Agreed. She is a good lady and has the basic ideology we are looking for. As far as the requisite political skills for a national gig...probably not.
But I respect her for doing her part in trying to prop up a losing effort, but the loss is not her fault. That belongs squarely on McCain.
I think she was brough onboard to energize the base and appeal to unaffiliated voters. She most certainly did the first and failed at the second. Had McCain picked someone else then that person may have attracted some independents but may also have failed to get the base to turn out. Either way, I agree with you. The responsibility for the defeat lies with McCain. Or at worst with McCain and Palin. It was certainly not due to Palin alone, as some McCain staff are apparently trying to claim.
McCain, at the top of the ticket, no matter who he had as VP, was NEVER going to win IMO.
By nominating McCain we lost our best argument that Washington was broken and we needed outsiders to go in and fix it.
Also, the dems were able to tie McCain to Bush very successfully by harping on their connection and repeating the ad about McCain supporting Bush 90% of the time over and over again.
The people wanted change and McCain represented the past.
While, I am not sure they could have defeated the Cult of Obama either, a Romney/Palin ticket would have been much more successful in arguing that THEY could bring REAL change as the only true Washington outsiders and the only two with actual executive experience.
The indies would have trusted the experienced and steady hand of Romney to guide us in this financial crisis and the base would have been energized by Palin. Who knows what could have been.....
Case in point: Romney talking here about what needs to be done -- his experience and demonstrated grasp of the issues would have been reassuring to many (even across party lines): http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/05/news/newsmakers/romney.fortune/