By the way, Levi appears in photo shots in the current GQ Magazine, has just accepted some modeling offers, and is considering appearing in some reality tv shows. He said he’s had numerous offers in acting and modeling since he starred in real life as the nineteen year-old who “knocked up” Palin’s daughter, Bristol. (So far as I know, that’s his only claim to fame. Did he even graduate from high school?) He says he’s considering the many modeling and tv offers he’s received since he starred in Palin’s VP race. (Wasn’t it Palin he just accused of cashing in?) Oh, he’s also planning to write a book about Sarah Palin! He’s writing the book about Palin because he thinks everyone should know about Palin and who she is.

It is astounding to me that this guy is now being courted by the national media as the authority on Sarah Palin. I also learned that he called his own press conference several days ago to give his personal opinion of why Palin left the governorship. His press conference was covered by the Associated Press and written coverage of his press conference was printed in newspapers throughout the U.S. Amazing!

What has this society come to when we allow a nineteen-year-old whose only known achievement is impregnating a young female to become a national spokesperson!

Meanwhile, I wonder if NBC is interested in the fact that Sotomayor is beginning her confirmation hearings today for U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

Who woulda thought that getting elected to a four year term would be longer than two and a half years? The devil is in the details.

I don’t think so. I immediately thought of one obscure vp loser, Franklin Roosevelt (nominated in 1924). But that was a long time ago.

Leaving losing incumbents out of this, lets see

Edwards (2004) made a run at the presidency instead of disappearing (2008)
Lieberman (2000) didn’t go away but I wish he’d done so.
Jack Kemp (1996) I guess faded away– that was some sort of last hurrah
Lloyd Bentsen (1988) went on to be Secretary of the Treasury, not entirely an obscure position
Geraldine Ferraro (1984) obscure wins on that one, but she annoyingly showed back up last year
Dole (1976) stayed a powerful senator, later a Presidential nominee (1996)
Muskie (1968) made a run at the presidency instead of disappearing (1976)
William Miller (1964) disappeared, in a big way, to the point of being in an AmEx “do you know me” commercial
Henry Cabot Lodge (1960) lots of ambassador positions. Estes Kefauver (1956) and John Sparkman (1952) stayed powerful senators. Earl Warren (1948) surely some of you remember him being chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1954 until about 1970?

I don’t think it can reasonably be said that VP losers fade away, particularly those who crave attention (Edwards, Lieberman), or who have longstanding national ambitions (Dole) or achieve that Senator-senior-statesman status (Bentsen, Sparkman, Kefauver). The ones that go to some level of obscurity (Miller, Ferraro) are the rarer ones.

I think Sarah Palin’s implosion may make her go the way of William Miller, but that’s not what she wants or intends, and may be wishful thinking on my part.

P.S. Ms. Razor has approved this message. And adds, “Why are they even bothering to talk about her? And I liked her…a little bit. But she couldn’t possibly be President.”

And if you want to get into previous statements and reversals, I could give at least 50 examples of Obama doing the same thing, just 6 months into his first term. They all do it from time to time.

The obsession continues. Exhibit A: Bellesouth

Since announcing that she would resign as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin (R) has been blaming her decision on the “main stream media” and political operatives who accused her of “all sorts of frivolous ethics violations.” However, last year, Palin pointedly criticized Hillary Clinton during the presidential election for complaining about “excess criticism” and being put under “a sharper microscope”:

PALIN: Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You gotta to plow through that. You have to know what you’re getting into — which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also — but but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, “Man that doesn’t do us any good — women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.” I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or unfair, it is there, I think that’s reality, and I think it’s a given. I think people can just accept that she is going to be under the sharper microscope. So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.