Tomorrow sees the unveiling of Apple's new notebooks. What can we expect?

The official invitation, sent out just last Thursday, doesn't offer much. We get the slogan, "The spotlight turns to notebooks" and a picture of a notebook, probably metal, partially illuminated by - you guessed it - a spotlight.

Reading the hieroglyphs of Apple's promo material doesn't bring much. Could the "spotlight" reference have something to do with the Mac's Spotlight search function? Probably not.

Apple's famous lock-down on product information has become less secure of late. Almost the only part of the iPod "Let's Rock" event that wasn't leaked beforehand was the shake-to-shuffle feature on the new Nano. This launch is shaping up to be just the same: Several Chinese forums have posted pretty convincing pictures of the case designs,

Both the MacBook and the MacBook Pro will be aluminum. The aluminum MacBook has been rumored since forever, and if we take the leaked shots as real, Apple is finally going all-metal in its Mac lineup.

We can also be pretty certain that the MacBook Pro will gain the chiclet-style keyboard of the Air and the stock MacBook, most likely in backlit black. Ditto the magnetic latch which holds the MacBook Pro closed -- that little button is so 2001. The other advantage the current MacBook has over the MBP is the easy-to-swap hard drive. Along with the RAM, the HDD is a simple five-minute slot-in replacement. Expect to see this in the Pro.

I originally wrote this on October 21, 2006. But it seems especially prescient now.

I remember the painful memories of election 2004. The exit polls gave Kerry Ohio and hence the election. Sean Hannity was fuming. Various other conservative pundits -- who had earlier predicted a Republican dominated country for years to come -- were scrambling, trying to find the proper spin.

And then it happened. As I understand it, the Republican GOTV drive was in high form. And Bush won the election, giving us 4 more years of budget deficits, failed foreign policy, an economy that benefits the top 10% -- you know the rest.

The latest news is good for Democrats. More and more seats appear to be competative. The public mood is anti-incumbant. Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows. Bush's approval rating is mired in the 30s. A majority of people think the country is on the wrong track.

More importantly, the Republicans have started into a post-election circular firing squad with each constituency blaming the other for the failure. Conservative commentators are laying the groundwork against the proposed Democratic leadership. We've had hit pieces against Reid and Hannity and company are doing everything they can to smear a proposed speaker Pelosi.

It looks like we've already won.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

At times like this, it's easy to get complacent -- to let up on our efforts. "They've already lost", will be the refrain, let's take a break. "We've already won."

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

I don't care if Bush comes out with a mea culpa, saying he was wrong about everything.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

I don't care if the religious right and all of their factions apologize for attempting to create a theocracy.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

I don't care if Bush fires Rumsfeld.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

I don't care if Paulson admits the economy only benefits the top 10% of income earners, and the tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

We've got a few days left. It's time to push as hard as we can with everything we've got. It's time to dig down deep to find more to do, more to contribute, more to get done. This is not the time to quit, to lay-off, to back-off or to get lazy.

The enemy is formidible. They have built a great electoral infrastructure over the last 20-30 years. We have not.

We cannot underestimate their ability.

We cannot quit.

We cannot get lazy.

We are close to victory. But our actions in the next few weeks will determine whethor we win or lose.

THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK
THE ELECTION IS NOT OVER. GET BACK TO WORK

REYKJAVIK (Reuters) - Iceland looked for help from new partners on Monday to dig it out of a crisis that has overwhelmed its once-flourishing financial sector.

A central bank and finance ministry delegation left for Russia to begin talks on an emergency loan worth potentially billions of euros, a central bank staffer said.

Ministers said the north Atlantic island nation should now consider joining the European Union to safeguard the economy -- a step that in the past has been blocked by the country's influential fishing sector.

The buttons contain the most colorful slogans: "Obama Mama", "Babies for Obama", "Hockey Moms for Obama", "Felines for Obama", "I'm An Obama Kid", "Barack the Vote", and of course "Yes We Can." There are buttons in French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Hebrew.

Obama button making is big -- but not big enough. Buttons are a hot commodity and like all commodities are valued by supply and demand. There's huge demand and based at least on our experiences in canvassing in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida, distribution is uneven. During my phone banking this week, a lady in Miramar, Florida, begged me for information on how she could get one.

Yet in Princeton there seems an unlimited supply. How many? Button makers here estimate they've made at least 30,000. At $2 a piece (the suggested donation price), this translates to serious money for the Obama campaign. [There is scrupulous record keeping: whenever a button or any other Obama merchandise is sold, the purchaser fills out a donation form.]

The Princeton Obama campaign office is a second story operation on the town's famous historic main drag -- Nassau Street, the same route George Washington took while chasing the British after they lost the Battle of Princeton. The office was opened with great fanfare just over a month ago by Liz Lempert and Jenny Crumiller. Crumiller, a passionate local Hillary Clinton primary supporter who is now working hard for Obama, told me that "The button operation grew in a wonderfully ad hoc way...

The button makers are a very lively and raucous bunch. On weekends and holidays dozens of children are happily punching away on the button machines. At other times, there are seniors, men and women, stamping them out. There's happy chatter and laughter all the time. It's a seven-day-a-week Button Party.

The Princeton Office is one of many Obama button factories all over the country. There is an active internet world of Obama buttons, including the website mentioned above and the popular Button makers for Obama website maintained by Beth McLennan. The Obama website has a section devoted to the button makers.

The Princeton campaign office is full of volunteer math geniuses from the University and Liz has thought of a "Scientists for Obama" button. My own request, which is being put into production, is an Obama button that says "That One."

Plans to offer national free wireless Internet access got a boost on Friday when the Federal Communications Commission released a report stating that the plan would not interfere with service from other wireless carriers.

FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin plans to auction off a chunk of airwaves and told the Washington Post that free broadband is a neccessity:

I am unwilling to believe that Senator John McCain is running his own campaign. Though as a candidate for the presidency, Sen. McCain is deeply flawed, I am unwilling to believe that the ugly campaign his Party is running truly reflects Sen. McCain's genuine views.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain understood what he was doing when he picked Gov. Palin as his running mate.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain understood what he was doing when he selected the architect of the destruction of his 2000 presidential campaign in South Carolina, Tucker Eskew, to advise Gov. Palin.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain understands that lobbyist and influence peddlers are NOT drawn to him by his charm, savoir-faire and mavericity.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain understands that "I have a plan" does not constitute a viable policy.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain thinks Sen. Obama is a terrorist or supports terrorism.

I don't believe Sen. McCain is a racist, and I don't believe he understands the Civil Rights Movement. He wasn't there.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain understands the dark forces he's unleashed.

I don't believe that Sen. McCain has been leading his own campaign. I hope.

And, I don't believe that Mr. McCain understands the damage to this nation and our people that the Republican party has wrought.

Sen. McCain's failure, I hope, lies in his acquiescence to the Republican "base" and to those who for years have pandered to that base, stoking the fires of its intolerance and ignorance and selfishness and greed. Sen. McCain's failure-by-acquiescence is not a modest failure. And it is that failure which presents the danger of his candidacy.

Aside from the manifest damage to the public conversation and the genuine danger of inspiring criminal acts, the lesson is that Sen. McCain has failed to lead his own party. The party has led him, by the nose. And, should that party win in November, it is that Party which will continue the dismembering of the American dream.

Everybody wants to reduce their carbon footprint these days. But many companies have looked to the quick fix of buying carbon offsets. While this practice may slow down as the recession continues, the debate will continue to rage about what makes a quality offset, and there's the rub.

Ideally, you want something that is measurable and legitimately reduces the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere (especially during tought times -- why spend money on something that may not accomplish what you hoped?). A number of problems crop up, though, particularly "additionality," which boils down to whether that project -- saving some land, building a wind farm, capturing methane from a pig farm, and so on -- would have happened anyway. You don't want to pay people for things they're already doing.

A group of NGOs has recently formed the Offset Quality Initiative to tackle this thorny question - that answer is still in the works. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) went a step further and just launched a new resource for companies or individuals looking for high quality projects to invest in today. Their Carbon Offset Project List is fascinating. They've selected only 12 projects, far less than other respectable lists, such as the "Gold Standard Registry," backed by the World Wildlife Fund and the UNDP, which lists 200 projects around the world. So EDF must have narrower criteria.

So what's really interesting is what projects they do have. Except for one project, all are focused on methane capture, and 10 of the 12 are landfill projects (the lone holdout is a truck stop electrification project so truckers don't have to idle - very cool). Many common options are not on the list - wind, solar, retrofit projects (basically changing lightbulbs), planting trees, and so on.

I asked EDF why the methane obsession. In short, they were a) looking at the longest-standing projects with solid track records and and b) focusing on measurable and verifiable proof of reductions. They felt that "grid-connected" projects such as wind power represented a different category of renewable projects, not offsets exactly.

All of this debate demonstrates how hard it is to really define an offset...which makes claiming credit for it and declaring yourself "carbon-neutral" very dicey. Reducing carbon to "zero" is the ultimate goal here, but there are no shortcuts.

Companies can tackle this problem with a basic hierarchy of priorities. Much like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra for waste, we need a simple plan for addressing carbon in business. First, cut emissions directly through efficiency and smart redesign of processes and products (and this will reduce costs directly, a good thing in tight times). Second, buy renewable directly for your facilities, including solar, wind, geothermal and, yes, local landfill gas - whatever works in your region and climate. Then, as a last resort, look for quality offsets.

Some companies are following this prescription already. Dell recently announced that it hit its carbon-neutrality target (for its offices and employee travel). The company reduced emissions, bought direct renewable energy for its headquarters from a Waste Management landfill project, then made some investments in renewables elsewhere to offset the rest.

I'm searching for a catchy three-word slogan for this path. How about Eliminate energy waste, generate your own Electrons from renewables, and Equalize your emissions with offsets? Or Bring down energy use, Build your own, Buy offsets? (Clearly, it's not easy to come up with a Tom Friedman-esque shorthand for something...send me ideas...)

In the meantime, at least the information on what makes for a quality offset is getting better. Very smart people are exploring the problem, which will only get more acute as more carbon markets spring into being. When there's a price on a reduction, you can bet someone will want to define it. Nonetheless, start now by bringing your own emissions down and building your own renewables; these are cleaner options.

Because not creating carbon to begin with is the highest quality "offset" around.

This post first appeared at Harvard Business Online.

Andrew Winston helps companies use environmental thinking to grow and prosper. He is co-author of the best-seller Green to Gold, writes a monthly e-letter Eco-Advantage Strategies, and regularly blogs on green business.

MOSCOW -- An equities trader at Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank, lost the company about $10 million by placing unauthorized bets on the stock market just as it collapsed, the bank said Monday.

It was the latest trading scandal in a year when a rogue trader lost $7.2 billion at the French bank Société Générale. In the Russian instance, a young trader exceeded his company's limits on trades, which are safeguards against excessive loss, while making investments for a client, a spokesman for Renaissance confirmed.

There's a big, gaping hole in the national dialogue -- and John McCain is standing right at the bottom of it. While the vast majority of Americans spent last week watching the economy crash, McCain, Palin and their surrogates spent their time slinging every piece of mud they could find at Barack Obama.

The "Straight Talk Express" has veered onto a side road and is driving towards such irrelevant destinations as Ayers-town, Wright-ville and Rezko City. At a time when leadership should be on Main Street, Your-town, USA -- McCain is scouring the back-roads in a desperate attempt to firm up his sagging poll numbers and his transparent attempt to guide the national conversation off-topic clearly demonstrates that he is a man who is drowning, clinging to anything he can to keep himself afloat.

It's an old Republican tactic ripped right out Karl Rove's playbook: When you can't win on the issues, create an issue you can win on.

Unfortunately the issue the McCain campaign feels is giving them the most traction is an ugly one, and not worthy of someone who wants to lead the most powerful nation on earth. He has tried to challenge Obama on the issues and failed, and has now resorted to the type of low-brow, gutter politics he publicly stated he would never be a part of.

McCain and Palin through their rhetoric have opened an old, ugly wound. They have ripped off
the scab of intolerance that lurks below the surface of our society. Way to go, John! Way to bring the nation together. Just check out the videos from Strongsville, OH or Bethlehem, PA. They reflect a mob mentality -- Americans whipped up into a frenzy calling Obama a terrorist and a Muslim. I have to go back quite a while to remember a time when I was more embarrassed of my fellow countrymen.

Senator McCain, forget about, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war." How about, "I'd rather lose an election than start a war."

First McCain wanted us to think we couldn't trust Obama on foreign policy, but when interest in the Iraq war took a back seat to the economy, McCain switched gears and told us we couldn't depend on Obama to solve the countries ailing economy -- when McCain showed us he was clueless on financial matters he played the only card he has left:

Fear.

This is the kind of divisive political maneuvering that has no place in politics, but then again, it's what the Republicans are so very good at.

Now, the McCain campaign says it can't control what its supporters say -- but the deeper issue is why are they saying it? Who planted these thoughts in their collective consciousness? Where did the idea that Obama is an Arab or a Muslim, or a terrorist sympathizer come from? The whole premise of "What do we really know about Obama" is just a veiled invitation for the Republican base to to indulge themselves in intolerance.

The far right has always been fearful of change. After eight years of disastrous leadership they would rather have things remain the same and suffer four more years of failed policies because at least they'd have one of "them" in the White House.

So, what is John McCain's big problem?

At a town hall meeting earlier this week McCain publicly promised a supporter that he would bring up Obama's association with William Ayers at the upcoming debate.

Later in the week the poisonous atmosphere he created came to a boil in Lakeville, MN, when McCain was forced to back-track as a female supporter stated that Obama is an Arab. McCain had to say that Obama was a decent family man.

When a male supporter spoke about his distrust of Obama, McCain was forced to say, "He is a decent person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States". This is where the crowd turned on him and actually booed as their candidate tried to remove the red meat from the table.

McCain seems unable to control the monster he's created. His campaigns innuendos and inflammatory remarks now have a life of their own now within the Republican psyche.

So, McCain now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. To bring it up Obama's association with Ayers during the debate will surely annoy independents who want to hear about the issues -- but to go back on a public promise and not mention it will anger his base.

He has painted himself into a corner with no good options left. It's a lose-lose situation for him and he has only himself and his campaign strategists to blame.

I will be watching Wednesday nights debate... and all I can say is he better show up with one hell of a big shovel to if he's going to dig himself out of the hole he's dug for himself...

The AP reports:

And the verdant background looks more like summer than autumn, adding to uncertainty about Kim's health after reports he underwent brain surgery.

North Korea released the undated still photos and video frame grabs Saturday accompanying a report by North Korean television that Kim visited an all-female military unit. They were the first photos of Kim published since Aug. 14; and both sets of pictures he wears his trademark dark sunglasses and a khaki jumpsuit.

"They didn't appear to have been taken recently," Kim Yong-hyun, a North Korea expert at Seoul's Dongguk University, said Monday of the pictures carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. "To me, it looked like they were taken in June or July."

PHILADELPHIA — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a Democratic rejoinder to the Republican chant of "drill, baby, drill." Said the one-time presidential candidate: "Jobs, baby, jobs."

Campaigning for her once bitter rival Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, the New York senator told about 1,500 people at an historic farm in suburban Horsham, that her husband's administration produced a balanced budget and a surplus.

"Now, eight short years later, we've had to add a digit to the debt clock," she said, referring to the digital sign in New York City that tracks the national debt.

Clinton is trying to use her popularity in places like northeast Philadelphia and the city's suburbs to help Obama beat Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain in this battleground state. She did well in both areas in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary six months ago, when she beat the Illinois senator by 10 percentage points.

At the Republican National Convention and various GOP rallies, an oft-repeated chant was "drill, baby, drill," a plea for more oil drilling. McCain and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin back more offshore oil drilling; Palin favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Clinton said Democrats have a better answer: "Jobs, baby, jobs."

Earlier in the day, she told about 400 people at a Philadelphia Jewish community center that voters concerned about the country's economy should support Obama because President Bush's policies are not helping average households.

"The middle class is invisible to this president," Clinton said. "He doesn't see how hard it is to make ends meet."

Clinton's visit to the Jewish community center in the far northeastern corner of Philadelphia was the first of two area stops on Monday.

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaigned with Obama running mate Joe Biden on Sunday in Scranton, another area where Clinton did well in the primary.

Earlier Monday, Clinton said Obama is closing in on an Election Day win.

Clinton said in an interview taped for "Today" from Scranton that she thinks Obama has substantially improved his chances by the way he has handled questions about the country's severe credit crisis. "I think he's closing it," she said.

The pre-spin for the week has been spun: That John McCain is hitting the "reset" button on his crashing campaign. Like a computer that froze, the spin goes, McCain is rebooting everything, starting today.

Except he's not. All McCain is doing is changing the desktop wallpaper. All he's doing is making a modest style change, as pop-up warnings have melted down his campaign -- "The Program 'Economic Policy' has stopped working; Click Here to Force It To Close..." "Error: Your Campaign Extension File 'Negative Attack' Is Out of Date...." "Warning: Your Preferences File 'Strategy' Has Been Infected With the 'Erratic' Virus..."

No, nothing is changing today, except that McCain is giving a new speech. To wit:

- His campaign argued all weekend about coming out with new policy prescriptions that might help the middle class, and decided against providing any program details that would help America's working families.

- While Senator McCain wants people to think he's turning the page of innuendo and negative smears, just this weekend he refused to say that comparing Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden is beyond the pale. Also, his campaign has done nothing to change the fact that they're running 100 percent negative ads.

- And finally, the speech he is giving today, itself, is just one more bit of evidence of a candidate and campaign flailing around, unable to stick to one strategy, and unable to provide a cogent argument for why the Senator should be President. In fact, it seems that the crux of the speech is McCain arguing that his military service is the reason. And this is a reboot?

A 'reboot' of the campaign would be the Senator announcing that he's dumping his past policy proposals, and introducing an intricate and thought-out policy prescription of America, that he is taking all of his negative ads off the air, forbidding his campaign from bringing up Bill Ayers anymore, and that no matter what, this is what he's sticking with for the final weeks of the campaign, come hell or high water.

Of course, we'll have to see if the media is smart enough to tell the difference between restarting the whole computer and changing the wallpaper from a meadow scene to an underwater scene.

Obama's Blueprint for Change calls for reform of the Bush Administration culture of secrecy and an end to sole-source government contracting. McCain, meanwhile, does not recognize these issues as problems in need of urgent resolution, and has proposed an even more adventuristic approach to intelligence. Here's a news story from two weeks ago that takes place at the crossroads of these two issues, and underscores how badly reform is needed -- both in the intelligence community and in government outsourcing.

Dusty Foggo, former third in command at the CIA during the tenure of DCIA Porter Goss, entered a guilty plea last Monday on a Federal wire fraud charge. In a sordid tale involving hookers and trendy Washington restaurants, Foggo was caught misusing his authority as CIA's chief procurement officer to award lucrative sole source contracts to his political friends.

By all accounts, he got off easy. According to news reports, he "graymailed" a light sentence out of Federal prosecutors -- that is, he threatened to use his court proceedings to reveal secrets about CIA operations and his former colleagues' cover identities.

One of the secrets, or collection of secrets, that Foggo likely had in his trickbag was his knowledge of how the CIA buys things. The CIA, like any large organization, buys conventional stuff, like pencils, and conventional services, like advertising, as evidenced by the fancy recruiting posters that are ubiquitous in any major U.S. airport. And of course, the CIA buys exotic, specialized stuff, like killer robot airplanes and ultra secure computer gear, and exotic services, with anodyne names like "field security support" (gun-toting ex-commandos) and "collections operations support" (multi-lingual, globe-trotting secret agents).

The "how" of CIA procurement of goods and services is supposed to be a secret, ostensibly for the protection of CIA sources, methods, and personnel. The Foggo case shows, though, that procurement secrecy is destined to be abused for personal gain and to conceal incompetence. Foggo's case also shows that internal CIA checks on contracting abuses are inadequate. Indeed, it took outside pressure from the press and investigators from the FBI to expose the slime trail to Foggo. (That trail started in the bribery scandal that landed California congressman Duke Cunningham in jail.) If conscientious, diligent officials at CIA had any role in stopping Foggo's industrial-scale corruption, it was because they were acting as sources for journalists who broke the Foggo story.

And what would the taxpayer and CIA have gotten if Foggo hadn't been caught? Foggo was preparing to give his friend, Brent Wilkes, a sole source CIA contract for aviation services worth $300 million. It is doubtful that Wilkes -- with no experience in aviation business -- would have been able to deliver the demanding kind of low-visibility aviation services needed to support CIA activity worldwide. CIA's aviation operations are already troubled enough, as described in Stephen Grey's Ghost Plane, which exposed CIA flights and aircraft via open source research. Would a crooked aviation know-nothing like Wilkes, cashing in on a childhood friendship and political connections, actually been able to help solve the CIA's air transportation problems?

The structural problems that gave rise to Foggo's crookery are still in place. Because of national security restrictions on information on even the most mundane intelligence community contracting, journalists and watchdog groups -- let alone congressional investigators -- find it extremely difficult to scrutinize how intelligence agencies award contracts. Conflicts of interest, such as close and continuing relationships between government officials and contractor executives, should derail a multimillion dollar Federal contract -- but not a multimillion dollar intelligence contract. In my own experience with contracting at intelligence agencies and in Special Access Programs in other parts of Federal government, I have seen these kinds of details -- likely indicators of corruption -- swept under the rug. It's all but an actuarial certainty that a major misappropriation of intelligence-related contracting authority is actually happening right now -- can 100% of intelligence contracting officials really be expected to do the right thing when they know that nobody is looking?

It's hard to imagine McCain's proposed new and improved intelligence bureaucracy doing super-secret contracting any better, or at least with more safeguards against Foggo-style abuses. Even more difficult to imagine is that a McCain administration would throw open the blinds on secret contracting in the intelligence community or in any other part of government. Obama's team promises greater transparency, but an entrenched culture of absolutist thinking about security classification and the likelihood of more skeletons in all those secret vaults -- will pose mighty barriers to real reform.

With 22 days left before the voters hit the polls, conservative pundits and media commentators are scratching their heads over the lack of direction - indeed, the near schizophrenic judgment - of the McCain campaign.

Appearing at the Time Warner Summit conference on the 2008 election, a host of prominent electoral observers were all bearish on the Arizona Republican's presidential ambitions. Not one panelist took the chance to defend the Senator's choice of Sarah Palin as vice president. Others simply saw death by electoral numbers.

"Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada," declared Byron York of the National Review. "Bush won everyone of those states except Pennsylvania. McCain has to do it all. And it is hard to do that by going on Letterman."

The reference was to the Arizona Republican's upcoming appearance on the Late Night Show this Thursday. For the panelists it symbolized yet another instance of what Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan described as "herky-jerky" behavior coming from the Republican ticket.

"Obama seems older in a way," said the former Ronald Reagan speechwriter. "McCain has seemed herky-jerky. Obama has seemed like the older, steadier fellow since the economic crisis began."

It was a sentiment echoed by most everyone else. Josh Marshall, the publisher of Talking Points Memo, made the case, as he has done many times before, that the senator by and large has dug his own grave.

"By the way he has conducted his campaign, McCain has got himself in a hole," he said. "That dramatic gesture [that he might turn to]... even if, on its own terms, it might be good for him, he has so effectively created this view as erratic it might not work."

The main object of ridicule and criticism, however, was Sarah Palin. York called her interviews with CBS's Katie Couric "very bad" and immune to political spin.

"She may be a very effective governor of Alaska who wasn't able to pick up on what you need to be an effective vice presidential candidate," said the National Review scribe.

Added Noonan: "Her performance from day one mattered. What the American people saw over the period of five or six weeks, it has been very up and down. From an unveiling that gave rise to questions to a very strong convention speech, to interviews that were disastrous, to a debate in which she came back very strong, to now, ten days on the campaign trail, where I think it is fair to say: that didn't work."

It was a fairly brutal affair, remarkable for its intense, sometimes overbearing, bipartisan focus on the ailments of the Republican ticket. Thirty-five minutes into the discussion, Jeffrey Toobin actually had to remind his fellow panelist that there was another candidate in the race.

"We haven't commented yet," said the CNN analyst, "on what a sensational campaign Obama has run."

The crisis in the financial markets has directed voters' attention to the economy as the most pressing issue in the presidential campaign. But the fiscal crisis should do more than that; it should make clear that we don't just select a single leader when we vote, but an entire administration. Many of the regulatory decisions - or, more appropriately, deregulatory decisions - that fostered the meltdown on Wall Street were made by presidential appointees without direct involvement by the President.

This same pattern can be seen throughout the bureaucracy. When Hurricane Katrina hit, the President did not decide how to respond, his appointee to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), did. President Bush may have thought that FEMA director Michael Brown was "doing a heck of a job," but the facts were otherwise. Another presidential appointee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was similarly ineffective in running his slice of the bureaucracy. A recent inspector general report found that Gonzales "bears primary responsibility" for the improper firing of U.S. attorneys for partisan political reasons. The report concluded that Gonzales "abdicated" his role as head of the Department and was "remarkably unengaged."

The President may be a "decider," but most decisions are made elsewhere in the bureaucracy. Critical questions of monetary, environmental, and social policy will be made by people other than the President because the President cannot possibly take part in every critical decision the federal government makes that affects people's lives. He has to rely on delegates.

We do not know, of course, the names of the people who will ultimately fill key posts in an Obama or McCain Administration. (Though the last debate revealed Warren Buffett as a top contender for Treasury Secretary regardless of who wins.) But we do know a great deal about how the candidates will go about selecting them.

One valuable insight comes from a key post the candidates have filled already: the selection of their running mates. Both candidates announced the criteria they would use before making their picks. Senator Barack Obama explained that the most important factor for him in selecting a vice president would be "Is this person ready to be president?" The second question was "Can this person help me govern?" Senator John McCain similarly stated that he wanted someone who is "fully prepared to take over" and someone who "shares your values, your principles, your philosophy and your priorities."

How did the candidates do in meeting these benchmarks? A recent MSNBC poll reveals reason for doubting McCain. While 74 percent of voters believe Senator Joe Biden is qualified to serve as president, only 41 percent believe that Governor Sarah Palin is.

The candidates' differing approaches to creating an administration can be assessed in another critical way as well. The people they select likely will share not only their policy stances, but their approaches to making decisions. George W. Bush made it clear from the outset that he is a "gut player" who "rel[ies] on his instinct" to make decisions. (His infamous assessment of Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin from looking in his eye and "get[ting] a sense of his soul" is one of many examples of his general approach.) It is therefore unsurprising that President Bush has presided over an administration that has reflected this same governing style, rejecting science and expertise in favor of political instinct. The last eight years are replete with examples of the Bush administration agencies dismissing science and expert assessments on everything ranging from global warming to an over-the-counter morning-after pill to the toxicity of mercury.

John McCain shares some of President Bush's tendencies. He wrote in his 2002 book that he doesn't "torture myself over decisions," instead making them "as quickly as I can." Reports reflect that the decision to tap Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick was an example of his style. It is therefore likely that a McCain administration will reflect this approach as well.

Barack Obama, in contrast, is data-driven and methodological in his decisionmaking. His campaign advisers are leading experts in their respective fields, and his administration would likely rely on the best available empirical evidence as well.

Much has been written about how McCain's impulsive streak or Obama's emotional steadiness might affect their presidencies. But the real key is how these traits will influence whom they select to serve in their administration and how those people will govern. It is on this score, as much as any other, that John McCain is hard to separate from George W. Bush.

During the October 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh mischaracterized the accomplishments of Muhammad Yunus, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Limbaugh stated that Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank Project, received the prize "[b]ecause he came up with a way to offer loans to poor people who couldn't pay them back." According to the Grameen Bank website, Yunus started the Grameen Bank Project in 1976 to "examine the possibility of designing a credit delivery system to provide banking services targeted at the rural poor." The project was transformed into a formal bank in 1983 and, according to the bank's website, has since distributed $7.28 billion in microloans to people in poverty in Yunus' home country of Bangladesh. Contrary to Limbaugh's claim, the bank's monthly report for August 2008 shows a repayment rate of 98.08 percent.

Limbaugh went on to talk about former President Jimmy Carter, who was awarded the Peace Prize in 2002, saying, "He was one of the worst presidents -- the worst in my lifetime -- and one of the worst in American history. He got a Nobel Peace Prize, too. Look at the Peace Prize winners and look at how they screw up." Carter received the Peace Price "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

From the October 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Two years ago, ladies and gentlemen -- two years ago, the Nobel Prize committee awarded the Peace Prize to a man named Muhammad Yunus. He was from Bangladesh. He works at the Grameen Bank. You know why Muhammad Yunus from Bangladesh got the Nobel Peace Prize? Because he came up with a way to offer loans to poor people who couldn't pay them back.

A statement from the Nobel committee, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a Bangladesh banker: "Lasting peace cannot be achieved until large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty. Microcredit is one such means." Microcredit? No credit. Endless credit. This stuff's been in the works for I don't know how long. We started it here in this country way, way back. Jimmy Carter, who -- by the way, Jimmy Carter today, ladies and gentlemen, blaming all of this on Bush. And why wouldn't he? Jimmy Carter famous for covering his own rear-end, and this is a big CYA move, because everybody that's looked into this knows it started with him.

He was one of the worst presidents -- the worst in my lifetime -- and one of the worst in American history. He got a Nobel Peace Prize, too. Look at the Peace Prize winners and look at how they screw up. [Former Vice President Al] Gore getting one. All these institutions that used to mean something are now nothing more than tools for leftists to award themselves.

During the October 10 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage baselessly accused Sen. Barack Obama of running a "corrupt campaign," suggested that white liberals "hate white people," repeated the discredited charge that Obama "won't produce his birth certificate," and asserted "Kenya is going to move to America" if Obama wins the election.

Without providing any evidence to support his claim, Savage said, "Obama is running the most corrupt campaign in American history. He's registering the dead, the criminals, the homeless, multiply registering, driving people across state borders." Savage then said of Sen. John McCain: "If he can be John McCain the younger he has a chance to win in my opinion, but if he's gonna be John McCain the compromiser, you may as well move to Kenya. The reason you may as well move to Kenya is because Kenya is going to move to America if Barack Hussein Obama wins."

Savage continued: "Can you imagine Louis Farrakhan as the education minister? Al Sharpton as secretary of the Treasury? Jesse Jackson as secretary of Labor? Don't laugh. Hey, how do you know what Barack Hussein Obama is going to do? He might appoint somebody from Pakistan." Savage later suggested: "What about [former Weather Underground member] Bill Ayers as secretary of Education? That would be good. Wait a minute, I have a better idea. What if he makes Bill Ayers -- what if Obama makes Bill Ayers the head of the FBI -- the man who killed police and tried to bring it all down, man."

During the program, Savage also repeated the discredited claim that Obama has not released an authentic birth certificate establishing that he was born in the United States, stating, "[W]e don't even know where he was born. His party won't produce his birth certificate." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, a copy of Obama's birth certificate is posted on Obama's Fight the Smears website and was reportedly made available to the nonpartisan watchdog group FactCheck.org, which "conclude[d] that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship."

Savage then stated that "I can't wait to see all of the white liberals, the very wealthy ones say, 'Well, I didn't know, I had no idea, I just hated white people.' We'll say the white people, we'll say they only hated white people. And they only wanted to give a man who was not a white man a chance. They wanted to be fair." Savage later added that after Obama wins, "I can't wait to hear what the liberals say. 'Well, I didn't know. I had no idea. I just wanted anybody but a WASP. Anybody but a white man.' Well, the liberals will say that, of course. Why do liberals hate white people when most of them are liberals?"

Savage also stated during the program: "Now I can talk about tacos or I can talk about Osama, Obama, or Obama, or Osama. I could talk about McCain, I can talk about Bush, I can talk about Ayers. All aboard? I think it's futile to talk about any of it because I think it's over, frankly. You may as well just move to Kenya."

From the October 10 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

SAVAGE: I believe McCain is obviously the underdog. I mean, you don't have to be a genius to figure that out. He's been running the worst campaign known to mankind. And Obama is running the most corrupt campaign in American history. He's registering the dead, the criminals, the homeless, multiply registering, driving people across state borders. And the Republicans are standing like -- like the -- the light -- the headlights in the, the eyes. They don't know what to do.

What does McCain have to do to win the election is the question. Can he do anything to win the election? Other than not be John McCain the latter. If he can be John McCain the younger he has a chance to win in my opinion, but if he's gonna be John McCain the compromiser, you may as well move to Kenya. The reason you may as well move to Kenya is because Kenya is going to move to America if Barack Hussein Obama wins.

Can you imagine Louis Farrakhan as the education minister? Al Sharpton as secretary of the Treasury? Jesse Jackson as secretary of Labor? Don't laugh. Hey, how do you know what Barack Hussein Obama is going to do? He might appoint somebody from Pakistan. He could change the rules on that, since we don't know where he was born. His party won't produce his birth certificate. And I can't wait to see all of the white liberals, the very wealthy ones say, "Well, I didn't know. I had no idea. I just hated white people." We'll say the white people, we'll say they only hated white people. And they only wanted to give a man who was not a white man a chance. They wanted to be fair.

[...]

SAVAGE: What about Bill Ayers as secretary of Education? That would be good. Wait a minute, I have a better idea. What if he makes Bill Ayers -- what if Obama makes Bill Ayers the head of the FBI -- the man who killed police and tried to bring it all down, man.

[...]

SAVAGE: I can't wait to hear what they say a few years from now. After they've taken this man, and they've made him into president. I can't wait to hear what the liberals say. "Well, I didn't know. I had no idea. I just wanted anybody but a WASP. Anybody but a white man." Well, the liberals will say that, of course. Why do liberals hate white people when most of them are liberals? I don't understand that part of it.

[...]

SAVAGE: Now, I can talk about tacos or I can talk about Osama, Obama, or Obama, or Osama. I could talk about McCain, I can talk about Bush, I can talk about Ayers. All aboard? I think it's futile to talk about any of it, because I think it's over, frankly. You may as well just move to Kenya. See if you can get a hut next to Obama's cousin. I'll be right back.

On the October 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said of Gov. Sarah Palin: "[T]here are some extreme, left-wing Democratic lawmakers accusing her of resorting to race tactics on the campaign trail. Why? Palin recently referred to Barack Obama as, quote, 'not one of us,' prompting New York Congressman Greg Meeks to say the following, quote: 'They know they can't win on issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.' " Hannity went on to assert: "If it wasn't so ridiculously idiotic and absurd, it'd be funny. But -- you know, but this -- this sounds a lot like Barack Obama: 'They're going to tell you I have a funny name, and I don't look like those guys on the currency. And they're going to say, "Oh, he's black?" ' " Hannity added: "Nobody in the Republican Party is bringing this up except him and his supporters."

However, contrary to Hannity's claim that Meeks' comments are "ridiculously idiotic and absurd" and his claim that "[n]obody in the Republican Party" has brought up Obama's race or his middle name, several Republican officials and supporters have brought up the issue of his race, made racial innuendos, or used his middle name, as Media Matters for America and several media outlets have documented:

King thinks radical Islamists will say the United States has capitulated because the Obama administration would be pulling troops out of any conflict associated with al-Qaida.

"Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict."

This is not the first time Hannity has suggested that "[n]obody in the Republican Party" has brought up Obama's race or his "funny name." As Media Matters documented, on the July 31 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity asked Democratic strategist Michael Brown "a very specific question": "Can you name any prominent Republican that has brought up -- that has said that [Obama] is not patriotic, or that he's got a funny name, or that he doesn't look like those presidents on dollar bills? Do you know any prominent Republican that has said any of these things?"

From the October 9 edition of Fox's Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Governor Sarah Palin has been the toast of the Republican Party, luring the conservative base back to Senator McCain. But there are some extreme, left-wing Democratic lawmakers accusing her of resorting to race tactics on the campaign trail. Why? Palin recently referred to Barack Obama as, quote, "not one of us," prompting New York Congressman Greg Meeks to say the following, quote: "They know they can't win on issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear."

We continue with Ann Coulter and Pat Caddell.

If it wasn't so ridiculously idiotic and absurd, it'd be funny. But -- you know, but this -- this sounds a lot like Barack Obama: "They're going to tell you I have a funny name, and I don't look like those guys on the currency. And they're going to say, 'Oh, he's black?' " Nobody in the Republican Party is bringing this up except him and his supporters. Ann Coulter?

COULTER: I think this is --

HANNITY: Go ahead.

COULTER: -- I don't think this is helping Obama. He was, in the words of his vice-presidential choice, Joe Biden, supposed to be the new, you know, clean black candidate. By which, among other things, I assume he meant he wasn't constantly going to be haranguing white people for being racist.

So, going back to the old school of forcing white people to walk on egg shells -- I mean, there was a hockey mom claim, that that was racist. Joe Six-Pack, that that is racist. No one wants a black president more than I do, just so we can stop walking on egg shells.

Despite having previously referred to the actions of Sen. John McCain or his campaign as "erratic" on several occasions in recent weeks, on the October 12 edition of his NBC-syndicated television show, Chris Matthews suggested that when Sen. Barack Obama used the word to describe McCain, he was making a reference to McCain's age. Matthews asserted, "Obama and [Sen.] Joe Biden have been making their own suggestions about McCain's age and stability." Matthews then aired a clip of Obama saying, "I don't think we can afford that kind of erratic and uncertain leadership in these uncertain times," and one of Biden saying, "Not an angry man lurching from one position to another." Matthews then asked Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, " 'Erratic'; 'lurching from one position' -- are they going after the guy, 'He's an old crank.' What are they trying to make him into?"

However, in recent weeks, Matthews himself has repeatedly described McCain's actions, and those of his campaign, as "erratic":

From the October 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: One thing I noticed about Obama -- and it sometimes drives me crazy, Peggy --

PEGGY NOONAN (Wall Street Journal columnist): Yeah?

MATTHEWS: -- is that he seems very calm. And I keep wanting him to be more like me or more like [CNBC host Jim] Cramer. We're just -- we're very much alike.

NOONAN: Responsive. Energetic.

MATTHEWS: And yet that almost Zen calmness of him -- in our -- Perry Como calmness of his --

NOONAN: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: -- seems to be helping him, compared to the erratic-seeming McCain.

NOONAN: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: Is that tenor important, or is it -- at some point, do you have to show some passion?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, it seems to me, Tom DeFrank, that if you look at the pattern of attack by the McCain forces -- as you say, they have to change the subject -- first of all, it was kind of odd things like Barack's no good; he's a celebrity. Then it was Barack's no good, 'lipstick on a pig' is a bad phrase to use. And now, it's Barack's no good because he hung out in the Chicago politics, Democratic politics, with a guy named Bill Ayers back when. It seems like there is a pattern of erratic effort to try to change the subject no matter what it might be to.

DeFRANK: Well, I don't know whether that's a prima facie evidence of erratic behavior by the McCain camp, but I do think it suggests that they don't have an overall strategy. It's basically tactical responses to the problem of the day. And the problem of the day today and for the last two or three weeks has been the economy.

From the September 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

MATTHEWS: I think this other problem with McCain is the Captain Queeg factor here, which is starting to emerge. It's not there yet, but the erratic nature of calling for the firing of the chairman of the SEC, attempting to fire these debates in a sense, this effort to constantly change things -- he did it in Memphis a couple of years ago when he went down there and he knew he was going to lose the straw vote at that Memphis meeting of Southern Republicans and he endorsed Bush so that there wouldn't be a vote. I mean, he's always trying to rip up the score card.

From the September 26 edition of Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Let's go right now to Newsweek's Howard Fineman. You know, that is the issue. Everybody seems to agree, the conventional wisdom is John McCain's too hot, maybe erratic this week -- I'm not going to come; I'm going to come. I'm going to fire this guy; I'm going to fire that guy. I'm going to fire the debates. And on the other hand, you got -- this guy is so cool, you wonder if he's really engaged. Is that the -- is that the sort of the instinct out there?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball, live from the first presidential debate locale down here at Ole Miss, Oxford, Mississippi. First time I've ever been here. Of course, it's always been in the news.

And with us right now is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who sits with me, as he has often done over the last 300 years, and NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

Chuck, you're right outside the debate center. It seems to me that John McCain's behavior the last week has been erratic -- I mean objectively, not psychologically. He said he would not come here unless action was taken to avert a federal financial collapse. Action has most clearly not been taken. Why is he here?

From the October 12 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back. With only three weeks left, both sides are operating on two levels. There's the top-lying message on policies, and then there's the subtext, that emotional message they're sending about the other guy. Just listen to John McCain and Sarah Palin on the trail this week suggesting that Obama's not like us.

McCAIN [video clip]: In short, who is the real Barack Obama?

PALIN [video clip]: Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists.

MATTHEWS: But Obama and Joe Biden have been making their own suggestions about McCain's age and stability.

OBAMA [video clip]: I don't think we can afford that kind of erratic and uncertain leadership in these uncertain times.

BIDEN [video clip]: Not an angry man lurching from one position to another.

MATTHEWS: "Erratic"; "lurching from one position" -- are they going after the guy, "He's an old crank." What are they trying to make him into?

IGNATIUS: You know, it's code. I mean, these are not subtle messages, I think.

MATTHEWS: I -- wait. Now, code is pretty dramatic.

IGNATIUS: These are -- you know -- we're getting to the bullhorn stage on the Republican side. I have to say that this scares me a little bit. The country's really frightened. The country's looking for people to blame, and as this rhetoric cranks up -- you know, the reporters out on the trail this week said that -- what they're really struck by was how angry people were. There's this rage that's out there, and I think both sides -- but especially the Republicans, to be honest -- are playing with fire. When you begin talking about Barack Obama and terrorists, you know, you're going to strike a match to something that's really explosive.

October 13 articles in The New York Times and the Associated Press uncritically reported Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Sen. Barack Obama was "palling around with terrorists," an apparent reference to Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Neither the Times nor the AP noted their previous reporting that Obama and Ayers were not close. The Times, in an October 4 article that Palin cited for her claim, reported that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Similarly, the AP reported on October 5 that "there is no evidence that they [Obama and Ayers] ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the Times and the AP have nonetheless previously reported Palin's claim without noting their own reporting otherwise.

From the October 13 New York Times article:

Asked about race, Mr. Miller said: ''I think the country is ready for a black president, but a lot of people around here may not be. I just hope that whoever we elect, we all have faith that the person will do the best he can.''

Ms. Palin, who drew sharp criticism from Democrats last week for saying that Mr. Obama had a history of ''palling around with terrorists,'' refrained from personal attacks on Sunday and hammered Mr. Obama on issues like taxes and late-term abortion.

At one point, Ms. Palin said ''we know who the bad guys are,'' and a man in the crowd here screamed ''Obama!'' It was unclear if Ms. Palin heard him; she did not address his remark.

From the October 13 AP article:

McCain and his running mate have toned down their attacks on rival Barack Obama. Last Monday, Palin said Obama was "palling around with terrorists." On Friday, after voters at campaign rallies shouted "terrorist" and "off with his head" toward the stage, McCain called Obama "a decent, family man" whom public shouldn't fear and cut off a woman who called him an Arab.

On Sunday, one man shouted out "Obama loves terrorists" as Palin talked about "the bad guys."

The character attacks, it appears, are now out of Palin's stump speech as the economy has become the issue on which this election will be decided.

On the October 12 edition of NBC's Nightly News, correspondent Savannah Guthrie falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama was talking about abortion when he said: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." During the broadcast, referring to comments by Gov. Sarah Palin, Guthrie reported: "Saturday in Pennsylvania, her most withering attack yet on Obama's stance on abortion." She then aired Palin saying of Obama: "He said that a woman shouldn't have to be, quote, 'punished with a baby.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously documented, Obama was instead referring to sex education, not abortion, when he made his "punished with a baby" comment.

As Media Matters noted, during the October 11 edition of MSNBC Live, after anchor Chris Jansing uncritically aired Palin's false charge about Obama's comments, Guthrie said of Palin: "[W]e've never heard her speak quite like this, and at such length, about Barack Obama's record on abortion."

In fact, Obama made the comment in response to what CNN reported was "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls." Indeed, as video of the March 29 campaign event, broadcast by CNN, shows, Obama was discussing sex education, not abortion, when he made the comment Palin cited.

From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:

MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.

OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.

But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.

From the October 12 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Lester Holt:

GUTHRIE: It's been a working weekend for Governor Palin: a bus tour through Pennsylvania yesterday, today Ohio. And though she's still on the attack against Barack Obama, we're seeing a change in tone after a week where some say the atmosphere on the campaign trail was getting overly heated.

[begin video clip]

GUTHRIE: Sarah Palin at a rally tonight in Ohio.

PALIN: Just once, I would love to hear Barack Obama say he wants America to win.

GUTHRIE: Saturday in Pennsylvania, her most withering attack yet on Obama's stance on abortion.

PALIN: He said that a woman shouldn't have to be, quote, "punished with a baby."

GUTHRIE: But as Palin campaigned this weekend, getting a mixture of boos and applause as she dropped the first puck at a Philadelphia hockey game, noticeably absent was any reference to Obama's connection to '60s radical Bill Ayers, something she had previously hit hard. That marks a change in tone, after a week in which the McCain campaign had ratcheted up the rhetoric.

In an October 12 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Robin Abcarian and Maeve Reston reported that at an October 11 rally in Davenport, Iowa "[Sen. John] McCain advocated for his tax cuts and his plan to balance the budget by 'the end of my term in office.' " However, Abcarian and Reston did not mention that McCain has repeatedly shifted on his time frame for balancing the budget, originally claiming he would balance the budget in four years, then pledging to do so in eight years, before reversing himself again to return to the four-year pledge. By contrast, in a July 8 Times article, Reston and Louise Roug reported: "Three months after he discarded his pledge to balance the federal budget in four years, John McCain on Monday renewed his vow to do so." In addition, in an April 16 article on McCain's economic agenda, LA Times staff writer Michael Finnegan documented McCain's first shift when he noted that McCain's April 15 pledge to "balance the budget within eight years" was "a retreat from his previous vow to do so within four."

As Media Matters for America has documented, both McCain and his economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin reportedly said on April 15 that, in the words of Reuters, "McCain believes he can balance the budget in eight years." This represented a shift from McCain's reported pledge in February to balance the budget by the end of his first term, as Media Matters noted. On April 16, New York Times reporter Michael Cooper wrote that McCain said that "economic conditions are reversed," requiring him to reconsider his four-year pledge. However, on July 7, Holtz-Eakin stated during a conference call with reporters that McCain was again promising a balanced budget by the end of his first term.

Furthermore, Abcarian and Reston did not note, as Reston and Roug reported in their July 8 article, that many economists and nonpartisan analysts have expressed skepticism about McCain's plan to balance the budget in four years, stating that his proposal for numerous tax cuts would bloat the deficit or require huge spending cuts, as Media Matters