Sarah Palin has no context.

She likes it that way.  So what if no VP candidate has ever introduced a Presidential candidate’s concession speech?  Why not her?

You see, when you have no context of broader issues, you can always just say how things would be in your perfect world, and then be upset that they are not that way.

She doesn’t like how she was treated by the McCain campaign. So she tells us how they did her wrong, not letting her blab more, without understanding why her blabbing might have not been effective.

Of course, that’s why she was chosen, why she empowered the base.  She could stand up and say “Shouldn’t things be the right way, the way we like them?  Yeah!  So lets slam the people who do them the wrong way, the way we don’t like them!”

What good fundamentalist couldn’t agree with that?

Sarah Palin has no context.

And for the people who like her, that’s great.  Context is confusing and messy and hard.

Joe Scarborough believes that she could become a great candidate; after all, Hillary Clinton got much more polished.

But Hillary came with context, all the context a Rhodes Scholar could hold, and needed to learn communication.

Palin has communication, but needs context.  And context would spoil her sweet appeal.

Sarah Palin has no context, so she could voice the whining of fundamentalists who know how things should be and want simple solutions that erase nuance, that erase challenge.   She doesn’t hold geography or history, always a new slate, blank as the new dawn.

And, to me, that’s scary.