He's been a wild card for years and years. He's really more of an independent than a democrat.

... you're telling the truth.

Not only do I not see anything wrong with Biden's statement, but isn't it exactly what the GOP (Cantor et al) is already saying?

Where's the news here? I don't get it.

• Do I hate myself?
  No
  
• Do I feel other liberals hate me because I'm a White Southern Male?
  No
  
• Do I feel other Southern White Males hate me becuase I'm liberal?
  YOU BET I DO!

My volume - "The Gay Herman Melville Reader" - has entirely disappeared from amazon.com

I find this offensive... it's about Herman Melville for goodness sake. It's hardly porn.

Wingnut writes: During the campaign the MSM refrained from examining in real detail the relationship between Barack Obama, then a U.S. senator, and William Ayers.

Really? Wow I guess that why none of us have ever heard about Bill Ayers... Because "the media" ignored it... Oh wait, back here in reality we have ALL heard of Bill Ayers. I guess that's because the media DIDN'T ignore it, eh?

And claiming McCain lost because of the lobbyist affair innuendo? ... Really? You think THAT'S why he lost? Not because he bungled responding to the economic crisis?

It's policy, not "Dancing with the Stars". It's not supposed to be "entertaining."

This is like complaining that spinach doesn't taste as good as ice cream.

I think you meant "non-contiguous"

Hmm... The photo you posted does indeed have a B on her right cheek... but the B is backwards?

Is the photo backwards and the story meant to say left rather than right? Because the B looks like it would as if one is looking in a mirror....

I voted (absentee) two weeks ago. I think your concerns about early voting are misplaced. Given the huge crowds expected election day, and the recurring problem of people's right to vote being challenged on that day when it is too late to fix anything -- early voting is a great way to ensure your vote is cast and counted properly.

In the turbulent days of September 1929, the market was buoyed by talk of 'organized intervention' to prop up the market. By mid-October, the efforts of multi-millionaires to prop up the market were abandoned, and the market went into free-fall. There were days when it lost as much as 10% of its value in a day.

After a few months, some sticks were worth 10% (or less) of their peak value.

And just now, the 'organized government intervention' proposed by Paulson has failed. I understand the populist outcry against it, but I fail to see a better alternative.

The only remaining question is this. Is this more like 1987, or 1929?

If McCain does announce on Thursday, his choice will be on the newscrawl at the bottom of all the news networks (that of course doesn't include Fox; they're an opinion network) while they focus on the thousands of screaming Democrats cheering Obama's speech. It's a sure way to guarentee no bounce from the choice.

If this is McCain's idea of an honorable campaign, we need to defeat him soundly.

No, I think McCain is deliberately floating these "pro-choice" possibilities to enhance his "mavarick" image with independants.

In the end, he'll pick Romney.

To be sure these rumors worry the Rush Limbaughs and the hard-core conservatives but this move allows McCain to select Romney without alienating the Christian base ("he may be a Mormon but at least he's not pro-choice").

I think you meant 08.14.06, not 08

There's some rumblings around the web about the story McCain told about a cross in the sand: evidently McCain told a different version in 2000 in Virginia Beach (as recounted in the New York Times Feb 29 2000); it didn't happen to him, it happened to someone else.

Since then. when McCain tells the story, it's sometimes a foot, sometimes a sandal, or sometimes a stick that draws the cross.

Then there's the fact that the same story appears in Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipeligo.'

Is this a "Hillary sniper-fire" moment for McCain?

>>Separation of church and state - this is not in the Constitution.

It was clearly the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The phrase after all comes from Jefferson's writings. Then there's the Treaty of Tripoli: Congress ratified without dissent a treaty proclaiming that America is not a Christian Nation.

As far as when human life begins, I find you're not being intellectually consistent. You find that human life begins at conception rather than the historical view that life begins at birth. If you're looking backwards, why stop at conception? Are not eggs "alive" just as much as embryos? Are not sperm cells alive? Why not criminalize masturbation?, it is a violation of the Biblical sins of Onan after all.

Face it, the historical definition of the beginning of life is birth: People celebrate their birth days, not their conception days. I would granted that a fetus in the 3rd trimester is close to being a human being. This is why the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade (wisely in my opinion) that stikes a balance as to when abortions can be legal.

You know, the one that was a hit for the Pointer Sisters circa 1974?

That said, I have a hard time believing EITHER candidate took the time to answer a question on pop music from "blender.com" or that either candidate actually provided these particular answers.

Is salon really sure this is legit?

(The link to fark.com on the blender.com site would seem to indicate it really isn't.)

How did we go from "we don't really know anything about him" last week to "I'm so bored with him" this week?

OK, now you botched it. 'Whom' was correct, but awkward. 'Who' is incorrect/

Rule of thumb: if you can use 'he' it's 'who; if you can use 'him', it's 'whom'

I'm voting for HIM not HE.