I'll second that emotion, Mike. She is beyond unqualified to my mind.

******************

Geoff, I won't dispute that Palin may have a lack of experience. But isn't Obama equally inexperienced?

Being governor of a state is actually much more like being president than the being one of a 100-member Senate. So in that regard, Palin's experience is more relevant than either McCain's or Obama's -- she's actually been in charge of something.

And why do people scoff at the notion she might be an expert on energy policy? She's the govenor of (by far) the nation's leading energy-producing state. Energy is to Alaska what gambling is to Nevada or tourism is to Hawaii. I'd imagine any Governor of Alaska, Republican or Democrat, would have a pretty good handle on energy and the politics surrounding it.

(And I ask you, Geoff, because I know you'll have a reasonable answer. I know you won't say I like to torment puppies and kittens because I'm not voting for Obama.)

I was making a joke about Palin's energy experience up thread, but honestly she may have the experience -- I've not really seen her articulate it but on that one I'd be inclined to provide her the benefit of the doubt.  Its the rest of her experience, and her knowledge base at that, that makes me feel she is wholly unqualified.

Candidly, Bruce, I base my feelings regarding her qualifications based on the substantive answers I have heard in interviews and during the debate.  The Couric Debacle was one thing -- it was a woeful performance.  A governor of state should have an informed opinion about United States Supreme Court holdings (other than simply Roe v. Wade) and should be able to articulate them.  I am not asking for the basis of the decision but an opinion on the impact.  Just this past term there were decisions involving GTMO and gun control that were hot topic issues.  She could have articulated her thoughts on those issues.  As Governor of Alaska did she have an opinion on the Supreme Court decision regarding the Exxon Valdez disaster?  We don't know because she gave a non-answer answer.  Thats not sufficient but it was characteristic of the depth I've seen from her this far. 

What put me over the edge was when she described the Vice-Presidency as a legislative position during the debate.  Beyond the role of being a tie breaker in a split senate the VP has no substantive legislative role (contray to Dick Cheney's argument).  A review of Article I of the Constitution makes that abundently clear.  Her answer makes me suspect that she has not read that article.  I am of the mind that if you are applying for the job you'd best read the job description.

As for her executive experience I agree that militates toward her favor but even that is limited to 20 months.  But I think that gets outweighed by what I have seen as poor substantive knowledge.  She reminds me a of Harriet Meiers.  Ms. Meiers had some great experience but I didn't feel she had the appropriate qualifications to be Supreme Court Justice.  I feel the same way about Ms. Palin for the Vice Presidency.  Dubya had executive experience as Governor of Texas but poor substantive knowledge -- look where that got us as a nation and look where it has taken our party!

As always, just my $0.02! 

Edited to add: By the way I love torturing puppies and kittens.  It relieves stress better than a bottle of wild turkey!

That's fair. I certainly can see how you could draw that conclusion, based on Palin's somewhat lackluster performance in these televised interviews. Given her performance at the debate and at the Republican National Convention, I'm at a loss to explain why she bombed so badly with Katie Couric.

And I certainly agree that everyone, particularly someone running for elected office, should be familiar with the U.S. Constitution. I admit I missed her gaffe during the debate -- is it possible she just misspoke, or did she really seem to think the Vice-Presidency was a legislative position? (Of course, many liberals seem to thing the Judiciary is a legislative position. But that's another can of worms....)

Not to go off on a complete tangent, but I'm constantly amazed and saddened about just how little the average American knows and understands about civics and American history. I can't blame the public schools, as these courses are mandatory in every state in the Union (and that's, um, 100 states? 200 states?) I know I certainly studied these subjects in high school.

It certainly wasn't a matter of mis-speaking, Bruce.  Her statement was in response to the question as to whether or not she agreed with Cheney that the office of VP was legislative.

QUOTE: IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch? PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also. IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency? BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

(edit: add transcript)

I guess I hadn't heard of courts being involved in presidential disputes until recently... should that then be adopted as a usual procedure now? For all states of contention? Will recounts become a mandatory procedure in contentious states (especially with the bungling of vote counting in Florida still fresh in our minds)?

Maybe we put off the results of elections until all court proceedings and recounts are finalized.

I think we all still reel from Gore v. Bush (or Bush v. Gore) so we are all sensitie to the issues of fairness (on both sides of the political aisle) and make certain that votes count* but I don't think we need judicial approval for most elections.  I don't think its really that common that the results are in dispute.  Besides it would operate on a state by state basis so waiting, nationally speaking, only matters in a contest as close as Bush v. Gore.  I don't suspect we'll need to wait this year.

*Which makes the whinefest of the DNC over Michigan and Florida this year so bloody comical!

Thanks for that info, Todd. It helps a lot. Watching the debates while chasing around a two-year-old means I miss a few things!

Sounds to me like it's not so much a case of Palin not understanding the fundamentals of U.S. Government as it is her agreeing with the Bush-Cheney practices in this regard.

However, I happen to agree with Joe Biden on this one. As a small government/libertarian kind of guy, I'm really big on the separation of powers and the checks and balances built into the three branches of government. That's why what I perceive as "judicial activism" bothers me so much.

And Biden (and you and Geoff) are exactly right -- the VP is an Executive Branch job, not a Legislative one, except in the very specific instance of breaking a tie in the Senate.

I won't dispute that Palin may have a lack of experience. But isn't Obama equally inexperienced?

**

Obama's inexperience caused me pause, as well.  However, Palin's mind is the tie-breaker for me.  Had Palin come across as the conservative equivalent of Rachel Maddow, I'd have a tougher choice.

I try to watch what people do, rather than what they say.  A candidate's choice of a running mate is effectively their first major decision as President.  McCain's choice told me more than any stump speech or debate. 

I'll say it again ... I'd like to see McCain 2000 run against McCain 2008. 

Like reading a deposition transcript the way that Palin's answer was delivered is lost in the transcribing.  Her answer to my ear was one of someone who didn't really understand the question.  It typified her kinds of non-answers when pressed and led me to believe (which I still think) that she'd not read Article I.  Take the politicization/criticism of Cheney out of Biden's response* and she could have correctly provided the same answer.  As it was she agreed that there is legislative power and she'd use it -- but the way she said that indicated to my ears that she wasn't sure what her answer should have been. 

*edited to add: I think the politicizan -- for purposes of the debate -- was spot on.