The op-ed starts fairly enough as if the writers are going to answer the question objectively concerning whether GOP VP choice Sarah Palin is a bold or desperate McCain move. Fact is, she did divert attention from Obama and probably was responsible for his less-than-deserved bounce after a historic Democratic National Convention that seemed to unify the party. This yet uninvestigated Republican choice appeared to be strategic in as much as Obama had to name his running mate first because his convention was slated first, and the GOP responded with the candidate best apt to neutralize Joe Biden's attack mode. But even these observations are conjecture, and I never would have published them in a leading newspaper without proof to back up the statements. And this is where the op-ed in question falls flat. I don't believe that Obama is less qualified than Palin; but I do believe the Democratic ticket lacks executive experience. Rather than promote biased conjecture, as in -- "Palin really is what Obama pretends to be, but is not: a citizen activist" --a Republican rather than Conservative op-ed might have noted how senatorial presidential pairs have fared in history. For the record, I also weary of the left-leaning op-eds that are as detrimental as this and are found as often in leading newspapers. Palin still is an unknown entity. (This morning, a former journalism student of mine, Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, has updated information.) If Palin checks out in the long run, given her debut when accepting the VP position, she may very well enhance the ticket over the yawn that would have been inspired by Romney et. al.