Ms Paglia:

I've relished Sarah Palin's appearances in the spotlight. She's comely. Like you said, she has a fascinating cadence. And yes, she has an Amerindian quality.

You have so much praise for her appearances and poise; her views are 'irrelevant' to you. The only thing missing from your analysis is her waist size and height. You give your game away by talking her up as a mother-figure and what not and giving her a pass on everything else. Does she have a political intelligence? A mastery of issues and details? Curiosity? Is she worldly?

These qualities aren't bourgeois, Ms Paglia.

Yours,

Penn.

well, I am a little stupid.

I have not read the text.

I just like Paglia.

She is forward and smart, even when she is wrong.

Sarah Palin's vitality.

Whew! Cool. Now I have time to consider credit default swaps.

Which condescension is that?

"As for Palin's brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don't we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor?"

"People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism -- the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary. . . . I savor every kind of experimentation with standard English -- beginning with Shakespeare, who was the greatest improviser of them all at a time when there were no grammar rules."

Either some of Ms. Paglia's article wound up on the cutting room floor, or I'm missing the point. Was Palin "experimenting" with the language or was she the victim of an editing hatchet job? Is Mrs. Palin more Shakespeare or Max Headroom? Are her experimentations a result of the editing or do they transcend it? Have the vipers created her sound bytes, or does this poetry Ms. Paglia celebrates defy such vicious tactics? This entry in the article is a pathetic, weak-wristed swing at anyone who would ridicule Sarah Palin's unconventional ways of expressing herself (or rather her campaign's talking points; let's not forget: Her answers are characteristically light on substance and heavy on rhetoric). But, more to the point, what of viewers who truly can't simultaneously appreciate Palin's poetic experimentations with English AND parse meaning from her meanderings (all the Hockey Moms and Joe Six-Packs who didn't receive that Ivy League education)? It's possible that in times of such gravity, viewers/readers/listeners are actually seeking intelligible answers or stronger indications of leadership and aptitude. Ms. Paglia's defense of Palin is staggeringly shallow and wreaks of hyperbole.

I love the fact that the "openminded" readers of Salon foam at the mouth because Paglia makes a distinction between admiring Palin as a politician while diliking Palin's policies. So much for complex analysis!

It doesn't seem to occur to people that it's one thing to evaluate a political performance, quite another to evaluate whether one agrees with what the politician represents. I don't understand how grown men and women can see the people on the political stage in such cartoon terms, and actually feel comfortable with such one-dimensional interpreations. If we can't understand the complexity of the people running for office, how can we capably determine who's the best leader? And we elect the most important leaders in the world! If people aren't ashamed of their juvenile approach, they aught to at least be ashamed.

I appreciate Paglia's approach, but I think she's also made some bad calls this time. It's a bit unfair to claim the "best parts" of Palin's interviews were left on the editing room floor. As bad as the national media is, there is simply no way they could get away with that. In fact, I think the McCain campaign would push for a showing of the whole interview uncut, if that were the case. Similarly, Paglia's cavalier statement—if I'm reading her correctly—that it doesn't matter that Palin didn't always make sense in the debate because that's not what the visual medium is about, is far from acceptable.

I suspect Paglia is frustrated, as I am, by knee-jerk attacks on Palin. I think this leads Paglia to be too forgiving. I don't think Palin is any kind of moron, myself, though I do think she's made some politically stupid decisions. Whether she disappears forever or returns in eight-to-ten years a fully formed, and formidable, candidate is yet to be seen.

People ask why Salon allows Paglia to contribute here. Though I'm happy she does, I am curious as to why they want her. I don't think I've ever seen Joan Walsh compliment a Paglia piece, the way she so often celebrates the contributions of others around here. The entire staff seems to look the other way when a new Paglia column appears. I suspect they don't like her much (though I only assume that from inference). Why is she continually given this outlet? I'd be interested to hear Joan Walsh answer that question.

Strange reaction! On behalf of both Obama08now and Readerreader, I must take slight offense.

You get the prize for being the first to identify my transparent and Borat-like support for the Democratic ticket. You did like that movie, didn't you? It's called humor, folks. The lack thereof is the same thing which doomed my first appearance on this site. Someone freaked out to what I thought would be a great list of questions for Joe Biden in an alternate universe where the media actually asked interesting questions, and I couldn't take the name calling anymore. I'm too nice for that. :)

Let me just go on here for a minute. I have known a fair number of people of Palin's religious bent, and find them both a tiny bit intense in their zeal, and yet about as nice and decent as you can get on a whole variety of fronts. Like I said before, and Camille did as well, this woman rocks. Your disparagement isn't going to work anymore, because she survived and flourished in her debate! It's over. Done. She's not Dan Quayle. She's not Tom Eagleton. She's Sarah Palin, and she's awesome. I really, really, really hope she gets elected, the main reason being I would love to have a person of her quality in our national government.