- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I've said this before in defense of Obama, and I'll use the same argument as to why Sarah Palin is a disastrous choice as VP: there simply is no correlation between years of experience and the quality of a president. Case in point: Richard Nixon was one of the most 'experienced' presidents in history. He was by all accounts a brilliant man and was second in command to one of the most effective administrations in US history. Nixon was also fundamentally dishonest and paranoid, and his presidency turned out to be as flawed as his own character. Experience on it own means nothing. It only gets its value from the person who has it. What matters is leadership. Obama is first and foremost a great leader (and his 12 years' of local and national experience are more than enough to provide a firm footing of the basics). As such, we don't know much about Palin's ability to lead, but the facts as they're starting to emerge are disturbing to say the least. And with the news that McCain had only met with her once the day before the announcement, the issue really should be about McCain's wacky judgement and callous disregard for his country.
