Careful with your tactics ...

While I am a conservative, hopefully that doesn't diminish my pointing out the obvious.

Sarah Palin has been all the buzz and her opponents have pointed to the fact she doesn't have the experience, whether that be the type of experience or the volume of experience. OK, is that really smart to say that when your own candidate has less experience than the candidate you are critiquing? Obama's experience is: supporting the community and being paid for it, state legislator, and junior U.S. Senator from Illinois (who has spent most of his Senator time on the campaign trail). Ms. Palin started as a councilwoman, but progressed to Mayor of her town and then to Governor of Alaska. Mayor and Governor are "in charge" jobs where the fine art of balancing leadership and management will be scrutinized by all. Voting "present" most of the time is not an option. So do the Democrats really want to attack experience (mistake 1) of the opposition number 2 when clearly their number 1 does not have the experience to match (mistake 2)?

The recent talking point is, "Let's face it, Sarah Palin is not ready to be President." In light of that statement, why should I think Barack Obama is ready to be President?

Now Senator John McCain is being attacked for being in Washington too long. When Senator McCain was in Vietnam, Joe Biden was in the Senate. Joe Biden has been in Washington longer, and what is even worse is that he was in the party in power the majority of the time! Now who has had the most time on the ground with the best chance of infecting change? Careful--More attention on Joe Biden might highlight the fact he asked a wheelchair bound State Senator to stand up while on the campaign trail.

Personally, I would like to see more debate on the issues instead of these basic attacks on experience--both ways. General approach would be good enough--then let's match up what they say to their past actions and/or what they've said already. Will we find consistency?