Posters that question Palin’s intelligence and political knowledge for what reason?
The whole article just screams Palin, it’s her style.
She is fiercely independent (which is one of the reasons she did not run for Prez last cycle), like Jim Robinson, and does not need anyone to write an article like this for her.
Plus you can bet she does a bunch of research, she understands very well about the book of which she speaks, and the interview with 60 minutes.
I’m sure when she runs for Office (Prez, VP, Senator who knows?) that she will have some writers, or maybe she does now, but the finished prouduct will be/is her.
There are those at this site that are here to undermine Sarah Palin, not that any of those on this thread are of that ilk but who knows?
We agree!
Sarah’s good nature fails to produce the nasty edge some deem essential to being successful and noteworthy.
1. The finished product of anyone who [wisely] hires a pro writer/ghost writer is STILL a product of that person. Obama very probably had little to do with the actual composing of "Dreams of my Father," but it still pretty accurately reflects Obama; it is most assuredly "his" book.
2. Listening to Palin speak off-the-cuff and reading her short facebook posts, it's pretty obvious to me that Palin writes her own stuff, and I know that Reagan wrote many if not all of his own speeches by hand, and pro speech writers tweaked and "perfected" them afterward. I read "Going Rogue" and bet that the pro writer who helped Palin with the book didn't have much editing/revising to do on the stuff Palin gave her. Palin is naturally a very good writer and indeed, LOTS of people are naturally good writers.
3. Someone can spell terribly, commit lots of typos, and misuse punctuation and grammar, and still be an excellent writer. Conversely, someone can spell perfectly, be meticulously clear of typos and grammatical errors, and still be a terrible writer.