Why doesn't the word "Alaska" appear in this NYT column perceiving that Sarah Palin has some ideas liberals should like?

Anand Giridharadas seems surprised by a speech she gave recently.

[I]n contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

Palin's entire political career was built on this very strangeness. Liberals don't know it because they willfully blinded themselves to anything good about Palin, so they could continue to feel good about themselves as they targeted her for destruction.

Here are the comments on Giridharadas's column, and many of them say — I'm paraphrasing — ever heard of the time she was Governor of Alaska?

Giridharadass's last line is: "No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting." She's always been interesting like that. You just weren't looking.