While religious-based social conservatism remains a powerful force in America, it has waned - for the time being at least - in most other Western countries, to the point that mainstream parties of the right broadly accept what could be called the liberal consensus.

While abortion remains a hotly contentious issue in the US 35 years after Roe versus Wade, other societies have largely acknowledged the practical and philosophical logic of a woman's right to choose, and moved on.

Or to put it another way, in most Western countries a candidate holding Palin's views on abortion, evolution, scientific research, the role of religion in public affairs, sex education, the environment, global warming and gun ownership wouldn't get within a bull's roar of the highest office in the land.

Perhaps the critics were right. People like me might think we understand Palinmania but maybe we don't really "get" it. I certainly don't understand why she happily compares herself to a pit bull ("What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick"), but took umbrage when Obama used the term "pig in lipstick", not that he was even talking about her.

Certain religions have a thing about pigs but that's clearly not the issue here. To summarise the debate between the hit-men in Pulp Fiction, pigs mightn't have the sense to disregard their own faeces but pork tastes good. They're also intelligent creatures whose ancestors ruled the world some 250 million years ago.

What, on the other hand, is there to like about pit bills? This week's pit bull horror story concerned two family pets in Las Vegas that burst in through a screen door to maul a 4-month-old baby to death and hospitalise the grandmother who tried to save her.

Perhaps my correspondents could explain why - sassiness and boldly applied lipstick aside - we should look forward to the prospect of a self-styled pit bull a heartbeat away from the leadership of the free world.

By Paul Thomas | Email Paul