[KriegerGeist]

"I think she’ll run for a second term as governor in 2010"

I agree. For here career and family's sake.

"...and then she’ll run for President in 2012. America needs her in the White House!"

I disagree. She should stay in Alaska. Losers never make good candidates in the "run again" thing. Example: George Allen, Rick Santorum, Michael Steele, Pat Toomey, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney... all would be losers. There would need to be new blood and dynamic Conservativism. I would add that as the women's vote turned out, that it would also need to be a man...both candidates. Sarah Palin was a star, but more of celebrity stardom than serious contender as was evidenced by 'conservative' men and women's view of her.

[chimera]

Palin should stay in AK. It's where she can do the most good. The state supports her. If she tries for the Senate, first, it will be a demotion, and, second, there's little a Senator in the minority (probably for our lifetimes) can do, one vote out of a hundred, a minority vote to boot.

We've probably seen the last of Sarah Palin on the national scene. When you're part of a national ticket that gets slaughtered this badly, there's really no where to go. Look at some of the illustrious landslide-losing VPs from the past, William Miller, Sargent Shriver, Dan Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro. Not exactly a Hall of Fame of political winners.

[SamuraiScot]

Losers never make good candidates in the "run again" thing.

Ronald Reagan started running in . . . 1968? Then 1972, right? Something like that. He didn't win the nomination until 1976.

But I'm open to the argument that things are different now, maybe because media saturation makes us sick of the non-winning candidate before his time. What do you think?