(dave e)

huh. that sure is interesting..think we should maybe send that link to Bates?

More fun facts about W. It is so interesting to see how the Religous Right seem to be using the fear tactics, buch like conservative church services do to gain new members. Here is another page with fun facts:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746

you know what? not to fall too deep into the well of unflinching partisanship, as it were, but the more people who see material evidence of this administration's failings, the better.

as for reading material to pass along to bates... i just finished the fairly compelling _Four Trials_, john edwards' trial lawyer memoir. full diclosure: its co-author (john auchard, who is actually named on the cover) is a faculty member in my department, whose course on late-19th cent. american lit i loved. i get that my man bates would sooner... well... do anything but read the "evil" trial lawyer's book (which includes a few malpractice narratives), but i'm pretty sure he'd be upset by the corporation that refused to accept any of its pretty obvious guilt when its product deficiency led to the evisceration of a small child unfortunate enough to half her intestines sucked out by a pool drain pump. perhaps bothered by the physician who recklessly overprescribed antabuse to an alcholic patient, leading to devastating disability.

yeah, the edwards book is worth the little time it takes to read

I'm certainly not going to dispute the fear tactics that have become familiar to the Bush campaign. I do think, however, that it's worth pointing to an obvious problem that the NYT article/graphic doesn't deal with. There are 6 Republicans represented and only 4 Democrats. There are a few obvious missing prime time voices from the DNC that are missing and that would skew the results quite a bit. For example, Al Sharpton's speech is missing. That would probably change the number of times "Bush" was metioned at the DNC. That doesn't change who I vote for, but I think it's worth noting that how those "statistics" get represented is politically motivated... It illustrates why iconophobia happens. Images attempting to coopt words to represent "Truth." And the anxiety that images will "misrepresnt" the words they illustrate. So, now having talked myself into a circle... I sign off... deferentially...

sobering observation, c jane. apparently, the national review and weekly standard have given up on reading the times too carefully, as i've seen your criticism in neither. perhaps they, too, have iconophobia.

the absence i noticed was actually the republican nominee himself. the graphic was published before his speech, of course. what other democrats, besides sharpton, are missing? does max cleland's introduction count? teresa heinz kerry? madeleine albright (now there's a crazy firebrand...)?