If you haven't seen it already, I would suggest watching Sarah's new show "Alaska." I was surprised by it (in opposition to Rove's opinion), as I believe is does not harm her Presidential aspirations. In fact, I think she is using the show to both humanize herself and push down her negatives (which seem strangely high). You can't watch the show and honestly come away thinking she's some sort of monster...but then again, I don't know if you can watch the show and see her sitting in the Oval Office either. Maybe that's a good thing?

Alberto: I agree.

Presidential elections are always a referendum on the incumbent. People sometime use Goldwater to dispute that, but I think any Republican would have lost big in 1964 (strong economy, massive voter sympathy for the Democrats just a year after JFK's assassination).

Additionally, every time the opposition party has selected their nomineee based on "electability", that candidate ends up losing. See Kerry in 2004 & McCain in 2008.

The question in 2012 is the same as it was when Reagan ran, "Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?" And the answer will be a resounding no. In 2008, it was ABB (anybody but Bush). In 2012, it will be PGABO (please God, anbody but obama). I think he has been disasterous for our country

I like Sarah Palin quite a bit, but I just don't think she has a chance in a national election. In my mind, she's much more useful as an endorsement and a campaigner.

It's not even a matter of the Buckley rule. There are plenty of people as conservative as Palin that could beat Obama. Palin loses less because of her politics and more because of her public perception.

DHC1971, you write "I'm sure there are other conservative business and political executives who have a track record of Getting Hard Things Done. Gov Christie, perhaps".

To be frank, those who drop Gov. Christie's name as a possible 2012 candidate lose my attention. Other than great You Tube clips, what has he actually accomplished? What exactly is his track record? How many planks of the platform does he support? I'm not trying to put the man down. I just think he's more of "a flavor of the month" than someone who is actually a viable candidate.

Palin/Santorum 2010.

I figure, if you're going to irk the left-leaning parts of both the Dems and GOP, do it right. Have the guts to run real Conservatives with real conservative messages. If Conservatism loses, let it be only because the people have actually rejected it.

That's correct - I want a national debate where somebody actually takes the stance that health care is *not* a Constitutionally guaranteed right. I want somebody to propose a replacement for federally subsidized school lunches called, "Make Your Kid a *#$( Sandwich" - adorning the brown bags with drawings of whales, optional, unless the school objects, in which case it is highly encouraged. Take the "Compassion" out of "Compassionate Conservatism" and, instead, concentrate on educating the electorate that Conservatism is inherently compassionate, whereas Liberalism is cruel and uninspiring, requiring misery to perpetuate itself.

We'll know we're on the right track when the NYT endorsement for the GOP POTUS primary is polling at 5th or 6th. If our major candidates are not offending the tome of All the News That Fits the Liberal Agenda, we've failed.

RefudiateObama: You might be surprised that I agree with you. I name-dropped Christie because he seems to be taking on the right things, at least from the news stories. I don't watch YouTube clips much, but from what I can see, he's at least starting down the right pathway. But starting down the pathway and amassing enough actual achievement to earn a deserved turn as our Chief Executive are two different things. There's a reason I said that if you're running on a record that's not evolving, I'm less interested. If Christie (or Jindal or anyone else) can't point to a solid record of successful governance that fits the needs of our country now and two years from now, I won't be interested either. Christie (or Jindal, etc) might wind up being better 2016 candidates (or later) since they'll have a longer time to show everyone what they can do.

And that's what I want: a doer, not a talker.

As much as I love her and her family, and everything they represent, I'm not sure I could vote to put her in the White House. I would prefer to see Palin as RNC chair as well. She has a track record of raising big money, and a polarizing figure in that position is kind of expected.

The most interesting part of the interview is not this fluff, but her explanation of why she had to leave the governorship: she was going to be bankrupted by the endless bogus lawsuits and false ethics charges==which were all discharged in her favor!! The Smartset meant to ruin her but it backfired!! She is now the most powerful single figure in American politics--they report her Tweets on the Nightly News,for God's sake! It's pretty amazing.