[andy58-in-nh]

As I indicated in post #59 on this thread, Ronald Reagan studied and spoke on public issues for years before he ever ran for office. What's more, he had a powerful voice, was a quick thinker on his feet, and was stunningly articulate in defense of liberty. Whatever else one might say about Sarah Palin, I don't think that yet describes her.

Nor does she really have enough of a "track record" to run on, conservative or otherwise. Two years as Alaska governor is more executive experience than Obama ever had, but it's still not a whole lot. And she's got "baggage" now, unfair as that may be: association with the losing McCain campaign. Quitting the governor's job mid-way through her term did not help, nor did her team's disastrous decision to allow her to be interviewed by that piranha in a pantsuit on CBS. The very public Palin family soap opera has also hurt her chances, I think.

For all these reasons, and in spite of my admiration for Sarah as a real patriot and a conservative, I have become convinced that we'd be better off with a truly fresh face in 2012.

[pgyanke]

Again, I refer to her actual history, rather than the TV soundbite history we get from the MSM. You can read it easily enough on Wikipedia, if you truly care.

She is tough as nails and definitely not in it for the money.