R's should stress that the true benchmark for experience is accomplishments, not tenure.

Maintaining a focus on this theme would put Obama on the permanent defensive, as every time he raised the issue, he would end up hiliting her successes vs his own lack thereof.

I was not that keen on giving support for McCain and refused to contribute to him financially although I would have voted for him as the lesser of the two who would harm this country.
But with his pick of a very smart woman and also a pro-life supporter I am now in full backing mode for the Republican ticket. I cannot wait until my lawn sign and bumper sticker "NObama' arrives to express my total dissatisfaction with an avowed socialist running for president of our great nation.
Diane

For all those thinking she's qualified or more qualified than Obama for some reason because of her "executive" experience:

She's been in office for 20 months as Governor of Alaska with a population close to 700 thousand. Some of that time has been dealing with a scandal of hers and family matters (giving birth). Before that she was a mayor of a town of 8500. She was even a supporter of that bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

Obama has been campaigning for 19 months, leading one of the most effective and most appealing Presidential runs in history, along with Hillary splitting 36 million votes between them, 49% to 49% around 18 million each, and tens of thousands of volunteers, for 19 months. Before that he's had 12 years of state/national level, an outstanding education, a community organizer and head of some pretty important positions.

Your going to tell me her experience trumps his? That she has more accomplishments? Does her experience trump all of McCain's VP runner ups as well who don't have executive experience?

Basically for anyone to say these two people have the same experience or Obama has LESS experience, are not being honest with themselves. However, that's not even the point. The point is McCain looks like a huge flip flopper right now not on his value of how important experience really is.

If Palin is qualified, then why isn't Obama with his much longer record and appeal? If she isn't qualified, why did you pick her when you said you would pick the most qualified candidate? Is Palin qualified only because she may appeal to the women vote? If so, how can you say Obama is only trying to win an election when you pick someone just to win an election?

If any of these arguments are correct, how can we trust your judgement McCain, when either way you completely contradicted your main attacks on Obama? Remember Obama never defended his experience, he defended his judgement. McCain was the one arguing experience equals judgement.

Odd, Blake. All of that Obama exp that you are touting, all those months of campaigning, they are all about Barack. His ego. His success. His power.
Palin's service in the same time has been about the people of Alaska and her family.

Obama's twisted logic that merely running for office provides him with the qualifications, experience and credentials to perform in that office, is as laughable as his twisted logic that a whirlwind 9 day, six country, overseas photo op qualifies him as an expert on foreign policy. Obama is an empty suit who is obviously trying to create the illusion that he is something that he is not. If its a choice between an experienced mayor and Governor, with an approval rating of 80% for V.P. versus. a community organizer, and junior senator, who spent most of his time in office running for President ... I choose Palin. No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Ayers, no Rezko, no mean Michelle, NOBAMA

P.S. It's also hunorous how the media is now asking McCain if he vetted Palin, when the media totally dropped the ball in vetting Obama ... that's why we found out after the fact about Wright, Rezko, Ayers, and the rest of the nut jobs closely associated with Obama.