Ad guru Evan Tracey describes the state of the race with less than a month to go:

The reality of this race is that Mr. Obama is in control. His nationwide buys have been climbing a systematic 20% a week since the beginning of September, while Mr. McCain's have flatlined. The Arizona senator's strategy was to devote the lion's share of his early ad resources to the established battleground states and some to Obama-leaning states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. His hope was to translate those buys into early leads that would have given his campaign a fighting chance against the looming Obama ad onslaught.

Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama successfully expanded the battleground into red states. The McCain campaign and the RNC are now spending ad dollars in three states -- Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana -- and they expected to win with some ease. While the McCain campaign is playing defense with valuable resources, the Obama camp is spending more and more money on ads in some of the key media markets in states such as Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Mr. Obama has spent a staggering $97 million since June while Mr. McCain, with the RNC, has spent a respectable $76 million. The Obama campaign upped its daily spending to more than $2.8 million, almost double what the McCain team spends daily now. It appears that Mr. McCain is trying to conserve his resources now so that his buys can remain competitive in the last two weeks of this race.

GOP strategist Mike Murphy says McCain needs a message:

For the last nine weeks the McCain campaign has tried win by raising Obama’s negatives. Ads have attacked, McCain and Palin have attacked. This has failed. Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain’s priceless and hard earned “brand” as a different kind of Republican. McCain’s best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

Meanwhile, McCain has abandoned Michigan as Obama campaigns in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Indiana this week. Those aren't battleground states. Those are Republican strongholds. It's either an extraordinary act of hubris--or another piece of evidence that Obama is on the march.

The tracking poll shows Obama at 52 percent to McCain's 44. It's the highest level of support for Obama ever, and is the 25th day in a row without a decline for the Democrat.

Take the gloves off, says Palin:

I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?

She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

Via Allahpundit, the latest from SNL:

Pivoting from his customary "distraction" protestations, Obama is now going after McCain's connection to the Keating Five scandal of 1989.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Monday will launch a multimedia campaign to draw attention to the involvement of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the “Keating Five” savings-and-loan scandal of 1989-91, which blemished McCain’s public image and set him on his course as a self-styled reformer.

Retaliating for what it calls McCain's “guilt-by-association” tactics, the Obama campaign is e-mailing millions of supporters a link to a website, KeatingEconomics.com, which will have a 13-minute documentary on the scandal beginning at noon Eastern time on Monday. The overnight e-mails urge recipients to pass the link on to friends.

The Obama campaign is using the economic situation to justify the attacks: “The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. ... The Keating scandal is eerily similar to today's credit crisis, where a lack of regulation and cozy relationships between the financial industry and Congress has allowed banks to make risky loans and profit by bending the rules.”

But he opened the door for this tactic long before the current crisis' culmination, in May of this year:

Senator Barack Obama said today that a scandal from Senator John McCain’s past – the Keating Five – was just as relevant to the presidential campaign as questions about who Mr. Obama has associated with over the years.

In a news conference here, Mr. Obama was asked whether his campaign intended to raise the banking scandal from the 1980s, which Mr. McCain has apologized for. Every piece of every candidate’s public record, Mr. Obama said, is “germane to the presidency.”

“I was just asked previously about a whole host of issues and associations that are a lot more flimsy than John McCain’s relationship to Keating Five,” Mr. Obama said. “What I said, I can’t quarrel with the American people wanting to know more about that and me having to answer questions about it.”

While, in true Obama fashion, he simultaneously distanced himself from the exact argument he's making today, which at the time was delivered by superdelegate Rep. Peter DeFazio introducing him at a rally:

Obama today was asked if he believes McCain’s association with Keating Five is fair game.

“Congressman DeFazio obviously delivered a speech that wasn’t my speech,” Obama said instantaneously, trying to separate DeFazio’s comments from his own.

He does love to have it both ways.

As long as he "can't quarrel with the American people wanting to know more about that" and him "having to ask questions about it," Bill Ayers sounds like a dandy topic for the debate Tuesday.

The McCain campaign should offer Obama a deal. They'll stop talking about Bill Ayers as soon as Barack Obama apologizes for associating with him, the Nexis search for Ayers reaches "more than 3000 results," and he offers 20 years of public and legislative penance for perceived misdeeds. 'Round about 2028, he'll be free and clear.

Obama will release a mini-documentary of the scandal, here, at noon today.

I'm guessing it won't emphasize the fact that only McCain and John Glenn were found not guilty of violating any Senate rules.

In the mid 1980s Mr. Keating had engineered $1.3 million in campaign contributions to the five lawmakers. In return he expected the senators to lean on federal bank regulators to back off from their investigation into his shaky institution, which was crippled by poor junk-bond investments and real-estate speculation. The central event came in April 1987, when the senators met twice with Federal Home Loan Bank Board examiners, who charge that the senators pressured them to leave Lincoln alone. Sensing impropriety, Senators McCain and Glenn quickly withdrew (as Mr. Bennett recognized when he recommended last September that they be dropped from the probe). Senators Cranston, DeConcini, and Riegle, however, continued to press Mr. Keating's case. Eventually the government was forced to seize Lincoln anyway, at a bailout cost to taxpayers of $2 billion.

Lots of harrumphing this weekend in the media about Sarah Palin's claim that Barack Obama has been "palling around" with terrorist Williams Ayers. There is this asinine "analysis" from someone named Douglass K. Daniel and fact-check style articles from CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times.

The AP's Daniel writes: "Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career."

That assessment in consistent with the others. I haven't looked into the Obama-Ayers relationship as closely as some others, but these attempts to distance Obama from Ayers seem a bit too eager and they rarely mentions facts that point in the other direction, such as Obama's praise for Ayers very radical writings.

But my big problem with these supposed "fact-check" articles is this: If Obama could never be accused of "palling around" with Ayers, why would Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who is close to both men, describe them as "friends?"

"They're friends," he said. "So what?"

Two questions: Shouldn't Mayor Daley's comments be included in articles assessing the relationship between Ayers and Obama? Are "friends" different than "pals"?

Well, I think we can safely say Sarah has been freed. Freed to read the New York Times and comment on revelations of a relationship between Barack Obama and an unrepentant domestic terrorist, which the paper has finally seen fit to report upon:

Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

Palin, Alaska's governor, said that donors on a greeting line had encouraged her and McCain to get tougher on Obama. She said an aide then advised her, "Sarah, the gloves are off, the heels are on, go get to them."

He's not kidding. In a poetic turn of events, the New York Times' belated reporting on the Obama-Ayers connection, told in a "nothing-to-see-here" tone, has given Palin a hook to tweak her critics in the media and go after Obama for his associations. She's doing it again in remarks at a Colorado rally today:

There's been a lot of interest in what I read lately. Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago.

Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.’

These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in - not my kids and not your kids. The only man who can take on Washington is John McCain.

Governor Palin’s comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign’s statement this morning that they would be launching Swiftboat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills. In fact, the very newspaper story Governor Palin cited in hurling her shameless attack made clear that Senator Obama is not close to Bill Ayers, much less ‘pals,’ and that he has strongly condemned the despicable acts Ayers committed 40 years ago, when Obama was eight. What’s clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy.

Condemned him strongly, that is, during any time when he wasn't attending cocktail parties at Ayers' house, serving as head of Ayers' non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge, calling Ayers "mainstream," and remaining silent when he said he wished he'd done more in his efforts to bomb domestic targets in the 1960s.

Jules Crittenden has an excellent post on the AP's latest analysis of Iraq: AP Goes Neo-Con.

Ross Douthat and Yuval Levin explain why the Obama-Biden campaign's attack on McCain's health care plan is deceptive.

Ed Morrissey has more on Joe Biden's foreign policy brilliance.

Stanley Kurtz examines the New York Times's whitewasing of Obama's relationship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

The Palins have given much more money to charity than the Bidens.

Jennifer Rubin wonders what's the matter with Harry Reid.

Alec Baldwin blames Barney Frank and the Democrats as well as Republicans for the financial crisis.

An American Carol is now in theaters. Read Steve Hayes's behind-the-scenes cover story on the movie here.

Nielsen reports:

* 69.9 million people watched the debate, tying it for second place among all Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. (The second Bush/Clinton/Perot debate of 1992 also have 69.9 million. The all-time debate leader is the Carter/Reagan debate of 1980.)

* This is 17.5 million viewers more than the McCain/Obama debate last Friday.

* More women (35.7 million) watched the debate than men (30.4 million)

The best chance you'll have to see conservatives on the big screen, barring the unlikely production of an Arthur Branch biopic, is this weekend's release of "An American Carol."

It's directed by David Zucker, the self-proclaimed "master of questionable taste," and maker of unquestionable classics such as Airplane! and the Naked Gun series. For those of us nerds who only get pop-culture references when they're related to electoral politics, he also directed a bunch of funny ads in 2004 and 2006 for Club for Growth and the RNC.

He and Kelsey Grammer, John Voight, James Woods, Dennis Hopper, Robert Davi, and Kevin Farley, among others, have declared that if conservative is the "new gay" in Hollywood, they are out of the closet, despite Hollywood's legendary inability to live up to its own tolerant ideals when it comes to political differences.

It's not a decision without costs, or a declaration without risks. I'm going to see it this weekend, partly in appreciation, and partly because I'm a sucker for immature, inappropriate, slapstick send-ups (Ed. Hey, doesn't that make you a Biden voter?). Although I won't put a bailout-style hard sell on you about it, it would certainly be helpful to future endeavors for the few Hollywood conservatives—current and aspiring— if this did well in its opening weekend.

The trailer is below the fold. Michael Moore learns painful lesson in patriotism from Gen. Patton? You can't resist that.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is hitting the Democrats on Fannie and Freddie:

Hat tip: John Henke

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave another in the remarkable series of speeches of recent months, laying out the course he believes the U.S. armed forces must follow to prepare themselves for the conflicts of the 21st century. Addressing the National Defense University, he again complained of “Next-War-itis,” and “the defense bureaucracy’s priorities and lack of urgency opposed to a wartime footing and a wartime mentality.” In marked contrast to Donald Rumsfeld, the man he replaced at the Pentagon, Gates described the war on terror not as a high-tech global manhunt but as “in grim reality, a prolonged, world-wide irregular campaign.”

Even as Gates was telling unpleasant truths to people in uniform--for it is they who will most bear the brunt of the Long War--congressional Democrats revealed how deeply they remain a state of denial. Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House appropriations defense subcommittee, announced his opposition to the Bush administration’s plan (and the supposed position of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama) to increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. Taking a page out of the Rummy pre-9/11 playbook, Murtha told Congressional Quarterly's Josh Rogin that the Pentagon “is going to have to cut personnel in order to pay for procurement.”

To be sure, the Defense Department faces critical budget problems. Procurement needs are genuine: Most current major U.S. weapons systems are products of the Reagan build-up. But, as Gates puts it, you have to win the war you’re in. The Bush troop plan is, if anything, a belated half-measure, a snail-paced increase that would bring the combined size of the Army and Marine Corps to about 750,000 in 2013, just 10 percent more than it was in 2005. Sen. John McCain has called for a larger, longer-term surge that would bring total land-force strength to 900,000.

The theme of Gates’s NDU speech was a warning about the limits of wonder weapons. While lauding “advances in precision, sensor, information and satellite technology,” he admonished the military to “never neglect the psychological, cultural, political and human dimensions of warfare, which is inevitably tragic, inefficient and uncertain.” He concluded his talk with words from one of the greatest American practitioners of irregular warfare, Gen. “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell, whose experience taught him “no matter how a war starts, it ends in mud. It has to be slugged out--there are no trick solutions or cheap shortcuts.” It is ironic that Gates, the soft-spoken former intelligence officer, better understands the need for boots on the ground than Murtha, the gruff former Marine.

But Murtha led the way when Democrats turned hard against the Iraq war in 2006; without his imprimatur, surely, Speaker Nancy Pelosi might have moderated her anti-war, San Francisco instincts. Apparently the Democratic strategy is now to limit the prospects for future mischief--that is, the prospects for successfully waging the Long War--by withholding the manpower that is needed. They’re doubling down on defeat.

I understand that he didn't want to get overly partisan while a delicate measure he thought was necessary was just barely making it through both houses of Congress. But there's no excuse for letting a false narrative lie, and letting Obama and Biden continue to lie about the roots of this crisis.

It was not simply Wall Street greed that caused this problem, but government intervention that incentivized self-interested industries to offer and buy up high-risk loans they thought were backed by a government promise because they were backed by government-sponsored entities. If the American public gets only one side of this argument, the free market is in some serious trouble. There are plenty of respectful (even bipartisan) ways to articulate this, and Bill Clinton is the guide for the message.

And, yet it sounds like McCain is unwilling to go there. The financial crisis is what has driven his numbers down; a little distancing from the root causes of that crisis, and placing blame where it belongs, would be helpful.

Nope, that is not going to happen Why not? 1) It is a complicated argument, and McCain is not good at making complicated arguments, not even about earmarks. (Note, additionally, his lack of defense of the war in Iraq during his debate with Obama. Amazing.)

2) There is a racial component to criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act that can make it sound like you are scapegoating minorities for Wall Street's problems.

3) The campaign believes McCain's time is better spent talking about taxes and energy and healthcare. Really.

Really? This is the perfect illustration of McCain as prescient reformer while Obama is nothing but petulant rhetoric, and it happens to distinguish his position from Obama's on the most important issue of the day.

I realize the campaign would like this to just go away, but I don't think that's going to happen. Repeating the same talking points as the Obama camp about Wall Street does not help close the gap on economic issues. The truth just might.

He was the best of candidates. She was the worst of candidates. And, usually for doing the same things.

The most flexible man in political reporting offers a truly remarkable display of October contortion between judging the presidential debate Sept. 26 and the vice presidential debate Thursday. Hey, at least fighting media bias comes with some laughs.

On politics as performance:

Last week:

MATTHEWS: Let‘s talk TV values, because, in many ways, subconsciously, when you pick a candidate for president, you only pick him on not just on issues, but who do you want to listen to for four to eight years... I mean it really is part of the way we look at these things...Do you think—let‘s start with John McCain. Do you think he was too troll-like tonight? You know too much of a troll?"

This week:

MATTHEWS: But did you get the sense that for an hour and a half you were watching a director say, "Cue the energy speech, cue the tax part, cue the...

SIMON: But that's what politics is! It's a performance.

MATTHEWS: You're so cynical, Roger. Let's step back into the world of substance. Did we learn anything about her except for her ability to recite tonight?"

On the role of expectations:

Last week:

Ironically, when they got to foreign policy, I thought Barack Obama was quite able to defend himself, quite able to debate a man who‘s been in public life for many more decades than he has. He showed equality in terms of the debate. Maybe on the points you could disagree with him.

This week:

(Roger) SIMON: Joe Biden went through like, what, 20 primary debates. He's pretty experienced at this. Sarah Palin, this is her first national debate.

MATTHEWS: Right.

(Roger) SIMON: You're honestly going to say...

MATTHEWS: You like people that, when you ask them a question, turn to the camera like this, like it's candidates' night?

On the importance of style, even over the scoring of debate points:

Last week:

(Eugene) ROBINSON: There one was confrontational, one, you know, seeking consensus. And, you know, I mean, I think, I frankly think Obama did well tonight, even though, initially, we didn‘t think he scored as many points as McCain.

MATTHEWS: You know, Pat, you and Gene, I remember the boxing days, just to go for stylistic.

This week:

Look, let me ask you about the style question. The winking, the "Let me call you Joe," the-the manner of the whole thing about bringing the baby up at the end, I mean, all that stuff, I mean, it's 11:00 at night, and she's got the baby out, hugging it.

I mean, excuse me, those were stylistic points, weren't they?

On talking about the future:

Last week:

ROBINSON: That, no, his better tactic was, you know, to play his game and to look forward and to be more optimistic and, you know, perhaps visionary...

MATTHEWS: I know, I think very time he used the word future he was killing his opponent."

This week:

MATTHEWS: Well, she said that was looking backward, that was backward finger-pointing.

(Howard) FINEMAN: That's not going to sell. That's not going to sell, I don't think.

MATTHEWS: In other words, you can't get out of the trap of being a Republican by saying, that's backwards."

This week:

MATTHEWS: When she talks about recognizing Jerusalem as the exclusive capital of Israel... does she know that-and she put it together in a couple sentences. And I really question if she knows what she's talking about.

She talked very persuasively about Israel having put together a very good treaty with Jordan, the kingdom of Jordan... and, of course, the Egyptian country as well...

Doesn't she know that, if you move the capital, by the United States' standards, and move our embassy down there, that that breaks apart both those treaties? Does she really know what she's talking about, Pat?...Does she know what she would-that she would vitiate those two bilateral arrangements?

On the week of June 5, when Barack Obama flip-flopped on the basic foreign-policy concept of an undivided Jerusalem within 24 hours of supporting it in front of an AIPAC audience:

June 5: Um.
June 6: Err.
June 9: Uhh.
June 10: What?
June 11: Hey, who wants to talk about how great Barack Obama is? Huh?

CNN reports that it's "misleading" to say that Barack Obama pledged to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president."

CNN misses what Obama said during a September 2007 press conference:

Reporter: Senator you've said before you'd meet with president Ahmadinejad...

Obama (nodding): Uh Huh

Reporter: ... would you still meet with him today?

Obama: Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries.

Watch it:

Politico breaks down the numbers by party:

The GOP promised 80 and delivered 91.

Dems promised 140, delivered 172.

Many independent women are still up for grabs in the last month of the election, making this cohort a critical target group for both campaigns.

According to a new Gallup report released today, Obama draws significant support among some in the independent woman subgroup:

• those with no religious identification
• those aged 18 to 34
• those with college educations
• those who seldom or never attend church

But McCain does well with some independent women too:

• those who attend church weekly
• those who are married
• those aged 55 or older

So who is up for grabs? Gallup reports independent women that are Catholic, middle aged, not college graduates, of average religiosity, and of mid-range incomes--nearly evenly divide between Obama and McCain and could easily shift in the remaining weeks.

As I argued in my post yesterday, independent voters in general will decide later and exhibit more volatility in their political choices. Gallup agrees and notes independent women represent a swing group worth watching particularly closely in the days following last night’s vice presidential debate, especially compared to self-identified partisans. Gallup writes:

It's a reasonable assumption that changing minds among partisan Democratic and Republican women will be difficult, although these groups remain highly important in terms of turnout. Indeed, motivating the "base" is a key dictum of modern-day politics. It has been argued that one motivation behind McCain's choice of Palin as his vice-presidential running mate may have been to increase enthusiasm among Republican women.

But it is the group of independent women who -- based on the fact that they are currently about evenly divided between the two candidates -- were perhaps the most important viewers of Thursday's debate, at least in terms of the possibility that their voting preferences will change

Read the full Gallup analysis of independent women here.

Make room under the bus William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Fr. Pfleger, and Kwame Kilpatrick! Barack Obama has another friend of dubious moral character in the news.

Meet Larry Walsh:

Two FBI agents spent more than an hour in the Will County Office Building on Wednesday morning as part of an investigation into an elected official.

That person seems to be Will County Executive Larry Walsh. Matt Ryan, his chief of staff, also is part of the probe, sources say.

The official apparently is Walsh. Ryan has -- or had -- some relationship with Smith Dawson and Andrews, the lobbying firm hired in 2006 at a rate of $10,000 a month to help Will County snare more federal grants and funding. The association is related to his work with the lobbying firm Performance Communication Group.

... The lobbying firm has secured quite a bit of federal funding for the county, including money to clean up and modernize the water and sewer system in Joliet Township's Ridgewood neighborhood; to do engineering work at 143rd Street and Interstate 355; and to add laptop computers to the squad cars driven by Will County police.

Not only did Obama serve with Walsh in the Illinois Senate and endorse him for his current position, he sent some of his campaign volunteers to work for Walsh in 2004:

Obama is banking on 13,000 volunteers to hand out 2 million campaign fliers and make thousands of phone calls. Many of them will be deployed in Obama's political base, working precincts in African American, Latino and lakefront precincts in the city and suburbs. But the campaign is also planning to send volunteers to help Bean in her challenge to Crane, state Sen. Larry Walsh in his campaign for Will County chief executive officer, state Rep. Lisa Dugan in her re-election bid in Kankakee, Michelle Bromberg in her North Shore challenge to Republican state Rep. Beth Coulson and Democrat Patrick Ouimet in his challenge to Republican state Sen. Pamela Althoff in McHenry County.

The the Chicago Tribune reported the two were poker buddies. According to the local press, Walsh was recently campaigning for Obama in rural Illinois.

But I'm sure that Obama's association with Walsh gives you no more insight into his personality and ethics than do his other associations. That said, Walsh is reportedly under investigation for his associations with the lobbying firm Smith Dawson and Andrews, which was hired by Will County to secure earmarks in Washington right after Walsh took office.

According to Obama's website, the senator requested at least $6 million or so in earmarks for Will County in 2006-2007.

I thought Gwen Ifill's most biased question last night was this one:

Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Gov. Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor...

Translation: "Sen. Biden, why are you so fiercely standing up to those fat cats? Gov. Palin, why are you heartlessly stomping on the poor?"

But, as Jim Geraghty points out, Ifill's bias was shown more by what she didn't ask than what she did: No questions directly about energy. Nothing about guns. Nothing about abortion.

I don't think these omissions had anything to do with the release of her book on Obama, though that conflict of interest should have disqualified her from hosting the debate.

But Ifill is a liberal, and her questions tilted, however subtly, to the left.

Speaking about the bailout bill, which will likely be voted on around 12:30 p.m.:

“We’re not going to take a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the votes. I’m optimistic we’ll be able to take a bill to the floor.”

Brilliant strategy, Nance.

It looks to be gaining momentum, with Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) saying the Democrats have increased their numbers. Republicans, too, have had folks switch to probable "yes," including conservative stalwart Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.)

On the House floor, there is a dramatic mix of Kucinich supplications, inter-house bashing (“utter disgust and frustration with the way [the bill] was handled in the other body”), and at least one switched Republican vote from Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), who makes what sounds like a slightly exaggerated claim:

...says he had received an overwhelming number of calls urging him to vote down the bill before Monday’s vote. Since then, he says, the calls are “still overwhelming,” but this time in favor of the bill. He says constituent input, coupled with a number of changes in the rescue package, have convinced him to vote in favor of the bill today.

What I've heard is the tone of calls has changed on the Hill, from "if you vote for this, I will never support you again" to "all right, if you have to do this, but make sure it protects me." But I'm somehow doubting the phone is ringing off the hook in favor of this thing.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a prominent opponent, appearing on Fox, conceded that the bill will likely pass the House today, partly with the support of principled conservatives who believe this is the best option of several very bad options. Hensarling will vote against the bill, but is also touting the improvements made to it— mark-to-market rules, and FDIC changes.

I thought Joe Biden was surprisingly bright, clean, and articulate during last night's debate with Sarah Palin. Okay, he wasn't always so bright--and his willingness to fudge the facts wasn't exactly the cleanest politics--but he was definitely articulate!

So articulate, in fact, I think Biden covered up at least one gaffe. After Palin mentioned Obama's pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad, Biden said:

This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.

The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Sen. McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran. The theocracy controls the security apparatus.

Got that, America? It's not Ahmadinejad who's in power, it's "the theocracy." So Obama won't have a presidential summit with an Islamist nut job bent on getting nukes. He's going to meet, without preconditions, a whole bunch of Islamist nutjobs bent on getting nukes "the theocracy". What a relief!

That's the headline on Roger Simon's column. He appeared on the late edition of "Hardball," last night where he argued heatedly for his thesis against the combined boorishness of Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman. Fineman compared Palin to a "wolverine chewing through plywood," (yeah, I don't get it either) while Matthews said her tactic of looking straight into the camera made her a "dolt." Thanks for the professional take, guys. Here's video of the nonsense.

Back to Simon:

She went out of her way to talk in everyday terms, saying things like “I betcha” and “We have a heckuva opportunity to learn” and “Darn right we need tax relief.”

Biden was somber, serious and knowledgeable. And he seemed to think that debates are about facts. He had a ton of them.

Criticizing John McCain’s health care plan, Biden said that McCain would tax health care and “then you’re going to have to replace a $12,000 — that’s the average cost of the plan you get through your employer; it costs $12,000 — you’re going to have to pay — replace a $12,000 plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped. So you’re going to have to place — replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you’ve just given to the insurance company.”

Got that?

Palin was a lot more direct in her attacks on Obama and a lot more simple. Criticizing Obama for saying he would meet with some foreign leaders who are hostile to the United States, Palin said: “Some of these dictators hate America and what we stand for. They cannot be met with. That is beyond bad judgment. That is dangerous.”

She also said: “An issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naiveté and goes beyond poor judgment.”

Sarah Palin accusing Barack Obama of being naive? Yep. And she was unabashed about it. And so what if Joe Biden has been in the Senate approximately forever and knows a lot more about a lot more stuff than she does? She doesn’t care.

Come on, you know you want to watch. It's cathartic, and instructive for a certain presidential and VP candidate who need to make this part of their stump speeches (with a slightly more measured tone, perhaps).

The moment when Sarah Palin knew she was winning last night’s debate with her vice presidential opponent Joe Biden came after the subject had turned to nuclear weapons. Palin had talked about nukes as a deterrent and said it was important to keep them out of the hands of dictators who are enemies of America. Then she turned to moderator Gwen Ifill and asked, “Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick?”

Afghanistan? The impression Palin had left in television interviews with ABC’s Charles Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric was that she was ill-equipped to discuss issues like that. She just didn’t know enough to talk about foreign policy and other weighty matters with even a minimal level of comfort. And this meant she simply wasn’t up to being vice president should John McCain win the presidency.

But by that point in the debate--two-thirds the way through--Palin was brimming with self-confidence. She knew she could handle any issue likely to be thrown at her by Ifill. She knew Biden would not outmatch her. So she purposely tackled an issue on which he was expected to have an advantage.

He didn’t. She insisted the “surge principles” that had proved effective in Iraq would work in Afghanistan. Biden claimed the commanding general in Afghanistan disagreed. Then Palin said, no, the general didn’t disagree, and she spelled out how “the counterinsurgency strategy” favored by McCain (and her) would work.

If that episode didn’t demoralize Biden, a senator from Delaware for 35 years, it should have. For it showed she had passed the biggest test any vice presidential candidate faces--a test the media was ready to declare she’d failed. Was she capable of being vice president? Based on her debate performance, the answer was yes.

Not that she came close to matching Biden’s experience or extensive knowledge of issues, especially foreign policy issues. But she was conversant with every issue, domestic and foreign, that came up in the 90-minute debate and talked with seeming confidence about them.

She may have passed two other tests as well. Did she once more energize the conservative base of the Republican party as she had when McCain picked her a month ago? Probably. And was her performance strong enough to change the direction of a campaign that has seen Barack Obama widening a lead over McCain in recent weeks? Maybe.

For sure, she did one remarkable thing aside from handling Biden with ease. She undid the negative impression that had been created by her avoidance of most of the media and hardened when the two TV interviews went poorly. Her image was that of someone unqualified to be vice president and uninformed on major issues.

Changing an image overnight is difficult. Ronald Reagan managed it when he debated President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and blew away the widespread notion that he was a warmonger. But I can’t think of other examples of this, at least in presidential or veep debates.

Two more things. Palin appeared to be in a good mood during the debate, just as she was when delivering her acceptance speech at the Republican convention four weeks ago. That made her more appealing than Biden, who came off, at times anyway, as less cheerful than he normally is.

And Palin wrote her own closing statement, or so I was told. It included what seemed like an invitation to Biden to have more debates. “I would like more opportunity for this,” she said. I suspect Biden wouldn’t.

After a dreadful three weeks for the McCain-Palin ticket, Sarah Palin came through--big time--Thursday night. She stopped the McCain campaign’s slide and set up a rebound...if.

If House Republicans follow through Friday by passing the bailout bill.

The McCain-Palin ticket’s slide over the past three weeks hasn’t been primarily due to various McCain-Palin campaign missteps--though there have been plenty of those. It’s happened as a result of the meltdown of the financial markets. The McCain campaign’s fall coincides with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and everything that follows. The financial crisis was inevitably going to hurt the candidate of the incumbent party. The situation was made worse by the perception that the GOP (the Bush administration) was both presiding over a financial meltdown and obstructing efforts to deal with it (House Republicans). Republicans lost both ways. If you disliked the bailout, you were angry the Bush administration--and if you thought the bailout necessary, you were angry at the House Republicans. All in all, it was a bad three weeks for the Bush administration and congressional Republicans--and the Republican presidential ticket suffered.

Now there’s a chance to halt the political bleeding--and even to turn things around. The House has to pass the bailout bill. It’s too late to get an alternative solution considered (and I say this as someone who might well prefer various alternatives). It’s now the Senate bill or nothing. And doing nothing risks--I’d say invites--economic and political disaster. Passing the Paulson plan won’t solve all the financial problems we face--but failing to pass it will exacerbate them, and will keep the markets in a state of roiling uncertainty at best, and meltdown at worst. Passing the bill may at least offer some surcease--and will alleviate the sense that on the Republicans’ watch, everything is simply falling apart and the Republican party can’t get its act together to do anything.

So House Republicans should help pass the bill. I think it’s the only responsible thing to do in terms of the economy. But I also think it’s the only way McCain has a chance to win. To those House Republicans who care about conservative principles, about limited government and free markets--I’d ask this: How much damage will a president Obama and a Democratic Congress do to the causes you care about? Electing McCain gives us the best shot at solving this crisis in a way that doesn’t lead to a permanent and perhaps irreversible expansion of the size and scope of government. Following up on Sarah Palin’s victory, principled House conservatives should vote yes tomorrow. Passing the bailout would give McCain a fighting chance to win, which in turn provides the best chance--the only chance--for conservative principles to prevail in the next few years.

First question begins at 2 minutes in:

Also, Peggy Noonan succinctly sums up Palin's performance: "She killed."

Watch her bring both sides together, the little Maverick.

Hey, don't take it from me. Take it from Kos:

Sarah Palin won! Actually, she survived, since she had no "deer in headlight" moments.

Oddly enough, Sarah Palin was masterful tonight at exactly what she was incapable of doing in the Gibson and Couric interviews. Tonight, she was able to answer questions the way she wanted to answer them instead of doing it the way Ifill wanted her to. In particular, when asked what her Achilles heel was, she simply chose to talk about her strengths instead. It was the classic job interview, "What's your greatest weakness" moment, and she reacted correctly. By the time she was done talking, no one remembered that the question was about a weakness. (Suddenly, the media that has argued her inability to do this was a handicap will decide her newfound ability to do it is dishonest obfuscation.)

Palin left a good impression with voters despite her relative inexperience on foreign affairs, even feeling bold enough to direct the conversation back to Afghanistan at one point. She missed some counterpunches, but she offered connection, sensitivity, substance, and not a gaffe in sight.

By the end (and I'm trying very hard not to exaggerate), I was kind of hoping she might say, "Hey, Joe, it was so nice meeting you. What are you doin' next Thursday?" I got the distinct feeling she'd warm up and really kick some tail.

Tonight could have been a bleed-out for the McCain campaign, and Sarah Palin may have made it a boon. I've been scanning the cable networks, and even Keith Olbermann can only ask desperately, "So, she didn't do anything to help McCain, right?" because she didn't offer him a convenient gaffe to pounce upon.

The CNN insta-poll taken of voters who were watching the debate found that 84 percent thought Palin did better than expected and only seven percent though she did worse.

David Plouffe of the Obama campaign: "Stylistically, Sarah Palin did have a very good night," he said, arguing only that Biden won the night on points. Last week, even though many conceded McCain won on points, all that mattered to many pundits was that Obama didn't fall on his face, and therefore won. Suddenly, that's not what matters to some pundits (ahem, CNN).

The McCain camp rejoices:

Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air.” –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director

Here's video of the Luntz focus group.

Round 1: Forget the bailout, what's up with the bailout process?
Ifill, not the most competent moderator in the world, opens by saying that the House passed a bailout bill this week. She corrects herself.

Biden says that he and Obama will fundamentally change the focus of economic policy to the middle class. Palin says you should measure economic health by asking people on the sidelines of a youth soccer game what they think about their financial positions.
Round to Biden

Round 2: Biden, how will you solve the partisan rancor in Washington?
Biden says that some of his best friends are Republicans! But going back to the first question, he hits McCain for saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Palin says that she and John McCain are mavericks and that John McCain has made a career of reaching across the aisle.
Round to Biden

Round 3: Whose fault is this sub-prime mess, anyway?
Palin says that predatory lenders and greedy Wall Streeters are at fault and that Joe Sixpack and Hockey Moms need to band together to say "never again" by taking personal responsibility and living within our means. She uses "heck" and "darn" in the same answer.

Biden says that Obama warned about the sub-prime problem two years ago. And that McCain is beholden to deregulation, while Obama will introduce all sorts of new regulation in our economy. He demagogues the free market. These, evidently, are selling points.
Round to Biden

Well, that's about as real a moment as you're going to get from a candidate, giving a "hello" to her brother's third-grade class, which is watching for extra credit.

Jonathan Martin pegs it as a moment her haters will hate, and Ben Smith compares "shout out" to the Gen-X language Obama's been using on the stump for two years.

In her closing statement, Palin also uses the phrase "back in the day."

The two candidates have tried desperately to out-regular-guy each other, with Palin several times making reference to her families and their small businesses, and Biden even tearing up over the struggle to raise children on his own.

Sound bite of the night: "Oh, say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again. Your whole question is premised on the Bush administration, and doggone it, we need to look forward."

Update: The Frank Luntz focus group on Fox is overwhelmingly in favor of Palin. Most of them are even saying they now think she's "qualified," when they did not before the debate. The focus-group dials went off the charts during Palin's discussion about personal responsibility, and Luntz predicts the debate will really make a difference among voters in either moving independents to McCain, and at least stopping the McCain fall in polls.

Palin picks up on the talking point I thought McCain should have employed at the debate with Obama: "For a ticket that talks about the future and change, there sure is a lot of finger-pointing into the past."

She brings out this pretty devastating quote on Afghanistan from Obama: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Speaking of the past, Palin has a Joe Six-Pack moment: "You know, it's times like these it's so obvious that I'm a Washington outsider. I just have trouble understanding how you supported the war and now you oppose the war. That's something a lot of your Washington friends do, where you vote for something before you vote against it, I guess."

Harkening back to John Kerry can't hurt the cause.