MattZ

I know there is lingering bad blood between Bragg and the band, but that seems particularly harsh of Jeff to be saying all these years later. Jeff seems to be in such a good place with the current version of Wilco that I'd think he couldn't be bothered to get up the effort to slam Bragg any more. Been there, done that, no?

This is a sad day for NYers. Turns out 70% of the people can be wrong. I don't think that our politicians have to be angels, but jeezus christ, expecting them to follow the law just shouldn't be too much to ask. Knowing that the fat cats and big wigs in NY are celebrating and popping champagne over this makes it all the more difficult to swallow.

Hofner bass in #38?

It's over.

You just blew my f*cking mind.

Can some of you White Sox fans (or anyone else) give me some free advice about Alexei Ramirez? I am thinking of taking a chance on him in my auction keeper league -- the problem is that we cannot drop players before the all-star break (unless they are injured or sent to the minors) and our auction is this Saturday. So, if he makes the team as a backup he could be a painful hole in my lineup. I am reading about how he is tearing up Spring Training and is the darkhorse to win the 2b job... Any thoughts? I am hoping to steal him for a couple of bucks on Saturday. He may be flying below the r

I think there may be some larger lessons here given the Spitzer fiasco in NY. What is happening now in NY is certainly relevant to any discussion about "change" in politics. Spitzer roared into office with a 70% mandate. And since day one in office, he has been blocked by the Republicans in the state senate and has been able to accomplish very little. And now he is being taken down. Now, don't get me wrong -- it appears that Spitzer is a clown who is guilty of hubris (and possibly, of breaking the law), but he also pissed off a lot of people in a lot of high places as Attorney General

and feet. Not even close.

They didnt go into much detail about what happened to Gus. I assume he just got demoted? And the guy who wrote the piece on Bubs became the city editor?

Of course, but still, he said his stance was not all that different than Bush's. He could have said there weren't enough troops, or he's worried about no exit strategy. He could have stood up and continued to say that he was opposed to the war, no? The issue is certainly muddy - but if it's muddy why say you are similar to Bush? Why not just say you oppose the war, you support the troops. End of story?

Ok, but it wasn't just a decision to stay once we were there. There were decisions about how to conduct the war too, right? Troop levels? Plans to get out? The snippet is taken out of context but I wonder what he meant... What about the chaos if we leave now? Is that a contradiction? Who knows? The quote is taken out of context - I dont know what he's referring to... Elections? Troop levels? Political hedging? Seriously - this horse is dead. I just wanted to post that quote since I didn't find it yesterday. I will reiterate that I'm happy with BO in the White House -- I

I agree that my memory was of him saying "I completely stand behind the president" and that's not quite what he said. But you aren't going to at least give me a tad of an acknowledgment? This is back in 2004. And my original point was that it is disingenuous for BO to say he's been against the war from the beginning. This reads to me like a guy who opposed the war, saw the war was going well, and wanted to hedge for political reasons. Now, he's campaigning as the guy who's been against the war all along... No matter how you slice it, if he acknowledges in 2004 that there's not much of a

Ask and ye shall receive: In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said,

As someone who used to suffer from (thankfully rare, but) debilitating migraines, and as someone who knows very well the vicious cycle of actively trying to avoid them but bringing them on by doing so, that article hit home pretty hard. Not sure why, but I got choked up at the end. And now all I can think about is: This world of words and meanings makes you feel outside Something that you feel already deep inside You

As an homage to your title, I went with the plainest one possible since there was no way I could compete. True story.

Sure, but many recent criticisms of the Clintons tend to resort to buzz words like "triangulation" and to me that's just part of what a pol needs to do to get things done in DC. And what Obama will need to do also. I think we agree there. With 4 more years in the Senate we'd have more evidence of whether Obama really was able to bring people together or whether he'd start to listen to his advisors who tell him he's too "liberal" or too "soft on terror" and whether he'd morph into a more "electable" candidate. I admire your passion and your willingness to go back and forth with me on this

I agree with that, Beltmann, but only to a point. Voting to stop the funding of an existing war is also an incredibly unpopular move politically for someone in Congress with a view to run for President. That can't be denied. And I know Hillary voted for funding too -- I don't say that to say she's different. More to say that they're pretty much the same. And that political repurcussions go into these decisions as much as anything. At the end of the day, the troops (and their funding) should never be the pawns by which Congress fights over how to end a war, but some Senators did vote ag

... looks like I got the last word in that other thread. Not sure why it was closed, but I will take it.

Ok, sure, but then 4 years from now you are going to have a list of issues that Obama campaigned on, and a list of achievements, and the two will differ significantly. And the two will differ because he will be forced to make difficult choices that will look like "selling out" or "folding to lobbyists." That's all I am saying. Obama's supporters seem to argue (for the most part) that he is a clean slate that is free from the toxic stink of Washington. My point is that's not fair because he hasn't been in Washington long enough to get any stink. What if we aren't out of Iraq in 2 year

I am looking for it but I am having trouble finding it. I know for certain I saw a clip of it at one point (maybe on Youtube?). Can anyone else back me up here? I will report back on this. I guess we are saying the same thing here, and my point is that what he did is a bit flawed since he wasn't in Congress. And we don't have lists of instances where he ran on one issue and did something else in the Senate. Simply because he hasn't been in the Senate long enough. And again, I guess what I am saying is that with this NAFTA issue (and this doggone quote that I can't find), I

Because the decisions/votes/campaign tactics of a politician in Washington are different -- they are done with the bright lights of the possible repercussions on you. Let's take the Iraq vote for instance -- let's assume that (as I think most people think) HRC was opposed to Iraq war from the outset but felt pressure to authorize the president to use force because of any number of reasons. Those reasons could be (1) answering to her constituents that were hungry for Saddam's head, (2) fear of being perceived as "weak" because she's a woman, or because she would be a future presidential candi

Take what I am about to say with a grain of salt because I truly believe that you are entitled to your own opinion: You are crazy.