Well said, KO.

This one is an all-timer, no one has even come close in the past 33+ years

Of the embellished national anthem.

Perhaps the most original yet compelling version of the SSB. Indeed, a singular moment much like Jimi's at Woodstock and Whitney's before SB XXV.

However, unless you can outdo Marvin, you best be singing it as intended:

Straightforward and in 1:40.

I'm not sure that there will be that many for me this year.
However, The Police put on a very strong show at the Blaisdell last Saturday.

And the crowd ... Vegas can't party like HNL. Period.

An inside joke it shall remain for the faithful that showed up.
All maybe 1000 or so of us.

This was an affirmation of the powerful metal riff, and the Sabbath faithful
Great crowd, that we had the privilege to be a part of, that Friday night in New York City.

Yes, it was really THAT f'n loud. A hair raising, ear drum busting experience

---

Most Impressively Creepy Crowd
Lisa Lisa, that very same night

All the local women, well mostly Jpnse women, in their late 30s+ singing their heads off to All Cried Out. If you're a guy, you're wondering: WTH, am I gonna make it out of here alive. Uhm, let me guess, someone hurt you in high school? Amazingly creepy.

Never knew this song had a video. Still very fresh sounding at 5 years old.

give them back the Grammy. really.

or give it to Charles Shaw and the other session guys

looking back, did the other nominees: Tone Loc, Soul II Soul, Indigo Girls, or Neneh Cherry amount to anything either?

no wonder there was no giving of the award after it was revoked from MV.

give it to them to commemorate the fact that 1990 sucked for new artists

Song of the week. Live.
Oh and a little bit of MosDef to lift it higher still.

I really hate the Rehab song. However, this song has really turned me on the brilliance of her album (well, except for Reh). Another discovery courtesy UK radio, to celebrate her big night at the Grammys.

Here's hoping she gets her shit together and doesn't go the way of TTD, down the Wishing Well.

I think that the best result for HC yesterday would have been an overwhelming victory. She certainly did well enough to carry the large big yield states. But I think that her campaign needs to be worried that she lost 13 or 14 of yesterday's contests. It doesn't really speak well of her momentum going forward.

2. Strategic change

I tend to agree with most pundits that the new debating posture of HC is due to the fact that she is quickly running out of money. In fact, the NY Post speculated today that she had put in $5M of her own funds today to continue her campaign. Ouch, kinda Mitt-like and desperate in appearance. Her campaign must be thinking that maximum exposure can be had by debating BO weekly. I can see BO playing hard to get now, because now he can really stomp out her campaign by choking out this line of exposure for her. From the perspective of the BO campaign, he has a number of small donors that have yet to max out their political contributions -- I think HC has shot her guns already, not much room for improvement unless she can pull more new people under her tent and make it rain. I am finding the BO campaign strategy of small donors to be more brilliant daily

3. At the end of the day, you like an apple or you like an orange

You want change and hope. Maybe you want experience and a resumption of the Clinton agenda. It seems as if certain categories of supporters have held for both candidates, so much so that one cannot deny the trends. Both candidates must consider how they can strip off weakly affiliated groups. For BO, it is "lower" economic class women and pick up more white men. For HC, it is holding on to old Clinton coalition groups from the Bill era -- in particular, the Latino voters especially with Big Tex on the horizon in a month.

For the HC campaign, I think they severely underappreciate the "dislike" that their candidate evokes in the minds of independents and slightly conservative voters who may sway democratic for the right candidate. For the BO campaign, it's time to get to the meat of the discussion. All this change, hope, and yes, we can talk gets you in the door after the GWB era for a lot of voters, however it doesn't close the sale. It's time to pull a (reverse) Reagan and put out a progressive agenda that will kill conservatism dead in this country (except for the most staunch, and ardent) -- the door is open, now he has to make himself at home.

4. The lead is as good as the chase?

BO's campaign is wonderfully positioned to be competitive all the way through to the convention in Denver. Can it sustain the momentum of the underdog when he is expected to move to the top of the leaderboard in the next couple of weeks? Is this really a movement? If it is HC's campaign is pretty much dead in the water -- political wisdom suggests that it is easy to defeat a candidate, but hard to defeat a movement.

5. What can we expect from either candidate as the front runner?

I have yet to really boil down what I feel about this issue. I think it is easy to make simple pronouncements about direction. If HC wins the presidency, the worst that we can expect is business as usual and extreme gridlock. Some are predicting that this will be the ultimate outcome. The best that can be expected is the going forward of a successful progressive agenda and economic revitalization.

If BO becomes the president, the worst that we can expect is that there was no substance to the campaign, and there was much sizzle but no steak. The best that can be expected is a Reagan-like healing of America, going between the aisles and moving forward in a nonpartisan positive direction to solve various problems

Rooney is back. Love the retro sound.

Getting beyond the punishment of the Patriots and the commissioner's destruction of the submitted evidence, I think there is a greater issue to be considered, and it concerns the integrity of the game. The league and its fans need to believe that the competition on the field is real, on the level, and that no team or player has attempted to secure an unfair advantage.

I don't really think that the advantage has to be successful to make it punishable. Rhetorically speaking, we criminalize and punish such things as attempted robbery and murder. It is the spirit of the offense that we are trying to deter.

The NFL posted a memorandum earlier this season about videotaping game signals of opponents. The Patriots, notably their coach, did exactly what they were prohibited from doing. Why? Beyond the obvious competitive advantage argument, it offends the spirit of competition and calls into question the integrity of the games that we all watch on Sunday -- since all teams do it to some extent.

Now, new information has arisen suggesting the Patriots taped the Rams walkthrough prior to SB 36. As I recall the game, the Rams were stifled for most of the game by a brilliantly executed game plan. I must question now if the play on the field was affected by these alleged acts. I hate that feeling that something smarmy is afoot regarding this.

It is why I have felt that stronger sanctions should have been taken against the Patriots and their coaching staff for this year's Spygate controversy. Forfeits or forfeit of playoff eligibility would not have been so far-reaching because this goes to the integrity of the game. Suspensions of coaching staff who knew of or authorized such taping, up to and including multiyear or lifetime suspensions again would not be too far-reaching.

In some ways, I think that if the evidence warrants, the Patriots may face further sanction for not only the recent Spygate events but for past events as well. To me, all justifiable if it can be proved that they were trying to upset the integrity of the game