Everyone is thinking McCain might bring up Ayers or Wright tonight, but George Stephanopoulos offers some alternative suggestions on how McCain might change the momentum and generate some excitement out of tonight's debate:

"The McCain campaign is looking for something dramatic he can do to pull this out. Could McCain pledge to serve only one term? Could he challenge Obama to more debates? Could he announce a bi-partisan cabinet? Those are all conceivable long balls but there is not a whole lot he can do at this point to change the race dynamic with only one debate left."

"NYC and DC sports a cocktail party circuit, and remaining in its good graces requires toeing the line of David Broder and Joe Klein. It doesn't mean "living the life of Hollywood starlets", it means being an accepted member of an elite self-reinforcing social set."

He then compared what conservative pundits living in DC or NY face today (regarding the pressure to conform to the establishment), compared to what he encountered in the past:

"Five years, awkwardly attending one of those parties in DC, I heard influential Democrats tell each other how Howard Dean could never win because "he was too liberal". And then in early 2005 I heard how letting Dean pilot the DNC would spell doom for the party, a surrender to "left-wing activists". And then I stopped going to those damn parties, which was easy since I'm anti-social anyway."

Lastly, he explains why the conservative media elite are nearly unanimous in their disdain for Sarah Palin:

"Today, the establishment conventional wisdom is that Palin is a cancer on the Republican Party, and that CW is getting  circulated at those cocktail parties, reinforced time and time again. And if those social-climbing pundits and establishment types want to keep their social graces, they must play along. Thus you see a rift forming on the Right -- between dogmatic conservatives and the establishment types. In this case it's the establishment that is right, not the ideologues, but that's beside the point. Fact is, we're starting to see the kind of insider-outsider fissures that were much more common on the Democratic side during the rise of the new progressive movement six years ago."

"The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says.

Christopher Buckley's departure from National Review serves to highlight the emerging chasm between traditional mainstream conservatives (my definition would include men like Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh as well-known examples of this) -- and the conservative intelligentsia.

After eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, realignment on the right is predictable.  My hope and expectation, however, was that the Bush loyalists -- who were never really conservatives to begin with -- would go.  I also hoped conservatives would begin standing up for conservative policies, such as opposing the bailout, etc.  I have, however, been surprised to see so many conservative writers also abandoning the conservative movement (make no mistake, they are leaving the movement, not vice versa). 

Christopher Buckley's decision, for example, to endorse Barack Obama defies logic it is as ridiculous as the notion that man who doesn't believe America is free enough deciding to defect to the Soviet Union. 

If Buckley believes John McCain isn't conservative enough, that is a legitimate and honorable position to take.  However, there are many options available to him, short of endorsing a socialist.

I can only attribute this phenomenon to a few possible factors:

1.  The first generation of conservative intellectuals was joining a losing cause -- but they espoused their beliefs, anyway.  Sadly, it is not uncommon for the second or third generation to become soft and become prodigal sons and daughters.  Christopher Buckley is, in my estimation, a nabob who – like many of his friends – has lost his moorings -- most likely due to the milieu in which he lives.  My guess is that some of these conservatives have simply become co-opted by the liberal media elite.

2.  It all comes down to what you value.  Buckley -- and others -- may put more value on intellect than on political philosophy.  Personally, I would prefer a dumb conservative to a smart liberal (in fact, I would prefer a stupid liberal to a smart liberal).  A well-read and learned man, Ronald Reagan also had a profound belief in the common man and the wisdom of average Americans.  I think that belief is no longer present among the conservative elite.  They view Sarah Palin -- and conservatives who support her -- as the Lumpenproletariat.

3.  While I believe Christopher Buckley truly believes in what he is doing, that may not be the case for others who see this as an opportunity to make a name for themselves.  It has been said that "every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."  To a certain degree, this is true of the conservative movement.  There are a surprising number of dynasties for a movement that praises "rugged individualism."  In many cases, conservatism has become a family business.  Of course, Christopher Buckley is, in his own right, a talented writer.

While Buckley's decision to endorse Obama defies logic, more confusing still, was Buckley's Brett Farvesque anger at National Review for having the audacity to actually accept his resignation, once proffered.  In my book, you can't quit a job and then complain that they allowed you to do so.

But the bottom line is that, while it is plausible for a conservative to vote for a third party – or to abstain from voting for McCain – no real conservative could cast their vote for Obama – a man who (with his utopian schemes) wants to “immanentize the eschaton”. 
 
It should also be noted that William F. Buckley, himself could have been thought of as "The Great Excommunicator" -- inasmuch as he ousted Ayn Rand and The John Birch Society from the conservative movement.  In so doing, he ensured the movement's survival.  So it could be that this will ultimately be a positive development.

“I don’t want to sound like I’m prejudiced,” Ms. Mendive said. “I’ve never been around a lot of black people before. I just worry that they’re nice to your face but then when they get around their own people you just have to worry about what they’re going to do to you.”

Ms. Vance responded: “One thing you have to remember is that Obama, he’s half white and he was raised by his white mother. So his views are more white than black really.”

"Tuesday in a phone interview with the Austin American-Statesman he revealed another surprise: After NR readers raised holy heck over his perceived betrayal of the right, he offered to resign his column - and it was accepted."

According to Buckley,

"I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me."

The Family Research Center has launched a petition to Bob Schieffer at CBS News.  The following is from their daily email on October 13:

Unless you act immediately by contacting CBS's Bob Schieffer, the moderator in Wednesday's final presidential debate, it's likely that the final meeting of the candidates will not contain any questions on marriage or abortion.

Last Friday, Connecticut's Supreme Court overturned that State's marriage law and mandated that every citizen recognize homosexual "marriage." Voters have the right to hear the candidates answer these timely questions:

• Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution contains a right for homosexuals to marry?
• Would you change the traditional definition of marriage contained in the federal Defense of Marriage Act?
• Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act's provision allowing states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?
• Have you ever opposed any ballot initiative seeking to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?

No issue our nation faces is more important than the protection of innocent unborn life, so Mr. Schieffer should also question the candidates as follows:

• Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision allowing the government to ban abortions that kill a partially born baby?
• Have you ever supported or opposed any law designed to protect the lives of babies that have survived an attempted abortion?