Point, but we're talking *F* Odysseus, not *M* him. He's been honing his, um, skills! Achilles, on the other hand, is clearly more obsessed with himself (and his cousin) than with his women (except as possessions).

Hmm. Are we talking Odysseus pre-war, during war, or post-war? Because post-war, he'd probably just tell you all about his adventures. And Penelope. And how much he totally want to get back to Penelope.

I think you could appeal to Achilles' vanity to get a decent performance out of him.

I was thinking that it was a reaction against the right piling on Clinton when it looked like she might be done.

I wouldn't doubt there was some uptick from the media piling on over the whole "hysterical weeping woman oh noes!!!" thing.

I think any level of cynical is at least partly justified, but I'm also not sure it's possible to get a simple explanation.

I totally agree about the complexity! I wonder if there is a cool algorithim one could use to factor in variables. I guess I'm pretty indifferent whether it is Clinton or Obama. I like them both, though I find Obama personally way more charismatic and interesting. But in terms of policy, don't their voting records have almost 90% overlap?

F,C, M: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner?

I have a bad feeling that Achilles's vanity is all about his hair and meticulously-oiled pecs. He strikes me as the type of fellow who would end up calling 911 having gotten stuck in a wall-vac or a whirlpool nozzle.

Breakfast, Dinner, Lunch.

I just ate breakfast. Like a full, hot breakfast. I could marry that.

Quote of the day - Bush talking about how he can help the Middle East peace process:

"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be—hold hands."

Someone reboot him.

[link]

I totally agree about the complexity! I wonder if there is a cool algorithim one could use to factor in variables.

I gather (although I'm only a seasonal watcher of these things) that that's a lot of what they've been doing with exit polling in recent years -- but if anything, what I've gotten from this campaign so far is (1) COULDN'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE STAYED HOME UNTIL THIS WEEK RATHER THAN STARTING A YEAR AGO?! and (2) however much the parties and the commentators want there to be a nice predictable script, it's not going to happen this early. (And also, (3) People apparently really do hate Giuliani as much as is true and right and just.)

My cynical this week is aimed squarely at the whole dance of "Of course Clinton's going to win! Of course Clinton's totally finished and everyone hates her now that she lost in one tiny place! This is a huge comeback and of course she's going to win!!"

I guess I'm pretty indifferent whether it is Clinton or Obama. I like them both, though I find Obama personally way more charismatic and interesting. But in terms of policy, don't their voting records have almost 90% overlap?

This, and yep.

m:Indian food, f:Vietnamese food, c:Chinese food

c:ham, m:turkey, f:roast beef

f:noon, m:midnight, c:6AM

Did anyone else worry that Clinton's surprising resurgence is a result of the Republicans panicking over losing her as a target if Obama got the nomination? Could her win be partially attributed to an open primary and Republicans wanting her to beat up in the general election instead of Obama who might be more electable? Or am I completely cynical?

It didn't surprise me at all. I was trying to convince people just yesterday that I thought she would win in NH, which has always seemed to me much more about ground politics and talking to people and less about speeches. For me, Obama's main asset is his speeches.