She is certainly very good at getting and holding people’s attention, and of charming a significant fraction of the population.
Well, she’d be the best-looking president…
I assume the “beltway outsider” stance has some merit; certainly it’s invoked often enough in American politics.
That’s nice. Why don’t you go start a thread on that topic?
In fairness, that ability is a real job qualification.
Was it stimulating intellectually, with hard facts and figures?
And she dresses nice.
In fairness, read the OP.
*“You canna break the laws of physics!” *- Scotty
Serious:
She doesn’t need those types of intellectual chops. She needs intuition and a strong sense of direction—if that intuition and direction line up with your personal political beliefs, she’s amply demonstrated that she will pursue those goals and objectives without sidetracking or getting bogged down in research. The president sets broad policy guidelines and has people implement them; micro-managing is counterproductive.
Furthermore, she has demonstrated that she has a strong will and is not a mere puppet. Once in office, her administration will not be subject to a schism between the figurehead (her) and the puppetmaster behind the scenes. She has demonstrated that she cannot be easily cowed into conforming to a role. If she is in charge, she will use her authority as she sees fit, not to avoid angering or provoking someone lurking in the shadows. This kind of honesty will deliver clear policy goals.
Not so serious:
She’d only serve a year and a half before quitting.
No, not really, although inaugural speeches don’t really do that.
Um, yes, it is. You asked for “intellectual and well-reasoned”. You did not ask for “responsible, loyal, or not-a-quitter”. There is nothing stupid or unreasoned about dumping one job for another that brings in money by the shovelload.
But quitting on the people you promised to represent does not work as well reasoned to become president. Sure for her personal gain it made sense. But would you want to vote for someone for president who might quit part way through because someone offered her a reality show that pays better?
(I can’t believe I’m arguing this…)
Actually, if you want to become president, becoming a television personality for the years prior to your targeted election is a much more well-reasoned course of action than sitting out the intervening time as a mere governor of a rather out-of-the-way state. Her chances of doing anything in the position of Governor that would actually impress people were essentially nil; we wouldn’t even think to give her credit for not quitting, since that’s kind of expected anyway. Whereas by comparison as a TV personality she can stay in the news, retain a fanbase, and has a forum for any political opinions she may have.
Had she been in Congress or something, such a move might have been less prudent, since Congress is seen as a somewhat natural and expected step on the way to presidency. But Governor? It’s not like any of us were impressed with her Governor creds when she had them.
No, switching jobs was definitely the more prudent and intelligent move on any number of fronts. So much so that I find myself wondering if somebody else suggested it to her. 
No, it is not.
bolding mine.
It’s like I’ve walked into a shoe store and asked for some blue shoes. Half the clerks are showing me every shoe that isn’t blue, the other half are showing me blue socks.
Gadzooks, the vast emptiness of the Alaskan wilderness is so peaceful, so silent.
Oh good grief.
I take it as a given that at some point she made a speech or wrote a paper mentioning that whe was qutting as governor, and also that at some point she made a speech or wrote a paper indicating that she was becoming a Television personality. (I will interpret a speech as a television personality as counting for the latter.) I am in fact taking the existence of these things as so given, that I’m not even going to bother looking them up.
I’m debating the nominal topic of the thread. If this was supposed to be a parody thread instead (banning legitimate debate), then it’s in the wrong forum.
You’re assuming that “worthy of being president” is necessarily based on speeches and papers. (Very convenient in case you happen to be an Obama fan.) But I don’t think history supports that. The real case for Palin being worthy of being president would have to rest primarily on her performance as governor of Alaska.
Make of that what you will.
I realize (despite earnest protestations by the OP to stay on target) that this is a joke thread, but…well, why does ‘worthy of being President’ necessitate ‘papers’ or ‘speeches’ that are ‘intellectual and well-reasoned’?? Being President is simply about convincing a majority of voting American’s to vote for you. You don’t have to write papers (whatever that actually means), or even write the speeches you give (I’d say most politicians don’t do this in any case, though they obviously have input into what’s written)…hell, you don’t even have to be ‘worthy’ (or, in the case of Bush, particularly good at GIVING the speeches someone else wrote for you)…you simply have to be able to convince a majority of voters in the US to vote for you.
So…she will demonstrate her worthatude to be President if and when she gets herself elected. If she doesn’t, she lacks that certain worthalicious quality that Presidents need to be worthsected and worthlected.
-XT
You’ve seem to have mistaken this for a televised debate, where the moderator asks a question and the respondee ignores the question asked and makes the point she/he came out to make. This is not a “parody thread”. This is a focused thread dealing with a specific area of Sarah Palin’s expertise(or lack thereof, if examples asked for do not appear.)
:dubious: This is the equivalent of starting a debate here on the 'dope asking (earnestly) for examples of why Intelligent Design is worthy of scientific study and funding on par with Evolution, in the hopeful expectation to get real responses.
I don’t believe that even the ‘conservatives’ (such as they are on this board) around here are fans of Palin, or think she can or will be President. Hell, I’m not even sure most actual conservatives NOT on this board really believe she has much of a chance to get elected to the top seat…certainly not going up against an incumbent Obama.
-XT