As many of you no doubt noticed, I have been less than impressed with Palin: beyond good looks and a decent storyline, there is not much there.
I wonder, how much street cred does Kathleen Parker have with Freepers? What do you all think?
I read Parker’s column and think CNN pretty much repeated what she said...
And you are basing this judgment on what, a couple of interviews with pundits who politically oppose her and who were trying to make her look bad? Actually, ‘there's not much there’ could be applied to a huge segment of elected officials, and of the MSM.
But you have to admit she is great entertainment. She speaks her mind and truth is a rare thing. It’s refreshing to have someone not in the mealy mouthed middle of the road.
I never heard of this commentator person. But then - I had not heard of Sarah until she got the nod.
“there is not much there”
Why? Because she isn’t an ivy league asshat?
Is Obama more qualified? Was Clinton? Clinton was the governor of a low ranked State. How about Carter? Maybe JFK? Young Senator to President. She has been an executive, a governor, and a mayor. What are you looking for in a President?
Ok, I'll bite. Some suggestions:
1. Read the thread, you'll get a sense of how familiar Freepers are with Kathleen Parker. (Hint: not very.)
2. Go back to the original article at NRO, which you say you've read, and ask yourself, has this person ever met Sarah Palin? On what is she basing her judgement? My guess is that it's solely based on the Couric interview, since that's all Parker references, along with this catty remark:
"Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)"
3. She's a pundit. She gets paid to write.
4. Decide for yourself.
Screw that...what does Queen Coulter the great think of her?