Unmemorable. What a surprise is that?

She did come off very nice, if a little clueless and even duller and nerdier than she did on Survivor. (If you can imagine that.)

The one entertaining moment came when some jackass caller asked why the team didn't pick her as leader.

Then that asswipe Harry said, "Good question!"

Good lord.

And poor Lill took it seriously too, said her husband advised her when she was leaving to put her scoutmaster hat away and not try to lead. Poor woman. She has absolutely no idea who she is, does she?

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 3 Comments.

AP story on yet another poll released last night:

Confidence in Bush fades, new poll shows

. . . The CBS-New York Times poll found that 45 percent say they have confidence in Bush's ability on international crises and 50 percent said they do not. On the economy, four in 10 said they have confidence in his ability to handle it, while 56 percent did not.

His overall job approval rate was at 51 percent, with 42 percent disapproving.

This, however, just baffles me:

A majority of people, 63 percent, said Bush has strong qualities of leadership and more than half, 53 percent, think he has more honest and integrity than most people in public life.

Why no prominent media critic?

The only one who seems to have a high profile is Howie Kurtz, who more and more makes my skin crawl. Today he opened his column with the most-overused media catch-phrase of the moment--and that's saying a lot--"connecting the dots." Ugh.

Great headline, great story.

Editor and Publisher has a really interesting piece on yet another potential scandal unfolding at the New York Times, involving its big-name bio-warfare and Weapons of Mass Destruction maven Judith Miller.

The opening:

Miller's Star Fades (Slightly) at 'NY Times'


On Sept. 29, a remarkable story appeared on the front page of The New York Times: "Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraqi Defectors; Pentagon Intelligence Review Says Debriefings Provided Little of Any Value." Far down in Douglas Jehl's report was this mea culpa: "The Iraqi National Congress [INC] had made some ... defectors available to ... The New York Times, which reported their allegations about ... the country's weapons programs."

This was a rather direct repudiation of numerous stories written by Judith Miller in the Times for over a year in which she relied upon the INC's Chalabi and defectors he provided for front-page exclusives on supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. A second front-page Times story on Sept. 29, "New Criticism on Prewar Use of Intelligence," gave credit to The Washington Post for breaking the story about House Intelligence Committee complaints about the CIA.

Has the Gray Lady finally turned the corner and abandoned its dependence on the faulty WMD reporting of Miller in favor of more objective journalism? Alas, this may be as far as the Times will go in executing a critical review of Miller's reporting on the search for WMD over the past year. My communications with several Times employees, past and present, depict some powerful people within the paper as still being in denial. Their rationale is that Miller produces; and that she is uniquely well-connected. A reluctant admirer said: "What Miller does have is unlimited drive and energy for a story, and fabulous sources at the upper levels of government."

But Miller is not a neutral, nor an objective journalist. This can be acceptable, if you're a great reporter, "but she ain't, and that's why she's a propagandist," stated one old Times hand to me.

(And thanks to Atrios/Eschaton for the link.)

That first Survivor started with two homos, and then we've only had two more in all the five Survivors since--at least that we know of.

There are rumors about Skinny Ryan and a few others from Pearl Islands being gay, but most rumors fail to pan out. Pretty Ryan looks gayer and gayer to me every week, but I'm still betting heavily against it, at least as far as he knows.

God knows when all the old closet cases will come out. Surely Mitchell's friends have informed him he's gay by now. So sad when the parents have to take on that role.

Oh, the reason I meant to post this was that a lot of people have appeared shocked that the first person ever voted off Survivor, Sonja Christopher, aka, Mrs. Howell (the old lady who brought the ukelelee) was gay. I finally got a link documenting it from one of the other fan sites.

Survivor Pearl Islands page here.

Head here all week for Survivor Episode 3 Comments.

AP has a completely unfocused story sort of centered on the fall DNC meeting starting Thursday, but it has a few good nuggets in it:

Most DNC members said they believe Dean's fund-raising success makes him a sure bet to survive the first few primary rounds, and the only question now is who emerges as the alternative. Some are anxious to get on with it.

"The fact that these candidates haven't caught fire, haven't raised any money, can't campaign in every state and won't even qualify for Secret Service protection in January tells me it's time for them to go," said Donna Brazile, manager of Vice President Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

That first part is interesting, and follows what I have suggested, that the press will turn it in to Howard Dean vs. The Alternative.

If Wes Clark gets over his early jitters it looks like that spot is his to lose. Nobody else has looked viable for months.

And it would be nice to get some of the underbrush out of the way. It's hard for two--or even three--serious guys to debate with all those other guys (and one woman) on the stage. Most of them are just getting in the way.

I guess if I were Kerry or Gephardt I'd stick in there, because any thing can happen. Dean and Clark could both self destruct still. That's about the only hope for those two, and hope is down to just about zero for anyone else.

Very conflicting signals, but here is the latest from AP late tonight:

Graham Tells Colleague He's Out; Campaign Says He Still In

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Bob Graham told a Senate colleague Thursday that he would abandon his struggling presidential bid, a Democratic source said, but in a day filled with mixed signals, aides said he will continue to campaign.

The Florida senator's future in the crowded Democratic field remained in doubt as the campaign made several staff changes and held a series of high-level meetings.

Initially, the Graham campaign announced a news conference for Friday at 2 p.m., suggesting that he would quit the race. But late Thursday, the campaign and state Democratic Party said there would be no news conference. "Sen. Graham has decided to soldier on," said Florida Democratic Party Chairman Scott Maddox.

Graham, after one of several staff meetings in Florida, said, "We'll make a decision shortly."

Washington Post editors will be pissed if he calls it off tomorrow. They have already gone to press with a Friday story saying he is staying in, and strategizing how to revitalize the campaign.

Is the guy really in denial that deep? He has gone nowhere and it's just getting worse, and he is getting further and further behind in the money. It looks like he raised about $2 million in the quarter just ended, or about $13 million less than Howard Dean.

And to top it off, senior campaign officials started bolting. They see the writing on the wall. Can't he?

And when are the other also-rans going to start bowing out gracefully? Like Kerry, for instance. It's a bit premature for him, but he's looking more and more invisible since Clark appeared on the scene.

All the sniping from the other Dems camps the past week or two has been unseemly. (Including quite a bit from Howard Dean supporters, I'm embarassed to say.) One of the silliest charges has concerned Wes Clark's loyalty, with some even suggesting he might swap parties.

As usual, it was built around the barest little factoids, like the fact that he had not declared an affiliation until just before announcing. (That was an indication that he might have been fence-sitting before, but I hardly think he could have more assertively cast his lot with one party than by declaring a run for its presidential nomination.)

And it has taken awhile, but finally some journalist at AP revealed just how silly it was. Check this out:

Clark's Party Views Typical in Arkansas

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Wesley Clark is typical of many voters in Arkansas. When he registered to vote, he declared no party affiliation.

. . . Only 4.4 percent of Arkansas' 1.5 million voters have declared any political party, said Janet Miller, the secretary of state's deputy for elections.

"Voter registration by party affiliation is an optional choice, and we have found that a very, very small number of registered voters declare," Miller said. "And if you do declare, it isn't binding. They just ask you which ballot you want when you show up at the polls."

Arkansans couldn't even declare party affiliation until 1996, after changes in 1995 to a state constitutional amendment added an optional party information box to registration forms.

Arkansas permits voters to request a specific party ballot when they walk into the polls on Election Day or when they request an absentee ballot.

"If you vote in a primary, you are declaring that you want a Republican or Democratic ballot for that year's elections, that's it," said Carolyn Staley, the clerk in Pulaski County where Clark is registered. "If you come back for a primary two years later, you can choose to vote in the other party if you wish."

Pulaski County records show that Clark registered to vote in 2002, casting a ballot in the Democratic primary and then voted in the general election.