If something happens to McCain, is Palin the next best qualified..?

Question

to lead the country??

Assuming McCain wins, Is Palin really the next best solution?

Pls be honest.

Answer 1

He had better options if he just wanted a woman candidate.  Condi Rice and the ex. Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman.  Either one of these women would have been excellent choices and no one would really question their qualifications to lead as President.

Answer 2

Historically Qualified!

Sarah Palin may 'Only have been a Governor'. Let us remember that in recent history 'Only being a Governor' seems to have been enough Executive Experience to qualify for the Executive Office for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan.

Answer 3

That's a real scary thought, IF he wins, and IF something did happen, then the President would be some lady that we (the average american) just met yesterday....  

Answer 4

NOOOO WAYY

IF SHE COMES IN FOR PRESIDENT

IM GOING TO PACK MY SHITT AND HEAD TOO ENGLAND

Answer 5

McCain has consistently talked about his POW and foreign policy experience.  This is ALL important since we're in wars that he doesn't want to end. McCain is 72 years old and his health is not that great. This woman has been a mayor and had two years in her position as governor.  She is in no way qualified to be President of the United States. McCain's campaign has been dishonest and convinced half of the country that Senator Obama does not have the experience to be President. For the dishonesty alone he should not be elected.

Answer 6

HELLO! She ran Alaska. No worries! She may be surprised that there are more people than moose down here though.

I was being sarcastic by the way :D

Answer 7

Palin needs to spend some time in Guantanamo being tortured and then she'll be just as qualified as McCain.

Answer 8

The Audacity of Democrats!  They tell us a woman can be a mom AND work (unless she's a republican).  Any political science expert (unless they're pushing their own candidate), would have told you that being the governor of a state, regardless of population is a better qualification for being president than being a senator (though Biden's state of Delaware only has about 850,000 compared to Alaska at about 700,000 and there are TWO senators). Also, the idea that the population=intelligence is laughable & I thought being small town/"common" man was supposed to be better. (only if you're a democrat I guess) The presidency, like a governorship, is an "executive" office meaning they actually "run" something.  A senator does not have executive experience.  Especially when that senator has spent most of his time as senator running for president.  And until she became a senator, what experience did Hillary Clinton have?  She was the wife of an impeached, cheating ex-president & that's never been questioned in the "main stream" media.   As for her pro-life stand, are there really that many women saying, "Gee it'd be great to have a woman president/V.P but I MIGHT get pregnant & need to kill it?

Answer 9

That is a scary proposition!

Answer 10

More experienced and qualified than Obama. She fixed a state. That's more than Obama ever accomplished.  

Answer 11

I think this question is hilarious.

People have no problem voting for Obama, who has even less experience!  

Governor runs an entire state.  They are solely responsible for running the state.  She has been a Governor for 20 months, which is longer than Obama has served as a Senator.

A Senator sits around and discusses policies, may proposes polices, and votes on policies.  

Being a Governor is far more relative to being president than a Senator.

Furthermore, Palin was also a Mayor.  Yes, it was a small town.  It's all a matter of scale, but you are running the town, the state, the country...

I guarantee you that her diplomatic skills have been exercised to the nth degree in these rolls.  

IMHO, Palin is a better choice than Obama, by far!  

Answer 12

Well i guess being governor of a state is better than just being a senator.