uh, what? i'm not sure who you're defending. i was saying Rush Limbaugh was a bad student. he's even admitted as much. what are you going on about?

and kerry? he wasn't bad, but he wasn't great. vietnam was a mess. who can say? the guys who served on his crew thought he was alright. but why does that matter now, anyway? what's your point?

and i don't care any more how dumb you think al gore is; that's not what makes him right or wrong. it's the evidence, which is more than a little compelling (for the record, i have a strong science background, and am NOT dumb.)

i hope i addressed your comments, i'm not sure exactly what you were talking about in the first place.

Such a notoriously bad student that his GP at Yale was 77, one point ABOVE the fictitious Purple Heart winner he ran against in 2004 [who still hasn't made his Navy records available to the public three years after he promised to.]

And Al Gore got a D+ on his only Science course, which he took in Divinity School as he was too STUPID to get into Harvard Law, even with a US Senator as his daddy. So much for Global Warming credentials!

Obama and McCain received the votes from their parties, in a sense they earned their standing, regardless of experience. If the people didn't want them as their nominees, they wouldn't be here. The selection of the running mate doesn't get to be judged by party, only by the general electorate. Obama picked a veteran politico with a career's worth of experience. McCain picked a mediocre governor over other more experienced candidates, a governor whose only talent seems to be having no qualms about screwing people over, lying, and blowing with the political wind. Oh and she's anti-abortion.

So far the best term for her style was one I found on FireDogLake.

Snowbilly.

Well, sugar, that's what makes 'em talking points–they're not to be mistaken for substantial arguments. If you want those, you'll have to come to my blog.

But if you go far back enough in history you find a man with no executive experience and little legislative experience did a fair job in keeping this country united. His name was Abraham Lincoln.

I'm pretty sure the post isn't a joke, but if I find out, I'll letcha know!

So are we not arguing the “executive experience” angle any more? Is it now “public service and political leadership”? Wow, talking points change so fast these days.

Getting ready for his harrowing hair-plug implants, which deserve commendation as the kind of suffering which builds character. NOT!

Biden is the sort of second-rater that is far less competent than Sen. Lugar as Chmn of the Senate Foreign Relations Cte. And the kind of guy whose lack of on-the-ground experience in military affairs caused him to confuse battalions for brigades.

But he's never gone so far as to believe out loud that the USA has 57 states.

If I recall correctly, so was Cheney. Rush was out too, with a boil on his butt or something (he was a notoriously bad student)….

Obama and Palin are about the same age, with about the same length of service in political leadership. The problem is that Obama hasn't led anything but a Presidential campaign.

Focusing on Palin's “executive experience” when compared to Obama is a winning strategy for Republicans. It's pretty sad when the democrats' candidate for president is a lightweight compared to the Republican party's candidate for Vice President.

This blog post, in a futile attempt to take the sting out of a great Republican talking point, just reminds people about what an untested, untrustworthy leader Obama would be.