FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The good news is the Dow finished up about 144 points for the day. The bad news is the Dow lost 14% of its value for the month, making October 2008 among the worst on record.

* Al Gore returns to the scene of the crime.

* If you missed it, Rachel Maddow's interview with Obama was excellent, and went beyond the predictable questions that dominate typical candidate interviews. Take a look.

* When Liddy Dole falls in a ditch, she keeps digging.

* According to House Minority Leader John Boehner, Bush's Justice Department is biased ... against Republicans. (One day, at some point in the distant future, congressional Republicans will find and choose sensible leaders. I'm genuinely looking forward to it.)

* For those Americans making under $100,000, and most do, Obama's tax cut is clearly bigger than McCain's.

* Even now, Palin won't say if she'll vote for convicted felon Ted Stevens.

* Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to describe Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) as "scandal-plagued."

* Bill O'Reilly is a legend in his own mind.

* Fivethirtyeight has an interesting photo montage of McCain campaign field offices.

* Depending on how things go next week, we're likely to hear a lot more from a guy named Josh Segall, who's running in Alabama's 3rd congressional district.

* Drudge's influence really has waned.

* Bill Kristol bites the hand that feeds, blasting his employer, the New York Times.

* Obama is drawing a lot of support from newspaper editorial boards.

* Obama is drawing even more support from college newspaper editorial boards.

* And finally, it's with sadness that I note the death of the legendary Louis "Studs" Terkel, who passed away today at his Chicago home. He was 96.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THIS IS CNN.... For reasons that I can't quite figure out, CNN has decided to devote an entire program this weekend to how conservatives -- and just conservatives -- are looking at the election. National Journal, listing all of the weekend's political programming, had this item:

Election Countdown: View from the Right features Townhall.com's Amanda Carpenter, Washington Times' Brian DeBose, Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes and ex-Romney press sec. Kevin Madden (CNN, SAT, 5pm).

There are a couple of things wrong with this. First, there apparently is no "Election Countdown: View from the Left." As Kyle at Right Wing Watch noted, "It seems that CNN has decided that the weekend before the election is as good a time as any to give conservative commentators an hour of free airtime to lay out their agenda. If CNN is also planning on giving liberals an hour to talk about the election, I haven't heard anything about it." (I have a call into CNN, but as far as I can tell, the right will get an hour, and the left will get nothing.)

I'm trying to imagine what the response would be if CNN announced it was giving an hour of programming to a progressive look at the election, 72 hours before voters headed to the polls, and then had no similar program for conservatives. We'd probably hear quite a bit about boycotts and FCC complaints.

Second, "Election Countdown: View from the Right" is being hosted by David Brody, the in-house correspondent for TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. CBN is, of course, the network in which Robertson claims to heal diseases through the television, spews radical rhetoric about groups he hates, tells people who can't afford it to send him their money, and where Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on Americans.

In fact, Brody recently bragged that by appearing on networks like CNN as often he does, he has the chance to spread the Gospel and win converts for Christianity.

So, to summarize, CNN is giving the right an hour of programming, three days before the election, handing the reins to a televangelist's pundit, who wants to take advantage of "witnessing opportunities" in the mainstream media, so viewers can hear what the right thinks of the election.

It's quite a liberal media.

REAGAN'S COS JOINS THE OBAMACANS.... If one were to do a poll, and ask voters who Ken Duberstein is, I suspect the number would be rather small. In this sense, the notion of him joining the growing list of Obama-endorsing Republicans would seem to lack a certain political salience.

But the key to this one is Duberstein's title: Ronald Reagan's chief of staff.

Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN's Fareed Zakaria Friday he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama this Tuesday.

So, on the one hand, we have the McCain campaign and its cohorts working assiduously to convince voters that Obama is terrorist-sympathizing Marxist. On the other, we have Obama getting endorsements from Ronald Reagan's national security advisor, solicitor general, and White House chief of staff.

And Duberstein joins, of course, former Sen. Larry Pressler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Gov. William Weld, former Gov. Arne Carlson, Charles Fried, Scott McClellan , and Ken Adelman as notable Republicans who've announced their support for Obama over the last couple of weeks.

I doubt this will affect the McCain campaign's smear efforts, but for those paying even a little attention, it's tough to characterize Obama as a radical leftist when high-profile Republicans -- including top officials from Reagan's White House -- keep announcing their support for him.

On a related note, Duberstein was on MSNBC this morning, questioning McCain's judgment for having chosen Sarah Palin for the Republican ticket. He had one real gem that makes the clip worth watching -- he said McDonald's subjects its employees to more vetting than McCain did for Palin. Ouch.

AS NASTY AS SHE WANTS TO BE.... Sarah Palin sees her free-speech rights under fire from journalists who've highlighted her personal attacks against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Let's unpack this a bit.

If I understand her correctly -- and with Palin, it's sometimes tough to understand her general incoherence -- the governor believes she should make scurrilous, dishonest, and personal attacks against Democrats. She's afraid, however, that reporters might tell voters she's making scurrilous, dishonest, and personal attacks, and worse, that voters might recoil from her vicious style of campaigning.

And if that happens, politicians in the future might hesitate before launching scurrilous, dishonest, and personal attacks of their own. What a brutal "chilling effect" that would be.

So, as Palin sees it, the appropriate solution would be for her to accuse Obama of "palling around with terrorists," and for the media to simply pass that along without scrutiny. It's her job to wage vicious smear campaigns, and it's the media's job not to tell anyone she's waging vicious smear campaigns.

And if reporters disagree, and point out reality to voters, it undermines her First Amendment rights.

I realize far-right activists think Palin is a great leader and the future of the Republican Party. I just can't figure out why.

PEOPLE LIKE SPREADING THE WEALTH.... The past couple of weeks, the McCain campaign has made some rather odd assumptions about Americans' perceptions of wealth. Ever since Barack Obama mentioned in passing that everyone benefits when we "spread the wealth around," the McCain campaign has operated under the assumption that this is so scandalous, it's worth betting a presidential campaign on.

This week, for example, McCain and Palin began calling Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader" and the "Redistributor in Chief."

The problem for the Republican campaign, though, is that Americans -- who've seen their real wages decline over the last decade and who haven't benefited at all from Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy -- actually like the idea of spreading the wealth around.

Gallup has been asking Americans periodically for over 20 years whether the distribution of money and wealth in this country is "fair," or whether they should be "more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people." (The question wording does not include a reference to exactly how they would be more evenly distributed and does not mention the government.)

Across the nine times the question has been asked, a majority of Americans have agreed with the thought that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed.

The latest poll, published yesterday, showed 58% agreed that "money and wealth in this country should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people." The number is slightly higher than it was when Bush took office, but lower that it was a couple of years ago. (Among independents, it's nearly two to one -- 60% want more even distribution, while 34% believe the current distribution is fair.)

Now, Greg Sargent make a good point, arguing that McCain/Palin aren't exactly engaging in a serious discussion about economic policy: "Just as with the Ayers attack, this particular assault is really about suggesting that Obama harbors secret and vague radical schemes.... It's just more of the 'risky unknown' stuff."

That's true. In fact, I'd go a little further and argue that when McCain tells audiences that Obama's plan for a middle-class tax cut is "welfare," intended to "take your money and give it to someone else," there's also a racial component.

But as the Gallup data shows, the campaign also seems to believe that simply whining about "spreading the wealth" is supposed to be some kind of electoral cudgel, when in fact, most Americans aren't offended by the idea at all.

As Atrios noted the other day, "It takes a long time to build up words and phrases which have commonly understood meanings and appropriate negative connotations. You can't just make them up 2 weeks before an election. Most voters are going to hear 'wealth spreader' and think ... sounds good to me! Spread some all over me, please."

STILL WAITING.... Of the four candidates for national office, Sarah Palin is the only one who refuses to release any of her medical records. A couple of weeks ago, her spokesperson said Palin wouldn't even answer questions on the subject.

It came as something of a surprise, then, when Palin indicated to NBC News' Brian Williams last week that she would release her medical records. She used ambiguous language, though: "If that will allow some curiosity seekers perhaps to have one more thing that they either check the box off that they can find something to criticize or to rest them assured over. I'm healthy, happy, I've had five kids, that's going to be in the medical records, never seriously ill or hurt, you'll see that in the medical records if they're released."

We're still waiting.

Governor Palin's campaign still has not released any information regarding her medical records despite frequent requests from the news media and the campaign's own assertion that they would release this information soon.

On Sunday morning, Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt told ABC News that the campaign had planned to release information on her medical history early this week.... ABC News has asked every day this week about the status of the release of information and received no updates from the campaign. It is unclear what is holding things up.

"We are working on this and it will happen sooner than later," Schmitt said on Sunday.

The election is just a few days from now. Even if there were some logistical delays, such as having materials mailed in from Alaska, Palin did tell a national television audience she's release the records nine days ago. So, where are they? What's the hold up? Given Palin's background and ethical lapses, it's not unreasonable to find it discomforting when she acts like she has something to hide.

My hunch is, there isn't anything especially controversial in the records, and Palin is probably just being secretive for the sake of being secretive.

Besides, McCain and his aides probably got a detailed briefing on Palin's medical history as part of the extensive vetting process, right?

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* McCain can't implement Bush's GOTV strategy, because he can't afford it.

* A right-wing outfit called the National Republican Trust PAC will air Jeremiah Wright ads nationwide through the election.

* North Carolina has extended its early voting hours.

* The McCain campaign apparently doesn't spell-check its television ads.

* Kay Hagan hits back against Liddy Dole's "godless" ad.

* In Ohio, a National Journal poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (48% to 41%).

* In Florida, a National Journal poll shows Obama leading McCain by one (45% to 44%).

* In Virginia, a Marist poll shows Obama leading McCain by four (51% to 47%), while National Journal also shows Obama by four (48% to 44%).

* In Colorado, a Marist poll shows Obama leading McCain by six (51% to 45%), a National Journal poll shows Obama by four (48% to 44%), and Public Policy Polling shows Obama by 10 (54% to 44%).

* In Indiana, an Indianapolis Star poll shows Obama leading McCain by one (46% to 45%), a WISH poll shows the two tied at 47% each, while Rasmussen shows McCain up by three (49% to 46%).

* In North Carolina, a Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll shows Obama and McCain tied at 48% each, while a National Journal poll shows Obama by four (47% to 43%).

* In New Hampshire, SurveyUSA shows Obama leading McCain by 11 (53% to 42%), while Research2000 shows Obama up by seven (51% to 44%).

* In New Mexico, Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading McCain by 17 (58% to 41%).

* In Missouri, a Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll shows McCain leading Obama by three (50% to 47%).

* In Montana, Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama by four, 50% to 46%.

* In West Virginia, Public Policy Polling shows McCain leading Obama by 13 (55% to 42%).

* The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows Obama leading McCain nationally by 11, 51% to 40%.

CONVICTED.... Maybe there's something about scandal-plagued Alaskan Republicans that leads to denial. When Sarah Palin was found to have violated state ethics laws, she announced that she'd been cleared her of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity." This was the opposite of reality.

Similarly, when Ted Stevens was found guilty of felony corruption charges, he said he hasn't been convicted.

"I've not been convicted yet," Stevens said Thursday in a meeting with the editorial board of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. "There's not a black mark by my name yet, until the appeal is over and I am finally convicted, if that happens. If that happens, of course I'll do what's right for Alaska and for the Senate.... I don't anticipate it happening, and until it happens I do not have a black mark."

Stevens reiterated that position during a televised debate late Thursday night, declaring early in the give-and-take with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, "I have not been convicted of anything."

Now, I'm not an attorney, but if an accused criminal goes to trial, and a jury founds the accused guilty, I think it's called a "conviction." The defendant can appeal his conviction, of course, but therein lies the point -- he's appealing his conviction.

I even looked it up -- a conviction is "the judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged."

What on earth is Ted Stevens talking about?

STRETCHING THE MAP JUST A LITTLE MORE.... The notion of stretching the map was never about downplaying the significance of Ohio and Florida -- they remain the two biggest battlegrounds -- but it is about making the list of swing states longer than two.

With that in mind, it's striking to see where the Obama campaign is investing resources now.

Barack Obama's campaign announced Friday that it was going on the air in John McCain's home state of Arizona for the first time this cycle, as a new CNN poll of polls released this morning finds the Republican nominee leading the Illinois senator there by just 4 percentage points, 49 to 45 percent. Six percent of the state's voters said they were unsure about their presidential pick.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters the campaign's positive closing argument spot, 'Something,' will hit the airwaves in Arizona. He also said the campaign was going back on the airwaves in Georgia and North Dakota with its negative closing argument spot, 'Rearview Mirror,' which ties McCain to President Bush.

It's one thing to open offices and organize volunteers in these states, but we're talking about television advertising in the last four days of the campaign.

Now, it's possible this ad buy is intended to psych McCain out. Or maybe the Obama campaign has already bought up every possible slot in all the other battleground states, and was looking for new ways to spend what's left of its ad budget. Either way, who would have thought in say, June, that Obama would air TV ads in Arizona, Georgia, and North Dakota in the campaign's closing days?

Asked about Obama's new ad buy in Arizona, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds called it a "waste of his resources."

Perhaps. But if it's foolish to "waste" money in Arizona, why did McCain and the RNC launch anti-Obama robocalls in the state this week?

MCCAIN'S 'ROLE MODEL'.... This presidential campaign has featured more than its share of absurdities, but the McCain campaign using Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher as some kind of mascot has been one of the most inane.

Yesterday, this became farcical.

On Thursday, [Wurzelbacher] had a candidate for president calling for him at a rally where he was not present. At the next John McCain rally, he got to offer a civics lesson to the crowd about how they should educate themselves before voting. Then, at the final rally of the day, he had a crowd chanting his name. OK, they weren't chanting his real name, Joe Wurzelbacher. They were chanting, of course, "Joe-the-plumb-er!" in the same rhythm usually reserved for sporting events.

If that wasn't enough, McCain introduced Wurzelbacher as "an American hero, a great citizen of Ohio and my role model."

On Tuesday, Wurzelbacher endorsed the insane idea that a vote for Obama would be "a vote for the death of Israel." On Wednesday, Wurzelbacher played political scientist, saying the notion of progressive taxation is "honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth. No one can debate that. That's not my opinion. That's fact."

And on Thursday, McCain believes Wurzelbacher is an "American hero" and his personal "role model."

As John Cole concluded the other day, "The McCain campaign is now a surrealist farce. Or maybe I meant surrealist force."

TALKING TO OUR ENEMIES.... Gen. David Petraeus has been cautious about the presidential election, but he's come close to all-but endorsing Barack Obama's position on negotiating with U.S. rivals. A few weeks ago, a day after a presidential debate, Petraeus said, "I do think you have to talk to enemies.... I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us."

The Centcom commander has been following through on this quite a bit. Petraeus has already endorsed talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and reportedly wants to engage Syria, as well. What's the hitch? The Bush administration apparently won't let him.

ABC News has learned, Petraeus proposed visiting Syria shortly after taking over as the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. The idea was swiftly rejected by Bush administration officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon.

Petraeus, who becomes the commander of U.S. Central Command (Centcom) Friday, had hoped to meet in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Petraeus proposed the trip, and senior officials objected, before the covert U.S. strike earlier this week on a target inside Syria's border with Iraq.

Officials familiar with Petraeus' thinking on the subject say he wants to engage Syria in part because he believes that U.S. diplomacy can be used to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. He plans to continue pushing the idea.

"When the timing is right, we ought to go in there and have a good discussion with the Syrians," said a Defense Department official close to Petraeus. "It's a meaningful dialogue to have."

It's probably a mistake to view everything through the lens of the presidential campaign, but this ABC News report is one of the day's most fascinating items. Not only is Petraeus at odds with Bush, but people close to him are leaking this information just a few days before the presidential election.

What's more, it reinforces the dynamic that's been apparent for a while -- when it comes to a national security strategy predicated on diplomacy, Obama and Petraeus are on one side, while McCain and Bush are on the other.

GUTTING THE PENTAGON.... Sarah Palin campaigned in Erie, Pennsylvania, yesterday and blasted Democrats for allegedly wanting to cut funding from the Pentagon budget.

"We're fighting two wars, with a force strength in need of rebuilding, not in being gutted," Palin said. "And they [Democrats] think it's the perfect time to radically reduce defense spending? What are they thinking?"

Yes, what kind of monster would decide, in the midst of two wars, to cut defense spending? Why, to hear Palin tell it, you'd have to be some kind of nut to even think about reducing Pentagon funding right now.

With this in mind, it's probably an inconvenient time to point out that John McCain has promised to reduce defense spending. He told ABC News in April:

"I'm cutting billions and billions out of defense spending which are not earmarks. The $400 million ship that they had to scrap, it was supposed to cost $140 billion. The $30 billion I believe it is, add-on for a system in the Army that's gone up $30 billion and we still haven't got any result from it. The $50 million contract to some buddy of Air Force generals. I mean, there's so many billions out there just in defense."

It wasn't just a random slip; this is actually a clearly articulated McCain campaign policy.

McCain's top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security.

So, Sarah Palin, what are you thinking? Based on your attacks yesterday, it sounds like you may not be comfortable with McCain's plan to reduce the Pentagon's budget in the midst of two wars.

A BUBBLE BOY FOR A NEW GENERATION.... Bush's Bubble Boy policies have always been a subject of fascination for me. In order to keep the president shielded from those who may disagree with him, the Bush White House has gone to comical lengths to keep dissenters at bay. This has, at various times, included blocking people from attending public events based on their bumper stickers, and requiring loyalty oaths for tickets.

This week, it appears the McCain gang wants to pick up where the Bush gang is leaving off. (via Atrios)

Audience members escorted out of Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., campaign event in Cedar Falls questioned why they were asked to leave Sunday's rally even though they were not protesting.

David Zarifis, director of public safety for the University of Northern Iowa, said McCain staffers requested UNI police assist in escorting out "about four or five" people from the rally prior to McCain's speech.

Zarifis said while the people who were taken out weren't protesting or causing problems, McCain's staff were worried they would during the speech.

It's the kind of profiling only a Republican leader could love. In this case, the RNC and the McCain campaign removed law-abiding, non-disruptive Americans from a campaign event based solely on hunches -- if they thought you might be a protestor, the basis of your appearance, you were ejected. If you resisted, you were threatened with arrest for trespassing.

In this case, the dragnet even caught McCain supporters, who apparently looked suspicious. And by "suspicious," I mean, "young."

Lara Elborno, a student at the University of Iowa, was one about "about 20 people" asked to leave the McCain event, and noted, "It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic."

In the McCain campaign, I suppose this is what passes for "youth outreach"?

But the key point here is that this is exactly how the Bush/Cheney operation has acted for eight years. I'd hoped McCain would have learned what not to do when it comes to being yet another Bubble Boy.

Has anyone heard about whether these tactics are common at other university events?

MAKING THE CASE.... Lawrence Eagleburger, deputy secretary of State under Bush I, has been a McCain campaign advisor and occasional surrogate for nearly a year. As it happens, once in a while, Eagleburger strays from the script -- and that's not a good thing for McCain.

In March, for example, Eagleburger appeared at an event in DC, where he described the GOP's religious right base as "a serious problem" that he wants to see Republicans fight "hard against."

Yesterday, Eagleburger appeared on NPR as part of a segment on "making the case" for a McCain presidency. His candor was welcome, but not by McCain campaign headquarters.

A former Republican Secretary of State and one of John McCain's most prominent supporters offered a stunningly frank and remarkably bleak assessment of Sarah Palin's capacity to handle the presidency should such a scenario arise.

Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush and whose endorsement is often trumpeted by McCain, said on Thursday that the Alaska governor is not only unprepared to take over the job on a moment's notice but, even after some time in office, would only amount to an "adequate" commander in chief.

"And I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested," he added for good measure -- referring both to Palin's policy dexterity and the idea of McCain not making it through his time in office.

The NPR host went on to ask if Palin could step in during a time of crisis. "It is a very good question," Eagleburger said. He paused, laughed, and added, "I'm being facetious here. Look, of course not."

Just to add to the entertainment, Eagleburger added, "Give her some time in the office and I think the answer would be, she will be [pause] adequate. I can't say that she would be a genius in the job. But I think she would be enough to get us through a four year... well I hope not... get us through whatever period of time was necessary. And I devoutly hope that it would never be tested."

Keep in mind, Eagleburger is not just some random McCain supporter. McCain touts Eagleburger's endorsement all the time, and the campaign sent Eagleburger to NPR to emphasize why voters should support the Republican ticket.

Last week, McCain chatted with Don Imus, and expressed frustration about Republicans who've questioned Palin's qualifications. "What's their problem?" McCain asked. "I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president."

Just days before the election, McCain hasn't even convinced his own advisors of this.

Nor has he made the case to voters: a new New York Times/CBS News poll found 59% of Americans consider Palin unprepared for national office. The report added, "The increase in the number of voters who said Ms. Palin was not prepared was driven almost entirely by Republicans and independents."

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Dow closed up nearly 190 points after a 0.3% drop in GDP. Apparently, investors expected the numbers to be even worse.

* It seems like every campaign cycle we hear all about voting-machine problems. I wonder why that is.

* I'm not an expert, but if I were the McCain campaign, I'd probably hesitate before putting Michael Goldfarb on national television again.

* Speaking of odd surrogates, I don't think Rudy Giuliani understands McCain's healthcare plan.

* The crowd was a little thin for a McCain event in Ohio this morning, so nearby schools bussed in thousands of kids to fill the seats.

* Ashley Todd is free after six days in jail, but will be required to undergo mental health treatment. The AP reported, "Her record eventually will be expunged as long as she goes to treatment, stays out of trouble and keeps authorities apprised of her whereabouts."

* One of Sarah Palin's favorite publications, The Economist, endorsed Obama.

* Ruy Teixeira, a friend of the Monthly, has returned to blogging after a lengthy absence.

* In an unusual twist, at least one Fox News exec is defending the LA Times against the McCain campaign's attacks.

* In a cringe worthy moment on the campaign trail today, McCain tried to introduce "Joe the Plumber" to an audience. As it turns out, Wurzelbacher had stood McCain up.

* And on a related note, Wurzelbacher is "being pursued for a major record deal and could come out with a country album as early as Inauguration Day." I wish I were kidding. "Joe the Plumber" has signed a deal with a Nashville p.r. firm to exploit his notoriety for all its worth.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

ABOUT THAT FOX NEWS POLL.... There have been some national polls showing John McCain narrowing the gap a bit this week -- which is not at all unexpected -- but Fox News raised some eyebrows this afternoon with a new poll showing Obama's lead down to just three points nationwide, 47% to 44%.

A week ago, a similar Fox News poll showed Obama's lead at nine points, 49% to 40%, which certainly gives the appearance of some favorable movement in McCain's direction.

But it is Fox News, which, as a rule, is grounds for some skepticism. In this case, the results are worth a closer look.

One of Marc Ambinder's readers noted that Fox News changed its sampling for this poll, as compared to last week's. Seven days ago, 43% of respondents were Dems, and 37% were Republicans. This week, 41% were Dems, and 39% were Republicans. Fewer Dems and more Republicans will obviously produce a more McCain-friendly result.

So, why change the weighting in the poll? Ambinder asked Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal for his take.

He tells me: "If they have been weighting by party, and they suddenly changed their weighting, I'd say it's a pretty questionable practice. The last four Fox surveys all varied slightly in terms of party ID, so I'm not sure that's what they've done. That said, if the other surveys this week show no similar 'shift' in party, then it's probably reasonable to discount this result."

Steve M. had a good item on this, noting, "Democrats had a six-point party-affiliation advantage in the last poll. Now it's two? Anybody think that in any way jibes with reality right now? According to Gallup, that's less than the Dems' party advantage in 2006 or 2004. Anyone think they've slipped over the past two years? Preposterous. But it got Murdoch just the number he wanted."

Something to keep in mind when Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly trumpet this poll tonight.

NOT BAD FOR AN INFOMERCIAL.... It's not my area of expertise, but these seem like pretty good ratings for a half-hour infomercial in prime time.

The combined overall household rating for Senator Barack Obama's Wednesday night infomercial, in the top 56 local television markets where Nielsen maintains electronic TV meters, was 21.7.

Obama's simulcast is the first to be aired by a presidential candidate since Ross Perot ran a political telecast on Election Day in 1996. That program was watched by 16.8% of all households nationwide. [...]

In comparison, the final debate between the two presidential candidates received a 38.3 household rating in the top 56 local TV markets. The candidates' first debate on September 26 received a 34.7 household rating in the top 55 markets; their second debate, on October 7, received a 42.0 household rating in those markets.

The New York Times added that the commercial "was particularly high-rated in several battleground states," including Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina.

At this point, we don't know much about what kinds of voters were watching -- was he preaching to the choir or were undecided voters tuning in to give Obama a chance? For that matter, we also don't know if viewers overall liked what they saw.

But looking solely at the numbers, I'm left with the impression that there are actually quite a few Americans interested in politics this year. Think about -- one in five households tuned into a political commercial, which lasted a half-hour.

AL QAEDA PIPES UP AGAIN.... I guess one of these was bound to come out this week.

An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing any party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to a video posted on the Internet.

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

Libi, one of the top al Qaeda commanders believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.

This news, of course, comes just a week after al Qaeda supporters stated their support for a McCain victory on a password-protected website, citing McCain's support for the Bush administration's foreign policy. The al-Hesbah site, closely linked to the terrorist group, added that al Qaeda "will have to support McCain," and hoped that a McCain foreign policy would "exhaust" American resources.

Now, to reiterate what I said last week, we're talking about the rantings of homicidal lunatics, and it's ultimately foolish to try to vote with terrorists' motivations in mind. Neither the al-Hesbah message nor the Abu Yahya al-Libi video are what a reasonable person might describe as "sensible political analysis."

But that, I'm afraid, doesn't matter. The al-Libi video is now the top story on Drudge, and it will likely soon be the main topic of conversation on the far-right blogs and talk radio.

The response from Democrats is pretty obvious. Richard Clarke, Ron Suskind, and others have written extensively on the fact al Qaeda prefers Bush's foreign policy -- it helps with terrorist recruiting and fundraising, undermines America's global stature, and costs us a fortune -- so it stands to reason that the terrorist network would support McCain, since his foreign policy is largely indistinguishable. Indeed, as Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the National Security Council, explained earlier this month, al Qaeda wouldn't want an Obama victory, in large part because the terrorist network wouldn't want a U.S. president who enjoys popularity on the world stage.

Jonathan Stevenson, a professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College, told Spencer Ackerman, "Bin Laden surely would vote for McCain. Bush, whose foreign policy McCain pretty much supported, has been a recruiting sergeant for Al Qaeda and its kin."

The smart move for conservatives is drawing attention away from this fact, not towards it. And yet, I suspect we're about to hear a bunch of unhinged voices screaming, "See? Al Qaeda hates Republicans!"

LIEBERMAN'S FUTURE.... Sometime before January, the Senate Democratic caucus will have to decide what to do with Joe Lieberman. The options range from doing nothing (allowing him to betray the party and become a Republican hack without consequence) or kicking him out of the caucus altogether.

In between the two is stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship, which seems to be like a no-brainer.

Members of the majority party's leadership have discussed taking away Lieberman's gavel on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, perhaps replacing it with a subcommittee gavel, aides said Wednesday.

Such a move would require the assent of the caucus, which won't get together until after the election. [...]

Aides privy to the leadership discussions say that their bosses view ending Lieberman's chairmanship of a large committee with broad oversight authority as more appropriate retribution than kicking him out of the caucus.

After all, no matter how many seats the Democrats win in the Senate next week, Lieberman's vote will still be valuable on domestic issues like health care even though he disagrees with Democrats on the war.

That sounds relatively compelling, but it's incomplete. My suspicion is that if Lieberman loses his gavel, it would be effectively be the same thing as kicking him out of the caucus.

I wasn't privy to the internal discussions, but consider Harry Reid & Co.'s dealings with Lieberman since he ran against the Democratic candidate in 2006. The party wanted his caucus vote, giving the party 51, and Lieberman wanted his committee chairmanship. If the party took his gavel, the assumption was he'd stroll across the aisle. Lieberman got to keep his chairmanship and Democrats got to keep their 51-seat majority.

Looking ahead, the caucus almost certainly won't have any incentive to leave Lieberman in the big chair in 2009. First, they'll probably have a much bigger majority. Second, Lieberman has been an awful committee chairman. And third, Lieberman has to realize he'll be punished for his campaign-season conduct.

My guess is, if Lieberman loses his committee, he'll feel compelled to spite the party and caucus with the Republicans. I guess we'll see soon enough.

TAX BREAKS FOR BIG OIL.... Economic growth may have fallen into negative territory*, but there's at least one company that's doing very well: ExxonMobil's third quarter profits totaled $14.83 billion, the best quarter any U.S. company has ever had.

Like practically everything else, this has campaign implications. The AP reports, "Republican presidential candidate John McCain seized on reports of record oil company profits Thursday to criticize Democratic rival Barack Obama for favoring tax breaks for the oil industry."

That's not a typo or an editing error. The McCain campaign saw ExxonMobil's record-breaking profits as grounds to go after Obama for support tax breaks for Big Oil.

Honestly, how does one respond to something like this? By pointing out the $1.2 billion tax break McCain wants to give to ExxonMobil? By noting the $4 billion in tax breaks McCain supports for America’s largest oil companies? By highlighting the fact that McCain's energy policy reflects Big Oil's wish list? By reminding folks of McCain's abysmal record on alternative energy solutions? By mentioning that McCain's campaign is being run and financed by lobbyists for the oil industry?

An astute reader named chrenson raised