I suspect some of it has to do with fear that Palin will put her foot in her mouth or disappoint voters in some major way.
People have gotten a lot more demanding of politicians lately: they don't want someone like Obama who doesn't have the experience or the temperament, or someone like Bush who makes them cringe or wince too often.
Palin has yet to prove that she's up to the job, so voters who aren't already committed to her will go with someone who looks less risky, at least superficially.
Everything you say has not been borne out by experience. In fact, it has been proven entirely wrong. If people don’t want Obama, how did he become president? Same with Bush, and Elder Bush, and that the mushy McCain was nominated, and even that John Kerry and Al Gore made it to the top to go against Bush. If people have such high expectations that Sarah Palin can’t possibly measure up to, how in the world did such a selection of stellar individuals get as far as they did?
The biggest drawback to a Palin nomination is that the news media has concentrated as much negative attention on her as Bush I, Bush II, and Dan Quayle, combined. She has been analyzed, criticized, ostracized, chastised, and scrutinized beyond all deserving, in spite of the fact that she has never served in Washington DC. The more negative treatment she gets, the more determined I am to support her. I will not let the media choose my candidate for me, and no other conservative should allow it either.
Exactly.
A lot of women don’t like good looking woman pols. They see competition for their men. Or they are like my wife who doesn’t think women should be in the government making decisions for the nation. She says they are mostly mothers first, even if they have not had children and, as women, look first for security, then for security for everyone else. They want everyone to be nice and eat their broccoli. Or they are Nancy Pelosi. I point out Maggie Thatcher and wife says exceptions are too rare to count on. I still think Mrs. Palin will win the ladies over.