In my analysis, McCain first scrambled the egg in this election with his selection of Palin. Conservatives like me immediately recognized her potential - to galvanize the base, maybe attract Hillary women, and, most subversively, stand as a kind of living alternative to the culture of abortion on demand. When I saw her standing for the first time with her down syndrome child in her arms, I thought of all the people I know 50 and older (mostly right of center themselves) whose families reconciled themselves at one point or another to the need for an abortion within their family. For them, Palin was kind of a like a John the Baptist symbolically condemning them from the desert -- are they going to embrace her, or behead her? Put aside the media and its antics; there was a lot of churning from the outset back here in middle America.

Why did McCain take this crazy gamble? Two reasons. First, he was at serious risk of losing the evangelical vote without it. Second, Obama was so formidable an opponent, he had little choice. He would have gotten creamed with any other running mate, too.

The other dynamic, of course, was the strange media silence on Wright/Ayres/Rezko. I have talked to liberals in the last two weeks about their support of Obama, and asked what they think of this troiko. Some have never heard of them. Some say they have heard of Ayres only, but are confident McCain is "lying" about whatever it is Obama is said to have done. This drives conservatives nuts, if only because they believe the MSM should have at least presented the basic facts to the voters, over the course of the summer, and perhaps asked about them in debates. Take Rezko for example, and the $300,000 windfall Obama admits he "boneheadedly" obtained from his deal in 2004. Not 1 person in 100 has heard of it; the media has not mentioned it since spring. What relevance does it have? Well, recall Nixon and Checkers in '52; the allegation there was that supporters (like Rezko) subsidized his lifestyle. It was a potential career breaker then; no one wants to even consider the range of possibilities of what Rezko might tell us about Obama, now.

Now, as for violence, half the liberals I know believe McCain is attempting to provoke an assassination. In response, conservative web sites are luridly reporting any trace of violence going back the other way. I've never seen anything like it. I've been mad myself about Obama, and posted some half-hearted hyperbole denouncing him, but it's starting to feel like we're entering Jamaica c. 1980 with all the talk of abuse going both ways.

As for Palin and her wardrobe, here is another thing I don't get. I asked a liberal friend recently why there was no similar concern over the $140,000 spent on Greek columns to *accessorize* Obama's performance in Denver, or the $5.3 million spent to fix up the football stadium and create a better photo op for his speech. In part, the wardrobe is just one more thing to add to the list of Palin criticisms. In part, maybe clothes just strike a more visceral chord. I agree with Joan Walsh, Palin's appearance was just fine when she arrived on the stage. I also think people need to step back and remember: when the campaign ends, Palin will go back to making 100K a year in Alaska with her union member husband; they will not have the fancy clothes, and will not be fabulously wealthy. Obama will be president and still have land in Chicago worth $300,000 more than he paid for it. Obama's supporters should be happy with that net result.