You don't get it.
The only thing Palin did was trade tit-for-tat. Team Obama, upon learning of the Palin pick, started talking smack about her lack of experience, because she was a mayor of a small town.
Palin (and Giuliani), in response, came up with the jabs at the community organizer bit. And, the liberals have been blubbering about it, even since then.
So, if you don't like the barbs about commuity organizers, quit demeaning her being a mayor of a small town.
Or, as the late James Brown said, "Don't start nothin'; won't be nothin'!"
Actually, it was the Republicans who started this.
Carl Rove said how horrible a VP Tim Kaine (Governor of VA) would make because he was City Councilman of Richmond, VA. (150,000 to Palin's 9,000), then Mayor of Richmond (Same numbers) and then Governor of Virginia... A state with almost 8 Million people in it as opposed to Alaska's 668,000.
Now... My question is... Why doesn't someone ask why Palin is a better candidate than Tim Kaine would be whom Carl Rove said:
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished."
"I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
and
"So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with -- is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"
Now... on what of ANY of those things is Palin MORE qualified than the terrible pick that Tim Kaine would have been?
Longer tenure as Governor? Nope.
Mayor of a larger city? Uh Uh.
Governor of a larger State? Negative.
So where is she more qualified than that disaster that Tim Kaine would have been?
Someone please tell me.
