a) Palin is much sharper, dynamic and charismatic than Quayle. I'm not sure Quayle had much of a future even if he hadn't been “Quayled” by the MSM. Nothing against him, he just was not as talented as Palin, IMHO.
b) The MSM had a LOT more credibility in the eyes of the average American back then. There was always a liberal bias, but it was somewhat weaker and a lot less obvious 20 years ago. During the 2008 campaign and since the MSM has pretty much shed all pretense of objectivity, and has forfeited most of its perceived credibility. Three years from now, their attacks on Palin will have little or no effect.
c) The new media gives Palin the ability to reach the voters directly. Also, Fox News did not exist when Quayle was “Quayled” and is now the dominant force in cable news.
d) 0bama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are pushing their agenda of Socialism and perversion so far that a huge backlash is developing. Americans are seeing extreme Liberalism for what it is and are rejecting it. By 2012, voters may be so fed up that practically any GOP candidate could defeat 0bama.
First, I agree that the MSM has a lot less credibility than they did 20 years ago. However, they retain enough clout, particularly with older voters who had trusted them for most of their lives. The MSM and not being George W Bush was enough to get elected this time around. It won’t be next time.
Point D is interesting. It has been almost 30 years since a real liberal occupied the White House. I beleive Clinton was a true liberal but he was willing to compromise anything to get re-elected. Carter had principles. The Liberal label just didn’t resonate the way it did back in ‘88. People just didn’t remember or weren’t alive to know what real liberalism meant. Now that they are getting a taste, I think that it will alienate a large swath of the population for 20-30 years.