[tomkat]

Sarah is not in the debate...her loss.
Not at all. Let them tear each other open. It's far too early ..

A big +1 to that, GR.

Sarah's a very smart lady and has smart people helping her.
I believe the only reason she's not in it yet is because she and her team don't want her to be in it yet.

And why not ?
The traitor scum squatting in 1600 makes a more flagrant marxist ass of himself by the hour.
Tonight's debate is a great example of the GOP herd thinning itself out by attrition.

Sarah has kept herself firmly in the public eye with either appearances or timely/relevant essays weekly, and will continue to do so.
Her conservative position and record is established fact, and her star power grows hourly.

I'm no political operative or junky, and maybe there's minutia involved that would mandate an earlier date.
But I wouldn't mind if she waited till the first of the year, if that's what her team thinks is wise.
They're no fools, and they know they're working for the next President of the United States, imho.

</imho>

[glock rocks]

Tonight's debate is a great example of the GOP herd thinning itself out by attrition.

Yes it is, and I think FOX missed a great opportunity to have Jerry Springer ask the questions instead of the dimwits they actually used.

[Cboldt]

-- But I wouldn't mind if she waited till the first of the year, if that's what her team thinks is wise. --

Or even longer. The election is 14 months off, she could wait until it was 6 months off, and have time to make her point. Why submit to the "establishment timecycle"?

[tsowellfan]

I agree. Sarah Palin is very smart and knows what she’s doing. Because of that, I doubt she’s going to be running.

Remember the pounding Al Gore got for trying to limit the number of debates out of fears that he may make more gaffes?

[glock rocks]

Excellent post tomkat.

When Palin throws her hat in the ring, I'll donate the max allowed to her campaign.

That will be far less than I'll lose to 4 more years of socio/marxist Obamanomics.