Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AFSCME Takes to Airwaves for Clinton

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will unveil a flight of ads in Iowa today designed to promote the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the leading edge of a seven-figure expenditure on behalf of the New York Senator by the influential labor union.

Clinton received the endorsement of AFSCME at the end of October, and the union's activities on her behalf seem to mirror (at least financially) what it did on behalf of former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) during the 2004 presidential fight

In that election, AFSCME and the Service Employees International Union both backed Dean and worked -- ultimately unsuccessfully -- on his behalf. This time the national SEIU decided against an endorsement but gave their state unions the ability to choose candidates on their own.

For much of the last month, Clinton has come under considerable criticism from her rivals -- especially Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). With the combined weight of AFSCME's ads and those being funded by Clinton in Iowa, voters in Iowa are sure to hear lots and lots of positive messaging about the New York Senator in the final month before the caucuses on Jan. 3.

The ad began running today in Iowa and was produced by Ann Liston, a media consultant based out of Chicago. It was funded by AFSCME's political action committee.

AFSCME's ad is the latest of a growing number of independent expenditures aimed at early states. We're doing our darndest to keep track of them all. Our list is below. Are we missing any? Note it in the comments section or email me at chris.cillizza@washingtonpost.com.

* Common Sense Issues -- A group funding automated phone calls into Iowa touting former Gov. Mike Huckabee's (Ark.) candidacy and with a website at www.trusthuckabee.com. Patrick Davis, a former political director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is heading up the effort.

*Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America: An independent organization with ties to a former John McCain adviser (Rick Reed) and funded in large part by donors to the Arizona Senator. The group made a major splash last month when it launched an issue ad touting McCain's leadership on the Wounded Warrior Act.

*Working for Working Families: First reported on by Time's Mark Halperin, little is known of the group. Halperin speculates it could be an independent expenditure effort by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners who has endorsed Edwards.

*Democratic Courage: An anti-Clinton group, Democratic Courage "launched" its first ad on Monday -- although questions remains about just how much money is behind the effort.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 5, 2007; 11:07 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NPR's Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers
Next: Fix Picks: Reading Up on Romney

Comments

'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists. '

-notice that these papers have all been pointed to by zouk, notice how his tactics are exactly the same. it's a playbook.

Posted by: drindl | December 6, 2007 8:18 AM | Report abuse


WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Posted by: drindl | December 6, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Mark -- having lived in different parts of the country (and not being a native Texan -- sorry to disappoint), I usually hear people's accents very well.

I have not noticed the "as" thing but will surely listen for it.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 6, 2007 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Northern People. I once had to drive my truck in 4wd to Court in Lampasas because we had snow. When I got there the courthouse was closed for snow.

To one who lives where it snows once every decade, "black ice" sounded like scifi.

They probably have this in Winter in the mountains of west Texas, where I like to go in the Summer.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I see a pattern beginning to take shape with a revision of "FACTS" that are well known to folks that have followed politics for many years. I find this mainly by the "Hillary Haters" and those Repubs that "FEAR" her the most. Mike is turning into another media "Darling" and this well know "FACT" about his "Hatred" of the Clinton's are beginning to see the light of day, re...His support of the early release of the Rapist who did rape a cousin on the Clinton's, and despite numerous warnings did this out of "Hatred" for the Clinton's. I do see this as a logical pattern that I thought would happen earlier than this, so I missed it by a couple of weeks.

Posted by: lylepink | December 5, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,
"Exxon pays thousands of people to do exactly what he is doing". How much? My wife would love it if I got paid for blogging.

"...and you will notice he is on here every day at noon and leaves around 7 or so, a typical work day." 7 hours is a typical work day? I must be in the wrong business.

Mark_in_Austin,
I thought you might have been being sarcastic on the black ice thing! As I said, it's real and I got to experience it on my morning commute today.

jimd52,
You can put me down as someone that believes in controled burns for our rivers of fire! I think we can agree that dumping raw sewage or pollutants in rivers, lakes and streams is something that should not occur if at all possible.

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 10:47 PM | Report abuse

'Drindl: does NY State have tax incentives for residential solar power systems? I think NJ and CT do as well as CA. That should become a part of the Federal tax code (if it isn't already?) like the Prius credit.

I can't see retiring to CA but maybe AZ or somewhere in the SW would make sense. Depends on where my kids end up, I suppose.'

I don't know... I should find out. agree that tax incentives are a great 'carrot' approach-- better than giving tax incentives to energy companies, who simply pass it as cash to their stockholders.

I wouldn't even try to retire in Ca--too expensive. Southwest sounds nice, but like you say, depends on the kid[s]. If she stays here, I probably will too -- black ice be damned.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Oops..I just saw Judge's answer to the black ice thing. Sorry - I missed it earlier. His explanation is better than my second hand one.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe MH can select God as his VP and save us some money."

Judge, you're feeling feisty today! You and Mark do sarcasm well!

Mark, I didn't know what "black ice" is either, but the husband who went to college in Michigan, says it's when there's ice on the road, but it's so smooth that you can't tell it apart from the pavement - that it looks "black," making for truly the most hazardous road condition possible.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

dave,

I never said it would be magically cheap. It is just that I am old enough to remember what businesses were saying about environmental regulations in the 60's & 70's - that it would ruin the economy and run companies out of business. Those predictions did not come true. I would also point out that the environmental problems were dire - we had rivers catching fire. Some companies will do incredibly irresponsible things, from a societal perspective, to save money. It is still happening today here in Florida where companies are dumping pollutants into the St. John's River. One of the main reasons is that Jeb Bush gutted the Florida environmental regulation enforcement agencies.

I definitely agree that some regulations go to far, are too cumbersome and allow zealots to delay worthwhile projects for years. However, when it comes to safeguarding the air we breathe and the water we drink, I would rather err on the side of caution.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

jimd -- you might as well talk to a rock. zouk's main purpose here is to spread lies and propaganda -- and most people have caught on to that and are now ignoring him, as he so richly dserves. for some reason he seems to need to single me out, but all i do is scroll past him. just ignore -- what he posts is too absurd to even waste your time on.

i do suspect that he is a paid troll - due to his constant BS about climate change. Exxon pays thousands of people to do exactly what he is doing -- and you will notice he is on here every day at noon and leaves around 7 or so, a typical work day. although you would think they could have found someone with at least a functional cognition.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

jimd52,
I agree with you that a response to a regulation can be new technologies. Banning DDT gave birth to a myriad of anti-mosquito technologies. But regulations are not without costs, to consumers and business. I'm not arguing against your point because I think your right in that its probably the only viable way to do it, but it won't be magically cheap. There will be growing pains. People will lose jobs as old tech businesses evaporate (replaced by new) and consumers will pay more to fund the mandated technology upgrade. Highways are a good example of where the costs of environmental regs can be seen. Part of the high cost of building a highway are the env impact studies and mitigation efforts that have to happen due to env regulations. Many a road have not been built or greatly delayed due to the regs, contributing to traffic and pollution. In general, the longer you wait to build a road (delayed by regs), the more it costs. Again, not disagreeing with your premise, but I think you underestimate the costs because many are hard to see. But that does not make them any less real.

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Someone asked if I had served on a nuclear boat - well close, it was a nuclear aircraft carrier (submarines are boats, all other major naval craft are ships). However, I did work in a program that managed the decomissioning of nuke boats. It was a tricky process. We ended up sealing the reactor compartments in lead and barging them from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to Hanford, WA, site of a former nuclear power plant. The compartments were stored there in the decommissioned plant.


Zouk - your economic ignorance is showing - as demand for an item increases, more sellers try to supply that demand and as economies of scale come into play, costs go down. Look at all the technological innovations over the last 30 years or so. When personal computers first came out, there was not much of a market for them and they were incredibly expensive. As demand heated up, suppliers produced more and were able to produce them more cheaply. Look at the price today of a good DVD player compared to the prices of VDRs when they first appeared in the late 1970s.

When I was stationed on the aircraft carrier, the last year of my tour was in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard where the ship went for overhaul. Our homeport was Alameda, CA and we arrived in the yard in early January. We lost about 8 sailors in auto accidents during the first 6 weeks there due to accidents on black ice.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - Sorry I wasn't clearer about this; that is exactly the point I was trying to make. I think these sites try to drive you towards a particular candidate.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 5, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm posting this Mother Jones link for laughs:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/12/6426_huckabee_god_re.html

Maybe MH can select God as his VP and save us some money. Sounds like an excellent idea for an Onion story.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"I think NJ and CT do as well as CA"

throw in MA and you have the highest taxes in the country. Just who do you think pays for all this free stuff?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

would you prefer: Tay - ree -- iffs

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: does NY State have tax incentives for residential solar power systems? I think NJ and CT do as well as CA. That should become a part of the Federal tax code (if it isn't already?) like the Prius credit.

I can't see retiring to CA but maybe AZ or somewhere in the SW would make sense. Depends on where my kids end up, I suppose.

Mark: black ice is very real. A thin layer of ice on asphalt, it makes the road look 'wet' (thus the name) even though it isn't. In the Sierras it went on for miles which is why you had to carry/use chains. Elsewhere it is less visible but becomes apparent when you desperately need to come to a sudden stop.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, did you see my question about water vapor? It is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but I do not know if that is even relevant. Do you know?

Northern people: What is "black ice"? Is it a real thing?

Southern and Western People who listen to debates:
Do you notice that HRC and BHO both shorten their "As" like Lieberman did, although not as
gratingly? They say "teriffs" instead of tariffs.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"But if there is more demand, there will be more interest in innovations that will also make them cheaper"

Yeah because as we all know, innovation is free. the government just mandates it and it magically appears. either that or we can just go buy it in canada for a discount.

2nd most ignorant statement of the day.

Oh wise and sagacious drindl, do share some more economic wisdom with us. I can use a good laugh before the drive home.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"The more demand there is, the more the costs will go down, at least theoritcally"

Ha ha. More Dem economic wisdom. If more people want something, it gets cheaper. Like gasoline. ooops. wait. how about health care. nope...wrong again.

darn facts and economics, always getting in the way of a foolish Dem misconception.

I think we can award the most ignorant statement of the day now.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"But there has to be a market for the technolgical improvements."

dave - the environmental regulations created the markets for the myriad technological improvements that helped acheive cleaner air and water.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

uch the same way.'


Not all all - we don't even that much sunshine here but many businesses [esp the big box types which have huge roofs and huge energy expenditures0 are using solar panels. The more demand there is, the more the costs will go down, at least theoritcally. But if there is more demand, there will be more interest in innovations that will also make them cheaper.

Black ice. Two of the most dreaded words in the English language. I really really miss California in the winter here. It's so pretty with all the seasons and so forth but the older you get, the more you feel the cold.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I've seen a lot of "pick your candidate" quizzes, and the WaPo one is probably the worst. It's so badly designed! It makes you answer questions as if you were the candidate, instead of asking what you want out of a candidate. And half the time the answers are practically identical, so the questions are meaningless. I've been meaning to complain about that quiz all day; thanks for giving me the opportunity.

Posted by: Blarg | December 5, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

JimD: I bet a barrel of chitlin's that FT ain't gonna win SC (that's my Arthur Branch imitation). See the aggregate polling data at http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Rep-Pres-Primary.php

MH and MR are trending up but I have no idea which one will win; that big sucking noise you hear is FT's support sliding over to MH. MH's success = buh-bye, Fred. I hear Law and Order might be interested in renewing your contract.

I agree that it looks like Romney will take NH but as proof that NH is a weird place I offer the fact that it looks like McCain will come in second (http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Rep-Pres-Primary.php).

And yes, MH will probably win IA.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

PORTLAND - The first major winter storm to sweep across Maine this season was farther out to sea than expected, reducing snowfall totals, but there was still plenty of the white stuff to clean up on Tuesday, officials said.

Portland tied the record for the date set in 1890 with 8.5 inches of snow on Monday, according to Bob Marine of the National Weather Service.

can we please get global warming to speed up????

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
"I think Jim D's point was that with renewed focus on the technology, we could be making tech progress faster than we are currently"
But there has to be a market for the technolgical improvements. The CFLs are a really good example. As the market for them has grown, competition has developed (along with improvments and modifications). With that (and the power of Walmart), the prices are dropping to affordable levels. I've got so many in my house now that I don't know what i am going to do with my stock of regular bulbs! Remember that 8 track tapes were a technological advance - it does not always work...

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - A volunteer Iowa county coordinator for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign has resigned after forwarding a chain e-mail that suggests Barack Obama is a Muslim who wants to destroy the United States by being elected to its highest office.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.

A hoax e-mail that has been widely circulated suggests Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate for Muslims.

Judy Rose, a Clinton coordinator in Jones County, Iowa, forwarded it without comment to eight people on Nov. 21, according to a copy of the e-mail obtained by The Associated Press. One of the recipients was a Clinton staffer and another was Gary Hart, a Democratic Party official in Jones County.

Hart is a supporter of Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and posted an item about the ``hateful'' e-mail on the rabid liberal hate-blog Daily Kos. The Clinton campaign responded by asking Rose to step down.

``There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for getting caught doing this kind of politics,'' Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said in a statement Wednesday.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

There's a *really* intersting "quiz" over on the MSNBC web site - "Choose Your Candidate". I took, as honestly as I was able, both the Democratic and Republican tests...blind. I am just stunned. Bill Richardson won at 28%), Clinton was next at 23%, and Obama and Edwards were tied at 15%. On the Republican side is agreed with Paul 45%, Romney 19%, Huckabee 16%, and McCain 10%. I realize the questions are sometimes just plain bad, you are forced to choose a candidate eve though you disagree with all of them, but this is stillan inteeresting quiz.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/?hpid=topnews

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

dave,

I will repeat what I said before, the same arguments were made by businesses and other opponents of environmental regulations in the 60's and 70's. Their dire predictions did not come true and new industries were spawned and developed new technologies that are in use today.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

LV and Claudia, I would agree with both of those courses of action. At least they would do more good for mankind than the alternatives focused on GW, ie, nothing.

LV you want to give contraceptives to the 3rd world, fine by me. Reducing the population would have an order of magnitude more effect on GW than those silly little carbon offsets that AG sells. Claudia, using a carrot and stick approach to increasing gas mileage is the right idea; controlling for the CO2 emissions as an externality makes sense - if it's global. Otherwise, our contribution, compared to the damage China and India do over the next 20 years, will be laughable.

Posted by: JD | December 5, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

judgeccrater,
"Although, come to think of it, my first experiences with black ice were in the Sierra Nevadas."

My LAST experience with black ice was this morning on my way to work in northern Virginia. Once global warming kicks in, I probably won't get to experience the joys of the four seasons in this area anymore... I'll have to move up to bsimon's area...

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"But all of those are big upfront outlays that I either can't afford or that don't justify the cost premium. I can't imagine many people in the US can afford these technologies. I would imagine that businesses are looking at it much the same way."

Thats largely true, though some are putting their money where their mouth is. My wife's employer is spending a lot of money on stuff like solar panels, LEED certified building, etc.

I think Jim D's point was that with renewed focus on the technology, we could be making tech progress faster than we are currently, hopefully lowering the costs of the things you cite - or similar/other technologies. I'd like to do panels too, but like you, the up-front cost is prohibitive. But, the cost of solar shingles is coming down & efficiency is going up; perhaps when we need to re-roof, it'll be a compelling alternative.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Judge

I think Giuliani needs different candidates to win the first three - ideal for him (if he can't gain traction in NH) - Huckabee wins Iowa, Fred wins SC and Romney squeaks by in NH. He has the funding and the name recognition to survive until mega-Tuesday but if the same candidate wins all three early contests, the bandwagon effect could swamp him.

I think the major candidates most likely to drop out after the Iowa and New Hampshire are Romney and Edwards. In fact, Edwards would probably have to quit if he comes in third in Iowa. Should Romney fail to win Iowa and New Hampshire, I think his candidacy is doomed. The question is would he stay in and self-fund his campaign? The longer the Republican race is a multi-candidate race, the better Giuliani's chances.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Have you been there?"

I have. You know what? Contrary to popular belief, they have not only trees but hills in Iowa too! Initial point was tongue-in-cheek, by the way.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
"This report states that 40% of the CO2 reductions could be achieved at negative marginal costs; they'd actually save money!" I think the one word missing from this sentence is "eventually" as in "eventually save money". I have thought about and looked into installing solar panels on my southern roof or getting a water heater that only heats when you are using hot water or a hybrid that would fit my family of five. But all of those are big upfront outlays that I either can't afford or that don't justify the cost premium. I can't imagine many people in the US can afford these technologies. I would imagine that businesses are looking at it much the same way.

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks, Mark for the LBJ reminder. I forgot about that. So we can blame a Democrat for the stupid use of the word "war?" You see, I'm in complete agreement with you -- on declaring war on anything that may not have an end. I prefer to keep the use of the word "war" as used by the army - with set boundaries and clear definitions of "wins" and "losses.""

think again. Really. The war on terror and war on drugs are AGAINST america. The war on poverty was in favor of america. That is the differance. The gop wage war on us. the dem's wage war FOR us. The gop are traitors.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon -- I responded to your inciteful question 2 pages ago.

Unfortunately, I can't stick around right now, I have wedding stuff to do.

For those interested, the big day is in 10 days.

Just think, some day I'll have little Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz rugrats running around. That should make some of you feel really good :)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 5, 2007 04:56 PM
"

Start brianwashing em' young, right usmc. Otherwise you may lose your grip. On the past and the future. Start young. When they grow up they will come to daddy (idealogically speaking) :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Agreement with jimd in FL; the national polling data is largely irrelevant ATPIT. However, as far as Romney is concerned I'm betting that the next go-around of AVERAGED State polling (post the YouTube debate) will show MH leapfrogging both FT and McCain in 2-3 states and threatening Guiliani. MH is already second in IA. I think the bigger question is whether Guiliani will stick around after consecutive third place (possibly) finishes in the early states. He'll probably still win NY no matter what.

NH still appears to be resistant to MH's charms but I'm still watching the averaged polling data.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"female nick writes
"Iowa is one of the few states I've never visited"

You're not missing much.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 04:36 PM
"

Have you been there? I went there on business. Looked like heaven. Boring. But how it that any differant from any other small town. It looks like 1955 out there. Not that they think that way (as I accuse the gop doing. Trying to keep us there). Their mentality is cool. I would think iowa would be a conservatives dream. minus the liberals, of course. I'm sure they would like to send everyone not exactly like them elsewhere. When did that become america? Be as me or be gone. America is individuual freedom. The gop are traitors.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -- I responded to your inciteful question 2 pages ago.

Unfortunately, I can't stick around right now, I have wedding stuff to do.

For those interested, the big day is in 10 days.

Just think, some day I'll have little Sean Hannity and Neal Boortz rugrats running around. That should make some of you feel really good :)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | December 5, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

the new PT Barnum:

This is priceless! Bill complains about wife's press
Kyle-Anne Shiver
Right on the heels of widespread complaints from various members of the national press that they cannot get near Hillary Clinton with spontaneous questions that require spontaneous, substantive answers, along comes hubby Bill to publicly gripe that reporters refuse to cover her.

When I read this, I laughed so hard my side split wide open. If only my health insurance paid for it, I would be on my way to the ER right this minute.

Seriously, get a load of this. Bill Clinton, imitating his wife's gift for gall, said today:


"During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can't understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience-and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama."
Even though he may have a valid point about the purely political thrust of much of the press coverage for all the candidates, I think the man must have missed most of this campaign. If the candidates welcome the press, the press has demonstrated that they will indeed report the candidates' answers.

And while he was on the subject of his wife's grand experience, why didn't he explain why the couple themselves are covering up most of that ballyhooed experience? Her papers are under lock and key! So how could the press report on them?

But this is the line that caused my side to split:


"I would pick her and be here if we weren't married," Clinton said.
He must think the majority of the electorate are dumber than barnyard posts. Just how many eyes do you think were rolling when he said that?

The fact that a man, who was the only sitting President to lose his license to practice law for five years for the crime of lying, continues to get anything he says actually recorded, is a remarkable statement about our own gullibility and lack of regard for the truth.

I'm laughing so hard, I may start crying.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/this_is_priceless_bill_complai.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I admit it! I'm a sissy when it comes to snow.

It snowed once when I lived in Austin, and the city shut down until the inch of snow melted.

If I lived in a place with four seasons, I'd actually have to have a wardrobe for the different seasons -- and that would mean having to shop, which I detest. In TX and CA, a coat is all you need for those rare, very cold days.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"But as you mention, there are other reasons. A friend of mine who lives in Manhattan tells me prices are actually rising for apartments there. One in her building, a studio, went from $300,000 to 500,000 in the last 3 months. The reason? Wealthy Arabs from oil countries are snapping up everything they can -- because our low dollar makes our whole country a bargain basement. They're buying us out with our own money."

Who owns the most expensive house in america? Bush's buddy. You got to love republican politics. Bring our enemies here, give them the keys to the kingdom. Attack them verbally and attack who they tell you to. Great racket. Until the american peopel catch on. How did bush start his oil company. Research

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

femalenick

It isn't just victory in the early contests, it is beating expectations. Carter came from nowhere to a second place showing in Iowa and it was that unexpectedly good showing that propelled him to national prominence. No Democrat contested Iowa seriously in 1992 since Senator Harkin was running. Clinton actually came in second in New Hampshire to Paul Tsongas but that revived his campaign after the Jennifer Flowers fiasco became public. Reagan did not need an Iowa win to propel him to national prominence, he was already well known.

It is a peculiar fact that unexpected second place showings can get a candidate more attention than an expected victory. The classic example was Gene McCarthy coming in a close second to Lyndon Johnson in 1968 causing LBJ to withdraw shortly afterwards.

I am not sure if an Iowa win will have as much of an effect on New Hampshire this year as in the past. However, it will give a candidate a tremendous burst of attention. Many voters are not strongly attached to one candidate or another and many are still undecided. An Iowa victory coupled with a strong New Hampshire showing could give a lesser known candidate a very strong boost. There will be a few weeks between New Hampshire and mega-Tuesday. Candidates who bomb in New Hampshire and Iowa will drop out. Obama is well positioned to capitalize on good showings in the early contests since he has done so well in fundraising.

Doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire and using the resultant buzz to gather a lot of national support is Romney's whole strategy. He is doing much better in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls than nationwide.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

If you don't like the cold, buy a big SUV and leave your lights on all night. it will warm up eventually.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"I just shudder at the thought of living with the Northeastern climate."

Stop that sissy talk, femalenick! Either Drindl or I would be glad to hold forth on the deep spiritual benefits of slush, salt trucks and black ice versus our experience with the soul-draining influence of constant sunshine, blue skies and beautiful California scenery.

Lest you think that Mark is the only one capable of sarcasm.

Although, come to think of it, my first experiences with black ice were in the Sierra Nevadas.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons seemed untouchable in spite of their sleaze and dangerous incompetence: Viz., Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, Sid Blumenthal, who are all once again gracing Hillary's Court. Clinton: The Return will be awfully similar to Clinton: First Blood. Bill is still Hillary's political mentor behind the scenes. But suddenly they're not immune any more. When Bill Clinton lied last week about "being against the Iraq war from the beginning," that fact was blazoned forth by no less than the NYT and the WaPo, the twin fountains of truth for the faithful. What happened?


I'll bet it was Norman Hsu. He reminded everybody of Charlie Trie, the Buddhist nuns who were so charitable to Al Gore, and on and on. Previously, the Left had no choice (in their minds) but to support the Clintons. But now the Left gets that sinking feeling, waiting for all the other Hsu's to drop over the next eight years. In the past, the only alternative would be to actually support a Republican, and that is inconceivable, of course. Today, there is a moment of choice.


If Hillary wins the nomination, chances are that the Iron Curtain will slam down again on any unfavorable coverage in the MSM. The Left will go for Anybody But Rudy, Mitt, Mike, Fred or John. They will be in the bag for Hillary, and they will keep that bag tied well above their heads, no matter what. Fox News and the blogosphere may uncover plenty, but


What's new today is a sudden moment of clarity on the Left. For the first time since 1992 there is a real alternative to Clintonismo. For just one flash of a second we can see what Democrats and the media really think. But this moment will be swallowed in the daily flow of events if Obama fails to beat the Hillary Machine.


All in all, it would be better for the country if the Democrats could just move on. The Clintons have pretty well destroyed any respect for the Democrats, they have exposed a party of power-hungry careerists, without a principle in the world, they have made "liberal" a term of contempt, and have shown the party to be blind if not treasonous on national security. If they can't get rid of Hillary (and co-president Bill), if Obama falters or is secretly shafted by the Machine, watch for another eight years of Clintonismo.


Pray for Obama. He'll need it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/can_the_left_move_on_from_clin.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"what do you do with the nuclear waste, Mark? nobody has come up with a good idea about that, as far as i can tell."

A good question. I've wondered why they can't unrefine it, or whatever it would take to make it inert, or less dangerous. If it takes a couple thousand years for it to decay, why can't we accelerate that process? Any nuke physics people here? Jim D, you weren't on a nuke boat, were you?

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mark for the LBJ reminder. I forgot about that. So we can blame a Democrat for the stupid use of the word "war?" You see, I'm in complete agreement with you -- on declaring war on anything that may not have an end. I prefer to keep the use of the word "war" as used by the army - with set boundaries and clear definitions of "wins" and "losses."

Claudia - when I get a moment, I will delve more deeply into the Huckabee rape matter. (I have spent much too much time on this blog today...I really should be working.) I just don't have enough information to engage in any real meaningful conversation on the topic.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

female nick writes
"Iowa is one of the few states I've never visited"

You're not missing much.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

'Did the report favor more nukes? I do, based on what I know, which is limited.'

what do you do with the nuclear waste, Mark? nobody has come up with a good idea about that, as far as i can tell.

Tt would seem to me to make more sense to use technologies that are appropriate to the area -- like gigantic solar arrays like there is now in my 'hometown' in the Mojave Desert, geothermal in appropriate areas, wind in appropriate areas, etc. Some people with solar panels actual produce more energy than they need and pump it back to the grid and get paid for it.

There's now beingbuilt in wales the largest biomass generator in the world--runs on weeds, essentially. No growing expenses like with ethanol. And san Francisco is tooling up its buses to run on used cooking fats from restaurants, I've heard. Is that true, Nick?

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

As the Associated Press confirmed just last week, not only will Mrs. Clinton's papers as First Lady (U.S.) remain under lock and key until after the 2008 election, but so will her papers as First Lady of Arkansas. There are two worrisome ways to interpret this. Seen in the first light, the papers won't be released because there is too much damning evidence in them. Seen in the other light, she is too incompetent to light a good fire under the archives folks and speed up the process. In either light, this little "oversight" looks downright un-Presidential.


From failing to release substantially relevant documents, to planting questions for her own scripted answers, to allegedly planting questioners in Republican debates, to dodging reporters' questions, to using access as a weapon, Hillary Clinton is starting to more closely resemble a Queen than an American candidate for the Highest Office in the Land.


And lest anyone forget, when Hillary became First Lady in 1993, one of her very first acts was to order an end to the customary and routine access to the West Wing that reporters had held for decades. She tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to have the reporters banished to the Old Executive Office Building, out of the White House altogether.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/will_hillarys_sweet_nothings_p.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"That's 25% of today's emissions, which could be eliminated for less than zero cost. What do you say to that?"

Unpossible!

Isn't it?

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

jimd52, in elections past, I would have agreed with you. But the condensed period during which these primaries are taking place is a major factor. There's no time to capitalize on an Iowa win, although perhaps the Internet will cancel this fact - making you right and me wrong.

The only thing I would point out is that there are points in history where an Iowa loss or win didn't have an effect, e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (came in a distant 2nd), and Ronald Reagan lost to GHWB in 1980.

The New Hampshire results, I think, can be more reflective of the national mood because of the number of independent voters - though clearly, that, too, didn't help McCain in 2000.

Iowa is one of the few states I've never visited, but I do frequent Michigan regularly, and after 25 years in northern California, I find myself feeling like I'm from another planet when I'm there. I imagine I'd feel the same way in Iowa - but I don't feel quite that way in New Hampshire. I just shudder at the thought of living with the Northeastern climate.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

Speaking of Lloyds of London - insurance companies that sell policies to consmumers then procure re-insurance from Lloyds and other companies. The 2004 - 2005 storms in Florida and the Gulf reduced the industry re-insurance pool by 50% (there were four major storms that hit Florida in 2004). That is a devastating hit and we are seeing outrageous property insurance rates here in Florida. I escape the worst (but not all) of it because my section of NE Florida has not had a major storm hit in over 40 years. However, the property insurance crisis certainly gets a lot of attention here. Many companies have stopped writing property policies for Florida.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

'But wait, you say! What about the cost? We'll cripple our economy and lose precious money, the most important thing in the world! Wrong again. ' If we do nothing, it may well cost us more. already there are certain areas in coastal areas, where people can no longer obtain insurance on their homes. That means you can't sell it, and if you lose it in a storm, it's just gone. The cost of insurance has risen by a third even here--where we are 20 miles from LI Sound. Lloyds of London is reeling over the costs of recent storms and fires.

'My personal belief is that, if we are to mitigate the impact of global warming, it will take technological breakthroughs to do so.'

absolutely Jim. What ever happened to th American spirit? Whatever happened to that can-do atitude that got us to the Moon? We need to set goals and achieve them. but of course for that we need real leadership--something we haven't seen much of lately.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I'm glad you are here. Did the report favor more nukes? I do, based on what I know, which is limited.

Also, we know that the prevalent greenhouse gas is "water vapor", not CO2, but I have never understood whether that is a relevant or an irrelevant fact.

My daughter the chemist does not know, and my brother-in-law the air quality control engineer RPE doesn't know, so I have run out of family resources.

Might as well ask here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually there was some data released last week that stated CO2 (which by the way is NOT a pollutant) was down this year from last. cost - zero.

now how will you Libs waste our money? Maybe a museum on a farm in upstate new york celebrating diversity and smelliness. I know a local who needs a job.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

'Yeah I remember some of those crazy miners coming to town with their massive bowie knives on their belt alongside their 45. '

I lived in the Catskills for a couple years and we had a lot of those kinda folks too... trappers, subsistence hunters, militias, off the grid folks. That was when i first bought a 22. There were a number of prisons in the area and it took an hour for a state trooper to get to your house if you ran into trouble --if you were lucky. So I understand how some people feel abot it.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Many of the same economic arguments made against measures to combat global warming were made against environmental regulations. Environmental laws spurred a great deal of innovation by industry and caused increased economic activity. My personal belief is that, if we are to mitigate the impact of global warming, it will take technological breakthroughs to do so.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Why not just incent private companies" -

because profit is evil and the market can't be trusted. but you already knew that. only big centralized government can save us.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I would join in LV's call to drop rubbers on the third world. The boxes should be dropped by parachute into squalid villages from bombers and all the wrappers must be marked in the native language the equivalent of "2x large". Any smaller size denomination will never be used.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

More global warming defeatism from JD. We can't possibly do enough, so let's just do nothing.

McKinsey and Company recently put out a report on CO2 emissions. They're a large and well-known consulting firm, not part of the environmental movement. As far as I know, they have no relation to Al Gore. Here's a blog post about the report, including links:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/30/099/12203

Current forecasts estimate that US CO2 emissions will rise from 7.2 gigatons in 2005 to 9.7 gigatons in 2030. The McKinsey report describes what we can do reduce emissions by 3.0-4.5 gigatons. That means that we could actually have emissions of 5.2 gigatons CO2 in 2030, 72% of the current values!

But wait, you say! What about the cost? We'll cripple our economy and lose precious money, the most important thing in the world! Wrong again. This report states that 40% of the CO2 reductions could be achieved at negative marginal costs; they'd actually save money! That's 25% of today's emissions, which could be eliminated for less than zero cost. What do you say to that?

Posted by: Blarg | December 5, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

femalenick

There is a good reason the press is paying more attention to the Iowa polls that show Obama surging than national polls which show Clinton maintaining a commanding lead. The Iowa polls are actually more relevant. The Iowa caucuses are a few weeks away and the candidates, as well as the media, are paying more attention to Iowa. There have been numerous examples of relatively unknown challengers making impressive showings in Iowa and New Hampshire despite low national poll numbers. The attention they receive as a result of their Iowa and New Hampshire showings then propels them to much stronger national poll numbers. Consequently, the Iowa numbers are extremely relevant. Should Obama defeat Clinton (or Huckabee defeat Romney) in Iowa, I guarantee a big change in national poll numbers almost overnight.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 5, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

My last rant, on ecology/energy, was for drindl, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

'JD: How about supplying contraception to the people of the Third World?'

Why not just incent private companies to build cars with cleaner systems and much higher MPG? That would help and would also save us a lot of money on gas prices, which are going to continue to rise as more as more countries compete for dwindling supplies.

I understand Google and CalTech are already assembling teams for this, with cash prices for winners of the competition...

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

mikeB, Yeah I remember some of those crazy miners coming to town with their massive bowie knives on their belt alongside their 45. There's a lot of rugged individualists up here, too. And they vote D...probably for the farm subsidies which are a complete boondoggle, imo. But your point is well taken...there are an equal number of libertarian-leaning gun owners, maybe even more than the avid R gun-owners from what I've seen across the country.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 5, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

nick - LBJ = "War on Poverty".

I was not choosing sides, just bolstering my notion that when you pick a fight you gotta pick one with something that has boundaries, even if it is bigger than you, or you can never tell if you are winning. JD, that's my point. Colin, that's my point.

Colin, we could spend every last dime of human production on fighting CO2 emissions and just maybe the world would get warmer anyway, because somebody did not go along with the program or because some other variable was at work. Some of the astronomical/geological variables are such that they could overwhelm human efforts, anyway. Yellowstone goes up like it has on 600m year intervals and the USA is gone and we have a mini ice age for years. Can't plan for that. Sunspots increase to 17th C. levels and we have a hundred year mini-ice age. Can't plan for that.

So just set some attainable measurable standards and hope for the best, and prepare for the flooding, like London is doing.

I am not being cynical, just skeptical.

I do not know what part of what I suggested JD thinks is wasteful. JD, are you for burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate until we use them up? Acid rain? Polluted rivers? Dependence on Arabs? No nukes?

The cost of carbon trades seems a bearable trade-off to me, and the diplomatic leadership we could exert on India and China would be more persuasive if we were doing something along these lines.

You may be more skeptical than I. But would you do nothing?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

dave, rightly, asks
"And why are a few Iowan caucus members going to determine what the rest of the country thinks?"

Beats me. As a Minnesotan, I view Iowans the way Americans view Canadians.

But if we look at history, we see Iowa giving a bump to whomever they select, while a loss in Iowa can be the kiss of death to those perceived as frontrunners before the caucuses. (like Dean)

I think that few voters are paying attention to the race, which means national polls aren't very indicative of who will win primaries. For national polls, we don't know where the respondents are from. Based solely on population, they're probably from New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago and a couple other cities that aren't in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan or Nevada. Given the nature of the primary process, early states have an oversized influence on the process, so polls from those states seem more relevant - to me - than nationwide polls.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"...Perhaps the prevalence of people posting about an alleged media conspiracy to torpedo the Clinton campaign & not report any good news about her inappropriately inspired me to attribute similar motivations to your post."

Thanks for the clarification, bsimon.

I am not a conspiracy theorist - not even about media. I do believe, however, that each media outlet has its bias - not globally; I'm referring to the individual reporters. (There is that adage that "birds of a feather flock together.")

Despite journalism's lofty goals, journalists cannot rid themselves of their personal biases. And the choice of one word or another can color our interpretation of any article. It's why when it comes to politics, I always seek out multiple versions written from the different biases - Republican (Fox, WSJ, and others), Democrat (NY Times, LA Times, MSNBC), and foreign (Economist). Only then do I feel like I might come close to the complete picture of any important political issue.

The only media outlet that, in my opinion, comes closest to showing both sides is PBS's NEWS HOUR, which only a small percentage of the population watches. "Too boring," is the comment I frequently get. Sad, really.

I haven't decided where the Washington Post falls.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

JD: How about supplying contraception to the people of the Third World?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

a tree fell down, quick raise taxes.

just more dopey emotionalism from the stoned hippie.

Oh no - another catastrophe - real estate is going up. Panic mode now!!!!

And the dollar is down, which sells more american products overseas. forget all the whining they did about the trade imbalance, this is a real problem.............if you are a stooge Lib with no understanding of reason.


go back to huff where you belong.

You see the sky didn't fall today, or yesterday. in fact the stock market went way up today based on strong economic fundamantels. what is a poor whiny Lib to do? -- winning the war, economy booming - no chance of a Dem president unless you can dredge up some lies about how bad things are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - I don't ski, I'm a fly fishing fanatic and also love to hunt. The later, bring up an intersting point (again). I'm a self identified liberal. Most Oregonian's are. At the same time most Oregonian's hunt and fish and own guns and even carry them. East Coast liberals think only right wing nuts do those things and do not understand their gun control stances don't just put us off, they make us want to start a third poarty for Westerners. Please inform my fellow liberals about Oregon and Oregonian's (and other Western liberals, too) from time to time.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 5, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
From a, um, non-reformed (still) conservative perpsective, I think that femalenick has a point. Polls that show something different than current perceptions usually get play. The conventional wisdom is that the democratic race is tightening and Obama is surging. A poll that would demonstrate that not to be the case should make news.

And why are a few Iowan caucus members going to determine what the rest of the country thinks? I think there will eventually be some tightening nationally if only because a blowout of this magnitude by Clinton or anybody is unlikely - 10% is big...24% is huge.

Posted by: dave | December 5, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

'colin, KOZ's actual point, as opposed to his sarcasm about "libs", that attacking global warming as such is an unmeasurable and unaccountable mission, makes sense to me.'

i'm surprised you take anything he says seriously, mark. he's laughable. the glaciers and snowpacks are melting, ocean currents are changing, Across the United States, the number of severe rainfalls and heavy snows has grown significantly in the last half-century.

We have a new phenomenon now in Westchester County -- waterspouts and hurricanes, which just sort of started happening on a regular basis in the last 3 years. There's a whole giant pile of trees--hundreds, maybe a thousand, that came down when one hurricane ripped through last year. So ferocious that it did that much damage in 5 minutes. Aand then there's the new phenomen called 'mircobursts' -- where fast moving winds move at a certain level but not on the ground, topping trees all the same height. I have a wooded area behind my house and last year was astonished to watch while 3 trees were broken in half simulaneously, while not a leaf moved on the ground.

The forest fire season was 2 months long when I grew up in So. Cal. Now it's all year. It may be an inexact science but there are observable phenomena. To just shrug or shoulders and say let's do nothing is irresonsible.

But as you mention, there are other reasons. A friend of mine who lives in Manhattan tells me prices are actually rising for apartments there. One in her building, a studio, went from $300,000 to 500,000 in the last 3 months. The reason? Wealthy Arabs from oil countries are snapping up everything they can -- because our low dollar makes our whole country a bargain basement. They're buying us out with our own money.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

mikeB, I'm currently residing in the northernmost part of North Dakota where temps have barely climbed above zero all week. Friday night's forecast is calling for -24 degrees. But it's not all bad, as I told some others earlier this week, we have some interesting things up here near the Canadian border, like Cold war era missile silos which the Russians routinely inspect, buffalo, and really good hockey.
Thank God for the WaPo online.

My daughter was born in Oregon, and I have a definite place in my heart for the state, it is amazingly beautiful and has the most wildlife of anywhere I've lived. Ever get up to Willamette Pass? My old stomping grounds on the ski patrol. I knew Louie's would still be there; those folks have a work ethic like nobody else. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 5, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I know you mean well when you talk about taking steps to curtail Global Warming. Keep in mind the realities of the situation, however. It's almost unarguable that there is very little that Americans can do to change the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere globally, without absolutely hammering our economy. I know this is not Al Gore's message, but it happens to be a fact.

The real question is, wouldn't such money spent to reduce CO2 emissions, say 1%, be better spent doing something much more helpful to mankind, say by introducing a better innoculation program against pandemic flu, etc.

Posted by: JD | December 5, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

femalenick writes
"But you're very wrong in that I search far and wide for signs of good news."

Ah, but I was only making a rhetorical point to contrast with your initial post. Perhaps the prevalence of people posting about an alleged media conspiracy to torpedo the Clinton campaign & not report any good news about her inappropriately inspired me to attribute similar motivations to your post.

Point being: I'm not arguing that you search far and wide for positive news about her, I'm drawing a ludicrous example to argue against the ludicrous argument that Chris is ignoring good news about the Clinton campaign. Though that's apparently not what you were arguing...

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I used to work for an AFSCME-run organization that tried to fool voters into voting for Democrats. While I ultimately supported their goals, I think the way that they went about their business was not transparent and in my opinion, unethical. Their support of Clinton only makes me want to vote for Obama more.

Posted by: mrc2 | December 5, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

'Huckabee spokeswoman Alice Stewart denied to the Huffington Post that Huckabee ever received any of the letters, but now tells CNN she got at least one from a victim named "Onita" who lived in DeWitt, Arkansas.'

Nick, like I said, I wanted to like him--his views are very different from mine, but he seemed real and fresh. But his spokespeople keep changing their stories on this and that's not a good sign. How can you not beleive hatred of Clinton didn't have something to do with this? It was Clinton's cousin -- and you know how deranged Clinton makes the wingers. Just remember how they basically shut down government operations for years to try to bring him down.

Huckabee was deeply, deeply involved with this, knew the guy was a SERIAL rapist, why would he beleive that the guy was rehabilitated when he had just raped a child? But he may have been pushed into by local rightwingers who had too much influence over him -- there was also a radical right newsrag involved. Still a woman died because of his bad judgment.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

the war on fascism? They are not fighting very hard, if that's the case :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I'd just like to point out that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" were respectively started by Reagan and G.W. As I recall, it was Nixon who started the "War on Cancer."

What metaphorical war did Democratic presidents start? Do you know off the top of your head?

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - Yes, I live here in heaven. I actually live outside of Eugene in a small town. I do eat at Louie's, too. It's close to where I work (I'm now a DBA, doing multiple state insurance audits - private, not public and my wonderful wife is a kindergarten teacher.) Louie's makes a "Special Friend Rice" that has shimp, pork, chicken, and beef in it and that is just about the best I have ever eaten.

Where are you living now? You missed the recent floods and high winds. The coast had gusts clocked at 129 MPH, but it was more like 75 or 80 here. Lots of downed trees, floods (the McKenzie is over it's banks and I-5 is under 10 feet of water up at Centralia), just plain nasty. We're praying for more so the California immigrants all pack it in and leave. Steelheading has been wonderful, though. Mount Tom is loaded with wild turkey's and a big herd of elk have moved in across from Coburg along I-5.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 5, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Drindl- Everybody in Ark. are cousins. Its the deep south.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

One more thing bsimon, for the record, I like to think of myself as a reformed Republican - the party with which I was affiliated until 1996 - after which I became an independent. I changed my registration only in 2003 when I knew that I wanted a Democrat to win and wanted a part in choosing the nominee.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The war on drugs is a bigger disaster than the war on terror. both are war's waged by the republcains against the american people. But what is the benifet? Each in their own right costs us billions. These two along with illegals are why social programs do not work. The republcains offered the last blancket amnesty for illegals (regan in the 80'.s) See where I'm going here?

Sabotage the system, is the gop plan. Flood the housing job and socail progrmas market with illegals. suck up the resources in enforcement and illegal wars overseas. Who wins in the gop model of government? Who wins? The american people do not win. So who does? Republcains? Enlighten me.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"That interpretation implies that I should find your observation biased because you're a known Clinton supporter who's likely searching far and wide for any signs of good news - and the LAT poll satisfies that need."

You're only partially right here, bsimon! Yes, of course, I want my candidate to come out on top! But then I also would be very happy if Biden overtook her! But you're very wrong in that I search far and wide for signs of good news. I get news alerts throughout the day because my job requires it. And I scan all.

What I liked about the LA Times article is that it mentioned the statistical significance of the margin of error - making the story much more complete.

My final note on the issue of bias - I work really hard at trying to see all angles. It's how I can defend Huckabee and Romney and anyone else who is unfairly attacked, even if I couldn't disagree with them more. And while a Hillary supporter, I am not blind to her faults or any other candidate's for that matter. There is not one person with whom I can agree 100% - especially among politicians. Like most people, I choose based on the issues most important to me.

I am a registered Democrat only for two reasons: 1) we do not have open primaries in California, 2) my views on social issues are much closer to the Democrats though I'm moderate on most other issues.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"It is the hubris of casting this matter as humanity against Armeggedon that reminds
some of us of "The War on Drugs" and "The War on Terror" - wars without end, against
invisible foes, justifying massive expenditures of our national product. "

Both of which are republcain lead, as is the next drain on our econmoy. I get it now. Teh democrats build. The republcains use.

So enlighten me mark. you are the party of small government, low spending right? Law and order. You mention the war on drugs and warr on terror. Whould you concide that those are our two biggest drains of our resources?

So what is the gop really? Fascists? NAzi's? Or , .... What? Enlighten me. How do you justifiy this double think in your heads?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

colin, KOZ's actual point, as opposed to his sarcasm about "libs", that attacking global warming as such is an unmeasurable and unaccountable mission, makes sense to me.

That does not mean to me that we should be crippled in our efforts to wean ourselves from fossil fuels or that we should turn our backs on the environment.

Energy efficiency, energy independence, clean technologies, nuclear plants, carbon trading, pushing China and India to develop
"clean", cooperation with Europe and Japan;
these are all worthy goals in themselves.
Anybody who is against clean air and clean water or for funding the most unstable oil regimes with our national wealth can be called down on those positions.

If global warming persists/continues, while we become cleaner and more efficient, so be it.

It is the hubris of casting this matter as humanity against Armeggedon that reminds
some of us of "The War on Drugs" and "The War on Terror" - wars without end, against
invisible foes, justifying massive expenditures of our national product.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

femalenick says
"I think it's interesting because it suggests bias when polls that show Obama rising are highlighted but not those that show Clinton remaining on top."

That interpretation implies that I should find your observation biased because you're a known Clinton supporter who's likely searching far and wide for any signs of good news - and the LAT poll satisfies that need.

I think the reason the Iowa polls are more relevant is that the Iowa voters are - allegedly - paying closer attention. I think the conventional wisdom is that whatever happens in Iowa will have a significant impact on nationwide news coverage & subsequent primaries. Particularly given HRC's strong name recognition* if she doesn't finish strongly in Iowa, I think the national polls will abruptly change based on the results in Iowa. So, generally, I think nationwide polls are less interesting.

* I forget which data set I was looking at, but a recent national poll (yesterday's USA Today?) listed voters' opinions of the candidates, most candidates had columns for 'like', 'don't like', 'never heard of them' or 'no opinion'; except HRC, who didn't get a 'never heard of her' column - that's pretty telling in the name recognition game. Edwards & Giuliani both had measurable responses for that answer.

John Edwards? Who? Rudy Giuliani? Never 'eard of 'im. Hillary? [insert strong opinion here].

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

And when is clinton going to make a CORRECT foreign policy decision? this is not baseball. She should have been out months ago. I really hope she does what is best for the nation and start sabotaging her party. We already have people that vote like her. they have a party. It's called republcains.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Oh, one more. Anyone see hannity and colmes last night. Mike reagan (reagans adopted son who plays like he is his fathers heir appartent and speaks for reagan), is whining and complaining. He says no actors are coming out for the republicans. he says if actors come out for the republcains they will not get any work. The democrtic stratagist said just the right thing at the right time. hysterical.

He says.

"they must be ashamed to be republcains. Who wouldn't be right now. Can you balme them."

Perfect setup. it had me rolling last night. Sorry, I know republcains. The downfall of your party is not funny. just remember we are all americans. Majority rule remember? Don't tim mcveigh or lee eisenberg us to much. Majority rule

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

From earlier post, so you see it. Spot on. to keep the conversation fresh. Only email today from me, so take it easy cowards and thought police who would run their mouths with smears discredit and lies.:

"king of zouk,

I'm sure you can do better than Sean Hannity-like remarks. I find it so ridiculous that you're willing to defend the Republican Party. This is like Jonah Goldberg of the NY Post defending tax cuts for the rich. How obsequious do you have to be to defend the top 5% of income earners? If you're making over $250, 000 annually, I retract these remarks; however, I suspect that you're not that wealthy, so it is incomprehensible to me why you would defend such a small percentage of society. Bear in mind, the 5% you're defending do not care about you, at all. They care that you're an intolerant person with little or no tact. Therefore, they seize upon the opportunity to use voters like you to divide the electorate. I agree that Hillary Clinton and many Democrats are as corrupt, dishonest as their Republican counterparts. Notwithstanding, the greatest thing we have to fear of a Democratic Administration, is an increase in taxes. I'm not that afraid of that because I'm not a part of that top 5% of income earners. If you are, then I can understand your avarice. George W. Bush lied about weapons in Iraq. Thousands of men, women and children are now dead or severely wounded as a result of his Administration's ineptitude. That is not meant as judgment, but an unfortunate reality. We learned yesterday that President Bush and his ilk have knowingly mislead us on Iran's supposed weapons program. The Bush/Guiliani apologists such as yourself are as detached from reality as this President was disconnected from his own intelligence agencies. All sixteen of them. So needless to say, I'm not too worried about an increase in taxes on private-equity firms, hedge funds. Not from a moral standpoint, but from a pragmatic one. These folks represent a small portion of society, of which I am not a part. And I'm glad you have attacked Mike Huckabee because this clearly illustrates how disconnected you and much of your ilk are from the zeitgeist. Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul. Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and a growing many represent the disaffected ranks of your party. And instead of reconciling with this wing, you're castigating them. The immigration issue is ensuring a decrease in Hispanic support for your party next year. So who are you left with? Wealthy whites and obsequious ones like yourself and Jonah Goldberg. And what is your platform next year? "Republicans, a graceful return to the 1980's." Most Americans don't want to return to the 1980's. In 2000, the euro was worth $.76 to the dollar. Now it is worth $1.47. The pound is roughly $2 to our one. And more Americans are beginning to realize that their dollars cannot buy them as much of those nice foreign goods they like so much at the mall. The Republicans' Wilsonian rhetoric has created more tension in the Middle East, and raised oil to roughly $100/barrel. As a matter of fact, your delusional politicking has actually served to validate liberals & greens' clamoring for energy independence. If you don't think these issues matter to the other 95% of income earners, you're sadly mistaken. Your party looks like the Democrats in 1980. Tragically flawed, and utterly fragmented.

P.S. Unless you live within a city of 500,000 plus residents, you're not allowed to talk about the threat of terrorism. Your nonsensical diatribes about terrorism put the overall security of those of us living within the five boroughs in jeopardy every time that we step onto the subway platform. So if you could please, stick to what you know best: Homogeneous suburbs, and school budgets.
Thanks guys!

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | December 5, 2007 01:43 AM "


"Ok, I'm going to make a deliberately inciteful (not insightful) remark, to make a point.


late last night, USMC_Mike wrote:

"Let's face it. Mohamed was a warlord. He led almost 200 military campaigns.

Jesus Christ was not. He led 0 armies and wielded 0 swords."


Mike, why, in combatting Islamic extremists, are we acting more like your characterization of Mohammed than like your characterization of Jesus?

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 10:10 AM

"

""P.S. Unless you live within a city of 500,000 plus residents, you're not allowed to talk about the threat of terrorism. Your nonsensical diatribes about terrorism put the overall security of those of us living within the five boroughs in jeopardy every time that we step onto the subway platform. So if you could please, stick to what you know best: Homogeneous suburbs, and school budgets.
Thanks guys!


Eugene Debs '08
"

Wow. Word is born. Thank you for that insightfull post. Really. On point Eugene. I live in reno. the district has never been republican since, at least 1984 (when it was districted). So I feel you believe me. Then to hear oreilly and hannity talk about free speech and how the left wants to take their rights. Unbelievable. This after dixie chicks lose their profession for their political point of view. Pat tillman loses his life at their hands , and other soldiers. Rosie off the air. Professors and judges being fired. Because the right is "offended". Them murdering tazing beating people offend me. Do I get to silence them? Time will tell.

Great post Eugene. You get to the heart of what the internet and blogs are for. Thanks again.

God BLess.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 11:24 AM

Mike, why, in combatting Islamic extremists, are we acting more like your characterization of Mohammed than like your characterization of Jesus?

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 10:10 AM
"

Now your getting it, simon. To defeat the terrorist, must we become terrorists? And who will stop the terrorists in the republican party (some moderate sell-out dem's lieberman feinstein kerry clinton Biden to and extent, though I think he'll come around.)

My point is, simon, who is going to do somethign about it? Do we hold them accountable by electing a repuclian? No, though paul definatly is getting a major seat at teh table of politics. So you turn to the democrats. Will the democrats hold the republcains accountable? some are willing to, some are not. Unfortunatly it is looking like the moderates are more like republcains than they are the new democratic party. So who will hold them accounable? I'll take my chances with the liberal wing. Hoping they don't sell us out when they get power, like after 06. Tiem will tell I guess.

But liek Sen. Obama says. "we have no good options". Only hard choices.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 11:29 AM

"

My two cents. Continue talking about that which does nto matter as clinton is about to endorse Obama. :) Wishful thinking.

I think her iran stance (based on new info) come back to haunt her:

"UPDATE IV: The Washington Post, January 20, 2006 (h/t sysprog):
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

The senator's statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 5, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Sarcasm, not satire.

Although my wife is all of those wonders and she never says "How come you never..." or, "Why don't you just pull over and ask for directions?"

The rest was sarcasm about the dumb front page story.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I think it's interesting because it suggests bias when polls that show Obama rising are highlighted but not those that show Clinton remaining on top.

The condensed primary cycle does put greater significance on national results. How many states are holding their primaries in January? Five? Six? And only 5 days later you've got major states like California?

That's why it's interesting.

Iowa more closely reflects the GOP nationally, but I do not believe that it's true for the Dems.

Will Rogers was right when he said he didn't belong to an organized party -- that he was a Democrat. Dems are comprised of all colors, shapes, sizes -- each with their own pet issue that often conflicts with others within the party. The GOP is much more homogeneous.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

femalenick writes
"I find it interesting that you did NOT post a comment about the LA Times/Bloomberg poll that came out today. It still shows that Clinton that any movement on the national scene is within the margin of error"

Why is it 'interesting' or even surprising? Polls are going to be coming out more and more frequently as Jan 3 approaches. I certainly don't expect any particular pundit or observer to comment on all of them. More to the point, the national polls are much less interesting than the state-specific polls for the early states. If one or both parties switch to a national primary, the national polls will be more relevant.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

CC, I find it interesting that you did NOT post a comment about the LA Times/Bloomberg poll that came out today. It still shows that Clinton that any movement on the national scene is within the margin of error:

"Among likely Democratic voters across the nation, the Times/Bloomberg poll found that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained a solid lead, even as polls in Iowa show she remains locked in a tight three-way contest there with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Nationally, Clinton was favored by 45% of those polled; 21% chose Obama, and 11% were for Edwards.

Those figures represent slight increases for Obama and Edwards and a small drop for Clinton since the October survey. But all the changes fall within the poll's margin of error."

The rest of the article is here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll5dec05,1,5933940.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Colin - not sure if global warming is real or not. not sure if it is man-caused or not. not sure if it can be cured or not. not sure how much it will cost. not sure how effective any measures will be.

But then again, it is all settled so no need to worry, right? just get out your wallet and prepare to pay, pay, pay.

Sort of like the rest of the Dem religion of big government - along with health care, education and retirement.

Pay, pay, pay and don't worry about performance, results, or accountability.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Judge - I get it, and you've got a great point. You didn't add that it's on the front page of their website! On reading your post, I think its location is the bigger issue!

To me, one of the most serious problems facing America today is the media: the blurring of news and entertainment, the race to be "first" in the 24/7 news cycle, media reporting on media, bloggers who don't have to adhere to any journalistic ethics, etc. I say it's a huge problem because, while democracy is dependent on an educated and informed populace, I think it will become increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

mikeB- hey neighbor! I used to live in Cottage Grove. You know that chinese restaurant in Eugene, Louie's? They use ducks from the river...I used to wait tables there, and if I were you I wouldn't order the "chicken".

And I agree with you about the blood sucking AFSCME leeches. You're spot on about that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 5, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- the abortion/breast cancer link has been debunked. If you have new info, post it. Also, you've said in the past you (and your favorite candidate Rudy) support abortion rights. So a rather strange post on oh so many levels.

Anyway, sorry to distract you from posting about how global warming isn't real. That's important work!

Posted by: _Colin | December 5, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

cnn on Huckabee and the rapist. Welcome to the first tier, guv'nor!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Interesting how there are criminal skeletons in every GOP front-runner's closet. Hard to make fun of the Democrats for that when you guys all hang with scumbags too.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 5, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Femalenick: I don't have a problem with DK's "good fortune," however you might want to describe it. I have a problem with the WaPo writing an article that basically defines DK through the lens of his wife's physical appearance. It looks like a hatchet job (like the one they pulled on Obama re the madrassa cr*pola). That's the source of my disgust.

Through the haze of the apparent satire, I think Mark is agreeing with me.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Claudia, it is possible that Huckabee never personally saw the letters. There is the possibility that his Republican aides simply briefed him through the prisms by which they view the world. If that's the case, then Huckabee is telling the truth when he says he "he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public."

I cannot believe that his feelings for Bill Clinton would have been a factor.

It's also possible that the former aide doesn't like Mike Huckabee. Why would a former aide have copies of these letters? Why doesn't anyone question that? Why did he wait so long?

Remember that there are a lot of powerful Republicans who do not like Huckabee because he is not a fiscal conservative. They've got to be resenting his rise in the polls despite not having their support. Huckabee's rise is strictly due to ordinary Republicans liking him. In the hierarchical GOP, this has to grate on the powers that be.

And you know I'm a Hillary supporter, so this is a totally unbiased comment.

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

That's right Judge - my wife is beautiful, smart, and successful.

When I turned 63 last year I gave up trial work so I could be master of my own time. Instead of running for President, I started writing to "The Fix."

Now I see that I have wasted a year when I could have been sitting next to Tom Tancredo or Dennis Kucinich, mouthing off about the exact same stuff I write here. And I, formerly 6'2" with dark hair, am still 6'1" [DK, take that] with ALL my hair [Joe B., take that] and recent orthodonture to keep my teeth from falling out.

I probably could have hit that 2%, plus or minus the margin of error, too. And still been
happy, because I could go home to my wife.

Yeah, I see how it works.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 5, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh, excuse me! Since when is AFSCME considered a labor union? It's a *puboic employee* organization. You know, those inbred over paid parasites that raise taxes in the middle of a recession? God forbid that they go without fat pay and benefit increases. In Lane County Oregon, where I live, the pyublic employees gave themselves a 12% tp 20% pay increase AND a completely tax payer paid retirement account. They impossed a special county income tax to pay for this. Voters had to organize a petition drive to get the tax increase on the ballot and rescinded it. All of this at a time when layoffs in the private sector are rampant and private firms are dumping medical coverage for employees at a record pace. This sort of nonsense is what AFSCME is all about. Calling AFSCME a labor union is very much like calling rape "love". This collection of bloated ticks, professional parasites, and of self promoting twits are part and partial to everything Clinton is. It's enough to turn your stomach.

When voters petitioned and took it to the polls

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 5, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Judge, where's your sense of humor? :)

Of course Dennis is happy! He's married to a woman 31 years his junior who is pretty and 6 feet tall. Remember Dudley Moore and Bo Derek in "10?" I'm sure Dennis saw that movie and began fantasizing his own version of 10. He saw it, went after it, and got it. No wonder he's grinning like a Cheshire cat!

The one I can't figure out is Fred Thompson. At least Dennis seems like an entertaining guy -- the Dudley Moore type. Fred, on the other hand, looks like a rough, gruff grandpa, so I don't get what Jeri Thompson saw in him. And certainly, he doesn't seem anywhere near as happy or cheerful as Dennis!

Posted by: femalenick | December 5, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: more good news for MH: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2007/12/republican-tracking-poll-president.html

Hey, at least he should be easy pickings in the general. Still, it would be interesting to have both he and Obama in the general. Two preacher-like candidates talking about God etc. Beats the heck out of a snot like Guiliani rendering his opinions.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk writes
"Must be global warming, no wait , cooling."

You must be the happiest man on earth.

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

A new Iowa poll has Obama up with a massive 7% lead against Clinton -- a big development. Check the poll out here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/more-polls-coming-in-with-iowa-all-tied.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 5, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Having an abortion raises a woman's risk of breast cancer by at least 30 percent, and is fueling an "epidemic" of the often fatal disease, according to British researchers.

More unintended consequences the Libs never expect.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Portland tied the record for the date set in 1890 with 8.5 inches of snow on Monday, according to Bob Marine of the National Weather Service.

Must be global warming, no wait , cooling. these Dem fact seem to go any way you want them to.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

drindl - why aren't you on the Arkansas parole board? It is a Dem organization with clinton appointees. they have no responsibility to listen to the governor. they have a job to do. It is clear you don't.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

drindl - I mean ignorant coward - go back to huff Post and stay there.

we don't need your smear merchant garbage here.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes-- I wanted to like Huckabee, I really did. But I just found out more about something he did and it totally disgusted me. The fact that he had letters from women who had been raped by this man warning him how dangerous he was, and tha he ignored them because Dumond was in prison for raping a distant cousin of Bill Clinton's who was 16. His hatred of the Clintons so blinded him that he did this:

Little Rock, Ark -- As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.

Confidential Arkansas state government records, including letters from these women, obtained by the Huffington Post and revealed publicly for the first time, directly contradict the version of events now being put forward by Huckabee.

While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee's intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond's behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.

But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.

In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond's victims warned: "I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time." Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee's urging, records show that Huckabee's office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas' parole board.

The woman later wrote directly to Huckabee about having been raped by Dumond. In a letter obtained by the Huffington Post, she said that Dumond had raped her while holding a butcher knife to her throat, and while her then-3-year-old daughter lay in bed next to her. Also included in the files sent to Huckabee's office was a police report in which Dumond confessed to the rape'.

Incidentally, the files were released by a former aide of Huckabees and every indication is they are genuine. I've seen two other outlets pick this up, but I am kind of doubting many big ones will. Stil, I don't know, it might have some effect.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse


Hey hillary - why dump Celine Dion's song? what about all that hype about picking it? did a new poll come in?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I see "family values" drindl is spewing her hate-filled bile all day again.

why aren't you working for amnesty International?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry about Rudy, he;s not going to get the Republican nomination. Its going to be a Romney/Huckabee ticket. Take it to the bank or to Vegas.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 5, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

excuse me, I meant 'extorted by terrorists.'

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the 'United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed.

Just in case you didn't have time to read the whole post.

'Giuliani warns voters that a certain mindset is needed defeat those who threaten the United States and that he has it.'

He's an appeaser who allows himself to be bribed by terrorits, is that what he's saying?

Too bad the reporters who wrote the sstory are either too ignorant, lazy or partisan to put any of it in context.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I have been a fair share member of afscme for 11 years, when they asked me why I don't join, I tell them I don;t support their candidates. The Union would do themselves a hugh favor by sticking to contract issues and staying away from National Politics. I/m not anti-union just anti-Clinton.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 5, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

This should demonstrate to you why Rudy is the most dangerous, dishonest and demogogic candidate:

'ABC News' Jan Simmonds Reports: Rudy Giuliani released his fourth television ad Wednesday morning using Iran to how punch home his message on how to handle today's terrorism challenges. Invoking Ronald Reagan, Giuliani warns voters that a certain mindset is needed defeat those who threaten the United States and that he has it.

Entitled "One Hour," the former New York City Mayor and Reagan justice official steals a page from his stump speech and uses the Iranian hostage crisis of the late 70's and early 80's to illustrate how he would approach dealing with "tyrants and terrorists."

Using black and white stock footage of those Americans that were held by the Iranians for 444 days, Giuliani reminds viewers that they were released within one hour, the hour in which Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.'

Because of course, what resolved the hostage crisis was appeasement and negotiation with the 'enemy.' And this:

Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed.

'The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, were brokered by the Algerian government between the USA and Iran to resolve the situation that arose by the capture of American citizens in the American embassy in Tehran. By this accord the American citizens were set free.

Among its provisions it was stated:

The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs

The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran

Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced

Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid

The US chief negotiator was then Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher.'

So what Rudy has done here is first: invoke the god Reagan, stir up the hatred of the base for Iran by showing gritty photos of the prisoners, and completely and Orwellianly warp and distort the situation to suggest the opposite of what actually happened.

IN his first hour of office, Reagan appeased and bought off a country that was supposed to be our enemy. Rudy is just another serial liar and dirty trickstr like Bush.

Unfortunatly the base is as ignorant as it is hateful, so I'm sure this will work really well for him.

Posted by: drindl | December 5, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Completely OT, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402333.html?hpid=artslot

"Dennis Kucinich wears the look of a man who's just won the sweepstakes. He says a colleague from the House told him it didn't matter how he did in the presidential race because he'd already won.

He'd won Elizabeth.

"I responded, 'Now you know why I think I can be president?' " Dennis says. "If I can marry this incredibly brilliant, beautiful woman, I mean, why wouldn't I think I can be president of the United States?" "

I'm sorry but this makes me want to barf.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 5, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"the union's activities on her behalf seem to mirror what it did on behalf of former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) during the 2004 presidential fight"

We can only hope! YEEEEAAAAAHHHOOOWWWLLLL!!!

Posted by: bsimon | December 5, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

CC writes.
"Clinton received the endorsement of AFSCME at the end of October, and the union's activities on her behalf seem to mirror (at least financially) what it did on behalf of former Gov. Howard Dean (Vt.) during the 2004 presidential fight"

And it will have the same effect and not help at all. In Clinton's case it will reinforce the idea that she is the 'establishment' candidate, and therefore not really gain her any new votes.

It should also be noted that Huckabee came out against the push polling that Common sense America is doing, and ask them to stop. Patrick Davis then basically said "no, I will do what I want".

CC-"Working for Working Families: First reported on by Time's Mark Halperin, little is known of the group."

Does this frighten anyone else other than me? These groups need to be brought out of the shadows. I don't ahve a problem with people donating money to independent groups BUT we should know who is donating and what their motivations may be.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I use to belong to that union. However, I belonged to the Illinois one and they are not supporting Clinton. They have broken off and are supporting Obama.
Alot of the unions supporting clinton is because the leadership is and not because the members do. they tend to lean towards Obama and Edwards and see Clinton, with her love of free trade and corporations, as not good for unions and the middle class.
Most people know that alot of Clinton's endorsements, ect. are due to either pay off or the leadership is behind her. the establishment.
I am middle class and have felt the effects of NAFTA and the bad policies of the Clintons. And i don't trust HRC at all.
that is why I stand by my senator in his run for the presidency. i know where he stands and that obama is for the average guy and wants to truly help us.

Posted by: vwcat | December 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

If people are interested in ads they should check the situation in OH-05, where the special election is a week away and ads are being fired from all direction -- most of them about illegal immigration: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/congressional-diary-who-would-have.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 5, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company