I've read through everything the proBama folks are offering forth. I'm still getting nothing substantial. As others have said, he seems to be a Rorschach blot.

I don't really know what to make of it.

But I find myself wondering whether he has much choice, as a black man, to be anything but "hopeful," "bipartisan" and "unifying"?

I'm leaning Edwards, and I hear many say his "angry" populism won't wash nationally. Whatever we seem to really think, our national politics seems to demand a sunny optimism (remember Carter's great sin of positing a malaise vs. Morning in America.). I'm not sure an "angry black man" would be any more reassuring in a national campaign than an angry white man. Obama does have to project a primary persona that isn't threatening if he captures the nomination. It is a bit of a tightrope he has to walk.

Many are saying it's the same empty rhetoric employed by Bush, but remember, Bush did get "elected". Twice.

If, as it's suggested, my more specifics-oriented and clearly defined preference, Edwards, may not be able to leverage an Iowa win into a real shot at the nomination, I would hope that Obama, likely as he is to be the only alternative to Clinton, has a similar Trojan Horse strategy.

But in the meantime, I agree with Shapiro's point, as I've wondered all along what happened to the 2004 orator we saw at the Democratic convention. I'm just disappointed that Obama has seemed so befuddled at times. I expected, if not specifics, then real inspiration. It's one thing to be careful and calculating, but another to seem indistinct and uncertain. And my real fear is, of course, that both Clinton and Obama have too many presidential-race negatives, and that once again, we will have coalesced around candidates that we think are electable, but really aren't.

It's truly disappointing that substantial candidates like Dodd and Biden, and to a lesser extent, Edwards, have gotten such short shrift from the outset. (Sorry Kucinich fans, he's just too goofy...Americans in general will never elect a guy like him to be their avatar.) This turned into Clinton vs. Obama way too quickly for my tastes. The media may indeed shoulder most of the blame, but we've obviously abetted them.

What kind of idiot thinks this is less alluring than mowing the lawn? Certainly not a football fan.

Brady vs. Favre, 19-0 vs. a legend going out a la Elway. Perhaps the most machine-like efficiency in the NFL vs. the league's youngest and most surprising team. Two great offenses, two good defenses. However the story ends, it's destined to be a highlight of NFL lore.

The NFL couldn't ask for a better storyline. Moreover, the Packers have fans all over the country, and the Pats engender hatred, admiration, or both.

My cousin, a Cowboy fan, consoled himself by saying the loss yesterday didn't matter, because who wants to the be the Pats' sacrificial lamb.

But I'd rather my team be playing to win it all. Besides, as cool and efficient as the Pats have looked all year, I gotta think they're the ones who'll be feeling the pressure, will be prohibitive favorites, and the Packers will be in a no-lose situation. Remind anyone of the Broncos-Packers SB? Some folks have come close, none of them all that good. The Packers could soar, they could implode. The Patriots may be impervious to all challengers. Along with Dallas, however, the Pack is the one NFC team to show all year that it can score enough, as well as come up with big, and improbable plays and drives of the game-winning, never-say-die variety.

I think it would be a great game.

Who gives a fuck?

I'm already so sick of youtube. Talk about a mass wank.

Anyone who doesn't think the views are rooted in her childlike sexuality has his or her head up his or her ass. Not a judgment or condemnation, btw, just pointing out what seems painfully obvious.