The cliche says never say never. Whatever. You can't be a female candidate, and have only a quarter of all American women think you're qualified. You can't be a female candidate and have half of all American woman in your own party think you're unqualified.I was interviewed on PBS last week about Palin's book release. I said that Palin had an especially serious problem with women voters.
This is just fact, again recorded in every survey. In October 2008, Palin's support dropped furthest and fastest among women, and especially among independents: more than two dozen points among independent women in barely 6 weeks. Consistently since the campaign, every survey has shown the former Alaska governor much more popular among men than women. And yet this attested statistical fact is shrugged off with comments like, "when I saw her campaign in N.H., I was surrounded by moms with strollers"
So let's try to bang this one down for keeps.
Earlier this month, CNN/Opinion Research released a poll showing that only 28% of Americans now think Palin qualified for the presidency. 70% say she is unqualified. Even among Republicans, only 54% think she is qualified, 44% say No.
The published poll does not break these answers down by sex, but I asked my friends at the Political Unit for the cross-tabs, and here's what they show:
While 33% of men deem Palin qualified, only 24% of women do. 66% of men deem her unqualified - and 74% of women.
Now look just at Republicans: Republican men deem Palin "qualified" by a margin of 60-38. But Republican women? Not even half think she is qualified: only 49%. 50% of Republican women say Palin is unqualified for the job.
If you like Palin - well go ahead. It's a free country. But quit saying that "the people" love Sarah Palin.
They don't. Actually, they quite dislike her. The longer they know her, the more they dislike her. And even more than they dislike her, they do not respect her. That reaction of dislike and disrespect is most concentrated among American women.
Frum points to a lack of respect, and I think he's right. But I also think there's also a pride issue. Black people took great pride in Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson. We took great pride in Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King. We took great pride in Jesse Jackson when he was running in the 80s, and Barack Obama, now. We felt, in the words of old, like these people represented. But Sarah Palin is to women what Alan Keyes is to blacks--embarrassing. The prospect of a disastrous Palin presidency, one which confirm every stereotype, fills them with dread and repulsion. There simply is no way that American women will allow her to be their ambassador.
Some of us like to talk about how much Palin annoys liberals. But that's mostly because we're still so caught in the defensive crouch that we can't see her for what she is. Whenever that ends, Sarah Palin will take her rightful place as a laughing stock. Deep down, Palin knows this. (What else to make of her laundry list of resentments?) Moreover, most women--conservative or not--know it too.
UPDATE: Oh well. Looks like I showed up on the google newspage. Time to close comments. As an aside, if you see trolling in other threads please don't get sucked in. There's no reason to do that here, guys. If you want to have it out with trolls there are plenty of other sites. Respect the community.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I think the comparison of Sarah Palin to Alan Keyes is demeaning - to Sarah Palin.
Keyes is on an entirely differnt level of ignorance (in the truest sense of the word). His [ignorance] is a conscious rejection of logic for ideology and ambition(see Micheal Steele); her's is based on an actual lack of certain policy knowledge.
You really don't think most of Palin's choices were motivated by ambition?
Wow, I had literally clicked on "Comments" to come say: "That's what she is! She's Alan Keyes!"
I think that TNC was speaking more here about the kind of emotion Palin evokes among a majority of women, rather than a one-on-one comparison of her qualities or skills to those of Keyes -- the question of: How does he/she represent the best of us and our striving? And the answer in both cases is: He/She doesn't. He/She is an embarrassment.
BUT, I have to say, if I were to describe Sarah Palin, I would say "Her ignorance is a conscious rejection of logic [and facts!] for ideology and ambition [and personal vendettas!]", so.... Yeah.
I'll agree to disagree most vociferously here!
Yeah what Ella said. The point isn't about them, but how two respective communities experience them.
/does a little Snoopy dance!/
Did 24% of blacks think Alan Keyes was qualified?
I know that only 27% of IL voters were willing to vote for him, and that IL has a lot of black people in it (north of I-80), but that's all I know.
As a human, I find both equally embarrassing; as a parent, I can respect Alan Keyes' ideologically-driven insanity more.
Sarah is against teens having sex, but she's helping her kid raise the baby; Alan kicked his lesbian daughter out of his house, and put her in the street suggesting that he would get up a crowd with stones if she didn't repent.
Now THAT, my friends, is a principled person.
heh? this doesn't even make any sense...how is NOT aborting your child even remotly comparable to being OPENLY gay? Ponder if it was one of the Palin kids coming out of the closet...you don't think they would get some kind of "counseling"...followed by a swift kick out the door if it didn't work? And are you arguing that Keyes wouldn't support his "theoritically" straight daughter if she had a hypothetical out-of-wedlock baby?
Bruce, I don't think the fulfillment of the principle, from Phoenix's perspective would have been having Bristol have an abortion, but to instead disown her for not practicing abstinence, or at least to have ensured that the baby be born in wedlock. I don't think that I agree with the point, but I think you misunderstood it.
ok that makes sense...kind of...as long as u equate being straight with being abstinent....i think...my head hurts...
You get Alan Keyes precisly reversed in my opinion. Mr. Keyes is nothing if not logical in his approach to the issues. This logic springs from an iron firm grip on his core beliefs. If you first accept his first principles, everything else he says follows logically. This doesn't mean you have to agree with his principals, but at least he is consistant.
I was going to say that Sarah Palin is above all a know-nothing buffoon. That's the heart of the issue with her. Keyes is very thoughtful, articulate, and defends himself quite capably on a intellectual level. He's just wrong as hell on most of the issues that matter, especially those that matter to black people.
Dude, check this out:
I agree.
We agree on something!
I wasn't going to get into it in my earlier comment because I was focused on something else, but you're right. Keyes has an iron grip on what he believes to be true, and everything else seems to come from that.
@ Ellaesther
Alan Keyes, bringing people together!
Who'd have thunk it? =)
@Ella
Alan Keyes, bringing people together!
Who woulda thought it?
Fundamentally, this is what irritates me most about the Palin hoopla: she’s not going anywhere. The MSM desperately want her to run for president, and maybe she will, but she hasn’t got a chance in hell of getting out of the primaries. They want her to stick around because she generates the right level of interest to drive up ad revenue, but so much of the interest is driven by antipathy and awe (in the bad sense) that the ratings numbers alone can mask the fact that she simply cannot win her party's nomination. She can’t. Yes, it would be great news for Bill Kristol (not to mention Barack Obama) if she were a viable contender in 2012. But she’s not. She’s just not. So all of the recent coverage of her seems so cynical and gross to me. She’s not going anywhere, and everybody who keeps asking the question 'Will she run?' knows it.
I would submit that the MSM desperately want her to keep stirring the pot. If that's a run for the White House, great. If it's a boxing match with Levi, well, that's probably even better!
I remember seeing a post somewhere, from Rikyrah or Jill I think at JJP, (or maybe even a comment here) that said that women see Palin for what she is, see her game for what it is, recognize it because of either bearing witness or because they themselves have played it. Insightful opinion, that.
I must admit, the only part of the Palin political debacle that I find remotely amusing, is how some males transparently lose allllll their cookies over someone so barren -- intellectually. Sadly amusing. Bill Kristol with that rapturous look on his face while speaking of her is just sadly sadly funny...like nobody can figure out what his freakness is.
I wonder what the male/female split for John Edwards' support was in 2004 and 2008. His always seemed to be a persona constructed for the consumption of female viewers. Both he and Palin seemed to contruct these architypal images of themselves based on a sort of stereotypical ideal as seen through the eyes of the opposite sex.
I've never known any man who thought that Edwards was anything more than an empty suit. And while I've never personally known anybody who can stand Sarah Palin, I do get the sense that the women I know hate her even more.
I agree Palin will never be President, but there's a difference between being "qualified for the presidency", which the numbers show few people think Palin is, and being "liked" or "loved", which the numbers don't address.
So Frum should have just stayed away from talking about people liking or loving Palin.
Really - you think that distinction matters?
Women are going to say, "I don't think she's qualified, and I said I'd never vote for her, but doggone it, I just LIKE her. I'm gonna vote for her anyway."??
Err, no - sorry if I wasn't clear. Like I said, I don't think she'll ever be President. What I'm saying is don't mistake the popularity she has on her book tour for any kind of mandate to run for office. Sure there are some who want her to run, but I think there are a lot of people who like her, and admire her for getting where she has, but still don't see her as President.
Kind of how the President's likability numbers are usually hire than his job approval numbers.
Isn't the "might vote for x" number going to be substantially lower than the "thinks x is qualified" number? Quick thought experiment - how many of you thought that John McCain was "qualified" to be President, while not even contemplating actually voting for him?
but it seems a lot of people - women specifically - don't like her on a personal level either. i think she comes across to many people, including and possibly even especially conservative-leaning voters, as transparently phony, and they find that 'folksy' shtick to be condescending when it comes with a lack of integrity, with fame-seeking, with a lack of knowledge on many issues.
I probably lean slightly more conservative (ended up voting independent in '08) than most of you on certain issues (abortion for one) but I couldn't stand her for all those reasons you mentioned and more. If anything, I found her lack of substance and general principles profoundly grating.
I think it's more than that. Women specifically have fought the "sleeping your way to the top" canard since they entered the workplace, and then alongs comes this completely unqualified woman who WINKS during the Vice Presidential Debate! What the hell was that except an attempt to trade on her sexuality to try to get the second most important job in this country? It was especially grating in an election involving Hillary Clinton, who is in so many ways the anti-Palin.
Speaking as a liberal, what annoys me about Sarah Palin is her existence as a politician. She's ridiculous. She's incoherent. She lacks basic knowledge. It annoys me that her entire career is based on grievances with the right entities: the Left, the media. Katie Couric makes her look like an idiot, and that's Katie Couric's fault? That's the liberal media's fault? No, Sarah. It's yours.
Of course, she's popular. She's very popular! So's Bill O'Reilly, so's Sean Hannity, so's Michael Moore. *These people cannot be president*.
I'm fascinated by her, but I also just want her to go away. She's embarassing for the country. Is it good for Obama that she's the face of the right? Probably!
I'm certain that Mr. Obama and his supporters are overjoyed when Sarah Palin is viewed as the face of the opposition. In more devious times, they'd probably be secretly funding her. She's the best thing that's happened to the left in recent memory.
Let me say, I marvel at how easily a certain meme like "Palin Is liked by the people" can grab hold when there is eveidence to support otherwise.
That being said, I am even more amazed that the press/punditry can continue to predict and poll for an election so far away after historically being so wrong on predicting the field. To play devil's advocate, at this point last election cycle and even up to Iowa, Barack Obama did not have support of African Americans. There were plenty of people that said no black candidate will ever be president with out the support of the black electorate. There is just no way of knowing how the field will look in 2012, and to be honest, void of scandal I can't see how Obama could lose. Marc Ambinder's piece about the breakdown of voting groups in '08 is wonderful, and to me the biggest trend is the under 30 bloc which has increased every election. Don't see that changing, and don't see the them trending toward Republican, same for most non-white votes.
The big difference is that few, black or white, knew who Barack Obama was before Iowa.
Everyone has an opinion on Sarah Palin already, and there are NO signs (NONE!) of her doing a single thing to change the existing opinion.
I suppose there could be a way to find out if this is true, but it strikes me as not right. Remember the excitement on the day Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield? What about the night of his 2004 Democratic convention speech? I think "few" might not be the right word. Though I don't have empirical evidence to say for sure, just my sense from what I saw, heard, remember.
I think there's a difference between 'the general public' and 'those who follow politics.' How many people watched the '04 convention?
This isn't a fair comparison. It's true that black voters were supporting Hillary--in the primary. What isn't true is that some 75 percent of African-Americans thought Obama was unqualified. That's crucial. Moreover there are a more women of all colors then there are African-Americans. It's also not the case that the more blacks saw of Obama, the less they liked him. Obama was, relatively, unknown when he ran. Palin isn't unknown to women. She's just unliked.
A stagnant economy probably wouldn't help.
The problem for Republicans in '08 was the fact that McCain/Palin was a completely lackluster team (same with Kerry/Edwards in '04). If the Republicans can come up with a W-style candidate who attracts independents, blue-blazer Republicans and "Real Americans," Obama could very well lose.
I agree with what you're saying here, but that candidate is not Sarah Palin.
Oh, me neither. She's almost as toxic to the first two groups as McCain was to the third.
Here is the thing, where is that person??? I follow politics fairly closely, I watched the Conventions, way too much cspan, and I don't see that person anywhere? I don't see see anyone on the Repqublican side, framing conservatism in way that embraces inclusion and doesn't alienate either moderates or staunch conservatives.
After '04 they were a few of the type of candidate on the Democratic side, you had a guy like Jim Webb, Edwards pre-scandal, of course Barack Obama, and if all else failed Hillary. By this time last election Obama was already on the scenne, making waves and causing people to take notice. I just don't see that person on the Republican side yet.
Obama was actually starting to generate some interest after his speech at the '04 DNC. Was there an equivalent in '08 at the RNC? Not that I recall.
Like I said, they need another W, and there doesn't appear to be one waiting in the wings.
Here is where I think we can get snookered by early polls like this. We assume that the majority of Americans who voted in the '08 election, follow this sort of thing like we do. If you take all the Fox/cable news viewers, throw in network news and political blogs we are talking about, what 20-30 million people(I think that is generous). In an electorate that cast over 130 million votes. This early, most people just dont give it much thought. Sure if you watch Oprah you know who Palin is, but if I recall Obama went on Oprah to sell "Audacity of Hope". I don't think it was so much that Obama was an unknow as it was that most people, up until Iowa, believed he couldn't defeat the Clinton machine. All I'm trying to do is caution about reading too much into polling this early. I definetly agree that the most damaging thing about the polling for Palin would seem to be that the more people get to know Palin, the more they dislike her. I don't see that trend changing much regardless of sample size. I put more stock into that sort of number than qaulified/unqualified.
Of course, one of them was on a national ticket four years prior to the hypothetical election. The other was on cable (as I don't think his keynote was covered by the networks) giving the keynote address at the DNC four years prior to his election. One was unknown. The other sold 700,000 copies of her book in the first week.
Good point, she was definately on the ballot in '08 which blows a gigantic whole in my "most of the 130 million who voted, aren't paying attention" theory. Obviously those people had a clear choice, her being among the choices. I just get real uncomfortable about polling this far out, I can't trust it, and the fact that she was only 5% of the vote from being a heartbeat away truly frightens me.
I also want to dispute the fact that Obama was unknown, I will conced that right now Palin has way more notoriety than Obama did at this point last election, but he was far from unknown. Going into '07, A full year before the primaries, he was neck and neck and by the end of '07 ahead of Hillary in terms of fundraising. The guy drew 15,000+ to his announcement that he was running in '06 and it was covered live by all the networks.
Good point, this blows a gigantic whole in my "most of the 130 million who voted, aren't thinking about it" theory. Clearly they already had a choice, and Palin was among those choices. I just have a hard time trusting polls this far out, and the fact that she wad 5% of the vote from being a heartbeat away frightens me.
I would like to dispute the notion that Obama was an unknown. I will concede that Palin has more notoriety, than Obama at this point in the last election cycle. But, he was hardly an unkown. We forget that after he announced, an announcement in Jan '07 that drew 15,000+ and was covered live by all the networks, he had already pulled even with Hillary in terms of fundraising. By the mid-year he was ahead. Like I said, the big issue with him was whether or not he could get by the Clinton machine, not that people didn't know who he was.
Not sure I agree with this. A lot of people support her - if only out of knowing her in the media - http://www.polladium.com/poll.php?poll_id=399&location_id=1
Note: this link looks pretty much like spam to me-- there's no useful content.
I am appalled that the above article made it into The Atlantic! No, not because of the content; Sarah never will be president. I'm referring to the puerile spelling employed by its author. The use of "your" instead of "you're" as well as "to" where "too" should have been written.
I expect as much in a comment left by a teenage iPhone user texted while driving, but not from an actual published Atlantic article.
"Puerile." I hear that a lot. I'm fixing the spelling, now.
Ask first whether she could ever be VICE president. The answer is no.
If she didn't have a good chance you liberals would not keep running stories daily headlines about her not being qualified, nor would your supporters spend most of their time responding or commenting on how she doesn't have a chance. Funny how an attractive, intelligent republican female scares you guys so much. Must be because she not the average female liberal, A mullet wearing, PETA supporting lesbian member of NOW. Poor libs cant sleep at night worring about her. GO SARAH!!
You're absolutely right, I can't sleep at night worrying about what might have been if she was an unreliable heartbeat away from the Presidency.
As should anyone with half a brain, or even a quarter.
GO INTELLIGENT THOUGHT!
"Funny how an attractive, intelligent republican female ..."
I only dispute three of these adjectives.
"... average female liberal, A mullet wearing, PETA supporting lesbian member of NOW."
As a happy liberal male, I and my boy-parts can assure you that this not not describe a typical liberal woman, not even the lesbians. Speaking of which, have you SEEN a Pride event lately? The real lesbians are cuter than fashion models.
"Funny how [Sarah Palin] scares you guys so much."
Are you freakin' kidding me? I'm wetting myself with glee, and so is everybody I know. She's our dream opponent. She lays bare everything about your party and ideology that we hold in utter contempt: Your cluelessness, arrogance, utter lack of concern for the vulnerable and the future, your worship of wealth as the determinant of human value, your casual attitude toward the grave responsibilities of public office, your substitution of glib talking points for policy analysis, your mindless jingoism, your rank hypocrisy, your deeply troubled relationship with the truth. She is a better refutation of the conservative creed than anything we could make up. She is a giant gift-wrapped wet dream for liberals who might otherwise be concerned about 2012. I'm on my knees praying to the God I cherish that conservatives are THAT FRICKIN' STUPID! If she announces, I'm going to launch a fund-raising drive for her among my liberal friends. In the words of my second-least-favorite President: "Bring it on!"
Reading that last paragraph, the only thing I regret is the absence of the word "vacuous." Feel free to insert it where appropriate.
If this weren't the Atlantic Monthly, I wouldn't be doing this, but ...
"You can't be a female candidate, and have only a quarter of all American women think your qualified."
should be:
"You can't be a female candidate, and have only a quarter of all American women think you're qualified."
and
"Moreover, most women--conservative or not--know it to."
should be:
"Moreover, most women--conservative or not--know it too."
or, better:
"Moreover, most women--conservative or not--know it, too."
I like the piece on substance, and it may be just the magazine's blog and not the print version, but come on. You're a professional writer. It would have taken you three minutes to read this over.
Coates, you have some new fans!
Congratulations. You have now Made It...folks came here to criticize you're proofreading.
(For the humor impaired, that's a joke.)
Yeah, it's pretty awesome. I must have gotten some play on google or something.
The google news machine loves you today. Or really hates you. You can never tell what the motivation of these machines are anymore.
Palin is perfectly qualified to be the next Oprah. And that's what she is running for. There is no derision here. Oprah is an extremely smart business woman, but also holds a number of ridiculous opinions and is ignorant of quite a few subjects. No one would want her as president either, but it worked great on day-time TV, Fox is ready to take Sara Palin in the same role and it will extremely successful, I bet you.
Except for the fact that women, by and large, like Oprah. Plus, I think Oprah is probably a ton smarter than Sarah Palin. One of them constructed a billion dollar empire. The other was elected governor of a state with a population of about 750 thousand people.
It really seems like there's no sense even beginning to compare Oprah and SP, even if SP aspires to be like Oprah and have a successful talk show. Oprah is majestic in many ways, probably most of all in the self-possession, willingness to both be humble and lead, and curiosity, intellectual and otherwise. She has that radiant kind of brightness that pushes the world toward something better. SP really seems quite self-serving and willing to shrink the world down to a shoddy kind of small-mindedness that even seems to frighten her in candid moments. Please let's reach for gloriousness and insist on vaulting over and beyond this spirit-crushing exercise of rewarding despicable people with attention. (Dick C. included.)
I disagree. I think Palin is qualified to be the next Jerry Springer. I can only imagine her show being part Maury, part Springer, part Tyra, and possibly a little Judge Judy.
I don't really like Oprah, but at least Oprah had to work hard to gain the top spot. Palin works hard to protect the low spot, in spite of herself.
How do similar numbers for other female candidates for office break down? It wouldn't surprise me to find out that female voters tend to rate female candidates as qualified less often than do male voters as a general result.
Hey, if you Google "Sarah Palin" this post is listed in the top three news results. Get ready for the trolls.
Came here to point this out- it's a main headline on Google News too. Prepare the Trollhammer!
Fuck...
It's what you get for being all provocative with the title. Next time, equivocate. "I don't think it's very likely, given the specifics of her numbers, that Sarah Palin will ever be nominated by her party to seek the office of president, and even in that instance, she's very unlikely to win"
Is that too long for a heading?
Yeah, that's what did it. It's an interesting comment on why people click on things.
The proofreaders are already here.
Are you guys sticking around for the madness?
Do please retain this page and make a link to it available through the 2012 election. In fact, keep it active through her inauguration. What fun it will be to watch you eat crow! Try to look smug with a mouth full of feathers!
Funny, I remember being told the same thing about the '08 election too.
How'd that turn out again? Who ate crow again?
Never underestimate the ability of people to fool themselves into seeing what they want to see in a candidate. My sister is openly gay and supports anything that remotely associated with promoting into women, regardless of their political position. When Hillary Clinton was competing against Obama for the democratic nomination she was out there supporting Clinton for all she was worth. After Obama won the nomination and Mccain selected Palin as his running mate, she suddenly became an ardent republican supporting Mccain and worshipping Palin. The fact that Palin is a woman is the only thing that matters to her, regardless of the fact that Palin would likely stomp on an agenda for same sex marriage and protections against discrimination against gays. Political packaging can get people to support and vote for candidates who are against the personal convictions of the voter. People will vote for the candidate they want to be, not the candidate who will do what they want. The republican packagers are counting on that to lift Palin into office
I'm a woman, I can't stand Sarah Palin, and what's more, I wouldn't be able to stand her even if she agreed with me politically, 100%. In fact it might even be worse if she agreed with me, because then I would think she was REALLY making me look dumb. The problem is not really her views, it's the complete and total lack of any knowledge, logic, or examination behind them, and that she is PROUD of that fact and apparently considers it an asset that qualifies her for public office.
I think the fact that this author puts "attractive" before "intelligent" in his comment says far more than he probably intended.
i'm sure most people would have said white people wouldn't vote for a black man 3 years ago too
Not even sure how that is relevant.
Reading people from her past talk about how they were portrayed in "Going Rogue" makes me hope, somewhere way deep down, that she's got a Liz Lemon-esque jaded perception of her own history. She perceives that everyone was bullying her when, in fact, she was and is the bully.
Otherwise, she's just craycray and full of nasty Haterade.
Maybe it's time to stop looking for the best in people...
OK, let's talk about being "qualified" to be President. The buffoon in the White House certainly is not.
True - Sarah Palin has way more beauty pagents under her belt than Obama does.
Don't feed em.
Do you have $20 to put on your bet.?????
I have never been happier about the 19th Amendment.
Not sure if you looked at latest polls out today. Including all Americans, Sarah Palin has a favorable rating of 46%, Barack Obama is at 49%(Gallup). I am not a Palin supporter, but she has a lot more power right now than she did a year ago with independents now giving her approval above 50%, and Obama approval among independents in the 30's. Many Americans are getting frustrated with almost every Obama policy right now, I am not sure if I could vote for Sarah Palin, but sometimes people choose who they beleive to be the lesser of two evils.
Please, PBS don't fool yourselves into believing that your rating are no good based on not enough advertisements-nope-it's the socialistic agenda and your undying love for Obama that you write words like this. My daughter thought it was wild that sesame street had president Obama's wife on it-I said, no that's because PBS is not fair and balanced-I said, google Sesame Street and George Bush-she said, there's nothing there-I said, exactly. You know you could teach children general respect for all presidents-instead-You make it very clear which way you lean!
Believe me, I'm not saying Palin has a chance, what I am saying is by being so against people like her-you turn off Republicans and other parties who once thought to give Obama a chance. Not again! Wait till 2010-Your puppet won't be able to do anything! And WE american's who do not hold the views of CBS will vote out all those who hold so dear to you and your president! Let's see where CBS will be then!
Just the sheer volume of responses confirm my suspicions, the liberals are scared to death of Sara Palin because she stands for freedom, honesty, decency and motherhood.
Not afraid to speak her mind and not afraid to confront critics.
Her message rings true to much of America, remember Obama did not win in a landslide. Quote polls all you want in your rants.
Will she run for President? Are her qualifications less than a community organizer? If she runs, she will win.
I shall resurrect a comment of mine from earlier this year.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/a_dose_of_palinism.php
"I think of her as Nixon with tits, a ridiculous accent, and 30 fewer IQ points."
Although, on further reflection. I probably should have said 50 fewer IQ points.
Yup, this thread is going to be verrrry entertaining for the next few hours, with the standard misunderstanding of socialism and all....
I made a witty and incisive comment that was caught up in "moderation".
Either one word caused that or the link I provided to an earlier TNC discussion on Sister Sarah.
Please free it so like Sister Sarah my intelligence can be plain for all to see.
So what if Sarah isn't "qualified".
None of the last four presidents were fully qualified. Obama is by far the least qualified of this sad group of four incompetents. If he hadn't spent his entire Senate career preparing to create the appearance of being qualified, he would have made at least as bad an appearance as Sarah. Remember, she was chosen out of the blue by McCain with zero prep or notice. Even then, she revived McCain's momentum.
What Sarah does have is a political position that many Americans find refreshing in the face of rising socialism and state sponsored political correctness. Those women who have substituted the state for a husband as a co-provider will, of course, reject Sarah, because they want their meal ticket to expand rather than contract.
If Sarah wants to become a viable candidate, she should spend serious amounts of time over the next three years studing with economists, international affairs experts, and candidate preparers, while ignoring the whining from her left.