Though to be fair, the reason I put a question mark in my blogpost's original title and quotation marks in a subsequent recap is because judging from the video, if the thing hadn't been (reportedly) wearing a sign, it'd just look like any random black doll.

Though the image of it hanging in front of the iconic "Home of President Carter" sign is something one might not forget.

It's now hours later and a simple search of Google News makes it look like still no other MSM has picked it up. When you mine local media like myself, you quickly get used to it taking hours, days or weeks for others to catch up, but for some reason, I thought this one could be different.

And, if I'm reading it right, the tv site has the story timestamped as 6:35 their time, which would've been after their six o'clock broadcast and thus far, the only other mention that my spider found prior to ten o'clock (their time) was a local paper which referenced the station.

Right now, I'm interpreting them to say that the effigy was gone by the time they got there, but they were able to obtain video from one of the local residents.

Of course, if you go the one click to view the video on my blog or the two clicks through to the WALB clip, you can find the embed code, either way.

Personally, I just don't see how the above is true, except under the couple of circumstances which first came to mind, a loaded question or a very narrow interpretation of the data.

I mean and this may sound elitist, but I find it hard to believe that "Tea Party" actually has enough name recognition among the majority of the population, most of whom don't really follow politics for them to have become a factor in any poll.

And, if Mr Yang is being mischaracterized, which is what I suspect, we'd probably want to nip the idea in the bud before it gains traction.

1) The City of New York is in discussions with Google to digitize their collection of historic tax photos and make them available online.

2) And, there's a somewhat "grassroots" movement to purchase federally-produced, public-domain videos from a public/private publishing partnership and upload them to YouTube.

Signed,
Vulnerable Dude, who gets a lot of stuff from Google

As it stands right now, I'd say that barring a complete meltdown of the Obama agenda, we should be able to limit the Republicans to their geographic base for a few more years. We may not get twenty because of the media explosion, but we should have a least a few.

That is, if the Dems don't tear themselves apart with their own ideological battles.

If it were up to me, I'd continue focusing on Beck. The other day on my offsite blog, I linked to a columnist's suggestion that Palin might be suited to take over the "Focus on the Family" radio show and if she were to take it, she'd have a platform, but there's no telling what we could do with Beck. He's that unpredictable and seems unwilling to compromise because it'd be bad for his wallet.

It's more "bad" news about the Republican infighting. As a Dem, who can remember the pain of all those years in the desert squabbling among ourselves, it's good to see them falling apart for a while.

And hopefully we can hold it together long enough to enjoy it.

And, I'm sorry, no offense, but if you believe otherwise or if you think the Clintons are anything other than good Democrats, then you've drank the Kool-Aid and that puts you outside of the mainstream of the party.

Back during the primaries (and this is where I get myself in trouble), I took some comfort in the fact that those Democrats who apparently hate the Clintons were mostly children during his administration, so because his political opponents dominated the airwaves and his supporters were often dismissed as biased, their subconsciouses absorbed the hate.

When this all started, Hillary wasn't the obvious choice for Secretary of State, but as her name emerged, it was hard to argue against the instant gravitas of an internationally known entity. I can't really think of any other person, except maybe for a previous SoS who will be able to walk into a room, dominate it and there'd be no time wasted getting to know them or taking a measure of their personalities.

Sure, some might have preferred Bill Richardson, but most of them apparently don't remember his tenure during the Clinton administration and they seem to have some kind of ideal assigned to the man that isn't grounded in any reality.

Instead, what I'm hearing is that a lot of paid operatives are trying to distract from their poor performance by blaming a scapegoat and they're peddling these stories because the media and the public might buy them, they've taken the focus entirely off of their campaign failures and they might even get some facetime on CNN as a result, sometime down the road.

John McCain didn't lose because Sarah Palin answered the door in a towel. The Obama campaign outperformed them and McCain's handlers were idiots, but right now, there's nobody questioning the McCain management because a lot of people are too busy helping them blame Sarah.