I just love her new Youtube clip . I can only hope that it gets her that much closer to her 15:00.0. She is a Clown, a quitter, a reactionary, and ignorant of so many things that one needs to be a chief executive.

Sadly (and not all that unexpected), there are writers that are trying to defend what she was saying.

I don't think she didn't know who Paul Revere was. I have low expectations from her, but that's probably pushing the floor even lower than I can believe.

What she tried to do is meld commonly known American history with her own political message. Given the opportunity, that kind of move could be very powerful, but in just a sound bite, the results are what you see and hear here.

Politicians are always trying to stay "on message" -- it's their method of branding. In short, they associate themselves with certain reactions that are expected to drive voter support.

Palin's biggest problem (as a politician, at least) is that her branding is rife with this kind of gaffe. It (and she, as a result) is immensely polarizing. For every person who sees her as a strong talking leader, at least one other sees her as a ditz who doesn't even understand basic facts, like Paul Revere's midnight ride or the geography of Alaska and Russia.

The real story behind Paul Revere, like so many others, is more complicated than we usually think about. Nobody was shouting, "the British are coming," as they galloped through towns because secrecy was so important. Loyalists were everywhere. At its infancy, the revolution was just about as polarizing as Sarah Palin is today.

I sort of agree with Leo, but would place additional emphasis on her ignorance/stupidity. There's plenty of knee-jerk reaction to Palin's gaffe here, as usual, that suggests this is yet more proof that she's completely clueless. In reality, she probably has a better idea about who Revere was, but her knowledge of the details probably IS at or worse than the average American. Still, she was in "message mode" and she pushed forward when she shouldn't have. It's not a "OMGAH SHE DONT NO NETHING" moment the way knee-jerk reactionaries are putting it.

There is at least a kind of intelligence about Palin, though it's not the type of intelligence you want in the Oval Office. She didn't make it into the public spotlight as a contender for anything - governor, VP, or P - purely on account of her looks or her supposed random selection by McCain. She is strategically polarizing, and many of the statements she makes are exactly what Republicans, and even a few in the middle, want to hear. I don't think her personality would lend well to ceding much grey ground, and so she does it in her own way by being herself, and in the current political climate it actually has some level of effectiveness.

I think the ones that are keeping her in the news is actually those that support Obama. The more she hangs around the more garbage like this she will spew out of her mouth and ever more unelectable (if that is possible).

The thing is, she has the hard core following that sees her stupid statements and take them as personal attacks - which they are not - and she continues in the news cycle.

I will give her credit, she has been able to stay in the news for a long time. For a person that has zero actual policy (other than Obama = bad) that is amazing. I almost would put her in the class of politician as Bill Clinton (not nearly as skilled a politician as Bill). Bill would have various stances on differing arguments so you couldn't nail him down on one until he found out what the popular answer was. Palin, on the other hand, has one message: Keep Sarah Palin in the news! OK maybe God, Guns and Country is her message, but it really is nothing.

I actually disagree. I think she truly didn't know. I think you can see it in her eyes the moment she realizes that she doesn't actually know the answer to what she's already started talking about and that's where the hesitations and flubs start. There's just a look there that says "oh god, I'm doing it again" to me.

_________________

I don't have any idea what I'm talking about so I'll just throw in my talking points and hope no one notices I'm an idiot.

Palin is very much like Paris Hilton and other "celebrities" who are celebrities even though they aren't really relevant. Palin dominates the news cycle because she's so polarizing, and she's able to stay polarizing because she dominates the news cycle.

She has no shot of winning the presidency, yet the left likes to use her as a boogeyman, warning of what could happen if you don't get out and vote.

Watching people get uptight about Palin is like watching people complain about Jersey Shore, yet tuning in every night to watch it over and over.

Palin was a nominee for Vice President of the United States of America. Several people, including some on these boards, voted for her to represent this country (even if they were actually voting for John McCain). She's certainly more relevant than Paris Hilton.

She ran for VPOTUS 3 years ago. She hasn't held a public office of any sort in over a year. She's a celebrity whose only influence is over a news cycle, which, while significant, puts her squarely in the same shoes as any other made-up celebrity.

Apparently someone that NPR interviewed thought she was not off the mark as much as the rest of us do.

Best quote:
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.


http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636 ... aul-revere

Interesting interview. Also the part right before that:

"Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But, in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, and she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did."

I'm going to go ahead and say the 15 mins are not up yet.