I've been anxiously waiting to hear directly from the former candidate whose supporters McCain so clumsily tried to lure with his VP pick. Way to go, Hillary! I can't imagine how insulting it must be for Senator Clinton to be compared to Sarah Palin who, despite being female, is antithetical to everything Clinton believes in. If I were her, I'd be furious, and I'm glad she's expressing that in no uncertain terms.

You both made some very interesting points about the nature of the Republican Party. In Buddhism, greed, hatred, and ignorance are collectively referred to as the "Three Poisons". I think a pretty good argument could be made that modern conservatism is rooted in these poisons.

A very interesting and relevant blog post, but like many readers, I felt like the Hillary Clinton reference came out of left field (I drove to the store today. Speaking of which, it reminds me of the time Hillary Clinton...). Apparently, we're supposed to believe that the candidate that is "not ready" to answer questions from the media is ready to fulfill the duties of Vice President (and possibly President) of the United States. The Republican expectation that voters will just trust them, after 8 years of abused trust, is astonishing. In summary: Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton. Thank you and good night.

"Both parties are BS." --Rupert_C

That's not a particularly productive sentiment. Who do you think will do more to reverse the disastrous policies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama or John McCain? One candidate offers genuine change (and, yes, it's change you can believe in), the other offers more of the same labeled "change". Words matter, but the reality behind those words matters even more. Obama/Biden 2008!

Ideologically, I agree that 3rd party candidates should be included in televised debates. Sort of a Catch-22: They're not invited to debates because they don't have enough popular support, but their ability to gain popular support is limited because viewers can't see them debate. Having said that, my only hope is that we have at least two parties represented at Friday's debate - whether we do is up to John McCain. I'm sure Bob Barr or Ralph Nader would be happy to debate if McCain refuses to participate!

The praise heaped on "brave firefighters" in the imagined quotation, reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day:

"Firefighting is American"

This sticker is emblematic of the level of political discourse in the contemporary U.S. Everything that is American is good and everything that is good must be American. I asked my wife, "Don't they fight fires in foreign countries?" This bumper sticker is nonsensical, but it would be politically risky for anyone to challenge it - they would be accused of being anti-firefighter or, worse, anti-American for even questioning the premise.

No doubt Sarah Palin will ofer plenty of similar empty statements during the debate. Hopefully, the moderators will not hesitate to ask "What does that actually mean?"

Sarah Palin seems paralyzed by the constant fear that she's inadvertently going to tell the truth. Actually answering questions, even something as innocuous as naming a newspaper, is too risky. It's like watching a painfully bad liar, or some Star Trek android with conflicting programs, struggling to keep her story straight. All will depend on how willing Gwen Ifill is to challenge the debaters to answer the questions they're asked, rather than just starting a pre-recorded tape of "safe" material.

If only Carl Sagan was here to so clearly enunciate the difference between millions and billions for us. He is missed in so many ways.

Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience [Arguable], questionable convictions [No, his convictions just differ from yours], deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) [This talking point hasn't gained any traction in 18 months. McCain's "associations" are far more troubling] and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? [Yes, anyone who has paid attention has a very clear sense of who Barack Obama is and what he believes] Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president. [Yes it will, and yes we can!]

To sum up Krauthammer's argument: No fair, Obama's only winning because of his first-class intellect and temperament!

Don't sound so blue, Mr. Krauthammer. The future is bright!

Agreed, name-calling is so Republican. We can, and should demand, better. Also, you know very well that robert lewis is not representative of all Obama supporters. His words don't fit the tone or purpose of the Obama campaign.

Sincerely,

A Proud Obama Supporter

I was going to say the same thing. "Onama" or "Ovama" would be honest mistakes. Somebody acted intentionally.

John McCain is struggling to find a coherent message, but what could that message possibly be? He belongs to the party whose policies have demonstrably and catastrophically failed for the last 8 years. Obama simply has to point and say "Look what they did". McCain has to weave together a complex tapestry of lies, disingenuous fear, and misrepresentations. He's selling a broken product. To reiterate, Obama's task is simple: tell the truth. The truth is more damning of the practical and moral failings of conservatism than anything McCain-Palin can manufacture about Barack Obama or his consistently reasonable approach to policy.

This bulb seems to be the appropriate wattage for the Palin family, and he's already learned the fine art of lying ("my friends made my MySpace page"). He'll fit in nicely. As Levi would say, "whatever".

Not all U.S. conflicts involve the preservation of freedom. Does Sarah Palin think U.S. citizens would lose the right to heckle if we pull our troops out of Iraq?