A couple semi-organized campaign thoughts, some in response to points made here.

If you grade on a curve, using the "expectations game" as your correction factor, McCain won the first Presidential debate. By pulling his "going to Washington to fix the crisis stunt" he lowered expectations to "will not show up" and then did show up, and was quite lucid and on-message, though way too dismissive and contemptuous of his opponent (he wouldn't even *look* at the guy.) However, the polls have shown that Obama has gained at least 5-6 points in the national polls, and more than that in many of the state-level polls.

Which is a roundabout way of saying "please, pundits, stop talking about who beat expectations, and start talking about who actually performed better in the debate."

Regarding meeting with/without preconditions, Obama's position has been misrepresented as saying that he would personally sit down with any world leader at any time, and in the debate, McCain used Ahmadinejad as a straw-man, saying that Obama would sit down with him with no preconditions. First off, Ahmadinejad isn't the real power broker in Iran, and wouldn't be able to give the US anything concrete in a diplomatic setting. Furthermore, Obama's said consistently that any such talks would start with low-level contacts, where the preconditions would be worked out. That's how *any* high-level meeting of world leaders starts. Mahmoud doesnt't just pick up the phone, dial the White House switchboard, and schedule a meeting with the POTUS. The point is, when they do reach out, we need to be listening to at least know what we're going to say no to. The current gang of idiots simply stopped answering the phone.

Getting back to Palin (since the VP debate is tomorrow) I think anyone who wants to see the difference between the two VP candidates distilled to its essence, in video form, provided by the two candidates themselves should take a few minutes to watch this short clip from CBS news' interview of Biden and Palin tonight. In the video, you see Biden give clear, consistent, thoughtful answers to questions about Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions. Then, responding to the same kinds of questions, Palin states that there's a fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution, going against the very bedrock of legal argument against Roe, and is unable to name ONE other Supreme Court case.

It's remarkable that someone who's supposedly been in a bunker being prepped for these interviews can screw them up so poorly, which makes me wonder a bit if this is all a Rove-inspired (or directed) plot to make her look as stupid as possible in order to turn out the moron vote on Nov. 4. It sounds far-fetched, and it doesn't appear to be working based on poll data, but how else can someone be this unbelievably dim?