The McCain campaign has been touting the fact that, as governor, Sarah Palin is also the Commander of the Alaska National Guard. Apparently, this is meant to convince those questioning her level of experience that she is prepared to serve as Commander in Chief. Although I'm a supporter of Palin's, this argument is bunk, and the McCain campaign should immediately drop it.

True, the Alaska National Guard is a military organization and, true, as governor, Sarah Palin is its commander. But to claim that this somehow helps prepare her for the Presidency is silly. She played no active role in day-to-day operations, and would only serve as it's commander in case of a state emergency (such as a natural disaster, rioting, et cetera). In the instances where the National Guard is deployed on a Federal operation, the state National Guard soldiers and/or airmen are federalized, and then are given orders by the President, not by any of the governors.

Sarah Palin has many positives--many of which relate to the fact that she has more executive experience than Sen. Obama--and the McCain campaign should tout those positives. But to cling to this "Commander of the National Guard" thing makes the campaign seem like it's grasping at straws. The same goes for when they talk about her serving on her local PTA, for that matter.

I'd like to see Gov. Palin be increasingly exposed to the public (as she will be tonight). I want to see her personality. I want to know what makes her tick, as a human being. I want to see how she handles tough questions. I want to have her explain the sort of leadership she offers.

I happen to believe that personality and leadership ability, coupled with a strong set of core ideological beliefs, has much more to do with a President's success than does the number of years in elected office. Of course, some might argue that Sen. Obama could just as easily meet my qualifications. The difference is, his ideological beliefs (I'm not convinced they're "strong" or "core") would harm this country more than they would help it. And I've not yet been convinced that his speech giving ability translates well to executive leadership talent.

The fact of the matter is, no American is prepared to serve as President or Vice President--aside from individuals who have already held the post. Those two positions are completely unique, with no clear analogue in either the private sector or in government service. Sure, some traits transfer--the executive leadership skills required of governors tend to be of use to Presidents, and foreign policy awareness generally attributed to senators can be helpful as well. But no other position than that of the chief executive, and his subordinate, allows the holder to experience such a wide range of duties.