My business partner and I we’re discussing how the Obama campaign should approach Sarah Palin. He argued that the approach should not be to criticize her personally, but rather to attack her policies. His concern was that attacking Palin personally would play directly into the strategy of the people who put in her in this position.

The idea is that Palin is like an 8-year-old child who muslim fanatics place in front of a mosque from which they position snipers to shoot at us. When we shoot back at the mosque, and we hit the child, we’re accused of being baby killers.

Measured by her intelligence, Palin is an 8-year-old child. And a girl at that. Her handlers are just dying for Obama and/or Biden to take the bait, and let loose on her, and say what they really think of her.

I agree with my partner that attacking Palin directly and personally would be disasterous. But at the same, I don’t believe the approach to her should be to attack “her” positions.

The quote marks around the word “her” in the previous sentence hints at my strategy. I say the Obama/Biden strategy should be the following:

Ignore Palin. But if you feel compelled to address something she has said, say “Bush’s advisers say [blah, blah, blah]. We disagree. We think [blah, blah, blah] .”

After a few iterations of that, it will be clear what Obama/Biden are really saying about Palin. Namely, they will be saying that she’s a moron who can’t even be treated as if she has the capacity to hold positions. But of course, they wouldn’t say that out loud. Instead, they what they would be saying out loud we be something more benign.

And they could get away with that because Palin’s handlers are opening the door for this approach by keeping her away from the critical media. This approach would dovetail with this decision of Palin’s handlers. In effect, both sides would be saying (with their feet, not their mouths) the same thing about Palin — i.e. she is a moron who can’t trusted to speak her own mind.