This was a very effective night for the Republicans--strong speeches from Fred Thompson (where was that during the primary campaign?) and Joe Lieberman, who mischaracterized himself as a Democrat. Thompson gave an effective recounting of John McCain's biography--did you know that he was a POW?--and some old-fashioned Republican red meat, criticizing Democrats for proposing tax increases for corporations--uhhh, the very sort of tax increases that Sarah Palin successfully imposed in Alaska. (Interesting that he didn't mention the Democrats' desire to restore the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy--it must not be testing as well as it did in the past).

Lieberman's plea for bipartisanship was the weirdest speech I've ever seen at a Republican Convention in the Age of Reagan--and not nearly the disgrace that Zell Miller's was 4 years ago. Much as I've come to dislike Lieberman for his warmongering and constant questioning of the patriotism of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, I've got to say that his testimony to McCain's bipartisanship and his anti-gridlock rant may have hit home in a country sick of hyper-partisanship...even if he was quite inaccurate about Obama's willingness to reach across the aisle--as his efforts on ethics, non-proliferation and veterans benefits have shown. It is a measure of the weakness of the Republicans this year that the party that has disdained and besmirched Democrats constantly over the past twenty years suddenly wants to make peace.

But the most striking thing about the evening was what was missing: even the slightest wisp of substance. Not even a detailed tax cutting proposal, not even a paean to anti-missile defense or a rant against Iran. The strategy here seems crystal clear--indeed, it was stated today by McCain's campaign manager, "Issues don't matter." The Republicans are gambling that John McCain's inspiring biography will overcome the overwhelming--80%--feeling that the country has been moving in the wrong direction. They are gambling that people will turn to Republicans to clean up the mess that Republicans made. And they may be right, but I'd guess the euphoria over John McCain's story will last no longer than the next time most Americans have to pull out their checkbooks and pay the bills.

I dunno about you, but I'm really enjoying our national introduction to the yeasty pork-and-moose stew that is Alaska politics. My current favorite Palin controversy is whether or not she attended the secessionist Alaska Independence Party's 1994 convention. Alaska secessionists? Who knew! Several AIPs say Palin was a member of the organization and attended the convention, which was held in Wasilla; the McCain campaign says no. My favorite character in all this is the former AIP Secretary, Lynette Clark, a freelance gold miner who wants Alaska to become an independent nation and has this to say about the McCain campaign's damage control efforts:

"This is like a cat covering up crap in its litter box."

And while we're wallowing in the catbox, I'm slightly perplexed by the various Republican efforts to express outrage over the press and Democratic reaction to Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard or read a single journalist--or Democrat--say that this was anything other than a private matter. In fact, Barack Obama, the son of an 18-year-old mother, was vehement and eloquent on that subject yesterday. I've got to think this is a McCain smokescreen to divert attention from the real issue here: how and why McCain selected this tyro.

It Gets Better: Turn out Palin's husband has been an Alaska secessionist.

Well, it's official, even if it isn't all that significant: Barack Obama's poll ratings bounced moderately after his convention speech. This increases the likelihood that we'll go into the main act of this campaign--the debates--with the candidates tied, since McCain will probably have a bounce of his own after his convention speech on Thursday...Unless, these polls are a reaction to both Obama's speech and McCain vice presidential selection, which they may well be. (The daily tracking polls tightened a bit when Palin was named, but Obama regained strength after people began to get more information about Palin.)

These national polls are of limited utility. As Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe said last week, the only polls worth watching are local surveys in 18 battleground states. But there's a certain zeitgeist value to national poll movement, especially when they occur outside the margin of error. And Obama seems in a stronger position now--after his Biden pick and acceptance speech--than he did a week ago.

These markets are notoriously conservative (apparently liberals only gamble with foreign policy, not markets!), but, still, worth following:

It started this morning has been steadily rising.

Explanation, from Intrade:

Last Price: 12.7

What does this mean?

12.7 means the market predicts there is a 12.7% chance that [Sarah Palin withdraws her nomination] happens.

If you think is [MORE likely than 12.7% that she will withdraw] you should BUY

If you think it is [LESS like than 12.7% that she will withdraw] you should SELL

All markets trade between 0 ($0.0) and 100 ($10).

12.7 = $1.27

• "Foreign Policy is an important part of the job of vice president. It means what you're going to make foreigners do, especially in Iraq." [Sarah Palin's Blog] UPDATE: YES, it is fake. It says so if you scroll down the page a bit: "This site is a work of satire and is not affiliated with Sarah Palin in any way."

• If I wasn't going to the Daily Show taping later, I would guess that this is the most exciting thing to happen to me this week. (It would have been funnier if I had thought she was going to quote me!)

• The other morning show.

• "With each passing month that we continue to let these perishable skills atrophy and lose our expert practitioners, we are mortgaging not only our flexibility in today's fight, but our ability to fight the next war as well,” the colonels write. “This is similar to what happened to the Israeli Defense Forces…We should consider ourselves fairly warned.” [Think Tank]

• Tigh-Roslin in.... er, whatever year BSG is set in!

• I believe these family values.

KT, with all due respect to the fact that Sally Quinn (and other pundit types) SHOULD ask those questions of a male candidate, don't you think it's hard to find much precedent that many people have? Except, of course, for Jay.

As I've been saying lately, if you don't want to vote for Sarah Palin, I should think you can find lots of, like, substantive reasons not to vote for her -- policy, experience, possible secessionist nuttiness (I totally thought Jim Webb would have been the one who brought that to a ticket!) -- let's leave everyone's ovaries out of it.

However: I made that point to the charming Roland Martin last night, adding, "That's why I'm a Democrat -- I don't think a woman's pregnancy is anyone else's business." And he responded, "And that attitude [of wanting everyone to play by our rules] is why we Democrats lose."

UPDATE: I guess I should be more clear: Martin wasn't saying Dems lose because we're pro-choice, but because we sometimes want to let our own principles guide how we react to those of others. His follow-up point was: "Republicans play to win, and we Democrats let them."

UPDATE: From Roland, obviously important -- very sorry I got this wrong; in my defense: It was very, very loud:

I never said "we" lose. I said "you" lose and i later said "Democrats" lose.

I have never called myself a Dem. I've voted for Dems and Republicans, especially for the White House.

Thanks!

See update below.

Not so much, apparently.

On Sunday, the McCain campaign told the Washington Post this:

"Nobody was vetted less or more than anyone in the final stages, and John had access to all that information and made the decision," Davis said. "It's really not much more complicated than that."

Today, in the New York Times, we learn this:

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

And this:

People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions. Although The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public.

Oh, and this:

In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.

UPDATE: The McCain campaign is issuing hard denials of pretty much everything that is in the NYT story, the AP offers this alternate version, and the candidate himself has this to say in the latest pool report:

"The vetting process was completely thorough and I'm grateful for the results," John McCain said at Engine Company 56 of the Philadephia Fire Department shortly after 11 am.