Sarah’s just another coatrack on whom Paglia can hang her master’s thesis “The sublimation of intercourse into the oblique harangue”.

(And i promise that the moment Palin isn’t whacked at as a pinata anymore, i have absolutely no interest in bringing her up. She just keeps leading posts and comments here, i like to help maintain a 1 to 10 ratio for her at NN.C. Should she have talked to John Whatsis with his “Why Obama Won” pseudo-film-docu-thing? Probably not.)

But i am curious about Granholm. CNN sure likes her, she’s on every other day — or is that the beef? More national media time than work on the front lines of Michigan?

Granholm really IS disqualified from being president for not being ‘native born’; but one wonders what mechanism would stop her if she said “What the hell” and ran for it anyway. (the airy dismissal of all the bogus claims against President-elect Obama’s natural-born citizenship based on a ‘lack of standing’ by the plaintiffs gave me pause. There is probably a compelling short story that could be written, with a Granholm/Schwarzenegger-like candidate making a run at the presidency. Who has legal standing to complain? What if that person won’t?)

As for the superiority (or better qualifications) of governor to be president, an interesting point to ponder, indeed.

Recently on C-SPAN, a very entertaining hour and a half (or so) show with Fritz Hollings recently aired. I remembered him as a Central Casting-type southern senator (from SC), but he was also the governor of South Carolina before that.

He vigorously advanced the argument that no one should get to be a Senator before serving a term or two as a governor.

His point was that governors all have to live within a budget; they all have to make hard decisions and choices, and if the dollars run out, things get very much harder– and voters will give you hell!

But Senators who have never had to deal with a state budget, on the other hand, reside in a fiscal lala land.…it was an interesting thesis, buttressed with many coloful anecdotes

No, that wouldn’t work, because it’s been done to death. Maybe i could be a geek who despises geekdom, or a housing advocate who hates the homeless (i’ll bet PajamasMedia would hire me for that gig!).

Truly, i was interested last spring in the kind of governor Palin represented, along with Jindal and Crist, although i can happily hear critiques of any of the three. This last election, on both sides, was a self-reinforcing aberration of Senatorial Gravitas — no matter how well President Obama does, i think his successors of whatever party are going to be state governors again, because governance choices are clearer and better measured out of that position than from the relatively negative stance of the Senate (not a slam, that’s their Constitutional job, to mainly vote stuff down).

For ’08, the Senatorial snowball just built steam, and it was not a good time for Gov. Palin to stick her head up out of an Alaskan snowdrift. We’ll see if some of her choices as governor hold up in a tightening economy, ditto Jindal, or how they will shift to respond to them; here in Ohio, i think Ted Strickland (D) will be heard from on the national scene in a few years, but very dependent on whether his attempts to reform the education funding and tax structure work out, along with neighbor Granholm up your way, even if neither runs for president.

Plus, we have a huge unseen crisis in MR/DD issues & funding nationwide, which autism is a tip o’ the iceberg angle only. It’s what’s breaking school district budgets, and as we reform that side of the public funding equation, we’re going to have to put back out on the middle of the table who/how/when kids with special needs are handled. Palin, Strickland, and other governors are up to speed on that in a way few in Washington since Jim Jeffords even comprehend.

A long time ago I realized there’s always a buck to be made in “contrarianism.” Be a woman who denounces feminism, or a Democrat who rejects political correctness, or any X who might be expected to believe Y — but doesn’t! — and just wait for your op-ed slot. Kathleen Parker built her early career on being the first kind (feminist who rejects feminism) and recently switched to the other kind (Republican who rejects Palin). SInce then, she can regularly be found in the Washington Post. It’s like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, an act that never gets old.

Then she went on to say a bit more about Katie … which even i thought was a bit over the top, but she does represent an interesting pov.