On the lighter side of things, the Boston Red Sox have apparently come to an agreement  with Daisuke Matsuzaka, arguably the #1 pitcher in Nippon Professional Baseball.  This was apparently of such importance that it came up during the State Dept briefing on Six-Party talks regarding North Korea, at which Asst. SecState Christopher Hill started asking reporters what they knew once one of them gave him a tidbit of info (excerpt below the fold).

H/T SOSH Red Sox discussion board (registration required during high traffic periods).

Today's White House Briefing is a doozy--don't miss it.  Dan Froomkin goes in depth on the parallels between what is sure to be one of the biggest movies of the summer--Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith--and our favorite chimp.  

The basic idea is that a major element of the movie's plot, the transformation of the Galactic Republic into the evil Empire, parallels the loss of freedom that has occurred during Bush's presidency.  One of the most glaring similarities is when the character soon to become Darth Vader tells Obi-Wan that he is either with him or against him.

Froomkin notes that Lucas claims believably that the story was written well before current events, and much of it was originally based on Vietnam, the rise of Napoleon, and the rise of the Roman Empire out of its predecessor republic.  Lucas does say that the degree of repetition in history, particularly between Vietnam and Iraq is "unbelievable."

Could this movie be the one to get through to the masses?  Let's hope for the power of parables...

A cute post by Josh Marshall:

Since the TPM site does not allow for posting of comments, I decided to give it some space here.  Post your own examples of "mixed reactions!"

I think Kerry should hit Iraq as hard as he possibly can.  He should say, "The United States is losing the war in Iraq. We are losing because George is incompetent and in a dream world.  The only way to win is a fundamental change of strategy, and Bush won't even think about doing this because he is in denial."  Kerry can then quote various pieces of evidence, of which there are plenty.

The way I hope this would work is that it would open people's eyes and maybe they would finally understand that the Chimperor has no clothes.  I'm sure Bush will have some kind of response, but it would be a miracle if Bush directly engaged on substantive issues--this would be the equivalent of leaving an army on a battlefield about to get vaporized.  

Could this backfire?  Probably--the first thing I think of is that if many people have their heads in the sand as much as polls suggest, they may think Kerry is being defeatist.  There are probably other ways that this could backfire as well, but I think Kerry needs to nuke Bush in the debate, and this is how it is done.  

Last night, I requested nominations for the best series ever.  The responses were plentiful; you can see them here (a great list of recommendations, I think).  

Anyway, now it's time to vote.  There were too many submissions to include in the poll, so I had to winnow things down, and I apologize to those whose favorites did not make the cut.  (I note that my own submission of the Chronicles of Prydain did not make it.  Also, I am a big fan of the Iliad and Odyssey, but they aren't really novels, so I didn't include them.)

Update [2004-9-23 14:46:44 by froggywomp]: The ballot has been posted!

I just started reading the Foundation series aloud to my girlfriend, because <gasp> she had never read it.  The edition I acquired has the first three novels in one volume, plus a foreword that Asimov wrote around the time of the publication of the fourth book in the series.  It mentions that a special Hugo award for best series ever was given sometime in the sixties, and Foundation and Lord of the Rings were among the nominees; Asimov thought surely Tolkien would win, but as it turned out, Foundation carried the day.  

I thought it would be interesting to see what y'all think is the best (fictional) series of books you've ever read.  So, make your nominations in this diary; after a while, I'll post a followup diary with a poll where people can vote on the nominees.  In the admittedly unlikely event (given the lifetime of diaries around here) that more nominees are put forth than can fit in the dKos diary-autopoll feature, I'll use a combination of editorial discretion and consideration of seconding (so don't be afraid to be redundant if someone already mentioned what you wanted to mention).  Finally, Foundation and Lord of the Rings WILL be on the ballot, so there is no need to nominate them.

As a way of eroding Bush's base and capitalizing on the angst many Republicans may be feeling, 527s and surrogates should call Bush un-Republican because of his behavior.  There is a lot of ammunition here.  

• His dad was a temperate internationalist

• Many republicans are on record for balanced budgets and against gov't growth/big deficits

• He threw the Powell doctrine out the window

• Nation building--he was against it, but now he's undeniably for it (and he can't even do it right)

• Free trade--he talks the talk but didn't walk the walk (PA steel tariffs)

• Well-established republicans like Paul O'Neill and Christine Todd Whitman were not acceptable in his cabinet

• Two very popular republicans, Schwartzenegger and Giuliani, hold positions quite different from his

• He has treated the military very poorly
  

I've often wondered what the age distribution on this site is.  Take the poll and see!

The democrats should have a significant advantage in this election compared to 2000.  Motivation is much higher, meaning turnout should be higher.  Bush has revealed his true neocon nature, lessening his appeal to conservative dems and independents.  Those who previously voted for Nader should have realized the consequences of their mistake.  Thus, by this attempt at "deductive" logic, the Democrats should win, but horse race polls show a tie or a slight edge to Kerry.  Electoral vote estimates are highly variable.  How can this apparent paradox be explained?