Right now she has not:
1) Demonstrated the sort of intellectual bona fides needed to establish herself as more than just a pretty face. To make the point, compare her speeches to Reagan's at the same point in life (e.g., this one) and you'll see the difference. Palin's speeches and writings are dismally shallow by comparison. There's little in them to suggest that she understands the underlying principles well enough to lead by them when confronted by challenging circumstances.2) She does not have executive experience beyond her abortive half-term as governor, and mayor of Wasilla. And the latter can't be taken seriously as a qualification for POTUS.
Palin can perhaps "obtain" both, given time.
If she works hard, writes serious articles, and makes serious speeches in important places, she can change the current perception of her as a lightweight.
Getting the needed experience is going to be much more difficult -- probably impossible at this point.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
There aren’t many Ronald Reagans, unfortunately. I can’t think of **any** politican on **either** side that would compare well in that litmus test you have set up for Ms. Palin.
Suppose instead you compare Sarah Palin’s speeches and intellectual capabilities with, say, recent president George W Bush.
Did you think W Bush was a satisfactory president, especially in foreign policy? Did he have the experience he needed as a weak governor of the state of Texas?
Another question of a different sort. If not Sarah Palin, then who would you *like* to see as (R) candidate for POTUS? Why?
Thanks, and FRegards