McCain did indeed turn in one of the most disappointing performances of his political life this past Sunday. But as several posters have noted, it merely served to encapsulate what became painfully obvious during the 2004 campaign.

He sucked up to Bush despite being bitch-slapped royally in the 2000 primary. He "sort of" spoke out in support of Kerry's war record, but refused to call out the cowards who were behind the smears, just as he had refused to stand up for himself in 2000.

Many Democrats have in the past taken the position that McCain would be better than most other Republican presidential candidates. This is, of couse, like saying shooting yourself in the balls is better than shooting yourself in the head. While obvious, you certainly wouldn't like either very much, though you might-barely-survive the former.

Many Democrats also have been less than thrilled with their own candidates of late, which likely gave rise to some of the affection for McCain (or was it merely because he pissed off so many of the Bushies?).

One of the things Democrats have to get better at is coming out in strength for their own nominee, even if he/she was not their preference in the primary, and in fact may not be very attractive to them at all. The Republicans did this in 2000, and again in 2004. Many who I spoke with had no great love for Bush, but held their nose and marched to the polls because they thought the Democratic alternative was unbearable.

Part of the Democrats' problem, at least as far as the more progressive wing of the party is concerned, is that progressives don't care much for politics. Alas, it is politics -- which today means raising gobs of money, standing on stage with people you don't really like very much, and being willing to throw a rhetorical punch with relish -- which enables one to be in a position to govern.

I suspect that some saw McCain's earlier incarnation as embodying a bit of what we wish our own candidates had, and viewed him as a tolerable alternative because he was not a foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary. Well, the time has come to abandon any hope that McCain can do any good for the country, just as surely as he could never have done much for progressive causes.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

Justice Scalia, for all his supposed jurisprudential "genius," obviously missed a class or two in law school. Particularly the ones involving ethics. I seem to remember once or twice a professor noting that the judge shouldn't be an advocate for anything but the unbiased application of the law to the facts. If the learned Justice wants to be an advocate for his now well known political views, he should step down from the court. Alternatively, he should shut his damn mouth. His written opinions are bad enough, we don't need to, and shouldn't, hear his pronouncements in other venues, too.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

One reader has already touched on the head/heart dichotomy of tournament picking/viewing. I just want to add that this is one of the absolute joys of the tourney, and something all too rare in real life: a genuine win-win! If UConn wins, I picked right and notch another W. If GMU wins, I lose the pick, but my god what a great freakin' sports moment I just saw! If you're just a gambling fan, I guess you've got a problem here, but if you're a sports fan who also happens to be in a pool . . . . Well, I'm guessing I'm not the only one often rooting against my own picks at the end of a lot of games.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

Even better in the same interview was the Veep's response to a question regarding what some perceive as a certain fatigue factor in the administration: it reminded him of his days as chief of staff for President Ford thirty years ago, and how all administrations have "peaks and valleys." Wow. When the best you can compare yourself to is the Ford Administration (all whopping 29 months of it), perhaps you really do need a break!

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

Regarding the oft-made observation that a conference team's win in the tourney validates the conference. You disagreed. I'm with you on that. So is Clark Kellogg, who made the point repeatedly in the studio.

As to your happiness with CBS, two caveats. First, with no sister-nets to spin to, we are stuck with what the local affiliate gives us and what the network decides it cuts into. I miss the days when ESPN would telecast every single game. Admittedly, some were on tape delay in the middle of the night, but if you really wanted to see a game, or every game, you could. Second, once a game was in the can, CBS darn near forgot it ever existed. There was lots of "upcoming games" listed in the crawl at the bottom, and all the current games were updated at the top, but it was hard to get results of already-played games if you came in late.

Otherwise, your point about the coverage of the game at hand is right on.

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

Can it be possible that Canadian baseball got better just by shipping the Expos out of the country a year ago?