No, not defending Bush. Just pointing out that we have had quite a spread of talents and abilities over the years at the P and VP level.

Although, Bush makes for an interesting case study. Let's accept as true the statement Paul Begala made the other night on CNN --- that Bush is a "high functioning moron." If true, that means a high functioning moron can readily fulfill the functions of a modern presidency. Oh sure, Bush is at 29% approval, which may defeat the point, but let's be honest: if Bremmer and other underlings had zigged instead of zagged in Iraq (e.g., turning it over to an SOB instead of democratizing the place), there is no reason to think Bush would not be at 50% right now and en route to a cherished place in Republican lore.

Let's be even more frank. The next president's most important tasks will be (i) nominating Supreme Court justices (not that hard); (ii) accepting General Petreus' recommendations on the middle east (no chance either president will go against the popular general); and (iii) delegating staff to negotiate with Congress over various budgetary to's and fro's backed up by the veto pen.

It's not rocket science, folks. All this hysteria about Palin's supposed underqualifications just doesn't hold water. Bill Clinton was right: let go of the desire to denigrate her, and just focus on the issues.

Oh dear. I hope no one is suggesting they would rather have LBJ as president than Sarah Palin.

Sure, LBJ had a lot of political talents. And true, the roots of Vietnam preceded him. And true, the climate was right for a lot of landmark legislation.

But LBJ had two big flaws. First, he enriched himself greatly through public service, becoming a multi, multi millionaire in ways (not unlike Huey Long's La. oil leases) which have never been fully untangled, or explained.

Second, the LBJ/McNamara approach to Vietnam was one of the most cowardly, duplicitous, half-baked ways in history to kill tens of thousands of our country's best young men. Anyone, left or right, could have handled it better than him. His character flaws, bad judgment, and endless political machinations doomed the project from the outset, and doomed it to the end.

So, yes, there is more to "experience" in evaluating our vice presidents.

You asked for some background on my perspective.

I come from the midwest, and vividly recall the Dan Quayle nomination in 1988. As I have posted elsewhere, the media treated Quayle and his family during the RNC absolutely horribly by, among other things, running prime time footage of Vietnam soldiers coming home in body bags and telling viewers Quayle should be glad it was other peoples' bodies, not his. (The MSM asserted, without evidence, that Quayle had moved up a wait list ahead of others to get into the Indiana National Guard; subsequent investigation revealed that was not the case -- there was no wait list, and no one was ever rejected).

The same things which happened to Palin's family happened to Quayle's. I remember his wife Marilyn having to defend her father (the candidate's father-in-law -- a really important political issue) on Good Morning America against some charge or another that dad was a listener of a "far right" radio show or something. She pleaded with GMA: can we leave my father out of this? Nope. The public needed to know.

Whatever one thinks of Quayle, and his subsequent gaffes and career, I thought there was something genuinely personally offensive about the treatment he received. Meaning, I think it affected he and his family personally. It was unnecessary.

Now, I have not seen anything like that treatment until Palin's announcement, and the subsequent hysteria which broke out in the media during the RNC over her daughter's pregnancy. If you read Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, he describes a kind of 19th century small town pageant -- torch lights and effiges -- that would be performed to shame and humiliate someone who had an illegitimate child. The media's treatment of Palin was similar -- I could give ten specific examples, but you get the point. Ironically, of course, the media does not disfavor teenage pregnancy: they wished to give Palin the Hardy treatment anyway, sheerly out of spite.

Since then, I have been kind of sore over all of this mockery of Palin. She deserves some criticism for not always hitting the mark in the broadcast interviews; on the other hand, I think you can defend point-by-point most all of her answers (other than the ones on Russia/Alaska/experience, which I am sure she herself would like to do over). I just don't see why she has to be "defeated," body mind and soul, as opposed to just dealt with politically, as Bill Clinton suggests.

Hey, google the word "Xanthro" and the first hit is a Salon poster with a gazillion entries. It ain't me, babe. I've never posted to Salon other than under my now regrettable name readerreader. Unfortunately, it kind of sounds like Sirhan Sirhan, or the old Cheers character Andy Andy. Obviously, I was not thinking ahead to writing many posts when I selected it.