孫子兵法 asked:

..it has no barrier of being good in what they do in the White House?

Richard Nixon was one of the most experienced people ever to take the office of president – having served in the Senate and eight years as vice president – yet he made a thorough mess of things domestically and had a mixed record in foreign policy.

Similarly, James Buchanan had been a U.S. congressman and senator, minister (ambassador) to Russia and Great Britain, and secretary of state before becoming chief executive, but his poor policies as president helped cause the bloody Civil War.

On the other hand, Chester Arthur only held two mid-level jobs in New York and was vice president for a mere six months before taking over for James Garfield after he was assassinated in 1881. Yet Arthur was a good president. The only reason he is not better known is because he was not president during a war (a good thing if you stop and think about it) and did not exude charisma (although he was a snappy dresser).

So Palin has “executive experience” but no foreign policy or national security experience like Biden…yet Republicans kept harping why “executive experience” is good.

From my POV; better judgment politically is greater than “executive experience.”