I actually fault gerrymandering more than anything. And here, the blame largely rests with the Democrats. During the last census, they were in power; they got greedy and put together a redistricting scheme that ensured that almost every district is a Democratic or Republican stronghold, with the balance favoring Democrats.

(Note: I do believe Republicans would have probably done something similar as well to favor their party, but they didn't have the opportunity.)

So now, challenges to incumbents in those districts don't come from the opposition party during mostly pro-forma general elections but from the more radical elements within the party during primaries.

So here we are: Shocked, shocked, shocked! That legislators from those district refuse to compromise! Why should they? It's not like they have a broad coalition to appeal to. If anything, most gerrymandered legislators would probably face punishment from their voters for even thinking about moderating.

Since no one else will, I'll go ahead and defend Palin. It seems "obvious" after-the-fact that the call was a prank. But consider the situation:

You're running to be a 72 year old's heartbeat away from being the single most powerful person on the planet. So, it's not really out there that the head of state of an ally would want to have at least one quick chat with you.

A (formerly?) trusted aide comes up to you and says the President of France is on the line. It's not a number generally known to the public. Presumably, the calls you've taken on that line previously were all legitimate. Why would you suspect a prank when picking it up now?

Sure the conversation was odd. But the other person on the line is foreign, and English is not his native language. Plus, you've never spoken to him before and he could just very well be, um, quirky.

And please don't say she should have known because a foreign leader would never behave that way.

Some examples that come to mind: Nikita Khruschev banging his shoe on the table at the UN, Prime Minister Morarji Desai drinking urine as a health tonic, Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi singing Elvis tunes (while dressed up as Elvis), Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz telling Secretary of State Rice that he could "conquer any woman in two minutes." I could go on, but you get the idea.

So what do you do if you don't know for a fact this person is not Sarkozy? Do you risk insulting him and possibly create an incident on the eve of the Presidential election, or do you just humor his eccentricities?

There's a lot to criticize Palin about, but this is stretch for me.

Maybe it's because I haven't looked enough into the specifics of the Palins' finances, but isn't their estimated net worth in the neighborhood of $1.2 million, with a (pre-tax) income of around $230K/year.

McCain, in the interview, says Palin isn't "wealthy" as a serious response to a question. Perhaps that isn't wealthy by his standards, but I suspect most Americans would probably disagree.

At the Saddleback sit down with Rick Warren, McCain indicated that he was kidding about $5M being the threshold to be considered rich. But, today's assessment of Palin's financial status seems to suggest otherwise.

I'm surprised more hasn't been made out of this. Of course, the day is still young...

I've watch this movie already in the Republican theater. That's what turned me off to them.

Lieberman agrees with the Democrats on about 90% of the issues. His foreign policy position fails the purity test and everyone is ready to savage him. The people of Connecticut elected him; until and/or unless they vote him out, Lieberman is their representative. Democrats complained about the savaging Chuck Hagel got from the Republicans because he made a principled stand by deviating from orthodoxy and supporting Obama's vision for Iraq. The Democrats were right to complain. Yet now, they do the same to Lieberman.

I don't agree with Lieberman on foreign policy. But I respect him for having the courage of his convictions--just as I respect Powell for his endorsement of Obama against his Republican leanings.

If Lieberman truly feels that the national security of the US is served by McCain's vision, then he should endorse McCain and do what he can to elect him. He most definitely should not just clam up.

As for the charge of Lieberman trashing Obama, I notice that no one is calling for Hillary Clinton or her more ardent supporters to be thrown out of the party. Clinton's campaign was the one first caught (in Iowa) distributing rumors of Obama's Muslim faith; she's the one who said that he's a Christian...as far as she knows; she first made a big deal of the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. Lest we forget, Clinton was also the one who argued forcefully that she had passed the Commander-in-Chief test, as had McCain--but that Obama only gave a speech. And who started the meme in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia that Obama looks down on small town folk?

But you want to purge Lieberman, but not Clinton? Really?

One last point: 90% agreement with Bush is enough to make McCain the same as Bush to Democratic eyes. Yet, 90% agreement with Democrats is insufficient not to be labeled a traitor and worse by those same eyes? Interesting...