Righties laughably mock Barack Obama's experience

Howard Kurtz today surveys the reaction to Barack Obama's announcement of yesterday. He mentions Power Line's take. So let's look at it, shall we? Power Line has this to say about Barack Obama's presidential candidacy:

"Feeling the wind at his back," as Fox News puts it, Barack Obama announced today that he is filing papers for a presidential exploratory committee. Unless one counts his good looks, good speaking, and bi-racial status, it's difficult to discern Obama's qualifications for the presidency. Obama has never run anything of substance. His experience in national politics consists of two years as a Senate back-bencher. And he's only 45 years old.

In my lifetime, neither party has ever nominated a candidate for president with credentials this thin. In 1960, the Democrats nominated 43 year-old John Kennedy. But he had fought in a war, and had served six years in the House and (by the time of his election) eight years in the Senate. In 1956, he had been a serious contender for his party's vice presidential nomination. Moreover, he was a committed cold warrior whose seriousness about national security matters helped him overcome the charge that he was a pretty boy who, in Eleanor Roosevelt's words, should show "fewer profiles and more courage."

By running for president Obama will show plenty of audacity and hope. A serious country would not take his candidacy seriously. This country will. (emphasis added)

To all of this, you only need to look at George W. Bush's pathetic lack of experience prior to his presidential run. Governor of Texas for all of how many years? As many as Obama's years in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate? And everyone knows that the Texas legislature sits in session for a minority of the year, making W's tenure as Governor and "chief executive" there even less credible in terms of legislative experience. So cry me a freakin' river, will you boys? All of a sudden you care about a lack of experience?

A serious country would not have taken George W. Bush's candidacy seriously. An incurious, untravelled, unsuccessful aristocrat. Unfortunately for the world, the U.S. did. The media mocked attempts to question his intelligence. Rove cleverly inoculated his boy and made intelligence an "elitist" litmus test. How fortunate we are that we've now seen what happens when a president is elected who's clearly over his head and deficient intellectually.

So in the experience category, I'd say Obama's got more than W had. And he's clearly got more in the way of brains, I mean, who doesn't? In comparison to W, he stacks up quite well, thank you...