I also think the internet has helped people see what's out there.

Before, the attacks from the RW would be broadcast on talk radio and FOX to the 20% or so of people that listen or watch regularly. Unless is was something really over the top, the rest of the MSM would ignore it, and so if you're an average voter, you would never hear it, you would never know that something was said that should be apologized for.

The ugliness is having a light put to it.

is the press. I think that we are seeing the press pointing out the outrageous accusations in a more meaningful way this year. Also, the Obama campaign is doing a better job of keeping the ridiculous accusations alive in the press in order to force the follow-up questions that provide the opportunities for the apologies.

Note this quote from the Politico story:

On Tuesday, two more reporters and two other witnesses confirmed the quote, but Little continued to deny it, calling the story "irresponsible journalism." Little said she had just as many sources who would deny it, including Hayes' staff and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who spoke before Hayes.

Also, note the big stories yesterday detailing Palin charging Alaska for expenses for her kids and the charging the RNC for designer clothes. I really don't think we would have seen those stories in 2004.

... of the these comments from the wingers is not to tar the people that folks are voting for - it's to make the people who are voting feel guilty about those majority views...

Thi is similar to the "stabbed in the back" strategy by the Nazi's at the end of WW2. The GOP will claim that they were deserted, or that the populace was weak-kneed and gave up the "fight".

This is why even though McCain is sure to lose the election, he is trying as hard as humanly possible to de-legitimize an Obmam presidency while also drumming up hate for those that will vote for him.

All of this presages a very nasty term in office for Obama.

Glenn, this is starting to remind me of the Repub convention meltdown of 92, when viewers watched in horror as the extreme Christian right fractured the unity of the base and left the party in disarray. Seems that every generation or so the extreme right takes on a kind of hubris, drunk on its own power and convinced of its invincibility at the polls. Then all those decent folks in the middle wake up, look around, and realize how frightening and empty their rhetoric is. Usually it's spurred by larger issues -- remember "it's the economy, stupid"?

The sad thing is they'll be back. They'll reconnoiter, circle around, and seep up with new lines of attack that amount to the same old thing. And you can bet that an Obama presidency and dem control of both houses will give them plenty to tear their hair out feel persecuted about.

I'm currently living in Utah, and yes, I am (technically) LDS. However, due to political stances the Church takes, I'm not an active member by any means, but that doesn't stop the home teachers from visiting. For those that don't know, home teachers are basically "missionaries for the wayward" like myself.

Anyway, so they came over last night, both very nice gentlemen, and we eventually started talking politics because it is that time of year. And it stunned me that they were absolutely disgusted by McCain's behavior, particularly with his smears and the visible contempt for Obama he had in the debates, and I got the serious impression both were going to vote for Obama.

This might be an isolated incident, but I think Utah and other conservative bastions might be closer than what the polls say. Not that I would predict Utah going blue anytime soon, but it might take them five to ten minutes after polls close to declare for McCain, as opposed to instantly.

But back to the original point... I think people let themselves be distracted when they are content. When we're stuck in the middle of two wars and the 401(k) is flatlining though, distractions are something the American people realize they can't afford. They want actual policy and steady leadership, and Obama has provided both. McCain has not.

Thanks for the article, Mr. Greenwald. I always get a kick from reading them.

I hope you're right. I don't want to sign in relief just yet.

How long have I been waiting to see articles like this? I have spent my whole life in a political environment (living in DC) where the dirty tricks work every time. It feels pretty good to be trying to wrap my brain around the fact that it's not working this time. I'm not screaming at the TV about what's wrong with the rest of the country! I don't know what to do with myself!

Rep Robin Hays and Sarah Palin seem SOMETHING. I went skimming down the post but was getting wobbly, queazy. nauseated,

and raised my two grey shirt cuffs,

for I've no pockets in my filfered,

stolen VA grey colored pajamas.

VA PROERT NOT FOR RESALE.

That's in black CAPS print.

So, no surrender, honk.

a UGH" ugliest" boohoo.

Blowed a snot rocket.

a' "sea change" Yea.

Buy cowboy boots. huh. out/over.

Just tears me up. Pray Palin's son comes home in one piece so e can go deep sea fishing alive.

May they all continue to drown themselves in their filthy bathtub.

And give Grover a straw...

"..... given that the Democratic presidential nominee is a previously unknown, black politician from Chicago with a mixed African and Muslim name,..."

I was not aware that Obama had a "Muslim" name. Neither Barack nor Hussein is defined as a "Muslim" name but rather, as "Semitic" according to Juan Cole. (Link at sig)

According to "Dictionary.com", the pronoun Semitic refers to

"a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs." Nowhere can I find a reference to either Barack or Hussein being a "Muslim" name.

Will you please clarify where you are coming from? Wouldn't the term "Arab name" be more appropriate than what you used?