It's the rank smell of Repub flop sweat.

Oh yeah, and add me to the list going "Huh?" at the end Mr. Koppelman's first sentence. (1) There are no examples of Obama's part of the "race to the bottom". (2) If examples could be given, it seems like it'd be worth pointing out that there's an important distinction to be made between "negative" and "negative and dishonest".

At least, some people think that distinction is important.

"I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back."

Oh man, I'd settle for just being able to relax and breathe again.

You can do that on November 5th.

After that, our vacation is over. Even if Obama wins, he's not going to do what needs to get done unless lots of people get behind him and push like hell.

Mike Murphy, who worked for McCain in 2000, writing at Time's Swampland blog:

Meanwhile the McCain campaign retains its lamentable focus on press tactics at the expense of a real strategy... For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama's negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain's priceless and hard earned "brand" as a different kind of Republican. McCain's best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

It's too late. Even if McCain/Palin had anything to run on in terms of "hope and leadership", their "brand" is damaged far more than can be repaired in four weeks.

I'm not going to celebrate until November 5th, but it looks like McCain's Rovians just didn't realize that their tactics have lost power. If the polls react to their latest kitchen-sink tactic the way they did after the disgusting "kindergarten sex-ed" ad, it will do much to restore my opinion of the general electorate.

My impression -- as a non-economist -- is that the really, really big players use financial panics to expand their control. Fluctuations in a system like this are inevitable, but I'd be unsurprised if huge fluctuations are allowed and/or encouraged because in the long run they benefit those at the very top.

I seem to remember a certain Democratic presidential primary candidate who shifted into "kitchen sink" mode against Obama when it started to look like he had a good chance of getting the nomination. Various folks warned her that it wouldn't work, and lamented that she still had a shot if she campaigned on her "real" self. I remember pointing out at the time that it was probably to late for that kind of turn-around to work.

Deja vu all over again.

He's baiting Obama before the debate tomorrow.

If they think that's a good idea, McCain's campaign still hasn't realized who they're up against.

Who's funding Obama's campaign?

I am, along with millions of my fellow Americans.

(And I'm about to toss in another $50.)

How long before Senator McCain and Gov. Palin start quoting email rumors in their speeches?

What seems different to me is the media's willing participation in the process. After each debate they go to what they themselves term "the spin room," or "spin alley." I mean, if you know you're only going to hear half-truths and wildly distorted partisan viewpoints, why even bother to go there? It's as though they just announce they're going to bring us, the viewers, the latest lies from both parties.

What's worse is that they allow -- or even encourage -- an atmosphere of false equivalence. There's little to no effort to find out what parts of what they're being told is truth, spin, or outright lies ... and no effort to make it clear whether there's more of the latter by one side or another. It's all political analysis, and no factual analysis, presumably because it's cheaper (and faster) to do the former than the latter.

(And perhaps because factual analysis would be a risky precedent by MediaCorp. Someone might suggest they do the same thing for corporate spin.)

But I am never quite sure to what degree McCain’s P.O.W. injuries compensate by creating an empathy toward him. I’d be curious what Salon readers think about how the debate will play out visually.

Partly this depends on how much walking around there is. Presumably both candidates will be seated?

I suspect that to whatever extent McCain show physical weakness, it'll be a net drawback for him. It might have been otherwise, but he chose Sarah Palin for VP.

Also, I'm never quite sure how much this is my own bias, but I find McCain's body language really off-putting, especially his facial expressions and most especially his smiles. He comes across to me as very forced and unnatural.

Accents can come and go, depending on social context and other factors; idiosynchratic word usage even more so. I've noticed it in myself, I've noticed it in others.

It's mildly interesting, but it's not necessarily intentional deception. (Nor is it unusual in politics, intentional or not. I mean, who thinks Ted Kennedy always speaks with that classic Kennedy accent?)

I can't understand why a terrorist attack during the watch of the constitution-bending civil liberty-ridiculing chest-beating Bush/Cheney co-presidency would automatically mean a Republican victory in November. Why would we want to hide under the skirts of those who have failed us?

Well, that's been the $64,000 question since 9/11/2001, hasn't it? They presided over a massive national security failure despite multiple warnings, but they somehow managed to position themselves as the best choice to protect us from another one.

And because there have been no lion attacks since they started whacking their sticks together, obviously the stick-whacking has prevented the lions from attacking.