I thought that John McCain gave a gracious and meaningful concession speech. What I didn't know was that Sarah Palin wanted to throw protocol to the wind and give a speech of her own. For more, here's a transcript of Palin's interview with NBC's Matt Lauer:

LAUER: According to a recent article in Newsweek and some other reports, on election night, you showed up at the Biltmore in Phoenix…

S. PALIN: Yes.

LAUER: … and things weren't going well. And you had some copy in your hands. You had some remarks that you would have liked to have given to that audience, and, in effect, to the nation, prior to Senator McCain giving his concession speech. And you were told, "No".

S. PALIN: Well, I had a speech that, you know, I was going to give that we'd worked on about a week. And the speech was…

LAUER: Had you cleared with anyone? Had anyone — anyone said it might be an opportunity for you to speak?

S. PALIN: Oh, certainly, the — the speech was written in — in cooperation and conjunction with a couple of the speech writers in the campaign — and had written that as an introduction to this great American hero. And of course, we had two speeches in our back pocket.

LAUER: Right.

S. PALIN: One was a concession speech that would introduce him, and it would do what John McCain just can't seem to do for himself — bless his heart, because he's not that kind of man — where I was going to brag him up and say, "You know, truly he's an American hero, has faced great adversity, knows how challenges are overcome. And let us — let us be thankful for this man, who with a servant's heart had offered himself up to

LAUER: So that sounds like a good idea. Why weren't you allowed to do it?

S. PALIN: I don't know. It was a great speech because it also then, also said, "OK, but American voters have spoken, so now, let's all come together. I know Senator McCain wants to lead in an effort of unity here in our nation, and let's work with President-elect Obama and let's go forward."

LAUER: So you walked up and you said to somebody in the campaign, "Look, I've got these comments I'd like to make. I want to," as you say, "brag on him a little bit?"

S. PALIN: Yes.

LAUER: Who said no?

S. PALIN: Somebody said no, they said that it would be unprecedented, that a V.P. candidates wouldn't introduce someone in a concession speech. And you know, all I could say was…

LAUER: Were you disappointed?

S. PALIN: A little bit because again — not — not for me personally to get to be up there on the stage and give one last speech, but to be able to say, "This is an American hero. Let us be thankful for what he just offered our nation. Now, let's all work together to support the new president.

LAUER: Did you ever consider going to Senator McCain that night and saying, "Look, you know, I'd like to say this about you, would it be OK?

S. PALIN: By that time it was, you know, literally walking — walking down…

LAUER: So this happened in the last minute.

S. PALIN: … the aisle, almost going up to the stairs, yes.

S. PALIN: And all I could think of was, well, even if it were unprecedented — and I haven't done research to see if other V.P. candidates had done such an introduction of their presidential candidate.

LAUER: Right.

S. PALIN: But, you know, I thought even if it was unprecedented, so what, you know. Geez, let's do something a little bit out of the box there. But those were the type of shots that were called that I didn't have control over. And in the end, though, that's — that's somebody else's problem or business.

You betcha.

Because guys just can't be bothered. Just kidding! Sort of. U.S. women didn't get the right to vote until 1920 and for a long time trailed male voters in participation rates. Well, ladies, times have changed, and the men need our help. According to Newsweek:

Over the last 40 years, some 16 million men‚ a population roughly the size of Michigan and Indiana combined‚ have stopped pulling the lever. That's a hole five times the size of George W. Bush's margin of victory in 2004.Since 1964, when a record 72 percent of voting-age men and 67 percent of voting-age women pulled the lever for president, participation rates have tumbled for both sexes‚ but far more steeply for men. By 1980, civics-class dropouts had flipped the gender gap. And this November, men are again the odds-on favorites to no-show at the polls.

Men's shorter life expectancy is one of the factors cited for this state affairs. There are simply more women and, of course, older voters are also more active than the rest. Women are also more educated‚ and the educated like filling out blue books, ballots and other frustrating papers. Some of the wealthy men are apparently too overworked to fulfill this patriotic duty. Men also make up the vast majority of people in prison, where there is no right to vote. And last but not least:

The remaining 12 million men‚ the nonfelons‚ who still aren't voting at the rate their fathers did might just be stubborn. "Men tend to view voting as a choice," says Lyn Ragsdale, a political scientist at Rice University who is working on a book about nonvoters. Fortunately there is hope for the nonvoting male: women. In recent years, women have upended the conventional wisdom that they follow their husbands on Election Day‚ an idea once so entrenched that in the 1930s poll-master George Gallup didn't even bother canvassing women on their political choices. (He once remarked: "How will women vote on Election Day? Just as exactly as they were told the night before.") Today, married men are not only more likely to vote than their single counterparts, but, according to sociologist Michael Kimmel, they are likely to be swayed by their wife's choice at the voting booth. Smart move.

Annoyingly, the author of this interesting article uses methodological disputes as an excuse not to compare differences between male and female electoral participation at all. The numbers are quite striking. According to U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2004, 60.1 percent of women (67.3 million) made it to the polls compared to 56.3 percent of men (58.5 million).

Obama recently closed in on McCain's advantage with male voters and is continuing to increase his sizable lead among women. According to Gallup, Obama now leads among male voters 49 percent to McCain's 44 percent. Women prefer Obama 53 percent to McCain's 39 percent. I must say that I more mistrustful of polls this election season, because I think that race is going to be a huge issue. A friend of mine, who is in the polling business, assures me that fears about the repeat of the "Bradley effect" have been exaggerated in the media. I hope that she is right but won't believe it until I see it.

Anyways, ladies of all parties, let's get the men off their bottoms and off to the polls!

There are many good questions that NBC's Tom Brokaw could have asked Senators Barack Obama and John McCain about Russia and Georgia during the second presidential debate. Instead, the candidates were instructed to give an up or down vote on an infamous Cold War phrase:

Brokaw: This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the "evil empire." Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an "evil empire?"

Obama: I think they've engaged in an evil behavior and I think that it is important that we understand they're not the old Soviet Union but they still have nationalist impulses that I think are very dangerous.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Maybe.

Brokaw: Maybe.

McCain: Depends on how we respond to Russia and it depends on a lot of things. If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.Obviously energy is going to be a big, big factor. And Georgia and Ukraine are both major gateways of energy into Europe. And that's one of the reasons why it's in our interest.But the Russians, I think we can deal with them but they've got to understand that they’re facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world.

I am in agreement with Vadim over at the Russia blog about the "sheer boorishness of the anti-Russia vitriol" this election season. One doesn't have to be a Putin groupie to know that Georgia's portrayal as some sort of Sweden of the Caucasus whose freedom-loving President Mikheil Saakashvili couldn't have possibly done anything wrong is ridiculous. There is no question that he was at best reckless and miscalculated badly. Saying so doesn't justify Russia's actions.

Georgia's democratic record has not been rosy under Saakashvili. Freedom House classifies Georgia as "partly free" and downgraded the country's political rights and civil liberties ratings from 3 to 4 in its annual survey as a result of Saakashvili's heavy-handed treatment of political opponents and unsympathetic journalists:

Georgians took to the streets to oppose President Mikheil Saakashvili in October and November 2007, turning out in the largest numbers since the 2003 "Rose Revolution," which swept Saakashvili to power. The authorities violently dispersed the demonstrators, causing hundreds of injuries, and imposed a state of emergency on November 7. The next day, Saakashvili called a snap presidential election for January 5, 2008. The state of emergency, which remained in place until November 16, banned all news broadcasts except state-controlled television and restricted public assembly.

The New York Times recently ran a depressing article on the country's continued lack of press freedom. But don't expect hear any of this from the candidates. Saying that Georgian scribblers should live in peace just may be interpreted as full-throated endorsement of Russia's resurrection as an evil empire. By now, I am just hoping that Russia won't come up at all in the third debate. But if the "maybe" evil empire does rear its ugly head, here are some questions I would like CBS's Bob Schieffer to ask:

1) What is the greatest problem in the U.S.-Russian relationship? What steps would you take as president to resolve it? And what steps would you like to see President Dmitry Medvedev take to resolve it?
2) Name three specific proposals to improve United States' relationship with Russia?
3) "Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has been less than honest with the United States about the events leading up to the outbreak of the war with Russia." Do you agree with this statement? Does the Georgian government, in your view, bear any responsibility?
4) Freedom House lists Georgia as a country that is only "partly free." A billion dollars in U.S. government aid is expected to flow into Georgia over the next few years. As president, what would you to pressure and encourage Georgia to improve its democracy record? What would you do to pressure and encourage Russia to improve its democracy record?
5) Is there anything that you would have done differently than President George W. Bush during the last eight years when it comes to Russia?