While I wholeheartedly agree that the tone of our intra-national discourse must get more civil, and that many of the more personal attacks on Palin were out of bounds, some of the complaints that she implies are unfair/unreasonable are not.

While the tone may not have been correct, it is completely reasonable to attack the choice of Palin based on her experience. I know not everyone agrees, but 6 years as mayor of a town of 6000 people (less for most of her tenure) and less than 2 years as governor (of any state, frankly) is insufficient experience for the vice-presidency. This is no slap on small towns, it's an indication of the size and complexity of our government and the world stage.

If someone were to designate that the operator of a successful small business be appointed CEO of GE, the reaction would be similar and justified. Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but appropriate to call McCain's judgement into question -- Palin may prove to be a brilliant political thinker and student of foreign affairs who could slide into the presidency comfortably and do well, but she had shown no record, no writings, no outward indication that she has the necessary qualifications to run this country. Frankly, to my eyes, and to the eyes of many, conservatives included, she has since shown that she is not ready for the position. And we should not be surprised by this -- no one with that resume should be expected to shine.

Yes, but there's more to it than that. Had Palin, despite her neophyte status, quickly shown herself to be well versed on the issues, really knowledgeable about US history and governance, and someone with well thought out, outside-the-box policy recommendations than the lack of experience would have receded as an issue.

But that simply hasn't been the case. She seems less engaged in the issues of governance than any of the women I have coffe with each day. That's what has earned her the scrutiny of the press.

I find Rachel's postings on this topic really pathetic. So now the fact that some commentators have used mean words to talk about her and/or Republicans means she never needs to reach out beyond her base -- this while running a campaign for national office? This reasoning is bizarre.

Plus, she's been a divider from day one. She never started with being a person of vision and bi-partisanship, only to end up saying some nasty things in the course of a long campaign. She started out of the box with divisive language and attacks; that's her only trick. Yes, all politicans occasionally play wedge politics, but for Sarah Palin it's her only game. So if you really don't think we can get anywhere by playing name-calling games, why defend that as the only strategy of a candidate who has shown no other qualifications or abilities?

Oh, I agree. And, while I appreciate that Rachel is trying to explain why people might "cling" to Palin, I always end up at the same point: even if she has been unfairly attacked (and I don't think, by and large, she has), even if she is likeable (again, not to me), how can anyone listen to what she says (or doesn't) and think she is qualified for national office?

DNE:

While I wholeheartedly agree that the tone of our intra-national discourse must get more civil, and that many of the more personal attacks on Palin were out of bounds, some of the complaints that she implies are unfair/unreasonable are not.

While the tone may not have been correct, it is completely reasonable to attack the choice of Palin based on her experience. I know not everyone agrees, but 6 years as mayor of a town of 6000 people (less for most of her tenure) and less than 2 years as governor (of any state, frankly) is insufficient experience for the vice-presidency. This is no slap on small towns, it's an indication of the size and complexity of our government and the world stage.

If someone were to designate that the operator of a successful small business be appointed CEO of GE, the reaction would be similar and justified. Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but appropriate to call McCain's judgement into question -- Palin may prove to be a brilliant political thinker and student of foreign affairs who could slide into the presidency comfortably and do well, but she had shown no record, no writings, no outward indication that she has the necessary qualifications to run this country. Frankly, to my eyes, and to the eyes of many, conservatives included, she has since shown that she is not ready for the position. And we should not be surprised by this -- no one with that resume should be expected to shine.

Mccain bit off his nose to spite his face when choosing sarah palin... she is by no means a hillary clinton when it comes to experience or even knowledge of how a government is run... remember back in august she said "i don't even know what a veep does" come on now ... if i could get past her voice (which if find ear peircing) i could probably be her hockeymom, sixpack friend. And while citing her experience of a mere 6000 population as mayor.... the population of alaska is a little over 600,000. The city of philadelphia has a population of 1,381,000. I believe mccain and the republican party brought her on for 1 reason... exploitation!!!!