"My point is that, if people would vote on the merit of the person we would have a different situation."

- How do you know that McCain and Obama aren't the results of people voting their interpretations of merit? While no candidate has ever or will ever accurately represent all of my views, I have to choose ones that most closely align with my views. To that end, I fully expect to be pleased at times and disappointed at times, should my guy win.

While I found Paul's positions to be a bit too libertarian for my taste, I found his candiacy compelling and, in contrast to the average Republican, I found his supporters to be generally thoghtful, smart, and relatively polite.

"Also, the role of president is an important position, but electing the right congressman and senators is truely the key, but no ones pays attention to that stuff."

- The downballot offices certainly are important. Actually, it think a lot of people are paying attention.

How long until we see this title on the bookshelves?

It would be interesting to see Obama raise the issue first. That would take the bite out of McCain raising the issue and Obama would control that narrative.

...which supported the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980's. The Contras waged a campaign of rape, torture, and murder (collectively known as "terror").

I liked you billiards analogy.

Team Obama understands that where the cue ball ends up after the shot is made (optimally to create another good shot opportunity) is as important as making a shot in the first place.

That modern Republicans who have created for themselves an anti-intllectual (as in, anti-intelligence) party would expel a voice of, well, intellect. There is no longer any room for intelligent discourse within the Republican Party, only vapid declarations of patriotism and loyalty.

Somehow, the McCain/Caribou Barbie campaign got it in their heads that if they didn't talk to the press, the press would just sit patiently and wait. It didn't occur to them that not talking to the press and giving the press a story would itself become a story.

And I thought Kerry ran a piss-poor campaign...

At the very least, W was subjected to the Republican primary process in 2000. He was largely sequestered once he was in office. Had 9/11 not happened, W probably would have found himself in a situation similar to the one Caribou Barbie finds herself in (that's assuming she has the intellectual depth to find herself at all). After 9/11, of course, W got to dictate the terms of his relationship with a media that was suddenly scared shitless to appear remotely unpatriotic to even the lowest-information citizens.

If McCain had chosen a known quantity for VP, such as Lieberman or Huckabee, the press and the public would have been much less curious about them because those guys had been in the spotlight for a while. When the McCain campaign announced C. Barbie and then immediately hid her, that became a story by itself and it became clear that the campaign had something to hide.

You're linking to the Washington Times? And you want to be taken seriously?

1) If you're so convinced that the news is distorted by left-wing bias, then what the hell makes you think you're getting unbiased news by referencing right-wing publications like the Washington Time or the National Review?

2) "There is however, a left leaning media bias, as evidenced by biden's multiple errorsliesdistortions in the VP debate."

- Huh??? If Biden misspoke (either accidentally or deliberately), what the hell does that have to do with the media? Take Biden to task for that, not the media. There are any number of MSM "fact-check" critiques of all of the debates. I found these in a matter of seconds:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-02-fact-check_N.htm

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/01/fact-check-do-obama-and-biden-oppose-clean-coal/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/159547

3) I knew what the Bush Doctrine was. What was her excuse?

4) "The uneven response from the media to these two events demonstrates, once again, a clear liberal media bias."

- Sorry, little boy. Did you bother to listen to Caribou Barbie's answers during the debate? Half of her speech was virtually gibberish. People like you have talked yourselves into believing that the messenger, not the message, is the problem. The media isn't being hard on Caribou Barbie because they don't like her politics, Caribou Barbie is having a hard time with the media because she's woefully underqualified to stand up to the likes of Katie Couric (!). If she can't handle Couric, how is she gonna handle the terrorists? The media coverage isn't what's uneven, it's the candidates themselves.

One more thing about the VP debate: Imagine going on a job interview and telling your prospective employer, "Go ahead, ask me anything you want, but don't expect me to give you the answer you're looking for." Do you really think you'll get the job? (Maybe that's not a fair question to ask you; you don't seem like the type to have had much interview experience.)

"But the Republicans Think McCain Won..."

I'm convinced that this is due to the different standards used by the Right and Left to determine who the winner of an argument is:

1) To people on the Left (or in the middle), one wins by making more direct salient points relating to the issue at hand that one's opponent.

2) To people on the Right, one wins by screaming louder and getting angrier (and/or simply saying "USA" or "America" as often as possible) than one's opponent.

McCain's disdain for Obama was on clear display, therefore, the Right interpreted McCain's performance as a clear victory.

Obama's calm and measured responses to McCain's and the moderator's questions were viewed as the path to victory by people living in the real world.