1. Sarah talked about two things: herself, and her opponent.  She did not talk about the American people, their problems, the wars, the corrupt current administration, economics, the credit crunch, or anything else that matters to the American people.  It felt, ultimately, like a team of rich folks, cheering on their new “pit bull.” (Her words).

2. I’m sure Sarah is on her way to a national career in politics, but the message she was trying to send – “I am just one of you” – could not be farther from the truth.  Sarah is a marathoner and cutthroat politician, willing to fire anyone she perceives as not being loyal – or, in one case, who divorced her sister.  There are a lot of bodies among those who have worked with, for or above Sarah, including her original mentor in politics.  Sarah is not just another soccer mom.  Or even another hockey mom.

3. Her version of her stand on the Bridge to Nowhere is disingenuous: she supported it first, and only reneged when McCain made it an issue.  Even then, the state took the bridge money, and spent it somewhere else.  There appear to be a number of similar issues in her Alaskan past; the blogs are now full of them.  She does seem willing to talk truth to power, but she is also willing to modify the truth when necessary for her advancement.  You will notice her leading with the Bridge story, as last night, because the best defense is a good offense.  Ask Rove.  Take your biggest screwup on the recent national stage, and find a way to brag about it. 

Summary: While it is possible that Sarah’s charm and attack skills will help the McCain Palin ticket win the race, the result will be someone winning who doesn’t discuss the issues, talk about others, or show great concern for the deep and often frightening problems facing the nation. 

While it is true that the VP is often asked to serve as attack dog during a campaign, interviews with past candidates competing with Sarah indicate that this non-focus on issues is not a new problem.  

Did you notice that most of the men had been removed from the TV-visible crowd in the front of the stage?  The result: although the real audience was 2/1 men/women, the TV audience last night was, visually, all women all the time.

I first suggested this subject in my opening remarks at FiRe 2008, and my thinking hasn’t changed much since then.  Here is what I see for oil pricing in the near term future:

Because it is keying primarily off of speculation, today’s pricing will continue to rise until the November election.  I don’t know how far they can take it, although if you take a look, it has been on a straight line increase for the last six months or so, and I see no reason for this not to continue during that term.

After the election, we have two different paths.  And this is where it gets fun, I’ve found, because my call seems to run counter to the intuition of a lot of consumers.

If McCain is elected, the price will fall just slightly, bracketed at the low end in the $125 / bbl range.  The chances for its continued rise after this are high.

If Obama wins, the price will drop more, probably bracketed at the bottom in the $95 / bbl range.  The chances for continued increases are lower, and the chances of a lower rate of increase are higher.

In other words, the US and global economies will be under less pricing pressure for oil if Obama wins.

Here is my reasoning:

The price today contains about a 40-45% premium from speculation (I agree with Soros on this).  Speculators love fear, war, uncertainty, and anything else that leads to volatility.  Additionally, nations like Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi, etc. that have responded negatively to US military moves in the Mideast by pumping or delivering less oil to the US (or raising prices, or restricting access, etc.), are more likely to continue doing so under a leader vowing to continue the military footsteps of the Bush administration.

Conversely, if Obama makes moves of withdrawal from Iraq of any real kind, and indicates to the Middle East that he is seeking peace, the result will be a reduction in speculation and volatility, and an increase in volumes made available to the US and world markets.

As for the numbers, the routines for getting the exact figures are a bit hard to define – and, of course, they may be inexact.

But I have no doubt regarding the fact of paying a McCain premium, any more than one would doubt we are now paying a Bush premium. 

Because oil pricing is probably the most important economic parameter of the decade, this differential ought to be part of any discussion of election politics, regardless of the points of view of those involved.

I hope that this spurs that debate.