Anyone can be mayor of a town the size of a donut. Literally, any moron can do it. I've met mayors of suburbs of Chciago that are three or four times bigger than Wasilla and have held the job for decades. They are about as qualified for the office of POTUS as a dead lemur. Running a small town isn't a qualification for POTUS. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have more qualifications as a former small business owner, and I'm definitely not qualified.
Now, if she was actually succesful as governor of alaska, I'd be willing to chalk that up as a legitimate qualification. But she was a failure who quit the job she asked the people of alaska to give her before her term was up.
So she was a failure as a governor of a state with a relatively tiny population. And we don't even need history to tell us that she was a failure.
Obama on the other hand, hasn't quit. We do require history to find out if he was a succesful president or not (We can't even tell if Bush's presidency was a success or failure yet. If we use the economic numbers as our major metirc, as you seem to be doing with Obama, Bush was a dismal failure. I reject that nonsense, though, and I can't say for certain. History will tell with both.).
so on one hand, we have someone who was mayor of a donut shop and faileda s a governor of a lightly populated state.
On the other, we have a perosn who may or may not have been a failure or success as potus, but at least has expereince as POTUS. HE was also involved in state politics for a heavily populated district of Chicago and was a Senator for Illinois.
As a former small business owner, if these are my choices of employees I'm going to hire, it seems fairly easy which one is more qualified for the job based on tehir work-history alone.
Maybe not my optimal choices, but the more qualified candidate based on expereince is pretty easy to determine.
If we take educational qualifications into account as well, assuming it correlates to intellignece and intelligence is a qualification for the job, Obama slaughters Palin.
Now, if we take other factors into consideration, things other than actual qualifications for the job (things like partisan politics, then it's possible someone could pretend that Palin is more qualified than Obama to be POTUS at this point in time.
If someone prefers Palin because of her political beliefs, so be it, but don't pretend she is remotely qualified for the job, and don't try to pretend she is now more qualified than a sitting president is. That's just lunacy.
I prefer it a more intellectually honest argumetn of "I really hate Obama's politics. I'd rather have soemone who isn't qualified that I agree with than a person who is somewhat qualified that I don't."
Of course, that might require admitting that the attacks on Obama's qualifications were simply partisan bull**** when they happened prior to him being elected, because ultimately, people support the person they agree with more and they really don't give a flying **** about their qualifications.
I mean, as far as actual qalifications for a job go, there's no greater thing on the resume than actually having had the same job before.
There are three people alive today who will be elligible for the office in 2012 who have held it before. Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, and Obama. These are the three most qualified people for the job, resume-wise.
If age is used as a disqualification, then that leaves us with one qualified candiate, resume-wise.