I have some questions and concerns about Sarah Palin, as well as sympathy for her as she faces the liberal media and its bias. I will just put this out here, and hope that its taken for the honest inquiry it is meant to be. (I also apologize if this is more lengthy than I expect.)

When McCain chose Palin to be his running mate, I thought she was a fresh new choice, and was electrified by her convention speech. I liked the fact that she was a conservative maverick who took on the Alaska establishment, and that she was a conservative woman who had the capacity to counter the so-called “breakthrough” aura that the Obama campaign had. Even as she stumbled sometimes, I cheered for her, and enthusiastically voted for McCain-Palin.

But as time went on, I must admit that I was torn between her “positives” and her “negatives.” I think things have polarized in such a way that its difficult for people who support Palin to see her negatives, or those who oppose her to see her positives. There is hatred and contempt on one side, and adulation on the other. One side sees her as an uninformed tart, and the other sees her as an authentic American woman.

I may be the exception, but I’m somewhere down the middle in regard to Palin. I see in her great promise as well as considerable failings. Just this week, I found two articles, both from people deemed to be conservative, who have managed to crystalize both sides of the dispute for me. I encourage everyone to read both of them, because I think there is truth in both.

The “Pro-Palin” article is the Victor David Hansen article mentioned in a previous comment to a previous post on this blog. It can be found here:

Victor David Hansen article

The contrary article is by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, and is found here:

Peggy Noonan article

As enthusiastic as I was for her in ’08, the reality is that she came accross as uninformed and not well read. The fact that our opponents in the liberal media, in liberal academia, and among the liberal elites have seized upon this appearance as a basis to attack her should properly cause us to defend Palin when such attacks are out of proportion and unfair. But it doesnt remove the larger question of whether she is, indeed, as unprepared as she appeared.

It is wrong for elitists to assume that those not part of their “circle,” are worthy, and its wrong for the an Ivy League liberal elitist to assume that a non-Ivy Leaguer like Palin is unfit for high office just because she is not one of them. But that doesn’t mean that the opposite is true either: that because her non-Ivy League status enrages those liberal elites, that it automatically means Palin really is fit to be president and well suited for the job. Noonan’s comment, in her article, that “For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they’re perfect in every way. It’s yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.” rings true. Could it be that, beyond (rightly) defending someone against improper attacks, Palin’s enthusiastic supporters are also assuming that she will be up to the job because she’s an average American, just like them, and that that’s enough?

(As a former enthusiastic supporter, and one who would like to be so again in the future, I’m inclduing myself in this question.)

I think the key thing is whether Palin will learn and develop as a national figure in the next few years. I agree with VDH, when he wrote as follows:

But if, a big if, she decides to become a national political figure, Palin should use these next few years (in addition to making some money to support her family) to travel and read widely in the manner that a Reagan did in his wilderness period. . . . I think most would like to see her do another Couric interview five years from now after she had time to size up DC insiders, meet more politicians, lecture in front of hostile audiences-and just read and reflect.

I would like to see that interview myself. If you read both articles, you will see that VDH and Nonan have opposite views of palin’s intelligence. I think I’ll wait and see that interview in a few years, and make up my mind then.

I hope this is taken in the manner it was meant. Sorry for the excessive length.

http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=652756&z=1247113045531

Actually better than in December. It would be astounding to see her capitalize on this “disaster”….

It would be the most delicious words I’ve ever eaten.

Very true. But does she have a tent for the disaffected “libertarian” conservatives to shelter under?

Not so much, I think….

That’s very kind of you. If you ever make it to New Mexico, I will buy the beer. I think we would have an extraordinary amount in common and interesting experiences to keep us up late… drinking beer!

How about having both? Nothing wrong with a little symbolism now and then.

Or is she going to be more like the Right’s Al Sharpton?

Palin is equivalent to Sharpton? I don’t get it.

all we have is one less governor who supports the troops and their mission.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. The guy taking over her job is a Republican and I’ll just bet he supports the troops and their mission.

But they didn’t even have to “bring her down” she got down all by herself. She resigned. Quit.

She resigned from a job for which there is a competent replacement. She didn’t resign from life … or even from politics.

And while I’m thread-hogging—VDH just nails it. I think everyone here will enjoy this (except the dirty lefties)

I read the article. It was very positive about Palin. There’s definitely room under my tent for Sarah. The more the merrier, I say. I wish her well.

Gray, I think you should give it a rest. You might be right that Palin is finished. Equally, you might be wrong. I would bet you a beer that she isn’t, and would be happy to drink it with you. You are a good guy, and I like having you on our side.

Or maybe it’s not a gaffe at all. Maybe it’s just a talking too fast way of saying “legal department” – without knowing whether it’s the Office of Legal Counsel or the White House Counsel who would handle this sort of thing. Or maybe Palin called it that because Alaska has a Department of Law headed by the Attorney General who “serves as the legal advisor for the governor and other state officers”.

(Oddly enough, I found this information here. This is an ugly post with mostly nasty commenters but also a couple of knowledgeable ones – who are totally ignored, of course.)

No. Stop engaging in identity politics.

This has driven you mad.

If Tony Dungy AND his staff were spending 80% of his time and millions responding to idiots like you….

He would be noble for stepping aside and giving the organization back so that it could remotely have a chance at being successful.

Because you have such a lack of a connection in your brain about this – you have rendered any opinion of yours suspect.