Despite fairly serious reservations, I’m leaning Obamaward in the upcoming election. Still, I think it’s absolutely fair for Republicans to focus on his relative lack of experience in making their case against him. But it does seem that you can’t simultaneously do that, and then say things like this when the question turns to Sarah Palin’s qualifications for the heartbeat-away gig:
Palin as #2 represents the triumph of Apolitical America in Presidential politics in extremis. Elitists on both sides are asking ‘Who is this woman?’ To them, Palin is the ultimate arriviste, having leapfrogged several more-pedigreed candidates on the Republican side, and offending the Democratic sensibility that the Presidency is something you arrive at mostly through long study in Senate hearing rooms and law libraries.
This is why I ultimately think the attacks on Palin will backfire. As the Politico notes, everything about her life experience reinforces the narrative that she is not an all-consumming political animal, and has an active family life. That is not a bad place to be with the electorate.
So, Democrats are the party of elitism. But questioning a candidate’s political experience and pedigree is also elitist. Also, Obama is dangerously inexperienced. These three concepts are kept in a state of constant rotation about each other by means of advanced Republican cognitive technology, achieving a precarious state known as an Escher Equilibrium. Or so I assume.