They shouldn't talk about Palin's inexperience directly

I heard one of the FL representatives talking about how Palin was inexperienced (and she is), and really going after her on this topic.

I would say that is a bad idea. Republicans can turn that back around on us, and say, "you are defending Obama's inexperience, now attacking Palin for being inexperienced?"

We shouldn't allow that to happen.

Instead, they should go after McCain, for practicing old politics and showing his hypocrisy in selecting an inexperienced candidate, after he railed on Obama for not having enough experience. They should point out that McCain is playing politics, and after everyone in his campaign criticized Obama for not being ready, they go and select someone who has even less experienced in government.

This works in our favor, since if we simply attack Palin for being inexperienced, it will be turned back on us. Instead, go after McCain for declaring how much experience matters, then goes on to add Palin to his ticket. Not only does it show poor judgment on his part, it shows that he is simply playing the same sort of political games that Americans are tired of.

against a yr and half as gov of alaska....

i wouldnt be worried about it

Why even take that route to begin with? If we go after her, Republicans will go back after us on this point, and knowing some of the idiots we have in this country, it will play into McCain's favor.

The average American won't be able to compare their extensive backgrounds, they will simply see them both as inexperienced. They will see Democrats attacking her for being an inexperienced VP pick, and Republicans will turn it back around and point out how we can an inexperienced Presidential pick. It will not be a winner for us.

They should just go after McCain for his clear hypocrisy on this issue. That is a win-win situation for us. If we go after her for her inexperience, they will turn it around on us. If we go after McCain for his poor judgment and hypocrisy in making this pick, it is a winner for us. We can bridge that into showing the difference in the judgment of the two presidential nominees via their VP picks as well.

even IF mccain wins it is still my country and i will still be effected and i am concerned after already having a stupid and inexperienced bush (and no i dont see obama as inexperienced. cause they say doesnt make it true) in the wh. i dont want the possibility of her going in. mccain himself is stupid one of the lowest in grad class. doesnt know shit.

She is inexperienced. She is so inexperienced, that it will be obvious to all, without -- as someone else said -- "hammering" it home. It is obvious, we don't need to hammer it home.

Instead, we should point out that the hypocrisy in McCain's choice. That will take us a lot further than criticizing her inexperience the same way Republicans have criticized Obama's inexperience.

i really believe all of who she is is obvious enough adn there does not need to be attack or going after her. i do agree that it will all be obvious to the voter

i was responding more to if they say... what can we say.... we can still say and not have to take it

Let's fail to fight this battle with the arsenal that we have at hand, they bring a knife we bring a rubber chicken!

Even if they attack McCain for this choice, they're still going to have to point out that she lacks experience, and the Repukes will push it right back at them.

...and you look hypocritical.

You point out what McCain has said about inexperience over the past few months, and he looks hypocritical.

Why is it hypocritical? The argument can be made that Obama's not as inexperienced as the Repubs say. Years of public service. Years in the State Legislature. Now a U.S. Senator.

The counterpoint is not to ignore Palin's inexperience. Rather, the counterpoint is to refute the "inexperience" charge about Obama. They have no chance of refuting a similar charge about Palin.

There's no hypocrisy. That statement is true of only one of these two politicians. And, that ain't Obama.
The Professor

In a way, they would be pointing out her inexperience. But it would be as an attack on McCain, instead of Palin.

And you're right, they won't refute her inexperience. But they won't need to. In the eyes of the average American, inexperienced is inexperienced. They won't bother to understand the nuances in different levels of inexperience.

That's why you don't even get into that debate. It's a lose-lose situation. It's going to be obvious to all that Palin is inexperienced. You don't need to "hammer" that point home. It will be obvious to all. You don't go after that point, then watch the Republicans turn it around on us, and have us on the defensive.

You simply go after McCain for playing the political game, and choosing someone who has even less experience than Obama, after he's spent the past few months being more critical of Obama's inexperience than anyone.

They've already spent months labeling Obama as inexperienced. The attacks of inexperience are basically over, as of today, from the McCain campaign. They can't go to that well any longer. But, if we directly attack Palin for being inexperienced, it will just continue the debate about inexperience, and the Republicans will turn it around on us. And what do we get out of it? Everyone realizing Palin is inexperienced? Something they will all recognize by the end of the day anyway?

This "afraid to play into their hands" is what got Gore and Kerry beat. It's what got us the '94 "republican revolution" and it's ridiculous contract with america.

I think that's a failed strategy. The dems have been doing it for most the last 20 years, and it's been a demonstrable failure.
GAC

Because I believe that if they are stupid enough to go after her inexperience directly, they are making the same mistakes of our previous candidates that failed to win the presidency.

You can see this coming from a mile away. The inexperience debate is off the table, from the McCain end. If we go after her inexperience, it accomplishes nothing positive. If we go after McCain's vice presidential inexperience, they continue to go back after our PRESIDENTIAL nominee's inexperience. Who do you think that is going to hurt more? Again, look at this from the eyes of the average American. They are not going to bother to understand the differences in inexperience. They will see both as inexperienced, and who do you think that favors?

It's just bad all around. You go after McCain for his hypocrisy and poor judgement, not Palin for her inexperience. You force McCain to defend his selection of an inexperienced candidate, you don't go after that inexperienced candidate and allow McCain to retaliate by going after our candidate's "inexperience."

You go after Palin, and McCain goes after Obama. You go after McCain, and he is forced to try and defend himself. Here's how that goes:

OBAMA: Palin is inexperienced!
McCain: So are you! At least she's not heading the ticket!

or...

OBAMA: McCain, what happened to the importance of experience you've been talking about these past few months?
McCain: Umm...

Because they will point out our hypocrisy, in defending Obama's inexperience while complaining about Palin's, and they will also point out that our "inexperience" heads the ticket, whereas their's plays a secondary role.

I can see the commercials already. It will be a bad idea if we go all out on her inexperience. The Republicans will easily turn it around on us, and it will end up making us look bad.

Palin is so inexperienced that we do not need to go on and on about her inexperience. Instead, we should use the opportunity to point out that this is another example of McCain's flawed judgement.

"And it will play into their hands"

Let's not be naive, shall we? Anything and everything we do and say will be looked at by on special interest group or another as "playing into their hands".

Sheesh-- every Monday morning armchair politician in the States seems to have an absolute grasp on what the American would or would not understand.

...would be to stupidly go after Palin for her already-obvious inexperience. It will bring the debate about Obama's inexperience back into the fold, and the Republicans will delight in pointing out that it's much better to have an inexperienced vice president than an inexperienced president. They would welcome those sorts of attacks, so they can have this sort of debate.

You say, "let's not be naive," then think think the American people will really care about the nuances of inexperience? Suuuuuuuuuure. They won't care about comparing the backgrounds of the two to see who is more "inexperienced," but pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in what McCain did today is something they can easily latch onto.

"They won't care about comparing the backgrounds of the two"

I think they will. Anecdotal opinion vs. anecdotal option, or "six of one, half a dozen of the other..."

However, as you seem to advertise an absolute knowledge of what the American people do and do not want, it really doesn't seem that I am indeed the naive one.

After the past eight years, and watching Americans be fooled over and over again, I wish I could believe like you that they all apparently turned into political aficionados, and will research the history of both candidates and be able to distinguish who is more inexperienced.

But in today's "American Idol" society, I know better.

Of course, if Americans act as you think, why point out Palin's inexperience to begin with? They'll already know, right? Since they've researched it and all.

I guess even more of a reason not to directly attack her on the "inexperience" issue!

All they have to do is quote the endless parade of Republicans who said Obama wasn't experienced enough and express astonishment that a party that was so concerned about that issue would even think about nominating someone like Palin. Especially given Sen. McCain's health struggles over the years, God bless him, yadda, yadda, yadda.

We shouldn't go after Palin directly, we should go after McCain and all the other Republicans for criticizing Obama's inexperience, then supporting someone like Palin, who has even less experience in the government.

As I said, by the time the evening news rolls around, and most of these people hear about Palin for the first time ever, and they hear the stories about her political (in)experience, they will understand that she is inexperienced. We don't need to hammer home that point, because Republicans will turn it back around on us. We should use this selection in the right way, and that would be to point out the hypocrisy and poor judgement that it shows McCain has.

8 year in the Illinois State senate, 3 3/4 years in the US Senate plus his years as a community organizer on the South-side of Chicago. All Palin has is 2 years as a mayor in a town of only 5,000 people and just over a year as Governor of Alaska.
Obama should go after McCain in his latest flip flop before he plays the POW card again.

But I guarantee you that if he goes after Palin directly for her inexperience, it will end up hurting him far more than it will end up hurting her and the Republicans. The Republicans will simply turn it back around on Obama. They can't turn the hypocrisy of it all on Obama. Obama wasn't the one complaining about a lack of experience, and he wasn't the one that went and added an inexperienced person to the ticket.

That phrase should preface a lot of questions.