This morning I responded to a letter to the editor in my local paper, with a letter of my own. Hopefully it will get published.
Whether it does or not, here is the basic text:
_____________________________
(letter writer name) seems to admit the country is currently in a crisis situation when he says what this country does not need now is a novice. So in this crisis situation we instead need someone who supported the creation of the crisis? John McCain is our other choice besides Barack Obama, and he has voted with Bush over 90% of the time and campaigned hard for his election and re-election. What we need now is someone with Barack Obama's intelligence, compassion, diplomacy, good judgment, and experience with economically struggling communities (since the whole country is one now thanks to Republicans). McCain himself has admitted he's a novice at economics.
Obama actually has more experience in elected office than Bush did in 2000. As for the Republicans bemoaning Obama's lack of experience compared to McCain- I assume you all voted for Al Gore in 2000?
(end)
_________________________________
The above letter just touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of fun, relevant, and succinct ways of slapping down the "he's too inexperienced" argument against Obama. And we need to start doing that since it seems that's all the people fighting for the other side have! They can never win on the issues.
I.e. if they are admitting we need someone "experienced" because we're in such a bad situation, aren't they hypocrites for supporting the election of someone who helped create this bad situation like McCain did?
Obama has relevant experience to communities in economic crises, McCain doesn't. Do McCain supporters think number of years of experience in high office is important? They better have voted for Gore or we should all assume their "experience" argument is just an excuse to be a partisan Republican, slamming Obama on the only thing they've got.
And if you count his time as an Illinois state legislator (and why not, since the probably have more responsibilities than the infamously figureheadish position that is Texas Governor), Obama actually has more experience than Republicans beloved Bush did in 2000 (was elected to the legislature in 1996 per Wikipedia). Again, did they vote for the more experienced Gore, or more experienced Kerry for that matter? Barack Obama has more experience in the national government than Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee- do you think the Republicans would be making this all about foreign policy experience if they had been the nominee? Let's call BS. There are so many succinct talking points with which we can diffuse the "he's inexperienced" crap. I just wanted to be sure fellow kossacks were thinking of these too.