If we used the same defence for Palin as we did for Obama

I put on someone’s blog how interestingly perceptions worked.
   I would guess if you asked a typical American, ‘Who is the most experienced out of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin?’ one would respond that Sen. Clinton would be. It certainly was the image she portrayed during the primaries for her party.
   If one counts the number of years of elected public service, we have:

• Hillary Clinton: 8
• Barack Obama: 11
• Sarah Palin: 16

   One would rightly point out, however, that Gov. Palin spent some of those years as a mayor of a town with only thousands, and only two years as a governor of a state with around 600,000 people.
   To give her credit, those two years were in an executive position, which the senators in this race have not experienced.
   However, Obama supporters once attacked Sen. Clinton on her claim of greater experience by pointing at the years and ignoring the number of people represented—something that some of them have forgotten this time around in criticizing Gov. Palin.
   In which case, her 16 years are a sufficiently good sign of her devotion and success in public service.
   But if the numbers of people under one’s representation are important, then I wonder how the numbers look.
   This is not scientific at all, incidentally:

• Hillary Clinton, senator representing New York for eight years, pop. 19,000,000
• Barack Obama, senator representing Illinois for three years, pop. 12,000,000
• Barack Obama, state senator representing the 13th district of Illinois for seven years, pop. 700,000
• Sarah Palin, governor representing Alaska for two years, pop. 600,000

   If we look at these numbers, then the ‘inexperienced’ claim holds some water and Sen. Clinton, at least, had authority to claim at least that she represented more people for longer than Sen. Obama (not that she ever said it that way—she tried to count the years she had as First Lady).
   If one used the same defence of Palin as one (even I) used for Obama, then her criticism is unwarranted.
   One could say that politics, like any endeavour, is about human relationships. How effective was Gov. Palin in Alaska during her term? Her approval ratings paint a positive picture. She has been able to fight the institutions in her home state.
   However, those institutions are comparatively younger and less entrenched, so the argument then becomes whether Gov. Palin has the stomach to battle the institutions in national politics to get a president’s policies through, or will she give up because the task is so much greater?
   All I know is that among Democrats, voters are confident that Sen. Obama’s three years in the Senate are enough for him to get his ideas through: that he can battle the institutions well because he learned from them and from his time representing 700,000 people in his district in Illinois. Voters must also decide if Gov. Palin’s time representing 600,000 people in Alaska in an executive position (and in Wasilla as mayor and councillor) are enough, in among her other qualities and her own beliefs, for the vice-presidency.
   They will also have to decide based on their personal preferences and their belief in the candidates’ ability to keep their word.