What's so difficult to comprehend is that this seems so obvious to everyone but the candidates, and the Democrats in general (along with their inept consultants).

As is pointed out, if you show that you're willing to drop the gloves, people think well of you: You stand up for yourself. You have to be willing to fight for what you believe in. That's the American ethos. You can lead America if Americans believe you'll stand up and fight. Think "Shane." You can be reluctant, but there's a point where you just have to fight.

I, for one, couldn't believe Kerry just didn't just launch into Bush in the debates at the first opportunity (a fantasy moment follows):

"Since there seems to be some doubt, Mr. President, let me point out to you here in front of the American people the indisputable facts about my service: I volunteered for Vietnam; I volunteered for combat; I looked out for my men and I met and killed the enemy face to face. Can you say that? You did have the same chance to fight for this country, didn't you, sir? But when the chips were down, where were you? You chose to hide, and I do indeed mean hide, and then had the nerve to go AWOL to play politics once you were safe. You couldn't even be bothered to complete the commitment you made to avoid figthing.

But you sure supported that war. You just thought it was worth other people's lives, but not yours. I dare you to look me in the eye and lecture me about character and leadership, George. Perhaps you can point out where you've been tough rather than talked tough, because looking back on your resume, I can't seem to find one. Maybe there's something in all those missing records.

What I do know is that if you had any real backbone you'd attack my service to my face. But once again, though, you've chosen to let other people fight your battles for you. And frankly, sir, that reeks of cowardice.

I am fed up with being insulted by cowards, and fed up with them pontificating about leadership and courage when they have flat-out lied to the American people, then sent her finest to die—yet never demonstrated the courage of their own so-called convictions. That anyone who has never faced a shot fired in anger can stand by and allow his surrogates to attack a combat veteran's service in a desperate attempt to hide his own shortcomings is something I don't think many Americans will respect at the end of the day. I fought and I killed for this country shoulder to shoulder with the finest men I've ever met. I've been under fire, and I acquitted myself with honor. Which means I know a damn sight more about myself, and about war and courage and leadership than you ever will."

Naturally, the rant would've run long, leaving Kerry to raise his voice and stampede over the moderator in righteous indignation on a point of principle. What would have been the only story after a broadside like that? What clip would've been replayed over and over?

I would have salivated at the prospect of actually getting to call out the Chimp on national TV with the freaking jerk standing 10 feet away, looking stupid, petulant, annoyed and busted.

As Glen Greenwald has been pointing out tirelessly, the Democrats' and the pundits' 'conventional wisdom' on this is all wrong. Americans want to see someone stand up and fight, not calculate. Why is that so damned hard to understand?

Clinton wasn't running in 2000, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from running against him for eight years.

Westen's point is that making the election about Bush is a winning strategy, because it appeals to the visceral dislike/distrust the nation has developed toward him. Take a page from the Republican playbook and associate the candidates with Bush as much and as early as possible.

...but here I go.

Joan, you're an idiot if you think lists based on race aren't likely to offend. I declined to read the article on that basis alone. I do have a sense of humor, I think, but I suspect claims of silly fun or baseball-centric, list-making mania are just a tad disingenuous.

More important, who the fuck cares?

What I would actually like to know is what's really going through peoples' minds in response without de rigeur self-censorship.

As someone of Native American descent, I'd be just as disinterested in seeing a similar list regarding us Injuns, even though I'd be willing to wager that whatever makes Jewish success in any given arena notable would similarly apply to redskins.

After all, aren't we both notable for being the victims of attempted genocide, or stereotyping and discrimination? Or are there some other criteria for list-worthy exceptionalism?

Oh, and someone said, "Hey, there's an Alaskan Hall of Fame!" Whether Judaism is racial or religious or both, it's a faulty comparison. Being "Alaskan" is based neither on race nor religion, but simple geography.

College football isn't perfect, but it ain't exactly broken, either. I'll be driving from Denver to OKC on Friday to take my son to see OU play Miami in Norman. And we'll be having a helluva time.

After Boise St., I'll be laughing at Michigan and thanking them for a long, long time. Things might not have changed all that much, but in a world where change is a constant, maybe that's not all bad. My CSU buddies are just as passionate about their Rams as I am about my Sooners, even though CSU will never win squat. God bless 'em.

Teams with different expectations have different goals. The big guys..well, they've written the story, haven't they? And it's not been a bad 100 years. If the Packers and Bears get five warm-up games, why shouldn't OU have a couple?