While I absolutely agree with your niche analysis of the NHL, I'd also like to add that perhaps the biggest reason for going early to the Preakness this year had a lot to do with last year's Preakness. Anybody remember Barbaro?

You think a network's gonna pass up a chance to masturbate over that story anytime it gets a chance? I don't think so. I went to Churchill for Derby weekend this year, and I swear Barbaro has become more popular than Jesus Christ and bourbon combined. In KENTUCKY!

I suspect that next year, the choice between playoff hockey and the run-up to a horse race that killed a horse -- a few years ago, rather than last year -- will be closer.

King, don't beat yourself up on that prediction just yet. Thomas played very limited minutes this year -- as you noted, somewhat of a project -- but he showed some stuff in that playoffs that suggests that he could indeed develop into something special. And Aldridge definitely looks good, but I'd say the jury is still out on both.

This exchange tells you all you really need to know about Goodling's qualifications for her job and the way the Bush administration goes about staffing important positions.

A lawyer, she was hired for a top spot in the Justice Department, but doesn't understand that her admitted actions ON THEIR FACE broke the law. And her attempt at exculpation further shows her ignorance and dishonesty. Essentially: "I know I did it, I knew I was doing it when I did it, I knew it was wrong when I did it, but I didn't mean to do it." Can it really be true that she does not understand first-year legal concepts like mens rea and strict liability?

If you're not really into the NHL much, but managed to remain just a bit curious about this sport despite their efforts to drive even hardcore fans away, watch one game -- just one -- of the Stanley Cup Finals.

I won't go as far as some, and tell you that you'll be hooked for life. But I will tell you that you'll finally understand why some of us keep watching hockey, even as the powers-that-be keep trying their damnedest to kill it.

My wife and I spent the weekend trying to figure out which of the two teams to root for in this year's finals, since our home team isn't there (we're Blackhawk fans, so we go through this a lot). Once again, the NHL has made it difficult by shortening Anaheim's team name from The Mighty Ducks. My god, how do you root AGAINST The Mighty Ducks!? But it comes down to two things: I've pretty much always hated Ottawa, and the Ducks have Chris Pronger, who I hated for years before he got to the Ducks in one of those "I hate him because he keeps killing my team" kind of ways.

So, Go Ducks!

Before I get called out, let me say that as a Chicagoan, I've been exposed to Obama for many years. During much of his time in the Illinois legislature, he also frequently appeared as a guest panelist on the city's public television outlet's nightly current affairs program, "Chicago Tonight." Long before he expressed any national ambition, I was impressed with his openness and candor in addressing complex issues with no simple solutions.

Mr. Shapiro's last paragraph gets to the nub of the problems many are having with Obama's candidacy: his apparent disdain for "traditional politics" is directly at odds with his practice of politics as usual here on his home turf. From his association with Tony Rezko (including but not limited to the deal that landed Obama his current residence), to his embrace of Mayor Daley's efforts to stack the city council with rubber-stamp aldermen to his ducking of local newspaper reporters working on the Rezko story, he looks like any other Illinois politician putting the expediency of the deal ahead of principle.

Those that admire him point out that this perception merely stems from his pragmaticism. Until he answers his local questions, though, we can't really know whether it's pragmatism or cynicism.

"Escape" was the breakthrough album? Perhaps our author is a lad of more tender years than I, but c'mon: "Infinity" was Journey's breakthrough.

Otherwise, I have to agree with the comment regarding the difference between disliking something as a matter of personal taste, and disliking something because it objetively "sucks."

A mistake to compare Journey to The Beatles? The Ramones? Probably, since such a comparison is bound to piss off the large group of people who worship -- quite literally -- at those bands' respective altars. So you have to find a comparison something short of a band that is deified by so many. May I suggest: Cheap Trick? Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers? The Cars? All acts that had some fine moments, generally not universally considered "sucky" and yet still capable of some pretty lame stuff on occasion.

Ah, the beauty of rock comparison and criticism.

I would also take issue with Noah's statement that Clinton got off "scot-free."

Clinton had to surrender his law license and pay a substantial fine. That is far from getting a pass, as Noah claims.

Beyond that, Clinton also endured an impeachment trial, following which the nation's elected representatives -- the jury -- by a vote conducted consistent with the constitution, chose to refuse to remove him from office.

And they say you can't get good acid anymore.

Political punditry means never having to say you're sorry. Just ask David Brooks. Or George Will. Or Robert Novak. Or . . . . . . .

No surprise W doesn't know the difference between bin Laden's 9/11 group and al-Qaida of Mesopotamia, since he barely knows the difference between Sunni and Shia. Of course, he also has trouble distinguishing between allegory (biblical creation) and science, fiction and fact (pick your favorite), lies and truth (ditto) and probably ain't so good with left and right, either.