How daring: you pick Sarah Palin as the topic of your first pundit column!

How can anyone take Palin seriously as a presidential candidate? She was the governor of Alaska for two years. Two years.

Has our democracy gone so far down hill that someone could be the governor of our least populous state for less than a full term and be considered a legitimate presidential candidate?

Is the job of the presidency of so little importance that someone with two years of political experience can do it? Unlike her supporters, I don't count her years as an Alaskan mayor as political experience, because it was pretty minor stuff when compared to the presidency.

Mr. Jackson is simply a Bush apologist and Republican advocate. I do not expect anything original from this author. I vote for Dr. Richter at least he provides valuable information on important scientific issues and provides possible solutions to these problems. Mr. Jackson is only a Republican party PR agent. The right wing already has a monopoly on talk radio they do not need any additional forums for their propaganda.

This column is one of the better written. It is clear what the writer wants us to know. His perspective is clear as well. I am not asking if he is serious or trying to be humorous. I am not asking if he is taking a democrat's view or a republican's. His leanings are clear, but also are his thoughts about his topic.

Only one sentence leaves me asking if this needs to be re-written: "Obama's outsized spending turned battleground states Democratic and Republican states into battlegrounds."

Anyone can make a come back, and politics is a place where come backs can be compleltey unexepcted, from Winston Churchill to Richard Nixon. Maybe I am thankful that the phrase "years in the wilderness" did not come up in this column.

I would like to have learned more about what Sarah Palin is doing differently in her second act. While clearly written, I did not think there was anything compelling, or insightful in the column.

Mark John Hunter - Alpena

Is it too much to ask that future wapo pundits look at both sides of a problem, that they actually argue with themselves about the positive, as well as negative sides of an issue. I'm so tired of Krauthammer and others, who you don't need to read to know the positions they will take on any issue. I cannot, I repleat, I cannot take seriously anyone who writes from a single perspective. The writing becomes boring and not at all worth reading. I don't want to be preached to; I want my mind engaged.

the selection of palin to be put on the 2008 ticket signaled that the repubs were throwing in the towel. they didn't want any responsibility for cleaning up bushies mess because they know it will take at least a decade.
with her on the ticket, they insured that the dems. be would be in office to take the heat for idiot bushies 8 years of graft and theft.
where is the part about her quiting on her home state so she could cash in on a $1M+ book deal?

Ronald Reagan was the epitomal "empty suit", but far worse than that, he was even more the guy who always made sure he got "his" regardless of the deal, or who got hurt. He sold out the rest of Hollywood, during the end of is last term as president of SAG, giving producers a heartless edge over the people who actually made the pictures they sold. They called it the "great sellout" and may well be why Hollywood didn't really support Reagan, in his California or national campaigns. He went on TV to slander the "welfare bums" but always made sure he got everything coming to him. He never missed a check, not even when he was living on the taxpayers' nickel. He got $6 million for his "ranch" in the Santa Monica Mtns, but 8 years later, MGM, then in the midst of its bankruptcy, couldn't explain to its shareholders why they paid such an excessive price for 2,200 acres of hilly ground not even good for making movies! Reagan went from existing on the pittance he was making from Death Valley Days, in 1961, to being a millionaire governor--without ever doing anything to account for the money! Of course, he made that speech for Goldwater's convention (where they wouldn't even let Scranton's delegates IN THE CONVENTION CENTER!), and the ultra-right-wingers took to him like glue! Reagan campaigned against Carter's deficits, calling the $47 billion figure "Obscene" but NEVER had a deficit LESS THAN 3 TIMES AS HIGH! He took the Social Security increase, which was supposed to keep SS solvent until 2047, to make his election year deficits LOOK SMALLER! He OVERSPENT ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS in his first term, then did it again, in his second, setting the tone for republican'ts ever since. He deregulated the banks, which has a lot to do with what happened two years ago. To call him merely an "empty suit" is to overlook his venality, duplicity and cupidity.
Comparing Palin and NOT making the obvious comparisons to their mishandling of the truth is to miss the point entirely. Palin is every bit as selfish and self-aggrandizing as Reagan ever was, making everything about her, without ever accepting any responsibility. We could never do any worse than to allow that person to occupy office. Of course, we have set a standard for lowness hard to equal, with Reagan, Bush and bush jr. After Nixon, anything is possible, unfortunately. Scoundrels always seem to love to wrap themselves in the flag, don't they?

Darryl, you have one quality a "pundit" needs: guts to say what you believe even if it might be unpopular with many here. As I read the offerings of the "top 10", I find a kind of chorus in writing on politics from most rather than a variety of opinions, so reading your first 2 postings is refreshing.The fact that your latest received so many comments indicates to me that in addition to hitting a nerve with many readers with knee-jerk political opinions, you have done what a good pundit should: create debate. I doubt any of the others have done this and you deserve kudos for that. I hope you are here for many rounds to come.

Darryl: I want to be on the side of an African-American rightist who was obviously chosen for those very reasons (just look at the Politically Correct list of finalists.)

But to ignore the pre-presidential resume of Ronald Reagan or (even worse) find some parallel between it and the almost blank Palin slate reduces your column to gibberish.

Next time, find the facts that will prove your thesis.

I have yet to hear Sarah Palin speak in several related and complete sentences as opposed to her usual long run-on sentences ~ there's never a pause. She's an attractive woman but not a very thoughtful woman...not a very intelligent woman. She thrives on being divisive yet she doesn't understand that she's also being hypocritical. She was afforded the opportunity to be able to make a personal decision for herself and her family regarding the the addition of children and grandchildren but yet she doesn't want to grant that same consideration to other families. In the campaign, she talked about real Americans yet she seems to have joined the ranks of the secluded and privileged few...speaking out of the country or through FaceBook postings. I'd like to see Sarah Palin come to an inner city and answer the uncensored questions of some "real Americans." We all know that will never happen.

I was very interested to see that this column attracted 231 comments, while Mara Gay's column on Michelle Obama only garnered 100. That's a strong indication that you have hit a nerve, Mr. Jackson.

The topic was stronger than the column, in my opinion, as you indulged in a little too much of the "bullet-point" presentation. The piece would have been improved by better transitions between some of the paragraphs.

Does Sarah Palin have a chance to build a distinguished political career? I agree that she does. I don't think she has the inner resources to take advantage of her opportunities. On the other hand, when he was nominated for Vice-President in 1920, Franklin Roosevelt was regarded as a lightweight (though for reasons very different to those which affect Sarah Palin's standing). Twelve years, a bout of polio, and two terms as New York's governor later, he was the savior of his country in it hour of need.

Had it not been for George W. Bush, Ron Reagan would be thought of as the dumbest person ever to run for President,(let alone win two terms). Still, I have to come to his defense when I see him compared to Sarah Palin. Reagan at least had the patina of qualification when he took office..he had actively governed (how well is an open question) a major state. Palin flunked out of governor school and took up inspirational speaking. She should be living in a trailer down by the river...It took her six years to get through three colleges... and she gets her information by reading the popular media... you know ...all of them. (OK It may be possible that Reagan couldn't really read at all, but he facked it better than Sarah does.)

Some of the people commenting are far better pundits that Mr. Jackson. He got off to a decent start and then lost me at the beginning of the third paragraph. It went all over the place and never came full circle. While I think the effort to give substance and hope to a Sarah Palin rennaisance is futile, the argument could have been crafted far more intelligently. It didn't work.

I would start with Palin, then go to Reagan.

It makes more sense to attack McCain for his choice than Palin for her opinions.

The paragraph "Palin was thrust upon...." looks like filler.

"Sarah Palin may fit that bill," is not a strong stand.

This doesn't say anything about why she failed in the first place.

Hindsight is wonderful. It's probably a good idea to get one thoughtful opinion before submitting.

Two points:

First, while I voted for Bush 43, it is hard to support this re-hash of Palin talking points.

Second, though many pundits write op-ed pieces with the adversarial imprecision of bad lawyers, this writer is an experienced lawyer who fails to distinguish inefective spin from compelling logic.

The problems with most partisan commentaries are the selective use of facts and the need to use "straw men". This article is no exception. Most thoughtful people realize politicians don't rise to national prominence without some talent, and Sarah Palin is no exception. She certainly knows how to energize the republican base and remains an attractive candidate to many. It would have been more interesting if Mr. Jackson speculated on what Ms. Palin could do to become a better candidate. In my opinion, she needs to spend some time learning about and reflecting on national and international issues. If she did so, she'd be a very strong candidate in 2012. Fortuneately, she doesn't seem to have the temperment, patience, or intellectual curiousity to do so.

He's just playing the long shot: a shameless job application for a post in a Palin administration; or, failing that, a post in whatever right wing figurehead the Republicans may succeed in lubricating into the body politic. Then Mr. Jackson can flaunt screeds like this and say, "Look how loyal I was." And make no mistake about it, he will get tapped as some sort of Kool Aid dispenser if they get back in.

Garbage. That is all we seem to get from republicans. Wake up people! Republicans only want power and the credit for seemingly doing something without doing anything! People who hate government have no business running government because they will ruin us and then say, "see, I told you, government is the problem, not the solution." I hate being constantly lied to as if I am uninformed. The Republican party as constituted should just shrink and disappear like a debilitating cancer that it really is. Without their obstructionist tactics, that should then lead to solving our problems. Republicans, get out of the way and let the real problem solvers do their work.

Once a Bushie , always a Bushie, weak arguement on behalf of a weak and ineffective candidate who again proved her flaws in upstate NY congressional race. RR as a Great American Pres? get real this piece is revisionist history mascarading as journalism.

Darryl, you really hit a nerve! Good going! You got more nasty grams than any of the others. That means that you wrote a really interesting column. I will certainly read you again. Don't you find it interesting that people can be so much nastier in anonymous writing than they would ever be in person? Rudeness and righteousness are becoming synonymous with each other.

Sarah Palin quit when things got too tough in a barely populated state.
She did barely wait for the ink to be dry on her book deal.

To give her a shot at running a whole complex country (and foreign affairs when she couldn't make it in "foreign" Hawaii during college)... and more ...

Would be irresponsible.

Awful commentary. Reagan was a dumb mouthpiece who is the godfather of the privatization movement that got us into our current mess.

Yes we should fear Palin because she fits the mold of Repug candidates, empty headed but easy to market. The power players in the party can pull the strings and she can smile and wink this country into a fascist abyss.

She is dumb and her accomplishments are limited. To say Palin quitting her job as Governor of AK was acting like a maverick is naive. Her biggest accomplishment yet may be splitting the Republican party like she did in NY to the delight of Democrats.

This is the kind of drivel I would expect from a former member of the Bush Admn.

I vote conservatively and live my life in a prudent fashion. That being said, I can't disagree more with Mr. Jackson. With her limited education and experience, Sarah Palin was fortunate to rise to the ranks of Governor. She resigned from that job. She quit. Winners aren't quitters and quitters aren't winners. I can't help but think that Mrs. Palin is a very self-centered woman with little to no regard for her family.
Americans who love Sarah Palin actually love the values she demonstrates. This was not mentioned in your article. I can only think that it is you who is persuaded by the underdog, Mr. Jackson.
As with your first piece, the writing was good. The substance was unsustantiated and controversial at best. You are writing your own self out of this contest.

Mr. Jackson, what a dull article. Not just because your subject was Sarah Palin, but because you merely took information from tabloids and re-itereated nonsense. If you want our country to survive, and become better and respected, and even feared, we have to think clearly, vote wisely, and forget about political alliances. Surely, as an african american, and an intelligent individual, you can't possibly think Ms. Palin as anything to offer this society except divisiveness, meanspiritedness, and an overwhelming propensity for lies. Next time pick a better, more reasoned subject.

Note to all: Whether or not you agree with his article, or like his style, Mr. Jackson has done what no other top 10er has done--engendered vitriol on both sides, left an impression, stirred up the masses, and initiated dialogue between competing interests. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is what "op-ed" is all about. Many of you indicate you won't vote for him because you disagree with his sentiment. You sadly are missing the point. It is not that I agree or disagree with him—frankly, I don’t agree with his belief about Ms Palin’s resurrection—but I would definitely read his next piece because he is sparking some controversy and making people think. If you are only reading those articles and/or journalists with whom you agree, or are going to vote for those with whom you agree, I would humbly submit you neither understand the forum nor the intent of this competition. C’mon…over 200 posts?!?!

As well written as Richter's piece and much more entertaining. Not a word of evidence, however, that Palin has shown any real substance ('gravitas', for the cliche lover). And without substance there is no purpose to commenting.

Darryl,

You ought to get together with Lydia Khalil and trade ideas. Maybe the Post would let you two team up and be their new competition to Glen Beck.

Your moniker could be "Persons of Color hanging out just to the left of Hitler". You would obliterate Beck in a matter of weeks.

In the new America which runs on hate and righteous indignation, you would be the new stars.

What'ya think? Don't be surprised if you get a call.

Two words...

Death Panel.

Sarah looses.

Daryl looses.

Reagen overrated.

Palin has a long way to go before she proves she has the gravitas to be president. I know her grovelling supporters want desperately to validate her, but so far, she has failed to impress. Please don't blame the Obama camp, the media, et. al for Palin's image problem -- she has no one to blame but herself.

Putting aside Sarah Palin's qualifications as GOP standard bearer, I find this article by Jackson to be flacid, uninspiring, an unimaginative. It does not walk a new path, and reads like "tabloid" fiction. No soup for Jackson. NEXT.

If those who so vehemently oppose Mr. Jackson's views would take a deep breath and think for a minute, you'd realize his fate rests in your hands. Clicks=revenue, so if you don't click, he doesn't win.

And the winners are.....

Darryl Jackson and Sarah Palin.

(We could declare Ronald Reagan the winner as well, except that history has already done so...emphatically!)

Keep spouting hate, liberals. All you do is remind everyone of your true colors, which we all know are not pleasant to behold.

I have no idea how Darryl Jackson advanced to finalist in this contest. In this piece on Sarah Palin, Jackson's writing is weak and his argument about Palin's viability is even weaker. His comparison of her and Ronald Reagan is hollow and superficial. RR is not a good example. He was one of our most destructive and divisive presidents. Only myopic conservatives think he was a great president. For example, RR, in bed with mega-corporate interests, presided over the opening of the floodgates to American corporations relocating overseas so they could take advantage of slave-like labor in "third world" countries. This was being done at the same time conservatives were touting the "buy American" campaign. Billions in government largesse were granted these corporations to facilitate relocations. This is only one of the lasting destructive legacies of RR. His ostensible heir apparent George W. Bush to this to extremes where today most American consumer goods are made in China and other overseas locations. Anyone old enough to remember knows that RR was asleep at the switch, leaving the real governing to his advisors. Similarily Sarah Palin is asleep at the switch in her own mind. She is only competent to gain media attention and thrive in the "media makes stars" environment like Kate Gosselin or Jerry Springer show guests. Get a grip Darryl, Sarah Palin is an airhead.

The frenzied moon bats regurgitating their hate filled commentary at someone who dares to seriously discuss the amazing political success of SARAH PALIN is a delightful affirmation of Pavlof's theories.

She's now 'after the money', 'neglecting her family', blah, blah, pure supermarket tabloid impressions; revealing how shallow and coarse these comments are.

Mr.Jackson, could blunt these attacks with facts and probably should.

For example, smearing her as a 'publicity hound' is easily met with the facts that several dozen 'agents' are competing to represent her; or that she's received over a 1,000 invitations to speak at events with honorariums that lib/Dems would die for...they sought her, not the other way around.

Congratulations, Mr. Jackson, you are America's next pundit!

Mr Jackson seems to be engaging in a bit of revisionism with Mrs. Palin. I for one feel that the status of "victim" is impossible for a politician to obtain...except in cases of rape or incest. Mrs. Palin is an unabashed publicity hog, and just when the publicity begins to wane, she morphs into a cash chaser. Yet when the scrutinizing eyes of the media and the political opposition question her intentions or the wisdom of the group paying her speaking fee, suddenly there is a schedule conflict for which a staffer takes blame.

Blaming the McCain campaign or he GOP for Palin's failings is just absurd...tell me Mr. Jackson, just how should the McCain campaing have spun Palin's inability to name a national newspaper...like the one you hope to write for? I guess you are in the camp that bemoans that mean Katie Couric for asking such a probing and loaded question. You also mention Palin's ability to deliver a great speech...take a moment and review the written transcripts of some of her speeches. I challenge you to return to this forum and defend her quotes and your assessment of them. If you need a place to begin, try her resignation speech. Oh my!

Lately, Sarah Palin is adding to her baggage...now she is in an all too public spat with the father (he's going to strip naked for Playgirl) of her grandson. McCain again??? GOP again??? Abandonment by political machinery again??? Her phalanx of so-called supporters must be so proud. Spare me your wistful thinking Mr. Jackson...it's as annoying as Sarah Palin. Or perhaps you are just as smitten with Sarah Palin as was John McCain.

really?

I have to fail the so called Pundit. Like so many others he failed to grasp the simple fact that Sarah Palin is not interested in higher office, she is interested in higher income. For her it is just a game to stay in the news. Sad that almost nobody seems to understand that simple fact.

This columnist-to-be missed the opportunity to be the first to note how much Sarah Palin resembles Barbie.

come on jackson, are you really afraid of Palin will defeat Obama

Sarah Palin will once again, be the laughing stock of American politics ...and refurbished red meat for Saturday Night Live. The woman is clueless.

This is the weakest, in my opinion, of the first two columns. Reagan was governor of the most populous state in the country for two terms. He had a record of working with Democrats in Sacramento to enact bipartisan legislation. He had a strong television presence, probably as a result of his days in Hollywood. Palin did not complete her term as governor and does not come across well on television. She will not be able to overcome the negative impressions most people developed of her during the vice-presidential campaign.

Reagan was basically a moderate to moderate conservative. He was not a partisan as most politicians, especially Republicans, have been since the 1990's. He was especially moderate on social issues and only paid rhetorical lip service to those who opposed abortion. Palin seems to be a right-winger in a party dominated by people who are very conservative and out of touch with most independents, as well as moderates, in this country.

This piece showed courage and bravery. An African American male writing a por-Palin piece in the Washington Post really impressed me. I had expected to read what the Post usually puts out, African American men trash talking any and all white women. This was surpirsingly refreshing and objective.

This author has my vote of confidence as long as he can maintain his professional integrity and independence.

Sarah Palin had a great speech writer. Her training as a beauty queen provided the poise necessary to deliver whatever message was put in front of her, but it did not give her the depth of knowledge necessary for the job of VP, let alone POTUS (if her fans are delusional enough to think she can run). Her disdain for Washington makes her an entertaining distraction, but the shine would wear thin in a real crisis. She is a laughing stock in the international community, especially given her views on evolution and global climate change. It appears that her loyalists, including this pundit, have conveniently forgotten this fact.

Darryl Jackson writes of ex-Gov. Palin, "There are signs that her viability remains strong." He then offers only one piece of evidence to substantiate that dubious claim: "her new book is ranked among Amazon's bestsellers, even before its publication later this month".

Jonah for crying out loud Goldberg sat atop the bestseller lists for a while. You'll see pigs fly while applying lipstick before you'll see him in the White House. Likewise Sarah Palin.

The label under dog applied to Sarah Palin, to me, seems macabre in that if the liberal half of this country were as smart as they think they are, they would know that it was people of her caliber, and mind set, who settled this country and made it the success it was up until the last year. Under dog? I feel, with regard to any canine connotation, she is more of a Super Friends Wonder Dog than any kind of dog at all. Who could save the day.
Personally, though, I have an aversion to associating the word dog with any lady who is as beautiful, outside, and inside, as Sarah Palin is.

If you only count posts, then Jackson has won.

However, note that posters don't bother to debate Mr. Jackson's points, they just side for or against the lovely Mrs. Palin.

Jackson's column doesn't annoy or anger, Mrs. Palin has that job all sewed up.

Articulate. Provocative.

But not original or informative. Ponnuru's got the slot of stirring up the opposition pretty well sewn up. Redundancy, anyone?

Mr. Jackson certainly has written the better of the first two columns by making Sarah Palin a tar-baby for the trickle-down theorists.

Sarah Palin has another opportunity to add to her "POP" political career later this month when she visits Texas in support of their secessionist Governor Rick Perry’s run for reelection.

I love Sarah Palin, and I hope she is ready to return to the brood of vipers she left behind a year ago, who want to destroy her at all costs. I don't think she knew how badly the left wanted and wants to destroy her, and I hope she is able to keep them under her heels now.

She is a reformer, and if she is able to get elected in 2012, she will cut all the record spending the reckless Democrats have enslaved us with. I too believe she will make a major comeback...

MR Jackson i think you are 100% right about Governor Palin. i though she was a very good person and though she was better then senator MCCain atleast she did not change her mind on any thing like him or Obama. she was a lot better then senator Biden. but it was the Democrate media that was her down fall but i believe some of the American people are waking up. she quit being a governor because the Democrat senators were after her she could not do anything right she was being after what most Dem. in office was doing but it was ok with what they were doing. now in Alaska when you need a lawyer you have to pay your own fees weather you are right or wrong i think she was right most of the time. But if it had a been me i would have stayed in and tackle anything they threw at me. but i do not blame her for quiting Sarah had no change of wining. Now she was against the Republican senator that should have been throwing out long time ago. but he had been a Democrate every thing would have been smooth the media would have been for him what ever he done. Now i am a Republican but just in name only i vote for the person that i hope that will stand for the American people that is trying to do right and there is not a Democrat in office that i put my life on the line In Vietnam even tho i did not have to fight like a lot of other American that died for there country and went threw battle. but any time in a war zone you put your self on the line.

mr jackson, do you really believe that the ex governor grandmother should be the one to represent this country on the world stage?
for the poster who suggested that the grandmother was not as flagrant as urban unwed parents, very veiled remark i might add,the state of alaska has the highest rate of illegitimacy.
this lady would best serve this country if she put more of her efforts into raising her children and grandchildren, and spending more time with her husband.
is she the example you would want for young women?
if so, move over steele we've dug up another one.

sarah palin who? my memory of her is about a pig wearing lipstick? a fringe republican with lots of bushcrap and nonsense between her ears who someone suggested that since she is an entertainer, should be the republican canidate running with rash limpballs on a 2012 ticket? rcm.

The column on Palin was not only trite and vapid in its attempt to boost her chances for a presidential bid in 2012, it overlooked her principal weakness: Palin is an ignoramus.

What is more, ignorant demagogues are dangerous.

Mr. Jackson is a lawyer. Perhaps out of deference to Mrs. Palin's ambitions he could draft a constitutional amendment limiting presidential terms to two years. Perhaps Mrs. Palin could handle that. Of course, she might quit after a year.
Never mind.

How did this entry even accepted by the pundit contest? It has 752 words, when the rules of the competition clearly specified a max of 400 words. Does a separate rule apply for Washington insiders or do Washington connections matter more for the WaPost selection board?

Did he plagiarize this column from Bill Kristol? This is the kind of knee-jerk GOP spin we expect from him.

I know Sarah Palin is gorgeous, but I can't understand how anyone thinks she is qualified to lead anything. Her interviews (and VP debate) were gut-wrenchingly painful to watch. She is viscerally ignorant about nearly anything of substance; worst of all, including her own ignorance.

"America's Next Great Pundit?" Don't you mean "America's Next Great Conservative Stooge Mouthpiece?"

Wow, Fred, you're so subtle.

The Post makes out big, because , Darryl produces the same one-note flatulence as Gerson for 1/3 the price.

'PUNDITS" should be provocative & if the screed posted on here is an example, Darryl scored a perfect 10!

There is nothing like the smiling, successful--gloating even, image of SARAH PALIN to drive the left into a feeding frenzy of hateful rhethoric.

Now if Darryl can add incisive analysis on her third party bid to become president; then I want him as America's next pundit.

Maybe his next column will compare Biden's supposed expertise on Foreign affairs with the Obama White House's distancing from him, and contrasted with Palin's current views. Palin's millions of fans will get a real conservative elected from New York State!

And the winner is: contestant number two! The reason being: a greater percentage of respondents commented on what the author was saying. With contestant number one, too many of the comments were about the column itself, how it was saying what it was trying to say, and what it did or didn't do for the reader.

Of course it helps to pick a topic that is completely sensational. But isn't that what being a "pundit" is all about?

As with most "side shows" they draw a crowd and spur interest.And some will believe what they see and hear.
But Palin is nothing more than a side show.

She will remain in public life but I don't see her seeking elected office again. She is of great value to the party as a fund raiser and she can make a lot of money on the speaking circuit.

Biden's sarcastic, demeaning remarks about her are exactly what is firing up the republicans. Her reply that conservatives are tired of the left mischaracterizing their positions hits the nail square on the head.

Palin's biggest opponent isn't the dems, it is the Cheney wing of the repub party.

Palin proved that she has no base to draw on for the next election, she was paired with and carries the stain of a failed Presidential ticket loss, is viewed as a quitter by most of the nation for jumping ship on Alaska, skips out on appearances that she committed to without explanation or notice. What a track record. And now someone thinks that this woman has a chance of getting elected to anything? NO WAY!!!!!

Sorry Mr. Jackson...I read your piece but couldn't get thru all the comments. Methinks you lead the league in these...But your 2 pieces remind me of a thought I'm personally uncomfortable with...you are indeed an affirmative action choice in the political sense...an African American Bush appointee who simply retools stuff we hear from Rove, Limbaugh and others all the time...but, of course, you're getting the expected reaction from a majority of your readers in this venue...we don't agree. Just think about what you're writing once in a while. 1st, you write a snide apologist piece for the poor little Bushies out there. And you now compare a lightweight to a President that, no matter how many times I and others disagreed with him, did coordinate with a game changing Soviet leader (I've always suspected that Gorbie was a deeply hidden CIA mole!) to end the cold war. We have new and complicated conflicts however...it's almost Orwellian, isn't it? So the big question is...do you want this wacky woman to hold the modern version of the red phone? I hope you do...I'll contribute to her campaign, because I could think of no scenario that could give a better guarantee of thoughtful Democratic leadership for some time to come.

Palin's power as a candidate is clearly demonstrated aby the fear of Palin demonstrated by the libloons.

They just can't stop talking about this woman.

It's called PALIN POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sara Palin's intervention just dictated the result in a congressional NY district.

It's called............................

PALIN POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well, the dnc's order to crucify palin has put fire in the black hearts of obama's lemmings.
dennisintn

In reality basketball was Palin's true love, but it is to ghettoized in the America she lives in that she had to use a white bread sport to appeal to the base. To prove this point, have you ever heard a Republican say that they are a "basketball mom"?

If WaPo judges a contestant on how many responses the writer will get regardless of how many of them are negative this is your guy. Otherwise he's just a clone of Gerson and Krauthammer.

If Hoffman wins in Upstate NY, Sarah Palin the Quitter will use her poison darts even more and the elephant will die from a 1000 puffs from her tiny little blow gun.

Bush & secret partner OBAMA's 2nd Act:- FACT (just ask Palin):- America has been Broke since 1936! And the Criminal Federal Reserve has kept this Nation afloat with $Fiat / Funny-Money since! And We-the-People Suckers allow this to continue, thru the FED's accomplices in (da?!) our CONGRESS!! The U.S. Dollar is DEBT-MONEY-PAPER!! The Globalist Bankers Manipulate & control Our U.S. Money supply, - and they create, inflation, deflation, wars, etc., - to bleed Our great Republic to death!!! The $Filthy Rich at the very top keep getting $richer, at the expense of Our American Middle-Class & poor!!! Why do so many supposedly Patriot Citizens continue to follow, like Sheep, these Globalist TRAITOR Criminals, whom have taken over both the Democrat & Republican Parties!?! And how long will We-the-People keep kow-towing to these Banking Lobbyist $Prostitutes in Our CONGRESS??!! - Repeal the Criminal Federal Reserve Act NOW!!!! -- Our CONGRESS sent so many $good-paying Manufacturing JOBs over-Seas! NAFTA & GATT were the beginning of the end for the American Middle-class! Patriots note,- that both Democrats & Republicans passed these 2 totally destructive anti-American Trade agreements,- with the support & manipulations of the Criminal Global Bankers!! Now, these same $paid-prostitutes in Our Congress want to pass 'CAP & TRADE'! - It should be called CAP & TAX!! - It will destroy even more Jobs,- and will Tax the Hell out of the middle-class, and what prosperous Small Businesses are left!! "SHAM and Lies"! It now appears that OBAMA is in with BUSH!! VOTE-FRAUD to the MAX AMERICA!! Now We-the-People know the Truth,- that Democrats & Republicans have Prostituted themselves to the Global $Bankers & Corporate Elite!! - TERM LIMITS are of the utmost necessity Immediately,- but will Congress actually change and become Patriotic ???!!! All so-called 3rd Parties must Unite, work-out differences, and take Our great REPUBLIC back!!! It is almost too late Patriots. -- Every Constituion Loving Patriot, no matter what party affiliation needs to watch and send-on this Video:- The Obama Deception: 2009 - http://bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/obama-deception

"and-without-Firing-a-Shot"!! -- jward52

If Palin is the choice of GOP and it even looks like she will govern a toothpick in the US-got my Visa ready to go!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I tell you visions of her, Steele, Limbaugh and that whole tribe of trouble just thrust me to take a ship to France of somewhere stable. Cause, I can tell ya the whole picture reeks.

Ms. Palin has done a remarkable job of taking an opportunity and running with it. Mr. Jackson captured that part of the story reasonably well.
My beef with Mr. Jackson is originality. So far he hasn't actually written anything I haven't read or heard elsewhere. Also, there are a few places where the writing could be tightened up a bit.

Sends us in a frezy? No, more like sends us into "Deliverance with a twist". Never before have we seen anyone that just sends alerts of "Snuffy Smith and Jed Clampit". She would send Granny over the edge-and Granny damn sure is much more intelligent.

Sarah Palin and her followers as well as Reagans are quite possibly why our country is on the brink of bankruptcy and has barbarians at the gate. It is the dark ages mentality of Palin(witch doctor exorcism) Reagan(astrological advisors) and those who chose a fantsy world of wealthy elite white people and everyome else behind a great wall of subservience. See Newt Gingrich's Ronald Reagan Rendevouz with Dementia and good old Sarah on Face Book of all things as her diving board. We deserve tobe overun by Huns if we follow their lead.

"She was portrayed as vapid by commentators and comedians, who pounced upon her lackluster performances in interviews."
-------
You forget to mention all they had to do was use her own words. There was no need to make anything up. Calling her performances "lackluster" is certainly charitable. And since the campaign? the tweets, facebook pronouncements and resignation? This is making her look better than with campaign handlers? wow.

It makes me feel good that I decided not to send in my entry to this Contest. In reading this commentary that doesn't seem to identify any significant negatives of his Subject, my entry would have made it directly to the waste basket.

This particular Comment failed to mentioned that Gov. Paulin energized a small ultra Conservative segment of the Republican Party. Those are the only people she was able to attract. And I don't think her appeal has significantly changed since the election.

This ultra conservative votes that she attracted during the Campaign are the only people she's attracting now, and it's highly unlikely that the Republicans would nominate her as their Presidental Candidate at any time in the future, it just wont happen, and for various reasons.

However, this commenter decides to include Ronald (Iran Contra/Oliver North) Reagan as one of our greatest Presidents boggles the mind. For this Comment to have been selected among the top 10, it seems as if the commentary should have had some sense of logic, supported by the factual record. What is suspect in this contest is the Judging, not necessarily the comment, unless the Post only got 10 entries.

Not related to this comment, but I will give you the title of my comment: "Is going Rogue, really going Rogue", and the subject was Gen. McChrystal. It was a Blockbuster that I didn't think the Post couldn't handle, but maybe next time when i'm in a watering-down mood. I'm not a professional writer, so I don't do good at this stuff, I just muddle along.

leart2

There degree is the wall paper if your wondering by this point.

Posted by: wlbrank

___________

This one illiterate sentence plants you squarely in the Palin camp, no doubt about it.

I am a common person. I don't drink Starbucks and I served 24 years in the military. But as a woman, I don't want an airhead who fans the flames of hatred, representing my country.

I'll grant you one thing. She scares the hell out of me. Not because she is so sharp, but because she is not. Sharks scare me too, and they aren't all that smart. Does that help?

Keep writing like this, and you, too, like the GOP's Michael Steele, will be able to grovel before Rush Limbaugh.

The institution of the presidency has survived George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, "Jimmuh" Carter,Herbert Hoover, Warren Gamaliel Harding, and a host of 19th Century no-names. It would also survive Sarah Palin.

The larger problem is why our political system isn't developing better leaders than the resume builders we've had for the last generation or so.

I am more and more disappointed in the Washington Post, especially with their opinion content.

Sarah Palin is not news unless you and other media outlets make her so.

Sarah Palin is not dog-catcher material, but she is Penthouse appealing.

Get a grip on this newspaper before it floats into the Potomac.

Sorry WLBrank, but one doesn't need to be an "intellectual" to know Palin's STOOPID.

I just love how any talk about Palin sends the high and mighty oh so tolerant Liberals into a frenzied hissy fit. Your baffoonious leader included. We simple folk "get her" and the "wall paper liberals", you know the ones with their Starbucks in one hand, their cell in the other, driving a BMW, feels their ivy league education makes them sooo much smarter than the rest of us, on the inside I'm sure. There degree is the wall paper if your wondering by this point. They probably are unaware of your esoteric, sophisticated, urbanite, pseudo intellectual status that we "simple folk" see writen on their forehead's. All issues of the day are not new and have been repeated throughout history by intellectuals like yourself. Get a grip, I know its hard after spending all your parents money on a worthless education to find the cab driver is smarter than you. The empty feeling of finding out your always wrong makes you want to destroy someone like Palin, True intelligence is when you can make a really complicated problem sound simple, let me see, oh like energy is equal to mass squared by the speed of light. Simple right? True genius in simple! She just scares the pants off the left with simple conservative solutions to problems the left over intellectualizes to make themselves look smart. Larry the Cable guy would do a better job than their leader and that's not to insult Larry's intelligence.
The world is getting smaller and getting soft on our problems is not the answer to them. We need to get tough and make hard choices with solid leaders who wont waffle on tough issues. Being soft hasn't worked over the last fifty years so its time for someone to stand up for principals that worked to form this country.

Calling Sarah Palin ignorant is itself demonstrably ignorant. Those who are saying this ignore her accomplishments (and the fact they themselves have done nothing outstanding) and condemn her for having an illegitimate grandchild and an unwed mother daughter? Is this for real, when half of America's minority urban population fits that description? And, that baby is not illegitimate--no child ever is. Do not make that ignorant comment.
Posted by: drzimmern1

_______________

History is littered with people who made it good but shouldn't have. I prefer to stop Mrs. Palin now before she has a chance to prove her critcs right. Being handsome and and able to tap into anger are not qualifications for president. The reason so many voted for President Obama is he does not focus on anger but on hope. Hope may be just as ineffective as anger but it sure speaks to a willingness to listen and be optimistic rather than just be angry.

You should also look up the definition of hypocrisy. For the right to slam poor women who have illegitimate children while holding Mrs. Palin up as a paragon of motherly and grandmotherly virtue is hypocrisy.

I guess what the right really means is illegitimacy is only frowned upon if you don't have the means to support that child. As usual, the right divides morality up by income.

This is terribly well-written drivel.

I hope your military brainwashing is not commonplace since Reagan had the least to do with the fall of the bear compared to Nixon and Carter.
Posted by: jameschiric
______________

Sadly, Reagan as the victor in the Cold War and destroyer of the Wall is the fable in the military. You can't seriously believe the military culture would give any credit to Carter who is vilified.

You might find one or two articles from various War Colleges who give anyone other than Reagan credit for the fall of the bear but they are not common.

Posted by: arancia12 | November 2, 2009 -
Reagan is being rethought as we speak. There have already been several articles challenging the theory that I was taught as immutable fact in the miltiary, that Reagan single-handedly brought down the Berlin Wall.
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope your military brainwashing is not commonplace since Reagan had the least to do with the fall of the bear compared to Nixon and Carter. Nixon opened trade with China, sold them sophisticated radars enabling Chinese SAMs to shoot down Russian planes forcing the bear to add a million men to that front. Carter built 7 boomers allowing for a first strike capability that force the bear to build 16 bankrupting them (asked IMF for coin for seed grain in 82). Reagan sold arms to mideast oil producers for more production (oil went to $10/bbl), with trade barriers, dinking the bear's economy further.

It's quite obvious to me that this column, with the combination buzzwords of "Reagan" and "Palin" are merely Mr. Jackson's weak and transparant attempt to highlight his conservative bonafides in hopes of landing a permanent job at WaPo as it's token black conservative, and the vapidity of this column is meaningful only as a employment application.

What America mostly loves is an underdog like Barack Obama who didn't have a chance. Sarah is no Barack, in any way. She is like the handsome jock in school that you think is terrific until you learn he can't read. For people who want to feel superior to a president, that's a good fit. I for one would find it uncomfortable knowing I was smarter than the person chosen to lead my country. God help us if she ever gets in office. At least Reagan had Nancy who had someone who could read his horoscope!!!!

I've posted here many times that while I do not share her political leanings, and would never vote for her or her party, that she is a compelling figure and there are a lot of people who feel energized by her. It would be easy to dismiss her for the winking, the gaffes, and a host of other mistakes. Yet, she really does capture the enthusiasm of a broad segment of conservatives who have had a hard time reconciling themselves with the previous administration. She can, and does, serve as a galvanizing force for these people, and that capability should not be underestimated.

I have no doubt that her book and facebook page are ghost-written or at least heavily edited, but it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that she probably can't accomplish what she talks about. What does matter is that she seems to be able to inspire people to vote in a way that lets them feel they can accomplish some kind of conservative resurgence. For demoralized republicans in particular, that's a very powerful message. She's already helped purge a RINO from NY23, without even a contest.

Sarah Palin’s 15 minutes of fame is fading. Neo-cons and corporatist republicans “WILL NEVER”, put a person on the top of the ticket from Americas largest welfare state especially a governor who quit to cash in on her fame. Mr Jackson may see Palin’s resignation as governor more like a maverick's move than a quitter's, but to me she will always be a person who quit to cash in on her fame while she could. There is no treasure trove of documents in her own hand to reveal anything about her we don’t already know. McCain used her plain and simple.
As for Reagan, he came to office just as the country was starting to recover from the recession caused by our Viet Nam debacle, Nixon’s wage and price freezes, Arab oil embargoes as well as going off the gold standard.
Reagan had a higher tax rate to speed recover, a tax rate he quickly cut to benefit the most wealthy but then quickly raise taxes on the middle class leaving office with a deficit and a $5 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT.
The GOP has yet to recognize a new leader and looking at their current lineup, including Palin, they will be searching for a long time.

The assessment I have gleaned of Sarah after watching her and hearing her "foot in mouth" comments at times is that she doesn't have a political bone in her body, has almost NO innate knowledge because she hasn't read much or kept up with news, but she is capable of short-term memorization. Her primary drive is for money and attention. So, she will memorize ANYTHING that will achieve those goals! But, God help her when she has to do or say anything that wasn't on her memorization list~~~which is A LOT!! You can't memorize a lifetime of neglected concern in those brief sessions.

Sarah belongs in movies, NOT in politics! Movies would get her EVERYTHING she's craving! Sarah's interests are not for the world, but for SARAH!! Even her husband and family, including new baby, are easily pushed aside and demoted when she can get a drop of notoriety!! Sarah is DESPERATELY STARVING for attention, and she will do WAY MORE than her accusations of Levi to achieve her selfish goal.

In a future column Darryl, you can explain to readers why your view of Palin is similar to an idiot like Sean Hannity when you have worked with a genius getting her nixed by the public like Colin Powell? Reagan was the second worst president of my lifetime (after Dubya) that put America on a path of decline. Voodoo economics cost Bush41 the presidency, monetary policy changes saw 10% unemployment in the 82-83 recession, star wars pissed away a trillion, pension funds were raided, savings and loans failed, we bugged out of Lebanon, left ourselves blind to a Soviet ICBM launch for 14 months when a spare satelite was available immediately, cut Carter's 2 billion/yr for alt. energy, hurt the environment, saw wealth flow to the top ending the American dream of children living better than parents and after a payoff from Sony ended the law about TV giving opposing viewpoint opinions time for free. The wild spending Carter reduced the deficit as a % of GNP, while Reagan did the opposite.

One would think that a Lawyer and Former Federal Prosecutor would be a little less naive. While I did not necessarily agree with Ronald Reagan's policies, I do feel he was a unifier with regards to basic political discourse in this country. He understood the importance of "We" when it comes to our government. Ms. Palin, although a pretty face, was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the tired old, divisive, parochial and ill conceived polices of the far right. Thank goodness the electorate saw through her. Senator McCain certainly did. How sad that in the first election in a long while that featured honest and constructive discourse between the two fine and formidable Presidential candidates, we were forced to deal with a future Fox News commentator who dwelled on abortion, guns and Joe the Plummer.
One thing, for all the Pundit winners, would it be asking too much to use this forum to accentuate the positive aspects of our society and to voice credible solutions to the problems that affect us all?

"She was portrayed as vapid by commentators and comedians, who pounced upon her lackluster performances in interviews."

"Didn't it demonstrate that Palin was, indeed, a "hockey mom" because the campaign had to clothe her? Moreover, merely contrasting that attack with Obama's double-cross on an issue at the heart of our electoral system -- campaign financing -- would have won the day."

"Indeed, her resignation as governor now looks more like a maverick's move than a quitter's."

Don't even know where to start...

This is what WaPo considers "pundit material"? Unbelievable !

He makes Bill Kristol sound balanced !

Mr. Jackson repeated the biggest lie that Republicans have. Namely,that Reagan was a great President. Without listing all the hideous things he did, remember this Repubs. He unraveled all the consumer protections put in place to protect Americans after the stock market crash of 1929. The result was the rathole we're in now that started last fall.He loved the rich and despised the poor and middle class! Thanks Ronnie.

Parkbench, that episode about Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent did not come from her sad Couric interviews. It was leaked from the McCain campaign itself - it came up during their frantic attempts to coach her into someone worldly knowledgeable for the debates.

Your attempt to make my pointing this out into a "racial insult" to Mr. Jackson also underscores the right's pathetic failure to understand what racism is (a mere century or so into the public's discussion of the word - incredible).

Mr. Jackson,

You wrote:

"The curtain is rising on Sarah Palin's second act. What she will make of it is up to her."

The horror...The horror!

Fresh new ideas? Palin and Nixon? Yikes.

In any event, it is hardly possible for Palin to make a comeback since she never actually did anyone the favor of leaving the political arena. She simply pulled out of her real job and real responsibilities in Alaska to go galivanting in Iowa.

Ronald Reagan ARRIVED with a campaign of hate toward poor black women, and starving the federal government.

He partied hearty, left huge debts, and a legacy republicans have used since then more or less successfully - the politics of personal destruction, campaigns against other Americans, gays, lesbians, women, blacks, Hispanics, veterans, the poor, blue collor workers, liberals, democrats and now - even republicans.

Its never about what they can do for the country, or even how they can and will enact the policies in which they pretend to believe.

Today, there's about 17% hard core racist hating southern white bubbas, and the fringies that go along to get along... Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and some other faux twits whose names I can't remember...

No one else...

Those who align themselves with them deserve the criticism they will receive.

Underdog !
Palin has a dangerous personality disorder.
Nevertheless, talk radio pounces on and promotes her ideas ( or lack thereof ), she is commented on by the Washington Post , and she is now a wealthy woman.
Millions of gullible fools accept her demagoguery as truth.
This kind of ' underdog ' needs no help from anybody, except maybe a psychiatrist.

I read all 10 original Pundit columns and I was amazed that none of them had a punch or an improvement in the WaPo columnists who are so bland causing them to lose a good portion of their readers. Palin is now a Hollywood star as we love celebrities as leaders. Dems look for eggheads who usually lose and Rep look for true believers no matter how dumb or uninformed.

Calling Sarah Palin ignorant is itself demonstrably ignorant. Those who are saying this ignore her accomplishments (and the fact they themselves have done nothing outstanding) and condemn her for having an illegitimate grandchild and an unwed mother daughter? Is this for real, when half of America's minority urban population fits that description? And, that baby is not illegitimate--no child ever is. Do not make that ignorant comment.

I don't like Palin,and believe she is cashing in on the VP run she did. She is using it as she did everything else. If she thinks she is a victum that is nuts the woman knows what she is doing and her husband is helping her. Now he isn't working and yes he used her office and staff, while she was Gov.She fought the big oil companys for money not work to be done on the Alaska Pipe line go to their sight and see the damage because of no repairs in years.She got money gave some to some people up there and kept some. She wants to drill for more oil up there, that is plane silly.But the thing that made me the angryist was her going to china and saying she was representing the American women, and told what we think. Wrong, she didn't say one thing I agreed with.Right here now what I would like to say what to do with her or to her but can't.I looked her up in Alaska, in the Alaska papers, family extended where some told some pritty bad thing she had done. also the Alaska Pipe line. Then gave up her job as Govenor, she hadn't done anything for Alaska so guess even though it cost them money for her to do it they were better off. Now she is staying in the news because of the media printing everything for her or what she is doing.She needs to be dropped., and fast this lady is dangerous.She for sure doesn't speak for me or a lot of women in this country, but now going around and telling other countries she does. also how bad things are with our government, and what she thinks should be done. She isn't a good Christian as they don't lie. Guess though that is how you make a lot of money.

I would very safe if Sarah Palin were the Republican candidate in the next election for president.

While I too, think that Palin does not have the right stuff to be Potus or V-Potus.
You people on the left are just plain deranged about it.
Yes Obama had a better education. But they were both low on experience.
America simply put the bar too low this time.

Maybe we should hold nominations for VP’s too.

BobLund1 You said it all-great post.

On Palin’s alleged stupidity…

Liberals may have missed Palin's Sept.09 detailed and sourced Facebook posting on multi-billion dollar "tort reform" cost savings. An issue only trial-lawyer-loving Dems refuse to face.

Liberals may have missed Palin's Op-ed NYT Jan. 08 on polar bears and Alaska's protection efforts.

Liberals may have missed her July 14/09 Op-Ed "Cap and Tax Dead End" where she argues for creating jobs and developing ALL energy sources in America (including Green tech).

A handful likely missed her debut speech to 70 million Americans where she lambasted Obama's politics and background despite two hecklers at the beginning, and despite a brief Teleprompter failure that would have paralyzed President Obama. Afterwards, eight male CNN talking heads reacted in shock and mumbled about her being mean to Obama... until finally a smiling Campbell Brown shouted out.. "come on guys.. that was a great speech !"

Liberals probably missed the huge enthusiastic and well-behaved crowds she attracted across America. Ah well maybe in 2012 ?

Palin remains EVERYTHING... liberals should love in a female politician... a working-class mother like lionized Jennifer Granholm. A self-made politician - unlike wealthy Pelosi or First Lady by marriage Clinton, a PTA Mom, a former small-town Mayor, a former popular Governor etc.

Except Sarah Palin is gasp ! A Christian conservative ! A lady who shares the beliefs (limited government, low taxes, family values, free enterprise, American exceptional-ism) of heck golly gee... you betcha.. a majority of Americans !

So Palin was treated unfairly? Perhaps we should have pretended she was not woefully uninformed and wholly unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Yeah, that's right!

Her interview performances were appalling, even when served softball questions like "what newspapers do you read?" Now she quits her job as governor so she can make big bucks from a book deal. And you honestly think this woman is qualified to be the leader of the free world?

We just got done having a clueless, ignorant president, and we see how that worked out. Anyone advocating Palin as qualified for any leadership position is, excuse the expression, an idiot.

this is the best of the next great american pundit? Do the judges expect us to believe that this was the best submission. Pleeeazzze!

Reagan is being rethought as we speak. There have already been several articles challenging the theory that I was taught as immutable fact in the miltiary, that Reagan single-handedly brought down the Berlin Wall.

Sarah Palin can be whomever she choses to be. As a voter, I can only judge her by what comes out of her mouth and so far, I am horrified.

It seems to me Mrs. Palin is joining the far, radical, angry right. In that case, I have to root for her abject failure. We do not need extremists in this country.

As a woman I have a vested interest in seeing the best women move forward in politics. We already have a slew of incompetent men, why add to it with incompetent women?

Mrs. Palin was not torpedoed, she simply was not competent to compete on the level of Presidential politics. And as I recall, Mrs. Palin came out swingin' attacking Mr. Obama's qualifications as a community organizer.

Mr. Jackson, you are a loyal party apparatchik. You are supporting the unsupportable, and not doing too good a job of it either. You obviously don't understand that Mrs. Palin is not authentic. She is attempting to ally herself with the most volatile, angry, and easily riled shard of the Republican party. Anyone can incite. The question is, can she lead. The two are vastly different.

Well we can all see where this is going on this contest-GOP hogwash!!! What crap!!!

No wonder security sucks. And he is so proud-did you get CIA Intelligence wrong too? Wow? Palin? He is actually pushing Palin-now I guess that is security in the raw since she sees Russia and can write a book in 50 seconds and turn a dollar or two. What inspiration she has? We can all benefit from her role model which is exactly what?

Takes an idiot like Fred Hiatt and Don Graham to think this guy is Pundit material. Katherine Graham must be turning in her grave.

"Didn't it demonstrate that Palin was, indeed, a "hockey mom" because the campaign had to clothe her?"

*************

WTF?!?!

Is this "pundit" serious?

This comment is so absurd on so many levels it boggles the mind.

What complete and utter ignorance - or perhaps just plain stupidity - it's impossible to decide.

And this guy Mr. Prosecutor for Bush-well that explains a great deal. Look, so you can justify his corruption and Chaney's? Have Mercy Jesus! So now we have to hear about Palin from your lips? Yep! Golly gee! Like Gomer Pyle use to say: "Surprise, Suprise"! Give us a damn break in life, please!

Regan never repackaged himself. Repackaging indicates the first time was wholly inadequate and the Marketing boys got the product promotion all wrong. Secind , the product must appeal the the greater not the lessor. Sarah Palin relied on one liners rather than substantive dialogue. She and her handlers(handlers make her out to be a circus act) mismanaged the obvious truth on many statement like "death panels" when all even her people know the real story. She becomes an easy target when truth becomes lost in the goal of a political prize. Being next door to Russia is not foreign policy experience and to hint at such is to belittle the intelligence of the voter. Sarah Palin is wrong for politics but good for selling books. By the way the publisher will by the books to make the book a best seller before the book can even be bought by readers so quit the crap on best sellers that too is fake.

The first act was bad enough so the second act should be horrifying. So, the GOP let Palin divide their Party in New York? Wow! Well I guess that just shows how bright the GOP really is these days.

And here is the agenda for them: as if we did not notice? They are going for the local and state races. They decided to chop at the root since they cannot get the whole tree. Ya know how it is: "knibble and bits much like their hanging chads". And they are sending out vibes of if the Democrats lose in Va; NJ and NY it is a sign of rejection for President Obama-bull crap! So, hopefully it is a sign people are just damn sick of the GOP and hopefully they will get some common sense people if they do win-but, hopefully they won't. As a matter of fact I pray and hope they do not win for many years to come!!!

And any point of view from Palin is a rear end one full of dung and confusion. Go Levi go!!!

For the sake of some more fun, let's reverse roles to imagine how the Republican Campaign Machine would rip Sarah Palin to shreds if she were a Democrat running for high national office. More fodder than would fill a barn at the Kentucky Derby.

The object of funny mental lust, yet again receives unmerited WaPo (maker of news) attention.

Her resignation from the Governor's office is mavericky instead of quitting? In whose universe? Joe Biden may make gaffs, Nixon was a swine, Reagan a haircut but at least they all have or had a grasp of history, current events, worldwide diplomacy and policy. She can stay in Alaska and protect her cubs, we'll all be better off.

not bad, but didnt have the punch i expected...overall ok...

Well you picked an interesting and relevant topic. This opinion piece however is unlikely to find a warm home at the Post. You see, the Post was part of the media reputation smearing problem with Palin, and they have already thoroughly preconditioned the Pavlovian anti-Palin responses of their readership. I would venture the best the readers would have to offer would be to cite Palins "quote" about seeing Alaska from her house (actually never said it, Saturday Night Live skit) as proof positive that she is truely dead.

Your column would generate volume, but it would be the mindless bile type spewing of the left to reaffirm their own groupthink prejudice.

I would have cut this a bit shorter. The Reagan analogy was provocative enough. The arm chair generaling of Palin on how to reform her campaign is tiresome. Stick with the facts and surprise turnaround as you did with the Reagan analogy.

I think you have potential, particularly if the Post wants to cultivate the opinion they have Republican pundits as well, and if they want you to act as a gadfly to stir the pot and drum up contraversy. I think there is a ripe field of lefty prejudice you could mine in a weekly opinion piece, and would like to see you write more.

I was expecting a healthy sampling of everyday America based on how the Post described the contest. Boy was I wrong. A former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, a fellow at the CFR, the CEO of Teach For America, and a Nobel Prize winner. This is clearly not an "everyman's" contest, as advertised. And I'm sure it's mere coincidence that those with the heavy CVs just happened to make it through as finalists.

Looking for those arrogant in their ignorance? Look no further than Mr. Jackson, and Sarah Palin. Who needs thought-provoking when you can have mindnumbing? They're both marching lockstep. Doesn't really require any imagination whatsoever.

Dear Mr. Jackson, you are really reaching for empty straws. Sara Palin come on! You could've gotten (to me personally) a better showing if you would spoke about a former stripper working a legit employment than Sara Palin. And to beat all, your reference was Ronald ("I can't remember") Reagan. Boy, good luck in your future endeavors. I hope your next "great Pundit" is more concrete, with substance and reality. Thanks for a lack luster effort.

"He was called a dumb actor -- a mere mouthpiece for wealthy controllers on the right, who fed him lines and pointed him toward a lectern to deliver them." Reagan testified he could remember nothing about the "Iran-Contra" affair, over 100 I don't remembers. Yes, an empty suit.

Reagan "wedded himself to the core ideas he espoused in that office -- smaller government and lower taxes." Created the biggest government America ever on both on defense side and domestic side. Set America on path to financial ruin with his tax cuts to debt and deficits don't matter. Will be judged America's most destructive president, in a tie with Bush.

Mr. Jackson's argument that Palin compares to Reagan is in fact very good. But he falis to take his argument far enough. Both are popular amoung a certain population and both were without substance.

Reagan never practiced what he preached. The Democrat controlled Congress had to cut his spending requests in six of eight budgets. Palin soes not practice what she preaches either.

Her big empahsis is on anti corruption but she managed to build a million dollar plus house on less than $100,000 income. Amazingly the supplies came from the same distributer that won an exclusive contract for millions for a ice hocky arean that left the city in perpetual budget shortfalls.

Both have a good stage presence and niehter could really govern.

Sarah Palin v Ronald Reagan? I am no Reagan fan but the man was conversant; educated; poised. Sarah Palin is an insult to Americans. She is an insult to me. She is not only duplicitous, she is dumb. She has no idea that she knows nothing.

Next Great Pundit Scorecard:

Selected: 5 men, 5 women – no surprise there. Met the D word requirement – Diverse group.

Seven were either bad, dumb, light weight, single issue writers(3), Obama bashing, Fox news supporting, or watered down with “fair and balanced” writing (5). Not one did a credible job covering a big, national issue. Not one supported the President Obama.

Three were actually quite good, all by women. One was youth’s view, one single issue, one was personal and very insightful. All covered big, important national issues.

Bottom line, WP did a poor job selecting. 5 men, 5 women - seriously? Several were so bad the contestants have no chance to win. Single issue writers, gone in 60 seconds. Excluding the 3, no depth, no insight, no original thought. Oh, I guess in that way it does mimic with current crop of opinion writers in the WashPost.

Ronald Reagan...our greatest president? OMG! This entire financial crisis is his fault. What planet do you live in, Mr. Jackson? No wonder Fred Hiatt found you qualified to be a pundit. Birds of a feather flock together.

Palin's SECOND act was to resign her job as governor, then write and publish a book. Hard to argue with those who see this as quitting, since she only had 18 months left to serve. That would have left her 2 years to campaign for 2012, if indeed that is her desire. I don't think she's interested in the Presidency. I think she wanted to take advantage the publicity generated in 2008 and do the book. Perhaps (to be more generous) she wanted to focus more on her family. Maybe she needed a break after the grind of a Presidential campaign. Perhaps it was a bit of all these things.

As for her THIRD act, I see her as a broadcast pundit. Speaking of punditry, this piece is well written, though I disagree with many of it's points.

You know, I was just thinking that what the Washington Post really, really needed was another conservative voice.

After all, those right-wing madrigals have really complex arrangements!

Never have I seen the hate for of all things, a former vice presidentisl candidate. The left is terrified of Palin and most seem to suffer from PDS.

What I wouldn't give to see this lady as our first female president.

Palin / Bachmann 2012

Darryl, you've got the Libs all upset...say 'Palin' and they go beserk and trash talk you with their unique flavor of spam.

You write way to well to be just a WAPO 'pundit'; I want you syndicated nationally.

Keep it up; you've got a appreciative fan in Maine!

I have a more interesting topic for Jackson's next column, provided he gets past round one.

Having now read two of his entries which clearly identify Jackson as a water-carrier for the Republican right wing, my suggestion for his next column is this: Why has "empathy" become such a dirty word in conservative and Republican circles?

Let me give you a hint. It is because American conservatism is now tribal and sectarian by disposition and nature.

There was a time when conservatives concerned themselves with questions of social peace and harmony, domestic tranquility and unity. It was the evils of "class war" and the "chaos" in the streets in the 1960s, after all, that first gave conservatism a second lease on life.

But as Jackson's column today makes plain, conservatism now embraces figures like Sarah Palin whose sense of geography is no better for this country than it is for the rest of the world, since she thinks there actually is place called "Real America."

For a party with such a view, group loyalty and solidarity outweigh everything else. There is no room for dissenters -- or heretics -- from conservative orthodoxy. There is no interest or instinct for the qualities that make for good governance -- beginning first of all with the capacity of the governor to put themselves in the shoes of the governed. That is why the struggles in New York 23 are likely first shots at Fort Sumter in a conservative civil war.

There is no place within the conservative movement, in short, for empathy of any kind that might weaken or detract from the group cohesion and solidarity of the right wing community of true-believers that Palin and her supporters are trying to build.

All who buried Sarah Palin hope that she remains so.

~~~

You got that right.

Palin reminds me of MILDEW. You know the kind? I am talking about the kind of mildew that no matter how much you scrub it with bleach, or other harsh chemicals, it just doesn't go way. There is only one way to destroy this kind of bacteria and that is, you send in a demolition team to totally demolish the room, in which it is growing.

This column was so boring I barely got through it. It compares poorly to a senior in high school's paper for civics class. Please WashingtonPo - don't hire this guy. One write-in mentioned the fun of reading Krauthammer, et al. Their fanaticism entertains - at least. The joyful Republicans who responded - Ha! do they have a taste for bland - or what?
And guys - can you at least learn to spell your heroes names? Bush (with a capital B) and Cheney (with two e's). Good Lord, they're so illiterate. No wonder they love Sarah.

"There are signs that her visibility remains strong..."

If her visibilty remains strong that would be visible, right? Are the signs in some
closet, waiting?

there are other clunkers in this article, forgivable in a high scool paper, but
too telling here.

Though of course, Hiatt as the finder of good writing and thought is an oxymoron.
Moron being the operative syllable.

I hope all the crazy netroots realize that by taking the time to point out how much you hate Mr. Jackson (and Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin and whatever else it is that you hate today), you are actually helping him in this contest.

Keep it up, dimwits.

I'm not a huge Palin fan, but she is a political force and this is a fair commentary. I don't find it exceptional in that it doesn't really advance a unique opinion (most of us already know that Palin is well into her second act, and she's being fairly successful at it (as we'll probably see in tomorrow's elections), but it is well written and seems perfectly designed to set off the Pavlovian response mechanisms that characterize liberals today (do you all even realize how ridiculously easy it is to get you started with your yammering?).

The Post could do (and has done) a lot worse.

If you want to know what's really going on in Alaska, check out www.akprogress.com

Anyone who believes Ronald Reagan to be among our greatest presidents will also believe Sarah Palin is the voice of conservatives. It is obvious in politics, as it is in every religion, that the end justifies the means.
Remember that great communicators have included everyone from Confucius to Churchill, from W. R. Hearst to Hitler.
When history speaks, it will not be the likes of fanatical or religious opportunists who will become the great ideologues, but the slogging muddied, and unbowed who led by human error and human potential, and succeeded in rousing the masses to great achievements, not to political victories.
Your greatest Republican president was mistrusted and feared throughout a divided nation, The greatest Democratic president was maligned throughout his four terms in office. Both failed because their leadership was cut short when the wars were won, by the peace lost to lesser men.

So let's see....the rules for being a pundit means making something out of nothing?
Sarah Palin hasn't got much going, so maybe that's it...and good grief, Mr. Jackson, remember America loves a good joke more than an underdog!!!

Palin is an obnoxious and stupid joke, as most of the writers here realize and make no bones about stating. Anyone that gives her any serious consideration politically is a fool. She’s done for!

Clinton is only a step up, with a bigger mouth and no political future either. She, like Obama, is probably a one-term loser and hopefully, after the next election, we will hear no more about her, except from the gossip rags. I sure hope we don't anyway!

Nearly all the past presidential hopefuls are losers and now consigned to 'also ran' status. America badly needs some new leadership in our administration and congress and on the state levels too. If we do not find and elect better people than Clintons, Pelosi's, and Palin’s, this country will definitely go down the toilet. We are but a hand on the flush handle away!

Umm doesn't Bill Kristol already serve as the WaPo's resident Sarah Palin cheerleader? If Mr. Jackson was looking to distinguish himself with this column (which seriously reads like a compilation of Kristol's "insightful" writings), he failed.

Is this a contest for who writes the best puff piece for Ms. Palin? If so, I'd say Mr. Jackson has excelled at the task, and has inadvertently brought attention to our current dilemma in the media: there need not be any attention to the facts. Just paint the picture as you wish others to believe it, and that becomes the reality. For instance, Ms. Palin protecting her children as a "lioness protects her cubs" -aside from being a cheesy phrase to begin with - it does not accurately represent what occurred when she thrust her children on the national stage knowing full well (or at least a thinking person would)that her daughter Bristol would be eaten alive, and now to continue the saga by lambasting the 18 year old father of her grandchild in the national press. This obviously does not sound like a "lioness protecting her cubs", but if that's what you want us to believe, uh, okay. But, just for the record - the Post shouldn't waste their money on hiring a columnist to write this kind of tripe - they can simply take a few of the Beck or Limbaugh rifts and put them to print. They press hot buttons too.

I am so sick of hearing Sarah Palin's name-give it a rest will you - who cares what she does? To continue writing about her is absolutely stupid and a waste of trees-give it a rest!

WaPo and Mr. Jackson: Surely you jest!!

Is Jackson serious? What can he possibly mean when he says that "Sarah can't play the victim." What else is this column about other than the many ways that Palin (and Jackson's hero, Ronald Reagan) was victimized by what Jackson thinks is a vengeful, hateful liberal establishment. Jackson certainly knows his audience and their voracious appetite for resentment and self-pity.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you for a clear and circumspect analysis of Sarah Palin's political past and future. It seems like many comments to your post were made by people whose opinions were more like fans at hockey game.

parkbench writes:

And I like Mr. Jackson's writing. Besides, it will give the moonbats hissy-fits. Kinda fun. And an unusual voice in the WaPo.
+++++++++
Unusual??? The WaPo employs Kristol, Gerson, Krauthammer, Parker, -- all bonafide conservatives and some of them border on reactionary. There are more op-ed contributers like Broder and Hiatt who are not exactly banner waving liberals. And, imo, "moonbat" pretty well describes Sarah Palin. Darryl Jackson writes:
"Communication is critical in politics. Palin gives a great speech."

Sarah Palin gives speeches full of non sequiturs and run-on sentences. Her thoughts wander 'round and 'round never landing on the point she is trying to make. Maybe inside her head she knows what she means. Many of us don't.

Not much hope for the future if this writer is considered one of best and under consideration for a slot at WaPo. Jackson is somewhat lacking in the critical thinking department.

Mr. Jackson -

I'm not one of those people who worships Ronald Reagan, but to compare his political experience to Sarah Palin's is an exercise in futility.

Ronald Reagan was a two-term governor of California - a state far more complicated and populated than Alaska. Mrs. Palin didn't even complete one term as Alaska's governor, and with public sentiment running against her, I doubt she'll hold any high Alaskan office anytime soon.

Before Reagan's terms as governor, he was president of the SAG - while not, perhaps the same as federal level politics, that is a position of rather hefty managerial authority and public presence. She was on the city council and the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska - a city with a population anywhere between 5,000 - 10,000 people. I doubt anyone not familiar with Alaska had even heard of Wasilla before the election.

Mr. Reagan only went to one college, and majored in economics and sociology. Mrs. Palin went to four colleges and majored in communications (emphasis, journalism).

And ultimately, Ronald Reagan knew how to work a room. Not just his base support, but everyone in the room. He also had a sense of humor and enough social skill that he became that "Teflon" president. Mrs. Palin can claim no such skills - she is happy to be adored by her fanatical core. If you criticize her, she simply becomes shrill and defensive.

There really is no comparing these two politicians, based on their political background and cults of personality. They are actually different people and came to their Presidential ambitions from completely different points of the compass.

Darryl, as you have read, to speak the truth about anyone or anything conservative will get you hammered by all who hate the truth and embrace the 'isms. It's the same mindset that causes them to hate bush, Chaney or anyone else who stands in the way of their ungodly progressive agenda. Just continue to tell it like it is and you will continue to do fine.

At least Reagan had the excuse of senile dementia to excuse his stupidity.

More of the very "same old, same old." Worse that any lack of originality (RNC talking points clearly), the column is DULL, DULL, DULL. At least with Krauthammer, you get a lunatic who is appalling bur fascinating to watch (that's why we watch horror movies), or George Will, as peculiar but as distinctive as his nerdy bowties.

Well-written, Mr. Jackson. And like many things we have heard from Republicans over the years, it has a certain "truthiness" to it.

Sarah Palin is not as dumb as some people think. But she is lazy, and opportunistic. She will milk her fame for easy dollars, and never run for another public office.

So, points for style, but deductions for delusional thinking leave you in the red.

she may be an underdog, but an obviously naif about race, racism, where the Soviet Union is, national security, truth-telling. your tolerance and even liking of her, for whatever reason, makes you radioactive and the first one thrown out of the contest. Make sense, Darryl?

This is sad. Just what the Post needs, not.

Ronald Reagan is the GOP's jesus..let us count the ways:

Racist start to campaign in Phila,MS.
Full embracement of the "southern strategy", gave Karl Rove a blueprint.

Funded Al-Quada.

Back terrorists in Honduras...including backing the murder of government officials.
Pepsi has a plant their now...

Set us on the path of supply-side economics...THE deciding factor in the ultimate decline of our economy, the suffering of thousands, and the complete crushing of the working poor.

The gap between the highest earners and the lowest grew under Reagan, and on purpose..

I disagreed with much of what Reagan stood for, but I never thought he was stupid. Reagan's philosophy was a reaction to a lot of over-reaching by liberals, particularly in regard to the modern welfare state.

Palin, on the other hand, simply has no intellect, no fresh ideas, and has shown a vicious streak. Particularly, Palin's willingness to hate on gay Americans for cheap political gain means I as a moderate American will never support her.

The media did not make Sarah look stupid. She did that all by herself. The scary part is that all the people who follow her are dumber than she is. Independents, moderates and democrats should hold an excorcism for all right wing America hating, do nothing Republicans. We need to cleanse ourselves from this putrid scum laden vile.

"Palin gives a great speech ... (Her) Achilles' heel lies in the give-and-take of news interviews."

Translation: Palin can read but she can't think.

Great; that's a wonderful reason to make her president.

Hilary Clinton is twice the woman Palin will ever be, and your party Darryl, cheated us out of her leadership as it has Gore and Carters. They are also responsible for the deaths of millions of men woman and children across the world. The last thing we need is a coo coo for President. This definition would fit the Palin ticket the best. It would also show just how stupid Harvard and the American people have become.
I will never understand how anyone could support the independents of Alaska from the union of states and then be nominated by the republican party to run for Vice President of the U.S.. Unless of course they are part of the commie party I suspect them to be.
As I remember it, Alaska was purchased by the union of states from the Russians. That would make it owned by the U.S. of America. This would make independents of Alaska the biggest heist in history.
If the state of Alaska was an investment, wheres my royalties?
I hope the republican party uses Palin for their nominee. Obama will need an extra term. The first won will be spent cleaning up the mess of Palin's party.

Palin is a deluded moron. Reagan was an actor playing at being president. He had no clue what in hell was going on and no intellectual curiosity (ditto Palin). They share one other trait (along with Bush): they like to stand in front of the bright lights and hear themselves talk.

Palin is a reprehensible political shark and nothing more. Like the Bush boys and Cheney, she's out for herself regardless of how much she blathers on about the moronic GOP platitudes.

Joe Biden with his plagerism and misquotes and mistakes was never subjected to the scrutiny that Sarah Palin was. Hordes of blood sucking liberal reporters decended on Alaska. Could it be that Sarah strikes a cord of honesty that is so absent from Washington DC. She energizes her constituents with basics.
Look at wat is in DC now.....voters do not trust congress...they cannot manage a budget...they cannot run a business...they can only spend and bloviate. It is time for someone to think of what is best for this country and not themselves. Out with the rascals.

Ronald Reagan along with his Sec. of Treasury Donald Regan were the first Repiblican administration to propose and pass maasive tax cuts, cuts that did away with the graduated tax codes that taxed the wealthy at much higher levels. They also included social security taxes paid into the general revenue in an attempt to reduce the massive deficits that were incurred due to their tax cuts,with little success. They also were the start of government de-regulation over the markets, all of them from financial to farmed foods. Their mantra of less government is better is part of the reason we are where we are today with wall street and its mess of derivitives, credit default swaps and all the other fast buck schemes that were born out of deregulation.
Republican Presidents going all the way back to Reagan have been responsible for the largest growth in government debt ever with G.W. Bush tripling the national debt in eight years. Any notion that Reagan was a great President is sorely missplaced and the republican claim to fiscal responsibility is nonsense.

Thomas Mcmahon
Millis Ma

The rewriting of history in regards to Reagan must end. He tripled the deficit, sold weapons to Iran, propped up murderous, extremist South American regimes, legitimized the Christian Right, ignored AIDS, propagated racist political rhetoric through the use of "code words, and looked the other way while drugs flooded in to American cities. Oh, and he didn't win the cold war - the Soviets shot themselves in the foot by invading Afghanistan.

Mr. Jackson, keep your day job. The nation had the good fortune of losing Sarah Palin as VP & I hope would have the good fortune of NOT having you as a regular columnist in WP. We have enough crap from Kristol, Krauthammer & Gerson.
Sarah Palin unabashedly exhibited her ignorance during the campaign. I don't know what ever possessed Mr. McCain to select her as running mate. May be it was Obama's good luck.
She initially "energized" some of the public by her winking & folksy style. But soon couldn't pretend to be intelligent, particularly during the intrviews with Charlie Gibson & Katie Curic. Those 3 or 4 months were bad experience for the nation.
Last time I checked, the US president's term is 4 years... can't resign half way through the term giving some cock-and-bull story.
She can stay home, raise the children in a good conservative way, like date--marry--& have chidren--in that order. The last one may require her undivided attention & extra care. Everybody cannot be a good politician, but can be a good parent.

Candidates like this are about what we can expect when Fred Hiatt is one of the judges. That pretty much says it all.

Total dreck.

Wishful thinking masquerading as thoughtful opinion. Back up your ridiculous suppositions with something resembling an argument. For instance, you can't just state Obama's team sensed her "charisma rivaled that of its candidate." That's just delusional and without a shred of evidence--Obama's team was overjoyed he picked her. And that gimmick: "Today, many rank that man blah, blah, blah..." is an obvious, cheap, rhetorical riff my 10th grade English teacher wouldn't have allowed. Again, try to give an argument for saying it or at least add a quote from someone who has gone to the trouble to think through his opinion.

You have to actually address issues you find unpleasant and uncomfortable in order to be legitimate. Of course, since Palin is the most absurd lightweight ever thrust onto the national stage, ignoring, obfuscating and soft-pedaling her staggering faults is probably the only route you could take. But you have also done a yeoman's job of made up praise, self-deception, ill-conceived comparisons and plainly false assertions without the wit to offer reasons.

This isn't an opinion piece it's a campaign ad. Keep your day job.

The AIP is part of a network of extreme, often violent, RIGHT-WING secessionist groups across the U.S. associated with neo-Confederate, White Power, anti- Semitism and White supremacist ...

Palin lied when she denied that the Alaska Independence Party supports secession and denied that her husband had been a member; in fact, even the McCain campaign noted that the party's very existence is based on secession and that Todd was a member for seven years. ("The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up" by A. Sullivan - fact check results)

Darryl, as a Black man you need to think twice. You better hope that Palin, whose husband, was a 7 year member of the AIP, with her support. By support, attending their conferences as recently as mid year in 2008. Palin has an support video on youtube.

America.has been so dumbed down that we can not see what is right in front of us.Remember,Facebook is constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots.

Still Loving this Country...

Palin was a celebrity because she was a unique oddity. She spoke very poorly, was seemingly dimwitted, frighteningly militant, but good-looking.

Because of the first three qualities I mentioned (not the fourth, obviously), the thought of her as any sort of national representative of the United States is funny at best, immensely terrifying at worst.

(1) "Some" say Reagan was among the greats. To actually be among the greats, however, you should expect praise and admiration largely independent of modern political ideology. Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts (barring some minor recent revisionist history), even Eisenhower, earn the respect of their inheritors for their personal character, their ability to prevail against resistance, and the actual nature of their accomplishments. Reagan is respected widely for his skills as a politician. However, his skills at governance and his accomplishments are not so clearly admired. Iran-Contra; contracting-out the core functions of government; gutting the tax system; supply-side economics; union-busting; "Star Wars"; Ed Meese. This is an unhappy legacy and it has borne bitter fruit as carried forward by the Bush#43 administration.

(2) The Obama campaign did not attack Sarah Palin. They didn't need to. Yes, one could raise the same questions about Obama as were raised about Sarah Palin -- as one should raise about any candidate. The difference is in how the questions are answered. Obama delivered probity, thoughtfulness, insight. Palin delivered an empty head, a tendency to make proclamations marked by a lack of knowledge, and empty appeals to authority based on her demonstrably trivial (and even then, badly mismanaged) experience in governance in Alaska.

(3) The world already is filled with pundits and commentators who seek to articulate a political stance formed in advance of experience and facts. No matter how eloquently stated, that's not what we need. We need to hear from thinkers whose political stance is formed as a result of considering experience and facts. Ideology may be something inherent in the commentator, but the application of that ideology in considering political solutions to actual problems -- THAT's where a pundit needs to show he can think for himself and contribute something fresh. Mr. Jackson does not do that.

Oh please. As if the Post needed another thoroughly delusional, Regan-worshiping, brain-dead, conservative pundit. Democrats positively DROOL at the prospect of facing know-nothing Palin again. Most thinking people, then and now, knew that Regan was a few ICBMs short of a Mutually Assured Destruction. The 'few core principles' of Republicanism Darryl recommends have been thoroughly and publicly discredited, and shown to be both cynical and contradictory. 'Thanks, but no thanks'.

Extremely weak argument based on wishful thinking. Palin has no ablitiy to attract followers other the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. She turned of moderates in the last election that helped lead to McCain's defeat. This was one of the ten best contestants??

"Today, many rank that man -- Ronald Reagan -- among our greatest presidents."

Yes, and many rank Dick Cheney among our greatest vice presidents -- so what's your point?

This so-called commentary is just silly. Jackson shows us nothing but the most superficial interpretation of history and it's lessons for today's political events.

It is absurd to conflate Sarah Palin with people like Nixon, Reagan or even Joe Biden. All of them thought and worked long and hard to develop their ideas about America and the world, and learned how government and politics worked (or didn't) so they could play effective roles that advanced their philosophies.

Sarah Palin is simply a celebrity who is famous for being thrust into the limelight by a desperate John McCain, who was willing to throw the country under his campaign bus in a long-shot bid to shake things up and win the election.

Sarah Palin couldn't even finish a term as governor of Alaska - as soon as the thrill of novelty wore off, and as soon as the state budget couldn't rely on royalties from skyrocketing oil prices, she "cut and run." And now she's trying to cash in with her ghost-written book and speaking fees.

Even Britney Spears seems to have done more to work through her problems and stage a legitimate comeback.

If this is the Washington Post's idea of a "great pundit," I might as well read the National Enquirer for "news."

Mr. Jackson...Please stop and consider another avenue to spout your drivel..I for one am terrified to think of Sarah Palin as nothing more than a pretty face, and a ham who loves the money and attention of getting in front of a crowd and hear them roar!! I guess you are right to compare her with Reagan....both are pretty good actors!!

I suspect the intent of having such a venue as this is to create reaction and to encourage thought. Some of the comments I have read suggest many people react by avoiding thought and regurgitating preconceived opinion. Mr. Jackson has certainly achieved reaction but encouraging thought may require a "willing suspension of disbelief" he has not enabled in readers. That presumes the ability exists in significant proportion to the common woman...and if it exists at all in man.

weak subject.
weak article.
let palin rest in peace!

Why do we need yet another pundit who simply regurgitates ultra-right wing talking points? We don't. We need some originality and critical thinking.

"Today, many rank that man -- Ronald Reagan -- among our greatest presidents."

Oh really? I believe your "many" must actually refer to "many conservatives", those who insist on canonizing a guy who was actually a mediocre president at best, at least according to "many" presidential historians.

The problem with conservatives is they've become both intellectually lazy and dishonest. They have no capacity for introspection. They insist on touting the same old garbage even when confronted with the facts, that is, their ideas have not worked out well for the majority of Americans. Trickle down economics, pushed by St Ronald, doesn't work. De-regulation taken to the extreme doesn't work. Cutting more and more taxes doesn't work. Trying to force your social values on a diverse society doesn't work. Free market fundamentalism doesn't work. Sarah Palin lacks substance. She doesn't work. She's bad for the country. Fine, let her whip up the far right extremists, but to suggest she's in any way presidential material, give it a rest.

You use as your premise the claim that many believe Reagan to have been one of our greatest presidents. This is a very flimsy foundation upon which to build an argument. And indeed, you blather mainly warmed over rightwing cant from the pre-Katrina Bush years. Why do you sad souls insist on boosting the feeblest intellects? You have convinced yourselves that by bellowing your beliefs you have made them fact. I realize that a black man who carries water for the GOP can advance somewhat more quickly than someone who remains dignified, but don't you dread how you will be judged by your descendants?

Two pretty generic columns.

I'd be happy to see Darryl Jackson as the next pundit. He clearly knows more about Sarah Palin than all the critics who are still confusing her with a comedian's portrayal. The attempts at ridiculing Palin could have been used with more accuracy in describing Obama before the election and even more obviously since. Her enemies sound like scared schoolyard rivals shouting names at the objects of their envy, elevating their opposition in the process.

Darryl Jackson would be a refreshing addition to these pages.

I can't believe that an editorial board would seriously cosider either of these as candidates for a nationally read column! Mara Gay is longwinded and makes some absurd statements. Mr. Jackson is shallow and makes statements that would make reasonable conservatives wince.

I truley hope that the later submissions reach a higher standard! I would not give either of these a passing grade.

Why any self respecting conservative would continue to tout Ms. Palin as a viable presidential candidate, or candidate for anything, is completely beyond me. She's the equivalent of a charismatic snake oil salesman. The woman is incredibly flawed in every way imaginable. She's completely narcissistic, not particularly bright, no substance, dishonest, vindictive, and incredibly polarizing. She's good at whipping her little fringe base into a frenzy with all sorts of distortions and inflammatory language, but that's about it. The idea of her being a responsible leader is truly laughable. Sarah is all about Sarah. I think Sarah LOVES the limelight, but doesn't really want the responsibility of governing.

Honestly, are you that nuts?

I can hardly wait how Palin spins resigning her Alaska governorship as an act of bravery. Almost everyone loves an underdog, but few people admire quitters.

The majority of the comments are so negative, crass, rude and even somewhat immature (using the term "stupid" is immature)-another avenue for the anti-Palin people to voice off. I thought that this was a contest for the best writing-not a re-run of the campaign.
The article was factual and interesting. Thank you Darryl.

Mr. Jackson,

For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that Sarah Palin was treated unfairly by the Obama campaign and the media during the 2008 campaign.

Since that time, one full year now, can you name a single statement or publication by Palin that even hints at the presidential timber you claim she has? Would it be her resignation as governor? Her media squabble with her ex-almost-son-in-law? Her "death panels" statement? Her demand of a $100,000 speaker fee from Iowa Republicans?

You make an interesting assertion that Palin could come back as Reagan did but you offer zero evidence for it.

I like to read pundits from across the political spectrum. My only filter is a consistent salute to facts and logic. Your effort fails on both.

WEll...at least it isn't all venom and lies. That having been said, this piece casts a a radiant warm light, someimes in almost sepia tones, on a figure, whom under the harsh light of reality IS as vapid as she came off in those interviews. She has a litany of documented statements that point to the intellectual vacume, and superficial analysis that Sarah Palin bases those statements on. She was abandoned by Republicans whom intially were radiant in there appreciation of her, after she was given second and third chances to change their minds on how deficient, and devoid of national leadership ablity she really was.

I'm more inclined to have more sympathy for the author's reflections regarding RR, but the analogy is ludicrous.

So this is a pundit pick? Why bother to read any others if the theme will be the same? I, for one, was insulted when McCain picked a person unqualified for the VP position. Just because I am female I was supposed to vote for a ticket that included a female? Did he think that we would not want someone qualified, be it a male or female?

An insult to the intelligence of most women. Now she writes a book? Who was the ghost-writer? Is she now able to remember what newspapers she supposedly reads? Does she now understand that the VP does not "run" anything in government?

In her opinion, we are not "real Americans" unless we live in the boonies. Since I have lived in both rural and urban areas, I guess that makes me "1/2 real American", right?

If this is a typical example of your pundit picks, then no thanks. You already have enough of the same type in your newspaper already.

This is nothing more than a campaign document. Palin is a talented demagogue, but her petulant and impulsive resignation from the governorship will doom her chances of winning the presidency. She might get the GOP nomination, since the right wing is now in complete control of that party.

Don't you just love liberals. They attack Palin as unqualified but support Barry who has absolutely no qualifications for the position he holds. Palin has been a business woman, mayor and govenor. Barry has been? Not even the night supervisor at McDonalds.

Watch out! Sarah is coming and she is going to get you. Boo!

Hopium Dopium chumps.

Sarah Palin will be the gift that will keep on giving if she persists. However, all she wants is money for nothing. Good riddance to her.

Waiter, send this back to the kitchen, please. It tastes funny. Seriously, I find it difficult to attach any credibility to someone who believes Sarah Palin has anything relevant to say. Mr. Jackson, don't bring the crazy out until AFTER you're married, not on the first date.

Mr. Jackson props up a ludicrous proposition -- that Sarah Palin's political trajectory parallels that of the anointed Ronald Reagan -- using the stale, trite Neocon tool of the Straw Man argument, i.e., some criticized Ronald Reagan and were wrong, so critics of Sarah Palin are wrong too. This presents very weak thinking and mediocre writing. I'm surprised this candidate made it to the finals.

I could barely read this drivel. What do we need another political hack columnist when we have plenty like George Will, whose column I at least can finish! Will has already insulted his intelligence and writing ability by defending Sarah Palin--Mr. Jackson has no such intellgence or writing ability to insult.

I've been working in Alaska for 30 years and Sarah Palin is the least educated and least interested in being educated governor yet. How many books do you imagine in her library at home?
How can radical republicans such as Mr. Jackson defend this choice between ignorance and interest? By comparing her to the daring of the radical right, Ronald Reagan Mr. Jackson tries to align her with a winner of elections. Didn't he justify selling arms to Iran to overthrow an elected government in central America?
Just look at the election polls: 25% of people will never change their mind from radical republican and 25% likewise for liberal democrat. 45% of Americans voted for McCain/Palin. The whole point for discussions is for the electorate at the margins; I know it, pollsters know it, and elected politicians know it.

I truly marvel at the tone of the comments directed at Darryl Jackson on his piece. His thesis -- Palin may exeed expectations and don't count her out for 2012 -- is quite benign, yet the mean-spirited response to even this mere suggestion seems to have warranted some insults congruent with the tone of the entire presidential campaign.

Why the visceral reaction to Palin? The answer is simple: people could not have come to such conclusions about her without the help of the mainstream media, who were running a campaign of their own in 2008.

If I were competing in this contest, I would have pointed out that the media actually won the 2008 election. After all, their anointed one was brought into office with the most one-sided coverage we have seen in at least several generations.

I sure hope this column isn't indicative of the quality of the other top 10 pundit candidates; there's no point in reading them if it is.

Palin is an attention-seeker and a grifter, in addtion to being crassly ignorant (and proud of it) and stupid. She appeals to the lowest common denominator of the population. She repels everyone else.

Matching words into a stupid claim equals an argument. Move aside, Beck, we've got America's Next Great Pundit

The repukes like empty suits for their candidates so Palin is perfect.

The Post likes republican operatives for its columnists, so Mister Jackson is perfect.

If the WaPo readers are looking for more platitudes from the likes of Gerson and Kristol they're in luck. But do we really need another pundit whose major talent is to incite liberals by espousing the virtues of conservatism while ignoring reality?

Yes, Palin once energized the McCain campaign, but she eventually brought it down by revealing McCain as a desperate fool for choosing her. And is winning really so important that we'll ignore the fact that this is a "leader" who can't name a newspaper or a Supreme Court decision? Is Palin's weakness really her lack of training to avoid gaffes? No, her weakness is that she doesn't tell the truth. Politics is more than a sport. If you love your country you might want someone trained in policy and the nuances of international diplomacy. If you respect your candidates you'd expect them to answer questions in a legitimate debate setting without "speaking directly to the American people" and ignoring questions put them. In any other first-world country with a respected news media candidates are given follow-up questions. Palin only survives here because the American people have bought into the idea that follow-up questions are form of "gottcha" journalism. And fluff like this is "commentary".

I hate reading these "winning" essays. So disappointing. I agree - Darryl is delusional. As a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, I am continuously frustrated by the GOP's inability to find a candidate that not only believes in the party's platform, but can actually articulate conservative ideas in an intelligible manner. Sarah Palin was the wrong choice, not because of her ardent support of the company line, but because she comes off as a high school dropout. Of course, Obama had about as much real world experience as a high school dropout - I don't think the position of "community activist" requires a degree, of any kind - and, now we get to live with his bumbling/fumbling every important issue since he took office. Is there no one capable of piloting this ship?

Liked your first piece. Writing about Palin is a name-drop gambit to garner more clicks and comments. I'm sure it will work. It's all about numbers.

Palin has long coat-tails, but sadly, there is nothing of substance inside the coat.

I'm confused about how this contest was to work. I didn't realize that other writers would have to compete against a former administration official who is also somewhat of a professional writer in his administration job capacity. I also thought the Post was looking for new and different viewpoints. This is like reading GOP talking points and, as other have suggested, could have easily been written by Kristol or Krauthammer. Nothing new or different here.

Are Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer whispering suggestions for these columns from the wings?

In his first column Mr. Jackson echoed Krauthammer from just the previous day by suggesting that that President Obama should stop making excuses. In his second column Mr. Jackson has stolen a page (actually several pages) from Kristol by offering nothing but excuses for Sarah Palin.

Mr. Jackson needs to have more respect for the intelligence of the American public and the discernment of both the public and the press when it rightly ridiculed -- laughed at really -- the idea of Sarah Palin as President. It was a Conservative Movement, to which Mr. Jackson is quite obviously a card-carrying member, that destroyed John McCain's chances when they insinuated this neophyte on the campaign and then forced John McCain to dishonor himself by seriously suggesting that Palin belonged a heart-beat away from the presidency.

The only saving grace is that if Mr. Jackson's comparison with the trajectory Ronald Reagan traced to the presidency holds for Palin, we won't have to worry about having Sarah Palin to kick around for another 30 years.

This was a thoughtful piece from Darryl. The screaming from the lib-left commentators is evidence that he has probably got an excellent hypothesis - their hatred prevents them from acknowledging it.

The underlying point of this piece is that unlikely people can rise to the occasion if they are given the chance. This is a perennial theme (and challenge) in business. Who should be the next CEO? The person with a strong career history and the charisma to match, or that guy in the corner whom nobody notices but is nurturing some groundbreaking ideas that could change the world (at least for that company and sometimes for the whole industry)? Read leadership guru, Jim Collins,' book: 'Good to Great' and then read Darryl again.

Sadly, people only form judgments on what a person has done in the past and what they are today. Rarely do these folk stop to consider what a person's potential is. It might be unknowable but it can't be ruled out - people do grow into the job.

The jury is (rightfully) out on Obama's presidency - will he grow into the job or will the complexity of it drown him. Only time will tell.

The risks for any up and coming leader are firstly, over-promising and secondly, under-delivering. This could be the 44th president's Achilles' heel - or not.

Finally - the postings seem to confirm that the person has yet to be born who is fit to be the president. Will all candidates forever be fools or dangerous?

Reagan granted amnesty to four million illegal aliens -- creating a flood of their relatives, friends and fellow countryman coming to America in the hope of similar treatment. Can we expect a similar amnesty from Palin?

Reagan boldly invaded the tiny island of Grenada but cut and ran from Lebanon after the Beirut Marine barracks bombing (encouraging every jihadist in the world to world to believe that America was nothing but a paper tiger). Can we expect similar braggadocio cowardice from Palin?

Reagan oversaw the deregulation, looting and $150+ billion tax-payer bailout of America's Savings & Loan institutions. Can we expect similar fiscal irresponsibility from Palin?

The Palin = Reagan comparison has many downfalls, Darryl -- as anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size would know.

But then again, you were a member of the George W. Bush administration (where IQ was neither wanted nor appreciated).

"I'm a lawyer and former federal prosecutor. I served in the Bush 43 administration as an assistant secretary of commerce responsible for advancing national security, foreign policy and economic interests" - Darryl Jackson

_____________________________________

Well, Darryl, you not only failed in advancing America's national security, foreign policy and economic interests, you have also failed to advance Mooselini's interests.

Don't give your day job.

Drawing a parallel between Reagan and Palin is absurd.

Reagan was the two-term governor of America's most-populous state; Palin was the less-than-one-term governor of backwater Alaska.

Reagan had a successful acting career and was head of the Screen Actors Guild; Palin had no career and was mayor of the Crystal Meth capital of Alaska (pop: 7,000).

The only possible similarity between the two is a liking for public debt.

Attempting to compare Palin to Reagan does not elevate Palin. All it does is demean Reagan. It also makes Darryl Jackson appear to be incredibly stupid.

Again -- tripe. Many rank reagan as a great president? Really? On what planet? reagan was mediocre at best while president - and was roundly reviled by the very portion of the republicon party that now remains. The part that have turned reagan into a myth.

Couldn't get past that sentence - if that is your premise - that reagan was mocked in 1976 but became president you prove you know nothing of history. reagan had a long political career. Was a pragmatist. Raised taxes. republicons taday would drum him out of the gop as a RINO, much as the conservative wing tried to in the 80s. The difference is that the gop was not just exclusively a dumping ground for delusional nit wits then.
reagan very nearly crashed the country and started WWIII. He is the reason it took so long for the USSR to collapse - his inflamatory rhetoric gave the hard liners a last gasp -- notice that the soviet block did not start to unravel until AFTER reagan left office. His campaign rhetoric and his "trickle down" nonsesne, and his starve the beast theories are the primary cause of the nation going so badly off the rails in the past few decades.

palin is not even as good as a dope like reagan. She has no career in politics - at least not in doing anything. She quit the only real job she ever held as soon as it got difficult. She is a swine as a parent calling her own kid a r etard. Her next act is on QVC selling costume jewlery to rubes.

I think William Kristol has grounds for a plagiarism suit here.

The content of the article is secondary to the way it is written. I assume the Post wishes to promote good writing in its columns, and the author simply cannot write. The article is poorly constructed, with simplistic and ineffective use of language. Its arguments are inadequate to stand up its conclusions. Next please.

It is utterly unbelievable that people like B2O2 still believe the totally discredited story that Palin "thought that Africa was a county" (and that he used it as a sly racial insult at you) but that people were willing to believe that she was dumb.
Don't they understand that video is EDITED and that the likes of Couric et al, can make anyone seem brilliant or dumb at will with the push of a few buttons. There were more than eight hours of interviews with Couric, cut down to a few damaging minutes intended to save Couric's contact with CBS.
No one does this to Barack Obama, who says that they speak "Austrian" in Austria, and other ridiculous things that they don't teach at Harvard.
Does anyone in Americe think that Obama can read a simple profit/loss statement? LOL Palin can.

I'm not sure what I think about Palin except for my admiration for her grit. Her sheer stamina and courage in the face of cruelty and abuse.
She doesn't blame others for what she "inherited."
This is a woman who steps up to the plate, and I admire that.

And I like Mr. Jackson's writing. Besides, it will give the moonbats hissy-fits. Kinda fun. And an unusual voice in the WaPo.

"Communication is critical in politics. Palin gives a great speech"

Eh? She neither communictes clearly nor gives a great speech. That rambling non-sensical resignation speech is a classic case in point. No one had any idea what she was on about, it was poorly constructed and delivered, her interviews are the same. Simple repetitive talking points with folksy "charm".

I personally dont want a "normal" person to be President. They should be people of extroadinary character. She is not one of them.

Spot on about the victim card though, I am really sick of that from the right.

this was not a very impressive column

i am not a palin fan but i like a good argument

this was not a good argument
i started skimming it about halfway

didnt say anything new, fresh or evocative
to my way of thinking

i want to be surprised by unexpected professionalism, this was not it

waste of my time

Palin is "timely" and "different from [your] initial entry"? Both entries read like something lifted from the pages of ClownHall and run through a spell checker.

Let me guess - you were a Fed prosecutor who has made the jump to defense attorney. You've certainly done a bang-up job of framing events into a light that attempts to absolve your clients of any personal responsibility for their failings.

Um, Mr. Jackson? The continent that your ancestors came from, Africa... Sarah Palin thought it was a *country* until the McCain staffers filled her in. This is who you are touting for a leader of the free world.

Think about what you are saying before you write.

Again, Fred Hiatt will surely like your garbage because he has very low standards. But this city won't. People are actually educated here. Try Fox.

It's fine with me if hard-core partisans cheerlead for Palin so long as they have some reasonable grasp of reality. There are plenty of soberminded conservatives talking her up to counter unfair distortions and offering useful, friendly advice. Jackson tries for it, but he strikes out hard. This article is not wholly devoid of merit, spelling-wise for instance, and it does cheerlead admirably, but it is a wooden read and also quite preposterous. As far as practical application it lacks even a single piece of decent and useful advice for Palin to follow on her quest to dig out, although it does say that she's in the ditch mainly because of her greatest benefactor's campaign. There are no real warnings to be heeded, no unforeseen pitfalls are illuminated for Palin in this piece.

It's fairly delusional to compare Palin to Reagan and Nixon and Clinton. Reagan had a record in a region of consequence before his "comeback", and Nixon had decades on the national scene even before the presidency. Clinton came back during an actual primary, in which he ran for the actual presidency with a gubernatorial record that Palin cannot match. His second comeback was due to popularity based on a presidential record in addition to an energetic post-presidential agenda, possibly coupled with a heavyweight Hillary who immediately entered the Senate upon his departure. Meanwhile, back in Alaska, Sarah quit her job, and then Todd quit his job. The Clintons may have been seen as troubled but everyone knows they mean business. And it is most definitely not an attack on Palin to say that whatever family difficulties she has, they must be addressed in a serious manner. Did the Clintons feud with the Lettermans of the world? Did Nixon and Reagan? Were they as amateurish as Palin? They were neither as amateurish nor quite as lacking in concrete experience with some serious politicking and concensus-building and the reading of newspapers.

Palin's hole to climb out of is rather deep given her stature. The brief record of taking on the old-boys is commendable, the determination and the charisma are undeniable, but what else did she actually do other than fire up the base while dropping everyone else's jaws to the floor? A year later she is still unqualified in the eyes of Independents, and half of Republicans agree with that notion. She has her work more than cut out for her, and so does Mr. Jackson if he wants to advise her in the Post.

So the benchmark of a presidential hopeful is to have a top-ranking book on Amazon? Bring on Dan Brown or perhaps even Glen Beck!

To be fair, if the goal of this pundit contest is to see who can aggravate readers the most, Mr Jackson hasn't done a bad job at all. Of course, if we're looking for who can dredge up the same old drudgery, we have that here too.

For the most part, this is part of the same posturing where the right tries to paint the left as quaking in their boots with fear for the Reaganesque, dyed-in-the-wool, small-town hockey mom hero set to rise from the ashes and lead the GOP to victory. Frankly, though, I really doubt whether pieces like these are likely to give swing voters pause for thought.

But like so many of the other OpEds we see in the WaPo, dealing with 'facts' or even 'reality' is not so important as sustaining a brand, even if it is almost entirely a product of the conservative imagination.

If the competition is to see who can use the most cliches the most shamelessly, this contestant deserves to be in the finals. If the contest is to explore a current issue or event with insight and intelligence, this column missed only two of those.

oh my goodness Darryl! Brace yourself for the liberal hate mail in the morning!!!

I thought the article was well written. In fact, you framed it nicely. I was not looking forward to reading a Palin piece, but I enjoyed it It would have been great to add in something about her current "rogue" relevance such as stirring up the pot with Hoffman and getting the GOP candidate to withdrawal.
Overall, good job. You are still in my top three!

I agree with Wiltondiary - Reagan was a Keynesian - government spending increased out of all bounds under him, including all of that buildup of the presumably peacetime (well, Cold War, I suppose, actually...) military. A fiscal conservative, despite all of the rhetoric, he absolutely was not.

I still wanna know where he was going, in some of the final debates presdiential debates, on that highway when his recollection faded out - I don't think the man was ever all there, in the first place. Some think he was never the same after he had been shot - I don't know about that, for sure. And I do absolutely believe that he was a puppet for his right-wing puppetmasters.

And Reagan WAS an idiot, despite any nostalgia on the part of the Republic Party or any revisionist history - an amiable idiot, apparently - he did seem to get along with - and try to - Tip O'Neill and others with whom his 'philosophy' would not seen to indicate that he was on the same wavelength, at all, with those folks. And Tip seemed to return the favor.

But, those were different days - perhaps a more civil time - the Democrats under Tip O'Neill in 1980 decided that the American people had spoken - that the Republic hadn't come to an end (and wasn't sliding into fascism) despite the fact that the other side had lost - and Tip made the Democrats work with "The Great Communicator." That certainly hasn't happened today - the Republic Party of today has decided that ain't gonna happen and that scorched earth is what it's gonna be all the way back to Atlanta - well, so be it...

Now the Democrats have just got to get up some gumption and find their spines to stick the Republic Party - The Party of No - in its place - 'bout time, too, says I...

Excellent, however I am still curious as to how Reagan was a conservative. Reagan raised taxes on the middles class. He then doubled the deficit, while having 10% unemployment. In reality both Reagan and Paul are exactly what true conservatives are not. Reagan was not a true family man, Palin has an unwed daughter and illegitimate grandchild, a son with a criminal record and they are all dependent on Sarah; the true breadwinner in the family is the wife!

Sly, Darryl...real sly. Sure know how to push buttons.

Sarah Palin - God help us!!! Never mind all of the other inanity that this woman represents - she's simply downright dangerous. Lost in the shuffle here is the report regarding how she - and her doofus husband who apparently didn't realize who was Governor and who didn't care, in any case, occupying her office and acting like some vindictive enforcer - used the office of Governor, despite all the warning from her staffers, to pursue a personal vendetta. God, please spare us from this and what it portends.

Please, please, read the report; then tell me that you agree that this woman shoudn't be dog-catcher - especially that - the dogs can't defend themselves.

Look at her record - read the report, for cryin' out loud.

sarah palin as the next president? give me a break. while sarah may on her way to become prominent in gop politics, i am willing to bet that she will not become president. the woman quit her job! governing is too hard. making money is easier. she is trying to cash in her fame.

don't get me wrong, the woman has good political instinct. but she not reagan nor bush. Ronald Reagan and GW Bush were both elected governors of the two biggest states. how many people live in alaska?

dream, baby, dream!

And I thought the Post's regular lineup of clueless conservatives was bad. I think we have a winner in the Next Great Idiot contest.

Seriously, Sarah Palin makes Bush look smart; she is that ignorant. The fact that her book is a bestseller just proves that conservative groups will buy anything en masse to present the illusion of popularity. And quitting her only high profile job does not exactly help against those attacks that she lacks experience.

And wasn't Reagan really just an empty suit who cowtowed to moneyed interests? The fact that he's popular doesn't disprove that hypothesis. Reagan-era policies of deregulation set us on the path to where we are now. And I'm not sure you want to tout his supposed intellect; he really thought cutting taxes would raise revenues.

I hoped that the debacle that was the Bush years would teach conservatives that the president has to know things. But then before Bush was even out of office, the Right went weak-kneed for someone even more uninformed than him. What's that definition of crazy again? Oh yeah: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

> Sarah Palin will never be ready to be president. No one had to attack her. She did it to herself with her own words and actions. She is who she is.

the last statement, should be "you are who you are", it really has nothing to do with her. think about it.

change is coming, life is aging. hope you keep watching. i am not saying she will win or lose, but i think she can stand for sth, and will succeed.

> Sarah Palin is ignorant. That was not just a media portrayal. She demonstrated ridiculous stupidity in her interviews.

yes yes, you are right. i thought she was really dumb after i watched. but after she quited(!) and reemerged in national scene, i still thought she is inexperienced. you know what, i want to leave her, turned to obama. sorry, i got a sorry from obama/hillary's foreign policy. they didn't give me the change i wanted.

so you know what.

Ok, there's lots she can do to improve her image/standing/brand. But even if you assume the entire problem is that she was sandbagged by a hostile press (a major stretch), there is a problem- Palin has become known for one liners, negativity, and bromides. She has yet to articulate any serious options to address the problems she (sometimes correctly) diagnoses. In essence, her entire persona is based on a combination of bashing suggestions by others combined with platitudes which might sound great as bites, but are impossible to translate into actual policy.

If Palin is to be taken seriously, she needs to do a lot more than improve her marketing strategy- she needs to actually have some policyt prescriptions which are more than milimeter deep.

Sarah Palin will never be ready to be president. No one had to attack her. She did it to herself with her own words and actions. She is who she is.

Sarah Palin is ignorant. That was not just a media portrayal. She demonstrated ridiculous stupidity in her interviews.

Tina Fey is chomping at the bit. Delusional is too nice. It is true that liberals laughed at Bush for being less then intelligent. Then just when we thought we saw bottom along comes Sara (sitting on my porch padding my foreign policy experience) Palin. As we all now know Alaska is the closest State to Russia. (like we didn't realize that before?)

To be fair to Palin she seems to be a very nice person. She has a family no more or less dysfunctional then most and it's obviously important to her. I don't believe she beats her kids. She might have gone after a State Trooper, but that was in trying to protect a family member. That's no real sin. It might have not been the smartest thing to do, but it's understandable. However, on the national stage or even a middle of the road size State this woman hasn't been ready for prime and never will be. Sorry, but she's simply not bright enough or polished enough. With a lot of work she can probably be polished up, but she'll never be any brighter then she is today. Of course coming from the party that loved Bush it's obvious that intelligence isn't high on the list of qaulifications. Anyway, you will never sell Palin to the general public as presidential material. She'll implode.

Having said all that I sincerely hope the R's do run her in 2012. This act will keep the D's from spending a lot of money to keep the Oval Office.

I agree Mr. Jackson that Palin's journey, towards whatever destination, needs to be carved out by her. Women politicians have always been packaged using a male model, often with other women dragging her back and carping about her along the way.

I hope Palin, whether she runs for president or not, will trust her instincts and choose as models the people who inspire her. She needs to pick up the skills to deal with snakes-in-the-grass with humor, much as Reagan did. She already has her own point of view.

I'm looking forward to her next act, whatever that is.

Darryl, you are delusional. Seriously.