If you had a choice, would you rather have an inexperienced Vice President, or an inexperienced President?

Question

Amazing how the Obama supporters keep comparing his experience to Palin, while ignoring the nearly three decades of experience in both Houses of Congress that the other PRESIDENTIAL candidate has.

And if they want to travel through time to a couple of short decades ago, let's compare Governor Palin's experience in business and executive branch service to Geraldine Ferraro's, the first female nominee for Vice President in history.

Answer 1

Neither. That's why I'm voting for Obama/Biden.

Answer 2

This is a very tough year, because we have to look into the future. I know the democrats always say "Do you want 4 more years of Bush?" I don't believe that is totally true. Look beyond that, Clinton imposed a lot of laws and regulations, that Bush was forced to follow,,,, but, Bush made a lot of his own mistakes, as well. I cannot blame Bush for a lot of stuff that the Clintons imposed by signing into law.

Now back to your questions... who am I going to vote for. I would have to say I would rather have an inexperienced Vice-President, than an inexperienced President. But,,, the inexperienced President, has a very experienced Vice-President, and the inexperienced Vice-President has a very experienced President... confusing isn't it.

I wish we would go back to the days, where there was no party lines. A Presidential candidate can pick who ever he/she wants, no matter what party lines.

My choice, if it could be, on the candidates at this time.... McCain and Biden

I like some of Obama's ideas,,, but Biden should have ran, and have Obama as VP. Obama does not have enough time in the government,,,, neither does Paulin. You have to look at Paulin, she was in direct control as mayor and as govenor,,, that is more experience than a person who was part of state and federal senate.... leadership wise.