probably did not seem odd to the American public given that our last president was at least as bad when speaking off the cuff and worse at giving a speech.

I find it disturbing that the media that so loved Bush in 2000 found Palin's style so off-putting. And she never even gave journalists demeaning nick names. Maybe it's OK if you are from a powerful, elite family.

At first read, Amanda Fortini's writing seems pretty good. There's a whole lotta words, and she sews them together into some really big sentences. Those sentences bob up and down and left and right and wow! What a writer!

Then I ask myself, after reading, "What the hell WAS that?" So I go back and I read again. And I think to myself, "What does this writer really think? What substance did she really impart?"

Bottom line: Amanda Fortini's writing betrays a fear of formulating a real point of view. Fortini's analysis is hedged; she strongly desires to appear erudite, yet constantly distances herself from any position.

Fortini's essay is filled to the gills with words like "maybe," "perhaps," "one might argue," or "seems to be." Even when Fortini emphasizes something, she pulls away from it. Some would call this being careful; I call it getting half-way to good writing and then saying "whatever."

I don't fully fault Fortini. A quick Google search shows she's written for several high-profile publications. This essay does demonstrate that Fortini has a lot of tangible 'n' topical concepts swirling around in her noggin, and she makes 'em coherent enough to pull together into a passable article.

What's missing, clearly, is editing -- both self-editing in which Fortini kicks her own ass to the next level, and Broadsheet editing: A professional higher-up with either the guts to send Fortini's article back to her and ask for a 2nd draft, or the skill and stamina to clean up the article so it isn't a big oozing bag of sophomoric mistakes.

Details next message. And do I hope Fortini and Broadsheet's editors read this? To quote Palin, "HELL yeah."

I have to ask: what the hell makes you [ReaderReader] tick with this woman?

I've been pondering that question of late. What is obvious about Sarah Palin is that she is ignorant, provincial, vindictive, dishonest, and vicious. Less obviously, as far as I am concerned, she is also a crypto-fascist.

So what attracts Republicans, particularly men, to this awful woman? Sexual attraction. Palin has good features and good hair and a curvy figure. Add into that her cruel streak and you've got a classic dominatrix figure. In my opinion, this is why men like ReaderReader and Terkoy are so obsessed with her: she excites them.

That is why she is going to be a very dangerous demagogue. Her combination of sex appeal and extreme rightwing ideology makes her the kind of leader whom violent men will kill for in order to please.

Tough mama or not, Sarah Palin must have good cause to fear her outing as one who practiced premarital sex, despite her flaunting of her 'holier-than-thou' so-called family values. Because the calendar is clear, and its events are readily available on the Internet. Her own doctor's medical report, released only on the very eve of the presidential election, clearly stated that her first-born child was "full" term, which means 9 months plus or minus 2 weeks of gestation. Yet this baby was born April 20, 1989. And yet her marriage, by an apparently hasty elopement, took place on August 29, 1988. Do the math. It inevitably leads to the overwhelming suspicion, if not a near certainty, that this child was conceived before the wedding.

And yet, Sarah Palin has become the poster child for the most extreme fundamentalist, anti-sex-education, abstinence-only right-wing positions. Perhaps a bit of hypocrisy her shines through, it would seem.

Thank you, I guess, for devoting such energy to refuting my thoughts.

XH, your chronology of my recent posting is correct, though I would add that after granting myself the extension you described, I also tried to be nice and add some thoughts here for the new writer whose work I admire. I'm closing the loop on the weekend's activity. No digging in.

I'm perpetually amazed that when someone like me makes a comparison to a very discrete incident in the life of someone like Richard Nixon, people bounce off the walls (What about Watergate! What about Cambodia!).

It was Sarah Palin who consciously evoked Eva Peron, I thought, in her convention speech last year with her promise to be an advocate in the White House for special needs families ("I kept my promise, don't keep your distance," or words to that effect). This week, in saying she needs no "title" to effect change, that was straight from the eulogy of Princess Diana's brother. Recall, he bitterly denounced the Windsors and said she needed no royal title to work her particular brand of magic.

As for Palin's strategy, let's review the record. Salon's writers, and readers, pronounced unanimously last weekend that this was (a) the end of her career and/or (b) the iceberg of great controversy. I will congratulate myself on taking a contrary position, and explaining in some detail what I think she is up to next. I can do this, because unlike some Salon readers, the MSM, and Republican commentariat, I can study historical precedents without bouncing off walls and pay attention to the details of Palin's career.

And finally, don't worry too much about me. If you look at any of the Palin websites (to which I have no affiliation, or contribution), you will see that my energy level is but fractional compared to theirs. Also, the picture of Sarah and Trig is indeed iconic to many of her admirers. I'm glad it showed up in this article. It's one of my favorites.

Can you save me the effort of researching this on my own? Please list 5 (or 3 or 7) national policy positions that Palin has. Does she have white papers available on these positions? Also, beside McCain (I presume) who are Palin's allies in national politics? Thanx