It may be less of a case of being disconnected than, like George W. Bush, not particularly caring to take the time to prepare.

President Bush, despite the jokes, is reasonably smart, at least smarter than the average. However he is also very lazy. And this laziness is apparent in his lack of preparation. Watch some time when President Bush is speaking at a fund raiser consisting of multi-millionaires: These are his base (in his own words). He is articulate and clear, because he prepares.

When speaking to the public in general, George W. Bush indicates what he thinks of them by showing how much preparation he has done: None.

Similarly, John McCain, IMO, displays the same casual attitude of contempt for his audience by not particularly caring if what he says is consistent, or even accurate. He knows that FoxNews and the rest of his media Base will carefully edit the comments so they look brilliant on air (As CBS did). So why bother?

He also knows that the fix is in going into sufficient states that no Republican candidate for president can get less than 200+ electoral votes, no matter what. So all that has to happen is sufficient voter blockages take place in a few states, with the Supreme Court standing by in case it is needed, and America will inaugurate President John McCain next January, regardless of what he says now.

I'm sure McCain's neo-con advisers will do a fine job of running the country. His speech writers can script events for him, his advisers can tell him just what he needs to know to avoid being confused.

Perhaps whomever is in charge of selecting McCain's Vice-Presidential pick can even select himself.

Back in 2000 McCain might have actually been engaged. He might even have been able to lead. The folks who back the GOP didn't like that because he might not do what they want him to do.

Now that McCain's independent streak has been drowned in the bathtub he's ready to be at the top of the GOP ticket.

He was the first person of color to be the nominee of a major party.

Neither Obama or McCain are great debaters. It will be pretty painful to watch.

Just a historical note (God, I love those historical notes!): I see a lot of comments about what would or will happen with John McCain trying to debate Barrack Obama. But I've heard a lot of these predictions in the past and they don't usually play out the way people anticipated.

In 1980 people thought Ronald Reagan was so addled (especially after telling the press on his campaign bus what we call "a Polack joke") that he couldn't be elected. At the debartes he got up there and blathered a lot of wonderful feel-good lines and the voters ate it up. In 1984 they overlooked his bumbling first debate, partly because his opponents didn't offer a campaign of much substance. In 1988 Michael Dukakis did well in the first debate with Poppy but his campaign was still halfhearted. In 2000 George W. went into the debates as an intellectual flyweight (my favorite moment was when he promised to execute all three killers of a black man in Texas despite the fact that only two had been sentenced to death. Nopboduy else seemed to notice that). He still got into office, partly because Al Gore's response usually started with "Well, I agree with Governor Bush...." and partly because the press focused on "Gore shuffled his papers! Gore sighed!" And in 2004 George W. turned in his disastrous debate performance against John Kerry, and the next morning, die-hard Republicans I ran into were talking about what a wonderful job he had done the night before!

I'm just saying: you can't assume that what is obvious will pan out that way in the voting public. As long as John McCain doesn't totally lose and throw the podium off the stage in a fit of anger (which would be a lot of fun to see!), there will be people out there saying "Aww, he's a regular guy!"

If Roman Barry would look through the War Room, he would see that most Salon reader/posters have made up their minds about McSame. After 30 years of B.S. from conservatives about less government, lower taxes and American values, etc., even us whiners have seen the light: this administration of political criminals has stolen us blind, fleeced us of freedoms and enriched their cronies while arrogantly daring us to try and stop them. I know with how much relish Righties do this: they feel entitled, standing as they do on the shoulders of pygmies.

McSame fancies himself as one of our best and brightest neocons, though he's not, and even the Righties don't like him. Take it from me - you all deserve each other. If you feel we're not really listening to you, you're right - you are on the wrong frequency, going the wrong way, following the worst and the dimmest over the cliff.

BAMBOO CAGE!

Wilford Brimley into this.

McCain's refusal to be managed is part of what a lot of casual observers have always like about him. Frankly, it's also why he's been generally adored by the media all these years. Of course, the $64,000 Question is whether a candidate this disconnected from his own campaign message can actually win?

I've said it before, though, and I'm going to keep saying it: the current level of disconnection is due to McCain's age, not his "maverick" nature. Accuse me of being an ageist all you want. I'm not saying that all people of his age are losing it, but age, genetics and personal history have taken too great a toll on a guy who -- frankly -- has never been a genius.

Have either of the candidates (or their staff) read this website? http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html. It gives a very complete description of the French experience. They get 75% of their electricity from hydro and nuclear, they have the lowest C02 emissions from energy generation per capita in Europe, and they have the cheapest electricity in Europe. Why aren't we talking about this? What's wrong with this picture? (You know why: France is the bogeyman in US elections -- too bad!)