Not an estimate of race, religion or culture. It's an estimation of character, and I think that the criticism is spot on.

Victimhood. It's like a cloak that they all think makes them look boss.

They set up a straw man for their perceptions. It's really at the root of their inability to grasp reality as it really is. Poor dears can't seem to help it. Leftism really IS a mental disorder.

Jewish? Not even a thought!!!
Smug... Now we are getting close. Yes, this pic simply smacks of the smug little dipstick. The audience imagines that it's about 1pm and our protagonist has just risen from a hard night of Halo 3. (He played it in his basement bedroom)

I don't much care about his ethnicity, but he looks like the kinda kid that failed to get his fair share of gluteal readjustment therapy when growing up. That's my impression from simply seeing the static ad.

After watching the video, I'm convinced that his parents are the ones that need to "go pick out a switch". King Barack needs all the little minions of the kingdom to contribute to his grand scheme for realigning the universe. Nowhere is any mention of the pivot from 43 million people dying to have their healthcare taken care of, to the millions that really don't care to have healthcare right now because THEY DON'T NEED IT.
(Kinda puts a bit of a kink in that perfect little wealth redistribution ponzi scheme that he cooked up.)

Meanwhile, MILLIONS of Americans are losing their plans that he promised they could keep, and MILLIONS losing their doctors because of the screwed up bureaucratic mess he's made out of the insurance market now.
Complete and total incompetence from the initial concept right through the planning and execution phase.

His parents are right about one thing. Pajama Boy SHOULD be scared, because suddenly Healthcare has become a lot harder and more expensive to come by. Oh, Have I mentioned all of the hospitals that will be going out of business because of this balloon filled ponzi scheme???

"Dozens of criminals would be walking around with a gun right now if not for the new law," said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, in a news release.

I'm sure that there are dozens of criminals walking away from their drug dealers just shaking their heads that they bounced off of the background check. How long do you think it will take until criminals no longer have guns? These measures should bleed that off fairly quickly, as if it keeps criminals from getting guns, then as criminals lose them or get arrested with them, the numbers will just keep dropping.

^^^^ Yes, Virginia. There are people dumb enough to believe the above. The only thing this does is put another obstacle in the way of your neighbor who COULD have saved your life at the mall, if he had only had his concealed carry with him. The only thing that will prevent animals from slaughtering innocents are brave people with guns who will put them down before there is too much damage. Every major shooting in recent history has occurred at a place where handguns are restricted. Don't be fooled. Fewer guns in the hands of reasonable people only means that the criminals will be able to act unchecked. If we had thousands and thousands of police, they could permeate society for safety. Since we don't have the money to make that happen, reasonable people who are wired to protect are willing to protect themselves and those around them. It is up to you to decide if they are ABLE to do the protecting.

"Dozens of criminals would be walking around with a gun right now if not for the new law," said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, in a news release.

I'm sure that there are dozens of criminals walking away from their drug dealers just shaking their heads that they bounced off of the background check. How long do you think it will take until criminals no longer have guns? These measures should bleed that off fairly quickly, as if it keeps criminals from getting guns, then as criminals lose them or get arrested with them, the numbers will just keep dropping.

^^^^ Yes, Virginia. There are people dumb enough to believe the above. The only thing this does is put another obstacle in the way of your neighbor who COULD have saved your life at the mall, if he had only had his concealed carry with him. The only thing that will prevent animals from slaughtering innocents are brave people with guns who will put them down before there is too much damage. Every major shooting in recent history has occurred at a place where handguns are restricted. Don't be fooled. Fewer guns in the hands of reasonable people only means that the criminals will be able to act unchecked. If we had thousands and thousands of police, they could permeate society for safety. Since we don't have the money to make that happen, reasonable people who are wired to protect are willing to protect themselves and those around them. It is up to you to decide if they are ABLE to do the protecting.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor is it directly about protecting your home from criminals. It's about Citizens possessing the ability to impose Law and Order when the Government won't, or refuses to accept it's responsibility under the rule of law.
Citizens must be able to form impromptu groups, called Militias to hold Government accountable for the social compact. In the history of the US, this has not YET been necessary. With the attacks on the Second Amendment, we are beginning to see a pattern where Government considers itself to be ABOVE the plain language and intentions outlined in the US and Indiana Constitutions. The Citizens of this country are the failsafe mechanism for insuring compliance with the Civil Social Compact which is clearly communicated in our founding documents.
I applaud the efforts of numerous Sheriffs around the country, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officers, in declaring that they will support the Constitution to the exclusion of any Federal or State Mandates that are in conflict. I also call upon OUR Sheriff to make a similar declaration that he will defend our rights as citizens of the US.
Every Gun Owner I know understands his or her responsibility in the awesome situation of deadly force. They expend a lot more time than the casual citizen in thinking about the various threats that they might be faced with, and their duty as Protectors. I know that the responsibility has a long way to fall before protection of the Constitution falls to me, but I love my country too much to shirk the responsibility if and when it befalls me.

It's not the personality, it's the character. You are the victim of the "rope-a-dope" strategy that says that she is not [Strong enough|Smart Enough|Tough Enough|etc.] to do the job. Given the current occupant (or is it resident), she would be logarithmically better.

In other words, you've spent too much time with MSLSD or NBC or CBS or CNN to properly process.

My thoughts are drawn to the response of Captain Picard in the movie "First Contact". The "We retreat and they keep coming..." scene. Lilly accuses him of obsession in pursuit of his "Great White Whale".
The pragmatism is not lost on me. Ms. Palin HAS been damaged by the attacks and the spin. I'm hoping that "The Undefeated" will help on that score, but there IS a long row to hoe.
There is a time for pragmatism, and a time for principles. Along with Ms. Palin, it is our principles that have been attacked within the context of attacking her. Almost all of the opinions that I have heard from her fall along the lines of the opinion of Conservatives. IMHO, I think that we need to stand up for her and her principles, which we share.
It is an easy step from pragmatism to the "going along to get along" mindset that has gotten us into this mess to start with. The important figures in our history were the ones who refused to move, and pressed their convictions relentlessly. That is also how the progressives have made such hay of the willingness to compromise. I think that we now have our back against the wall (us redneck mothers....;-), and it is time that we made our stand. You are correct in making the observation of correlation between tactics. Both sides in a war use bullets. The difference is in the reasons and principles behind the cause. In this case, reckless abandonment of reason and common sense, vs realism and a need to snatch our country from the brink.
There are those who deny that we stand to lose everything. I am not one of those.

I am also not opposed to the idea that someone else should be POTUS. It is early in the game to take concrete positions. I DO know that I will never be forced into a "Romney" position. That is the McCain that we had in the last election, and is a more sure way to lose than if we picked Palin right now.
If there is no distinction, then what's the difference?

Well... There is a difference between discussion as support vs completely irrational blubbering at someone's feet. Obama support is like that. You will hear such things (made up from whole cloth) as "Constitutional Scholar", "Cool", "Intellectual" and etc. Each of these points can be successfully debated in the negative and easily won on the merits of that negative. THOSE Arguments are beyond the scope of this post.
Please don't take intelligent discussion of the facts as abuse, nor as Obamaesque fawning, but....
Examining each of your critiques, they don't hold a lot of water. Allow me to elaborate:
"Full term in the Senate" - Re: Experience : Ms. Palin has much more experience than many in the running have for the job. Politics in Wasilla and State Alaska Politics doesn't appear at first glance to have a very high "Degree of Difficulty". Having examined her service, she has done remarkably well at those tasks. Given the environment that she mastered (albeit a couple of faux pas...), her taming of the "Old Boy Network" in Alaska demonstrates her chops, as well as the way that she is able to transform her opponents into blithering idiots. Her performance under fire counts for a great deal of experience as it has been "Live Fire" training.
"She did quit her job": Yes, under heavy fire from the Left. She made the pragmatic estimation that she could not achieve traction as Governor due to her becoming an HVT for the left. She could have continued to try and fight the headwinds, but made the estimation that she could do a lot more for the cause if she used her higher profile to engage in national politics. Engaged she has. While as Governor, she would have been embroiled in made-up controversy ad nauseum. You know that's the way the left rolls. She wouldn't have the time to appear on Fox and tweak the noses of those who turn red when hearing her commentary.
"Problematic Family": ??? A Downs child? Teenage indiscretions? A husband that works at several vocations? If you gauge your politicians by the standards of people who always wear the right tie, kids always perfectly groomed and set to respond on que with perfectly diction-ed responses, then that would be considered as a problematic family. How does that compare with semen stains obtained in the Oval, or Silky Ponies that cheat on their cancer-stricken wives? Ms. Palin has a real family. Real problems, real mistakes made. Do an armchair compare with the members of your family. Or mine.
It sounds to me like you don't quite favor Ms. Palin for the POTUS gig. That's cool. There's no accounting for personal opinion. Based on the facts, and from the character that I've seen demonstrated, her service would run rings around the current POTUS. That is, however, quite a low bar.