Not kidding. He did let some kids play one or two balls, and also Bob Casey rolled a gutterball on an Obama turn. So it was probably more like a 33 on five frames if you only look at balls Obama bowled.

Thanks for the math check. Fixed now.

Just to be clear, since you're accusing me of making things up and getting things wrong, the previous story I wrote on Puerto Rico didn't say Clinton would lose the primary to Obama. It said, first of all, that turnout would be low, and also noted that the most recent poll had her winning by only 13 points, so "she might not" win by the blowout margins she's been winning other primaries by.

As it turned out, far fewer voters showed up than anyone expected; even the lowest projections for turnout I heard from any analyst or campaign official was about 120,000 higher than the actual turnout. The pollsters who did that survey (a neutral Democratic polling firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, working for Univision and El Vocero) projected 600,000 to 700,000 voters. Turnout was actually 384,000. As turnout projections dropped, though, experts told me Clinton's expected margin would go up, because her dedicated voters were far more motivated than Obama's voters or "leaners" who didn't support either one of them that passionately.

So if the other piece got something wrong, it was actually in expecting too many people to vote (even though I predicted turnout would be low amidst general voter apathy). Of course we'll never know what the margin would have been in an election with more voters, but I suspect it would have been much closer.

Track, not Tripp. Caught it as soon as I published it, fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

"Opposed" is right -- very few of the amendments that the immigration reform coalition opposed were adopted, as the coalition held together to defeat them all. The amendment Obama sponsored might have split the coalition, but didn't, because it wasn't adopted. Where the coalition fell short was in getting enough votes to break a Republican filibuster of the legislation. The wording may be a little confusing, and I apologize for that if so, but it does say what I intended it to say.

Thanks to those who pointed out the dropped word - I imagine a $700 bailout wouldn't have kept me at the Capitol late enough to start leaving out words like "billion" in my sentences.

I didn't see any point in being thrown out of the event before McCain spoke, since I'd already spoken to several people there before this happened and since I was there in part to hear what McCain said. I think talking to some supporters, then hearing the event, then writing about what went on is more valuable than insisting on talking to one more supporter (who says the same thing as the ones I'd already spoken to) and then being tossed out on principle.

For what it's worth, Obama's volunteers have also tried to keep me in the press pen at events this year; the main difference is that staffers didn't get involved.

Thanks for pointing out the problem.

The quote reads the way it does because that's the way Fitzgerald said it. I copied it directly from a transcript.

Kennedy didn't vote (still in the hospital recovering from yesterday's seizure) and Ken Salazar's replacement in Colorado hasn't been sworn in yet.

Try reading that line sarcastically.

Should be working now, we had a brief technical glitch earlier. Sorry about that.

Thanks for pointing that out. I looked on the YouTube page for some identification beyond just Morgen's screenname, but must have not seen the link at the end of the video. We'll change that reference.

They were inoffensive scrambled eggs (in a flaky pastry that was too dry), but I wouldn't say they were "really good." Yes, there probably should be an inquiry into why she lied about them.

Yes, you've figured it out -- I'm secretly a front-man lawyer for wealthy bankers. (Which reminds me, given that I'm actually a lawyer for very rich bankers, I need to ask Salon for a raise.)

Gee, you'd think I had suggested that Gibbs himself shot the museum up. All I meant was that Gibbs didn't even so much as offer condolences for the family of the guard -- who hadn't died yet, but was already known to be injured -- or a pro-forma condemnation of the attack.

I hardly think an expression of a little bit of human emotion would have made the White House the focus of the story.

For those of you concerned about hypocrisy, I'd point out that Salon has covered torture by Americans quite extensively here: http://dir.salon.com/topics/torture/. And regardless, this sort of abuse should be criticized no matter who's doing it.

Yeah, those would be lunches with their political parties, not lunches where the senators party. (Though they're closed to the press, so who really knows?)

Thanks to those who caught that spelling. Ironically, in order to make sure I had the words exactly right, I had pasted the exchange in from a transcript service Salon subscribes to, and didn't notice their error.

There is nothing remotely wrong with an Argentine accent -- my wife is half-Argentine, I visit Argentina every chance I get, my own Spanish frequently tiptoes toward a porteño accent and (claro) I will be rooting for Argentina next year in the World Cup. I didn't mean in any way to imply that Whitehouse was pronouncing the word wrong, only to point out that his attempt at solidarity with Puerto Rico had a minor glitch.