This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

We were kind of sort of discussing whether the auto industry should be bailed out. I also want to throw in some states looking for help.

California still has a budget crisis and the great elected officials were supposed to be meeting yesterday and I guess every day until they "fix" it. It was reported that most of them weren't around though. A number are said to be all over the world or nation on junkets. The Governor was said to have taken a break from his "Green" event in downtown Los Angeles to fly to Sacramento in his jet, where he stayed for a couple of hours before going back to Los Angeles. The whole carbon emissions/jet thing sort of files in the face of the "Green" message.

Is anyone disappointed in the leaked potential cabinet members so far? I just watched an iReport of someone who is hugely disappointed that "change" means the Clintons.

It's the fact that there are so many former Clinton people he wants in his cabinet. I didn't know that all he would do was pick Clinton people.

I think Hillary would be an excellent Secretary of State. I think she will be an assest to the administration. I know she rubs people the wrong way, but she really does have all the right stuff.

I'm going to side with the people who say that if they wanted a Clinton administration they would have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries (although I didn't vote in the primaries because I don't want to be a Republican or a Democrat). I didn't like the way she managed her campaign during the primaries or the some of the tone of it. I am okay with moving on from it but there is still a lesson to be learned about how easy it is to turn to divisiveness in order to win.

If I thought she were the only one capable of doing the job or even the best one to fit the Change you can believe in mantra then I'd say it makes sense. She isn't the only one capable and she doesn't fit the mantra. The whole notion of giving a person a position in a cabinet for being a close runner up in the primaries is silly. The whole notion that this is a woman thing (which I've read from a former supporter) is stupid since lo and behold there's a woman in the job now and there was one named Madeline Albright once upon a time. And the whole team of rivals is being run into the ground.

Bill Richardson really merits stronger consideration than she does. He has Joe Biden. She and Obama were like light and day over foreign policy during the primaries. The Republicans that have come forward in support of her want her because she came across as a hawk and they are probably also hoping for media drama about the Clintons. Some of the "problem" nations might welcome her because they can try finding a wedge between her ideas and Obama's. Unless he's sure that she's not going to go rogue and her husband won't be an issue then this is all silly.....especially if it's just to get her out of being adversarial in the Senate.

I don't mind some of the former Clinton staffers since it makes sense to draw from that administration to a degree. The counsel position is a head scratcher.

Of course some in the media welcome this because look how they've made it their main focal point for days. Every little thing that occurs is going to be media folly for them and they love what they call "Clinton drama' as opposed to "no drama Obama."

Back to the media installment farce....if there are 22.7 million people who watch national network news and let me throw in an exaggerated figure of 12 million watching cable news and we round it up to roughly 35 million viewers who aren't all Democrats, then how did the media magically get Obama 63 million votes?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et...0,5787966.story

TV RATINGS

Despite heated presidential campaign, number of people watching network evening newscasts shrinks

By Matea Gold

November 20, 2008

Reporting from New York -- If anything could slow the inexorable decline of evening news viewership, it should have been this year's riveting presidential campaign, which produced a ravenous appetite for political news.

The cable news networks benefited mightily during the race, more than doubling their prime-time audiences this fall. And some broadcast news programs saw big gains: "60 Minutes," up 12% this season, attracted 25 million viewers Sunday for its interview with Barack and Michelle Obama, the largest audience for a television program this season.

But the overall number of people watching the network evening newscasts actually shrank slightly in the last months of the presidential campaign, despite the programs' heavy political focus -- down 280,000 viewers since Sept. 22 compared with the same period last year, according to an examination of Nielsen Media Research data.

Of the three programs, the top-rated "NBC Nightly News" was the only one to register an uptick in audience, growing 1% to 8.37 million viewers. ABC's "World News" fell 2% to 8.2 million viewers while "CBS Evening News" dropped 3% to 6.1 million viewers.

The contraction of the audience at a time when viewers were aggressively seeking news speaks to the challenge the programs face in a landscape increasingly cluttered with media choices.

Once the country's dominant news platforms, the three flagship network newscasts found themselves jockeying this season with cable channels and Internet sites to deliver the freshest political updates.

"There was just a lot of coverage out there, and with the 24/7 nature of the cable networks, you could hear whatever you wanted to hear at any time," said Andy Donchin, director of media investment for the ad-buying firm Carat. "With all the choices and options, continual erosion is inevitable."

News executives argued that the relatively small drop-off in viewers this season speaks to the lasting strength of the 30-minute broadcasts.

"The fact that, given the competitive environment, we're holding our audience over last year is significant," said Jon Banner, executive producer of "World News." "I don't think we get the big bumps that you've seen in some other media, but we don't get some of the big drops they're getting now."

The cable news networks -- which challenged the broadcast networks' dominance on many big political nights this year -- saw their prime-time viewership fall substantially during the first week after the election. (All three had higher ratings than the same week last year.)

Still, there's no question that cable news saw the most momentum during the campaign. NBC executives credited having a sister cable network, MSNBC, on which to showcase their talent in part for the evening newscast's 8% gain among viewers ages 25 to 54, those most coveted by advertisers.

"I think that identification with these reporters over the course of the day just benefits everybody," said Bob Epstein, senior broadcast producer of "NBC Nightly News."

This year's campaign was supposed to serve as a showcase for the network anchors, all of whom were making their presidential election debut. But Brian Williams, Charles Gibson and Katie Couric did not dominate the 2008 race the way their predecessors did in past elections.

The anchor who attracted the most buzz was Couric, who conducted a series of much-talked-about interviews with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. For all the attention, however -- including a parody on "Saturday Night Live" -- "CBS Evening News" still suffered the biggest drop in viewership.

"I don't have an explanation," said Sean McManus, president of CBS News. "I think we did a really, really good job, and I would be lying if I didn't say the ratings were disappointing."

Part of the challenge is the early hour the newscast airs, he said, "an increasingly more difficult time period for people to sit down in front of their television sets."

It's been a chronic issue as American lifestyles have changed. Since 1991, the combined audience of the three broadcasts has dropped from 36.7 million to 22.7 million.

That's still a substantial audience in a fragmented media universe, noted Donchin, who buys ads on all three programs for his clients.

"Even with the loss of viewers, we still see the evening news telecasts as an important place to be," he said. "They're still the tallest midget in the room."

Gold is a Times staff writer.

Edited November 20, 200817 yr by Wales2004

I'm going to side with the people who say that if they wanted a Clinton administration they would have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries (although I didn't vote in the primaries because I don't want to be a Republican or a Democrat). I didn't like the way she managed her campaign during the primaries or the some of the tone of it. I am okay with moving on from it but there is still a lesson to be learned about how easy it is to turn to divisiveness in order to win.

If I thought she were the only one capable of doing the job or even the best one to fit the Change you can believe in mantra then I'd say it makes sense. She isn't the only one capable and she doesn't fit the mantra. The whole notion of giving a person a position in a cabinet for being a close runner up in the primaries is silly. The whole notion that this is a woman thing (which I've read from a former supporter) is stupid since lo and behold there's a woman in the job now and there was one named Madeline Albright once upon a time. And the whole team of rivals is being run into the ground.

Bill Richardson really merits stronger consideration than she does. He has Joe Biden. She and Obama were like light and day over foreign policy during the primaries. The Republicans that have come forward in support of her want her because she came across as a hawk and they are probably also hoping for media drama about the Clintons. Some of the "problem" nations might welcome her because they can try finding a wedge between her ideas and Obama's. Unless he's sure that she's not going to go rogue and her husband won't be an issue then this is all silly.....especially if it's just to get her out of being adversarial in the Senate.

I don't mind some of the former Clinton staffers since it makes sense to draw from that administration to a degree. The counsel position is a head scratcher.

Of course some in the media welcome this because look how they've made it their main focal point for days. Every little thing that occurs is going to be media folly for them and they love what they call "Clinton drama' as opposed to "no drama Obama."

Not that I'm following all of this very closely now cause College Basketball season has started and I will be giving that my full attention. (I digress)

I sense that Obama is a person who has a handle on how he wants things done. Yes , he ran an excellent campaign vs. Hils disastorous one. But I blame that on her and her advisors. O is a different story. He appears to be engaged. If he is leaning towards chosing her then he probably has some very valid reasons for that backing. He possibly sees something that she can offer that maybe others do not. I'm pretty sure that Bill R will be involved in the cabinet in some way. I think it's funny that the media et,al are second guessing every move that is made. Maybe we can set up pools at Vegas to see who gets most of the picks correct. I think it's funny that a campaign that had hardly any leaks is now leaking profusely. Our need to know everything immediately is astounding.

The Clinton admin was filled with people who were young enough to still be around today. It was a very successful admin and some of these folks are part of O's colleagues, so I understand why they are in the forefront.

If he is leaning towards chosing her then he probably has some very valid reasons for that backing. He possibly sees something that she can offer that maybe others do not.

At the end of the day, he's a politician just like the rest of them so I'm not going to attribute any type of nobility to his possible selection of her. Maybe he sees the good or maybe he's trying to remove her from the Senate as a possible obstacle to his health care plan or both. If I were to assume that there were equal numbers of people that rejected her as there were that didn't, in those who supported him then he's as obligated to adhere to the wishes of those who didn't as he is to those who did. He can't please everyone but if people don't see the change they can believe in cabinet wise then they won't have that much patience either.

I'm pretty sure that Bill R will be involved in the cabinet in some way.

It's too bad that he wants to be Secretary of State and he gets to see the campaign that referred to him as Judas for supporting Obama, get preference over him. I know it's politics but it does suck in a major way.

I think it's funny that the media et,al are second guessing every move that is made. Maybe we can set up pools at Vegas to see who gets most of the picks correct.

The media needs something to do. I don't object to their second guessing him because they really should scrutinize moves made by elected officials so that people have differing viewpoints on what they're getting. These are serious positions and even though, I would prefer the discussion come when there are definitive selections, I understand. It's just annoying when they spend days hashing out some individual that doesn't turn out to be the choice....pretty much like how Clinton was on VP selection watch day in and day out and they yapped about it until for it to be given to Joe Biden.

I think it's funny that a campaign that had hardly any leaks is now leaking profusely. Our need to know everything immediately is astounding.

If it were up to me, none of this would make headlines until it was all definitive. Weeks of speculation by the media and pundits and their pros and cons is useless and annoying. It detracts from substance. As for the waterfall from Obama's campaign....I guess since he's won, they don't feel like keeping quiet anymore.

The Clinton admin was filled with people who were young enough to still be around today. It was a very successful admin and some of these folks are part of O's colleagues, so I understand why they are in the forefront.

I can understand including some of them. Overloading on them and then throwing the Clintons in on top of that is what I don't get. Changing the way we do business in Washington is hollow if you bring all the same players along for the ride. Part of Obama's success is attributable to the fact that he got a lot of young people to buy into that he relates to them and that he really means to change things. Now I'm not suggesting that he can't make some progress on that forefront with Clinton version 2.2 since he's going to put his stamp on it, but part of this has to do with appearances since that's where first impressions generally come in.

The appearance, no matter what the reason, of both Clintons will come across as them running the show. Whether true or not, it sends the message that Obama is incapable in some way. Members of the media can try to sell the idea that he's some sort of genius who is pooling his team of rivals or is setting aside disagreements to do what's best for the country but that's a tough sell if people see it otherwise. I'm really just being selfish because I don't want to turn on the news every day for the next four years to hear that the Clintons did this and that. The direction the media has taken with this is a sure sign that I will be treated to non-stop drivel since Bill Clinton is a favorite media side show.

Those darn gays and their desire to treated like any other American couple...they've forced James Dobson's Focus on the Family to announce layoffs of approximately 20% of their work force, or 202 employees, due in no small part to the more than $500,000 spent on the Yes on 8 campaign. Colorado Independent:

Focus on the Family announced yesterday afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — an estimated 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.[..]

Lewis, the Colorado Springs activist, wonders whether the families who donate to the nonprofit ministry, realize where their funds really end up.

“Seriously, I would imagine their supporters have got to be asking the question about whether their church is really practicing their theology.”

Frankly, I've been questioning that long before they started laying off employees. More importantly, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal on Prop. 8, and it appears it is on the question of legality of revising the state Constitution as opposed to amending it.

And if you really want to get conspiracy-minded (meaning an area that the Supreme Court would never actually touch), Mark Crispin Miller wants to know why the exit polls show that Prop. 8 was defeated, by the same ratio it was eventually passed. Remember, discrepancy in results like that were exactly the justification we gave for overturning and demanding a new election in the Ukraine.

The appearance, no matter what the reason, of both Clintons will come across as them running the show. Whether true or not, it sends the message that Obama is incapable in some way. Members of the media can try to sell the idea that he's some sort of genius who is pooling his team of rivals or is setting aside disagreements to do what's best for the country but that's a tough sell if people see it otherwise. I'm really just being selfish because I don't want to turn on the news every day for the next four years to hear that the Clintons did this and that. The direction the media has taken with this is a sure sign that I will be treated to non-stop drivel since Bill Clinton is a favorite media side show.

Ok, this I understand. I'm not looking forward to Clinton redux. But if these folks run in the same circle, then it will appear that it's Clinton 2. Maybe it's the appearance thing that is troubling to me. I somewhat agree that the press should report this stuff. But I also think that we have to look at what type of change could we realistically expect. A lot of the listed people are governors, congress people. Some are not big name players. Do we put people with little or no experience in a cabinet position? I'm just asking, cause I really don't know. I'm one of those appearances be damned kind of folks. This is my cabinet, I'pick who I want knd of person.

I guess Lou Dobbs and Co. are giving up their populist "we're for the working class" pose, because yesterday Republican Rep. Darrell Issa appeared on the Dobbs program (with Kitty Pilgrim sitting in) to pile on after Mitt Romney's NYT op-ed telling Detroit to Suck. On. This.

ISSA: I think Mitt's right on. And you know, being the son of a man who turned Rambler/AMC around, he knows how hard it is to reinvent a company from one that isn't making good cars and not making competitive cars to one that can, in fact, survive.

Sure. Maybe that would explain why, as Jon Perr points out, Mitt Romney was all for doing whatever it takes to save Detroit back when he was running against John McCain in the Republican primary:

"I want to bring Michigan back. I am not willing to sit back and say 'too bad for Michigan, too bad for the car industry, too bad for the people who lost their jobs, they are gone forever.' I will not rest when I am president of the United States until Michigan is brought back."

He also told Michiganders:

"This state needs someone who cares about this state more than one day a year."

And as Perr points out:

Not once does Romney quantify the impact of his recommendation that "without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself." There is no estimate of the devastating job losses Big Three bankruptcies would produce or the estimated $200 billion impact in unemployment insurance and other government safety net payments which would result from the collapse of GM alone. And Romney is silent on the national security implications as the builders of Abrams battle tanks, Humvees and armored fighting vehicles face halting production during wartime.

No, as John Amato has been saying, when Republicans talk about "restructuring" the auto industry, they're not talking about reordering the corporate order of things, where CEOs and other executives reel in massive salaries and even more massive bonuses in spite of their shockingly lousy performances, while shipping thousands of U.S. jobs overseas.

They're talking about destroying the autoworkers' unions. Bankrupting the corporations would nullify all the existing union contracts. Whoever bought the companies (likely the Chinese) would be free to negotiate with whoever they like -- or, potentially, simply set up shop with no unions at all.

The auto industry is in dire need of a makeover. But allowing it to collapse isn't going to achieve that. That's like trying to put lipstick on a corpse.

And GoldenDogs you're a racist in my view. Plain and simple. The only thing is that unlike most racists you are able to hide it very well. Congrats to you. However in the end it doesn't matter.

This may be none of my business, but I don't give a [!@#$%^&*]. This name-calling has to stop and I would support Brian if he were to report you for this. Brian is NOT a racist, however much he dislikes Obama. The last time I checked this was still America and everyone has a right to express themselves. Whether you agree with it or not does give you the right to call another names, especially not one so inflammatory.

We're all adults here. There's no place for this kind of bullshit.

I'm just so sick of all this "Brian is a racist" [!@#$%^&*]. Believe me, if he were or I believed he were, I would not associate with him. Now let's drop it.

Is anyone disappointed in the leaked potential cabinet members so far? I just watched an iReport of someone who is hugely disappointed that "change" means the Clintons.

I have to admit, I didn't realize that "Change we need" meant "Clintons we need". I certainly think that the administration needs some experienced hands, but do they all have to have ties to the Clintons? As far as HRC as Sec of State, I'm not diggin it too much. There are other more experienced diplomats out there that could do just as good of a job, so I don't get the need to install her in this position. And Wales was right - it's not like their world views are in sync. At the end of the day, I voted for the man, not his cabinet. I have faith that he will chose the right people for the job that will help him accompish his goals. If that means HRC as SOS, then so be it. I won't be thrilled, but you don't always get what you want.

The Clinton admin was filled with people who were young enough to still be around today. It was a very successful admin and some of these folks are part of O's colleagues, so I understand why they are in the forefront.

Very true. And if I recall correctly, they made a lot of missteps at first, didn't they? But obviously, they are the most experienced in Oval Office politics than anyone else on the Dem side of the house. It's not like they can pull from Carter's Administration. But aren't there Democrats from Think Tanks that they could pull from?

It's good that some governor names are now being tossed about. I was beginning to worry there.

This may be none of my business, but I don't give a [!@#$%^&*]. This name-calling has to stop and I would support Brian if he were to report you for this. Brian is NOT a racist, however much he dislikes Obama. The last time I checked this was still America and everyone has a right to express themselves. Whether you agree with it or not does give you the right to call another names, especially not one so inflammatory.

We're all adults here. There's no place for this kind of bullshit.

I'm just so sick of all this "Brian is a racist" [!@#$%^&*]. Believe me, if he were or I believed he were, I would not associate with him. Now let's drop it.

I specifically did not reply to any of the name calling posts because we are adults. I was very unhappy with that turn. I do not think any one who posts here is racist. Many comments posted could be perceived as racially biased. But I agree wholeheartedly with you. This is not the place for that rhetoric. and I'm glad you posted this.

I guess Lou Dobbs and Co. are giving up their populist "we're for the working class" pose, because yesterday Republican Rep. Darrell Issa appeared on the Dobbs program (with Kitty Pilgrim sitting in) to pile on after Mitt Romney's NYT op-ed telling Detroit to Suck. On. This.

ISSA: I think Mitt's right on. And you know, being the son of a man who turned Rambler/AMC around, he knows how hard it is to reinvent a company from one that isn't making good cars and not making competitive cars to one that can, in fact, survive.

Sure. Maybe that would explain why, as Jon Perr points out, Mitt Romney was all for doing whatever it takes to save Detroit back when he was running against John McCain in the Republican primary:

"I want to bring Michigan back. I am not willing to sit back and say 'too bad for Michigan, too bad for the car industry, too bad for the people who lost their jobs, they are gone forever.' I will not rest when I am president of the United States until Michigan is brought back."

He also told Michiganders:

"This state needs someone who cares about this state more than one day a year."

And as Perr points out:

Not once does Romney quantify the impact of his recommendation that "without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself." There is no estimate of the devastating job losses Big Three bankruptcies would produce or the estimated $200 billion impact in unemployment insurance and other government safety net payments which would result from the collapse of GM alone. And Romney is silent on the national security implications as the builders of Abrams battle tanks, Humvees and armored fighting vehicles face halting production during wartime.

No, as John Amato has been saying, when Republicans talk about "restructuring" the auto industry, they're not talking about reordering the corporate order of things, where CEOs and other executives reel in massive salaries and even more massive bonuses in spite of their shockingly lousy performances, while shipping thousands of U.S. jobs overseas.

They're talking about destroying the autoworkers' unions. Bankrupting the corporations would nullify all the existing union contracts. Whoever bought the companies (likely the Chinese) would be free to negotiate with whoever they like -- or, potentially, simply set up shop with no unions at all.

The auto industry is in dire need of a makeover. But allowing it to collapse isn't going to achieve that. That's like trying to put lipstick on a corpse.

While I do not like the idea of once again bailing out our coporations, I can't help but wonder about the impact of all the job loss. I fear that no one will be working.

As long as we have minimal disposable income, our economy will continue to suffer. No one has any money to spend.

I always thought that busting unions was behind this somewhat. Toyota and Honda do not have union shops and are thriving.

I specifically did not reply to any of the name calling posts because we are adults. I was very unhappy with that turn. I do not think any one who posts here is racist. Many comments posted could be perceived as racially biased. But I agree wholeheartedly with you. This is not the place for that rhetoric. and I'm glad you posted this.

UCLAN I'm so glad that you are a part of this forum. And not just for agreeing with me! Now just tell me that you're a Y&R fan and we're golden!

I just couldn't take the bullshit anymore. I am of the opinion that if you don't like a certain poster, use the "ignore" feature. Don't start posting inflammatory crap against someone you don't know from Adam.

And I did want to mention something that addresses what Ryan said about Bush. Although I did try to support him after he was appointed to the Oval Office, 2 years into his "Administration" I couldn't stand the man. He could have parted the Atlantic Ocean and walked to England, and I would have scoffed. I still can't stand him. And his latest trick to roll back environmental protections for endangered animals is not endearing him to me at all. So as Ryan stated, I suppose I'm in no position to judge Brian.

Really, who here is any better than the other? What gives someone the right to attack another poster? It just pisses me off.

UCLAN I'm so glad that you are a part of this forum. And not just for agreeing with me! Now just tell me that you're a Y&R fan and we're golden!

I just couldn't take the bullshit anymore. I am of the opinion that if you don't like a certain poster, use the "ignore" feature. Don't start posting inflammatory crap against someone you don't know from Adam.

And I did want to mention something that addresses what Ryan said about Bush. Although I did try to support him after he was appointed to the Oval Office, 2 years into his "Administration" I couldn't stand the man. He could have parted the Atlantic Ocean and walked to England, and I would have scoffed. I still can't stand him. And his latest trick to roll back environmental protections for endangered animals is not endearing him to me at all. So as Ryan stated, I suppose I'm in no position to judge Brian.

Really, who here is any better than the other? What gives someone the right to attack another poster? It just pisses me off.

I watched Y&R when it first came on. I was a wee young thing. Now I only watch Days since I have almost sucessfully kicked my GL habit (I can't bear to watch but I do occasionaly sneak a peek)

As you may recall from my earlier posts, I become physically ill when Bush won in 2000 and it took me about a month of deep mourning before I recovered. However, I did support him as President until Katrina. I personally disliked him from the beginning of his foray into national politics . And I am po'd on his total lame duck stance especially now when we need some form of leadership.

I am looking forward to this adminsitration as any change is better than what we had before.

So folks, I'm off to Vegas this weekend. I'm hoping to cash in. There was a news report on last night how the odds are now stacked in the consumer's favor.I'm hoping to meet some of those odds. Wish me luck.

I watched Y&R when it first came on. I was a wee young thing. Now I only watch Days since I have almost sucessfully kicked my GL habit (I can't bear to watch but I do occasionaly sneak a peek)

As you may recall from my earlier posts, I become physically ill when Bush won in 2000 and it took me about a month of deep mourning before I recovered. However, I did support him as President until Katrina. I personally disliked him from the beginning of his foray into national politics . And I am po'd on his total lame duck stance especially now when we need some form of leadership.

I am looking forward to this adminsitration as any change is better than what we had before.

So folks, I'm off to Vegas this weekend. I'm hoping to cash in. There was a news report on last night how the odds are now stacked in the consumer's favor.I'm hoping to meet some of those odds. Wish me luck.

Well, since I've just about kicked my GL habit as well, we're still golden. Too bad we don't we don't live closer, we could watch GL together and throw stuff at the TV. And maybe make some crank calls to Ellen Wheeler!

But back to the topic at hand. Yes, I do remember your reaction to GWB's appointment. IA about how he's handling himself now that he has (Thank God) 2 months left in office. You're right - we still need some kind of leadership now more than ever. But then, why should that surprise us? Has he "lead" anything in 8 years, besides a policy of social injustice and an illegal war? I read an article that said he has scheduled very little appearances during this time and that he "may or may not" hold a press conference before he leaves office. Ugh.

GOOD LUCK, my friend! I hope you have a grand 'ol time in Vegas and come back much, much, much richer!

<<Sprinkles fairy dust (no pun indended) on UCLAN>>

Really, who here is any better than the other?

Hmmmm let me see now......uhmmmm....well...cough cough.....

Well, since I've just about kicked my GL habit as well, we're still golden. Too bad we don't we don't live closer, we could watch GL together and throw stuff at the TV. And maybe make some crank calls to Ellen Wheeler!

<<Sprinkles fairy dust (no pun indended) on UCLAN>>

'See if I lived close I'd just throw things at you.

Don't even try to blind me with fairy dust

Seriously, I co-sign on no name calling.

Not so seriously, if I do then it's accidental.