4um: Sarah's Lectures A Tough Sell

SARAH Palin is said to have pocketed a $7 million advance for the 400-page memoir she turned in four months early, but she might not have such an easy time on the lecture circuit.

After quitting as governor of Alaska in July, Palin signed with the top-notch Washington Speakers Bureau, which also reps George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Condoleezza Rice, hero pilot Chesley Sullenberger, LA Dodgers manager Joe Torre and magician David Blaine.

Palin's bookers are said to be asking for $100,000 per speech, but an industry expert tells Page Six: "The big lecture buyers in the US are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot."

Many big lecture venues are subscription series, "and they don't want to tick people off," said our source. "Palin is polarizing, and some subscribers might cancel if she's on the lineup." Other lecture buyers are universities, which have a leftist slant, and corporations, which dislike controversy.

"Palin is so uninteresting to so many groups -- unless they are interested in moose hunting," said our insider. "What does she have to say? She can't even describe what she reads."

Palin likely quit as governor just months after losing the election as John McCain's vice-presidential running mate because of money. "She knew that if she waited until her term ended in 2010, these opportunities would be gone," said a source. "She would have lost millions by staying in office."

Palin's "Going Rogue: An American Life" is described by Harper publisher John Burnham as "her words, her life, and it's all there in full and fascinating detail." Harper wouldn't discuss what Palin was paid.

Lynn Vincent, Palin's collaborator, wrote the book so fast, publication has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17.

She's not a big deal in any context. While I don't particularly like her, I don't particularly hate her. You statist types though, wow, I've never seen such rage, hate and anger aimed at one person who did absolutely nothing to you at any point.

Must be that "damned uppity woman" thing liberals harbor deep down in their souls.

Okay..... her name is continually being out out there for a candidate president. So YOU tell us her stance on the major issues.

She is still behaving as a public figure and as such is fair game for discussion. Wasn't that HER at the UN making a speech the other day? Seems like she is still trying to influence policy which is her right and it is my right (so far) to discuss.

She is still behaving as a public figure and as such is fair game for discussion.

Demonization and the utterly base and vile attacks? Come on, that's beyond crude. There are other people out there that hold exactly the same ideas as she does or professes to, and I see no sneering disgust and ad hominem leveled on them. It's just telling to me that the real motivation behind most of the statists attacks on her has very little to do with her politics and a lot to do with the statists rather stark and scary psyches. It's like they lose all control when it comes to her, but nobody else. Hell, Dubya probably didn't take this much fire, personal family dirt digging and utter flames.

No one has declared, silly. This is the positioning stage. It doesn't matter though, she is out making speeches to the UN and elsewhere, and trying to influence gov and UN policy which keeps her in the limelight and public spotlight, probably..... by intent.

This is the positioning stage. It doesn't matter though, she is out making speeches to the UN and elsewhere, and trying to influence gov and UN policy which keeps her in the limelight and public spotlight, probably..... by intent.

Who is questioning that? Criticize her platform(s), ideas, positions what have you to the hills. Go for it.

All I'm noting is that the left/statist go far beyond that with her, where they generally don't with others. I just find it revolting, and telling.

So please let us in on the big secret ....Sarah's platform. So far she has remained fairly mute. Which I criticize her for. She's even been called a work- in- progress by an admirer here today. I hope she's not planning on imitating Kerry.

Again, you simply do not understand what my criticism is. You're approaching this from a "you love her or you ad hominem her like we do" paradigm. I reject both sides of that coin.

It would just be nice if statists could approach the topic of "Sarah" without revealing themselves to be such small, bigoted, sexist asshats. Criticize her ideas or lack thereof. One doesn't need to drag her family into it, one doesn't need to denigrate her looks, or call her vile names, where with any other politician that may hold her views, those kinds of attacks are withheld.

What is interesting is the absolutely unrelenting and vicious personal attacks on her and on her family.

It looks to me like libmedia and the Left are scared shitless of her, afraid maybe that she might have the kind of Reaganesque popular appeal, or the potential of it, to unseat Yomama in 2012 just as Reagan unseated Carter in 1980.