Also, it’s worth pointing out that in spite of all this (almost oddly desperate) focus on Palin, there is no evidence that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate ever won or lost an election because of a running mate. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but it hasn’t yet.

I'm not sure the size of one's campaign staff is a compelling qualification for the presidency. If it is, then any party nominee could essentially say, "My qualification to be president is that I'm my party's nominee for president." Plus, having worked on a campaign before, I think the nominee's actual management or leadership of campaign staff is minimal at best, and of extremely short duration. Certainly not the kind of meaningful experience I value when considering someone's credentials to be leader of the free world.

<< as is Joe Biden's senate committee staff >>

If that's true, then the problems with our government are far worse and deeper than I ever imagined. Seriously: a committe staff of more than 7,000? Good lord. No wonder our elected officials can't balance a budget.

<< Obama never campaigned as a Washington outsider, which hillariously, McCain has attempted; he campaigned on being a post-partisan. >>

In the Democratic debates that I watched this year, Obama was always quick to point out (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that his short tenure in D.C. was an advantage. In fact one of the more memorable lines I recall was something to the effect of, "What these critics about my supposed 'lack of experience' seem to really be saying is, I haven't been in Washington long enough to be corrupted by it like everyone else." He constantly derided the way of doing things in the Beltway and promised something different.

Granted, McCain cannot (and has not, as far as I know) ever claim to be an outsider. He HAS made the same predictable claim, that every presidential candidate makes, that he will "change the way of doing things" in D.C., unite rather than divide, etc., etc. But on the subject of being "post-partisan" or non-partisan or whatever he calls it, McCain does have more credibility than Obama. Even if he did vote with Bush 90% of the time, as his critics say, McCain publically broke with the administration on several very high-profile and controversial issues over the years, including stem-cell research, immigration, torture, Rumsfeld, etc. And the Democrats sang his praises for it at the time. In the fullness of his career he has shown a great deal more independence from his party than Obama has shown in his four short years in the senate, even if he (McCain) has predictably backpedaled on a few issues in the course of this campaign. Still, I don't think anyone even remotely familiar with McCain's personal history to date truly believes he would be an identical clone of George W. Bush as president. That argument only has some traction because McCain has been so forthrightly and unapologetically supportive of the war in Iraq, even when it clearly served his interests not to be.

If you believe that, force yourself to listen to a few days of right-wing radio this week. Seriously. LOTS of Republicans calling in saying there was no way they were ever going to vote for John McCain, but Palin has either changed their mind or is causing them to "reconsider." Despite all the talk from the Left about John McCain being another four years of Bush, the hardcore Right definitely doesn't see it that way at all. They see him as a moderate-loving media hound who has no loyalty at all to party principles (whatever those are; deficit spending, maybe?).

I'm not so sure about that. Of course we won't really know until after the election, but I spent some time (out of morbid curiosity, since I was on the road) last week listening to the right-wing howler monkeys on the radio, and all they kept talking about was how Palin has finally injected some real excitement into the base, and the reporting on the campaign trail the past week seems to confirm that. In fact I've been dying to hear what Limbaugh has to say about McCain, since he's hated the guys guts over the years, and rather predictably he a) offered McCain lots of grudging praise for picking Palin, and b) vented frustration about McCain's comment in his acceptance speech that he "doesn't work for any political party." It was my favorite comment from the speech, and I was inordinately pleased that it irritated Limbaugh.

<< First, being on city council and mayor of a city with about 6,500 is debatable "executive experience" at best >>

Debatable or not, it's STILL more experience leading, managing or governing something than Obama, Biden or McCain have, and ditto for her two years as governor. No one is claiming–at least not me–that her experience is "magical" in any way. If you feel comfortable voting for a junior senator who's never been in charge of anything larger than a senate office, then good on you. I don't. In fact I'm not thrilled to have to choose between one senator or another this election. I prefer candidates who have actually governed or been in charge of something.

<< Second, most voters are not going to analyze it that way. >>

First, what do you base that on? The polls this past week have consistently put Palin ahead of Obama, Biden and McCain in popularity. Second, if a VP's "lack of experience" is so troubling to them, why would they feel comfortable picking a junior senator four years removed from the state senate to be PRESIDENT? The logic doesn't hold.

Though, admittedly, modern presidential elections probably aren't big on logic to begin with.

I'm not convinced that was his primary goal in picking her. And even if it was, one thing the punditry cannot spin away or deny is that the choice of Palin has greatly energized the conservative base, which had tepid feelings (at best) about McCain until now. In that sense alone it was a smart and necessary move for him; even if Palin doesn't attract any Hillary voters (and I have no earthly idea why she would), she's not likely to scare anyone away who was thinking of voting for McCain.

As for "trading away" the experience argument, I know that's the opposition's talking point right now, but let's think about it for a moment: aside from the fact that she has eight years more executive experience than Obama, Biden or McCain, she has NO LESS foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton did as governor of Arkansas (one of the poorest, most rural states in the nation), and Democrats had no problem with that in 1992. So why do they have a problem with it now, for a VP no less?

Well, because it's politics of course, where hypocrisy reigns supreme.

Also, even if Obama gains on the "experience" front from having Biden as his VP, he loses credibility on the "change" or "reform" front by having a 30-some year Washington insider on his ticket (especially since he spent his whole primary campaign running against the Beltway Establishment).

All of which probably makes me sound like the strongest Palin cheerleader out there. I'm not. In fact there are some important issues where I'm on the opposite side of the fence from her. I just don't think most of the criticisms leveled at her thus far hold much water. And I don't think the Democrats are gaining any traction with them either, if the current polls are to be believed.

She may well turn out to be a total cook or lightweight who turns people off the more they learn about her, but for now she has the advantage of being a fresh face and a female politician who–notably unlike Pelosi and Clinton–made it to high office on her own merits, and not on the coattails of a famous father or husband. And even if they hate her politics, I would hope most women (and men) can at least admire that much about her. I do.