"Wait, I thought "pointing backwards" was a bad thing.

So the candidate who was scolding Biden on Thursday night for ‘looking backwards, and pointing fingers’ is now embracing this approach, and with a vengeance. Obama-Biden was only making a relatively near-term reference to the current administration. Palin-McCain (sic) wants to make events of the 60's relevant somehow. Good luck with that one, douche bags."

The funniest thing about that botched line for me was this: she was lashing at him for looking to the past by quoting a familiar debate quote from 1980 prefaced by a quote from 1919. Both of which, I'm fairly certain, are in the past.

Yeah, but sadly that'll leave them even more time to post unsupported nonsense on the Internet. Though it would also (in theory) give them the time to actually read and research their claims, which in turn would (again, in theory, assuming rational minds - a big leap, I know) force them to pretty much shut their yaps.

If there's a better argument for the proposition that the American education system has utterly failed its people, I've yet to see it.

This would be a good subject for the SNL Weekend Update bit.

But let's go deeper: even if we were to give the typist the benefit of the doubt (not that I'm suggesting we do that), did no one PROOFREAD this thing? Did no one take even the slightest hint of a glance at it before they'd mailed out 300 of them? No way could this have been an honest screwup.

For the posters above wondering why this didn't come up in the primary, it seems pretty simple: Hillary wasn't willing to burn the bridges and salt the earth with her own party in order to try to win (though she came close). McCain doesn't have to care about offending Democratic politicians or voters; Hillary did.

You're not going to win the favor of your party's representatives or voters by calling your primary opponent an Arab terrorist (or inviting the comparison by bringing up Ayers), and despite Mark Penn's best efforts Hillary knew this.

Giving Obama a fully-telegraphed chance to rebut this stupid line of attack in front of the biggest remaining audience you'll have until the election? Good lord, that's dumb.

There's little point in arguing

with trolls, but I'm

really curious about all the random carriage return

s.

"It was just food to me. It didn't mean anything else."

Bull. Shit. And you'd have to be even dumber than she would have to be to believe her.

You know, I usually have to go to CNN's Ticker to see headlines that diverge wildly from the content of the post (and, of course, from the truth).

I'm in Illinois, in the Chicago suburbs (DuPage County - one of the reddest of the red counties in years past). I've seen a bunch of McCain ads, but they're virtually all on national broadcasts and, I'd imagine, geared more towards the overlapping NW Indiana area than anything else. But there are probably a great number of wealthy McCain donors in DuPage who demand to see at least something for their money.

I also went 50/50 in our home pool, winning the $5 prize and adding gravy to an already delicious evening. I think I must have been saving up all my prognosticating mojo for the year, which explains why my NCAA bracket went so poorly in March. (Needless to say, I'm happier to have my team win this one.)

If only these two could have found a way to work together. Perhaps Senator Chili or Representative Cheese can have a sit-down and form a committee.

This whole discussion sounds like a Mitch Hedberg joke.

Maybe he's a Styx fan.

Or, to paraphrase (i.e., mangle) the famous WWII quote: "The absence of any evidence is in itself an ominous development."

Katbur, I don't think it's quite fair to blame the system for something that can 100% be blamed on the voters who took it upon themselves to vote for a convicted felon because he was, among other things, more likely to be able to bring home the bacon.

For me, Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond has the same resonance as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker: finally, finally the franchise(s) dared to write, act, and film these characters as the truly scary and dangerous sons-of-bitches they'd have to be if they were real. In both cases, I applaud the result; in neither case does it denigrate the performances of previous actors playing the roles.

I assume a rebuke from Rome will be coming soon, since the Pope has expressly talked about this and said that this priest's argument is no longer valid? A hasty retraction, apology, and ideally resignation sure to follow? I'm not going to hold my breath.

His nonsense about doing the same were the roles reversed is so laughable and self-serving that it's not worth responding to, of course.

This should absolutely be an act that jeopardizes the tax-exempt status, and it's hilarious (though unsurprising) that he was dumb enough to write it down and distribute it.

You're absolutely right, and it's astonishingly ironic that these very same people lead the cheerleading against the fundamentalist Muslims they so resemble.

Man, if I were Hillary and I had hired a guy who basically had such a bad influence on my campaign, and who performed so shittily in every possible respect, that I went from a tremendous favorite to a runner-up in just a few short months, I sure as hell wouldn't want to pay him a dime for those "services."

(Now of course, as an Obama supporter, I felt during the primary that Penn was worth every penny.)

This means that SCOTUS is part of the conspiracy.

Tell you what, guys - grab your guns and get to your bunkers for the next eight years. You won't be missed.

Some good points (and some I'd dispute, but well-argued in any event), but for Christ's sake, it's "Dal

e

y."