The reason for this is plainly simple: shallow people can survive among a crowd of peers who are (almost genetically) predisposed to agreement with whatever words she happens to utter. In this sort of setting, vapidity can thrive; rhetoric can flourish, and substance can be categorically ignored. One of the many things Broomfield correctly identifies in Palin's character relates to the abject lack of any rational political argument in her policy, and that, instead, she opts for the more emotional route. It's okay to promote oneself through polish, but Palin's routine is an act of posturing, and her followers are led like sheep. Sure, Obama used oratory to a great degree in his presidential campaign, and was extremely successful as a result, but his powers of persuasion were met by and balanced with sound political discourse.
People admire Sarah Palin (well, those who do admire Sarah Palin – and of the thinking public there are few) because she represents the 'kooky, charming, outdoor-lovin' American girl' – an image which detest and, as such, roundly criticize when it is used as a substitute for rational thinking and reason. While her supporters see lack of pretentiousness, I merely see lack of sophistication. Some people like Sarah Palin, the underdog, but I doubt they would equally enjoy Sarah Palin, the president.
(Image via Politico)