In today's ed piece by Ms Parker, my take is that her 'switch ' on Ms Palin (she started out supporting her) is quite surprising. As it seems entirely based on TWO 'interviews' ( use that term loosely as neither  the Gibson nor Couric can rightly be termed as such) when Ms Palin's 'performance' that fell short in Ms Parker's eyes . It seems a shallow response to a failure to shine in meaningless 'entertainment' from  main stream media shenanigans.  She comments on Ms Palin speaking in 'circles' and that she is not specific, yet neither of these interviewers asked the same kind of questions to the opponants, either for president or v.p.. and Ms Parker does not point this out, or give fair credence to the obvious double standard. She buys right into it.

About her obvious lack of knowledge on foreign affairs, an issue , quite frankly, that most of us who are here at the bottom of the food change, really don't care about in our liking and admiration for Ms Palin. We realize that this is NOT the issue that McCain was looking at  when he chose her. It IS why Obama chose Biden, and we should use a similar criteria in evaluating Ms Palin, her choosing was because of her intimate knowledge of the energy industry, state finance, and her inarguable marverick skills in getting things done because they are the right thing to do, not the popular or party line thing. I have no doubt that  Ms Palin's high learning curve and the kind of advisors common to any administration would get her up to speed in foreign affairs as fast or faster than Obama will accomplish. AND he's expected to be so  up to speed by inauguration day. I think most likely SHE will have a bit more time, since McCain seems quite healthy at the moment.  I am appalled often lately as to how fickle and disloyal GOP stratagists and commentators are regarding their own when there are gaffs or goofs, while amazed at the nearly blinding loyalty of the opposition to their own. Perhaps we could learn something from them on this?