This isn't at all original to me, but it is worth noting how tone deaf the Obamaniacs response to Sarah Palin (she doesn't have enough experience) is. Now, I agree that she has only limited experience and I think that, substantively, that's an issue. But the juxtaposition of "don't vote for the experienced [sic] woman, vote for hope and change" with "that woman's not experienced. You can't vote for her" is bound to alienate some women.
The thought that I haven't seen anywhere else has to do with how hard and overtly McCain is going after Hillary voters. Not just nominating Palin, but having Palin pay tribute to Hillary and having her argue, all but explicitly, that a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for Hillary's crusade to break the glass ceiling. But doesn't that seem dangerous, given that Hillary could go on national television and squash any suggestion that she supports McCain/Palin and tell her supporters, in no uncertain terms, that M/P is bad for women and O/B is good for women. ("O/B for Women" really needs to be a bumper sticker.)
So, the question is: Is John McCain reckless (not, of course, a merely rhetorical question) or does he have some reason to believe that his friend Hillary is not going to make too much of a protest?