Kelly

Tickets are already gone, and I read that today Mayor Daley said he thinks a million people will show. Yow. That's a lot of people. I'm glad my husband and I already reserved our tickets.

How many people do you think will be there?

I was reading an article about the debate on newsweek.com tonight, and it says, "The candidates were encouraged to address each other directly, but only Obama did, and the effect was to make McCain look like the standoffish one. (McCain's advisers say they had warned him against looking at his opponent, fearing Obama might rile him.)"

I didn't realize that he wasn't looking at Obama on purpose because his advisers suggested he shouldn't. I wonder if maybe he should have taken the risk and looked at Obama a few times, and then people wouldn't be saying that he seemed disrespectful by not looking at Obama. What do you think? Do you think they'll change this tactic in the next debate?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161325

Does anybody know? Are they setting up mock debates with her and other people, to bounce questions off her or coach her? Or is it the same "here are some talking points, see if you can work these in" type of thing that she has evidently used for interviews?

Here's the transcript for the VP debate from 2004:

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

I'm having some trouble picturing Palin answering questions like these. For example, here's the first question from last year:

"Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq, especially having to do with the administration's handling.

"Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on the ground, or we've never had enough troops on the ground.

"Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein?"

Obviously, the questions won't cover exactly this topic, but they'll be at a similar level of detail, requiring answers with insight. Is it even possible that Palin can develop a mastery of topics like this before the debate?

He had to suspend his campaign to deal with this urgent crisis, so I really want to know what he did today.

What's been on the news is his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative this morning in New York

-- here's the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/25/politics/f... -- and his meeting with President Bush this afternoon. Barack Obama also attended both of those events. At 5:20 p.m. Eastern time, McCain was at his Arlington, VA, home. Here's the source on that: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/mc... His campaign says he is working on "brokering a deal," but all the stories I've read don't mention McCain brokering anything. It sounds like he's not even in the room when the negotiations are going on.

I couldn't find any news items saying that McCain was involved in bailout meetings, so...? Can someone please point me to a story that says exactly what McCain did today?

I just planted one black snakeroot plant in a well-drained but usually moist spot. I read that would be best for this plant. However, I also read that it does best in the shade, and it's on the west side of the house and sometimes it gets direct sunlight.

Is it better to have it in the proper soil location rather than the preferred sunlight location?

I like:

- Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe books

- Ruth Rendell's Inspector Wexford books

- Martha Grimes' Richard Jury books (and the Emma Graham ones too)

- Dorothy Sayers

- Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum books (these books are so funny)

- Charlotte MacLeod

- Sarah Caudwell

- Jan Burke

I don't like Anne Perry, J. D. Robb, or Jonathan Kellerman. They just didn't hold my attention very well. I like Patricia Cornwell, but I'm not a big fan of the Dean Koontz sort of story. If it has historical angles or a bit of supernatural (e.g., Sharyn McCrumb), that's a plus.

I find that often when I see a question on Y!A that was obviously written by someone who doesn't know English all that well but is trying very hard, I feel more inclined to try to answer that person's question. Maybe it's because I want to encourage them? It seems like they're putting more effort into it than other people do because they're struggling a little bit with the language.

Does anyone else feel that way?

I read today that Mike Gravel switched from the Democrat party to the Libertarian party and will be running for the Libertarian nomination. But Gravel doesn't currently hold office, so if he switches parties I don't see a big deal about that.

However, I think that if any of the Republican or Democrat candidates should run as a Libertarian, it's Ron Paul. So I'm wondering whether he could even do that since he currently holds office as a Republican. When he ran in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket he wasn't in office at that time. So I'm not sure how this works. Is it possible to run on another party's ticket if you are currently holding elected office as a Republican?

I have two Cavalier King Charles spaniels. They are wonderful little dogs, but their long fur mats so fast I can barely keep up. I brush them both daily with a slicker brush, but they run around outside a lot and their white fur (they're both blenheims) just never looks clean except right after they have a bath.

Any recommendations for specific conditioners I can use to reduce problems with long fur?

Also, how often do you bathe your spaniel? I've read vet's recommendations, but I'm looking for real-life answers from other spaniel owners.

All during this Democratic primary season, I've seen Democrats fighting with each other over who the nominee should be. Recently, I've seen more and more Democrats being mad at the media, possibly more than they're mad about what the candidates say or do.

What do you think? Have Democrats started banding together because they've found a common enemy (the media)? Are we in the beginning stages of the party becoming more united after lots of in-fighting?

I was just looking at CNN.com, and their Ticker now has the first report of what they've found in the White House documents that were just released. Hillary's schedule on the days when Bill was with Monica!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/19/cl...

Who cares?! I can't believe that that's what they would look for first as soon as they got those documents. Do any of you guys care where Hillary was when Monica was with Bill? What does it matter?

What do you hope we'll find out from those documents?

She's the kind of woman I would definitely vote for. I think Obama-Sebelius would be a great ticket.

I've seen people criticize Obama for winning red states, but these same people are now celebrating Clinton's win in Texas (a red state). Are red states important in the Democratic primaries or not?

I also don't get the logic behind people saying blue state wins are critical. It's a blue state. They'll most likely vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is.

It seems like the swing states should be most important because if a candidate is doing well there that's a good sign for the general election. Those are the ones where candidates campaign hardest before the election because they both know they've got a shot to win. However, I don't see people talking about this. Why do people keep talking about red states and blue states but not swing states?

Have any of the candidates held rallies or town meetings there before today? I can't seem to find any news stories about how things are going in those states. Everything's about OH and TX.

I know they're small states, but they still matter, and it seems like no one is paying attention to them.

I was looking at the Library of Congress site, looking up what the senators have been doing in the current congress.

Clinton has sponsored or co-sponsored 150 bills.

Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 113 bills.

McCain has sponsored or co-sponsored 37 bills.

What the heck has McCain been doing? I'll be honest, I'm not a Republican so I haven't been paying attention to that side of things all that much, but... 37 bills? Why the huge discrepancy between McCain and the other two?

If you want to see this, you can go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ to the Library of Congress site, then under "Browse Bills by Sponsor," pick the senator's name.

I was just reading this article and I wondered what you guys thought about it. Do you think this person's predictions are pretty likely or not?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/17/more-...