Seriously, Giuliani has incredible power and potential to rally the fundamentalist base...to spend a quiet day at home on election day.

Romney probably has a similiar superpower, because despite his cynical flip flopping on the issues, the fundamentalists will never be able (by and large) to accept his religion as anything other than a cult--perhaps the only issue I agree with them on.

A powerful third candidate of Perot's magnitude could divide the base and allow the Dems to conquer. Hell, Hillary Clinton might even be able to win if that scenario plays out.

It's strange that members of an armed forces culture, which speaks largely in acronyms, would be perplexed by online shorthand, especially since they are employed for the same reasons--brevity and community.

The whole bizarre presentation reminds me of that scene in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (book or movie) where the expert gives a talk on "drug culture" at the police convention.

"KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND! YOUR LIFE MAY DEPEND ON IT! You will not be able to see his eyes because of Tea-Shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension..."

Alien life forms my ass, perhaps the Navy just needs to ask itself where the incentive is to go halfway across the world to live off MREs and risk dying by IEDs in support of a HQ's WMD SNAFU.

OMG WTF!

This E!-looking film review struck me as a bit strange. None of these movies is even in the theatres any more. The reviewers are mixing apples with oranges (docs with fiction) and only discussing films that either did poorly or are from ages ago. “The 11th Hour” tanked, making less than a million domestically. “Sunshine” also tanked ($3.5 million at the box office with a $40 million production budget), and wasn’t even about global warming except in the most oblique way. “An Inconvenient Truth” came out last year and “The Day After Tomorrow” is from 3 years ago. That’s not much of a cinematic movement, if you ask me.

Global warming is the largest threat facing the planet. If this insipid review is what passes for coverage (complete with cringe worthy solar panel banter at the end), then we are all doomed.

If I'm not mistaken that is actually a posh Australian accent and not a posh British accent.

It is no more foul than eating hotdogs. The Scots’ mistake was in having a recipe, where hotdogs and sausages are made from whatever organs and eyes are left lying on the abattoir floor at the end of the day. And let’s not forget that “natural casing” just means “intestine.” Still, the frankness of the Scots gives some perspective on Morrissey (yes, I know he’s Mancunian and not Scottish). It is easier to say that meat is murder when you know that you are eating a stomach.

Also, nice callback to past animations, SB. I especially liked the return of the Valanthia Orange man. Your animations remain the only thing worth watching on Video Dog.

Actually staying positive was the strategy Edwards used in 2004 in Iowa, which brought him from obscurity to second place in that primary. I feel the 2004 comparisons are actually quite strong here:

2004

Dean (aggressive, progressive, challenger)

Kerry (defensive, conservative, front runner)

Edwards (positive, moderate)

In 2008, Edwards has become Dean, Clinton has become Kerry and Obama has become Edwards (confused yet?). The progressive attacks the conservative front runner, and the moderate stays above the fray. Nothing especially new about that.

Sorry, I meant "Likeability". Clinton is the liability.

Salon got it right here. The polls have consistently shown that despite Ms. Clinton’s strong numbers among Democrats (due, I think, to name recognition), she polls very weak among Republicans and is so divisive and well known that there are few undecideds. That is, either you already like her or you hate her—not a strong way to go into an election where independents will be key to winning.

Inversely, in speaking to the people around me, everyone has an anecdote about their conservative uncle or a grandma who have been voting Republican since Reagan, but who expressed positive feelings toward Obama. I’m not talking about policy here (in which case, Obama still beats Clinton), I’m talking about liability, which-right or wrong-is essential to getting elected in this country. I’m not sure what Kool Aid my fellow Democrats are drinking that makes them think that Hillary Clinton is in ANY WAY more electable than Obama.

Mark my words, nominating Hillary Clinton is the only way that the Dems can lose in ’08. If Edwards can’t pick up traction soon, start thinking about throwing some money Obama’s way.

I respect your criticism but feel compelled to speak up in Berkeley Breathed’s defense. What Mr. Breathed has managed to do for decades now is infiltrate the mainstream Sunday rags with a subtle and ongoing progressive critique. There are plenty of sources for sharper satire—click next door on Tom Tomorrow. The genius of Breathed is that his satire slips in beneath the radar. By sugarcoating a bitter pill in the soft exterior of a cute penguin, Breathed has managed to sidestep the progressive ghetto of alternative weeklies and the opinions section, and infiltrated the living rooms and headspace of a younger, more mainstream and/or more conservative audience. As a child of Bloom County now in his 30s, I recall that Bloom County was the first place I heard names like Jeane Kirkpatrick and saw critiques of Reagan era politics—critiques that stayed with me as I began to develop my own political consciousness. You, Mr. Owen, are not his target audience. His target is the very “26 percent” (and their kids) who wouldn’t otherwise entertain criticism of the Iraq War.

Salon Farticle

Had seventy eight letters

I read them all. Why?