The Blockbuster service has served me very well (and the "instant gratification" of in-store returns is a delightful grace note). I have noticed no content-editing in either in-store or online movies (once upon a time Blockbuster did pull that nonsense, but such molested movies were conspicuously marked). The most important reason I left Netflix though -- again, after being loyal from the literal birth of the service -- was that it kept sending terrible, terrible DVDs, and never apologized or made any effort to fix the problem, which I assume is a byproduct of its success and nasty-quick turnaround. When Netflix sent a DVD that was not only cracked (far from the first -- or 50th -- cracked disc sent), but mended with transparent tape (as if that would play?), I said "ciao babe," moved to Blockbuster and have been a happy user ever since. And never once in three Blockbuster online years have I received a bum DVD.

Keep laughing, kiddo. It took me a bit into the questions (jaw agape and eyes rolling), but I am now convinced those questions simply HAD to be concocted as satire. And damn clever satire it was.

I am confident Mr Scherer recorded the young woman's speech impediment because he assumed -- as do I -- that those who sent her to tell her dramatic tale believe that her speech impediment was evidence of her "attempted murder;" you know, maybe the wicked abortionist cleaved her palate or nicked her proto-temporal lobe or something. Grand Guignol conservative stagecraft as per usual.

I believe Mr Klein established firmly his non-honest-broker bona fides years ago when he flat-out lied and repeatedly lied about his authorship of (what he alleges to have been) the Clinton '92 campaign roman a clef. Once a schmoe, always a schmoe. Perhaps Mr Stengel needs a public reminder of the sort of pre-impeached journalists he retains.

I must note I have rarely seen anyone audition as passionately for anything as much as Ms Murray appears to be doing for that primo spot in the Politico.com lineup. I must also note it is remarkable she hasn't been picked-up yet. A better fit is difficult to imagine. She and John Harris can sit and cluck over their erstwhile colleagues -- those moony-eyed naifs who actually believe acts of journalism should transcend stenography.

Anon wrote: "I refer, of course, to the Holocaust. Am I the only one who sees the parallel?"

Yes. Yes, you are.

Thrasher and Minnecticut Yankee are, IMO, dead-on correct. I doubt that either of them, and I guarantee that I, did not need Mr Matthews to plant the "Bradley effect" idea.

Unfortunately, Thrasher has been attacked by one of this site's usual suspects, and has naturally been drawn into replying in kind. Nevertheless: to the point of this note: Minnecticut Yankee wrote perhaps the wisest, best-sourced and most calm and complete post on this topic so far, yet the Clinton-cetntric Salon could not find room on it's "editor's choice" for his or her post (whereas many pro-Clinton posts did make it).

Q.E.D.

BTW, since to weigh-in on the "Bradley effect," the opiner appears to have to state his or her socio-cultural-racial bona fides: I am a 46-year-old DAR-stock caucasio-American judge.

You shot from the lip, on this one, Mr Greenwald, and it is very disappointing to see you lack the intellectual humility or simple decency to back off your premature denunciation. Sen Obama had to address the bigoted ugly Muslim attacks. You know it. You acknowledged it in the initial post as "a" factor. After being called on this facile, childish and wrong-headed Huckabee comparison, you then belied your own defensive thesis by mewling: "why in SC? why not in IA or NH," et alia? Why indeed? -- look to your own defense: because SC has a strong Christian voting bloc; because the "Manchurian Muslim" e-mails are coming faster and more furious in SC. Because the time is now if Sen Obama is to save his candidacy. Another source would lead me to believe he was just dense. You may not hide behind ignorance.

When your own petard lets you back down, please reconsider your position; be a mensch. Your occasional petulance is unbecoming. It is often surprising. It is always dreary. In this case, on this day, it it frankly perverse. Think an inch past your ego on this one, I urge you.

Does that "Clinton $ > Obama $" boast subtract the $11,000,000 she did NOT raise but transferred from her senate campaign war chest? Or were we all supposed to have forgotten that? Schmuck. More dreary, old, creaking, BORING Washington same-old same-old. Keep it up: Sen Obama is absolutely correct: he will get the Clinton voters, but she will not get his. At least not this one.

1/2 consumer debt; 1/2 Obama campaign

-- Gerald R Ford

(apologies to Chevy Chase)