Well, one line I've heard a bunch of times that strikes me as plausible is that her very tight handling has undermined her confidence, and that much of her, easy, uncontrived, natural posture has been thwarted by excessive coaching....and keeping her under wraps only reinforces the public percpetion that she's not ready for prime time.. I hoe they unleash her a bit for the debate.....

Here's the link to the transcript from Palin's interview with Hewitt. I think it is a good sign that she has gnawed through the leash. She gives a very good and effective answer on the life issue. She also makes it clear that she is sharing in the economic woes of the country--not just observing them from a perch. She even uses kitchen table language (without affectation) that will appeal in exactly the right places. Of course, it will cause her to be scorned all the more by those who write SNL skits (the damage of which I do not discount) but I think that if her strategy now is to answer her critics--not with whines about ill-treatment or sexism--but with blunt talk about the real questions that concern most voters, she will do just fine. Of course, it won't be all up to her. She's just the VP candidate.

WSJ had an article by Taylor Stockdale about his father, which I linked to here. I think Joe Carter must have seen that, too. The son was discussing just that matter of his father's great competence and potential for the position of VP, and how the public missed that. He, as son, can tell us we missed something important - a great man. He connects that to Palin, roughly like Carter does in that piece.

Wasn't this always the worry about choosing one of the bright, new Republicans? The matter of experience is not just one of having had administrative experience. There is also this matter of public experience, experience of being a public person, exposed and somewhat hardened by exposure. Even though we disparage the idea of someone being good at "Meet the Press" and all, such things make a great deal of a difference in how national campaigns work. To be good at all of that, Sarah Palin has to be a natural at it, which is awful since that type of exposure and capability is most unnatural. Barack Obama seems to be naturally good at being a public person, which is one of the uncomfortable aspects of him, as far as I am concerned.

Looked at carefully, this matter of how we elect people to public office is ugly, because it distorts people. This raises the question, what do we want and need in presidents ( or v.p.s) or politicians of all sorts? We complain because GWB is not a great communicator. For those offices, we need to have good communicators.

Sarah Palin cannot just be good with Hugh Hewitt, who is doing all he can to help her sound good. She has to be good all the time, no matter the context. We need this from her. It is important for the job.

It is more psychologically damaging when a mugger smashes your head with bat, than when a brick comes loose and hits you. The injury may be identical, but the added element of personal hatred which accompanies the crime, makes it more traumatic.
Palin probably is suffering something akin to PTSD after the violent, unhinged personal attacks of the past weeks. Its got to take a toll.

You know . . . I happened to catch a documentary on Reagan last night--one that was not entirely friendly, I'd add. Yet he came through. He rose above it and rose above the noise--even from the grave (i.e., as in not being there to defend himself). His words stood the test of time even with Patti and Ron, Jr. being about all he had by way of defenders in this production. He still was what he was. I know we can't always have a man who is so emphatically a "natural" at the helm. But, God, it was really something to watch. And then to be reminded of all the conservative critics he had . . . and that he was not unnerved even by them . . . Perhaps he spoiled us?

The Bush holdovers took over PETER. As soon as the Bush team got a hold of her, she started choking.

No need to overthink the thing.

The Bush team shared with her the advice and the guidance they shared with GW, which saw GW overseeing the worst communication team in American history.

With such "guidance," ANYBODY would soon appear a boob, a joke, unready, fearful, tentative, hesitant, beleagurered, embattled, surrounded, frightened and wholly unready to the challenges of high office.

Here's some advice for Governor Palin.

You know that bus that Obama has been throwing associations and relations under, well, ------------- take all former Bush staffers, AND THROW THEM UNDER THAT VERY SAME BUS!

Dump the Bush staffers.

Then go out there and be yourself, let it rip, stop worrying about details, for they're the provence of staffers, worry about the big picture, and tell us what you think, and what your gut tells you.

Do that, and the last few weeks will soon be forgotten. But if you keep the Bushies, ---------------------------------- it won't end well.

If by Bushies you mean the revolving door between the CRF and white house appointments I doubt she can kick those people to curb when even Reagan could not do without them in the end. Did I mention I'm against clandestine secrect societies...which ones you ask: All of them, I'm agasint them all.

WOW, the code is taxpayers making....is this spam stopper random?

Some points,

1. The handlers gave Palin some lame lines (especially on foreign policy experience) and she made a mistake in following them. What strikes me is the assumption by so many that Palin is more ignorant of national political matters than the average high end news consumer. This sets her up great for tomorrow if she shows up as the smart, competent, talented person she is. I predict a strong Palin performance. If I have egg on my face so be it.

2. If the Republicans lose big in the Senate and Mitch McConnel is one of the casualties, look for a big move among professional Republicans to move the party left as a survival strategy.

"Bushies" is a term I've avoided for years. First off because Maureen Dowd uses it all the time, but also because it's a term tossed around by the Left.

But simply for purposes of reducing the number of keystrokes, I availed myself of the term.

But I don't like it.

I recall seeing an interview of John Podhoretz about his time in the Reagan/Bush White House, and he too struggled for a term that identified and distinguished between Bush staffers and groupies, and those Conservatives identified with Reagan.

The Rockefeller wing of the party has cost us dearly, and they'll try to ram down the idea that the only response to the catastrophic situation, is a greater embrace of Rockefeller Republican ways.

The Rockefeller wing led the party to 40 years of minority status. And the only time we captured The White House during those years was when we enjoyed a candidate who was formerly commander of SHAEF!

They're losers. They're comfortable being losers. And they think those to their right agitating for victory, agitating to implement a conservative agenda, are in poor taste.

She has gotten worse because she has the philosophic foundation of a newt. How is one supposed to answer complicated questions when their entire life they have been told what to believe and how to believe it. Are you serious when you assert that Palin was at some point qualified for this job and has somehow lost that skill. This is the real deal and we cannot seriously allow someone like Palin to get anywhere near the oval office!