Rolling Stone takes a look at Mr. McCain.

From WaPo ...

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

She fibbed about Darfur too. She supported divestment about as much as she killed the Bridge to Nowhere.

Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." But isn't her husband a former member of a political party which has treason against the United States as its central tenet?

Answer: yes.

Gov. Palin's going to be making a campaign stop in Omaha?

Republican state legislators, at the behest of the McCain campaign, have now filed an emergency appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court trying to shutdown the 'Troopergate' investigation. The plaintiffs (echoing the Bush v. Gore decision) claim "the plaintiffs and Alaskans will suffer irreparable harm" if the Branchflower report is released, as scheduled, next Friday, October 10th.

Bear in mind, the people in charge of the investigation moved the release date up so as not to have it released on the eve of the election. That was the original schedule long before Palin was chosen as veep nominee. And the GOP lawyers the McCain campaign sent to Alaska have succeeded in having almost all the parties connected to Palin refuse to cooperate with the investigation. So it's not completely clear just what Branchflower is going to be able to come up with, either inculpating or exculpating.

But this is an opportunity to refocus our attention on something that has been lost in the nonstop coverage of Palin's campaign trail lies and botched interviews: her record in Alaska strongly suggests she lacks the character to be trusted with high office. Though the troopergate scandal is tied narrowly to Palin's firing of Alaska's top cop, Walt Monegan, the heart of the story is about a private vendetta that Palin tried to settle using her new powers as the chief executive of the state of Alaska. Thwarted in doing so, all evidence suggests she fired the public official who refused to execute her plan.

Nor is it the only example. Both as mayor and governor, Palin has shown the tell-tale signs of a politician who hires cronies and fires or blackballs critics. This part of Palin's record gets deep in the weeds. So it's not as flashy as the boffo interviews or and irresistible as the straight-up lies she's been caught in. But we need no closer example than the Bush administration to know that people like this are dangerous and corrosive to our public institutions.

From TPM Reader PM ...

Speaking of McCain's temper, does anybody remember the whole 2006 ethics reform matter. I have been thinking about this for days, ever since the first debate. I didn't remember all the details at first, only that McCain had responded to a cordial, inoffensive letter from Obama with some unhinged rant. At the time Obama's star was definitely rising and I remember thinking this old guy is mad as hell that he is being shown-up by this "young upstart". Perhaps it was even more calculated than that. Certainly in 2006 McCain already had this election in mind and the word presidential was being applied to Senator Obama. I felt at the time it was a preemptive smear, trying to knock Obama down a few pegs before he became too much of a threat. Thank God for Google, a search for "Obama McCain letters" brought up this:

Link

I didn't remember Obama's reply but upon reading it all I could think was how consistent it was with the sort of campaign he has run. Unfortunately it would seem McCain has been consistent as well.

Check out the link and relive the early days, when the bile was just beginning to rise.

This was McCain's response to Obama's pretty anodyne letter ...

I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's efforts to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness.

You can really see the kernel of this campaign's psychodrama (in more than one sense of the word) in this first exchange. Here from February 2006 are some more thoughts I had then about what was going on.

Why did the Couric interviews go so badly for Palin? As Palin herself explains to Fox, it was because she was "annoyed":

She gets another chance to provide her reading list, too. It includes ... The Economist.

Not just a rhetorical question. What do you think has John McCain so angry? It's like anything could send him over the edge. Look at the video (the McCain vids start about 30 seconds in). Send me your thoughts ...

From the "you can't make this up" file, a McCain foreign policy adviser claimed today that the candidate's decades-long interest in Latin America is exemplified by the fact that he had a girlfriend in Brazil 50 years ago while he was in the Navy:

Speaking at an Americas Conference panel discussion Friday on the next U.S. president's Latin American policy, McCain advisor Richard Fontaine started out by mentioning an old Brazilian flame of McCain's, who recently emerged in the press.

''Talking a little about his personal experience, he was famously born in Panama and has traveled all over the hemisphere for many years.'' Fontaine said. ``In fact, I saw, I guess it was last week, that his old girlfriend in Brazil has been found from his early days when he was in the Navy and was interviewed. She's a somewhat older woman now than she was then, but it sorta speaks to the long experience he has had in the region -- in the most positive terms.''

Fontaine was referring to former model Maria Gracinda Teixeira de Jesus, who recently gave an interview to O Globo saying the former sailor was quite the kisser. According to McCain's memoirs, `Faith of My Fathers,` they met in 1957, when his ship, the USS Hunt docked in Brazil.

''I called him John but also my darling and my sweet coconut,'' she said. ``He was a great kisser. I liked it so much that I bought a book to learn how to kiss myself.''

She goes on to say that if McCain wins the election, she'll send him a telegram.

Fox gives Sarah Palin a second bite at the Supreme Court question she flubbed so badly with Katie Couric:

You get sense that if Cameron had interrupted her at any point there, she would have had to start her answer all over again from the top.

Nearly 100 percent of the McCain campaign's TV ad spending is now going to attack ads, TPM Election Central reports.

Great catch from Krugman: The Reagan quote Palin used at the end of the debate came from a 1960s recording he made for the AMA for doctors' wives to play at coffee klatches to rally opposition to that totalitarian evil: Medicare.

Late Update: The Reagan audio is here.

Sarah Palin says she learned that the McCain-Palin campaign was conceding Michigan to Obama when she read about it in the newspaper this morning:

Bonus Flub Update: And, yes, as readers have pointed out, Carl Cameron mistakenly identifies Palin as the Democratic nominee for vice president.

The House just started voting on the latest version of the bailout plan. Stay tuned ...

Late Update: The vote hasn't been gaveled yet, but looks like it will pass by a comfortable margin.

Later Update: It passes 263-171 (final number subject to change).

Latest Update: Still not clear if a majority of House Republicans came on board. We're double checking that now.

McCain Lost the Caucus Update: A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout this time around, too. That's not leadership we can believe in.

Last night Sarah Palin told Joe Biden, "You had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race."

Not true, as we detail at TPM Election Central.

It was more joint press conference than debate, but if you were, say, watching the baseball playoffs and missed it, we bring you an abbreviated version of the veep debate, in all its glory, you betcha:

An interesting case brewing in Michigan. A local GOP official there just filed suit against an indy media outlet for libel for reporting last month that the GOP was going to use foreclosure rolls to disqualify potential voters in November.

This is the (alleged) lose your house, change your address, lose your right to vote scam we reported about a couple of weeks ago.

That's a big can of worms for the GOP to be potentially opening up to discovery. We'll be watching this one very closely.

Late Update: Who's paying for the lawyer representing the GOP official? The lawyer declined to tell TPMmuckraker, but he did refer us to the Michigan Republican Party ...

Charles Krauthammer (yes, THAT Charles Krauthammer) calls the race for Obama.

The Obama camp already has a TV ad up using footage from last night's debate where Joe Biden is ripping on McCain's health care tax. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.

See Fallows' pithy, spot-on debate analysis.

I'm curious to hear from economists and/or state finance experts on the precise significance of this. But it does not sound good. According to the LA Times, Gov. Schwarzenegger has written to Secy. Paulson saying that the state of California may need to borrow as much as $7 billion from the feds within weeks because of the unavailability of short term loans it uses to finance state government in advance of tax monies coming in.

It was a good idea on the McCain camp's part to get the rules changed so prevent any follow-up questions. But I'm still curious to know whether it was the rules that prevented Ifill from asking any follow-ups or pressing the candidates to answer the actual questions, or whether she just didn't do as good a job as Lehrer.

I think I may have spoken too soon when I said that Palin didn't have any Couric type moments in this debate. Here's her discussion of the current financial crisis -- note particularly her description of what is happening to the economy which starts about 45 seconds in ...

Watching the debate I noticed that Biden referred to the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina as "Bosniaks". This is actually the correct term, though in English people often say simply Bosnian Muslims. When he said it, the first thing I though was, I wonder how many right-wingers would jump on this as a gaffe on the model of candidate George W. Bush's reference to 'Grecians.'

I don't know who else exposed their own ignorance by falling into this trap. But Cokie Roberts did.

Late Update: Here's the video:

Late Update: Seems like Mona Charen and Joanna Weiss in the Boston Globe flubbed this one too. And, alas, the folks at RedState got burned too.

This may not have gotten a lot of attention. But in the post-debate commentary, Chris Matthews had Howard Fineman and Roger Simon on. And Simon started in on some aggressive tire-swinging. And as this was happening, a member of the crowd raised this anti-tire-swinging sign. Here you see it behind Matthews. But it was raised in Simon's line of sight and he would be the logical target since he was the clear tire swinger on the panel ...

(ed.note: Special thanks to TPM Reader MC for catching this critical moment.)

Late Update: For a brief primer on tire-swinging, see this post.

So Late It's Morning Update: Here's the text version of Simon's tire-swinging.

Hmmm. Sarah Palin wants to give the Vice President more control over running the Senate? Here's Sen. Kit Bond, one of Palin's surrogates, saying maybe that's not such a hot idea.

Greg Sargent: "Biden Won, Because He Made Forceful Case Against McCain"

So what did our top general in Afghanistan really say about an Afghanistan 'Surge'? Not what Palin claimed. We have the details here.

The claim from this debate that is still sitting with me is this: Gov. Palin said that Sen. Biden supported McCain's Iraq policies "pretty adamantly until this race." Well, that's complete nonsense. At least since 2004 they've been on completely different sides of this question. That was one of her biggest attack lines through the debate. And it's completely false.

We'll be hearing more about this.

Here's the vid ...

Another point that bears some notice. Biden got Palin to agree that she believes in full civil rights for gay couples. I think she'll want another bite at that apple.

Here's the vid. The key exchange comes at 1:40 in to the video ...

We were just talking about why Palin did better tonight than she did in her interviews. I think it's actually very simple. No follow ups. It's not a criticism of Gwen Ifill. It wasn't the format she was supposed to work with. But if you look at Palin's interview trainwrecks things always got bad on the follow up -- when the interviewer (Gibson or Couric) pressed her on the nebulous answer for some specifics, which she couldn't provide. That's the difference.

My global thought on this debate is that it helped the Obama-Biden ticket more than McCain-Palin's. But I also think it probably helped stop some of the hemorrhaging and morale breakdown among hardcore Republicans.

One clear fact about this debate is that Palin didn't have one of those stammering moments that we've seen especially in the Couric interview. She got the name of the top general in Afghanistan wrong. And she dug in on a clearly false claim when she said that Joe Biden had supported McCain's Iraq policies up until this campaign started. That's nonsense. And I suspect we'll see that whopper taken apart over the next hours and days. Still, though, these whoppers and gaffes aren't in the same category. (I mean, a pretty ridiculous standard -- she clearly has virtually no grasp of any major national political or policy issue.) For that reason, as I said, I think she gives base Republicans a reason to feel reassured and permission to stop feeling embarrassed.

One thing that I think is easy to overlook here is that Biden did really well. He started a little slow. But he quickly got into his groove and in the second half there were several answers that he took the debate squarely to John McCain in a way that I thought was very effective.

So basically a win for Biden because he just did a lot better and it's Obama-Biden who want the trajectory of the race to stay as is. She made herself less of an embarrassment and gave core Republicans a reason to stop being embarrassed. But there were a bunch of flatly false or nonsensical things she said -- and we'll see those picked apart over the next few days.

Toward the end, one of Biden's most powerful moments in the debate ...

Needless to say, getting the name of the top general in Afghanistan wrong just shows that Palin is new to the subject matter. But lying about what he said is a much bigger deal.

10:03 PM ... Didn't Palin just get the name wrong of our Army commander in Afghanistan. His name is David D. McKiernan. Who's the McClellan she was talking about? She pretty clearly misstated what he said, but she seems not even to know who he is. And here's the article with the General saying what Biden said he said, that a surge type strategy wouldn't work.

Here's the vid ...

10:06 PM ... What's Palin talking about saying that Biden was supporting McCain's line on Iraq during the primaries? Really? Can we go to the videotape on that?

10:14 PM ... What'd she just say? That she'd like the VP to take a stronger role in the senate?

10:15 PM ... A bit earlier Gov. Palin said that Sen. Biden supported McCain's policies on Iraq until this race. Let's do some fact-checking on that. Here's her quote: "You had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race." What's she basing that on.

10:18 PM ... "America is a nation of exceptionalism."

10:21 PM ... Biden saving the best for last. Very powerful.

10:29 PM ... Palin: "I like answering the tough questions."

10:33 PM ... Here was one of Palin's weirdest moments ....

9:03 PM ... "Can I call you Joe." That was actually well done. Cosmetic, yes. But still good optics.

9:04 PM ... Biden's strategy seems to be not to look at anybody.

9:06 PM ... Oversight? McCain for greater oversight? Just a few days ago, Palin got stumped when asked for any example of McCain being for any kind of oversight.

9:10 PM ... Really hoping that Biden comes back at McCain's record of always being for lax oversight ... He's sort of doing it here, but not really driving the point home ...

9:13 PM ... Palin repeats the $42,000 dollar a year tax increase lie.

9:14 PM ... Now, this is a Joe Biden I can believe in.

9:17 PM ... Palin, lie, lie, lie ...

9:18 PM ... Isn't this government out of the way line in a bit of tension with Palin's call for tighter regulation?

9:21 PM ... Hmmm. That was pretty good on Biden's part and he's getting into his rhythm. But there were a lot of numbers flying around in that health care answer.

9:24 PM ... Wait, Palin undid what was done in 2005 Energy Bill? Really?

9:45 PM ... Someone go back and see how Palin said the economic crisis was a toxic mess on Main Street that was threatening to spill over to Wall Street.

9:51 PM ... Spain!

9:56 PM ... Very solid from Biden.

9:56 PM ... Wo ... what happened with the nuclear weapons answer?

10:00 PM ... Did Palin just get the name wrong of the top US General in Afghanistan?

We've opened TPMCafe for Palin-mania. Enjoy.

The spin from the Obama campaign and from various independent commentators (who seem to mean it) is that Sarah Palin is actually a pretty good debater. So, given how ridiculous she's been in these network interviews, is there any way that can possibly be true?

In a narrow sense at least, I think the answer is, Yes. When we were doing research on her position on the Road to Nowhere back during her 2006 gubernatorial run, I watched a number of her debates. And she was pretty good. She definitely held her own. She played the role of the common sense political outsider. And she was good at turning a line, especially ones that were cutting without seeming angry or hostile.

The key though was the issues. Those debates were about local Alaska issues that she clearly knew well enough to give pat answers. They were also highly structured debates where there wasn't a lot of give and take. But it seemed clear that when she felt comfortable with the issues and had some sense of where they were, she was confident and affable and came off well. But that's the key. She appears to know nothing about national economic or foreign policy issues. It's as simple as that.

I also think my colleague Greg Sargent is right on the mark when he says that the terrible interviews actually raised the bar for Palin. As they say, better to stay mum and have people assume you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. At the moment, I think the consensus is that Palin's a fool. So just stumbling through with some bromides, I don't think that will do it. Because people will assume that she's a fool who got off a few bromides. Successfully executed zingers may juice up McCain's core supporters. But I think to change non-right-wingers' views about whether Palin belongs in the White House she has to do or say something that gives some reason to believe that those interviews gave an unrealistic view of her.

Is it acceptable now to use infant children as political props?

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon that was heavy on damage control in the wake of reports that McCain is conceding Michigan to Obama, the McCain campaign acknowledged that the six core battleground states are now Ohio, Virgina, Florida, Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. In other words, as Josh noted earlier, McCain is now fighting just to hold onto the red states Bush won in 2004.

Voter suppression guru and US Attorney firing scandal luminary Hans Von Spakovsky says Obama will make the DOJ "partisan and politically-biased."

National Review argues the advantages of having an unstable personality as president.

McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan is the news of the day. But here's what strikes me as significant about this: I think this is the McCain campaign telling us that they do not believe the latest shift in the race's momentum is temporary. They believe this is the terrain they are going to have to play on for the final four weeks. And that dictates digging in in the 2004 red states and hoping they can pull off wins in every one of those states.

The McCain camp tells Mike Allen that Palin will go after Joe Biden tonight, trying to catch him out on old foreign policy positions that didn't pan out. Right. I don't buy that because I don't think they want to risk getting her into any detailed discussion of any foreign policy or defense issue. What strikes me as much more likely is that they'll send her in with a handful of prefab digs or snark lines. Their hope would be that whatever comes out of the debate itself -- that some clever or incendiary snark line will dominate the next day's news cycle and get the campaign coverage on to some Obama-Biden shortcoming rather than on Palin being an imbecile and McCain looking like he's about to go postal.

We're debating whether being part-time mayor of a small town in Alaska qualifies you to be president.

Joe Lieberman just won't quite answer CNN's question of whether Sarah Palin is smarter than Joe Biden:

Deck-stacking debate moderators, sinking poll numbers, and a running mate who can't stop getting gotcha'd! But what can John McCain do about it? Life isn't fair...

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

John McCain's latest line in his interviews this morning is that at least his veep knows FDR never appeard on television. Actually, he did. First president who ever did, in 1939, just to a pretty small audience.

Late Update: In fairness, as TPM Reader DP points out, McCain was only 3 in 1939. So he probably doesn't remember.

That Palin has a history of abuses of power back in Alaska?

The Politico says McCain is pulling out of Michigan.

Let's face it. There's a lot of good Sarah Palin video out there. Maybe you want to see the time she didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. Or maybe you want to go a little more highbrow and relive the moment she'd never heard of the Supreme Court (well, more or less). So as a public service, in advance of tonight's debate, we've compiled the Official TPM Sarah Palin Video Florilegium -- one page for one-stop Sarah Palin video shopping, even divided up by interviewer.

TPM Election Central reports on a radio ad campaign that the National Right to Life Committee is preparing to run accusing Obama of allowing babies to die.

Late Update: Separately, Ralph Stanley cut a radio ad for Obama that's now playing in Virginia.

The judge presiding over the trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is not happy with prosecutors.

Debate? What debate? That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.

If McCain and Palin are going to make up bogus excuses about talking with Gwen Ifill, do they think they're going to be able to choose foreign leaders too? Or, actually ...

Robert Reich on Bailout, Take 2 and the Era of Angry Populism.

John McCain's got real problems. This is from David Nather's Beyond the Dome blog at CQ ...

Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a "go away" look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: "Good to see you."

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman -- both of whom greeted him more warmly -- and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Campaigns are filled with hyperbole. But this, the no-eye-contact business at the debate and even the over-the-top affect at the Des Moines Register editorial meeting together suggest that McCain feels a sense of palpable disgust with Obama or visceral antipathy for him that is so great he's incapable of overcoming it in public settings.

That's a troubling lack of emotional control. But it seems in line with the character trait many mention about McCain -- that he is unable to engage in any contest without demonizing his opponent in his own head. There are a lot of other possibilities this seems to point to -- none of them pretty.

As you get ready for tomorrow night's epochal Palin-Biden debate, don't miss our Sarah-Mania Greatest Hits reel -- all Palin's best interview moments, all bundled into a quick five minutes ...

We though McCain was steamed when he wouldn't make eye contact with Barack Obama. But he almost blew a fuse when he got some real questions from the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. In today's episode of TPMtv, we analyze the tapes (with a little help from the DSM-IV):

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

From our the Florida section of the Poll Tracker, the last ten polls of Florida, going back to September 23rd ...

FL-Pres
Oct 1 Suffolk
Obama (D) 46%, McCain (R) 42%

FL-Pres
Oct 1 CNN
Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 47%

FL-Pres
Oct 1 Quinnipiac
Obama (D) 51%, McCain (R) 43%

FL-Pres
Sep 30 PPP (D)
Obama (D) 49%, McCain (R) 46%

FL-Pres
Sep 29 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 47%

FL-Pres
Sep 29 SurveyUSA
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 47%

FL-Pres
Sep 26 ARG
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 46%

FL-Pres
Sep 26 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 47%

FL-Pres
Sep 24 Str. Vision (R)
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 45%

FL-Pres
Sep 23 Mason-Dixon
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 45%

Not knowing any Supreme Court decision she opposes except for Roe v. Wade ain't great. Frankly, though, for the Christian right, that's really the only Supreme Court jurisprudence they want you to know. But there was a bigger goof in this latest segment from the Couric interview that I don't think got picked up in the various previews. Immediately after saying what a terrible decision Roe was, Palin got a follow-up question from Couric about whether she believes there's a constitutional 'right to privacy'.

And Palin said, yes.

Now, narrowly speaking, you can believe in a constitutional right to privacy and also oppose Roe. But the right to privacy, as Couric says in the interview, is one of the cornerstones of Roe. And in the public debate yes or no on the right to privacy is something pretty close to a proxy for your position on abortion rights.

The bottom line is that among conservatives opposition to a constitutional 'right to privacy' is a straight-up litmus test issue. Palin not only didn't have the right answer on the right to privacy. It was pretty clear she'd never even heard of it before.

See the video in the post immediately below.

In tonight's installment, things unbelievably get worse for Sarah Palin. Just watch:

I've never been much of a Katie Couric fan, but I have to give her her due on these Sarah Palin interviews. They don't outweigh all the fluff she's produced over the years, but when her obituary is written, her gentle mauling of Palin will be her signature hard news moment.

Greg Sargent has been singlehandedly chronicling John McCain's habit of saying one thing while he or his campaign is doing the exact opposite -- often at exactly the same time.

As you know, over the last three election cycles, TPM has put together something of a franchise being on top of the big voter suppression, vote roll purge and miscellaneous push-poll and dirty tricks watch, all while the stuff is actually happening. Right now, a month out, is when things really start popping. So as usual we're going to need your help.

You're out there in the field, watching local news and reading local papers. Maybe you're involved in the state election or bureau of canvassers apparatus. Maybe you've just gotten a suspicious phone call or mailer. Whatever it is, we're just looking for good tips, stuff that smells and needs a closer look.

This is an issue near and dear to our hearts here at TPM. So if you see something, let us know. Click on the "Send Comments and News Tips" link on the upper right hand corner of the site and send it in. We guarantee you'll remain anonymous, unless you tell us otherwise.

Hugh Hewitt is now on CNN saying his thank you to the McCain campaign by explaining why Palin can't be permitted to do real interviews any more because the "hard left" mainstream media is trying to "ambush" her.

I don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President or Vice President. But I can't deny that she's already the Queen of Youtube. Just to give you a point of reference, of the top seven videos we've ever posted on our TPMtv youtube channel, five are about Sarah Palin. Anyway, you've been watching this on-going Sarah Palin interview trainwreck. It's been so bad she's now only willing to go on the air with right-wing yakkers like Hugh Hewitt. But as we get ready for the big event tomorrow night, Palin's historic confrontation with Joe Biden in St. Louis, we thought we'd pull together all of Palin's greatest interview moments in one boffo Sarah-mania clip reel ...

Having struck out even in the lifestyle format interviews she's done with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, Sarah Palin and her handlers have decided she'll stick to hand-holding interviews with the likes of talk radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Most of the latest polling now gives Obama the edge in Florida, which just a few weeks ago looked as if it were out of reach for him. We have the rundown on those polls at TPM Election Central.

It's a good time to take step back and assess where we are. Florida in and of itself is a huge prize, but it's also indicative of the larger shift in the race toward Obama in the last couple of weeks. For me, it's easier to see this graphically and helps me to distinguish the usual poll noise from decisive movements in public opinion.

Take a look at the Pollster.com running average of national polls and you can clearly see Obama begin to break away in the middle of September (click for larger version):

Looking at Real Clear Politics' running state by state polling average, Obama has a larger lead in electoral votes that at any time in the last three months. (Since that was about the time he captured the nomination, I take it to mean he's running stronger now that at any point in the race):

A note of caution: This shift has happened fairly quickly, over a matter of just two weeks. The election is still five weeks away. As a leading union backer of Obama points out in an interview we just posted at TPM Election Central, there remains a great deal of volatility in this race, with a larger than usual pool of what he calls "persuadable" voters in battleground states.

The two most likely outcomes as I see it are either a narrow McCain win or a decisive Obama win, which is predicated on the assumption that the undecideds/persuadables will break one way or the other en masse. Then again, I have to confess that virtually nothing about this election cycle has gone as I expected.

Given their history there, the British would certainly know what it looks like to lose in Afghanistan, and in a diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper the British ambassador there says that's precisely what's happening:

The coded cable reproduced Wednesday in Le Canard Enchaîné seems to be from France's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, François Fitou, describing a conversation he had with the British ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles.

It says Cowper-Coles believes the West's war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan is being lost and the coalition that includes Canada's Armed Forces should leave an "acceptable dictator" in charge of the country within five to 10 years.

"We have no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan, but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one," the cable paraphrases the ambassador as saying.

And yet another poll shows Obama leading now in Florida. That and the day's other political news in the Election Central Morning Roundup.

John McCain doesn't like being called a liar.

As on display in this video from McCain's meeting today with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. Note his retreat to his former POW status when cornered on the repeated lies ...

To see the rest of the videos of the interview, click here.

I wanted to invite you to join us for the book discussion we're having at TPMCafe about Jane Mayer's new book The Dark Side, an examination of the American use of torture in its War on Terror. Joining us are Jane Mayer, Christopher Hitchens, Spencer Ackerman, Emily Bazelon and Scott Horton.

From Politico ...

John McCain's fade in recent polls, combined with a barrage of negative news coverage during the financial crisis, has leading Republican activists around the country worrying about his prospects and urging his campaign to become much more aggressive against Barack Obama in the remaining month before Election Day.

A flurry of new polls shows Barack Obama gaining in several battleground states - most notably Florida, Pennsylvania and swing states throughout the West. Officials worry early voting, which is under way in important states such as Ohio, is likely to favor Obama in this toxic political climate.

Several state GOP chairmen in interviews urged the McCain campaign to be more aggressive in hitting Obama's vulnerabilities, such as his past relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and other problematic associations from Chicago.

John McCain, whatever it takes.

Jack Cafferty, where's the love?

I'm checking with some economist friends of mine. But this new push to get rid of 'Mark to Market' strikes me as trying to solve or ameliorate the financial crisis by giving executives more leeway to lie (or perhaps fantasize) about the value of the assets they hold. Sort of like there's nothing about the collapse of the housing bubble that couldn't be solved by bringing in the folks from Arthur Andersen and Enron to give another look at the books.

Curious to hear people's views of this.

Late Update: Auditors and accountants seem to think it's a really bad idea, while bankers and the bankers lobby think we need to do away with this rule immediately -- which tells me close, I think, to all I need to know. Unfortunately, the SEC relaxed the rules today.

Even Later Update: Reading more of your emails and talking to some economist friends, I'm inclined to think this is not so black and white as I initially supposed. Certainly this accounting measure didn't 'cause' what's happening. But there appears to be at least some argument that it can be an accelerant -- something that could make a bubble spin even more out of control than necessary. The rub seems to come down to whether you think the spooked markets are dramatically undervaluing these assets -- saying they're worthless because no one wants to buy them even while many continue to have substantial 'intrinsic' value. In any case, the read I'm getting is that it's probably a rotten idea that would only give a patina of accounting respectability to going back into willful denial about the fact that a lot of our biggest financial institutions are sitting on a lot of complete crap. But there's at least some sense, even from people not at all inclined to believing in deregulatory mumbojumbo that the argument isn't completely devoid of merit. In any case, I'm going to leave this one to the economists.

Special Very Late Youtube Update: TPM Reader EP sends in this video from April of this year in which Princeton economist Alan Blinder gives his take on the issue. Scroll to time mark 40:45 ...

These Palin interviews just get harder and harder to watch:

Now McCain can't even keep track of his own lies.

Bloomberg to run for third term as NYC Mayor, to push to overturn term limit.

What are economists saying about the bailout bill that just went down the tubes? We round up expert opinion in our new Bailout Burnout page.

How many times did John McCain and his campaign surrogates crow about his putting together the bailout deal before it crashed and burned yesterday afternoon? Let's go to the tape ...

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

So who does Paul Krugman agree with among those proposing various alternative bailout plans? Today he tells us.

Obama edges toward more active role in responding to financial crisis.

Facebook hires former Alberto Gonzales chief of staff to be its new General Counsel.

The House Republican leadership's explanation that they lost their caucus on the bailout because of Nancy Pelosi's floor speech was transparently false on it face, but Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) removed whatever doubt might have remained this morning on MSNBC:

McCain calls for new bipartisanship as his campaign releases new ad blaming Dems for financial meltdown.

Is there anyone who's not laughing when John McCain says that Obama politicized the bailout negotiations and that led to their failure?

TPM Election Central has a sneak peek at the new anti-Obama TV ad from Vets for Freedom.

John McCain made the morning show rounds today. On Fox they were virtually begging him to "suspend" his campaign again in the wake of the bailout failure yesterday on the Hill. You know, since it worked out so well the first time. McCain's answer: He just might suspend again.

Whatever it takes ...

Bill Clinton will hit the trail this week for Obama in Florida. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.

The Times looks at Tom Brokaw's role as peacemaker with the McCain campaign and his role in reassuring them they can get a fair shot from NBC News.

Despite the campaign's sharp break in Obama's direction in the last week of September, we need only remember the sharp break in McCain's favor in the first two weeks of the month to know that elections can change quickly. That said, I've been thinking over the last few days that if John McCain loses this election he will have lost much more than the presidency. His reputation as an honest and honorable politician will be wrecked, I suspect, for good -- particularly among centrist and independent voters and the centrist commentator class in New York and Washington.

In his current guise, McCain would likely say that what the folks along the Northeast corridor think of him doesn't matter. But I don't think anyone who knows him believes that for a second. The man has spent the last fifteen years of his life assiduously cultivating these people. This after all is what people mean when they used to say that the press was McCain's 'base'. It's a big thing for his political viability and his ego.

Today at work I was flipping through a review copy of Elizabeth Drew's Citizen McCain. I'm sure there are critical passages buried in there. And my point is not to criticize Drew. Though I was never a supporter, I once had a very different view of the man than I do today. But it came right out of the McCain maverick narrative that has so dominated elite political journalism back into the mid-1990s. That read of McCain just dripped off the page.

But little more than a week ago she shows up in the Politico with a sort of public recantation of her one time admiration, concluding, "McCain's recent conduct of his campaign - his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition - has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man. In fact, it's not clear who he is."

Though not summed up in one neat essay, Joe Klein's change of mind about McCain strikes me as similar. As do those of a slew of other marquee pundits who've either written as much publicly or told me as much privately.

Now, on the one hand, politics isn't or shouldn't be about catering to or pandering to the fancies of prestige pundits. But you might have told McCain that over the last ten years. And in any case, it's been the key to his ascent in national politics over the last fifteen years. And you can see a similar drop off in voters' assumptions about his character, honesty and decency in recent polls.

When Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton in 1996, if anything it enhanced his reputation and popularity. His reputation, what people thought of him, wasn't wrecked or even damaged by the campaign. The future seems quite different for McCain if he loses this election.

My verdict may be a severe one but I think a lot of people -- a lot of former admirers -- are coming around to agreeing with the general outlines. McCain has revealed himself as a liar well outside the permissive standards applied to politicians. He's shown himself to be reckless to the point of instability, repeatedly putting the country at risk (exploiting the Georgia crisis, picking Palin, storming the bailout negotiations) for transparently self-serving reasons. And in too many ways to count, he's conducted his campaign in disgraceful and dishonorable ways.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that McCain was willing flush that reputation down the drain, betray everything he pretended to stand for, all to be president. If he wins, it will all have been worth it. He was happy to sacrifice one for the other. And now he may end up with neither.

At first glance you might think this was a graph of the last week or so of the DJIA or perhaps the ups and downs of the housing bubble. In fact it's the McCain-president contract at Intrade over the course of the last month. For most of the summer, there was roughly a twenty point -- or a few point lower -- spread between McCain and Obama, with the former hovering at or just over 40 and the latter around 60 or just under.

Then with the updraft of the Republican convention McCain started gaining ground on Obama until around September 11th when he moved ahead of Obama and stayed there for a bit more than a week. Since then it's been a run of staggered free falls. Over the course of roughly the last ten days McCain has gone from a few point lead over Obama to a 25 point deficit.

Late Update: Henry Blodget has a bit more of the tick-tock of how it happened. There will probably never be any uncertainty. Trends in public opinion are too over-determined. But I remain convinced that McCain's bizarre and transparently reckless actions over the course of the last week are at least as responsible for the strong across-the-board move in the polls toward Obama as the economic crisis itself.

John and Sarah take on Katie Couric ... together:

(ed.note: David posted this earlier. I hadn't seen it until now. My G-d, I almost feel bad for them. When I heard that Couric was doing another interview with Palin -- and even McCain too -- I was figuring this was some kind of make-up, 'we're sorry you did so poorly the first time' retake. But not exactly. If you watch, Palin starts by not having any answer for why she told a voter something that McCain has attacked Obama for saying. And as she's stumbling McCain jumps in and tries to talk for her, making a bunch of excuses for her that make her sound silly or like someone who's too out of it to be held responsible for something she said. The gist of what he seems to say in her defense is 'Hell, look who we're talking about. You can't hold her responsible for her answer to a question like that just out of the blue, c'mon.' And then when he's done he goes with 'But I'll let her speak for herself' -- jmm)

McCain: "Now is not the time to fix blame" for market chaos I helped create:

Did Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) really just call Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson "the equivalent of a day trader" on MSNBC? (Issa voted against the bailout.)

Here's the Pelosi floor speech that Republicans claim so enraged them that they decided to change their votes on the bailout:

And here is the Republican House leadership laying all the blame at Pelosi's feet:

How much are we paying for McCain's stunt?

McCain economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin is on MSNBC saying Democrats stopped John McCain for saving America. It's a pretty brutal interview. We'll have it for you soon.

Late Update: The faster they spin, the harder they fall:

There's a lot of talk out there from commentators who you'd think would know better claiming that this was basically a bipartisan failure -- that both parties, Republicans and Democrats, failed to carry their members for this bill.

But look at the numbers. 60% of Democrats in the House voted for this bill. 33% of Republicans. Face it, that's not even close.

Both parties wanted to force as few members to vote for this as possible. It's really unpopular. It's perfectly legitimate (though in the absence of any credible alternative, pretty iffy) to argue that the Republicans did the right thing by killing the bill. But there's simply no question of why and how this bill failed.

Whatever you think about the substance of McCain's bizarre campaign suspension so he could single-handedly save the economy, his gambit now looks like a disaster, judged on its own political terms.

From the Politico ...

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition - hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked.

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain's campaign's difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy.

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines.

"I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now," McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. "Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation."

McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs-up.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) gets downright poetic lampooning the House Republican leadership for blaming Nancy Pelosi for their own inability to muster GOP votes for the bailout:

This week, Jane Mayer joins us for a book club discussion on her latest, The Dark Side: The Inside Story Of How The War On Terror Turned Into A War On American Ideals.

Jane writes:

So--on a morning when accountability seems to have evaporated in the financial world - I'd like to know what we do about accountability at the top of our government for authorizing the abuse- and in some cases the killing of U.S.-held prisoners, all of which were criminal until the day before 9/11. Any thoughts?

Discussing also: Christopher Hitchens, Emily Bazelon, Scott Horton, Marty Lederman and TPM Alum Spencer Ackerman. Join us.

From WaPo ...

After bragging today about his role in shaping the economic bailout package, Sen. John McCain has made no statement to the press since the defeat of the bill, in part at the hands of House Republicans.

McCain boarded his Straight Talk Air charter plane a few minutes ago, but the plane has not taken off yet. McCain is in the front of the plane, separated from reporters by a brown curtain

Aides to McCain have not characterized his reaction to the bills defeat. On Sunday, he said he would "swallow hard" but vote for the plan, which he said was better than originally proposed.

Minority Leader Boehner (R) says that the Republicans pulled out their votes at the last minute because of Speaker Pelosi's "overly partisan" speech. Here's the speech. Totally unremarkable. Utterly puts the lie to their whining.

If the Republicans won't help carry this one over the line, is it time to consider what a lot of economists think is a much better idea: recapitalizing these financial institutions by having the government buy equity stakes in them?

Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) says it's Pelosi's fault the Republicans didn't come through with the vote.

Late Update: Now Rep. Blunt is blaming the Jewish Holidays. Are there enough Republican Jews in the House to make that credible?

Later Update: A little context -- last week GOP consultant/commentator Ed Rollins saying the House GOPers had decided to put party over country ...

Fine Whine Update: From TPM Reader TM ...

Is that really what the GOP leadership wants to go with? Their caucus deserted a bipartisen bill because their feelings were hurt by Speaker Pelosi's speech. Talk about the crybaby caucus. Remind anyone of Gingrich in '95 who shut down the govt. because Clinton wouldn't negotiate with him on Air Force One on the way to Rabin's funeral?

If McCain doesn't suspend his campaign again soon -- it may be time to panic.

On second thought, I thought McCain had gotten the Republicans.

From TPM Reader LR ...

It would make sense for them to try to get the Dems pass this alone. Everyone is predicting this won't "fix everything," that the economy will still be in rough shape. At the same time, common wisdom is something drastic must be done fast to prevent the worst. If the Repubs can get the Dems to carry this bill, they can claim to be against what will continue to be unpopular without having to take the blame for a complete financial catastrophe. It's a no-win for the Dems and a win-win for the Republicans. Unless, of course, they've overplayed their hand (like their current leader McCain likes to do) and the bill goes down because of their opposition, and a financial meltdown follows. And so the gambling continues ...

classic game theory in action?

We're still trying to get a read here on what just happened in the House? Did the Republicans try to pull a fast one at the last moment? Trying to dump this on the Dems?

The Dow was down moments ago by nearly 700 points with the voting underway in the House on the bailout package but passage looking tough.

Dow bounced back from its freefall, down only 500 points or so now. House vote stands at 206 Yea, 227 Nay, with voting still open.

It appears that the voting is being left open indefinitely as the last second arm-twisting commences. But so far only one vote has changed: 207 Yea, 226 Nay.

And there you have it: the House voted down the bailout. So much for there having been a deal. Another vote expected later, apparently.

The first presidential debate of 2008 is in the books. Who won? Who lost? The Sunday heads hash it out ...

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

According to the DOJ IG's report released this morning, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) told Karl Rove at a November 16, 2006 meeting: "Mr. Rove, for what it's worth, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico is a waste of breath."

Rove's response: "That decision has already been made. He's gone."

For those of us who are not economists, where do we go to get a sense of just what is going on? Is the bailout a good or bad deal? Are things going to get worse before they get better or a lot worse before they get better?

Two blogs I'm watching closely at the moment are Paul Krugman's blog at the NYT and Nouriel Roubini's blog at RGE Monitor. Roubini is the man of the moment for, to a great degree, predicting well in advance much of what has transpired over recent months and weeks. Economist Brad DeLong's blog and Barry Ritholtz's blog are also key.

To be clear, these are only a few examples. And we're going to try to put together a lengthier and more comprehensive list. But these are some places to start.

In case you're wondering, Krugman's take seems to be that we need a major government intervention and that even though the Dodd/Frank revision of the original Paulson plan is pretty bad on a lot of counts, it was probably the best the Dems could do with Bush still in office. And at this moment it's probably better than the other politically-viable alternatives -- including doing nothing and waiting for January. Here are the details from Paul.

What I find increasingly troubling is that a lot of people whose opinions I respect seem to think the buying up the toxic debts model is fundamentally misguided -- that we'd be better stewards of taxpayer money and accomplishing more good by using the government money to recapitalize these ailing firms by buying big equity stakes in them. In a sense, I guess, we'd be setting up what amounted to a limited lifetime US sovereign wealth fund (I know it's not precisely like that, but a little) to do what the Gulf emirates and others have been doing on an ad hoc basis through much of this year.

(ed.note: On most issues I write about on TPM, I do so with what I believe is some level of expertise, at least a solid enough understanding of the issues to know what I do and don't know. This high-wire economics and finance stuff is in a different category. So I'm trying to strike a balance between not writing about what I don't know about while also trying to point you in the direction of people who do. All of which is to say that on these topics I would more aggressively than usual check my speculation against other more knowledgable sources like the ones I've linked to above. -- jmm)

Late Update: Seems some economists don't think they're in a much better position than I am. From an academic economist ...

I suppose we economists are in a relatively good position to pontificate on the bailout. But it's an elephantine analysis. I know that the government is likely to do badly in most trading situations because of private information. I know that there can be liquidity problems in an economy.

But our real training is to boil a problem down to one or maybe two choice variables and figure out what effect small changes have on a fairly simple measure of welfare. Here, the problem is what to do with a melting down economy that has a central problem of information in a market (housing) that is beyond our comprehension in itself. I like to flatter myself that I am a leading housing economist, but all I know about the fundamental value of my house is that it is somewhere between $450,000 and $1,250,000. Economists do not have the tools to forecast with any precision what effect a major intervention would have, even if you held constant a lot of stuff that will not be held constant over the course of the intervention.

Things like "this bailout will create bad incentives down the road" may be true and important but are impossible to quantify on the same dimension as the also impossible to calculate "the economy will shut down if we don't do something soon."

Latter Update: I'm interested in what seems to be a growing consensus that Hank Paulson made an extremely bad decision letting Lehman go down the tubes.

We've been debating internally the propriety of referring to Nora Dannehy, whom Michael Mukasey appointed this morning to investigate the U.S. attorneys purge, as a "special prosecutor." The New York Times uses the phrase, as have we intermittently.

But the truth of the matter is that the term "special prosecutor" has a specific meaning in DOJ regulations. Nora Dannehy has not been appointed pursuant to those regs (neither, as I understand it, was Patrick Fitzgerald, even though he was often referred to as "special prosecutor" in the Plame case).

Under the DOJ regs, the attorney general is to appoint a special prosecutor when:

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

You would certainly think those circumstances present themselves here and virtually scream for an outside attorney to lead this case. But the attorney general has concluded otherwise.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), for one, isn't happy with the attorney general's decision to keep the investigation in-house.

Greg Sargent got in touch with the folks at CBS to see if they're going to be airing more Palin-Couric interview footage. Turns out they are, during the lead up to the debate.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey this morning has named Nora Dannehy, a career federal prosecutor who is the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut, as special prosecutor to investigate the U.S. Attorney firings.

Could CBS really still be sitting on the most embarrassing parts of the Couric/Palin trainwreck interview?

The key takeaway from the IG report is its call for the Attorney General to name a special prosecutor to continue investigating the reasons behind the U.S. attorney firings.

The reason? A lack of cooperation from witnesses outside the Justice Department:

[T]here are gaps in our investigation because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of the U.S.Attorneys.

So the stonewalling continues, including from the White House, and has succeeded in thwarting not only Congress but the DOJ Inspector General (and the Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducted its investigation jointly with the IG).

What specifically should a special prosecutor look at? Possible obstruction of justice and perjury:

We recommend that a counsel specially appointed by the Attorney General assess the facts we have uncovered, work with us to conduct further investigation, and ultimately determine whether the evidence demonstrates that any criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of Iglesias or any other U.S. Attorney, or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals.

More here.

The Justice Department Inspector General just released its 300+ page report (.pdf) on the US Attorneys purge scandal. We'll be combing through it and posting the key findings and new facts at TPMmuckraker, but it'll go a lot faster with readers helping out.

So head over to TPMmuckraker and direct us to the best parts of the report as you find them. Just give us the page number in the comments section and we'll pass it on to readers.

The McCain camp is saying that veep debate moderator Gwen Ifill will have to answer for herself if she asks too many foreign policy questions Thursday night:

I've seen several articles over the weekend arguing that Barack Obama's recent move up in the polls is due to the renewed attention on the economy, particularly the financial crisis which has taken on a renewed urgency over the last ten days. I don't doubt this is true to a substantial degree. But looking at the arc of the tracking polls, particularly the second half of last week, I'm wondering if a big part of the gap isn't due to McCain's increasingly erratic and craven behavior -- the now almost legendary campaign 'suspension' non-suspension being the best example.

Sarah Palin is headed to debate camp in Sedona while Joe Biden is getting help from Hillary as he preps for Thursday night's big event. That and the day's other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.

John McCain's editorial page id, Bill Kristol, has some new advice for the campaign. In so many words, even more of the erratic and impulsive shenanigans that after the last two weeks have many of McCain's one-time admirers thinking he has a personality disorder that makes him unfit to occupy the Oval Office.

That, "liberate" Sarah Palin and more hyping of the financial markets crisis.

Along the way we learn that McCain's advisors are "trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity." And they've "succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House."

The idea seems to be to double down on wooing the always-coveted impulse-control-deficit constituency.

How awkward: John McCain is forced to retract Sarah Palin's statements on foreign policy. That and other political news in today's Election Central Sunday Roundup.

I take everything I read about American politics in the British papers with a grain of salt. But giving what we've seen so far, I can't say I'd be surprised if the moral jalopy that is the McCain-Palin Straight Talk Express sunk us even further into farce with something like this. From the Times of London ...

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one -- the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain's campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. "It would be fantastic," said a McCain insider. "You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."