... that's not an argument for "the continuing coverage," it's an argument for something much more important. And the fact you just equated the media's continuing Palin coverage with "figuring out how this happened" and "insisting that this farce cease and some basic accountability and transparency be restored to the process" exemplifies what Sullivan finds so troubling.

Bingo!

Why on earth would we want to stop Palin from running again? She may have excited the intolerant fundamentalists of the far right wing, but she scared many more reasonable people away from voting for McCain.

I've been puzzled by the handful of articles I've seen that seem to dread the possibility of Palin running for president in 2012. If the GOP wants to run a woman who 60% of America finds unqualified for the office, and who is proudly and impressively ignorant of many key issues, and put her up against Obama, they are more than welcome to do so.

The reason that Palin is STILL scary is because the cultural and political trends that brought her to the candidacy are the same ones (IMHO) that got George Bush elected.

The anti-intellectualism, religious fundamentalism and jingoism that got Bush re-elected did not just disappear. It's a sleeping monster. The economy is just more salient right now.

I am still dumbfounded how someone like W could be our president.

The point is - don't get complacent. It can happen again. People talking about a "permanent democratic majority" are in serious denial.

There's a significant number of people who will vote for her BECAUSE of her glaring limitations.

Great essay by Sullivan. Palin herself seems doomed to become a footnote in history, but the ignorance behind her rise to popularity needs to be thoroughly dissected and examined by social and political analysts in order to fully understand the inner workings of the American far right (which seems to fortunately be shrinking, aging, or becoming increasingly irrelevant).

People have short memories. And it's not like there is only one Karl Rove or an aspirant-to-his-rebranding throne out there. If Palin gets the kind of branding genius she needs--someone as willing as Rove to also find new ways to smear and hype--she could easily rewrite history or make herself look like a someone who's "learned and grown," or whatever. Demagogues like her should never be underestimated and they should always be kept in the light.

Why? George W. Bush is why. At the minimum, we need four qualified individuals able to lead this nation because one of the two major party candidates is going to be elected and the VP must be qualified to step in if something happens. As much as I want Obama to have two terms, to risk a Palin being that close to the presidency is just not acceptable. Never underestimate the ignorance of the American electorate.

Yes, we must understand what forces were responsible for the Palin Incident so that we can safeguard against repeat occurences. However, we must also try and figure out why the suffering fuck Salon continues to pay Camille Paglia to stroke herself in public over Sarah Palin.

It's not all about the letter counts, is it?

There was a study not terribly long ago at Cornell that found that the more incompetent people are the higher they estimate their own competence. So, while most people would hesitate and consider whether or not they are up to the job of the vice-presidency and possibly the presidency, Palin could say yes without hesitation as she herself described it.

Here's the study: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf&ei=fJwcScKjDozgMM2k3dcJ&sig2=nNaQ_TFniNwXSlfJsbp_vw&usg=AFQjCNGTsCXfO_8UjjvqEBea338VMJ1jCQ

new bits on the study:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://insocrateswake.blogspot.com/2008/10/judging-ones-own-competence-or-yikes.html&ei=fJwcScKjDozgMM2k3dcJ&sig2=IRHjDzW4R0fm6b49wq_TaQ&usg=AFQjCNHHoQ0Q8fwFi67cYEosqyQDPIerjw

because I was mentioned in this cool column. They asked "Who is Traduced?"

Jerzy Kosinski wrote "Being There" in 1979. This tendency to romanticize and attribute more intelligence and political "street-cred" to the dull and ignorant has been around for a long, long time.

This is probably the last post I will ever write on the subject of Sarah Palin. Let her die! She never had anything interesting to say when she had political life. Don't think this is going to change now that her campaign nose-flopped with gusto. There are so many more exciting and even attractive-looking politicians: ones with real things to say. If you have a deadline, start looking for them, and interviewing them. I'm tired of reading about undeserving nincompoops.

it is astounding that the msm is reporting on this woman as though she were a serious person. i feel like we are getting punked. she is an embarrassment. andrew sullivan has described her the best- she is delusional! i guarantee that if re-emerges (god forbid) in 2012 that she would be the same uneducated, vacuous shell that she is now. she has no intention of studying the issues. she is just in this for the attention.

I applaud your call for nuance and second it.

I'd also like to request that broadsheet elevate its coverage of the "Palin coverage."

Sullivan's theory will only prove true if the continuing media coverage is actually less vacuous than Palin herself. No one, so far, has asked her an intelligent question and followed it up with further intelligent questions. She gets asked dumb questions, gives dumb answers (witness today's press conference), and then people smile and clap and encourage her.

What the hell happened to real journalism? Matt Lauer was totally in the tank for her smarmy shtick. And even Wolf Blitzer stopped short of demanding that she actually say something meaningful.

Get some real reporters on this case. Send her back to Katie. Have her interviewed by someone in the British press -- they always seem to ask probing questions and hang in there for answers.

It's pretty easy to figure out how W was elected and how Palin is still popular with the GOP "base." It has everything to do with values and nothing to do with competence, knowledge, or background.

King George and Caribou Barbie will always have that 20-30 percent following because they share their values, namely being anti-gay, anti-intellectual, anti-Democratic Party, anti-social services, pro-war, anti-multiculturalism, and enthnocentric to the point of not caring about America's standing in the world.

That 20-30 percent base will vote for a candidate not matter how unqualified as long as he/she shares their values.