A number of people in the blogosphere have pointed out that Governor Palin–or more accurately, her daughter Bristol–has been palin’ around with drug dealers. Remember Levi Johnston, the guy they trotted out as a prop at the Republican convention as the father of Bristol’s baby? Well, his mom got busted yesterday; reports suggest she had a meth lab in her house (don’t forget, Wasilla is Alaska’s crystal meth capital).

Well, that’s fascinating enough. But I’m just as fascinated by the absence, in ADN’s reporting, of any mention of an imminent wedding.

Johnston is the mother of Levi Johnston, the Wasilla 18-year-old who received international attention in September when Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, announced their teenage daughter was pregnant and he was the father. Bristol Palin, 18, is due on Saturday, according to a recent interview with the governor’s father, Chuck Heath.

[snip]

Levi Johnston sat with Bristol and the rest of the Palin family in St. Paul, Minn., during Gov. Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention, and he joined the family on the stage afterwards.

When Levi was rolled out in early September, it was always in the context of an upcoming wedding.

In other words, I’m not convinced there’re still plans for Sarah Palin to become Levi’s mother-in-law (emphasis on law, here). Don’t tell me the claim they were getting married was just a politically convenient claim?

Well, in any case, for those of you who had "Charlie Crist" in the politically convenient marriage pool, you may now collect on your earnings. 

As you may have noticed, a small war has erupted at the mothership over the nature of the invocation at Obama’s inauguration on January 20, 2009. Specifically, whether or not it is appropriate for Obama to have Rick Warren participate. The general FDL position is that it is not appropriate to have Warren participate because he is a discriminatory bigot, to the LGBT community, and others.

I agree wholeheartedly with this position. But I have a more fundamental question.

Why is any of this, Warren, Lowery, or any other religious figure, an official part of the inauguration? If a religious aspect is desired for private parties later etc., fine, but why should overt religion be sanctioned as part of the official initiation of a Presidency? No matter how it is configured, it is going to be offensive to many groups inherently; i.e. those whose religions are snubbed, and those such as the LGBT community, for instance in relation to Warren. Probably some groups somewhere will be similarly put off by Joe Lowery; and, of course, the non-believers and/or atheists don’t like any of it.

"America" should not have a preacher. If individuals wish to consider religion vis a vis their government, that is most excellent, but it should be and by individual choice only. God is not for a nation to possess, nor claim the mantle of; that is the province of the individuals in the nation to do, or not do, on their own.

Why is this part of the official inauguration? There is no need to have the new government sanctioned by religion from the get go. The new President, President Obama, will serve and represent all Americans, of all stripes, colors and beliefs; excluding and alienating so many at the outset seems antithetical to the spirit, even if not the letter, of Constitutional separation of church and state, equal protection and inclusion.

Invoke the spirit of the Constitution instead of of having an invocation at the Inauguration.

America, indeed humanity, stands on the verge of a seminal moment in history. A turning point that inalienably alters our existence in so many ways, writ large and small, that it is hard to grasp. We are about to to inaugurate a black man, Barack Obama, President of the United States; a job that is still, despite all, the singularly most important and powerful position in the world. How did we get to this moment?

It is time to talk about race, and in a positive and constructive manner, not the sinister and tawdry below the surface baiting style so prevalent during much of the McCain/GOP campaign we just, thankfully, concluded. What has led us to the point where Barack Obama is about to give his first inaugral address; what paved the way for that? It just might, at least partially, be the shoes.

Specifically, the shoes worn by transcendental black athletes like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Venus and Serena Williams and Arthur Ashe. Athletes not just dominant in their sport, but in sports that were previously the exclusive province of whites. In the case of Tiger, the Williams sisters and Arthur Ashe, it was their sports; sports that were once, and still remain, not just white, but elite. In Jordan’s case, although in a sport long integrated, basketball, he became literally the face of the league and the most marketable and recognizable persona in advertising in the whole world.

One of the great gifts to sports journalism, really the literary field as a whole, in the last half century was the late Dick Schapp. A truly enlightened and renaissance man. One of the many enduring gifts Schapp left is a weekly sports roundtable discussion every Sunday morning on ESPN, The Sports Reporters. Not just any sports reporters, but giants that, like Schapp, transcend the field of sports with a view of the larger frame of the world. Journalists like Mike Lupica, Mitch Albom and Bob Ryan. On the October 5, 2008 edition of The Sports Reporters John Saunders, who has led the The Sports Reporters since Schapp’s untimely death, gave a fascinating parting shot (It is the approximately last two minutes of the linked podcast, which is very easy to fast forward to).

Saunders’ take was that Obama has had a surprisingly smooth and seamless run for the Presidential roses considering the historical context of black and white racial undertow of tension. Further, that one of the reasons for this is the way that certain black athletes, specifically Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Willaims have come to be the singular calling cards of their sports, golf and tennis respectively. Saunders posits that the significance is immense because both golf and tennis have been historically not just the domain of whites, although that they have been, but elite and powerful whites. The country club set; power brokers that really run things. Elegant and compelling individuals, Woods and the Williams; black in skin color, magnetic, inspirational and colorless champions in conduct and ethos.

We can all see, and appreciate, the progressive evolution of attitudes on race. We long have celebrated barrier breakers leading the way like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron. But Saunders is on to something here. Legendary agents of change are among us today, in their athletic prime, in the form of Tiger, Venus and Serena. Wonderful role models and avatars that have built upon the efforts of their racial predecessors, and are now able to be the leaders of their sports and societal symbols for who they are and what they have done, without the added characterization as "black". Tiger isn’t black; Tiger is just Tiger. Same with the Williams sisters, they are just Venus and Serena. This is a quite remarkable thing actually, something that even Muhammad Ali couldn’t pull off; but Obama has been able to do it. Obama wasn’t a black candidate; Obama was just a candidate. Barack Obama is not a black leader, he is our leader. Period.

Outstanding. It’s about time. This is real and tangible progress being built and expanded right in front of our eyes, and we should appreciate it as such. It is a transcendental and transformative moment.

As cogent as John Saunders’ thoughts were, I would suggest that it should be taken one step further to really fill out this part of the racial progress story. In fairness to John, the parting shots on The Sports Reporters are just that; relatively brief quick takes, so he did not have the luxury of the extended format allowed here. The additional elements I would add are Arthur Ashe and Michael Jordan.

Ashe was really the progenitor of the color neutral athlete transcending his sport and impacting on the social conscience in the broader sense. Indeed, considering that he was operating in a far different and more volatile atmosphere two decades before even Jordan, Arthur Ashe may be the most remarkable of those discussed herein; his commitment to social justice, health and humanitarian issues left a mark on the world as indelible as his tennis was on the court. And as with the others, he did it with dignity and grace in a sport and stage that was exclusive and white.

Michael Jordan became simply the most recognizable and marketable personality in the world. Granted, not in a lily white country club sport such as golf or tennis, but Jordan’s impact became so much more than simply his basketball. Never before had a black attained the iconic status of Michael Jordan, without still being categorized as "black". As with Tiger, Michael was simply Michael. To black and white, to rich and poor, to the powerful and the powerless, he was just Michael. Must have been the shoes.

And the wonderful part is that the shift to color neutrality is not over; it is spreading like wildfire. The one picture above that most will not recognize is that of Lewis Hamilton, the newly crowned Formula One Grand Prix World Champion. This remarkable man, all of age 23, is the spitting image of a young Tiger Woods. If you think what Obama and Tiger have accomplished is earth shattering, picture this: A black youth from England, driving for a German team, winning across the globe and securing his championship in Brazil. Like the others, he is just Lewis. It is a beautiful thing.

We may not be there yet, but the promised land is starting to appear on the horizon. Dr. King may not have lived to see it, but we are getting closer and closer to the day where human beings "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". So, in a time where there is so much war, death, hunger and financial despair, let us celebrate and give thanks for that which is remarkable and good in our midst.

Happy Thanksgiving Folks!

As most of you know, I firmly supported Janet Napolitano for Attorney General in the new Obama administration. It looks as if Eric Holder will be the Attorney General instead, but CNN has just announced that Napolitano will be the choice for Department of Homeland Security. Here is the Reuters headline:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s top choice to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, CNN reported on Wednesday, citing multiple sources.

The Democratic governor, a supporter and campaigner for Obama’s presidential campaign, had been reported to be on a short list of people to fill cabinet posts in the new administration.

Assuming she makes vetting and is confirmed, Janet will make a fantastic Secretary of DHS. Some of the skills and abilities I pointed out as qualifications for AG will serve her very well as Homeland Security.

Napolitano is well versed and experienced with constitutional law and civil rights, having been mentored as the hand picked protege of one of the country’s great Constitutional scholars and authorities, John P. Frank, one of the two legal fathers of the Miranda decision. She has sizable long term experience not only as the Arizona Attorney General (a huge office), but also as chief executive of an entire state government as Arizona Governor. Of critical significance, she was the US Attorney for the District of Arizona for six years under President Clinton, prior to her terms in state office as Arizona’s AG and Governor.

The job ahead is going to, in addition to the legal skills, require someone with Federal experience and the established ability to manage a giant bureaucracy. Janet Napolitano has a very rare combination of background and experience to fit that bill. The attention to bureaucratic detail, not just in Washington DC, but in all of the 93 US Attorney district offices is going to have to be immense. Wholesale institutional change needs to be implemented, and malefactors rooted out.

Janet Napolitano has this ability in droves over any other candidate discussed for AG. She is spectacularly good at bureaucratic detail and getting big entities working as an efficient team. Janet has an incredibly feel good aura around her, and it is contagious to those working with and for her. She is a master team builder, both in terms of efficiency and competence as well as morale and attitude. Janet has already exhibited her turnaround skills in her transformation of the Arizona Executive branch, which was in shambles when she took over.

Additionally, as governor of a critical border state, and head of the National Governor’s Association, Napolitano will have the credibility and experience with state governors that is necessary for many of the operations and coalitions that form the backbone of the DHS operation.

The best news of all is that there will finally be an honest and competent person in the critical post that Michael Chertoff has been defiling the last few years. It will will be good to bury the tenure of Skeletor and put that era behind us once and for all.

Janet is a first rate choice. She will make us, America and the Obama Administration proud.

When I was first sworn into the bar, I had the good fortune of being mentored by an experienced and wise senior partner. One of the first things that he taught me in dealing with other parties was to be aware of the long arm-short arm syndrome. This is where a person has a long arm for taking, and a short arm for giving.

When it comes to the netroots, Barack Obama has the long arm-short arm syndrome. He has taken much from us in terms of support, voice, momentum, money, footwork and energy. Obama has given little, if anything, in return to the netroots. Unless you count disdain and scorn. And pokes in the eye with a blunt stick.

Let’s go through a bill of particulars, starting with oh, say, today:

Eric Holder: Eric Holder is a horrid choice for Attorney General. Looseheadprop knows this and gave her take earlier. Holder conspired with his friend Scooter Libby to get a pardon for Marc Rich; Obama must have been mighty impressed by that. Or maybe he was more impressed with Holder’s ability to skate his Republican/Bush bigwig friends at Chiquita Brands for their complicity in paying millions of dollars to rightwing death squads in Colombia that murdered union leaders and workers. Uh, and then Chiquita paid off the other side. While they were probably smuggling narcotics for the CIA. Another excellent entry on the resume for Obama I guess. Oh, and Holder was not very popular with the career rank and file at DOJ when he was there; he was seen as very divisive. So we got that going for us. Just what is needed for the rotting carcass at DOJ that Bush/Cheney is leaving.

In short, hey, seriously, if you like the corporate apologist, rich people coddling, torturing approving and covering, illegal wiretapping loving, breakdown in the career ranks bullshit DOJ of the last eight years, you will absolutely love Eric Holder. He will, of course, be nominally better that Mukasey. If that is good enough for you, he is your guy! Thanks Barack!

Joe Lieberman: As y’all might have heard, Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman was ejected from the Democratic Caucus, er stripped of his DHS Chair, …. Oh, hell, Harry Reid kissed the sucker on both cheeks and thanked the back stabbing little prick for being magnanimous.

Now, how exactly did we come to the point to where the guy who bolted the party and actively campaigned side by side, hand in hand, for the better part of two years for the race baiting Republican shame-meister John McCain? Who caused this love to be given to one of the netroots’ most hated men? Uh, that would be good old long arm-short arm Barack Obama.

Obama didn’t just shaft the netroots though, he stuck the shiv in the American people by engineering Lieberman’s retention of his DHS Chairmanship. That man should not be allowed in the same universe as that committee. The American people are entitled to a man that will do the freaking job. A great American city was drowned. People are dead. Tens maybe hundreds of thousands are effectively still homeless. Billions of dollars were wasted. He. Did. Freaking. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Say goodnight New Orleans, and tell Barack Obama thank you!

The FISA Lie: Barack Obama gave his word (likely to cravenly gain credibility with Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democratic primary voters, and the netroots) that he was against retroactive telcom immunity and would filibuster any attempt to pass it through the Senate. Then, when his nomination was all but assured and the bill came up for a vote, Barack Obama showed his colors and shoved the shiv once again in the raw bloody back of the progressives and netroots. Obama turned on a dime and not only did not filibuster, it was his lead that Pelosi and Reid followed in ramming the craptastic FISA Amendments Act through with retroactive immunity for the Bush/Cheney criminals. Heckuva job Baracky! It is an action that is second nature for Obama; he literally seems to enjoy it. Hard to understand how Obama was not seen as a con man on the spot; mostly the desperate netroots needed a few more blade strokes I guess. Well, we have those now; can we start calling the progressive bashing Obama out for what he is yet?

More Particulars: Here are some more greatest hits from Barack Obama the progressive hater: Campaigning for Barrow in Georgia and against the wonderful progressive candidate, wobbliness on the auto bailout, lack of interest in pursuing torture and war crime offenders in the justice department and throughout the government, appointment of ultimate DLC centrist hack Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, agreement to offshore drilling and dissing of clean coal technology…..

The list is getting awfully long. Almost as long as Barack Obama’s arm that he used to take our money and efforts to get himself elected. All we have seen is the short arm he has used to punch us in the face and collect street cred with villagers for having done so.

It is sickening. It is so bad that even Pat Buchanan (see video above) is feeling sorry for the progressive netroots and is calling on President-Elect Obama to at least have the mercy to throw a little bone. Looks like it will be a damn small bone.

Heckuva job Barack!

I know that it was really neat to see how the Bushes welcomed Barack and Michelle to their new digs. The Obamas looked so glamorous and confident and all that.

But this is the meeting I want to see first-hand:

The Vice President-elect and Dr. Jill Biden have been invited by Vice President Cheney and his wife Lynne to the Naval Observatory on Thursday at 5:15pm for a private meeting and tour of the residence.  The arrival of the Vice President-elect and Dr. Biden will be pooled.  The meeting will be closed press.  An official photo of the Bidens and Cheneys will be released following the meeting. 

I mean, how do you think Jill Biden will respond when Dick tells her husband to go fuck himself?

Stan Greenberg has noted something we here in MI have been quietly smiling about since last Tuesday: Obama won Macomb County, MI by 8 points, with 53.4% of the vote. This is the county, remember, which Greenberg dubbed the home of the Reagan Democrat after Ronnie won those white, working class, previously loyal Democratic voters with 66% of the vote. Here’s how Greenberg described the phenomenon earlier this year.

In 1960, Macomb was the most Democratic suburban county in the country as John F. Kennedy won handily there, garnering 63 percent of the vote. Four years later, Lyndon Johnson increased the Democratic vote share even further, winning 75 percent of Macomb voters. But over the next 20 years, these voters turned on the Democrats, culminating with Ronald Reagan taking 66 percent of the vote in 1984.

What’s most remarkable about Obama’s win is that he outperformed Clinton in 1992, Gore, and Kerry in the county. This, among voters who, when they first turned against the Democratic Party, named race as one of the reasons.

But this is not 1985 when Macomb voters also shared a deep middle class consciousness, but focused on minorities and government aid for blacks, Welfare and above all and affirmative action as major grievances and part of the squeeze. As Greenberg noted in Middle Class Dreams, the Democratic defectors of 1985 “expressed a profound distaste for black America, a sentiment that pervaded almost everything they thought about government and politics. Blacks constituted the explanation for their vulnerability and for almost everything that had gone wrong in their lives.”

But this is a very different Macomb and these are very different times. Welfare, crime, reverse discrimination, blacks and Detroit were never mentioned in the discussion of why the country and state are off track, except for some asides about Detroit’s pathetic mayor. That was not what they were angry about or felt had much impact on their lives. Sometimes it is as important to pay attention to what is not said, as to what is.

When we give Macomb voters a choice to explain the current plight of the middle class, over half focus their resentment on global trade, CEOs who “care more about their companies than their country,” and politicians who “support trade agreements backed by corporate special interests,” while fewer than 30 percent focus on “affirmative action for minorities who don’t take responsibility for their lives” and illegal immigrants “getting free government benefits.” They have a clear theory on who is responsible and blacks and other minorities are barely in the line of fire.

How refreshing to see that CEOs are now the scapegoat for economic malaise rather than undocumented workers or African-Americans.

Now, Greenberg has declared that he’s over his fascination with Macomb–that it has become too ordinary–and has turned his focus to Oakland County next door to track that much wealthier county’s increasing cultural tolerance.

So, good riddance, my Macomb barometer. Four years from now, I trust we will see the candidates rush from their conventions to Oakland County, to see the new America.

Me, I’d prefer Greenberg kept at least one eye on Macomb County. That’s not to measure attitudes toward race, but to measure attitudes toward government. The original defection from the Democratic party was just as much due to cynicism about government’s ability to solve real problems as it was about race and those attitudes, unlike attitudes torward race, seem to remain to a degree. And this is where I think Obama has the biggest ability to fail or succeed–in his ability to reverse decades of Republican propaganda about the evils of government. 

Obama has convinced a lot of voters that he is better suited to fix the problems of our country. But can he–and Democrats in Congress–convince voters that government can be part of the solution, rather than the problem itself?

She notes that she didn’t do too well under the "white hot" spotlight of DC.

MATT LAUER: Let me talk about your future. There is a possibility that, in the state of Alaska, there will be a special election. If Ted Stevens goes back the Senate, and his colleagues decide to banish him, then the state of Alaska has to come up with a new senator. And it is conceivable that you could run for that seat. Are you interested?

SARAH PALIN: I’m not planning on that.

MATT LAUER: That’s a good politician’s answer. Most people say, "I’m not planning on it." But the people of Alaska said, "You’d be the right person"?

SARAH PALIN: No, I’m not planning on it because I think the people of Alaska will best be served with me as their governor. Making sure that we are prudently spending the tax dollars. That we are making sure that our resources are being developed responsibly and ethically. And all those things that are a part of my agenda as governor. I think the people of Alaska appreciate me where I am today as their governor.

MATT LAUER: But wouldn’t there be some sense that you’d just seen what it was like in the White House spotlight. And doesn’t some part of you, I mean, I read an article about you that said you’re pretty ambitious. Doesn’t some part of you want more of that?

SARAH PALIN: You know, when you talk about that white hot spotlight– that’s not really attractive to me. Because, again, you know, you gave some examples of– look what that white hot spotlight…

MATT LAUER: It’s a double edged sword.

SARAH PALIN: …does to one’s family, you know. And does to one’s credibility and record and word. So that’s not the attraction to me. The attraction is where can I best serve people whom I work for and am accountable to. Right now I am accountable to the people of Alaska. They hired me as their governor. I’m blessed to have the opportunity that I have to serve them as governor. It’s a great job. I love it. [my emphasis]

Shorter Sarah: I’m going back to Alaska where I can hide my incompetence, ethical issues, and ignorance behind my pretty face. Also.

I’m not sure Sarah will remember the "white hot spotlight" in three months or so, when she’d have to decide on a special election. But let it be noted that, at least for the moment, she doesn’t want Uncle Toobz’ seat. 

Sarah Palin engaged in a bit of parsing when asked last week whether RNC lawyers were coming to audit the clothes she scammed the RNC out of. Rather than denying the claim outright, she insisted the RNC lawyers weren’t coming to her house. [exchange starts at 3:00; my transcription]

Reporter: Does the RNC have lawyers coming up to look at the clothes, inventory the stuff?

SP: The RNC’s not coming up, nobody’s coming up to look at anything. There is an inventory of clothes being done so that the RNC is held accountable for all the dollars that were spent, but … Who said that attorneys were coming up to my house to pick up clothes?

Reporter: I think the NYT reported that, the LAT.

SP: The NYT evidently is wrong, because it’s not … it’s not happening. Nobody’s told me that they’re coming to my house to look through closets … to look through anything. [my emphasis]

Note how far Palin’s parse–"coming to my house"–is from what the NYT said.

Republican National Committee lawyers were likely to go to Alaska to conduct an inventory and try to account for all that was spent.

And from what the LAT said.

Reporting from Phoenix — Sarah Palin left the national stage Wednesday, but the controversy over her role on the ticket flared as aides to John McCain disclosed new details about her expensive wardrobe purchases and revealed that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession.

This is a classic Palin denial: denying something that was not alleged (except, arguably, by my pithy title), while not denying the main point of the allegation.

And, as it turns out, Palin and the RNC are still haggling over what is where and who owns what.

Palin and John McCain’s campaign faced a storm of criticism over the tens of thousands of dollars spent at such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus to dress the nominee. Republican National Committee lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was bought for Palin, what was returned and what has become of the rest.

Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, said his daughter spent the day Saturday trying to figure out what belongs to the RNC.

"She was just frantically … trying to sort stuff out," Heath said.

[snip]

RNC lawyers have been discussing with Palin whether what’s left of the clothing and accessories purchased for her on the campaign trail will go to charity, back to stores or be paid for by Palin, a McCain-Palin campaign official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the campaign hadn’t authorized comment.

The McCain-Palin campaign said about a third of the clothing was returned immediately because it was the wrong size, or for other reasons. However, other purchases were apparently made after that, the campaign official said.

And Sarah’s Dad, at least, does admit to missing underwear–though he suggests it was underwear for the kids (I love how underwear for a family of seven … plus the fiance? … have all of a sudden become a campaign expense).

"That’s the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for.

Now, Sarah’s Dad doesn’t seem to be the parsing whiz that his daughter is, but one might wonder what he meant by "the kids" here, not least since Sarah is, after all, his kid.

But perhaps the most interesting detail here is that of all the things purchased for Sarah during the campaign, she only paid for one thing–a pair of shoes.

Heath dismissed the clothes controversy as "ridiculous," and said his daughter told him the only clothing or accessories she had personally purchased in the last four months was a pair of shoes.

I’m guessing Sarah’s Dad is going to be kept away from the media after he revealed the missing underwear and that Sarah has only paid for one pair of shoes… 

Update: See Watertiger on this, also, as Sarah would say.

Back when I argued that Palin would probably not be the Republican candidate for President in 2012, I noted how much the landscape had changed for Palin in Alaska.

That’s true, first of all, because the exposure of the campaign will bring some unanticipated setbacks to her.

[snip–note, I cut out a prediction that the personnel board investigation might be damning, which turned out to be dead wrong]

At the very least, her claim to be a reformer in Alaska won’t fare well.

Then there’s the fact that she’s got at least two more years as governor before 2012–and there is no evidence that she is any more competent at governing than George Bush. So long as oil prices remain where they are, she’s going to have a difficult time meeting the increased needs of an inflation-wracked Alaska.

Here’s a really good inventory of the ways in which life for Sarah will change in Alaska. My favorites:

4 The Legislature

Palin’s two-year record was much dissected during the presidential campaign. Some Alaska lawmakers complained she was disengaged at times. Democratic allies who helped with her priorities are now unhappy with her new national partisanship and the campaign’s meddling in Troopergate. Her unhappiest critics have been Republicans who resented how the "maverick reformer" painted dissenters as part of the "good old boy" network.

Back in Juneau, she’s likely to face a new source of friction: budget-cutting tensions due to declining oil revenues.

[snip]

Palin also has work to do with some of her constituents. Big anti-Palin rallies in Anchorage during the campaign were unprecedented — Frank Murkowski never stirred that kind of passion. Coming home to vote in a Carhartts jacket shows she’s thinking along those lines. (Or was she buffing her small-town, anti-fashion image for a national crowd? More second-guessing.)

5 The natural gas pipeline

With the nation sliding into recession and state oil revenues plunging, the gas line seems more important than ever to Alaska. Crossing the next big pre-construction hurdles would give Palin a big achievement to trumpet.

But there are plenty of perils in the next two years. The looming challenge involves the so-called "open season" — persuading the oil companies, through tax incentives, legal pressure or superior poker strategy, to commit to ship their gas reserves through the line.

Meanwhile the state will seek help from the Obama administration on rights of way and federal loan guarantees. Palin’s pitch: that getting gas to the Lower 48 will lead the nation away from oil and provide a bridge to a new era of alternative energy sources. Obama did say during the presidential race he supports getting the gas line built.

While she’s working on energy, Palin also faces the challenge of the warming Arctic and the rural energy crisis. Alaska’s governor was described during the campaign as one of the nation’s leading experts in energy security, so it won’t do to have rural villagers shivering in the dark. There’s been lots of talk about alternative energy projects, and money has been committed — but will there be any new kilowatts generated in the next two years of Palin’s leadership?

6 Family and friends

OK, the kids will remain off limits, for the most part. But finding time for her growing family remains a significant challenge for Palin, alongside her work for the state and her new national prominence.

Todd Palin’s role in the administration has been subjected to great scrutiny in the past two months, but there don’t seem to be any new lines yet defining the first gentleman’s responsibilities.

Now, I still think it unlikely that Palin will be the GOP nominee in 2012, for all these reasons. Though I do think one possibility has opened–replacing Toobz Stevens in the Senate–that offers her the clearest path to the nomination in 2012. If she were to replace Toobz in, say, March (after a special election; she almost certainly can’t appoint herself), then she’d get out of Juneau before the effects of lower gas prices really devastate the Alaska budget and with it Sarah’s claim to be a fiscal conservative. Hanging out in DC would give her the opportunity to go on taxpayer funded (because we know Sarah likes to have others pay for things for her) fact-finding trips to other countries, which will help her gain credibility and knowledge about foreign affairs. And if she replaced Toobz, she would presumably inherit many of Toobz’ staffers, who know their way around DC and could make her look good. Finally, she’d be at ready access for things like the Sunday shows, so she could keep her purty face in front of voters.

I still think it unlikely she will be the nominee in 2012. At the very least, positioning to do so from Alaska looks increasingly difficult.