[RedMonqey]

Andrew Jackson quit the Senate in 1825. Jackson had become a major national figure in the presidential race of 1824 losing to John Adams.

He certainly did. Twice IIRC.

However Jackson didn't "make his bones" as an US Senator, a Governor, nor as Judge in which he also resigned.

Jackson(Ole Hickory) became an national figure as an noted general of the Seminole Indian Wars, commanded an expedition which captured Florida in 1817 and served as Governor of the new territory in 1821. And as the "Hero of New Orleans" during the War of 1812. His election as senator was incidental to his political career. And his loss in the presidential election didn't hurt him nor would it had hurt Palin as the VP slot.

However if Jackson lost or resign before the battle of New Orleans, he might well have been a footnote in history.

Palin made her entrance on the national stage as a successful governor but instead of completing her "battle", she resigned her post.

A better comparison is Lincoln. A little known US congressmen who refused an second term, returned to Illinois then ran an unsuccessful senate campaign (Lincoln-Douglas). However he then turned around and ran for and won the presidential election of 1860.

Palin could win like Lincoln if the election has four different candidates from four different parties.

[FreeReign]

Andrew Jackson quit the Senate in 1825. Jackson had become a major national figure in the presidential race of 1824 losing to John Adams. He certainly did. Twice IIRC.

However Jackson didn't "make his bones" as an US Senator, a Governor, nor as Judge in which he also resigned.

So then it's okay for Andrew Jackson to quit (apparently several times) but it's not okay for Palin to quit, because Jackson once lead the Battle of New Orleans?

What's the difference?

If quitting is wrong, then why justify it for Jackson?

If quitting is a legitimate thing to do, then why hold Palin to a different standard?