I just don't get this "If Obama is the nominee, we'll lose" argument. Is it just one of those things that if you repeat it enough times, you start to believe it? The polls don't show it, unless you believe Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, and we all know they'd never lie, and common sense doesn't show it.

John McCain is weaker than Bob Dole. He's dead wrong on every issue Americans care about. He's tied himself to the losing wagon of GWB - on the war, on the economy, one civil rights.

Both Obama and Clinton would have no problems beating the snot out of this guy.

It's time to rally around our nominee and crush the Republicans. Just because your candidate has been saying she's by far the better choice doesn't mean that you can't take a deep breath, "think for a minute" and get behind our candidate for the General.

The three times a year I disagree with KK, I have to write about it.

I don't buy the argument that this is some kind of rigged system to screw the little guys. I know King has the "yay little schools" thing going on (and on and on and on) but the fact is that if a program like Miami, Florida's football team can achieve an impressively high APR (they were in the top ten along with the usual suspects of Duke, Navy, Stanford, Air Force, BC, ND, etc.), then so can the women's volleyball program at Alabama State.

This report, if anything, tells me that the NCAA is committed to the academic best interests of athletes even if turning a blind eye would let it fly under the radar.

The inclusion of the Kansas Jayhawk's Men's hoops program - the one that just one the National Championship last month - shows that they're not letting people off the hook just because they're one of the "big boys."

The reason there's so few of the "big names" on the list is precisely because those schools have recognized the importance of compliance and - as you have pointed out - put their resources into getting kids to graduate.

This is ~exactly~ what this reform hoped to do. Hopefully 0% graduation rates will become an historical oddity rather than the norm.

And if Eastern Little School State thinks that they can fly under the radar and get away with shortchanging their athletes, then good for the NCAA for penalizing them (aka "sending a strongly worded letter.") They should follow the example of the big schools and monitor their athlete's educational progress. And while the big revenue programs can hire tutors and the like, it's still pretty much free to go to class and do your homework.

Sorry I didn't see your response till this morning regarding my suggestion of John Kitzhaber.

yes, there's always the risk of anything from Oregon being marginalized as kooky, but part of John Kitzhaber's success is that he had wide appeal to not just the Portland-Salem-Eugene corridor (we of the latte-sipping, volvo-driving, elitist, liberal freak-show) but also to the Pendleton Round-Up crowd. (there's alittle Blue pocket in the NW corner of the state surrounded by a bunch of Red.)

Those cowboy boots are for real, and I don't know if you could convince him to wear an actual necktie to a VP debate or an inauguration.

Thanks for your insight into John Kitzhaber's current thinking.

I think he'd be a very popular addition to the Obama ticket with the general electorate, but I admit knowing very little as to what it would take to get him to run. I know he's turned down the opportunity to obliterate Gordon Smith and take his Senate seat, but wouldn't Vice president be... more tempting?

And I agree that he'd also be a fantastic choice for Surgeon General or Sec. of the Interior.

Hmm... I think my subject line is the entire point I wanted to make. No wait...

Come on guys, if you can't find affection in your life, go to the gym. Take a class. Make yourself more interesting to women.

Buying pretend affection from someone who has zero respect for you makes you ~pathetic~.

Rapist? Depends on the circumstances. Pathetic? Abso-freakin-lutely.

... and I've been picking Hillary apart for months, but I think she just misspoke. The juxtaposition was unfortunate, but I don't think she was trying to say that white folks are hard working and black folks aren't. You'd have to be incredibly cynical to assert that's what she meant.

I seriously doubt Barack Obama would assert that that's what she meant.

More than anything, now's the time to be coming together. The nit-pickery over misstatements and other distractions from the real issues should be over. Like yesterday.

You know, I think the Scorpions are crap, and just the title of their album, beyond the image you described (and I don't want to see), prove that they were completely misogynist piles of scum...

But we've had enough censors in this country saying things have no artistic merit (and therefore denied free-speech protection) simply because it's art the censor doesn't like or finds offensive. If everyone agreed with it, it wouldn't need protection from the censors now, would it?

A true civil libertarian knows that we need to protect (legally protect, that is. Mock it all you like) speech that we find offensive. The anti-dote to offensive speech is more speech. And let's face it, more people are reading Broadsheet these days than listening to forgotten 70's crap metal.

That article headline was utterly hilarious, and no way in hell I'll drink a pink wine. My disgust with pink wine (and for that matter, the color pink) in no way reflects negatively on either my masculinity nor my feminist cred. Summertime lends itself well to G&T's, Ales, margaritas and any number of other crisp, refreshing drinks without resorting to drinking something that's frelling pink.

D.T.M.F.A.