Today, as John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, the liberal media is excitedly arguing that McCain can no longer denigrate Obama's lack of experience, since he has just as little experience as Palin.

This is an interesting argument. The CNN reporter I heard was vociferously making this case, while admitting that she was not trying to say that Obama was any more experienced than Palin. So let's think about this a minute. Let's, for the sake of argument, stipulate that both Obama and Palin lack experience. In fact, even though I believe I can make the case that Palin's 13 years in executive office trumps Obama's eight or nine years in legislative offices, I'd be willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that Obama and Palin are equally under-qualified to be President.

So where does that put us? The Democrats then have a man on the top of their ticket who they now admit lacks the experience to be President, while the Republicans have a man on top who is eminently qualified. The Democrats would have a vice president serving under a young, healthy Obama, so he (Biden) will likely never sit behind the big desk. So we can ignore Biden.

Meanwhile it's true that the Republican under-qualified vice presidential candidate is only a heartbeat from the presidency. But should Obama be elected, the Democrat under-qualified candidate will be the President -- no lack of heartbeat necessary.

While there are many arguments not to vote for McCain, this isn't one of them. And there are significantly more arguments not to vote for Obama (his utter and complete lack of accomplishment, his poor choice of associates, and his self-admitted (as evidenced by his VP pick) lack of experience at the top of the list).