Image courtesy AlaskaPodshow.com

Without a doubt, John McCain's choice to make Governor Sarah Palin his running mate has shaken up the 2008 Race to the Oval Office. But, as I continue to think about the implications of Sarah Palin's nomination, the more worried I become.

Call me an elitist, a snob or whatever. I just don't think she has the qualifications to become the next vice-president, especially given, as Frank Rich pointed out this morning, "if we've learned anything from the G.O.P. convention and its aftermath, it's that the 2008 edition of John McCain is too weak to serve as America's chief executive."

This woman thinks faith in faith, not faith in facts, has a place in our nation's public schools. Not only will that sort of policy make Americans more xenophobic and crazy, it will also condemn those unsuspecting children to unemployment or minimum wage work because they will not have the education or the scientific skill set to become a part of today's economy.

This woman believes climate change is not the result of man's negligence, but rather the will of God. And, consequently, she puts oil extraction, not innovation, at the center of America's energy strategy. What a shame, given the way renewable energy can revitalize our economy, protect our Earth and keep money out of the hands of "evildoers" all at the same time.

Above all else, however, it worries me that Sarah Palin hopes to erode whatever shred of a meritocracy remains in the United States. The New York Times ran a story this morning titled, "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes." The accompanying photo's caption says it all: "The Wasilla City Council, with Sarah Palin, the future governor and vice-presidential nominee, at the center, in a 1998 photograph. Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance."

Political scientists call this nepotistic, vendetta-driven style of governance neopatrimonialism. I call it stupid. In many ways, it reveals just how many similarities exist between the State of Alaska and some of the world's nastier petrodictatorships. A number of analysts have noted that Alaska's executive (governor) has more power than every other state's executive, save for the governor of Massachusetts. Thus, Alaska's government, flush with tax dollars from oil drillers, can essentially quash any political unrest in the Land of the Midnight Sun by doling out ever larger tax rebates, without confronting the fact that a group of incompetent nitwits has control of the government. It's the same way Hugo Chavez maintains his grip on power.

In her acceptance speech, Governor Palin spoke of her small town compatriots, saying, "I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, and run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America." It almost suggests she believes a factory worker with no college degree, no experience in government and umpteen years experience growing corn more merits one of our nation's highest offices than a highly educated Harvard Law grad with years of experience in government and in leadership.

That position is not elitist. It's common sense! It's as if Sarah Palin would be outraged to think an MBA with 20 years of management and computer programming experience was picked over an ex-autoworker with no college degree and limited experience with email to become the next CEO of Google.

The way the GOP has turned this election into a clash of personalities, of patriotism and of values, rather than one that pits the two candidates' qualifications against one another, saddens me.

Some of history's most remarkable leaders have come from the unlikeliest places. Who would have thought a one term Illinois Senator could free millions of people from the bondage of enslavement? Who would have thought a member of the New York political and economic élite would become one of this nation's most zealous advocates for the poor during the Great Depression?

But history has also taught us that bad leadership creates problems. Ulysses Grant undoubtedly put his country first by leading the Union to victory. His lack of vision, judgement and experience, however, has left historians no choice but to call him one of the nation's worst presidents.