NewYorkNY, I'm saving my last responses for the best questions. Once again, it will take more than one post to cover all the ground.

1. Why do I think Hillary voters could have an interest in Palin? Two reasons.

First, some Democrats have reservations with abortion on demand. They also have concerns with Obama's record on the born alive bill in Illinois and his plan to repeal the Hyde Amendment and federally fund abortion. My wife is one of them. She voted for Hillary in the Indiana primary, is now wavering between a McCain vote and a write-in for Hillary. You might find that offensive, or illogical, or any number of other possibilities, but it's real. I don't know whether she is representative of anyone else, either. I'm just speaking from personal experience.

Second, identity politics. If I, as a white male, lived in a world where we never had a white male president or vice president in our nation's history, I can tell you I would not hesitate to vote my gender and/or race (against my politics) in a contest for VP - a person unlikely to ever hold the top job, anyway. Obviously, I am unique in this regard, and I was wrong about Palin. I freely realize women are not seeing it that way.

2. You say that Hillary believes in science, while Palin does not.

One thing I think liberals probably have a hard time understanding is that Christians who grow up with a literal faith in the Bible genuinely struggle with the conflict between the faith of their upbringing and the scientific evidence in the world around them. It's not just the six day creation, either; the entire Bible is premised upon divine intervention in humanity. And, there is more than just Genesis which causes dust-ups between the scientists and the faithful. The entire record of Jesus is a modern battleground for similar struggles. (Incidentally, the believers sometimes win one, in terms of archeological confirmation of their scriptures, so it's not just a one-sided affair).

It's easy to say that Palin is a know-nothing, but rather more difficult to address the concerns of those described above. Many are home schooled now, or in church schools, and are oblivious to public school teachings anyway. It's a real dynamic that exists out here in middle America. Some people have said - just throw them a bone, and let the fundamentalists have a word in science class calling Darwin a very convincing theory, but not a fact, and maybe we can get everybody together under the same school roof. Or, maybe you just cut these people loose and let them go. I don't have a strong opinion on it, incidentally; I'm just describing the scene.

Now, you could also say, yes, but Palin is not just a neutral arbiter of such disputes. She's a born again Christian who would probably like to see Genesis in the text books if she could. But, she has never proposed that, never campaigned on it. That is rather like saying Ronald Reagen would have repealed the New Deal if he could, or Michael Dukakis would have implemented Scandinavian socialized democracy if he could. Palin has said several times recently that she supports public teaching of Darwin, period, no exceptions. That's the most relevant record for purposes of public debate.