What does she really have to offer, besides hype about herself?

I mean, as a leader -- what does she bring to the table?

Nothing.

Anti-abortion? Big whoop. Tell me how you're going to solve America's real problems with extra Trigs around. While you're at it, tell me what you expect to happen if you outlaw abortion. What, you think people will stop having them? Sure. While we're at it, let's outlaw alcohol and see if DUI's stop.

Drilling for oil in Alaska? So what? That won't supply 5% of our oil needs. Calling Palin's "drill, baby, drill" plan a key to "energy independence" is like telling an obese person the solution to his health woes is to put more lettuce on his double-cheeseburgers.

Palin can barely administrate a state of 650,000 people. She turned her governorship into the kind of operation you'd expect at a church club. She told her staff not to use any official email accounts, and she took per-diems for as long as she could get away with it. State trooper she doesn't like? Fire him -- or else!

Everything about Sarah Palin is reminiscent of George W. Bush. She doesn't have any innovative solutions to the world's problem. In fact, she barely knows anything about the outside world to begin with, and she's in no hurry to find out.

Yet conservatives want her to lead them? Really? They're insane.

I understand "liking" her, if you're a certain type of person who appreciates a certain style of livin' and bein'. I say to you: Like her till your heart's content. Send her love letters. Make a shrine. Blog about what she did today. Compose some poetry (post your creativity here on Salon!). Like her till the cows come home to get slaughtered.

But I sure don't understand saying, "Gosh, she's just like my cousin -- and I sure would love her to be in charge of everything!"

"But I am pointing out that Joan's article was based on a false premise, and the linked article doesn't at all support Joan's claims that Palin was "lying" about the "millions" spent."

The ADN article used verifiable figures from a state agency. Palin and supporters have not provided such figures. I've had to live through Palin's soon-to-be truncated term, so forgive me if I find it hard to slavishly believe her. She stood before us in January 2007 and said "Hold me accountable." From my perspective, along with (insert Palinesque hyperbole here) "millions" of others, Palin lied about that, too.

BTW, Fladad didn't "provide" back up to his information. He mentioned that there was a "spreadsheet" with numbers from the governor's office that cannot be documented and that now apparently cannot be linked to.

Look at any discussion of tort reform or medical malpractice. The standard argument technique is to cite a few wacky cases to taint things, then present a number for all verdicts as though they are all frivolous, obscuring the fact that most aren't.

You can get the list here

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/838912.html

First, we would want to define frivolous, which to me is not a question of whether she was found guilty or not, but whether, if true, it is something of consequence. Of them, only a handful are really frivolous:

7. The 150k Wardrobe- The state wouldn't have jurisdiction here.

9. Giving partisan interviews from her office. Probably violated the letter of the law, but not exactly harmful in the grand scheme of things. It's not really using up some state resource like stealing stamps or having the state pay for people to work on your campaign.

10. Campaigning for Saxby Chambliss. Elected officials campaign for each other all the time.

16. Arctic cat gear. Not particularly relevant unless there was some quid pro quo.

So that's 4 that are probably frivolous out of 18. Look at the rest of the allegations. We have abuse of power, labor violations, using state workers for partisan purposes, and the last one (about claiming a per diem she isn't entitled to) actually crosses into the criminal realm as that is embezzlement. It is absolutely correct that these charges were investigated, as they are serious allegations and it is also not as clear that she has been as exonerated as she claimed. Several staff members were punished as a consequence of some of these, indicating that something was wrong. It at least indicates that there was enough wrongdoing in places to warrant a closer look.

Perhaps if she wanted to avoid ethics complaints, she should have not done so many things that were ethically questionable.

First, thank you for keeping you comments about your "beloved Sarah" out of the realm of how HOT she is. Your last long post about this on another thread mentioned her hotness in item two, I believe. (Politely, yes, but really, it leads to the suspicion that other than intellectual motives are driving your Admiration Society.)

Second, it is painfully obvious that you do not understand Ms. Palin's shallowness and how dangerous this is for the country.

You wrote:

"Although I do think she will "study up" on issues per her Rudy theme, I also think she doesn't intend to change who she is, or how she handles herself politically. The more she stays the same, the more I will support her."

Who Sarah Palin IS is a person who doesn't THINK she needs to study up on ANYTHING. She proved that during the campaign during her lame interviews which really never improved over time. She has also proven, time and again during her tenures in office, that she isn't interested in the input of anyone, beyond a circle of cronies and intimates. She does Not Play Well with Others and descends all too readily into snittiness and backstabbing when she doesn't get her way.

We already suffered under a "leader" like that for eight years. Look where it got us. Seriously.

Might I also submit that the America of 1945 was considerably different than the America of today and that Harry Truman never had to navigate the intricate system of patronage, PACs, multi-national corporations with enormous power, a non-stop media, and the myriad other treacheries that essentially compel a person in public office to be, at the very least, informed on a huge variety of subjects? And that's just in DC.

If you haven't visited Alaska, I suggest you make a trip up there. It is startlingly beautiful and extremely remote. Things are much simpler there than in just about any mid-sized city in America. Not necessarily the best place to pluck a political newbie from, especially one who Already Has Everything All Figured Out.