The problem with Palin, the reason otherwise reasonable and fairminded people are so vicious with her, is that she is quite capable of convincing many to put her in high office. Other dim-witted, vain, totally inexperienced candidates are immediately dismissed. They may get their time in the spotlight but it undisputably reveals their serious flaws and they fade away. In spite of Palin's weirdness and obvious weaknesses she marches on. Don't be fooled. She has every intention of running for president. And it will take a lot of very uncomfortable and yes harsh words to try and convince people she is completely unworthy of the office.

She's a) attractive as all get up, b) has fantastic name recognition, c) lots of money, d) a dumb as a rock electorate.

Where in my last comment did I state or imply that you are a racist? I was addressing the plight of the PUMAs in 2008, something which I think would've been more than obvious. Also, where in any of my posts on this site have I stated or implied that I am a Palin supporter? What I support is at least a modicum of civility in political discussion and analysis, not to mention an end to the blatant misogyny now emanating from the so-called left and numerous media sources.

As for Obama being well informed in his candidate phase, well, where's the evidence for that one? All along, Obama has seemed largely a creature created by the MSM, a ratings driver whose reality has very little relation to the massive hype (one definition of celebrity). Yes, the press liked JFK, but there was something to work with there, something original and far more substantive than what Obama had and has to offer. The volume and pervasiveness of MSM hype in Obama's favor has been nothing short of stunning. In political terms, it's unprecedented. Obama is our first People Magazine president. Who expects that to turn out well?

Can't tell whether or not you were being coy about 'MSM'.

Another definition of the acronym is 'MainStream Media'.

I think the poster who used it was using it in the above context.

My views on some policy questions may come close to those espoused by Palin (if I could actually discern what her views are)but that doesn't stop me from recognizing her gross inadequacies and lack of competence to be in any position of leadership.

The descent into the theatre of the absurd in the aftermath of Michael Jackson's death is more than annoying, since it reinforces and fosters this cultural aberration of fantasy-ridden celebrity worship that has gripped the mass media and increasingly grips a larger and larger portion of our population.

Well at least the the winner in 2008 won the popular vote.

I am really saddened by this. What does it say about who we are and what we think about our Country if we choose our President--American Idol style?

Tee hee hee. I'm really saddened (and amused) by the fact that you're so blinded & slanted with your own liberal idealogy that you don't recognize that people like you did just that in Nov. '08!

I wouldn't worry about Palin. The possibility of Obama being reelected is almost guaranteed by the current recession. It didn't start on his watch, and all he has to do is remind everyone who it was that so royally blew up the water works!

that Palin's "celebrity" and "star power" prove that she is bound to be the next President of the United States.

I listened to a radio interview of the leader of Conservatives for Palin the other day....that was his main pitch for Palin. He said that she was able to knock Michael Jackson, and even the President, off the front page news because she has such star power. So, obviously, "she has what it take to be President".

Apparently, we now choose President's like we do an American Idol's. Whoever has the most "star power" wins!!!

Let's look at this.. Jackson was in the headlines longer than Palin's latest freak-show act, so by their own standard's, a dead Michael Jackson is actually MORE qualified than Palin to be President. Also, the week before, Sanford's affair ruled the headlines. So what does that say? Jackson/Palin 2012? or Palin/Sanford 2012?

Is that all it takes to be President of the United States?

I am really saddened by this. What does it say about who we are and what we think about our Country if we choose our President--American Idol style?

except for my own experience last fall.

Full disclosure: I am a liberal and I wouldn't have voted for McCain or Palin if they were the only ones running. That said:

I was in the backwoods in late September when Palin did the Couric interviews.

After I got back, I watched the SNL skit of the interviews first. I was appalled. This SNL snarkiness was way over the top. Yuck. Yuck. So the liberals (myself included) don't like this woman or her stand on the issues. But really, have we fallen so far that we just dump on this woman - SNL making her look like she's retarded? Please.

Then I watched the Couric interviews. I practically fell out of my chair. The SNL skit could hardly even be called a skit. No creativity was used in the making of the SNL rendition of the interview. All SNL did was have its actors regurgitate the exact words, mannerisms, etc. of Ms. Palin. Palin was so horrible, I wouldn't have expected her to run for class president, let alone the vice presidency.

This is why moderates and liberals dump on Palin at will. My 95 year old mother could discuss the issues better than Palin, and could manage a government better.

This woman was considered an appropriate candidate for VP/ potentially POTUS by the Grand Old Party? Our lives could literally have been in her hands?

If you don't like those who dump on Palin, turn off the TV, Twitter, PC. But don't complain when those who have witnessed a black hole are still trying to get over the "What if" scenario.

We should never forget.