She has at least an even money chance of winning, so you better get used to it, it'll be good for your health. Bordello, indeed! You just lost another demographic, women you like to decorate (don't fret, that's only several million not previously committed to Palin).

....elect Obama!

....that's fer sure!

....what a bore. You're telling me people will listen to this? Even those people you're always putting down?

Yeah, there was talk about negative angry black men for a while, but a new problem for Obama has eclipsed that stuff: he's become a bore. He's been "new" so long he's last year's novelty. Check out McCain's ads -- they show vigor, not two minutes of talking about the economy (not a metaphor: Obama actually has an ad of him gabbing for two minutes). Well, it's too late for him to change, and why should he...he's had success. But I don't trust the polls to show him winning unless he's 7% up...remember the Bradley effect.

You signed on to have children, now you're contemplating screwing them up to save your "happiness". Grow up and suck it up. Most intact marriages aren't happy either.

At this time there is a reasonable chance she will win, in which case you'll find it impossible to stay in the country without psychologically imploding. I suggest you start thinking about what country you'd like to move to. If she loses of course there's no harm in your tentative planning.

Obama figures his safe bet is to run out the clock, do nothing different, take no new stands, get through two more debates with his usual wimpy uninspiring proffy talk. Polls, to extent you rely on them, seem to show his strategy is working. The only people who are pushing him to actually show leadership are highly naive libs, true believers in this guy who's never done anything that anybody can recall. The New Yorker article (in the issue with the famous cartoon cover of O and Michelle) said his community organizing didn't accomplish diddley. Yes, the lefty New Yorker.

Joan, caught you on Chris Mathews' Hardball yesterday with Michelle Bernard. Michelle was the very sweetness of femininity. You, Joan, seemed like you'd be better as a man. Sarah is our kind of woman, and if she does well in the debate I assume you'll shut up about how terrible she is...or maybe you won't.

Joan, caught you on Chris Mathews' Hardball yesterday with Michelle Bernard. Michelle was the very sweetness of femininity. You, Joan, seemed like you'd be better as a man. Sarah is our kind of woman, and if she does well in the debate I assume you'll shut up about how terrible she is...or maybe you won't.

Going back to high school (or junior high) -- and life remains high school to a great extent -- smart plain Jane Joans never could get over their hatred from "ditzy" sexy Sarahs. Notice how Michelle Bernard, a real looker, was calm when she and Joan were on Hardball yesterday. Michelle is not threatened by Sarah's looks.

There's a lot else at stake in the debate for the liberal elite, you know, the people who know they're the superior ones, than the outcome of the election. If Palin actually acquitted herself with a decent performance, all the snobs who've staked their sense of self on her inferiority are going to have to reboot, and come up with some other explanation as to why she doesn't count. Considering these smarty-pants are mostly unsuccessful (by their own lights), there could be major psychological depression (not just financial) in the months ahead.

Who among us could've gone from where Palin came from to her performance last night in only five weeks preparation? It seems obvious to me that she removed herself as a liability, leaving the rest of the campaign to the Obama question. Great job, Sarah. Now Joan, please tell us you're not put off by Palin's beauty, sexiness, and likeable personality...we're not in high school anymore, you know. Joan, you have your own, if different, qualities, and you should be happy to be yourself.

He's a good guy, but he styles himself a constitutional expert, and he don't know crap. Thinks Article I is executive (it isn't), thinks the VP does nothing in the Senate except break tie votes (wrong, he can preside whenever he wants)...other stuff I'm too lazy to put here because no matter what I point out you'll say so what. Oh, and his tearing up yesterday...if Palin pulled that s--t about some personal tragedy she's been dining out for 36 years, I can just imagine what you smart asses would say...(what's the use...we like who we like and we dislike who we dislike and it don't mean squat what they say or do).

Why the doom and gloom? Looks like Obama wins, barring an asteroid (terror attack). He can fix the economic mess. I can't explain how or why I know that, I just believe in him. He's hip, attractive, young, cool dude, can rouse a crowd...of course he can!

Don't let facts interfere, but the Dems did not control the Senate for all of 2001 and the Reps did not control it for all of 2002. It was the Reps until1/01- 6/01 (Jeffords left the Rep party), and the Reps took it back 1/03. I'll do Greenwald the way he'd do Palin: if he gets this wrong (see his diagram) he probably knows nothing. And if I misread his diagram he doesn't know how to draw.

should read "it was the reps 1/01-6/01"