Pundits rarely criticize each other by name. So when they do, it's fun to point it out. Here's Michael Kinsley on right wing
sophistry punditry re Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick for Vice President:
But that's so five minutes ago, before Sarah Palin. Already, conservative pundits have come up with creative explanations for McCain's choice of a vice presidential running mate with essentially no foreign policy experience. First prize (so far) goes to Michael Barone, who notes on the U.S. News and World Report blog that "Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia. And it is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II." I think we need to know what Sarah Palin has done, in her year and change as governor of Alaska, to protect the freedom of the Aleutian Islands before deciding how many foreign policy experience credits she deserves on their account.
And here is the inexplicable David Brooks on the experience question:
So my worries about Palin are not (primarily) about her lack of experience. She seems like a marvelous person. She is a dazzling political performer. And she has experienced more of typical American life than either McCain or his opponent.
There's more to that but it brings up a family issue which no one should give a rats about. I'm curious, however, how someone could experience more of a typical American life than someone else. I suppose McCain's career in government and vast wealth and privilege would exclude him from the category of typical, but what about Obama? Seems like his life–school on scholarship, etc.,–is fairly typical of a vast number Americans. But besides, how would having an even more hyperbolically typical American life constitute a qualification for the most unique job in the country?
Update, I think this commenter on Crooked Timber aptly captures the issue (the comment regards Harriet Mier's nomination to the Supreme Court)–via Sadly, No!