Sarah Palin is playing chess while the left is playing with itself Candyland says…the Huffington Post?

And the left needs to stop misunderestimating Palin says…David Broder?

Oh my. The world turned upside down*. (headline explained)

Sarah Palin isn’t near as interesting as the reaction people have to Sarah Palin.

I'll be in my bunk.

Before I even start, some disclosure: I have far more I disagree with Sarah Palin on than I agree with her about. She’s a politician, and like all of them she talks more than she walks. Politicians, even the best of them, are at heart people who seek power and influence that they couldn’t earn rightfully in the private sector. Some rare few actually rise above popularity contestant status to becoming actual leaders and statesmen, but they’re as rare as white power forwards in the NBA.

So what I do like about Palin? For starters, she’s hot, and “real beauty is on the inside” is something ugly people say. Like it or not, people pay more attention to attractive people — this is why you’re reading my blog, after all — and in the great, horrible game of democracy getting people’s attention is a big part of it. I won’t lie — I like looking at her. (Don’t act like I’m the only one this shallow — the media has been telling us constantly and with a straight face that Barack and Michelle are attractive despite evidence to the contrary, so don’t go damning my hormones.)

More importantly, I like the glimmers of true federalism Palin’s shown on some issues. When asked about marijuana legalization, she says, well, here’s what I think, and here’s the argument against legalization…but this is what the Constitution says so let’s go with that. By which she means let states legalize if they want. Amazing concept, I know. She’s applied this thinking to gay unions and, despite her overbearing religious beliefs, it’s put her in a position where she’s more gay friendly than the current Democrat inhabiting the White House.

Even more, I just love how she brings out the worst in the people who keep telling us they’re the best — the opinion elite who work for cable networks with fewer viewers than Palin has Facebook friends, and old-line newspapers that no one reads except as a joke. These are the beta males, the unoriginal hacks and the professional hand-wringers who repeat the talking points of the day as if they’re original and drone on about “teaching moments” even though they’ve only ever taught people like me not to bother reading the New York Times for any reason: Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, et al.

Tina Fey skit line mistaken for actual quote reference? Check. Beauty queen reference? Check. Quitting governorship after two years? Check. (Hey, didn’t Obama quit his Senate seat after less time? Shh.) Counterfactual reference to warddrobe bill? Check. Hack list complete.

Palin’s derided for being uninformed and not so intellectual by people who keep telling us that Barack Obama is intelligent and informed. Obama, you see, demonstrated his vast intellect on the campaign trail in all 58 states.

His intellect is so awesome his college transcripts and written thesis are sealed from public view. Obama’s shown it in his strong grasp of strategy in Afghanistan (he voted “present”), and his cool lack of bias in pointing out when cops act stupidly, while cautioning us not to rush to judgment over a militant Islamist who shouted “Allahu ackbar!” while on a killing spree at Fort Hood. Obama’s savvy in doing happy shout-outs to conference attendees when he went on the air to address the shootings? That’s how smart he is. And don’t get me started on his grasp of history and protocol.

Why, the man is so intelligent he creates (or saves!) millions of jobs in congressional districts that don’t even exist.

Seriously — it takes a unique mind to create government spending that even gives the Chinese government pause. But that’s our boy.

But back to Sarah. Really? The AP assigns 11 reporters to fact check her book (they found six “errors” that weren’t errors) but not one to Obama’s or, for that matter, Al Gore’s various global warming books and movie. How about Joe Biden’s?

Forget books — why weren’t these reporters covering issues like, I don’t know, the massive health care takeover that’s going to cost hundreds of billions more than the AP reported and which, it turns out, will make health insurance costs rise more than doing nothing, and which will cover illegal immigrants? (Obama did, in fact, “You lie!” it seems) Or to cover whether AG Holder is telling the truth when he said he alone made the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a New York criminal court with no input from Obama?

But no, mainstream media fact checking is reserved for Palin’s book. And Saturday Night Live skits that are critical of Obama.

Like the meaningless Nobel on Obama’s mantle, Sarah Palin’s very existence seems to undermine their chosen leader, since she accomplished more by the time she ran for Vice President than Obama has to this day.

She angers the media because she has more pull as a private citizen — she derailed the health care takeover momentum with two words on her Facebook page: death panels — than sitting in exile in the governor’s mansion in Alaskastan. (Loved watching the Obama people scramble to deny it, saying, “There are no death panels. And we’ll take them out.”) She reaches people without needing the media, something every last century journalist grinds his teeth over. How crappy do you feel as a professional gatekeeper when no one needs to use your gate?

Why do I think the opinion elite really hate her? Even they know how classless they look falling over themselves to try to destroy her. I mean — this is just pathetic. The ladies of the press and their female counterparts do protest way too much here:

As a libertarian who doesn’t like anyone in power and who isn’t that fond of democracy anyhow, what happens with Sarah Palin is pure spectator sport for me. I don’t think she’s uninformed at all — here’s the real story behind the lousy hack job interview Katie Couric did:

Palin mixes too much religion in her politics, too much populism in her appeal, and — at heart — she’s a politician like any other, with plenty of BS in her backstory.

But if.

If she were to make a hard left turn the left-wingers would embrace her in a heartbeat. She has a high Q score, so if she’s the face of your cause, you’re going to make headway.

So for me, if she were to grow on issues like federalism and take up the Goldwater standard — that government needs to stay out of the boardrooms and the bedrooms; that government needs to keep out of churches and who they wed and churches need to keep out of schools; and that 90 percent of what mainstream Republicans and Democrats want government to do the government has no business doing because of what the Constitution says — then we may be able to do some business.

(No, I don’t care if she’s like Dr. Zauis on evolution if she keeps her promise to not to push it on schools. She said in 2006: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”)

I’ll be watching. And so will everyone else, in spite of the girl fight slaps from the opinion geldings in New York and Washington.

Even if Sarah doesn’t go my way — fingers crossed but not holding my breath — watching the media embarrass themselves attacking her is worth the price of admission.