MAYBERRY Machiavellis? What does Mayberry have to do with this? I know Blumenthal is quoting somebody else’s characterization, but what the hell does it really mean? On the one hand, the residents of Andy Griffith’s fictional town were totally honest and above board, so it doesn’t fit on that level. So I suppose it’s a reference to the fact that Bush and Rove aren’t ‘big city boys’ but have a more rural background, or at least are from a more rural state? And overall it seems a way of adding extra criticism to them – they aren’t only scheming, slimy politicians, but – even worse! – country bumpkins from the South! In an otherwise well written article, I don't know what this regional slur is supposed to accomplish. If Bush and Rove happened to be African-American, would he call them “Nappy-headed Machiavellis…?”

With 20/20 hindsight - why didn't we see something key about the Patriots? - they were really two teams. The first team peaked Week 11 with a blowout of the Bills. Up to this point, they were one of the great teams in NFL history - they had played only one close game, against the Colts, and that one was understandable, the Colts being defending Super Bowl champs and one of the NFL's best teams. However, the week after Buffalo, they played the Eagles, and this introduced us to the Patriots, Pt. 2. Now we had a Patriot team that did just enough to win, and looked in danger of losing almost every game. This team had one thoroughly impressive game, the victory over the Steelers (I don't count the 28-7 victory over the Dolphins). This team was resourceful, and tough, and scrappy, but were clearly not "the best team in NFL history." And last night they proved it.

I had seen that this poll had the race even, so I looked at their site - then I saw how the voting broke down demographically - all the breakdowns seem plausible except....among 18-24 year olds, McCain had 74% while Obama had 24%!!! So, I kind of doubt the reliability - or even base-line sanity - of this poll.

Ayers always says that nobody was ever intentionally hurt by a Weather Underground bomb, that the bombs set off were only symbolic acts of vandalism, not terrorism. But clearly, these people were saved from being Timothy McVeigh-type terrorists only by their incompetence. Because the bomb in the NY townhouse that killed three Weather people was not meant as property vandalism - it was meant to be exploded at a soldier's dance in New Jersey - the object being to kill as many soldiers (and their dates!) as possible. After they killed themselves with this bomb, the remaining Weather Underground, to their credit I suppose, re-evaluated their approach, and at THAT point decided to only bomb buildings. But to say their intention was never to kill people is just not true. Why doesn't anybody ask Ayers directly about this?