However he’s 72. Actuarially he is more likely to die than Obama. ( Of natural causes-not from an assasin’s bullet, in which case the odds are reversed). That made Sarah Palin a factor.

Plus you are ignoring the circumstances of the election. Obama found a message that resonated. It resonated because of the events of the previous eight years and in particular the events of the last two months of the campaign. Whatever traction that McCain had about Obama’s experience-evaporated because he had to campaign on two fronts. Defending her and also countering Obama. Had he had another running mate who did not bring so much antagonism-e.g. Romney or Ridge, they could have focused more like a laser beam on Obama.

Since I am going to get tagged with the mysoginist label anyway, let me ask you a question. If Palin were a man-do you think people would have forgiven her all of erractic behavior so easily? Not a chance.

Palin has become important for only one reason-the crowd she has brought with her. And watching the vehemence of support here, I think David Frum is right:

No national candidacy has ever collapsed so rapidly and totally as Sarah Palin’s in 2008. The evidence is strong that she is the only vice presidential nominee in history to have had a significant impact on voting preferences – and negatively so. Since voting day, she has only continued to lose ground. Yet no matter how ill-considered her statements and actions, her core group of supporters excuse everything on the grounds that she is a social conservative martyr, scorned by her cultural betters. Those excuses are exactly the wrong formula to win back the voters the GOP lost in 2008 and needs to recover to win again.

I feel strongly on the issue because its just astonishing to me, that people who should know better, will cast all that caution to the wind simply to be on the right side of party purity. If people really believe that Republicans have the better ideas-they cannot allow her to drag that effort down-especially when there is better talent out there.

I think Curtis is correct when he points out that Skippy tends to blast Palin’s resume, while ignoring the far weaker CV of either Barry Obama or Joe “I’m smarter than you” Biden.

I’ll even cede him the point that the Democrats were better salesmen. But when does that make them qualified, much less right?

Me -given the Democrats would win- I’d prefer to see (say) Clinton/Bayh or Bredesen/Strickland.

Bottom line: Palin was treated horribly, and even some liberal feminists have been taking note that women are getting the short end of the stick at the national level, no matter which party to which they belong. I’m not saying that the PUMAs should (or will) vote for Palin, but they have an innate comprehension of how Palin was treated.

It only means that they are tired of your bitching for almost a year. Your behavior pattern is what was addressed. Keep your rules. Labling others isn’t up to your normal standard of intellectual effort.

Rule 2): When in doubt-see Rule 1).

Got it.

It will be very difficult to explain to later generations what it was that the Palinites saw in her that made them so fervent and enthusiastic. The Palin enthusiasm of 2008 will not end up making much sense a few years from now. -Daniel Larison