Sarah Palin Is Qualified

John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate and that’s the only credential she needs.

No presidential candidate has ever picked his running mate based on their ability to lead the nation.

Did Kennedy select Lyndon Johnson because he felt the nation would be safe in his hands or because he needed votes from the South? Did Johnson tap Hubert Horatio Humphrey because he liked the guy’s name or because he was from the Midwest?

Did Richard Nixon choose Spiro Agnew because of the man’s intellect or was he looking to balance the ticket with an established East Coast pol?

Walter Mondale? Dan Quayle? Despite the fact Al Gore invented the Internet and was portrayed by Ryan O’Neal in a movie, even he wasn't exactly an “A” player before he was tapped.

What if McCain can’t go on and Palin steps in?

Harry Truman possessed no college degree, his only business venture went bankrupt and he had no foreign policy experience. After FDR died, Truman managed to wrap up WW II, integrate the armed forces and stare down the Soviets in the early days of the Cold War.

After JFK was murdered, Lyndon Johnson used his formidable political expertise to pass landmark voting and civil rights laws. But he utterly failed to manage the war in Vietnam and walked away from a re-election fight because of it.

Conclusion: It's a crap shoot.

Voting for a presidential candidate based on a running mate's qualifications to run the nation makes no sense -- unless you're betting the top of the ticket will die in office.

And that's macabre.

Stealing From Obama

Barack Obama has offered just one thing during his run for the Democratic presidential nomination: the hope for change in the nation's political leadership.

That's pretty much all he offers at this point, but it is no small thing. He is different in many ways and his idealism seems sincere. He does not carry the baggage of years and years going along to get along.

That makes his opponents' sudden adoption of his theme so patently cynical. "Wow," they say, "that change thing of Obama's worked pretty well in Iowa, so maybe I should be for change, too."

There are legitimate reasons to vote for other candidates. But their me-too assumption of Obama's theme simply shores up his claim that he alone offers fresh leadership and new thinking.

Who's In Charge Here? George W. Bush

Mike Allen at politico.com reports President Bush is interviewing potential replacements for Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States who placed political loyalty above his duties.

The current scandal over the firing of local federal prosecutors who displeased GOP powerhouses is the best evidence that Bush's entire tenure is based on politics and nothing else. That's because politics is the only arena in which he has ever succeeded. It doesn't matter that his advisors provided the thinking; Bush took the credit and came to believe it really was all about him.

Most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans are toting up the gruesome toll of the administration's failures and asking, "who's in charge here?"

The only possible answer is George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court Stops The Iraq War

Congress passes a defense appropriation bill that effectively requires the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto.

The Supreme Court gets involved because the administration claims congress is usurping Bush's constitutional powers to prosecute a war as he sees fit.

Congress argues the Constitution makes clear it alone holds the federal purse strings, something that has never been contested during any of the nation's wars, declared or not.

The nine justices conclude they don't care to rewrite the Constitution to suit the current president's needs, reaffirm the separation of powers and tell the litigants to deal with the situation amongst themselves.

Utterly defeated politically and constitutionally, Bush lunches with congressional leaders at Nancy Pelosi's home and they work out a reasonable, but prompt, troop withdrawl.

Free Scooter: Vote Democratic

The White House says there is no talk on the Bush team of a pardon for convicted perjurer I. Lewis Libby.

Any kind of pardon is out of the question before the 2008 election. And a full pardon at any time by Bush, something that would wipe out the conviction itself, would confirm the White House threw Scooter to the wolves.

But a Democratic president could pardon Libby and come out ahead.

It would be impossible for anyone to claim self-interest or campaign money were involved in the decision, contentions that played heck with Bill Clinton’s image after his pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich., half-brother Roger and pal Susan McDougal.

And by describing Libby as guilty, but also a victim of his evil bosses’ machinations, a Democratic president would appear statesman-like and compassionate.

Sure, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal would argue the pardon was granted solely to keep the stench of a GOP-bred scandal fresh in the nostrils of voters for as long as possible. But most people would see that factor as nothing more than an unfortunate side of effect of making sure justice prevailed.

Right?

Barack Obama and Foreign Policy

The news media should stop using foreign policy experience as a factor when judging Barack Obama's viability as a presidential candidate.

The last president with any pre-election credentials in that arena was George H.W. Bush, who earned them as the director of central intelligence, UN ambassador and chief of the liason office to the Peoples Republic of China. And it was domestic issues, not foreign relations, that saw him out of office after one term.

Prior to Bush's election in 1989, the last president with important international political experience was Dwight D. Eisenhower, first elected in 1952 and the former supreme commander of allied armies in Europe during World War II.

While increasingly important in today's world, expertise in foreign relations has always been a secondary consideration for American voters when choosing a president. None of the other candidates on the political stage today have meaningful international experience so raising it as an issue in Obama's case is unfair.

Truth and Consequences for Joe Biden

Joseph Biden was correct when he said Barack Obama is the first viable African-American presidential candidate. It is equally correct to say that his mush-mouthed way of making that point demonstrates Joseph Biden is not a viable presidential candidate.