Tonight on the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer seemed to agree that Sarah Palin doesn't know enough about the world and history to be a good presidential candidate.
But it turns out they are the ones who seem to come up short.
When Krauthammer claimed that Palin had tweeted about him being "hoity-toity", O'Reilly didn't remember enough of his own recent interview history (December 2010) to correct the misstatement. Palin used the phrase not on Twitter, but in an interview with O'Reilly in which O'Reilly asked about those who criticized her Sarah Palin's Alaska series and hobnobbing with people like Kate Gosselin as not "presidential".
Also, Dr. Krauthammer opined that Palin would probably not run because "she has a future. Why would you jeopardize it by running now and losing?" Huh? Does the clearly brilliant Dr. Krauthammer remember Ronald Reagan? Richard Nixon?
Reagan didn't "jeopardize" his future by losing the 1976 Republican primary--against the incumbent Republican president no less. Not even in the sense that it was arguable that he hurt the party and its candidates by entering into a campaign against President Gerald Ford who was subsequently beaten by Jimmy Carter. This not only meant loss of the presidency for Republicans but downscale national and state positions as well.
Then there's Richard Nixon. He didn't just lose a primary campaign, he lost the 1960 presidential election. But that didn't make him unelectable. He came back to win the presidency twice--in 1968 and 1972.
One wonders why Krauthammer is not cognizant of these clear facts from recent (50+ years and 30+ years ago) political history.
A Palin run, far from being a one-time shot, is more like a no lose proposition. If she runs and wins, she wins. If she runs and loses, she learns valuable lessons to mount a future winning campaign just as Reagan and Nixon did.