Just to reiterate, I'm heavily leaning toward Obama/Biden this November, and I'll be voting for that ticket unless something very strange happens between now and then.
But I also feel compelled to criticize candidates for things they should actually be criticized for, rather than silly pseudo-arguments against them. And one of those is Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. I've heard jokingly that Cindy McCain and/or Laura Bush has noted the fact that she can see Russia from Alaska is foreign policy experience, though I'm not sure how serious this was, and I definitely haven't heard it from her.
The point is, how in the hell was she supposed to get foreign policy experience as Governor of Alaska? If we used that as a yardstick for being elected to either the Presidency or Vice Presidency, then we would never elect Governors. But we seem to like electing Governors...Reagan was Governor of California, Clinton of Arkansas, and Bush of Texas. Exactly what foreign policy experience did they build up while serving as Governor of their respective states? You could possibly argue that Reagan and Bush had to deal closely with Mexico, for trade and immigration issues, but that's pretty weak gruel. And if that's the case, then Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience was even thinner.
By all means, criticize her for flipping on her support of pork-barrel spending in her state, her lack of knowledge about particular issues, and her medieval stances on social issues. But criticizing her for lack of foreign policy experience is lame and hypocritical.