In the October 8th issue of The New Republic, Eve Fairbanks draws comparisons between the Clintons and the Palins, comparing Bill to Sarah and Hillary to Todd, and makes a few very good points. She quotes from Joe Klein's book The Natural, in which Klein states "[The Clinton's] were particularly attracted to those who were slavish, unobtrusive, and loyal; forceful personalities were not courted, Washington dinner party regulars were shunned-- anyone who might be less than worshipful was considered suspect, a probable source of news leaks, a potential enemy." Fairbanks points out that these very same statements could be applied to the Palins as well.
Palin's history of firing, or attempting to fire, the librarian and police cheif of Wasilla because she did not like their attitudes; downplaying powerful legislators because she "doesn't do well with dissent" according to a GOP stat legislator not identified by the article; and turning her back on friends and aquaintences from her hometown, such as Anne Kilkenny, who helped publish damaging articles concerning Palin's time as Mayor of Wasilla in The New York Times all go to show that Palin may be stepping up as the GOP's new Clinton-esque leading lady.
As for Todd, his networking connections and interference in Palin's official (meaning: you aren't in government Todd, it shouldn't concern you) business seem quite similiar to the plays of Hillary Clinton early on in her husband's career. Its not as though the entirety of America was not wondering who was really running the White House, Hillary or Bill?
Finally, Fairbanks acknowledges that many politicians and voters underestimated Bill Clinton because they were too focused on his media presence and what they did not like about him. Could the same not happen for Sarah Palin? Could Sarah Palin really turn out to be a brilliant politician whose "I'm cute" act and radically conservative views are just meant as distractions? Scary...