The most anticipated blockbuster book of the holiday season hit the shelves this week. Is it Glenn Beck’s “Arguing with Idiots,” “Common Sense” or “The Christmas Sweater?” While those are close, it is Sarah Palin’s memoir “Going Rogue: An American Life” that has attracted the most media attention of any political book in some time. I haven’t read the book yet, so I won’t get into specifics about the text. What I am really after is an explanation for my dislike of all things Palin. I breathe a sigh of relief every single day to celebrate the fact that Sarah Palin is not vice president of the United States. I, like many people, cannot stand her, and I want to explore why.Is it because I am sexist? No, I voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the primaries. Is that I am a stuffy-necked liberal elitist who abhors average people? No, I am average myself, but I do value experience, intelligence and articulation in my preferred politicians. There are a couple of reasons to explain why a majority of Americans — myself included — believe she is unqualified to be president. The first reason goes back to the moment she was chosen to be John McCain’s nominee. It seemed the Republicans chose her purely because she was a woman, so they could stick it to Obama for not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate. It wouldn’t have been so shocking and cheap if she was a national figure with some clout. I was closely following the election and the only time I heard about Sarah Palin was the morning McCain chose her. They tried to present her as a Jane Six-Pack for the hockey set, but she was really an embodiment of a cynical political calculation by the McCain team.My other problem with former Governor Palin is evidenced in her recent interviews on Fox News and with Barbara Walters. It is that she learned her political views by reading the back of cereal boxes, Captain Beck’s Nutty Crunch to be exact—I kid Glenn — I’m a fan. Her views on politics and the economy are touted as “common sense” when they are actually overly simplistic sound bites. When asked by Katie Couric what she reads regularly — a fair and interesting question for any political candidate — she stammered and drew a blank. Anyone who could not conjure the name of any sort of newspaper, magazine or Web site when asked during a prepared interview cannot be trusted with any important tasks.On a final note, what exactly is a “rogue?” The word dates back to the 16th century and today usually means someone who is on his own. But the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define “rogue” as meaning: “a vagrant, a dishonest or worthless person, a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave,” and “an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation.” Or perhaps the most apt definition, “an elephant with destructive tendencies driven away or living apart from the herd.” I am not calling her any of these things — I just think a savvy thinker who was ready for national office would have double-checked the title of her book. The tea-baggers should have learned this lesson as well.