Here were the criteria:

1) MILFy good looks.
2) "conservative christian"
3) She's not old
4) Karl Rove liked her
5) Believes human-caused Global Warming is a hoax
6) Doesn't have an opinion about Iraq
7) Can bait a trotlne
8) She's AnnCoulterV2,0
9) She's killed a moose

So as you can see, Sarah Palin is the perfect Commander in Chief for the 2nd Coming.  Bring her on!

Read this POLITICO analysis:

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

It's on the mark and says volumes about where this election stands.

Gov. Palin is not Ann Coulter V2. If she was I'd have to break out the frickin hammer and stake ... and figure out how to kill the vampire bitch with all those secret service types taking aim.

No she's a Hockey Mom who happens to be Governor of Alaska and John McCain's campaign just got on the highway to nowhere .... without an effective bridge to the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton female voter types.

She became a member of the Alaska Bar Association in 1987. She was an attorney in Anchorage, Alaska from 1985 to 1998. She also served, from 1990 to 1991, on the mayor's task force on the homeless.

In 1998, she was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives and served as House Majority Leader for the 2003-2004 session. Murkowski sat on the Alaska Commission on Post Secondary Education and chaired both the Labor and Commerce and the Military and Veterans Affairs Committees. In 1999 she introduced legislation establishing a Joint Armed Services Committee.

And btw, Palin got angry because she wanted the appointment as US Senator.

Oh, and perhaps we should look no further than her home town of Wasilla, which has also produced Lyda Green, the President of the Alaska State Senate, and I quote from her official biography:

Alaska State Senate: 1995 - present
Co-Chair, Finance Committee: 2003 - present
Chair, Health, Education & Social Services
    Committee: 1995 - 1996, 2001 - 2002
Chair, State Affairs Committee: 1997 - 1998
Vice-Chair, Health, Education & Social Services
    Committee: 2003 - 2004
Vice-Chair, State Affairs Committee: 1999 - 2000
Vice-Chair, Resources Committee: 1997 - 1998
Vice-Chair, Judiciary Committee: 1995 - 1996
Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee:
    2001 - 2004
Legislative Budget & Audit Joint Committee:
    2003 - present
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics:
    2003 - 2004
State/Federal Research & Development Committee:
    2001 - 2004
Health, Education & Social Services Committee:
    1997 - 1998, 2003 - present
Finance Committee: 1999 - 2002
Resources Committee: 1999 - 2000
Legislative Council Joint Committee: 1997 - 1998
Transportation Committee: 1995 - 1998
Finance Subcommittees:
  - Chair, Community & Economic Development:
    1999 - 2000
  - Chair, Corrections: 2003 - present
  - Chair, Court System: 2003 - present
  - Chair, Governor's Office: 2003 - 2004
  - Chair, Health & Social Services: 2001 - present
  - Chair, Labor: 1999 - 2000
  - Chair, Legislature: 2003 - 2004
  - Chair, Transportation and Public
    Facilities: 2005 - present
  - Vice-Chair, Public Safety: 2001 - 2002
  - Administration: 1997 - 2000
  - Court System: 1995 - 1996
  - Education: 1995 - 1996
  - Labor: 1997 - 1998
  - Natural Resources: 1997 - 1998
  - University of Alaska: 2001 - present
Matanuska Susitna Caucus: 1995 - 2000

Political and Government Positions:
Matanuska-Susitna Caucus: 1999 - 2000
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute: 1997
Energy Council: 1997
Legislative Management: 1997
Reapportionment Task Force: 1997
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
    Education: 1991 - 1994
Department of Education Special Education
    Regulations Task Force: 1993 - 1994

And yes, this is the woman whom the radio host described as a bitch and a cancer (she is a cancer survivor) and Palin just laughed - and there is tape.

They're both from battleground states, and both have some leadership experience in the House GOP caucus. Pryce was chair of the House Republican Conference for four years, making her the 4th-highest ranking House Republican. She's retiring this year because her district is turning blue, in part due to her association with the likes of Jack Abramoff and Bob Ney.

Hart was a protege of John Boehner and was being groomed for a leadership spot until she lost her seat to Jason Altmire in a 2006 upset. She's trying to win it back from him this year.

Personally I'm glad to see McCain defending Alaska with his pick rather than making an aggressive move in a larger state. I think it bodes well for us.

US House Members:

Judy Biggert of IL since 1998

Marsha Blackburn of TN since 2002

Mary Bono Mack of CA since special election in 1998

Ginny Brown-Waite of FL since 2002
she was previously a County Commissioner, State senator and Senate President Pro Tempore

Shelley Moore Capito of WV since 2000

Governors:
Linda Lingle of HA, elected 2002
Jodi Rell of CT, who took office in 2004, previously LT Gov

or how about former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman, elected 1994, serving until 2001 when she became head of EPA under Bush

methinks there will be a lot of commentary on other, more qualified women, who were passed over.

John McCain was aiming to make history with his pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and historians say he succeeded.

Presidential scholars say she appears to be the least experienced, least credentialed person to join a major-party ticket in the modern era.

So unconventional was McCain's choice that it left students of the presidency literally "stunned," in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. "Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who's of presidential caliber," said Goldstein.

"I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history," said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.

That includes Spiro T. Agnew, Richard Nixon's first vice president, who was governor of a medium-sized state, Maryland, for two years, and before that, executive of suburban Baltimore County, the expansive jurisdiction that borders and exceeds in population the city of Baltimore.

It also includes George H.W. Bush's vice president, Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle, who had served in the House and Senate for 12 years before taking office. And it also includes New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who served three terms in the House before Walter Mondale chose her in 1984 as the first woman candidate on a major party ticket...

McCain/Gumby 2008.

Having said that, I'd apply a different weight to the non-political experience gained from being the commander of a major military force, or even running a huge company (with a greater population than the city of Wassila).

I'd say that being mayor of Wassila is probably more relevant experience than time as a sports TV anchor, or a beauty queen -- at least at a policy level (the sports TV anchor and beauty queen roles though probably have a lot of value in terms of the campaigning side of politics -- not so much in terms of governance).

Based on the job description of the Wassila mayor though, I suspect that Obama's community organizing experience two decades ago was probably better preparation for the presidency than the kind of decisions that the mayor might have undertaken.  Based on those short-stints too, I'd say that Obama's move to get asbestos removed from a public housing complex is probably a better demonstration of skills than the fiasco associated with the sports complex that unfolded during Palin's mayoralship.

Some of the reports from her home state have been pretty scathing.

McCain would have been better off even going with Fiorina -- someone who managed a large company and had some international experience (granted she left under her own cloud).  Hutchinson, Snowe, et al would have been even better picks from an experience perspective.    

Look at New orleans right now. Whose accountable? The mayor primarily then Gov. Jingle. And the Senators from LA?
Hardly any at all. See the point. Mayor of Main Sreet USA is harder than people give it credit for because it is predominately held by average Joes and Janes and nopt career oriented politicians.

It still does nothing in terms of foreign policy work, which is a major part of the job of president, but as far as executive experience goes I'm sure that it would help.

On the other hand, if we were to look at the most successful Virginia Governor in recent years, I suspect both of us would agree that the guy who had his training in business, not politics, accomplished the most and left the state in the best condition possible.  I'm not sure if those skills would translate to the top level -- although I certainly would have been more than willing to roll the dice on Warner as president.  I think we'd both agree that he's earned the shot based on a solid record in business and as Governor -- even without political experience in a smaller arena.

As far as Obama's opportunities in the Illinois legislature go -- and beyond -- his success cannot be entirely attributed to the top party leader in Illinois.  Obama had built connections in the state for the better part of ten years -- he played an instrumental role in a major voter registration effort in 1992 which almost certainly helped him establish a name in political circles.  He was able to win support downstate based on friendships and good working relationships that he'd established with fellow legislators (both Democrats and Republicans).  He's had some luck, but he's also created opportunities.

Even this year -- his focus on organization in caucus states -- getting offices and staff in place months in advance of elections; combined with his ability to recognize the importance of small dollar donations -- helped him to overcome some significant disadvantages against a very strong opponent.

To return to the original point -- mayor of a small town is important work.  At the same time, I want to have leaders at the highest office who have spent some real time grappling with the big issues.  People might have laughed off the fact that Bush didn't know who the president of Pakistan was in 2000, but in hindsight, it would have been valuable if he knew a lot more about the region and the players at work in the region.  

There's a secondary issue here too about having one foot in the Capitol city.  A president who is too much of an outsider, and largely reliant on advisers is a dangerous option in my view.  One of the virtues of the Obama-Biden ticket is that both have some connection to the federal bureacracy; Biden should be able to help Obama navigate some of the corridors of power if needed -- if something happens to Obama, Biden will be able to step right in.

In the case of McCain-Palin, there are no assurances along those lines.  Palin may bring some short-term political value to the ticket, but at a policy level she's dangerously unprepared, and not sufficiently plugged in.  I can't underscore just how reckless McCain's choice is.  

And of course, there was the little thing called San Juan Hill, for which he was nominated for the Medal of Honor, which was disapproved perhaps because of his criticism of how the war was fought (he received the medal posthumously in 2001).

Roosevelt was nominated as VP in 1900.  He had first entered pulbic service in 1881.   While his public service was not continuous, that certainly qualifies as quite a bit more than a little.

(e.g. Teddy Roosevelt's only "serious" political experience was as Governor and Vice President -- those other 14 years don't count for anything.  I should add that's not my view, just a reflection of one standard that's been thrown around).

Teddy Roosevelt's work in other areas of government -- aside from elected office -- also weighs in the balance when considering his experience.  

More importantly, by the time FDR ran in 1932, he had been steeped in national politics for more than a decade, including a place on the 1920 ticket as VP, and giving the nominating speeches for Al Smith in 1924 and 1928 (at the time the most significant convention speech).

So, by the time FDR ran, the American people had an opportunity to get to know him a bit.

Those are impressive credentials by just about any standard.

Update:  After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of Vice President. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Governor Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Senator McCain."

There's more.  Joel Goldstein is a big Dem donor (look at up at the FEC site), not just an Obama donor.  Dallek also was a speechwriter for Kennard, the Dem who chaired the FCC under Clinton. Of course Kearns' reputation was heavily damaged by charges that she was a serial plagiarist, which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

In the end, it will be what the people think, not our jawing here, but here's what Zogby has right now:

http://www.zogby.com/news/Read...

Brash McCain pick of AK Gov. Palin neutralizes historic Obama speech, stunts the Dems' convention bounce

UTICA, New York - Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party's presidential nomination -  has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%.

Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 29% who said it hurt.

In the end the voters will decide.

But the writers of that Politico article should be ashamed.

Finally, one of the great threats to our nation is our growing national debt.  Palin and McCain have very good reputations at opposing earmarks.  You'll find many liberal federal workers who share the sentiment that much of our government is nothing but an unproductive money pit.  I am not talking from newsbites, but from actual experience, and having deep conversations with people from other agencies.  It makes sense to have a VP who will specialize in reducing domestic waste.

I think the demonizing of Palin will backfire.  

As for the comment below that she is disliked in Alaska -- she has had approval ratings between 80 and 90 %.  The GOP establishment up there hates her.  She just backed the candidate who ran against Don Young.  She's gotten other Republicans up on ethics charges.

It's also time to sit back and let facts come out slowly.  There is incontrovertible evidence that the state trooper she went after (here sister's ex-husband) tased their son when he was 10 or 11, drank on the job, and allegations that he threatened to kill Palin's (and her sister's) father when the father was going to hire a lawyer to represent his daughter against a guy who seems like he was a domestic abuser.  (He's now been through 4 wives at the age of 35.)

And finally, finally, how long was Obama in office when he announced for the presidency?  150 days I think I've read.  And someone at MyDD did a study showing that the IL legislature is a part-time job, meeting typically about 60 days a year.

2. Rasmussen numbers are showing that among undecideds the net effect is a negative one.

Chester A. Arthur, the father of the modern Civil Service System (Pendleton Act) held no elective office prior to becoming Garfield's VP.  He was a spoils system appointee of the Stalwart Republicans, running the NY Customs House.  He also briefly served as a quartermaster general during the Civil War.  Yet he is well regarded by historians because of his ethics reforms.

Harry Truman held elective office, but was pretty much a nobody in the Senate until his Truman Committee exposed government waste.  Prior to that he had always been regarded as a lightweight political hack, the senator from Pendergast.  Prior to becoming VP, he thus had one significant accomplishment.

I think analytically you are not being fair to Ms. Palin.

Are you saying that Palin shouldn't be held to the same standard?  If she's qualified, let her prove herself.  

The Senate is a legislative paradigm and not a leadership one. Exactly what is a Senator challenged with other than review and vote and procedures. Why is it the same Senators seem to sponsor everything within Parties? On balance I would take any Governor over any Senator....btw anyone here who thinks that Barack Obama is more qualified than say a Gov. Bill Richardson is beyond crazy and virtually committable. When has Obama or any other Senator really had to deal with the border issue or a budget shortfall that really matters that cannot be whitewashed. What about budgets? I would challenge any one term Senator to fix VA transportation issues. Even Allen knew the Seante was a helluva lot easier than running the Commonwealth and so did Chuck Robb. The symantics is laughable.

What about budgets?  How exactly did a one-term Governor from Texas do in that area?  What about the two-term Governor from California?

No one knows for sure how Obama will perform as an executive, but the criticism about Obama applies perhaps every bit as much to McCain.  

One thing is for sure, Washington and Congress is broken. The question for independents will be who they trust to fix it.

The idea of having a VP with NO foreign policy experience -- whose first trip out of the country was in 2007 is down-right dangerous.

Within three hours after the news that McCain had chosen Palin, a former top strategist to President Clinton was already zeroing in on the argument that Palin would be a heartbeat away from replacing a "72-year-old, four-time cancer survivor president." That's pretty tough stuff, but in terms of exposure to national security, Palin does make Obama look like Henry Kissinger.

/rolls eyes

Of course, "people" supported Kaine, the question is how many and who exactly.  Of the front pagers, as far as I know not one of them supported Kaine for VP. Of the people who voted in our poll, it was 13.89%. Out of the commenters, to my recollection, it was something like that 13.89%.

So please refrain from implications that we're not being "honest," when you are the one who's skewing the facts to suit  your argument (which is, apparently, that you think a woman with no experience and far-right-wing political philosophy should be "a heartbeat away" - brilliant!).

Don't Republicans claim to be against absurd arguments?  Aren't they the party of "no spin zones"?  

Look, if you like Palin as a VP choice and want to argue for her that's fine by me.  You like Palin because she's an extreme social conservative?  Because she's pro-oil? Because she thinks any environmental legislation just gets in the way and polar bears should go extinct?  You like her because she's a life long card carrying NRA member?  Fine.  Let's argue about whether those things are good for the country or not.  But please don't embarrass yourself by parroting one of the most idiotic GOP spins in years.

My point was in fact the arguement that Palin is weak on environmental issues is absurd and she has demanded the tuffest standards of any Governor against the oil companies. On that we should champion here and all Alaskans. What excuse do Texans or Gulf States have?

Sorry for looking at thing objectively, excuse me for wanting people to view things from a position of intellectual honesty and not rhetoric. Is she extreme on issues like abortion or creationism; hell yeah. Is the abortion issue greater today in our lives than say energy policy, economic concerns, things like trade and jobs, our schools, heathcare options, taking care of our growing senior class and social security;;;an astounding NO. As a Catholic conservative Virginian I could care less about Palin, Biden, Obama or McCain abortion position frankly or frankly what judges people want in the Court. McCain wins he will not get a single one passed through confirmation with the current Congress anyway. And creationsim is a School Board at the local level issue and there will never be a single national piece of legislation in favor of it so in the end it matters very little, but by the way there are juristictions here in Virginia that could consider that as well as the growing infleunce of homeschooling in the coming years it seems. Are people here saying that we want a Federal law telling States what they can and cannot do at the local level with regard to schools outside of seperation of church and State...I would saty away from that discourse our you run the risk of swing 3 to 5 pts of independents in Virginia away from Obama.
Lets debate actual records and positions for everyone and have some honest intellectual discourse and not assume that just because people in the middle display a bit of integrity on the issues that they can say they like this position for Obama and this one for McCain that they somehow are "not true democrats". Where is it said you have to agree 100% on the laundry list of issues to support a candidate anyway.
I think CNN's Obama Revelaed documentary piece has uncorked the skepticism regarding "qualifications" especially given his voting record in the IL State Legislature so I truly do not believe I suffer from "spin" on this area. The fact is whether we support Obama or not we should be honest enough to say that we are not supporting Obama based on his record of achievement where there is little "politically" but ij  his ability to inspire and motivate Americans to change the direction of our country. It will take all of us Eric not just a guy in the WH. In the same light we should have the integrity not to "discount" Palin's path which is a great story as well.

Again explain to me why it is Warner is 28pts now ahead of Gilmore and Obama is 2 pts ahead of McCain in Virginia. Please explain that political dynamic.

Normally I would take your word for your position, but quite frankly, most of what I'm reading from you is regurgitation of the GOP meme regarding Palin.  Maybe you are a conservative Democrat or moderate independent, but it looks like you get your talking points from Fox, Rush, and the RNC.

But I do agree with you that no one is every going to agree with "their" party 100% of the time so these labels sometimes do become rather pointless.  Or, in the case of an important election for President with only two people to choose from, highly partisan and divisive.

Intellectual honesty and not rhetoric you say?  Fine.  What the hell does fighting the Japanese in WWII and/or holding off the Russians in the cold war (and beyond) in Alaska have anything to do with Palin?  Or even Alaska (except that's where it happened) for that matter?  Those are issues the United States had to deal with.  Alaska does not defend our borders against our enemies - the United States Armed Forces (stationed in Alaska) does.  

If your argument is merely that no one should be bashing Alaska, I agree.  If your Alaska argument has anything to do with Palin then it's you who is not being intellectually honest but instead practicing GOP rhetoric.  Being Governor of Alaska for 18-odd months in no way qualifies her (or anyone for that matter) as having international relations experience nor national security experience based on the geographical fact that Alaska lies between Russia and Canada.  Yet that is the GOP message.  Are you seriously buying that?

Do you want to have an intellectually honest discussion regarding her international relations and national experience based on her time in AK governor's mansion?  If so I'm all ears - please explain to me what I'm missing here.  

The facts? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). "Your taxes" would go up, yes -- but not if you're someone who is sweating higher gas prices. By contrast, Mr. McCain's tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 -- less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically.

The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either

In sum, if you REALLY want to blow the deficit sky high, then vote for McCain - another Bush "borrow and spend and borrow and spend some more" Republican.  These guys are definitely not members of the Concord Coalition, that's for sure.  Nor are they "fiscal conservatives" as the Republican Party was historically, including when I joined Teenage Republicans in part for that reason...

Anchorage Daily News: "It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be a heartbeat away from the presidency."

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

Sen. John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate was a stunning decision that should make Alaskans proud, even while we wonder about the actual merits of the choice.... Alaskans and Americans must ask, though, whether she should become vice president and, more importantly, be placed first in line to become president.[...]She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. [...]
Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job.

Palin and Obama both lack the experience, but as Obama campaign clearly demonstrated against Clinton this election is not about experience its about change so in the end it really does not matter does it.

I never ever thought I would see the day where RK lends credence to a Thelma Drake. Wow, whose next Eric "braindead" Cantor?

In the end we the voters make the determination anyway but lets dispense with the personalities and look at records of actual achievement. How do you feel when you have to interview people whose resume looks like they can not manage to stay in a job for more than a year before moving on to the next one? Do we feel confident in the person? Why should this be any different for anyone regardless of Party. Why is it acceptable for one side to have a guy with limited legislative or executive experience get a pass and then be critical of someone else who actually has some wherever it is. Is there an inferiority complex . We don;t like Obama or get motivated to support him becayse of "experience" its the MESSAGE. Experience was a dead end for Clinton and so it will be in any other agruement when you face inspiring figures like Obama or Ronald Reagan who grasp the skill of oration.

Regardless of the level of Obma's experience, he has put himself, his record and his judgment out in front of the American people for 20 months, and they (or at least the ones voting in Democratic primaries) have determined that he is qualified for the office. And at the end of the day, the American people are the hiring partners here.

And for the record, I would have agreed that 2 years ago that Obama's resume was pretty thin, but I feel differently about him now having seen him conduct himself and his campaign in the national spotlight for an extended period of time. I no longer require his resume to make a judgment.

The problem with Palin, and the reason her lack of experience will matter more than Obama's, is the fact that we will have only 60 days to make a judgment about her, and given that there is a decent chance that she may end up as president, I question whether that is enough time to reach a judgment, to observe her in a variety of situations and meeting different kinds of public challenges.

Take the Rev. Wright episode. Whatever damage it did the Obama, it also showed that he could meet a viscous personal assault while maintaining his decency and his principles, and while keeping his eye on the ball. That is the real benefit of these grueling campaigns -- to find out who has the character to stand the heat and exercise good judgment.

That is why a pick like Palin is irresponsible. Sorry, but a year and a half as Alaska's governor, and a few years as mayor of a small Alaska town, really tell us very little one way or the other about her ability to handle the job of President. And I'm just not sure this is the kind of job you put someone near and hope they will work out.

Palin has been selected by one person as the most qualified candidate for VP.

She deserves her chance to prove herself, but so far, I haven't seen much to convince me that she's ready to lead the most powerful nation in the world.

As a Virginian Kindler I can tell you that the same things were said about Woodrow Wilson who was Governor of New Jersey shortly before becoming President. He was a reformer from NJ when he ran which back then leaned Republican in Presidential elections. No one thought he could push through a reform agenda based on his lack of significant political tenure.

John McCain needs what Kinky Friedman calls "a checkup from the neck up."

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind.

McCain truly could've done better, even among possible women and moderates to run with him if he wanted to appeal to Hillary supporters and independents. I give him credit for not picking someone simply to pick up a swing state, but can a right-winger -- very anti-abortion, pro-"discussing" creationism in schools, NRA lifetime member (she joined still in the womb, right?), anti-stem cell research -- with little public-office experience from a politically isolated state run the country if something happens to President McCain?

But hey, it's a big election for the We-Don't-Usually-Matter States like Alaska, Delaware and Hawaii.

McCain/Annie Oakley in '08!

Oh, and in comparison to Palin, Quayle was overqualified.  He had two terms in US House and was 2 years into his second term in US Senate when selected by Bush -  a total of 12 years of Federal experience, all legislative.

Palin is not qualified.  Period.  Get over it.

If I were you, I'd stop trying to sell something that no one is going to believe (except those who are desperate for four more years of Bush) and start worrying about a possible backlash from women voters.  I've already been hearing that many women are very unhappy at this clearly pandering pick.  The basic argument is that this pick is a complete insult to the intelligence of women - that McCain is gambling that women are to dumb to see right through his blatant pandering vote grab.

...her mother-in-law has doubts.

Faye Palin admitted she enjoys hearing Barack Obama speak, and still hasn't decided which way she'll vote.

"We don't agree on everything. But I respect her passion," she said. "Being pro-life is who Sarah is."

[...]

Faye Palin said the entire family was shocked by the news on Friday.

"I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh...

Now add the vision, direction, delivery, oration, charisma factor to the equation:

1. Barack Obama
2. hillary Clinton
3. John Edwards
4. Bill Richardson
5. Kucinich
  Gravel: aweful

This is what I am speaking to. Obama is not the most qualified Democrat to be President but he successfully navigated the nomination processs. Clinton could not make the "experience" or "qualification" issue stick nor will it be made in the same manner over Palin.

I think liberals in the media (the pundits) need to be real careful. I listened to quite a few women this morning and I have no way of knowing their allegiances voice strong opposition to the attack undertaken on Palin. They made a valid point. They said the media is focusing on her as a "woman" and contrasting her with how other "woman" may have been more qualified for the selection. Thats about quotas not about merit in terms of stating he had to pick a woman or did so for political gain. To contrast her with other woman is to imply that the only reason she was selected was she was a woman and people making that arguement will alienate other women who want to believe she was pick based on "merit" not gender. Its an interesting point frankly. If one believes it was solely a gender selection today there great risk for McCain, but if she happens to deliver on the merit end and back it up then there is great risk on those women changing points of view as well. Palin will be fighting an unimpressed media club who resents the fact she is not a regular on Meet the Press and such.It is very dangerous territory which is why the Obama/Biden visit yesterday made NO mention of her at all. They will ignore her officially I can see it coming; the sensitivity is too much risk and they will let liberal pundits do their biding at great risk. They are not nearly as eloquent as Obama.

No, Barack Obama is no Joe Biden on foreign policy (who is, except for Richard Lugar and a few others?), but he's a gazillion times more qualified and knowledgeable than Sarah Palin.  And no, living pretty close to Russia doesn't count, any more than Bush living close to Mexico made HIM an expert on Latin America...

P.S. I'd say that Obama is about equal in foreign policy expertise to John Edwards, definitely ahead of Dennis Kucinich (unless you're counting the ability to work with space aliens as part of "foreign relations" - ha).

As to Obama experience Lowell, my father an 85 year old WWII and Navy veteran put it fairly simple; Any officer in the Navy who has served and retired from the Nabvy has more international experience/exposure than any one term Senator and that includes Hillary Clinton whom he supported as well.

But hey I am glad to see that you did not dispute that Richardson has more than all of them combined. Now that the Palin pick has been made I wonder from a western state perspective if Richardson would not have been a better pick. Jury is out, but she could play well in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada. I think Washington and Oregon are of course very secure but Colorado concerns me. I think its a big home school state as well and I think she is big on that.

Folks,  if Hillary was the democratic nominee,  what unknown black person would mccain had picked?????

With this pick, Belgala points out, McCain has made his age and health (with four recurrences of cancer) very important...

Every time I hear his voice I think of the "series of tubes...not a big truck" line. :)

What does this pick say about McCain? Well, it says that when he is backed into a corner, he will roll the die. I'll concede that the choice is an interesting political gambit as far as hail marys go. And for a few days at least a campaign that was inexorably falling toward the trash heap of history has generated life and interest.

But even McCain acolytes concede it is a risky move.

I think it is fair to question whether this is the kind of temperament, judgment, and approach to challenges we want in a President.