Montana Headlines thinks Sarah Palin wraps up Montana for McCain. Well, he's often wrong, and we can hope this is another example. Like other Republicans, he is in the uncomfortable position now of arguing that although Obama is too inexperienced to be president, Palin is just fine. He notes that Obama considered governors who are nearly as inexperienced, but doesn't seem to realize that considering an inexperienced candidate and choosing one are very different matters.
Quoting Kirsten Powers, he asks of those who are complaining about the choice: "Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?"
I don't know where "they" were, but I know where I was: I was thinking the man has no chance. But I also thought that he was young enough that he could run again in four or eight years, and the extra experience would make him a better candidate.
Obviously, I was wrong. And I was wrong not because "Dems" put him up but because he was able to win over millions of Americans who hadn't voted for Democrats, or voted at all, before. He did this over the course of hundreds of campaign appearances and carefully crafted speeches, dozens of national debates with the best the party had to offer against him, and by building grass-roots campaign efforts in state after state. His organization in Montana, to cite one example, dwarfs anything that Clinton or McCain has done.
And he did it by going directly against the two American families that have dominated national politics for two decades. Moreover, his was the only one of the three most successful presidential campaigns this election that never ran into financial difficulties. He may lack experience, but he has done all that a human being can do in so short a time to prepare himself for the world's most demanding job.
He has accomplished what no politician in American history has ever managed to pull off. He has run a campaign that transcends race, keeping the black vote firmly on his side while appealing to millions of Americans who have never voted for a black candidate in their lives. He is the Jackie Robinson of presidential politics, and he has changed history. Along the way, he has dealt with attack after attack in ways that demonstrate extraordinary grace and coolness under fire: that he is not black enough, that he is too black, that he hangs out with radicals, that he is too green, too weak, too easily influenced by others. He does all of that while continuing to call on Americans to rise above petty politics, to seek out compromise and to work together for the good of us all.
Having said all of that, I still wish he had more experience. And I wish he were not such a liberal. And if I had a choice of anybody in the country to vote for, it probably would not be him.
But I don't have that choice. I have a choice of Obama, an inexperienced but extraordinarily gifted politician, and his smart and seasoned vice president, or of a bellicose old warrior who now seems to willing to toss aside everything that has made me admire him over the years for the sake of a few extra votes, and his unproven vice presidential choice, about whom there is almost no chance I will learn enough in the next 70 days to persuade me that she could be president.
And Montana Headlines thinks Montanans will fall for her because she hunts moose. Lord save us.
UPDATE: If you still doubt that Obama isn't serious about what it takes to be president, reread this. Then ask yourself whether he or McCain (not even to mention Palin) has thought more carefully about the president's authority and responsibilities.