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 a good observation yesterday.

Steve, I think I'm sensing some desperation in your closing comments on these posts. Coming up with new ways to express how very f***ed up the McCain campaign has become must be one hell of a burden. Especially since each instance of bulls**t way outdoes the one before.

Chrenson's right. It's one thing to point out some of the absurdities of the presidential campaign, but it's altogether more challenging to find different adjectives that sufficiently capture the madness emanating from McCain campaign headquarters. Reading today that McCain is going after Obama on tax breaks for Big Oil is just the latest evidence that the Republican presidential ticket is engaged in some kind of satirical performance art, and I'm just not in on the joke.

* Corrected

'PRECONDITIONS'.... The new McCain campaign ad argues that Obama will negotiate with Ahmadinejad about the elimination of Israel and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from every country in the Middle East. It is, as Andrew Sullivan accurately noted, "disgusting, stupid, inflammatory and, in its use of Arabic-sounding music, bigoted."

I was planning to break it down and tear it apart, but it looks like Joe Klein beat me to it.

There is so much desperate, crapulous spew from the McCain campaign right now that it's hard to keep track of it all -- but this ad, via Andrew Sullivan, marks some sort of low. Yet again -- in a last, desperate attempt to scare the elderly Jews of Florida -- McCain posits Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the "leader" of Iran, even though he has no control over Iranian foreign or military policy. (Ayatullah Ali Khamenei is the guy in charge in Iran, which is why they call him -- you guessed it -- the Supreme Leader.) Yet again, McCain brings up the notion of "preconditions," only now the preconditions are Ahmadinejad's: namely, that the U.S. would have to leave the Middle East before he'd be willing to talk.

It's all inflammatory nonsense, of course. Obama has said that he would meet with the Iranian leadership without "preconditions" -- namely, the Bush Administration requirement that the Iranians stop processing uranium. Of course, the Bush Administration doesn't seem so set on that precondition anymore, either. Again, this is a purposeful effort to mislead on Obama's actual position: he would begin lower-level negotiations with the Iranians, and see how much progress could be made. That is a position supported by many of McCain's own diplomatic supporters.

But that's not really what this is all about: this ad -- with its Middle Eastern music -- is all about implying that Obama isn't one of us, that he's one of them. It is shameful, in the extreme. It's also really bad policy.

I'd just add one tangential thought to this. There's going to come a point, probably in a couple of weeks, at which John McCain is going to express some kind of "regret" for just how disgusting his campaign became. He'll do this if he wins (hoping to generate some pre-inauguration goodwill), and he'll do this is he loses (hoping to improve his tarnished and discredited legacy). McCain will probably say, with apparent sincerity, that things "got out of hand," and he's filled with "regret" for not having intervened before his campaign became too pathetic.

But an ad as offensive as this new one shouldn't be forgotten, or forgiven. McCain, under pressure, is putting his character on the line for all to see, and post hoc remorse should be irrelevant. McCain had a choice -- lose his honor or lose the election. Whether he ends up losing both remains to be seen, but either way, McCain did not choose wisely.

OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT RACE.... Following up on an item from yesterday, John Judis made the case that the McCain campaign's argument about "spreading the wealth," "socialism," and "redistribution" is ultimately about race.

The argument, Judis said, "is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe "spreading the wealth" as giving their money to blacks. It's the latest version of Reagan's 'welfare queen' argument from 1980. It if it works, it won't be because most white Americans actually oppose a progressive income tax, but because they fear that Obama will inordinately favor blacks over them."

I perceive the rhetoric the same way. When McCain tells white working class undecided voters that Obama wants to "take your money and give it to someone else," he doesn't say who "someone else" is, but he probably hopes he doesn't have to.

Matt Feeney calls this approach "a bit loony," insisting that if McCain were really trying to engage in race-based fear mongering, the Republican campaign would "use the word 'welfare.'"

But that only helps to prove my point -- McCain has been using the word "welfare." He's used it in his stump speech (Obama, McCain says, wants to turn the IRS into "a giant welfare agency"), and he's used it in his television ads.

And why would McCain tell white working class undecided voters that Obama's tax policies constitute "welfare" and "take your money and give it to someone else"? Here's a wild guess -- it has something to do with exploiting racial fears.

Michael Crowley pointed to this exchange from CNN last night between McCain and Larry King:

KING: Concerning spreading the wealth, isn't the graduated income tax spreading the wealth? If you I and pay more so that 'Jimmy' can get some, some for him -- or pay for a welfare recipient, that's spreading the wealth.

MCCAIN: That's spreading the wealth in the respect that we do have a graduated income tax. That's a far cry from taking from one group of Americans and giving to another. I mean that's dramatically different.

Actually, it's not different at all. McCain's argument is incoherent.

Put it this way: either McCain is deliberately trying to exploit racial fears or he hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about. I'm afraid it's one or the other.

THURSDAY'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.

* Obama and Bill Clinton held a rally outside Orlando late last night, their first joint event of the campaign season. "This man should be our president -- all of our president," Clinton said. "He's going to be the next president unless Americans forget what this election is all about."

* The Obama campaign unveiled its closing-argument ads this morning, one positive spot and one negative.

* McCain campaign manager Rick Davis is still inexplicably worked up about ACORN.

* Yesterday, 76 of the most distinguished scientists in the country, Nobel laureates all, endorsed Obama for president.

* In Ohio, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by four (51% to 47%), while a Marist Poll shows Obama up by three (48% to 45%).

* In Florida, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by four (51% to 47%).

* In Pennsylvania, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by 12 (55% to 43%), while an NBC/Mason-Dixon poll shows Obama up by just four (47% to 43%), and a Marist Poll shows Obama up by 14 (55% to 41%).

* In Colorado, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by eight (53% to 45%).

* In Virginia, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by nine (53% to 44%).

* In New Mexico, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by 10 (54% to 44%).

* In Nevada, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (52% to 45%).

* In North Carolina, a Time/CNN poll shows Obama leading McCain by six (52% to 46%).

* In Missouri, a Time/CNN poll shows McCain leading Obama by two (50% to 48%).

* In Georgia, a Time/CNN poll shows McCain leading Obama by five (52% to 47%).

* In Arizona, a Time/CNN poll shows McCain leading Obama by seven (53% to 46%), while an NBC/Mason-Dixon poll shows McCain up by four (48% to 44%).

* In Minnesota, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by 12 (55% to 43%), while an NBC/Mason-Dixon poll shows Obama up by eight (48% to 40%).

* In California, a Field Poll shows Obama leading McCain by 22 (55% to 33%).

WILL HAS NO USE FOR MCCAIN.... It's probably fair to say conservative columnist George Will has been thoroughly unimpressed by John McCain of late. He's blasted McCain for "behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high." Will has lamented McCain's "dismaying temperament." He's described McCain as "childish," "shallow," and suffering from a "Manichaean worldview."

And today, Will labeled McCain "John the Careless," citing among other things, McCain picking Sarah Palin for the GOP ticket because he seemed to believe "never having attended a 'Georgetown cocktail party' is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency."

The column is worth reading, but this is the paragraph that stood out for me:

Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain's question for his briefer was: "So, who is the villain?"

This is amusing, but it's also important. McCain's appreciation for policy complexities doesn't exist. Maybe he's impatient, maybe he's easily confused, maybe both. But McCain not only prefers to see the world as black and white, good guy vs. bad guy, he needs this dynamic to make sense of current events. Subtleties, nuances, and depth are inconvenient, and therefore dismissed.

Indeed, we saw this clearly just a few days ago. Criticizing Obama's policy on nuclear energy, McCain described the security of spent fuel, the storage of nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation as -- and I quote -- "blah blah blah." Don't bother him with details; just tell him who the enemy is and which direction to start attacking. Intellectual seriousness is for wusses.

There are three key angles to this. First, it's about the single worst quality a president can have, especially in a time of crisis.

Second, it helps explain why McCain's attacks against Obama have been almost entirely personal. Obama, as far as McCain is concerned, "is the villain." He doesn't deserve respect; he deserves, McCain seems to believe, to be destroyed.

And third, McCain's style is so similar to Bush's worldview, it's frightening. The only key difference is Bush, who famously boasted that he doesn't "do nuance," generally approached politics with a genial attitude. McCain likes to "reduce controversies to cartoons," but with angry and erratic temperament.

MORE FROM GORE.... I didn't really expect to see much more of Al Gore before Election Day. He gave a great speech at the Democratic convention, and he appeared in Michigan to endorse Obama, but the Nobel laureate seems anxious to move away from the appearance of being a partisan advocate.

Fortunately, though, that won't preclude a couple of stops on the campaign trail for Gore -- in a swing state that has a particular significance to him.

Al Gore -- Nobel laureate, Academy-Award winner, former vice president and presidential aspirant -- returns to Florida on Friday to campaign for fellow Democrat and current presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Gore will appear at "Vote for Change" rallies in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale, according to a release just issued by the Obama campaign.

Gore returns (on Halloween, no less) to the land of butterfly ballots, hanging chads and a 36-day national recount drama that determined Gore lost and George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election.

You think the Obama campaign sees Florida as a pick-up opportunity? That was Bill Clinton in Florida on Wednesday, that'll be Al Gore in Florida on Friday, and both Obama and Biden have spent quite a bit of time in the state this week themselves.

If this doesn't help motivate Sunshine State Democrats, I don't know what will.

SIGNIFICANT SHRINKAGE.... The nation's GDP, as expected, has fallen into negative territory, with the worst economic contraction in seven years. It wasn't a surprise, but that's cold comfort under the circumstances.

The economy shrank at a 0.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, its sharpest contraction in seven years as consumers cut spending and businesses reduced investment in the face of rising fears that recession was setting in.

The Commerce Department said the third-quarter contraction in gross domestic product was the steepest since the corresponding quarter in 2001 though it was slightly less than the 0.5 percent rate of reduction that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast.

The McCain campaign, presumably with a straight face, issued a statement that argued Barack Obama, by moving the country in an entirely different economic direction, "would accelerate this dangerous course." The McCain campaign added, Obama is "change Americans cannot afford."

I have to admit, this is rather amusing. The economic policies of the last eight years clearly haven't worked. Obama is offering a new approach. McCain's argument, in effect, is that we need to stick with what we know has already failed. If we can only keep doing what Bush has done, and wait for it to start working, everything will work out fine. Indeed, we "cannot afford" to go in a different direction.

Why anyone would find this persuasive is a mystery.

A GAMBLING MAN.... A couple of months ago, Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf wrote an interesting piece about the two presidential candidates' gambling styles. They relayed an anecdote about John McCain, in the heat of the primary fight last year, wanting to head to a casino floor while campaigning in Las Vegas. His staff stopped him. McCain, undeterred, wanted the casino to bring a craps table to his private hotel room, but his staff, again, refused to allow it.

A Republican who has watched McCain gamble told Time, "He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing. And he just sort of revels in it."

In the campaign, McCain's recklessness has become increasingly obvious -- picking Palin for the ticket, "suspending" his campaign -- hoping that voters have no interest in electing a steady, unflappable leader with a cool head and reliable temperament. Obama has even made some effort to connect this to substantive issues, arguing that McCain's penchant for gambling would lead to reckless public policies.

But as Steven Waldman noted this week, there's a more specific audience that may find this discussion important.

Campaign Money Watch, a money-and-politics watchdog group, has begun running an ad about McCain's connections to the gambling industry. The ad makes no mention of the moral dimensions of gambling. But behold where they have decided to run the ads: Lynchburg, Virginia, home of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and Tallahassee, Florida, a conservative part of the state -- that's right, evangelical-heavy areas in two battleground states.

"We knew that religious conservatives would be motivated by their concern about gambling," explained David Donnelly, director of the group. "And you add to that their concern about campaign contributions. It's a combustible mix."

Now, Obama has never pushed this too aggressively, in part because being perceived as anti-gambling would be damaging in Nevada, a key swing state.

Regardless, with Campaign Money Watch's ad on the air, might Christian conservatives in places like Lynchburg and Tallahassee care about McCain's love for an activity -- and close ties to an industry -- they find immoral? Something to keep an eye on.

JAWBONE.... The Obama campaign has emphasized its plan to help make college more affordable and accessible to young people. The McCain campaign doesn't really have a plan, but the Republican nominee does have faith in the power of his personality.

As president, Mr. McCain would take a bully pulpit approach to student aid, aides say. Rather than propose any new federal money, he would jawbone and publicly try to coax colleges to slow their rate of tuition increases using the federal tax exemptions they receive as leverage....

Mr. McCain is also calling for the Pell Grant, which assists low-income students, to be high enough to cover in-state undergraduate tuition.... Mr. McCain, however, has not proposed any new money for the Pell program.

Yes, "jawbone." If that sounds familiar, there's a good reason.

Mr. Bush, as a candidate in January 2000, said a president ought to demand that OPEC members increase production. ''The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price [of gas],'' Mr. Bush said then.

Remind me, how does it work out when conservative Republicans promise changes based on jawboning?

THE INDIGNITY OF WORRYING ABOUT ARIZONA.... I got an email this morning from Time magazine, noting the latest Time/CNN poll numbers from "battleground" states. The list included Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina ... and Arizona.

Oh, the indignity of it all. (For the record, the poll shows McCain leading in his home state by seven, 53% to 46%.)

The recent polls showing a fairly competitive contest in Arizona apparently aren't a fluke. Greg Sargent reported late yesterday that the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee are now concerned enough about the state to start using robocalls. Here's the script:

"I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because Barack Obama is so dangerously inexperienced, his running mate Joe Biden just said, he invites a major international crisis that he will be unprepared to handle alone.

"If Democrats win full control of government, they will want to give civil rights to terrorists and talk unconditionally to dictators and state sponsors of terror. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the experience and judgment to lead America. This call was paid for by the Republican National Committee and authorized by McCain-Palin 2008."

The substance of the message is, of course, blisteringly stupid. But under the circumstances, that's not really the point.

As Greg explained, "The call means Republicans are sinking resources into a state that obviously should have been a complete lock for McCain, with time fast running out. Simply extraordinary."

McCain will return to Arizona early next week, to vote and to prepare for an Election Night event. Any chance he might hold a rally before Tuesday, just in case?

THE CASE IN 30 MINUTES.... The Obama campaign's 30-minute commercial could have gone in a couple of different directions last night, some better than others. I was fairly confident he would rely on Ross Perot's pie charts -- the hallmark of the last candidate to air a half-hour commercial -- and it was unlikely that we'd see Obama just talk to the camera the entire time.

What the campaign did, instead, made for a pretty compelling program, highlighting the difficulties facing four real families -- all of whom, by the way, live in "red" states -- confronting common challenges. The segments, and Obama's policy prescriptions, were, as publius noted, "pitch perfect."

Nearly as interesting as what Obama said was what he didn't. The audience did not hear Obama utter the words "McCain," "Bush," or "Republican." There were no cheap shots, no pointed jabs, and really, no partisan remarks at all. Obama simply focused all of his attention on making the case for his agenda, highlighting the struggles of America's middle class, and telling voters what he wants to do.

A.L. noted that it created quite a contrast: "Obama's campaign is clearly about big issues. Whether or not you agree with his policies or think he'll be able to do what he says, his campaign is quite clearly about making life better for the American people. It's about health care and jobs and education and the economy. And what was McCain's campaign about today? He and his running mate spent the whole day calling on the LA Times to release a video tape of a farewell party that Obama attended for a Palestinian professor at the University of Chicago in 2003."

Tuning in last night, I had a very similar reaction. Watching a McCain speech yesterday afternoon and then Obama's program last night, I had this urge to pose questions to voters: which candidate cares more about substance? Which has a vision of where the country needs to go? Which treats voters with respect? Which appeals more to voters' best instincts? Which is willing to engage those with whom he disagrees? Which candidate wants America to feel proud, and which wants Americans to be afraid?

Which candidate is big and which is small?

If yesterday did nothing else, it made the answer to these questions fairly obvious.

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

* The Fed cut interest rates to just 1%. The markets' reaction was mixed.

* McCain fans get violent in Miami.

* More of the same: "Authorities at the University of Kentucky are trying to find out who hung an effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on campus."

* Sarah Palin has already been the subject of multiple ethics complaints; what's one more?

* It looks like there are quite a few cheapskates in the Senate Democratic caucus.

* The right is now unabashedly anti-equality? These guys have really fallen off the ideological cliff.

* By Rudy Giuliani's own standards, he can't possibly vote for John McCain.

* Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican: "[John McCain] has lost his brand as a maverick."

* Ari Fleischer should probably brush up on GOP talking points before appearing on CNN.

* The next stimulus bill will be debated in the House after the election, but before the winter holidays.

* I get the sense that McCain doesn't know what a "safety net program" is.

* And finally, Jonathan Stein made an interesting observation yesterday: while the DNC's site is heavily promoting Obama, the RNC's site doesn't feature McCain at all. I just checked a moment ago, searching the RNC's home page. It features Obama's name six times, and doesn't mention its own party's presidential nominee even once.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THE CATALYST.... John McCain told Sean Hannity last night that his campaign is on the upswing, and he knows precisely why: "This 'Joe the Plumber' event has really been a catalyst. It really has. You know we look back on political campaigns. 'I paid for this microphone, Mr. Breen.' Ed Muskie crying outside the Union Leader, or whatever it was, you know? There are moments when something happened, and clearly Senator Obama going to Joe the Plumber's drive way, and him getting an answer that clearly he didn't like."

Now, for those who consider reality important, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Wurzelbacher can't be a "catalyst" (or, more accurately, an exploited mascot) for McCain's message since Wurzelbacher doesn't actually prove McCain's point.

As we talked about the other day, if Joe Wurzelbacher was a small businessman whose taxes would go up under an Obama administration, all of this would be very powerful. It's about attaching a real-life person to a policy point the campaign wants to emphasize. In this case, McCain desperately wants regular folks to think Obama will raise their taxes, reality notwithstanding.

But since McCain's "catalyst" would get a tax cut in an Obama administration -- probably a bigger break than under McCain -- the whole thing falls apart fairly quickly.

So, what's the point? Last week, Atrios argued, persuasively, that McCain is exploiting this guy because "Joe The Plumber" is "a white guy who's about to have his pocket picked by a black guy. It doesn't have to be true."

John Judis raises a similar argument today.

...McCain and Sarah Palin's attack against Obama for advocating "spreading the wealth" and for "socialism" and for pronouncing the civil rights revolution a "tragedy" because it didn't deal with the distribution of wealth is aimed ultimately at white working class undecided voters who would construe "spreading the wealth" as giving their money to blacks. It's the latest version of Reagan's "welfare queen" argument from 1980. It if it works, it won't be because most white Americans actually oppose a progressive income tax, but because they fear that Obama will inordinately favor blacks over them.

I think that's absolutely right. Pay particular attention to the way McCain phrases his ridiculous rhetoric: "That's what change means for the Obama administration. They're redistributing. It means taking your money and giving it to someone else."

McCain doesn't say who "someone else" is, but for the white working class undecided voters he's targeting, he's hoping he doesn't have to.

I've simply never seen a more offensive, more nauseating, presidential campaign.

LET'S TALK ABOUT MEDIA 'BOYCOTTS'.... By now, I suspect most people have seen the breathtaking interview between Joe Biden and Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, in which, by any reasonable standard, West's questions fell somewhere between "ridiculous" and "in need of medication."

Soon after, the Obama campaign realized there wasn't much point in talking to Barbara West. She's not really a journalist, the campaign wouldn't be treated professionally, and there's no real point in having a dialog.

In response, John McCain is now whining to Fox News' Sean Hannity about the Obama campaign's media "boycotts." McCain said, "[I]f anybody in the media, much less Joe the Plumber asks a tough question, then they're boycotted. They pull their ads, etc."

I sincerely wonder about McCain's grip on reality sometimes. Amanda Terkel noted the irony of McCain's latest complaints.

* McCain canceled an appearance on CNN's Larry King Live after CNN's Campbell Brown conducted a tough interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds about Palin's foreign policy experience.

* Last month, the McCain campaign barred New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd from flying on both the McCain and Palin press planes after she wrote a negative column.

* McCain campaign officials barred Time's Joe Klein from traveling with them, after he asked McCain an uncomfortable question about foreign policy.

* Campaign officials have repeatedly gone on air to bash journalists after tough interviews, saying that Katie Couric asked Palin "a series of trapdoor questions," the New York Times "cast aside it's journalistic integrity to advocate for the defeat of John McCain," and demanded that the media treat Palin with "deference."

I'd just add one other important note -- McCain's whining came during an interview with Sean Hannity. Did McCain not appreciate the irony? McCain was groaning about Obama avoiding "tough questions" from professional journalists, while McCain palling around with a right-wing clown who got the interview because McCain knows there won't be any "tough questions."

Has there ever been a more inane presidential campaign?

MCCAIN WAGES WAR ON THE TIMES (THE OTHER ONE).... I'm trying to imagine how the McCain/Palin campaign could become more ridiculous. Nothing is coming to mind.

The campaign's style of "pinata politics" has now led McCain and Palin to swing their bat at the Los Angeles Times, taking a break from its usual complaints about the New York Times, which is what the campaign does when it's not whining about MSNBC, which it finds time to do when it's not describing Obama as a terrorist-sympathizing socialistic pervert. (It's quite a classy operation the Republicans are running.)

Here's the story in a nutshell. In April, the Times ran a report about Obama attending a going-away party for Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian American (whose group received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a McCain-led Republican organization). The Times has a video from the party, which it used as the basis of its report six months ago.

McCain, Palin, and right-wing activists want the Times to release the video.

"The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public. I'm not in the business of talking about media bias but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet?

"I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different," [McCain] said.

For her part, Sarah Palin said the Times is Obama's "pet newspaper," which deserves a Pulitzer prize "in kowtowing."

I know the pressure of the campaign is getting intense, but I'm afraid the Republican ticket is starting to crack and say crazy things.

First, instead of condemning the Times, the McCain campaign should be thanking it. The Times is the one who broke the story about the going-away party in the first place -- it didn't hide the revelation, it exposed the revelation. There'd be no right-wing cries about the party if it weren't for the Times' article in the first place. If the paper were trying to help Obama, it wouldn't have published the piece.

Second, the Times hasn't released the video because its confidential source gave the paper the tape "on the condition that we not release it." The paper received the video, and described its contents for readers. There's no conspiracy here.

And third, for McCain to compare a going-away party for a college professor as analogous to associating with "a neo-Nazi outfit" suggests McCain's moral compass is so irreparably broken, he probably shouldn't seek national office.

HIT 'EM WITH HUMOR.... Barack Obama campaigned earlier in Raleigh, North Carolina, principally relying on the closing-statement speech he unveiled in Ohio on Monday. Today, however, he added a new paragraph.

"[B]ecause he knows his economic theories don't work, he's been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book," Obama said. "Lately, he's called me a 'socialist' for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

From time to time, over the course of the 20 or so months, Obama has demonstrated an ability to use humor very effectively. Greg Sargent noted earlier, "[This] kind of unforced mockery, even levity, tends to be a good indicator of genuine confidence in the outcome."

I think that's true, but I'd add that Obama seems to use humor, light mockery, and the occasional sarcasm even when he's less confident in the outcome. For months, regardless of circumstance, even during the primaries, when given a choice between delivering an angry response and a humorous one, Obama almost always prefers the latter.

One gets the sense that Obama's not mad at the Republicans; he just thinks they're ridiculous.

GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION WATCH.... Apparently, some years back, as part of his career in academia, Barack Obama attended a going-away party for Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian American.

John McCain and his campaign have joined right-wing bloggers in thinking there's something sinister about Obama having known Khalidi, who conservatives insist was an aide to Yasser Arafat -- a claim that has not stood up well to scrutiny.

As long as McCain wants to go down this road, though it's probably worth fleshing out his own ties to the same professor.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

Now, just to be clear, what's wrong with McCain having directed thousands of dollars in grants to Khalidi's research center? Not a thing. As far as I can tell, no one has questioned Khalidi's scholarship or the work of the Center for Palestine Research and Studies.

McCain and his cohorts, however, believe there's a lingering scandal about Obama having gone to Khalidi's going-away party some years back. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, even for them.

WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH, THE WEAK GET RIDICULOUS.... Recent polling shows Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) trailing in her re-election fight in North Carolina against Democrat Kay Hagan, so it stands to reason that she's getting a little desperate.

I didn't think she'd get this desperate.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole's latest advertisement suggests her Democratic opponent, Kay Hagan, is a godless heathen.

"A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser for Kay Hagan," the 30-second spot says, showing footage of the group's members talking about their atheist beliefs on cable news.

"Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money," the ad concludes. "What did Kay Hagan promise in return?"

At the very end of the ad, a voice sounding like Hagan's says: "There is no God."

Seriously, Dole used a Hagan impersonator to make voters think she's an atheist.

It's hard to know where to start with an ad this deplorable. First, Hagan is actually a Sunday school teacher and an elder in her church. Second, the fundraiser in question was co-hosted by 40 people, one of whom is on the board of an atheist political action committee. Third, there's nothing scandalous about non-believers.

And fourth, what the hell is "godless money"?

Hagan held a press conference this morning with her family and pastor to denounce the ad, and announced that if Dole didn't pull the ad, she would seek a cease-and-desist order.

Even in a campaign cycle filled with sleazy, deplorable attacks, Dole has disgraced herself in a way few thought possible.

WEDNESDAY'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.

* I guess something like this was inevitable: "Citizens United, the conservative group headed by notorious Whitewater scandalmonger David Bossie, is distributing hundreds of thousands of DVDs attacking Barack Obama's associations with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers in newspapers in Ohio, Nevada, and Florida this week, a group spokesperson confirms to us."

* In Florida, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (50% to 43%), Quinnipiac shows Obama by two (47% to 45%), and an Associated Press poll also has Obama up by two (45% to 43%).

* In Ohio, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama leading McCain by nine (49% to 40%), Quinnipiac shows Obama by nine (51% to 42%), and an Associated Press poll has Obama up by seven (48% to 41%).

* In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac shows Obama leading McCain by 12 (53% to 41%), an Associated Press poll has Obama up by 12 (52% to 40%), and a Franklin & Marshall College poll has Obama up by 13 (53% to 40%).

* In Nevada, an Associated Press poll shows Obama leading McCain by 12 (52% to 40%), while a Suffolk University poll shows Obama up by 10 (50% to 40%).

* In Colorado, an Associated Press poll shows Obama leading McCain by nine (50% to 41%).

* In Virginia, an Associated Press poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (49% to 42%).

* In New Hampshire, an Associated Press poll shows Obama leading McCain by 18 (55% to 37%).

* In North Carolina, an Associated Press poll shows Obama leading McCain by two (48% to 46%).

* In Indiana, a Howey/Gauge poll shows McCain leading Obama by two, 47% to 45%.

'YET'.... In response to the Obama campaign's half-hour special tonight, the McCain campaign unveiled a new ad today, with an odd closing line.

Most of the 30-second spot is predictable: Obama lacks experience and wants to raise taxes. Nothing new here. But the last line of the voice-over tells the viewer, "The fact is Barack Obama's not ready ... yet." The "yet" comes after a dramatic pause, presumably for emphasis.

It's a curious message. Over the summer, when McCain was emphasizing the "celebrity" nonsense, most of his ads insisted that Obama is "not ready to lead." There was no "yet."

So, I guess the new argument is that Obama will be ready at some point in the near future? That's the new attack? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Jason Zengerle argued:

McCain seems to be acknowledging voters' warm feelings toward Obama and even sort of agreeing with them, with the crucial caveat that he thinks Obama still needs some seasoning. Maybe McCain's final hail mary is to pledge to serve one term ... and then to pledge his support to Obama in 2012.

THE INTRA-PARTY PIE FIGHT CONTINUES.... ABC News' Jake Tapper had a very interesting piece late yesterday, noting the subtle efforts Sarah Palin has made to distance herself from the McCain campaign and its strategic decisions. Tapper noted, "[S]ome Republicans are starting to now say they should have seen this coming, since Palin has a reputation for making friends who can help her and then screwing them over."

The ABC report noted several examples, including mentors Palin ultimately challenged when she wanted to advance her career. Tapper concluded:

[A]ll I can tell you is that some McCain allies are now quite suspect of Palin and worried that Sen. McCain is going to become just the latest Palin ally whom she uses -- and then discards -- in her rapid ascendance to power.

I'm really curious -- how did Tapper come upon this angle? I don't mean that as a slight; Tapper has done some solid work during the campaign. But he had a lengthy list of Alaskan politicians Palin has "screwed over" for professional gain, and cited "some Republicans" who believe Palin has established a pattern of using and discarding allies when it suits her purposes. It reads a bit like an oppo piece put together by the McCain campaign.

If this is poised to become a common sentiment in Republican circles, it represents an aggressive new line of intra-party attack. Up until now, the whispers from GOP insiders have focused on Palin being incompetent, inexperienced, and unqualified. Republicans, though, generally don't care about competence, experience, and qualifications.

But if insiders are dishing to Tapper and others about Palin's habit of "screwing over" Republican allies to advance her career, that's more damaging, isn't it?

BATTLEGROUND: ARIZONA.... The front page of the Arizona Republic this morning features this headline: "Obama neck and neck with McCain in Arizona." This is, of course, McCain's home state, making the recent polls more than a little embarrassing.

Sen. John McCain's once-comfortable lead in Arizona has all but evaporated, according to a new poll that has the underdog Republican presidential candidate struggling in his own backyard.

With less than a week until Election Day, McCain is leading his Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, by 2 points, 46 to 44, down from a 7-point lead a month ago and a double-digit lead this summer, according to a poll from Arizona State University.

It's one of four polls published over the last week or so that show McCain's lead in Arizona at five points or less. (Another poll this week, from Northern Arizona University, puts McCain up by eight. An outlier?)

As I mentioned the other day, the likelihood of Obama winning Arizona is still very remote. In the last half-century, the state has only supported the Democratic ticket once, and it's unlikely the second time would come when an Arizonan leads the Republican ticket.

That said, under normal circumstances, if there's a state in which McCain's lead drops from double digits to low-single digits, the RNC is inclined to intervene and invest some resources in the state, as we saw earlier this week in Montana. Any chance McCain's pride would allow the RNC to spend a few bucks in Arizona, just to be safe?

MCCAIN'S CHOICE.... Two weeks ago, A.K., a long-time regular, emailed me, asking why the Obama campaign wasn't hammering McCain in a television ad for admitting he doesn't understand the economy.

A.K., I have good news for you.

In this new spot released this morning, there's no voice-over, just on-screen text: "John McCain in his own words." Then we see the first quote: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then the second: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." And the third: "'I might have to rely on a vice president that I select' for expertise on economic issues."

"His choice?" the ad continues, just before showing Sarah Palin, winking at the Rich Lowry during the vice presidential debate.

"On November 4th," the ad concludes, "you get to make yours."

The ad is a two-fer -- it reminds viewers that McCain, by his own admission, doesn't know a thing about the economy, and almost as importantly, tells viewers that McCain will rely on Sarah Palin for economic advice.

It's a pretty devastating spot, and for Democrats, I suspect it will be one of the more satisfying negative ads of the campaign cycle.

CONSERVATIVE HEAVYWEIGHTS PLANNING POST-MORTEM.... This ought to be interesting.

Two days after next week's election, top conservatives will gather at the Virginia weekend home of one of the movement's most prominent members to begin a conversation about their role in the GOP and how best to revive a party that may be out of power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

The meeting will include a "who's who of conservative leaders -- economic, national security and social," said one attendee, who shared initial word of the secret session only on the basis of anonymity and with some details about the host and location redacted. [...]

"There's a sense that the Republican Party is broken, but the conservative movement is not," said this source, suggesting that it was the betrayal of some conservative principles by Bush and congressional leaders that led to the party's decline.

If McCain wins, the meeting will focus on how to make sure he's sufficiently right-wing to meet the base's standards, and how the far-right leaders would rely on Sarah Palin as their conduit to power. If McCain loses, the meeting will weigh who the next conservative leaders will/should be.

The goal, obviously, is to get a head start on the party's post-election retrospection. Before anyone can even consider moving the Republican Party towards the middle, leading activists and power brokers want to ensure that the GOP will redouble their efforts to be as rigidly conservative as possible.

It just doesn't occur to these party leaders that the Republican governing philosophy doesn't work. The party had it all just a few years ago, did exactly what it wanted to do, ran over Democrats as if they were speed-bumps, and saw all of their ideas fail miserably. As the nation moved away from the GOP as a result, these activists concluded they'd learned a valuable lesson -- the Republican Party wasn't nearly conservative enough.

Atrios had a very sharp post yesterday explaining the party's folly: "Bush and this bunch of Republicans have completely f***ed the Republican brand. Social conservatism (ban abortion and contraception, stone gay people) just isn't popular enough nationally, and they've (for a second time) destroyed the idea of Republicans as 'fiscal conservatives.'"

And next week, a "who's who of conservative leaders," oblivious to all of this, will plot the party's future. Democrats, I'm sure, couldn't be more pleased.

IT'S JUST A LONG AD.... This evening in prime time, the Obama campaign will air a half-hour long ad, talking about Obama's policy agenda in some detail. It's already facing pushback from conservatives who think, well, it's not quite clear what they think, but they're not happy.

On MSNBC yesterday, far-right pundit Willie Geist said Obama's ad reminded him of "the Soviet invasion," because it "take[s] over the airwaves." Yesterday afternoon, Elisabeth Hasselbeck called the Obama ad "repulsive." (By the way, I don't know who Hasselbeck is or why her political opinions are significant, but her complaint about Obama's ad was Mark Halperin's lead story late yesterday.)

Yes, Obama is obviously history's greatest monster. He's a presidential candidate who's going to go on television to talk to voters about what he wants to do if elected. Instead of a 30-second spot filled with soundbites, Obama is going to offer depth and detail in a 30-minute program. Clearly, words like "repulsive" and comparisons to the USSR are the only logical conclusions to draw.

For crying out loud, it's just a long ad. It's not even unprecedented.

It will also have a live component, featuring Mr. Obama at a rally in Florida. The infomercial has been under production for weeks in the Virginia office of Mark Putnam, whose firm, Murphy-Putnam, is part of the Obama advertising team.

The program is to be shown on NBC, CBS, Fox, Univision, MSNBC and two cable networks that cater to African-Americans, BET and TV One. Ross Perot, the last presidential candidate to run similar programming, broadcast eight long infomercials to an average of 13 million viewers, with one of them getting 16.5 million viewers.

Mike Murphy, a former McCain confidant, noted that he's encouraged the McCain campaign to do the exact same thing, and they probably would, if they could afford it.

For his part, McCain argued yesterday that Obama's ad is anti-baseball, insisting it would bump back the World Series on Fox by 15 minutes. "No one will delay the World Series with an infomercial when I'm president," McCain said yesterday in Pennsylvania. As it happens, McCain was, predictably, not telling the truth -- a Fox Broadcasting executive told Ben Smith, "We didn't push back the game at all," adding that the network planned to trim the pre-game commentary.

That said, I suppose McCain has to say something about this. Ken Goldstein, director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project, said, "John McCain's only chance is to disqualify Barack Obama. He has seven days. Every day that people are talking about Barack Obama's infomercial is a day that John McCain isn't getting his message out."

KEEPING HIS DISTANCE.... Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) is in pretty good shape for his re-election fight next week, but he's apparently concluded that being seen alongside Sarah Palin could undermine his chances.

Gov. Mitch Daniels today began his final campaign swing in his now-famous RV, heading to southern Indiana. One place Daniels won't include on his tour is the Jeffersonville stage where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, will be campaigning Wednesday evening.

Daniels said he plans to talk to folks in the parking lot, but can't fit into his schedule a joint appearance with Palin.

"I'm going by (the Palin rally.) I've got another event scheduled at the same time, but it is close by, so I'm going to go by and spend as long as I can there and hang out in the parking lot and spend some time with the folks standing in line or patiently waiting to get in," Daniels said. "I'm not speaking at the rally, no."

So, let me get this straight. Palin will be in Jeffersonville; Daniels will be in Jeffersonville. Palin will be inside a venue talking to voters; Daniels will be outside the same venue talking to voters. Daniels could go inside and be seen with his party's vice presidential nominee, but he doesn't want to. As Josh Marshall put it, "I guess heading in from the parking lot to the stage would have just been too much for Daniels' schedule to handle."

This, in a state that hasn't supported a Democratic presidential ticket in 44 years, and where Bush won four years ago by nearly 21 points.

McCain/Palin is still favored in Indiana, but Obama/Biden has narrowed the gap significantly. Apparently, Daniels doesn't want to take any chances.

Of course, if McCain/Palin loses, I can't wait to see Daniels and Palin exchanging dirty looks at next year's gathering of the National Governors Association.

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

* After dropping to a five-year low yesterday, the Dow soared by about 900 points today.

* It took a while, but Sarah Palin finally agreed that Ted Stevens should resign.

* Just think, if you only watched Fox News, you probably wouldn't even know that Stevens was a convicted felon.

* If you build it, they will watch: in just its second month, "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC is beating CNN's "Larry King Live" in the key demo that advertisers care about.

* Another Republican is backing Obama: this time, it's former Rep. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. of Maryland.

* Wait, the McCain's Keating scandal can get worse.

* It's painful to think 15% of women in the Armed Services who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment during their tours of duty. It's also completely unacceptable.

* I'm disappointed the Christian Science Monitor is going to be a weekly instead of a daily. It's a good paper.

* I find it hard to relate to someone who uses words like "intellectualoids."

* Great, now we have right-wing blowhards attacking the poor. Classy.

* Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita has become quite an embarrassment to himself.

* Notice how calm the Obama campaign's Bill Burton seems while Fox News' Megyn Kelly gets angry.

* And finally, my most sincere condolences to the family and friends of Dean Barnett, who died yesterday after a lengthy fight with cystic fibrosis. He was just 41 years old.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.... I have some friends and family in Florida -- I'm a Miami native -- and I've heard quite a few stories about extraordinary lines in order to vote. One guy I know waited in line for literally three hours -- in the middle of a weekday, when one might assume the lines would be shorter.

To his credit, the governor is actually going to help those who want to participate in the process.

Gov. Charlie Crist on Tuesday extended early voting hours across Florida to 12 hours a day.

The executive order comes after record early voting turnout has contributed to long lines at polling sites.

Current Florida law allows for early voting to be conducted eight hours a day each weekday and for a total of eight hours during the weekends.

With Crist's order, early voting sites will be open the rest of this week from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. They will be open a total of 12 hours on Saturday and Sunday, the last day of early voting.

Immediately after signing the order, which declares a state of emergency, Crist told reporters, ''It's not a political decision. It's a people decision.''

Given the recent trend -- most of the early Floridian voters have been Democrats -- the decision doesn't do McCain any favors, which makes Crist's decision all the more honorable.

Indeed, it's also worth noting that Crist also broke with traditional Republican norms upon taking office, making it easier for released felons to regain their voting rights.

I disagree with Crist on a whole lot of issues, but when it comes to voting, he seems willing to do what too many Republicans won't: the right thing.

A 'SCRIPTED ROBOT OR AN UNSCRIPTED IGNORAMUS'.... The estimable Robert Draper, blogging at GQ, offers an interesting, behind-the-scenes look at the extent to which McCain's team scrambled after Sarah Palin joined the Republican ticket. (via Jonathan Chait)

Almost from the very beginning, the Palin pick created tension. An armada of handlers descended on McCain's running mate like the flying monkeys in The Wizard Of Oz.... [Tucker Eskew] and [Nicole Wallace] took charge of schooling the Alaska governor on message discipline. Two days later at the GOP convention, an adviser watched them coach Palin on how to answer routine press questions and warned Steve Schmidt that she was being overly managed. Three weeks later, Wallace arranged for the interview with her former CBS colleague Katie Couric, which proved to be a disaster.

Meanwhile, Palin's debate prep was going miserably, to the point where Schmidt had to peel off from McCain (who was having his own challenges responding to the financial crisis) and join Nicolle's husband Mark Wallace in simplifying Palin's prep so as to avert catastrophe. The latter efforts resulted in what one senior adviser would describe to me with palpable relief as "a campaign-saving performance."

I'm sympathetic to Eskew and Wallace, and not just because they're decent people. They've held their tongue from leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me -- namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues. Which meant, as one such adviser said to me: "Letting Sarah be Sarah may not be such a good thing." It's a grim binary choice, but apparently it came down to whether to make Palin look like a scripted robot or an unscripted ignoramus. I was told that Palin chafed at being defined by her discomfiting performances in the Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity interviews. She wanted to get back out there and do more. Well, if you're Eskew and Wallace, what do you say to that?

I argued a while back that adding Palin to the Republican ticket was the most ridiculous development in presidential politics in at least a generation. With each passing revelation, I feel more confident in that assessment.

When McCain aides realize Palin doesn't have the foggiest idea what she's doing or what she's talking about, what do they do? I almost feel bad for them. Almost.

'TINY'.... When it comes to genuine, almost pathological, dishonesty, the McCain campaign has secured a place in history. If there's a Political Liars Hall of Fame, these guys are first-ballot inductees, no questions asked.

This afternoon, McCain re-released an ad first unveiled two months ago. The voiceover tells the viewer:

"Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.

"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.' Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'?

"Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."

And here's what Obama actually said, back in May:

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.' And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall."

If McCain disagrees with Obama's assessment, fine, let him make his case. But that would require intellectual seriousness and integrity, neither of which is found at McCain campaign HQ. It leads to shameless lying like this ad, which obviously distorts the meaning of simple words that even McCain/Palin should be able to understand.

Look, this isn't complicated. During the cold war, the former USSR was "the world's greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle" with the United States. Iran, meanwhile, has an economy the size of Finland's, an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion, and hasn't invaded a country since the late 18th century. Anyone who argues the threat posed by modern-day Iran is similar, both in size and scope, to a former nuclear superpower is either hopelessly confused or lying.

So, why the re-release? In August, the ad was slated for a national release that never came. Now, according to Halperin, "Tiny" will air "in key Florida markets."

In other words, McCain wants to scare Jewish voters with blatant lies. Even by McCain standards, this is pathetic.

PAT BUCHANAN EXPLAINS IT ALL.... The McCain campaign is anxious to make voters scared of the notion of a Democratic president working with a Democratic Congress, but McCain's had some trouble describing the consequences -- probably because the Democratic agenda is pretty popular.

But Pat Buchanan is willing to go where McCain's isn't, explaining in his latest syndicated column what Americans can expect if a President Obama works with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. Some of the highlights:

* Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

* Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

* Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

* The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

* A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

* Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

Ol' Pat seems a little preoccupied with immigration and gays, doesn't he?

I don't doubt there's a segment of the population who might find such an odd rant compelling, but in general, reading Pat Buchanan tirades reinforces a simple fact: the right-wing culture war is so 1990s.

In the midst of a financial crisis and two wars, Buchanan and his cohorts apparently want to tell voters, "Be afraid! Gay, Mexican abortion doctors are coming! Run for your lives!"

I remember a time when Buchanan's rants were infuriating. Now, he just seems like some harmless clown, with harangues that read more like parodies than anything else.

MAYBE LIEBERMAN'S BEEN TALKING TO FRIST.... Over the weekend, Joe Lieberman was asked whether he believes Sarah Palin is ready to be president. "Thank God, she's not going to have to be president from Day One," Lieberman said. "McCain's going to be alive and well."

The problem, of course, is that Lieberman doesn't know that. McCain, who's battled recurring melanoma, would be the oldest president ever elected. Obviously, we can hope for McCain's good health, but with Palin in the wings, it's not unreasonable for voters to be uncomfortable.

Lieberman took this one step further on Sunday, telling voters in Tampa he's sought professional guidance on the issue.

"People say to me, oh jeez, he's 72 and he's got skin cancer," Lieberman said, adding: "I can tell you he's been in remission for eight years. Secondly, I talked -- because I get asked this question so much -- I talked to doctors and insurance actuaries. And they tell me based on McCain's age, his health, including skin cancer, he'll live till at least 85. And probably longer."

Lieberman once again offered a prayer that Palin would not soon have to serve as commander in chief: "I believe that he'll be able to serve through his first term for which he's elected, please God."

As a rule, when a campaign surrogate is relying on doctors and actuaries to reassure voters about a candidate, it's not a good sign.

But I'm also curious which "doctors" Lieberman has been consulting on this, and just how many are confident about the "at least 85" prediction. Were any of Lieberman's doctors familiar with McCain's personal medical history? Or did Lieberman call up Bill Frist, who made a judicious diagnosis based on some footage he saw of McCain on television?

MCCAIN'S HEALTHCARE CONTRADICTION.... How bad is the McCain healthcare plan? So bad that the McCain campaign is now undermining its own proposal.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser, told CNN that younger, healthier workers probably won't give up their employer-sponsored healthcare plans because they would have no incentive to change. "Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

That's true. Taking a credit given by a McCain administration onto the open market would be very unappealing, especially those who are getting "way better" employer-sponsored healthcare.

But here's the thing: this isn't supposed to be the McCain campaign's argument. As Ezra explained:

Young workers are cheap. They don't need much health insurance. The theory of the McCain plan is that because of this, they will take their tax credit and head over to the individual market, either purchasing very cheap health care or no health care at all. This, in theory, will bring down total spending.

Holtz-Eakin is saying the theory may not work. The individual market sucks. You can be eliminated for preexisting conditions. Administrative costs are sky-high. There is no protection against the whims of your insurer. The same policy you had with your employer will, for these reasons and others, cost $2,000 more on the individual market. As such, young people may not exactly want to throw themselves into that situation.

Moreover, what young folks get from their employers is much better than what they'd receive on the individual market. Employer-based coverage plans are not aimed at young people who don't need much in the way of health care. They're aimed at older workers, and workers with families, who do. If the young workers, who are the good insurance bets, can't get better coverage on the individual insurance market, imagine how much worse the coverage will be for those who actually need to avail themselves of health care services.

Quite right. And what makes McCain's plan so striking is that it would discourage employers from providing the "way better" healthcare, precisely so workers would take McCain's credit onto the open market. "Why would they leave?" Holtz-Eakin asks. Because McCain wants them to.

"What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit," Holtz-Eakin argues. Well, sure. The next question, though, is why Holtz-Eakin's boss believes the smart thing to do is to push Americans away from their "way better" healthcare, taking inadequate credits that the McCain campaign now concedes are worse than the status quo.

Update: Atrios' summary is far more straightforward than mine: "So, the [McCain] plan is to increase taxes on people with decent health care plans and provide a tax credit for people to buy shitty ones. That's some wealth spreading we can believe in, my friends!"

THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE CONTINUES.... As a rule, when conservative Republicans start bashing scientific research, it's a safe bet they're wrong. This is especially true of the McCain/Palin campaign.

Last week, for example, Sarah Palin delivered a speech on the ways in which the government could do more for special-needs children. She noted that Congress could invest more in tackling autism, for example, by eliminating earmarks, such as one devoted to "fruit fly research," which she said has "little or nothing to do with the public good."

Palin, not surprisingly, had it backwards. "Fruit fly research," ironically, has helped identifiy specific proteins on nerve-cell connections, and offers possible advances in, among other things, autism.

More notably, John McCain takes great pleasure in mocking an earmark Obama requested for, as McCain puts it, "an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago."

Lawrence Krauss explains today that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about.

The "overhead projector" in question is in fact a 40-year-old Zeiss optical projector that needs to be replaced at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago. The one-ton, 10-feet-long instrument is the central component of the Adler, the first planetarium ever built in the Western Hemisphere. It projects the night sky on the dome of the Sky Theater at the planetarium, which has hosted more than 35 million people since it opened, including more than 400,000 schoolchildren every year. In fact, the request -- made by Obama along with others in the Illinois congressional delegation, including three Republicans -- wasn't granted.

If it had been, it wouldn't have been a waste of government money. The National Academy of Sciences has targeted science education as a key goal in preserving the economic competitiveness of our nation. Similar "overhead projectors" in Los Angeles and New York have recently been replaced with the help of federal funds. McCain's gleeful attack sends this message: Encouraging science literacy is not worthy of government support. [...]

It is easy to attack what you don't understand. But politicians would be wiser to attempt to better appreciate how science affects the issues central to our political priorities before rushing to use scientific research and education as a scapegoat in their campaigns.

Ironically, when the McCain campaign started identifying exceptions to McCain's proposed "spending freeze," a senior policy adviser to the campaign told reporters that McCain's budget plan includes "a specific carve-out for spending on science," adding that we would "definitely see, under John McCain, more spending on research."

We're talking about a ticket that questions science when it comes to global warming, questions science when it comes to modern biology, and questions science when it comes to sexual health. That McCain and Palin support and oppose federal spending on science is consistent with their general incoherence on the subject.

TUESDAY'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.

* We knew we'd see a Jeremiah Wright ad eventually, and the right-wing National Republican Trust PAC is responsible for one.

* It looks like Virginia Republicans aren't confident in McCain's chances: "A phony flier, purporting to be from the Virginia Board of Elections, is circulating in the African-American-heavy Hampton Roads region of the state, falsely informing people that, because of expected high turnout, Democrats should vote on November 5th. The election is November 4th."

* The DNC is "taking out a $10 million line of credit to split equally between the House and Senate campaign committees" to help maximize their gains in congressional elections.

* Early voting is helping Obama in Florida and Ohio.

* The RNC is starting to worry, at least a little, about West Virginia.

* In Florida, a Suffolk Poll shows Obama leading McCain by five, 49% to 44%, while Rasmussen shows Obama up by four, 51% to 47%.

* In Ohio, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by four, 49% to 45%, while SurveyUSA shows Obama leading by the exact same margin.

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

* In Virginia, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by four, 51% to 47%.

* In Missouri, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by one, 48% to 47%.

* In North Carolina, Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama by one, 49% to 48%.

* In New Hampshire, a Marist poll shows Obama leading McCain by five, 50% to 45%.

* In Iowa, a Marist poll shows Obama leading McCain by 10, 52% to 42%.

* In Arizona, Rasmussen shows McCain leading Obama by five, 51% to 46%.

* Pew Research Center shows Obama leading McCain nationally by 16, 52% to 36%.

THE GOP'S FACTIONAL WARFARE.... Time will tell the extent to which Republicans have a rough election cycle, but rival intra-party factions are already gearing up for a post-election fight for the future of the party. The message from the base seems rather straightforward: "Screw moderation."

The social conservatives and moderates who together boosted the Republican Party to dominance have begun a tense battle over the future of the GOP, with social conservatives already moving to seize control of the party's machinery and some vowing to limit John McCain's influence, even if he wins the presidency.

In skirmishes around the country in recent months, evangelicals and others who believe Republicans have been too timid in fighting abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration have won election to the party's national committee, in preparation for a fight over the direction and leadership of the party.

The growing power of religious conservatives is alarming some moderate Republicans who believe that the party's main problem is that it has narrowed its appeal and alienated too many voters.

The first battle in the larger war will apparently be fought over the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. Far-right conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh and some state party chairs, are already arguing that they will choose the next party leader, even if McCain wins the presidency.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson insisted this is necessary, arguing that "moderating our party is what caused us to lose power" in 2006.

This is not an uncommon sentiment among leaders of the Republican base -- they seriously believe voters would be far more likely to support the GOP if party leaders were more right-wing. What's more, if things don't go well for the party seven days from now, these activists will push this line very aggressively as the party starts to put the pieces back together, whether it makes sense or not.

Kevin recently predicted that the Republican Party is "going to be riven by factional warfare for years, with moderates unable to get a purchase on the party apparatus because of the McCain albatross hanging around their necks. Eventually, like Britain's Labor Party in the 80s, they'll find their Tony Blair, but in the meantime they're likely to double down on the most strident possible social conservatism, convinced that the heartland will respond if only they regain the true faith."

We'll see how this works out for them.

'A WHACK JOB'.... The internal fight among McCain and Palin staffers got a little more intense over the weekend, when a McCain adviser told CNN, "She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone.... Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Today, the blame game got even uglier. The Politico's Mike Allen reports:

In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless "diva" description, calling her "a whack job."

I suppose we'll be hearing even more of this in the coming days, with McCain/Bush loyalists holding Palin responsible for practically all of the campaign's difficulties. The argument may even have some merit.

But there's still a limit to all of this. Indeed, no matter how hard they try, it's McCain who ends up holding the bag. It's not complicated: if Sarah Palin is "a whack job," why did McCain pick her to be one 72-year-old heartbeat from the presidency?

I suppose the obvious response is that neither McCain nor his aides realized when they chose her that she was "a whack job," but whose fault is it that McCain and his team decided to skip the vetting phase of the process?

To blame Palin is to blame McCain. If the campaign is her fault, then the campaign is his fault.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF BACKLASH.... There's been a fair amount of polling recently that shows John McCain's relentlessly negative campaign style backfiring -- he's struggled to narrow the gap, and he's driven up his negative ratings.

But this week, McCain's anti-Obama attacks prompted a very different kind of backlash, when at least three dozen workers at an Indiana telemarketing call center chose to walk off the job rather than read a McCain campaign script.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."

Williams' daughter told her that up to 40 of her co-workers had refused to read the script, and had left the call center after supervisors told them that they would have to either read the call or leave, Williams says. The call center is called Americall, and it's located in Hobart, IN.

"They walked out," Williams says of her daughter and her co-workers, adding that they weren't fired but willingly sacrificed pay rather than read the lines. "They were told [by supervisors], `If you all leave, you're not gonna get paid for the rest of the day."

The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. "It was like at least 40 people," the daughter said. "People thought the script was nasty and they didn't wanna read it."

A second worker at the call center confirmed the episode, saying that "at least 30" workers had walked out after refusing to read the script.

"We were asked to read something saying [Obama and Democrats] were against protecting children from danger," this worker said. "I wouldn't do it. A lot of people left. They thought it was disgusting."

For these call-center employees, they weren't just demonstrating character by taking a stand, they were also making a personal sacrifice -- by refusing to read McCain's vile script, these workers gave up a day's pay.

Keep in mind, robocalls are illegal in Indiana, forcing the McCain campaign to rely on these call centers to spread their smears. If more states passed similar laws, maybe we'd have more call-center-worker rebellions? And ultimately fewer loathsome Republican attacks over the phone?

STEVENS' (AND PALIN'S) NEXT MOVE.... Shortly after a jury convicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on seven felony counts, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), head of the NRSC, ostensibly charged with the task of helping Stevens get another term, issued a strongly worded statement. "Ted Stevens served his constituents for over 40 years and I am disappointed to see his career end in disgrace," Ensign said.

Oddly enough, Stevens doesn't see it that way.

A defiant Sen. Ted Stevens is returning to Alaska on Wednesday to resume his re-election campaign, despite being convicted of felonies that carry the potential of years in prison. [...]

Hours [after the conviction], the news had settled in. The guards were gone, the campaign ordered Moose's Tooth pizza for its workers and Stevens' backers started talking about what's next.

"I think it will be a battle but we're going to throw every ounce of effort into doing so," said political consultant Art Hackney, who is working on the Stevens campaign. Hackney said it's going to be a "nonstop campaigning, very aggressive," once Stevens gets back to Alaska.

Stevens will apparently not be able to even cast a vote for himself, and hopes to become the first convicted felon ever elected to the U.S. Senate.

The other angle worth considering here is that of Stevens ally Sarah Palin, who helped run Stevens' political group and who relied on Stevens' support to get elected. Yesterday, even after the verdict, Palin wouldn't say whether or not she plans to vote for Stevens, and declined to say whether she believes he should step down.

A.L. argued that this was a missed opportunity that McCain and Palin were foolish to pass up: "[W]hy the reluctance to criticize a man now that is now a convicted felon? Why not call for him to step down? Isn't that a no-brainer? Stevens is going to lose anyway and the McCain/Palin campaign is desperate for some good media coverage. This is right in their wheelhouse. And yet they're not swinging."

I'm reminded of something Palin said just a few months ago about Stevens: "I have great respect for the senator, and he needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion needs to be heard across America.... There's a big difference between reality and perception [about] our relationship."

I don't know what that means, but given yesterday's verdict, I'm looking forward to Palin's explanation.

Update: McCain has called on Stevens to resign from the Senate. No word from Palin.

THE REPUBLICANS' WARDROBE FIGHT.... The revelations about Sarah Palin receiving $150,000 in clothes and accessories from the RNC was largely a one-day story. Maybe two. People were surprised, the late-night comics had fun with it, and the political world was moving on.

Much to the chagrin of the McCain campaign, Palin decided to renew interest in the story on Sunday, defending her frugality and blaming the RNC for the whole mess.

And with that, what was an embarrassing side story is touching off yet another internecine fight, this time between the campaign and the RNC over who's responsible for a shopping spree gone awry.

Palin has pointed the finger at the RNC, as has McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer, who told MSNBC that the RNC "made the decision," and it was "obviously the RNC's call." Yesterday, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan pushed back, telling MSNBC that this was "a coordinated expense that the campaign asked us to pay for."

Complicating matters, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes, a Palin backer, went on Fox News to blame the McCain campaign, specifically senior McCain aide Nicolle Wallace. Wallace said:

"The person who went and bought the clothes, and as I understand it put the clothes on her credit card, went to Saks and Neiman Marcus -- where she was not asked to go by Sarah Palin, where Sarah Palin has never set foot -- and bought these clothes and brought them back, the staffer who did that has been a coward and has not stepped forward and said, 'I made a mistake, I went and bought these clothes, I shouldn't have, it's been an embarrassment to the campaign and to Sarah Palin and to John McCain, I hurt the campaign, I'm sorry, it was my fault.'

"Instead, she's allowed Sarah Palin to take the whole hit, and that's hurt the campaign... All the people I talk to say it's Nicolle Wallace. Now, if she didn't do that, then let her announce it publicly."

And here I thought we'd already established that Jeff Larson was the one doing the shopping.

The party's descent into junior-high-school-level sniping continues.

Oddly enough, the Republicans seem far more anxious to talk about this embarrassing flap than the Democrats. Who knew?

THERE IS NO PARALLEL.... Though it's unclear how close they were to executing their plot, two young white supremacists were arrested in Tennessee yesterday, in advance of an alleged plan to assassinate Barack Obama and murder 102 African-American kids.

Federal officials told reporters yesterday that the plot had not yet moved to an advanced stage, but the two would-be assassins had acquired weapons for their "killing spree."

For reasons that I don't understand, the Tennessee Republican Party felt compelled to issue a public statement after the arrests.

"Hate is not a political party, policy statement, agenda or ideology -- it is a pure evil that no place in civil society," said Robin Smith, Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. "Whether it is neo-Nazi skinheads plotting a racist shooting spree targeting Sen. Obama, or West Hollywood liberals hanging Gov. Sarah Palin in effigy and calling it 'art,' or unknown anarchists tossing bricks through the windows of a county Republican headquarters in Murfreesboro, Americans of all political views should be outraged."

There's an odd tendency in some far-right circles for conservatives to feel like they're victims of some kind of persecution. The problem with this bizarre complex, though, is that a) it's absurd; and b) it leads to ridiculous comparisons like this one from the Tennessee Republican Party. The statement seems to argue, "Sure, white supremacists planned a killing spree, but everyone should feel sorry for us because we've been targeted, too."

The Tennessee GOP really sees a parallel between a crude piece of art, random vandalism, and a plot to kill more than a hundred children and a presidential candidate. In Robin Smith's eyes, there's some kind of equivalency between the three. This is pure madness.

This is, of course, the same Tennessee Republican Party that's been so extreme in its vile attacks against Obama that McCain and GOP lawmakers felt the need to condemn them.

We'll see if there's any pushback against Robin Smith's breathtaking press release.

TALK ABOUT STRETCHING THE MAP.... In June, shortly after securing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign began airing television ads in 14 "red" states, a group which included Montana. It seemed like an odd choice -- Bush beat Kerry in Montana by more than 20 points four years ago, and Bush beat Gore in the state by 25 points eight years ago. Did the Obama campaign know something we don't?

Actually, yes. A Rasmussen poll in July showed Obama with a narrow lead in Montana, and last week, an MSU-Billings poll showed Obama leading McCain by four, 44% to 40%.

With a week to go, the RNC has decided this is a state worth worrying about.

The Republican National Committee will begin running television ads in Montana beginning on Wednesday, a sign of how heavily the playing field is tilted against the GOP with just eight days left in the presidential election.

Obama has already spent about $2 million in the state, while the RNC's ad buy, which is a negative spot attacking Obama, will cost about $400,000.

Montana certainly seems like an unexpected addition to the list of swing states, but it's not as if Democrats are invisible there -- Montana does, after all have a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. What's more, Bill Clinton won the state in 1992, thanks to a very strong showing from Ross Perot -- and Ron Paul is on the ballot in Montana this year (as the Constitution Party's "nominee").

In the broader context, though, there are probably quite a few vulnerable Republican senators who are wondering why the RNC would rather invest nearly a half-million in Montana on McCain's behalf, as opposed to giving them a much-needed hand in the last week.

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

* We've had some extraordinarily frustrating server problems today. We're aware of it, working on it, and apologize for the inconvenience.

* Scary beyond words: "Federal agents have broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree, the ATF said Monday. In court records unsealed Monday, federal agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target a predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.... Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of the Nashville field office for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said the two men planned to shoot 88 black people and decapitate another 14. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community."

* The Dow fell another 200 points today, closing at 8175.

* This seems rather important: "U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as 'serious aggression.' A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq."

* On a related note, there's been an increase in CIA airstrikes against militants in the Pakistani mountains.

* An aide to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) beat and assaulted Democratic trackers over the weekend. Wolf's office, after a lengthy delay, apologized for the incident this afternoon.

* The Reuters newsroom in New York was evacuated today after an envelope with a "puff of powder" was found. Authorities found the powder to be harmless soon thereafter.

* There's a real problem with the presidential ballot in North Carolina.

* Sarah Palin started talking about her wardrobe again yesterday. Apparently, the McCain campaign isn't happy about it.

* And finally, I'm pretty sure this is a video the McCain campaign doesn't want getting around.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

DOWN THE TUBES.... Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the first sitting senator to endure a criminal trial in 27 years and an ally of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, was found guilty today on seven felony counts.

Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Senate Republican in history and patriarch of Alaska politics, was found guilty of felony charges for making false statements.

The verdict could spell the end of a 40-year Senate career for a man who rose to be one of the most dominant figures in the upper chamber and who helped transform Alaska in its 50 years of statehood. The verdict was reached after the jury deliberated since Wednesday and found the 84-year-old senator guilty of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts from Bill Allen, the former head of Veco Corp., and other friends.

The jury did not seem to buy the explanation from Stevens that Allen showered him with gifts he didn't want and was unaware of, and that he believed the $160,000 he gave to another contractor covered all costs for the home renovations.

Roll Call noted that the decision came "on the same day that an alternate juror was placed back on the jury -- and just over a week before Stevens (R) will face voters in Alaska as he seeks re-election."

The AP added that Stevens "faces up to five years in prison on each count but, under federal sentencing guidelines, will likely receive much less prison time, if any." His lawyers will, undoubtedly, appeal today's outcome.

As for the political implications, this will seriously diminish Stevens' re-election chances -- call it a hunch -- and make it that much more difficult for the GOP to stay competitive in the Senate. Palin, meanwhile, is also likely to face new questions -- assuming she ever actually speaks to the media -- about her support for and long-time association with Stevens, whose political group Palin helped run and whose support she relied on to get elected.

THE WEALTH SPREADERS.... Without a hint of irony, Sarah Palin has begun calling Barack Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader." I'm not sure if typical voters, who've seen their real wages decline, and who haven't benefitted at all from a series of Republican tax cuts, will necessarily be outraged by the idea of a president offering more economic opportunities to those who've been left behind, but whatever. I'm not the McCain/Palin campaign's message consultant.

But more importantly, as Ryan Powers noted, there's the irony of Palin making these ridiculous attacks.

Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies. [...]

In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

As Hendrick Hertzberg notes, "Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it ... but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."

I realize that even McCain, Palin, and Fox News don't take this "socialism" nonsense seriously, and that this is just rhetoric borne of desperation. McCain has always struggled with new ideas and a changing world, so it stands to reason he'd rely on a red scare as his closing argument.

But the truth is, Sarah Palin's Alaska is about as close to socialism as America gets. As Yglesias recently noted, "You have collective ownership of valuable natural resources that generates lots of revenue for the state, and then the government makes 'spreading the wealth around' through the Permanent Fund, etc. its main priority."

The point isn't that there's anything especially wrong with Palin-style socialism; there isn't. The point is, if McCain and Palin want to whine incessantly about socialism, redistribution of wealth, and "welfare," they ought to a) learn what they're talking about; and b) take a good look in the mirror.

RADIO DAZE.... In 2001, then-State Sen. Barack Obama participated in a radio discussion on civil rights, the judiciary, and economics. The McCain campaign, Fox News, and Drudge have been apoplectic today, insisting that Obama's on-air comments are shocking and scandalous. I checked it out, expecting something fairly damaging, but found the whole thing rather anti-climactic.

Obama was clearly wearing his professorial hat during the interview, talking about "redistributive change," but to hear the McCain/FNC/Drudge troika tell it, Obama was practically reading from the Communist Manifesto. Not only are Republicans wrong about this manufactured outrage, they actually have the story backwards.

Obama in that interview said, "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that."

When a caller inquired about whether the courts are the appropriate mechanism for socio-economic progress, Obama said remedies should come through legislation, not the judiciary.

Now, I've let my subscription lapse on Republican Talking Points Weekly, but shouldn't conservatives agree with Obama had to say? Obama may have used a few big words, but his argument included some basic ideas that Republicans need not find controversial -- the courts have never played a role in improving economic conditions of working Americans, and the left should look to policy makers, not judges, to address economic inequalities. Over-reliance on the courts, Obama said, is a mistake.

And yet, the three-headed McCain/FNC/Drudge monster is just shocked by what Obama had to say, pointing to his remarks as evidence of, well, something nefarious. It's not quite clear what. Doug Holtz-Eakin, for reasons that defy comprehension, is pushing this story in the most intellectually dishonest way possible, destroying what's left of his credibility.

The right seems especially hung up on Obama's use of the word "tragedy," but as Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton noted, "In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country."

This seemed fairly obvious to me. That McCain/FNC/Drudge are hyperventilating today says more about their desperation than Obama's ideology.

OBAMA'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.... Barack Obama just wrapped up a "closing argument" speech in Canton, Ohio, summarizing his vision, and highlighting the campaign's message for the final eight days.

Halperin has the full text of the 4,000-word speech, but the bulk of the message was, not surprisingly, about the economy.

"Now, I don't believe that government can or should try to solve all our problems. I know you don't either. But I do believe that government should do that which we cannot do for ourselves -- protect us from harm and provide a decent education for our children; invest in new roads and new science and technology. It should reward drive and innovation and growth in the free market, but it should also make sure businesses live up to their responsibility to create American jobs, and look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road. It should ensure a shot at success not only for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who's willing to work. That's how we create not just more millionaires, but more middle-class families. That's how we make sure businesses have customers that can afford their products and services. That's how we've always grown the American economy -- from the bottom-up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity, and there is nothing more American than that."

It's funny to think McCain carefully positioned himself as an opponent of middle-class tax breaks. I'm still not sure why, but the vaunted McCain Communications Team must know something I don't.

Obama's closing argument is notable in that it's almost a "greatest hits" package, drawing a bit from Obama's 2004 convention speech and his 2008 convention speech.

"In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe. "Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else -- we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America."

For what it's worth, the McCain campaign announced this morning that McCain does not plan to offer a closing argument of his own, preferring instead to stick with the same old attacks for the campaign's closing week.

A MOCKERY OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.... Earlier this month, reporters were told they could attend a Sarah Palin rally, but all journalists would be prohibited from talking to voters who attended the event. A week later, Palin aides told an NBC affiliate in Maine that she's willing to be part of an interview, but only if the McCain campaign could choose the reporter asking the questions.

Taking this bizarre attitude one step further, Palin offered a CBS affiliate in Des Moines five minutes for an interview. Reporter Cynthia Fodor explained the catch: "[W]e had to submit which topics we wanted to discuss ahead of time which is not standard procedure."

Think about that for a second -- Sarah Palin was afraid she couldn't get through a five-minute interview with a local television station without getting a few hints first.

Her excuses are running a little thin at this point. She's been a candidate for national office for two months, and in eight days, Palin wants voters to put her a heartbeat from the presidency. Her fear of questions is not exactly reassuring.

For what it's worth, the station agreed to Palin's demands and gave her the topics in advance. Not surprisingly, the interview was dull, and featured Palin rattling off a series of talking points.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Fodor had shown up for the interview and asked questions about different topics. Would Palin have gotten up and left?

'DANGEROUS THREESOME'.... As John McCain's desperation level gets higher, his rhetoric gets stranger. From an event in Cleveland:

"This election comes down to how you want your hard earned money spent. Do you want to keep it and invest it in your future, or have it taken by the most liberal person to ever run for the Presidency and the Democratic leaders who have been running congress for the past two years -- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? This is a dangerous threesome. They believe that $1 trillion of rescue financing is not enough and have already proposed another $300 billion spending spree they are calling a stimulus plan. I would rather give the great American middle class additional tax cuts and let you keep that money and invest it in your future."

First, as we talked about over the weekend, the "checks and balances" argument is wildly misguided. McCain is, in effect, telling voters that Obama will be in a position to deliver on his campaign promises, thanks to a like-minded Congress.

Second, last week, McCain liked the idea of a second stimulus plan. He really should keep up on his own talking points.

Third, if a tax cut for the American middle class were really a priority, Obama's middle-class tax cut wouldn't be three times as big as McCain's.

And fourth, "a dangerous threesome"? Is this really the most presidential message McCain can think of?

MONDAY'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. (I'm running late because the server has been a mess this morning.)

* If crowd size translates to votes, the Obama campaign must have been thrilled by what they saw over the weekend.

* Sarah Palin's home-town newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, endorsed Obama/Biden on Saturday.

* Bill Clinton and most of the Democratic establishment of Arkansas held a rally on Obama's behalf over the weekend in Arkansas.

* In Virginia, a Washington Post poll shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 52% to 44%, while a poll from Virginia Commonwealth University shows Obama up by 11, 51% to 40%.

* In Missouri, Mason-Dixon shows McCain up by one, while SurveyUSA shows Obama by two, and Research 2000 shows Obama up by one.

* In Iowa, a Lee Enterprises poll shows Obama up by 15, 54% to 39%, while Mason-Dixon shows Obama up by 11, 51% to 40%.

* In New Hampshire, a Boston Globe poll shows Obama up by 15, 54% to 39%.

* In Georgia, Mason-Dixon shows McCain up by six, 49% to 43%.

* In Kentucky, a Herald-Leader poll shows McCain up by 16, with 12% of Kentucky voters acknowledging that they're uncomfortable with the color of Obama's skin.

LEGISLATIVE INCOHERENCE.... For a while, I was keeping track of all of the bills John McCain opposed that he personally sponsored. It became daunting to keep up with -- McCain, most notably during the Republican primaries, announced his opposition to lots of his own bills.

Yesterday, as Ron Chusid noted, McCain was on CNN and took this to the next level, announcing that he would have vetoed the same spending bills he'd voted to support.

BLITZER: Where would you, as president, draw the line between vetoing that kind of spending bill or accepting it because of the greater good that it also includes, as you decided in the bailout?

MCCAIN: I would have vetoed literally every spending bill, even those that I had voted for, if I were president of the United States.

Chusid noted, "This is even more ridiculous than John Kerry's quote on voting for an appropriation before he voted against it. In Kerry's case he was talking about two different bills.... McCain is talking about vetoing bills he actually voted for. He did have the opportunity to vote against them."

I'm trying to wrap my head around McCain's argument -- the spending bills were bad, Bush should have vetoed them, so McCain voted for them.

Blitzer didn't press the issue, but I have no idea what McCain's talking about.

PRESSLER JOINS THE OBAMACANS.... Another one.

Former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), who was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in the United States Senate, is the latest Republican to back Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Politico learned Sunday.

Pressler, who said that in addition to casting an absentee ballot for Obama he'd donated $500 to the Illinois senator's campaign, cited the Democrat's response to the financial crisis as the primary reason for his decision.

Pressler, who admitted that he'd never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in his life before Obama, said it was difficult to vote against a Republican he served with in the Senate, but emphasized how impressed he's been with Obama's team of economic advisors, and added that McCain's "handling of the financial crisis made me feel nervous."

Pressler joins Colin Powell, William Weld, Arne Carlson, Charles Fried, and other notable Republicans who've recently announced their support for Obama.

But Pressler's explanation for why he dumped McCain for Obama is the part that stood out for me. For weeks, the pundits have noted that the financial crisis has seriously undermined the McCain campaign. That's true, but it overlooks why -- McCain has handled the crisis really badly. It's not enough to simply note that a focus on the economy is necessarily good news for Obama; McCain had a chance to deal with this crisis effectively and he blew it.

As Obama recently told Rolling Stone, in recent years, McCain has confronted two major crises. "One is the war in Iraq, and the other is what's happened just over the last three and a half weeks on Wall Street. In both instances, what you've seen is John McCain being impulsive, not getting all the information that he needs, surrounding himself with people who are predisposed to agreeing with him. And as a consequence, I think he's made bad judgments."

A surprising number of Republicans have apparently reached the same conclusion.

WHERE'S CONDI?.... On "Meet the Press" yesterday, John McCain touched on Colin Powell's support for Barack Obama, expressing his "disappointment." He added, however, that he has the support of five former Republican Secretaries of State, though he struggled a bit in naming them.

As Ali Frick noted, there was one noticeable absence from McCain's list.

So why isn't Condoleezza Rice, the current Secretary of State, on that list? Rice has said she's "not going to get involved in this political campaign." But perhaps her hesitation has something to do with Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). When asked in September whether Palin had enough experience for the job of vice president, Rice deliberately avoided the question, saying only, "These are decisions that Senator McCain has made. I have great confidence in him."

It is rather curious. Consider Rice's interest in the last presidential campaign, when she took a very active role. In an item that is no longer online, U.S. News reported on the scene at the White House on Election Day 2004.

It was about 2 p.m. Election Day, and White House political chief Karl Rove was steaming mad. Crummy media exit polls were all over the Internet, claiming a Kerry blowout and possibly depressing the GOP vote, as well as Bushies around the nation. "Karl was furious," we're told. So he went to work in a White House dining room, laying out electoral spreadsheets, scrolling through GOP exit polls, and watching TV. "Karl knows every single precinct," says a friend. "We were never behind."

But how would he get the word out? Enter Chief of Staff Andy Card and national security adviser Condi Rice. "She was into it," said the friend. Card shouted out vote counts from the computer, Rice scribbled them down, and Rove compared them with old statistics.

In fact, Rice arguably did more campaign work than any NSA ever. Four years ago, on the day of a massive military operation against Zarqawi, Rice gave a campaign speech. The day Poland announced it would withdraw troops from Iraq, Rice gave another campaign speech. While Europeans negotiated with Iran to end its nuclear program, Rice gave another campaign speech.

And now she's reluctant to even endorse McCain? Hmm.

NUCLEAR SAFETY IS FOR WUSSES.... For months, John McCain has blasted Barack Obama for his reluctance to support expanded nuclear power plants. Obama has pushed back, noting that he supports nuclear as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, but before an expansion, he wants to resolve lingering questions about the security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.

Campaigning in Iowa yesterday, McCain responded with the kind of intellectual rigor and seriousness of thought we've come to expect of the Republican nominee.

"You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words," McCain said. "We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah."

Now, the Republican activists on hand for the speech found "blah, blah, blah" to be absolutely hilarious. I haven't the foggiest idea why.

But it does raise a question about McCain's approach to the issue. Obama has clear concerns about safeguards for nuclear power; McCain believes these safeguards are not only irrelevant, but worthy of mockery.

I'm curious: which concerns, specifically, does McCain dismiss as trivia? The security of spent fuel, storing nuclear waste, or nuclear proliferation?

IT ALL COMES BACK TO JUDGMENT.... The infighting among McCain campaign staffers got a little tense over the weekend, with the bulk of the tension surrounding Sarah Palin -- one faction believes she's to blame for the campaign's problems, while another believes McCain's aides have misused her and failed to take advantage of her strengths.

Far be it for me to pick sides in this squabble, but it's worth keeping in mind that it's very hard to teach an unprepared student who hasn't done her homework.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

Robert Draper spoke with one of the campaign's senior advisers not too long ago, asking him a straightforward question: "Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Governor Palin is about the issues of the day?"

After pondering the question for a moment, he said, "No. I don't know."

Now, in the context of the internecine campaign conflict, this might seem to give the McCain/Bush faction an edge -- Palin took on a task she wasn't prepared for. Aides worked hard to bring her up to speed on Government 101, but she simply wasn't ready. Given this, the McCain side of the campaign divide finds it easier to blame Palin for its troubles.

But there's still one key flaw: if Palin was hopelessly ignorant and unable to learn the basics, why on earth did McCain pick her? If the McCain/Bush aides hope to gain an edge by preemptively blaming Palin for a defeat, it doesn't exactly clear their boss -- McCain chose Palin to be one 72-year-old heartbeat from the presidency. If she's the disaster who gets the blame, it's still McCain who bears responsibility for the fiasco.

ABOUT THOSE ZOGBY POLLS.... Zogby polls haven't enjoyed widespread acclaim this year, but they continue to be part of the mix -- and as this morning, John McCain just loves the numbers Zogby published today.

Democrat Barack Obama's lead over Republican rival John McCain has dropped to 5 points, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Sunday.

Obama leads McCain by 49 percent to 44 percent among likely U.S. voters in the daily tracking poll, which has a margin of error of 2.9 points. Obama's lead has dropped over the last three days after hitting a high of 12 points on Thursday.

Now, I noted the other day that there may be a temptation on the part of some to believe polls that offer favorable results, and ignore polls that don't. It's not an intellectually honest way of watching a campaign, but it's not uncommon. As such, it wasn't especially surprising to see McCain seize on Zogby as a reliable measurement of public opinion this morning on "Meet the Press."

But there's reason for skepticism. Zogby's wild swings -- Obama's leads have gone from three to 12 to five very quickly -- aren't reflected in other national polls, which have shown pretty steady numbers of late.

Isaac Chotiner noted, "Given the fact that the race has been remarkably stable over the past ten days or so, you might expect some skepticism from pollster John Zogby when his daily samples jump wildly around from night to night. But no: Not only does Zogby seem to have total confidence in his numbers, but he also interprets each wild swing as if it shows meaningful progress for one candidate or another."

Quite right. As recently as Thursday, Zogby said McCain "is not connecting" with voters. Just 72 hours later, McCain has found his "message."

Chotiner concluded, "This verges on the absurd. Listening to Zogby discuss his numbers is akin to hearing basketball announcers search for a reason why some particular team is having a bad shooting night. It can never be that, er, if you play an 82-game season, occasionally your shots will not fall."

A 'COMMON PHILOSOPHY'.... Under the circumstances, one might assume that John McCain would try to avoid talking about George W. Bush altogether. Just pretend he doesn't exist. If asked, he'd say, "George who?"

But, no. McCain keeps pushing his luck. A few days ago, McCain brought up Bush in order to talk about how much Obama has in common with the president. A day later, McCain brought up Bush again in order to argue, unpersuasively, that he disagrees with the president about several key issues. McCain talked about Bush again this morning, acknowledging that he and the president "share a common philosophy of the Republican Party."

I suspect the Obama campaign couldn't be happier to have the discussion head in this direction. Indeed, Obama, campaigning in Denver today, plans to help McCain get his message out.

"Just this morning, Senator McCain said that he and President Bush – 'share a common philosophy.' That's right, Colorado. I guess that was John McCain finally giving us a little straight talk, and owning up to the fact that he and George Bush actually have a whole lot in common."

Look, this isn't even a close call. By now, we've all seen the clip with McCain bragging to a national television audience about having voted with Bush 90% of the time, "higher than a lot of my even Republican colleagues."

But the connection obviously goes far deeper. As Tom Brokaw reminded McCain this morning, the senator has insisted, "[O]n the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." A few months ago, McCain vowed to campaign alongside Bush as much as possible this year.

And perhaps most importantly of all, McCain's policy agenda for the next four years is practically indistinguishable from Bush's policy agenda. This is old news.

Yet McCain continues to engage on this issue, even going so far as to equate Bush and Obama, apparently unaware of just how delighted Obama is to have this discussion in the campaign's closing days.

AN ARGUMENT MISSING A CONSEQUENCE.... The McCain campaign is reportedly planning to go all in when it comes to warning voters about a Democratic president working with a Democratic Congress. It is a key to his "closing argument," and as of very recently, an integral part of his stump speech.

McCain said having Democrats in control of the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Senate under Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, would give Democrats unfettered power. [...]

"Senator Obama's tax increase would put even more people out of work," McCain said. "We've seen this before in other countries. It doesn't work. The answer to a strong economy is not higher taxes.

"But that is exactly what's going to happen if the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can't let that happen. Are you ready for Obama, Pelosi and Reid?" the Arizona senator said.

Putting aside McCain's obvious confusion about economics, McCain's "warnings" really don't make any sense. As Yglesias put it, "Presumably, the reason Democrats are forecast to make gains in the House and the Senate and Obama is leading in the polls is that, yes, most voters want Democrats to take over. This sounds more like a fundraising pitch than a general election argument."

On the surface, there may be something appealing about an amorphous phrase like "checks and balances." But one of the problems with McCain's argument is that it lacks consequences. He doesn't have an answer to the "or what?" question. ("We can let Dems control the White House, Senate, and House," McCain says. "Or what?" voters ask.)

McCain's pitch is premised on the notion that voters won't think it through, and will prefer gridlock just for the sake of gridlock. If the president and the Congress are on the same page, they'll be more likely to move away from Bush's economic policies, pass a middle-class tax cut, end the war in Iraq, pass a universal healthcare plan, pass a comprehensive energy policy, and make college more affordable.

McCain's argument, in effect, is, "Vote for Obama and he'll likely be able to deliver on his promises. Vote for me so those things you want are less likely to happen."

McCain has experimented with all kinds of different messages lately, but this is comically unpersuasive. If Democrats are really lucky, McCain will keep this up and make it his central focus for the next nine days.

DAVID FRUM GIVES UP ON MCCAIN.... On CNN's "Larry King Live" a few days ago, David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and Giuliani campaign aide, offered his party some advice. "[W]e need to stop indulging the idea, which has been pretty dead for a while, this [presidential race is winnable," Frum said. "It's probably not winnable. It's almost certainly not winnable." His advice was to focus on saving some Republican senators, instead of investing in McCain.

Frum expounded on the subject today in a Washington Post piece, in which he argued that McCain is not only losing, but is also "losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him."

In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first.

I suppose there's some logic in this, if one agrees with Frum that McCain's chances for victory are too remote to be taken seriously. But there are a couple of problems with Frum's pitch.

First, Frum's argument is predicated on an oddly paranoid premise. In explaining why Republicans should focus on "saving" vulnerable GOP incumbent senators, he argues that without 45 seats or so, Democrats will "reward friends and punish enemies," "silence conservative talk radio," "police the activities of right-leaning think tanks," and demonstrate a "militant" and "angry intolerance" for dissent. In other words, the pitch is this: "Vote for Republican Senate candidates, because David Frum has an overactive imagination."

Second, Frum believes candidates like John Sununu in New Hampshire, Gordon Smith in Oregon, and Norm Coleman in Minnesota can be saved if the party moves away from far-right "themes and messages" used by Sarah Palin. The election is nine days. Frum thinks the GOP can salvage some wins by moving to the center now? As if the nation has been unconscious the last several years?

Frum's argument is not completely ridiculous, at least when it comes to the RNC's resources. That the Republican National Committee thought it wise to spend $150,000 on Sarah Palin's campaign wardrobe, while the party's congressional candidates are struggling, is very hard to defend. If the RNC were to give up on McCain altogether, and focus its remaining resources on down-ballot races, it might make a difference.

But he likelihood of Republicans taking Frum's advice seems remote. They've come this far with an incoherent strategy, and it's too late in the game to change it now.

ARIZONA.... It seems like a stretch. In fact, it seems almost silly. But to borrow Atrios' phrase, there's a certain entertainment factor in poll porn.

Democrats are circulating a poll showing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) losing ground in his own state, an ominous sign for his beleaguered campaign as state after state turns blues.

Project New West, which aims to build the Democratic Party in the Intermountain West, says McCain leads Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the Grand Canyon State, 48 percent to 44 percent.

The pollsters call that a "dramatic shift" from a survey they took in mid-September, which had McCain ahead by 14 points, 54 percent to 40 percent.

"Bad News for McCain: Presidential Contest in Arizona has Closed in Arizona And McCain Now Leads By Just 4 Points," says a memo from pollsters Andrew Myers of Myers Research and Strategic Services, and Lisa Grove of Grove Research.

To be sure, this poll, while eyebrow-raising, seems to be at odds with most of the available data out of Arizona. What's more, while Obama is stretching the map pretty well, there's no way in the world Arizonans are going to start seeing ads in their state this week.

But the New York Times notes that Arizona is trending "blue," and while McCain is very likely to carry his home state, Democratic advances in Arizona are also likely, and the party is in position to gain "a majority of Arizona's Congressional delegation -- now with eight members -- for the first time since 1966."

LIEBERMAN HASN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HIMSELF.... Joe Lieberman adopted the role of Republican attack dog early on, but as the election draws near, he's hoping the political world has a very short memory.

Lieberman, a self-proclaimed "independent Democrat" who was chosen by McCain to make the case against Obama at the Republican National Convention in early September, said his comments have been within bounds.

"When I go out, I say, 'I have a lot of respect for Sen. Obama. He's bright. He's eloquent.'"

My hunch is, Lieberman sees the direction of the political winds, and hopes to convince Democrats that while he's been a McCain sycophant, he's always been "respectful" towards Obama.

Lieberman, in other words, has to hope Democrats haven't been paying any attention at all. The party is supposed to forget, for example, when Lieberman argued that Obama doesn't put "country first."

And the time Lieberman said it was a "good question" to ask whether Obama is a "Marxist."

And the time Lieberman ironically accused the Obama campaign of "sleazy tactics."

And the time Lieberman, at the Republican National Convention, falsely accused Obama of trying to undermine the troops

"Respectful"? Nice try, Joe.

WHO DOES MCCAIN PLAN TO 'TEST'?.... Last weekend, Joe Biden predicted that U.S. enemies may try to "test" Barack Obama with an international crisis early on if he's elected president, but Obama's "spine of steel'' will serve him well when faced with these challenges. The McCain campaign, ever since, has tried to characterize Biden's remarks as some kind of important development.

Yesterday, McCain, again citing Biden's comments, added some new rhetoric to the mix.

"I'm gonna test them,'' Republican John McCain said at a campaign rally in New Mexico this morning. "They're not gonna test me.''

So much for walking softly.

Maybe McCain could take a moment to elaborate on what this means, exactly. He's going to "test" rivals? Which ones? How will he "test" them?

If Biden's remarks suggest U.S. enemies may try to create an international crisis, it sounds as if McCain's message is, "I'll show them; I'll start an international crisis first!"

Given McCain's record of saber-rattling towards Iran, aggression towards North Korea, and antagonism towards Russia, McCain's vow to "test" U.S. rivals isn't exactly reassuring. What is it, exactly, he's promising to do?

KICKING THE INFIGHTING UP A NOTCH.... Ben Smith's impressive item earlier about the infighting among McCain campaign aides has caused quite a stir, but just as importantly, it's also caused more McCain aides to start pointing fingers more aggressively.

McCain sources say Palin has gone off message several times, and they privately wonder if the incidents were deliberate. They cited that she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan.

A second McCain source tells CNN she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

This is only going to get worse, as various factions fight to preserve their careers by destroying their campaign colleagues, hoping to avoid blame in the event of a defeat.

Kevin noted that today's buzz is likely "just the barest teaser of the bloodshed that's going to erupt between McCain and Palin loyalists after the election." If the McCain campaign comes up short, that's certainly true. We're 10 days from Election Day and multiple McCain insiders are dishing to CNN about Sarah Palin being a power-hungry diva?

What do you suppose McCain's top aides will be saying in 11 days?

THE PENNSYLVANIA GOP.... It's not as if one state Republican Party office is known for being especially well respected, but the Pennsylvania GOP seems to be competing for some kind of prize in absurdity.

A new e-mail making the rounds among Jewish voters in Pennsylvania this week falsely alleged that Mr. Obama "taught members of Acorn to commit voter registration fraud,'' and equated a vote for Senator Barack Obama with the "tragic mistake" of their Jewish ancestors, who "ignored the warning signs in the 1930's and 1940's."

At first blush, it was typical of the sorts of e-mails floating around with false, unsubstantiated and incendiary claims this year.

But where most of the attack e-mails against Mr. Obama have been mostly either anonymous or from people outside of mainstream politics, this one had an unusually official provenance: It was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Republican Party's "Victory 2008" committee.

And it was signed by several prominent McCain supporters in the state: Mitchell L. Morgan, a top fund-raiser; Hon. Sandra Schwartz Newman, a member of Mr. McCain's national task-force monitoring Election Day voting, and I. Michael Coslov, a steel industry executive.

After the email caused an uproar, leaders of the state party repudiated it, telling reporters that some of the email was "accurate," but some of the attacks couldn't "substantiated."

This is the same Pennsylvania Republican Party that recently issued a press release describing Obama as "a terrorist's best friend," and the same Pennsylvania Republican Party that apparently was involved in promoting the Ashley Todd hoax.

That's a lot of nonsense in a short period of time for one state party.

THE HUGE ETHICS SCANDAL ON THE BACKBURNER.... It's vaguely surreal that in the midst of a competitive presidential campaign, one of the candidates for national office is embroiled in a major ethics scandal, and the political world is largely ignoring it.

Two weeks ago, an independent investigation launched by the Alaskan legislature into Sarah Palin's abuse-of-power scandal wrapped up on Friday with a fairly devastating report -- Palin violated the public trust, violated state ethics laws, and lied about it. Soon after, Palin, driven either out of ignorance or illiteracy, said the report had cleared her of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity," which is the opposite of reality.

The investigation into Palin's scandal is not yet over.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished giving three hours of depositions Friday night to the state Personnel Board, which is looking into whether she unfairly fired Alaska's public safety director this summer, her attorney told CNN.

Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, gave her deposition in St. Louis.... Her husband, Todd Palin, also was supposed to testify separately Friday but it was unclear if he had done so.

Personnel Board investigator Timothy Petumenos took the governor's testimony.

Now, the Petumenos probe should be more favorable to Palin. It's run, after all, by Alaska's personnel board, which is made up of members who answer to the governor, which makes it far from independent. My suspicion is that Republicans support this inquiry because they want one more report -- in this case, a less objective one -- to clear Palin of any wrongdoing. The new talking point would be, "One investigation cleared Palin, one didn't, so let's just forget the whole thing."

This may yet be tricky, however. Petumenos is a Democrat who contributed to Palin's 2006 opponent for governor, Tony Knowles. Complicating matters slightly, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the personnel board's investigation of Palin has been "broadened" to include "other ethics complaints against the governor."

But stepping back, it's amazing this scandal is barely generating a whisper in political circles. A candidate for national office has been found to have violated ethics laws, recently, in a major abuse-of-power scandal. The Obama campaign isn't pressing the issue, reporters seem to find this irrelevant, and most voters probably have no idea that the scandal is ongoing. As far as I can tell, John McCain hasn't said a word about any of this, and reporters haven't even asked for his perspective on his running mate's

It's odd. If Joe Biden were recently found to have abused the powers of his office and lied about it, and was still under investigation as Election Day neared, I have a hunch it'd be a bigger deal.

SATURDAY'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.

* The Obama campaign unveiled a two-minute ad this morning that emphasizes Obama's economic plan and how he'd pay for it. McCain and Bush aren't mentioned.

* The National Republican Senatorial Committee has officially given up on winning Colorado's open U.S. Senate seat, which obviously spells trouble for Bob Schaffer.

* In other Senate news, Obama cut a new TV ad for Oregon's Jeff Merkley, the first commercial Obama has done for a Democratic Senate candidate this year.

* In Ohio, a new Ohio Newspaper Poll shows Obama leading McCain by three, 49% to 46%. A month ago, this same poll showed McCain up by two.

* In Colorado, a new Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 poll shows Obama leading McCain by 12, 52% to 40%.

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

* In Iowa, Rasmussen shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 52% to 44%.

* Nationally, Newsweek shows Obama leading McCain by 12, 53% to 41%.

A CAMPAIGN DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF.... The Lord of the Flies climate at McCain campaign headquarters continues, with a pro-Palin faction reportedly at odds with the loyal Bushies McCain brought in to run the operation.

Even as John McCain and Sarah Palin scramble to close the gap in the final days of the 2008 election, stirrings of a Palin insurgency are complicating the campaign's already-tense internal dynamics.

Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image -- even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.

"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.

"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.

According to the piece in the Politico, Palin's people blame handlers for not letting her be herself. McCain's people blame Palin for being unprepared and unable to answer questions coherently. Palin's people don't want the governor to get the blame if the ticket loses, and McCain's people resent the lack of loyalty and discipline.

Putting aside which faction is right, watching both sides go at it with unattributed sniping through the media suggests the air at headquarters is getting increasingly toxic. That doesn't necessarily mean McCain's going to lose in 10 days -- voters may not care that he's the head of a dysfunctional operation, with staffers divided against themselves -- but it is another hurdle to clear.

As for Palin blowing off the campaign's advice, I have no idea whether that's going to help, but it can't get much worse -- voters don't like her, and even Republicans don't welcome her as the party's future.

THE RETURN OF THE MAYBERRY MACHIAVELLIS.... Ross Douthat makes an interesting observation about how the McCain campaign approached policy issues, or in its case, doesn't.

One of the many fascinating things about Robert Draper's Times Magazine story on the McCain campaign is what isn't included in its account of the attempts to brand (and rebrand, and rebrand) John McCain's candidacy: Namely, any real discussion of policy. From Draper's account, the McCain campaign staff has gone around and around trying to figure out how to sell their candidate -- as a fighter! as an experienced leader! as a maverick! etc. -- but hardly ever seemed to have spent much time thinking about how these narratives would mesh with or be reinforced by the actual policy agenda the campaign was advancing.

Think about what we're supposed to expect from a McCain administration. What is it that he really wants to do if elected to the presidency? He offers a lot of vague rhetoric about "reforming" things, but no one's sure what that means.

Seriously, after two full years of campaigning, does McCain even have a policy agenda? McCain spends a lot of time making personal attack against Obama, but off the top of your head, try to name three big, unique policy ideas that McCain takes seriously and wants to implement. It's surprisingly difficult.

McCain seems to like coastal drilling -- which he opposed up until fairly recently -- but that wouldn't affect the marketplace for a decade. McCain seems to like Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy -- which he also opposed up until fairly recently -- but that's just a continuation of the last eight years. McCain seems to like Bush's Iraq policy, but that's also just more of the same. He seems to hate earmarks quite a bit -- despite the earmarks he's requested as a long-time Washington insider -- but since they constitute a tiny fraction of the budget, it's hardly a consequential policy proposal.

If all of this sounds familiar, there's a very good reason.

In an interview with Esquire magazine, [John J. DiIulio Jr., a domestic policy advisor to George W. Bush] said: ''There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.''

The two are identical. Bush and McCain have sought power for power's sake.

SCHEUNEMANN HAS A TEMPER TANTRUM.... Randy Scheunemann may be John McCain's top foreign policy advisor, but it appears he has the kind of temperament usually found in his boss.

Yesterday morning, the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder noted the "internal dissension" at McCain campaign headquarters, including a faction that has "begun to whisper about Gov. Sarah Palin to reporters." This faction, Ambinder explained, believes Palin, "perhaps unwittingly," keeps saying things that take the campaign off message, including her ridiculous attack on Obama "palling around with terrorists" -- a line that the campaign had reportedly not cleared in advance.

Soon after, Scheunemann contacted Ambinder via email.

Just read your post. This is on the record. This is cleared by HQ. It is a fact that Barack Obama was palling around with terrorists. It was a fact before Governor Palin said it in a fully vetted speech and it is fact today. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.

Temper, temper, Randy. Keep this up and people might start wondering about the erratic and intemperate nature of the McCain campaign, which doesn't seem to keep its cool under pressure.

First, it's kind of odd that Scheunemann believes it's a campaign-approved "fact" that Obama "palled around with terrorists." For one thing, Obama never "palled around with" Bill Ayers, who presumably is the basis for this absurd smear. If the McCain gang has evidence to the contrary, it's hiding it well. For another, note the "s" at the end of "terrorists." Scheunemann believes it's a "fact" that there are multiple terrorists that Obama keeps on speed-dial?

Second, if the volatile Scheunemann really wants to play this game, it's worth taking a moment to consider his close associations with some strikingly unsavory characters.

It is a fact that Randy Scheunemann was a stooge for Ahmad Chalabi. It was a fact before the McCain campaign launched ridiculous smears and it is a fact today. It is, to borrow a phrase, "bullshit to claim or write anything else."

Remember, we are talking about a man who would, in a McCain administration, have a key role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Something to keep in mind.

READY ON DAY ONE.... Last month, Joe Lieberman was asked whether he believes Sarah Palin is prepared to lead if something should happen to John McCain after the election. "Well, you know, let's assume the best," Lieberman said, adding, "Let's assume that nothing bad will happen."

Yesterday, Lieberman, who's generally toed the party line when it comes to Palin, slipped again.

In a discussion with journalists from his home state of Connecticut, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat-turned-independent but staunchly in the Republican presidential nominee's camp, offered a somewhat ambiguous assessment today of Gov. Sarah Palin's readiness to be president.

Asked by the Stamford Advocate whether Ms. Palin was prepared to be commander in chief, Mr. Lieberman said: "Thank God, she's not going to have to be president from Day One. McCain's going to be alive and well."

Lieberman added that Palin will get ready, thanks to the fact that she's "smart," and would get "on-the-job training" as the nation's vice president.

I get the sense Lieberman probably doesn't realize how ridiculous this sounds. We should be thankful, he says, that Palin won't have to take the lead on Day One. But what if she does? McCain, a cancer survivor, would be the oldest president ever elected. What if something tragic happens on the first day, or the second, or maybe sometime in the first week, before Palin's "on-the-job training" can begin?

Lieberman may be one of McCain's most sycophantic allies, but even he seems worried about Palin holding national office. It's not a good sign.

REDEFINING 'SMALL BUSINESS'.... The McCain campaign has a nasty habit of redefining words when the existing definition doesn't suit its purposes. This week, "small business" no longer means what most of us think it means.

This morning, John McCain talked about taxes in his latest weekly radio address, insisting that Obama's tax plan would risk "bankrupting small businesses." McCain didn't explain how he arrived at this conclusion, especially given the fact that Obama's plan actually offers all kinds of tax breaks to small businesses.

But it appears the problem is one of definitions. The McCain campaign taxes a comically expansive view of what constitutes a "small business."

Ever since John McCain discovered "Joe the Plumber," he has exalted "small business" owners -- inviting them to announce their professions on signs at rallies -- as the country's only virtuous economic movers.

But now McCain has begun to define the term upward, leaving no mogul or tycoon behind.

On Thursday in Sarasota, Governor Charlie Crist introduced J. Robert Long, the CEO of Marine Concepts as a "small businessman." The man McCain dubbed "Bob the Boat Builder" spent, as Crist noted, most of his career at Wellcraft Marine, which reported revenues of $67 million last year, according to Yahoo! Finance.

Tonight in Colorado, Senator Lindsey Graham, a close friend of the McCains, described Cindy as "a great small businesswoman." Her "small" business -- Hensley & Co., a family-owned Anheuser-Busch distributor that is the third largest among the 800 in the country -- had revenues of nearly $200 million last year, according to Yahoo.

This does explain a few things. McCain's tax plan, for example, would offer ExxonMobil a total of $4 billion in new tax breaks. As McCain sees it, this is probably his way of helping a small business.

WHAT DID THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN PUSH AND WHEN DID IT PUSH IT?.... It's highly unlikely that Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, and other senior McCain campaign aides were actively involved in pushing the Ashley Todd hoax. It's equally unlikely that anyone at the Crystal City headquarters had foreknowledge of the disgusting stunt and/or was involved in its coordination.

But now that the charade has ended and Todd will be held responsible for her deception, it's not unreasonable to expect a fuller accounting of the McCain campaign's role.

When it comes to national media, TNR's Gabriel Sherman spoke with two reporters who are are traveling with the McCain campaign and they said they "had not been told of the now-bogus assault story" on Thursday. Last night, however, NBC's Brian Williams noted on the air, "The McCain campaign steered reporters' attention to the story" on Thursday. It sounds like a point in need of clarification.

Moreover, Greg Sargent reports that McCain campaign officials in Pennsylvania actively pushed the hoax on local reporters, and promoted quotes from the attacker who didn't exist.

John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."

Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. According to Verrilli, the spokesperson also told KDKA that Sarah Palin had called the victim of the alleged attack, who has since admitted the story was a hoax.

What's more, there were, in fact, two Pittsburgh television stations that specifically quoted the McCain campaign on Thursday night as part of its coverage of the Todd story.

Given this, the connection between this racist, demagogic hoax and the McCain campaign, at least at the state level, is fairly obvious -- and in need of an explanation.

Will McCain hold anyone in his Pennsylvania office responsible for what transpired? Has anyone been disciplined or fired? Is McCain comfortable with his campaign's role in race-based fear mongering?

At this point, we're still waiting for some kind of reaction and/or repudiation from McCain campaign headquarters.

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

* Another rough day on Wall Street, with the Dow falling over 300 points.

* Bush voted for McCain today.

* Did New Mexico Republicans hire a private investigator to intimidate minority voters? Zachary Roth and Adam Serwer have the story.

* It wasn't too long ago that McCain was quite the socialist.

* He also used to pal around with Chilean dictators.

* The New York city council cleared the way for Michael Bloomberg to seek a third term as mayor.

* Republicans lose another round in court: "The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to approve a bid by the GOP to shut down early voting centers in Democratic strongholds of a key county."

* I'm beginning to think that when it comes to responsible use of limited resources, AIG maybe, just maybe, is a little on the unreliable side.

* Joe Wurzelbacher is thinking about running for Congress. Seriously.

* Right-wing personalities still can't quite give up on the whole Obama birth-certificate thing. How very sad.

* I thought the story surrounding Rep. Tim Mahoney's (D-Fla.) scandals couldn't get any worse. I stand corrected.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

THE ASHLEY TODD HOAX.... I wanted to follow up briefly on the earlier item on the Ashley Todd hoax, because the story, which started and ended with incredible speed and efficiency, offers a few angles that matter more in the broader context.

Jonathan Chait, for example, emphasizes a good point.

I don't think the actions of one sick volunteer say anything at all about John McCain or his campaign. They do, however, tell us a lot about right-wing yellow journalists, from Drudge on down, who manipulated primitive racial-sexual fears for partisan gain.

Quite right. There's been an ongoing "debate" (I use the word loosely) of late about Drudge's influence, and the Todd fiasco is likely to do some lasting harm to his credibility and judgment. It's about time.

There's also this quote from John Moody, Fox News' executive vice president, which we talked about earlier.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

I rejected this out of hand earlier, because it struck me as unfair to tie the McCain campaign to a ridiculous stunt that McCain aides probably had nothing to do with. But upon further reflection, that might be letting McCain off the hook too easy.

I find it impossible to believe the campaign coordinated Todd's hoax or knew about it in advance. But that's not the end of the story. The McCain campaign did follow Drudge's lead and pushed this story aggressively with reporters, hoping, in Chait's words, to manipulate primitive racial-sexual fears for partisan gain.

And that's really not O.K. As Josh Marshall noted, "There are many questions to be asked about who pushed this story yesterday afternoon and last night. A lot of explaining." The end of the "story" shouldn't be the end of the questions.

Finally, a friend of mine asked me this afternoon if I felt sorry for Ashley Todd. Honestly, and at the risk of sounding callous, I don't know. Someone who felt compelled to lie to the nation and apparently carve her own skin in order to "help" the McCain campaign probably needs some help.

But this wasn't just some spur of the moment accident or the result of a random bad decision -- Todd deliberately perpetrated an elaborate hoax, exploited racial fears, and lied wildly in the hopes of helping change the outcome of a presidential election.

"Pity" isn't the first reaction that comes to mind.

A FRIEND IN FRIED I've been following these Obama-endorsing Republicans with great interest, but there's clearly a distinction between surprising GOP support and the more predictable GOP support. Scott McClellan? Not a surprise. Ken Adelman? A surprise. Colin Powell? Not really a surprise. William Weld? A mild surprise.

But Charles Fried is not only a surprise, he's a first of sorts. Cass Sunstein reports:

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

Fried is not only a respected lawyer and credible voice on judicial issues, he's been an advisor to the McCain campaign. And as of this week, he just couldn't go through with it. He'd seen what McCain had become, and he threw his support to Obama.

Are there practical implications of notable Republicans siding with Obama? It's hard to say without any real data, but I do think it undermines of the McCain campaign's central talking points -- Obama the "extremist." I suspect there are probably at least some independents out there wondering, "If Obama is so far from the mainstream, why do Colin Powell and a bunch of Republicans keep endorsing him?"

MIDDLE CLASS.... There are plenty of interesting results in the latest CBS/New York Times poll, including a top line that shows Obama leading McCain nationally by 13, 52% to 39%. McCain's smear tactics and personal attacks appear to have largely backfired; voters are more comfortable with the idea of Obama handling a crisis; and voters don't seem to mind the notion of raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.

But Nate Silver finds a gem in the internals that's worth remembering.

Poll respondents were asked which economic class would benefit from the candidates' tax policies. For McCain, 59% said his policies would benefit the rich, while 11% said the middle class. For Obama, a 38% plurality said his policies would benefit the middle class, 24% said Obama's plan would benefit all classes equally, and 22% said the poor.

It's tough to overcome these kinds of numbers, when very few people actually consider themselves rich.

Far more than being a "center-right" country, this is a middle class country, and a candidate who fails to speak to the concerns of the middle class does so at his own peril. [...]

There have been plenty of other occasions ... on which McCain had plenty of time to contemplate his message, and wound up coming across as tone deaf. The failure to mention the phrase "middle class" even once during the three presidential debates was either brazen, incompetent, or both. The notion that a capital gains tax cut would be persuasive to middle class families was naive. Joe the Plumber is gimmicky, and seems that way to most Americans.

Conversely, it is not as though Obama was Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney -- someone who was seen coming into this crisis as an economic savant. But the basic message that a robust middle class is the foundation of economic growth is exactly the right one in troubled times like these, and Obama has delivered it with discipline and grace.

Why is Obama leading? This has a lot to do with it.

THE CANDIDATES, THE PARTIES, AND THE ECONOMY.... As of now, the Dow is down about 320 points, after having been down about 400 earlier today. Karl Rove, in analysis that's even absurd by his low standards, has been telling Fox News viewers that the "volatility" on Wall Street "may be" a reflection of "people's concerns about what would happen if Barack Obama" wins the presidential election.

It reminded of a great piece by the estimable Kevin Drum in the new issue of the Washington Monthly, on economic performance during certain parties' presidencies.

In the postwar era, it turns out, Democratic presidents consistently produce higher growth rates, lower unemployment, better stock market growth, and less income inequality than Republican presidents. Nobody quite knows why, but the results are surprisingly robust.

Within the economics profession this topic is known as the study of "political business cycles," and I first became interested in it 10 years ago, before the dot-com boom of the Clinton era and the weak recovery of the Bush era. Even back then the data was clear. Add up growth rates under Democratic administrations, and you get a higher number than under Republican administrations. Ditto for employment levels. Inflation rates are about the same. Do it again with lag times, since presidents inherit economies from their predecessors, and you get the same result. Change the lag time from one year to two, or three, or four, and you still get the same result. Fast-forward to 2008, and the results become even more dramatic. We've now had eleven presidents since World War II, with over sixty years of data points to draw from, and no matter how you slice the results, Democratic presidents are better for the economy.

And what produces these results? You'll have to read the piece to find out.

As a reminder, Kevin's piece is in the new issue, which we'd like to send you a free copy of. It's easy to get this free, no-obligation issue in your hands. Just follow the link. If you want to subscribe after receiving it, you may do so for the very special rate of only $19.95 for one year. If not, the issue is still yours.

HE AIN'T HEAVY, HE'S MCCAIN'S BROTHER.... It's not unprecedented for a presidential hopeful to have an embarrassing brother. Jimmy Carter had Billy. Bill Clinton had Roger. George Bush had, well, actually he was Jeb's embarrassing brother.

And right about now, I suspect John McCain wishes he were an only child.

This report, from the ABC affiliate in D.C., features Joe McCain's call to 911 to complain about traffic in Northern Virginia. Seriously.

Joe McCain called 911 on his cell phone, and when asked what the emergency was, said, "It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95, traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?" When the operator asked if he were calling 911 to complain about traffic, McCain said, "F**k you" and hung up.

The operator called the number back, got Joe McCain's voicemail, and left a message about abusing emergency resources.

So -- get this -- Joe McCain called back to complain that someone had given him the "riot act about the violation of police."

The McCain campaign has decided not to respond to news outlets' request for comment. I can't imagine why.

Just as an aside, I can't help but marvel at the embarrassing side-stories the McCain campaign has had to endure the last two days -- Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, the highly-paid makeup artist, the hoax in Pittsburgh, and now McCain's brother's insane 911 call. Not exactly the kind of news a struggling campaign wants to deal with 11 days from the election.