McCain (and Hillary before him) hammered Obama over his lack of expereince, but now McCain wants to put a woman with two years experince as governor of Alaska a heart-attack away from the Presdency. It just shows that that argument was just empty PR all along.

As I responded elsewhere, of course McCain is going to hit Obama on his lack of experience. He has not record to attack. Obama attacks McCain his age. Saying he's the 'same'.

It doesn't matter what the reality is.

McCain picks a women with as much experience as Obama. She's attacked.

Politics is nothing but a game...and it's played this year as it always has, in my memory, at least.

McCain dying of natural causes wouldn't be a shock.

Lots of things aren't a shock, so what?

 ...and he is quite likely to pass away in office...

I've taken a fair share of medical histories myself, and yes, your parents do enter into it.  Chest pains, just ate spicy food, father died of a heart attack at a young age, you would be negligent to not move a coronary evaluation just a tad higher up your priority list. 

Anybody knows why McCain choosed her. If you say other wise you are fooling yourself. There are many more qualified people for the job then her and the GOP just screwed themselves trying to get Hilly supporters but just lost most of their Republican base with this idiotic move. She's cute, She has a son going to Iraq, she has a retared kid (yeah I said it because I am pissed off). I will qoute my favorite saying regarding Palin and her nomination......"You can pour syrup on shit, but that don't make it pancakes"

Way to play to the straw man.  Since this fundamental principal that we call reading AND comprehending seems to have escaped you, let's review.  Even though my post is only above yours, I will quote it here to better facilitate this elusive comprehension part. 

YEs, parents health does enter into it.  Hmmm...did I claim it is more important than any other factors?  No.  I didn't even attempt to classify them.  Simply said that it is a factor.

This is fairly obvious.  Several factors that you might have been presented with.  And yes, ALL should be considered.  Remove one, and the whole Dx changes.  Add others, it changes again. 

I stand by this.  If you are unwilling to look at the obvious familial history, you are a hack, and you should NOT be treating the living. 

You will notice that I never advocating cathing someone.  Nor did I advocate surgery.  What I did was correct your statement that family history is of no value in making a diagnosis.  And yes, you were wrong.  I understand that you, as a die hard Republican, are desperate to make your candidate look the best possible.  I can't fault you for that.  But it would be foolish to ignore the reality of his age and medical history.  Especially in light of his VP choice having no international decision making experience.  That experience is tough to come by, specially when you need a woman VP.  If a physician were to ignore a family history of heart condition, and the patient were to suffer, yes, he would be negligent, and it would be actionable.

Normally you come across as pretty fair, and very smart.  But I will take exception with your post here.

Edited to change wording.