FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Dow was done as much as 700 points this morning, but closed down "only" 128 points. Over the last seven trading sessions, the Dow has lost 271 points, or 20% of its value.

* The president tried to give Wall Street a pep talk this morning. No one was impressed.

* Lawmakers in Alaska are still discussing the Troopergate report.

* Obama unveiled a new plan to help small businesses this afternoon.

* The Secret Service is investigating threats shouted by McCain supporters at a rally this week.

* Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) reportedly plans to investigate abuses of eavesdropping on Americans overseas.

* A county in upstate New York printed absentee ballots with the name "Barack Osama" on them. I assume someone will be fired for this shortly.

* I really meant to do a post on David Brooks' column today, but server trouble threw off the schedule. I was largely going to reiterate Publius' thoughts on the subject.

* Jonathan Stein raises a very good point: Fox News deserves at least as much credit for whipping the enraged Republican base into a frenzy as any other source.

* On a related note, Obama predicted these smears with eerie accuracy.

* Sarah Palin got her start in politics with the support of some very unsavory characters. Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert have the story.

* Did McCain report his gambling winnings on his financial disclosure forms? Hmm.

* It's not entirely his fault, but Norm Coleman's campaign spokesperson should probably just stop conducting press briefings. He looks ridiculous avoiding simple questions.

* Shark Jesus.

* Quite a few folks would like to see the final Obama-McCain debate be better than the first two.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

MCCAIN CAMP DEFENDS ENRAGED SUPPORTERS.... The Washington Post's Dan Balz argued today, in reference to the bile evident at McCain campaign rallies this week, "McCain's tactics are over the line, with no restraint in sight, and threaten to provoke reactions among partisans on both sides that will continue to escalate."

Also today, Frank Schaeffer, a self-described conservative who has supported McCain in the past, accused McCain of "deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate," concluding, "Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs."

In other words, the hate/fear/ignorance strategy isn't going over well outside of those who are hateful, fearful, and ignorant.

Sam Stein reports that the McCain campaign has come up with a defense for the Republican ticket's efforts to create an angry mob.

"Barack Obama's attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn't understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo," reads a statement from spokesman Brian Rogers.

Got that? McCain/Palin supporters have thrown around words like "treason" and "terrorist," while others have literally called for violence, and if Obama points this out, he's launching "attacks on Americans."

I keep expecting McCain to denounce some of the enraged rhetoric and put an end to this nonsense -- not out of a sense of decency, but because a reasoned tone might impress moderates and independents. But today's statement suggests the McCain campaign is perfectly content driving unhinged conservative activists into blind rage, apparently under the assumption that enmity works.

It's a base mobilization strategy built exclusively on anger and bigotry. How this campaign's candidates and staffers can look themselves in the mirror remains a mystery.

BUCKLEY JOINS THE OBAMACANS.... I've never been entirely clear on whether we're supposed to call them "Obamacans" or "Obamacons," but either way, there's a group of relatively high profile Republicans and conservatives who, for a variety of reasons, are supporting Barack Obama. There are some fairly big names on the list -- former Rep. Jim Leach, current Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee -- but an unexpected name joined the ranks today.

Author Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley, offered a hearty endorsement of the Democratic candidate today. Given that Christopher Buckley remains a columnist for the National Review, this was not at all expected.

What's more, Buckley has known McCain personally for more than a quarter century, has defended him, and has even worked for him. But he's seen enough to know that Candidate McCain hasn't earned his support.

[McCain] said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

What's more, Buckley seems to think highly of Obama, too, lauding this "first-class temperament" and a "first-class intellect."

Obama has in him -- I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric -- the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

I shudder to think how many emails he'll receive from National Review readers.

MCCAIN 'BLEW UP' THE BAILOUT PACKAGE?.... It's hard to imagine the McCain campaign's response to the financial crisis being any less coherent, but today, they found a way.

On a campaign conference call this afternoon, Dick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said McCain deliberately "blew up" the original bailout package in order to keep ACORN from receiving federal funding. Davis told reporters:

"[I]n the middle of the greatest disaster in our financial system that we'd had in our lifetime that the Democrats in the United States Senate would actually link payments to ACORN in the bailout package that they promoted prior to Sen. McCain coming to town and actually blowing that package up.

"So we can actually say that in addition to saving taxpayers millions of dollars, and we're very happy that no more taxpayer dollars were added to the pile of money going to ACORN. Uh, by their own admission because, by the Democrats' own admission because John McCain came to town and blew that package up. Thank goodness."

Hold on a second. The initial bailout/rescue package failed. McCain supported it. In fact, the morning it failed, McCain took credit for its passage. After it failed, the McCain campaign said this was a discouraging development, and blamed Obama.

McCain's campaign manager now believes the failure of the bill was a positive development, and that McCain deserves credit for its failure.

And what about the new-found interest in ACORN? McCain's never expressed an interest in the group before, but since the far-right is hysterical about the group lately, the Republican campaign has discovered its fascination with the voter-registration organization.

Is there any merit to the conservative complaints? Not really. Josh Marshall has a good item about ACORN, but to make a long story short, the right doesn't understand the difference between registration fraud and voter fraud.

COALITION OF THE WILD-EYED.... In the latest example of Republican rage, a woman screamed "traitor!" in reference to Barack Obama, during one of John McCain's tirades about his Democratic opponent. McCain looked in the woman's direction, said nothing, and continued on with his speech. It came a half-day after another Republican yelled "bomb Obama!" during a debate for Senate candidates in Georgia, and it's obviously part of a pattern.

Watching the hate, fear, and ignorance play out once again today, it occurred to me that Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney campaign used Democratic anger to their advantage four years ago.

This ad, for example, was titled, "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-Eyed." It lies and accuses Al Gore and George Soros of comparing Bush to Hitler -- it also falsely attributes an ad to MoveOn.org -- but putting the slander aside, the ad featured aggressive criticism of the president and the Bush White House. The viewer was told these were the "faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party." It concluded, "This is not a time for pessimism and rage."

There was also this spot, called, "Angry Democrats," featuring denunciations of Bush from Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, et al. It asks the viewer, "Tired of pessimism and angry protest? Tired of negative attacks? You have a choice."

That, of course, was four years ago, when Democratic criticism of Bush-Cheney was substantive, and by comparison to 2008, high minded. Now we have Republican candidates for national office standing by and saying nothing even as their supporters call for violence against the Democratic nominee.

Under the circumstances, those Bush spots from four years ago warning against "pessimism and rage," and denouncing the "wild-eyed" Democrats, seem rather amusing in hindsight.

GAY MARRIAGE WINS IN CONNECTICUT.... As of this morning, the number of states allowing adults to get married, regardless of sexual orientation, went up by one.

The [Connecticut] Supreme Court's 4-3 decision Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry swept through the state with the force of a cultural tidal wave.

While lead plaintiff Beth Kerrigan and her partner -- soon to be wife -- embraced and sobbed after learning of the ruling, opponents vowed to pursue a long and complicated route to change the constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the majority wrote. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

Connecticut already permitted civil unions -- it was the first state in the nation to approve a law without a court mandate -- but the state Supreme Court has taken equality one step further.

What's more, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal noted that today's decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was based on the state constitution.

As for the political implications, it's hard to guess how and whether voters elsewhere will react to the decision. For that matter, we'll have to wait and see whether McCain/Palin and/or the RNC try to exploit far-right anti-gay animus for electoral gain.

My hunch is, though, that given the financial crisis, and the fact that the sky didn't fall when other states allowed gay couples to marry, today's decision in Connecticut will have limited national implications. The issue just seems to lack some of the fear-factor the right relied on in previous years.

RARE UNANIMITY ON ECONOMIC POLICY.... Since unveiling his "Homeowner Resurgence Plan" during Tuesday night's debate, John McCain has run into a little trouble selling his proposal. First, the plan might be illegal. Second, Democrats are beating McCain over the head with it. Third, economic experts think it's a horrible idea.

Now, McCain's conservative allies hate his idea...

John McCain is facing a fresh round of anger from members of his own party deeply opposed to the Arizona senator's proposal for the federal government to purchase troubled mortgage loans. [...]

[A]t a time when McCain can't afford to worry about a lack of support from his party's base, several conservatives are openly criticizing the plan as a flagrant reward for reckless behavior among lenders.

...and congressional Republicans aren't sold, either.

How seriously are Republican members of Congress treating John McCain's new $300 billion proposal for the government to buy up troubled mortgages?

On Thursday afternoon, the Huffington Post reached out to roughly two dozen press offices for Republican members of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, not one of which was ready to talk about the GOP presidential candidate's proposal in even the broadest terms.

Complicating matters, the McCain campaign was still shaping the details of the proposal after McCain announced it. McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin explained that on Tuesday, McCain relied on "lenders taking the hit," but on Thursday, McCain reached the opposite conclusion, wanting taxpayers to take the hit.

Maybe McCain should suspend his campaign so he can convince policy makers how great his proposal is. Right now, the only person who likes McCain's idea is McCain.

OBAMA TACKLES MCCAIN'S TONE, FEAR.... Barack Obama hasn't spent too much time this week highlighting the McCain campaign's deranged tone, so it was interesting to see him take the high ground, and paint McCain in a negative light, at the same time.

At a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio, this morning, Obama said, "It's easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious. The challenges are too great. The American people aren't looking for someone who can divide this country -- they're looking for someone who will lead it. We're in a serious crisis -- now, more than ever, it is time to put country ahead of politics. Now, more than ever, it is time to bring change to Washington so that it works for the people of this country that we love."

He added, "I know my opponent is worried about his campaign, but that's not what I'm worried about. I'm thinking about the Americans losing their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings. We cannot afford another four years of the failed economic theories that say we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires, and hope that prosperity trickles down on everyone else.... We've seen where that leads us, and we are not going back."

On the economy, Obama continued to strike an optimistic but realistic tone: "Now is not the time for fear. Now is not the time for panic. Now is the time for resolve and steady leadership. We can meet this moment. We can come together to restore confidence in the American economy. We can renew that fundamental belief -- that in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us. That's who we are, and that's the country we need to be right now. "

The McCain campaign responded that Obama was talking about the economy in order to "deflect" attention from McCain's "legitimate criticisms."

Alas, the McCain campaign isn't very bright.

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* On Tuesday, McCain's top aides suggested McCain would not focus on Bill Ayers going forward. This morning, McCain released a new ad slamming Obama for having "worked with" Ayers. The ad also baselessly accuses Obama of having "lied" about the association.

* The Obama campaign has completed deals to show half-hour long ads -- in prime time -- on CBS and NBC on Wednesday, Oct. 29. Similar deals are in the words for ABC and Fox, though the World Series may make the Fox deal fall through.

* In Ohio, Strategic Vision shows Obama leading McCain by two, 48% to 46%.

* In Florida, Strategic Vision shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 52% to 44%.

* In Virginia, Public Policy Polling shows Obama leading McCain by eight, 51% to 43%.

* In Wisconsin, a Research 2000 poll shows Obama leading McCain by 10, 51% to 41%.

* Esquire, the men's magazine, has thrown its support to Obama, the first presidential endorsement the magazine has made in its history.

A DIVIDED MCCAIN CAMP?.... The Wall Street Journal reports today that inside the McCain campaign, there's division over the bloodthirsty tactics.

Top McCain campaign officials are grappling with how far to go with negative attacks on Sen. Barack Obama in the final weeks of what is turning into a come-from-behind effort.

Sen. John McCain has allowed a series of increasingly harsh broadsides in new campaign ads and in speeches by his wife, Cindy, and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. But the Arizona Republican has rejected pleas from some advisers to launch attacks focusing on Sen. Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Some McCain campaign officials are becoming concerned about the hostility that attacks against Sen. Obama are whipping up among Republican supporters.

The article didn't elaborate on the nature of the campaign aides' "concerns," and I'm curious to hear more about them. Are campaign officials concerned because they're relying exclusively on hate, fear, and ignorance? Are they concerned because the campaign's irresponsible tactics might drive their enraged supporters to do something dangerous? Or are they concerned that McCain's disgraceful conduct won't help turn the polls around?

Two other quick angles to consider. First, the article says McCain has sworn off playing the Jeremiah Wright card, fearful of appearing racist. If McCain doesn't narrow the gap against Obama quickly, I'm guessing he drops his reluctance and goes after Wright by the middle of next week. (Anyone want to lay odds on that?)

And second, I can't help but wonder how much this "internal dissent" is for show, as if the sleaze is more palatable if the public is led to believe some that even some of McCain's own staffers aren't comfortable with it.

If there are honorable people still working for the Republican campaign -- a dubious proposition, to be sure -- they can talk on the record about their discomfort, they can resign, or they can keep helping this disgraceful ticket. This "officials are becoming concerned" stuff isn't going to change anything.

MORE MILLIKENS NEEDED.... A few more of these, and the McCain campaign ought to get concerned.

He endorsed John McCain in the presidential primary, but now former Republican Gov. William Milliken is expressing doubts about his party's nominee.

"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.

"I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."

Milliken, a lifelong Republican, added that the notion of Sarah Palin becoming president of the United States is "appalling," and lamented his party "moving toward rigidity."

I suspect there other Republican officials, watching this campaign unfold, and cringing as they watch McCain disgrace himself. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican, even broke party ranks and endorsed Obama/Biden a few weeks ago.

If others are on the fence, wondering if they should act on their conscience and denounce McCain as he shames himself and dishonors his legacy, now would be a very good time for them to make up their minds.

PETRAEUS ENDORSES TALKING TO U.S. ENEMIES.... One of the few areas of substance that John McCain has engaged Barack Obama on is diplomacy with unfriendly rivals. McCain believes it would serve our interest to give countries like Iran the silent treatment, while Obama, bolstered by most of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, believes the opposite.

As it turns out, Gen. David Petraeus spoke to the Heritage Foundation this week and was asked, in reference to a discussion between the presidential candidates, about the utility of diplomacy with rivals. Petraeus said he hoped to steer clear of "domestic politics," but nevertheless said, "I do think you have to talk to enemies.... I mean what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable."

Petraeus, as Spencer Ackerman reported, added some caveats, noting that it's "necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors."

By any reasonable measure, Petraeus' position is practically identical to Obama's position.

Greg Sargent noted the significance of the context: "[T]he question Petraeus was asked was basically the same as him being asked whose views he endorsed when it comes to the two men's very public disagreement. Petraeus' own joke about not wanting to wade into 'a minefield' and his allusion to not getting 'involved in domestic politics' would suggest that that's how he saw the question, too. And Petraeus more or less picked the Obama argument."

I'd just add that Petraeus' background on this is highly relevant. As part of his policy in Iraq, Petraeus reached out to Iraqis who were literally responsible for killing Americans. Forget bluster and bravado from guys like Ahmadinejad and Castro; Petraeus negotiated with those who had American blood on their hands, precisely because he kept the bigger picture in mind.

And in this sense, McCain's position is even further from the foreign policy mainstream.

HATE, FEAR, AND IGNORANCE.... On CNN last night, David Gergen, a Republican advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, commented on the "anger" evident at McCain/Palin rallies of late. "There is this free floating sort of whipping around anger that could really lead to some violence," Gergen said. "I think we're not far from that."

When Anderson Cooper expressed skepticism about whether violence was likely, Gergen said he "really worries" given "the kind of rhetoric" coming from the Republican ticket.

When a mainstream, Republican presidential advisor goes on national television and expresses concern that Republican voters might literally become violent in response to the Republican presidential ticket's rhetoric, it's safe to say we've reached a rather dramatic point.

This week has been unusually incendiary. The McCain campaign has deliberately been whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes increasing frequency of "Hussein" references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim "treason!," "terrorist!," and "kill him!" during official rallies.

On Wednesday, during a McCain harangue against Obama, one man could be heard yelling, "Off with his head!" On Thursday, Republicans erupted when an unhinged McCain supporter ranted about "socialists taking over our country." Instead of calming them down, McCain said the lunatic was "right."

The Republicans want an angry mob, they need hysterical supporters, and so they've stoked the fires of hate, fear, and ignorance. It's become a surprisingly toxic cocktail.

Both the Washington Post and the Politico have good items today on the explosive, enraged emotions at this week's Republican rallies. Slate's John Dickerson described the participants' "bloodthirsty" tone.

There are, obviously, more than a few questions to consider. Will McCain/Palin push their enraged mob into committing acts of violence? (We can hope not.) Will the hysterical Republican base consider Obama/Biden legitimate if they win in November? (I doubt it.)

And then there's the practical question: will the combination of hate, fear, and ignorance actually pay off on Election Day? Polls show Obama leading now, but the truth is, most of these polls were taken before McCain turned the Rage-o'-Meter to 11. How will mainstream voters react?

Time will obviously answer that question soon enough, but I found John Weaver's perspective especially interesting.

John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Senator McCain," Weaver said. "And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive."

Weaver added that the Republican Party should be "ashamed" if it allows this to continue. Given what we've seen of late, they should be ashamed anyway.

TROOPERGATE ENDGAME.... In all sincerity, I saw this headline this morning, "Palin pre-empts state report, clears self in probe," and assumed it was satire. Those under investigation don't get to clear themselves. I have this image in my mind of Nixon, in July 1974, issuing a statement: "I've looked into this whole Watergate thing, and I've decided I've done nothing wrong. Time to move on."

And yet, here we are. With the final report of the independent investigation into Sarah Palin's abuse-of-power scandal due today, Palin decided to release her own Troopergate report that exonerates herself from any wrongdoing. The word "chutzpah" comes to mind.

As for what we may learn later today, the New York Times has a detailed front-page report today on just how far Palin, her husband, and her aides went to pressure Alaska's former public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, who came to realize the Palin administration was "obsessed" with the governor's ex-brother-in-law.

Ms. Palin has denied that anyone told Mr. Monegan to dismiss Trooper Wooten, or that the commissioner's ouster had anything to do with him. But an examination of the case, based on interviews with Mr. Monegan and several top aides, indicates that, to a far greater degree than was previously known, the governor, her husband and her administration pressed the commissioner and his staff to get Trooper Wooten off the force, though without directly ordering it.

In all, the commissioner and his aides were contacted about Trooper Wooten three dozen times over 19 months by the governor, her husband and seven administration officials, interviews and documents show.

About a month ago, Josh Marshall had a good item on Palin's scandal, and concluded, "We rely on elected officials not to use the power of their office to pursue personal agendas or vendettas. It's called an abuse of power.... The available evidence now suggests that she 1) tried to have an ex-relative fired from his job for personal reasons, something that was clearly inappropriate, and perhaps illegal, though possibly understandable in human terms, 2) fired a state official for not himself acting inappropriately by firing the relative, 3) lied to the public about what happened and 4) continues to lie about what happened. "

As additional evidence has become available, those four points appear increasingly accurate.

We'll know more after the legislature's report is released, but I'm still unclear as to why Troopergate isn't getting more play. We have a largely-unknown Republican VP nominee in the midst of a fairly serious ethics controversy. The evidence suggests she abused her power and lied about it. The evidence also suggests she broke her word about cooperating with an independent probe, and has taken multiple steps to obstruct the investigation. Usually, for the national media, this would be like waving red meat in front of a hungry dog.

Isn't this a bit more important than Obama serving on a Republican-created board with some '60's-era radical?