Chilly

Money Money Money........ Moneyyyyyyyyyy

Oh goodie, just what I want to watch on TV tonight, two pundits tripping all over themselves to discredit an easily dis-credible candidate.

I understand your point, and again I disagree. When I used considered, I was talking about the people that were overtly pointed out to be well spoken. You misread what I was saying. Yes, the expectation is there for candidates to be well spoken. Yet its pointed out in some particular candidates who excel above other candidates at public speaking, and its usually one of the qualities that helps propel them to the election. They might all be well-spoken, but there is a reason why they label some candidates (both white and black) well spoken and others they don't label that way. Back when Clinton was running for the Presidency, it was pointed out that he was very well spoken. Thats one of the qualities that people liked about him, and that made him distinct. The news media ran stories saying that some of the biggest character traits he has is that he is a strong public speaker. How is that any different then the media saying that Obama has those same qualities? You are perceiving a difference because he is black, but in reality the reason why they are emphasizing this in comparison with other candidates is for a different reason. The frame that the media presents candidates in is a very competitive frame, attempting to make differences between the candidates. Obama's description from the New York Press: "Obama is a bright, articulate man, well-spoken, and he possesses a genuine desire to work with both sides of the aisle to get things done. To top it off, Obama is biracial, the product of a black father and a white mother. A 2008 campaign by Obama would represent a shift away from politics as usual, say the pundits. This would be a new era, an era of inclusion." This is focusing on his personality and youth, showing him as a smart candidate who would change how Washington currently is. They are portraying him in this way and focusing on this because he is a junior Senator without much experience or anything other then his reputation. He's a Presidential candidate because of his personality. If you attempt to leave out his personality and a description of it, you leave out the whole reason why he's a possible Presidential candidate in the first place. If you don't think that this is the case, then let me pose this question to you: What other qualifications does he have for running for President? Which qualities does Obama have which set him apart from the other candidates (besides being black) which allows them to show Obama in a unique light?

If Pat Summerall needs a liver transplant, he should make John Madden pay for it and find him a liver. I'd be driven to drinking too if I had to work with him.

Seminole County.

I agree that I don't think he's going to work with the "Seinfeld" Congress as John Tierney calls it, as theres no reason to. I think the elections might have been a wake up call for him though in the sense that he got rid of one of his yes-men and is listening to some other ideas (which, from my understanding, he hadn't been doing before). I love the term "Seinfeld" Congress by the way. Tierney wrote an op-ed this morning (his last for the NYT Editorial Page) saying that the American people voted for Gridlock and is giving this Congress as Seinfeld-esque pass to do nothing. The American people would rather see gridlock then to keep instituting more laws and more stupid crap. I'd have to agree at this point.

I could definitely see myself voting for Rudy, and it'd be a strong possibility. Of course, it'd depend on what he articulated as it gets closer to the election and the other people, but I'd be more willing to support him over McCain in the Republican primaries.

I believe that this is an appropriate response in this thread too.

I believe that this is a worthy response to your post.

Maybe not, in order to determine this we'd have to debate the definition of "well spoken". However, that is irrelevant to my original point, that there are lots of white people considered to be well spoken.

Crayonz needs more posts like these.

There were two which were like you describe and two others where he held onto the ball for a lot longer then he probably should have. Does this whole talk of moral victories sadly remind you of A&M as well?

Wrong, the SEC does.

Its a lot bigger. There is a decent amount of NHL discussion on campus. When I say decent, I mean its come up in classes, in the newspaper, etc. MLS doesn't get any of that.

Don't lie!

Bob is having issues

What comment comes out of Theisman's mouth that isn't idiotic? I don't care what kind of credibility he has when he says crap like "Mike Tice should be coach of the year" a few weeks before he is fired.

Kornheiser is still 20x better then Theisman.

Are you trying to say that a guy nicknamed as "The Great Communicator" wasn't considered that?

He's paraphrasing a reporters paraphrasing. I'd like to see a better version before I decide what I'd think about his proposal.

IIRC, by him filing the papers that way, he has a pretty low threshold right now for money. To me, this seems to show that he is planning on making the decision relatively quickly. Although it could also be that my memory just sucks.

Dennis

Those conference rankings take into account BCS rankings as well as other things. They are in no means a measure of how each team's conference schedule in and of itself is, but rather that formula's view of a conference given the BCS, SOS, and other things. If you sort it by SOS, you find that the Big East is ranked 5th, behind a bunch of other conferences. You also see that the Big 12 is ranked 6th. While it is a measure of the whole conference, it doesn't point out individual teams or schedules. In the Big 12, for example, Texas should end up with the 6th toughest schedule in the country. Compare this to, say, Kansas who will end up with the 102nd toughest schedule in the country, based off of his projections. So, there are two things to take from this: A.) My biggest criticism with Rutgers (ie SOS) is in no way answered by comparing conferences, as it lacks the individual view on Rutgers' SOS. B.) These rankings take into account other things that are inflated by ranking teams with lower SOS at the top (The BCS position of Rutgers, West Virginia, and Louisville, which you can argue is occuring because of weaker opponents) helps boost them to the top of these rankings.

Not sure where he's getting all of that data from that he's using in his post. If you go by schedule played up until this point from Tellshow's site, you get Ohio State - 41st, Rutgers 39th, so that Michigan game does help Ohio State quite a bit. However, if you compare that to other teams: Michigan - 9th, Florida - 2nd, Tennessee - 4th, USC - 6th, Notre Dame - 11th, LSU - 12th, etc. Going purely by current Win/Loss records over the whole schedule (not the schedule played up until this point), or the "Full" rankings on Rich Tellshow's site, you get: Ohio State - 20th, Rutgers - 40th. Compared to a bunch of other teams: USC - 1st; Michigan - 2nd; Texas - 6th; Florida - 9th; Tennessee - 11th; LSU - 12th; Notre Dame - 16th; etc. If you look at his projected ratings (which include games that haven't been played yet), it shows: Ohio State - 23rd, Notre Dame - 24th, Rutgers - 39th. Rutger's schedule hasn't compared to the other teams that we've been putting in the top 10 at this point. Ed, thats why we've been skeptical. *EDIT: Will talk about that 2nd link, give me a sec, you posted it after I started this*

QFT