I'm not sure my party wants me as a member any more

Haven't our last two presidents have comparable experience to McCain's VP choice? Maybe Bush had a bit more from his family connections, but it hasn't helped him much (in my view). And I'd think having a son fighting in a war would concentrate the mind on at least that area of foreign policy.

But, you're right, it is pretty funny to see people like Kagan says stuff like that and expect us to believe it. On the other hand, it's kind of a brilliant political move, because the elephant in the room is, of course, that she's has about the same amount of foreign policy experience as the Dem presidential candidate, and the media has been telling for months that that's no big deal.

Actually, Kagan is saying what WF Buckley said many years ago:

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

Experts in any Establishment are often overrated. How many foreign policy debacles orginated with Mandarins? Best and Brightest anyone?

How much foreign policy experience did that grocer's daughter in the UK have? And Truman? Other governors who sought the Presidency have hardly been heavyweights in this area.

Finally, is anyone campaigning on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant? I must have missed that speech.

It kills me too.

Any comments on the interview she just held?

Given that the VP has no duties whatsoever, I don't think Palin's lack of foreign policy experience matters. Really, I don't think Obama's lack of foreign policy experience matters, either (traveling to Europe does not make one experienced).

The key for either of them on the foreign policy front will be whom they choose as advisors. I would say that it is at least possible that Palin's lack of experience is a good thing, to the extent that she has able advisors, so she is not precommitted to bad ideas (though her answers re: Georgia to Charlie Gibson are not heartening. I look forward to someone, somewhere saying, look the Georgians are nice people and all, but if Vlad Putin wants to gobble them up, we just flat don't fucking care.)

"Haven’t our last two presidents have comparable experience to McCain’s VP choice?"

Largely true (about almost every President). But I believe this focuses on the useful "Experience" but ignores the indispensable "Knowledge" (as well as "Judgment" and several other equally indispensable characteristics).

Mr. Drezner may have little or no "experience" but I believe it is safe to say that he has considerable "knowledge" that would be useful for such an office-holder as VP. [Temperament is another question. ;>) ]

"she’s has about the same amount of foreign policy experience as the Dem presidential candidate"

Hardly. Let's see: one co-sponsors a law to deal with 'loose nukes' in the ex-Soviet Union, the other exists(?) bordering [sic] Russia? One sits on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, the other deals with fishing "issues"? One lived overseas for significant periods, the other got a passport last year. (I guess it depends on the definition of "about.")

What Bob Kagan is essentially saying is that "elite" is just a fancy-smancy word for "those prepared to exercise well-informed judgment." (Musn't have too many of Those.)

Palin may honestly believe, for example, that the U.S. should go to war with Russia to protect Georgia or any other ex-Soviet state seeking to free itself from Russian domination. And some "elites" may agree - and be able to explain rationally why instead of rattling off some position 'line' without understanding.

But does anyone really think the following type of follow up exchange wouldn't be quite possible? --

Q: Kazahkstan too?
A: Yes.
Q. What about Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan?
A. Yeah.
Q. Muliqistan?
A. Yes, any of them who want the same type of freedom we enjoy here.
Q. Really? Even Muliqistan?
A. Yep!

Given their cherished hostility to science, is it really surprising to you that they think foreign policy expertise is irrelevant?

There's nothing conservative about this political party. It would be silly for anyone to confuse nationalism, evangelism, populism, or whatever other junk they're peddling with a rational conservatism.

"[I]s it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?"

If that candidate represents a party that believes government is inherently incompetent, or fears that a competent government is a threat to market forces, individual liberty, public morality, etc., etc., then he would think expertise would simply get in the way, wouldn't he?

The irrelevance of expertise, and the imperative of ideological certainty, has been the operating principle of the Bush administration on just about every front.

Will McCain follow suit? A lot of conservatives seem to be hoping he's just making obligatory noises and gestures during the campaign, and would govern more sensibly. I'm not buying it; but I'm neither a conservative nor a Republican.

As a former McCain supporter, can someone please tell me why the conservatives are supporting this modern version of a once viable and responsible Party? I simply don't know this new McCain, and cannot believe that anyone could support Palin as second in command of the US. Am I wrong here? She scares the hell out of me.

"a party that believes government is inherently incompetent"

Not that I expect ideological consistency from our politicians, but it's always baffled me that people who believe in the incompetence of government, especially when it comes to bringing about cultural/social change (except in the negative), could buy into the idea of democracy promotion through military force and administration.

It's not the anti-experience platform of the GOP that really grates on me, but the anti-intellectualism. So John McCain steals Hillary's line about not trusting economists, Sarah Palin has been on record as saying she disputes all serious scientists' conclusion that human activity contributes to global warming, and now the campaign claims that being a hockey mom - whatever that means - in a state that is close to Russia geographically somehow bequeaths an innate knowledge of, and instinct for, international affairs. It's pathetic.

Persist if you will in saying that Palin has as much FP experience as Obama but it just isn't true. Obama has been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate for almost 4 years -- enough at least to understand in some depth the implications of whatever advice is given to him. Unless one is going to be ruled by advisers as John Jenkins above seems to suggest, it is important to be able to evaluate and weigh the advice given to you and that requires more than a 'talking point' or 'gut' level understanding of the issues involved.

Republicans can't keep telling us that we live in a dangerous world where Islamic extremism is the 'transcendent' issue of the day (that is McCain's word) and then give us Palin.

Finally, for all his supposed inexperience at FP, Obama asked Gen. Petraeus perhaps the most important question of all during Petraeus' testimony in the Senate last fall --- and that was to ask him to describe the 'end state' that needs to exist before significant numbers, if not all, US troops, could come home. Do we want a perfect end state -- democracy thriving, no sectarian tensions, etc -- or is there some 'good enough' that we can aim for. And despite his 'stars' and his PhD and all the accolades heaped on military expertise, Petraeus was stumped. Just like McCain. Ok, your precious surge worked --- now what?

Having loads of experience in Washington isn't necessarily required, though I would say it is certainly good to have some knowledge of the area and a sound process to make decisions (i.e., judgment).

Gov. Palin doesn't seem to have either; e.g., "I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission"

Not a very reassuring statement for a leader IMHO, fools rush in and all that.

Dan:

First of all, Kagan's comment is the sort of bonheaded statement a campaign flack has to say. Suffice it to say, Palin has the same foreign policy experience Clinton and Carter had at the time of their election to the top job. Also, given McCain's very strong opinions on foreign policy, does anyone really think the Vice President is going to have any influence in this arena? Sheez!

If the GOP's foreign policy heavyweights can make themselves comfortable with McCain's rhoid rage foreign policy, then why should we care that they are upset or not upset with Palin? They've already shown that their judgment is fatally flawed.

It's not Palin's lack of "experience," itself, that is problematic. It's her lack of *interest*.

Anyone who has just watched the news for the last eight years would know about the Bush Doctrine -- or would remember it, at very least, after Gibson explained that it came in 2002 and preceded the Iraq War. The fact that Palin drew a blank on this signals to me that she just hasn't been paying much *attention* to current events outside Alaska. That lack of curiosity is terrifying; it reminds me of the worst aspects of first-term GWB. Like GWB in his first term, she talked in zealous and generic ways about terrorists "hellbent" on destroying America, without showing any sign of awareness that the world is a complex place.

She is absolutely, totally unqualified to serve as President, and to nominate her as VP is to invite a national security crisis (and possibly a constitutional crisis) if anything happens to incapacitate McCain.

Having watched the interview, it's clear she's in way over her head on foreign policy. I mean, look, does anyone seriously think the fact that "one can actually see Russia from land in Alaska" was a reasonable way for her to answer a question about her experience? She also repeated the line about needing to defer to Israel three times, as though it were spoon-fed to her and if she just clicked her heels enough times the question would go away.

People say she's a "quick study". Well, I don't see the evidence.

This stuff matters because of McCain. There's a reasonable chance of him not surviving his first term. It matters because it indicates just how reckless he can be when his back's against the wall.

If you care about our foreign policy, you can't view the Palin pick as anything less than completely dangerous.

Jake:

If you care about foreign policy, then the election of McCain is completely dangerous. The razzing of Palin on this issue strikes me as irritation that McCain did not pick a boring white guy like Obama did.

Palin goes in with as much foreign policy experince as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Sitting on the Senate foreign relations committee isn't exactly foreign relations experience. It's experience reviewing what people who actually know what they are doing have done, I suppose, but I think I stand by what I said earlier. I am more interested in the foreign policy team than I am who is at the top of it (and I am cynical enough to believe that it doesn't matter which particular bozo we pick because we've still picked a clown).

Just to add in to the experience vs. knowledge debate...

Though Carter, Reagan, Clinton and W. Bush had similarly thin resumes on foreign policy experience (an aside -- why don't Republicans include Reagan & Bush II with the Carter & Clinton?), all of these candidates had something Palin doesn't: a team of advisors who helped them better understand the world. They worked on thiese issues for a great deal of time before the election (not just 60 days). Yes, they picked advisors from their ideological bent, but they did study the world. Even W. worked hard on this.

This is what strikes me about Palin -- she hasn't been looking at foreign policy at all because she hasn't had the need to do so. And those who don't think this matters are deluding themselves. The chance of her entering office is not miniscule; it is a much higher chance than Biden coming to office.

The larger point for me, however, is what it says about McCain & his team. The choice clearly was not about ability and knowledge, but rather about getting elected. It also says something about the lack of organization and focus from McCain's staff -- is there anyone that will seriously argue that McCain's team sufficiently vetted Palin? That should be worrisome.

A. M., upthread, confuses experience with time in grade, the nominal responsibility for subject matter than comes with certain positions.

Sen. Obama's minimal experience with foreign and national security policy is a source of concern to me; novices in this area have often not done well in the White House, and the last one -- the President we have now -- has been an historic disaster. However, I do respect the thought he has given at least to foreign policy, and his campaign has demonstrated a dedication to orderly process that would serve any President well.

Sarah Palin, by contrast, is an ignoramus. She knows next to nothing, and until two weeks ago she did not care, for the very good reason that her political ambitions did not extend beyond the state of Alaska. Her party, represented in the Twin Cities in all its fat-faced complacency, thinks this is great -- because the Republican Party is George Bush's party, and Sarah Palin brings to the table exactly what Bush did eight years ago. Thanks to her, Sen. McCain has the passionate support of all the people who think George Bush has been a great President.

But I don't want to be unfair, or engage in any singling out. There are many, many other things about which Sarah Palin is at least as ignorant as she is about foreign policy. We'll see if the protective bubble the McCain campaign has constructed around her is able to conceal this until the election.

If you want evidence of Obama's foreign policy experience/judgment, consider the fact that he's been ahead of the Bush admin on a good number of issues these days.

I agree with many of the above that Palin's apparent lack of interest in foreign policy issues is a real concern. Fallows hits that well at this link:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php

I would be more interested in knowing how Obama reached his correct conclusions than that he was right (consider it the legal training hangover). I would bet that he took the most politically expedient position and it happened to be right.

As to the Obama campaign's "orderly process," their behavior since the Palin pick makes me question their ability to handle the unexpected, particularly the unexpectedly bad.

As an aside, I am stunned by all the people who think it is such a horrible, terrible, beyond the pale thing that McCain might have picked his vice president solely for the sake of getting himself elected. That's what politicians DO. Their every waking moment is dedicated to either obtaining or retaining high office. The illusion that any of them have any altruistic motive or dedication to any sort of principle truly astounds me. Is the objection that he broke some unwritten rule that a politician is at least supposed to pretend he is serving something other than his own ego?

As an aside, I am stunned by all the people who think it is such a horrible, terrible, beyond the pale thing that McCain might have picked his vice president solely for the sake of getting himself elected.

Yes, VPs are picked to help win. But what happens after the election, particularly when McCain is no spring chicken? That's where the beyond the pale part comes into play. It was a reckless, reckless pick.

The choice of VP is arguably one of the few decisions candidates get to make that carries Presidential weight. In this light, McCain's choice of Palin is the stunner.

"My Party"

Who did Drezner vote for in 2004? Hint: It wasn't the Republican candidate. So let's not kid ourselves about that. And, BTW, what exactly was the "foreign policy expertise" of the VP candidate that Drezner supported in 2004? I'd like to know. Because, unlike 1992 or 2000, foreign policy was an important issue in 2004. And yet Drezner appears to have supported a VP candidate in 2004 that had no more foreign policy experience than Palin does now.

Anyway, here's another question for Drezner. He writes: "Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant?" Yet the quotation Drezner provides is from Bob Kagan. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm under the impression that Bob Kagan is not the Republican candidate. So I'd like to know why Drezner appears to think that one candidate "campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant" based on a quote from someone who has no relationship with the candidate.
The quote was from Bob Kagan.

Suppose we agree with Me. Jenkins that ALL politicians do is whatever's necessary to win. In this instance, seek to put someone unqualified a heartbeat away from the presidency.

One might hope that when politicians in order to win jeopardize the security of the nation, voters in response do what THEY can do--vote for the safety of their nation.

Jake:

Look, I am voting for Obama despite his selection of Biden, whose noxious gasbaggery would make me cringe, should he become president.

I think people expecting McCain -- who lives to be Commander in Chief -- to select someone strong in foreign affairs, when he's got other weaknesses to fill both as a President and as a candidate for President, are simply projecting their irritation that he is trying to do something other than lose badly but gracefully. I don't think the selection of Palin shows anything about his judgement other than he has a weakness for people who act tough and challenge the system.

Zathras:

I think, given the Cheney nightmare of the last eight years, defining the Vice presidency down somewhat is not a bad idea. Plus, Palin's experience is actually pretty similar to Teddy Roosevelt's at the time he was selected VP. Given McCain's affection for TR, don't underestimate the possibility that this was governing him.

Dan:

In 1968, we were mired in an unpopular war. Who did Nixon select? Spiro Agnew.

In 1940, the war clouds were already gathering. Who did FDR select? Henry Wallace, fer cryin' out loud! Harry Truman was kind of forced on FDR, if I remember correctly.

It's not that she's inexperienced in foreign policies; it's that she's obviously not given the subject any thought. As we saw last night, she's not conversant in the subject -- which means she hasn't been following the debates and events which shape the landscape she would have to take charge of if she were to suddenly become president.

Obama is certainly conversant on the subject. I don't recall Clinton's campaign in 1992 well enough, but the guy was a totally policy wonk, so I'm guessing he was pretty conversant as well.

I'm a Republican-leaning Independent, but I will not vote Republican again until the party shows that it's serious about governance. Judging from the eager embrace of Palin, I'm thinking it's going to be a long while before the Republicans once again have a party a thinking person could be proud to support.

Scared, I think you're wrong. Many polls list foreign policy as something people are worried about, but most people don't even have the remotest clue what it means. (I also don't think Joe Biden is competent to be president of the PTA, much less the United States, but maybe Charles Cawley can give him a hand, he at least has executive experience!)

Put another way: normally the biggest issue is the economy, over which the president has astoundingly little influence or control (nor should he), but the president is nevertheless credited or blamed for economic booms and busts with breathless regularity by the average voter (whose knowledge of economics, like foreign policy, is close to zero.

In any event, which particular clown is up on the stage won't affect our security much at all. Here is a case where bureaucratic inertia works in all our favor.

As another aside, the person above who suggested that George H.W. Bush had no foreign policy experience is, well, insane: he served as DCI, Ambassador to the U.N., and also in a posting in the PRC before becoming Vice President. By the time he became President, he had also been Vice President for eight years. Say what else you want to about the guy, but he was pretty experienced in foreign policy.

Truman was FDR's third VP. Garner ('33 - '41) and Wallace ('41 - '45) preceded Truman, who was elected with FDR in '44, so I am not sure I understood that one.

J. Jenkins:

Henry Wallace was not the kind of guy you want a heartbeat away from the presidency, and had no foreign policy experience in 1940.

[...] Election, GOP at 9:18 am by LeisureGuy John Cole: Dan Drezner, after watching the Palin interview, asks a question: Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the [...]

Kagan likes ignorant politicians because ignorant politicians don't know enough to call bullshit on underpants gnomes like Kagan. Thus, they're easily manipulated and hire fools like Douglas Feith and lunatics like John Bolton.

[...] sane Republican Dan Drezner puts it: “Having chatted with a few members of this mandarin class, I would describe the [...]

I'm not sure what A. M.'s last post was trying to say, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't that Theodore Roosevelt's role as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, leader of combat troops in Cuba and intimate acquaintance of intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic is analogous to anything Sarah Palin has ever been or done.

Personally, I agree that restoring the office to the Vice Presidency to its former limited role in the Executive Branch is a good idea. That doesn't mean I want a grasping, vacuous, small-time politician in the job. The Vice Presidency has always been, before anything else, an insurance policy providing for an orderly transition if the President should die, resign or become incapacitated. You wouldn't buy an insurance policy that promised to pay off in Monopoly money, and it doesn't make sense to have a Vice President who would be completely over her head should she have to occupy the Oval Office.

We learned weeks ago that McCain was taking sleeping pills (Ambien) to help with the stress and strain of the campaign - and that was frankly during something of a lull, and McCain was only stumping for one event a day, and only on weekdays. The guy's 72 years old, and we've all probably seen the actuarial tables - and that's not counting that several of McCain's 72 years were pure hell. Under the circumstances, we were entitled to expect a veep nominee at least minimally qualified to be President. Palin's not just unready; she plainly hasn't even been interested in the most important questions about national security policy for the last several years, the sort of knowledge expected frm the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans who subscribe to serious magazines or read decent newspapers attentively. Does anyone think Christine Todd Whitman, to choose another (differently) appealing Republican woman, would have been caught short like that?

It's really sad. All conservatives seem to want is a candidate that will piss liberals off. Any position or any candidate that liberals don't like is just happily swallowed down without thought. It's shocking how many intelligent people will tie themselves in knots to support a lightweight nobody like Sarah Palin. See the 2nd comment to this thread for example. Does John M. really sincerely believe there is no difference between Margaret Thatcher circa 1977 and Sarah Palin? That's too ludicrous to even deserve a response, and very insulting to Maggie.

I'm quite sure Truman in 1938 could have spoken with far greater expertise on US foreign policy than Palin can today, or probably ever will be able to. And it's far more serious than just foreign policy - Palin doesn't even understand the US - Alaska is very different from the continental US - a different economy, different demographics, different relationship to government. I would never elect an Alaskan to any national office until they had put a little time at some national role whether as a business leader, a military leader, something. Despite Obama's and Bush II's lack of experience, both of them were already "national" figures who had government or business roles that were not narrowly focused on their little provincial corner of the world.

Was Drezner the guy frequently complaining about Cheney's interference with the foreign policy process? Wouldn't someone with extensive foreign policy experience (like Cheney) be far more likely to interfere with foreign policy as VP? So if you aren't going to draw on foreign policy expertise of the VP (i.e., equals "interference"), why would you give a fuck if the VP doesn't have foreign policy experience?

Zathras:

With Ms. Palin, you go too far to call her "graping and vacuous". I think her record in Alaska shows a bit more than that. Is she an intellectual? Well, she cared enough about learning to go to five colleges. Does she know squat about foreign policy? I don't know...did she stay in a Holiday Inn last night?

Would Palin be a good president? Not right now -- she would not have a clue. Would she be a good President after two or three years on the VP job? She might be. She has bucked her party, tended not to govern like a fundamentalist on a rampage, and managed to get things done in Alaska that have been on the drawing board for 20 years. I don't see with her the fundamental incuriosity that has made W such a fiasco as president.

Personally, if the election were between Palin and Biden, I would be inclined towards Palin. Biden has had years in Congress to demonstrate he is not a fool, and hasn't managed it yet. On matters of policy -- his idea that Iraq should be partitioned managed to be perhaps the worst of all options. Of course, he's been around for a long time, so that means he has experience at the art of being an unregenerate dingbat. And his self-editing skills are, shall we say, without peer?

How much "experience" do you really need? Everyone begins ignorant about something.

What about intellectual curiosity and ability to learn? Palin may be a quick study, which is good. But she seems incredibly incurious. That's not a good trait for someone whose job requires asking smart people challenging questions.

Obama seems to ask good questions. That's a big deal.

Palin "may be a quick study?" Look, people don't wake up one day and suddenly go 180 degrees from the person they were when they went to bed. The one thing you can tell from Sarah Palin's very thin resume is that she is an intellectually incurious, not academically inclined, professional "amateur" politician with the common touch and a love of authoritarian solutions to common problems. She's a member of a separatist, john bircher, segment of a conservative party, a member of a very fringe religious community, a self described authentic member of an extremely ideological community of "believers" in a number of right wing myths. She has had 40 some years and even a college education to demonstrate a basic interest in American History, Religious history, and even sociology or anthropology as well as foreign policy. She has had plenty of reason to be interested in those things but she is not and never has been. Such a person doesn't wake up one day ready to be Vice President, or ready to be President. They have been satisfied their whole life with just knowing enough to get by. In that she is exactly like Bush. And he was a disaster. All this blather about "foreign policy experience" and "time in office" obscures the basic fact that Sarah Palin knows less about her own government, its place in the world, and the war her son is going to fight in than the average reader of a free urban newspaper in a big eastern city. She is professionally incurious and submissive to authority--that's her religion's shtick, anyway. And when such a person gets close to the top of the heap? All bets are off. Like Bush saying he received advice from his "heavenly father" instead of asking for some help from dear old former president dad.

I love the person who says they would choose Palin over Biden because Biden (foolishly) argued for partition of Iraq. That was a bad plan, certainly, given the facts on the ground which Biden should have known. What will Palin's excuse be for allowing the execution of any particular plan given that she *does not know the facts on the ground* and doesn't, like her party, think they matter? Palin, presumably, would have gotten us into Iraq, which Biden wouldn't have, on the strength of the very informed testimony of the neo cons like wolfowitz telling her that Iraq had no inherent ethnic divisions! And, because of her us vs them religious world view and end times motivations she would no doubt be perfectly willing to bomb the Iraqis, or the Iranians, if she thought it would bring about the second coming. How do I know that? Because she will be receiving advice from the Kagans and the other political mandarins who got us into this mess in the first place.

The choice isn't, of course, between Palin and Biden. Its between Palin, who stands a very good chance of succeeding McCain in the first four years, and Obama. Of the two of them there is no contest--not on the score of "experience" in some grandiose sense but on the score in *desire to know stuff about stuff before you start killing people.* Palin has zero history of wanting to be informed on anything--let alone her duties as a mother. Obama has a long history of striving to figure things out and get them right. He's a scholarship boy while she's, lets face it, an intellectual mediocrity. The old GOP *including Buckley* for all his absurd and phony pretensions to occasional populism, would have died of shame at Palin's candidacy.

aimai

If you have a college degree that did not come from Regent University or Falwell's paper mill

and you think that Sarah Palin has the necessary depth to be Vice President and quite possibly President

then either you are dishonest, deceiving yourself or your alma mater needs to be investigated for educational malpractice.

You may think she is cute and sassy and has a great rack

you may like her position against reproductive freedom

you may not care that she is a lying sack of shit about the Bridge to Nowhere or earmarks or her record of fiscal (im)prudence which left Wasilla with a staggering debt where it had none previous to her election as mayor

you may not be concerned that under her tenure Wasilla actually charged rape victims for the rape kits needed to gather evidence

you may like her family, you may be able to rationalize her having an unwed pregnant teen daughter while the GOP relentlessly condemns teen sex and single motherhood

All of that is beside the point. If you think she knew ANYTHING about foreign affairs a month ago, if you think she somehow has the experience to be in any federal elective office

You're either deceiving yourself or you're an idiot.

Period. Full stop. How can any person who calls themselves 'intelligent', not see when someone is fluffing their resume? When they are bullshitting their way through the response to a question?

How much does the GOP have to insult your intelligence before you see that is what they are doing???

"Well, she cared enough about learning to go to five colleges."

Learning had nothing to do with her choice of schools in Hawaii. She quickly dropped out of one school there due to the weather, for f**k's sake.

She was there to party and sunbathe, and that's it. Clearly the evangelicalism was a later development.

"On matters of policy — his idea that Iraq should be partitioned managed to be perhaps the worst of all options"

Isn't that what the surge did in Baghdad, by partitioning it into ethnic enclaves divided by lots of tall concrete barriers?

"Wouldn’t someone with extensive foreign policy experience (like Cheney) be far more likely to interfere with foreign policy as VP? "

An ignorant person, manipulated by Cheneyesque ideologues, might be just as likely to interfere. All they need is her signature and authority.

Z:

One Last Comment

TR Timline --

May 7, 1889- May 5, 1895 U.S. Civil Service Commissioner

May 6, 1895- April 19, 1897 President of the Board of Police Commissioners, New York City.

April 1897 -- April 1898 -- Asst Secty Navy

January 1899 -- December 1900 -- Governor New York

SP Timeline

1992-1996 Wasilla City council

1996-2006 Mayor of Wasilla

2003-2004 chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. (This is the one se quits because of ethics isssues with other members)

2006-2008 Governor of Alaska

It's not quite the same -- TR was in the national bureaucracy -- but it is about the same length of time in politics, and there are the strains of reform in both records.

[...] Dan Drezner is right to be credulous of Republican foreign policy operatives like Bob Kagan railing against an elite foreign policy class claiming they’re better judges of foreign policy experience than neophytes like Palin.  Of course experience matters and, rather obviously, Palin has next to no experience in foreign policy or national security policy, Alaska’s proximity to Russia and Canada notwithstanding. [...]

I will concede that A. M. is within his rights to wait until he is hit several times over the head before he sees anything like "fundamental incuriosity" in Sarah Palin. There's no law preventing him from wishing himself into the belief that two or three years hanging around the capital she says she despises and has rarely visited might magically enable her to be something other than another disaster as President; he has plenty of company in buying into the idea that her popularity in Alaska, built on a brief record of sending out oil revenue checks to people that in 49 other states would be taxpayers, is evidence of great things to come. And if he wants to call someone who is plainly a lot more accomplished than he is himself a "fool" and a "dingbat," that's his business.

One has to wonder, though, about anyone who has lived through eight years of Bush Republican administration and remains inclined toward a prototypical Bush Republican surrounded by Bush Republican campaign consultants. There are people who think George W. Bush has been a great President, and I understand why those people are attracted to Sarah Palin. Anyone exhausted by what that kind of person has done with the American government shouldn't want another one of them any closer to the Oval Office than the public tour.

At least I seem to have gotten A. M. off his comparison of Palin to Theodore Roosevelt. As progress, that's not much, but it's not nothing.

UPDATE: Well, I thought I had. I'm trying to imagine what Theodore Roosevelt would have said about the "strains of reform" in Wasilla, Alaska, and how they compared to his own experience.

"And yet Drezner appears to have supported a VP candidate in 2004 that had no more foreign policy experience than Palin does now."

Not a big Edwards fan, but this isn't true. After he entered the Senate, Edwards did a fair amount of fact-finding and other foreign-policy activities.

"tended not to govern like a fundamentalist on a rampage, and managed to get things done in Alaska that have been on the drawing board for 20 years"

Let me get this straight...as the only mayor in Alaska that charged rape victims for police rape kits, wanted to ban or censor library books and fire the librarian for refusing to help her do so, wants creationism taught along side evolution as equal...that is not governing like a fundamentalist? Managed to get things done in Alaska? The pipeline? That still isn't built and is still on the drawing board, what else you got? The only thing she managed to do is get a Canadian corporation to bid on the pipeline job-which the American oil companies are NOT going to let happen anytime soon, so thanks for nothing Sara. Perhaps you should change your screen name to Ignorant Moderate, it fits better.

I’M NOT SURE MY PARTY WANTS ME AS A MEMBER ANY MORE

Dan, you're an intelligent, serious, thoughtful guy who tries to think through issues and come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, experience, and a coherent philosophy of government. The Republicans haven't wanted you for years.

AM, you're leaving out TR's year abroad in Germany after Harvard, and his three years in the NY Assembly (roughly 1881-1884). And he wasn't just a Civil Service Commissioner, but he became president of the organization during his tenure.

His time as Assistant Secretary of the Navy involved preparations for war, and Roosevelt was pretty much in charge of the Navy due to the lack of activity of the Secretary of the Navy.

You also leave out his extensive writings including his 1882 The Naval War of 1812 , which most likely played a part in his later appointment as Asst. Secretary of the Navy.

Palin's record is nothing remotely close to this.

And Senator Obama has what foreign policy experience, exactly? Oh, yeah, he gave that teleprompter speech in Berlin . . . Oh, wait, I forgot, he came out with that lame statement on the Georgia invasion about a week late where he said we needed to go to the UN Security Council. I'm sure Permenent Member Russia would have been so persuaded by the magnificence of Obama's oratory that Russia would have immediately withdrawn troops. The One makes me SO CONFIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!