Isn't there supposed to be some relationship involving which league wins the World Series in a presidential election year and the outcome of the election? I have a vague impression of having seen that somewhere, but I'm just not certain, and I don't know which way it would work. Anybody know any more about this?

For heaven's sake it's only three days before the election! At the time she made her controversial comments I felt Ferraro was way out of line. And now that the bitterness from the primary battles does seem to have been pretty much healed (much of it by Hillary herself through her conduct at the convention and in her campaigning for Obama) Ferraro's statement is pretty much worthless. She should have said something when Hillary called on her supporters to get behind the ticket.

You throw out a great many accusations against Obama and demand proof that they are not true. However, in mamy cases it's virtually impossible to prove a negative...that something is NOT the case. The fact of the matter is that when you're going to make an accusation THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!

Hackenbush is right about Iowa. The margins in this state in both of the last two presidential elections were very close. Our Demmocratic Senator Harkin is up for reelection, and I have hardly been aware of any campaigning at all on the part of his Republican opponent. And my decidedly progressive Representative Braley doesn't seem to have much opposition either. I look forward to seeing my state counted in Obama's column this time around.

A Supreme Court spot for Hillary does sound like a tempting idea, however, I've heard her say in an interview just within the last couple of days that she has no interest in that.

It was a representative from the Obama campaign who took my application for an absentee ballot and turned it in. I received it in the mail and have filled it out and sent it in. Several nights ago a received a call from the local REPUBLICAN organization. Somehow I had gotten on their list of people from their party who had received an absentee ballot and the lady wanted to ask if I had returned it. I politely but firmly set her straight that I am definitely NOT a Republican. I have no idea how I got on their list. I am in fact registered as a Democrat, as clearly indicated on the new copy of my voter registratin card I recently received. It just goes to confirm that lists such as these can easily get mixed up. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

I'll be watching the returns with a good friend of mine who has a large screen TV. She and I think very much alike with regard to politics. We plan to send out for some pizza.

Love the code names Radiance and Rosebud for the girls. They absolutely suit two such lovely and charming young ladies.

Renaissance seems apt for Michelle too. as she appears to be a good example of a woman who manages to do it all.

Im not so sure about Renegade for Barack.

I really hope you're right about Al Franken pulling out the victory in the Minnesota Senate race. Not only do I want the Democratic majority to be as strong as possible, but I believe he would be a very refreshing voice in Washington.

All the talk about sixty being some kind of magic mumber assumes that all members of both parties will vote alonfg strict party lines. Now it's true that under the Bush/CHENEY administration the Republicans did pretty much stay in lock step, especially in blocking the proposals of the new Democratic majority since the 2006 elections. But without that pressure from the White House, with an even larger Democratic majority and with an electorate that is looking for the agenda of change to be carried through and would not look kindly on obstructionism, to what degree will that still be the case? Surely there are at least a few Republicans who might be persuaded to cross party lines on significant issues, rather than be seen as preventing the measures that the new administration deems necessary to confront the economic crisis, among other things.

That's rest in PEACE, Andrew.

Let me speak up in defense of Joan's use of the erm "disgraced current occupant" to refer to Bush. For me, a person is disgraced by actions that lead to ill repute, regardless of whether amy kind of formal sanction, legal or otherwise, is involved. As far as I'm concerned Bush is in fact thoroughly disgraced by his utter incompetence and by his lack of real concern for anyone except his buddies in the corporate elite (despite his empty rhetoric of "compassion").

No historical distance is going to change the undeniable facts which we are already aware of with regard to Bush's actions and the state in which he is leaving this country. It isn't going to take decades to decide that Bush is disgraced. That's a simple truth which is clearly evident to anyone who doesn't refuse to see it. Sorry.

Wrong diagnosis. It's not Bush Derangement Syndrome. I didn't start out with negative attitudes toward Bush. My opinion has developed from rational observation of his policies and their effects over the course of his entire administration. Seriously, how can anyone look at the state of our economy and our position in the world, not to mention the erosion of those constitutionally guaranteed liberties on which we pride oirselves and not see the incalculable damage that this man and his cronies have done? Willful blindness seems to be the only explanation.

I'm wondering what's going to happen to the guy who threw the shoes.