I said Palin had “run in” a national campaign, not that she had “run” the campaign, which is a large distinction.
Having “run in” a national general election campaign is in itself valuable experience, even though the McCain campaign was not well “run”. Had Palin “run” the campaign herself, it would have been measurably better than it was.
Sorry, should have copied you to my last post.
Anyway, one of the points I made there: if having run in or run a national campaign is the criteria, the only candidates who would meet that standard are losers and incumbents!
I laughed my butt off when Obama claimed that his experience included “running for president.” I’m not changing my reaction to that claim now, not for anyone else, either.
Sorry, should have copied you to my last post.
Anyway, one of the points I made there: if having run in or run a national campaign is the criteria, the only candidates who would meet that standard are losers and incumbents!
I laughed my butt off when Obama claimed that his experience included “running for president.” I’m not changing my reaction to that claim now, not for anyone else, either.
P.S.
Running or running in a national campaign gives a candidate experience in . . . running or running in a national campaign.
It doesn’t give the candidate experience that adds to his qualifications, whatever they may be, to serve as POTUS.
(That said, how WELL a candidate runs a campaign may indicate his general organizational skill.)