"...her qualifications for national office are minimal."

Perhaps that's true but her experience level in executive government tops that of Obama. Who, exactly, is it you're trying to put down? Obama comes up on the low end of experience. Palin is more prepared to take McCain's place than Obama is to take the presidency.

You can admit it since it's obvious; this story is a knee-jerk reaction to your fear.

To paraphrase a line from your story: Clearly nobody in the Democrat camp is concerned that Obama would be clueless in a national security crisis. After all, not being a Republican is ample reason to elect someone POTUS, right? No matter who the unknown, inexperienced person is? Yes?

The intense fear people have over Sarah Palin is almost comical. Comparing her "qualifications" to Obama's complete lack of the same and it's not just comical it's the Joke of the Year.

Seriously, I can't believe you wrote a story deriding her for her lack of experience. That argument is ridiculous and, looking at the fact she has more experience than Obama, it's absurd. What I can't figure out is why Obama supporters keep blindly deriding THEMSELVES.

You have to put your fears aside and rejoice in the fact that you're going to elect a POTUS that has even less experience than the noble woman you're all spending so much time deriding.

One day you'll come to your senses and figure out that the Republicans nominated proven leaders and the Democrats nominated poster children. Personally, I don't want a poster child as president of my country. Perhaps that's because I think about things like that while others don't.

@slumpyb

You're going to vote for an unknown and you're putting Palin down for being one? Huh?

@Lynx

She's got less experience than Obama? She was the mayor of a town. Being the mayor of any town automagically puts her many experience points above Obama.

@jiminmpls

Well, the Democratic party is the champion of welfare. You should be pleased.

As for most of the rest of you I'd have to assume from your ramblings that you're all very, very scared.

I can't imagine why McCain would pick someone with more experience than Obama for his running mate, can you? Perhaps you should belay that last sentence.

Perhaps that last sentence was a bit over the top. They all have more experience than Obama.

I find it amusing when so many people parrot the phrase, "playing the POW card."

McCain has many good cards to play. People just cry about them because they know and accept, deep in their hearts, that the democratic candidate has no real cards to play at all.

It's damned irritating to know that, deep down inside, and not be able to voice your opinion on it for fear of being an "outsider."

I'd be crying, too.

Yeah? Where is it written that when you can't refute what someone says you have to resort to personal attacks? You realize you just lost the debate, right?

I'll say it again. The words republic and democracy are not interchangeable. Of course, you can't refute it hence your "wingnut" crack and your pasting irrelevant crap. :)

Before you continue flaunting your ignorance (Which isn't a very smart thing to do.) perhaps you should educate yourself. Wikipedia has a good writeup on Constitutional Republics.

It's a common misconception that the US is a democracy. Why, I have no idea.

No, a Constitutional Republic is distinctly different from a Democracy. As I said, the difference is in the Rule of Law.

Look up "mobocracy" which is what a Constitutional Republic obliterates.

The United States is NOT a democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

The difference is law.

In a democracy, California would not be allowing homosexual marriage now since the people of the state voted against it.

You asked, "Whatever happened to unity through diversity?"

Wouldn't you say those, by their very definition, are mutually exclusive? You can unite or you can be diverse. The phrase "Unity Through Diversity" has no real meaning at all.

Look up "political correctness." The often touted two words that wouldn't need the first word if the second was true.

Concerning freedom of religion, I'm all for it. I don't want my government telling me I have to be a <<insert religion here>> nor do I want my tax money going to support any certain religion in any way at all.

Having said that, as an agnostic, I don't think having a 2-ton granite representation of the Ten Commandments is wrong unless a 2-ton representation of Buddha or whatever wasn't allowed. Freedom of religion means just what it says. We're free to follow the teachings of our religion of preference. As long as the money for these things comes from somewhere other than the taxes I pay, I'm okay with it. As long as EVERY religion gets equal billing, I'm okay with it.

I don't see what the problem is other than some people's guilty feelings. Guilt is a prime breeder of resentment.

@AKA Smith

Then we are like-minded. :)

I laugh hysterically when I think of one simple scenario:

Unplug Edwards from this story and put Romney or McCain in there.

To a person, you would all be sitting at the cannibalistic press dinner table with a knife and fork ready to devour him with a nice red wine while watching American Idol.

Your hypocrisies truly know no bounds and I find it funny in an extremely pathetic sort of way.

Meanwhile, Edwards' political career just got preempted by the sound of a flushing toilet. While he may not be much of a thinker he's only human, right?

If you're absolutely sure you positively do not want to contract an STD of any sort and you're also doubly sure you do not want to become pregnant or father a child, how many choices do you have?

Screw common sense, let's gamble! ;)