MattZ

I'm not sure about that. Russert asked that question at a time when it was clear what the answer should have been. Bush's disconnect between brain and mouth certainly made the exchange even more unbelievable, but Russert asked the right question at the right time. And it should not go unmentioned that Bush has not given many interviews like that, but he gave one to Russert. So that had plenty to do with Russert, and the reach of his program. And, I was responding in part, to claims above that Russert let people off too easily. I'd argue that Russert didn't need to push the matter furthe

I strongly disagree with you. Russert's audience was smart enough to know when the point had been made. Your position strikes me as naive. Russert never needed to body slam an opponent and stand on top of him to prove a point. If that's what you are looking for, you weren't going to get it from Russert. But that doesn't mean that people who feel otherwise aren't making sense. Today's Meet the Press was very powerful. Forget about the politics and what this country has lost. What always struck me most about Russert was that he seemed to be a warm and caring person that loved his work a

holy hell. 58?!?! EDIT: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06132008/news/..._att_115384.htm

And I've still never made it more than 4:50 into that. Just tried again and just failed again.

Wouldn't it be considered a bad thing that these songs sound better stripped down? Don't get me wrong, if they sounded horrible stripped down, that would mean they were bad songs to begin with, which would certainly be worse. But if the songs sound so much better stripped down, isn't MMJ doing a disservice to those songs by dressing them up too much?

I hear you, and I understand what you are saying -- McDonald's is very good at convincing us we want to SuperSize our extra value meal for an additional $0.50 even though we don't necessarily want to do so. But at the same time, news programs on tv, and newspapers sold at the corner store, only make money one way. By selling ads and selling newspapers. Now, there's no way for me to know for certain, but I have to think that both tv programs and newspapers have done their research on what sells. Sadly, it appears that what we get is what sells. News organizations don't have any incentive

... and let's not forget that these news outlets and newspapers are giving the people what they want. Or, what they think they want. If people demanded serious news, wouldn't the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer be more popular? Fact is, people want what they are being given. Can we really blame the media? The media is in the business of selling ads. No matter how you slice it.

Sure, but do you think it is even possible to report "news" without a slant? Have you ever seen something happen with your own eyes and then read about in the paper the next day? I mean something newsworthy -- not a concert review or something like that. Things always get lost in translation and much of that is just the human element. The problem, in my eyes, is when networks intentionally slant their stories. Say what you will, but I just don't see the traditional "liberal" outlets doing that. The New York Times has said plenty of negative things about this Democratic Congress and just

Me too, but not at the end. I get choked up when the guy is talking about how when Moonlight Graham died they found all those blue hats in his office ... that he never got around to giving her.

And your kneejerk reaction to criticize debate instead of engaging in it has a rather Republican-esque tone to it. Bravo. Why don't you rebut the rebuttal, as Beltmann suggests?

Someone in a position of authority at Fannie Mae (chief executive) that is willing to accept the equivalent of kickbacks on a personal mortgage from Countrywide could be said to have bad judgment at the very least. But it's not even about whether he is, or isn't, in a position to select a good VP. It's about whether Obama wants to be connected to him in any way. The answer to that is a resounding No.

I generally find metacritic to be unhelpful for those reasons. The more reviews used, the more likely the opinions skew towards the average. My tastes ain't average.

Has anyone seen any sort of numbers on this Jim Johnson mortgage? What sort of "deal" did he get from Countrywide?

I hope Obama doesnt pick her for these exact reasons. You can't bring a new kind of politics to Washington if you hitch your ride to the Clinton truck. I say this as a recent Obama supporter that had once supported Hillary. I just think his whole platform will ring hollow if he picks her, and this might do more damage to him in the long run than not picking her will do.

Ok, but you aren't giving him any credit, let alone extra credit. The guy still hit 140 more home runs. Yes, Mantle was slowed by injuries, but that's part of his package.

Are you a Lakers fan? Or a Celtics hater? That could explain it.

over Mays?

Bonds is overrated. Everyone says he's the best of all-time and he's not even the best left fielder of all time.

No, I think you missed the point. The point is that this was never meant to be a solution to anything. The Dems knew they didnt have the votes to get the law passed. And Bush would have vetoed it if they did have the votes. So, this entire exercise was academic. The Dems knew they wouldn't be punishing or vilifying the oil companies. They were punishing and vilifying the Republicans. Again, in the context of whether this is a good or bad or inept Congress, I don't know which way this cuts.

That bill was proposed precisely so that it would fail (or the president would veto it). Dem strategy to paint the Republicans as the party of Big Oil. Of course, I am not sure which way that cuts in this argument.

Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie by Bob Dylan.

Those are different issues. And I agree with you on both. End the subsidies and close the tax loopholes for these companies. No argument from me there. But taxing windfall profits is a different beast and it requires someone to make a moral judgment about how much money is too much money for a company to make. It's a slippery slope. Obama says he will use the tax revenue generated to research alternative energy options, but why should Exxon be responsible for funding research into alternative energy sources? The government has plenty of ways to encourage research of this nature -- offer

I hate to say it, but I agree. Imposing a moral judgment on whether certain companies are making too much money, and then taxing their windfalls, is a slippery slope.