ABC has backed off the scoop Karen flags below, or at least changed their headline, dropping the reference to 2012 in favor of simply, "Not Doing This For Naught," which seems a far less, uhm, interpretive reading of her actual answer. ABC's willingness to play up even the possibility that Palin is just maybe toying with a run in four years. Of all the things to criticize or to make a big deal of when it comes to the McCain-Palin campaign, this might be one of the most useless to actual voters. While being pushed very, very hard by the Obama campaign (hello, my lovely birdies!), Palin's supposed ambitions don't strike me as terribly relevant to the decisions people will make on Tuesday. Any VP candidate who isn't thinking about running for president one day is probably less trustworthy than one who is -- in part because they are probably thinking even darker thoughts. Two words, people: DICK CHENEY.

What's more helpful, I think, is pointing out that in four years, Sarah Palin will be four more years more prepared for the presidency than she is now. Which is to say: not at all.

ABC reports:

Gov. Sarah Palin suggested that if the Republican ticket is defeated on Tuesday she expects to be a player in the next election four years from now, saying "I'm not doing this for naught."

In an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.

"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole & I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.

At California Progress Report, Anthony Wright takes issue with a point I made the other day:

She suggested that young people would "choose" to go uninsured, as Gov. Romney suggested. As I wrote in her comments section:

“Twentysomethings are a disproportionate piece of the uninsured, but it's not because they don't "want" coverage. It's that they are more likely to be low-income, more likely not to be offered employer-based coverage, and less likely to qualify for public programs (which usually require being a parent, as well as very low-income.

Much of the differential in insurance coverage in age groups is accounted for if you hold for income and job-type. Think of the young person just starting their career, or working for McDonald's or Wal-Mart.”

In other words, young people will become more uninsured under the McCain plan because they are more likely to be the entry level or lower-income workers impacted first as employers further drop coverage. Some might buy coverage with the tax credit, but many won't be able to afford the difference, some would be denied for pre-existing conditions, and some would find that what they could buy with the tax credit (a $5,000 deductible plan, say) doesn't make sense for a young person with no assets, who would go into bankruptcy before the coverage kicks in.

Let's not blame the victims. The plan is still bad, just in a different way.

I think we are making the same point, but coming at it from different directions. Wright is absolutely correct that young people are disproportionately uninsured, and for the reasons he says. But that's true under the current system as well.

Here's what I meant with my suggestion that McCain's plan might actually encourage people to drop their coverage voluntarily. Say you are 23 years old and in good health, and lucky enough to be working for an employer who provides you health coverage. Under McCain's plan, the amount that your employer spends on your health insurance suddenly gets added to your taxable income. McCain provides a tax credit to offset that, and if it covers your additional tax liability, the chances are you would continue to take coverage under your employer's plan. But if you live in a state where health care costs are high, or your employer has a particularly expensive plan (because the benefits are great, or because the workers in your company are sicker, or older, increasing the costs of their coverage), the tax credit might not cover it. In that instance, you would be tempted just to drop it and take your chances on not getting sick.

In economic terms, that would be a completely rational decision. Unless you get in a car accident. And the departure of a worker who is a relatively good risk would leave your employers with a workforce that is, on average, even more expensive to insure--which might ultimately force the company to drop coverage for everyone.

Or, rather, an Air Force pilot:

The convention in Denver was Mr. Finan's introduction to big-time politics, and he quickly found himself doing broadcast interviews for the first time.

Between events he and about 25 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans became like a small platoon.

They slept on supporters' floors. They hung out. And they shared stories about arid, bloody places that often looked far worse than what they heard the Bush administration describe on television. (more...)

AP tops a story about GOP bloodletting with a quote from Rep. Chris Shays, GOP moderate from Connecticut who co-sponsored Shays-Meehan, the House version of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Shays is currently fighting to save his seat. Here's what he told the Yale Daily News about McCain:

"He has lost his brand as a maverick," Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican and co-chairman of the McCain campaign in that state, told the Yale Daily News in the latest criticism. "He did not live up to his pledge to fight a clean campaign."

Open letter to the High Sheriffs:

I know you guys are still struggling to get us back on our feet with this new platform, and we all appreciate how big a job it has been, but could we do something about the glitch that keeps sending perfectly fine comments into moderation? I've unstuck about 150 comments from the filter today. I am starting to feel like the Simon Bolivar of Swampland, and the commenters are getting very, very cranky.

From TIME's Nathan Thornburgh:

Plenty of observers noticed that it took two tries for Palin to actually come out and say Ted Stevens should resign. Less talked about were the reasons behind her reluctance.

It's not that there's any love lost between Palin and Stevens—they had some ties, but were not close. He's more or less the kind of politician that she began been loudly maverick-ing against when she ran for governor (though Stevens did endorse and appear in an ad for Palin late in the race). But whereas she was always quick to publicly shame other Alaska politicians (like Rep. Don Young) when they were investigated or indicted or incarcerated, Palin has always been muted about Stevens.

Why such caution from the Barracuda? Because Stevens is still powerful. He could still win on Tuesday. And even if he doesn't, his many fans in Alaska would remember if they felt like Palin was too eager to kick him while he's down.

It's a particularly tricky situation for Palin because unless something changes quickly in the presidential race, she may well have to settle for being governor again. Her approval rating in Alaska is still high, but it's slipping fast, and she can't afford to antagonize Stevens supporters--who include moderate Republicans outside of her smallish Christian conservative base. So the McCain campaign may pressure her to more consistently denounce Stevens, but something tells me her heart won't be in it.

Friday, Sarah Palin gave a speech about one of her, er, McCain's pet issues: taking care of children with special needs. Today, she spoke about energy, particularly on opening up U.S. lands and waters to increased oil and gas drilling.

In a McCain administration, we will authorize and support new exploration and production of America's own oil and gas reserves -- because we cannot outsource the solution to America's energy problem. Every year, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country for oil imports, much of it from OPEC, while America's own oil and gas reserves in America go unused. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Setting aside that McCain only recently decided to support offshore drilling and that he still opposes opening up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska – one of Palin's top priorities as governor of Alaska (she delicately didn't mention this in her speech today, at least according to the prepared remarks – I'm in North Carolina with Obama so didn't catch her on TV) – isn't it a little odd for the vice presidential candidate to be giving a series of policy speeches on her pet issues in the last week of the election? You don't see Biden saying, well, much at all. 

Mickey Kaus has me on his mind, lately...which is always nice, in a perverse way. But he's gotten a few things wrong. First, he says that I like McCain personally, but just can't support him because of the disgraceful campaign he's run. Not true, although McCain has certainly run a dreadful campaign. My objections to McCain were clear well before the mud started flying: I think his neoconservative foreign policy--the desire to keep long-term bases in Iraq, the refusal to talk with Iran and Syria, the free-range saber-rattling-- would be a disaster. I also believe that his trickle-down economic plan is oh so 30 years ago. So, no, Mick, it's not just the sleaze, it's also the substance.

A more important--and more typically Mickey--mistake is his disapproval of Obama's use of the phrase "teachable moment" in his interview with me last week:

There are good reasons to have high expectations for an Obama presidency, but the possibility of more "teachable moments" isn't one of them. Is the presidency an adult education class? The whole concept of seeing voters as needing "teaching"--as opposed to persuading, or even selling-- seems more than a bit condescending.  [He was just sucking up to Joe Klein--ed Good point.]

Actually, no. A President needs to be a really good teacher, especially in tough times. I remember my parents talking about how FDR told everyone to go out and buy maps and boxes of pins at the beginning of World War II so they could follow the progress of our troops. He became the nation's geography teacher--and, as a consequence, our parents tend to have a better grasp of geography than our kids do. It would have been nice if George W. Bush had taken the opportunity to do a little teaching about Islam and the Middle East region after September 11. Obama's ability to teach--or, at least, to explain--what the bailout was all about was one of his strongest moments in the debates. If he wins, this ability will be one of his strongest attributes as President...In any case, what's the difference between teaching and selling? You're playing word games, Mickey.

By the way, I noticed that Kaus is voting for Obama. But I haven't seen a straight-ahead explanation of why he's doing so...Mickey? Over to you.

From TIME's Amy Sullivan:

There's been growing momentum over the past few years behind an
alternative approach to the abortion issue, an effort some people
refer to as "abortion reduction." The idea is that whether they're
pro-choice or pro-life, most people agree that it would be a good
thing if the abortion rate could be lowered--whether through
preventing unplanned pregnancies or by providing economic and social
supports for women who would like to carry their pregnancies to term.

The effort got a big boost this year when Barack Obama plugged it
in his acceptance speech. And it seems to resonate with Americans who
are tired of the shouting matches that usually occur whenever abortion
comes up--when Obama mentioned it again in the third presidential
debate, focus groups dials soared.

This morning, a religious coalition is going up on the air with a
radio ad calling for support for abortion reduction policies. The ad is running on
Christian radio stations in 10 swing states, including Ohio, Indiana,
North Carolina, and Missouri. Here's how it starts: "With 1 in 5
pregnancies in America ending in abortion and the number of abortions
unchanged from 32 years ago, it's time to stop the political posturing
and get serious about protecting life." (The full script and other
resources are available at an accompanying website:
http://www.realabortionsolutions.org)

The ad buy comes at the same time that a progressive Catholic
organization--Catholics United--is sending a direct mail piece to 50,000
households in Ohio and Pennsylvania, asking Catholic voters to
consider ways to deal with abortion apart from trying to overturn
Roe. And it argues for an expanded definition of "pro-life"
that includes opposition to torture, support for universal health
care, and alleviating poverty.

Will these messages make any difference in states with large
Catholic and Evangelical populations? The economy is already trumping
social issues for many moderate-to-conservative religious voters. But
there's still a significant number of undecided Catholics and
Evangelicals out there. In 2004, they broke heavily for Bush. If they
break for Obama this year, it may be because this new approach
resonated.