She actually did quite a few press conferences in the final week or so of the campaign.  Contrary to popular belief she was the most accessible candidate during that final stretch, and yet there are still people who think she was in a straight jacket the whole time (she certainly was at the beginning).

It's really a moot point though now, someone screwed up, McCain-Palin lost (the reasons are many and complicated), and the nation needs to move forward by working on the tough issues with the new administration rather than focus on the mistakes of the campaign.

Palin is still a minor player in the GoP, she is certainly poised to climb the ranks quickly, but she has no consolidated and realized power beyond what dozens of other folks have.  She will have to prove herself within the party if she wants to run in 2012 and only time will tell if that is going to happen.

As of right now I think Bobby Jindal is my frontrunner for the GoP in 2012 and short of a catastrophic first term, Obama will be the DNC frontrunner by miles and miles. 

Ok - just when I was going to cut her some slack, she says this on CNN with Wolfie Blitzer:

PALIN: It would be my honor to assist and support our new president and the new administration, yes. And I speak for other Republicans, other Republican governors also, they being willing also to, again, seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation together, a united front.


BLITZER: Because, you know, during a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said, it's tough, as you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out there. And during the campaign, you said this, you said: "This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America."

And then you went on to say: "Someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. And if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me.

And I think it's still fair to talk about it. However the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and to, again, make sure that all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation.

Keep us secure, get the economy back on the right track, and many of us do have some ideas on how to do that and hopefully we'll be able to put all of that wisdom and experience to good use together.

BLITZER: So looking back, you don't regret that tough language during the campaign?

PALIN: No, and I do not think that it is off-base nor mean-spirited, nor negative campaigning to call someone out on their associations and on their record. And that's why I did it.

BLITZER: I just want to sort of footnote, was that your idea or did somebody write those lines for you?

PALIN: It was a collaborative effort there in deciding how do we start bringing up some of the associations that perhaps would be impacting on an administration, on the future of America. But again, though, Wolf, knowing that it really -- at this point, I don't want to point fingers backwards and play the blame game, certainly, on anything that took place in terms of strategy or messaging in the campaign.

Now is the time to move forward together, start progressing America.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/12/palin/index.html

Honestly, she is correct on both parts of her statement: First that the Ayers connection is a legitimate campaign issue, and second that the campaign is over and its time to move past those types of character issues (which in fairness do matter to some folks more/less than others). 

If she starts bringing the issue up on her own rather than simply being asked about it then I would agree she is going a bit far.  The election is over and the campaigning should stop,  but if she is asked a question what is she supposed to do? Clam up on the question and not answer?  If she does that then we'd be hearing conspiracies about how she never really believed any of it and was just smearing him. 

Honestly the Ayers connection still deeply troubles me as well, but its a character issue and is only relevant when choosing between candidates, and not when addressing major issues.  If new information comes to light it might be worth discussing (the same as if new info on the Keating 5 had come up during a McCain adminstration), depending on what the new info is, but beyond that I wouldn't bring it up and in fact I have avoided delving into the subject even when presented opportunities to do so.

The problem with the Ayers connection wasn't that it wasn't a legitimate question, the problem was two fold. 1) It had been answered, Palin, Hannity, and Rush didn't believe it. 2) Most of the voters didn't want to hear it, anymore.

The second one is extremely important, she became the most polarizing figure in American Politics in 8 weeks, but not in a healthy way for Republicans. If she makes independents so upset by repeating "terrorist" all the time and not sticking to the McCain game plan than she isn't doing her job as a candidate.

This

How could she have not known that, that's something you learn in like 1st grade.

I just watched the interview, I'm sorry but I'm switching my stance from semi-defending her - I didn't realize she was still arguing this with so much ferocity.

I want an interviewer to ask her a follow up question.

What do you think that his connection to Ayers implies?

You specifically say, "keep us secure," do you think his connection to Ayers means he won't?

I think Ayers was never an issue because Obama barely knows the guy. I mean, he hasn't been on the Ayers radio show telling him how proud he is of the guy's family and all the work he's done for our country. But that's what McCain said on Gordon Liddy's radio show. I'm surprised Liddy wasn't all over the news, but I guess that's because the Obama campaign didn't run ads and robocalls about Liddy for weeks straight.

I don't see how I can get into this without really delving into Ayers, which as I said I don't think is worth doing right now. I'll say this much, I would contend that the reason Ayers was not a bigger issue to voters was because the campaign focused on the least important aspects of the connection ignoring the most important aspects. It was another symptom of a poorly run campaign and I think given the information that was hammered on I don't blame anyone for not understanding the connection's importance.

As I said, I fully agree that we need to move past the campaign phase and look at the major issues. If Palin brings the issue up I'll have a problem with her on this, but until then, I think Wolf Blitzer deserves as much if not more of the blame/ire than Palin does, all she did was answer the question honestly.

@Rub, I really don't think you know much about the situation, it was established by CAC documents (the organization Ayers founded and Obama chaired) that they worked together for over 5 years, and I do mean *together*.

Fantasy: President-Elect Obama is really radical black socialist. Trained by Ayers and Wright to be one.


Reality:

Obama is a crafty, pragmatic politician. He used Ayers, Wright, the Daleys, and all the rest of the establishment of Chicago to move into national politics.

Part of his MO, is to go to older established politicians, lobbyists, community leaders, etc. and pretend they are like a father to him. They boosted him up as much as possible. You see it in Chicago, you see it in D.C..

He is an arrogant man, an elitist, and one of the smartest, most politically aware presidents we've ever had in the U.S. With all the shit that this country is going through and about to go through, we are damn lucky.