I think McCain shot himself in the foot on the experience angle (and that's why I think those in the democratic camp jumped the gun in criticizing her.) by putting someone relatively inexperienced in the VP position. It nullifies THEIR argument of inexperience, and puts the issue of "a heartbeat away" back on the table, giving the Dems a "subtle" way to work in McCain's age and health.

As one of his fellow POWs pointed out in a commentary, POWs, due to the physical stress of their experience, generally have a reduced life expectancy.

Now, I don't think limited government experience is such a big obstacle, as I expect elected officials to be smart enough and hard working enough to have a very steep and quick learning curve on the business of government. I realize that's not always the case, but a few years of solid government work should be sufficient on that score.

As for getting the Clinton voters? McCain, or rather McCain as he was perceived before the last 8 years of compromises, was what attracted Hilary Clinton's voters. Had he chosen a VP candidate who also approached Clinton's mid-aisle views from the Republican side, that might have convinced them. Instead he chose a woman whose views make her as intolerable to Democrats as Clinton is to the Republican Base.  Suggesting that the mere fact that she is a woman could sway Clinton supporters (even though their views are miles apart) is selling the voters short.

I find it incredible that such an idea would be the justification for picking her. I lean more to thinking she was chosen to appeal to a base that thinks McCain is still too "liberal".

It'll be interesting to see the VP debates. Her political views are like chum in the water for an old "shark" like Biden.

Hey, it could have been worse. They could have picked Ann Coulter.

Either way, if you invite discussion of creationism in a SCIENCE class (or
that thinly disguised misnomer "intelligent design"), it not only violates
separation of church and state--it is being discussed in the wrong
classroom. Science class is for SCIENCE.

It in no way violates the separation of church and state.  Public schools are not government agencies.  They receive funds from the government but then so do people on welfare and unemployment.  Does that mean they can't go to church? 

Since they receive tax money and that it is all they use to pay for everything it does indeed violate separation of church and state.

Where do you think tax dollars come from? The tax fairy.

Edited to add: Since people on unemployment and welfare aren't trying to foist there asinine beliefs on other people your analogy makes no sense.

Tax dollars are tax dollars.  If you are making the argument that if the funding comes from the state then religion cannot be involved then it applies across the board.

Most especially since, Christians, for example are supposed to "spread the word" if they really are Christians.  That's "foisting" their beliefs on others much more than a one day discusssion in a single class.

Also, since you don't appear to understand what the separation of church and state actually means, let me provide you a link from a source from about as far from "church" as you can get.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_index.htm

" It in no way violates the separation of church and state.  Public schools are not government agencies.  They receive funds from the government but then so do people on welfare and unemployment.  Does that mean they can't go to church? "

You're using a false comparison. People on welfare and public schools do not have a comparable position in relation to government. You can compare Public schools to government run welfare and unemployment offices.  Or students at public school with people on welfare or unemployment. Mix and match doesn't work.

So the argument would then be whether government could regulate how welfare offices and unemployment offices conduct their business in relation to their clients. Could, for instance, a welfare office require a non-christian to attend a christian church service in order to receive government funds? Would that be a breach of the separation between church and state? Of course.

That's an incorrect analogy Knut.

The employees at the welfare and unemployement offices work for the government and are paid by the government.  When they retire they get goverment retirement packages.

The employees of the school systems do not and are not.  When they retire it is from teachers retirement funds.

Now I'm sure my mom would love if that wasn't the case because her retirement benefits would have been much, much better than what she currently gets from having been a teacher.  :P

Edit:  It just dawned on me that you aren't in the US so it makes sense that you wouldn't know about US school systems.  At first I thought you were being purposely obtuse.

"That's an incorrect analogy Knut."

I didn't address the issue of whether schools were an extension of government as I thought William did that sufficiently. But the site you so kindly linked to in support of your own argument also had this to say:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sch_godexpell ed.htm

Separation of church and state applies to public schools as an extension of government, meaning that schools or school employees (in such capacity) cannot instruct or coerce students in matters of religion.

Your pension plan argument is totally irrelevant. And, as was the main point of my previous post, your treatment of public schools as analogous to welfare recipients in your argument is incorrect for the reasons stated above. Welfare recipients are not government agencies (for the purposes of the laws and guidelines regulating the separation of church and state) . It may be a hard concept for you to grasp, it is however, true.

I remember when I first encountered a homeless guy on the street, I, too, for a moment hesitated and thought to myself "Is that a homeless guy or a government funded public service agency employing thousands and servicing millions in a religiously neutral manner as guaranteed by law"?

OK, Scott. Let me put it this way. If my tax dollars are paying for everything in that school then I will fight with my dying breath to keep kids from learning anything as stupid as ID.

But comparing recipients of welfare and unemployment to a school fully funded by the taxpayers is deliberately obtuse.