لا ناقة له فيها ولا جمل

as i've said several times now, i don't think the "experience" argument for presidential candidates is very compelling. at least, it's often too vague to amount to a convincing case. the presidency is, in many ways. a unique job. no one is really "experienced" until they get there. it's true that various experiences in the candidates' background could help them when they are president. but i don't see any reason why government work has to be the only relevant experience. and just reading a lot of books about foreign policy could give a candidate extremely useful knowledge about that subject, probably better knowledge than what most people get while in most public offices.

which is why i think the "palin has more executive experience than obama" is such a flimsy argument. it is true that a mayor and a governor are "executive" positions. but the two jobs of (a) mayor of a small town and (b) president of an economic and military superpower really have almost nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that both positions are labeled "executive". and if you want to play word games, i could point out that obama has been the "chief executive" of a national political campaign--a campaign that employs more people (counting both paid staff and volunteers) and has a budget that is much bigger than the town of wasilla, alaska. and obama has been running that campaign for about as long as palin was governor.

but who gives a shit? this is really about judgment and knowledge. experience is really just a proxy for those things. it's obvious to me which is better on those fronts. to die-hard mccain-palin supporters, their answer probably seems just as obvious.