The bottom line is that most folk who win elections do so because of their popularity, not their competence. That goes for both major parties. When candidates are unknown at the onset, the odds of winning are very long. That's why winning the first election is so important, because that local "bully pulpit" keeps one in the public eye, and usually that vision is manufactured to insure "popular" is maintained or enhanced." How else would congressfolk stay in office 15-20-30-40 years despite a <15% approval rating?

Fred Grandy probably said it best, that despite his education, lifelong political interests and activities, "If there were no Gopher, there would be no Fred Grandy for Congress." (BTW, Grandy can be heard on WMAL, internet-available, M-F 5-9AM on a morning political talk show originating in DC).

Pres. Obama is probably the best of the latest examples. When compared to the other Democratic hopefuls, his experience (government and private) lagged behind all of the nomination candidates. The same held true against Sen, McCain. In the end, "charm" - the lynchpin of popularity - won out.

So, what works for becoming senior class president in high school still works later in life. The valedictorian's academic standing versus the candidates for class president are rarely even in the same quadrant. That irony continues onward.

Gov. Palin undoubtedly capitalized on her "charm" in past elections in Alaska, and Sen. McCain recognized that he needed "charm help" in 2008. She did make a positive impact on the Republican ticket. So, her going forward now, rather than just retreating to the far frozen north and well out of the public eye, is politically logical. The alternative is to be another Eagleton, Kemp, Bentsen or other VP candidate on the losing side - never to be a factor again.