Sarah Palin is the product of the way we have come to think about minimum standards. As an educator, I can say that over my life, I have seen the role of the educator transformed from the expectation that our role is to elicit and reward excellence and achievement to the expectation that we will be sure all students meet minimum standards and move through the system.

So now, the minimum standards for the second most critical job in our nation, the person who must be ready to lead on the world stage, is the ability to repeat talking points semi-coherently in an artificial environment. And wink and smile and look good.

That anyone actually takes Sarah Palin seriously as a candidate for VP is just amazing to me. Have these people been asleep for the past 8 years as we watched George Bush consistently humiliate himself and our nation on the international stage?

It is not elitist to expect our leaders to be informed, articulate, diplomatic, and able to speak off the cuff.

So now Sarah Palin tells Fox News she reads The New York Times and The Economist and the Wall St. Journal? Too bad no one asked her what she has learned from them, which recent articles have influenced her thinking... If she read any of these publications routinely and actually learned anything from them, she would know more about the world than she is able to express clearly, even in the friendliest circumstances.

I was reading the Washington Post op-ed page this morning, which had a selection of comments from pundits, regular columnists, and letters to the editor about the debate and Sarah Palin in general. I couldn't get over how many people thought Palin had won the debate (Jackson Diehl even said Biden's comments were rife with misstatments and exaggerations) and derided the Post for its so-called "liberal bias."

What am I missing? I find Palin's cutesy, folksy act to be smarmy and evasive, not charming. I can't stand her overweening, misplaced self-confidence, her prediliction for winking at me through the TV (seriously, I don't want my world leaders winking at me), and above all, her policies. She's George W. Bush in a skirt who wants to be Dick Cheney.

Really, I want someone to explain this to me -- what am I not seeing here?

"Why aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency (again)?"

---

And with that rousing rhetorical question it's off we go! Malcontents from far and near hear the trumpet, rush to the sounds of the guns and pile on until their heaps obscure the sun and darken the skies. Their darkness seethes and hisses with sneers, slanders, put-downs, lies and libels. It is a hellish place. What hath Mr. Conason wrought? What is going on here? Could this be intolerance? Dogmatism? Even, perhaps, fanaticism? And what about the malice, hatred, scorn and contempt towards those who entertain different political beliefs and vote for other candidates? Are they not allowed to think and vote differently? Is it wrong of them to disagree with Mr. Conason and his readers? Are they stupid, ignorant, immoral &etc. simply because they do not agree with the latter? Are Mr. Conason and his readers infallibly correct in their political values and choices? Are those who differ infallibly wrong merely because they differ? What is the actual source of Mr. Conason's superior wisdom? How does it happen that he is correct and those who think differently are wrong?

From the tenor and content of posts here it seems that a majority of contributors have yet to acquire sufficient experience of life and moderation of passions to render balanced and prudent judgments about such things as politics. They are not grounded and are easily swept away by their emotions. The capacity for sustained and sober reflection has not had time nor sufficient foundation in experience to develop and grow. Their judgments therefore cannot be counted upon to manifest wisdom and prudence.

I am not sure what people here and elsewhere mean by the term anti-intellectualism. If what is meant is that students and professors are not the first place one would wish to look for practical wisdom in politics, they are certainly correct. If they mean by anti-intellectualism a contempt for knowledge and scholarship they are surely wrong. No one is saying that higher learning, schools, books, teachers are not important, indeed essential. But the qualities required for successful leadership and executive function are only partly related to academic skills and training. This should be too obvious to need demonstration and is indeed well-known throughout history. The active and contemplative lives follow different paths and suit different minds.

What people like about Senator McCain and Governor Palin is not bookishness nor even formal intelligence -though neither is as dumb as their political adversaries seem to think- but the capacity for practical wisdom of the kind needed to manage particular situations. This comes from a combination of experience, innate ability, and character. It is the character issue that prevails in politics.

It is a common error of those on the Left to imagine that intelligence trumps everything else, including character. In most circumstances, and almost always in politics, the exact reverse is the case. With good character all other deficits can be balanced and made up for, e.g. by consultation,advice, etc. But with bad character the path lies open to every evil.

This article is one of the best I've read in the last few days. I have been saying over and over since Palin was picked for the VP slot on the Republican ticket that if I were a registered Republican I would be furious! She is an insult to my intelligence and a distraction to all of the important issues that need to be discussed. Shame on McCain for his part in this sham and shame on anyone who will pull the lever for this Republican trickery. Think America, think!

SP is a mirror image of a slice of the American electorate whose world view is the product of their religious convictions, limited exposure to the country and world, and one that is intellectually limited for a laundry list of reasons that include the reasons listed above and more.

SP was choosen for these reasons and of course for the obvious reason that for many, she is pleasing to the eye. For some, she is attractive, the pretty white teeth, a nice little skirt, red pumps, cute glasses. She is the epitimy of "surface" appearances. From most of what I have heard come out of her mouth, she is truly a very unatractive person beneath her hair, make up, and fitted suits. In many ways, she has come to represent so much about America beyond even the right/GOP.

From her stance on being against abortion even in the case of rape, not interested in the cause of warming activites of humans, to her phony "country charm" but what is most offensive is the blatent use of her sexuality and physical.

A woman who behaved such as she does in a work place wd. be found offensive by most women and some men.

She also represents someone for those in the areas of the country which find here an "attractive" canidate to identify with. On certain levels, the left and hard liberal community has brought this on upon themselves for the years of condensending, arrogant, and disrespecful behavior towards those who live in those "fly over states."

There is a fundamental failure of certain folks in this country to recognize that people vote for people who most closely represent them. SP does this on numberous levels. BO represents a minority percentage of the country becasue of his race. SP represents another percentage based upon this same reasons. I have said in my circles that this woman is a threat and sd. not be dismissed.

It sucks folks but this woman may very well be on her way to living in DC.