I've been thinking about those who defend Obama's inexperience in foreign policy by pointing to his choice of Joe Biden to support him if Obama should win the presidency. Biden's experience is seen as balancing out Obama's scanty experience.
Those who are saying Sarah Palin is unqualified to be vice president or won't be able to devote sufficient time to being vice president because of her family responsibilities aren't talking about the job of vice president which is basically whatever the president decides it should be. Modern vice presidents are usually given a certain portfolio of issues that the president thinks they're suitable to deal with. One can well imagine McCain giving Palin a portfolio that would include issues she's dealt with or has an interest in such as energy policy; relations with Native Americans; education, particularly the education of special needs children; or speaking out against corruption. What her critics are worried about is if McCain should die and she'd assume the job of the president.
Obama's defenders then started worrying about the inexperience that she has in foreign policy. When they talk about the responsibilities of the vice president, they are really worrying about what would happen if McCain were to win and then die early in his term making Palin president before she would have had the opportunity to gain much experience dealing with foreign matters.
Well, she would then have to pick a new vice president under the 25th Amendment, someone who would have to be approved by the Congress. So she could do just as Obama has done and pick a wingman who would balance out the weak points in her background. If the choice of Biden reassured Obama supporters, then Palin's future pick of a vice president should she succeed to the presidency could perform the same task.
And of course, she could have just as many foreign policy advisers as candidate Obama with his 300 advisers for his campaign. She might even have an entire State Department and National Security team to advise her just as governors of small states like Georgia and Arkansas had when they became president. Whether you think those presidents made the right choices in their foreign policy depends probably on your party registration, but if Bill Clinton could absolve Barack Obama of being inexperienced by comparing Obama's critics to his own critics in 1992, surely the same argument works for Governor Palin.
Obviously, it doesn't help Obama if his lack of experience is constantly being compared to the vice presidential nominee's record with people debating back and forth whether executive leadership as a small-town mayor and 20-month governor gives a person more or less experience than a state senator and first-term senator. Your answer to that question probably reflects your partisan bias.
However, when your major defense of your lack of executive experience is bragging about the campaign you've run for the presidency, you've entered seriously lame territory there. Somehow running a campaign to advance one's own career just doesn't do much to match up against dealing with oil companies and Canada on what the public perceives as one of the most pressing domestic issues facing the country.