As I remain unconvinced that someone with Obama's level of experience and naivete should BE the President. His experience with operational government (actually running things, making decisions, administering) is nonexistent, and having a rookie manager in charge of the third-largest bureaucracy (I think Russia's and China's may be a tad larger) is something I can't fathom. I wouldn't want that for any company in which I hold stock, why then would I want that for the USA Chief Executive?

Sen. Obama to me may be a decent VP candidate, and having the chance to understudy a while and learn how to be an executive/manager and how to discharge those responsiblities is a prudent step. He may be an excellent candidate for Governor of Illinois. If he can handle that, he then shows the capability for larger administrative tasks. He really does seem like an honorable man (although his policies seem a little too left to be viable), and getting a few operational callouses on his hands would season him somewhat. However, based on his total curriculum vita, he's like a competent bicyclist who has never driven the family car taking over a NASCAR racing team and competing at Daytona.

Yes, the same could be said in many ways of Gov. Palin. A lot has been said about her foreign policy knowledge (or lack thereof), but that's why there is an entire professional State Department stuffed with career diplomats and analysts, coupled with a Central Intelliegence Agency to keep tabs on it all. A good executive can manage such assets and advisors, but that is a skill one learns - it just isn't a trait locked in someone's DNA.

So, a rookie President or a rookie Vice President - is that the choice we have?