John McCain and his running mate are making great political hay out of linking Barack Obama with this year's latest dreaded word. Yes, every presidential campaign has one of those, and they usually come out at around this time in the election process. "Liberal" was a famous one, whispered about John Kerry and Al Gore.

Right now, that word is "socialism." Governor Palin, in an attempt to misrepresent her opponent's positions, tells her goggle-eyed acolytes "that this is no time to be experimenting with socialism."

Well, guess what, Governor? We already are. We have been since the federal income tax was instated. People send the IRS their money, and the government spends it as they see fit. And, with the advent of the Social Security system, this money gets spent on retirees. With Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal," the money goes to more people whom the government deems needy. Ditto Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

And another news flash, Ms. Palin: what do you think the government bailout is? The very "rescue plan" that your boss suspended his campaign to race down to Washington (after an interview with Katie Couric, a good meal, a good night's sleep, and a speech at an event sponsored by Bill Clinton) to "help" get passed (not). And he also voted for said bill. Allowing our banks to become nationalized -- is that not more experimentation with socialism? As were the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which McCain at that time said "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."

And this "flash of genius" (the author says sarcastically, if you haven't figured that out already) that John McCain released during one of the debates about having the government buy back failed mortgages - isn't that just more socialism?

So I'd be careful about the words you toss around, Governor - like I've found so many times, they can often come back not just to haunt you, but to bite you in your ever-more-socialist and designer-clad ass.

As long as so much of the presidential campaign reportage has taken a powder from what's going on in the real world, I might as well join them in celebrating this silliest part of this silly season.

But first, some history.

In this topsy-turvy world where style triumphs over substance, appearances seem to matter. John Edwards, who touted himself as the champion of the poor while on the campaign trail, didn't do himself any favors by getting a $200 haircut. Jokes abounded about Hillary Clinton's pantsuits and her "cankles." And her husband, in a famous incident from his presidency, took Air Force One (at our expense) to California and let it cool its wheels on the tarmac while he got a much more expensive coif from his favorite LA stylist. Barack Obama graced the covers of a couple of well-known style magazines,  looking as debonair as the next James Bond. Joe Biden is a walking advertisement for hair plugs, and I'm almost certain that John McCain has had something that rhymes with "Botox" injected into his forehead. And studies often show that the taller candidate is often the victor, as is the more attractive one.

Now a down-home gal who has been molding her political image as a gosh-darn hockey mom from Main Street Wasilla is getting a lot of attention - not all of it good -- for a certain $150,000 item on the RNC's budget last month - an entire wardrobe from a whole host of up-market stores like Neiman Marcus and Barney's.

One could argue that since, like it or not, she's been thrust onto the national stage, she should be dressing the part. But when you're making your trademark (or it's being made for you) as someone who understands the plight of Joe and Jane Sixpack because she's one of them, maybe she should have taken her shopping a little more downscale. Yes, the campaign says that after the election most of the clothing will be given to charity. But does that really make it any better? And as governor of Alaska, don't they pay her well enough to afford a decent wardrobe? She has enough money to own seven pairs of those $700 glasses, and from the tax returns that she and Todd released, they are not exactly eating Ramen noodles and shopping at the Goodwill. And she certainly, as Governor, had enough money to take her kids on round-trip commercial flights (to events where they were not invited) and put them up in the swankiest hotel rooms, without needing to charge their expenses to the state.

Maybe this wardrobe malfunction is really a diversionary ploy. I remember an old episode of "The Partridge Family," where Shirley was being pushed into letting a horribly bad singer perform with the band. This chick could set all the dogs in the neighborhood to howling, but she was gorgeous. So what they decided to do was dress her in a pair of hot pants and stick her up on the stage anyway, figuring that the mostly male audience would be so taken with her hot bod that they wouldn't care if she could sing a lick. Maybe that's what Steven Schmidt and Rick Davis are doing with their very own life-size Barbie doll. Give her a smart wardrobe, and maybe nobody will notice what's coming out of her mouth. Or what's coming out of her past.

I am getting so tired of William Ayers. Hillary threw him in Obama's face all during the primaries, and nobody bought it. McCain and his running mate are still throwing it at him, and throwing it at him, and throwing it at him, and getting their surrogates to throw it at him. Never mind that this story was fully explored and yawned at by several mainstream media sources. Never mind that we can play "Six Degrees of Separation" with almost everybody in this country and find someone that they wouldn't want to be associated with. Never mind that Sarah Palin, every time she brings up this association, makes things worse for McCain. The Republicans, and their media backers, are never going to let it go away, no matter how hard they try to make it stick. News flash, guys: if you beat a dead horse, it's still a dead horse, whether it's wearing lipstick or not.

Another thing that's making me mad is a story that I read in the New York Times about the supposed "source" behind the outright lie that Obama is Muslim who has been concealing his religion. For one, Obama is a practicing Christian. For two, this lie, in the form of a press release put out by this man and released to a Republican website, is being spread by McCain supporters (whether or not these are independent operators or campaign surrogates is unknown) in letters and e-mails being sent to potential voters.  This is how that frequently-televised woman in one of McCain's political events got the disinformation that led to her comment to McCain that she was "scared" of Obama because she heard that he was an Arab. Kudos to McCain for sending her straight. (And make note of that, because I don't give him kudos very often)

For three, the man behind this lie is a certified nut job (my apologies to nut jobs). A former law school student, he was not permitted to become a lawyer after a psychiatrist tagged him with a "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." This did not discourage him from filing numerous lawsuits, many of which were found to be frivolous. He has tried unsuccessfully to run for numerous offices in numerous states, and also has a prison record. He has been interviewed several times on Fox news and his "revelations" about the Senator from Illinois were never challenged.

And, the last straw is that I'm angry with the New York Times for printing his name and giving him so much attention. I suppose he has that free speech thing going for him, but freedoms come with responsibilities.  Some of those responsibilities include not using it for slander or hate speech. They include facing the consequences of your speech. Although the Times did what they could to discredit this individual, Fox gave him nothing but free media space to spread his lies. And the demographics played right into the McCain camp. I suppose that's politics, and I should be used to it by now, but it still makes me mad. And I'll always have the right to say that.

During a campaign stop in Estero, Florida yesterday, Sarah Palin continued to refer to the New York Times article exploring the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. Even though the Times debunked any kind of close relationship between the two (after all, former weatherman Ayers had committed his terrorist deeds went Obama was only a child, and as an adult, Obama decried these acts, and the two have very little contact to this day). Yet the Governor tenaciously clings to this claim (kind of like she did with that Bridge to Nowhere) that Obama “pals around with terrorists.” She also uses that to leave the impression in people’s minds that he is not, as has been spreading around in e-mails to McCain supporters, “one of us.” Even worse, she allowed Florida’s Lee County sheriff Mike Scott to introduce her, and during this introduction, he referred to Senator Obama by using his middle name of Hussein. This was indeed a provocative act – after all, Obama’s father was Kenyan and that’s how he got his name – yet she let it go. A so-called Christian women, who, according to Christian doctrine, is supposed to be open-minded to all faiths, is supposed to be forgiving, and should have – if she were any kind of Christian woman – told the sheriff that this kind of fear mongering racism should not be allowed to stand. But this gets in the way of her campaign goals, doesn’t it? Even John McCain would not have let it stand. Yet, she persists, with her fear mongering, with her race baiting, with that hideous, small minded, un-American blather that the Democratic candidate is not “one of us.” One of us? And who is that? Who is this “us?” Everyone currently alive in this country is from somewhere else. We are all one big “us.” So what is the Governor trying to say, exactly? Obama is not “one of us” because he is a black man? (And why does no one talk about the fact that he is half white?) Because he has an odd name? Because he used to live in Hawaii? Tell me, Ms. Palin, which “us” are you referring to? Have you forgotten that Barack Obama is also a Christian? I’m sure he would be much more forgiving of you. Your provocative innuendo is exactly what happens when any new group of people enter our borders. Way back when, the Dutch and English settlers railed against the French. These “original” occupants (and never mind what we were doing to the American Indians) went crazy when the Irish began landing on our shores. When the Irish had begun to settle into their communities, they didn’t care much for the Italians, who came next. And the Eastern Europeans? They were called filthy. They had all these horrible habits and spoke in strange languages. They weren’t one of us. And the progression progresses. And what about you, Ms. Palin? Where are your people from? Are you, who grew up in the middle of the country, an area where many immigrants settled, “original” enough to make any kind of complaint about anybody else? You expect us to be open-minded about the state of your family, about the little quirks of your religion, yet if someone else has a “funny” name, if they associate (however briefly, however tangentially and however long ago) with people that you also consider “funny”, then you’d don’t consider them “one of us.” I’ve got news for you, Ms. Palin. Your running mate, John McCain, being of Irish descendent, was at one time considered “not one of us.” Have you seen that movie “Far and Away” with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman? Yes, violence against Irish immigrants actually happened. McCain’s ancestors were not only discriminated against, they were beaten up in alleyways, spat upon, rioted against, and yet they arrived. Because this is a country that lets anybody in. Yes, it’s a cliché, but we are all swimming in one big melting pot. And yes, Ms. Palin, in some circles, you are not “one of us” either.