I do not support Rove or his opinions. The man is good at what he does but I have nothing to say about him. I do not support Bush either. I feel he is being blamed for things out of his control but at the same time he asked for it.

Sadly, a large part of a party I have aligned myself w/ for decades is choosing to make the same exact mistake the R's made by electing Bush due to partisanship and showmanship. If Palin can offer anything it should be a moent of reflection about Obama's true qualifications and fitness to hold this office.

Theoretically, you are right, especially if you are speaking about a state like VA or MI. But we are not. Her "executive experience" comes from being mayor of a town of 9,000, and governor of a state of 670k. Remember, it was about a month ago when Karl Rove himself argued that Tim Kaine, former mayor of Richmond, population 1.2 MILLION and governor of VA, did not possess the requisite experience needed for the VP position. In fact, Karl Rove belittled the city of Richmond in the process. Now tell me, Rove is correct, how does Palin all of the sudden have the experience? Because someone told you so? The knife cuts both ways my friend -- and it is absolutely hilarious that people blindly rush to the defense of Palin. Tim Kaine, not experienced enough, but with Palin, you are sexist and ignorant if you do not believe that she does not possess the experience. Oh, and I forgot -- the liberal media is to blame too...

I think of that TV show, Northern Exposure, and the town's bush-pilot/mayor, Maggie O'Connell.

Maggie had about the same qualifications for president and she was hot too.

I can hardly wait for look-alike Tina Fey's take on this 'hockey mom'.

That many of the conservatives on these boards can convince themselves of anything.

You shouldn't be surprised that they can twist the facts like a pretzel and come to the conclusion that the recently elected Governor of Alaska and self-proclaimed Hockey Mom is more qualified than Sen. Obama.

Actually, she is a gift to the extreme members of the republican party who can't stomach McSame because he has been soft on abortion, illegal immigration and the glorious war for Iraqi independence.

A recent AP headline:

McCain-Palin becoming Palin-McCain?

The party is already dumping old man McSame for its new poster child for conservative extremism.

Do we really want this woman a heartbeat -- a very old heartbeat -- away from the presidency?

Executive experience. Budget duties. Daily work schedule. More time in elevted office.

Govenors and senators are not comparable PD. One is at work everyday and the other only has to vote 130 over several years. One is wholly responsible for a state and the other can not show up for work for years to run for another office.

Honestly, this is tired. You do not need me to answer this question for you. The info is readily available for you. Your simply looking to spin the situation.

How does Palins experience exceed Obamas?

It still bothers no one that her perceived lack of experience and readiness for this post has been cited even though it exceeds Obama's?

Guys, your taking the same road republicans took after Reagan. The partisanship is our largest obstacle. Let's clear our eyes.

The notion of statistical analysis is a good topic to discuss. In this election cycle pay close attention to what numbers are thrown out there. The mean is the best to get a better picture. How often a number or statistic shows up or what is the middle point really does not matter. What does matter is the averages-to me anyhow. When listening to politicians pay close attention like when McCain says the average American will get x% in tax cuts but what he fails to tell you is that all taxpayers are in that figure, including the wealthiest ones. Which means the wealthier ones will proportionally receive the larger cuts-it is using the mean. He should eliminate the lower and higher ranges and give us what it means to average Americans-middle class. That is telling when you compare his and Obama's tax plans for that segment. Lies and statistics- there is a good book written on that one.

I defined my terms. It's like using mean, median, or mode. As long as you say which one you used, you are being totally above board. Cheers, MGM, who taught statistics for two semesters and learned that with my mentor professor there

I do not know anyone from Alaska as I do not know anyone from Illinois either. But I can say I lived a number of years in a very rural region and knowing small town politics and what matters they deal with, Palin gathered very little if any experience fitting of a national office in her role as council member or mayor. As governor, there can be some duties that can apply but less than two years is hardly anything to crow about. Resources and population do not necessarily correlate as you seem to be saying. The reasons being put forth by the GOP are comical: Alaska is closest to Russia so that counts as foreign policy experience-holy cow that is a whopper. Or when Campbell Brown asked Palin what executive decisions she made regarding the national guard in her state McCain retorted that the question was out of bounds. Huh? The excuses are many and quite amusing.

but what percentage of population. The state has approximately 670k people. The 16% argument is being intellectually dishonest.

My remarks come from talking with people who have lived in Alaska and know what the population faces there. Hopefully you know some real people from there as well and are not just dismissing a whole state (with 16% of our nation's land and resources) based on how it was portrayed on "Northern Exposure" or something. Cheers, MGM, who isn't accusing you of East Coast snobbery, but I sure have seen enough other examples of it in how people have talked about Alaska this last week!

Shouldn't you address the fact that Palin does in fact have more experience than your candidate? You can talk back and forth but just stand their records next to one another. You may have an opinion but you cannot change the reality of it.

What kind of argument is that? All states try to balance various factions. It is a fact that the larger the state's population the more intense and pronounced the issues and problems are. Problems much more aligned with issues of national importance such as security, public safety, job loss and job creation, etc. 10 years as Council member and then Mayor of a po-dunk 8,000 person town and less than two years as governor in a state with the population equal to the cities of Va Beach and Chesapeake combined do not compare to 8 years on Illinois Senate and 4 years in US Senate. If this were reversed the howls from the "right" bloviation sphere would be deafening and everyone knows it.

You did forget though that, like Hawaii, Alaska has a native population and a population of whites, blacks, etc. who moved in after statehood back in the 50's. There is a lot to maintaining the balance there, as anyone who has lived in those states (military or otherwise) will say. Both "sides" are constantly thinking the other is getting a bigger share of contracts, goodies, etc. Anytime you have to govern people and try to keep them happy, it is a complicated proposition. Cheers, MGM

Name one credible historian that would disagree with the notion that Palin is the least qualified VP candidate in modern history. Otherwise, why don't you compare them yourself, objectively. It should be plain as day.

I'm sure I could find historians that disagree with yours, but as far as the experience goes, she may have been governor of a "small" state, but the final decisions rested with her, whereas Obama was 1 member of a group so he really didn't have to think for himself, he could just go along with the others, or not.

I researched what Presidential and VP historians are saying and it seems they agree that Palin is the least qualified of any VP choice in the modern era. As one adeptly put it she has been governor of a small state (4th smallest) for less than 2 years. Obama had eight years in the Illinois Senate and almost four years now in the US Senate. As they stated, which is obvious, the dynamics of a large populated state like Illinois are much more compelex than a very small state. Speaking for myself now, Illinois has issues of budget, crime, public safety, health, etc on a scale that small states like Alaska could not even imagine. And she has no foreign policy credentials at all. So to say that Obama's experience counts as nothing compared to what Palin has done is just plain dumbfounding. Partisan rationalization I surmise.

Palin could have 50 years of executive experience, but her experience is still lacking. Remember, all but twenty months of her experience was a mayor of a town with under 9,000 people. Apparently it took 616 votes for her to win her seat. And you are pounding the table with this experience? Give me a break. That argument is as empty as the initial arguments for her foreign policy experience, since Alaska is close to Russia. And you turn around and call Obama an "empty suit"...priceless. Your argument is similar to stating that a person who ran a small retail shop for 14 years is qualified to be the CEO of Wal-Mart. It just doesn't cut it, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Appartenly you 2 forget Sarah Palin being a Mayor and Govoner of a state has 12 YRS experience in the executive branch leading people by example and your LEADING CANADATE HAS ZIP, ZERO, Nada experience at all so just who deserves this critizism. Your double standards just do not fly here and more over I would rather have someone in the number 2 position with less experience than to know my Leading Candidate running for President the Messiah has Commub=nity Organization and running a campain for 18 months as his leading statements on his RESUME. This is even more thin now than any other time in history. Your man is a fraud and an empty suit hyped and built up by the media and doomed to defeat. This is not about anything more than the issues which the Messiah is clueles other than claiming another four yrs with President Bushes Policies, Sorry this to doesn't fly since Persident Bush isn't running again. Messiah Obamas policies are stright from Jimmy carters failed administration and they failed then and will fail again. Socialism has no place in the USA.

many people are unable to think that far in advance. That is why this VP pick is arguably the most unqualified choice ever. Certainly in the past 30 years. But she does have executive experience...and if you listened to the earlier talking points, foreign policy experience too, since AK is close to Russia and Canada...But who cares? She looks good...that's enough right?