Test your knowledge of greek mythology. I answered nine correctly, but the one I missed was a real gimme, arguably the easiest one on the quiz. Overconfidence-bred sloppiness, it's a killer.
Just another reminder of why Clinton wasn't that much better than Bush. A little better, but this is pretty bad.
Here's an unusual way of analyzing the candidates, but it jives with my impressions of the two, so it's probably got something going for it.
A lot of people say that either not voting or voting for a third-party candidate is a vote for Bush. Charley Reese is one of these people. This argument is, quite frankly, retarded. First the obvious point that there is a difference in voting for Bush and not voting at all. If they were the same, Bush would happily have everyone stay home who intends to vote for him. Secondly, either voting matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, since there's no way my vote will change the outcome of the election, then it doesn't matter. Vote for Bush, vote for Kerry, write-in your spouse, whatever. On the other hand, voting may matter. If I express a desire for policies x,y and z and don't vote, politicians will generally not take account of what I want. If I vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, I'm not supporting one of the incompetent/bad/evil guys with a chance, and I'm showing I'm part of the process, that I'm a voter to woo. I am firmly convinced that Ross Perot's performance in 1992 (despite the fact that he is insane and had no chance of winning) put the deficit front and center on many politicians' minds, nudging us towards fiscal sanity. Was a vote for Perot a vote for Bush I? Or for Clinton? No, it was neither, and people weren't throwing their votes away either.