"With respect to the debates, it's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days ..."

Yes, we know that the new president won't be sworn in until January 20th. But it's not like he's going on vacation from November 5th until then, either.

"... will be responsible for dealing with this mess. And I think that it is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once," Obama said.

Yup.

Oh c'mon. General questions about McCain's health are perfectly reasonable -- especially considering his VP pick -- but video-based diagnosis was silly when it was Senator Frist second-guessing medical experts about Terri Schiavo and it's just as silly now.

Mitt Romney may be a social conservative -- though that seems to depend on whose votes he wants -- but he's a Mormon. Sure, some of the so-called Religious Right would like him well enough, but the rest would stay home and pout on election day if he replaced Palin.

I suspect you're right about the Repubs planning to replace her, just wrong about the timing. If McCain does manage to win, they'll replace her after the election. The exact timing will depend on McCain's health, among other factors.

What I wonder is whether they've already picked her replacement, and whether she knows about the plan.

GG wrote: There's a huge difference between definitively diagnosing someone by video and asking questions based on what appears to be degeneration in someone's physical appearance (several people noted problems with his eye a couple of weeks ago). Nobody is saying -- as Frist did - that you can diagnose McCain based on video.

Point granted, but ...

The point is that health questions can be raised by changes in someone's physical appearance, and those questions should be answered with science: by McCain's recent medical records and physician's explanations.

Raising those questions based on video clips is dubious, at best. Raising them based on photos is simply absurd. By this point in the campaign, there are probably millions of photos of each candidate. I wonder how long it'd take me to find photos that could be used to raise questions about Obama's HIV status. (Yes, that's inflammatory. That's the point.)

I'm neither a doctor, nor am I a professional photographer. But for whatever it's worth I've worked with medical professionals for years, and I'm an amateur photographer. This line of reasoning about McCain's health is ... well, the polite term is "uninformed".

GlennGreenwald: Nonetheless, it's just uncomfortable watching someone squirm and writhe around that way on national television -- so plainly in over their heads, incapable of doing anything other than humiliating themselves. Pity is a natural reaction. It has nothing to do with her gender except in your mind.

I remember having a similar reaction to Dan Quayle, especially when he was up against Lloyd Bentsen. Sure, I laughed at Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy" slam, but I also winced. Quayle was just way over his head.

Even if she crashes and burns as the VP nominee, though, I'm sure this won't be the last of her.

I'm sure Fox News has their eyes on her. Sure, she'll still be governor of Alaska, but lots of people have two part-time jobs.

Right, this is me, day two.

Come on, let's try to stay reality-based.

Is it just me, or...

Should campaign spokespeople avoid saying that their candidate is seeking a "final solution?"

It's not just you.

Even aside from the unfortunate historical connection, it doesn't make sense. No matter what they come up with, it's not going to be a final solution. At best, it'll be a band-aid.

Why isn't it possible for people to analyze separate and distinct issue separately and distinctly?

Could I be any clearer about what I think of her politics and ideology? I still think it's admirable for someone to reach high levels of achievement on their own, rather than because they have well-powered family connections or unearned wealth.

Agreed. I can admire the tactical brilliance of the Blitzkrieg without being a Nazi sympathizer. I can even be impressed with the way Repubs turned their massive national security failure of 9/11 into political gold and still know that it was a grotesque perversion of politics.

It's a little weird -- though common -- to universalize one's disagreement with someone into all sorts of negative assumptions about the rest of who they are. Maybe it's connected to the simplistic portrayal of villains in popular culture, or something like that.

Of course, it also works the other way around. Hence, celebrity endorsements.

Seriously, Barr's right about the buffer. I think anyone who consistently polls over, say, 1% should be included. More perspectives is good, even -- sometimes especially -- perspectives that don't fit "common wisdom".

"He throws the Obama campaign and its supporters (including much of the MSM and apparently David Letterman) for a loop once again and they're unsure how to react."

Letterman publicly caught the McCain campaign in yet another lie, adding more fuel to that narrative.

As for MediaCorp, most of what I've seen so far has -- at best -- grudgingly allowed as to the possibility that McCain may have been sincere, but seem dubious. Hell, Fox News was dubious. The Wall Street Journal's editorial staff -- not exactly Mother Jones -- was pretty clear that they didn't think much of McCain for pulling this stunt.

McCain and Lieberman were no doubt working on a "bipartisan" bailout proposal.

... what are the details of the proposal?

(Though I love how the Republicans -- true to form -- saw that "bailout" didn't poll well, so they started calling it a "rescue package".)

In this country, that kind of personal bailout is deeply frowned upon. We have to bail out corporate persons, and let the Invisible Fist, sorry, the Invisible Hand help real people.

Corporate persons: too big to fail.

Real people: too small to matter.