I think there's another reason (which doesn't negate the others GG lists) that Politico and other sites like to trumpet a potential GOP resurgence. The same reason TV/Radio sports producers hate a blowout: nobody is interested.

What drives ratings in sports is a close game, and these days, politics is treated exactly like sports in the world of media (thus the frequent "horse race" references). If the GOP is dead, there's no ballgame to cover, and no reason for any but the most hard-core geeks to seek out sites like Politico.

My god. This poor woman best stear clear of my big irish family! With very few exceptions, everyone kisses everyone on the mouth, regardless of relationship or gender.

I feel sorry for her, and her husband. She's clearly got issues with a capital I. While I wouldn't fault someone for being uncomfortable with kissing for themselves, being "grossed out" by seeing others kiss (we're assuming, of course, that it's a friendly kiss hello/goodby, and not full-on making out, right?), is just whacked.

Cary may not want to judge, but I'm happy to!

So Obama is actually . . . . British?

For those like wakerobyn, can you posit for a moment what result if nothing had been done about the banking crisis?

I'm happy to concede that what had to be done stunk to high heaven. But note that something drastic did, in fact, have to be done. Or does the potential collapse of the entire world financial system appeal to some anarchic, granola-eating segment of the population eager to go back to an agrarian community?

I'll also concede that many of the dolts (Congress, the financial industry, etc) who let us get to the point of crisis are the same ones now overseeing the "fix". That does not please me, but again, your alternative please?

I suppose you could argue that we should just let any poor unfortunate soul rot in whatever foreign nation seizes them. Price they pay for straying from home, you might say. But that's not the position that most Americans want taken, and not the position we as a nation have been taking for quite some time now.

And it doesn't seem that Bolton is arguing for that point. Instead, it appears that he believes we should threaten the offending country with annihilation. Which I suppose is also a point worth arguing, but only if you actually have the will and the ability to implement whatever punishment you seek to impose. And this is where Bolton loses his argument, because quite frankly we are not capable of invading North Korea at present (his former boss saw to it that our military was "otherwise occupied" so to speak).

Of course, Bolton might advocate ACTUALLY ANNIHILATING the offending nation: a full scale nuclear strike wiping them off the face of the earth. "That'll show the rest of those pissants" he might say with a harrumph. But that would seem to be a bit counterproductive, as it would certainly kill the poor unfortunate hostage, not to mention stirring up a bit of trouble with the rest of the world. And it would cement the impression that we seem to believe nukes are bad EXCEPT when they're our nukes. (Perhaps the "doing God's will exemption" applies?)

But for obvious reasons we're not going to take Bolton's route in any event, which means we've then made a very serious threat but failed to back it up. And that makes us far weaker than any negotiation might.

For all his claimed brilliance, Bolton appears to have missed the lesson every parent learns. Threatening to send the little buggers to bed without supper only works if you're actually prepared to sent them to bed without supper. If they call your bluff and you back down, you've lost.

There are an awful lot of tools out here today dancing on a man's grave. Which is fine, I suppose, if it's Kim Il Jong or Ahmedinejad on whom your dancing.

But Hughes was a guy who made fucking comedies, people. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't "sell his soul to satan" for chrissakes! If you didn't think they were as entertaining as the vast majority of people who've been shelling out money to see them for years now, who cares?

And as for the writer noting that he had "a nascent savvy for marketing had become part of the Hughes' touch", I would remind all that he started out working at Leo Burnett, an ad agency. Do you expect that he WOULDN'T market his movies?

I don't ever recall John Hughes saying he was trying to change the world, or make great art. He was trying to make movies that people wanted to see. In that regard, he was successful. His movies didn't speak to you? Fine. How does that make it OK for you to be an utter jagoff within 24 hours after the guy collapses and dies of a heart attack at 59?

Perhaps the wankers like tomreedtoon are -- as some have noted -- frustrated and failed auteurs. Or maybe they're just dicks.

For most - if not all - of these protestors, the actual issue at hand is a bit beside the point. Because for them, the REAL issue is Obama. These are the xenophobes and racists who desperately fear THE OTHER, that which is different (or perceived by them to be different).

If Obama stood before them under the noon-day sun and commented on the great day, they would rise up with their brooms & pitchforks to insist that it was night.

And, for those horrified that a bill might pass without it being read in full by each member voting, note that virtually nobody read the USA PATRIOT Act (by design), which arguably resulted in one of the most massive abominations in the history of legislation on more fronts than can be described in a short post here. (But which have been detailed quite nicely over the years by Salon and its contributors.)