It is also true that women politicians do not wear those clothes, for they have been forged in the furnace of political correctness. One must dress to hide one’s sexuality so as to be taken seriously as a politician.

I suspect that Washington insiders, including politicians and journalists, and university professors, etc. think of her as a dweeb for not understanding that. I suspect they would be surprised to learn that most of USA doesn’t care about that level of political correctness, and they are so inoculated that it stuns them to see Palin ‘ignore’ it. She needs to wear the uniform.

I find it refreshing that she ignores all their trappings. I suspect most of USA doesn’t even notice.

This business of “sexual signals” said far more about Frum than it did of Palin. It’s an odd bit of inverted projection.

The attraction of Palin is that she indeed goes “rogue” – for example, she has completely deaked Davie and the Media Squishes and gone ’round to Reagan and Levin and to Classical Liberalism. It’s a market demand she’s meeting better than Frum and Brooks… and it irritates them. There’s just nothing sexy or masculine about squishy “moderation” or acceptance of the Left’s premises. The market is demanding solid counterarguments to the Left’s soft tyranny, and they ain’t offering – Palin is.

make no mistake, her book interviews show a very subdued sarah, believe me, she will be a force to rekon with when she starts her campaign.

Now *Todd’s* appeal is something else altogether . . .

have you heard him talk?

I’m not a psychologist so I can’t diagnose “projection”, but I can note that the people who elected B. Hussein Obama because he was good-looking, clean and articulate are the same ones who claim conservatives adore Sarah only for her looks.

I would surely have chosen to include David Frum.

That’s like hiring Bob Shrum or Susan Estrich to come up with a winning campaign strategy.