Liam

Maybe, but if the following numbers are to be believed, it also means a greater number of the public saw her get beaten: CNN Biden 51 Palin 36 CBS Biden 46 Palin 21 Fox Biden 61 Palin 39 http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299

It's odd, I find a bit of her folksiness genuine and part of it creates an impression that she's insincere. The continuous winks and "you betcha(s)" reminds me too much of George W. Bush's smirks and nods, like a nervous tic someone falls back on when she or he is nervously trying to reassure someone he's both confident and "just one of them".

Partisanship aside, I think each side can take away from last night what it wanted: Palin was better than she appeared in interviews, Biden showed that he has the discipline to control himself. But let's face the reality of the situation: the bar Palin had to get over was about an eighth of an inch off the ground. She merely had to show up and speak in complete sentences on topics remotely related to Gwen Ifill's questions to gain a "win" (or, at least to slow down the lagging confidence levels of many conservatives/McCain supporters). I don't think Palin's performance won over any undecided voters, nor did it reverse the trend of the election and move the momentum back to McCain's favor. If anything, her show merely arrested the downward trend among her own supporters. I think Palin's performance last night was a ninety minute summary of her arc over the past month: fresh and new and folksy and warm and likeable at first, followed by a period of obvious coaching and evident cram sessions, ending with a general sense that, while likeable, she is not ready. In terms of substance, Biden won and post-debate polls show that he was the winner by a wide margin (CNN interviews with independent voters showed a 15 point gap in his favor, 51-36). He seemed off message in the first half of the debate, but continued in a very slow and steady manner. He clearly won the foreign affairs section, the second half. Overall, the debate won't change the dynamic of the race. It could have ended McCain's campaign had Palin been a disaster, but she wasn't.

Based on what I've read about the book, it's a political discussion on black politicians and racial politics since the Civil Rights movement. It is not about Obama, but merely frames the title in terms of the Obama Age (i.e., modern times). Insisting that Ifill's book is an Obama love-in without even having read a single letter on the page tells me you have YOUR political shades on. Or do you think it's only possible that a book with the title [XYZ] "in the Reagan Era" would be a love-in for Reagan? How about something like "Death Squads in the Reagan Era" (probably negative), "Economics of the Reagan Era" (could be mixed), "National Pride in the Reagan Era" (probably very positive). Face it, you don't know the content of the book and have not only pre-judged it but Ifill as well.

I can't go back to read all the posts here (one of us has to work ), but my thoughts on the "bailout": 1. The Administration screwed up by putting out there what appeared to be a blatant power grab for control of the economy (no oversight, no judicial review EVER of Treasury's actions, etc.). Sorry, but when the boat is sinking, you get everyone to bail, you do not give the bursar total control. 2. Everyone, from Congress to the Administration to the Media doomed the plan by continually referring to it as a bailout, which begs the question "of whom?" and the simple talk radio answer became "Wall Street billionaires" which was not accurate. If the issue was framed in terms of stabilizing the credit market and maintaining liquidity so as to not destry the economic interests of the middle class which needs the credit markets to remain stable, which is what it was supposed to do, it would have sailed through. 3. Pelosi miscalculated by trusting Boehner to deliver the votes. She and Hoyer should have only allowed the last bill to hit the floor of the House if they had enough votes and a comfortable margin to work with. 4. Pelosi's speech was unwise but, in historic terms, was not nearly as partisan and scathing as the permanent victims of the GOP establishment claim. She ripped Bush apart and praised the Dems. Her big error was not thianking the House GOP for their work. 5. Anyone who wants to damage the interests of the country based on hurt feelings should not be a member of Congress. Plain and simple. 6. Monday's market turmoil (down $1.3 trillion) was just a sideshow to the real problem: the seizing of credit markets. If that happens, Monday will look like a picnic. 7. I am very disappointed with the Senate bill. This is our economic Pearl Harbor -- the Senate ought to be able to act swiftly and cleanly and directly on the merits of government's proposed response without all the geegaws and add-ons (darts? PR rum?). More pork and special interest influence and vote peddling. Disgusting. 8. The House had better pass something which addresses the problems. Increases to FDIC is okay, I'm not so sure the ending of the marked-to-market rule is wise. It's brushing the dust under the carpet. (added late: 9. I would support a measure that would provide an ownership stake for the taxpayers in order to help recoup the costs and would also like to see strict regulatory limits on the mortgage industry and on the resale and speculation associated with loans as investment vehicles. I would also support aggressive legislation which allows for "clawing back" of platinum parachutes -- they stopped being mere gold a decade ago -- when a CEO retires and his failed company runs to Washington for a federal handout.)

So, somehow you have access to and have read an as-of-yet released book and know that it contains such information that proves Ifill is "in the tank" for Obama? Or is more likely that because her book has "the Age of Obama" in the title, it proves her impartiality? Gwen Ifill is one of the most resepcted journalists in the US by people on both sides of the aisle. You;re desperately grasping here.

And now Fareed Zakaria's turn to lay bare what everyone knows but which many Republican supporters simply cannot admit about their party's leader and its new second in command: http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204

Yet one more conservative who has the guts and intellectual honesty to say what must be said about Palin: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiM...UxZDkwNTE=#more

The Congressional Democrats have enough votes to pass the $700B plan, having majorities in both houses, but they want more Republicans on board to give them cover. They've got roughly 40 of 49 GOP Senators who said they were ready to sign on to the original plan. My concern is whether they should pass the $700B plan as is and I think I am leaning toward No. Does anyone know why no one has seriously proposed a Resolution Trust-type fix? It worked for the failed S&L's, does someone know why it wouldn't work here? I'd prefer to see the Congress and WH agree to a short-term $200B infusion to keep credit markets going while engaging in serious, marathon sessions to establish a Resolution Trust Corp II. Unused funds from that $200B pool would be then transferred to the RTC II in addition to whatever added funding is determined to be necessary to keep the markets (particularly the credit market) solvent.

I'd rather have as President an even-keeled and temperate person who cannot deliver all his domestic policy campaign promises than a schizophrenic drama queen who very well may deliver all his foreign policy campaign promises.

Agreed, but only if you also eliminate McCain for utterly lacking the temperment and judgment necessary for the job. I could live with a President Biden. Might not like it all the time, but I trust he wouldn't go nuclear(1) on some issue solely as a distraction from whatever crisis he cannot manage. (1)"Nucular" for those of you who are Republicans

There was never a question that liberals were going to suddenly like Palin if she gave interviews. The liberal outcry was over the secretiveness and the path of isolation the McCain campaign opted to take where Palin was concerned. By shielding Palin from all questions (even cream puffs), the McCain campaign reinforced the liberals' suspicions that she was not ready. And now that they have finally put her out there, her lack of knowledge about basic issues facing the country are self evident. She is simply not ready and she should have never been placed in this position nor should she have allowed herself to be placed in this position. That's my one criticism of Palin: that she let her personal ambition tell her she is ready to run in the big leagues. She isn't, that much is now clear. Palin's experience and readiness is what it is and she should have enough self awareness to question her own capacity. She didn't, but I can understand how egotistic politicians (they're all egotists), see the dazzle, the lure of the national spotlight and sometimes cannot say No. The bigger problem for me, still, is that Palin is the person McCain thinks is ready to be commander in chief and steward of the economy (to the extent the president acts in that manner) should he die or be incapacitated. McCain's judgement on this is so far off as to appear a joke and disqualifies him as a candidate.

I disagree that the bailout is now firmly associated with McCain. I think there will be plenty of blame/credit to go around once it's done. But I think the underlying problem will end up hurting the GOP and McCain in particular. After portraying himself for years as someone who favors deregulation, it's very difficult for McCain to now claim the regulator mantle and not hear guffaws at the same time.

I've always thought we should have real debates: two podiums (podia?), two people, a moderator who's only there to run the clock and two hours of open discussion/debate. You're right, these, technically aren't debates, but it's all we get from stage crafted campaigns and they can occasionally shed light on a politician's plans and temperment.

Prediction: in the next 24 to 36 hours, Congress will strike a deal on the bailout and it will be voted upon successfully. Regardless of the input by Obama or McCain, the Republicans will all come out to say that it took bold steps and bold leadership to get the deal done and that McCain showed such leadership by coming back to Washington. (Note: they will not say that he was the leader on the issue or that what got approved was his plan, but by heaping praise on McCain's leadership they'll try to create the impression that it couldn't have been done without him and that he saved the economy. Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that the parties involved are *this* close to making this a done deal, without the help from with Obama or McCain.)

And don't forget Lady de Rothschild who claimed Obama was an elitist. Yes, de Rothschild . Saying someone else is an elitist. Oh, and McCain is so focused on suspending his campaign to address an economical crisis that six days ago didn't exist because the economy was fundamentally sound, that he raced back to Washington to save the day, swooping in like the cavalry... errr, no, he had to swing by said de Rothschild's pad for a sit down. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...24/1443629.aspx

The either-or choice you pose is an utterly false one. It is not a matter of holding a "frivolous public debate" or dealing with an economic depression. First, no debate is frivolous, particularly when campaigns are so message-managed as they are these days and when the people are seriously considering who of the two main candidates will need to shepherd the country in the aftermath of the issue. This particular debate is more serious and more necessary than it was two weeks ago. Second, we're not yet in a depression. Neither McCain nor Obama will add anything to the negotiations going on up on Capitol Hill. All that will result is that the campaign operations will fill the Capitol and the media will follow along and it risks being made into a circus. The Committee chairs and minority members currently attending to the delicate negotiations are fully capable of acting as the experts they are. There is no reason McCain couldn't hold a private meeting with top Republicans to establish his position on the vote. Obama could do the same. They do not need to suspend campaigns or cancel two hour debates. McCain needs to establish some bona fides on economic issues. He probably won't be able to between now and 11/4, so he's trying to grandstand (again) to show leadership on the issue or his maverick nature and self sacrifice. Anyone who can't see this as anything but a vain attempt to change the media narrative is suspending his disbelief.

watching this discussion go through all these gyrations is making me think that it's not only Sarah Palin's critics who can be accused of being deranged.

Aside from the general polling, what matters more are the individual state races and how they award their electoral votes. fivethirtyeight.com has some pretty detailed stats if anyone is interested.

Real Clear Politics is a pretty good source. Pollster.com does a pretty good job of averaging out the more trusted polls. I tend to watch the Gallup polls just so I'm seeing the race through a single site with consistent sampling and methodology. Otherwise, you can be whip-sawed (up 3 on CNN, up 5 on Zogby, down 2 on Rasmussen, up 1 on ABC News, etc.). Immediately after the RNC, McCain had a five point lead on gallup.com. As of today (9/20), Obama has a six point lead on gallup.com.

point taken -- and I'd say my position is similar to yours.

I'm pro-choice, but this is a point you and I agree on. I don't see how someone could say that abortion is murder but then accept it under circumstances that are irrelevant to the murder victim.

No symmetry whatsoever. Hillary was asked to run her husband's task force -- she had an official role. The Todd Palin equivalent would be if Hillary, as first lady, called the FBI chief to make vague threats against him.

I think there's a difference between being shrewd and being wise. If McCain wins because he picked Palin, I think it would be considered a shrewd move. But I think wisdom is different. I reiterate that we can't know the wisdom of selecting her until and unless she is asked to serve in the White House.

Correction: if he wins due to Palin, it will be seen as a political gamble that paid off. The wisdom of his choice is something that cannot be assessed until a President McCain is six feet under.