The latter take, of course is probably about right. Maybe in the immediate wake of the 2008 election, from which Palin emerged with a (slightly) net favorable score in national polls, she seriously entertained notions of a triumphant campaign for the top job in ’12. But from that point on, virtually everything she said and did turned swing voters against her and alienated her own party.

In the year 2010 alone, the number of Republican voters who said they’d be willing to support Palin for president dropped by 20 points; no other prospective candidate took a hit like that. And after last fall’s midterm elections, when several Palin-like candidates lost winnable races for the GOP, influential conservative voices began undermining her in public — and when Palin’s tone-deaf response to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting offered them a chance to do some real damage, they piled on. Today, her favorable rating with Republican voters stands at 44 percent, and with all voters it’s just 22 percent.

This is why it was so hard to take her periodic threats to wage a ’12 campaign seriously. Even Republicans who didn’t necessarily have anything against her seemed to realize that Palin had become electoral poison. And because she’d isolated herself from them, members of the conservative establishment weren’t there to vouch for her and prop her back up. Sure, there was always the theoretical possibility that she’d throw caution to the wind and run anyway, but even that was hard to envision, given how much she stood to lose from waging a futile campaign.

And that’s exactly the problem here. I wrote a while back that anyone sick of all the press attention Palin continued to receive should hope she decided to run. Why? Because if she put her name on the ballot and finished as an asterisk, it would prove once and for all that the empress had no clothes, and that there was no point in continuing to treat her as an unusually important and influential political leader. The example I had in mind was Gary Hart, who had been a political sensation in the mid-1980s, only to flame out in a sex scandal as the 1988 presidential campaign was beginning. When Hart decided to reenter that race at the last minute, polls initially found him running near the top of the field, but it was soft support and the Democratic establishment greeted him with hostility. His numbers withered and he finished with almost no support in Iowa and just 4 percent in New Hampshire. When it over, he vanished from the spotlight for years.

The point has been made that Palin enjoys a larger, more committed core of supporters than Hart ever had, and that’s probably true. But look at it this way: In the last poll released before her announcement, Palin was running at 10 percent in the GOP race, good for fourth place. That poll also found that 66 percent of Republicans said they didn’t want her to run, and that 49 percent said they like her less the more they learn about her — the biggest number of any GOP candidate. Add in the chilly reception the conservative establishment would have given her (not to mention all the damage she probably would have ended up inflicting on herself as a candidate) and 10 percent starts to feel like it would have been her peak. Here’s betting she would have ended up in single digits in the early contests — enough to sentence her to a Hart-like exile.

But by opting not to run, Palin can keep the illusion alive. Within minutes of issuing her written statement last night, she called in to Mark Levin’s radio show, telling the conservative host that concern for her family played a major role in her decision and vowing to take an active role in the 2012 election at the presidential, congressional and gubernatorial levels. Which, of course, means that instead of ending with her announcement, speculation about Palin will now simply evolve. Look for a parade of stories in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses about which candidate she might support. And look for Palin, just as she did with her White House charade, to milk the interest for all it’s worth, setting herself up as a would-be kingmaker (or queenmaker). Nor will the speculation stop when the primaries are over. Then there will be a new question: What role will she play at the convention — and can [nominee's name here] risk offending Palin’s army by snubbing her? And it will continue like this through the fall, when we’ll hear all about the potentially crucial role Palin could play in firing up the conservative base — or is the GOP nominee afraid that deploying her will alienate swing voters?

And really, that’s just the beginning. November 2012 will come and go, but she’ll still be around. As Ed Kilgore noted last night, she’s still only 47 years old — which means that there will be six more presidential elections after 2012 before she’s as old as John McCain was in 2008. If she’d decided to run now, Palin might have been out of our lives within a few months. Instead, she’ll be with us for years and years to come.

Steve Kornacki lays out the basics of Christie’s Simi Valley star turn. He made a fairly boring speech explaining why the country needs a national dose of what he’s done in New Jersey, and took a few swipes at President Obama. But he really came alive when a woman essentially begged Christie to enter the race. “I say this from the bottom of my heart, for my daughter who’s here and my grandchildren at home: I know New Jersey needs you, but I implore you…We can’t wait another four years (applause). I really implore you as a citizen of this country to reconsider.”

It was a great opening, for a man enjoying the devotion but determined not to run, to thank her and tell her he was sticking to his decision. But Christie didn’t.

He gave a long rambling answer, thanking her for her “heartfelt message” and making sure his audience knows he’s hearing a lot of similar messages from Republicans. But he concluded with: “My answer to you is just this – I thank you for what you’re saying. I take it in. I’m listening, and I feel it too.”

Feel what? That the country urgently needs him, so he’s reconsidering? Or that the country urgently needs him, but he’s still not going to do it? The door remains open. Christie is loving this.

Meanwhile, over on Fox, Sarah Palin told Greta von Susteren she’s still thinking about her options too. “I’m going to keep repeating though, Greta, through my process of decision-making with my family and with my close friends as to whether I should throw my name in the hat for the GOP nomination or not for 2012: Is a title worth it? Does a title shackle a person? Are they — someone like me, maverick, you know, I do go rogue, and I call it like I see it, and I don’t mind stirring it up… Is a title and is a campaign too shackling? Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of the box, not allowing handlers to shape me?”

Clearly Palin isn’t running. First of all, the “title” of president may well be shackling, as in you have to think before you open your mouth; it’s also the most powerful position in the world. If she wanted it, she wouldn’t make it sound like a big inconvenience. Plus, whether she wants it or not, the tease has gone too far. Even Fox has written her off; poor Roger Ailes is hot for Christie. It’s pretty clear she’s enjoying being mavericky and making millions of dollars; she doesn’t have the discipline to run, let alone lead.

Does Christie? Like Perry before him, he would learn that the glow of the cameras gets hot when you’re a national candidate. Plus, the GOP has tied itself to the Tea Party, which is now hugely unpopular with most American voters; even Christie could find he’s not pure enough for them. He wouldn’t prosecute illegal immigration as a U.S. attorney. As governor, he appointed a Muslim judge. He came out strongly against the demagoging of the Ground Zero mosque. He opposed the knuckleheaded GOP plan to hold disaster aid hostage to budget cuts.

People seem to like Christie’s regular guy shtick, which is a sharp contrast to Romney’s friendly CEO shtick. Christie’s got the common touch. Unfortunately, he bolsters his working class credibility by bashing teachers and public employee unions, as though they’re the “big government” enemy that destroyed our economy. A lot of white workers who voted Republican, in New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin, are waking up to their regular-guy governors’ anti-labor agenda; Christie’s Jersey-guy populism may not hide his anti-populist politics in a national race.

Besides: This regular guy is beloved by plutocrats. David Koch wants him to run; Home Depot CEO Ken Langone is introducing him to wealthy GOP donors; he’s getting attention from hedge fund managers like Daniel Loeb and other former Wall Street Obama supporters, who got their feelings hurt when the president talked about “fat cats” while still letting them loot the economy.

But I’m not Christie’s target demographic. He could well have more appeal than any of his rivals. If he wants to give it a shot, he should do it now, or shut the door. He’s starting to look like he’s putting his own good time before the interests of his party or his country.

I talked about Christie and Palin on MSNBC’s Hardball today:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Increasingly defined as a media sensation rather than a political insurgent, Palin will likely continue to exploit her celebrity status; she will rake in millions of dollars while keeping herself and her family in the public eye.

Enter “The Rogue,” which may well help Palin in her new career path. It’s been well chronicled how McGinniss’ book is laced with anonymous sources and numerous allegations of sex, drugs and other bad behavior on the part of the Palins. These charges — salacious though they are — don’t necessarily make the book all that newsworthy. What’s most notable about “The Rogue” is that in its claims, its use of sources and in its broader concerns, it stands alongside a generation of exposé books that have sought to cast particularly controversial national politicians as the ultimate hypocrites and as monstrous frauds.

Such exposés, woven into the democratic fabric, are traceable to the nation’s founding. One pamphlet charged that Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had had an affair with Maria Reynolds — a charge that ultimately led to the duel in which Aaron Burr shot and killed Hamilton. In the early Republic, historian Mark Feldstein has written, enemies used “the media as an instrument of political warfare.”

In his book “Poisoning the Press,” about columnist Jack Anderson and Richard Nixon, Feldstein reminds us that “venomous editors [also] savaged Jefferson with … bile.” “One newspaper claimed that the Chief Executive kept ‘as his concubine, one of his slaves’ and with ‘this wench Sally, our president has had several children.’” While “predatory politics and merciless media” faded in the 19th century, Feldstein argues that it “returned with a vengeance” in the mid-to-late 20th century.

McGinniss’ book suggests that that era is still ascendant, and “The Rogue” can be understood as the latest addition to a lengthy list of scandal books, ‘”sex-posés” (Feldstein’s term), and vituperative takedowns of marginal and major politicians alike. Moreover, these books — far from being tossed into the dustbin — have an impact. They shape politicians’ public images, frame debates about whether somebody is fit for national office, and fuel already simmering battles that pit the politician’s defenders against his or her equally committed and ferocious foes.

Virtually every first couple in modern times has confronted some form of McGinniss-like exposé during their time in the nation’s spotlight. Kitty Kelley’s 1991 “unauthorized biography” of former first lady Nancy Reagan charged that she was having sex with Frank Sinatra when Ronald Reagan was governor of California. Her book didn’t fade away quickly, either; instead, People magazine announced in a headline that both “sources and victims” were warring over the allegations featured in Kelley’s takedown. And at the same time, Maureen Dowd pointed out in the New York Times that this “new book … by Kitty Kelley, could … add allegations of scandalous sexual behavior to the folklore of the Reagan era.”

Kelley’s book was actually milder than the invective that the Clintons soon had to endure. And the attacks on the Clintons rather effortlessly slipped into the popular discourse. As pundits chatted about allegations against Clinton, the charges often drew mainstream news coverage.

In “Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America,” Nixon’s former national security aide Roger Morris linked the Clintons to such things as “drug money and organized crime.” His book relied on anonymous sources and tarnished the Clintons with sexual among other moral and legal transgressions.

“All sorts of scandalous and criminal things are alleged and believed about Clinton by his enemies,” journalist Martin Walker said in a piece about Morris’ book. “An almost Manichean standoff between the loathers and the loyalists” had sunk roots in American politics; “Clinton seems to inspire this kind of antagonistic intensity, and all books about him seem condemned to fuel it.”

The industry of books about Palin — pro and con — not to mention the documentaries and commentary, reflects a similarly Manichean struggle over who she is and what she represents. And, of course, when the Clintons were the topic, the scandal-mongering skyrocketed. One-time New York Times Magazine editor Edward Klein accused Hillary Clinton of lesbianism in his takedown of her life. He charged that her sexual tendencies had pervaded her public positions as well. “The culture of lesbianism has influenced Hillary’s political goals and personal life since she was a student at Wellesley,” he asserted.

President Barack Obama has endured his share of innuendo, conspiratorial charges and other byzantine accusations, as well. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth leader Jerome Corsi is among those who have written, for instance, that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulent so he was never actually eligible for the White House. (McGinniss writes toward the end of his book that there remained “one unanswered question … Trig. Is he really Sarah’s child?” Conspiracies surface in almost all of these books.)

Money — to state the obvious — is one factor behind such books; the books often become major bestsellers. Partisans also play a role. Critics often use the morsels included in these books as clubs for bashing their enemies; in the meantime, the politicians’ defenders hype the books, often unwittingly, by decrying publication as proof of their enemies’ ruthlessness. The response from authors and the authors’ supporters is that political hypocrisy on the part of the politician justifies the focus on personal misdeeds. Klein, for instance, claims on his website that his book “exposes the truth” about Hillary Clinton’s hidden sexual activities.

Similarly, McGinniss explained in an interview that “What makes some of the things about [Palin's] personal life relevant” is that her image “has very little to do with who she really is.” The carefully cultivated impression of a “grizzly-mama” who is pro-family values “turns out not to be true.” Palin has so manipulated her image — so assiduously covered up her true self — that her efforts surpass even Richard Nixon’s evasions. McGinniss, author of “The Selling of the President,” about Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign, regards Palin as more duplicitous than Nixon ever was.

The exposé authors, therefore, claim that politicians who lie to the public about who they are deserve to be exposed. Their personal lives become fair game and the norms and obligations that most reporters adhere to fall by the wayside in the search for the “real Palin” or the “real Obama.”

Like its predecessors, McGinniss’ “The Rogue” is likely to have at least some impact on Palin’s image and the debate about her role in American life. The back-and-forth between McGinniss and the Palins has created a carnival-like atmosphere surrounding the book’s publication. Palin posted on Facebook that McGinniss was using his perch to peer into her 9-year-old daughter’s bedroom. McGinniss responds that this ludicrous charge showed just how vicious Palin could be. Todd Palin gleefully trumpets negative reviews of “The Rogue.” McGinniss, for his part, accuses the Palins of fanning “fear” and using intimidation to silence their critics.

While “The Rogue” gives Palin’s critics new ammunition, Palin’s defenders have used, and will continue to use, the book as proof that her enemies will not stop in their single-minded quest to destroy Palin. Thus, a book like “The Rogue” actually helps the former governor, deepens the image of her as a media victim, lending the veneer of credence to her charge that enemies are out to tarnish her reputation at any price.

It’s improbable that Palin will mount a serious run for national office any time soon. But the publication of “The Rogue” suggests that she’ll continue to draw a crowd, as surely as a circus does. And Joe McGinniss” book will help her fill the seats. 

Palin delivered the speech in question in Indianola, Iowa, on Sept. 3. As Anand Giridharadas later observed in the Times, the media responded primarily by “ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.”

Some of the rhetoric was familiar. Palin slammed the “far left,” praised the Tea Party, and denounced the idea of more government spending.

But there was also some refreshingly new material. She described a “permanent political class,” one that is hypocritical and devoted to personally profiting off of government. (“Seven of the 10 wealthiest counties are suburbs of Washington, D.C.,” she noted.) She spoke of “the collusion of big government and big business and big finance.” And she took aim at both parties for governing in service of their big campaign contributors.

This sounded to us like Nader. And Nader agreed.

“When she was governor of Alaska she really did take on the oil industry, and [she also] approved a statewide referendum that resulted in the first state in the Union to regulate cruise lines and their pollution offshore,” he says. “So there is a precursor to these remarks.”

(For more on Palin’s history tangling with the oil industry, read this lengthy treatment by Joshua Green.)

The two don’t agree on everything, of course. Nader notes, for example, that he still views Palin as a “militarist” who supports America’s foreign wars and the bloated military budget.

If Palin continues down the conservative populist path — and that’s a big “if”; let’s face it, she’s not exactly known for ideological consistency — Nader thinks the message will be a political winner.

“It’s endlessly elaborative. She could elaborate it with all kinds of newsworthy examples — abuses, prosecutions, convictions,” he says.

That will apply especially if she jumps into the current “corporatist” GOP presidential field, Nader says. “She’ll really draw a line between herself and the others, who will never encroach on this.”

Here’s my reaction to those revelations: Sarah Palin is a person! She’s done drugs and pissed people off and slept with people, like 90 percent of American humans. If Sarah Palin was smart she’d dismiss the book with a chuckle, say nobody’s perfect, laugh off the “gossip,” and move on.

Sarah Palin might not be smart.

The Palins always prefer grand self-pitying martyrdom to quiet dignity, of course, which is why picking on them can be so profitable: They will always respond, and always help you drum up more publicity for your Palin-attacking venture. Instead of depriving the book of oxygen, they launched a multimedia attack on Joe McGinniss before he’d finished the first draft, and what they accomplished was … giving him more material and ensuring that even more breathless anticipation awaited the book’s release.

Now that the book’s rollout is underway, the Palins might as well get paid for their marketing efforts. Todd Palin angrily denounced it, again accusing McGinniss of having a “creepy obsession” with Sarah Palin. Oooh, it’s so creeeepy to write an unauthorized biography of a prominent public figure, right?

How bad did the Palins allowed themselves to be trolled? Sarah Palin’s people released a statement on behalf of Brad Hanson, Todd Palin’s former business partner, with whom Sarah Palin is alleged to have carried on an extramarital affair, some years back. The statement is a blanket denial, but what does having the supposed beau directly address the press accomplish, exactly? It just drives more interest in the book’s salacious, shocking revelations about the secret life of Sarah Palin. This guy, of all guys, should be kept out of it.

I am sure that Todd and everyone else is very personally pissed off that McGinniss went to Wasilla, talked to a bunch of people who hate them, and published a book full of stories about how bad and awful they are, but blowing up publicly just sends the message that there’s stuff in the book worth getting worked up about.