>>So we'll bookmark this post for later, when the news comes out about how much the DNC benefitted from the selection of CGI.

This is a particular difference between us: on 27 October 2013, I see no credible evidence to support your belief. If the evidence eventually appears, apparently it's an intention to go back and trumpet that you were correct. But on 27 October 2013, you were not correct based on available evidence. Prejudice that turns out to be correct still is prejudice and it has nothing to do with evidence eventually emerging to support prior claims. Also I notice that when prejudice turns out to be unfounded, people aren't so keen to go back and claim ownership of the version they asserted. Seems to me to be much more reasonable (though less dramatic) to base judgment on evidence, not on whatever people hope will turn out to be true.