“The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it?”
Why would either party put forth an actual or potentially “seriously inadequate” candidate when that reality can be easily avoided by electing someone who doesn’t fit that description? There is something very wrong with the nomination and candidate selection process if either Palin or Obama are the presidential choices in 2012.
Anyone that prefers Mitt Romney to Sarah Palin, as you do, lacks credibility.
Romney is unqualified to be President.
Yep, McCain was just f'n PERFECT as the GOP candidate.
Is there anything inside your head that isn’t soft, squishy, and putrid?
.
The choice would be between an “intellectual” (not to mention socialist internationalist) who basically does not like America, and one of us that truly loves America and would strive to help America live up to the principles propounded in its funding documents, the first and foremost of which is the Declaration of Independence.
Why would either party put forth an actual or potentially “seriously inadequate” candidate when that reality can be easily avoided by electing someone who doesn’t fit that description?
So you're taking what some guy named Mike Potemra at NRO says as the ultimate truth? He said she may turn out to be seriously inadequate, so that must mean she is? If you accept that as fact (instead of simply his opinion) you buy into the entire flawed "choice" he offers in his editorial.