Her religious views suggest that she does not understand the 'separation of church and state' as written into our Constitution. If it is true that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, What must we presume about someone who distorts history because she doesn't know it and thinks it is good to speak without a prepared speech and teleprompter. Since when is it wrong for a President to make sure he covers all points that are important and carefully makes sure his writers are consistent with his views?It would, indeed, surprise me if enough people are blinded by her rhetoric and biases to swing a national electorate in her favor...at least I would like to believe that we need someone well-trained in Constitutional Law and with a mind that can grasp difficult concepts in foreign affairs, diplomacy, trade issues, economics, and dealing with issues of import to a majority of the citizens, such as creation of jobs.. So far all I have heard from her is that she has signed onto the Norquist pledge (which I consider treason), believes the myth that homosexuality can be 'cured', that government should be smaller except for the money she receives from it, and many other idiocies that do not encourage me to believe that she really is in touch with this country's citizen's issues or would lift a finger to help them any more than she has done with her voting record..