What is the evidence offered for this appraisal of Palin? Am I just supposed to take the author's word on this and ignore the evidence exhibited by Palin's interviews and speeches? As a feminist, I would hope that Ms. Lafferty would have more respect for the intelligence of her readers and provide concrete examples of Palin's supposed intellectual prowess. What does she read? What policy conversation has Ms. Lafferty had with her that showed her Palin's nimble mind? I don't doubt that Sarah Palin is a capable politician, but a brainiac? Please. She didn't even know what a precondition was.

This was an intereting article, but for God's sake, look at what she is saying.

Lafferty mentions that she is being paid by the McCain campaign as a consultant. Is she getting paid as much as Palin's make-up artist and hairdresser?

This is about as substantive as a commentary from Elizabeth Hasselbeck. There is not one, single factual statement in this entire article. Just hearsay. If Palin is such a brainiac where is the evidence of it? Cite some actual examples rather than personal opinion.

Those of us who have watched Palin embarrass herself during very gentle interviews with hand-picked journalists are not objecting to her on the grounds of her political views. They are completely moot at this point. She could not even answer a question about which newspapers she reads.

Does Lafferty seriously mean to suggest that if a man were asked that question and failed to answer it that he would not also be considered to be as dumb as a rock? Grow up.

Frankly, I've been hoping that you would conclude that there weren't functioning works behind her clock because if it's true that she's bright and ambitious, then her threatening way of posturing herself in regard to other countries and world leaders (of all kinds), is nothing short of a plea for aggression. I still can't decide if she's that naive or really, really wants conflict. If nothing else, the business of war should offend her self-proclaimed frugal sensibilities.

Personally, I could never vote for anyone who doesn't support choice and equal rights for gays and lesbians. I don't ever want to hand the keys over to someone who wants to take away any progress made or who operates from such an exclusive mindset. And there's still so far to go for these basic equalities.

Palin tells us she's an expert on energy but when that is defined as oil and oil alone, and it involves extensive drilling of sensitive areas, I'd say her expertise is missing a key component called alternative energy sources, which is what we're really needing, and a respect for the environmental impacts of our actions. Shifting to a dependence on U.S. oil is only one small stepping stone in the move toward and healthy, functioning planet. I have never heard her express any greater vision.

I also would never vote for someone who praises flag waving in crowds as 'patriotic' but is 'annoyed' by relevant questions and people using their own freedom of speech. It's all good. Unless you want to be the V.P. of a herd of sheep.

Ultimately, if she means what she's saying on the campaign trail, she is dangerous. And if she doesn't mean what she's saying, she's dangerous. The feminist definition is irrelevant at this point. I don't think the planet can afford to vote for 'interesting'. And all the executive experience in the world doesn't mean didley squat if there isn't a sign of foresight, compassion, and wisdom.

I feel that this is a piece that is only about the emotional connection that Lafferty has with Palin. I'm not exactly sure how she was okay with signing up with the McCain Camp. And that is somethign that she should deal with herself and has nothing about the rest of us. But if she would like to say that the bulk of us "feminists" have Palin all wrong in saying that she is not a "feminists" then she should have actual facts on where Palin has actually fought for women's rights, not solely on the aspect of abortion but also on equal rights and pay. On a possible right to maternity leave and so forth. Lafferty is more than welcome to have her own opinion, but if she wants to change ours give us actual proof/evidence that we are wrong.

Palin as Einstein?....a little hard to swallow

Lafferty is arguing that she is smart, thoughtful, self aware. She is not arguing, to my reading, that she has a deep understanding of national politics or foreign policy. I think that watching Palin develop as a speaker during the campaign supports the former; the latter is still lacking, which is equally self-evident.
She is addressing issues that are of concern to women and issues that are important to more conservative voters - whether you define confine conservative in terms of certain social issues or in terms of the role of government. I personally share the concern over women's issues and disagree with her on most other policy issues.
Regardless of my personal views, it is still important to listen to and understand other perspectives and to do so without moving to character assassination. She is not highly experienced or necessarily accurate in her comments about Obama's policy statements, but she is in tune with many voters. We should listen for content, criticize her many factual errors and simplifications, and give her credit when credit is due, which is more often than many a liberal might suspect.

I have to agree with smdunne. While, Ms. Lafferty brings up some interesting points regarding the state of the feminist union she is want for actual facts regarding Sara Palin's intelligence. No one is that good an actor.

Lafferty must not have watched the interview in which Palin was asked outright whether she was a feminist and refused to say yes. Instead of taking her own intelligence seriously, she prefers to wink and to pander to her base's worst instincts, fear and bigotry.

She may be smart (Lafferty says you have to know someone personally before you can tell; the evidence of Palin's poor performance are not enough), but Palin prefers to trade on her looks and sex appeal than on whatever intelligence and political acumen she may possess.

That preference belittles all serious women and THAT is why she is not embraced by serious women.

Ms. Lafferty states that she is a Democrat and pro-choice, but is working for a team that wants to defeat the Democrats and destroy choice. I hope the money is good.

I have been a feminist all my life. Sarah Palin may well be a feminist. To be sure, she is a gifted performer. Her debate schtick was boffo! But, she out & out refused to answer the questions and simply spouted memorized talking points. And, I have seen nothing outside of her scripted speeches, red meat campaign rallies and FOX News softball interviews that suggest the intelligence the author claims Ms Palin possesses. Yes, I deplore her politics as much as I deplore Romney's, Guilliani's or Huckabee's but all off them have the brain power to be president. Palin has not demonstrated any such intelligence and she has avoided interviews where she could display the wits the author claims she has. I'm afraid she is a dim wit....not ready to serve.

This reads more like an angry rant then an argument meant to convince anyone Palin is a serious candidate. Sounds more like you are trying to convince yourself, Ms. Lafferty...

Her time will come, but not in November. This woman needs to reevaluate her purpose and stances for middle class women & America. This independent voter has made my decision. She should try again in 2012.

It has become quite obvious that The Daily Beast aims to make its mark by being congenitally contrarian.

It's a simple formula, one Slate has been following for a while, and one that even Salon and other otherwise thoughtful online mags are not above trying now and then: find someone -- anyone! -- who has some press credits, and then have that person declare a general predisposition toward one political side, while taking a specific position that supports the opposite side. Sometimes it can work well and even make news -- such as when the son of the founder of modern conservatism pens a rational argument on why he supports Obama. But most of the time what you get is inane drivel, just like this silly little thing from Lafferty.

I don't know if Lafferty is actually, really and truly, a liberal or a feminist. And I don't care. The only reason she goes on and on about how progressive she is, is to convince readers to accept her argument, since she seems unable to share any actual, you know, evidence or examples, that would demonstrate that Palin actually has a functioning cortex. Lafferty's argument boils down to this: "Trust me because I'm saying something you wouldn't expect someone like me to say. I'm, like, so totally counterintuitive, like Paglia and Hitchens!"

I've seen Palin trying to come up with coherent answers to softball questions in interviews, and I assume Lafferty has too. Palin failed over and over. Palin knows nothing, understands even less, and most depressingly she does not seem interested in learning anything. Even in prepared speeches, when she ostensibly has had the time to read and reflect on what she's going to say, she says the most boneheaded things (is it possible that any educated person in her 40s, in 2008, who's gone to college, or even reads a news magazine or a newspaper now and then, would not know the importance of fruit flies in basic genetic research?). What's worse Palin is so self-righteous about her own ignorance.

Lafferty's argument is actually not counterintuitive at all. It's exactly what you would expect from someone who apparently has as much brain power as Palin.
____________________________________________

Ms. Lafferty is, as disclosed, a paid consultant of the McCain campaign. This is the beginning and the end it. Her blog is nothing more than a paid advertisement for McCain. My only question is why is this not stated clearly in the headline or byline? Buyer beware.