Nope! For me:

1. Defense
2. Smaller government - less interference - less taxes
3. Energy
4. Geo-political relations
5. Economy (government primarily to empower the private sector, and secondarily to maintain foundational laws)
6. Supreme court that doesn't legislate & is strict constructionist

McCain is light years ahead on 1, 2 & 4. I think McCain has a more comprehensive approach to energy.

On #5 I totally disqualify Obama, as he is certainly a Keynesian, and perhaps even a socialist - the most liberal voting record in congress.

However, none of it makes any difference if #1 isn't taken care of. Number one is #1, period. To Bush's credit, there has not been a successful attack on US soil in seven years. Numerous attempts, but none yet successful. Democrats have to (perhaps grudgingly) give him that.

And McCain was one of the only ones right about the surge. Democrats had already thrown in the towel and declared Iraq a loss. Regardless of what one thinks of this war, a loss would have been most devastating in the long-term.

Besides, voting 90% with Bush alone shouldn't disqualify McCain - what is the 10% difference?

Government is the country's biggest overhead. It is an expense. It is not the economic engine that drives the country, as Keynes, FDR and most modern Democrats believe. Some Republicans in the past have fallen for this notion too. (Nixon, fell into Keynesian methods with wage and price controls.)

In any organization, a growing overhead will become a big drag, and we're definitely seeing this with the US federal gov. But there is a double whammy: this overhead also heaps on many well-intentioned but often destructive regulations to the "golden goose" free enterprise system.

To be sure, Bush wandered into some erroneous territory economically by growing the government and over-spending the budget. BUT the Democrats & the rest of congress were certainly complicit in this. Democrats have rarely seen a government expense they didn't absolutely love, and Republicans certainly lost their way.

And the Democratically controlled congress has even a much lower approval rating (approaching single digits!!!) than Bush! I suspect when they ask the polling question about if the country is heading in the wrong direction, much of this has to do with the perceived job congress is doing!

It remains to be seen on certain substantive issues about Palin, but I think she's primarily being attacked because she's a conservative woman, which flies in the face of the liberal feminist notion.

The argument that she has little international experience is a total logical fallacy!! What international experience did all the other governors elected to the White House have (let alone how much international experience Obama has)!? HOWEVER, she actually has direct executive experience with the oil companies, environmentalists and other energy issues.

With that segue, let's go back to the energy question (since that is what this thread is actually about). Who really has the best plan and why? Looking at the details of each one's plan would be helpful, in context with this thread's topic.