Sarah Palin does not have to encourage the vetting of future candidates. Her own selection as VP is exhibit "A" which demonstrates why that should be an imperative.

"Yes you should always carefully vet a candidate. Or else you have NO idea how badly you might screw up. Why are you all looking at me like that?"

Courtesy of New York Times:

“One of the mistakes we made in the Palin process was one of assumptions,” said Steve Schmidt, one of the McCain aides who guided the process. “We immediately made the assumption that anyone with ‘Governor’ next to her name has a base level of knowledge of history and policy that in a post-Palin world it isn’t necessarily safe to assume.” 

Mr. Schmidt said this time around the nominee and his team will need to start the search and vetting much earlier and ask more probing questions intended to gauge the ability of the possible choices to think on their feet, master complex information and provide assurance they could handle the presidency if it came to that. And, he said, the nominee will face pressure to manage a much more rigorous process to prove to the media that the vetting has been thorough. 

“What level of rigor is going to be applied to this?” Mr. Schmidt said. “Is the media going to demand, for example, to know who is running the vetting process? What is the criteria for the vetting process? How is the decision going to be made? How transparent will the process be?”

I am often amused that the minimally vetted Sarah Palin is CONSTANTLY banging the drum to encourage that candidates should be vetted far more carefully than they were in 2008.

Of course in her delusional state she believes the evidence to support that contention is the election of Barack Obama, while for those of us still connected to reality the evidence lies in our memories of how frighteningly close SHE got to winning the Vice Presidency.

Still this is yet another occasion that the Lunatic from Lake Lucille and I are in complete agreement. Though for completely different reasons of course.