I'm no fan of Palin's, but the little I've read about linguistics suggests, counter-intuitively, that the coherence and diagramability of her speech aren't reliable indicators of her intelligence or clarity of thought. Chomsky's notion that language isn't the product of some sort of general intelligence, but of a specific module in the brain, is generally accepted today. If the module works, speech is automatically grammatical, even if the person in question is mentally handicapped. Conversely, if the module is broken, an otherwise capable person can't produce coherent speech. Thus the stroke victim who can carry out all sorts of recognizably intelligent tasks, but can't speak grammatically. Grammar here doesn't refer to the rules of standard written English, but to the rules underlying all coherent speech in any language - the so-called Universal Grammar. Apparently it's fairly difficult to depart from these rules. The reason most of us don't utter mangled Bush-style howlers isn't because we're smarter, but because it would be seriously difficult to do so. Just how smart or dumb Bush is, is another question.

True, we no little of Palin's intelligence. However the task of Vice-President (and potential President) requires good communication skills.

My goodness, show me some science behind the Chomsky theory. There is none. It's just conjecture. It's not "generally accepted" at all, beyond a small slice of academia that does not hold itself to the rigors of scientific inquiry, and accepts theories that "seem" to be "empirically" true.

If you want to believe that people who can't speak coherently, even after they are coached up on talking points, might be fit to run the Executive branch, you clearly don't think that language matters at all.

One could be the best brick layer of all time and not be able to speak coherently. One cannot be a competent crafter of policy, a compelling voice of the bully pulpit, and a successful Chief Executive of the most powerful nation in the world without mastery of language.

I respect the fact that dyslexic people have as much personal worth as anyone else, but I don't want them being the most important voice our nation shows to the rest of the world. It's analagous to a person with an amputated leg - said person might be the greatest mother one could ever hope to meet, or an incredible novelist, but you wouldn't pay her 20 million a year to be the shortstop for the New York Yankees.

Being dyslexic does not hamper one's ability to think and craft policy nor to speak extemporaneously as the condition does not affect spoken language. It might diminish the ability to effectively read from the teleprompter, but this is not an indication of the ability to communicate. People who overcome an obstacle to attain a goal are often more creative and intelligent than the "normal" ones.