As for her tenure as governor, her boast of having opposed the nearly $400 million "bridge to nowhere" can only be described as highly deceptive. She gave public support to the venture on more than one occasion (one recorded on videotape). The Anchorage Daily News reported: "In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity." Palin only came to oppose the bridge after her state was already awarded the funds for its construction and it had become a national embarrassment. It is also not true that Palin fired her chef, as she claimed in her convention speech, she merely gave her a new job title-relevant only because Palin mentioned it in St. Paul.

As Palin herself has pointed out, as governor she has been frugal in some respects with taxpayer dollars, selling the official jet and driving herself to work. But the Washington Post reported Tuesday that she has also billed the state per diems for 312 nights she spent in her home. Those per diems totaled $17,059 in the period from December 4, 2006 through June 30, 2008 (the most recent data available). Palin's salary is $125,000. The practice, even if technically admissible, smacks of impropriety.

The Alaska legislature is also investigating her firing of Alaska Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan on July 11. Mr. Monegan said Palin fired him after she pressured him to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, who was formerly married to Palin's younger sister and has feuded with the Palin family.

The World According to Palin

Palin has delivered little more than platitudes on foreign policy, but what little she has said makes it clear that she would have America continue to bleed its human and material resources in Iraq and otherwise undermine vital American. interests. Her publicly stated conviction that the Iraq war was a "task that is from God" illustrates how difficult it would be for Palin to maintain any kind of objectivity on the war. And she said in her convention speech: "Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and [Obama] wants to forfeit."

Just what Palin considers to be victory remains unclear. America continues to be involved in an overwhelmingly expensive occupation and routinely looses troops in Iraq, albeit at a slower pace now. Iraqi officials have failed to resolve any of the difficult sectarian issues. And yet to Palin, that state of affairs reflects a victory finally in sight.

Palin then went on to point to phantom threats, warning that America should stand ready "to confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies." Surely, Iran would itself be in a dire economic situation if it decided to stop selling its energy supplies. It certainly seems inconceivable that Iran would consider such a move unless it was attacked.

Indeed, Palin never said how she would deal with American concerns regarding Iran. During her forty minute speech, she mocked Obama's determination to meet with the Iranian leader without preconditions, but failed to specify how she would address that country's nuclear program. If negotiations are so contemptible to Palin, then does Palin favor that other alternative-the use of force? Palin never specifies.

Palin also said: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights." But given the images of chained and naked detainees held in the Abu Ghraib facility, Palin should be less flippant about America's treatment of its captives. Beyond that one liner, Palin again did not specify how she believes the country should process and deal with its detainees.

Americans naturally desire to see the United States' clout and power restored, and Palin's speech held out that bright promise to the country. But judging from her professed policy preferences, Palin supports policies that would further weaken America, at a time when the country is already facing multiple crises, many of which can in part be traced back to problems related to the Iraq War.

The Palin phenomenon illustrates the problems with identity politics. Presumably, a sizeable percentage of the independents and women that have been swayed by Palin do not share her hard-line positions on foreign policy-not to mention abortion and religion. And in presidential politics, there is no agreeing to disagree. If Palin and McCain should ascend to the White House, they will, of course, enact policies that profoundly affect the lives of Americans, and the overwhelming majority of voters will never have had the opportunity to share that proverbial beer with Palin-should she even imbibe.

Ximena Ortiz is a senior editor at The National Interest.