Well, I had suggested that if Palin played it right she could emerge the winner from this scandal [if it's right to even speak of 'winners' here - but of course it is - it's politics, only a naive fool would imagine all parties involved are not vigourously calculating how to mitigate damage or capitalize on opportunities] - but I guess she hasn't played it right, anyway she's getting kicked around for her responding message yesterday, mainly for the 'blood libel' reference.
Now, I'm surprised she did anything - I thought the right move was to wait at least another week, or possibly even better make no response at all other than sending out condolences to the victims and their families and thereby rise above the political/media fray. She decided otherwise and, more revealing, decided to compete directly with Obama's big memorial speech [which is getting high praise from just about everyone]. This decision suggests various possibilities: She doesn't care about the fallout because she has no national intentions and is only concerned with 'her brand' - it's always seemed highly plausible that she has no intentions of running for president and only keeps that pot boiling for other purposes; she does have national intentions, why else go head to head with Obama, but is somewhat delusional concerning her powers of persuasion and her ability to appeal to the country as a whole; she may or may not have national intentions but continues to suffer from her refusal to hire a staff made up of Washington professionals, the type of people who would have nixed any 'blood libel' reference and probably have strongly advised against trying to compete with Obama who has clearly shown he has only one real talent - giving evocative speeches - and now has the added advantage of the solemn authority and prestige that come with the office.
I think either of the above scenarios could be accurate - the last two though seem to lend credence to claims that Palin lacks the goods for national office - the goods here being the intellectual heft and a manageable personality type that would enable one to endure not only the grueling primary and presidential campaigns but also the demands of being the most powerful person in the world.
True, I think the intellectual component of effective leadership is overstated - I think people lean on it cause it's easily quantifiable, easily supported by, paradoxically enough, superficial signs, traits and talismans - I think Obama is a perfect example of how distorting and false this view of intellect and leadership can be - although it's not like I want my leader to be an idiot - I'm just saying effective leadership is a much more complex mix and match of attributes, many of which have nothing or little to do with high intelligence. So, Sarah being less than brilliant intellectually is not necessarily a disqualifier for me [and let's be honest, Obama's brilliance is an illusion manufactured by an adoring press - from what I can see he's written two mediocre books - about himself - served two mediocre, uninspiring years as a senator and graduated form an Ivy league law school - everyone who graduates from an Ivy league law school is smart, that's a given - smart don't make ya brilliant, though] - no, it would be the possibility of a fragile temperament that would be the more troubling to me given a Palin presidency - but again, it's my opinion she's either not running or, if she does, lacks the wherewithal to survive the primaries.
Although, that being said, if she does run and does manage to somehow survive the primaries - a lot of independents will be forced to reevaluate her, and then all bets are off.
