Assuming that selection of a vice presidential running mate is supposed to mean something more than a cold political calculation as to who can best help the ticket, win, selection of Sarah Palin seems not worse, and in many ways, much better than Obama's selection of Joe Biden.

As someone who supervises people at work and has made hiring decisions, I have always been rewarded more by focussing on hiring talent than hiring experience. I see in Sarah Palin someone who is willing stand up for what she believes is right even if doing so comes a great political cost. Her turning in the Alaska Republican Party chairman on corruption cannot have been based on a risk/benefit analysis to further her political career (unlike Obama's affiliation with, and then dumping of Rev. Wright, once it was clear he needed to win over more mainstream Democratic Party and national voters). From what I can see, Sarah Palin is not focussed on self-agrandizement through politics. She marries, and remains married to, her blue-collar high shool sweetheart, starts a large family and decides to carry a Down's Syndrome child to term--hardly the decisions of a machinating politician. She even declines to go in for the self-celebration of a big wedding.

As far as I can tell Joe Biden is a dedicated family man, but I am deeply troubled by his past acts of plagiarism that went to the extent of attempting to develop an alternative past that he presumably felt would be more acceptable to voters. That evinces, in my view, a deeply flawed judgment. It is as if he is seeking office to validate his self image.

The extremes of both parties are troubling. I want someone who is not afraid to go against his/her party from time to time. Theodore Roosevelt was one such leader. Based on his Senate record McCain seems to be another. Palin seems to also fit this mold. Given that a 72 year old male in America can expect to live an additional 17 years, I think it's a safe bet that McCain will be around long enough to teach Palin a thing or two.

Well, perhaps, if we're lucky McCain will teach her that creationism is religious make believe.

Oh, what am I saying. All religion is make believe, isn't it?

You describe Palin as a decent, honest person who has raised a family. There are not normally considered qualifications for leader of the free world. If someone put these kinds of things on their resume for a professional job, they wouldn't be taken seriously.

Yes, talent often makes up for experience - as Einstein once said about the old "9/10ths prespiration" adage: "A touch of genius makes up for all the hard work in the world".

And there is a deep mythos in the USA about the benefits of a maverick steering his or own course based only in belief. But we've seen where this takes us when we look at national policy. We've seen where belief that Hussein has WMDs lead us, how the belief that those turned over by Pakistani police were "the worst of the worst" allowed us to torture, how the belief that "liberals run the government" allowed violations of the civil service law to become the norm, how belief in christian creationism leads to an ignorance of science and the list goes on.

If anything, Palin is most like George W. Bush - evangelist, creationist, anti-science, anti-intellect, prejudiced (but in an acceptable way), obdurate and overly convinced in their own righteousness.

As for McCain being willing to go against his own party - that may have been true in the past, but since his run this time around he has largely changed on this issue.

• McCain is 100% with the GOP on resource management
• McCain is 95% with GWB on all major issues
• McCain is 100% with the GOP on the military
• McCain is 100% with the GOP on invading women's bodies
• McCain is 100% with the GOP on writing discrimination into the US Constitution
• McCain is 100% with the GOP on tax policy.

So I'm curious, where is McCain "not afraid to go against his party"? In creating McCain/Feingold - the law that allowed Swiftboating?

Wait a minute. She ran as a reform candidate against another Republican who named his daughter to fill his Senate seat, and who had the lowest poll ratings of any governor in the country. She still only got 48% of the vote, against the Democratic candidate, who got 97,000 votes to her 115,000.

Getting rid of Murkowski's party chairman didn't take a lot of nerve when the whole state was up in arms against him. Now, let's look at her ties to Ted Stevens, whose endorsement was magically erased from her web site in the past few days.

The question is experience and is between Obama and McCain. Obama has spent one or two years in the Senate and is not ready to be the Prez. He has no experience and telling some good speeches does nothing to change my mind. He is not ready and really doesn' t any legislative activity that he created. It reminds me of that old commercial `Where's the Beef`´

McCain/Palin in 2008.

Yeah, the post above mine attacking Palin is right on. You've got us there. Obama won all those rave reviews for fighting corruption in Chicago didn't he? Gosh, he was a go-getter on corruption wasn't he. And this not to even mention that the Messiah is much more experienced at community organizing. We concede.

JeffinNJ:

The question is experience and is between Obama and McCain. Obama has spent one or two years in the Senate and is not ready to be the Prez. He has no experience and telling some good speeches does nothing to change my mind. He is not ready and really doesn' t any legislative activity that he created. It reminds me of that old commercial `Where's the Beef`´

McCain/Palin in 2008.

Do some basic homework before posting please. Obama has been a US Senator since Jan 4th, 2005, not "one or two years". He has sponsored 131 bills since 2005. He has cosponsored over 600. And yes, he is good at "telling speeches".

Me, I'm going for the smart ticket.

Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law, two of the premiere academic institutions in this country and was a law professor at University of Chicago. Biden is a graduate of Syracuse Law and also has taught law.

McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, that is the extent of his formal education. Palin has a degree in journalism from the University of Idaho, that is the extent of her academic achievement.

If you think things are perfectly fine in America, then by all means vote for McCain/Palin. At least you'll be able to keep your guns (even if you may not own a house to store them in) and you can rest assured that other people won't be killing their unborn children (although many will be losing their full grown children in Iraq). So go ahead and do your part to make sure America is a third world nation by 2020.

micmac,

Since when is education important in American politics? I want a leader who would be fun to hang out with. I want a leader who thinks the world is less than 6,000 years old and/or possibly flat. I want a leader who has enough children to start a baseball team. I want a leader who thinks the world is probably going to end soon so there isn't much point in worrying about the environment. I want a leader who can blow the crap out of tin cans from a hundred yards away. Get your priorities straight!

Again the basic question still stands: How does McCain govern if he wins?

He (like you) is currently running on a campaign that essentially says we should fear blacks and minorities and anyone who isn't a right wingnut.

GWB demonstrated over the last 8 years that winning that way means you can only governm if you have a rubber stamp congress. Which McCain will not get.

So how does he govern after winning on fear?

Let's flip that around... how does Obama govern? Like the most liberal senator that his voting record implies? As the black radical that his religious association implies? As the moderate/uniter that he claims to be on the campaign trail? As the old-school partisan liberal that his acceptance speech demonstrated? I don't know which lie to believe, because they can't all be true.

So you believe that Obama is insincere in expressing his religious belief? Or are you equally afraid that his irrational religious belief will inform his policies? I have nothing against a candidate's religious beliefs so long as they remain a matter of private devotion. The problem with the evolution/creationism debate is more fundamental than science v. religion--it goes to the matter of who gets to decide, in a democracy, what children will be taught? I believe that the popular will of parents, despite many flaws, is better than the will of educational bureaucrats.

Well I asked the question first. And my goal was not to debate Obama's approach herem but I'll bite if you go back and answer my top-post question

You make some assumptions that aren't backed by facts. You've been drinking the koolaide too long.

Obama is to the right of the public center, both in his lifestyle and in his policies. Now its true that he alienates the core GOP stronghold. But that's only about a 20% part of the population (26% of the voting public).

Obama governs as a moderate centrist.

• Replaces Ginsburg and Stevens with similar judges.
• Moves energy policy to a more equal subsidy footing for all energy sources,
• slowly winds down Iraq (as the popular opinon wants him to),
• increases US standing in the world,
• reduces overall military spend which in turn helps strengthen the $.
• rejuvenates the NLRB, EEOC and EPA.
• Middle class tax cuts while raising taxes on those like me who make over $100k.
• Rejuvenate College Aide
• Reform Medicare/Caid to allow for competitive bidding by the government (odd that the GOP didn't want the government putting out meds to competitive bid).

All of these have strong popular support. Yes they are things that conservatives don't want, but the 60%-75% majority does.

If Obama governs this way, he ends up with solid mid 60s popularity numbers, just like Kennedy