That the Buffy Kristy Swanson played was just learning about being the slayer. The Buffy Sarah Michelle Geller played had already been through everything in the movie and so wasn't going to be just "a cheerleader fighting vampires" any longer.

That said, I think I agree that in many ways I like the movie more than the TV show though I, like you, am a fan of both.

As for Dollhouse; Whedon has earned a couple of hours of my time (well, a little less with TiVo) for any new series he puts out so I'll be watching at least the first couple of episodes. Over at i09.com there is a bit of chatter that the pilot isn't very good but the second episode is excellent. (I have no clear idea who the people who have already gotten a look at both are or how they got a look at them though I think the first episode was aired at a comics convention.)

It would really be far more appropriate to write "often lethal" or something similar rather than simply sentence her to death.

If it hasn't been certified, then it would seem that Minnesota hasn't declared a winner. In that case, I don't see how one can reasonably argue that there is an elected Senator who should be seated.

If Franken had been declared the winner and there were still pending legal challenges, that would be different. In that case, you proceed with Franken as the Senator until someone says otherwise. If it hasn't been determined yet, how do you move forward with seating someone? Is there a mechanism for that? Is it simply up to the sitting Senators to decide who to seat?

I do agree with those who have commented that they'd like to see Reid for the Republicans' hand simply for the sake of standing up and wielding some power and authority. But on this issue, I'm not sure he'd be in the right on it, so to speak.

While it may be an interesting read and certainly has something to offer about transitions of power and authority; I don't see the parallels given what you describe. A change in party, decisive victory in an election, overwhelming public approval at the moment (granted, that can/will change very quickly once things actually have to happen) and a full transition period make this entirely unlike Ford's assumption of the Presidency.

Yes, Obama will have to figure things out on the fly, as have all of the Presidents who started their first terms.

It's a reasonable idea, I guess, to look at "31 Days" and see if there is something to draw from it; but, in this case I think you've missed the mark.

Which issue exactly? The issue of the fact that Obama's not president until he's inaugurated? Is that an issue?

"He's got to remedy that situation."

I really hope you simply didn't note the dripping sarcasm that must have been evident in Frank's tone. In fact, I'm going to just believe that and move on with my day.

Love the hide a squirrel especially.

What a lovely and condescending headline. Congratulations.

It has become difficult to tell the difference again.

This growing list of things you think unworthy and wish to gloat about for some reason is fascinating, really, but perhaps it would be better if we could have a different place to post otherwise useless, uninformative, unhelpful (and juvenile) items.

This list does what? How did you determine who should be on the list or what the list means?

Honestly isn't part of what we've been subjected to over the last 8 years (and in some ways, last 20 years) too much of this sandbox level crap? If you think there's reasonable discussion of what may happen to some people's careers or something then have it. Otherwise, a witty little list of "winners and losers" that offers nothing only serves to maintain exactly the status quo that so many of us have been hoping to change.

Stay classy.

tcandew - the bit you provide from an earlier Koppelman post actually supports his posting the SNL clip. He wrote that Kucinich's actions weren't news by mainstream media standards but that he covered it on Salon because he felt his readers were interested. The precedent, then, is that Koppelman will post things he thinks newsworthy _and_ post things he thinks his readers might find interesting. At least in that post, he didn't set himself to post only newsworthy items.

Donohue's comment about witchcraft being a sad reality likely has to do with his view that the belief in witchcraft is a sad reality, just as belief in anything other than Catholocism is a sad reality for him. His answer, within the church's belief structure is entirely reasonable.

Should campaign spokespeople avoid saying that their candidate is seeking a "final solution?"