So much for experience: In '00 McCain backed Bush over Gore.

How can John McCain go around the country arguing that peoplewhould vote for him ver Barack Obama baceuase he has far more experience than Obama does on national security issues?

John McCain HIMSELF rejected that argument in 2000 when he backed George W. Bush for President over the extremely experienced, sitting Vice President of the United States, Al Gore.

This argument should, I believe, be one of the ways Barack Obama hits back at John McCain when he makes the experience argument.

It's an attack he cannot make in the primaries because HIllary also backed Gore over Bush. McCain is also handcruffed by the most effective rejoinder to that attack. McCain could (rightly) argue that Bush's lack of experience proved to be a disaster for the Unite States.

Of course, that would mean admitting that the current, sitting, GOP President of the United States who is stroingly supported by the base of the Republkiucan party, was a disaster.

McCain could try to get around this problem by pointing out that Bush pvercame his lack of experience by picking an extremely exepreinced foreign policy team to help him out.

But, of course, this means McCain is saying that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Colin Powell served the country well during the past 8 years. An argument that is extremely hard tyo make, for obvious reasons.

So, this line of attack Puts McCain in a serious box. Why did he pick the inexperienced Bush over Gore 2000?

McCain might, again, try to parry this thrust by asserting that we weren't "at war" in 2000, so national security experience wasn't an important issue in that election.

But, again, Obama could come right back and say: "So, Senator McCain, are you saying that if we were at war in 2000 you would have supported Al Gore over George Bush? Because that's what it douns like."

McCain, having a sharp sense of humor, might jokingly respond: "If we were at war in 2000, I probably would have been the nominee of the Republican party. So I would have had a better option back then."

Even so, I think Obama could make McCain's arguments for "experience look hollow and self-justifying rather than principled.

The ultimate question would, of course, be: "Senator McCain. Why should the American people  base their vote on criteria you yourself decided wasn't important in 2000?"

What do you all think?