There's a lot about this article that I feel conflicted about. For one, it's hard for me to get snooty and defensive when Ms. Sey comes right out and says she's being horrible and condescending. She admits it, gang; at least she's got that self awareness.

There's also the fact that she's, ya know, wrong. There are hundreds at least--and thousands probably--of people who have been swimmers and gymnasts and fencers and runners and basketball players and whatnot, who stopped competing in High School or College or even a low-level Professional league, when it became clear that while they had the dedication and the desire, they simply didn't have the talent. All the morning and afternoon workouts in the world weren't going to turn me into Steve Lunquist, no matter how much I tried, no matter how many 5:30am practices before school, 4-6pm practices after school, stroke clinics, start clinics, turn clinics, and other stuff I did. I could--and did--swim 10,000-12,000 yards a day, every day, but I was never going to break a minute in the 100 yard breaststroke. And facing that fact was simply heartbreaking.

So you're wrong, honey, which makes your condescension all the more infuriating, even though you did admit it up front. How do you know at what level the little girl's mother competed? In High School, they don't compete in the 400 meter freestyle; it's the 50, 100, 200, and 500 yard races. Further, assuming the girl remembered correctly, if her mother did swim the 400m freestyle "in High School," she was swimming in AAU competitions, the competitions from which future Olympians are taken, the competitions in which people like Mark Spitz and Pablo Morales and (yes) Michael Phelps got her start. So for all you know, Jennifer, that girl's mother may indeed have been competing--and losing spectacularly and depressingly--to the Dana Torres' of the swim world.

The point here is, you don't know. I don't know. Only the other person knows. So consider that you may have a gap of knowledge in the matter, climb down off your high horse, and try to enjoy the camaraderie that these people are trying to share with you. Because you simply don't know if they dedicated their life to a sport like that, and assuming that they didn't just because they don't complain about broken femurs (or dislocated knees, or blown neck disks, or whatever) is more than horrible and condescending; it's arrogant and absurd.

Yes, I pointed that out a few letters up-thread. There's actually two things to note:

o) High Schoolers swim "short course," i.e. in a 25 yard pool. So there's the 200yd and 500yd freestyle, but no 400 meter freestyle. No "meter" anything, in point of fact.

o) That girl's mother *could* have swum 400 meter races while *in* High School, if she was swimming AAU long-course events (with the Santa Clara Swim Club, for example). She couldn't have swum them *for* her high school, though. (And if she *was* swimming AAU events, she had the possibility to be an "elite athlete.")

The analysis is inherently flawed in a couple of different ways. First, and most basically, the sample size is simply too small. We're talking about, what, 26 conventions total? That's not really enough to indicate a trend.

The second point is that the meaning of conventions has changed significantly over time. Conventions used to be where candidates were chosen; now it's simply a large party anointing the candidate who won the primary. Can those two things really be compared, or is it apples to oranges, as I suspect.

In short, I'm not convinced. Just because a batter hits .450 for the month of May doesn't mean he's going to hit .450 for the year.

I think it's a tough situation. Aside from the schedule of the Olympics vs. the convention, there is also the fact that many, many Clinton supporters needed time to heal and adjust. Would it have felt like a slap in the face to them if Obama had picked his V.P. weeks ago? What if he ends up picking Clinton after all, and needed this time to assess whether he could live with the results of that decision or not?

I think it's not really possible to game this one out effectively.

This response was either written prior to the speech, or they are so stonkered about how to respond, the best they can do is recycle their "greatest hits," string them together, and hope for the best.

You'd think someone would have checked it for grammar errors, too. I mean, this is supposed to be a national campaign, isn't it?

He was taken out of context? It was a parody, and not what he really thinks?

It really pisses them off when they are confronted by the same tactics that they have used for years, doesn't it? Not enjoyable to be hoist by one's own petard, is it Rush ol' boy?

I can't even bring myself to cry crocodile tears. They sowed the wind; I have no sympathy for the fact that they're irritated by the whirlwind.

Actually, that whole "seeing Russia" thing--yes, yes, I *know* it's an SNL parody, and that the campaign probably said "borders Russia"--it's basically impossible unless you live on Little Diomede Island, and are only looking for Big Diomede Island.

But since few people reside on a tiny, rocky island in the middle of the Bering Strait, it seems unlikely.

Oh, itty poo, Rushie!

I have no sympathy. None. For years, Republicans have been using the tactics of bullies everywhere to stifle dissent, manipulate public opinion, and work the refs. Like all bullies, as soon as even a modicum of such tactics are used on them, they go crying home to Mama.

You're a big boy, Rush; act like one.