Apart from your offensive introduction, I will answer your question.

Let's start with those aides. Honest question: do you find it at all odd that none of them are "on the record"? National Review wrote the other day that they are in constant communication right now with Palin's "anonymous" critics, but none of them will put their name to retorts. Given that she is trashing them by name, why not speak up?

I have a few thoughts.

1. The aides have a history of lying. Recall, last year, they put out the story that Palin went rogue on "pals with terrorists" -- just yesterday, Max Blumenthal of Salon repeated this untruth in attributing the line to Palin's extemporaneous venom.

The Atlantic reported earlier this year that the line came directly from aides Wallace and Schmidt, and Palin confirmed it in her book.

2. The Axelrod Press (AP) is misleading too, in conjunction with the aides. Last weekend, they reported that Palin claimed a $500,000 vetting bill, and quoted one of the aides as confirming the amount and saying it was outrageous.

Just one day later, the AP had a Gilda Radner moment ("oh never mind"), noting that the amount was only $50,000. This means the aide they quoted was either misleading about the half mil to please the AP, or can't do math.

3. I think they aren't "on the record" because they don't want to commit defamation. Their stories are not true, and they know it.

4. By the way, I think it sells Palin short to call this score settling. Her description of Wallace and Schmidt, from the excerpts I have seen, is comparable to Suetonius and Josephus -- two ancient historians who used short, debilitating squib stories to utterly annihilate their opponents.

5. Would I help her out? I already am! I donated to her PAC this spring, donated to Hoffman in response to her FB posts this fall, and plan to buy her book this week. You mean in person? If she runs for president, I'll volunteer for any midwest primary assistance. I don't need to meet her; I feel like I already know her. :)

You crack me up.

Rasmussen finished in first place last year in accurately predicting the outcome of the presidential race, in terms of day-before polls. Recall, both Gallup and ABC/Wash Post predicted a double digit win for Obama. Zogby actually had McCain stunningly ahead by 1 the Saturday before the election.

Furthermore, Rasmussen runs a daily tracking poll on Obama and explains on its web site that they expect it to run 5 points to the right, because "likely voters" run more conservative than "registered voters," while RV's run right of "all citizens."

If you look at the Realclearpolitics averages, which disclose LV, RV, or All for various polls, you can see this 5-point trend across a variety of polling outfits.

I am very happy to see Palin at 51-42 among "likely voters." People who do not vote, but get their information dimly from the media, cannot be expected to have a good opinion of her.

I switched threads. Only two prior posts on this one.

Why don't you tell me which of my comments on this thread have been debunked. Be specific. I want to see you back this up.

As I noted on Joan's other thread, the "problem" identified by Newsweek is supposedly a problem for Republicans; viz., that Palin is popular with the base, but detested by everyone else.

Except, she isn't. National Review is running a new Rasmussen poll tonight showing her at 51% favorable and 42% unfavorble among "likely voters" nationally.

26% of all likely voters think she is divisive. 41% say no, and 33% aren't sure. So much for that canard. Of course, she's trying to be somewhat divisive, to gin up support on the right. But 26-41 suggests she is viewed pretty mildly. That's not a shock to me -- she blends her punches with her smiles very well.

What about NY-23? Doesn't that showcase huge problems? I don't think so. The "moderate Republican" ended up endorsing a liberal Democrat who voted for the $1.3 trillion Pelosicare plan. Hoffman just un-conceded after two waves of adjustments (with more to come) pulled him within 3,000 votes and 2 percentage points. He's planning to run again, with more local issue preparation, in 2010.

And, to top it all, let's not forget that Maria Von Trapp -- both real and fictional -- was a very beloved figure.

If you recall, in The Sound of Music, the "problem" song appears twice. First, when Maria is at the convent not obeying the rules. Second, when she's walking down the wedding aisle to marry Von Trapp.

The second reference is a bit odd. It has a taming of the shrew quality. It also reminds me of Rhett Butler's comment to Scarlett O'Hara: "You need to be kissed, and kissed often, and by someone who knows how."

In short, Newsweek was incredibly crude here. So, am I shocked and offended?

No, not really. I take the media's hostility for granted. But kudos to Joan for her integrity.

Today, Rasmussen has a poll out showing Palin with 51% favorable nationally, and 42% unfavorable.

That's a flip of the Post poll.

What gives? Rasmussen ran a "likely voter" poll, which is tighter than all voters. LV polls tend to run about five points to the right.

51-42 is a fine place to be, especially when you are known as an outspoken critic of the opposition.

Of course, the turning of the polls here is especially revealing, because many critics have been running around this week shouting, "She's popular with the base, but despised by everyone else." Turns out, not so much.

Another good day for Sarah.