A couple quick thoughts (also posted on the Joan Walsh thread).

1. Joan Walsh is right. The criticism was pretty harsh. But was it *cruel*? Cruelty requires a victim. See more on that below.

2. Regarding this *unidentified* critic, the first thing I deduce is that he is a coward. It's hard to feel victimized by a coward. If I were Palin, I would have someone give the men on her staff the ol' Bob Knight *anatomy check* (for the uninitiated, that's an infamous locker room tactic of Indiana University's former basketball coach). It seems to me someone on the staff has no anatomy, no loyalty, and no place on any team.

3. Right now, it's hard for anyone to have perspective about Palin. We're caught up in Obamamania, as witnessed by the NBC report this morning that Letterman, Leno and the rest have abandoned all pretense of balance and are going *full Obama* for the last seven days of the campaign. I suspect that when it's all over, the entertainment types are going to look at those SNL ratings for Palin, and her biography, and say, gee, maybe we should invite her to *our world* and have something of a relationship. But that won't happen before Nov. 4. (If I were her, I would be inclined to tell them to screw themselves, but then I would relent - you can't go through life holding grudges - and I suspect she will as well).

4. I don't know who will be blamed if McCain is defeated, and I don't particulary care. If the Peggy Noonans of the world want to blame Palin, so be it. It really won't matter, substantively, because the bigger question -- can the wings of the Republican party get along, or can't they? -- is bigger than just one election.

5. Regardless of the blame, some facts bear mentioning. Palin brought McCain from the red to the black at the RNC. After her debate with Biden, McCain saw a mini-jolt his way in the polls (commencing with Zogby's premiere at -2), which then evaporated Monday with another decline in the markets. Palin's quantifiable poll contributions were positive; even today, with her supposed *drag*, her appearances in Indiana and elsewhere have neatly corresponded with upward polling movement. (Yes, I'm sure a contrary case can be made, at least anecdotally, re: Colin Powell and the rest. I'm simply saying there is a case to be it is not her *fault*).

6. By the way, is it bad to be a *diva*? I thought VH1 kind of popularized the term, with its female singer specials. It also puts me in mind of the term *prima donna,* which in turn evokes thoughts of the movie Patton. Say it with me, folks: "I know I'm a prima donna, I admit it." There are worse things to be, I suppose.

7. She still has an outside chance of winning. Who in politics wouldn't take a shot like this? And remember, Palin once lost a state championship basketball game, then came back the next year and won it. Kind of like Rocky. Fight and finish standing the first time. Come back and win the second. Joan Walsh is right here too - if you underestimate her, you're betting against both her past and her potential.

8. As for 2012, it's way too early to say. And Palin is young enough, she need not stake her hopes on the very next contest around the corner. People here in Indiana, where I live, are not going to forget who she is, whether she runs next time or not. Let me just say this, however, as a conservative. If I could write-in a name for the party in 2012, *today*, I would write in Palin's name without a doubt. I suspect many others feel the same way. And by the way, that is not intended to be a *fringe* sentiment. Palin has an impressive record of public service (yes, I know, there are criticisms too); her approach to public spending and energy development, for example, puts her neatly in league with *economic* Republicans. A little more national exposure, and she could be bigger than she is today.

This puts me in mind of Mr. Micawber, the loveable debtor from Dickens' David Copperfield, who constantly lectured that if you're just a little bit ahead financially, life is fair, but if you're a little bit behind (as he was), life is ruinous.

So it is with the polls, and politics. Poor John McCain runs the same campaign as Bush '88 (similar attacks, controversial conservative young VP). But where Bush was ahead by a few points now, and had everyone who mattered supporting him, McCain is behind by a few and is savaged from all directions. Now, apparently, he is turning on Palin, or vice versa. Losing always sucks.

As for the Joan Walsh point about Palin being called a diva, a rogue, and a whack job, it strikes me as somewhat comical. I recall the Iran-Contra days when a rogue or a loose cannon was someone who subverted Congress by diverting illegal monies to fund a secret war. Today it is a person who inserts a simple line in a speech defending herself, when her self-appointed handlers prefer she act otherwise. Somehow, the words are the same, but the impact is different.

The Republicans were always likely to lose this year. Stevenson ditched his own party establishment, when Truman had similar numbers as Bush, and it didn't work for him. It is a wonder McCain/Palin have any chance at all.

Are you sure it wasn't Joe Biden? I thought he was the one predicting calamaties if his running mate wins. :)

I think a lot of people out there are going to hope for Barack's continued good health, if he does get elected. Botox Joe, and his serial and even deranged series of campaign mistakes, looks awfully shaky from where I sit. Doesn't that stuff get into your brain?