Conservative and NY Times in the same breath.....give me a break.........

I would agree...she's not ready to be President.....but since that's not the post she's running for...moot point. She'll have on the job training prior to having to assume the Presidency anyway, which would then make her more qualified than most anyone else.

Don't think about that too long...your head will implode.

~Zoo

Tina Fey for Pres ....

Precisely! More to the point, McCain obviously has temperament issues, speaks like he has a sharp stick shoved up his butt and is clearly NOT presidential material.  My worry would be, were he President, is that he is prone to temper tantrums and is more likely than Barak Obama to get a bee in his child-like bonnet over issues with another country (for example, POW's and or American hostages) and launch a full-scale military invasion when there are alternative, more peaceful resolutions.

Nope, the man is dangerous. Apart from foreign dignitaries/diplomats snickering under their breath and not respecting him one iota for his whiny-assed voice, he looks clueless when under pressure and resorts to petty sniping at his opponents... and if a foreign leader were to laugh out loudly over his whiny-assed voice (at least Barack Obama speaks like a man who still has his cahoneys and would command more respect), you'd have a full-scale international incident on your hands.

OK, so that may be an exaggerated example and contain an element of levity, but it does reflect the nature of the beast. McCain is unstable and should never ever be President... the Commander in Chief of arguably the most potent fighting force on the planet.  With that much power at his disposal, McCain could very well be the catalyst for WWIII.

On the Job Training????  With McCain as her boss, setting policies and examples for her to follow, Sarah Palin's on the job training would be fraught with inconsistencies, temperamental issues and dangerous precedents... hardly what I call sufficient or acceptable credentials to assume the high office of President of the USA when McCain kicks the bucket.  As for being more qualified than most... hardly... and not just for the abovementioned reasons.  Like how many more 'bridges to nowhere'do you want?

Yes, I know, another extreme example laced with sarcasm and levity. but the point relates not to any bridge. No, it relates to her integrity, whether or not she has a responsible grip on fiscal spending, especially on a Federal level.  Given her past record, it suggests there is much inexperience or a great lack thereof with integrity... the latter probably being the greater of the two, given Federal funds to help finance the bridge to nowhere got rediverted elsewhere and not returned as they should have been.

Yes, it can be argued that Barack Obama lacks the experience to be the President, but he has chosen a very experienced old campainer in Joe Biden as his running mate/2 !C... a man who would bring experience and stability to the White House. It is the combination of youth and experience the US needs if it is to see change for the better.

On the other hand, you have a temperamental old fart with a running mate/2 IC who often comes across as an airhead when it comes to political, foreign affairs or financial matters... she may have a grasp on neighbourhood issues, the family budget and have a few grand in the bank, but that hardly qualifies her to deal with foreign leaders/diplomats... and certainly not to manage the US budget/economy.... it would be like putting a fox outside to guard the henhouse.

Some in the media begin, after awhile, to imagine they are more qualified than anyone for everything (since they know/have seen it 'all') and therefore qualified to pass judgment on those in a position to do something they cannot.  I do appreciate their efforts at sparing me the trouble of having to think for myself, very kind & generous of them, but I choose to continue to shoulder that burden rather than outsource it to a columnist.

They think they are the news.  Simple as that.

Yes, that may be so!  However, Barack Obama has not displayed any of the temperamental issues exhibited by John McCain... thus is would seem He is the better man to deal with crisis/difficult situations... and Joe Biden has mot been accused of hair-brained ideas or of lacking political integrity, as has Sarah Palin.

For the reasons given above, that neither McCain or Palin appear to have the confidence to handle difficult situations, and thus more likely to lose the plot, the idea of focussing on their policies, ideals and plans becomes a moot point.  Just as I wouldn't want a temperamental brain surgeon with a propensity for tantrums and stuff ups to operate on me, I wouldn't want a temperamental old senator with a less than impressive track record to be running the country in which I have to live... and I hope the majority of Americans feel the same way, and reject another 4 - 8 years of Bush-like politics.

I may appear flippant at times and, to some, overuse levity (that's what I do to help comat the effects of depression), but when I say that I would hold very grave fears if McCain and Palin became President and Vice President respectively, I say it in all seriousness because I would be worried like all hell as to what would become of the World, with those two in such powerful positions.

Sorry Starkers, but you are basing your choices are things that are the least likely important things one should be looking for in a Presidential Candidate. You are judging both Palin and McCain on situations that have nothing to do with the Presidency as if somehow becoming President is just one step up from supervisor or manager. You are basing your choice on his voice, what other peoples outside the US think of his voice, his temper and that maybe someone from another country might get him mad because of POWs and such? So does this mean you agree with his policies but would rather have Obama's policies than a man with a funny voice, a temper and how outsiders make fun of him?

This is a weird way to pick a candidate, and here I was worried people would actually pick Obama based on his form of socialism.

Oh GIVE ME A FEKKIN' BREAK.

No wonder our country continues down its quick decline - it's entirely filled with retards.

Oh, of course.  Wouldn't want to get any fellow WC'ers panties in a bunch now. 

I think you and Xiandi are missing a key point. Brooks is a columnist; that means he is paid to express his opinions in written form. This is very different from a reporter or regular newspaperman (or -woman), whose job is to write articles about the news that should have a neutral tone.

That would be true if any still existed.

And you'll note I used the word columnist, not newspaperman.