I don't agree with Palin on a lot of things, but she's not as toxic as people want to make her out to be.

First, your statement implies there are some things that you do agree with Palin on. I'm curious, what are those?

For myself and, I believe, any thinking person, Palin represents the most authoritarian part of the very, very far right (John Birch Society) mind-set which has a stranglehold on the Grand Old Party currently. Her views on the age of the earth alone should disqualify her from consideration as VP, since she rejects evolution science and wants to "teach the controversy." Never mind that there is none to teach, we have big problems in education in this country, and the last thing we need is some Rapture-embracing nincompoop who thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. There's nothing elitist about thinking that Sarah Palin is a far-right idealogue, all you need is an eighth-grade education.

One other thing deserves consideration as well. Under her mayoral administration, charging rape victims for the equipment needed to collect evidence is, IMHO, a prime example not only of a toxic and anti-feminist ideological position, but it fits in nicely with a philosophy which argues that budget constraints trump safety.

So, in that alternate, evil universe where Sarah Palin is President, bridges continue to fall down, because she's against earmarks and we must make the government small enough to drown it in a bathtub. Maybe she'd just outlaw safety regulations and inspections altogether. I mean, deregulation worked so well in the Banking industry, right?

Perhaps Palin believes that if you are killed driving over a bridge which collapses because we just can't have any of those nasty taxes, it proves you are a witch. She could get her witch doctor pastor to prove that the victims were allied with demons. You're right, she's not toxic at all, she's a maverickey demon-hunter, wolf-murderer.

The Palin candidacy is a joke, and one which reveals John McCain to be a profoundly un-serious candidate, but none of us should be laughing, because there's a real chance this woman could be POTUS, and that's a truly scary idea.

And then of course we can hope that McCain makes a spectacle of himself by officiating at Bristol and Levi's wedding.

Then, the last debate.

Battleground does try to weasel about it, or as it puts it in instructions for Wisconsin: "If the respondent asks during the course of the interview, please tell them [sic] that you will give them the information at the end.  If they [sic] insist, and will go no further with the interview until you divulge, give them [sic] the information and terminate the interview.  You cannot allow an interview to continue once the respondent has been told who is sponsoring it."

I have not found similar instructions by all polls, and in some cases, my spouse and I and others we know have been refused the info required by law -- and have had pollsters try to continue the interviews (in those cases, we are the ones who terminate them).  

But when a pollster does follow Wisconsin law, it must throw off the randomization or other methodology.  I have no idea how much that might affect results, but Battleground and others that factor for (as all ought do by now) likely voters also would give a bit more weight to the Midwest, as it has the highest voter participation rates.

Look at this passage:

Does this mean that McCain won the debate? Not necessarily. If we define "won" as the immediate reaction of the public, the polling evidence is mixed, and not especially helpful. LA Times, Gallup, CBS, and CNN showed Obama winning. Rasmussen, with a tighter Republican-Democrat mix, showed a closer 33-30 Obama victory. SurveyUSA found a clear Obama victory in California, but a one-point McCain victory in Washington State. Interestingly, SurveyUSA found McCain even with Obama on the economy in Washington, and with leads on who "understands" Iran, Iraq and above all Russia. Many of these polls found a strong contingent of people who considered it a draw.

The debate was an irrelevant sideshow.

On ABC's THIS WEEK on Sunday, they had a 17 minute round table discussion.  They did not spend one second on the debate.  It was all about the economy.

That's where we are.

Obama is a very lucky guy.