[Apple Pan Dowdy]

"I speak only as an armchair pundit about her electability, not her virtues."

Let's keep in mind that "electability" is a purely subjective term. It is manipulated by the powers that be and the whims of people. It is NOT an absolute.

"Virtue", on the other hand is a concrete value. Something we can really discern, measure, and thus believe in. If I had to chose one or the other to base an election on.... I'll go with VIRTUE.

[Gargantua]

"Virtue," while of inestimable value to the virtuous, seems a pointless dalliance in worthless esoteric nomenclature to those for whom the concept has no personal association.

Sad, but true.

[nathanbedford]

I think I made the same general point about subjectivity in my first or 2nd reply on this thread to grey whiskers quoting the same principles I made in replies of yesterday. I quite agree, these are matters of guesswork and every Freeper is entitled to a lot of latitude in making his judgments.

As to Sarah Palin's virtues, they are legion and the attacks against her are worse than unscrupulous, they are repugnant to any sense of virtue. But to quote the enemy, Jack Kennedy-who today might well be an ally-"first you got to get elected."

All of Sarah Palin's virtues are of no use whatsoever if she loses the election.