Run, Cindy, run! Of course, it was a comedy of errors:
The collection of signatures by Sheehan's campaign was more exciting than usual. On Wednesday, the campaign was well short of the 10,198 signatures needed to get on the ballot after San Francisco elections officials found that more than 40 percent of the people who signed weren't registered in the city's Eighth Congressional District.
Forty percent. Wow. That seems like a pretty high rejection rate.
“Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino,” Lili Haydn wrote in the Huffington Post. “Couples all over America are making love again and shouting ‘Yes we can’ as they climax.”
I know he did an excellent job with Unfit for Command. But he's an awful person to put forward the anti-Obama case. This gives you just a hint as to why conservatives should be very wary about promoting him or his new book, Obama Nation (great title, by the way).
v. trans. take a damaging true story and preemptively leak it to a reporter with enough bogus details stirred in to discredit the reporter and the story itself.
How odd that both presidential candidates chose to incarnate in the month of August, though of different sign lineage? How odd is it that both candidates have planets at corresponding degrees in the sign of Virgo and right now both candidates reap the benefits/hazards of a megadose of Virgo planets above?
I honestly don't know what to make of the deal. Maybe it is time for Pennington to accept the demotion to backup; it worked out for Jim McMahon who went from constantly injured as a starter to a guy you could depend on to win games as a backup.
I was an early bandwagon guy for Favre; in 1993 I bought up every card of his that I could find. I even have several of his awful Atlanta cards, where he's just on a headset on the bench talking to coaches. Like everybody else I wonder whether he's going to be the Brett Favre of 2007 or the Brett Favre of 2006.
Great, great player who didn't quite put together the career anybody would have projected for him after that first Super Bowl. I'm amazed that he didn't win three or four. He became the Peyton Manning of the 1990s instead of the Tom Brady.
Where does he rank? I'd put him in the inner ranks of the Hall of Famers, but inevitably there comes a bar because of the championships. Are you really going to rank him ahead of Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas or Bart Starr or Joe Montana? On the other hand, he's clearly ahead of all the great passers who never quite won one: Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Fran Tarkenton, Sonny Jurgensen, Kenny Anderson (who should be in the Hall, that's a ridiculous mistake).
It's the other guys, who did win championships who it will be tough to slot Favre against. Troy Aikman? Terry Bradshaw?
Tools? Greatest arm I ever saw. And I saw Sonny Jurgensen throwing spirals behind his back for 40 yards. Favre was the only guy who could complete that run left throw right pass and put authority on the ball. Unfortunately, as everybody saw, he trusted his arm sometimes too much, getting a ridiculous number of interceptions in the low-int era.
He must be considered about average as a runner--way above the slug Marino of course, and well below Elway. I don't think anybody would classify him as a particularly heady player. Alert, certainly.
And, invincible. That is the #1 thing I would associate with Favre. The guy is just the proverbial immovable object, and this was something that was very much remarked on him even in college. He was famously almost killed in an automobile accident in August of his senior year; in early September he led Southern Miss to an upset win over Alabama. He has never missed a game since he first started for the Packers almost 16 years ago.
I didn't get more than a sentence or two into this post before the laughter overcame me:
I'm not sure this will work but it's worth a try. During the primaries, it felt as if the voters were often controlling the campaign. Especially with Obama and Ron Paul, the pampered professionals were out-messaged, out-Youtubed and out-organized by legions of amateurs.
Andrew is still telling himself that Ron Paul had voters? Look, I can imagine how that was defensible in January, with the Ronulans winning every internet poll in sight, but there comes a point where you realize it was all an illusion.
What I'm thinking of is a Dish Youtube contest to come up with the least fair, most effective negative ads for both sides. The technology is widely available for making your own 30-second negative spots, and it's good therapy. So let's flood the zone. I know it sounds cynical, but in fact, it's the opposite. If we can put out the most damning attacks on Obama and McCain we can, it could help dilute the nasty noise from the party establishments, expose the mechanisms of smears and take the wind out of the sails of the pros.
Errr, can't we sort of rely on MoveOn and the Republican 527s to furnish those sorts of ads?
In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.
While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.
There is a word for candidates who say they're going to bring lots of new voters to the polls: Losers.
Really though, the issue here is quite plain. Obama can't close the deal. He's foolishly been trying to run out the clock with three months left before the election. The whole bit with him refusing to the townhall-type meetings and insisting that three debates would be plenty is a classic tactic of the candidate with an unassailable lead.
But Obama doesn't have that. Indeed, his numbers at InTrade have slipped quite substantially over the last couple of weeks as folks over there have finally accepted that he's not going to pull away and win this thing easily.
McCain's still got some work to do himself. But the good news is that Obamania, like all fads, is starting to wear thin.
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told donors at a Boston fundraiser for Barack Obama Monday night that John McCain is "dangerous" for the direction of the country.
Kerry listed Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea as examples of foreign policy issues that he believes Obama has had more foresight on than McCain. He also noted that even the Bush administration has fallen in sync with Obama on several positions recently.
We're told that Obama is "post-racial," but he invokes his own race whenever convenient (e.g., to suggest his opponents are racists, to win support of people who want to vote for him on account of his race). Indeed, the very idea that Obama is post-racial is postmodern claptrap, since only a black candidate can be post-racial, right? No one would say John McCain transcends race. If being post-racial is something only a (liberal) black politician can do, what is "post" about it? Post-racial is just another convenient term used to advance a left-wing agenda under the guise of some highfalutin buzzwords.
They really played the arugula card? For all McCain's personal qualities, we're learning that the machine behind the GOP simply re-makes the campaign in its own Coulterite image. Instead of actually fighting on the core questions - how do we get out of Iraq with the least damage?
Translation: I thought they were going to make my guy look really neat and hip to the latest trends in arugula. Little did I know they were going to make him look like George Michael outside the local fruitatorium.
