[Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, is embroiled in an ethics controversy that raises important questions about her judgement, experience, and honesty. Before assessing what is involved there, however, permit the Scoreboard a detour though the thickets of some of the other criticism of McCain's choice for vice-president. The real ethics issue will be discussed in Part II.]

It has generated some cynical and even laughable attacks from Democrats, as they scramble to counter what has to be assessed as, if one can be objective, a shrewd tactical move. Attacks on Palin's lack of experience to be vice-president fall in the laughable category, coming from a party that has nominated as president a candidate with no executive or management experience, in or out of government, at all. Questioning Palin's thin 22 months as a state governor and previous job as a small town mayor is legitimate, but not by Obama supporters, who by definition are asserting that experience doesn't matter very much. And, as discussed elsewhere on the Scoreboard ("The Ethics Guy Picks a Vice-President"), experience may not matter as much for U.S. Presidents as we tend to assume. But Palin's resume qualifications for executive office are still stronger than Obama's…and Hillary Clinton's as well. The argument that Sen. McCain behaved irresponsibly and unethically by choosing Palin presumes that leadership qualities can be measured with resumes, and history shows us that this is untrue. Leadership is more talent than craft, and sometimes you only know it when you see it. I can't determine yet whether McCain chose a strong potential leader in Palin or not, but it should be obvious that he has earned more credibility regarding his judgement on that topic than any of his his critics.

Similarly bizarre is the criticism leveled by those, like Washington Post editor Ruth Marcus, who angrily declared that the choice of Palin was pandering to "identity politics." You betcha! Would McCain have chosen a vice-presidential candidate who was a first term governor of our 49^th state who wasn't female? Of course not…neither Palin's conservative credentials, nor her evangelical roots, nor her NRA membership, nor her anti-abortion position would have even put her on the GOP radar screen if this wasn't an election focused on "change;" putting a woman on the ticket would signal that the Republicans could change too. But Marcus's complaint is unmoored from the practical reality that if either a woman or an African-American are going to be on a national ticket in 2008 or any time soon, they will only get there because their gender or race compensates for other factors. There are exactly four female GOP governors, none of whom have been in office eight years, and all of whom are barely known outside their own states. There are only two black state governors, neither of whom are plausible presidential candidates: New York's David Peterson, who succeeded the disgraced Elliot Spitzer and promptly revealed a wild personal life right out of the "Penthouse Forum", and Deval Patrick, who has had a rocky tenure so far as governor of Massachusetts. There have only been three black U. S. Senators ever. Being a senator isn't particularly germane foundation for being president, but if the U.S. is going to break the race barrier in the White House now, Barack Obama is the among the most electable candidates available. Marcus, meanwhile, who is a vigorous Hillary Clinton partisan, is deluded if she really believes that the hard spine of the New York senator's support wasn't based primarily on gender, and on her ascension through the political system using gender-based roles. A woman's path to power in American politics will have to be, at least for a while, different than a man's. Gender can either be an impediment or an asset: nobody should attack Palin or Clinton for choosing asset.

The most absurd, historically ignorant and sexist criticism leveled at Palin by an Alaskan mile is the charge that she can't responsibly handle the duties of high office on top of her duties as the mother of five, and it is wrong for her to try. It is absolutely stunning that anyone could make this claim in 2008 without being ridiculed, ignored or committed to an institution, but here was the eminent historian (and closet partisan Democrat) Michael Beschloss on MSNBC echoing the doubts of desperate bloggers and the more moronic columnists. First of all, calling Palin "the mother of five" is deceitful and dishonest, as if she was Florence Henderson in "The Brady Bunch." One of the five is a soldier on the way to Iraq…presumably he will be taking care of himself. Another is Palin's much-discussed pregnant teenaged daughter, soon to be married and a mother herself. So Palin has, in fact, three children to care for, including an infant with Down Syndrome. Bobby Kennedy, when the young anti-war Democrats were chanting his name at rallies and he was seeking the 1968 nomination for President, had eleven children, most of them minors. I don't recall the issue of "how is he going to be President and take care of all those kids" being mentioned even once. Why not? Because it was an ignorant question then, and an even more ignorant question now.

Of course parenting suffers when a parent undertakes a challenging and time-consuming job, and being President of the United States is as challenging and time-consuming as it gets. It is a sacrifice, plain and simple.

People who give their lives to public service historically, traditionally and unavoidably are absentee parents, and they, their spouses and their children pay a huge price for what the rest of us gain from unique talents, abilities and skills. The children of great statesmen in American history often barely knew their famous parents, just as the children of today's great statesmen and stateswomen will grow up frequently deprived of attention they need and crave. Some of them grew up bitter; some grew up psychologically damaged. Many caused their famous parents great pangs of guilt, regret and remorse over the time they couldn't spend with their kids, knowing that the lost hours might have made a difference in their lives.

But are we really prepared to say that putting the welfare of one's city, state, nation, or world over the best interests of one's family is wrong, representing a deficit in character? If so, then line up all the patriots and heroes, generals and soldiers, legislators and presidents, test pilots and astronauts against the wall of shame. It would have been better and nobler, would it, if John Adams had stayed at home to help Abigail raise their four children? Should those GIs who went off to liberate Europe have stayed in the U.S. to care for their kids instead? Should only childless men and women be cops, or for that matter, emergency room doctors and nurses? Thomas Edison was too engrossed in improving the lives of millions of human beings with his freak talent of invention to be an attentive father: despicable, I suppose? Martin Luthor King could not spend much time with his children; there were marches to organize, protests to hold, speeches to make, rights to assert. Unethical choice, was it?

It is the dilemma faced by all those who would do great things, achieve great success, build businesses and nations, pursue great ideas, write great books or compose great music, change society for the better or save the world. Achieving wonderful and important things dominates lives. Take all the of the most accomplished, successful, famous and important leaders, statesmen, soldiers, scientists, industrialists, entrepreneurs, writers, musicians, performers, explorers and athletes through the centuries: how many of them, do you think, could be attentive, dedicated, nurturing, present parents? Very, very few. It is one of the terrible costs of greatness. Society needs its most talented members to take full advantage of their special abilities. Generations of human beings benefit; individual families suffer. We should not condemn the talented individual who never reaches his or her potential because of the decision to put family first, but we dare not condemn the individuals who choose to lead, build or create over being the most involved parent. They are sacrificing for us.

Palin's critics are arguing that a woman shouldn't aspire to do great things, or shouldn't have a family if she does. The first assertion is offensive and wrong; the second is an intrusion into a personal choice. It is a hard balance to maintain, and most fail at it. She has a right to try. And if she is truly gifted, she may even have a duty to try.