Replies

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.

She's not running for that job though. The thought is she would step in in the event of an incapacitation of the POTUS. In reality she is a ticket balancing agent who a nominee will pick to score votes from a constituency or state. Happens all the time.

I wouldn't vote for her as POTUS with her current resume. If she had 1.5-2 terms as governor under her belt then I would most certainly consider her. Her positions on issues work for me but I would like to see more from her. I don't buy the foreign policy BS. I want a proven executive in the job because that's what POTUS is, the ultimate CEO job.

I want a proven executive in the job because that's what POTUS is, the ultimate CEO job.

There is no one on either ticket that comes close to filling that want except Sarah Palin.

She may not have long term experience as the chief excutive of a state but the other three have no equivalent experience. Yes, McCain claims he managed a fighter squadron, Obama claims he managed a huge election campaign and Biden actually managed to screw the taxpayers for over thirty years but, realistically, none of that counts.

All three have experience as legislators but being a member of a legislature is more like being a member of a committee than being an executive manager.

There are very good reasons that legislators rarely rise to the position of chief executive. The different skills that come into play are the most important consideration. Legislators and committee members succeed by making deals, forming concensus, and placing their will and insight secondary to the will of the group.

Presidents and chief executives must make and implement decisions as individuals and they are held responsible for those decisions.

Any voter willing to accept Barack Obama as chief executive is voting for a lofty speech and any complaints about Sarah Palin's lack of experience are baseless rationalizations

I wouldn't vote for her as POTUS with her current resume.

What, pray tell, would be your standard then?

After all, Governor Palin has more executive experience (at least in a political/government context) than a few other Presidents - let alone Vice-Presidents.

FDR and Teddy Roosevelt each had only held the elective office of governor - for a nicely coincidental two years - before winning on a national ticket (TR as vice-president).

Oh, and aside from a little military experience and running a farm, one might say that the resume was a little thin for . . . George Washington.

I'm not saying that Sarah Palin is particularly well-qualified for the job, but I think Senators are, in general, even less so. And unlike Governors, I truly think that Senators become less qualified, not more, with more time in Washington.

Because in addition to being executives, they also need to represent the people of the nation, and aside from judges, long-term Senators are probably the most-isolated, most aloof people in public office.

And yes, from that you can tell that I think none of the other three people are terribly well qualified, either. However, since none-of-the-above is not a viable, option, I'll be voting for McCain-Palin as a ticket that became more qualified - not less - when Governor Palin was added to it.