Jon,

Agreed! George Will, Kathleen Parker and a slew of other conservative columnists have stated the case that Palin shouldn't be on the ticket. This isn't a partisan issue, this is a reasonable person's perspective about Sarah Palin and her experience. I think what is even scarier than her is that McCain, which I had a lot of respect for before the selection of Palin, completely abandoned himself in selecting her for political reasons and it shows that his judgment and temperament (as George Will said) is suspect and not fitting a President.

"It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?" George Will - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Although you are a bit (a lot) sarcastic yourself, you aren't running for VP of the U.S. I agree, that was about the most vile, shameful night of snide political theater I've seen. Huckabee was about the only respectable person to take the stage. I have been a lifelong Republican and it made me ashamed of ever have being registered with the party. The hypocracy is unbearable and they are making sure I vote for the best person, not the person I agree with, but the best person in this election, Barack Obama.

Where are the administation cuts? Again with the classroom. The district is insanely top-heavy and they decide to cut far less expensive, far more valuable employees. This is rediculous! How many $100K+ salaried administrators would you have to cut to do the same cost reduction? When do any of the hundreds of front office administrators interact with the children . . . never. Rulffes does what politicians do, protect their own.

Even though placing Clinton on the ticket could be advantageous with some key constituencies, I don't think it is imperative. Even though there are many positives she brings to the table there are nearly as many negatives. A number of Obama votes among a portion of moderate/conservative democrats and blue dog Democrats were in some ways a vote against Hillary. Not on policy but on trust and likability. There are far more likable, affable prospects that may be able to deliver the same constituencies. I also think that as much as everyone thinks Hillary is vetted, she isn't. Obama's campaign stayed away from attacking her or her lifestyle and past indiscretions, unlike the Clinton campaign. There are a lot of questions about both the Clinton's since 2000 and even though many think White Water is old news, her involvement is not. By the Clintons’ own admission she was far more knowledgeable and involved in the project than Bill. Ayers, Rezko and Wright are already out there. Many of HRC’s skeletons are still in her and Bill’s closet.

I wonder what will happen when the Dems start hammering away on the fact McCain was the primary supporter of making betting on college sports illegal and being one of the biggest supporters of Yucca Mountain? With the registration advantage, competing interests on SW water rights and Yucca support I see some real problems for McCain. Romney may be able to swing voters but McCain isn't going to pick Romney. He needs to get a Southerner/evangelical to hold the South Fla. Gov. Christ is who I think he'll select. That won't help McCain too much in NV.

No question Obama's weakness are Hisipanics and rural independents. Barr might take the rural independents, weakening McCain but it will be a fight no-question.