I sat through a Jon Stewart interview with Ari Fleisher where he claimed that Palin has more experience than Obama because she's been in an executive branch (the governor) and he has not. Well, neither has John McCain.
Copy and pastes from Project Vote Smart:
Senate Navy Liaison, 1977-1981
Captain, United States Navy, Vietnam, 1958-1981
Senator, United States Senate, Arizona, 1987-present
Primary Candidate, United States President, 2000
National Security Adviser, Dole/Kemp Presidential Campaign, 1996
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1982-1986.
Community Organizer, Chicago, 1985
Attorney, Sidley & Austin
Professor, Constitutional Law.
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.
Governor, Alaska, 2006-present
Former President, Alaska Conference of Mayors
Former Mayor/Manager, Wasilla City
Former Council Member, Wasilla City Council.
There it is, copied and pasted from the Project Vote Smart candidate profiles of the three candidates. Links provided.
Now back to the claim...
According to the above info, Palin has had a lot less experience: Two years as governor, vs Obama's 8 years as state senator plus 3-4 years as U.S. Senator.
Are we really to believe those two years in Alaska outweigh Obama's 8 in Illinois, 3-4 in U.S. Senate, plus all the time he's had in Washington that surpasses Palin's?
If the answer is "yes, because the governor is an executive branch, and Obama's only been a legislator" than we'd have to disqualify John McCain too, because he's never been in an executive branch either - not a mayor, not a governor.
Does John McCain's non-executive experience work in away that Obama's does not? How so?
If you answer, at least admit that the "Palin-executive experience" argument is false, because it claims that Palin is more experienced than either or both McCain and/or Obama.