SARAH

Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET

It's all Sarah all the time.  Her speech last night will be the main subject of political talk throughout the day.  The usual suspects will either praise or condemn her.  Most "observers," as usual, will be more concerned about how they sound than about how she sounded. 

There will, of course, be the contingent from Snideville, that little suburb of Washington, who'll whisper that the speech was written for her.  I'd be careful about that one.  Knowing just how much a candidate contributes to a speech is virtually impossible before the histories are written.  The Georgetown party crowd thought Ronald Reagan had everything written, and thought out, for him.  We later learned that he was probably the most effective script editor in presidential history.

I have no problem with reasonable criticism of Sarah Palin.  As the Washington Post points out this morning, her speech - and it was good - does not erase legitimate concerns about her readiness.  I do, though, have a big problem with a few practices, however:  First, I wish the same standard for "readiness" was applied to Barack Obama, who proves, in his contradictions, in his secretiveness, in his strange past, that he is woefully underequipped for the presidency.  Second, I wish reporters would stop asking the trick question, "Was she the best-qualified person to step into the presidency?"  Those same reporters might ask, and they haven't, whether Barack Obama is the best person for the presidency on the Democratic side.

There is no one "best" person.  And no presidential candidate in history has ever chosen, or even sought, that mysterious individual.  A vice-presidential candidate is usually a mixture of qualifications and political usefulness.  John Edwards, best qualified in 2004?  Al Gore in 1992?  Geraldine Ferraro in 1984?  How about Spiro Agnew in 1968?  Ironically, the best-qualified candidate was probably Dick Cheney in 2000, and he's become the most controversial vice president in history.

So spare us the "most qualified" question.  It's a gimmick.  "Sufficiently qualified" is fine.  If "most qualified" continues to surface, then the Republicans must tear into Joe Biden, asking whether he is the most qualified, pointing out his breathtakingly bad foreign-policy judgments over the years, and wondering whether putting in time is a qualification for anything.  Mr. Biden has no executive experience whatever. 

Sarah Palin did well last night.  She certainly impressed us as a serious and engaging leader.  But I've always believed that the impact of conventions is overrated.  Does anyone remember anything that was said at last week's Democratic conclave?  The full measure of Governor Palin will be determined by her performance over the next two months.  So will the full measure of all the candidates.  And that judgment will be filtered through a disgracefully biased press.

I'm hesitant about predictions.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if Governor Palin does better on the campaign trail than does Senator Biden, who is prone to gaffes and outbursts.  The question is, will we know about those gaffes and outbursts?  Or will we only know about Sarah Palin spelling some leader's name wrong?

Once again, the media will be the fifth candidate.  And we've seen this week how much damage that candidate can inflict. 

But I have a kind of faith in Sarah.  Don't sell her short.

September 4, 2008.