
> hardly sexist.
I've never heard you--which doesn't mean you haven't--criticize Obama for being inexperienced. I'd like to hear an argument that he's more experienced than she is. Or at least one that doesn't boil down to his being from a big state and graduating from an elite law school.
It's not like she's going to be crunching employment numbers or writing the CFR by herself. She's got a huge bureaucracy to do that for her. All she needs is a philosophy and a few technocrats to help her put it in place. Like Reagan did.
> Not that the office of VP, or even
> president, is that admirable or glorious. And maybe,
> like Andy Kopkind thought of Jerry Brown, you think it'd
> be great to have someone who has no idea what she's doing
> in high office because it would "destroy America." But say
> that.
I don't think that, of course, which is why I made the argument I made, not the one you want me to make.
> And I don't think it's terrible to point out that having a
> backwater hick who's hardly ever traveled abroad running
> a country of 300+ million people may not be such a good
> idea either.
I could point out what you don't seem to want to admit, that lots of people can't travel because they don't have money to and that lots of smart people live in small towns. But that would be flattering you by tagging you an elitist. Why do you care so much about the cultural profile of the executive vp of the American state?