If someone put her up for president a few months ago , it would have been a big joke. It still is. it would have been impossible to convince a person she is qualified. That is because she is not . Now that she has been selected for 2nd on the ticket with a sick old geezer, she suddenly is acceptable? Nope.
I can not even call her a political lightweight. She does not attain that level.
One cite from the NYtimes that shed some interesting light on the issue:
The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced In Alaska
Heh. hehehehe. HEHEHEEHEHE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Well, you know, this doesn’t seem to BE an ‘intelligent debate’.
Works harder?? Where did THAT come from? To answer your question, I’d say that while I have zero idea how ‘hard’ the Prime Minister of Belarus does or doesn’t work, that both jobs give one executive experience. Also, I suppose the PM of B COULD work ‘harder’ depending on what your definition of that term is. After all, they may not have the same amount of bureaucracy that the P of the USA does, so may need to work ‘harder’.
What does the relative hardness have to do with anything out of curiosity?
Same answer. I think they have very similar jobs, so very similar experiences. Not equal experiences, but similar.
Well, it may be obvious to YOU…it’s not so obvious to me why you think there is a difference. In fact, your two examples seem, granted to MY mind, to be perfect examples of what I was getting at. To use your examples, do you think that a Senator or Congressman has the same experience as the Mayor of Augusta? If not, what’s the difference between them?
-XT
For me, it’s not the size of the state, but rather that fact that she was 1 of 1 - the buck stops here so to speak. That takes a very different mindset than being 1 of 100 simply voting on things.
Running a company of 100 people is drastically different from a company of 10,000 people. I can’t believe you’re even making this comparison with a straight face.
Well, that’s probably because I DIDN’T make that comparison. Here is actually the one I DID make:
Last time I checked a battalion wasn’t composed of 10,000 people.
Of course, the MAIN point I was making was the the comparison if similarity of position (company commander vs battalion) when compared to the difference (direct leadership command vs non-direct command).
And yes, my face is straight…though FWIW I’m laughing on the inside as things go beyond ridiculous.
-XT
XT - Not to put words in your mouth, how about you use a military rank (company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division) to compare the Alaska Governorship versus the California Governorship. Secondly to rank the Alaska Governorship versus the President of the US (Eg, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces). Thanks.
Well, as a former Army company commander:
I’d say managing Alaska is like being a platoon leader
California is like being a Battalion Commander, and being President is like commanding, well, the entire armed forces. 
Sure, there are platoon leaders that are wonderful executives and amazing leaders. It doesn’t mean they’re ready to step in if a General goes down. The BC, on the other hand, could probably slide into that spot without that much trouble.
Yes, there is a huge difference between governing a state that has a population smaller than the city I live in (Yes, Columbus, OH has 100,000 more people than Alaska) and governing a state of 25 million.
Sure, it’s significant. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s a governorship no matter how you slice and dice it. Is it the absolute best experience you could have? Of course not. But we’ve had plenty of VPs (and Ps) with similar or less experience. Hell, it would be easy to argue that Obama is less “experienced” than Palin. Differently experienced would be a better description, but I don’t see how being in the Senate does a whole lot to prepare you for being in the WH. Certainly not for 1 term. Less than that, even.
I wonder if McCain wanted a Governer from a big state with experience why he just didn’t ask Bush to be VP.He would have had played to his base just as well.
Monavis
Just what I was going to say but you did it better. An Alaskan governor boasting of keeping taxes low is like a casino owner bragging about making a profit. It’s almost impossible not to do so.
I would consider it relevant experience, just as relevant as any other governorship. OTOH, having “experience” doesn’t mean you are qualified for the job. She’s got 2 years of experience, taking over from a corrupt administration, and no other qualifications to speak of*.
If she was finishing up her second term, had 6 years as governor under her belt, showing an ability to run the state well over an extended period of time, I don’t think we’d be citing the smallness of the state.
2 years of experience isn’t enough when you have nothing else on your resume.
*Mayor of Podunk is a part-time job, you can’t seriously consider it experience that makes you qualified to be President. My FIL was mayor of a larger city than Wasilla, he’s a nice guy and all, but I don’t think that experience makes him ready to be President.
I don’t think that just being governor is that useful. At the very least, I think you’d want to pick someone who proved themselves an above average governor.
I would say, realistically, that a Governor is a Governor. However, I’ll concede though (somewhat) that a larger state would have a larger staff. So, I’ll disagree with Jman and say that being the Governor of Alaska would be like being a Battalion Commander (so LT Col.) while that of California would be Brigade (Full bird Col).
(Regimental commanders don’t really come into it any more afaik…though I was in the Navy so grain of salt).
The President would be an Army commander (LT General or higher…probably 5 star I guess since he’d be the top of the heap).
-XT
Alaska has a larger population than Vermont, did you all start whining that being Governor of Vermont was about equal to being assistant manager of a McDonalds back when Howard Dean was running for president?
Arkansas has only 4 times the population of Alaska. How big of a difference is there in being the governor of a state with a population of 2.8 million and a population of 680,000? This isn’t like comparing the CEO of a 100 person company to Microsoft. It’s like comparing the CEO of a 100 person company to the CEO of…a 400 person company. There’s a difference there, but the difference isn’t off the scale.
And Alaska’s oil money doesn’t mean it’s immune from the fiscal problems of other states. It certainly isn’t the highest GDP per capita state: List of U.S. states and territories by GDP - Wikipedia.
If being governor of Alaska is relevent enough, then so is being mayor of Columbus Ohio.
My main problem with an Alaska governor is that they are pretty far removed from the politics and issues of the main segment of the US. And since we’re obviously speaking of Palin specifically, she herself admits that she knows little of national policy, has no idea what’s going on in Iraq and said one of her big goals in being VP is to benefit the people of Alaska.
As opposed to Delaware, which is ranked 45th, with a population of 865,000. I don’t think you want to go there.
Delaware actually has 21 percent black population. It has problems that relate to the rest of the country…
Alaska is huge and has unique needs which in many ways do not relate to the rest of us. It is not the place to get a handle on running the country.
I think being a good governor is extremely significant relevant experience, and being a bad governor is also extremely significant and relevant. Just the “being a governor” part doesn’t say much by itself, just as “being a senator” or “being mayor during 911” or “being a POW” doesn’t say much by itself.
I think if you’re saying “a Governor is a governor” you’d be mistaken. It works on the state level the same way it works on the city level. Trust me, Mayor Bloomberg in NY has a HECK of a lot more responsibility than Palin had as the mayor of Wasilla, AK, which was likely a part time job. But hey a mayor’s a mayor!