Some people like to compare Obama and Palin based on the relative "experience quotient" of community organizer vs. small town mayor, state legislator/U.S. Senator vs. governor, etc.

Others are correct to point out that, in addition to experience, we should consider a candidate's "judgment".

I want to say that, to the extent a candidate expresses his or her judgment publicly in connection with his or her engagement on the most important issues facing the country, particularly in connection with his or her arguments for particular policies on those issues, and particularly if those arguments have the effect of shaping the debate and affecting policy -- to that extent, the candidate's judgment becomes part of the candidate's experience.

On this score, consider Obama's foreign policy experience:

1. In 2002, he publicly opposed and argued against the war (a minority position at the time). He argued that Saddam posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. He warned of a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. By 2006, nearly all Democrats and many Republicans agreed that the supposed grave threat posed by Saddam was nonexistent and that the war was a mistake as the debate shifted to arguments about how best to handle this disaster.

2. In a foreign policy speech on August 1, 2007, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." At the time, Obama was ridiculed by Republicans as well as some of his Democrat rivals who attempted to use Obama's statement as further evidence of Obama's unfitness to be President. Now, the Bush administration has followed Obama's lead on this issue. When Charlie Gibson asked Palin about this, she squirmed knowing that a direct answer of "yes" would highlight the fact that Obama has been vindicated on this issue.

3. The same thing happened when Obama said we should engage in talks with countries like Iran. Obama was ridiculed at the time. Obama’s statement became a centerpiece of political attacks on Obama’s experience and judgment. But once again, the Bush administration came to follow Obama’s lead, acknowledging that it was engaging in the very kind of talks that Obama proposed.

4. Until recently, the main difference between Obama and Bush/McCain regarding our current objectives in Iraq has been the difference between Obama’s "time table" for withdrawal, and Bush/McCain’s insistence that a "time table" would undermine Iraq’s efforts to assume responsibility for its own defense and stability. Then the President of Iraq endorsed Obama’s position and, shortly thereafter, the Bush/McCain rhetoric changed accordingly.

5. Likewise, Obama was ahead of Bush regarding shifting more troops to Afghanistan.

When weighing Obama’s experience, we must consider Obama’s experience as a "shadow president" (Andrew Sullivan’s term).  Sullivan says: 

"The Bush administration - when guided by the saner forces within it such as Gates and Rice - eventually follows Obama's advice. In that sense, Obama has been president for quite a while already. And proving he could be a shrewd, pragmatic and prescient one."

Now consider Palin:

1. Regarding the Iraq war, there is no record of Palin engaging publicly with the issue prior to the war. The only record of Palin's views on the war came in 2006, when asked about the surge. She punted, saying that she wasn't focused on the war and had only followed the surge in the news. However, at that time, she did say she hoped there was "an exit plan". In her only public statement about the war, she followed the "shadow president" Obama in direct opposition to the position of Bush/McCain at that time (before Bush/McCain themselves eventually came around to following Obama).

2. Other than the comments mentioned above, there is no record of her ever engaging with, much less taking a position for or making a policy argument about, any foreign policy matter prior to her joining the McCain ticket.

3. Since joining the ticket, her talking points about foreign policy are scripted and shallow.

4. She was clueless when Charlie Gibson asked her about the "Bush Doctrine".

Palin's foreign policy experience is zero, nada.  Meanwhile, Obama, perhaps more than anyone else, has been shaping the debate (and, indirectly, our country's policy) on foreign affairs.

The shadow president.