Crossposted from The Motley Moose

The Palin Fail on abuse of power and ethics violation is a matter of record now.  A non-partisan legislative council convicted her of those charges.  The McCain machine response is that she wins because she does not face certain censure and impeachment due to her violations, only potential censure and impeachment.  They - and most of the media - have missed the point.

The Palin administration has been convicted of rank amateurism. If this is the "executive experience" she touts, we are better off hiring an experienced executive crook like Ken Lay.

At least one person in the media didn't miss that.

There's more...

and you were a lady, would you marry me, would you have my baby?

Or perhaps I should better say `If I had Obama's ear'... While you wrestle with that question, you might find some welcome relief in glancing at the strategies, lines, and arguments which I would urge if I were Obama (or had his ear), and which I've freshly transferred from the margins of the papers I've been neglecting this past week.  I've been heartened by what I've seen lately, especially the recent ads, so some of these might amount to slight variations on what the Obama camp is already doing. But I don't think any of us should feel hesitation to throw our two constructive cents in: The collective wisdom of all Democrats at least equals whatever belongs to the political professionals, however relatively concentrated their talent. Of course, most of us have neither the time nor access nor stomach to keep as abreast of all the developments (not to mention commentary) as actual professionals, but in terms of forensic judgement, in all its forms, the idea that the professional class represents the final result of some meritocratic process is wishful thinking, and the last few elections (for Democrats) is irrefutable proof thereof. So, with all appropriate apologies to those who may have said exactly the same thing (often), my two (constructive) cents:

There's more...

The Associated Press won't say it, but I will: Rudy Giuliani told an out and out lie about Barack Obama tonight.

"He's the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years," he said to the cheering, chanting convention. "Nobama, nobama," came the chants from the floor and the galleries. And "Zero, zero" when Giuliani said Obama has no experience.

Simply untrue and demonstrably false. Let's start with Wendell Willkie, the Republican nominee in 1940. He had no experience in elective office whatsoever. Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for two years when he was elected President in 1912. Both Alf Landon and Adlai Stevenson were Governor for four years when they were nominated by the GOP in 1936 and Democratic Party in 1952, respectively. That's four nominees with as little experience, or less, than Obama in the last century.

If we're talking total time in government or elective office, Obama's experience rivals that of George W. Bush (six years as Governor of Texas prior to his nomination in 2000), as well as Ronald Reagan (eight years as Governor of California before being nominated in 1980), Al Smith (eight years as Governor of New York before his nomination in 1928), Thomas Dewey (four years as New York County D.A. and two years as New York Governor prior to being nominated in 1944), John Davis (one term in the House, five years as Solicitor General, and three years as Ambassador to the U.K. before being nominated in 1924), James Cox (six years as Governor of Ohio, four as a Congressman before being nominated in 1920), and Charles Evans Hughes (less than four years as Governor of New York and less than six as a Supreme Court Justice before being nominated in 1916).

You can debate the half dozen or so names in that second list, but you can't deny the names in the first -- particularly that of Willkie. Now the AP might not want to call the statement a lie, they might want to run the statement without even mention of the fact that it is not true whatsoever, and it may not even mean that much in the long run, but when I see something like that I can't help but speak up.

There's more...

Coming into the general election, it appeared that the Republican ticket headed by John McCain would have a sizable advantage on the question of experience over the Democratic ticket headed by Barack Obama -- an advantage that might be overcome by Obama's lead on the "change" question, but an advantage that would nevertheless be noticeable. Indeed, polling from late June showed that while 76 percent of voters said they thought McCain had the right experience to be President, while just 48 percent said the same about Obama. But there is now an indication that these numbers are shifting following the addition of the Vice Presidential nominees to the two parties' tickets.

EMILY's List (.pdf) is out today with a survey of women voters conducted by a leading Democratic pollster, Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, which finds an overall 11-point advantage -- 52 percent to 41 percent -- for the Obama-Biden ticket over the McCain-Palin ticket, a spread that compares favorably with John Kerry's 3-point win among women voters in 2004. But as good as these numbers are for the Democrats, another set of numbers from the survey pointed out by The Plain Dealer of Cleveland stood out to me in particular.

Palin's selection also undermined a 35-point experience advantage McCain enjoyed over Obama in a poll Garin conducted before the candidates picked running mates. Fifty-two percent of women now find the Obama-Biden ticket has the experience advantage, while 37 percent give the experience edge to McCain-Palin - a 15 point advantage for Obama.

It's worth noting again that this is a poll from a Democratic firm and was sponsored by a progressive organization, and that it includes just women voters -- a group that is more Democratic than the nation as a whole -- rather than the entire electorate. As a result, it would be worth following up with more polling on the subject to find out if there is in fact a trend here and, what's more, if such a trend is apparent within the entire electorate and not just part of the electorate. Additionally, it would be worth following up to see if McCain gained as much on the "change" question as he apparently lost on the experience question. It would also be worth going back and polling after the public has had a chance to digest not only the flow of negative news on Palin but also her speech tonight at the Republican National Convention. Nevertheless, if it is the case that experience has been taken off the table while failing to gain enough back on the "change" question, there could be some real problems for the GOP ticket.  

There's more...

I'm at the end of my tether hearing about "executive experience".  The Republicans have clearly identified this as a key talking point and they are towing the party line down to the last man and woman.  I even heard yesterday the argument that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Joe Biden and is therefore more prepared to become POTUS.  What amazing contempt they have for the American people.  For that matter, there is a Lucky's Bubble Tea Cafe in the basement of my builiding.  Are it's owners better prepared than Obama and Biden for the Presidency because they "run" the place?  Give me a break.

There's more...