Is it just me or have there been a lot of headlines on here lately with $*%&^%' profanity in them?  Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, but can't we have some civil discourse on this site like we used to?

Pure conjecture on my part, but I think AG would be a better, more ironic, appointment so that she could go after some of the R's who witch-hunted her and Bill in the past.  Thoughts?

King's vision is here.  That's all I've got now through the tears.  Thank you, America!

and she's female, does that make her - no, I can't do it!  Sorry!

(Yes, I know this post is essentially a stupid and childish <i>ad hominem</i> attack, but you gotta admit that it brought at least a small internal smile.)

<blockquote>"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. <bold>We're proud of Bristol's <italic>decision</italic> to have her baby</bold> and even prouder to become grandparents.

As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."</blockquote>

Did anyone else notice this wording in this statement?  Has anyone called them on it?  Even bothered to ask?  Her DECISION?  Just askin'...

I'm not attacking the poor girl here who has unfortunately been dragged into this mess.  What I'm questioning is the curious phrasing of the statement from a supposedly pro-life candidate.

Here's a proposal for the TPM staff to each post (after all of this mess is over with) which candidate they were personally backing.

Let's make it more interesting and throw in who they were rooting for at the very beginning.  Was it Biden?  Richardson?  Someone else? 
(I've had Josh pegged as a Gravel man from the start!) {snark}

Then, who were they for when it got down to Obama vs. Clinton?

Note to the TPM staff: I know you folks have to retain a certain amount of objectivity as journalists, but, hey, you're people first, and we all have opinions.  Plus, let's face it, this site is a different format than traditional journalism, so why not reveal after all is said and done?

Please recommend this post if you'd like to know, too!

Pig out.

I want to ask this seriously and see if I'm just imagining this or if anyone else is noticing the same thing. 

Is it just me or does there seem to be a pattern of news orgs using photos of Obama looking up, thus making it seem as if he's "looking down his nose" at everyone (read: elitist)?  Or am I misinterpreting them trying to portray him as a "dreamer, looking to the stars" or something hokey like that?

I find any effort to brand him as "elitist" ridiculous when you compare him to most of his opponents, past and present.

So am I imagining a pattern in the use of photos of him or not?