One thing they all have in common is their advice that Romney, presuming that he is the presidential nominee, should not choose someone like Sarah Palin this time.
Since all these advice givers are overwhelmingly Dem's, then from their point of view it would indeed be bad for Palin herself, or someone of her dynamic ilk to be chosen.
However, in spite of all the leftist false narratives, the truth is that Palin energised a moribund McCain campaign and gave it a massive shot in the arm.
At one point the McCain team, not McCain, had taken the lead over Obama. Once the Lehman Brothers collapse and McCain's ensuing campaign halt took place, then nobody could have saved him.
Nevertheless the McCain team have tried to save face by putting the blame on Palin-a theme which Hollywood jumped on in the belief that she was going to run in 2012. The true facts of what a positive force for the 2008 team Palin was, including the exit poll results confirming that, are to be found AT THIS LINK
Thus instead of warning Romney about looking for a Palin for his veep they should, if they were honest, warn him about choosing a John Edwards.
Edwards is rated as the most disliked politician ever-and that is really saying something. Even the far left Huffington Post had an article describing him as such "The most unpopular figure anywhere, anytime." AT THIS LINK.
But why is there has not been a single article in all the media setting out the dangers of choosing such a terrible candidate as Edwards ever again, with only Palin being mentioned as the type to avoid? The obvious answer is that the failings of Democrats-both Edwards, and the man, Kerry, who unwisely chose him, are taboo subjects for the leftist media.
This shows not only how much of the media is leftist, with a residual minority being GOP establishment, who also are anti-Palin.
Here is the mug shot of the indicted former vice-presidential candidate (D) who is not mentioned in cautionary advice from the media (D)
NB "mustn't" is the correct spelling