The "Let Palin be Palin" dodge

"I ask those who still believe in the Palin candidacy: where's the evidence that there's more to her than what we've seen on these interviews? I'm not asking to be snarky; I really want to know."
Ok, here's a non-snarky answer to your question.
I look forward to the standards currently applied to Palin being applied to both Sens. Biden and Obama. Skip Palin for a second, since she is a popular, bipartisan Governor who has fought Dems as well as GOPers to usher in reform.
Critique 1: Evidence she's handled herself better. Begin by viewing prior debates that she's been in. Watch her interview with Charlie Rose or Maria Bartiromo (a profoundly nuanced and informed view of energy policy) before the media and Dem-ops started digging through every Dumpster in Alaska. She is composed, has a command of the facts that are relevant in the interviews and debates, and is, for the most part, unflappable. She does not stutter and stammer (something Obama is cursed with) nor is prone to making wild claims like Pres. Roosevelt going on television after the crash of '29 like Joltin' Joe. As this will be relevant in the next graf: why didn't Katie Couric dispute this?
Critique 2: Fundamental ignorance of how the market works. If an understanding of "how the economy works" is a major qualification for VPOTUS or POTUS, then barely a person in the House or Senate in the last half-century would have been qualified. Yet, she runs (well, ran) a state that is economically sound. The dig at her regarding her interview with Couric is apparently that she didn't whip out a Perotian pie graph to explain to Couric the fundamentals of market economics. What are Couric's qualifications to be asking about economics, if we want to be fair, since she apparently didn't know who was POTUS at the time of the crash? Is Palin Thomas Sowell? Of course not - that's not her job. This of course ignores, yet again, the double-standard: what are Obama's qualifications on this? Biden's? At least McCain was foreshadowing current government-created disaster in '05. Oh, and then there's that ACORN thing. Let's not forget Obama's claim that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of workers in the country, when nowhere near that many pay Federal income taxes in the first place.
Critique 3: Foreign policy in the crudest terms. Go ahead, roll your eyes: is there anything cruder than saying you would sit with a leader who has vowed to sit down without preconditions with a man who wants to wipe Israel off the map, and then refused to admit he said it, and then misrepresented Henry Kissinger while trying to massage his flexible notion, a view Kissinger flat-out denies he ever held? A man who refused to admit he would support the surge, even after it proved to work? Not to mention the crudity of a man who claims his most difficult decision was not being for the invasion of Iraq, even though he wasn't a national politician at the time and didn't have to vote on it? Again - where's the scrutiny?
Critique 4: Incurious and manipulable. Rod, this double-standard is particularly galling. How is she incurious? Because her passport's not filled with six continents worth of stamps? How is she manipulable? Because she is being led through cram sessions, primarily because without them, she will get the gotcha questions Sanchez tries to dismiss? Let's see if the scrutiny stand up - Obama didn't visit Iraq or Afghanistan for years when many - McCain included - tried to get him there, and then he did so out of political expediency, breaking a major rule of international diplomacy by trying to sway Iraqi political decision-making that would help him. Manipulable? Except for abortion, name one issue Obama hasn't changed his view on - drilling, taxes, immigration, guns, you name it.
"But this isn't about Obama, it's about Palin." Talk about a dodge - she's not running for President. People say she'll be a heartbeat away from the Presidency - that's not half as chilling to Conservatives as the idea of the man who very well might be there in fewer than four months. Apply your standards to Biden and Obama and, if you still find Palin to be more guilty of the aforementioned sins, well, I see the Crunchy, but not the Con.

I'm sorry, but Obama's college record isn't that impressive. He is part of the current student culture that real scholars, that are becoming continually marginalized, have mocked for generations.

His education, and his record as an educator, is stuffed full of pie in the sky Marxist nonsense that doesn't stand up to the foundations of Western scholarship at all. The entire curriculum is about a political philosophy that derives itself from a series of false premises.

It isn't something that needs to be proven, and has no history, and the types of Professors that live by it, are themselves largely inherently incurious. They are about as scholarly as your average evangelical creationist. Certainly neither feels the need to adhere to any amount of empiricism or Hellenic logic to come to conclusions about the world. They are more capable of couching their political beliefs in euphemisms and sounding sophisticated than creationist neanderthals, but they are both neanderthals.

So, why is the Ivy League, and college education in general sneered at by so many? It isn't just those that never went to, or finished college, but those that did go through it that sneer at it as well. Anyone who has been to one of these institutions, like Occidental, or Columbia in the past 50 years knows full well that all you have to do to get a free ride is to hand pick readily available Marxist professors, adopt their political philosophy, and put your intellectual curiosity on hold for a few years.

Trust me, even if you don't pick out the worst of what Red Academia has to offer in terms of professors you will still have to Leftist up your course work or see your GPA suffer for it. So much of Academia now is blatantly anti-intellectual. There is no goal, no intention, of actually teaching subjects or encouraging real critical thinking. "Critical Thinking" is now newspeak for Leftist ideology. If you read Marx, or god forbid Zinn, Chomsky, or any other modern Heroes of the Revolution, and think its not the work of abjectly inspired genius then in fact, you are not engaging in "Critical Thinking".

Look up Obama's record as a lecturer, and his teaching materials. Tell me that any of that is the mark of intellectual curiousity. It is dogmatic adherence to everything the man was fed from childhood until now, mixed in with some Black Nationalist rhetoric. Nothing he has written, including his two books, deviates very far from the espoused beliefs of those who influenced him throughout his very early life.

Now how many of you can look back to your freshman year of college, and say that now as adults decades later, have essentially the same exact political and world views? That isn't a mark of intellectual curiosity. I'm sorry.

This isn't a defense of Palin obviously, but please feel free to tear her down without holding up Obama and along with him the current anti-illectual college culture. Bob from Colorado wants to look at the history of education. Looking at it for me, I see that when the anti-illectual bolshevik thugs came to power in Russia, and China and everywhere else, the first people to go were the Professors and their students. The big difference now, is that when the anti-illectual thugs come to power they instead thank those Professors and their students for their invaluable service to the Revolution.

my apologies for that triple post, my bad ,I hit the button too many times ....sorry about that .

p.s. Quayle immediately comes to mind when I listen to palin ....good looks , charisma , but nothing on the cap ...I'll throw in Gore too [you know , the inventor of the internet ]