A number of posters point to a lack of policy specifics, and justifiably so. Initially, that benefits a candidate -- particularly a fresh one with a winning personality -- as people tend to impose their policy positions onto the black slate of the candidate. But as the campaign rolls along, the candidate hast o flesh out his positions.

I think it will be very interesting to see this process with Sen. Obama. Generally, these "flavor of the month" candidates sink in the polls a bit once the process requires them to become more specific. There is no doubt that his has a good bit of talent, but I don't think that he'll be there in the end. I think the race comes down to Hillary and John Edwards.

If the old saying that you can learn a lot about a man by his enemies is true, looks like John Kerry's doing OK, at least around here.

Kerry was a less than perfect candidate. Most are. Running for President against a bunch of ethically challenged wing nuts isn't as easy as it looks. But I think his choice today was the correct one for a number of reasons -- both for him and for the country. Senator Kerry can better serve our country in the Senate.

". . . were he stripped of his power and his protections, he would quiver and quail . . . ."

Nice how you slipped the word "quail" into the post. Sly, but clever.

Careful what you wish for, Elephantman. The sort of lame attacks that you make on a person because of his (noble) occupation, or because he stands with working people doesn't work anymore.

Look at Bruce Braley's Congressional race in Iowa. Braley's opponent, a sitting incumbent Republican Congressman, attacked him as a trial lawyer. Braley's daily polls showed that every time that those ads ran, his numbers went up, not down. Americans are learning that being a trial lawyer means standing up for those who have no voice against the rich and the powerful.

And right now, the rich and the powerful are doing a bang up job of fucking up everything that they touch. The economic populism of John Edwards is genuine and heartfelt. It was his calling card in 2004 and it the way that he got to where he is.

In short he is a formidable and appealing candidate who I believe can make you eat the poisonous words that you spew here.

I've never seen such a bunch of soreheads. The NBA is the only professional sport that I can stand to watch. My experience tells me that most of the complaining about officiating comes for casual viewers who only watch one or two games a week, or from people who watch college basketball, which is a completely different game in almost all respects. Give the problems that they face in terms of the speed of the game, I think that the NBA in generally well officiated.

As for flops, it is just another skill that is applied to the game, like taking free throws, cross over dribbles, etc. For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would care that a defensive player would attempt to use body language to emphasize contact. What's next, a penalty for a shooter who "acts" too much when he's fouled? Ridiculous.

Just sit back and enjoy the game. The world's best athletes playing the world's best game.

See if I've got this right. Scooter is dissatisfied that the Whitehouse press secretary doesn't publicly exonerate him. So, though Cheney, he asks that same press secretary to tell a lie on his behalf -- that he was not involved in releasing the name of Valerie Plame. A statement that he clearly knows to be false. The press flack accedes to this request (and we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he doesn't know it to be false as Scooter and likely Cheyney do).

Subsequently, in the course of a criminal investigation, our hero Scooter, a member of the bar, gets summons before a United States Grand Jury and is sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." He admittedly lies about the most central matter at the heart of the criminal investigation -- who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to the press.

Ultimately prosecuted for his admittedly false testimony, Scooter cites as justification his need to tailor his sworn testimony to the unsworn musing of the press flack, despite the fact that they were 1) at his request; and 2) know by him to be false at the time he requested them.

Goddamn!! If this is a defense, I'd hate to see the prosecution's case. This is no defense at all. And this is completely inconsistent with the defense lawyers ragging witnesses around about bad notes, the frailties of memories, etc. And if this is the "defense," what on earth are they going to call Cheyney to say? The he told the Defendant that it was OK to lie to a grand jury? What could he possibly say that would help? That's he told his aid to obstruct justice and lie to a grand jury? There's no way in hell that's he's going to say that.

Surely this is not the Defendant's theory. If so, they're going down in a big way, and deservedly so. Libbey will, and should, loose his law license. I'm sure Bush will pardon him when before he goes to the pen, but he won't be able to get his law license back.