See my post here.

I emphasize again: Republicans have had their most spectacular election successes when they ran candidates that were solidly conservative (1980, 1984, 1994). That means principled conservatives who knew why they were conservative and were able to articulate it, not people trying desperately to wear a "conservative suit" for the duration of an election.

The Left has to obliterate Sarah Palin, even after the fact. Their long-range objective is the creation of a Republican Party that is a pale, pastel, "me-too" version of the Democrats. Such a party will win few elections, and even if they do, they won't seriously threaten Leftist agendas. Real conservatives are a major obstacle to this.

Unfortunately, there is also hostility to Palin from some Republicans who have hitched their wagon to the "moderate" Republican wing, or who need a scapegoat for McCain's loss. In the case of some of McCain's campaign advisors, a scapegoat other than themselves is very attractive.

You'll see a lot of media stories in service of this for the next few months. Be ready for them. As I pointed out in the linked post, had McCain picked any other real conservative, the result would have been exactly the same. What you've read in the media about the "reasons" for Palin being a lousy candidate are mostly red herrings. If it had been another conservative, it would have just been a different list of reasons.