I can’t even imagine having to defend John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. It sort of makes sense — a “family values” conservative who will rouse up an apathetic base.

But if you’re a Bush-apologist, Republican talking-head or a midwestern soccer mom with an AOL e-mail address and a fear of all people and things “exotic” and “dark,” you’re going to have to be careful not to fall over when you pull that sharp 180.

After all, wasn’t it you who spent the last year running the “We don’t know enough about Obama” campaign?

Here’s what I know about Sarah Palin:

While announcing that her teenage daughter was pregnant, she said she was proud of her daughter’s choice to keep the baby. However, in policy statement after policy statement, Sarah Palin has said she would ban abortion in all cases, including rape and incest.

So Bristol Palin made a choice to keep the child — a commendable choice to be sure — but with a President Palin you, your daughter, sister or friend would not have a choice at all.

The Republican surrogates have been all over the TV in the past few days touting Palin’s experience as Commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard. This, they say, is evidence that she has the experience to lead the United States armed forces should (when?) John McCain keels.

This story from the Anchorage Daily News spells it out pretty well. She was the leader of a force of 4,200 troops and had the authority to send them to such far-flung places as Katchikan, Seward and Prudhoe Bay to fight forest fires and provide security for road races.

In all fairness, that’s more experience than Obama has commanding troops. On the other hand, this means that the CEO of Blackwater is just as qualified as Sarah Palin to be vice president. Hell, at least he’s in charge of people while they are seeing combat.

The backlash from the liberal blogosphere has been pretty sharp. Then again, the public hasn’t had any time to vett this woman, she was just foisted upon us out of nowhere. Perhaps we’re just being a little harsh on her because she’s a woman. That’s what many Republican commenters are saying on all the major TV news shows.

The Daily Show had a great montage addressing that issue last night. Karl Rove and all his little friends were saying the mainstream media and left-wing bloggers were only coming down on her because she’s a woman. It’s outright sexism, they said.

Then the clips started rolling of all the same people — Rove included — quiestioning Hilary Clinton’s ability to lead because of her gender and slamming her for being weak for saying she was being unfairly treated because of sexist attitudes. They even had a clip of Sarah Palin herself saying from several months ago. Classic. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the abrupt u-turn all these commenters and apologists are going to have to pull.

Of course that same double-standard is coming into play as the National Enquirer is reporting that Palin had an affair. The McCain campaign is dismissing the reports as mere speculation from a supermarket tabloid — and rightfully so.

What you have to remember though is that these same Limbaugh-listening mouth-breathers were jumping out of their skin because they said members of the mainstream media weren’t covering John Edwards’ affair — after he’d long-since dropped out of the race. The one paper who was on the story from the beginning, if you’ll remember, was the National Enquirer.

So let me ask you this, why is the alleged affair of a former Presidential candidate more important than the alleged affair of a current vice presidential candidate? And why was the National Enquirer credible then, but not credible now?

I don’t know if Sarah Palin had an affair, and to be honest, I don’t care. The irony of a “family values” conservative not only having a knocked-up teenage daughter, but also an extramarital affair would be delicious, but to be honest, I won’t be making my decision on who to vote for based on anything I read in the National Enquirer.

Something that could color my views of a candidate, however is something that riled up people against Obama several months ago.

I read a story yesterday saying that the pastor of Sarah Palin’s church — while she was attending the service — made a sermon saying Jews are getting what they deserve from terrorists in Israel because of their failure to convert to Christianity. I’d like to dig more into this to find out how much truth is in this story.

I’d also like to give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt before calling her an anti-semite, but why shouldn’t she be scrutinized for the words of her pastor in the same way that Barack Obama was criticized for the words of Jeremiah Wright?

I guess what it comes down to is I think she might be a wonderful woman, but I have far less confidence in her ability to lead should something happen to John McCain than I have in Barack Obama. This has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman. More than anything, I’m ready for a change. I’m ready to believe in my government again, to believe in my country again. Sarah Palin and John McCain just don’t inspire that in me.

By the way, if you want a good laugh, check out this clip from last night’s Daily Show.