Enough with the BS arguments!

Enough with the BS arguments! Back in the end of August I declared the experience argument "moot." Now, it has morphed into snarky comments about Palin's alleged hickishness and Obama's "community organizing." Both campaigns have sublimated the argument and distilled it into treacherous culture language. For Obama's part, he brought it on himself by allowing himself to be baited by Sarah Palin and the GOP, and by directly responding to her criticisms of him, validating them by going on the defensive, and undermining the role of his #2 by taking on the role himself. In fact, you'd think it was Hillary Clinton who was the VP candidate, as she is the one on the campaign trail in hotly contested states like Florida, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan. Note that Palin struck back in Florida two days ago, smashing even Clinton's campaign turnout records in that state. In fact, at this point, you'd think it was Clinton vs. Palin if all you looked at was the media frenzy.

So, let's settle this experience crap once and for all.

According to Article Two of the US Constitution the qualifications to hold the office of the President are: you must be at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the US, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years, by the time of the inauguration.

Everyone in the race is qualified. The constitution does not say anything about experience. Nor does it say anything about more specific topics like "executive" experience, non-partisan proofs, where you went to college, or who you are friends with. And it certainly says nothing about race or gender. We can posit all we want that the framers of the Constitution may or may not have "meant" any number of things, but at the end of the day, they didn't put it in the Constitution.

Another BS argument is going on now about how the candidates are "responding" to the financial crisis and resultant government bailout. Note that everyone was in favor of it until it actually happened, now everyone wants to bicker about the "tax burden." News flash: taxpayers are going to take the burden one way or another, and while I am not sure a government subsidized bailout and carte blanche handover of the steering wheel to Paulson and Treasury is the best idea, at least it's an idea. It's a proactive response, at the very least.

What is going to matter is how the candidate who wins deals with the fallout. If you compare Obama's initial comments to McCain's initial comments you will find something very clear: John McCain's comments are clear, detailed, and well laid out, while Obama's are 80% rhetoric. Democrats are benefiting from the current financial crisis because Democrats always do. But, unless Obama can present a truly flushed out economic response, he is not going to hold his ground once the popular infatuation with the bailout fades, and it will. I don't know about anyone else, but I could give a *bleep* what Obama or McCain think about it, I care what they plan to do about it and so far it looks to me that McCain is the only one who has a concrete plan. Obama has more hot air. Both candidates have adopted a measured reserve in their responses in the last couple days, not coincidentally because Congress is now entering its negotiation phase over the bailout details, and the first presidential debate is in a few days. Regardless, I am surprised to see Obama getting the credit for having the stronger position on the bailout when, if you read the speeches above, it is clear that McCain actually has a position, and Obama has an opinion.