This article, like Burton's earlier contribution (http://www.salon.com/mwt/mind_reader/2008/02/29/certainty/index.html) is fascinating in its insights on human psychology.

Its relevance to politics is less straightforward.

Burton seems to assume that, if voters only knew which candidate were the more efficient administrator of government, all political decisions would be easily made (and, I suppose, unanimous). What we actually vote on, however, is the question: which candidate will help bring the world (the country, the state, my town) closer to my own vision of where I would like us to be in four years? The answer to that question depends much less on factually verifiable data about each candidate than it does on our individual visions of the desired future.

Given that each of us has a different view of our ideal world (e.g. the importance of fairness and equality vs. getting more for me and mine, etc.), we will each have different views of who the best candidate is. For the millions who have already made up their minds in this campaign, it is clear which candidate reflects their goals. The only facts that would change my own mind -- or that of Burton's health club acquaintance from his opening anecdote -- would be facts that prove that the other candidate would, despite all expectations, actually do more to realize the goals that I feel are most important. How likely is that?

I can't speak for all cases, all men, all anything... But in my own case, within a few weeks after our son was born I realized that "something had to give." My wife had just started a job as an assistant professor, while I was still finishing my dissertation, so it seemed logical to me that what would give would be my career.

I spent the next few years changing diapers, making meals, dropping off and picking up at day care, preschool, school... Through the years of child care, I did finish the dissertation (it took three years instead of one) and eventually had the free time to get a full time job. But by then, after being out of school for so long, the job I got was as a lecturer, not a professor. (What's the difference? At my age, about $60,000 a year. Certainly the work we do is the same.)

In other words, I was "mommy tracked."

This is the kind of arrangement that thousands of women -- and far, far fewer men -- have put up with for years in both academia and corporate America. I'm ok with my choices. I have a great life, and our son (now 22) is a great person. And, unlike many people I know, I actually understand what it means to be "mommy tracked"! That's worth quite a bit in itself. But the financial bottom line -- and, for those who care about such things, the effects on "reputation" and "prestige" -- are there for everyone to see.

This sort of experience probably accounts for only some small percentage of the financial effect found in the study. But it's still there. And I can guarantee that no "traditional man" would have postponed a career for more than a few days in order to do child care.

"McCain facing political disaster" -- isn't that a little like saying "Hurricane Ike facing weather disaster"?

Oh, and Elephantman -- if that really is your name -- you say: "What the Democrats demanded, was the political cover of the Republicans in Congress. They wanted -- needed -- a wave of compliant Republican votes, on a deal that they hadn't had a part in." The truth: it was the Republican congressmen who needed the cover of Democrats voting for the Republican bailout plan so that they could safely "oppose" it for their own political gain and be able to pretend that they were standing up to "Washington" (Bush plus Democrats, in their prefab narrative). Tough luck, guys. Bush is still your party's major figure, like it or not.

Obama's doing great. He has the presidential tone. He can afford to be gracious to McCain. McCain is coming across as combative, irascible, tired, and his inability to be gracious in return looks awful. His inability to look at Obama -- while Obama looks attentively at McCain throughout the latter's statements -- also looks terrible, like he's afraid of the format.

Reading the comments by the nervous "OMG MCCAIN WON!" moderates, the triumphal trolls, and the overthetop "Obama's gotta go all nucular on McCain and call him a LIAR!!" writers who have posted above, it occurs to me that maybe I was overly influenced by watching the continuous CNN poll-o-meter thingy at the bottom of their screen throughout the debate.

Every time Obama spoke, the meter went steadily up and up as long as he kept talking. (This was all three meters: by Dems -- of course -- but also by Independents, who closely tracked Dems, and even by Republicans.)

As soon as McCain started talking, the meters plummeted. Then as he recited his greatest hits, the Republican meter would go up, but most of the time the other two would stay neutral or even go into negative territory.

How does that add up to a "win" for McCain? How does it contradict the superiority of Obama's brilliant presidential demeanor?

Bottom line: would you rather vote for the crotchety old guy who won't even look up at the young whippersnapper and who cites Eisenhower as a current event, or the guy who is on top of his game -- and a decent person too?

It's already been posted (just above), but given the number of trolls and misguided souls who seem to think that "McCain Won!!", it is worth repeating:

10:01 CDT: [Nate] Independents in the MediaCurves focus group gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7.

--From http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Hmm, sounds like an Obama win to me!