I was disappointed.

She clearly pulled off showing herself as not out of place (compare Perot's Admiral, for instance), but I did not get the superstar feel that I was promised.  Maybe my expectations were too high.

BTW - for those of you that missed the Daily Show's take on the subject:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086 &title=sarah-palin-gender-card

oldsoldier wrote: ...sexism attacks on Palin...

Have there been many of those?

The closest I can recall off the top of my head is some folks (mostly conservative women) noting that with an infant at home she ought not be interviewing for a job that will basically take her away from her family for the next several years.

Other than that, not so much.  Unless I am missing something, of course.

TRAVELER wrote: Palin, on the other hand, is more in touch with everyday people. Many more people will be able to relate to her than they will to Biden or Obama.

To take a small step sideways...

This is one of my new pet peeves in politics.  While I understand you were speaking specifically of TV-presentability, there seems to be a trend (particularly with the GOP, but both parties are guilty), of pushing the "we're just like you" angle.

Here's my thing:  I don't want a leader who is "just like me."  I want a leader who is BETTER than me.  I don't want "regular folk" in the White House.  I want someone who is, shall we say, more elite.

Having had a mediocre-at-best educational career is NOT a positive.  I want a President with an awe-inspiring resume, a president with impressive intellect and impressive accomplishments.

If I look at the President's life story and life accomplishments and think "(s)he is just like me" - this is not a good thing.

When did "elite" become a bad thing?

Skillet42565 wrote: When retards started to vote more.

Which leads to my second current political pet peeve (full rant mode engaged):  "get out the vote" campaigns.

Why on Earth are we encouraging people to vote?  If you need Diddy to tell you to vote, I would frankly just as well that you didn't.

I say we stop all efforts to encourage voting.  Make voting accessible, but let's not go out of our way to encourage it.

All right:

1. The word "elite" has been perverted.  It's true meaning is literally "better."  One of the few places where the original meaning is still in use is, ironically, the military.  We refer to "elite" troops/units to describe our best, and when we need the best, we send the elite.

2.  If you compare my physical resume to that of any Rainbow Six warrior, mine will be inferior.  Not just in terms of current capabilities, but in terms of lifelong accomplishments.  That warrior earned his spot by truly being elite, and specifically by NOT being an average Joe.  Average Joes don't get to be part of Rainbow Six, because they aren't good enough.  Overwhelmingly, Rainbow Six types have basically spent their lives preparing for Rainbow Six'edness.

3.  THAT is what I want for my leaders.  Yes, sometimes you find diamonds in the rough.  Yes, sometimes great leaders spent the first 40 years of their life drinking and gambling.  But those are the exception.  Usually great leaders have made decisions through most of their lives to point them towards greatness.  They usually  have the education, the intellect, the personal tools and personal experiences to make them great leaders.  Why roll the dice that my average Army grunt is a great warrior when I can have a Rainbow Six warrior?

4.  Yes, being elite makes you arrogant.  But it ain't bragging if you really done it.  As a rule, CEOs of top companies are not nice people.  They are arrogant, entitled, mean, and a whole bunch of other things - but they are also ELITE, and they are generally good at their jobs, and they usually have the personal histories to make you expect them to be good at their jobs.  Being nice is not a required quality.  Not for Rainbow Six, not for a CEO, and not for President.

5.  Not taking advice from competent advisors is not a sign of elitism, it is just a sign of being a bad leader.  A necessary quality of any good leader is the ability to surround himself with good people, and then listen to them.

6.  It isn't always that hard to tell the difference between elite and not, particularly when partisanship is less an issue.  John Roberts has the resume and personality of an elite jurist; Harriet Myers does not.  It usually isn't that clear, of course, but if we can all agree that Roberts is objectively better than Myers, why can we not take the same approach to Presidents?

7.  Your last comment about the NYC "elite" is exactly the type of perversion of the word that I am discussing.

I am not claiming that an awe-inspring resume makes you a good President - I am saying such a resume makes in more likely that you will be a good President.

We play the odds, as with any job interview.  And when hiring, we favor the folks with the good resumes, because they work out more frequently than those without good resumes.

Second, everybody here is focusing too much on education.  Yes, that is an important element, but certainly not the only.  GW, for instance, does most certainly NOT have an awe-inspiring resume.  In fact, I would list him as one of the most un-qualified Presidents in history.  Simply having attended Yale does not a great leader make.  I know far too many monkeys that went to Yale to believe otherwise.

My suggestion is simply that we approach Presidential elections like we approach hiring interviews for any top-level job, and for any such job a good resume is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and being "average Joe" is affirmatively a drawback.