Journalistic pieces such as Chris Cillizza's "Why Sarah Palin could struggle in 2012" astound and even offend, beginning with the title.
Did Cillizza actually commence this unimposing task in a probing frame of mind? Did he really first ask himself, Gee, would a witless, overtly malicious, quitter-of-a-small-state-governor with vastly stratospheric negatives encounter, maybe, a "struggle" for the White House?
I appreciate Cillizza's indentured servitude to Beltway "objectivity," but merely asking that question of such a whining political farce lends gratuitous credence to Her Preposterousness.
Ms. Palin is a mass-entertainment creation and chief lunatic of the lunatic fringe and nothing else. And by sober D.C. journalists who possess even the slightest concern for the future of American democracy and its political processes, she should be treated that way.
Yet ponder for a moment the immense relevance Cillizza grants Palin: "[A]s she seeks to build a brand heading into the slow-starting 2012 presidential race, a major question looms: Can she win?"
Chris, a simple answer booms: No.
Why then proceed to analyze her potential candidacy with a journalistic solemnity worthy of a 1936 Alf Landon or 1964 Barry Goldwater or 1984 Walter Mondale? A 2012 Sarah Palin, Mr. Cillizza, is a joke. End of serious coverage.
Yet, intones Cillizza instead, "Palin would have a lot of work to do to re-shape the negative public image of her among a relatively broad swath [relative to what?] of the electorate." Nevertheless he ventures that "She still has plenty of time to do just ..." yada yada rimshot kaboom.
Well what about the ghost of Gus Hall? As a write-in candidate maybe?
The "why" of Why Sarah Palin could struggle in 2012 is, for every conceivable reason. Just leave it at that, Chris. Don't dignify the patently absurd, for it only demeans what little is left of a respectable democracy.