How did this hurt other Republicans in the field?
By appearing as if she might run, she drew a lot of fire from the media which other candidates didn't get aimed at them. People followed her and her family around on vacation, at great expense to the MSM. Those resources were not spent attacking other Republicans, most of whom have self destructed at the podium.
She bought them time, she provided the diversion.
Knowing full well that she might not run (those of us who remember last time, when she was attacked for wearing a wardrobe provided for her at a fraction of the cost of one Moochelle vacation, knew this was a possibility--who'd want more of that crap, especially five years of it?), at least some of us took a good look at the other candidates.
Some never got out of the starting blocks (Mitt, McCotter, Newt), some experienced problems along the way (Bachmann), and others just are not it--but we took a look.
Many of us wish she would run, after all, she was our first choice among the possibles out there, but had selected a runner-up in case she did not.
As for when she knew she would not be running, she said this was a decision she would make with her family. I have little doubt she agonized over the unholy flack they'd catch, too, the loss of childhood, the spotlight, the snide comments from liberals which pass for humor among them, and decided that, combined with no small amount of personal risk--which translates to risk to her children as well, that America will have to find the salvation it seeks at the hand of another.
One of those others has experience in getting people of diverse backgrounds to pull together to rebuild something which once worked but no longer does, who understands the subtle politics of getting people who may not like each other to work as a team to bring about results, to do a little more, to embrace a different attitude, and rebuild something for their own good. He has done it twice, among a long list of other accomplishments, showing that he has the capability to understand problems and how to fix them rather than assign blame and use that as an excuse for nonperformance, and to get people motivated to get the job done.
The other is a politician who has made some right moves, and some I consider wrong.
And then there is the perennial Mittster, whose picture belongs next to RINO in the dictionary.
Now, that's what I see at the moment, but there is a fresher face in the game who will meet with less knee-jerk opposition than Sarah, who has experience getting people to restore their environs to their former functionality, and whose business experience alone may well be the key to turning around the mess in DC, while inspiring Americans to do that for themselves.
America is having one of those moments when Americans need to pull themselves and their country up by their bootstraps. Who better to lead than someone who has done that?
I will continue to respect and admire Sarah Palin. Has she not inspired tremendous things in America? In Americans?
Now, it is time for America to do what we have done best in our history--roll up our sleeves and get to work--and the first task is to get the current criminal enterprise out of our government.
I answered how she hurt the other candidates in other posts in the thread. I believe that Palin milked this to the end. Everyone at the speech in Iowa was asking her, “Are you going to run?”