I think that the 2004 articles predicting Kerry's win are actually representative of a lot of the writing on Salon. Too many articles on politics try to predict the unraveling of the Republican coalition and really just amount to a lot of wishful thinking. I have to admit, since the Kerry debacle of 2004, in which I let myself become convinced that he could win, I have a hard time taking any such predictions seriously, not just from Salon but most commentators. Even now, as story after story tells me that Bush is in trouble and the Republicans are in retreat, I don't really buy it. We'll see in 2008.

I'd love to weigh in on this "theory," but I have no idea what the "theory" is nor what the "evidence" for it is. Thanks Sansho1 for saying something . . . I was afraid it was just me.

The better answer about the "touchback for a fumble through the endzone question" is that the endzone is essentially the territory of the team guarding it. The whole point of the game is to protect your endzone and to penetrate the opposing team's with possession of the ball. If you on offense lose the ball into the other team's endzone, then you basically are losing the ball to them. It doesn't matter whether you brought the ball down 98-yards or whatever, you lost control of it on their territory and it reverts back to them. So your question is answered by the basic philosophy and point of the game. Not a big mystery and not particularly offensive, I think.

I think it is interesting that in just about every other area of entertainment, it is pretty well accepted that performers have a short shelf life. Pop singers come and go and we mostly have no expectation that they will last more than a few years in the public spotlight. They may continue to produce, but they will not be "bankable" or particularly popular (with a few major exceptions, obviously). The woman playing the "hot female lead of the hour" is constantly changing and we pick up and ogle at the next one. Yet aging male comics get to keep making movies with a lot of publicity. When their comedy gets tired, they even get to do drama with beautiful women who could be their daughters (Bill Murray in Lost in Translation, Martin in Shopgirl). Zacharek seems surprised that Martin bombs in the Pink Panther, but I knew as soon as I saw him that it would be terrible and I never considered seeing it for a second. I am not yet thirty, and I just don't see the appeal of comics from two generations ago, yet they still get lots of attention. I wish we could maybe just accept that comics, like most people in show business, have a short shelf life and then move on to what is new, innovative, and funny. Well, at least what is new . . .

Did we watch the same show? Jon Stewart brought exactly what you would expect of him--a detached, self-mocking attitude and some hilarious jokes. I laughed through his entire monologue and thought that a lot of the bits, which I imagine he had a lot of say in, were really good, such as Tom Hanks getting beaten with a violin, and the mock-political ads. I feel like you just couldn't wait to get to your computer and declare that the whole thing sucked, including Jon Stewart. I am not sure what you were expecting from him though. That was pretty much our guy from the Daily Show beat for beat.

I have to say, the CBS talking heads had me piqued yesterday when they marched out some statistic about how few games the smaller conferences had won in the tournament compared to the major conferences and how few Sweet Sixteen teams they had sent in comparison. They were talking overall wins, however, and the disparity was huge. But King, your statistic is much more meaningful and completely changed my mind. If smaller conferences perform just as well (or badly) as the major's in the bottom seeds, who really cares? In fact, I think you are right that it is the heart of the tourney. I am not a huge college basketball fan, so I love to come across schools I have never heard of and watch them at least give the big schools a run for their money. Thanks for the insight.