...because he claimed he's done so "many times" already!

I guess we can safely assume he's done the same on economic policy, and has consulted her "many times" on this topic as well. That certainly explains his, um, ERRATIC performance during the Wall Street/banking crises and bail-out.

Um, Sen. McCain? Can you cite reputable economists who think the government does NOT need to spend, spend, SPEND to help push the economy out of recession?

Hello? Anyone there? Aren't we "all Keynesian" now? Isn't Keynesian economics a huge part of the reasoning behind the latest Wall Street rescue package, and this year's stimulus rebate checks?

And didn't YOU vote for both?

Just asking!

Did I miss something, or did xenophobic jingoist Pat Buchanan completely omit any predictions about the state of the world in Obamaland? Other than his ravings about becoming so damned attractive to foreigners that they'll ALL move here from around the globe, he didn't make a peep about world affairs.

So, Pat, no massive attacks by crazed Islamic terrorists? No open door policy for anyone who pledges destruction of all things good, holy and American?

And what about monetary reparations from all white Americans to all people of color EVERYWHERE?

Such an incomplete list; so many dangers, but so little opportunity to list them all...

So, how does your "unified field theory" of PDS account for all the principled Republicans who've rejected Palin? Are they all closet libruls, or what?

Your thesis is idiotic on its face -- you think that even a significant minority in this country examines candidates through the lens of abortion? Or that there's a significant minority who (for lack of a better analogy) want nothing more than to pluck pregnant women off the streets and whisk them to the nearest abortion clinic, to suck babies from their wombs -- and then rejoice in it? Utter lunacy.

You, sir or madam, are seriously deranged yourself. By far, most of the opposition to Palin's elevation to high national office has been expressed seriously, with detailed adherence to principle. "PDS" would, by definition, be irrational and baseless. There's PLENTY of rational basis to oppose Palin, and it doesn't take much effort to prove this to yourself, daddo3.

For mental illness, I thought there was little chance we'd ever top "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" -- well, the vile and moronic crap flooding the Internet about Barack Obama has actually done so. Some of my charming family has joined in this charming enterprise, so I've had a first-hand opportunity to review plenty of it -- until I can stand no more and almost literally vomit.

Can't wait until this election is over, and it finally begins to dawn on everyone that the sky has NOT fallen, we haven't been taken over by (or attacked by) hordes of Islamic fanatics, blacks/Arabs haven't enslaved white Americans, and the world has continued spinning on its axis. Talk about exploding heads -- it ain't gonna be on the Obama side. It'll be on the ever-shrinking Republican sidelines.

Two points you neglected, Joan.

1. Palin is using McCain at least as much as he's using her. Her rapid rise to national prominence (which she evidently attributes to divine intervention, or at least a divine plan) is all about HER, with little or nothing to do with McCain or any similarities in "maverickness".

2. She is quite evidently a supreme egotist, something every national political figure seems to be. Every one, that is, until Barack Obama -- he shows a notable lack of such overweaning ego, perhaps because he IS so capable, and he knows it. THAT isn't egotism; it's self-awareness and a sign of intelligence.

Knowing who you ARE (not who you IMAGINE you are, or who you WANT to be, or who the CROWDS want you to be) is quite a gift. Palin basks in the rock-star glow, stoking the crowd's "love" for her, far more than Obama. Much of the media and almost all of the right-wing echo chambers have tried to tar Obama with this "Paris Hilton" star schtick, but it just doesn't wash. HE doesn't go there, doesn't aid and abet or pander to that crowd.

Sorry for Palin? Nah. She's right where she wants to be -- and is PLAYING McCain and the national GOP for fools, which they are.

"Republicans can pretend that nothing has really changed, that this is still a 'center-right' nation, and that only an ill-timed economic meltdown cost them the White House" -- then GOD BLESS THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN.

It would stand as proof of the old saying about an ill wind blowing no good -- an odd phrase, when you get down to analyzing it, but it means almost ANY disaster can have an unexpected good result rising out of the ashes.

This would be a prime example -- if it took the Wall Street debacle to finally displace the destructive Republican Party, then let's consider at least THAT much of the disaster to be beneficial.

You are absolutely correct, I went to Comedy Central and found the Coot-Off clip -- and Robert Byrd did beat Ted Stevens! I guess my own verdict was Stevens SHOULD have topped Byrd, but the Daily Show "judges" disagreed.

So it goes...

...could Alaskans actually vote to re-elect the Winner of the Daily Show's "Coot-Off" contest? Even after being convicted of multiple felonies?

Nobody's that oblivious, or self-centered, or ignorant -- are they?

He's gotta be toast on Nov. 4. One more pick-up for Senate Democrats!

For me, it was between numbers 2 and 3, but for simple elegance and directness, it's gotta be:

NUMBER 3.