“detracts from Sarah’s credibility if she runs for President”
I am just curious...just exactly what makes one “credible” to be President? Check out the “credentials” of the past ones and tell me why they are more credible than Sarah Palin? Which one of them actually led a country as large and diverse as the USA? Which one of them had experiences/education that taught them precisely how to be President? Why is her life experiences and her education and her political career seen as detrimental and the others before her had similar backgrounds but weren’t seen as not credible...why would the one currently in office be thought credible when he is a total mystery man with credentials no one actually knows...considering these...then why is Sarah Palin not considered credible?
Please read before rant. I never she wasn’t a credible candidate, I said her critics will (and do) say that she isn’t and that reality television will feed (and I did not say substantiate or prove) their argument. I am well aware of men who have served as President of the United States who were well qualified and others who were not. LBJ an example of the former, Lincloln, the latter. So much for “qualifications” I would argue that Sarah is less “qualified” than she is “needed” to exemplify the kind civic virtue and common sense required to lead the US at a very critical time in its history.