My god, Rebecca! Still more on the Hillary as VP argument? Can we move on to issues that actually matter to more people than a handful of angry voters behaving somewhat irrationally? How about the fact that McCain-- at 72--has sacrificed the good of the country (i.e.: acknowledging that his age is a concern and picking someone clearly ready to be President) for a move that can only be understood in the context of it potentially serving his own personal political gain, no matter how marginally?

I suppose from the point of view of some in the press, maintaining the potential for a close race at all costs is preferable to analyzing this reckless move by McCain in the true context in which it should be viewed. In short, in the aftermath of the Democratic Convention and Obama's universally acclaimed (excepting Fox et al) acceptance speech, it's much easier to see it as an act of desperation.

Chilling scenes, made more chilling by the failure/refusal of the so-called mainstream press to cover these scenes themselves.

It's the over-emphasis on security since 9/11--and the Republican government's fanning of those fear flames--that makes scenes like this not only possible, but acceptable to a large sector (if not majority) of Americans.

The first casualties of 9/11 were those that died in the attacks; the second is the Constitution. And the assault on the latter continues almost unabated.

Did you look inside the convention hall? White faces, male predominant, seemingly almost no one under 40. This sort of thing still works for them and many like them. Polls show that those (male and female) under 40 are abandoning the party in droves and are roundly turned off by the line of attack Palin et al used last night.

If you want to know what IS resonating with the under 40s (the future of this country, which in no way resembles the crowd at the convention), watch The Daily Show.

That's not to say that Greenwald's caution against allowing the smears to go unanswered isn't valid and good advice. To be effective, though, it can't be tit or tat. It has to be brief, cogent, to the point and well-crafted to demonstrate the utter desperation and mental and moral bankruptcy of the purveyors. Otherwise it just adds to the noise and people tune out.

With this story, it's starting to sound to me like the "stars" (read "moneyed interests") are starting to align--and along with the press--are going into the tank for McCain. The issues, the intelligence.... every factor that should matter in this election favors Obama. Obama arguably has gone through the most rigorous vetting process available to get where he is now--a nearly two year political campaign in which he out-organized, out-strategized and defeated what up until that defeat was the most formidable political machine in the country. Somehow that reality has been supplanted (with the willing help of the media) by the Sarah soap opera. Vetting? We don't need no stinkin' vetting.

I'm sorry to say this--and I hope I am as wrong as wrong can be-- but I'm beginning to think the fix is in. An eerie similarity to the last two elections is emerging. Any factor that can be bent--legally, on the fringes of legality and illegally--is being bent to favor a McCain victory in November. It's the only way McCain can win. There isn't a reality-based fact that works in his favor. Yet the polls show him even or ahead.

Want to argue the point? Please do.

After reading this depressing article, all I can think of is, "God, we're doomed".

Forget about Alaska secessionism, where can I sign up for a movement to have the northeast secede from the U.S.? We'll take New York City off your hands, too. That should solve all our problems.

One of the more surreal statements uttered by McCain last night at Columbia University--and not apparently picked up by the media--was his assertion that the reason the campaign had taken on such a nasty tone was because Obama had not embraced his suggestion for a series of joint town hall-like appearances across the country. How one relates even tangentially to the latter went unexplained and unquestioned. But the impression it leaves with me is one of vindictiveness, petulance and a lack of a sense of personal responsibility.

Where at one time this observer saw McCain as an agent for change, today one sees only an overly ambitious hypocrite with a self righteous chip on his shoulder.

"But here's the great Catch-22 of how modern financial markets work. The natural reaction to a CEO, whose company is headed toward bankruptcy and liquidation because of bad investments, resisting any "haircut" for himself in return for government help, should be: "Tough -- if you don't like it, go file for Chapter 7 or 11." But if the failure of that company sets off a domino effect that brings everybody else down, then our understandable lack of sympathy for the intransigent CEO gains us nothing but a worsening meltdown."

How about we sweeten the pot for those CEOs and threaten them with personal criminal and civil prosecution if they fail to act in the best interests of their company--as is their fiduciary responsibility--which they most assuredly have been doing already and would be doing if they took the tact that Leonard feels they might?