RE the Politco story painting McCain as desperate:

Let's cut to the nitty-gritty:

DESPERATION:
Politico reporters should know the general trend of recent presidential elections. This reporter apparently does not. At this point in the game, the democrats are usually leading by double digits. Though Politico for some reason highlights the Gallup poll, the RCP average has Obama up by less than four. For a month, the media has been filled with stories wondering why Obama is doing so poorly relative to history and relative to the generic ballot polls that measure relative party strength/interest. And now, just as  the Democrats' convention has clearly not provided the bounce they hoped for, the reporting changes to make McCain appear the desperate one.
A more level headed analysis of the situation is this:
McCain sees what everyone else sees - this Obama fellow is not getting the traction many predicted, the lingering doubts about his arguably terrible judgment still loom large, and he is increasingly shrill and desperate-sounding in many of his communications (witness the lambasting of Stanley Kurtz and the reaction to the Palin pick, which Obama blamed on 'staffers' ). And Israel has yet to act against Iran, so energy may be an even bigger issue on election day if there is conflict in the Middle East. In short, McCain has enough things going his way that he felt confident enough to make a gamble. The reporter has it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

EXPERIENCE:
There is no magical number of years one must have served in office in order to be a good national leader. Nor is the talk about Palin's lack of national experience warranted - many governors have made perfectly adequate presidents. The most important qualifier is judgment, and as she is examined more closely, we'll learn more about that. We already know she has guts.
Despite the crowing from the media, this pick does not negate the experience issue, and for several good reasons.
First, Palin was selected, while Obama promoted himself. She didn't wake up last year and decide to run for President based on an admittedly thin but impressive resume - Obama did, and his resume has virtually nothing to recommend him. This speaks to his judgment and his megalomania (witness also O-Force one, the monogrammed throne on O-Force one, his convention speech set, his personal presidential seal, and his two (count them: two) autobiographies by the age of 45).
Second, experience only matters if it involves significant events or achievements. Despite his incredibly rich life that warranted two autobiographies, Obama's toughest decision was one that involved nothing more than his own conscience and his political persona: whether to oppose the war in Iraq. Mind you - not whether to vote against it, he was still in the Illinois statehouse, but whether to publicly oppose it. In this statement from his own lips we know the truth: He has never had to make a difficult decision, so his experience is pretty meaningless.

This issue will also continue to loom large for another reason: As voters learn more about how Obama has literally been marinated in political radicalism for his entire adult life, they will see that when he says change, he really means it. Does he have any experience implementing the kind of change he seeks to impose on the nation? His previous efforts have been of quite limited success, to be charitable - Chicago's schools still flounder, and the south side of Chicago is still sad and depressing. Why? With a liberal statehouse, mayor and governor, were Illinois coffers simply not deep enough to throw enough cash at the schools and South Chicago to improve things? That is after all the prescription for every ill we face: more bureaucrats spreading around more cash and making more public "investments". There is not a single issue where Obama's prescription is less government involvement, nor has he enumerated any of the programs that "don't work" that he says he will do away with to finance his ideas. In eight years, he apparently accomplished very little in Illinois aside from highlighting his radicalism on abortion.
On the one significant decision he's made that can seriously affect the future of the country and the world, whether to increase our involvement in Iraq or leave, he was wrong. Were he king, he'd long ago have abandoned 25 million Iraqis to their fate (violence and _more_ genocide on top of the hundreds of thousands Hussein murdered). In so doing, he would have permanently ruined America's ability to help any beleaguered people to overthrow tyrants. He and the rest of the left would have sent the clear message the we will run when confronted with force. He'd also have handed radical Islam it's biggest victory in history.
 
As things progress, the truth about these people will come out. Contrary to popular opinion, most voters (about 65%, apparently) are not stupid. As they see and hear more about this perplexing man, it will be Obama's experience and judgment that are the central issues in this campaign.
 
In handling this issue, it's important that conservatives consistently qualify their comments about Obama's lack of experience, by saying that he's way too inexperienced _even if_ his radical politics were right for America. They will never be right for any people anywhere, they always fail and produce misery. We don't want to wake up to a resurgent Obama in three years who is saying that the main objection we had to him last time was his lack of experience. Unless he is permanently discredited by some revelation from his past or some terrible mistake in the campaign, he will be back, probably repeatedly.

TOTA