Conservatives have faired fairly well when they nominate someone who appears to the young like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger hollywood. Palin fits the diva image of those hollywood actresses. Perhaps it didn't go over so well with the old man image of J. McCain but standing alone it may very well go over.

"Alaska Senator"?

Almost 80% of Republicans want Palin at the top of the Ticket in 2012 and I can tell you 100% of the Dems want her at the top of the Ticket as well

we can start printing our 2012 victory posters now  

She's young enough.

Clinton v. Palin, 2016?

A possibility.

Especially if she challenges Begich in 2014 and wins or knocks off Lisa Murkowski in the primary in 2010 (a more interesting possibility).

Perhaps I'm taking too rational an approach to what in the end is a more subjective or even gut level decision made by many voters.

One can not speak of the base of the Republican party in rational terms.

Or, in more polite words, there's some fantastical appeal to her not rooted in ration.

Let's be honest, though. She is a wingnut's wet dream. An attractive <del>MILF</del>GILF who likes to hunt and breed and read the John Birch Society Newsletters and who is dumb as dirt.

I think this is why there is such a disconnect between base enthusiasm and voter response.

Like some fetish, she appeals to some on a basal level, and not the majority of others.

The GOP have a very uphill battle with her. Everybody knows her. They have to get all these people who aren't turned on by her to find something appealing in her, and as we just saw, there really is absolutely nothing there.

As a progressive Democrat who does not agree with Palin on 99.9% of the issues - I LIKE HER!!!

I find her a breathe of fresh air.

She is down-to-earth, and so completely different than what you find in Washington that I completely see her appeal.

While I would find it nearly impossible to vote for her (I say nearly because I will leave a small door open if BO fails me) based on where she stands on the issues. I completely 'GET' why so many Republicans and Rep women are enamored with her.

Ater listening to months and months of campaign jargon - triangulation and skirting the issues - listening to Sarah Palin is like talking to your neighbor. She's fresh, open, approachable, and down-to-earth.

I doubt that we have anything to worry about - UNLESS - Obama turns into another Jimmy Carter. But based on how he has executed his campaign, and now transisiton - I simply do not see that happening.

2016? Well that's a different story.

I still want my Hillary - but my fear is her age (in 2016) and a potential dem backlash (by then) just watching how the pendulum swings.....

I think the GOP has to start getting out of their habit of picking stupid but somewhat genial people to be their presidential candidate.

fascist movement in America.

She's shallow, nasty, vindictive, a pathological liar, proud of her ignorance, and passes herself off as just a regular gal when in fact she has nothing in common with the typical working stiff. A perfect Republican politician.

History is full of stupid populist thugs who connected with majorities to reek havoc on their countries so I would never dismiss her appeal and political skills. In all likelihood if Obama leads a successful administration as I expect him to despite the unprecedented challenges we face Palin will remain a cartoon side show. But populist demagogues are always potentially dangerous.

I think what will happen with Palin is she will get re-elected as Governor in 2010, then run for Begich's senate seat in 2014..then run for president in 2016 or 2020.  That's the most probable scenario.  She'll have much more experience and be a far more credible presidential candidate by 2016 or 2020.

News reports in 2010: Remember Sarah Palin? She was just re-elected governor in Alaksa.

News reports in 2012: Remeber Sarah Palin? She seems a distant memory.

News reports in 2016: Who's Sarah Palin?

She was the flavor of the month for conservatives because they had no other choice. After awhile, her flaws will be evident even to them, and they'll rally around someone else. Sarah is destined to be a footnote in history, at least as far as the national stage goes.

I'm with Sullivan, she's a nasty piece of work and a national embarrassment.  He makes a good point about her 'alternate reality' and effortless lying being typical of someone who has lived a lifetime with the cognitive dissonance of accepting the bible as the literal word of God.  She is clever in a cunning, dishonest sort of way and her ambition is boundless and unabashedly selfish, but I can't imagine her posing a serious electoral threat no matter how much civics and geography she has crammmed into her.  

If she does we're probably doomed anyhow, she is easily the narrowest and least tolerant national political personality we've seen since segregation and she has no more nuanced a world-view or sense of history than reality television.

You guys all need something to worry about don't you?

We just won and you are already talking about how we could lose and how much trouble we might be in?

Chill out.

It doesn't matter who the Repugs nominate in 2012. Obama will be an INSTITUTION by then.

The REAL question is who will run for the Democrats in 2016? Had we the brains God gave the little geese we'd now have President Clinton till 2016 and then President Obama until 2024. We'd have controlled America, AND the SUPREME COURT for a GENERATION - instead we now have a REAL PROBLEM in 2016.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Is that how this works?  Count me out.  Just because he says nasty things about Palin, doesn't mean we should be legitimizing him or his views.  He was a fool in 2000 and he is still a fool now.

As a reminder, here's some things that Mr. Sullivan wrote on this day (11/13) in previous years:

(11/13/2001):  NOW, KABUL: Would anyone have guessed that the Taliban would have essentially abandoned Kabul by now? Or that Washington would be trying to rein in military success? So much for the New York Times' prediction of "quagmire."

[...]

Let's take Kabul now. Then on to Kandahar and, at some point, Baghdad. Yes, Baghdad. We have a job to finish.

(11/13/2002):  FORGET THE DEMOGRAPHICS: [...]  The general loathing of Bush, Gore's disavowal of Clintonian centrism, Edwards' reliance on Bob Shrum, Pelosi's ascension to House leadership - all these play into Republicans' hands. (How, I wonder, can the Democrats elect a House leader who voted against war against Iraq? Are they serious?) The liberal intelligentsia - epitomized by the New York Times editorial page - shows no sign of rethinking and is actually urging more strenuous leftism, not accommodation or new directions. If the war goes well, and if the economy revives, it's therefore hard to see anything but Democratic collapse under this new leadership.

(11/13/2003):  FIFTH COLUMN WATCH: How can one express adequate horror at Ted Rall's latest rationalization for murdering U.S. and allied troops. Check out this column, written as a memo to Baathists and terrorists now killing Americans - and published on Veterans' Day:

   It is no easy thing to shoot or blow up young men and women because they wear American uniforms. Indeed, the soldiers are themselves oppressed members of America's vast underclass. Many don't want to be here; joining America's mercenary army is the only way they can afford to attend university. Others, because they are poor and uneducated, do not understand that they are being used as pawns in Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s cynical oil war. Unfortunately, we can't help these innocent U.S. soldiers. They are victims, like ourselves, of the bandits in Washington. Nor can we disabuse them of the propaganda that an occupier isn't always an oppressor. We regret their deaths, but we must continue to kill them until the last one has gone home to America... In this vein we must also take action against our own Iraqi citizens who choose to collaborate with the enemy. Bush wants to put an "Iraqi face" on the occupation. If we allow the Americans to corrupt our friends and neighbors by turning them into puppet policemen and sellouts, our independence will be lost forever. If someone you know is considering taking a job with the Americans, tell him that he is engaging in treason and encourage him to seek honest work instead. If he refuses, you must kill him as a warning to other weak-minded individuals... To victory!

After 9/11, I was roundly criticized for daring to suggest that there were some people in America who wanted the terrorists to win. But if you read Ted Rall and others, there can be no mistake. There is a virulent strain of anti-Americanism in this country. Some, like Rall, are now urging the murder of American troops in defense of Islamist terrorists and the acolytes of one of the most brutal dictators in history. Ann Coulter couldn't invent something this depraved. That's where parts of the left have now come to reside. It's as sad as it is sickening.

That's enough.  I can't wade through that swamp any more.

At least, Josh Orton's post "Village Comeuppance" tried to make the same point (though the post seemed to be roundly ignored at the time).

But on the other hand, I have no love for Andrew Sullivan or Joe Klein or anyone else ostracized by the McCain campaign. For years, Klein and Sullivan were some of the most prominent espousers of fact-free Village-think. And Sullivan still is largely wrong on the economy, if his recent 'personal responsibility' rant on Bill Maher is any indication.

So McCain's campaign looks ridiculous blaming the media for its downfall, and kicking members off the campaign plane is spiteful and immature. But can we find better representatives for journalistic freedom than Klein, Sullivan, and Dowd?

I think that many conservatives like her because she is a staunchly pro-life woman who acts on her principles  (both with having Trig and essentially forcing Levi to marry Bristol).  

The real question for me is whether the Republicans will learn the wrong lesson from this election.  Democrats learned the right lesson in 2004: nominate the candidate you want, not the one you think has the best chance in the general.  In 2008, that meant taking a risk in voting for Obama in the primaries, even when it seemed like Hillary would be more of a sure thing in the general (well, to many people, anyway).

If the Republicans learn that same lesson right now, it will doom them, and here is why.  If they decide that McCain was the one they thought could win but did not really want, they will nominate Palin or someone like her in 2012 (think Jindal or Gingrich).  They will decide to vote for their ideal candidate, electability be damned.  Normally, I think that makes a lot of sense for two reasons: 1) It creates a passionate movement that makes GOTV and fundraising much more effective, and 2) it maintains the party's core principles.  Number 2 is much more important for the long term, as sometimes losing with the right candidate can mean more in terms of party stability than winning with the wrong one.  

But if the Republicans nominate someone who is staunchly arch-conservative it will help with long-term party principle coherence, but it will not help them win 2012.  That's because the country has shifted to the left.  Maybe not enormously, but considerably.  A Palin or a Gingrich cannot win in the current political environment.  However, I think they would do well to nominate an arch-conservative as a way to, at the very least, maintain their core principles.  If they keep nominating McCain-esque candidates, they won't be the party of anything.  Then we can officially call them the New Know-Nothings.