I'd like to thank The Sun for the wonderful satire on Sarah Palin's presidential prospects ("For president in 2016: Guess who?" Nov. 26).
Some readers may have mistakenly assumed that op-ed contributor Charlotte Allen was seriously suggesting that the stunningly unqualified Ms. Palin would make a plausible presidential candidate in 2016. But the author's sly tongue-in-cheek and wink of the eye were everywhere evident to discerning readers.
For example, the list of Ms. Palin's "qualifications" for the presidency included: (a) her excellent looks, so much better than Hillary Clinton; (b) the fact that she is "tough as nails" (apart, of course, from bowing out of the governorship of Alaska halfway through her term); and (c) she is charming and affable and doesn't back down (see item b).
Moreover, she is a woman and her son is a veteran; she has a no-name college degree, not some snooty Ivy League diploma; she loves men; and she survived both Tina Fey's mean caricature of her and Katie Couric's sneaky interview questions.
I'm sure everyone was bowled over by this absurd list of non-qualifications and appreciated the great laugh that this ridiculous article produced. But I would have thought The Sun would have stuck to more serious policy discussions on its op-ed page, rather than wasting so much space on what can't seriously have been anything other than silly satire.
Howard E. Bond, CockeysvilleCopyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun