Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Corner Office for Palin

Lehman Brothers, one of America’s most venerable and trusted investment banks, is floundering, and according to news reports this afternoon, desperately seeking a buyer. Chairman and CEO Richard Fuld, Jr., is said to be scouring the list of usual and unusual suspects in search of someone who can keep Lehman from going under. One can reasonably assume that if new owners are found, they may want their own person, not Fuld, to run the bank.


Lehman Brothers headquarters in New York.
(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

So how about Sarah Palin? Some may complain she has no experience running a major financial institution, but if the polls are right, many Americans believe that her lack of experience isn’t fair game. The media might question her credentials, but the media are plainly biased. Besides, she’d surely have expert advisers to help her deal with the complex issues that are likely to arise in managing Lehman.

But if the thought of Palin stepping in to run one of Wall Street’s leading banks gives you pause, relax. Nobody has proposed her to take Fuld’s place. And it’s a relief to know that were she to become president of the United States, the problems she’d confront would be far simpler than
those at Lehman.

By Harold Meyerson  | September 11, 2008; 5:16 PM ET
Categories:  Meyerson  | Tags:  Harold Meyerson  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Barack's G.O.P. Problem
Next: 'There Are a Lot of Reasons to Cover Losers'

Comments

What a rotten sexist article ... does Meyerson think Obama has greater experience than a Governor? What would liberals like this say if he had substituted Obama's name instead of Palin's????????
McCain-Palin '08
Hillary 2012!!!

Posted by: Francisco Cardenas | September 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I can't figure out the point of this little entry, except for pure snarkiness. Is this really what passes for journalism at WaPo these days? No wonder the paper's in trouble.

Posted by: ezr1 | September 11, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

This whole dumb discussion of Palin is distracting everyone from important debate about the economy, the deficit, healthcare, Iraq, etc. But since we can't seem to help ourselves, here is my two worthless cents. It would be better if Mike Huckabee was the Republican nominee, because he would appoint Chuck Norris to do everything. Chuck would deliver a devastating round house kick to the Fannie of each and every investment bank CEO and bed down with the economy for a week to pump up growth. Walker Texas Regulator, where are you when we need you?

Posted by: Al in Princeton | September 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

This sort of commentary is just embarrassing. Could liberal-leaning journalism discredit itself any further?

Posted by: Hill | September 11, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

OK...the Reps started this...but whats the difference between a pig and Palin?

yes...lipstick.

Posted by: Anon | September 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually since she's lobbied up to her ears, and has got a lot of NEO-CONS handling everything she says and does, including Karl Rove. So maybe they could help her at Lehman?

...She was a mayor who ran her city into debt - so she understands the muni bods market process - the negotiated process, anyway.

...Palin is good at reaching out from her official government position to fire private citizens, so downsizing the staff at Lehman should be no problem for her. She even tried to fire a librarian who refused to ban books - and she fired the well-regarded Alaskan Public Safety Comissioner because he refused to illegally fire her sister's ex husband! Now that's leadership!

It won't matter that she has ZERO federal of foreign policy experience. Besides Karl Rove's crime syndicate will help her should it come up.

I think you've found a winning bidder Mr. Meyerson!

Besides - A rookie governor has nowhere NEAR the experience of a 12 year state senator, and US Senator.

Obama can handle the Whitehouse without Karl Rove's people - No problem while Sarah mis-manages Lehman into the ground... Let's get Palin in there and short Lehman's stock and we'll all be as rich as John McCains shoe preferences require!

Posted by: JBE- REALITY | September 11, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I guess most Americans must apply the it's good enough for government standard to the Oval Office in their easy acceptance of Palin. Nothing like satire to point up the absurdity of the pick.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | September 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This is a nonsensical position. How can a left leaning "journalist" go after someone without experience and then support a canidate who has the same weakness. This man is a joke. Really both sides have to take the experience factor off the table.

Posted by: Joe Toff | September 11, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Well thank goodness they can find a place for her where she can't do any more harm.

Posted by: Terry, OH | September 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

It is certain, the being the president of the United States is far more difficult than being ceo of Lehman. What is this jerk talking about? The only thing Sarah is good at that Lehman would need is raising her right hand in court and swearing to tell the lie, the whole lie, and nothing but the lie.

Posted by: mzbond | September 11, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I am ashamed To admiT that I've read the Post for over 20 years.
What a horrible reference.Why not say what your writing about... it is pure sexism..if it was about O'bama it would be total racism.
I am disgusted with Sally Quinn, her sexism refernces and the Washington Post-Shame on every one of you.
Let's go to Chicago like we are in Alaska and search Senator O'bamas specific daily tasks, hey and while were at it lets look at his voting record in the senate....he sure has taken some great stands for what he believes in...PRESENT!!1 LMAO LMAO

Posted by: Nicholas | September 11, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

you puny earthlings cannot withstand the powerful forces of chaos soon to be released by your new earth leader, mcpalin.

Posted by: martian | September 11, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

No experience? What about the fact that Obama has run a very tight and effective national campaign, which he has taken from nothing to being "this close"? If he doesn't win this election, Lehman Bros could do worse. Except, of course, he was already offered jobs in New York and turned them down to be a "community organizer..."

Posted by: Sue Robbins | September 11, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

This article is just an embarrassment to the author and the Washington Post. Other taking cheap shots at Gov. Palin, what is the purpose? Oh, wait, I got it: it WAS a cheap shot!

Disgraceful.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | September 11, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

i don't see the problem with a journalist giving their opinion. the wsj gave karl rove a column.

Posted by: flush mechanic | September 11, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

What is the point of this article. It's so poorly written, and I'm not quite sure what you were trying to convey.

It makes no sense at all, other than to try to blast Governor Palin.

Is there anyone out there who knows what the author is trying to do?

Posted by: tennismomthat | September 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Meyerson:

Your column is nothing but silliness. Oh, but that's one of Obama's talking point words.

Actually, if Palin took on the big oil companies and pulled them in line, then maybe she would be good for the Lehman Bros.

Obama has less experience than Palin. That's why he flip-flops on positions so much, sometimes even in the same day.

If Obama didn't have the good judgment to pick Hillary as VP, and tosses l8 million votes away, then why should we trust him with our country. It's funny, everybody knew that but Obama. Even Biden admitted it.

I knew of Palin but never knew much about her before a couple of weeks ago. She's a real dynamo. Whether you share her political views or not, she's done quite a lot in her short time as Governor. That stares in glaring contrast to Obama, who suffers from paralysis by analysis.

Posted by: J | September 11, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Harold, her inexperience not being a problem was lasts week. This week, the intent of the campaign's analogies to Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman is to portray inexperience as a predictor of excellence! [nevermind that both had far more experience when they took office].

BTW, I would love to see professional journalists, at least, get the difference between floundering and foundering.

Posted by: turningfool | September 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, Mr. Meyerson, you are just wrong. When George W. Bush was "elected," a lot of people worried that his inexperience would get the country into trouble. But he had a team of smart people ready to handle the details and advise him, and look at how well it all worked out!

Posted by: lydgate | September 11, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

It is always interesting to read an artiole written by someone like Harold Meyerson. Someone who has never had any important responsibility, other than taking cheap shots at other persons. Understandably he does not understand what is entailed to be a Mayor or a Governor, but he probaably knows the role of a community activist/organizer.

Being an exectuive appears to be a role he thinks he knows about. By doing what?

Has he no shame?

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 11, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Gee wasnt Dubya a governor before he took over the oval office. Enough of Governors being more qualified, if you look at Dubyas last 7 years all Govs should be banned from running for Pres. If i am not mistaken Kennedy had 7 years of Senate experience and no Governor experience and he was a fine president...

Posted by: Experience? | September 11, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Does no one understand satire anymore? At least the post gave me a nice chuckle

Posted by: mindofyih | September 11, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I just watched Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin. The most amazing thing about the interview was that she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. When asked by Gibson, her first response was "His [Bush's] world view." Only after Palin explained what the Bush doctrine was could she answer (more or less) the question: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? And yet, if anyone says she is not qualified, they will be accused of being sexist or hostile to small town folk.

Posted by: Mike C | September 11, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

So once again Harold Myerson has gone back
into his la la land delusional that must be
fuel by drinking too much toxic brainrot
Obama kool aid and snorting coke with Der
Leader Messiah Barack Hussein Obama,that
this clown keeps coming up with his constanly out of touch with reality and off
the wall Pro Obama WAPO Shill nonsense,and
that means Myerson needs to retire and go
check into an Emergency Obama Kool Aid Detox Center before his last couple braincells rot away on him very soon.

Democrat Messiah Barack Hussein Obama The
Sleazy Sexist Marxist Socialist Democrat
Liberal White Woman Hater Will Cost The
Dimwit Democrats the White House in 2008!

This Independent Voter Is Voting For The
Next President of the US John McCain and
Next Vice President Sarah Palin!

NOBAMA & NOBIDEN NOW OR EVER!

Posted by: Patty2008 | September 11, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

What a rotten sexist article ... does Meyerson think Obama has greater experience than a Governor? What would liberals like this say if he had substituted Obama's name instead of Palin's????????
McCain-Palin '08
Hillary 2012!!!

Posted by: Francisco Cardenas | September 11, 2008 6:06 PM
---------------------
I thought Democrats were always the ones crying sexism, ageism, and the like. Republicans have turned into the biggest bunch of whiners. Sarah Palin should be renamed the emasculator-in-chief.

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

The fact is he's hitting the mail squarely on the head.

By her own admission this woman hadn't ever really considered the possibility until very recently, and there is a huge difference between being governor of Alaska for a couple of years (remember, alaska is the third least populated state, and has just 100,000 more people than DC itself), and being PRESIDENT.

For goodness sake, McCain is 72 years old, has had his body subjected to incredibly harsh conditions, and a storied medical history. Incompletely released medical records on top of it.

Palin is a pretty hard-core right wing Pentacostal. Which means with Bush having tipped the Suprme Court pretty far to the right, Sarah Palin could be in a position rather SOON to have a very serious, detrimental, and long-term affect upon the lawmaking at the top of the US Judicial System.

Be serious people, Palin herself is a threat to the United States of America.

Posted by: Fred Evil | September 11, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

I thought Democrats were always the ones crying sexism, ageism, and the like. Republicans have turned into the biggest bunch of whiners. Sarah Palin should be renamed the emasculator-in-chief.

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2008 8:38 PM
===========================================
S., you are wrong. This is the GOP 'fight' song:


We are the Victims
We are the Victims
No time for Loosers
‘Cause We are the Victims - Of The World!


Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© | September 11, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

No, the analogy is this:
You are in the emergency room. You have to have brain surgery. Do you want the surgeon who changed schools six times to operate on you or the one from the best medical school in the world?
Oh yeah, the female surgeon is the first one. Does that change your mind?

Posted by: Pat | September 11, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I thought Democrats were always the ones crying sexism, ageism, and the like. Republicans have turned into the biggest bunch of whiners. Sarah Palin should be renamed the emasculator-in-chief.

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2008 8:38 PM
===========================================
S., you are wrong. This is the GOP 'fight' song:


We are the Victims
We are the Victims
No time for Loosers
‘Cause We are the Victims - Of The World!

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© | September 11, 2008 8:44 PM
------------------------
Exactly. When did the GOP claim victim status for their party?

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, you cannot discern the difference between the office of the president and the CEO of a financial institution. A CEO is more accountable, and has to run a profitable enterprise. It usually only takes a handful of people to toss a CEO, a president faces re-election every for years and gets to spend other people's money doing so. CEOs are paid a lot better, but ultimately, presidents are responsible for many more people. On the other hand, presidents have a much larger support staff than any CEO, and rarely make a decision without them. I'd say a CEOs job takes more expertise, but is not necessarily as critical to the rest of the world. So while you make fun of Palin in terms of corporate experience, Obama has even less experience in making decisions executively. I demand a do over.
Jim
http://www.the-right-guy.com

PS, BTW, McCain is running for President, not Palin.

Posted by: jim lagnese | September 11, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. When did the GOP claim victim status for their party?

Posted by: S. | September 11, 2008 9:08 PM
=========================================
I think we're going to have to ask Mallard Fillmore.

Professional GOP duck-victim.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© | September 11, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

I am an executive recruiter.

For many years I have spent my time recruiting executives, mostly for senior people in the financial services industry. I have placed CFOs, CEOs and a number of heads of businesses for Wall Street firms and banks.

What has amazed me of all this talk of experience not mattering is this--I have yet to meet the hiring manager or hiring committee for a business who feels that experience does not matter. After years of doing my job--this concept is completely new to me. The Wall Street executives who back Sarah Palin would not have hired her to be their executive assistant before a few years ago. Seriously. If you had taken Palin's resume before she became Governor of Alaska, and submitted it to the White House she would not have been qualified to be an administrative assistant there.

If it were as easy to please Wall Street executives with candidates for hire, as it is to please them with choices for Vice President, I would not have a job.

The fact is that Wall Street executives, many of them, have nothing but contempt for Washington and politicians. If they had respect for the job of Vice President, they would be as choosey about the experience of the VP of the United States as they are about the executive assistants who keep their calendars. Think I am overstating it? Ask yourself the last time you saw a senior executive who would hire a senior level assistant who took six years to get through college and had not held a full time job until 18 months before. (Unless you count sports reporter of course.)

Posted by: Robin | September 11, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Harold Meyerson, you are nothing but a snide little socialist weasel. Take a lesson from EJ Dionne and learn some class.

Posted by: Phil | September 11, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

This is the most stupid post I have seen. you should be fired by Washington Post.

Posted by: Krishna5002 | September 11, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6lbfdv

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Palinism: Politics as The Content-Free Violation of Expectation

What is Palinism?

What is it about?

What policies?

What ideas?

What positions?

Even in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, while no doubt many were motivated by regional partisanship, local prejudices, and "the measure" of the candidate, one suspects that at least a rough rendering of the issues--secession vs. Union, free vs. enslaved--was carried in and animated the crowds.

Now, it is pure reaction to pattern. To one impulse expectation violated by the provocation of another impulse, that feels--good.

We have reached the content-free phase of American politics.

A form, an image--glasses, hair, a voice, what it suggests--is enough. She could be speaking the words to the airport timetable, the swearing-in speech of Ferdinand Marcos, the ingredients of a
box of Sizzlean--the image, the sound, and the gathering impulse, the bare stirring from dull lack of novelty--is sufficient to awaken the crowds to angry perturbance at...the stimulus to be perturbed, and the bare sense of actual directed action and purpose that comes with doing so.

Palin herself wears a glazed, slightly confused look in her eyes--what is it that has unleashed this roar, this approbation. Being used to herself, and having been among those who are well used to her, she is unaware of the novelty that her mere form releases in the dazed electorate, yearning for a pretext for expression. Soon, she'll believe it herself.

And, after all, isn't that what democracy is all about? The ability to choose to decide without knowledge? Better yet, to choose your knowledge, irrespective of fact, in correspondence with the liberating, confirmation-free impulse?

This is what today's moment stands for.

These are our satisfactions and securities in this golden age.

Cite:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6lbfdv

Posted by: Marie Stewart | September 11, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

those who ask what if obama was asked to run a bank...i say this he HAS A LAW DEGREE FROM HARVARD.
he would be more than up to the task.
ALTHOUGH he has concentrated his work in constitutional law and in civil rights work believe me a harvard law degree is NO JOKE.
and what about mccain ha he is so old his skin is fallimg off.
btw his son did just resign from the silver state bank of nevavda two weeks ago the next week IT FAILED.

Posted by: judge alan | September 11, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

She's ready, she declaims. Well, I'm sure not. I don't agree one little bit with where she'd like to take the country. Who cares that she shows herself to be as implacably incurious about her world as George W. Bush? Even if she were vastly capable, she still would not get my vote. She is a *Republican* and she supports that party's platform. We can't take four more years of mounting federal deficits.

Posted by: fzdybel | September 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Many of the negative comments on this piece are attacks of Meyerson for saying what he has said. This is because the commenters are unable to answer his premise, which is quite sensible.

Sure, presidents have access to all the expert advice they can use, but they need to have their own rich picture of the world in order to be able to assimilate that advice, and reject it when need be. Most of all they need a picture that is not merely a mass of prejudices called a "gut." Sarah Palin shows no evidence of having that kind rich world picture. She is indeed completely unqualified to run a major financial concern, much less the federal government, even on an OJT basis.

This is a remark you couldn't make about John McCain, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or even Lieberman.

But I think Meyerson is actually helping the Republicans out by keeping the election dialog on this facile level. The wingers should thank him, not slam him.

The real thing is: do we really need another Vice President of Petroleum from the Grand Oil Party?

Posted by: fzdybel | September 11, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I rather have Sarah in the corner office than Obama. What has he done? Where is his experience?

Posted by: Steve Zimmerman | September 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Oh Please Patty.
Brainrot eh? Harvard Law mean anything to ya?
Obama doesn't need your vote. Thanks but NO thanks.
Patty wrote:
"So once again Harold Myerson has gone back
into his la la land delusional that must be
fuel by drinking too much toxic brainrot
Obama kool aid and snorting coke with Der
Leader Messiah Barack Hussein Obama,that
this clown keeps coming up with his constanly out of touch with reality and off
the wall Pro Obama WAPO Shill nonsense,and
that means Myerson needs to retire and go
check into an Emergency Obama Kool Aid Detox Center before his last couple braincells rot away on him very soon.

Democrat Messiah Barack Hussein Obama The
Sleazy Sexist Marxist Socialist Democrat
Liberal White Woman Hater Will Cost The
Dimwit Democrats the White House in 2008!

This Independent Voter Is Voting For The
Next President of the US John McCain and
Next Vice President Sarah Palin!

NOBAMA & NOBIDEN NOW OR EVER!"

Posted by: Denverite | September 11, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

I can see that the author is as sexist as OBAMA.

Perhaps... when Obama is defeated because of his lies,hidden agendas and lack of EXPERIENCE doing anything except attend PRIVATE ELITE SCHOOLS, and work as a community organizer and meet the scum of the earth in Chicago politics, religious circles and then the time in the Illinois Senate was spent RUNNING ERRANDS FOR JONES.

Perhaps he WILL GET THE NOD to DEMONSTRATE how he can change the internal workings of Lehman Brothers, before he takes on a TOUGH JOB OF RUNNING THE UNITED STATES.
At least there... he can demonstrate his managerial ability, his ability to DO CHANGE instead of talking about CHANGE.

Do your research on Obama.. but note that there are TOO MANY MISSING LINKS in his history.. (Seems to have been scrubbed from the internet since January 2008.)

His run for the presidency will cast in excess of 500 million dollars..
The MSM and the DNC have been involved in a conspiracy... that will be brought to light AFTER Obama either loses or heaven forbid he wins.

Well, I would like to see someone post information regarding the following:

Obams's Occidental College records
Obama's Columbia College records
Obama's Columbia Thesis paper
Obama's Harvard College records
Obama's Selective Service Registration
Obama's Medical records
Obama's Illinois State Senate records
A certified copy of Obama’s Original Birth Certificate
Obama's embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
Any Obama Harvard Law Review articles that were published (I have found one.)
Oabma's University of Chicago scholarly articles or publications.
I would like to see his national test scores, his grants, his scholarships, his
income tax reports for those years.
He should also provide for his tax records
while he was attending Columbia and Harvard.

He is HIDING his entire formative years. Who was his lady friends during this times in college.

Mr. Obama is being considered for the highest job in America, and he should provide the above as if he would be interviewing for that position in Corporate Amercian.

Oh, year... if he was actually considered for the President job at Lehman Brothers... he would have to provide that information as well... BUT he was not VETTED properly by the DNC and the MSM

Posted by: Bob Miller | September 11, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

forget Myerson, Palin is satirizing herself. So far yesterday she has linked Iraq with the 9/11 terrorists (someone left that out of the briefing book - silly them, probably assumed she picked that up all by herself in the last 7 years), and has us going to war against Russia because that's what the NATO treaty says we have to do. That's an answer a beauty queen would be embarassed to give during the interview competition. A thoughtful answer might have been "Well, since it's doubtfull the American people would stand for a draft to build a million or so person army and send it half way around the globe to drive the Russian army back over its border with Georgia, perhaps we would have to think of something a bit more practical." but nooooo, we get "perhaps we would." someone should tell her what happened to Napoleon, or the Germans.

Posted by: JoeT | September 11, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow, this is way too easy... Meyerson, you and Pam Anderson should open up a political consulting company. Please keep up the good work!

Posted by: Jimmy | September 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious, Mr Meyerson! A wonderful bit of satire.

Posted by: Ann | September 11, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

What a sour article! Sarah can do anything. She's not a simple bimbo prop. No sir, she's a seasoned hockey mom. She never blinks an eye, she simply responds, even when the breast pump is just starting to work at 3AM. Eye blinking is an indicator of thinking on one's feet, and that's not for our girl Sarah. No sir, bombs away on Iran; bombs away on Russia; bombs away on Iraq and anyone else that gets in the way of jesus and the USA.

Posted by: Butch Dillon | September 11, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Wait till the Lehman employees see she's invested the rescue fund on a hockey rink!

Well, it worked in Wasilla.

Posted by: somerseten | September 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I am really shocked at how low the bar is! Obviously people are not getting the point of this article. They automatically cry about sexism. You are crying wolf over nothing, and you look stupid.
As a woman who has worked my butt off in my career in a male dominated industry, I take offense to false claims for favoritism. You want to be taken seriously? My advice to Palin- be serious, don't pretend you're a "pitbull" but then have everyone cry and whine that you are being picked on.

If she is ready, then she needs to demonstrate it. I am not talking about experience. I am talking about qualification. Hiring someone just because of their sex is condescending to women.

What's also shocking are the claims to her Foreign Policy qualifications. According to Sarah Palin, she has Foreign Policy experience because Alaska is close by Russia. If you don't see this argument for how ridiculous it is, then I seriously have doubts on the intelligence of American voters. By that very same rule, I should be a foreign policy expert and an Ambassador to the UN, simply because I lived in Geneva Switzerland.

I don't believe how people are so quick and so blind in their worship of Palin, that they don't see how unqualified she is. we are talking about the Vice Presidency of the US. Cheney just went to Pakistan, can anyone SERIOUSLY say with a straight face that they can see McCain dispatching Palin off to meet with China, Russia? Secretly in the Republican elite, they all feel that she is NOT qualified - as evidenced by the very lukewarm response by Foreign Policy experts and by Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy in their off mike comments. They don't think she has enough national exposure, and understanding of foreign policy to lead the country.

And the arguments that she is more qualified than Obama is just ridiculous. This is a candidate who has met with many world leaders, and more importantly have gained their respect. The BBC newspaper reported that the world is looking to improve relations with the US, and that they see Obama as being the best candidate. He was a professor of Constitutional Law, he had 8 years in the Illinois State Legislature, and is a US Senator on the Foreign Relations committee.

Posted by: Susan | September 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

OUCH!!! Nice shot Harold, right on target.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Heh.

Posted by: Mary | September 12, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

It is not sexist to recognize a glaring lack of foreign policy experience in a candidate running for vice president. It is not sexist to point out the incongruity of being alarmed at that candidate trying to run a very large and complex corporation while also suggesting that the same candidate would do fine as VP because they're "one of us" or they have "strong leadership skills" or "have conservative values". It is not sexist to think that a candidate just might not be suited for a job based on actual lack of qualifications.

What IS sexist is to blindly defend a clearly unqualified candidate simply because that person happens to be a woman.

What is ALARMING is the remarkably bad choice McCain made when he picked Sara Palin. This does not speak well for his judgment or his commitment to putting country first.

Posted by: Nony | September 12, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse


No Mister Robinson. Won't work!

Mrs Palin knows quite well that Lehman Bros is a bridge to nowhere. Much experience has she accumulated in this line of trade, up there in Alaska.

Posted by: bekabo | September 12, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

My God, I don't believe the idiotic comments written here. "Poor, poor Sarah Palin, everyone is sexist and smearing her!" Get real. This post uses a comparison to make a valid point - that by just about any standard Ms. Palin simply has none of the knowledge or background in foreign policy or federal affairs to be qualified for the job of President. This is an entirely valid point, and is one of the issues that MUST be discussed in the framework of a presidential campaign. Sexist would be to say - "I can't vote for a woman to be VP", "She's just a sexy bimbo", criticizing the clothes she wears, or "She is a bad mother to take on such demanding jobs, when she has small children, and one a special needs"(and this HAS been said, to my utter disgust, and it is totally sexist). These comments are sexists. Discussions as to whether she is up to the job is a gender-neutral one and should be asked of all candidates. So, stop whining and crying foul without justification, and give valid reasons in response, i.e., that you consider her perfectly well qualified and ready for the job. Throwing in Obama is a silly monkey wrench. It is like the childish argument ("No you are!" "No you are!"). The question of capabilities and readiness MIGHT look to the number of years in government office (about the same for both Obama and Palin), or point out that her experience is in executive positions and his in legislative (although I hardly consider that a determinitive point - John McCain has spent all his time in legislative offices). But I think it is important to carefully scrutinize each individual candidate for less formal qualities: level of knowledge, judgment, proven ability to analyze and solve difficult problems that they will be facing. Obama has been in the presidential campaign for about 20 months (about as long as Palin has been Governor) and has demonstrated again and again a wide expanse of knowledge, the ability to think through and solve difficult problems, the judgment on how to deal with tricky issues and what is the best approach to take (it is enough to look at the series of events this summer where Bush first excoriated Obama's prescriptions for the Middle East then quietly did what Obama had proposed - admitting the drawdown of troops in Iraq, negotiating with "terrorist" regimes, etc.). As regards Sarah Palin, on the other hand, she has been on the national stage for two weeks, we know next to nothing about what she thinks about anything, she has not demonstrated any knowledge of international events or problems (her interview with Gibson just shows that she will simply respond to all questions with pat answers about being tough and taking the tough choices without blinking - REALLY good answers, just like we have been getting from Bush for the last 8 years), and it is not clear that she is able to analyze difficult problems and come up with a viable solution. Worst of all, she has essentially been placed in isolation so that we will not be able to learn about these or her qualities. What the GOP is attempting is to run her for the Miss Congeniality award - she is charming and photogenic, we can identify with her - so, HELL, give her your vote. The GOP is offering us a pig in a poke. No I am not calling Palin a pig; those of you who know the English language will know this is a very common idiom, found in all languages by the way (I think the German phrase is a cat in a bag). It means that we are being sold something that is covered or in a packaging with does not allow us to actually inspect and determine the quality of the good. And THAT is what the GOP are doing.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Brilliant! Loved this piece.

It's obvious that those who discount the need for experience don't have jobs which require it themselves.

Posted by: luce | September 12, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

I was born and now live in Alaska; a state which is 1/5 the size of the continental United States and has a population of less than a 25th of a percent of the country's population. Our state is a major supplier of energy and seafood for the nation, a strategic defense against our enemies, and a critical air cargo route for world transport. Alaska has more money in its bank account than any other state in the Union; there are a lot of entities who would like that money spent on their projects but the Governor has taken a fiscally conservative route and actually cut out long lists of projects that weren't right for the state. She has proven to be a shrewd governor in good times, and a formidable force amidst the worst attacks of her foes. She has been criticized for her hairstyle, her daughters circumstances, the clothes she wares, keeping her special-needs child, and yet she has proved resilient. She will remain strong in the days to come and be an example of what any women can be; a leader, a mother, compassionate, and have the strength not to stoop to her opponents levels. I have had the pleasure to know Sarah personally and can tell you she is no woman to take lightly, she has beat what many called impossible odds a number of times and done it with a smile. If you would like to know more about her and the formidable opponents she has faced check out www.palinfightscorruption.com

Posted by: Seth Church | September 12, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

One particular aspect of the experience question is the one distinguishing executive from legislative experience. This seems to me to be a false problem that has been manufactured specially for this election in order to suggest that Obama has no valid experience because he has “only” been in legislative bodies (even though the same is true of McCain).
One must bear in mind that, if executive experience is indispensable for the presidency, then we should only be electing former governors, which really limits our presidential gene pool, unless you want to include former mayors, but you have to consider there is a huge difference between being mayor of a city like New York or Los Angeles and being the Mayor of Wasilla (I guess you could make the equivalent distinction between US states which considerably vary in size, population, the powers the governor has, and the types of problems that must be dealt with by the governor). Well, we could include former Vice President, with two provisos: as Cheney has argued, it is not an executive office; okay, that is lame, but throughout most of history the VP did nothing as was once compared unfavorably to a warm bucket of spit, so time in the office of VP can hardly in itself be considered enough experience.
One point that has been made is that only two Presidents have come from the Senate. Well that is highly selective perspective on the matter. Just to consider the presidents in the 20th Century, lets have a look. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were both considered reformer types (it was the era of reform after all); they had both been governors (of NY and New Jersey), but only for two years each (which hardly seems like a long enough tenure to gain the “necessary executive experience”) before ascending to high office. Roosevelt first became VP, but for only a very short time before a bullet thrust him into the Presidency (why VP must always be IMMEDIATELY qualified to be President). Wilson had been a professor and President of Princeton (making it surprising that the US electorate would choose such an intellectual, but it did eventually sour on his intellectualism, maybe he is what turned us off to it). Taft had been Secretary of War and Civil Governor of the Phillipines (again for two years). Harding had been a Senator for 6 years (and was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio for two years), and was a total zero as President (perhaps creating the idea that Senators should not become President, but see Kennedy). Taft had been Governor of Massachusetts (again for two years) before becoming VP and ascending to the Presidency when Harding mets his demise. After a great stint helping relieve the humanitarian crisis in Europe following WWI, Hoover had been Secretary of Commerce for 7 years before being elected President. He was a total bust as president, not because he was not generally competent, but his background and outlook seemed to blind him to more radical solutions to the Great Depression (which Roosevelt tried after him with mixed results). Franklin Roosevelt had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 8 years then Governor of New York for one term. Harry Truman was a senator for ten years (and before that a state judge) before becoming VP for FDR’s fourth term, an office he held for about a minute (okay 10 weeks) before becoming President due to FDR’s sudden demise. Although technically he did not come directly from the Senate, for all intents and purposes he did - he did zippo as VP and was totally out of the loop (was told about the Manhatten project only after becoming Pres). Eisenhower had no elective office, but we can obviously view his military experience as executive experience of a sort (in a very specific sector). Kennedy had been only in the Congress (first 6 years in the House, then 8 in the Senate). Although he is fondly remembered, it is generally considered that his record was uneven and that it is hard to draw any exact conclusions because of the sudden end of his Presidency, but it certainly does not validate the conclusion that presidents should not be chosen from the Senate. Lyndon Johnson had been in the Congress for years (House 1937-49, Senate 1949-61) before becoming VP and then President after JFK’s assassination. Nixon had been in the Congress (4 in the House and 2 in the Senate), then VP for eight years before becoming President (in the 1960-68 period he failed in his bid to become Governor of California). Gerald Ford had been in the House for about 25 years before becoming VP for about 8 months, then taking over as President after Nixon resigned. Carter had been Governor of Georgia and a Georgia state senator (both for one term). Reagan had been Governor of California for two terms. George HW Bush had been VP for 8 years, but held many other executive positions (CIA director, ambassador to UN and China) before that and was in the House for 4 years, giving him one of the most diverse and complete resumes of any 20th Century President. Clinton had been Governor of Arkansas for about 12 years. George W Bush had been Governor of Texas for 6 years before becoming President.
To review if slightly inexactly, if we exclude time as VP, then many presidents (Harding, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford) essentially had only legislative experience. A few presidents had some executive experience (Taft, Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower, Bush I), but not the top job (Governor - Taft as Civilian Governor of the Phillipines is harder to classify). Many (both Roosevelts, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Carter) did serve as governor, but many had rather limited time in office (four years or less), which raises a question to what extent they can claim vast executive experience. Only a few presidents, and all of them very recent, actually had longer gubernatorial experience (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II). So the notion that a President must have had extensive executive experience as a governor is not really born out by history and many presidents (among them very competent ones) had essentially only legislative experience before becoming president.

Posted by: Mark Gilllis | September 12, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

Another particular aspect of the experience question is not only the one distinguishing executive from legislative experience, but the qualities for succesful leadership. What and who is a leader? “The Webster’s Dictionary defines leader as a person who by example (or with no other options, by force), talents or qualities of leadership plays a directing role, wields commanding influence, or has a following in any sphere of activity or thought. It defines leadership as that ingredient of personality that causes men (and/or women) to follow.
Leadership differs from executive experience, management and supervision. While the definitions of the terms differ, an individual may have the ability to provide all three.
Key leadership success secrets set the great leaders apart from the so-so leaders in today's world. Leadership style is learned from mentors, learned in seminars and exists as part of a person's innate personal leadership skill set developed over years.
Enthusiasm, dedication and charisma are some of the more important characteristics of leadership. Leaders are seen as good and evil, and take on many personalities and roles, from managers or coaches to world leaders. It is believed that every leader posseses a charisma that provides change and success. Thus leadership begins with vision, concern and mentorship.

Posted by: Bert | September 12, 2008 5:53 AM | Report abuse


This commentary by Meyerson is a blog. It is not a news article; it is not journalism. Attacking Meyerson by raising the strawman of "bad journalsim" is a ploy by the RNC. Lord knows the Rethugs have shot their wad and cannot campaign on issues; they have to resort to personal attacks and faux umbrage at contrived "insults".


Obama/Biden 08 and 12 !!!!!!

Posted by: Josephus | September 12, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse


This commentary by Meyerson is a blog. It is not a news article; it is not journalism. Attacking Meyerson by raising the strawman of "bad journalsim" is a ploy by the RNC. Lord knows the Rethugs have shot their wad and cannot campaign on issues; they have to resort to personal attacks and faux umbrage at contrived "insults".


Obama/Biden 08 and 12 !!!!!!

Posted by: Josephus | September 12, 2008 6:48 AM | Report abuse

The only thing more hilarious than this piece of satire is the fact that so few people get it.

Posted by: ant | September 12, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

How can you make fun of someone who eats moose burgers?

Just because a pit bull does not wear lipstick does not mean that Sarah cannot run a bank.

Sarah is profound. She was a BEAUTY QUEEN and she believes in World Peace (or is it Wild Peas)?

Posted by: Robert James | September 12, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

You missed the point and are not as knowledgeable about our history. The founding fathers expected our representatives to be from the common people not the elite. People see Sarah as a common person with common sense and desire to serve us. We are tired of the same old politics including Mr. Obama. She is refreshingly clean. Barack is simply another version of Jimmy Carter and we know what happened there. BTW, where were you when Barack came on the scene and had limited days in the Senate and had only community organizer on his resume. I know where you were. Fainting in the audience.

Posted by: Bob | September 12, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse


From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/second-time-as-farce-how-palin-is.html


Friday, September 12, 2008
Second Time As Farce: How Palin is Exactly Like Bush, Part 2

From Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson:

Palin: "Our national leaders are sending them on a task that is from God"

Gibson: Are we fighting a holy war?

Palin: (looking strained, desperate, trapped): The reference there is from Abraham Lincoln who said "Never presume to know God's will..."

Robert Zimmerman: She failed to describe how a McCain/Palin foreign policy would differ from a Bush foreign policy

Gibson: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

Palin: I have not, and I think that if you go back in history, and ask that question of many Vice Presidents they have the same answer that I just gave you

Anderson Cooper: Bay, ABC News just did a fact check. They looked back the last 30 years, all Vice Presidents have met a foreign leader. Does that matter?

Bay Buchanan: No, it doesn't at all. Her answer was excellent. It will make Americans feel that much closer to her. She's very real. Sure, she hasn't traveled overseas to meet these foreign leaders. But that's not what American's are looking for. She's absolutely correct. They want somebody that they can relate to. Who's hearing them. They're sick and tired of those people in Washington who may know lots of facts and figures and meet lots of people...

Zimmerman: It's always a danger when we have leaders who know facts and figures, Bay. That really does get in the way of setting up sound policies...My concern, Bay, is that when Sarah Palin says that she's not met foreign leaders like that's a good thing--We made that mistake eight years ago when George W. Bush was that likeable guy that you wanted to invite over for a barbeque.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/second-time-as-farce-how-palin-is.html

Posted by: Marie Stewart | September 12, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Why must people play the victim? Was this really sexism because Myerson thinks that Palin is inexperienced? He did not say it is because she is a woman, but because she has had little experience managing a major, very large enterprise requiring significant decisions with huge ramifications.

Yes she was governor, but the hard decisions that most governors ahve to make about policy and budget she did not have to make, because Alaska is one fo the very few states that gets huge revenues form natural resources instead of exclusively from taxes. Plus alaska gets more federal tax dollars per person than any other state in the union. Do you know of any other state that has the resources to pay every citizen $1200?
This is not sexism, it is empiricism.

Posted by: D Klein | September 12, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Man, they need to keep her mouth shut or she'll screw our chances. For decoration and recreation only. Start finding a Cheney to run things for her now

Posted by: Larry | September 12, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

What does it say about our country if we elect another president like Bush II or give Republicans another 4 years to wreak havoc? Haven't we learned? Choosing McCain/Palin to run this country is like pairing up, say, your own grandfather and your town mayor to run the country. Waitaminute...

Posted by: KurtNYC | September 12, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

they are right. This article is sexist. Gov Palin is most qualified to NOT have an abortion. Actually this is her only qualification. Can anyone remember what college she graduated from?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

The point here is simple. We all know people that have gotten far more scrutiny than Palin has for far less important jobs - like running Lehman. And she flunked her "job" interview yesterday, which the press seems determined to bury.

Posted by: orrg1 | September 12, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

I remember when they ran a pig for president, back in '68. They trying to make a satirical point. Amazing that 40 years later, the Republican would be willing to demonstrate so much contempt for the voters as to do the same thing, and not as a joke.

Posted by: c6Logic | September 12, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Meyerson – see if you can figure out a way to evoke Palin’s name with the hurricane in Texas. Oh, wait, if forgot – that’s Bush’s fault.

Posted by: Bud Rich | September 12, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Great article - right on the point. What is the republican fascination with incompetence? Bush, Brownie, Palin - why the the GOP absolutely love people that have no skills?

Posted by: Paul Barrett | September 12, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Face it, Mr. Myerson, your audience is not ready for irony. I love it, but then I am the decider.

Posted by: moran | September 12, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I like Palin, but as for the lipstick comment---well, it seems to be her shade.

Posted by: Jackie | September 12, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Experience and leadership are about more than paper pushing and telling people what to do. They're about quality of mind, openness of mind, independence of mind, character, standards, intellectual curiosity, discipline, understanding...many, many things that are hard to define but separate potentially great leaders from the type of leader we've had over the past 8 years and the type of leadership that would result with a McCain/Palin team in the WH.

Posted by: chbrooklyn | September 12, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I think Sarah Palin is perfectly qualified to be governor of Alaska and the people of Alaska seem to think so as well, so my personal opinion is that she doesn't need another job and my strong intention is that Governor Palin remains governor of Alaska for many many years.

Posted by: Rich | September 12, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

How about Obama as CEO?

Oh no! He has not even run a tiny City in his life!

But he did run a Community Organization :-)

Posted by: Seed of Change | September 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

You've disappointed me, Harold. And I like you.

Posted by: D | September 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Nice...now replace Palin's name with Obama's. Need I say more...ok I will. He doesn't need anybody to die.

Posted by: NJ Calling | September 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Truman.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | September 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Let's see. Institution in ruins because the top dogs have lied and cheated and taken out all the cash in bonuses. Too late for Palin. Her work there has already been done.

Posted by: TWstroud | September 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

The hateful explosive outrage at Mr. Meyerson's post only serves to reinforce and support the terrifying notion many educated, non-idealogical Americans of both parties (I have been a registered Republican my entire life, but plan to change parties) have formed over the past eight years that there are countless anti-intellectual, rampant right wing ideologues who have no understanding or appreciation for high intelligence, educational accomplishment,and professional excelence. What is most frightening is they will vote their Faith for candidates who must govern in a far more complex world than any leaders ever have encountered in the past. The stakes are so high in this election and the public's discrimination and assesment of their possible leaders' competencies and abilities is so low. I have become very skeptical that this county's electorate is educated or rational enough for our democracy to continue.

Posted by: dar | September 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

hey Seeds of Change...

he's also run an entrepenurial campaign from nothing to a $500 million operation with thousands of employees. There are 75+ Obama/Biden offices around the country, all staffed, all paid for. he's shown an ability to reprioritize resources when needed, hire and fire staff, and delegate responsiblity to people along with his vision, while taking down an established, well financed competitor.

if the Obama campaign was a corporation, he'd be legendary, Google didn't grow this fast.

Posted by: northzax | September 12, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

That is it. I'm voting democrat for the first time. Obama and Biden are competent. Palin isn't and McCain's judgement and stability are doubtful. I wouldn't hire someone with her qualifications for any position other than receptionist.

I'm not going to have my life and business dependent on her or McCain's competence.

Posted by: Stephen | September 12, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Despite the McCain campaign’s effort to manage and shape Charlie Gibson’s interview with Palin, it was obvious that she way out of her league. Palin came out as rigid, nervous and unsure of her answers. Her physical language illustrate here intellectual light weight. She incredibly struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state. She also confirmed her lack of understanding of world diplomacy and “trigger happy” attitude as she’s prepared to go to war if Russia invades Georgia again! She’s strikingly devoid of the diplomatic language generally used by U.S. officials when discussing relations with Russia.

This is the person that McCain was proclaiming to be ready day one! Gibson himself expressed exasperation with Palin, complaining that she "had buried him in 'a blizzard of empty words.

She got an F despite being in her turf with over two weeks of preparation and schooling with the best and brightest GOP consultants.

Posted by: Palin FAILED to convince us that she's ready! | September 12, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The article is satirical and supposed to be. All the comments about people who think its "silly" because "as President of the United States Palin would be facing much larger problems" are idiots. Thats the point people. Its a satirical commentary on her lack of experience. Educate yourselves before you start critisizing.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

What is this "sexism" BS? I wouldn't want a man with her credentials in the position either (heck of a job, Brownie) and comparing her experience and expertise with Obama is just silliness.

Posted by: Ellen | September 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

If this is satire of the whole issue or the media's handling of it, it's not very effective. It's clearly trying to be cute and funny, but I'm afraid the point is not clear. To the extent it is trying to "pile on" to the Palin experience critics, previous posts are right that you could substitute any of the prez or veep candidate names for hers equally well. Or could you sub in their names and swap out Lehman for other places... is Biden prepared to manage a nuclear reactor? is McCain ready to direct medical services in your local ER? is Obama qualified to be a battlefield commander directing tactical operations for our military? God, this stuff is getting tiring.

Posted by: polprof1 | September 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

To all you whiners complaining about the objectivity of Meyerson's piece, he is paid by the Washington Post to offer opinion. He is not a journalist reporting the news. Your right wing op-ed writers are doing a fine job offering their opinions about Obama. Stop the hypocrisy!

Posted by: Brian | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Baracky Hussein Obama has an extremely liberal Senate voting record - he cannot run and hide from that fact.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Helen | September 12, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Republicans hate when you point out the obvious! Lies can't stand the light. Nicely done.

Posted by: Andrea | September 12, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Observations on the blogs:

1. Some say Meyerson is a blogger not a journalist so he does have to be accurate, honest or comepetent. So....?
2. A few will change their party affiliation from a RHINO to a Democrat. Is there a difference?
3. Only moderate and conservative bloggers say mean, nasty and stupid things in their blogs. Oh really?
4. Obama went to elite universities and combined with his experience as a community organizer, is better qualified, than a candidate that went to a non- culturally elite university who has been a Mayor and a Governor. To be President or Vice-President?
5. Don't take all these condescending personal attacks on Palin and McCain seriously, they are just in fun. Chuckle.
6. Obama has no respected Republicans who honor his accomplishments. McCain has Biden, Kerry, Feingold and Lieberman who have honored him for his service, integrity and bi-partisan accomplishments. However Obama has ( not really )and will bring our country together. Oh really?
7. None of the anti-Palin bashers are sexists or bigots. Even though Hilary was just a wife of a President and now a US Senator for a short time, she is better qualified to be Vice President? Oh really?

How did the culturally elite become such illusionists about the truth and accuracy? It must have been their poor schooling.

Posted by: rljmsilver | September 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It's funny in a way to watch the blue pundits flounder while looking for a way to squash the Sarah phenomenon. But they can't, because she is the female equivalent of Obama. Experience? How does she have less than Obama? Religion? What about Wright? And Family? At least she hasn't thrown hers under the bus! Go Sarah Go!!!

Posted by: Sarabellum | September 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You could substitute the name of any Presidential candidate or Vice Presidential candidate in recent memory for the name of Palin in this ridiculous commentary and come to the same conclusions. Come on, let's start talking about important issues here!

Posted by: Dimitri in Virginia | September 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Nothing sexist about this article. Nothing at all. Fair question.

Posted by: Rick | September 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I think the writer should quit and find something he can handle.

Posted by: cool | September 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Did you even think before you wrote this article, I thought such a prestigious paper would not be down for this kind of fluff.

Posted by: m4bwav | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

hey. this is cheap journalism.
nobody suggested and nor did palin apply for a job at lehman.
Do you think Obama could run a bank?
I bet he would Rezko, the weatherman, farkhan and wright to be on the board.
shame on you and shame on WP as a whole.
Do you think americans are stupid?
The party is over.
go windsrufing with kerry for 8 more years.
shooooo!

Posted by: joe | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am sick and tired of ignorance being a virtue and lack of curiosity as an asset. I want smart people making the difficult decisions. I want the person who has put together a well run campaign and defeated party insiders calling the shots, rather than the guy who shoots first and asks questions later or his VP who hasn't traveled the world, doesn't trust science, and can't seem to tell the truth about her management style.

We've had 8 years of ignorance. I think it's time we tried something new.

Posted by: Eric | September 12, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This is wonderful! Satire is a great tool when used in defense of common sense.

As for accusations of sexism, are republicans now for reverse discrimination? I can't think so. As someone who votes for candidates based, at least in part, on their experience, I want to know a lot more about Palin. If she isn't ready to answer our questions, then she's not going to get our support.

Posted by: Todd | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I admire Sarah and definitely wouldn't mind working with her. But the writer of this blog is absolutely correct in pointing out that she doesn't have the experience to deal with complex economic issues like Lehman/current credit crisis. Obama does - and yes, his Harvard Law degree does count toward that experience. Like it or not, graduating magna cum laude from the top law school of the nation pretty much guarantees that you will have an easier time grasping complex economic issues.

Posted by: Anon | September 12, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The right can't actually offer any real counter to this... thus the cries of sexism and snarkiness. As for Palin in a bank: she'd do great -- all she'd have to do is call up Uncle Ted Stevens who would gladly funnel money her way to bail her out of trouble.

Posted by: akiceman | September 12, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

california dui

Posted by: sarah3 | September 12, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Meyerson,

While we appreciate your interest in our company your previous work related experience as "guy in charge of fries" doesn't qualify you for our management program.

However we do have a spot open for " lettuce guy " if you think thats something that would peak your obvious mental capacity.

Sincerely,

JACK - in - the - box

Posted by: Jack | September 13, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin "pulled the big oil companies in line," then why are we paying record prices at the gas pump, and why are the oil companies making the highest annual revenues of any company in recorded history?

Posted by: ANON | September 13, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I'm an independent - I vote for the best candidate, whether they are republican, democrat, man, woman, etc., so here's my objective look at the situation:
The Republicans have been in the White House and made all the major political appointments for the past 8 years.
One question:
Are you better off today than you were eight years ago? Were you paying $3.80 or more for a gallon of gas? Was the economy in a recession?
How about the families of the thousands of soldiers maimed and killed in Iraq? Are they better off? My dad was killed in Korea - try that on for size if you think your life sucks. The Republicans have done the same to thousands of families.
The Repubicans had their chance and blew it. Bush's presidency will go down as the worst, most incompetent and stupidest in history. If you vote for McCain, you will be asking for more of the same, and you will get what you deserve.

Posted by: indep | September 13, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Well, you and the other liberal big shots have not done so well.

Posted by: oscar | September 13, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed in the level of ignorance and racism of this country. Many whites, fearful of losing their imagined superiority, will make up just about anything to make sure a fellow Caucasion, even one with glaring inexperience, gets into office. Racism. Yeah I said it. But listen to yourselves defending this woman. Have you learned nothing from the 8 last years? People like me foresaw the disaster that is George W, yet, y'all were sooo enthralled with his "folksy" ways when EVERYTHING in his past showed you who he was. His alcoholism, drug abuse, affirmative action admissions to ivy league schools despite poor grades, his ducking actually serving his national guard term, his poor command of the english language. You now agree he is a disaster yet, here you go again; so in love with another OBVIOUS
disaster waiting to happen. This great country is so broken. It doesn't have a chance unless people start taking an interest in critical thinking and reality.

Posted by: KCH | September 13, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

When I saw the former CEO of Hewlitt Packard on TV during the convention touting Sarah Palin's credentials for VP of the USA, I thought would she offer up Sarah's name to run a Fortune 1000 company and say the same thing about her credentials. Probably not!!

Posted by: RiverRed | September 13, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

for any american to vote for mccain/palin, they are traitors! palin is the most unqualified candidate in our history. Have you not notice the "dimwit in office effect" by observing the fallout of having g.w. bush in office. wake up!

Posted by: libbylou | September 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The religious extremists of the conservative right need to get a grip on the fact that, if you really want to scare the liberals - you have to stop exhibiting all the classic behaviors of a person whose inability to control himself leads to an obsession with controlling others, a person whose limited intellectual ability leads to a fear of those who do posses true intellect, a person whose failed ambitions lead to resentments of those with realized ambitions, a person still nursing the slights of the elementary school playground so much that he cannot escape the false bravado of elementary school playground name-calling, a person so insecure in his own relationship with God that he just cannot live with the thought that other's beliefs may actually be more right than his own. The liberals can SEE all your sad little insecurities and low self esteem, all your unmet childhood needs. Which is why all your childish ranting and raving doesn't scare liberals. Only happy, successful and loving people can become liberals.

Posted by: AnitaRN | September 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

What a rotten, racist comment (see the other user's comment, below). Barack Obama has actually read the constitution and understands the American freedoms it protects, given his high level of education (compared to the other candidates) and his work as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. Would these credentials be dismissed so blithely if Obmama were white? (Note: my comment is intended to show the irony of the writer's comment, below. I would be best to leave gender AND race out of the dialog).

[What a rotten sexist article ... does Meyerson think Obama has greater experience than a Governor? What would liberals like this say if he had substituted Obama's name instead of Palin's????????]

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Why do we continue to say that Palin is qualified to be VP when she's not really qualified to run anything else but a small state or a small town? On the job training in federal issues?

ONce again, do you want the guy who graduated almost last in his class and a person attending 5 colleges in 6 years just to get a journalism degree or do you want the guy who went to Harvard and did well?

Posted by: LPLT | September 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

To Steve Zimmerman: Oh dear, you have been taken in by the GOP talking point that Obama has never done anything. Obama has practiced law for nine years with a corporate law firm in Chicago. He has taught US Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. He has served in the Illinois Senate for eight years and in the US Senate for four years, elected with 70% of the vote. His Harvard JD was Magna cum Laude and he served as President of the Harvard Law Review. And, oh yes, right out of college and before law school, he famously worked for three years as a community organizer, the experience that drew him into politics.

This is not a resume to be ashamed of. Does yours equal it?

Posted by: Jane | September 13, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama is extremely intelligent, well educated. The McPalins are no match for him. McSAme graduates 5 from the bottom of his class at Annapolis as he was a "party boy" and she went to 5 colleges to get a bachelor degree in journalism. Yep - that's gonna help alot when it comes to the economy. OBAMA IN 08

Posted by: Spanky316 | September 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Palin, a name that has gotten famous but
wake up America, you mean you are ready for
her to be your vice-president and to help
get us out of the mess Bush has gotten us
into for the past 8yrs. If she is picked
along with McCain, then America deserves
whatever it gets as too many people will
pick her because she is a woman, since
Hillary was not picked on the democratic
side, and that will be a shame because a
more qualified person could have filled
the job. I believe in women getting the
same oppunities as men so all of you who
think I am against women, shows how wrong
you all are. Having served in the military
to defend the U.S. for 22yrs of my life
gives me more right to opinionize that
a lot of you so take it for what it is
worth, and God bless you all.

Posted by: mack7 | September 13, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

It's a snarky article... But I'm so scared of what a Palin presidency could do to our country. A HEARTBEAT AWAY AND THIS IS THE CHOICE MCCAIN MAKES???

Posted by: Scared American | September 13, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

In reading these posts, some thoughts come to mind:

Isn't it funny that it was just two years ago when the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress, the DOW was peaking at 14000 and gas prices were around $2.00 a gallon.

Isn't it funny that most people don't get it that it was the intent of the founders that the Congress be the most powerful branch of government, and that it is the House of Representatives that has budget authority?

Isn't it funny that the Bush Administration is being blamed for the poor economy, when it is primarily the fault of the House of Representatives and it's leader, Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

Isn't it funny that Speaker Pelosi promised lower gas prices, but has been blocking offshore drilling as well as drilling in ANWR?

It isn't funny: it is sad. It is a sad thing that people haven't the education to realize who is truly responsible for the current economic crisis.

Senator Obama will bring change, but not the change that we need: I remember the gas lines and stagflation--the double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment and double digit interest rates--that were the legacy of the Carter Administration and that Obama's plan will return us to.

What we need is someone who will rein in the excesses of Congress, someone who has promised to put an end to the back-room deals where votes in support of the excessive spending bills are bought with earmarks, someone who has promised to veto such bills, someone who has promised to make them famous--or rather, infamous. That is the kind of change we need in Washington.

If Obama does succeed in November, pray that the Republicans retain at least 41 seats in the Senate. Our worst nightmare would be an Obama Administration with a majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Posted by: Brian | September 13, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Of course Obama has more relevant experience than Sarah Palin. Whey does an intimate knowledge of legislative processes at the state and national level have not value for the position of VP????This is insanity. McCain even talks about her position as point guard on a high school basketball team as relevant - that is so "special" and why is that not sexist? I am appalled at the ignorance of seemingly intelligent people who are impressed she can read a teleprompter and give a speech and who actually tell me that Russia is close to Alaska. Give me a break. We are taling about being a vice president. I am truly frightened that there are acutally people in this country with more education and access to information than most other countries in the world and at the same time full of people who would be impressed because there is an attractive woman with five children who didn't have an abortion, has a son going to Iraq and a pregnant unmarried daughter, five colleges to get a degree and a few years as governor of an oil subsidized, sparsely populated state - and we are supposed to be excited?????

Posted by: mlfn | September 13, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Excellent, excellent point. I bet there isn't one Wall Street firm who'd give this woman a job. She's just another corrupt small town politician with big-time ambitions. Just what America needs: a VP whose foreign policy credentials are based on her "being able to see Russia;"--and I guess wanting to build a pipeline and drill ANWR makes her 'the foremost energy expert in the country.'

C,mon people! What part of 'unqualified' do you not understand? This woman may be worthy of a higher office someday, but let her earn it like everyone else, not get it like a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

Posted by: mags | September 13, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not have more relevant experience than Sarah Palin. Although Senator Obama appears to know where he is most of the time (even though he seems to think that there are 57 states instead of just 50) in that he apparently voted "present" about 130 times, knowing where you are doesn't qualify you to be President. I thought it was laughable when Senator Obama compared his experience running his campaign to Sarah Palin's experience as a mayor of a small town--completely ignoring the fact that she has been Governor of Alaska with a budget of more than $10 billion and more than 29,000 employees.

Did I have reservations when I first heard that Governor Sarah Palin was picked? Yes. Do I still? No. Do I have reservations about Obama? Absolutely: we especially need a strong leader today--with the hanky panky going on in Georgia and between Putin and Chavez, with that lunatic Ahmadinejad seeking nukes, and with the potential for collapse in Pakistan and North Korea, both of which already have nukes. We need someone who understands that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China have veto power. We need someone who won't wring his hands because he can't make a decision. We need someone who won't blink. We need John McCain. And if the unthinkable happens, Sarah Palin is still a better choice than Obama because she won't blink and because she believes in America. If she can stand up to and defeat the entrenched and corrupt political machine in her state, she can stand up to the likes of Putin--especially buttressed by her confidence in the economic and military strength of this great nation.

Posted by: Brian | September 14, 2008 2:32 AM | Report abuse

HOW STUPID IS THIS ARTICLE? And how off the deep end are you Obama Propogandists parading as reporters.

I've been watching you idiots closely for the past year, did you ever write an article asking if Obama was qualified to lead a Fortune 500 company? (The answer is of course NO). Would he even be hired to be part of a board of ANY FORTUNE 1000 company? (NO).

AND HELLO MEYERSON (PRUNE JUICE BOY) YOUR BLACK MESSIAH IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. (NOT "ONE HEARTBEAT AWAY" I SWEAR IF I HEAR THAT ONE MORE TIME...) PRESIDENT.

OBAMA IS AN ABSOLUTE AMATEUR MEDIA CREATION GETTING PROPPED UP BY REPORTERS AND HOLLYWOOD. (OH AND OPRAH)

Posted by: Tony V | September 14, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

The way you corrupt reporters drool over Obama to the point of BLATANT SEXISM angers me so much, I CANNOT WAIT TIL THE SWIFTBOAT PEOPLE START TEARING YOUR CANDIDATE TO SHREDS.

IN FACT I'LL GET UP AND APPLAUD WHEN THEY DO.

MCCAIN-PALIN 08
HILLARY 2012

Posted by: Adrian | September 14, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Why is calling Sarah Palin stupid and incompetent sexist?

Posted by: Debbie In Dallas | September 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

every time MSM and WaPo in particular prints ink or electron, they further cement the new Reagan Era

the problem is, you have all the left over hippies from 60's in charge and really don't get it at all. Go ahead, keep pushing the envelop of 'endorsing a candidate' to 'campaignig for a candidate'

Right now MSM is more powerful that Rove in making sure Dem's lose this election


In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/joe_bidens_plagiarism_problem.html

Bidens kids...right Obama, lobbyist are bad ?

son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate's son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.

The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden's involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.

A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.


so let's talk about 'judgment' libs. He threw Hillary over the cliff for this guy ?


Posted by: laughing at the dems | September 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Gotta love the ALL CAPS from the bowels of the earth. Satire? Way over their heads. Truth - not if there are facts or rational thinking involved (makes you an elitist and probably a socialist). Helpful contributions - not if I can get rid of some of my insecurities by anonymously attacking people who think differently.

Sarah Palin is who she is. The only reason that she was selected was because McCain saw the Paris Hilton video presenting her "energy policy" and thought "I want one of those as my VP!"

Posted by: seazen | September 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Pretty pointless. However, the sad thing is could she do any worse than the current Lehman managers?

Posted by: bill_the_kat | September 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What nobody is pointing out is the simple image the McCain ticket is running and banking on. We are electing Mom & Dad to run the US with Sarah Palin playing the simple stay at home frugal mom roll balancing the books taking care of the kids and McCain will be out there bringing home the bacon and protecting the family from evil. It works for the Low-info voter because it makes sense and is safe. We don't need another mom and dad we need representatives & leaders whose actions surpass their own "personal" understanding and experience. It is reality TV for dumb people and now its heading for the White House.

Posted by: erik | September 14, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and I suppose Obama has the experience to run Lehman Brothers? I guess you forgot that Obama has never held a real job in his entire life. Obama never served in the military, never ran a business, and has never governed a city or state. Sorry but, "community organizer" just doesn't cut it. Lehman needs an executive, and Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined.

Posted by: Dave | September 14, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I read articles, posts or commentaries that discuss the issue of experience, I wonder why no pundits I have (yet) come across do not compare and contrast the educational backgrounds of the candidates.

I happen to have a law degree. I am no longer currently licensed anywhere (by my choice. . . I didn't get disbarred or disgraced. . .). . .I also have a MS.

You know what? Law school required an intellectual rigour that was much, much MUCH more demanding than my undergrad experience. I went to an elite, private undergrad that prided itself on intellectual rigour. . . and you know what? law school was in a whole other league.

I do not suggest that the fact that Obama went to law school and then taught at one of the most prestigious law schools in this country makes him smarter than McCain (let's keep in mind that McCain is his opponent, it is not quite right, in my mind, to compare Obama's history with Palin's. . . Palin's history is just about irrelevant. . . she, um, is, like NOT running for president, she's icing on stale cake -- I almost went with lipstick but what the heck). . .

My point is that the years I spent training my mind to engage, rigourously, in analytical thinking made me a better thinker.

I am surprised to hear no discussions about the very real benefits conferred upon a human being when they invest in high levels of educaitn. There is a reason why graduate degrees are not as common as undergrad degrees. . . because not everyone is smart enough to get them.

Brains, like, matter. And education has valued, right? There really is a difference between cobbling together a college degree with transcripts from a bunch of crapola community colleges and state universities and doctorates in jurisprudence from Harvard. Hows come we can't talk about Obama's superior education and his obvious very fine mind?

Hows come we have to pretend that Mama Six-Pack is 'just as good' as a University of Chicago law professor? Are there really millions of blue collar and lower-middle class voters who did not go to school beyond college who are willing to entrust, like, the future of humanity to the least common denominator? Have we completely abandoned respect for achievement, intellectual achievement? Don't we, like, value intelligence and eduation and hard intellectual work?

Posted by: Tree Fitzpatrick | September 15, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

sorry for all the typos in my long post . . . I hate to edit myself and I suck as a copyeditor.

Posted by: Tree Fitzpatrick | September 15, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

By all means, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Americans do value intelligence and eduation and hard intellectual work. How lucky for you that you had such refined educational opportunities. But, we're not all easily persuaded that law school is the only path to such achievement in America any more than the Founding Fathers were convinced of such. The intellectual wealth of the Nation is more truly found in our city halls, our fire departments, our medical centers, our NGO organizations, our local business communities, our performing arts, our military bases...yes, and in our universities...You begin to understand? In places where theory is applied and decisions must be made on a daily basis, after careful analytical thought, in the absence of good choices, proper resources, and sufficient time or complete consensus. You would have to set aside your false conceits and leave the campus or your law firm for a few moments to encounter the authentic strength and vibrancy of our civic life, which has shaped our leaders since a farmer turned military officer became the first President of the United States. Had he and his political luminaries and shoeless soldiers believed otherwise, they would have remained content with the intellectual snobbery and class segregations of the Monarchy. Which are strikingly similar to your own.

Posted by: Kim | September 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

One thing about it, she would not do a worst job and it would only cost about $200,000. to run this company (that's about what the vic president makes) in the ground, like Fulk did. She would be a chance, with Fulk, they didnt have a chance, he was pocketing all the money.

Posted by: BillSchafer07 | September 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

If something happens to McCain, I don't want Sarah Palin as President. PERIOD. Pretty scary that people don't see it that way. McCain did not take into consideration what's best for the country when he chose Palin. Not making good choices now...won't make them when he gets to the White House. I like McCain but that was a bad choice to me.

Posted by: The Bottom Line | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

If something happens to McCain, I don't want Sarah Palin as President. PERIOD. Pretty scary that people don't see it that way. McCain did not take into consideration what's best for the country when he chose Palin. Not making good choices now...won't make them when he gets to the White House. I like McCain but that was a bad choice to me.

Posted by: The Bottom Line | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

If something happens to McCain, I don't want Sarah Palin as President. PERIOD. Pretty scary that people don't see it that way. McCain did not take into consideration what's best for the country when he chose Palin. Not making good choices now...won't make them when he gets to the White House. I like McCain but that was a bad choice to me.

Posted by: The Bottom Line | September 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

You would have to belive pundits of a political party who had watched the others sides approval go up more with every attack they make , would have the intelligense to figure out something most people know already. People make up their own minds. When the only thing you do is attack, and then make yourselves look like incompitants by expressing half-truths as fact, the people notice. After that you lose all creditability. The mistake you made is beliving that people respect "intellectuals" opinions.

Posted by: Lodie | September 18, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company