You both make a lot of interesting points, and I am not trying to ignore any of them in response.

1. I'll take for granted your characterization of the fruit fly issue. I never like these attacks on individual ear marks, because there is usually a better story behind them than initially meets the eye. So, there you have it, I have finally conceded a point against Sarah, assuming your characterization is accurate.

2. On the rape kit story, I pointed out earlier that Palin says she was not aware of what the cops were doing when, over a three year period, they billed people apparently three times for charges of $300 to $1,200, and was not aware of the budget cut. She also said if she knew about it, she would have opposed it - she offered to reason for supporting such a policy.

I have seen no direct evidence to refute that denial, beyond saying it is "hard to believe."

3. NewYorkNY claims to have a problem with people "who would impose Biblical law on the world." I think I would too! In the case of New Testament teaching, there is no such thing as biblical law. And as for five books of Moses, and its law, most of it was superceded, as to Christians, by the Pauline teachings of the first century. I'll give you a point if you want to call the gay marriage debate a debate over religious law. But that's much broader than Palin - every time it goes on a referendum, the traditional definition of marriage wins by a wide margin. And besides, even Obama/Biden are opposing gay marriage. What's up with that?

4. A brief word on Bill Clinton and rape kits. Recall the credible allegation that he committed a rape himself in Arkansas - the charge was broadcast in an extensive prime time NBC special, but not picked up or discussed further. And then there was Kathleen Wiley, who told 60 Minutes she was sexually mauled, but not raped, by Clinton in the White House. I recall a reporter saying he called the nation's leading women's groups for a reaction to the 60 Minutes story. They told him unanimously that they were not going to watch 60 Minutes, and did not wish to see a tape of it, or comment on it, afterward. So, regardless of Wiley's veracity, it is kind of hard for Salon posters to say now that they always contemporaneously supported Clinton as a friend of women, when there is direct testimonial evidence of his misconduct, but not Palin, when there is no direct evidence, testimonial or otherwise, to contradict her statement that she had no subjective knowledge of what the police department was doing.

5. A short word on elitism. Obama got the ball rolling with his statement that Pennsylvania primary voters were hesitant to vote for him because they cling bitterly to guns, religion, and bigotry. He furthered it with his spokesman's statement, upon Palin's nomination, that she was a ridiculous candidate because her resume included work as mayor in a very small town. The first statement was amplified recently by Rep. Murtha, who called western Pennsylvanians red-necks. In a recent Salon thread on Indiana, a number of posters from suburban Indianapolis described their forays into the countryside to visit "hillbillies," red-necks, supposed racists, and other undesirables within their state. Elitist sentiments, all.

The Republicans are simply fighting back on this one. And, when push-back arrived to a comment in North Carolina re: "real America," Palin overtly apologized. Something Obama never did after the bitter clinger comment. He dissembled instead. Palin properly dinged Obama during her RNC speech as a community organizer, given that Obama dinged her a lowly mayor. It's politics, folks, not personal as to you. Obama reaped when he sowed.

6. Finally, I can't resist a brief word regarding some of the continuing negative intensity toward Palin. I've compared her to Eva Peron and Eliza Doolittle. Maybe that's unfair; Peron was on the left, Eliza might have been too, had she been real.

Palin rose to acclaim in a male dominated, conservative culture in which toughness (e.g., moose hunting) and femininity (winks) are both no doubt highly prized. They have certainly played well with men in middle America, as well as successful, young, high esteem women who succeed with some of the same tacts. Maybe there's a trace of Scarlet O'Hara there, in terms of Palin's ambition and ability to work her charm. And, perhaps, a blind spot: Palin has never had to appeal to people outside the demographic described above. Perhaps if she loses, and comes back in 2012, we'll see a revised and broadened appeal. Would not surprise me a bit. If you accept the Scarlet comparison, you've got to concede it's possible. Recall from the Mitchell novel, Scarlet was never smart, just savvy. I think Sarah is both.