Brokaw is harping on time limits again. Is it more important for the two candidates to keep within a specvified amount of time for a question...or to actually give complete answers and explain their positions?

This appears to be a factually accurate critique of McCain's position on a specific vital issue...and I see nothing wrong with that. The term "attack ad" seems to carry some unfortunate connotations of unfairness or untruthfulness. I think we need to distinguish between a legitimate critique and the kind of things McCain and Palin have been spewing out lately against Obama.

It didn't take a study for me to see how negative and dishonest the McCain campaign has been. I have been thoroughly disgusted by the tone of what they've been spewing, both in their advertising and in their speeches at campaign appearences as reported by the various news media.

This whole false issue about Ayers will probably rile up those who are already in the McCain camp and perhaps keep some from staying home on election day out of apathy, but I really question how much it's going to actually turn many votes TO McCain. Those leaning in Obama's direction aren't going to be fooled by it. And even those who might be genuinely undecided must start to wonder why this kind of thing is all they're getting from McCain rather than any focus on actually dealing with the very real and very large problems this country faces.

And somebody really should be forcing the issue of the Palins' ties to the Alaska Independence Party. I can understand...and appreciate...that Obama himself doesn't want to wallow in this kind of mud. But with the kind of baseless accusations that are being thrown around by the Republicans, the issue really does become relevant as a proof of their hypocrisy. The New York Times published a major article about the whole Obama/Ayers relationship which Sarah Palin has been using as a basis for her attacks, even though she is mischaracterizing its conclusions. Shouldn't the Times or other MSM outlets be doing something about the Palins' AIP ties?

I saw the article by Mr. Balz. I also saw a number of the comments that were posted to it, many of which pointed out how ludicrous the attempt at "balance" was and/or criticized the ugliness revealed at the Republican campaign rallies. The fact that those people were recognizing it for what it is was about the only piece of comfort to be found in an otherwise genuinely scary situation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this whole investigation well under way before it was even known that Palin was going to be the Republican VP candidate? If that is the case then the "Obama partisans" must have been awfully prescient.

I just wonder what old William F. would be saying about this campaign if he were still around.

It seems to me that the smears the McCain campaign has been trying to use against Obama have simply been too obviously a desperation tactic to be credible with anybody who wasn't already inclined to think that way. And anyone so inclined was going to vote for McCain anyway. For anyone else the attacks amount to a turn off because of their nastiness.

So now McCain is asserting that all the things being said at his and his running mate's rallies are "legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions"? Sorry, John, but misrepresenting the facts of Obama's "associations" in order to imply sinister things about him does NOT fall under that category.

What do you expect a candidate to say when he's in McCain's position at this point in the race? Of course he has to sound optimistic. And yes, the possibility of unexpected events and the effect of Republican dirty tricks has to be kept in mind. But the Obama campaign is certainly aware of those things, and I am absolutely certain that the Obamas are not in fact measuring for new drapes in the White House. In fact, I'm sure the campaign is going to make a very strong effort to keep supporters from becoming complacent. No, it's not a certainty, but there is a very good possibility that he can actually win this thing...provided all his supporters follow through and get their votes in. Personally, my absentee ballot is going to be mailed in within the next couple of days.

Oh yes, I'm certain Obama has his answer for that one ready. He can not only emphasize the actual facts about Ayers and how twisted the McCain campaign's version has been, he can also bring up some of McCain's own questionable associations, such as Liddy, and the ties that McCain's running mate and her spouse have to the America hating Alaska Independence Party.

What you're talking about is the "Bradley effect" which has in fact been mentioned frequently here at Salon and elsewhere. There seems to be a good deal of dispute as to whether or not the phenomenon truly exists and, if so, how large it is. But I've never seen anybody suggest that it would be large enough to invalidate results such as those reported here. Still, the possibility, plus the possibility of dirty tricks in connection with the vote count, explains why so many people are anxious, even though the polls only seem to be getting better for Obama lately.

I remember Secretariat's Belmont performance all right. Thanks for evoking a treasured memory. And I certainly hope you're right and that the results for Obama on election day will be a comparable runaway.

"Out of the mouths of babes..." I love it!

Matthews seems to have done a pretty good job of keeping after her. It would have been nice to have him sum it up by getting down to bedrock on the issie..."In fact, don't you consider anyone who isn't a Republican to be anti-American?"