It was a wonderful speech, and shame on Keith Olbermann. It seems as though the pundits have to find some conflict no matter what.

Of course she faced sexism, as he faces racism. For me, the fact that she faced sexism was never a reason to vote for her, any more than was the fact that he faced racism a reason to vote for him. But I completely understand how some voters may feel differently, especially because the two of them were so close on all the issues.

Except for Iraq. I could never get past her vote for war, and her strong, vocal support of President Bush's policy toward Iraq and the so-called "war on terror." I would have supported her if she had won the nomination, but I'm glad she didn't.

I'm looking forward to your writing on the campaign, Joan.

Please take a look at this on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/bizarre-mccain-remarks-ap_n_127346.html

In an interview with Spain's largest newspaper, El Pais, McCain either confused Spain's President Jose Zapatero with a Latin America guerilla group, or else announced a policy of hostility toward our ally and NATO member.

He is out of it. This story really needs to get as much play as possible.

Ever since she was named, I have believed that she would be off the ticket. When it's clear in the next week or so from the polls that McCain can't win, he will roll the dice one more time....

We can only hope that he realizes that the magnitude of the moment and his reputation as a journalist demand that he play fair.

This is an excellent post and the letters about it are very interesting. I am inclined to agree that digging into scandalous or tittilating behavior by a candidate's spouse should be off-limits.

But I don't think we can stop there. The question, for me, is what aspects of a candidate's "character" (as contrasted with his or her record, actions), should be considered relevant in determining his/her qualifications for office? And once having determined the answer to this question, what aspects of his/her private life--conceivably including his/her relationship with his/her spouse--should be considered relevant as bearing on the candidate's character, fitness and qualifications for office?

Do we believe that being in a stable, loving, monogamous relationship better qualifies someone for high office? Do we believe that the way a person raises his/her children shows something important about his/her "character"? I suspect that when making judgments about friends and work colleagues, we do.

Some might argue that to commit adultery, unless the other spouse consents, requires that a person lie on a consistent basis. Do we believe that lying about matters concerning one's private life shows a disposition to lie about matters of public concern? Do we value honesty in marriage? Do we value honesty with respect to public policy?

It seems to me that we either have to say that a person's private life has no bearing whatsoever on his/her qualifications for office, or we have to accept that we have started down a slippery slope and we have no way of knowing where the bottom is.

I agree with Rebecca that it "should" not have mattered whether John Edwards had an expensive haircut--but it did. More than any other single thing, that haircut is what kept him from being taken seriously in the race, in spite of (or because?) he was the candidate speaking the most about poverty and the distribution of wealth in America. By contrast, the reaction to Sarah Palin spending $150,000 on her clothing seems to be, "well, that's a lot, but a sister has to look good out there . . . " What a double standard.

The more interesting thing, of course, is that in America there are still a significant number of lower, lower-middle, and middle class voters who will be for you if you drop your "g's," hunt and fish, and seem like "one of them," no matter how contrary to your economic interests their policies may be. We could do with some more class consciousness and less fashion consciousness in this country.

I support Obama with all my heart, soul and pocket book, but as I understand his positions, he is for "clean" coal, which doesn't exist, and he is for "safe" nuclear, once we've solved the disposal problems, which we don't know how to do. So I'm not convinced that the McCain campaign has been mischaracterizing his positions on these, although I don't think those positions are wrong.

The California energy crisis showed that people can, indeed, reduce their consumption of energy by significant percentages, if they feel the urgency to do so (whether to prevent blackouts, because of high cost, or to save the planet). While we should continue to pursue new technologies (for example, it is predicted that we may be able to greatly increase the efficiency of electricity transmission and reduce the amount lost over distance), I agree with those who say that we need to change our lifestyles as well. Very very hard to get people to do, but necessary.

Joan, it seems to me that in order to conclude that it is sexist to use the word "diva" to describe Sarah Palin, you have to decide either:

(1) That the use of any term appropriate only to females to describe a female is sexist. I think this unduly impoverishes our vocabulary. If she is acting in ways that characterize "divas," isn't that a good, possibly even the best, term to use? If it's not OK to use "diva," with a woman, do we also have to ban the term "prima donna," which is also gender-based in origin?

OR

(2) That Palin is being criticized for conduct that would get a pass if engaged in by a man. This is a bit complicated because a lot of the heat is over her clothes, but I think the fuss over Edwards' haircut gives the lie to that one.