So today we're told that McCain staffers were concerned about Sarah Palin's lacking the "degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency," or so they told Fox News Chief White House Correspondent Carl Cameron.

She didn't know what countries that were in NAFTA (US, Canada, and Mexico) nor did she understand that Africa is a continent and not a country in itself.

Cameron told Bill O'Reilly that McCain aides were truly "shocked" at the lack of knowledge Sarah Palin displayed. She did not know many of the basics of civics and local/state/national duties. Beyond being so ignorant, she also utterly lacked self-awareness and wanted to be allowed to speak out freely despite her knowledge limitations. They say she refused coaching before the Katie Couric interviews.

They also speak of temper tanrums and tirades, although I doubt she would be the first candidate with that particular habit:

in the closing week or so... she took to yelling and screaming at aides over her press clippings, even "tossing papers" around.

So the truth appears to be that she was not "attacked by the liberal media" but in fact is what she appears to be. This is not coming from the "liberal media" - this is Fox News throwing her under the bus. That might say something about her chances for 2012.

Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) would not let her speak on election night.

For Sarah Palin haters, this is going to be fun to watch. However, what's really disturbing about this is that John McCain and his campaign, and the RNC, apparently knew Palin was clueless, but did nothing about it. So much for "Country First." To think that up until 24 hours ago, she was within striking distance of the white house. It's an absolute outrage! Even Republicans should be angry about it.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan on this same topic:

You know: I took a lot of grief for my pretty instant realization back in August that the Palin candidacy was a total farce. But when you cop to the fact that the McCain peeps knew most of that too very early on after their world-historical screw-up, you've got to respect and be terrified by their cynicism. I mean: country first?

And they only lost by a few points?

If Democrats interpret this election as a mandate for Democratic policies, they will be in for a surprise.

Before the election was even over, people were already recalling how the Clinton administration's overreach on health care played a large role in a Republican majority in Congress just two years later.

Likewise, those counting out the Republican party and policies as a whole are overstating it. The party may have some real concerns, in particular that younger people, and non-whites, the fastest growing segments of the electorate, are not going their way. At the end of the day, however, things can turn fast. We saw George HW Bush help usher in Clinton, who then sparked a Republican sweep into Congress and eventually George W. Bush, who eventually led to Democrats sweeping back into Congress in 2006 and who played a major part in Barack Obama winning the presidency last night.

However, only dyed in the wool Republicans can rationalize how IRAQ, Guantanamo, Spying on Americans without warrants, or a $9.1 trillion National Debt on their watch is somehow the fault of the Democrats. Just as these election swings toward Democrats were driven in large part by these and other failings attributed to Republicans, the Democrats will be judged not by winning the election, but by how they now govern - if there is to be any "mandate" for the Democrats, it must be earned.

Barack Obama turned a number of red states blue and with that one may argue "mandate" - but if indeed there is a mandate, it is Obama's alone, and not that of the Democratic party, and Nancy Pelosi had better bear that in mind.

Pundits and others will be analyzing John McCain's campaign to death over the next weeks and months. Here are my quick takes, before being influenced by any of them.

First, I think he did an amazing job. I was surprised it was as close as it was. It tells you how much people dislike Democrats. Sure, there are die-hard Democratic supporters, but a lot of this loss has to do with repudiation of George W. Bush mostly, and the Republican leadership to a lesser degree.

"McCain Version 2008" was not a very powerful candidate, so it is pretty impressive he did as well as he did, especially after being counted out back in the primaries. I'm personally repulsed by the almost exclusive focus on negative campaigning that he did, but looking at the numbers only, we have to say he did pretty well, given the cards he drew. It's unlikely any other Republican candidate would have done any better. This election was probably more the democrat's to lose, and with Barack Obama's skillful campaign, they were able to stay out of their own way.

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate at predicting the winner of elections, as devastated Democrats know from the 2004 and 2000 elections. In 2004, exit polling showed John Kerry winning. In 2000, networks first announced Al Gore the winner, then Bush, and then at 4 a.m. then declared it was “too close to call” all based on exit polls.

There are many reasons for it, but one of the main ones is that, for some reason, Republicans are at least twice as likely as Democrats to refuse to be surveyed for an exit poll. One of those in charge of the 2004 polling fiasco later claimed that the discrepancy was because “Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters.” I could see the same thing happening this election.

So we have to do our best to wait until tomorrow morning to see where things stand. And, for heavens sake, do not let any early exit poll reports dissuade you from voting - GET OUT THERE AND CAST YOUR VOTE, regardless of who you're voting for.

Francis Fukuyama has jumped on the Obama bandwagon. From The American Conservative:

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

Amazing stuff. I don't remember a case where so many significant people and organizations have been so openly critical of their candidate - usually, especially in recent elections, you can count on the Republicans to tow the line. It's usually the Democrats that suffer the wrath of their own party brothers and sisters.

Now that Journalists have named the 44th President, relegating next week's election a formality, the discussion has shifted to concerns (or hopes) of a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin in the Senate.

Ignoring for the moment that voters may find it offensive when journalists skip over the event the voters are supposed to be taking part in, namely voting, we find the GOP in damage control and dealing with massive infighting and finger-pointing. The discussion has turned to shifting dollars away from the McCain campaign to senatorial campaigns, including this advice from conservative David Frum: "Republicans need to give up on the happy talk about how McCain has Obama just where he wants him, take off their game faces." Frum in Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can says they need to change the message to accept the fate of a Democratic White House and shift the focus to "balance in Washington."

"Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House... Divided government is the best precaution you can have."

This message does hit home with people and probably will swing some votes to McCain and Republicans in general.

Today's SF Chronicle has a story with the headline Senate Dems aim for filibuster-proof majority. Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton went to Minnesota to endorse Al Franken to the Senate, saying that he could be that key 60th Democratic senator.

I think this kind of thing will just fire up people to vote against Democrats. People do fear an unconstrained Democratic leadership. They fear that it will lead to unlimited "taxing and spending" (despite the fact that the worst deficits have come under their hero Reagan and the two Bush's).

The message it sends is one of arrogance - it may be taken by many voters as a signal that Obama and Democrats are so cocky about the presidential election that they can now start to focus on this filibuster-proof "dream" - or "nightmare" to many voters. While, like Sarah Palin for the right, it may inspire the base, it will turn off many moderates and independents.

There is still plenty of time to lose this election.

Alaska’s largest newspaper has endorsed a candidate for president. We keep being told that Sarah Palin is so popular in Alaska, so of course they must have gone with the McCain/Palin ticket. Nope.

Despite [Palin's] formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Wow. Perhaps we should listen to the people that know her best.

As reported at CNN Palin's 'going rogue,' McCain aide says

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."
McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate.

And get this:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Pretty strong stuff, and from the McCain camp too.

McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace, who Palin blames for her Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric bluders went so far as to say: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honorable thing to do is to lie there."

Gov. Palin's unfavorable rating has increased dramatically since she first came on the scene and is now net negative. She is also now rated as a bigger drag on John McCain's campaign than George W. Bush according to new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

Here's what the Pew Research Center had to say yesterday:

Sarah Palin appears to be a continuing – if not an increasing – drag on the GOP ticket. Currently, 49% of voters express an unfavorable opinion of Palin, while 44% have a favorable view. In mid-September, favorable opinions of Palin outnumbered negative ones by 54% to 32%. Women, especially women under age 50, have become increasingly critical of Palin: 60% now express an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 36% in mid-September. Notably, opinions of Palin have a greater impact on voting intentions than do opinions of Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.

How Wolf Blitzer let this comment slip by without question, I have no idea:

MCCAIN: I would have vetoed literally every spending bill, even those that I voted for, if I were president of the United States and made them famous the way Ronald Reagan did.

From interview today Oct-22: transcript here or watch the video here.

The list of intellectual republicans either officially endorsing Barack Obama, or expressing criticism of the McCain campaign keeps growing.

Last week we saw two prominent media conservatives endorse Senator Obama: Michael Smerconish, a radio talk show host, and the novelist Christopher Buckley. Buckley is the son of William Buckley, one of the key founders of the modern conservative movement.

Many of them, like Colen Powell, have cited concerns over McCains choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate.

Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, was the first of several conservative pundits to say publicly that she felt betrayed by the choice of Sarah Palin.

Kathleen Parker, another National Review columnist, wrote that Mrs Palin was "clearly out of her league" and should step down as the vice-presidential candidate.

George Will, another influential conservative writer, raised questions about whether Mrs. Palin is qualified to be president and compared the "Palin bubble" to the dotcom and housing bubbles.

David Brooks said Sarah Palin "Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party" and said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president.

Lifelong conservative Republican Ken Adelman says he will vote for Obama, adding "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency."

Can we point to any prominent democrats endorsing McCain/Palin? What does that tell us?

I'm an NRA member and I support the NRA-ILA because there is nobody else supporting the Second Amendment. I also support the ACLU.

The NRA is a one-issue organization so I suppose it makes sense that they endorese candidates based on that single issue. However, the NRA leaders appear to me to have become too entrenched in partisan politics. They think because members are interested in guns, they must also be on the right on all issues, and in particular, republican.

Even as an NRA member, I can't vote against my economic and social self-interest based on a single issue, especially with all the issues before us.

Stacy in PA writes in her "smart girl politics blog" about the current Democratic leadership:

"What have they accomplished in the last two years? Not much. It's not surprising that they have a 13% approval rating, 9% at it's low."

This, I cannot disagree with. They have been a tremendous disappointment. For starters, they should have impeached Bush. Of course, their excuse is they have a weak majority.

Then she goes on to say, with respect to fears of an Obama victory:

"There have only been a handful of times in our history where one party has had this much power in government."

Yeah, for example, the prior 6 years to the 2 mentioned above, the first 6 years of the G. W. Bush presidency. A what did they accomplish together, Bush and Congress, under that Republican majority leadership? Oh yeah:

1. Abu Ghraib
2. IRAQ
3. Missing WMDs
   
4. Hurricane Katrina
5. Guantanamo
6. Extraordinary Rendition
7. Spying on Americans without warrants
8. Continued failure to recognize Global Warming as a threat
9. Torture justified and legalized
10. Alberto Gonzales
11. Donald Rumsfeld
12. $9.1 trillion National Debt, up from $5.6 trillion
13. Taking a budget surplus to the worst budget deficits in history

Yeah, good times. Good times.

Georgia congressman and hero of Selma, John Lewis, said today:

“As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.

They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.”

In the past, McCain has praised Lewis, including naming him as one of "three wise men" he would consult as president.

Now Lewis was invoking George Wallace in reference to John McCain:

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks...

What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Lewis closed with: "We can do better. The American people deserve better."

Amen.

The McCain campaign continues to lower the bar of decency. Their latest 90 second web video is targeted to the extreme right (majority of the base these days I guess), sending the message that not only are the scary blacks stealing the election, but they also caused the economic crisis. Don't blame Wall Street. Blame the n-----s.

McCain knows he's going to lose and he's prepping the base to take the position that Republicans didn't really lose the election, but that it was stolen by Barack Omaba and his army of black street thugs.

via the AssociatedPress