"Palin is in no way a 'danger'. "    Right. Just like other masterful demagogues have not been threats.

Yet again: it depends almost entirely on the economy. If US voters in general do not feel their personal economic position has improved from their current position--with about 9.7% unemployment--by the 2012 election, or even before---- she stands a good chance of winning that election.

Especially since even when the unemployed are re-hired, the jobs lost are well-paying manufacturing jobs; the new jobs are poorer-paying service jobs.   Unemployment statistics will not in themselves tell the whole story.

There are also plenty of non-liberal women who feel it is time for a woman president.

She already is in the strongest position of any potential Republican candidate for that party's nomination--as I have explained in detail elsewhere.    If anybody does not agree, please give us the name of a stronger candidate--especially for the Iowa caucus and others where conservatives are likely to dominate.

Clue:   don't try Romney:   as I pointed out in another thread, he will have the joy of trying desperately to differentiate "Romneycare" in Massachusetts from the "Obamacare" loathed by the Right.

I wish Sarah were not in so strong a position--and I hope my predictions do not pan out. But so far all the opposing arguments boil down to wishful thinking--which has won remarkably few elections.