They keep saying they don't know how Obama wil accomplish tasks and pay for them.

They don't ask the same questions of McCain.  They simply "like" McCain and "love" Pallin.   I think that they have bought the Republican brand and are sticking with it.

Absolutely disgusting. The GOP are once again convincing the nation to vote against its best interest.

This is exactly right.  People pay more attention to who is at the top of the ticket.  The Dems should keep their focus on McCain. To its credit, the Obama campaign (as opposed to most of the left blogs) seems to be doing that, continually putting out ads calling McCain more of the same and not spending much discussing Palin.  

Sean Quinn (how's that for an Irish name?) notes that Biden gave what Quinn thinks is exactly the right response -- acknowledge that she's good at throwing red meat, compliment her on it, and then go on to note that McCain is just McSame.

The unanswered question, though, is what is the effect of all the left-blog focus on Palin?  Is this keeping public and courtier media focus on her?  Or is it mostly irrelevant left-blog circle jerking?  

I suspect it's mostly the latter and I suspect it's also a function of one of the weaknesses of left-blogistan.  With a few exceptions, left-blogs are mostly reactive to what is being published in the courtier media.  People watch Press the Meat and then write a piece about what they saw.  In this sense, many left-blogs are letting the courtier media they claim to despise set the agenda for them.  And that agenda is set for the courtier media -- more often than not -- by the political party more adept at manipulating the media, IOW the R's.

Moral: nominate the strongest candidate, run on issues, don't snub the strongest VP candidate, don't nominate an insider VP when you're running an outsider campaign, and treat women decently on principle (if it's what you say you're about) and for pragmatic considerations (you can't win without a significant majority of them).

In fact, I think this distraction from the issues was the real reason McCain chose Palin.  Moreover, I believe he counted on the extreme overreaction to Palin from many in the media and on the left blogs. Rather than a cynical ploy to attract women who supported Hillary Clinton, it was McCain's cynical ploy to attract the disdain of the media and the more hotheaded blogs.  Amazingly, he learned something from Clinton's campaign that Obama never did: namely, that the more the press and the Obama surrogates derided Clinton and screamed WWTBGO?, the more the actual voting public espoused Clinton's cause and showed up to vote for her.  Wasn't that in part because people perceived her as the underdog, the fighter, being attacked - one of them, in other words?  

Palin is a daily reminder to Clinton voters that Obama had the opportunity to make a similar choice and didn't.  And doesn't having Palin engage Obama set up a dynamic similar to that in the primaries?  For that reason alone, Obama ought to stay clear of direct criticism of Palin.  Plus, it takes the focus off McCain - the candidate he's running against.  But McCain knows that.

Also, choosing a female Washington outsider certainly has the appearance of change, no matter what we know about the real McCain.  The media pile-on seals the deal with most Republican holdouts: no matter how they may feel about her, they will stay on message to defend her.  The real danger is, it may also attract voters who feel the urge to side with a candidate they perceive as 'just like them' and under attack.

The ugly truth is this: if McCain can flip CO back to red whilst only sustaining losses in NM an IA, it's over.  He won't lose FL or VA - if I were Obama I'd pull out of them now, and start spending smarter elsewhere - and I honestly think that Palin gives him the edge in OH.  Obama CAN win CO and NV, however, and he ought to be pouring his money into those states.  

The most terrifying state of all is MI.  Hasn't gone Red in 16 years, but a perfect storm of political factors (Kilpatrick, economic misgovernance by Dems, racial polarization, inability to mobilize black voters in Detroit, likely gangbusters popularity of Palin and her Yupper accent in the northern red counties) threatens to flip this one to the bad guys.  If we see movement in McCain's direction in upcoming MI polls, be afraid, be very afraid.  Most upsetting of all is the memory of the 2006 AA ballot initiative: even in a super-democratic year, the anti-AA initiative polled around 45% during the run-up but ended up winning by 56%.  If there's any state where the "Bradley effect" could really play a role, it's MI.

In 2004 Kerry was the most unexciting candidate since Dukakis.  I voted for him because he had the "D" next to him.

Now we have another candidate with no spine and the voters are making their decisions fast.  The voters are the same ones that elected Bush in 2000 and 2004.  Yeah, I know that the Supreme Court tilted the scales in 2000, but it should not have been that close, and it should not have been close in 2004 and now in 2006.

Obama is not conducting a "national" campaign.  He's focusing on specific swing states, and specific areas of opportunity within those states.  At the same time, he's head-faking in some red states to make McCain spend more heavily.

Up by 4 pts among registered voters.