Montana Headlines appears to suffer from the bizarre misapprehension that I think McCain is "unworthy," that Obama is "Olympian" and that the only possible reason someone might vote for McCain is because of his experience.
None of this is based on anything I have ever actually said or thought. I clearly said during the primary that McCain was the best possible Republican choice. I have openly expressed my admiration for his willingness to seek consensus across party lines, and I was rooting for him in 2000 until my concerns about his temperament outweighed my admiration for his legislative skills and his willingness to take stands opposed by his own party. I still think that, had he won in 2000, the country would be in far better shape now than it is.
Nor have I, of course, ever said that Obama is Olympian. I have instead said that I think that whole line of argument is moronic.
Finally, I have not said that that the only possible reason one might vote for McCain is because of his experience. I have instead said that I think experience is overrated in presidential candidates but that it nevertheless counts. And I have said that one might well reject Obama because he is far more liberal on certain issues than McCain.
With respect to the main thrust of Montana Headlines' post, I think it misses the point. The issue has never been whether Palin or Obama is more qualified to be president. The issue is that McCain doesn't care. He tells us that Obama is grossly unfit for the job, emphasizes the importance of having a vice president ready for the big job on day one, then selects a vice presidential candidate whose qualifications equal Obama's only under the most generous of standards. If experience doesn't matter to McCain, why should it matter to voters?
I have always presumed that Montana Headlines is an honorable blogger, and I am confident that he will promptly correct his errors.
UPDATE: Rove vs. Rove on the importance of experience. Spoiler alert: Rove loses.