Actually, Greta’s more excited about the idea than Ingraham is. I’m continually amazed by how much support there is for Palin, basically sight unseen, here in the comments at HA even though putting her on the ticket would obliterate the GOP’s strongest line of attack against The One. She’s personally appealing, represents a physical manifestation of Change, and is alarmingly young and inexperienced for such a momentous job. Remind you of anyone you know? Nor am I sold on Greta’s argument that women voters would flock to her. Conservatives love Palin because she’s down to earth to an extent that’s almost too good to be true, as if she’s a soccer mom who in her spare time decided to become governor. Hillary nuts worship Hillary for being the smart, opinionated career woman who refused to let gender expectations thwart her ambition who also somehow managed to raise a daughter. Both stereotypes are unfair — they’re two sides of the same coin — but the perceived difference in emphasis might be enough to turn Clintonites off to someone like Palin who doesn’t fit the traditional image of a feminist as well as Her Majesty does. Combine that with the scary Lifetime poll data that a woman on the ticket could actually cost McCain points and I don’t see the argument for her over, say, Romney.

Still, not the worst VP idea I’ve heard today. Exit question: I’m pretty sure I’ve asked this before, but I’ll ask again. Why would Palin make a better pick than, say, Huckabee? She’ll pull a few more women than him, probably, but he’ll pull more working-class Democrats and independents with his populist rhetoric. He’s a better public speaker than she is, it’s safe to say, and he’ll lock up the evangelicals sufficiently that McCain will have more room to pander to centrists (and no, you don’t have to remind me in the comments that plenty of evangelicals dislike him). Make the case, Palinites.

Update: The case is made!