The Obama Campaign realizes it is folly to compare Obama and Palin. Though, many of the conservatives want this comparison and this fight; it betrays what they truly want - Palin for president. It wasn't long ago we were all subjected to the collective whining of the conservative press on how McCain didn't represent their values - most wanted Romney.
Is ignoring Palin a good idea? Over 40 million people watched Palin eviscerate Obama.
There is going to be an interesting tug-of-war in the next several weeks. The conservative media are going to want to talk about Palin - how she represents them. The press will want to talk to her but will be denied. And the Obama camp will want to talk about the election.
The best argument I can think of to refocus the media dialog is as follows (in two parts):
McCain pick was poorly thought out, not properly vetted. This should be compared with Michael Brown from FEMA. Michael Brown is what happens when you appoint someone without checking their qualifications. Who else will McCain appoint without vetting?
Also, it is important to note that there is a difference between being examined in 50 states through 25 debates and being appointed. Don't let anyone get away with equating Obama to Palin in this fashion. Palin was appointed, Obama was elected and examined for over a year. She has never debated foreign policy nor had a public view on it since 2006. 
Second, the views we do know of her are almost exactly the same as President Bush. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments against Governor Bush was that he had no foreign policy experience. He wanted to be elected on his moral values. We know exactly how that turned out.

Side note:I don't know that there is any argument to be won comparing the types of experience Obama and Palin have. Time in the state senate versus time as a mayor; and so forth. I'm not much of a fan of arguments based on experience, as they sound like arguments from authority.

The Obama Campaign realizes it is folly to compare Obama and Palin. Though, many of the conservatives want this comparison and this fight; it betrays what they truly want - Palin for president. It wasn't long ago we were all subjected to the collective whining of the conservative press on how McCain didn't represent their values - most wanted Romney.
Is ignoring Palin a good idea? Over 40 million people watched Palin eviscerate Obama.
There is going to be an interesting tug-of-war in the next several weeks. The conservative media are going to want to talk about Palin - how she represents them. The press will want to talk to her but will be denied. And the Obama camp will want to talk about the election.
The best argument I can think of to refocus the media dialog is as follows (in two parts):
McCain pick was poorly thought out, not properly vetted. This should be compared with Michael Brown from FEMA. Michael Brown is what happens when you appoint someone without checking their qualifications. Who else will McCain appoint without vetting?
Also, it is important to note that there is a difference between being examined in 50 states through 25 debates and being appointed. Don't let anyone get away with equating Obama to Palin in this fashion. Palin was appointed, Obama was elected and examined for over a year. She has never debated foreign policy nor had a public view on it since 2006. 
Second, the views we do know of her are almost exactly the same as President Bush. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments against Governor Bush was that he had no foreign policy experience. He wanted to be elected on his moral values. We know exactly how that turned out.

Side note:I don't know that there is any argument to be won comparing the types of experience Obama and Palin have. Time in the state senate versus time as a mayor; and so forth. I'm not much of a fan of arguments based on experience, as they sound like arguments from authority.