I think there was so much hype, nerves, and expectations laid on her and this speech that there's no way she was going to satisfy all members of the party. I thought it was an excellent speech. Emotional in parts, truly stirring in others, and cohesive in it's intent to unite the party.

However, I was personally disappointed that she didn't take full advantage of the spotlight to tear in to McMcain more than she did. I mean the spotlight has never shone so brightly on her as it did tonight, and she didn't get out of it as much as she could have in terms of really attacking the right. That's been my gripe though with many of the speakers so far that carry some weight with the party.

This convention or what I've seen of it has had relatively little in the way of red meat attacking, and there is plenty of it to be had. Why aren't we going after McCain on serious character issues. There's a lot there to attack. You know, like his alliance with Charles Keating. His getting into bed with all sorts of dubious lobbyists, his hypcorisy in not supporting a GI bill that will give more benefits to the troops. His bailing on his first wife to hook up with his rich mistress. Real gut level stuff. Where are the attacks? What are waiting for? I think the Democrats are losing valuable time punching the right on issues that we are right on, and that a lot of Americans believe in.

Get a grip lady. It was won by the other guy. Sorry, but that's the truth. I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out so you won't get far calling me an Obamabot or whatever trolls like to call other trolls. Anyway, I'm curious, who are you voting for?

Will John McCain's first wife be speaking at the Republican convention?

Is that both campaigns have decided not to air negative ads on that day in honor of the dead. They are refraining from making the ugly and usually indefensible attacks they make every other day of the campaign, but will resume with the mudslinging at 12:01am September 12th. Nice. How inspiring. So they are implicitly admitting they are doing the civil thing. The right thing on 9/11 by stopping these ads. A more thoughtful honorarium to the dead from 09/11 would be to stop the negative adds altogether, and instead engage in real debate about the deepening mess of problems this country faces on multiple ends. I know it ain't going to happen, but I admire the hypocrisy of both campaigns on their one day moratorium on the negative ads.

Has sucks written all over it. More high concept shit from the crank em out studio mill. Wilson himself will probably disown this when career picks up steam in a few years. That is if he has the chance to break out of the stereotype ghetto.

But is there anything awful, venal, and inhumane this guy won't try to do? Always does the wrong thing for the world, without fail. All I can say is- what an asshole.

Was this article a subtle continuation of Pork Week.

You seem concerned about Obama.

A homeowner who has seen the value of his home plummet and now owes more than his or her loan has two choices the way I see it. Either continue to pay your monthly mortgage on what is basically a distressed property or let the bank foreclose and take the hit to your credit.

You can't refinance on a property with no equity(unless there's a new exotic loan out there I'm missing) and with property values falling so far down it is probable many properties won't ever recover their previous high value. This is a problem that will persist for a while, and though the government is getting involved, the problem is too widespread to be stopped at this point.

There is enough blame to go around. From the shady loan officers/banks/real estate industry to the homeowners. There are many hard lessons coming down to a pretty big number of people relatively speaking, and whether anything like this happens again will depend on how those lessons are absorbed.

A MacGyver movie scored to the tunes of ABBA?

Or should I say Electro Robot? Do you have a job? I think you post a letter in every thread, and must have limitless time to read every post, letter, response and response to your response? Must be nice.

I'll tell you why I think it's a bad idea. The world series is the biggest event of the year for baseball, and they're letting a glorified exhibition determine what is a huge benefit for the future home team. They are letting a game where players have never played together or been managed together have an effect on their game's most important series. That just seems silly to me.

I think injecting competitiveness into the series is fine. It's too bad the powers that be couldn't have found a different way to do it. More to the point, it's too bad the players couldn't muster the natural competitive enthusiasm players of others generations did naturally so this home field advantage idea never would have even been thought necessasry.

I can't tell anymore if I'm reading Joan's actual posts or the salon parody version. They really nailed her on the concern trolling on Obama. You would have to have never read her previous posts during the nomination process to take anything she says about Obama seriously.

mean

Does that means the terrorists have won?

Are there people who actually use this term in real life when discussing politics? Are there actually people who think using this term will do anything but undermine their credibility and arguments?