It's on. Bring on the debates. I have a feeling McCain will bring out his talking points about the discredited supply side philosophy tonight. It will be interesting to see what kind of lies he comes up with about how he's different from Bush.

I have to say I am pleased with the way Palin presented herself last night. All she had to do was present herself as a likable candidate with a positive vision for how to take the country forward, and she didn't do that. She presented herself as petty, snarky, and unlikable to anyone not already predisposed to like her (read=wingnuts). So, I think we're gonna be okay. Gloves can come off now!

Thank god for Jon Stewart!

And here are some facts (from AP, of all places).

Palin = Snark over substance. Full of lies. I don't see that speech winning over wavering democrats or independents. It played right to the base. It was full of, as Chuck Schumer said recently, "rabbit punches." Good luck tonight, MacSame. She's a tough act to follow. Fallows has it just about right.

A word of caution about the feeding frenzy going over Palin: The GOP are counting on this to take on a life of its own and make her into a sympathetic figure for those prone to believe that this country is under the influence of a "liberal" media. I don't think it's going to work this time, because things are looking bad for the GOP. However, I will be interested to see what she says in her speech tonight in contrast to this little speech to evangelicals in Alaska a while back. Remember how many people were turned off by Buchanan in 1996? Let's just say ol' Pat's in her corner. Point is, we all need to be careful, and start talking about this potential smoke screen. Because she's going to frame herself as the girl next door tonight. Think Ollie North. Or...

...this may seem counterintuitive, but I can't help but think back to the Anita Hill controversy, and wonder if Thomas would have sailed into the Supreme Court in 1991 if not for the sexual harassment allegations. At the time 98% of the Senate was male, and...I'll need to check the record on this...but I wonder if Thomas would have had the votes if his record and views alone were all that were considered. The controversy polarized a lot of people at the time, and though the shift took place later (remember 1992 as "year of the woman?"), I think for some in the Senate, the claim Clarence Thomas made, that of a high tech lynching, might have resonated with some in the Senate who might otherwise have voted against him because it made him a "sympathetic figure." Food for thought anyway. Camille Paglia said as much many summers ago.

Here's all I'll say about Palin: Getting personal with family matters should be off the record, unless what you do for yourself isn't what you prescribe unto others. Remember when the Clintons were practically hanged for sending Chelsea to a private school? And I hear wingnuts yak about Al Gore's energy bills for his estate all the time. Come clean about your abstinence-only philosophy and now you're talking.

She's got bigger issues than her daughter's pregnancy, but more to the point...McCain's got two big problems:

1. Judgment to lead - This was clearly a last minute hail mary a-la Brett Favre 2005-2006.

2. Readiness - How is McCain's argument about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief holding up? How about all of the wingnuts who parroted the same line? They can all stew in their moose shit now.

I wonder if Gustav's the only reason these guys are scaling back their convention. For one, it doesn't seem like everyone got the memo. And another, I wonder if turnout and enthusiasm would be any different Gustav didn't happen. I guess we shall see.