Tom R. said:
To add to red's post...
The presidency is an executive position and it's vastly preferred that candidates have executive experience. Palin has it, Obama does not. This is significant because an execuative makes decisions, leads, manages, governs, takes responsibility etc. A senator does none of these. This is common knowledge within political circles and intelligent people recognize it.
What's absurd is hearing Obama supporters suggest that she doesn't have enough experience. Her overall political experience is only slightly less than Obama's, but it's in areas that really count. She has accomplished REAL CHANGE as an EXECUTIVE, not just empty words from someone who doesn't vote in Congress often. Let each of their records speak for themselves.
While I don't disagree with many of your points above, may I point out that LBJ was a US Senator, and he got more done with Congress during his administration, as he set the current record (with the possible exception of GWB) for promoting and getting his legislative agenda passed by congress, during his presidency. I make this comment in regard to the current political stalemate, and posturing that has been going on Washington recently. Not saying LBJ was saint, he wasn't, but he was a Senator first and not a governor or mayor.
I suspect we are going to have a Democrat controlled congress and legislature for the next 2 to 4 years. If you want congress to get anything done next year, a democrat in the white house would help. If you want very little to get done in Washington the next 2 to 4 years then a Republican president would help. I could argue the advantages of either one.
One philosphy is the less Washington can do, due to political insider bikering, the less damage they can due to us. On the other hand if we want major changes in important US policies that have serious affects on our daily lives, a freindly to Congress White House would be better.
I doubt Palin would be very freindly to a democrat controlled Congress, resulting in gridlock in Washington. From what I have read here, it appears most
members would prefer gridlock, so for them Palin would be a great strategic choice, but that is not my preference right now. There are major issues that Washington needs to address with out further delay, and the democrats represent my position on most of those issues.