How about Federer-Nadal in the finals of the US Open? Federer-Nadal in Australia, Federer-Nadal at Roland Garos... see where I'm going with this? Until SOMEBODY picks up their game (and doing imitations of Sharapova isn't gonna do it, JOKE-avitch), the men's game is moribund and painfully predictable. Granted, Roger and Rafa are incredibly talented and likeable athletes, and that was one hella match, but they have the misfortune of having no one else to challenge them. It seems the womens game is going the same way, but at least the Williams' provide enough drama by virtue of their on and off interest in the sport to allow for some suspense come the fourth round. While I admire The Sisters', and Agassi's and McEnroe's dedication to trying to expand the interest in and availability of tennis to the 'lower classes', the sport is still widely perceived as a country-club pursuit for rich kids and until some US male comes along from some street court to win a major, American interest in tennis will continue to be half-hearted. Tennis interest in the US needs a Tiger Woods, and by that I mean a non-White American (Tiger is hardly from 'the streets' but his multi-hued ethnicity makes him intriguing to an American audience that likes to pretend it is 'color blind', which may be more racist than the links that wouldn't have allowed Tiger to play were he not 'Tiger'). I don't see that happening anytime soon. Tennis needs another Arthur Ashe. Hell, America needs another Arthur Ashe; someone talented and at the top of their game, and brave and articulate enough to use that talent as a catalyst for changing perceptions of the sport, and the culture as a whole.

There's so much talk in the MSM now about how BO needs to define himself to the American people. Seems to me that's kind of hard for him to do when the MSM refuses to allow him to and obfuscates his message in sound bites and contrived controversies. What Ms Walsh quoted was an incredibly elegant argument for his sense of social responsibility, one that is completely out of reach of the current occupant or the person who would extend his reign. But we don't get to hear it because the MSM is more interested in promoting controversy over policy; it gets better ratings to report that Jesse Jackson said he wants to cut Obama's nuts off than it does to say that Obama wants to promote social justice. The same day that Jackson said that, the International Red Cross said that senior officials in the Bush Administration could be held liable for war crimes and that an international tribunal such as that held for Serbia should be instituted against the United States. Guess which story got the big headline.

Yeah, I see the point of being concerned about 'dumbing down' outrage, but remember, the people who don't get satire (or are sadistically addicted to it) elected George W. Bush president twice (well, once, with 'help'). I think we should remain aware of the ignorant among us who vote, and playing to, or mocking their 'values,' such as they are, is playing with fire. I got the NYer's 'joke' but still found it bothersome. As the old song said, 'Don't mess up a good thing.'

I thought it was very telling that on the same day that the Jesse Jackson 'cut his nuts off' gaff made the scene, the Internatinal Red Cross announced that senior officials of the Bush administration could be guilty of war crimes and that the US could be tried before an international tribunal such as what happened to Serbia, the MSM led with the former. Maybe the NYer was just going for headlines. Cynicism rules. Playing to our lizard brain sells.

Just wondering... why was my original posting dropped, headlined 'who is this Obama Fellow'? I don't believe I wrote anything offensive, unless saying that the MSM are responsible for positing false impressions of the candidate. When did Salon start editing for non-hate content?

Budweiser is the source of the old Monty Python joke: Why is American beer like making love in a canoe?

Because it's fucking close to water!

And if it cuts into Cyndy McCain's bottom line, so much the better!

Another cougar sighting! Yowza! (Oh, now I have to call my therapist)

Considering that McCain can't seem to go a day without making some major gaff on camera, I would think the GOP shills would RELISH the idea of the media putting a higher focus on Obama, hoping to catch him in some kind of slip up. Maybe, if the McCain camp wants more face time for their candidate, they should send him on a fact finding tour of Czechoslovakia.

If touring Czechoslovakia doesn't pan out for him, he could always book time on Comedy Central and do his fall-down stand-up routine, bringing out all his greatest hits: 'A woman is brutally raped by a gorilla...', 'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly...' 'Let's send cigarettes to Iran...' What a crack up!

BHO's creds are tissue thin? We never know what we'll get? I think we have a very clear picture. While McCain has been reactive at every turn, his campaign in turmoil, without being able to present a clear vision of what his administration would offer outside of 4 more of the same, Obama has been proactive, offering policy statements that put the US back on the path of leading the world. McCain has shown himself incapable of maintaining one ideal and his absolute confusion about facts and nuance should automatically eliminate him from consideration. His 'Senior moments' are becoming far too common, and his inability to handle a simple, straight-up question about birth control funding vs. Viagra renders him dangerously incapable. If McCain can't manage his own campaign--photo-ops in front of cheese and boxes of Dole juice are telling images--how can we expect him to manage the crises confronting the next POTUS?