You wrote at 9:43 PST of "nonsense" surrounding JFK's killer, and said that "they" "found" a leftist to accuse of the crime.

But you are aware, are you not, that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit shortly after the JFK shooting, and was arrested in the Texas Theater during a fight with police in which he brandished his pistol and attempted to kill again?

This was covered by multiple eye witnesses.

Oswald's palm print matched the rifle discovered at the School Book Depository -- where he was employed.

Of the dozens of eyewitnesses, the majority agreed that three shots were fired in the plaza. This was also the concurrence of the African American depository workers who heard shots immediately above them during their lunch break -- shaking the floors and windows. They were not suspected because multiple eyewitnesses also identified a white man with a rifle in the window before the shooting -- observers presumed he was secret service, not a killer.

This is all detailed in Vincent Bugliosi's 1612-page tome, which I have read from cover to cover. Lots of excerpts from original police reports and such.

You could posit a 1 in 1000 chance that Oswald was a poser working with Cuban exiles (e.g., Odio incident). Or, a 1 in 1000 chance that Oswald the sociopathic loner had help.

But there is no reasoned argument that Oswald was innocent, or arrested as a foil "because" he was communist. That's just not tenable.

How do you square your analysis with the ouster of Diem in October, 1963?

Recall, Colonel Vann and others leaked to the NYT their view that American forces were impeded by the South Vietnamese government, and could not pursue the V.C. with requisite vigor. They preferred a wide open intervention.

Kennedy was frustrated with conflicts between the NYT and the reports of his chief military officers. Ultimately, he resolved the conflict by ordering Diem out. LBJ then waited through the election of 1964, and sent in the infantry early in 1965.

1. Angela Merkel was re-elected by a wide margin in Germany, running on a platform of less Obamaesque spending, more nuclear power, and recommitment to Afghanistan.

2. Bill Clinton came out foursquare for gay marriage, a clear flanking move to position Hillary on Obama's left for 2012. It's still an unlikely challenge, but it never hurts to plan ahead.

Bill can read the polls as well as anyone, including the daily tracks (Gallup at 51, Rasmussen at 48) on Sunday. He knows the Obamathon of TV appearances did not help at all, and may have hurt.

3. Speaking of television, this weekend I saw a promo with Obama for the new George Lopez show on TBS. As first I did a double take: "is this really the president hawking a TV show?" Sure enough, it was. At the end of the commercial, he even does a little stiff comedy exchange with Lopez.

I'll take shark jumping for $300, Alex.

Diable, I would not worry too much about my enthusiasm.

It is more typical than you think. There are 896,000 Sarah supporters on Facebook. A typical Note from her generates more than 1,000 comments. Two in the past month generated more than 4,000 comments.

Team Sarah boasts an on-line membership of more than 70,000. The typical Palin enthusiast makes me look ambivalent.

It probably seems unusual to you, because I've been the main (or only) one here at Salon. And that is because I used to follow Chris Matthews, when he was more balanced, and thus found Joan Walsh. Not many conservatives watch MSNBC any more.

I read in People Magazine after the election that more than 100,000 people sent Sarah letters and gifts, and her parents were writing hand written thank you notes to each of them. My daughter and I wrote one too, and sure enough -- we got such a response.

I also sent her a picture I once took of a lithograph of Elizabeth of Bavaria and Austria near her home in the Alps. My ancestors were Bavarians. As Thomas Paine said of John Adams, they have more kings and queens in their heads than a deck of cards. I got a nice signed picture for my daughter in response. I hope it means as much to her someday as the innkeeper's lithograph of Elizabeth.

Sarah has the China speech up on her Facebook page tonight, along with a picture of her at the event. She knows she hit a home run. You can tell.

John, on sound currency, this has been a passion of mine since about January, when I tried to understand the cause of this crash. Nothing in my education, including economics courses, prepared me for it.

Being a buff of the Midwest's industrial-era presidents, I figured it out with little more than a public library card and some dusty tomes on the depression of 1893. That helped, along with a visit to the Taft home in Cincinnati, where displays on the campaign of 1908 typify the Republican Party's co-opting of Bryan's loose money policy. We never looked back.

By this spring, the Wall Street Journal was starting to run editorials from Federal Reserve dissidents on excess printing, and its contribution to the crash. No other GOP hopeful (excepting the Pauline fringe) picked up the cue. Now Sarah has. She's leading the way, as she did on health care opposition ("not just no, but hell no") and Afghanistan (co-sponsoring a think tank letter urging adoption of the McChrystal plan).

Of course, you don't need a gold standard. You just need the will power to not overprint. Mr. Bernanke says Congress can't be trusted with monetary policy because legislatures are less responsible than central bankers.

That's true, unless the populance itself demands an honest dollar. That last happened in 1896. It could happen again. Even if it doesn't, I'm tickled to see Sarah carrying the banner forward. Not just on currency, but avoidance of debt as well.

To paraphrase the Poles, America is not dead yet. Sarah Palin is a big reason why.