I'm not at all surprised by how close the polls are. The reason is that voters don't connect issues and candidates. I know that's counterintuitive, but that's what I've observed. In 1984 we tore our hair out because polls consistently showed that when voters were asked about issues, they consistently took the liberal side, meaning they agreed with Mondale. Nonetheless, Mondale got close only when Reagan bombed in the first debate. In 1986, I did lengthy surveys for the state Democratic party, talked to a lot of respondents about issues and candidates, and noticed again no correlation between how people felt on issues and which candidate they supported.

So that's why I'm not at all surprised that Democrats lead in the generic poll and the liberal position on every issue leads the conservative issue, yet the campaign is close. It's about candidates, and most people feel comfortable with McCain and know little of his positions. Meanwhile, Obama is new and unknown to the sorts of voters who are just starting to pay attention. My hope is that this is like 1980, when the race was even until voters got comfortable with this new guy Reagan. Obama's convention speech will be the first one of his speeches swing voters and low-information voters have heard. This is when the selling of the candidate --- not the position on an issue --- begins.

Hillary and Bill both kept the good of the party and country in mind and tried their best to make you see that a McCain win would be a defeat for everything you and the Clintons stand for. It happens Obama and Obama supporters stand for the same things, but we disagreed over who was the better candidate. I've never had my candidate win the nomination, this year being no exception, but we move on and keep the goals in focus. If you think McCain isn't so bad, please learn some more about him. He's one of the big obstacles to pay equity. He's determined to appoint judges to overturn Roe V. Wade. He was one of the main salesmen for the invasion of Iraq, and he won't finish one war before he starts another. Is your gripe with other Democrats really worth that?

There was a photo in the St.Paul Pioneer Press print edition that I suspect was the real reason for this raid. It shows Ramsey County (St. Paul) sheriff Bob Fletcher showing off "evidence" seized in the raids. Why they're showing evidence for a criminal case at a press conference, and why the sheriff himself is doing it, seems odd until you realize that this photo was at least one reason for the raids. I suspect Fletcher just started his campaign for higher office. The article the photo is attached to is here: http://www.twincities.com/ci_10346122. You can see the photo in a slideshow. I cut the photo out of a screenshot and uploaded it to my own blog: http://www.ravensblog.net/images/fletcher.jpg

I was in the march this afternoon through downtown St.Paul, and I saw no tear gas any demonstrators getting out of hand. The police were out in force in full riot gear, and holding their batons in a manner I can only describe as looking ready to bust heads at any moment, but they didn't do anything. I will add that I wasn't sure about going until the raids this weekend. I went because I felt I had to show I can't be intimidated.

As a resident of the Twin Cities, this is humiliating. Yes, I'm angry at the idiots who smashed windows. I was in the main march today, and they give all protesters a bad name. I can understand why the police were wary. But this thuggishness, like the arrest of Amy Goodman, and the macing of the woman in the posted video, just isn't something I expected. Feared maybe, but not expected. I understand responding to incidents, but I have to wonder to what degree the heavy hands of the police provoked them. This was a depressing day.

I took a photo of the line of police during the march. The quality is just cellphone quality, but you can see the way the police are holding their riot sticks.

If the media can pass along the story that the Democrats threw the flags used at Invesco Field in the trash, seems only fair to ask Palin about this other one anonymous source story running around the blogosphere.

http://thepoliticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-me.html

Personally I do believe she said it, but I also admit that's just because it fits my understanding of her. I'd hardly call it proven, and if I were an editor, I'd want to know who "Lucille" is and why she needs to be anonymous before it would go in the pages of my newspaper, magazine, whatever. It just seems like a double-standard that the McCain/Fox version of the flag story is getting repeated.

OK, so Biden got a bit effusive in his praise. He didn't insult anyone or claim McCain wants sex education for puppies. I'm much more bothered about Obama's gaffes in the O'Reilly interview regarding the surge.

Conservatives will yell at Gibson for being too mean to her and asking questions that were tough instead of properly deferential. It's as if she wasn't prepared at all for the bridge question. Is she that arrogant, or that incoherent, or so sheltered that she never expected the question?

Or being conspiratorial, could she be playing rope-a-dope before being the smooth talking sharpie we were expecting?