I'd like her to retain the qualities that she already has, but then ADD some, like a good knowledge of economics and foreign policy, and to add another "voice" to her repertoire, a more intellectual one, less folksy.
Interesting that she is the one getting most of the post election coverage. Truly we as a party must treat her as the asset she is.
“I agree with the idea that Sarah needs to “raise her game”. Not an insult to her, because it is monumentally clear that she has tremendous potential.
I’d like her to retain the qualities that she already has, but then ADD some, like a good knowledge of economics and foreign policy, and to add another “voice” to her repertoire, a more intellectual one, less folksy.”
You have capsulized my opinion perfectly. However, merely suggesting that Sarah can improve is enough to make some people on FR dismiss you entirely. Look at the fury and ad hominem attacks with which they are responding to Rove.
She obviously is a smart woman with amazing political gifts. I just hope she hasn’t been permanently branded as a lightweight in the minds of most — a la Dan Quayle. If that has happened, she may never be able to overcome it.
I don't think a hero worship at this stage is good for anyone, especially Palin.
She has to earn this.
I'd like her to retain the qualities that she already has, but then ADD some, like a good knowledge of economics and foreign policy, and to add another "voice" to her repertoire, a more intellectual one, less folksy.
I agree. While she was the only positive reason that I pulled the lever for McCain, there are some things that really concern me. I don't like her occasional populist slants, such as saying that the housing market crash was due to Wall Street greed. I also don't like her comments (as recently as yesterday) that we need to quit being partisan. We see where that has gotten us over the last eight years. She's also all over the board on environmental issues; she's great on energy exploration, but then she courts the hard left on the man-made global warming hoax. The other thing that concerns me is whether she's been forever tainted by the unfair coverage she has received, ala Dan Quayle. Quayle was rushed out too soon and was unfairly savaged in 1988. However, he destroyed Gore in their 1992 debate and he was very polished and articulate on the campaign trail in 2000. However, the damage was done and he was never able to escape the perception as being the guy who couldn't spell potato.
Just what we need, another beltway "intellectual" sigh
100% in agreement. She is a potential superstar, but I think she made a mistake in her speech and debate. She did excellent, but did not focus in detail on her real achievements. The folksyness is good for some of the base, but not beyond that. I think it made many believe she was a good speaker and accomplished but not ready for the Presidency (or VP). She needed to bring out the policy wins specifically.
In reality she is better prepared to be President than Obama....the only advantage he had was a year and half or more of campaigning and a policy team to work through the specifics so he could read off the teleprompter. She was working away as governor until a couple days before she joined the campaign, so she was not well versed on every election topic. In terms of real world experience, she was fine. That did not come across. She must become serious in her responses but let her personality come through in her answers. Then, she is a potential winner.
Yes.
If Sarah wants to raise her game, she should study the life and political style of Mrs. Thatcher.