Sorry, Salon readers, I promised to stop bothering you last night. Just wanted to say I thought your man Biden did a good job tonight -- he's hard to dislike and will make a fine vice president should he be elected. Also, I think my gal Palin did exceptionally well, particularly given the pressure (some self-inflicted, to be sure) she faced. As I mentioned earlier, I am from Indiana and remember Dan Quayle's struggles, including unfair incidents which I think personally impacted he and his family. I hope Dan and Marilyn are out there smiling somewhere tonight, seeing another embattled young VP conservative fighting hard and coming out on top -- in terms of both acclamation and self-respect. (Quayle had a fine career, but never quite escaped the P.R. half-nelson in which he found himself back in that summer of '88). As for November, we'll just have to wait and see. Palin would be great for the country, should she prevail. Remember, the lesson of Rocky is not whether you win or lose, but whether you can hold your head up with pride when the final bell rings. All four candidates can do that now, after turning in strong debate performances. This past week has witnessed some very good moments for our democracy.

So long, Salon posters. It's been nice bantering with you over the past several weeks.

Folks, I hate to be regarded as a Palin defending troll (especially one who promised to stop posting in response to prior push-back), but I can't help pointing out that ABC.com has what appears to be a sensible reading of events. I at least promise not to be argumentative! They claim, per prior posters, that Palin's "offense" is not the firing of the supervisor, but the pressure placed on the supervisor to fire the trooper.

They also draw two conclusions: (1) Palin could, at most, be censured by the legislature, which would not occur until next year; and (2) there is some question as to whether the "personal" benefit proscribed by the statute extends to satisfacton of a personal grudge, as opposed to financial gain. This probably means no further negative consequences for Palin until the election. It seems hard to dispute the inference that Palin pressured indirectly for the trooper's firing, and claims she did so in regard to her 10-year old nephew allegedly abused by the trooper. I can't judge the propriety of this without knowing more about what allegedly happened to the child, and/or the breadth of "personal" benefit under the statute.

The greatest P.R. risk for Palin may be a lone wolf prosecutor who picks this up to try to make a name for himself. It seems unlikely this would meet a "high crime/misdemeanor" threshold for state or federal impeachment, so the risk is primarily bad publicity. ABC has already downgraded the story beneath a banal profile of Henry Paulson, which could mean at least some branches of the media may not believe it amounts to much.

Has the media identified any of the people calling for Obama's head and confirmed their Republican party affiliation?

I recall the wave of black church bombings from the 1990's, which turned out to be self-inflicted arsons. As well as the string of racist graffiti in college campuses of late, which turned out to be a hoax. Or the Duke rape case, or Tawana Brawley -- hoaxes all. My home town had a similar story last year - African American high school kid finds locker marked up with racist rants. Upon investigation, it turned out he marked it up himself. Passing strange.

We have to remember, there are strange tidings in this campaign, including an e-mail hack of Governor Palin by at least one Democratic operative "pretending" to be her. Not much different than Watergate. There was the National Review guy who went on radio to talk about Ayres and the station came in for abuse from Obama supporters. And the 30 unaffiliated operatives combing the state of Alaska. I don't know too much about the world of Tony Rezko and South Side politics, but I don't think anyone would confuse it with the Boy Scouts.

So, back to my question. What do we know for sure about the origin of McCain's "fanatics"?

I don't have time to read the full report, but the excerpts are stating the commission "found" that Palin committed a "crime." Hate to say it, but this sounds awfully bush league in terms of the commission's performance. The proper approach would be to identify a relevant statute (the one on public trust/personal beneift), indicate that some evidence exists it was possibly violated (to extent Todd Palin is presumed to have been acting on Sarah's behalf -- not an unreasonable inference), indicate further that any conviction must place the issue beyond reasonable doubt, and would rely upon a construction of the personal benefit concept to reach this situation. (Having served on boards, and drafted conflicts of interest policies pertaining to personal/financial gain disclosures, let me tell you know I never would imagine that something as penny ante as getting a dangerous relative fired from an organization would constitute a personal/financial gain. This would be a real stretch for any prosecution).

Bottom line, you state the point that you think there is an issue, not the "conclusion" that a crime has occurred. I realize this creates a good headline, which is what the commissioners evidently wanted, but it gives me no confidence they have any idea what they are doing.