WilliamK

Yes, but the significance of that question will depend in part on how blatant Blagojevich's solicitation was. If Blago played it smart, it would have been indirect enough to be easily deniable and not particularly damning by itself, even though it might take on some significance in light of other evidence. It's all pure speculation at this point, as we all know next to nothing about what's on the tapes. One very significant item that is NOT speculation, though, is the one you pointed out above. That Fitzgerald, who does know what's on the tapes, has flat-out stated (not hinted, not implied) that Obama is not implicated. And yet, KOTW's very own village idiot (I don't mean you, Extinguisher) is confident, though he has not the tiniest shred of evidence, and even though he is in complete ignorance of any of the information that Fitzgerald has at his disposal, that Fitzgerald is wrong about that. If 2Smart ever gets one of his goofy predictions right, it is more likely the result of pure chance than actually having reasoned correctly.

Dang. You beat me to it.

"Talking to" does not equal "involved in shady deals". Blagojevich said of the Obama people "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation.". Not exactly a smoking gun. Outside of the imaginations of right-wingers, there's nothing here that implicates Obama or Emanuel. You believe Obama is involved only because you wish that to be true, not because there's any evidence of it. Yeah, yeah. Just like Rudy Giuliani was going to win the Republican primary, Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic primary, the Democratic party was going to "implode" with infighting at the convention, the FBI was going to turn up a "smoking gun" tying Obama to the misdeeds of some ACORN workers, the disgruntled Hillary supporters were going to switch over to McCain in droves, the "Bradley effect" was going to give McCain an election day boost, and the selection of Sarah Palin was the "home run" that would put John McCain in the White House. A magic 8 ball is more accurate than you. But you think we're all wearing blinders or "loony" for not agreeing with your defective reasoning or your idiotic predictions.

Every liberal I know thinks he's a corrupt politician who's talk of honesty has proven to be lies. Did your bigotry lead you to expect something else? Funny how you emphasize the point that he's a Democrat. Are you not aware that the corruption of his Republican predecessor (currently known as inmate 16627-424), was a factor in getting him elected in the first place? The people who voted for him wanted something better than that. Too bad he turned out to be another scumbag.

The poster is not at all hateful. It merely states their wish for reason to prevail over superstition. If you contend that regarding religion as superstition is, in itself, hateful, I would point out that it is no different from how you regard every religion but one. Unless, of course, you believe that all religions are equally valid, that Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, etc. are all real. The hatefulness you see, 2smart, is in the eye of the beholder. Do you contend that atheists don't have rights, or that there is such a thing as a right to not be offended? Freedom of religion could not exist if a person's rights were dependent on their religious beliefs. Freedom of speech could not exist if not being offended was a right. Personally, I think it would be much better not to allow any religious displays, including atheist ones, on government properties. But if it is allowed, it has to be allowed for all or it becomes a government endorsement of religion.

What was petty or paranoid about it? Or are you merely throwing negative adjectives at something you don't like, like a monkey flinging poo?

There. Fixed that for you. You can thank me after you get over your initial anger at me and reflect on this intelligently. I expect that you will be able to muster neither the intelligence nor the quality of character required to do that, but I'd be happy to have you prove me wrong.

My own pledge of allegiance: I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the principles on which it stands. I pledge allegiance to those great ideals from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I pledge allegiance to the freedom to think for ourselves, to speak our minds, and to decide for ourselves what we believe. I pledge allegiance to governance of, by, and for the people. I pledge allegiance to the military men and women who have sacrificed and served to protect this country and to keep it free. I pledge allegiance to the non-military people who exercise that freedom and who do all of the ordinary and extraordinary work that makes our country and our society worth protecting. I pledge allegiance to those who speak out in praise and admiration of our country when it does right, and to those who speak out in dissent when it does wrong. I do not pledge allegiance to any symbol or ritual. Nor do I agree with any efforts to require or pressure school children or anyone else to do so. Self-proclaimed patriots who do not understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism will undoubtedly think less of me for this. But that is their failing, not mine. I accept their contempt, because to win their approval would require a moral failing on my part.

Maybe. But it's his place to decide that for himself, not your place to dictate it.

When one is required to say it, it accomplishes none of that. In fact, it flies in the face of the very idea of freedom that it is supposed to honor. The meaning of the pledge is diminished by making it mandatory. Paul has said nothing at all against saying the pledge or loving our country. That idea is entirely your own fabrication. What a bizarrely twisted mind it must take to make this statement against one of the very few people who IS willing to take a stand and not just follow everyone else, while it is you who advocates going along with the mass mentality.

When did "pray" become a required part of the definition of "religion"?

It's all very preliminary, but of the names that have emerged so far, and of the subset of those that I either am familiar with or have checked, former Clinton appointees are a distinct minority. You'll have to do your own research. Here's a list to get you started. Google a reasonable sampling of the individual names and you'll find that the majority are not former Clinton administration people: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/a...istration_jobs/ Or just keep posting in complete ignorance. Suit yourself.

I'm sure he's fully aware of the other definitions. This is not a problem of knowledge, but of honor. He knows the truth, but chooses to speak falsely anyway.

Then start a relevant topic, or join an existing one. By bashing other people's choice of topics, you're just adding to the noise, and contributing nothing that's of any value to anyone, not even yourself.

Are all of yours morons?

What did you expect him to do? Recycle the Bush I, Bush II, or Reagan administrations? Considering that many of his cabinet candidates are not from the Clinton administration, and that a fair number are Republicans, it's pretty obvious that he isn't recycling anything. He's building the Obama administration.

You obviously meant that as sarcasm, but it doesn't work for you. It contains a large nugget of truth, and your own posts illustrate that nugget.

I think more interesting than which rates higher is that separately, Reps and Dems both get higher approval ratings than Congress as a whole, and individual Senators and Representatives usually rate higher than their party. Congress is suffering from bad synergy. The whole is less than the sum of its parts. If the Democrats gain enough to be able to push past at least most Republican opposition, I think it will improve Congresses overall approval rating simply because then at least one party's voters will feel like their interests are being represented, whereas right now, hardly anyone feels that way. But with the country having such hard partisan division, Congress is unlikely to achieve a 50% approval no matter who's in control or what they do. That would require a shift in the views and attitudes of voters, not just a change in Congress.

A friend of my wife's got a call yesterday with a recorded message saying that due to higher than usual turnout, voting was being extended to two days this year, and that Republicans could vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday. It's a tired old trick leftover from previous elections. The friend saw right through it, of course, as would most people. But in a close race, a success rate of only a percent or two could potentially steal an election. So, cliche though this trick may be, someone's still trying it. There have been news reports of this and similar dirty tricks going on at various places around the country, the vast majority of them designed to favor Republicans.

No. Quite the opposite. I'm pretty sure his point was to show that the claims that Obama knew and is guilty of some kind of criminal complicity are implausible because if he had, he could surely have done something more effective than just letting the problem sit there for his opponents to trot out just before election day.

I thought it must be a Palin impersonator at first too. But the McCain campaign's own statement about it confirms that it was genuine: To be fair, it did seem that she didn't understand some of the more absurd bits through the thick accent, or if she did, may have thought she misheard, so just responded politely without being quite sure what she was responding to. Not that that's entirely good, but it's not as bad as if she had fully understood everything the caller had said but still didn't catch on to the prank. For example, I seriously doubt she would have responded to the "Nailin Pailin" comment the way she did if she had really understood what had been said, even if it really had been Sarkozy saying it. In addition to the thick accent, it's also worth considering that the recording we have all heard is recorded from the pranksters' end of the call. The audio quality of the pranksters' voices is almost certainly better in the recording than what Palin actually heard on the phone. On the other hand, it was pretty obvious that she well understood the part about hunting, and that in itself should have been absurd enough to clue her in. I can cut her some slack for not understanding some things, but that is only a partial excuse. She really did display a serious lack of healthy skepticism and critical thinking ability. Those are characteristics that I believe are critically important for the position she's applying for. What also strikes me as significant is that she seemed to be starstruck. She was like a 1960's school girl who just met Elvis. I can understand that speaking with someone as important as Sarkozy would be pretty awe inspiring, but someone who's aspiring to be a major world leader herself should be respectful, but above that kind of celebrity swooning. That may well be what crippled her reasoning enough to not catch on to the prank. That doesn't bode any better for her ability to deal with real foreign leaders than for fake ones.

Why is that, Guest? Do you have anything to back that up other than your desire to believe it? That assessment is Based on what, Guest? Your imagination? According to an Associated Press article: Outside of Republican fantasy land, there's no reason to suspect that Obama knew, and no criminal act involved except possibly on the part of those who leaked it. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVVj5Sj...FtqRIAD946VV1O0 An elderly woman seeking asylum. Some criminal.

Biased in it's opinions but accurate with the facts? Please. It looks like Guest isn't up to the challenge.

Given that he has only met her a few times, and that disclosing that kind of information is illegal (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...110102187.html), I doubt you could make any credible argument that he should have known about it. Face it, 2smart, your belief that he should have known has no basis in anything outside of your own prejudice. How much do you know about your aunts and uncles? My family is spread out enough that I've never met some of mine, and don't know all of their names. And that's only "spread out" within a single country.

Audio: http://www.tindeck.com/audio/filestore/w/wwdo-SarahPalin.mp3