Good to know, I think, else the momey Raths might outgrabe!

Maybe it was the US magazine thing, I think there is a more likely, politically incorrect answer she avoided giving.

“Katie, I LOVE fiction, I read the Washington Post, The NY Times and the LA Times”

Regards,

“A better question from your perspective might be questions regarding her judgement. Depending on how you posit the question, the answer(s) are far more varied.”

Fair enough. You are right that it is the correct question.
I don’t think most people that call her “an idiot” are intending to state that on a standardized IQ test she would score within a specified sub-average range. Rather, I think the label is used casually to denote some combination of perceived (a) bad judgment, (b) obliviousness, (c)denial, (d)offensiveness, etc.

Like when people call Obama “naive”. I’m willing to bet he has more experience in politics than everybody on this site, so the label isn’t literally accurate. Rather, it’s a coloquial short-hand to say his experience is not as substantial as they may like, and to do so in a derogatory manner.

I call Palin an idiot but I do think she is intelligent in at least one sense — I think she is very, very cunning. Unfortunately, that may be a useful skill for a political leader, but alone it simply leads to self-absorbed Macheavellian machinations. I think her answer to the “what do you read” question displays that intelligence, and that is the problem with her (non-)answer. She didn’t want to say what she actually reads, because she new it would be mocked (”well Katie, I like Us Weekly, the crosswords in the TV Guide, and occasionally I’ll check out the latest issue of Glamour”), but she didn’t believe that she could get away with a convincing lie, so she fubbed it.*
Unfortunately, the intelligence she displayed concealing her reading material was (IMO) right — it does subject her to ridicule if she wants to be Vice Prez and she doesn’t read anything aside from fluff. There are alot on inferences that people will take from that . . . reasonable inferences, that are not flattering to her as a national leader. Perhaps those inferences are wrong, but they are reasonable and realistic. People wondering how she can be trusted for the highest office after quitting the Govenorship may be wrong, but that worry (based on the clear evidence) is reasonable. Now, whenever she walks out of something (like the recent footrace she quit to avoid photographers, the silliest excuse I’ve ever heard), its going to feed the fire. Bias? A Plot? The MSM out to destroy her? No — that’s how people think.

* Her “I was so offended that I intentionally choose not to answer it because everybody was trying to get me” answer that she recently came up with is uncredible. To be charitable.

Democrats and Palinbots have the same goal: the neutering of the GOP and the redefinition of “conservatism” as “lunacy.

Couldn’t have done it without all their help. Just know that as the GOP continues o paddle desperately for shore I’ll be among those tossing you anvils to catch. Is it my fault you keep reaching out for them?

CZ: Bringing it down to the lowest form of life as we know it - liberalism. How sweet it must be for you to win that one.

That’s what you reap from 3 decades of gleefully bashing academia. Your foot soldiers now embrace ignorance as a virtue.

Or, to put it another way:

“Stop using sex as weapon!”
~Pat Benatar

Those idiots don’t understand that Palin’s been signaling for months that she is content being a private citizen, multimillionaire author/tourist.

I think a lot of people also forget that her supporters are NOT Republican voters anyway. They are disgruntled third-party people who are good at making waves, but most likely don’t even vote.