What type of experience would some one running for President in 1860 typically of had?
What type of experience does someone running for President in 2008 typically have?
Yes, there are all kinds of differences between 1860 and 2008, but were talking about one thing, the experience required to be President.
The experience and knowledge required to lead a country. I wouldn't argue that Palin is simply inexperienced, though some more time in high profile politics might be helpful in her case, but that she simply lacks in brightness, curiousness and knowledge about important issues. And it doesn't help herself trying to desperately claim she's having some international experience only because Putin likes to fly over Kanada.
She isn't honest herself about this lack, and she seems to know fully well why she isn't. Because it seems to be of importance.
And well, in this day and age it's not helpful to know so little about foreign countries when you want to be president or vice president of any country simply because in that position situations occur where you have to know how to work together and negotiate with other countries not after you have went through some extensive training.
However, in my opinion it's not her lack of having had to deal with foreign leaders that makes her incompetent, but rather that she has no clue of what is going on in the world, she never seemed to care what is going on and she apparently lacks the intellectual capability to engage with foreign leaders and to get behind foreign issues in all their complicated matters. Her answers in the interviews so far show very clear that all she can say about foreign issues is the little bit she has seen in US media (and I'm really sorry, but when it comes to explaining the world your media just sucks) and what her advisors have trained her so far. She can't answer the questions, but rather blabbers away without making sense, repeating the interviewer's question and saying exactly the same nonsensical, nonfitting sentence at least two times in one sentence.
Another thing is, and there we seem to differ fundamentally, is that I just don't care how Lincoln was prepared in international relations, or any other person was prepared when running for office. The fundamental difference is, if you look at those people and their history you always find that they were extremely intelligent, very open and their whole career reflect just another sense of political talent etc.
I view people on their own, I look at how they engage difficult issues and questions, I try to get behind how they think when it comes to such issues like foreign relations, knowledge in the areas required for doing their job as president and I assess the people on their own, on their personal capacity. And seriously, listening to or reading what Sarah Palin so far has said in her few interviews as well as reading about what she has done in Alaska gives me the impression that she is a person who certainly is very determined of assuming high positions in politics, but she herself simply is not capable of filling that position. It's not Lincoln running, it's not Kennedy running, it's not Agnew running, it's no one else running but Sarah Palin. And she is just not fit to be a good vice president.
I don't really know if you believe what you write, but trying to interfere there is some static point when one becomes ready, and some static amount of experience one needs to be a good president, and trying to get this answer doesn't bring you any further, simply because you are asking for the non-existent. People are not black and white, you need to assess each one on their own. And by doing so you see fundamental differences in Palin, Lincoln, Obama and whoever else you want to throw in.