[rightwingintelligentsia]

Palin doesn't need to be Reagan to be a worthwhile candidate.

And therein lies the problem with this analysis. It assumes that the only way she can win is to "be like Reagan", and follow his path exactly.

Obama is most certainly no Reagan. He never finished his first term in the U.S. Senate, and campaigned for president from day one of taking office there.

But Obama is now in the White House. The rules have changed, apparently. I don't think necessarily for the better, but they are what they are.

[trisham]

And therein lies the problem with this analysis. It assumes that the only way she can win is to "be like Reagan", and follow his path exactly.

Obama is most certainly no Reagan. He never finished his first term in the U.S. Senate, and campaigned for president from day one of taking office there.

But Obama is now in the White House. The rules have changed, apparently. I don't think necessarily for the better, but they are what they are.

**********************

Agreed. Who is/are our opponents? Do we need to find a perfect candidate?

Why this need to compare Palin to Reagan, Thatcher or others?

I'd rather see a strong candidate who is their own person, and not a weak reflection of someone else.

[lady lawyer]

“And therein lies the problem with this analysis. It assumes that the only way she can win is to “be like Reagan”, and follow his path exactly.”

That’s not what the author is saying at all. He is saying that Reagan was much better prepared, much better at understanding and articulating the conservative message. Palin doesn’t know the difference between conservatism and populism. She couldn’t answer questions that someone with an interest in politics should have been able to answer.