Palin vs. Edwards

[Anonymous]

I started a thread about Palin's experience versus Bobby Jindal's. Posters made many good points, especially in the detailed response from Jeff. Here's a better comparison: In 2000, John Edwards was considered a good running mate for Al Gore despite the fact that Edwards was first elected to the Senate in 1998. Gore didn't pick him, obviously, but Edwards then ran for president in 2004 before he completed a single term in the Senate. Kerry then tapped him for the VP slot. Edwards' experience prior to running for the Senate was as a trial lawyer. So can we at least agree that Palin, having held elected office since 1992, has more experience than John Edwards did? I don't remember Democrats harping on Edwards as a poor choice.

[Anonymous]

Excellent point. Republicans have not been effective in refuting the inexperience attacks to this point. I think they could mount an effective counterattack on that, particularly as the top of the D ticket is not the picture of experience. Last night was a start.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that the issue is number of years in elective office - there is a qualitative difference between the issues a Senator has to deal with and those that a small town mayor / city councillor contends with. National vs. local. Both matter, but the local stuff is generally pretty far afield from the challenges that confront the president or VP. To equate the two would be like suggesting my time as class president in high school are somehow the same as well.

Add to this the fact that Edwards' appeal, such as it was, rested at least in part on the fact that he had not spent most of his career as a professional politician - he trumpeted this fact. Finally, if I recall, there were plenty of questions raised about Edwards' experience (and about his past career as a trial lawyer).

The reality is that Palin's experience wouldn't have made her a contender for any national post if she had been a man and/or a secularist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that the issue is number of years in elective office - there is a qualitative difference between the issues a Senator has to deal with and those that a small town mayor / city councillor contends with. National vs. local. Both matter, but the local stuff is generally pretty far afield from the challenges that confront the president or VP. To equate the two would be like suggesting my time as class president in high school are somehow the same as well.

Add to this the fact that Edwards' appeal, such as it was, rested at least in part on the fact that he had not spent most of his career as a professional politician - he trumpeted this fact. Finally, if I recall, there were plenty of questions raised about Edwards' experience (and about his past career as a trial lawyer).

The reality is that Palin's experience wouldn't have made her a contender for any national post if she had been a man and/or a secularist.

OP here. But surely your statement about Edwards' appeal is similar to what Republicans are saying about Palin's appeal? And Edwards had no substantive achievements in that single Senate term. He had served less than two years in the Senate when Gore considered him in 2000. I truly don't recall a lot of concern about Edwards' experience on the part of Democrats. I'm sorry, but you're not convincing me.

[jsteele]

Several points:

1) I'll coin a term, "perceived experience". As a Senator, Edwards gained national exposure. Because he was very much in the trend of southern Democrats represented by Clinton, he was judged to be an up and comer. Because he many opportunities to articulate his views before a national audience, people began to perceive that he was experienced, whether it was true or not.

2) Personally, I give very little credit to Palin's two terms as mayor. The town was very small and mostly run by a town administrator. The experience has little relevance in my opinion for national office. So, basically, I judge her as having less than 2 years of experience.

3) Palin lacks "perceived experience". Had she spent the last year appearing on national news shows and expressing her views on national issues, she may have gained "perceived experience", but most people had never heard of her.

4) The value placed on "experience" has increased for this election because the lack of it has been seen as Obama's weakness. McCain himself has made a big deal out of the importance of experience. That causes attention to focus on Palin's experience that we might not have seen in other years.

5) Both Clinton and Obama got wide national exposure by giving keynote addresses and Democratic Conventions. Even though both had no national experience at that time, the addresses were seen as announcements that they were interested in higher office. They spent subsequent years getting prepared.

To reiterate a bit, when I talk about "experience", I mean experience with the issues and skills needed for the vice presidency and, particularly in the case of a 72 year old president, the presidency. I don't think Palin has shown any understanding of national issues. Its notable that she has yet to take a single question from the press. If she could easily respond to questions about health care, Iraq policy, the mortgage crisis, etc., I am sure she would be out fielding such questions. At a similar stage of his career, Edwards certainly was able to do that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Several points:

1) I'll coin a term, "perceived experience". As a Senator, Edwards gained national exposure. Because he was very much in the trend of southern Democrats represented by Clinton, he was judged to be an up and comer. Because he many opportunities to articulate his views before a national audience, people began to perceive that he was experienced, whether it was true or not.

2) Personally, I give very little credit to Palin's two terms as mayor. The town was very small and mostly run by a town administrator. The experience has little relevance in my opinion for national office. So, basically, I judge her as having less than 2 years of experience.

3) Palin lacks "perceived experience". Had she spent the last year appearing on national news shows and expressing her views on national issues, she may have gained "perceived experience", but most people had never heard of her.

4) The value placed on "experience" has increased for this election because the lack of it has been seen as Obama's weakness. McCain himself has made a big deal out of the importance of experience. That causes attention to focus on Palin's experience that we might not have seen in other years.

5) Both Clinton and Obama got wide national exposure by giving keynote addresses and Democratic Conventions. Even though both had no national experience at that time, the addresses were seen as announcements that they were interested in higher office. They spent subsequent years getting prepared.

To reiterate a bit, when I talk about "experience", I mean experience with the issues and skills needed for the vice presidency and, particularly in the case of a 72 year old president, the presidency. I don't think Palin has shown any understanding of national issues. Its notable that she has yet to take a single question from the press. If she could easily respond to questions about health care, Iraq policy, the mortgage crisis, etc., I am sure she would be out fielding such questions. At a similar stage of his career, Edwards certainly was able to do that.

Good points all. A couple of rejoinders: I think Edwards was only able to meet the criterion you mention in bold above when he ran for VP in 2004 because he had been running for president for over a year at that point, and had thus been briefed extensively on just about everything he might encounter in a debate or press avail. When he was on Gore's short list in 2000, I very much doubt that was true. And even if you discount Palin's time as mayor, you still have to grant that she's spent more time as a governor than Edwards had in the Senate when he was almost (by many accounts) added to Gore's ticket.

When you talk about perceived experience, you know you are not talking about actual experience. Being on talk shows is not experience. I think the bulk of Edwards' experience was what you call perceived experience. I would argue that in actual experience, Palin is not at all behind Edwards, and I think she'll prove to be a quick study. I'm sure she's as smart as Edwards is, if not smarter. As I've said, I believe we dismiss her at our peril.

[Anonymous]

I agree, to speak dismissively about Palin is perilous. I don't have a good feel for her yet, even with all the chit chat, and I'm afraid that when I do it will be too late.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Good points all. A couple of rejoinders: I think Edwards was only able to meet the criterion you mention in bold above when he ran for VP in 2004 because he had been running for president for over a year at that point, and had thus been briefed extensively on just about everything he might encounter in a debate or press avail. When he was on Gore's short list in 2000, I very much doubt that was true. And even if you discount Palin's time as mayor, you still have to grant that she's spent more time as a governor than Edwards had in the Senate when he was almost (by many accounts) added to Gore's ticket.

Yes, I'll concede all of that. I just don't know how "real" his chances of VP in 2000 were.

Anonymous wrote:
When you talk about perceived experience, you know you are not talking about actual experience. Being on talk shows is not experience. I think the bulk of Edwards' experience was what you call perceived experience. I would argue that in actual experience, Palin is not at all behind Edwards, and I think she'll prove to be a quick study. I'm sure she's as smart as Edwards is, if not smarter. As I've said, I believe we dismiss her at our peril.

Yes, when I speak about "perceived" experience I am not talking about "actual" experience. That's the whole reason for coining the term "perceived experience". I agree with most of what you say. There is no reason that Palin could not accumulate "perceived experience". However, I don't think she will have time in this election. She could be a force to be reckoned with the next time around.

About "dismissing her", I don't think anyone is dismissing her. I wouldn't write fifty bazillion messages attacking her if I thought she could be dismissed. Rather, I think its important to point out the reality of her mayoral terms, the untrue statements that she continues to make, the obvious short-comings in her record, etc. In other words, as the Hillary crowd used to say about Obama "[s]he hasn't been vetted." I think she should be vetted and, once that happened, much of the myth will be destroyed.

One final point, I think the nature of her speech opens the door to harsh attacks from Obama and Biden. The idea that they have to be polite to a woman sort of goes by the wayside when she hitting below the belt. I'm not saying they need to be rude, but I think the gloves can come off.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Good points all. A couple of rejoinders: I think Edwards was only able to meet the criterion you mention in bold above when he ran for VP in 2004 because he had been running for president for over a year at that point, and had thus been briefed extensively on just about everything he might encounter in a debate or press avail. When he was on Gore's short list in 2000, I very much doubt that was true. And even if you discount Palin's time as mayor, you still have to grant that she's spent more time as a governor than Edwards had in the Senate when he was almost (by many accounts) added to Gore's ticket.

Yes, I'll concede all of that. I just don't know how "real" his chances of VP in 2000 were.

Anonymous wrote:
When you talk about perceived experience, you know you are not talking about actual experience. Being on talk shows is not experience. I think the bulk of Edwards' experience was what you call perceived experience. I would argue that in actual experience, Palin is not at all behind Edwards, and I think she'll prove to be a quick study. I'm sure she's as smart as Edwards is, if not smarter. As I've said, I believe we dismiss her at our peril.

Yes, when I speak about "perceived" experience I am not talking about "actual" experience. That's the whole reason for coining the term "perceived experience". I agree with most of what you say. There is no reason that Palin could not accumulate "perceived experience". However, I don't think she will have time in this election. She could be a force to be reckoned with the next time around.

About "dismissing her", I don't think anyone is dismissing her. I wouldn't write fifty bazillion messages attacking her if I thought she could be dismissed. Rather, I think its important to point out the reality of her mayoral terms, the untrue statements that she continues to make, the obvious short-comings in her record, etc. In other words, as the Hillary crowd used to say about Obama "[s]he hasn't been vetted." I think she should be vetted and, once that happened, much of the myth will be destroyed.

One final point, I think the nature of her speech opens the door to harsh attacks from Obama and Biden. The idea that they have to be polite to a woman sort of goes by the wayside when she hitting below the belt. I'm not saying they need to be rude, but I think the gloves can come off.

Oh, I know you're not dismissing her. I'm thinking more of other posters, and of pundits and Democrats who were, until last night, being quite dismissive. As for the vetting, I suspect there's plenty of exaggeration and even untruths but that enough of it will hold up that her "Alaska maverick" thing will still work. "Vetting" was never one of my arguments in favor of HRC, but I know it was a popular one.

I imagine Biden, especially, will hit back. But there's a lot of risk here. Today he was on the talk shows saying Palin has been subjected to media sexism. Sounds great, right? But HRC supporters wonder why he didn't speak up when Hillary as facing the same thing. It's a tough tightrope for Obama and Biden.

Guess what our friend Andrew Sullivan has been up to? He's writing about a "Jews for Jesus" pastor who once visited Palin's church. Problem is, bringing up church and pastors opens the door for McCain to reintroduce Rev. Wright to the scene. I wish Sullivan would just shut up for a change.

[Anonymous]

Edwards is a loser who has disappeared from the political scene. This is just an attempt to divert people's attention from the real problems that Palin's candidacy poses.

[Anonymous]

Experience is not the only thing that matters. What about the candidate's positions and ways they would go about solving the problems of this country? Sarah Palin is extreme right-wing, and regardless of how experienced she might or might not be, I don't want someone with her views on creationisn, sex-education, abortion, book banning, global warming, energy, etc. etc. to be in a position of power -- and God forbid! -- a heart-beat away from the presidency. And I don't want someone with McCain's positions and world view to be president either, regardless of how experienced he is and how much he loves America.

[Anonymous]

Edwards gained national exposure. Because he was very much in the trend of southern Democrats represented by Clinton, he was judged to be an up and comer. Because he many opportunities to articulate his views before a national audience, people began to perceive that he was experienced, whether it was true or not.

Might I point out that many of us view national exposure and Washington experience as not such a great thing?


3) Palin lacks "perceived experience". Had she spent the last year appearing on national news shows and expressing her views on national issues, she may have gained "perceived experience", but most people had never heard of her.

Again Jeff, many of don't care who speaks weekly on Meet the Press or other such shows. Big shrug.

jsteele wrote:
5) Both Clinton and Obama got wide national exposure by giving keynote addresses and Democratic Conventions. Even though both had no national experience at that time, the addresses were seen as announcements that they were interested in higher office. They spent subsequent years getting prepared.

Your point? Maybe Sarah never considered national office, never had the ambition, but when called she rose to the challenge? Not to mention your examples, Clinton and Obama wanted to lead the ticket, something Gov. Palin does not.

jsteele wrote:
To reiterate a bit, when I talk about "experience", I mean experience with the issues and skills needed for the vice presidency and, particularly in the case of a 72 year old president, the presidency.

My parents are 79 and 76 and, while they could, I don't expect either of them to leave this earth tomorrow. My grandmother still felt it her duty and right to tell me what she thought until she died at 95! (God rest her ) McCain is in amazingly good health, especially considering his age and POW medical (or lack there of) experiences. Roberta is a fiesty 96. Skills - Palin seems a quick study - would you dispute that? It isn't as though anyone in the executive makes decisions in a vacuum, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
3) Palin lacks "perceived experience". Had she spent the last year appearing on national news shows and expressing her views on national issues, she may have gained "perceived experience", but most people had never heard of her.

Again Jeff, many of don't care who speaks weekly on Meet the Press or other such shows. Big shrug.

Don't you want to see how she performs under pressure from the type of grilling that would only occur on one of those types of shows? I want to see how she reacts to difficult questions about running the country. Her thoughts on the issues, the fact that she has given some thought and knows a thing or two about national/international issues.

I want her to prove her smarts/intelligence via one of these shows. How else would she be able to do prove that to a national audience in a short period of time.

Yes, I realize this will come across as elitist but having a BS in journalism from a third-tier college, being the mayor of a small-town, governor of a small state doesn't prove it. She comes across as average - so far nothing has stood out. Go on a darn talk show and prove to the nation that you are more intelligent than your resume indicates. Show me you are above-average, no just average.

Going out on the campaign trail and attacking Obama/Biden proves nothing about her intellect. Answering difficult questions would.

So yes, I care that she hasn't "faced the nation" yet or "met with the press". The longer that goes by without her doing so, the more questions I will have about her qualifications to be VP.

[jsteele]

I think a couple of the PPs may not have understood that I was responding to the first question in this thread. I explained why Edwards was not challenged regarding his experience. It seems some of the responses challenged the value of the factors I outlined, not whether or not they were true factors. That's a different discussion.

Since the discussion has veered into the value of national media exposure, I concur with the latest PP who felt such exposure is necessary. Currently, we know that Palin does a stand-up job of reading a teleprompter. She has not answered a single question from the press. The McCain campaign says she will be limited to pre-planned speeches and will not have press conferences or appear on the weekend show. If that turns out to be the case, it would be an extraordinary development. It would be a blatant admission of her lack of preparation for national office.

He convention speech was little more than a condescending attack on Obama. It offered little insight on her views or policy ideas. If she expects to be a 72 year old heardbeat from the presidency, she is going to have to do better than that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think a couple of the PPs may not have understood that I was responding to the first question in this thread. I explained why Edwards was not challenged regarding his experience. It seems some of the responses challenged the value of the factors I outlined, not whether or not they were true factors. That's a different discussion.

Since the discussion has veered into the value of national media exposure, I concur with the latest PP who felt such exposure is necessary. Currently, we know that Palin does a stand-up job of reading a teleprompter. She has not answered a single question from the press. The McCain campaign says she will be limited to pre-planned speeches and will not have press conferences or appear on the weekend show. If that turns out to be the case, it would be an extraordinary development. It would be a blatant admission of her lack of preparation for national office.

He convention speech was little more than a condescending attack on Obama. It offered little insight on her views or policy ideas. If she expects to be a 72 year old heardbeat from the presidency, she is going to have to do better than that.

OP here. Yes, she will have to do more, I agree. I suspect that after she sees her son off to Iraq and gets her affairs in order in Alaska, we will see some soft media interviews and then some exposure on talk shows. Obama was, at one time, very skilled at giving speeches but much less so in taking questions. We'll see how Palin does; she'll have much less time than Obama did to get up to speed, as Jeff has noted. I already know I dislike her policy positions, but I'm taking a wait-and-see approach in terms of her ability to cope with talk shows and press avails because I don't have any data points on that yet.

For the PP who said this question was just an attempt to "divert people's attention from the real problems that Palin's candidacy poses," you couldn't be more wrong. I'm a Democrat and Obama supporter who is asking us to examine our attitudes toward Palin in comparison to our attitudes toward Edwards. Is there something besides Palin's sex and ideology that makes us believe she isn't competent? Jeff made some great points about "perceived experience," and he also rightly noted the difference between actual and perceived experience. I frankly believe much of the bullshit on talk shows is largely about self-promotion and acquiring that "perceived experience" or "perceived competence." I never felt Edwards had much in the way of real competence or experience to offer, but four years ago he was on the ticket under Kerry. You can call him a loser, PP, and I heartily agree, but he was touted as a real up-and-comer and was our VP choice. In the end, he couldn't even win his own state. I'd argue that being on talk shows, which Edwards has done a lot of, didn't translate to anything real.