Originally Answered: (For republicans: a question about Sarah Palin. I would like serious answers.) Why?
She is an obvious threat to Obama's chance of winning, that is why so many resources have been spent attacking her and smeearing her family.
In a way, she is to Obama what Obama was to Hillary.
You have to admit that Obama has gotten an easy ride in the media compared to Palin (and Hillary for that matter). I agree they should put her out there and I posted about this on McCain space yesterday, I think she could be a real asset to the campaign, she just needs her confidence back again. I have also heard that even McCain is not happy with her handlers treatment of her (Bill Kristol said this and I believe he does have access to this information).
The type of experience Palin has is that in which there is more accountability. Executive positions are subjected to more accountability than legislative positions and that is just fact. Obama's U.S. senate accomplishments as far as leadership goes - he doesn't have any. Only 2 bills he introduced have been passed into law - one to name a post office, one for the Congo. He has co-signed legislation - but Senators can co-sign legfislation right up until it goes to vote, it doesn't necessarily mean that they did anything. She has actually done something in regards to energy in this country (with the pipeline), Obama has co-sponsored a piece of faulty legislation about E-85 corn ethanol (waste of time).
As far as the family matters go, I'm not even going to address it. Men are never subjected to the same scrutiny as woman on this point and it is sexist. As far as Bristol goes, again, you are only speculating, you have no evidence that the marriage isn't something that they want or that it is being forced upon them.
In my heart of hearts yes, I do feel she is the right woman for the job. I was one of those people that knew about her and was hoping he would pick her for his VP.
About the Russia issue, I get what she was trying to say. I mean, I get why is played wrong, but I understand where she was coming from ...
"There have been eight incidents off Alaska since July. Among the latest, on September 5, six F-15s from Elmendorf Air Force Base, adjacent to Anchorage, Alaska, intercepted six Russian bombers about 50 miles from the northwest coast of Alaska.
Two similar incidents occurred in August, one near Cape Lisburne, Alaska, and the other near Cold Bay, Alaska, west of the Aleutian Islands."
"She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine."