I've found the little I've seen of the show to be OK. Yes, much more interesting and tolerable than Barnie or Elmo but no, not at a level of greatness worthy of the praise being heaped upon it by various hipster blogs.

In any case, Heather, I know TV's your thing here at Salon but why no questions about the value/benefit of any TV (no matter how well done) on kids of this age group? The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that kids under 2 should not watch ANY television. Various studies have discredited any benefit to TV (no matter what the content) for kids under 2. France has recently placed bans on video content targeting kids under 3. More and more studies have linked developmental issues (ADD, autism) to TV viewership by kids. These warnings and correlations are only strengthened when you take a look at that blank stare on the face of infants and toddlers after just a couple minutes in front of the TV. It would have been worth a question or two during the interview to explore whether YGG or any program is detrimental for their target age group.

I don't want to get all Amish about this or anything but we try to limit our kids' video viewership to the occasional surf around YouTube (including some YGG clips).

You didn't have to look around too hard to see "at&t" and "Qwest" all over the convention. Well that explains why Obama and many of his fellow Democrats voted for the FISA bill that let the telecom companies off the hook for their roles in the same surveilance crimes the Democrats accuse Bush of committing.

Remember we were supposed to be upset when Cheney met privately with the energy companies to get "advice" on energy policy? This is no different and it happens all the time.

There's no reason to believe that the largest Healthcare, Financial, Automotive, Energy, __________, __________ companies aren't too far in the background at the DNC. (They will be at the RNC too but maybe less prominently as they are taking an educated gamble to spend more time and money on the Democrats this time around.) The big scam of American politics is that these parties and politicians put up this smoke screen of issues that keep us divided and distracted while our "leaders" make nice with donors and corporations.

Early in the primaries I was encouraged by Obama's broad appeal extending to independents and Republicans. While I saw all of the other Democratic candidates as destined for 51/49 general election where it would essentially be a tossup, I thought that Obama could really bring people together and appeal to closer to 60% of voters. I hope that, with the DNC finally behind us, Obama can stop talking to his party and start talking to the country as he did so effectively early in the primary season.

I'm not one of these people salivating over a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic supermajority in Congress. In fact, I'm frightened by that because a Democratic supermajority in Congress would essentially be a steamroller directed by many of the same crooks, liars and the lobbyists that feed them we've been stuck with for years. I'd rather see Obama come in with a strong convincing majoring and a closely divided Congress. This will give him the opportunity to craft an agenda that considers the needs and interests of the largest number of Americans.

If it were revealed on the eve of the convention that Obama's hypothetical 17 year old daughter was pregnant then it would be celebrated by the Democrats and criticized by the Republicans. For a complete reversal, maybe the Obama daughter would have had an abortion and THAT would be celebrated by the Democrats and criticized by the Republicans. So what's the big revelation of this thought experiment. We know that this country gets polarized over this type of thing where we are trained to develop strong opinions about matters that are trivial and/or non of our business. The problem is that while we're dividing ourselves on this issue (as with many others) our representatives in government (from both parties) are still running around doing the bidding of those big money and influence.

Earmarks should be the single biggest issue of this election. You should not dismiss McCain's comments about them. If he were to "slash away at congressional earmarks and expose the self-serving pols who misuse them" he would be doing more to help our country than any of his recent predecessors. It is precisely this feature of the way things are done in Washington that fuels the special interests and lobbyists that dominate the political landscape. Remove the pet projects and big money these groups are interested in and suddenly, our politicians will have to respond to that often forgotten source of support, the voters. The reason our politicians repeatedly fail to deliver meaningful progress on so many issues is that they can afford to ignore the voters as long as they satisfy the interests of the wealthy and well connected.

Now here's the problem. McCain may be talking about this but I doubt he's up to the task. 18 months ago I was extremely hopeful for an Obama/McCain presidential race. I naively believed that such a contest would finally allow us to chose between two candidates offering a change to the system. What I neglected to foresee was exactly how much they would need to change in order to become the the nominee of their respective parties. I believe we are looking at two men who have been greatly compromised.

While I still have a little more hope for Obama I am nervous about the prospect of him as president alongside a strong Democratic majority in Congress. That Congress would be filled with superdelegates to whom Obama surely owes many favors. He would spend 4 years signing off on pork. I'd rather see Obama with a split Congress or McCain with a Democratic Congress.