I'm not telling anyone to vote for Sarah Palin, like Sarah Palin, or even agree with her on anything. There is, however, a very curious criticism of Sarah Palin. That criticism is that she isn't bright enough to be President.
We've created a much more elitist standard for holding high office than when the country was created. In fact, politics has become an elitist endeavor. When it was founded, the creators had no intention of creating professional politicians. Now, most politicians rely on politics as their one and only source of income. We have operatives, analysts, and strategists. All of these are legitimate forms of professions.
In this context, Sarah Palin is not viewed as intelligent enough to serve. Her knowledge of policy, in the view of some detractors, is simply not deep enough to serve. I would ask compared to whom? President Obama won the presidency specifically by laying out a broad vision without laying out specifics. He promised to spend to bail out the economy, the banks, and health care and promised to cut taxes on 95% of the people without providing specifics for how this would happen.
Let's take Iran as an example. Is there any politician from any side that verbalizes a specific, cogent, and logical policy for how to stop that country from gaining nukes? I don't know of any. So, why is the criticism only of Palin that her policy knowledge isn't deep enough?
It's important to note that Andrew Jackson could barely read and write. Harry Truman only finished high school and Ronald Reagan finished Eureka College. Those are often included among our greatest presidents. If Andrew Jackson could barely read, how exactly is Sarah Palin not smart enough to be president?
Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"