You ask some good questions about Palin and fundamentalism. Allow me to address them directly.

First, a predicate. Many liberals have misconceptions about the kind of country in which we live. An article I read several years ago asked people: (i) do you believe in the Genesis account of creation; and, if so, (ii) should evolution should be taught in science class in public schools? I thought the answer to (i) would be decent, but not exceptionally high - it turns out it was more than 50%. But on (ii), most of those people favored standard science teaching. It was quite remarkable, in terms of numbers. And of course, if you look at your own party and the black church - Jeremiah Wright comes to mind - I bet you would find a lot of fundamentalist belief there too. You'll have to take my word for it because, although a kept a copy of that article for general interest, I do not have it with me at my present location.

Second, as I mentioned in other posts, you have to understand that people like Palin do not start off with a *rationalist* upbringing and then get to a point where they say, gee, I would like to believe in something which defies conventional thinking. Instead, they are raised on the Bible, and then spend their adult years reconciling the beliefs of their youth with the outside world. As a Christian, I have done this myself. I came across a book of Sumerian creation myths some time ago, and studied it with interest on this topic. Interestingly, the Sumerians had an account very similar to the Genesis creation story; some ancient copies of it suggest it was meant to be taken literally, others suggest a figurative meaning. There was also the account of the Black Sea deluge by a group of Columbia marine biologists. They did not believe in a world wide flood, of course, but did surmise that a catastrophe on the shores of the Black Sea (near Mt. Ararat) could have spurred both Sumerian flood stories and the account of Noah. That sort of thing interests me, as a Bible believing Christian who has no desire to disparage science.

Third, remember that Palin was asked several times in interviews, as a VP candidate, what she thinks of creationist teaching in schools. Like the people mentioned above, she said she favors evolution, period. No exceptions. What then is the issue, in terms of fundamentalism?

Okay, now for your questions. You ask whether her fundamentalism, or - if you like, hostility to science, is one thing a *reasonable* person like me thinks can be easily remedied. Trouble is, I don't see it as an issue at all. On what matter of public policy is her *fundamentalism* (i.e., the anti-science you mention) brought to bear? And please don't mention Exhibit B, the fruit fly earmark - that's just a speechwriter's throw away line.

Second, is she pandering, or reverse pandering, on these issues? I really have no idea. My understanding is that she is a devout Christian, which I respect. Apparently, she allowed her Christian bona fides to be an *issue* when she ran for mayor of a small town, and since moving up to the bigger stage, she's been moderating her image by declining to delve into hot button topics. That's typical. It's actually similar to Barack's career path, and I say that without being argumentative. He is nothing if not reluctant to talk about the black liberation theology which helped launch his earliest political career.

Finally, a word about religion and politics. Lincoln was largely agnostic and yet employed the most intense religious rhetoric in our history. It is clear from his second inaugural address that he believed the entire Civil War was an act of God to punish both north and south for the national sin of slavery. As I also posted elsewhere, it is well known that Carter and Bush I both consulted the Book of Revelation during middle east crises during their tenure. Some may think that's zany, but it is the kind of country in which we live.

So, back to Palin. As I have said before, she's a small government Republican; she's a devout Christian who moves with ease in the secular world; she's beautiful, inside and out; she seems like a very nice person. I know liberals out there are sore over her criticisms of Obama, and like to nit pick her statements, but this is a campaign, after all. Such things happen. I'm talking about the underlying person.

The items to *remedy* are the things anyone would do in preparing for a job like the presidency. It's what she has done since her selection: get up to speed on all kinds of issues, including the philosophical underpinnings (e.g., neo-conservatism vs. isolation) on specific policies. No reason to think she can't, or isn't, doing it. I have the highest confidence in her. She's done it before, in her various executive jobs. She's not running to be the Wizard of Oz; the job as president is quite down to earth.