I'm sure that, as with Prince Harry, there is an evacuation plan. I think that he was removed just hours after the report hit.

The NYT article had this classy quote:

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.

WITH OBAMA'S NAME IN THEM!!!!

I could hurl.

Love Obama's response. Class act all the way.

I wish just once when "a senior aide" says something like that, a senior reporter would next ask "How can you say that with a straight face?"

"a senior aide" for whom?

I think it was Drudge who broke the news about Prince Harry.

Palin just hired a lawyer for the Troopergate thing. Obviously that's probably a smart thing to do regardless, but doing it now sounds to me like they're a little worried.

Also - here's the flip side to that NYT article:

Post headline: “Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge.”

The story opens:

Democrats accused Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday of misrepresenting her role in scuttling a controversial bridge project to a remote island in southeast Alaska.

But wait. Just a few paragraphs later we read:

While campaigning in Ketchikan in September 2006, Palin indicated support for the bridge project, assuming there was no better alternative. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper,” she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.

In other words, Democrats say Palin initially backed the bridge because Palin initially backed the bridge. Why isn’t that the substance of the headline? What kind of reporting is this?

There's that liberal media bias again. t bangs head on desk

"a senior aide" for whom?

Here's the article: [link]

I managed to get a couple of new bras that I'm not lost in and ONE pair of pants. I wish I could've found more, but my curse of stores always managing to NOT have my size seems not to matter on the size.

And no wonder I was walking out of my pants. They ranged from unforgiving 16 to a generous 14. These are a forgiving 10.

Vortex, I am so, so sorry.

My family had a weird weekend in terms of connections -- we went out of town, to a small restaurant, and knew people at 2 of the 6 full tables. Then this morning, we knew two people on the obituary page. One old man (sad for his family, but not so surprising), one younger man (40s, father of two) who was hit by a commuter train. So sad.

ION, dag, Sara!

Kinda nuts. I suspect I'm actually a between 10 and 12 now, if you average out the sizes of the pants I have that fit me now. Probably depends a lot on the cut (and some inconsistent sizing.)