An old rule of thumb when evaluating research: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If one wants to understand Sarah Palin, conventional wisdom doesn't help much. I suspect she is comfortable with where she is, and with what the future holds.
The list of candidates shows one why the (R)s had no chance in 08. I can not imagine the people electing Romney, the Hukster, Timmy, old fossil Newtie, Mitch. In fact, I guarantee these 5 will lose in the general. All of the following I like. Bachman - somewhat there but not quit however close. Palin - Have the feeling she's so vilified that the press will destroy her. Would be a great one in 16. Trump - something tells me that this guy can win it all & I'm willing to bet that conservatives would be satisfied with him. West, Paul & Cain just don't have the pizazz. So Trump or Palin are the 2 & Palin's whole future will be costly if she fails. Again I say The Donald will be the headlines & force Big Ears to a mental breakdown. If he would lose or win it is then 4 yrs later & I see Palin as the prez for 8 yrs.
RE: An old rule of thumb when evaluating research: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Remember the other rule of thumb : Absence of Evidence does NOT necessarily imply EXISTENCE of evidence.
RE: If one wants to understand Sarah Palin, conventional wisdom doesn’t help much. I suspect she is comfortable with where she is, and with what the future holds.
Based on what I see, individually, she’s in a good place at this time — being a pundit, a gadfly and a money maker. If she had the presidency on her sights, she would not have quit the governorship at all.