I honestly don't think that's the case here, because I'm not aware of her making any argument as well reasoned as the one you just did, but I'm no doctor either. She may complain in her books about the McCain campaign trying to shunt her to the side and ignoring her sage advice, but even without McCain she seems as leery of anything but a strongly sympathetic audience as Bush (the guy whose campaign workers used to screen out critics at "public" town halls. ) Likewise, the strategy she consistently suggested and McCains people rejected seemed to be scorched earth, things like the "real America" comment that hurt more than they helped (that particular statement was made in VA, which Obama won handily. )

I've seen no evidence she's qualified for any position of national authority. People come to you for answers because you've proven yourself, but your resume probably consists of more than:

Beauty pageant contestant (runner up)
PTA President,
Mayor of a town with 1000 people (much like the PTA; MY dinky town has 1400 people)
Governor of a state with less people than Austin.

Not to disparage PTA Presidents, I just don't think that gives enough executive experience to be President of the US.

Again, I'm sorry if I went too far or was insensitive. I've been known to get a bit tangential, too, but I like to think if I was a member of a party that's been shouting "cut taxes!" for nearly a century, appearing before a group to whom it's so important they take their very NAME from tax protesters, I could remember to say, "cut taxes" unprompted. I've never been diagnosed with ADD though, so perhaps I can't relate. I haven't found much on connections between Palin and ADD, but I did find one article (an op ed, not a clinical piece) arguing, in essence, that much of Palins political ills may be the result of ADHD, and the tone seems entirely serious, not satirical. In fact, if we follow the authors logic (and, again, to my knowledge he claims no clinical credentials) it could explain the appeal of Palin and a lot of similar candidates. Or it could (ironically) be an oversimplified kneejerk analysis of a far more complex phenomenon. None of that explains or excuses what I consider ethical inconsistencies, but people can simultaneously be highly intelligent and unethical (e.g. Nixon, the Clintons. )

EDIT: On the other hand, seeing her condemn Rahm Emanuel for calling some liberals "retards" and in the same breath defend Limbaugh doing the exact same thing erodes any sympathy I might have had for her. Another ethical inconsistency, in my book.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07/palin-considering-2012-ru_n_452602.html

It's a measure of what's happened to the Republican party that Ariana Huffington is no longer remembered as the fierce Clinton critic who spent >$10 million trying to get her husband elected Republican Senator from CA.