They would all do well to remember that instead of come one word short of calling each other liars on national television.

LS: True enough, Dick. And I am so pleased to hear Palin is tolerant. And how, when she talks about gay marriage, she is being straight up with America.

RS: I wondered what she meant, too. Actually, I wondered what she meant quite often. Like when she said she did 'not want to argue about the causes' of climate change, even though that was the question at hand. Or when she said 'your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.'

LS: Dick, that's just Debate 101: Never say you agree with your opponent. Obama should've kept that in mind last week, too. But Palin continued to take little jabs by saying how pleased she was to be in agreement with Biden ('we both love Israel,' 'I respect you for admiring McCain's record'). And then came the empty statement: 'For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that's where you're going.' The first thought to come to mind: how can you forge ahead without identifying mistakes in the past and learning from them? Palin asserted, a mere two sentences later, 'We'll learn from the past mistakes of this administration and other administrations.' Well, which one is it, Governor? How can your party learn from Bush's mistakes and any other party's mistakes and claim reform is coming if the Democrats cannot utilize the same method? Blatant doublespeak is a sign of cheapness or sinister motives.

RS: Even for a nation that gets off by watching COPS and car crashes on t.v., the rabid dog approach gets tiresome to watch, especially when Palin adds her rehearsed tone of patronization during the scathing rant about meeting with our enemies. It is an interesting strategy of Biden's (mirroring Obama's last week) to use this platform to set the inaccuracies of the McCain campaign straight in the face of the opposition. I'm not sure it is the best plan, since it still seems to give the GOP the upper hand. Sweeping up lies is a poor way to win a debate.

LS: Biden shot off a few lies, too. He said of McCain, 'How else could he come up with an economic plan that leaves out more than 100 million middle-class taxpayers from any relief whatsoever?'

RS: Well, Joe, if you take out McCain's fundamentally flawed health care plan, you'd have a point. Since that's not what you said, you lied.

LS: It was the right stage for it, at least. How is it Palin claims middle class family status, when her position as governor brings her into the higher tax bracket. In fact, she and her husband reported an income of around $230,000 last year. Nice money, but hardly middle class.

RS: And should she become Vice President, her salary will nearly double, skyrocketing her into the realm of out of touch with the middle class. But is that not the American Dream as it has been sold by Hollywood: an attractive young mother of five works her way up from socially responsible to mayor of a podunk town to governor of a mythic and oil-rich state to Vice President of the most in-debt country in the world?

LS: Here's another question to ponder, Dick: Palin called herself and McCain 'a team of mavericks.' By definition, is that really a team?

RS: Not at all. It's a bunch of foolhardy assholes who want to carry the ball across their own opinion.

LS: Shall we call it a draw?

RS: Not hardly. Palin lost on style, originality, and foreign policy.

LS: And won on... energy?

RS: Vaguely. What's the betting line tonight?

LS: If things go as they are, McCain and Palin will win by a hacked election precinct in the deep south by four points.

RS: Barometer Barry by six percentish.