I am not sure what makes you think that Hillary voters would ever support Sarah Palin. Hillary is pro-choice, believes in science, is not angry with anyone who likes to read, Hillary is an intellectual,knows our Constitution, does not believe in endless war, knows the history of our nation through where the Supreme Court is concerned, believes in the separation between church and state,has a world view and does not embrace a myopic worldview, does not believe in "guns on demand."

Sarah Palin is the anti-Hillary. She never knows what she is talking about, whereas Hillary Clinton is one of the most intelligent and informed individuals in office. Witness Palin's so-called policy speech yesterday. She got up and made a speech about funding research and social support for children with special needs. As usual, she viciously sneered at the "ridiculous" pet projects like "studying fruit flies in Paris," which drew laughs from her equally uninformed listeners. If Gov. Palin knew anything, she would know that research on the genes of fruit flies has yielded critical information on the origins of autism. Fruit flies and humans have similar protein make up, so it was discovered that the locus of the disease is on the long arm of Chromosome 7 and it has shown that human neuroxin, a genetic disposition, is a cause of autism. Yeah, that research was a HUGE waste of money. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin believe that the MMR cause autism, when it is likely that a preservative that is no longer used in vaccines that MIGHT cause autism. Do not leap to Gov. Palin's defense by saying she cannot know everything. She has been making herself out to be some expert and she obviously felt secure enough to denounce the hard won advances geneticists made, so she has opened herself up to criticism.

As for her "subverting the culture of abortion on demand," I have to agree with you. I absolutely hate thinking about her having a say over what I do with my body. By the way, may I ask what you mean when you say there is a culture of abortion on demand? I do not have really interact with people who are anti-choice, mainly because I resent their feeling that they want to impose their views on my body, so when I hear these statements, it is only from people on television. Can you explain to me what that means? Before you go criticizing me for being intolerant or closed minded for choosing to avoid people who are anti-choice, I want to say that I respect everyone's right to their own opinions. But, I put people who are anti-choice in the same category as people who are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or other bigots. I fully support their right to their opinions, but I do not have to put myself in the path of people who want to control my body and think their morals trump my welfare.

As for Rezko/Ayers/Wright, I think Obama's association with them are a non-issue now because they already got coverage during the Democratic primary. Unfortunately for McCain, there is sort of a "been there, done that" aspect. Also, the McCain campaign has been distorting the record. Obama did not launch his political career in Ayers' living room, he launched it at a Ramada outside Chicago. Also, Ayers was appointed to that charity board by Ambassador Annenberg, who was an ambassador in the Reagan administration. Amb. Annenberg's wife kept the two of them on that board and she is a big McCain supporter. Should we then say that McCain takes money from people who employ terrorists? I think the Rezko association represents a total lapse in ethics on Obama's part and as soon as he learned of anything illegal, he should have returned the money because even the appearance of impropriety (in this case, unlawful gains) is unacceptable for a public servant.

As a Democrat, it drives me crazy that the media do not jump on McCain more for his association with G. Gordon Liddy, a man who was convicted of his subversive and violent crimes, unlike Ayers. When McCain pats himself and Gov. Palin on the back as paragon's of government reform and ethics, I go crazy when the media do not slam him for being a member of the Keating Five or her for banning books, imposing her unelected husband on state employees and the citizens of Alaska. It is true that McCain has called his attempt to undermine the investigation of a friend who destroyed the lives of many elderly and poor families by tricking them out of the life's savings a "mistake," but Obama called his 300k land deal with Rezko "boneheaded," but you are unwilling to let it go.

When Palin and McCain go about accusing people like me who live in Manhattan or people who live in cities or on the coasts of not being "real Americans" or being anti-American, I want to pull my hair out when the media do not slam her for her husband's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party, which has views of America that make Rev. Wright look like George Washington. Gov. Palin recently taped a message to them encouraging them to keep up the work they are doing. Can you, as someone who has an affinity for McCain/Palin, explain to me how I am un-American by virtue of the fact that I a) live in Manhattan (which was attacked because it was a symbol of America), b) went to Ivy League schools, c) have money, d) love to travel, e) love to read, but she is a patriot despite her enthusiastic support for a secessionist party? Why do Gov. Palin, Sen. McCain, and conservatives think that they are culturally superior to me because I do not live like they do? I would really like you to explain this to me and others like me.

I posted this out of order, sorry.