url
stringlengths 36
564
| archive
stringlengths 78
537
| title
stringlengths 0
1.04k
| date
stringlengths 10
14
| text
stringlengths 0
629k
| summary
stringlengths 1
35.4k
| compression
float64 0
106k
| coverage
float64 0
1
| density
float64 0
1.14k
| compression_bin
stringclasses 3
values | coverage_bin
stringclasses 3
values | density_bin
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202807.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202807.html
|
Ex-EPA Chief Is Ruled Not Liable for 9/11 Safety Claims
|
2008042419
|
Because Whitman did not intend to cause harm, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said, her message did not "shock the conscience" to the degree necessary to waive her immunity as a federal official.
The residents, students and office workers say Whitman should be forced to pay damages to properly clean homes and schools and create a fund to monitor health. They are considering an appeal, their lawyer said.
"These residents, workers and students continue to get sicker and sicker, and that's what makes this decision so tragic," said Joel Kupferman, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
Whitman, who has always maintained that her agency acted responsibly, said in a statement, "I am pleased that the court today confirmed what I have said -- that we at the EPA acted reasonably and made every effort to protect the people of New York."
Her attorneys had argued that holding Whitman personally liable would prevent officials from speaking to the public in future crises.
Three days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Whitman told reporters, "The good news continues to be that air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause us no concern."
And on Sept. 18, 2001, she reassured residents that their air "is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." Whitman later testified in congressional hearings that she was talking about the air of Lower Manhattan generally, not Ground Zero specifically.
Soon after, many residents went back to their homes without properly cleaning them, they later reported.
"She caused thousands of residents, workers and first responders to suffer injury and, in some cases, death, due to unnecessary exposure to toxins released by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who held hearings on the federal government's management of the crisis at which Whitman testified.
The EPA's inspector general criticized the agency's handling of the crisis in a 2003 report, which found that the EPA had no basis for its pronouncements about air quality.
In February 2006, U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts allowed the lawsuit against Whitman to proceed and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."
"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to Lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," she wrote.
Activist residents said they were upset with Tuesday's decision.
"The judgment today seems like carte blanche to allow government environmental officials to put people in harm's way with little or no accountability," said Craig Hall, 39, president of the World Trade Center Residents Coalition, whose members said their children suffered coughs, eye irritations and nosebleeds after the attacks.
|
NEW YORK, April 22 -- Christine Todd Whitman, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, cannot be held liable for assuring residents near the burning detritus of the World Trade Center after the 2001 attacks that the air was safe to breathe, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
| 10.236364 | 0.763636 | 1.454545 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201144.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201144.html
|
Cousin of Colombian President Arrested in Death Squad Probe
|
2008042419
|
The arrest of the former senator, who built a formidable political movement that helped his cousin win the presidency in 2002, comes during an institutional crisis that has tarnished a country closely allied with the United States.
As the result of investigations that began in 2006, 32 members of Congress have been arrested and about 30 others are being formally investigated for ties to paramilitary groups that killed thousands of civilians, infiltrated state institutions and trafficked cocaine to the United States. Preliminary investigations have begun against dozens of others, including the president of Congress, Nancy Patricia Gutiérrez, who was implicated last week.
With the legitimacy of Congress at rock bottom, lawmakers have been locked in a series of heated debates over how to reform the 268-member body and punish those parties whose members have been linked to paramilitary groups.
"What we've seen happen is a de facto alliance between powerful economic interests and narco-traffickers, and the motives were to co-opt institutions and convert Colombia itself into a criminal enterprise," said Sen. Gustavo Petro, who has publicly denounced ties between his colleagues and paramilitary members. "Congress is one of the institutions that's been co-opted."
In the case of Mario Uribe's party, Democratic Colombia, five of six members who held seats in Congress have been accused of collaborating with paramilitary groups, with one member, Sen. Ãlvaro Garcia, charged with helping to organize a massacre.
Uribe, who is accused of meeting with a notorious commander named Salvatore Mancuso to plan land grabs, fled to the Costa Rican Embassy in Bogota on Tuesday and applied for political asylum. He was rejected hours later, with San Jose calling the petition "inappropriate" because of the outstanding warrant.
Uribe was arrested as he left the embassy, but not before police and protesters jostled outside the compound, located in a residential neighborhood.
"The Mario Uribe situation is very delicate for the president," said Elisabeth Ungar, a political scholar at the University of the Andes in Bogota who directs Visible Congress, a group monitoring the legislature. "He's his cousin, and he's done politics with him all his life. He's the closest person to the president who's ever fallen."
The latest developments are expected to further complicate Colombia's efforts to win support in Washington for a free-trade agreement, which has been blocked by Democrats concerned about rights abuses here and opposition to trade deals in their home districts.
The inquiry into ties between paramilitary groups and politicians has not directly damaged President Uribe, even after Petro, the senator, charged in a hearing last April that death squads met at an Uribe family ranch in the 1980s to plot murders. The government strenuously denied the allegations, and Uribe's approval rating recently reached 84 percent as a result of the government's battlefield successes against the country's guerrilla movement, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.
Still, the simmering scandal has indirectly hurt Colombia's president, the Bush administration's closest ally in Latin America and the beneficiary of billions of dollars in American military aid. Recently jailed allies include Carlos GarcÃa, president of the pro-Uribe U Party, and Sen. Rubén Quintero, who was Uribe's private secretary when he was governor of Antioquia state in the late 1990s.
|
BOGOTA, Colombia, April 22 -- Authorities on Tuesday arrested former senator Mario Uribe, a cousin and close ally of President Ãlvaro Uribe, for alleged ties to death squads in a widening inquiry that has implicated nearly a quarter of Colombia's Congress.
| 13.553191 | 0.829787 | 1.297872 |
low
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202430.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202430.html
|
Ex-Official Linked to Abramoff Pleads Guilty
|
2008042419
|
Robert E. Coughlin II, the former deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department's criminal division, became the latest of more than a dozen public officials, lobbyists and congressional staff members to be convicted or to plead guilty in the wide-ranging federal investigation of Abramoff's activities.
As part of his plea agreement, Coughlin, 36, agreed to cooperate with investigators, making him a potentially important witness in the ongoing scrutiny of Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). Coughlin acknowledged performing a variety of official acts for Kevin A. Ring, a key member of Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig and a former legislative aide to Doolittle. Coughlin and Ring are longtime friends who worked together on Capitol Hill a decade ago.
Coughlin admitted violating the federal conflict-of-interest statute while he served in the department's offices of legislative affairs and public liaison between March 2001 and October 2003. According to court papers filed yesterday, he leaked department information, attended meetings and contacted his Justice colleagues to help clients of Abramoff and Ring.
Federal investigators are scrutinizing Doolittle and his wife, Julie, who owned a consulting firm that was hired by Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig to raise money for a charity Abramoff founded. Ring, while working for Abramoff, was an intermediary in the hiring of Julie Doolittle's firm, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc., people familiar with the investigation have told The Washington Post.
Also unresolved is an investigation of former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), whose wife, Christine, worked for a lobbying firm that received client referrals from Abramoff.
Coughlin told U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle yesterday that he already had met at least once with federal investigators.
Ring wined and dined Coughlin on 25 occasions at pricey restaurants, primarily Signatures, a downtown establishment that was partly owned by Abramoff. Coughlin also accepted from Ring 20 tickets to seven sporting events at the Verizon Center, Oriole Park at Camden Yards and FedEx Field, where Abramoff leased luxury suites; five tickets to three concerts; and one round of golf, the documents said. Prosecutors estimated the value of the gifts to be about $6,180, but Coughlin's estimate is about $4,800.
Coughlin helped Ring and Team Abramoff in efforts to secure $16.3 million from a division of the Justice Department to build a jail for the Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians, one of Abramoff's clients, and in the process waive a competitive-bidding requirement. Initially, Justice approved a $9 million grant.
According to the court filings, which included excerpts from e-mails, Ring often sprinkled meal invitations with requests for aid. He invited Coughlin to attend an April 2001 meeting at Justice about the Choctaw jail grant "so some of the clowns there know that I have friends, if you get my drift." After that meeting, Ring treated Coughlin and his wife to a $300 meal at Olives.
When the grant was approved a year later, Ring sent Coughlin an e-mail with the subject line: "Choctaw CHA-CHING!!!!"
"Thanks is not strong enough," Ring wrote to Coughlin. "We need to celebrate this issue finally being over." Three days later, Ring bought Coughlin lunch at Signatures.
|
A former high-ranking official in the Justice Department pleaded guilty yesterday to accepting thousands of dollars worth of meals and sports tickets from Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping a variety of Abramoff's clients.
| 15.85 | 0.65 | 1.15 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201132.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201132.html
|
Cabbies Told to Install Meters by May 1
|
2008042419
|
The city expects taxicab drivers to install meters by May 1, said D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, but it will waive the $1,000 fine for driving without a meter during a one-month grace period.
A day after the city won a key court ruling that clears the way for the time and distance meters to replace the long-standing zone system, Fenty (D) said drivers who do not obey the rules could have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Beginning May 1, city inspectors and D.C. police will spot-check taxicabs and issue warnings until June 1, after which fines will be assessed to those without time and distance meters.
"From now until June 1 is more than enough time to get meters installed," Fenty said at a news conference outside the D.C. Taxicab Commission's office in Southeast.
A lawyer for the drivers has said they will appeal Superior Court Judge Brook Hedge's ruling that Fenty has the legal power to order the change. The drivers argued that the mayor overstepped his authority.
But interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said the city will oppose any request from the drivers to stay Fenty's order. The meters cost $300 to $500, and Nickles said that 10 firms are licensed to install them.
Yesterday, cab drivers were lined up at one of those firms, District Cab on Benning Road in Northeast. Ajab Abdus-Samad, who has been driving since 1968, has an appointment next month to get his meter.
Linroy Hanson, who's been driving for 32 years, said he would comply with the law. "I have to obey the law," he said.
Others, however, were less sanguine about the change. Some of the more than 6,500 drivers have threatened to strike, while cab companies struggle to meet the deadline.
Yellow Cab has 600 cabs, but the company won't be finished installing meters until it receives licensing approval from the city to convert existing meters, which are equipped to measure zones, in about half of its fleet, officials said. The company will have to modify them to measure time and distance. The other half of the fleet will get new meters once they arrive, said Roy D. Spooner, the company's general manager.
"The June 1 deadline is pushing it," Spooner said. He said that the installation process, though cumbersome, is not his biggest concern.
"My biggest issue is what service we will be providing customers between May 1 and May 31," he said.
It remains unclear whether a two-tier fare structure will be in effect for the month. Asked what passengers should do if they get in a cab after May 1 and are charged a zone rate because no meter has been installed, Fenty suggested that riders report the driver's name, company and license plate number to the Taxicab Commission at 202-645-6018 or dctc@dc.gov. Pressed further to explain whether passengers should take another cab or refuse to pay the zone rate, Fenty and Nickles said riders should report the driver, but that the general confusion over which pay scheme will be used should be short-lived.
"There may be some difficulty, but we hope to make that very short," Nickles said. "We hope there won't be confusion."
Dawit Dagnew, an independent driver, said he supports the new system, but he said drivers should have been more involved in how the new rates were structured. The base rate for any trip is $3, plus 25 cents for each one-sixth of a mile. Drivers would be allowed to charge $1.50 for each additional rider.
William Hanbury, president of the Washington Convention and Tourism Corp., hailed Fenty's actions, saying the new metered system is the "transparency that is demanded by consumers. . . . Every city we compete with for tourism has a sophisticated cab system like this."
|
The city expects taxicab drivers to install meters by May 1, said D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, but it will waive the $1,000 fine for driving without a meter during a one-month grace period.
| 19.05 | 1 | 40 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201994.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042201994.html
|
Probation For Sergeant Who Misused Databases
|
2008042419
|
Sgt. Weiss Rasool, 31, initially faced up to six months in jail, but federal prosecutors urged U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry R. Poretz to consider as much as a year of jail time after Rasool took a lie-detector test last week and "was not fully compliant" with the test procedures. Prosecutors also said in a motion filed with the court that FBI agents "do not believe that he has been truthful."
Before sentencing, Rasool stood and wept as he admitted breaking the law.
"If I could turn back time, I would maybe do things different," he said. "It was an error in judgment. I never intended for things to turn out this way. I don't know what to say to you or anyone. . . . I admit I made errors of judgment. But I never intended to put anybody's life at risk."
The police sergeant said after the sentencing that he hopes to remain with the Fairfax department. A misdemeanor conviction does not automatically disqualify him from continuing with the force. Rasool remains on administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of an internal investigation, Fairfax police said.
In June 2005, when federal agents had a Fairfax man under surveillance, the man apparently asked Rasool to check the license plates of three vehicles he thought were following him. Rasool's lawyer described the man as a member of Rasool's mosque.
According to court records, Rasool checked the databases and left the following voice-mail message for the man:
"Umm, as I told you, I can only tell you if it comes back to a person or not a person, and all three vehicles did not come back to an individual person. So, I just wanted to give you that much."
The three vehicles were undercover FBI vehicles, according to a letter from the FBI filed in court yesterday, and Rasool's message "likely alerted the subject of the FBI investigation which had a disruptive effect on the pending counterterrorism case." Prosecutors said the vehicles were listed with a leasing company, which an experienced officer might have known was an indicator of law enforcement vehicles.
The target was arrested in November 2005, then convicted and deported, according to court filings in Rasool's case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeanine Linehan said that the target and his family were already dressed and destroying evidence at 6 a.m. when agents arrived to make the arrest, indicating that they had been tipped off. The target's name and the charges against him have not been disclosed.
In October 2007, the FBI confronted Rasool about his computer inquiries on the man's behalf. According to a brief written by Linehan, Rasool denied knowing the man. When presented with the recording of his message for the man, Rasool admitted checking the databases, Linehan wrote.
Linehan also noted that Rasool made computer inquiries about himself, through the National Crime Information Center system, about 17 times in 18 months, purportedly to see whether his name appeared on the terrorism watch list. His lawyer, James W. Hundley, said Rasool checked the database because of increased scrutiny of Muslims in the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In January, Rasool pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized computer access. He acknowledged checking his name and those of family members on the Violent Crime and Terrorist Offender File, maintained within the NCIC system, but said he did so to be sure the names were not there by mistake.
Hundley said that Rasool did not remember making the computer inquiries for the investigative target, and that Rasool did not tip off the target to his impending arrest.
Rasool's lawyer filed character-reference letters from Rasool's friends, family and co-workers, including Lt. Susan Lamar, the assistant commander of the McLean station, where Rasool worked. Lamar wrote that, compared with similar computer violations by Fairfax officers, Rasool's "seems to be the least significant."
Poretz told Rasool that some of his conduct "appears to strain credulity, to this court." But he declined to consider a sentencing range of six to 12 months in jail and gave Rasool credit for "acceptance of responsibility," a key factor in federal sentencing guidelines.
The magistrate judge then offered a stern analysis, saying: "What we have here is a defendant doing stupid things. What we have here is a credibility issue as to the defendant." But he found no evidence that Rasool intended to disrupt the federal investigation.
He placed the sergeant on two years of supervised probation and fined him $1,000.
|
A Fairfax County police sergeant was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Alexandria to two years' probation for his admission that he checked police databases for someone who was the target of a federal terrorism case.
| 23.368421 | 0.815789 | 1.184211 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202659.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/22/AR2008042202659.html
|
When Both Mother and Daughter Know Best
|
2008042419
|
When I got the call to review "Certain Girls," the long-awaited sequel to Jennifer Weiner's best-selling "Good in Bed," my first thought was that I wasn't Weiner-worthy. I was about a decade behind in my reading (though completely up-to-date on my television-watching) and had never read her hugely popular first novel. But once I'd caught up, I knew that Jane Smiley's dismissive review of "the pinkest book you can imagine" -- in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the paper Weiner herself used to write for -- was funny enough in a bitterly ironic way to be something right out of one of Weiner's novels.
Smiley thinks it's a shame that Weiner doesn't "address larger questions than the psychological ups and downs of her nice Jewish characters," but to me there are few things larger, not to mention more interesting and entertaining, than the psychological ups and downs of nice Jewish characters, especially the ones Weiner writes about. Her rabid fans -- more than 9 million copies of her books are in print worldwide-- clearly agree and have been devouring her stories about women who wear double-digit-size clothes and are in various stages of love or heartbreak or marriage or motherhood since 2001, with no sign of stopping. Weiner's women -- witty, wisecracking and weight-watching -- feel familiar, and entering and turning the pages of their lives as they cook chickens or take to their big, comfortable, 400-thread-count sheeted beds while they figure out what they're going to do next is almost as easy as walking into our own kitchens and bedrooms: We've been here before, and we're glad to be back.
It's 12 years later for Cannie Shapiro, and certain things have changed: She's now married to Peter Krushelevansky, the obesity doctor she fell in love with at the end of "Good in Bed," and her baby, Joy, isn't a baby anymore, even if Cannie hasn't quite accepted that fact. Other things haven't changed: She's still plus-size, she's still raking in the royalties from her racy roman a clef, "Big Girls Don't Cry," which she wrote after getting dumped by Joy's father, and she's still a product of her own father's callous rejection. The snippy quips, the smarty-pants attitude, the relentless humor and repartee are the acquired tics and telltale signs of big girls who cry when no one's looking. Only now Cannie is a kinder, gentler version of herself: She's a mother to a bat-mitzvah-age girl who wears hearing aids (the result of premature birth), and she lives to protect her daughter from the unseemly book she once wrote and from the world's ambient pain and cruelty:
"I was pretty certain, at thirteen, that I had more in common with the bow-wows [on the wedding announcements page] than the beautiful brides, and I was positive that the worst thing that could happen to any woman would be winning that contest. Now, of course, I know better. The worst thing would not be a couple of superannuated pranksters on a ratings-challenged radio station oinking at your picture and depositing dog food at your door. The worst thing would be if they did it to your daughter."
Fortunately for Cannie, Joy Shapiro Krushelevansky has "the kind of body I always figured was available only thanks to divine or surgical intervention," and fortunately for us, Weiner tells the story from both the mother's and daughter's perspectives in alternating chapters. Joy, who used to think she was special, "in a good way, like my mother used to tell me," has since learned she is not, which is fine, since all she really wants is to be normal, one of those "certain girls" to whom looks and personality come impossibly easily. But she has two fathers, a gay grandmother and a smothering mother, who "would never, ever forget me. Not even for twenty minutes. Probably not even for twenty seconds." And she knows that the only reason she's been invited to the bat mitzvah of Amber Gross, the most popular girl in school, is because of Cannie's book and brush with fame. Determined, in between shopping for the perfect bat mitzvah dress, to separate the fact from the fiction in her mother's life, and in her own, Joy begins the inevitable process of separation that drives their relationship to a different and ultimately better place.
In the emotional core of the book, Weiner portrays with tear-jerking precision both the long, dark shadows of a painful childhood and the excruciatingly small window of blissful closeness that parents get to enjoy with their kids before they grow up and start to know better. Weiner, who in interviews talks about growing up Jewish in a non-Jewish Connecticut town, dealing with her own parents' divorce and being plus-size herself, is a self-professed outsider, and it's that nose-pressed-up-against-the-glass quality that gives her writing such a punch. It's what makes her wish-fulfillment, happy-ending plots forgivable, and it's what makes "Certain Girls" the kind of book that gets under your skin, reminding you what it felt like to listen to your friend snap her retainer in the dark during a sleepover when you were 13 and capturing exactly what it feels like now, watching your child grow away from you and praying that someday she comes back.
|
CERTAIN GIRLS By Jennifer Weiner Atria. 383 pp. $26.95 When I got the call to review "Certain Girls," the long-awaited sequel to Jennifer Weiner's best-selling "Good in Bed," my first thought was that I wasn't Weiner-worthy. I was about a decade behind in my reading (though completely up-to-date ...
| 15.097222 | 0.916667 | 48.5 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800945.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800945.html
|
Teens on a Mission: What a Trip
|
2008042419
|
When Bethesda high school student Jenna Kusek first saw where she'd be living for three weeks in Tanzania, she thought, "You've got to be kidding."
This hole in the ground is the toilet? A trickle of cold water from an elevated hose is the shower?
But Kusek soon gained a new perspective. The white stucco house she shared with other teen volunteers last summer was a mansion by local standards, and better than the concrete-block house they would spend their days building for a local teacher. A cold shower, she realized, was a luxury unavailable to the village kids. A year after the trip, tears come to her eyes when she talks about how guilty she began feeling about having access to any kind of shower.
"Compared to how people lived in the village, our housing was too good to be true," says Kusek, 18, a senior at Walt Whitman High School. "I knew before I went to Africa that I was blessed, but I had no idea how lucky I was. I can't believe now the things we once took for granted."
Kusek's experience is being repeated by an ever-growing number of American teens traveling all over the world, led by dozens of companies feeding an appetite not only for more-exotic travel, but for travel with a purpose.
Time was, a bus through Europe was the ultimate trip for a lucky high school student of a certain class. Jeffrey Shumlin, co-director of Vermont-based Putney Student Travel, remembers that for the first 20 years after his family founded the business, it was called European Travel Camp. No more.
"Today, traveling to Europe does not represent as large a cultural leap as it once did," Shumlin says. "Kids today seek greater challenges farther off the beaten track." Besides, American teens from prosperous families have been taught not to waste time. "They have extremely demanding schedules; they are pressured by schools and parents to compose a well-rounded image for applying for college. They are in a pressure cooker at a very young age, and, as a result, when they think about what to do for the summer, they want something meaningful and worthwhile."
There has for some years been a niche market for teen trips to exotic places with an emphasis on cultural immersion and community service, but now the market is exploding. Dozens of travel companies, with such names as "Where There Be Dragons" and "Global Routes," arrange the trips, as do church and civic groups. The latest player: National Geographic. This summer the nonprofit organization's new Student Expeditions arm will begin teaming teens with National Geographic Society archaeologists, photographers, scientists and writers to explore such things as the Inca Empire and the treasures of India, while also arranging for them to spend time working with impoverished children or participating in projects such as clearing forest trails.
Lynn Cutler of National Geographic said the organization commissioned a study and found that teens who can afford travel want purpose and personal development. Market growth is expected: This is the largest generation of young people in history, and a million children worldwide will turn 12 every year for the next decade. Even now, students make up 24 percent of all international travelers. They are traveling at earlier ages, going on more-expensive trips and going to destinations farther from home than any previous generation, according to the Student & Youth Travel Association, a trade group.
Companies serving this emerging market produce trips with various degrees of work and play. One of Kusek's four weeks in Tanzania was spent on such activities as photographing exotic animals on safari in Ngorongoro Crater and hiking around Mount Kilimanjaro. The other three weeks of the Putney-sponsored trip, she lived and worked in the village of Miangarini, mixing concrete and stacking heavy concrete blocks. She valued both experiences equally.
"I never took one day for granted," Kusek says. "Every moment in Tanzania was the most amazing moment of my life."
How much a teen gets out of it depends, of course, on the teen. Several of those on Kusek's trip were forced by their parents to come, Kusek says -- a confession she found "horrific to my ears. It was a dream come true for me, and it should have been for every single one of them." Several boys never did any work. Kusek says she "just looked past that, figuring I'm going to build something that's really needed, and I'm going to feel good about it."
|
For high school students, it's the ultimate field trip -- real-life lessons learned by volunteering abroad.
| 42.714286 | 0.714286 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800935.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800935.html
|
Arcosanti: A 'City' Grows Green in the Arizona Desert
|
2008042419
|
Arriving at Arcosanti, an experimental eco-city in central Arizona, I was acutely aware of my non-greenness. I had spent the morning expelling carbon on my flight to Phoenix. My rental car was messy with empty soda bottles, a few plastic bags and a banana peel that I didn't plan to mulch. A piece of paper with directions had accidentally escaped through the car window, floating off toward a patch of spiky cactus. With this kind of résumé, would Mother Earth's minions still let me inside?
"Hey, come join us," a guy in a dress, belt and outsize personality beckoned. "Have a beer."
The Californian graphic artist was one of up to 80 residents living and working at Arcosanti, a pilot utopian community that champions sustainable living. After a long day of working on passive solar power, gardening and bread-baking, the group was tossing back a few. And for me, after a long day of carbon emissions and gas-guzzling, a mixer with outre environmentalists was much appreciated.
"Put your empties on the rebar before you leave," advised one of the revelers. I slid my glass bottle onto a sharp piece of metal. See, I was already contributing to the environment.
Arcosanti was started in the 1970s by Italian architect Paolo Soleri, a spitfire who seeks an alternative to a car-dominant, hyper-consumerist society. With his so-called urban laboratory, Soleri, 88, hopes to eliminate the automobile, promote frugality and create a functional metro center run on the Earth's resources: food from organic gardens, power from the sun, air conditioning from the shade, building materials from the natural surroundings. Though still a work in progress, Arcosanti in theory offers residents the same amenities as, say, a Manhattanite: housing, commerce, culture and dining.
For the visitor, staying at Arcosanti is an opportunity to soak up the Sierra Club ideology within a "Blade Runner" fantasy. While more-mainstream eco-resorts feature energy-saving light bulbs, organic meals and save-the-sea-turtle outings, Arcosanti goes deeper. It aims to change behavior through workshops, tours, conversations, hikes and happy hour with a man with gender-bending style.
"Arcosanti is both a success and a failure. A failure in that it is less than what its founder had hoped it would be, yet an extraordinary success in that it is actually there, inhabited and changing people's lives," said Susan Piedmont-Palladino, a curator at Washington's National Building Museum who is organizing an exhibit on green communities. "Its greatest success has been its prescience in the field of architecture and the environment."
In honor of Earth Day (April 22), I recently flew to Phoenix, then rented a car for the 65-mile drive to Arcosanti -- yes, drive. Ironically, the only way to reach the eco-city is by car.
Arcosanti was founded on the lofty concepts of "arcology," an elision of "architecture" and "ecology" that was coined by Soleri and reimagined by many science fiction writers. The movement envisions superstructures that provide commercial and residential space for the masses, but with minimal environmental impact. They are beehives made for people.
From Interstate 17, Arcosanti is invisible; however, as I neared the parking lot, its grand design became apparent: a hodgepodge of earth-hued concrete buildings with large circular windows, bowing apses and artful detailing. It resembled a World War III bunker for a rich dilettante.
The property sits on 15 cactus-strewn acres, a small wedge of the 860 acres owned by the nonprofit Cosanti Foundation, which also leases an adjacent 3,200 acres from the state. (The foundation raises funds through sales of Soleri's artwork, workshops and other endeavors.) Despite its compactness, Arcosanti contains all the necessities of village life: a cafe, a bakery, an art gallery, apartments and dorms for residents and guests, gardens and greenhouses, a foundry, woodwork and ceramic studios, an amphitheater and a swimming pool, which overlooks a static tide of sand and rocks.
|
Find Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland travel information, including web fares, Washington DC tours, beach/ski guide, international and United States destinations. Featuring Mid-Atlantic travel, airport information, traffic/weather updates
| 18.906977 | 0.325581 | 0.372093 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/catholic_creed_diversity.html%20
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/catholic_creed_diversity.html
|
Catholic Creed = Diversity
|
2008042219
|
Here's why Catholicsim is a stupid religion. This is one doctrine in which pope pius XII used his "INFALLIBILY power". STUPIDITY TO THE MAX. This is just one of the several stupid doctrines.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (by : Ignatius Brady, O.F.M., Catholic University of America)
" The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Catholic belief that 'the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up (assumed) body and soul into heavenly glory.' This definition of Pope Pius XII (1950), which crystallizes what the church has always held whether implicitly or explicitly, likewise indicates the scriptural basis and theological reasons of the doctrine: since God in choosing Mary to be the mother of Christ had preserved her from original sin (Immaculate Conception) and had kept her a virgin even in her motherhood, it was fitting that He grant her final victory over death by freeing her body from all corruption and bringing it together with her soul to the glory of heaven. Testimony to the universal belief in this doctrine can be traced to early Christian (Catholic) times. The feast, on August 15, certainly antedates the decree of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602) that it be celebrated throughout his empire. "
First, there is no scriptural record that Mary ascended to heaven. In the Bible, there were only three people who ascended bodily to heaven. They were Enoch (Genesis 5:24), Elijah (II Kings 2:11) and Jesus Christ (Acts 1:9)
Second , the scripture says that after the virgin birth of Jesus, Mary bore at least 6 more children ( Matthew 13:55-56). She certainly did not remain a virgin.
Third, about claims that Mary was sinless, let us hear what the apostles John and Paul had said :
I John 1:8 " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselfves, and the truth is not in us. "
Romans 3:23 " For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Even before these false teachings appeared , God already knew this coming. In Revelation 2:2 , we can read His prophetic verse, " I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil : and thou hast tried (or tested) them who say they are apostles (RC's creed of apostolic succesion), but are not, and hast found them LIARS. "
The book was called Revelation because God had foretold the future to Apostle John in the island of Patmos, Greece . In that said verse, God was talking about a future false church.
Jose Rizal certainly heard it loud and clear.
April 22, 2008 6:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2008 06:42
In terms of occupancy, hell is much bigger than heaven coz many will go to that place of torment compared to those who will make it to heaven. One major factor why it is so is because of false religions or false prophets who propagate it.
In Matthew 7:13-15 Jesus said "...wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction (Hell), and many there be which go in thereat; ... strait (or limited in space) is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life (Heaven), and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing...".
The fact that God had said that many will go to hell and few to heaven just shows that these false prophets are much more effective in teaching their false doctrines than those who preach the true word of God. As a result, they have a much larger following.
It is very disappointing that many religions today use the name of Jesus Christ and that its priests or preachers act like they are His servants but in truth are really servants of the devil. It is equally disappointing that many members of these churches are easily duped into believing what they falsely teach.
Since the year 2001, four so called "Christian" nations have already legalized gay marriage. It's quite amazing that four nations (The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada) legalized it in just a span of 4 years. Next year, there could be another two or more and before we know it, other "Christian" nations would be following their lead just like popcorn. The only thing to blame in here is their practiced religion.
It should be noted that both Belgium and Spain are Catholic countries. Canada is 43% Catholic and 29% Protestant and most of its Protestant churches have linkups with the Catholic Church and other false religions thru its Ecumenical Movement. Their biggest protestant group, The United Church of Canada (UCC), previously stated that their church welcome "sexually active single adults, lesbian, gay and bisexual people into all aspects of the life and ministry of the Church". It means that they see nothing wrong with people engaged in fornication, adultery and same sex unions. If we read the Bible, these are the same people God will burn in Hell. Clearly, there are two conflicting messages here -- one from God and the other from the devil. Since their church unashamedly teach the devil's doctrine, it's more fitting that they should call their church as the United Devil's Church of Canada. That way, it would clear up things and there will be no mixups. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has become a secular state which means most of its populace has no religious affiliation. In Massachusetts, which currently is the only state in the U.S that have legalized gay marriage, 54% of its populace is Catholic and still rising..
This is just the cross-section of the kind of religions those people who supported gay marriage have. Most of them were Catholics, liberal Protestants that have linkups with other false religions and Secularists who are either aetheists or skeptics. All these religions or beliefs have one thing in common. They worship the same "God" but not the God in the Bible for in Romans 1:32 it states, "Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death...".
When God speaks of death, He means everlasting hellfire. The people who approved of it never knew that they have stretched even wider what is already a very broad pathway to Hell. Most probably, they too are breezing thru that road themselves and on their way to destruction. No more stoplights for the lights or religions they attend to like the UCC have been signalling them to push on and run on full speed.
False religions are not that really hard to detect. Jesus said that "ye will know them by their fruits". So the next time another country, state or city legalizes gay marriage, examine what kind of religion those people who approved of it profess. And as sure as the sun rises from the east, those people would be either Catholic, liberal Protestants or Secularists.
When God says beware, one should not take it lightly. In Luke 12:5 Jesus said, "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him."
But what makes it more fearsome is the fact that it cannot be appealed like what other false religions want to suggest by teaching reincarnation or purgatory. The judgment of God is final and wherever He puts us in, Heaven or Hell, that would be permanent. The same is the fire and the worms crawling in one's body. They too would be permanent. The worms won't die and the fire won't quench either. It really is a place of torment and it's really very sad if some foolish religion would send somebody there.
"Beware of false prophets", said the Lord. I hope everybody would really ponder on this one.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 35.795455 | 0.522727 | 0.704545 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/04/the_vatican_beyond_the_abraham.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/04/the_vatican_beyond_the_abraham.html
|
The Vatican: Beyond the Abrahamic Dialogue
|
2008042219
|
As usual, Jews and Muslims got all the headlines when it came to the Popeâs interfaith meetings.
But one of the most interesting things to me about the interfaith event that I attended on Thursday (read my discussion of it here), was the presence of Jains, Hindus and Buddhists.
Including religious communities beyond the Abrahamic trinity in interfaith dialogue has been the official position of the Catholic Church since Vatican II. Nostra Aetate, the famous Vatican II document that formally opened the Churchâs doors to dialogue, has a special sections devoted to the Churchâs unique relationships with Muslims and Jews. But it also addresses itself to Hindus, Buddhists and members of other faiths with the following line: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."
My own introduction to interfaith work came through a lay Catholic monk, Brother Wayne Teasdale. In my book, Acts of Faith, I describe Brother Wayne as a cross between Zorba the Greek, St Francis of Assisi and the mad scientist from the Back to the Future movies. Brother Wayne had been a student of the Benedictine monk Bede Griffiths, an Englishman who went to India to seek (as he called it) âthe other half of my soulâ, and led an ashram there called Shantivanam which was organized on both Catholic and Hindu principles. Brother Wayne was also a friend of the Dalai Lama, and carried on a close Catholic-Buddhist dialogue with him for many years.
For Brother Wayne, interfaith work was not about theological frameworks, but finding the shared social justice values and spiritual resources in all traditions.
Since 9/11, there has been a dramatic growth in interfaith programs in communities and on campuses around America. Too many of them - under the guise of âAbrahamic Dialogueâ - limit themselves to Jews, Christians and Muslims. I think thatâs wrong.
First of all, there are over 900 million Hindus in the world, and over 300 million Buddhists. In America, there are somewhere between two and six million Buddhists, and probably around 1.5 million Hindus. They deserve to be included as well.
Second, while the Abrahamic framework sounds nice and neat, the truth is that there are significant differences between religious communities under that tent. You can only talk about Abraham being the Patriarch for so long. At some point, the discussion turns to Hagar â was she a concubine (as Jews say), or a legitimate wife (as Muslims say). Was it Isaac on the rock (as Jews say) or Ishmael (as Muslims say)? The theological similarities turn out to be thinner than originally thought. Interfaith cooperation needs to include people from all of the major world religions, based on a framework of shared values. As Muslims advocate to expand the idea of America beyond being a Judeo-Christian country, we have a responsibility to advance a framework which includes not just our own faith community, but other groups as well. It is a violation of the Islamic ethos to demand to be let into the house, and then slam the door on your Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh and Bahai brothers and sisters as you enter.
And, as in so many other areas, the Vatican has shown the way.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 15.181818 | 0.545455 | 0.590909 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/with_all_the_excitement_surrou.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/with_all_the_excitement_surrou.html
|
Gordon Brown's Immodest Proposal
|
2008042219
|
With all the excitement surrounding the Popeâs visit to the United States last week, Gordon Brownâs visit went almost unnoticed. But while the Pope was calling for a renewal of love, the British Prime Minister proposed something that could make such a renewal happen.
In a major speech in Boston, Brown called for the United States and other countries to join together to create a new series of institutions to lead the globalized world. Much of what he called for were changes in regulatory and financial institutions. But he also proposed new institutions of service to build a global society, one focused on aspirations that transcend national borders and foster mutual interests grounded in common values.
Specifically, Brown challenged citizens around the world to create a âglobal peace and reconstruction corpsââa sort of Peace Corps for citizens and governments of all countries to participate in service, to respond to crises and to help build the citizen institutions necessary for peace and stability everywhere.
Thatâs a good idea for a lot of reasons.
The most important insight of the Peace Corps (full disclosure: my father, Sargent Shriver, was the first director) was that meaningful change can only happen when people form relationships rooted in respect and equality. Peace Corps volunteers are fundamentally different from other relief and aid workers because they live in villages, speak the local language, and share the lives of those with whom they serve.
This common-ground experience was once referred to as going âeye to eyeâ with others, and nothing could be more important in this globalized era. The greatest challenge of this century is that of overcoming fear of differenceâand of learning how we can get along on this increasingly small planet. Peace and reconstruction depend more on relationships of trust than on any technical or financial expertise. If youâre not eye to eye, you canât be heart to heart or mind to mind. In fact, if youâre not eye to eye, you canât do much good for anyone.
In this century, however, a solely American effort wonât do it. We need Lebanese who are willing to live eye to eye with Brazilians; Chinese willing to live eye to eye with Indians; Kenyans willing to live eye to eye with Kazakhstanis; and more. The next generation of peace and reconstruction work will have to enable a culture of service of all to all.
Brownâs corps could be far more than a service delivery organization. It could help in the crucial work of refreshing a planet-wide commitment to common values and interdependence. We can work together only if we share certain values. Both the Pope and the Prime Minister brought the same messageâthat common values and common aspirations are not only possible to articulate, but also possible to live actively.
In recent years, Iâve seen common humanity lived joyfully in the people who serve in Special Olympics. Iâve seen moms in Bosnia, dads in Turkey, coaches in Lebanon, scholars in China, high school students in Soweto, and athletes in the Bronx all coming together in service. They come to Special Olympics because at a profound level, they want to affirm that even the most humble and forgotten citizens are full of potential and value. Itâs their desire to participate in our common humanity that is acted out by the simple and loving act of shooting a basketball or running a raceâtogether. Human dignity is their common belief.
Brown is right when he says âIt is on the basis of our common humanity and common values that even people thousands of miles apart can share the pain of others and believe in something bigger than themselves.â Weâre hungry to believe in that larger meaning, that larger vision, that larger hope for peace and purpose.
Maybe itâs not a coincidence that Pope Benedict XVI and Gordon Brown visited our country at the same timeâone expressing the hope that comes from the love of God, the other expressing the hope that comes from fulfilling our greatest potential as citizens. If we can find a way to do both, this will have been a week worth remembering.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 17.340909 | 0.454545 | 0.5 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/04/benedict_a_man_of_faith_and_co.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/04/benedict_a_man_of_faith_and_co.html
|
Benedict a Man of Conviction, Contradiction
|
2008042219
|
Thinking back on last week with the Pope it struck me that he was, like the words in the old Kris Kristofferson song, âa walking contraction,â beginning with his demeanor.
We had been expecting âthe enforcerâ and the "Rotweiller, â not the good Shepherd but a German Shepherd. Instead, we saw a man who was quiet, soft-spoken, gentle, self-effacing, a bit solemn and non-confrontational. His body language at the beginning of the week spoke of a man who was slightly uncomfortable with all of the attention and fanfare, someone who would much rather be in the background, reading theology.
By the end of the week he had loosened up considerably, he was clearly more at ease, smiling much more and seemed to be actually enjoying himself. Naturally, getting the unprecedented welcome from the president and a great press didnât hurt. By the time he left New York, he was -- for this man -- practically euphoric, raising his arms in blessing with a confidence that belied the tentativeness of his first day.
******* Here are a few areas of contradiction that struck me.
On the issue of child sexual abuse: He was admirable in the way he addressed it headlong instead of trying to shove it under the rug. He brought it up on the plane coming over, in which he used the word âshameâ, again in his homily at National Park in Washington, where he said âno words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse,â and he met with five victims of abuse here in Washington.
And yet, there are still cases of abuse, there are still abusive priests who are on pensions, there are still bishops who looked the other way and repeatedly refused to recognize what was happening or take action. The most egregious of all, the major perpetrator of this, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who was forced to step down as a result of the scandal, is now an honored member of the Vatican in Rome. Cardinal Law, who knew about the abuse cases and quietly transferred the guilty priests to other parishes where they could continue their abuse rather than discipline or fire them, has his own Basilica. There are those victims who say that until Law is forced to pay the consequences, the Vatican is sending a message to all Catholics that the Popeâs words can not be taken seriously.
On the U.S. Church: Benedict is looking to enlarge the dwindling numbers of Catholics in this country, part of the reason he made this trip to America. Yet culturally, the Church has lost touch with so many of its young Catholics.
The majority of Catholics practice birth control, which is against the teaching of the church. Many Catholics are pro-choice, though the pope spoke dramatically at Yankee stadium about protecting the âmost defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the motherâs womb.â
He opposes marriage for priests, which has driven many young men away from the priesthood, he is against women priests, and he opposes homosexuality and gay marriage though reports show that a number of gay men do enter the priesthood. The church has also excluded potential women leaders from making their way to the top of their profession.
On women: In Washington, Benedict talked about the importance of each individual and group and he talks movingly about equal rights. Women, however, are not allowed to become priests. Despite an encyclical âmuliarsis dignitatumâ or the dignity of women, a group of women just back from the Vatican to plead equal rights for women in the church were convinced that the Vatican does not trust the movement toward feminism and that the notion of women priests was non-negotiable.
On other faiths: He spoke at the UN about human rights and about the urgent need to prevent and manage conflicts and to have dialogues and reconciliation. Yet there are many Muslims who feel that this Pope has set back Muslim-Catholic dialogue since the death of John Paul II.
In a controversial speech in Regensburg, Germany, last year Benedict quoted a Byzantine Emperor saying, âShow me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.â
This Easter, Benedict chose to baptize an Egyptian born Italian Muslim who had been critical of Islam.
Because of his views about Islam a group of 138 Islamic leaders have formed a group, âA Common Word,â to meet with the Pope and to try to institute a more open dialogue. The Pope, on the other hand, who speaks often about religious freedom, has made it clear that he would like to see a mosque in Saudi Arabia, a country which does not allow religious freedom.
On the Jews: On this latest trip the Pope stopped at a synagogue in New York or the eve of Passover as a special gesture of reaching out to the Jewish people.
This did not mollify those who were still concerned about the fact that as he has recently called for reintroduction of an old Good Friday Mass in Latin that includes a prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews on Good Friday.
Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate also called on this Pope in an âOn Faithâ post to stop the effort to confer Sainthood on Pope Pius XII who was indifferent, at best, to the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust.
On academic freedom: The Pope talked about religious freedom and he has been concerned about the closing of a number of Catholic Universities and the number of secular teachers at these Universities. The Vatican has become concerned, too, that the basic tenets of the Catholic church are not being taught by theology professors at Catholic universities. They disapprove of schools who invite pro-choice guests to speak or who allow gay and lesbian clubs on campus.
Still, there are fewer and fewer priests and nuns to teach at these schools so the quality of religious instruction has gone down and many young catholics are choosing colleges where they have total academic and social freedom and where the standard of excellence remains high.
On secularism: Pope Benedict has deplored the secularism of Europe, declining attendance at churches and the moral relativism he sees gaining a foothold there. He embraces the United States as a very religious country. So it was clear that his major message here in the United States was a message against moral relativism or what he calls âdictatorship of relativismâ. He believes that one requires a religious base for morality. That one does not follow moral fashions or trends but remains consistent in oneâs love for all of human kind, one's duty to help those less fortunate, the way one lives oneâs life, and the values that outlast generations.
In his speech at Yankee stadium, he talked about ârejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life," since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, "There is no human activity â even in secular affairs â which can be withdrawn from Godâs dominion.â
The irony here is that by using those words he disenfranchises all of those Americans, or people in the world who are not believers and gives the impression that, although everyone is equally important in the eyes of his God, those who are secular are lacking. He refers to Americans as âchosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nationâ and asks us to âfollow faithfully in the footsteps of those who have gone before you! Hasten the coming of Godâs Kingdom in this land!â
On human rights: At the United Nations, Pope Benedict gave an inspiring speech on the subject of human rights. It was the invitation of the Secretary General of the UN that originally brought him to the United States. Despite knowing how hostile George Bush and his administration have been to the UN, even appointing an ambassador who was so unpopular he had to step down, the Pope took this opportunity to implore members to embrace human rights. It was not lost on many that there was a veiled reference to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and our insistence on the legality of torture. I would imagine that there were a lot of members squirming in their seats during his address.
On the whole I think from his point of view Pope Benedictâs trip was a success and it accomplished a good deal of what he had set out to do. It gave people a sense of who he really is, as he had been in the shadow of his popular predecessor for the last three years. It softened his image. It raised the profile of the Catholic Church. It energized many Catholics and it gave the impression that he is willing to reach out and engage in dialogues with those of other faiths. He was diplomatic, and gracious in his approach to all subjects, never seeming to admonish but instead to call people to their better natures..
In his short three years as Pope, Benedict has written two encyclicals -- one on the subject of love, the other on the subject of hope. One can only assume his next will be on the subject of faith. Those are not the topics usually identified with Rotweillers. Let us hope, then, and have faith that he will follow through on his word that we are all equally deserving of love no matter who we are or what we believe.
(Watch my discussion with "The God Vote" blogger Jacques Berlinerblau about Benedict's visit to America.)
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 41.181818 | 0.613636 | 0.704545 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/fed_up_with_mugabe.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/04/fed_up_with_mugabe.html
|
PostGlobal: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
On Wednesday, the Washington Post ran an editorial blasting the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, for cozying up to Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe, a totalitarian demagogue who has been hoarding the results of a presidential contest held three weeks ago, an election many believe he lost.The Post decried Mbekiâs fraternizing with Mugabe at a time when the international community is in consensus that the opposition Movement for Democratic Movement (MDC) won presidential elections three weeks ago. What actually caught my eye was not the strong language the Post used to ridicule Mbeki â who asserted a week ago that the situation in Zimbabwe falls short of a crisis. What caught my eye were the comments the editorial generated.
Consider this: An irate supporter of President Mbeki, who identified himself as a South African, questioned the moral authority of Americans â not of the Post â to poke their noses into the affairs of sovereign countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa. Another wrote: ââ¦there isnât (sic) greater thieves, murderers and exploiters of peoples (sic) on earth than Western powers.â Letâs assume, for a second, that Western countries are in fact thieves and plunderers of other nationâs resources. Does this justify Mugabeâs overturning the Zimbabweansâ verdict that he and his henchmen should pack their bags and go home? Of course not.
Most of the comments, which I suspect originated from African readers of the Post, were harsh and vitriolic not towards Mugabe or Mbeki, but to the West â for its habit of meddling in the affairs of African countries. These commenters missed the point. Whatâs at stake now is not the U.S., Britain, France or Canada interfering in the affairs of either Zimbabwe or South Africa. This is an effort to emancipate Zimbabweans from the twin yokes of Mugabeâs dictatorship and his inept leadership.
It defies logic that Africans, of all people, should be engaging in xenophobic ranting instead of joining to demand restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans have spoken, period. What remains now is for the dictator Mugabe to concede to MDCâs Morgan Tsvangirai, or to allow a run-off election to be monitored by independent observers from such bodies as the African Union (AU), the UN and the European Union (EU). Itâs easy and comfortable for those who donât espouse universal democratic ideals to demonize the media and other countries - especially in the West â rather than face the political crisis in Zimbabwe head-on. Rather than demand that Mugabe release election results, these are willing to believe his claim that the crisis in Zimbabwe isnât about democracy â that itâs about Western countriesâ attempts to meddle in the countryâs internal affairs. Mugabe said as much today, when he addressed a gathering to celebrate Zimbabweâs 28 years of independence and accused Britain and the opposition of scheming to recolonize the country. This is a trick Mugabe has used again and again to deflect attention from his incompetence. The world must say no to Mugabe. Letting him go will set a very bad precedent, especially in Africa: incumbent rulers will start borrowing a page from him, clinging to power even when their people have rejected them. The African Union (AU), regrettably, hasnât come out forcefully to admonish Mugabe and demand that votersâ will be respected. Its deafening silence is a discreet endorsement of Mugabeâs demagogical debauchery. In that silence, it seems to be enjoying the ongoing brutality being meted out on opposition supporters, whose only offense was to vote for the Morgan Tsvangiraiâs Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). The fact that it has taken U.S. President George Bush or the European Union or British Prime Minster Gordon Brown to pressure Mugabe to relinquish power, and not the AU or the South African Development Community (SADCC), is a big embarrassment to Africa. The time has now come for African leaders to rescue Zimbabweans from Mugabeâs lunacy. Whatâs going on in Zimbabwe is unacceptable. Itâs well-known that Mugabe will resort to violence to silence his critics. The world hasnât forgotten that as recently as last year, he vowed to bash opposition politicians who dared to challenge his rule. Itâs clear that Zimbabweans canât fight this ruthless dictator alone. They need help. Itâs time the world acted on their behalf, not just through verbal denunciations as is the case now, but also through the use of force. Isnât this the same way heâs treating his people? Njoroge Wachai is a former Kenyan journalist currently based in the United States.
|
Need to Know - PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/
| 44.421053 | 0.421053 | 0.421053 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102805.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102805.html
|
8 Questions About The Pennsylvania Primary
|
2008042219
|
1. Conventional wisdom has taken such a beating in this campaign that setting expectations for today's primary continues to confound the experts. The only thing everyone can agree on is that, given the makeup of Pennsylvania -- an older population with a significant blue-collar constituency and a sizable proportion of Roman Catholics -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should win the popular vote. But as Democrat Matt Bennett put it, the candidates are like publicly -traded companies that need to hit an earnings target to lift their stock price.
But just what are the targets? Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points -- which was her margin in Ohio last month. Others say eight points. Some say, given the amount of money Sen. Barack Obama is spending on television ads, anything over five points would be a respectable victory for Clinton. Staying within five points would give Obama the opportunity to assert that he overcame a state whose demographics tilted heavily to Clinton.
But the margin in the popular vote ultimately will be secondary to how Pennsylvania affects the battle for pledged delegates. Pennsylvania is the biggest remaining prize on the calendar, with 158 pledged delegates. Clinton badly needs to make up ground in the delegate fight and, given the way they're distributed, that could be difficult.
In the words of one Democratic strategist, the popular vote margin is a "feel-good barometer that may play out over a few days and longer if there is a big win, but then we will be on to the next contests. Ultimately, the second indicator [delegates] is more important and will have a longer effect because it is still the criteria we use to select a nominee."
Has the campaign weakened Obama or Clinton more for the general election?
2. Many Democrats argue that, when compared with where they stood at the start of the nomination battle in early 2007, Obama and Clinton have become stronger and more effective candidates. Clinton has demonstrated resilience, doggedness and grit in the face of continued adversity. Obama began as a totally untested candidate and has run a remarkably effective campaign that has generated passion and energy.
But as Pennsylvanians vote today, the candidates are showing the wear and tear of this long and grueling process. Clinton's negative ratings have risen dramatically over the past few months. She began with doubts about her credibility and trustworthiness, which have only intensified. In last week's Post-ABC News poll, her unfavorable rating was higher than it has ever been.
Obama also looks weaker than he did when he was running the table in late February with big victories in such places as Virginia, Wisconsin and some smaller-state caucuses. Since then he has been beset by one controversy after another and, while he handled some of them effectively -- his speech on race being the prime example -- there is no question that Republicans see him as more vulnerable than they did before.
A Democratic strategist summed up the candidates this way: "Either can win the general election, but anybody who thought Democrats would waltz into the White House this fall was sadly mistaken."
What is Obama's biggest general-election vulnerability?
3. Controversies over the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's comments about why small-town Americans are "bitter" and "cling" to religion and guns, and the candidate's liberal policy views have created a mixture that gives Republicans hope that they can portray Obama as out of touch with heartland America.
|
By Staff Writer Dan Balz What will it take to be declared the winner in Pennsylvania today? 1.Conventional wisdom has taken such a beating in this campaign that setting expectations for today's primary continues to confound the experts. The only thing everyone can agree on is that, given the make...
| 12.163636 | 0.836364 | 21.236364 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/20/DI2008042002070.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/20/DI2008042002070.html
|
Election 2008: Previewing the Pennsylvania Primary
|
2008042219
|
Blogger and Philadelphia Inquirer national political columnist Dick Polman will be online Tuesday, April 22 at noon ET to take your questions on the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, the vice presidential chances of Gov. Ed Rendell and how things look in the state for November.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Philadelphia Inquirer political columnist Dick Polman takes your questions on the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, the vice presidential chances of Gov. Ed Rendell and how things look in the state for November.
| 2.944444 | 0.972222 | 23.916667 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102793.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102793.html
|
Clinton Campaign Facing Deepening Debt to Advisers
|
2008042219
|
Clinton entered April with about $9.3 million in cash on hand, but she also carried about $10.3 million in debt. In contrast, Obama had $42.5 million available to spend at the start of April and reported $663,000 in unpaid bills.
Clinton strategists confirmed yesterday that the disparity allowed Obama to overwhelm her with television ads in Pennsylvania, which will hold its primary today.
"There's no question that Senator Obama has outspent us dramatically," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesman. "He is trying to knock Senator Clinton out of this race."
Clinton's volunteer fundraisers acknowledged yesterday that they are stretching to find untapped sources, and that they increasingly have relied on the Internet, which finance co-chairman Hassan Nemazee called a "highly volatile" place to get cash. Reports filed with the Federal Election Commission last night indicate how difficult the road could become if the Internet cannot produce a steady stream of donations.
While debt owed to the firm run by the campaign's recently deposed top strategist, Mark Penn, began to accumulate a year ago, with $277,147 reported last April, his tab grew to $4.6 million by the end of March. Adviser Mandy Grunwald's consulting firm began extending services to Clinton's campaign more than a year ago, and is now owed $528,480, the report shows. The campaign owes MSHC Partners, a mail and microtargeting firm, nearly $1 million. And for three months the campaign owed $240,000 to senior adviser Harold Ickes's database firm, Catalist.
Campaign finance experts said yesterday that large extended debts owed to professionals could create legal trouble for the campaign if they remain unaddressed.
"Anybody who extends credit to a campaign runs the risk of either losing money or violating the law," said Jan Baran, a Republican election lawyer who defended a mail house for not collecting debt from a campaign.
Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson said the campaign "pays its bills on a regular basis and will continue to do so." He noted that while firms such as Grunwald Communications; Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates; and Catalist are owed significant sums, the campaign also has made large payments to the firms.
Amy Weiss, a spokeswoman for Catalist, said the firm recently received $120,000 from the campaign and expects additional payments soon.
Nemazee said a victory in Pennsylvania would generate an influx of online donations, and that fundraising from major donors continues to exceed expectations.
Database editor Sarah Cohen and research editors Lucy Shackelford and Alice Crites contributed to this report.
|
The financial gap between Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton has grown increasingly pronounced during the presidential primary season, and the Clinton campaign is now shouldering sizable debts to several key consultants and advisers, campaign records show.
| 11.511628 | 0.511628 | 0.651163 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801863.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801863.html
|
Lean Plate Club - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
Confused about nutrition? Wondering how to fit in more physical activity? Welcome to the Lean Plate Club. Ask Sally Squires, nationally syndicated Lean Plate Club columnist for the Washington Post, about eating smart and moving more every Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET. Sally draws upon her master's degree in nutrition from Columbia University to preside over the lively Lean Plate Club Web chat. Whether you're trying to reach a healthier weight or simply maintain it, you'll find plenty of tips and strategies.
Submit your questions or comments before or during the discussion.
Share your own food finds, creative workouts and secrets for healthy, great tasting meals. We'll cheer your successes and help with your setbacks. (None of this, of course, is a substitute for medical advice.) E-mail Sally, author of the newly published Secrets of the Lean Plate Club (St. Martin's Press) at leanplateclub@washpost.com.
Or just sign up for the free Lean Plate Club e-mail newsletter. The Lean Plate Club column appears Tuesdays in the Washington Post Health section and is nationally syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Find other Lean Plate Club members at www.leanplateclub.com/group.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post health and nutrition writer Sally Squires talks about how to eat healthier.
| 19.214286 | 0.785714 | 1.214286 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103399.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103399.html
|
Detainees Allege Being Drugged, Questioned
|
2008042219
|
"I'd fall asleep" after the shot, Nusairi, a former Saudi policeman captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2002, recalled in an interview with his attorney at the military prison in Cuba, according to notes. After being roused, Nusairi eventually did talk, giving U.S. officials what he later described as a made-up confession to buy some peace.
"I was completely gone," he remembered. "I said, 'Let me go. I want to go to sleep. If it takes saying I'm a member of al-Qaeda, I will.' "
Nusairi, now free in Saudi Arabia, was unable to learn what drugs were injected before his interrogations. He is not alone in wondering: At least two dozen other former and current detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere say they were given drugs against their will or witnessed other inmates being drugged, based on interviews and court documents.
Like Nusairi, other detainees believed the injections were intended to coerce confessions.
The Defense Department and the CIA, the two agencies responsible for detaining terrorism suspects, both deny using drugs as an enhancement for interrogations, and suggest that the stories from Nusairi and others like him are either fabrications or mistaken interpretations of routine medical treatment.
Yet the allegations have resurfaced because of the release this month of a 2003 Justice Department memo that explicitly condoned the use of drugs on detainees.
Written to provide legal justification for interrogation practices, the memo by then-Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo rejected a decades-old U.S. ban on the use of "mind-altering substances" on prisoners. Instead, he argued that drugs could be used as long as they did not inflict permanent or "profound" psychological damage. U.S. law "does not preclude any and all use of drugs," Yoo wrote in the memo. He declined to comment for this article.
The memo has prompted new calls for the Bush administration to give a full accounting of its treatment of detainees, and to make public detailed prison medical records. Legal experts and human rights groups say that forced drugging of detainees for any nontherapeutic reasons would be a particularly grave breach of international treaties banning torture.
"The use of drugs as a form of restraint of prisoners is both unlawful and unethical," said Leonard Rubenstein, an expert on medical ethics and the president of Physicians for Human Rights. "These allegations demand a full inquiry by Congress and the Department of Justice."
Scott Allen, a physician and co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights in Providence, R.I, noted that there are no accepted medical standards for the use of drugs to subjugate prisoners. Thus, any such use in interrogations "would have to be considered an experimental use of medicine."
So far, the evidence is limited to the accounts of detainees who describe similar episodes in which they were forcibly given drugs and experienced unnatural physical effects ranging from extreme drowsiness to hallucinations. U.S. military officials have acknowledged using only therapeutic drugs, such as vitamins and vaccines, on Guantanamo Bay detainees.
|
Adel al-Nusairi remembers his first six months at Guantanamo Bay as this: hours and hours of questions, but first, a needle.
| 22.037037 | 0.592593 | 0.962963 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/20/DI2008042001935.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/20/DI2008042001935.html
|
The War Over the War
|
2008042219
|
More coverage of The War Over the War | War Over the War discussion transcripts
Nagl commands 1st Battalion, 34th Armor at Fort Riley, Kan. He was a West Point graduate and Rhodes Scholar, and was a part of the team that rewrote the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. After his upcoming retirement, he'll be a fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Good afternoon. I'm Lt. Gol. John Nagl of the U.S. Army, currently stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, where I train transition teams for service with the Iraqi and Afghan armies and police. I'm speaking to you today on my own behalf; my comments are not official statements of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense.
Detroit: Lt. Col. Nagl, as an American trying to make sense of Iraq I find it troubling that the administration and the media to a great extent try to simplify the relationships and polarization that exists in Iraq. Good vs. evil hardly can be the subtext to this story. It is my understanding that all political groups of any size have their own militias, not just Sadr. Is this true? If so, what of the joyous recent pronouncements from Rice that the Iraq government is banning militias? Why are they moving on him now, and what is the implication given the upcoming elections?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Detroit, Iraq is indeed a complicated place; I think Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did a good job last week of laying out just how fragile the progress we've seen in the past year still is, and how many parties have an interest in the future direction of Iraq. There are in fact several political groups with affiliated militia movements, although Sadr's is among the most worrisome, and has the potential to significantly affect the course of the elections this fall. In this light, I think the decision by the government of Iraq to move against not just Sadr's militia, but all of them, is a step in the right direction. How well it is executed remains to be seen.
Asheville, N.C.: Was Gen. Petraeus's year off to oversee the writing of his counterinsurgency manual before his appointment to his current post a coincidence? Wasn't he picked for his role before his 2005 assignment, then? Isn't this how it's normally done, too? If so, what political calculation is involved, and how has it been worked into the details of how he has run his war?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Hello, Asheville! Lt. Gen. Petraeus was assigned to command the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth in late 2005, after his second tour in Iraq. One of his immediate concerns was codifying both what he personally had learned about counterinsurgency and what the Army as a whole had learned in the preceding few years. He pulled together a team that produced the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual in December 2006, and was selected to command in Iraq the following month. I like to think that the intellectual leadership Gen. Petraeus displayed in the writing of the Manual was one of the reasons he was selected to lead in Iraq; I am confident that the opportunity to reflect for a year on counterinsurgency played a role in how he has commanded there.
Miami: Why is Gen. Petraeus being reassigned out of Iraq if he has served in this command almost half the time Gen. Casey served? It seems they declared the success of this surge strategy and then are moving out the architect and leader. What do you make of this?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Gen. Petraeus still is assigned to command in Iraq, and no announcement of his replacement has yet been made. There is much speculation that he will leave Iraq late this year, but that is only speculation.
I will say that he has been deployed for at least four of the past six years, and even Gen. Petraeus deserves some down time -- although for him, downtime tends to consist of writing books and articles and doing sport-parachute jumping!
I am confident that whoever is selected to follow him in command will implement the same population-centric counterinsurgency principles that have proven effective in the past year.
Fairfax, Va.: How concerned are you about junior officer retention rates?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Fairfax, I am very concerned about junior officer retention rates. I just grabbed a burger in the chow hall next door to my office; while I was waiting, I talked with a great young captain who has fought in Iraq but is struggling with a college football injury that limits his Army career options (he wanted to become a Special Forces officer). I can't say enough about the young officers who have served one, two, three or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, but who are struggling with decisions about priorities: family or Army/nation? The Army is working hard to increase "dwell" time and to provide other incentives to keep these combat veterans on board, but the sacrifices of service are real -- and largely are borne by the soldier's family back home. It's hard.
Bethesda, Md.: Thank you for taking time for this chat. Thinking about the United States military history in the past two decades as well as the current scope of threats, it seems like we are more likely to be fighting limited actions in the future. Has this affected the focus of the acquisitions process of military systems at all? It still seems that much of what is in the pipeline are "big-ticket" items such as the Ford-class carrier program and F-35. I understand that hardware wears out, but shouldn't we be focusing more on the conflicts to come?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Bethesda, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave an important speech at Maxwell, Ala. -- home of the Air Force War College -- just yesterday on this very subject. Although the military has adapted to the demands of the wars we currently are fighting, there is more that needs to be done. The Secretary of Defense specifically pointed to the increasing demand for unmanned aerial vehicles, or "UAVs," in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These unmanned drones have great loiter time and give us the ability to watch and in many cases interdict insurgents. We have more of them than we did a few years back, but we need even more -- and we need them now.
That's not to say that we can afford to give up all of our ability to fight conventional wars, but our top priority has to be winning the wars we're facing now. Finding that balance is the hardest question we face as a military. The Secretary of Defense apparently doesn't think we've found the right balance point quite yet, and I have to agree with him.
Washington: From a military perspective, what is considered a successful counterinsurgency campaign? When will we know that such conditions have been achieved and it will be possible to draw down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Thank you.
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Washington, counterinsurgency campaigns are enormously difficult; this is why the Army/Marine Corps Field Manual calls it "the graduate level of war." Ultimately, we can't win the campaigns in Iraq or Afghanistan on our own; the best we can do is enable our Iraqi or Afghan partners to win it themselves, for their own people. But we can help.
Our ultimate objective in both wars is to help the people build a government that meets their basic needs, has broad public support, and provides internal and external security for its population. We want both Iraq and Afghanistan to be able to secure their own borders, not to provide a safe haven for terrorists, and govern in accordance with broadly accepted principles of human rights. Both countries are moving in the right direction, but success will take years. There's a good reason that Lawrence of Arabia said "making war on insurgents is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife"!
Washington: Lt. Col. Nagl, assuming broad legitimacy is found by in the counterinsurgency amongst the Iraqi people and victory is imminent, will the Army willingly engage in counterinsurgency in years following Iraq, or will it revert back to a traditional form of warfare?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Having fought in both a conventional war (Desert Storm) and a counterinsurgency campaign (Operation Iraqi Freedom), I can state my personal preference for conventional war: You shoot the tanks that don't look like your own. It should be no surprise that armies prefer to prepare for force-on-force conflict that resembles World War II rather than Vietnam.
However, our conventional military superiority over any conceivable enemy makes it most likely that future enemies of our country and of our allies will decide to fight us as insurgents. As Gen. Rupert Smith argues in his book "The Utility of Force," the most likely form of future conflict is "war among the peoples." We cannot make the mistake we made, after learning how to conduct counterinsurgency in Vietnam, of forgetting those lessons at the conclusion of the counterinsurgency campaigns we're currently fighting.
Boston: My son just returned from 15 months at Forward Operating Base Summerall in Baiji. He tells me there's just no way you can pull out of Iraq in one year, just from a logistic's standpoint, because there's so much hardware there. Hypothetically, how long do you think it would take to physically get out?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Counterinsurgency campaigns are messy and slow. The United States has enduring interests in Iraq -- in ensuring that Iraq does not provide a base for al-Qaeda, in preventing genocide, and in preventing a broader regional war throughout the Middle East. Even if we wanted to leave Iraq completely, the logistical process of removing all of our soldiers and equipment would take a number of months -- but I can't imagine us withdrawing completely, under any circumstances, for a number of years. Our national interest demands our presence in the region, and will continue to do so -- albeit at reduced troop strength as the Iraqi Security Forces continue to develop.
Little Rock, Ark.: We don't get much information regarding the nation-building activities in Afghanistan. Did we meet the rebuilding commitments we made to them when we won the war there?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Little Rock, the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan has not received the attention it has deserved. I visited there a little more than a year ago, and was struck most by the abject poverty of the country, even in Kabul. Afghanistan is the fifth-poorest country in the world after three decades of war. It desperately needs international assistance, particularly infrastructure development (roads above all). The Taliban's resurgence has made the development work even harder than we'd anticipated. We still have a lot of work to do there, and I'm pleased that we have decided to commit additional combat forces to Afghanistan next year, as have some of our allies.
Potomac, Md.: What are the differences between the insurgents we faced in Vietnam and the insurgents we are facing in Iraq?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Potomac, this is a subject I've done some writing and thinking about; my dissertation looked at how the U.S. Army adapted to the demands of counterinsurgency in Vietnam.
The insurgency in Vietnam was strongly nationalist. Ho Chi Minh was a very charismatic leader; he drew on the legacy of French colonialism to inspire his forces.
Iraq is a rather different kettle of fish. The insurgency I fought in al-Anbar was tribal and sectarian; it drew on Sunni discontent with a Shia-dominated government, reinforced by traditional disquiet about any occupying force. That insurgency, which was reinforced by al-Qaeda in Iraq, largely has been moderated, both by American efforts to bring Sunnis into the security forces (the "Awakening") and by Iraqi government attempts at political accommodation. Arguably the more serious problem in Iraq today is the Shia militias, which makes recent Iraqi government pronouncements against them so important.
Santa Monica, Calif.: What is your take on the newly released report by Pentagon think tank National Defense University's National Institute for Strategic Studies? This appears further confirmation that Bush and his advisors made terribly costly mistakes in invading Iraq and conducting that war. The study's opening line -- "measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle" -- undercuts arguments that the war can be won (in the traditional sense of a surrendering enemy of course) and that we can remain in Iraq indefinitely.
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Santa Monica, the INSS report you reference was written by Col. Joe Collins (Ret.), a good friend and mentor. Press reports on it were somewhat out of context; Joe published a rejoinder on the excellent "Small Wars Journal" Web site (which I commend to anyone interested in the defense community's discussion of counterinsurgency).
That said, there were serious mistakes made early on in Iraq; the decisions to disband the Iraqi Army and to radically de-Baathify the country made the insurgency far stronger than it might have been, and made the tasks of rebuilding the country and recreating the Army harder. However, those mistakes do not mean that we cannot help Iraq become a reasonably stable state that can control what happens within its own borders and that does not present a threat to the region, although doing so will take continued American commitment for a number of years.
Malvern, Pa.: Hello. A phrase I remember hearing from Gen. John Abizaid, something like "the American presence in Iraq is like an antibody" -- meaning our presence in Iraq never will be accepted and always will be viewed as an occupation, resulting in extreme resentment and violence. If one believes that sentiment -- and I do -- why should we think we can continue to bang our head against the brick wall of Iraq and believe that we can bring about "victory"? I feel like we are pouring American blood, brains (PTSD) and money into the black hole of Iraq. It has become a pointless and worthless task. Also, can you please explain why you are leaving the Army?
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Actually Malvern, polls show that there is broad support in Iraq -- among all ethnic and sectarian groups -- for a continued American presence there until Iraqi security forces are able to protect the country and its people on their own. They all want us to leave eventually -- just not quite yet. There are things we can do -- including increasing our advisory effort -- to reduce our footprint and place an Iraqi face on the effort to secure the country; this is what I teach our future advisors here at Fort Riley, Kan..
Princeton, N.J.: Lt. Col. Nagl, The Post has a story today of the plight of the Christians, but of course they are only one of the many groups who are suffering in Iraq. One in five Iraq have been driven from their homes. Most cannot return because of ethnic cleansing. It appears that we have not moved to stop this atrocity, and in places like Kirkuk, Baghdad and Anbar actively have encouraged it. How do you think these terrible geopolitical problems ever can be solved? What will the solution look like, and what are we doing to solve them?
washingtonpost.com: Iraqi Christians Struggle With Fear After Slayings (Post, April 22)
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Princeton, I am acutely aware of the problem of ethnic cleansing in Iraq; the Christians in al-Anbar suffered horribly when I was there a few years ago. However, I know of no evidence to support the claim that we have encouraged ethnic cleansing, and some of my friends (including my old West Point roommate, Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl) have worked hard to reverse it in their sectors.
Iraq existed as a multiethnic society for a number of years. After the overthrow of the Hussein regime, a number of insurgent groups, especially al-Qaeda in Iraq, played upon ethnic tensions to incite active hatred and violence -- a scenario that we have seen play out too often in the past twenty years. Those flames, once fanned, are hard to extinguish -- but my friends on the ground today tell me that they are making progress in doing so, and that Iraq is slowly getting back on its feet. I believe that we have a responsibility, to the people of Iraq to help it continue its process of regrowth.
Lt. Col. John Nagl: Thanks for all of the questions -- when I speak about Iraq and counterinsurgency, I am always impressed by the knowledge and the interest in these critical issues. I believe that, after too many years of ignoring counterinsurgency, the American military is relearning how to fight "the graduate level of war", and is making real progress in Iraq. The fight will be long and slow -- and will ultimately have to be won by our Iraqi friends -- but with our help, I believe that they will be able to create a better peace in the wake of this war.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join U.S. Army Lt. Col. John Nagl to discuss the latest developments in Southern Iraq and the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials about what course to follow in Iraq.
| 92.162162 | 0.783784 | 1.972973 |
high
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103295.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103295.html
|
Military Waivers for Ex-Convicts Increase
|
2008042219
|
The Army admitted about one-fourth more recruits last year with a record of legal problems ranging from felony convictions and serious misdemeanors to drug crimes and traffic offenses, as pressure to increase the size of U.S. ground forces led the military to grant more waivers for criminal conduct, according to new data released yesterday.
Such "conduct waivers" for Army recruits rose from 8,129 in fiscal 2006 to 10,258 in fiscal 2007. For Marine Corps recruits, they increased from 16,969 to 17,413.
In particular, the Army accepted more than double the number of applicants with convictions for felony crimes such as burglary, grand larceny and aggravated assault, rising from 249 to 511, while the corresponding number for the Marines increased by two-thirds, from 208 to 350. The vast majority of such convictions stem from juvenile offenses. Most involved theft, but a handful involved sexual assault and terrorist threats, and there were three cases of involuntary manslaughter.
"The significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which released the Pentagon data on felony waivers.
Pentagon officials acknowledged that the requirement to recruit more troops -- part of an effort to expand the Army and Marine Corps by tens of thousands by 2011 -- coupled with declining interest in military service in part caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has led to accepting more recruits with criminal backgrounds. By contrast, felony waivers in the Navy fell from 48 in 2006 to 42 last year and the Air Force had none in either year.
"We're digging deeper into the barrel than we were before" as a result of the difficult recruiting environment, said a Defense Department official, who requested anonymity because he had not been authorized to speak publicly. "Would I like to see the waivers lower? Yes."
Serious misdemeanors last year made up the largest single category of conduct waivers, which excuse crimes ranging from armed robbery to, in the case of the Marine Corps, one-time marijuana use.
Last year, the active-duty Army and Marine Corps brought in about 80,000 and 35,000 active-duty recruits, respectively; the number of 2007 recruits with felony conviction waivers amounted to less than 1 percent of the total soldiers and Marines recruited that year.
The defense official stressed that the standards for granting waivers are stringent -- requiring the approval of officers up to a two-star general -- and remain unchanged. "We're looking at more of these people" but with "the same level of scrutiny" as before, the official said.
In a letter sent yesterday to David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Waxman said he recognizes the importance of providing opportunities to rehabilitated criminals, a sentiment voiced by some senior Army officials.
"The thing is, you've got to give people an opportunity to serve," said Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, the Army's operations chief, when asked about the waivers yesterday. "We are growing the Army fast, there are some waivers . . . it hasn't alarmed us yet."
Recruits with criminal records have shown mixed performance in the military. A study last year by the Center for Naval Analyses tracked the attrition rates of Marines who enlisted with legal waivers between 2003 and 2005. It showed slightly higher boot camp attrition for those with serious or minor misdemeanor waivers, but somewhat lower attrition for those who committed felonies.
|
The Army admitted about one-fourth more recruits last year with a record of legal problems ranging from felony convictions and serious misdemeanors to drug crimes and traffic offenses, as pressure to increase the size of U.S. ground forces led the military to grant more waivers for criminal condu...
| 13.288462 | 0.961538 | 48.076923 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103472.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103472.html
|
Another Chance to Play the Hero
|
2008042219
|
They checked Alex Ovechkin hard midway through the third period, crunching his frame against the glass, popping him before he could go through the door to the bench, rest, regroup and punish the Philadelphia Flyers and their fragile psyches more.
He shrugged his shoulders, knowing he already had the best of this town and its tumbling team.
For no amount of physical pain could make up for what the most electrifying player in the NHL did to the Flyers and their jeering fan base Monday night in Game 6 of this gem of a first-round Stanley Cup playoff series. No cross-check or high stick could numb that psychological wound -- two lightning goals delivered by Ovechkin in the third period of the most important comeback by the Capitals this millennium.
Twenty years after Dale Hunter thrust Washington past a Flyers team in Game 7, after Philadelphia led that 1988 series three games to one, a young Russian dynamo has finally taken his place as the Caps' go-to scorer in the crucible.
Game 7 is, unbelievably, Tuesday night at Verizon Center, a game made possible by a stirring come-from-behind victory from two goals down in the second period, by a frustrated star who was held in check until he saved his best of the series for last. "Is this a satisfying win?" Ovechkin was asked, 11 days after he scored his last goal in the series, a month and nine days since Philly had lost on its home ice.
"It is because people don't believe us," he said. "Everyone said that we are a young team and then we won one and everybody said it's only one game and then it's done. It's not over yet. Tomorrow we have the biggest game in our career I think, and we don't stop with this. There is still the challenge to do it."
The dike that Philly had kept putting putty on, the offensive prowess of Ovechkin that had been bottled by Kimmo Timonen and a bevy of determined Flyers for all but one of the first five games? It burst in a blinding flash.
First, there was a pretty breakaway at 2 minutes 46 seconds of the third period, when Ovechkin froze Martin Biron, the Philadelphia goalie, with a little hesitation move left of the net and deposited the goal to the short side to put Washington ahead 3-2.
Then the closer, less artistry and more force, a onetime blast on the power play with 9:19 left in the game. As Ovechkin waited and waited to get untracked, hitting when he couldn't score -- yes, embellishing the contact when he was pushed off the puck -- many wondered whether he was experiencing the same first-year butterflies as Sidney Crosby in Pittsburgh a year ago.
But here the kid was in Game 6, needing to score -- needing to put a volume of shots on goal because nothing else seemed to be working. He came through brilliantly. His ungodly 13-year, $124 million contract doesn't kick in until next year, but Ovechkin was poised for criticism this postseason if he couldn't find the net again.
|
Twenty years after Dale Hunter thrust Washington past the Flyers in Game 7, a young Russian dynamo has finally taken his place as the Capitals' go-to scorer in the clutch.
| 17.371429 | 0.971429 | 7.314286 |
medium
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041802697.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041802697.html
|
'Strange Days on Planet Earth'
|
2008042219
|
Oscar-nominated Actor Edward Norton, host of "Strange Days on Planet Earth" on National Geographic, will be online Tuesday, April 22 at noon ET to discuss the show, which covers topics like climate change, over-fishing, water pollution, and the quest for clean energy.
Submit questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Norton, best known for his roles in "American History X" and "Fight Club," helped start a program to provide low-income families in Los Angeles with solar-powered homes, and has worked on promoting the development of green spaces in urban areas.
Find more discussions from this series.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Oscar-nominated Actor Edward Norton, host of Strange Days on Planet Earth" on National Geographic, discusses the show, which covers topics like climate change, over-fishing, water pollution, and the quest for clean energy.
| 3.909091 | 0.977273 | 17.204545 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801680.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801680.html
|
What's Cooking With Kim O'Donnel
|
2008042219
|
Calling all foodies! Join us Tuesdays at noon for What's Cooking, our live online culinary hour with Kim O'Donnel.
A graduate of the Institute of Culinary Education (formerly known as Peter Kump's New York Cooking School), Kim spends much of her time in front of the stove or with her nose in a cookbook.
You may submit a question before or during the show.
For daily dispatches from Kim's kitchen, check out her blog, A Mighty Appetite. You may catch up on previous transcripts with the What's Cooking archive page.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Calling all foodies! Join us Tuesdays at noon for What's Cooking, our Live Online culinary hour with Kim O'Donnel.
| 6.652174 | 1 | 23 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/16/DI2008041600948.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/16/DI2008041600948.html
|
Chatological Humor - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
Gene Weingarten's humor column, Below the Beltway, appears every Sunday in The Washington Post magazine. It is syndicated nationally by the Washington Post Writers Group.
At one time or another, Below the Beltway has managed to offend persons of both sexes as well as individuals belonging to every religious, ethnic, regional, political and socioeconomic group. If you know of a group we have missed, please write in and the situation will be promptly rectified. "Rectified" is a funny word.
On Tuesdays at noon, Weingarten is online to take your questions and abuse. He will chat about anything. Although this chat is updated regularly throughout the week, it is not and never will be a "blog," even though many persons keep making that mistake. One reason for the confusion is the Underpants Paradox: Blogs, like underpants, contain "threads," whereas this chat contains no "threads" but, like underpants, does sometimes get funky and inexcusable.
Submit your questions, comments and other detritus before or during the discussion.
This Week's Polls: Poll 1: I Lean Conservative | I Lean Liberal Poll 2: Women | Men
Not chat day? Visit the Gene Pool.
Important, secret note to readers: The management of The Washington Post apparently does not know this chat exists, or it would have been shut down long ago. Please do not tell them. Thank you.
Weingarten is also the author of "The Hypochondriac's Guide to Life. And Death" and co-author of "I'm with Stupid," with feminist scholar Gina Barreca.
New to Chatological Humor? Read the FAQ.
P.S. If composing your questions in Microsoft Word please turn off the Smart Quotes functionality. I haven't the time to edit them out. -- Liz
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post columnist Gene Weingarten answers your questions about his column, "Below the Beltway," and more. Funny? You should ask.
| 15.192308 | 0.769231 | 1.538462 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703388.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703388.html
|
Slate's Green Room - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
Sprig.com editor Jeanie Pyun will be online Tuesday, April 22 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss green shopping, including how to tell if a product is green, why they're generally more expensive, the benefits of buy green products and why you should care.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Find more discussions from this series.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Sprig.com editor Jeanie Pyun discusses green shopping, including how to tell if a product is green, why they're generally more expensive, the benefits of buy green products and why you should care.
| 3.081081 | 0.972973 | 28.108108 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI2008042101129.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI2008042101129.html
|
Freedom Rock - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
washingtonpost.com: Quick Spins, Phil Vassar
washingtonpost.com: A Watered-Down Lineup; For Bands, It Paid to Play Early at Rain-Shortened Earth Day Concert on the Mall
J. Freedom du Lac: Bob Dylan at Virgin Festival? Huh.
Bethesda, Md.: How about some songs for the wizards?
Elliott Smith - Miss Misery
Spoon - Everything Hits at Once
Pavement - Rattled by the Rush
LCD Soundsystem - Yr City's a Sucker
J. Freedom du Lac: Or, Mambo Sauce's "Welcome to D.C." in which the "D" stands for deflated, defeated and, um, one-and-done.
Arlington, Va.: Why you make fun of hippys, you hippy?
J. Freedom du Lac: I wasn't making fun of hippies; I was making fun of stoner college kids. Just because they spark up and listen to Umphrey's McGee doesn't mean they're hippies. Hippies, eg, generally don't shop at Abercrombie and Fitch.
Across the Border: I know a lot of people have been talking about Sandy or Spirit or some of the bigger rock numbers, but this has been one of my favorite Phantom moments ever since I first saw it, from The Ghost of Tom Joad.
J. Freedom du Lac: Gorgeous stuff. We're lucky that we got to see Federici with the E Streeters last year.
Washington, D.C.: Re: Green Apple Festival. Why didn't Peter Shapiro decide to wait out the electrical storm as he had done previously earlier in the afternoon instead of pulling the plug hours before the scheduled 7PM end? We had already had a 40+ minute pause in the concert, so why didn't they do this again, when you had so many headline acts still to play? Missing Toots, Thievery, & the Roots was a major downer after enduring Blake Lewis' beat boxing, Thomas Friedman's never-ending speech (I can't believe he actually told Toots to "cool it" during their sound check!), and the day-long down pour. Any insight from what you were able to gather backstage would be appreciated! Thank you.
J. Freedom du Lac: Not sure what the deciding factors were. Major downer, indeed. Peter was really bummed, as you might imagine. (He said as much, like, 15 times backstage.) Ironically, about 10 minutes after the show was called, the weather broke and the sun started to push through the clouds. You should've seen the look on Peter's face.
I really wanted to see Toots. And I was very curious to see what the Roots were going to do. Warren Haynes told me that he'd planned on joining them for a song or two. Doug E. Fresh was also supposed to be there with them, among others.
Forestville, Md.: Have you heard anything about the Gil Scott-Heron show at the 9:30 Club last Saturday?
J. Freedom du Lac: No.
Herndon, Va:. I'm looking forward to two WolfTrappers this summer -- Los Lobos and Mark Knopfler. What do you think? I know Los Lonely Boys cant hold a candle to Hidalgo and team, but somehow they got top billing.
J. Freedom du Lac: They move more units - and sell more tickets. Sad but true. I will say that Los Lonely Boys do pretty well on Phil Vassar's new album, joining him for a lively little quasi-zydeco tune by the name of "Why Don't Ya." It's pretty good stuff.
Agree with you re Knopfler. Also want to see Al Green, who didn't miss a single note during his 9:30 club show a couple-few years ago. Errr...Gretchen Wilson. (Really.) The Backstreet Boys. (Not really.) I would be looking forward to Ricky Skaggs in June, but I'll be at the beach all that week.
Portishead: Are they still any good? It's been a while.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yes. Different but good.
You can hear a song off the new album here. There are many others on the internets, too, if you really feel like looking.
... and whatever it is that Constantine Maroulis does. : This is better than Britney.
J. Freedom du Lac: The line is better than Britney, or Constantine's singing etc is better than Britney's?
Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.: J Free, any word yet on whether 2 Skinnee J's will be coming to DC as part of their reunion tour? Any chance we'd get to see your -butt] smacked by Stumpy on stage?
J. Freedom du Lac: Dunno - and, um, no.
The Mall: Warren Haynes solo was pretty cool. I'd heard him cover "One" before, but wasn't expecting a moving version of the Eagles' "Wasted Time", thought that was his best tune.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, he done well. He has a pretty fine voice - so soulful and world-weary - and, obviously, he can play a little bit. There was something utterly entrancing about his guitar work on "Wasted Time." He and that Les Paul have a thing.
Baltimore, Md.: OK, this might be more of a question for producer David, but which of the (approximately) 25,000 albums the Fall have released would be a good entry point for a novice? I've read about them but have never heard them and wish to fix that situation. Thanks!
washingtonpost.com: Probably "Hex Enduction Hour." If you want something a bit less harsh and more pop/80s sounding then "The Wonderful Frightening World of the Fall." "Grotesque" is my favorite, but start with those others first.
Hey.: You all think you are so much better than Britney, but the possibility exists that you are not that much better than she is.
J. Freedom du Lac: That's true, but it's a slim possibility. Put me with the right producers and songwriters and videographers and choreographers and wardrobe consultants and trainers and such and I'd totally have her. Except for the crazy part. And the pop-tart thing, too, I guess.
Leesburg, Va.: If you had to choose a theme song for Sen. Clinton's campaign from the New Kids on The Block catalogue, what would it be? I'm torn between "Hangin' Tough" and "The Right Stuff".
J. Freedom du Lac:"Stop It Girl."
Any thoughts on Akon's con job, as documented by the Smoking Gun?
J. Freedom du Lac: Yep. I'm glad that I didn't completely believe dude's backstory when I wrote about him last year. It's just too bad I didn't connect all the dots the way The Smoking Gun did.
Sez TSG: "With the single exception of a Washington Post reporter who wrote last March that some of the 'bullet points in Akon's biography" sounded "like the stuff of creation myth,' entertainment journalists have played right into the manipulation."
I actually smelled something stinky and was trying to report some of that stuff out but ran out of time before the story was scheduled to go. One thing that I gleaned but didn't report because I couldn't get solid confirmation was that it seemed unlikely that Akon ever received a basketball scholarship from Georgia Tech, as he'd claimed all these years. He says that they rescinded the scholarship when he got into legal trouble. But when I called the Tech athletic department and spoke with the sports information director who has worked closely with the hoops team for years, he said he didn't recognize Akon's given name - and noted that he remembered every scholarship player they ever had through and would certainly remember a story about a student who lost a full ride after running afoul of the law. But there were no handy records to consult and deadline loomed. Alas.
Pop-tart thing: I dunno - Weingarten says no one at the Post rocks hotpants like you do.
J. Freedom du Lac: This is true.
Westerly, R.I.: Wait - the 2 Skinnee Js? I thought they were lawyers or something. They can't really be still doing whatever it is they do. If they truly are, please don't tell my husband or we'll have to go. It'll be just like college all over again. Next thing you know I'll be sitting in the basement drinking warm Jim Beam.
J. Freedom du Lac: Nerds of the hip-hop world, (re)unite!
Chattanooga, Tenn.: I want to get the new Elvis Costello, but I don't think I have the high-tech extra-large cd player necessary to listen to it.
J. Freedom du Lac: I know, it's kind of annoying. Vinyl? Pshaw. Wake me when I can put the album on my iPod with minimal effort.
The most fascinating thing about the album, to me, is the name, "Momofuku" -- given that I'm a devotee of David Chang's Momofuku restaurants in New York. Chang is a total rock star. (Northern Virginia dude, too.) Unclear whether Declan named the album after the three Momofukus, but if he's looking for a way in to the tiny new Momofuku Ko, he's just found it.
Silver Spring, Md.: Re: your comparison with Britney. I served with K-Fed at a Baja Fresh in the late 1990s. K-Fed was a friend of mine. Your wife, sir, is no K-Fed
J. Freedom du Lac: Correct. She wouldn't know a " PopoZao" if it hit her upside the head. Thank god.
Hillary's Campaign Song:"Dude Looks Like a Lady"
J. Freedom du Lac: Wrong band. A cynic (or an Obama backer) might say that the best Aerosmith song for Clinton would be "Same Old Song and Dance." But this is a politically neutral chat, so...
Need to Know: Two questions:
Who will win tonight's Caps game and are you going to arrange an interview with Robert Plant and Allison Krauss when they visit Columbia in mid June?
J. Freedom du Lac: Well, somebody's gotta win in Washington this spring, and since it probably won't be the Wiz - and since the Nats aren't anywhere close to being That Team - I'm going to say the Caps. They have the big mo, and the Big O. Plus, they're playing Journey in the locker room, according to Friend of Freedom Rock, Dan Steinberg.
The end of the E Street Band?: J. Free: Why does Danny Federici's death seem like the beginning of the end of something? As a longtime fan, it just feels like it will never be the same even though he was perhaps the most low-key member of the band.
Also, I've seen references to Clarence Clemons and poor health. Is he suffering from something in particular other than many years on the road?
J. Freedom du Lac: Probably because he seemed less like a cog than the grease that kept the ESB's wheels turning smoothly. Plus, he was symbolic of the sort of selflessness that's always made Springsteen and friends so compelling to so many people.
Clarence's knees or hips are giving him fits
Down in Jungle Land: How will Danny F.'s passing affect Mr. Springsteens future playing? And I am not talking about the Washington, D.C. area.
J. Freedom du Lac: Hard to say. The reports from the road were pretty positive while he was seeking treatment, right? But it's probably a different deal with Federici gone for good. Could have a lasting psychological impact on Bruce and the ESB - and possibly an artistic one, too. But how can you predict it?
Everybody Wants Some: Have you stopped partying with Eddie Van Halen? I think this Van Halen tour is the lamest of the lamest reunion money grabbing tours of all time.
J. Freedom du Lac: Lamer than the 2 Skinnee J's?
Wake me up when the Young Black Teenagers reunite.
Plus, they're playing Journey in the locker room, : Which makes them losers, actually.
J. Freedom du Lac: Dude, it's hockey. The sport of Camaros and mullets. It fits.
New Kids Clinton Campaign Song: Girl, I'll Totally Nuke Iran 4 U, Girl.
J. Freedom du Lac: Now, now....
Reston, Va.: Okay, so now that I'm trying to get that hot pants image out of my head...
Are we getting anything more on James McMurtry besides the Quick Spins review, since you raved about the new CD?
Also, a must-listen by him is "Choctaw Bingo." I actually have Ray Wylie Hubbard's version, which is awesome. Great, rocking tune and I feel hungover and wasted just from listening to the lyrics.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yes, you will be getting more on McMurtry. Don't rush me. You aren't my editor!
In the meantime, this is required listening/viewing. Nothing you haven't heard if you're already a James McMurtry fan, but still worth revisiting.
Reunion Tours: Speakin' of, the New Kids are reuniting. No word on whether they will change their name ("Middle Age Dads on the Block"?), or play Hillary's theme song...
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, a new album and a tour.
Earth Day: How bad was it?
J. Freedom du Lac: So bad that I had to take a river taxi home. (Seriously, the cabbie thought he was driving the USS Chitty Bang Bang or something. Drove right into a lake on Pennsylvania. Sweet.)
I'll put it this way: Reading the wrap-up email from the festival publicist today, I actually wished I'd been in Golden Gate Park instead, for this...
"Grateful Dead drummer Mickey Hart's Mass Drum troupe of leading African, Cuban and Brazilian drummers was enhanced by Jon Fishman (Phish) and Tommy Lee (Motley Crue) and made for an unforgettable mash-up with Joan Baez, Bob Weir, Tommy Lee when they performed an impromptu version of 'Not Fade Away.'"
Anonymous: The beginning of the end of E Street probably occurred during that meeting in 1983/84 when Jon Landau and Springsteen dedicated themselves to selling 10 million (to start) copies of Born in the USA and releasing 7 singles from the album. I don't begrudge anyone the right to make money (not Hillary Clinton or Springsteen) but the quality of Springsteen's music never recovered. Say what you will, the first 5 Springsteen albums were never equalled.
J. Freedom du Lac: So you're saying everything great that's happened since then is merely a dead-cat bounce? I'm not buying it. The early run was, indeed, incredible, but you can't just write off the last 25 years.
I'd prefer Backstreet Boys for a Clinton campaign song: Get Down (We're Under Sniper Fire)
J. Freedom du Lac: Now, now (the sequel)....
Allison Krauss: She's popular and well-respected by lots of fellow musicians and critics. So why do I find her really boring, no matter what she does? What's wrong with me?
J. Freedom du Lac: You probably just don't like bluegrass. That has to be it.
Arizona Bay, Ariz.: Just wanted to give everyone a heads up and suggest that they go check out Tom Morello's "Nightwatchman" solo project and Axis of Justice tour when he comes to D.C.
I saw the show last week out here in Hollywood and it was off the chart. Here's a list of musical guests that performed on stage with him:
Pete Yorn, Perry Farrell, Dave Navarro, Stewart Copeland, Jerry Cantrell, Steve Vai, Wayne Kramer, State Radio, Travis Barker, Flea, Slash, Davey Havok, and Cypress Hill. Also I shouldn't forget some band that had Breckin Meyer as their drummer (yes the actor guy from Clueless, Go!, and Road Trip)
It was easily one of the 5 best shows I've ever been (yes, even better than some Tool shows, some not all). The highlights for me were Jerry Cantrell, Tom Morello, and some others performing Alice In Chains' "Brother" but what really took the cake was seeing Cypress Hill, Tom Morello, Slash, Travis Barker, and Flea all perform "How I Could Just Kill A Man."
Word on the street too is that Maynard James Keenan (yes of Tool) is even scheduled to perform on the Axis of Justice tour at some point. I would definitely suggest everyone go check it out. Tickets are only like $10.
Just wanted to give everyone a heads up, from their favorite Freedom Rock poster.
P.S. Tool is still the best band ever.
J. Freedom du Lac: Our old friend, checking in from the great beyond.
There's no way that the tour brings that much firepower from city to city. That's an LA- or NY-only kind of lineup.
Springsteen's future playing: Well, we'll find out tonight, won't we? It's the first show back, in Tampa.
I would have said Garry Tallent is the most low-key member of the band. In fact, he's so low-key that the other poster completely forgot about him and how low key he is.
J. Freedom du Lac: Should be a special show.
As we speak (er, write) www.yahoo.com's homepage has an article about the "most annoying singers ever." I haven't read it yet, but based on the accompanying pictures of Celine Dion and Michael Bolton, they've at least got two great, though onvious, choices.
J. Freedom du Lac: James Blunt.
Re: Alison Krauss: Unlike the first caller, I like the bluegrass stuff fine. It's the "When You Say Nothing at All" adult-contemporary garbage that puts ME to sleep.
J. Freedom du Lac: Producer David's line about Miz Krauss is pretty good: "She keeps putting out albums and I keep having Mother's Day presents."
Severna Park, Md.: Gil Scott Heron totally rocked. He played all the hits.
J. Freedom du Lac: A nice, concise review.
Silver Spring, Md.: Even Dylan won't get this hard-core Zimmy fan out to a steaming horse race track. Any info on a Replacements appearance at this V Fest. Billboard claims offers for Chinchilla and other fests for the Replacements. Although, that still will not get me out for Jack Johnson and Friends. A trashed Mats to nip this so called Fest and reunited bands that were never supported in the first place (not talking STP) revival does sound appealing.
J. Freedom du Lac: Haven't heard about the Mats coming back for this one - but the lineup still isn't finalized, so who knows.
I love the idea of Dylan, Kanye West and Trent Reznor sharing a bill. Totally perverse.
Union Station: If Alison Krauss and Jack Johnson had a baby, would it ever wake up?
J. Freedom du Lac: Only when somebody stepped on Dave Matthews' foot.
most annoying singers ever: Mick Jagger.
J. Freedom du Lac: You're not down with the inter-continental bray? Come on.
Boyz II Men's Hillary Theme Song:"It's So Hard to Say Goodbye"
J. Freedom du Lac: Nice.
Help a White Girl Out: Two questions:
1. Is it my imagination, or is "The Evolution of Robin Thicke" an extraordinary album?
2. I realized last weekend I have CDs by white male R&B singers (JT and R. Thicke) and by black female artists (Mary Mary), but not a single CD by a contemporary black male R&B singer. I don't have a LOT of any R&B, but based on my tastes above, can you recommend someone I might like?
J. Freedom du Lac: I think it's very good. Extraordinary? Nah.
He has a new one coming out this summer, by the way. And he'll no doubt be back in DC to promote it, since this market made him.
As for your second question, these might be a little too classically styled for your tastes, but I'd suggest that you check out Rahsaan Patterson's "Wines and Spirits"
and "This Is Ryan Shaw."
sign of the apocalypse?: Apparently, Maynard James Keenan is a blogger for Wine Spectator.
J. Freedom du Lac: That's just crazy talk.
But yeah, it's true. The man loves fermented grape juice. Go figure.
Baltimore, Md.: Saw Shine a Light last weekend. And while I have to admire the Stones for their longevity and amazing energy level, when Buddy Guy came on and played straight ahead, stinging Chicago style guitar and sang like a 20 year old, I was sitting there saying, "Oh yeah, right. This is the actual blues."
J. Freedom du Lac: He pretty much killed it at that show. But the Stones aren't pretending to be a straight-ahead blues band. Apples to Asian pears.
RE: Alison Krauss:"She keeps putting out albums and I keep having Mother's Day presents."
No, no, that's Jim Brickman, silly...
J. Freedom du Lac: Jim Brickman said that? Weird.
Thanks for stopping by today, folks. Same time, same channel next week.
Help a Black Dude Out: Can you recommend any white, male singers I might like? I don't have any in my collection. Thanks.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, sure. Try Ris Paul Ric.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post music critic J. Freedom du Lac is online every Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET to talk about the latest on the music scene: alternative, country, alt-country, pop, hyphy, harp-rock, reggae, reggaeton, R and B and whatever it is that Constantine Maroulis does.
| 75.741379 | 0.706897 | 2.293103 |
high
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041802315.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041802315.html
|
The McCain Campaign
|
2008042219
|
Eric Burgeson, an environmental and energy policy advisor with Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, will be online Tuesday, April 22 at 2 p.m. ET to explain the campaign's platform and policies.
Submit questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Burgeson leads the energy practice at BGR Holding, LLC. Prior to that he was chief of staff at the Department of Energy and held several high-level positions in the White House, including helping with appointments to the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Find more discussions from this series.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Eric Burgeson, an environmental and energy policy advisor with Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, explains the campaign's platform and policies.
| 6.32 | 0.96 | 13.52 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI2008042102526.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/21/DI2008042102526.html
|
Study: Life Expectancy Is Dropping
|
2008042219
|
A careful national study shows life expectancy is dropping in some parts of the country, especially among women, for the first time since the devastating Spanish flu epidemic of 1918. The study identified 180 mostly rural counties, including two in Virginia, where women aren't living as long and about 11 where the same is true of men. The reason appears to be the effects of obesity and smoking and a bottoming out of the 50-year decline in deaths from heart disease.
Washington Post staff writer David Brown will be online Tuesday, April 22, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the survey.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post staff writer David Brown discusses the results of a study which indicate that life expectancy is dropping in some parts of the country for women and men due to the effects of obesity and smoking.
| 4.473684 | 0.842105 | 4.789474 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/16/DI2008041602564.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/16/DI2008041602564.html
|
The Garden Plot - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042219
|
Got a chronic case of green thumb? Like getting your hands dirty? Adrian Higgins, garden editor for The Post's Home section, is here to help. Higgins is a firm believer in "tough plants for tough times" -- the varieties that combine good looks with stiff resistance to disease and pests. He currently rules over a garden filled with spring bulbs, daffodils, ornamental onions, perennials, asters, yarrows, hostas and day lilies. Higgins, an avid organic gardener who believes chemicals are a last resort, also tends his own herb and vegetable gardens where he grows peas, garlic, onions, lettuce, rhubarbs, radishes, carrots and more.
He will be online Tuesday, April 22, at 11 a.m. ET -- appropriately enough, Earth Day -- to offer advice on your lawns, flower beds, vegetable patches and window boxes
Submit your questions and comments before or during the live discussion.
Catch up on previous transcripts of The Garden Plot.
Higgins is the author of two books, "The Secret Gardens of Georgetown: Behind the Walls of Washington's Most Historic Neighborhood" and "The Washington Post Garden Book: The Ultimate Guide to Gardening in Greater Washington and the Mid-Atlantic Region."
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Post Garden Editor Adrian Higgins offers advice on gardening now that spring is here.
| 18.733333 | 0.866667 | 1.4 |
medium
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/catching_up_with_isabella_ross.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/catching_up_with_isabella_ross.html
|
Isabella Rossellini's Going Green, In a Porn-y Kind of Way
|
2008042219
|
What do you get when you cross Isabella Rossellini with the green movement? Porn.
That doubletake you just did -- that's what Isabella wants -- and, in this case, she's hoping that short film aficionados and fans of her work will embrace her latest project, "Green Porno." In the series of eight short films Rossellini wrote, directed and starred in for the Sundance Institute she plays a range of cartoonish insects having sex.
"Personally I've always had an interest in animals and everyone is interested in sex, so I thought that writing little shorts about how bugs mate would not only get a laugh, but would also be interesting," said Rossellini Monday in a phone interview.
"My hope is that people laugh watching my film and then say, 'Hmm, I didn't know that about a fly or an earthworm.'"
Maybe. My initial reaction was more "Hmmm, I didn't know that about Isabella Rossellini." Not surprising considering the actor -- daughter of screen legend Ingrid Bergman and director Roberto Rossellini -- has carved an unconventional niche for herself in Hollywood -- from her stellar turns in David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" and "Wild at Heart" to her nuanced performance in 1994's "Immortal Beloved" alongside one-time boyfriend Gary Oldman.
But -- another surprise -- don't ask Rossellini for advice on being green. Despite the green-centric focus of the new shorts, she says her mission is to entertain, not preach.
"I'm a filmmaker and a storyteller and I want to make people laugh," said Rossellini. "I'm not here to preach anything or give advice because I wouldn't be a good source."
Though she became absolutely authoritative when I asked her about her children and the challenges of raising a kid in the entertainment industry, where tabloids and paparazzi lay in wait for the slightest bold-name stumble, Rossellini took exception to my assertion that children of the stars have a hard time of it.
"I don't think you can say that of Chelsea Clinton or Jane Fonda and Bridget Fonda or Laura Dern or John Lithgow, who was more successful than his parents, but comes from theater."
Read on for the entire interview (after the jump) and more of Rossellini's thoughts on fame, filmmaking and being green. And stay tuned for the debut of her eight short films at sundancechannel.com/greenporno on May 5.
Oh, and happy Earth Day.
Liz: Tell me about "Green Porno."
Isabella Rossellini: I was contacted by the Sundance Channel with whom I have a long relationship -- for voiceovers, the festival, the institute -- so they know me. They told me they had a budget to do experimental films for the third or the fourth screen, meaning the Web -- your laptop screen or your cellular screen. Redford and the Sundance Channel believe that maybe there is a chance to relaunch short film, which has disappeared from the market.
Short films were very popular at the beginning of the cinema, in the era of silents with the Charlie Chaplins, the Buster Keatons, Oliver Hardy. But then they ceased to exist. They're only used by students to show their talents, but not professionally used because there's no outlet for them.
But the idea was that when you watch on your cellular phone something, you are watching it while you are distracted -- waiting for the bus, walking in the street -- so your attention is short. So maybe you could make short films, but very colorful films because the screen is small so you have to do something that can be seen very clearly on a small screen, not a big one or a flat TV or anything like that. And so that's what I was given as an instruction. And I knew that Sundance was green -- the mission of Sundance is to be an environmentally-concerned channel.
So I had the directive of being green, short and colorful. So they gave me the art direction -- because my films, I don't know if you've seen them, are very close to animations. Basically huge paper cutouts with me dressed up like bugs. They're very colorful.
Personally I've always had an interest in animals and everyone is interested in sex, so I thought that writing little shorts about how bugs mate would not only get a laugh, but would also be interesting. My hope is that people laugh watching my film and then say, "Hmm, I didn't know that about a fly or an earthworm."
Liz: So there are seven films in total?
Rossellini: Eight. We did -- let me see if I can remember -- firefly, spider, dragon fly, mantis, bees, snail, fly... there's one missing. Worm.
Liz: Now you actually play the male insect in the movies?
Rossellini: When we first did the films, Sundance asked me to first do a series of three as a pilot, which included the spider and spiders -- first of all there are many different spiders and many different ways to mate, but we had to generalize -- and most of them have these modified little legs and the male spider is much smaller than the female and the female just stands still waiting to trap prey with their web. So it was easier for me to be the male because it was easier to move me since I'm a human being and can move and just do the female as a gigantic paper cutout laying still.
So that's how we started. But when we looked at the film people laughed because I played the male and not the female. It never occurred to me because I was playing a bug and I thought that was absurd enough. But it was double absurd because I also switched sex. So then it sort of remained because you make people laugh. But a lot of animals are hermaphrodites -- both male and female.
And I don't play always the male. I play the female bee.
Liz: In the process of doing these shorts did you come to admire on particular insect more than others?
Rossellini: No, I always enjoyed animals and the mysterious world of nature and variety of nature, so it's the great wonderment I like, not that I like one more than another. All of it is so incredibly interesting and varied.
Liz: So tomorrow [we spoke Monday afternoon] is Earth Day. What would you say to people out there looking to dip their toes into the green movement and maybe do something to get just a little bit greener in day to day life?
Rossellini: I am no preacher of any sort. I am concerned -- like a lot of other people -- about our planet, but I am no authority on telling people what they should do. I'm a filmmaker and a storyteller and I want to make people laugh. I'm not here to preach anything or give advice because I wouldn't be a good source.
Liz: Fair enough. Where will we be able to see the movies?
Rossellini: The idea to do the films was Robert Redford's hope that through the third and fourth screen we could re-launch the short film format. And since Sundance's mission is to be green and experimental in independent filmmaking, they have budgets that are set aside to experiment. So that's where "Green Porno" came from -- an attempt to do films conceived and designed for the small screen. So, it's going to be shown on the Sundance Web site -- go directly to sundancechannel.com/greenporno and it will take you directly to my films.
Liz: Did this spark any more directing aspirations? Are you looking to get behind the camera again?
Rossellini: We hope to see what the reaction to these little films will be and then Sundance -- the attempt was to create content for these new distributions. What's not existing right now is a business model. If you want to see a feature film, you pay $10 a ticket and that money goes back to the industry. If you do a TV film there are advertisers or cable fees and that money goes back to the makers. But distribution on the Web and on the cell phone, there is not yet a business formula that has taken hold and so part of the research and experiment is to have content and see how many people watch it and if a lot of people watch it, can you make a business out of it and get advertisers. But that's beyond me. I'm not a business person.
But I think Sundance will look into that and so far the "Green Pornos" have been very successful. Not directly to the audience because they're coming out May 5, but they've been shown at festivals and were very well received. We went to a lot of conferences to talk about the possibilities the new formats are offering. So in that way they were a great stimulus to conversation. And I expect or hope that Sundance will like to collaborate with me further. But then we will have to sit down and think what the next step is to this experiment. Part of it is not only what comes to my mind, but also to experiment with different formats in the hope that we find a business model. That's the only way you can perpetuate and do one, two, three, four, five films. Otherwise you run out of money.
Liz: Short films are experiencing a renaissance on the Web, courtesy of sites like YouTube.
Rossellini: The problem is business model. And it might stay that way -- that in your cellular phone is just a recycling bin and feature films that should be released on a big screen, but you missed it so you see it on your small screen. Or amateur-ish content. It's fun. But I don't know if you want to have people that are professionals at making short stories -- will they be able to create that world? We don't know.
Liz: I wanted to change the subject and ask you about your daughter, Elettra, who is following in your footsteps as a model and is also a very serious student.
Rossellini: Elettra didn't follow my footsteps -- I wasn't a very serious student!
Liz: Well, maybe just the modeling side. But I have to ask -- since we see so many children of celebrities who seem to stumble and have a hard time negotiating their way to adulthood -- how did you manage to keep your children so grounded? What's your secret?
Rossellini: I don't have a secret, but I do disagree very strongly with what you said. I don't think you can say that of Chelsea Clinton or Jane Fonda and Bridget Fonda or Laura Dern or John Lithgow, who was more successful than his parents, but comes from theater. I do think that a lot of -- it is the same percentage of children of doctors who want to stay in medicine or children of lawyers who want to stay in the law -- and some of them stumble and some of them don't, because that's the way life is. But I don't think it is different.
I think this celebrity thing that you're talking about is something that has been manufactured not by the people that are celebrities, but by the press that has created an industry of paparazzi and none of that money goes to the people who are celebrities. It goes to the paparazzi, so it has nothing to do with them. People want to be actors, want to be filmmakers, want to be singers because they like the art they do -- they don't work to be celebrities. It just comes with the job.
But in terms of people succeeding or not succeeding it is exactly the same as with any other discipline. And most children want to remain in the domain of their parents because that's what's familiar. I myself remained in films and my parents were from film.
Visit sundancechannel.com/greenporno to learn more about Isabella Rossellini's "Green Porn."
By Liz | April 22, 2008; 10:43 AM ET | Category: Catching Up With... , Celebrities Previous: Morning Mix: La Lohan Off the Wagon? | Next: Morning Mix: Beyonce and Jay-Z Make Marriage Official
Keep up with the latest Celebritology scoops with an easy-to-use widget.
If you have tips, ideas for stories or general suggestions, let us know.
"Blue Velvet" is one of my all time favourite, life-altering movies. It's currently running on OnDemand on Comcast & I'm trying very hard not to just sit & watch it all nite every nite.
It's nice to see her again & nice to see that she's living up to the family legacy & doing her 'rents proud!
Posted by: Bored @ work | April 22, 2008 11:29 AM
Finally, a way to indulge my interests in sex, insects and Isabella Rossellini that doesn't involve squishing bugs or being served with restraining orders.
Posted by: byoolin | April 22, 2008 11:35 AM
Ditto the Isabella love. She also rocked in Stanley Tucci's "The Big Night"
I always loved her because she did seem so grounded in her private life.
Posted by: Chasmosaur | April 22, 2008 11:39 AM
maybe it's just me, but when i saw "green porn" i thought it was a new show on the discovery channel. i can just hear mike rowe now talking about how earth worms get it on. and do earth worms even get it on? i thought they could switch sexes at a whim and make babies that way. where is bill nye the science guy when i need him! (another thing for r. kelly, earth worm freaky deakiness.)
Posted by: melissamac1 | April 22, 2008 11:42 AM
Actually Melissa, one of Isabella's shorts centers on the earthworm -- so you'll have your answer on May 5.
Posted by: Liz Kelly | April 22, 2008 11:45 AM
mel-mac1, your question about Bill Nye The Science Guy reminded me of one of my favourite Onion headlines.
"Science Guy Bill Nye Killed In Massive Vinegar/Baking-Soda Explosion" http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28326
Posted by: byoolin | April 22, 2008 11:47 AM
see, you come to celebritology you learn something new everyday! and here i thought it just centered around entertainment news, but no we cover such hard hitting topics as religion and science. go us! but, thanks to byoolin's awesome memory and internet search capabilities, i will never look at a child's volcano science project the same ever again. harbringers of death those are.
Posted by: melissamac1 | April 22, 2008 12:57 PM
Melissmac1, thanks for the reference to Mike Rowe. One of the entertaining aspects of Dirty Jobs is the frequency with which Mike Rowe slips in double entendre comments.
For example, in last night's episode, one of Mike's jobs was to clean up offal in a fish processing boat. He asked his host to identify one of the stranger looking pieces. His host told Mike that the strange looking blob was cod sperm.
"Come again?" asked Mike, who somehow was able to keep a straight face. On the soundtrack, you could hear the Whoosh as the pun sailed over the host's head.
As for Isabella's bug sex snips, I hope they don't bug me.
Posted by: Sasquatch | April 22, 2008 2:42 PM
These days, it's not the children of celebrities who stumble and fall as much as it is the children of celebrity wannabees. These stage parents push their little urchins into the blinding spotlight without regard to any ramifications.
Posted by: MoCoSnarky | April 22, 2008 4:50 PM
Green Porno, eh? Then we are to assume that Ms. Rossellini's costumes were made of recyclable materials and recycled after she was finished? And all of the paper insects were recycled as well? This was filmed in a studio powered by solar panels? Nobody travelled more than 100 miles to make the film?
I was waiting for the "green" part and all I got was bug sex. What a rip.
Posted by: MoCoSnarky | April 22, 2008 4:54 PM
Rats. Missed the opportunity to comment on Sandra's crash.
I'm glad she's fine. Unfortunately, her career is still dead:-) xoxo the ex cap
Posted by: Never Mind the Bullucks | April 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Isabella is going to owe Dr. Tatiana major royalties.
Posted by: yellojkt | April 22, 2008 5:12 PM
Love her! My favorite of hers is The Saddest Music in the World.
(But how is this an environmental project?)
Posted by: SaraBeth | April 22, 2008 7:19 PM
Somehow I can't imagine Mom would encourage this phase of Isabella's career. Would Ingrid Bergman have done green porn?! Substitute "sexy earthworms" for "little brown babies" in Mom's "Murder on the Orient Express" Oscar clip and decide for yourself. I dunno. Skeeves me out.
Posted by: td | April 22, 2008 9:50 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Washingtonpost.com blogger Liz Kelly dishes on the latest happenings in entertainment, celebrity, and Hollywood news.
| 193.388889 | 0.777778 | 1.111111 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102722.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102722.html
|
Dilbert Cartoonist Challenges Readers To Outdo Punch Lines
|
2008042219
|
With a new Web feature introduced on the popular comic's site, fans of dysfunctional office humor are invited to rewrite the final frame of one of Adams's daily strips, which are carried in 2,000 newspapers around the world.
Fans are invited to vote and comment on entries to the site's new "mashup" section. A software filter aims to prevent readers from posting offensive content by converting certain four-letter words to the "&*@!"-style cursing of comic strips. The feature debuted Friday.
Next month, Adams and United Media, the syndication service that carries the Dilbert strip, plans to expand the interactivity by allowing readers to rewrite the dialogue in entire strips.
Riffing on user-generated content isn't just for the Web world. The New Yorker magazine has been outsourcing humor on its back pages with a weekly contest in which readers submit captions. The winners and runners-up are announced in subsequent weeks.
Rob Fassino, vice president of interactive at United Media, said Adams had been looking for ways to "take his interaction with his audience a step further." If somebody comes up with a better joke for a strip than Adams did, that's fine.
"If people are producing 500 [punch lines] a day, it's inevitable that some of them are going to be funnier," he said. "It's just a matter of scale."
Adams has kept his e-mail address public for years and is known for sometimes using his readers' experiences as an inspiration for his strip.
"Dilbert has always been an ongoing conversation with the readers," Adams wrote in an e-mail yesterday. "We don't have any plans to publish reader punchlines. But I don't rule out anything."
If his cartoon imitates life, life also occasionally imitates the cartoon: Earlier this year, the cartoonist wrote a few strips referring to the case of a worker in Iowa who was fired last year for posting Dilbert comics on an office bulletin board.
Fassino said the company is embracing technology in other ways. It's working on plans to put customized strips onto mobile phones and social media sites. The company also intends to make animated versions of the Adams cartoons available on YouTube and as podcasts on iTunes.
|
Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams is giving his readers a chance to try and prove that they're funnier than he is.
| 20.136364 | 0.681818 | 0.772727 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102798.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102798.html
|
Former Justice Official Accused of Exchanging Favors With Abramoff
|
2008042219
|
Robert E. Coughlin II, who two years ago received a prestigious attorney general's award, provided "assistance to a lobbyist and the lobbyist's law/lobbying firm on particular matters before DOJ while" accepting gifts and favors and discussing a possible job offer, the federal court filing said.
The documents do not name the lobbyist or the firm, but The Washington Post reported last year that Coughlin resigned on April 6, 2007, and was under investigation by a federal task force looking into Abramoff's activities. At the time of Coughlin's allegedly improper activities, Abramoff worked for the lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig.
Several sources familiar with the matter said that Coughlin was lobbied by Abramoff colleague Kevin A. Ring, whose activities remain under investigation. One source, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said Ring lobbied Coughlin to get federal money from the Bureau of Prisons, a division of the Justice Department, to build a jail for the Choctaw tribe, one of Abramoff's clients.
Both Coughlin and Ring worked as staffers in the 1990s to then-Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), who became attorney general in 2001. During the period depicted in the court documents, Coughlin worked in the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs.
When Coughlin joined the criminal division in 2005, he was recused from the Abramoff inquiry because of a longtime personal friendship with Ring. Investigators came across Coughlin's name while trying to ascertain whether Ring improperly sought or received favors for lobbying clients from people in government, sources told The Post last year.
The gifts Coughlin received are not described, but Abramoff was found guilty in 2006 of giving public officials sports and entertainment tickets, meals at his downtown restaurant and other gratuities to get favors. Ring took Coughlin to sporting events with tickets provided by his lobbying firm, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.
Abramoff, who has provided extensive assistance to prosecutors, is in federal prison in Maryland serving time for a Florida fraud conviction and is awaiting sentencing on separate charges of mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion.
Coughlin was accused of a felony count of violating the federal conflict-of-interest statute. The offense, which allegedly occurred between March 2001 and October 2003, was outlined in a filing known as a criminal information, which prosecutors often use rather than an indictment when the defendant is cooperating with an ongoing investigation.
A plea hearing for Coughlin was scheduled for today. His attorney did not respond yesterday to a phone call and an e-mail requesting comment.
Coughlin is the second Justice Department official whose name has surfaced in the wide-ranging Abramoff investigation. Last year, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, deputy assistant attorney general for environment and natural resources, abruptly resigned when her boyfriend, whom she later married, was notified that he was a criminal target. J. Steven Griles, former deputy secretary of the Interior Department, later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about Abramoff.
The task force has tracked millions of dollars in meals, trips, tickets, gifts and campaign contributions that the Abramoff lobbying team lavished on lawmakers and staffers. The investigation has resulted in convictions and guilty pleas from lobbyists, staffers, two administration officials and a congressman.
Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report.
|
A federal prosecutor in Maryland has accused a Justice Department official who became the former deputy chief of staff of the criminal division of helping Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for a "stream of things of value," according to criminal papers filed yesterday.
| 13.25 | 0.770833 | 1.229167 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802861.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802861.html
|
Taking a Kid's-Eye View Of Cosmetic Surgery
|
2008042219
|
The hardcover book by board-certified plastic surgeon Michael A. Salzhauer, published by Big Tent Books and available for purchase online, seeks to answer the insistent questions posed by some young children: Why is Mommy's nose smaller? Where did her tummy go? And what's with all those bandages?
"I don't know whether to laugh or cry," said Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Research Center for Women and Families, after reading "My Beautiful Mommy."
"This is disturbing on so many levels," she added. "For one thing, it perpetuates a completely unrealistic ideal" of female beauty: the large-breasted, wasp-waisted, midriff-baring Barbie-doll look. Zuckerman, who says she is not opposed to all plastic surgery, notes that the book's portrayal of postoperative recovery seems remarkably short: The mother is up and around soon after her tummy tuck, which in real life can require a much longer recuperation.
"And I'm sure there's a good reason the mother had to wear skin-tight pants and a crop top," Zuckerman added, "but I don't know what it is."
Salzhauer does. "Mothers, at least those in South Florida, do look and dress like that," said the 36-year-old physician who hosts a Sunday morning radio call-in show called "Nip Talk Radio."
"Being a doctor, I can't deal with the political or philosophical arguments" surrounding cosmetic surgery, Salzhauer said. "I have to deal with reality." The book, he said, gives parents "a vehicle to explain the plastic surgery process to their kids" who may be too young to understand why a parent is choosing to undergo an appearance-altering operation.
The bulk of his practice, Salzhauer said, consists of women between 20 and 40 undergoing what he calls "mommy makeovers": breast implants, breast lifts and tummy tucks.
Salzhauer said his interest in children's reactions to cosmetic surgery was sparked by questions his daughter, who was then 4, asked when he underwent a nose job several years ago. As the father of four young children, Salzhauer said, "I read a lot of children's books" and realized there was no book for 4- to 7-year-olds that could explain why a parent who wasn't sick was having an operation.
Many of his patients, he added, bring their children to plastic surgery consultations and even postoperative appointments.
Zuckerman questioned why the mother in the book has just a small bandage on her perky new nose, not the black eyes that typically follow rhinoplasty, and why she's up and around a few days after her tummy tuck, not lying in bed in a haze of pain waiting for her next Percocet.
Then there's the appearance of plastic surgeon "Dr. Michael," who looks like Superman. "It wasn't my idea," said Salzhauer, who said it was the illustrator's concept. "Of course, that's how I see myself when I look in the mirror."
Ten percent of the proceeds from the book, he said, will be earmarked for children's plastic surgery charities. A Spanish-language version is also available; Salzhauer hopes it will appeal to patients in Latin America, where cosmetic medicine is also popular.
|
The hardcover book by board-certified plastic surgeon Michael A. Salzhauer, published by Big Tent Books and available for purchase online, seeks to answer the insistent questions posed by some young children: Why is Mommy's nose smaller? Where did her tummy go? And what's with all those bandages?
| 11.473684 | 1 | 57 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002319.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002319.html
|
Sports No Longer a Driving Force at Notre Dame Academy
|
2008042219
|
One season ago, the Notre Dame Academy boys' basketball team was one of the finest in the Washington area, winning a Virginia private school championship and nearly achieving an undefeated season. This season, the school didn't field a varsity team.
The Notre Dame baseball program won state private school titles the past four years. This year, the coach quit three days before the season opener.
The girls' basketball team recently finished No.1 in The Post's rankings for the second consecutive season. Now, many are wondering if the coach could be leaving the program.
In the past decade, as Notre Dame completed its transformation from a girls-only boarding school with fewer than 150 students to a co-educational day school with nearly double that enrollment, the school viewed high-profile athletics as a vehicle to boost enrollment and raise its visibility.
Now, although the interim headmaster and first-year athletic director say otherwise, several current and former coaches and administrators say the school is de-emphasizing its sports programs. Further, none of a recent $2.4 million donation from a group led by two members of the board of trustees will be designated for athletics.
At a time when interscholastic sports are moving toward more television exposure, cross-country travel and other revenue-generating ventures, leaders at the quiet, picturesque campus on the outskirts of Middleburg are choosing a much different path.
"Dialing it down a little bit is an understatement -- it's being dialed down quite a bit," said Ralph Peluso, a trustee who said he plans not to return to the board when his term expires at the end of this school year.
"The board [of trustees] is pretty divided on this. There's folks who view sports as an integral part of the high school experience, and there are others on the board who view it differently. We're in violent disagreement."
Those who favor the less intense approach to athletics appear to have won the debate.
Paul MacMahon, a former trustee credited with much of the sports expansion, no longer is involved with the school after more than a decade on the board. Former board chairman John Lee, also an advocate of the sports programs, resigned last year, though he declined to discuss the reasons for his decision. Ed Hoffman, a former boys' basketball coach and administrator who also spearheaded the athletics expansion, left last summer after a decade at the school. At least six other trustees who favored the competitive sports model resigned or left the board when their terms expired.
And what started as an attempt to build enrollment and raise Notre Dame's profile is ending with acrimony. "It was not the most cordial board I've been on," said Deborah Welsh, who served two terms on the board before leaving last June.
MacMahon, for whom the school's baseball field is named, said, "I hope the school does well, but I can no longer support the direction the school is going. To me, athletics is really important. There isn't going to be an athletic program any more. They're not going to try to accommodate kids. One could argue that when they're done doing this, they're going to be back where they were when I originally started. But I could be wrong and they probably have a better handle on it than I do, so good luck to them."
|
As recent as 2007, Notre Dame Academy fielded many of the region's best sports programs. Now they're eliminating some teams altogether.
| 25.5 | 0.692308 | 1.307692 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802664.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802664.html
|
Is This Green Enough?
|
2008042119
|
How much are we willing to spend to save the planet? And just how much does saving a planet cost these days, anyway?
Those will be two of the hottest questions in politics as Earth Day is marked this week. They will persist over the coming year as Congress attempts to craft legislation to slow global warming by reducing U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. But these two big questions have also driven the environmental movement to try its most delicate balancing act: pushing for legislation that slaps a price on greenhouse gases that's high enough to change corporate and individual behavior, while at the same time arguing that the costs of such a law wouldn't cause too much economic pain.
Listen to John Engler, former Michigan governor and president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and you'll hear that the price of the leading legislation -- cosponsored by Sens. John Warner (R-Va.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- will be far too steep. "It would be like every month having a press conference announcing that you were closing another 1,000-person plant," Engler says. "I think you end up with a lose-lose proposition for the American worker and the environment."
Then listen to Nathaniel Keohane and Peter Goldmark of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and you'll hear that the cost to the economy would be barely noticeable. After looking at scenarios done by five respected economic-modeling groups in government and academia, the EDF pair note that the median projected impact on annual growth of slowing greenhouse gas emissions is three-hundredths of a percentage point. Instead of reaching a GDP of about $23 trillion in January 2030 without greenhouse gas limits, Keohane and Goldmark say, the United States would get there in April of the same year if it took the greener path.
But look beyond this sharp, albeit predictable, divide between industrialists and environmentalists. The question of cost isn't simply a matter of money but also one of metaphor. Is slowing climate change a vital matter requiring shared sacrifice, along the lines of the everybody-pitch-in ethos of World War II? Or is it more like the Apollo space program, a noble national project in which ordinary citizens were basically spectators? Is the fight against global warming a question of setting limits or expanding horizons?
One set of answers demands that we all pull together to do our bit; the other requires little involvement from most citizens. One metaphor calls for Washington to set up a framework of limits and incentives like those in the Lieberman-Warner bill; the other favors major government spending on research and development. So who's right? The answer will help determine how green a world the United States is willing to pay for.
Let's start by thinking about the cost of doing nothing.
Former vice president Al Gore admits that policies limiting greenhouse gases would have a serious price tag. "This is one of the most difficult things we've ever done," he says. But "there will be a much larger cost if we do not deal with it."
That's what the World Bank's former chief economist, Nicholas Stern, said in a 2006 British government report that jump-started the debate over the costs of slowing global warming. Stern called climate change "the greatest market failure the world has ever seen," warning that it could shear 5 percent off world GDP and perhaps much more.
Future costs could include more severe hurricanes and flooding -- from New Orleans to Florida, from the Netherlands to Bangladesh. That worries corporate and financial elites who might quibble with some of Stern's methods for arriving at his estimates, but not his underlying point. Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, calls the costs of addressing climate change "manageable" -- unlike the costs of inactivity. "If we don't do anything," he adds, "I think there will be very likely great costs."
That brings us to the price of action. The main bill on the legislative table is the 548-page Lieberman-Warner proposal for a "cap-and-trade" system.
The very phrase cap-and-trade is a pithy marketing gimmick to explain a complex system, favored by many environmentalists, that aims to control thousands of emissions sites worldwide, from pig farms to power plants. The system establishes rules for a new market -- a sort of new board game in which we're all players and where the price of carbon emissions depends on the moves we make. Come up with a cheap, clean energy technology? The price of a ton of carbon emissions drops; we all win. Waste a lot of electricity? That price soars, and so do the costs of electricity, gasoline, steel, airline tickets and petrochemicals; we all lose.
|
How much are we willing to spend to save the planet?
| 78 | 1 | 12 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802469.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802469.html
|
Who's Best for Earth? That Would Be Me.
|
2008042119
|
LOS ANGELES Why oh why is this city not the solar energy capital of the world? Why?
This is but one of the many abstruse philosophical questions that torment me now that I am 46, perimenopausal and prone to lying awake at 2 a.m., mentally Google-Earthing, Google-Earthing, Google-Earthing. Deep into the night, while others are sleeping, I -- a college graduate, a Democrat and a Californian, that classic trifecta of eco-angst -- ponder the sprawl, the snarl, the smog. . . .
And when I zoom in on the middle of it, the ghostly cross hairs ratcheting down, there is my home town of Los Angeles: green-celebrity-filled, teeming with affluence and punishingly sunny. So sunny that last summer's Southern California heat wave triggered widespread power outages. Stifling 90-degree nights blew our family of four apart into a Jonestown-esque mandala, each body seeking rest in a different part of the house, all of us stripped to our underwear, clutching spray bottles, hugging wet pillows, every window flung wide.
Which got me to thinking (picture me waving my arms in emphatic semaphore): Why don't we do a cosmic jujitsu. . . and use the sun. . . to make the power. . . to run our air conditioning? Do you get my drift? Do you follow me? I think you do. The sun!
I felt as though I'd lit on the most California Natural solution of all. Let my Prius-driving, edamame-snapping colleagues top this. Which I knew they'd probably try to do. Because ultimately, what each individual decides "going green" is, is as shape-shifting and American as Melville's great white whale. The green movement holds a recycled-glass mirror up to the soul. And we all see a different reflection.
It's true that our style of California eco-dreamin' can seem simple, one-liney, almost Zen. Ed Begley Jr.'s eco-koan, from his book "Living Like Ed," is: "I believe we need to live simply so that others can simply live." But going green is something you feel the truth of, in your heart. You have to. Put the brain in charge, and soon you'll be kneeling paralyzed by indecision, like Hamlet with Yorick's skull. Particularly when you consider what the lowest eco-footprint societies all have in common: (1) high poverty, (2) high infant mortality and (3) short life expectancy. Forget living simply, we shouldn't be living at all!
Think too much about living simply, and you may begin to live very complexly, engineering your own personal Third World country, possibly in Vermont (a hotbed of sinewy eco-bachelors fond of tinkering with things like batteries powered by their own pee). Vermont naturalist Richard Czaplinski boasts that he has an "ecological footprint the size of a hare." He lives on his own private Walden with a funky cabin, scythes, fuel-sipping lamps, old VW license-plate lights and, of course, diligent composting that supposedly produces a cubic yard of poo a year.
Reformed weapons designer and "Radical Simplicity" author Jim Merkel urges us to ask further: "Does my employment . . . restore the earth, further damage the earth, or is it neutral?" And what about the act of making money itself? After leaving his job, Merkel made his new goal setting his income "below a taxable level. Then not a single cent of mine would rain bombs and bullets onto peasants who live near coveted resources." Of course, some taxes go toward bridges, schools and libraries but . . . eh, once again, too much eco-thinking. Headache coming on.
Which is why what came to me in the middle of that fateful night was . . . solar! Simple, natural, plentiful, not creepy!
And the timing of my eco-vision was perfect: After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth," friends of mine had announced that they felt moved to act immediately, to start a monthly salon where we could discuss what we all could do to stop global warming. (In my L.A., all socializing has a purpose: sample new Thai marinade, test-drive teak gazebo, make plan to stop global warming.)
And so, jabbing pita chips into hummus, seven of us began a game of eco-one-upmanship involving incandescent bulbs, hemp clothing and madly conflicting theories about water use. I stabbed at my colleagues with my larger, I thought, pita chip: "Why not solar? Let's all go solar!"
So okay. The first rebuttal was that, even in 2008, it's too expensive, although "expensive" is relative. Never mind Angelina Jolie and her private jets; Los Angeles is a city where even non-celebrities drop $300,000 on remodeling a house, $40,000 a year to send the twins to private school (and that's kindergarten) and $5,000 a year on "hair" (roots, highlights, color, straightening). By comparison, converting our homes to solar would cost . . . $10,000? $80,000? "Even with rebates," groused Paul, an engineer, "it could take you 10 years to recoup!"
|
If it's so hard to get solar energy in sun-drenched Los Angeles, then can there be hope for the rest of America?
| 39.037037 | 0.777778 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802526.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802526.html
|
Sorry, HBO. John Adams Wasn't That Much of a Hero.
|
2008042119
|
Here's one scene that did not make it into the epic HBO miniseries on the life of John Adams that ends tonight. It is June 23, 1775, and members of the Continental Congress accompany George Washington as he sets off to command the provisional army outside Boston. Adams rides along, then returns to his Philadelphia digs and writes in self-pity to his wife Abigail: I "must leave others to wear the Lawrells which I have sown; others to eat the Bread which I have earned -- A Common Case."
Coming at the zenith of the colonists' revolutionary fervor, two months after Lexington and Concord, this was a stunning statement. It was also classic Adams. At the very moment when selfless feelings of patriotism ran highest, he was already fretting about whether his countrymen and history would treat him fairly, whether his contributions to "the common cause" would be justly recognized.
This outburst of envy and self-doubt -- one among so many -- goes to the heart of our John Adams problem. Was Adams, as his admiring biographer David McCullough would have it, the one leading founder who has never received his due? Or was he his own worst enemy, succumbing to a temper and vanity unique among his contemporaries? HBO is keen to usher him into the canon, but Adams did a great deal to earn the devastating assessment that has trailed him ever since Benjamin Franklin first quipped it in 1783: "He means well for his Country, and is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
For Adams could not let that nagging sigh of '75 go. Fear that he was not getting the credit he was due was not a passing sensation but a virtual obsession. For Adams, politics was always deeply personal. Ten years earlier, he had called the Stamp Act "an execrable Project [that] was set on foot for my Ruin as well as that of America in General." Five years later, he began treating his diplomatic colleague Franklin as a vindictive rival plotting his political destruction. Though Adams mellowed a bit in his quarter-century retirement (1801-26), he left this earth -- famously dying on the 50th anniversary of independence, the same day as Jefferson -- fearing that history would do him wrong. Or, perhaps, remember him accurately.
This is the Adams whom scholars still try to fathom and whom the actor Paul Giamatti liberates from the tired conventions that routinely spoil efforts to dramatize the Revolutionary era. In the spirit of his feisty, cranky, self-righteous, vain, opinionated yet inquisitive subject, Giamatti transcends his own image as pinot noir's best friend to present a compelling portrait of America's least understood founder. Building on McCullough's bestseller, the miniseries works hard to rehabilitate our second president's reputation. But the challenge remains real enough.
Adams left HBO wonderful material. He was a candid, vivid, even sensuously descriptive writer. (His basic rule was never to use one adjective when six would work just as well.) He is the major founder whose personality emerges most strongly from his papers -- especially the fabulous correspondence with Abigail during the decade after 1774, when they were apart for all but 21 months. Agonizing over his ambition, assessing his faults, asking himself whether he was vain, apologizing to Abigail, this bewigged 18th-century Whig seems thoroughly modern.
To their credit, HBO and Giamatti do not present Adams solely as he so often saw himself, as the victim of disrespectful, scheming rivals. The series also takes Abigail's long-suffering side in the politics of their marriage. (When the absent diplomat could barely find time to write his "dearest friend," he was flooding Congress with verbose reports about European politics it could never really use.)
But personality aside, his role and impact remain the most difficult to assess of any of the major founders. We speak easily about Franklin's genius, Washington's charismatic leadership, Jefferson's paradoxical egalitarianism, Madison's brilliant constitutionalism and Hamilton's ambitious state-building. Identifying Adams's legacies and influences is a much tougher enterprise.
So even in HBO's basically appreciative portrait, viewers cannot be sure where their sympathies should lie. Of course, the series cannot possibly do justice to the complex history it spans; it often takes big leaps that leave even historians gasping, "Which year are we in now?" But beyond that, Adams remains an unlikely icon. Much as we come to admire his independence, patriotism and realism, his self-righteousness really did identify a critical failing in his judgment. All of his notable contemporaries cared deeply about reputation (or character, as they preferred to call it). But Adams was uniquely vain, and that vanity manifested itself in his inability to separate his positions from himself.
Return, then, to that revealing 1775 remark about the laurels that others would reap. Adams had been serving in the First and Second Continental Congresses, arguably his finest political moments. There he was the leading advocate for doing everything possible to prepare the colonies for the independence he believed was inevitable. Because he was so direct in arguing that the colonies must prepare for the worst, he earned the respect of most of his more cautious congressional colleagues.
But does this really justify the tag line on the HBO ads calling Adams the man who "united the states of America"? Congress did not declare independence because Adams debated his foes there into submission. The real uniters of the new states of 1776 were King George III and his anxious chief minister, Lord North, supported by a docile Parliament. By offering the colonists nothing more than pardons and proving that repression was the only policy Britain knew, they made independence a mere matter of timing.
If the miniseries inflates Adams's contributions to independence, it plays down the trouble that his impatience and impulsiveness got him into in France thereafter. He made two trips to Europe, not the sole decade-long sojourn invented here. (In between, he came home, wrote a much admired constitution for Massachusetts, then learned that Congress wanted him back in Europe as its peace commissioner.) And no sooner did he arrive than he began crossing both the French foreign minister, Vergennes, and his own colleague, Franklin.
|
John Adams wasn't as heroic as HBO would have him, but he did have other qualities.
| 64.789474 | 0.789474 | 1.105263 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/04/honor_killings_jordan.html%20
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/04/honor_killings_jordan.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008042119
|
Lina Nabil was writing glossy features for a Middle Eastern womenâs magazine when she found the story that changed her life. In the 1980s, while she was working on an investigative report on the situations of Jordanâs imprisoned women, she was shown a cell in the Central Jail in the capital of Amman. It was packed with women in their early to late teens.
âI asked, what had these girls done?â recalled Lina. âI was told they were being held for their own protection because their families had tried to kill them. Some of them had been there for years. Others were released and later murdered. I knew this was a story I had to tell, whatever the consequences.â
Honor killings, in which women are murdered for tarnishing their familyâs honor, are prevalent throughout the Middle East. In Jordan they account for one-third of all violent deaths, on the order of twenty-five a year. Although they are illegal, the murders are prosecuted leniently in a country where tribal custom and Islamic teachings often hold sway in the courts.
Itâs a practice that dates back through the ages, but whatâs new about honor killings in Jordan is that women like Lina have started talking about them. Her series of articles about the women in prison, published in the late 1980s in a leading Arabic-language newspaper, attracted a storm of controversy, including a number of death threats. âThe subject was a taboo when I started writing about it. At first people were in a state of denial; then they accused me of being un-Jordanian, a whore, an enemy of religion,â she said. âBut slowly the truth emerged.â
As Lina discovered, the motivations for the killings vary. Most common, in a culture that prizes a womanâs virginity, is an accusation of sex before marriage, although Lina estimates that in 90% of the cases the victims are virgins.
âIn the small communities where honor killings often take place, a rumor that a woman was seen talking to another man is enough to ruin the familyâs reputation in the eyes of society,â she said.
Other cases involve rape, often by a member of the family. In the story Lina recounts at the start of the video, the 17-year-girl was raped by a cousin from a nearby farm. After her familyâs first attempt to kill her failed, she was taken into police custody. Thatâs where Lina first met her, during a visit from the girlâs father and son.
âI left the room for a moment with the supervisor, and the next thing we heard was a gunshot, and she was lying on the floor in a pool of blood,â said Lina. âThe father and son who did this thought they were upholding the familyâs honor, that they were doing the right things according to their customs and their religion.â
As Lina has strived to make clear, honor killings have nothing to do with Islam. âNowhere in the Koran does it tell you kill women like this. In fact itâs just the opposite: it says that men and women should be treated equally,â she said.
Since her first article ran almost 20 years ago, Lina has dedicated herself to changing these perceptions. Along with women like Rana Husseini, another journalist who has publicized honor killings, and the Jordan Womenâs Union, an education center and shelter for abused women, they have broken down the silence that has surrounded the issue.
But there has been no real reduction in honor killings. To achieve that, Lina believes, the law courts must start prosecuting as murderers the men who kill their female family members. Currently, under Article 98 of the Jordanian Penal Code, a man can claim âmitigating circumstancesâ, and receive a light custodial sentence, Lina said.
âIn every murder Iâve investigated, the woman was held to be responsible for the crimes committed against her, even though she was actually the victim,â said Lina, âWhat we want is equality before the law. Then we will see change.â
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 45.411765 | 0.470588 | 0.470588 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/catholic_creed_diversity.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2008/04/catholic_creed_diversity.html
|
Catholic Creed = Diversity
|
2008042119
|
Here's why Catholicsim is a stupid religion. This is one doctrine in which pope pius XII used his "INFALLIBILY power". STUPIDITY TO THE MAX. This is just one of the several stupid doctrines.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (by : Ignatius Brady, O.F.M., Catholic University of America)
" The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Catholic belief that 'the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up (assumed) body and soul into heavenly glory.' This definition of Pope Pius XII (1950), which crystallizes what the church has always held whether implicitly or explicitly, likewise indicates the scriptural basis and theological reasons of the doctrine: since God in choosing Mary to be the mother of Christ had preserved her from original sin (Immaculate Conception) and had kept her a virgin even in her motherhood, it was fitting that He grant her final victory over death by freeing her body from all corruption and bringing it together with her soul to the glory of heaven. Testimony to the universal belief in this doctrine can be traced to early Christian (Catholic) times. The feast, on August 15, certainly antedates the decree of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602) that it be celebrated throughout his empire. "
First, there is no scriptural record that Mary ascended to heaven. In the Bible, there were only three people who ascended bodily to heaven. They were Enoch (Genesis 5:24), Elijah (II Kings 2:11) and Jesus Christ (Acts 1:9)
Second , the scripture says that after the virgin birth of Jesus, Mary bore at least 6 more children ( Matthew 13:55-56). She certainly did not remain a virgin.
Third, about claims that Mary was sinless, let us hear what the apostles John and Paul had said :
I John 1:8 " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselfves, and the truth is not in us. "
Romans 3:23 " For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Even before these false teachings appeared , God already knew this coming. In Revelation 2:2 , we can read His prophetic verse, " I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil : and thou hast tried (or tested) them who say they are apostles (RC's creed of apostolic succesion), but are not, and hast found them LIARS. "
The book was called Revelation because God had foretold the future to Apostle John in the island of Patmos, Greece . In that said verse, God was talking about a future false church.
Jose Rizal certainly heard it loud and clear.
April 22, 2008 6:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2008 06:42
In terms of occupancy, hell is much bigger than heaven coz many will go to that place of torment compared to those who will make it to heaven. One major factor why it is so is because of false religions or false prophets who propagate it.
In Matthew 7:13-15 Jesus said "...wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction (Hell), and many there be which go in thereat; ... strait (or limited in space) is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life (Heaven), and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing...".
The fact that God had said that many will go to hell and few to heaven just shows that these false prophets are much more effective in teaching their false doctrines than those who preach the true word of God. As a result, they have a much larger following.
It is very disappointing that many religions today use the name of Jesus Christ and that its priests or preachers act like they are His servants but in truth are really servants of the devil. It is equally disappointing that many members of these churches are easily duped into believing what they falsely teach.
Since the year 2001, four so called "Christian" nations have already legalized gay marriage. It's quite amazing that four nations (The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada) legalized it in just a span of 4 years. Next year, there could be another two or more and before we know it, other "Christian" nations would be following their lead just like popcorn. The only thing to blame in here is their practiced religion.
It should be noted that both Belgium and Spain are Catholic countries. Canada is 43% Catholic and 29% Protestant and most of its Protestant churches have linkups with the Catholic Church and other false religions thru its Ecumenical Movement. Their biggest protestant group, The United Church of Canada (UCC), previously stated that their church welcome "sexually active single adults, lesbian, gay and bisexual people into all aspects of the life and ministry of the Church". It means that they see nothing wrong with people engaged in fornication, adultery and same sex unions. If we read the Bible, these are the same people God will burn in Hell. Clearly, there are two conflicting messages here -- one from God and the other from the devil. Since their church unashamedly teach the devil's doctrine, it's more fitting that they should call their church as the United Devil's Church of Canada. That way, it would clear up things and there will be no mixups. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has become a secular state which means most of its populace has no religious affiliation. In Massachusetts, which currently is the only state in the U.S that have legalized gay marriage, 54% of its populace is Catholic and still rising..
This is just the cross-section of the kind of religions those people who supported gay marriage have. Most of them were Catholics, liberal Protestants that have linkups with other false religions and Secularists who are either aetheists or skeptics. All these religions or beliefs have one thing in common. They worship the same "God" but not the God in the Bible for in Romans 1:32 it states, "Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death...".
When God speaks of death, He means everlasting hellfire. The people who approved of it never knew that they have stretched even wider what is already a very broad pathway to Hell. Most probably, they too are breezing thru that road themselves and on their way to destruction. No more stoplights for the lights or religions they attend to like the UCC have been signalling them to push on and run on full speed.
False religions are not that really hard to detect. Jesus said that "ye will know them by their fruits". So the next time another country, state or city legalizes gay marriage, examine what kind of religion those people who approved of it profess. And as sure as the sun rises from the east, those people would be either Catholic, liberal Protestants or Secularists.
When God says beware, one should not take it lightly. In Luke 12:5 Jesus said, "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him."
But what makes it more fearsome is the fact that it cannot be appealed like what other false religions want to suggest by teaching reincarnation or purgatory. The judgment of God is final and wherever He puts us in, Heaven or Hell, that would be permanent. The same is the fire and the worms crawling in one's body. They too would be permanent. The worms won't die and the fire won't quench either. It really is a place of torment and it's really very sad if some foolish religion would send somebody there.
"Beware of false prophets", said the Lord. I hope everybody would really ponder on this one.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 35.795455 | 0.522727 | 0.704545 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/a_week_of_silence.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/a_week_of_silence.html
|
A Week of Silence
|
2008042119
|
Fate, Freedom of Conscience is a principal Baptist doctrine and Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion are by-products of that baptist doctrine. I've discussed this in detail in my previous posts in other blogs but you seemed absent at that time.
Also Catholicism is NOT Christianity. Catholic countries are poor because it's the devil's religion disguised as God's.
In terms of occupancy, hell is much bigger than heaven coz many will go to that place of torment compared to those who will make it to heaven. One major factor why it is so is because of false religions or false prophets who propagate it.
In Matthew 7:13-15 Jesus said "...wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction (Hell), and many there be which go in thereat; ... strait (or limited in space) is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life (Heaven), and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing...".
The fact that God had said that many will go to hell and few to heaven just shows that these false prophets are much more effective in teaching their false doctrines than those who preach the true word of God. As a result, they have a much larger following.
It is very disappointing that many religions today use the name of Jesus Christ and that its priests or preachers act like they are His servants but in truth are really servants of the devil. It is equally disappointing that many members of these churches are easily duped into believing what they falsely teach.
Since the year 2001, four so called "Christian" nations have already legalized gay marriage. It's quite amazing that four nations (The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada) legalized it in just a span of 4 years. Next year, there could be another two or more and before we know it, other "Christian" nations would be following their lead just like popcorn. The only thing to blame in here is their practiced religion.
It should be noted that both Belgium and Spain are Catholic countries. Canada is 43% Catholic and 29% Protestant and most of its Protestant churches have linkups with the Catholic Church and other false religions thru its Ecumenical Movement. Their biggest protestant group, The United Church of Canada (UCC), previously stated that their church welcome "sexually active single adults, lesbian, gay and bisexual people into all aspects of the life and ministry of the Church". It means that they see nothing wrong with people engaged in fornication, adultery and same sex unions. If we read the Bible, these are the same people God will burn in Hell. Clearly, there are two conflicting messages here -- one from God and the other from the devil. Since their church unashamedly teach the devil's doctrine, it's more fitting that they should call their church as the United Devil's Church of Canada. That way, it would clear up things and there will be no mixups. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has become a secular state which means most of its populace has no religious affiliation. In Massachusetts, which currently is the only state in the U.S that have legalized gay marriage, 54% of its populace is Catholic and still rising..
This is just the cross-section of the kind of religions those people who supported gay marriage have. Most of them were Catholics, liberal Protestants that have linkups with other false religions and Secularists who are either aetheists or skeptics. All these religions or beliefs have one thing in common. They worship the same "God" but not the God in the Bible for in Romans 1:32 it states, "Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death...".
When God speaks of death, He means everlasting hellfire. The people who approved of it never knew that they have stretched even wider what is already a very broad pathway to Hell. Most probably, they too are breezing thru that road themselves and on their way to destruction. No more stoplights for the lights or religions they attend to like the UCC have been signalling them to push on and run on full speed.
False religions are not that really hard to detect. Jesus said that "ye will know them by their fruits". So the next time another country, state or city legalizes gay marriage, examine what kind of religion those people who approved of it profess. And as sure as the sun rises from the east, those people would be either Catholic, liberal Protestants or Secularists.
When God says beware, one should not take it lightly. In Luke 12:5 Jesus said, "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him."
But what makes it more fearsome is the fact that it cannot be appealed like what other false religions want to suggest by teaching reincarnation or purgatory. The judgment of God is final and wherever He puts us in, Heaven or Hell, that would be permanent. The same is the fire and the worms crawling in one's body. They too would be permanent. The worms won't die and the fire won't quench either. It really is a place of torment and it's really very sad if some foolish religion would send somebody there.
"Beware of false prophets", said the Lord. I hope everybody would really ponder on this one.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 24.727273 | 0.522727 | 0.704545 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/beyond_pa_a_weakened_clinton.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/beyond_pa_a_weakened_clinton.html
|
Beyond Pa., a Weakened Clinton
|
2008042119
|
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) greets people after a rally at Scranton Cultural Center April 21, 2008 in Scranton, Pa. (Getty Images)
By Dan Balz The polls suggest that Hillary Clinton is headed for victory in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. If that happens, it will add to the string of big states where she has defeated Barack Obama. Depending on the margin, a Clinton victory will raise fresh questions about the Illinois senator's general election prospects.
But Pennsylvania is not Ohio, and the Clinton who is making her final push in the Keystone State is not the candidate who barnstormed through Ohio early last month. No less determined, she is nonetheless a more weakened candidate than she was on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries.
This is evident at many levels, from the atmosphere around her traveling entourage, to the financial disadvantage she faces, to the fact that her victory could be discounted unless the margin is even bigger than it was in Ohio.
Arguably, the past seven weeks have been far rougher for Obama than for Clinton. He lost Ohio, and he lost the popular vote in Texas (but did recoup by winning more delegates because of the caucuses there). Then came the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the uproar over his comments about the bitterness of small-town voters and the interrogation in last week's ABC News debate.
Yet Clinton appears to have been weakened more by the long interregnum between primaries. Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996. Those, along with additional turmoil in her campaign, and occasional mistakes by her husband, have left her with an image problem of significant proportions.
Her campaign has the aura of a march toward inevitable disappointment. Obama's campaign has been skillful in keeping the focus on his nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates -- and the math has helped them with that argument. Obama also has continued to narrow Clinton's once-hefty lead among superdelegates. Exhaustion with the race among Democrats on both sides of the nomination battle adds to her obstacles.
Clinton's lifeline to the superdelegates remains the popular vote, the one remaining marker where her advisers believe she might be able to overtake Obama. If she did that, she would have one last argument to put before the superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate for the fall election.
The Web site Real Clear Politics charts the popular vote in multiple ways: total votes; total votes with estimates from some caucus states that do not actually report the popular vote; total votes with Florida's unsanctioned primary results; total votes with both Florida's and Michigan's primaries.
Obama leads in every one of them at this point, but depending on the calculation, his margin is as high as 827,000 (without Florida and Michigan but with a number of the caucus states) and as low as 94,000 (with Florida and Michigan but without those caucus states).
Obama owes much in these calculations to his home state of Illinois. There, on Feb. 5, he rolled up a victory margin of 650,000 votes over Clinton. She, in contrast, won her adopted home state of New York by 317,500 votes. Without the two home states, Obama would still lead in the popular vote, but the margin would look less insurmountable for Clinton in the coming contests.
Obama's recent problems have caused some Democrats to worry about his chances of winning the general election. His performance in Ohio, they argue, where he won only a handful of counties and lost some by huge margins, will make his prospects there difficult, they say. Michigan, too, could be formidable for him, and depending on the outcome Tuesday, so could Pennsylvania.
All of that should have played to Clinton's advantage in this time between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Instead, her rising negatives among Republicans and especially among independents have made it all the more difficult to argue that she is stronger for November.
The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll charts Clinton's decline from a high point just after her victory in New Hampshire to a new low point this spring. In that time, her favorable rating underwent a 40-point swing among independents. In mid-January, 59 percent of independents said they had a favorable impression of her, compared to 39 percent unfavorable. Last week, it was the reverse: 39 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable.
Her decline among Republicans was minimal, although she started at a very low point. Jennifer Agiesta, The Post's polling analyst, said the drop among Republicans is attributable almost entirely to declining ratings from women.
Clinton may have been artificially high in her public image after her New Hampshire comeback, and so the comparison between then and now may overstate the trouble she has encountered. But there is no question that the victory in Ohio and the popular vote victory in Texas, two events that reinvigorated her candidacy and extended the Democratic race, had little lasting impact on how voters -- especially independents who are crucial to Democratic hopes of winning in November -- see her.
All that colors her campaign on the eve of Tuesday's vote. To her credit, Clinton soldiers on, but with new limitations because of the damage to her public image. Fairly or unfairly, the bar for her now is higher than ever.
Posted at 12:40 PM ET on Apr 21, 2008 | Category: Dan Balz's Take Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted by: Dave | April 21, 2008 1:01 PM
PA democrats should put Hillary out of her misery, and our party too.
She had every advantage entering this nominating contest and has fallen behind due to an inept and inefficient campaign, as well as a superb campaign by Obama.
Obama is the underdog who came from behind and deserves to win.
Hillary is NOT a scrappy underdog. She is the latest in a long line of overdog-losers, who took victory for granted, in the history of Presidential politics.
Posted by: mnjam | April 21, 2008 1:04 PM
"Sen. Obama in the past had serious problems winning states that Democrats need to win in order to win in November," Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton aide, said, adding that it was states "like Florida, like Michigan, like Ohio and now in Pennsylvania."
"He is doing everything that he can to win -- not to finish closely, not to do well -- to win," Wolfson said. "He is trying to knock Sen. Clinton out of this race. He has outspent us three to one.... He has gone sharply negative. There are so many negative ads he has up that I can't even keep track of them.... If he does not win after having outspent us so dramatically," Wolfson said, it would raise "very serious questions ... about whether Sen. Obama can win the big swing states that any Democrat would have to win in November."
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM
Missteps? You mean lies, don't you? Despite what the polls say, I hope the people of PA don't fall for this transparent fraud and end her farce of a campaign. Vote smart, PA!
Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 1:09 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM
The reality here is a funny thing- and so is perception of reality.
I am only hoping that the Democratic Party will look at the reality not the perception of it.
If Hillary Clinton wins PA with somewhere near 10% as she did in Ohio, I think Democrats should be very wary of nominating Barack Obama. Hillary will then have won nearly every major state the Democrats need to win in November with big margins. She will also have shown that she has a real chance to win both Ohio and Florida and we can assume by her win and by polling that she will win Arkansas.
Barack Obama will have proved that he can't get the basic Democratic vote against Hillary and that he has won a string of victories in states that neither he nor Hillary will win in November like Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota etc.
Will Obama still get the Democratic nomination, he may but then we will put ourselves in peril.
This election will most likely be won or lost with the Reagan Democrats. Can Obama or Clinton get them back? Clinton is proving she can and Obama has yet to do that. If he comes close in PA that reality may change but so far in the big states those voters have closed for Clinton. The polls showed Obama with a chance to overtake her in Ohio and she won by 10%. The same happened in NJ and in CA. In MA she won by 10% even with Kennedy and Kerry against her. If she wins PA by 10% she will take WV and KY by larger margins. Obama will take NC which Dems can't win anyway in November. IN may be close.
I hope again that the Democratic party look closely at who is voting for Obama and who is voting for Clinton and what states they are in. The national polls mean as little now as they did last year. This election will be won or lost in a few states and by a few voters. Winning NY or IL by huge margins means nothing as the electoral votes from that state are the same either way as we found out in 2000 in Florida and in 2004 in Ohio.
Lets wait till Tuesday night and then take a real look at this and make the best choice not for Clinton or Obama but for the Democratic party winning in November.
Posted by: peter DC | April 21, 2008 1:19 PM
On the flip side, can she win in November if every African-American refuses to vote for her (or, worse yet, vote for McCain)?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM
PA is a meaningless primary. Does not matter if Hillary or Barack got 99% of the votes. As McCain is already demonstrating, the winner in Nov. is the candidate with 50% of the Independent Votes. McCains strategy is to campaign for that vote, even at the loss of some "conservative" votes. By the time Hillary and Obama finish smearing each other, neither will be able to get 25% of the Independent Vote....which guarantees only 1 thing.....2nd place in the Fall. Same lesson taught (but obviously not learned) by the Republicans to the Democrats in 2000 and 2004.
Posted by: Will | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM
What Democrats NEED to know is,if the Super delegates choose Sen. Clinton will Sen. Obama run as an Independent and,if not,will Clinton? If either one does, the undeniable result is the Republicans will Karl Rove style by splitting the Democratic Party. Will someone in a position to do it (Media,Campaigners,etc..) PLEASE ask Clinton and Obama to pledge,for the good of our nation, that the loser will NOT run Independent..... WE NEED TO find out NOW!
Posted by: Forga | April 21, 2008 1:26 PM
What Democrats NEED to know is,if the Super delegates choose Sen. Clinton will Sen. Obama run as an Independent and,if not,will Clinton? If either one runs Independent the undeniable result is victory for McCain, Karl Rove style by splitting the Democratic Party. Will someone in a position to do it (Media,Campaigners,etc..) PLEASE ask Clinton and Obama to pledge,for the good of our nation, that the loser will NOT run Independent..... WE NEED TO find out NOW!
Posted by: me | April 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Posted by: max | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM
What a silly, superficial report.
I quote the obvious from the first person who commented on this article:
"She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
Posted by: Paul Jepsen | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM
People need to look at the demographic of these states like Ohio, Michigan, and PA (I don't consider TX because as far as I'm concerned Billary lost Texas and lost in the delegate count in TX). These are areas hit hard by the loss of manufacturing industries, having their jobs outsourced and not being able to recover ecomonically from this like the rest of the urban parts of their particular region. These are old school, blue collar, majority white voters who think old school, live old school and vote old school and where race is still an issue to most of them. Change is not a thing that invigorates these kind of voters even if the change is benefical to them. No matter how bad the economy has become and will continue to become, how bad job prospects and wages become, how bleak things get, they've already admitted publicly most of them, they would find it hard to vote for Obama based on the color of his skin and during these past six weeks of look at interviews with people of Scranton, Allentown, rural Pittsburgh and towns like them, they have all been consistent in their thinking. Doesn't mean Barack can't win big states as FL & MI don't even count as he didn't campaign or put his name on the ballot as was supposed to be agreed by all candidates initially, it just means there is still a demographic that he has to work on to convince to put race aside and try and take the first step forward outside of what you are used to, what you are comfortable with, to try an fix this mess George Bush put us in. We all have to make changes to make this work. That demographic just needs to be convinced more and reassured more, especially the eldery in that demographic because drastic change for them is scary and unknown.
Posted by: Reggie | April 21, 2008 1:40 PM
The site once said that PA was Ohio in steroids for Clinton, but now it says that PA is not OH, insinuating that it is no longer advantaged Clinton. Which one is it?
Posted by: Tesosi | April 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Hillary mismanaged a campign from a 30 point lead to certain defeat. She's squandered a huge superdelegate lead and squandered millions of dollars. She's turned the Democratic Party into a hornet's nest of discontent and bickering over immaterial issues.
Pennsylvania can spare us any more of this bug smushed on our windshield. Hit the wipers once and let us focus on how much better off we'll be with Obama than with McCain. That's what matters. Hillary had her chance and she blew it big time.
Posted by: Ready on day never | April 21, 2008 1:42 PM
Hey Dan, all of Obama's money isn't going to buy him this nomination. At long last the rank-and-file democrats are beginning to see that he is UNELECTABLE. They just can't embrace him. It's more like a one-night-stand. We've had our way with him and now it's time to go back to our spouses and be grown ups. MoveOn isn't going to win this for him anymore than they won it for Howie last time. Keep it up Hillary - Reality is sinking in.
Posted by: Eek pleg meesta | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM
"To her credit, Clinton soldiers on..."
Hillary is not a soldier. Hillary at this point is willing to say or do anything to win the nominaton, because she knows that this is probably her last chance to become President. If Obama defeats McCain in the general election, Obama has the likablity factor (and depending on the results of his first term) to be re-elected again in 2012. Hillary knows she will be seen as too old at 68 yrs of age to run again in 2016. But Hillary also suspects that if Obama is damaged enough in the primary, he could lose the general election and allow her to run again in 2012.
Posted by: AJ, IL | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM
"Fairly or unfairly," Dan Balz is in the tank for Obama. All she needs to do tomorrow is beat him by more than 94,000 votes to claim the POPULAR vote count!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 1:45 PM
She would be weakened since she was ahead by 20, just like Ohio, the weak comment only refers to the daunted task of MAINTAINING these big leads in all these states. At least that is how I read it, she is doing well, but the point again, was at the start of most every state race she was ahead in the polls by very large percentages - she ultimately won the states she was expected to win, but by small margins - none more than 10 points. Meanwhile, Obama has won the states he was expected to win by 10-20 points. Just a fact back-up for the writer of this article. She needs huge wins IN ALL remaining contests to secure the nod is all I think the writer is stating.
Posted by: Huh | April 21, 2008 1:46 PM
I,also, question the thesis statement of this article. She is "weakened"? While ahead in Pa.? Is this p.r. for Obama? Another point: Obama is no underdog. He was sent to a plush Prep school in Hawaii then to Harvard, given all sorts of help to win in Illinois, lives in a million dollar mansion and IRS says his 2008 personal income was over $4 million. You pundits have a right to your opinion, but not to make up facts. He's a limosine liberal with an elitist attitude and a wife who makes Ann Coulter blush.
Posted by: zaney8 | April 21, 2008 1:47 PM
Hmm, not seeing the weakness.
No Fl+ no MI+ huge corporate bundling machine = win for Obama in primary = loss for democrats in general election.
This independent will be writing in Hillary Clinton in November.
Posted by: rehab-ing from Obama | April 21, 2008 1:47 PM
Since when do Pennsylvania and Ohio get to decide for the rest of us?
She's won some states, but Obama has won more. And his victories have been by bigger margins.
In Washington State he won EVERY county. Yet, somehow, people like Dan Balz have decided that Ohio counts and Washington State doesn't.
And how about Wisconsin, Virginia, South Carolina, and Kansas where he had huge wins.
The Clinton people have done a great job of convincing soft-headed "journalists" like Balz and Chris Matthews that only the states that Clinton won should count. But that just ain't true.
Obama is winning because more people have voted for him. It's called democracy.
Posted by: Choska | April 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Posted by: No to Dynasties | April 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Yes, she'll be weakened, Howard Wolfson, Hillary's communications chief said they have $9 million dollars in the bank and their campaign has $10 million of debt, Obama raised $41 million in the last month and has millions in the bank, even as he outspends her 2 or 3 to 1. Can the Hillary campaign make it to the last primary June 3rd, much less all the way to the convention?
Posted by: RCD | April 21, 2008 1:51 PM
This is so bias. go hillary!!
Posted by: tony | April 21, 2008 1:52 PM
The problem with the popular vote argument is that it discounts all caucus-only states. My state, Colorado, will swing blue for sure if Obama is the nominee and maybe even for Clinton... so why do we not matter?
You forget that Obama will turn many red states blue and he will not lose any blue states.
Posted by: Blake | April 21, 2008 1:53 PM
Thanks for another puff piece Dan. I really appreciate how you take Hillary's strengths and try and turn them into weakness with mumbo jumbo nothingness and hair brained opinion. We both know that I have to drive a stake in her now, before this thing gets out of hand and even the WaPo and the rest of the media that is in the tank for me can't keep me afloat. Thanks again, XXOO
Posted by: Barack O. | April 21, 2008 1:55 PM
It's funny to read comments from Hillary supporters like Eek pleg meesta and Max. They sound just like the Hillary camp pundits.
Obama does not have the multi-multi millionaire status that Hillary has. Much of the funds that Obama's campaign enjoys comes from ordinary Americans (like myself), doing extra-ordinary things.
Think about it! You had the most recent popular ex-Democratic President slamming Obama, the Democratic front-runner, while the former first lady, Hillary, throwing everything including the "kitchen sink" at him.
Of course there is a share of the Democratic electorate that is confused and skeptical. Hope trumps fear any day!
Posted by: AJ, IL | April 21, 2008 1:55 PM
Obama has been THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE in getting Dems registered and having those Dem voter numbers increase significantly. If it were not for him and his smart management style and staff, his volunteers would not have registered millions of Dems. You cannot say the same thing for HRCs campaign and therefore, the majority of newly registered Dem voters will vote Obama in this primary as well as the GE. Obama has proven to be the very best "organizer" using the net for funding his campaign and "we the people" to help him in his grassroots effort to become our POTUS. He has done more for the people of this nation already than anyone in history because he has been inclusive of "we the people" rather than like HRC with her "I, I, I, I, I" speeches. When our forefathers thought of uniting these states into one nation, they too looked at "we the people" and were certainly NOT thinking of people like Bushco and the Clintons who have done nothing but take advantage of 'we the people' and financially enriched themselves vastly at our expense during all the propoganda and lies told to get 'votes' for election (thank God, I never voted for either). This government should be run ONLY by leaders who are 'listening' to "we the people" so that they can actually work for us - we are the ones who "hire" them to lead us in the right directions; not the other way around. Bushco have robbed us of our freedoms, preemptively started a war which we cannot win and cannot pay for (either in treasure or lives lost); our forefathers would be horrified at these disgraces! The Clintons would also lead us to more destruction; please pay close attention to HRCs use of "nuclear umbrella" and the war with Iran she wants to put us in, the deceit she has perpetrated about Bosnia, NAFTA, Northern Irelandnegotiations, SCHIP among other issues, and our country would no longer be viable if left to her and Bill to destroy.
Posted by: ObamasLady | April 21, 2008 1:56 PM
If my ass ever managed to write an opinion column, it would probably read a lot like Mr Balz's effort above.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Posted by: PulSamsara | April 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Unless she wins by a LARGE LARGE (20%+) margin, she should drop out of the race (or at least buy a working calculator!).
Posted by: DoTheMath | April 21, 2008 1:59 PM
Sen. Clinton is weakened because she has been forced to do the press's job. The press has drawn a rose-colored curtain around the Obama campaign. Now her campaign is damaged by the need to perform this untenable role. A perfect example is that the Post and other major newspapers posted all 11,000 pages of Sen Clinton's White House schedules, but you can't find anywhere on the web the complete sermons of Rev Wright from which the controversial quotes were taken. That enables apologists to claim that the comments were taken out of context. After searching for hours, I managed to find just one of these sermons (9/16/01). It was carefully hidden and no search engine turned it up. I assure you the controversial quotes from this sermon were NOT taken out of context. There is a long list of Obama stories that have been briefly reported by the press (Exelon, Maytag, Chicago schools controversy, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc) that just sank like stones while the press hammered every Clinton fumble to death. All these stories will come out in flames during the general campaign. The press has a lot to answer for in this nomination race. I haven't been so angry at the press since they facilitated the war in Iraq by accepting the bogus premise of WMDs.
Posted by: Yellow Dog | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM
In 1972, I wore a McGovern button proudly every day to my high school as a junior. In 1976, I canvassed for Udall in the primary. In 1980, I supported Ted Kennedy. In 1984, I supported Mondale. I still have my T-shirt from the Dukakis campaign. Finally, in 1992, I supported and voted for someone who won, as he did again in 1996. I want a Democrat in office more than anything, and the majority of voters in the nation's biggest states with electoral votes will support Hillary, not Obama. Look at the demographics of Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and California.
Posted by: gainron | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Blake, you are living in a dream world. Obama carries the MoveOn far left that votes in primaries. He loses the independent middle and the Reagan Democrats. He loses the over-60 vote and woman over 40. If he is our nominee, we lose in November and McBush waltzes into the white house.
Posted by: Anti-blake | April 21, 2008 2:00 PM
When is the media and its reporters, such as yourself, going to learn that your negative media bashing of Hillary isn't working, isn't going to work and is creating a voter backlash against Obama. The news couldn't be better for Clinton who is now poised for a big win in Pa. Where is the news that is showing Hillary picking up 4 new superdelegates since last Friday. Where is the news showing Hillary leading in the Gallop National Tracking Poll. Where is the news showing Hillary picking up the undecided voters in this race. Don't you get it? Going negative on Hillary is old news! Get over it and lets report the "real "news for a change.
Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 2:01 PM
Well from the additional news reports Obama's campaign is flush with cash and Clinton is in debt.
Need further proof that Hillary is still a republican at heart?
Posted by: Sparky | April 21, 2008 2:03 PM
Hillary has been done in by her mismanagement of her campaign (strategically and financially). Voters and superdelegates are fair to ask: if she can't manage a campaign, how can she manage a country?
Her tactics (and those of her surrogates) have been a litany of Rove-like smears. Her temperament has been erratic, her memory of facts has been selective.
She reeks of old politics and a sense of entitlement.
I'm afraid Hillary and her cronies have an actual strategy to hurt Obama's chances in November, setting Hillary up for another run when she's 64 in 2012.
Posted by: John Jefferson | April 21, 2008 2:04 PM
Votes and not money wins!! Vote Hillary unless you prefer McCain. Obama is a racist and has no accomplishments to speak of. I will vote Hillary if she is nominated or if she runs as independent which I do not think she will. If Obama is nominated then I will go to the polls and vote McCain and I will pick up my elderly neighbors to vote NObama too.
I certainly do not want a President that would sit in Rev. Wrights white hate sermons and I do not want a President that will as he did last week give the middle finger gesture to Hillary supporters....and he did that.
Michelle Obama and Barack Obama have plans for this country but have not shared those plans with us because they are plans to benifit the Obama's and African Americans.. WAKE UP Vote Hillary
Posted by: jodi | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM
Dan, I just wanted to say thanks for keeping Operation Chaos alive. Your backfiring anti-Hillary tirades just keeps this mess going and lets a no-win loser like McCain shore up his base, raise money without having to spend any, and pave another 8 years of Republicans leading this country.
Posted by: Rush Limbaugh | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM
Are we trying to prepare the terrain for Obama's big loss in PA, aren't we? It is very interesting your choice of words for this article. A Weakened? Let's see, after an insurmountable amount of money spent in propaganda for over 6 weeks to the tune of millions per day, a media and purported professional journalists biased in favor of Obama, after Obama paying thousands of people to innundate the blogs, the polls and the public opionion, Obama is still behind and will be declared the LOSER in PA. So, who is weakened one? You might need to check a dictionary since your biased is making you forget the meaning of basic words in the English language.
Posted by: Definitely Common Sense | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM
the reason Hillary "loses" by winning is because she had a 20 point lead in PA just a few weeks ago, and if she wins PA now, it will be by no more than a just few points now. Such is the story of the 2008 campaign...Hillary started way way up, and slowly, slowly she has come down.
The more people have time to think, the more they lean towards Obama, it just takes longer to convince the more people there happens to be in the big states (look at other "big states" where she similarly began with large doule digit leads and won by much less).
Lets go to Denver if you want Hillary, because by then you will be the one 20 points down!!!!
Posted by: jonathanR | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM
Hillary wins Pennsylvania Democratic Primary
Headline 2: Obama goes on as Democratic Nominee for President
Its not rocket science. Its not even middle school math.
Posted by: John Galt | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM
You Hillary defenders are losing it. Barack is the best thing we've had going for us since JFK. I don't believe for a minute all you people claiming to be pro-Hillary but will vote for McKeating if she doesn't get the nomination. Obama is the future.....embrace it!
Posted by: Geeze People | April 21, 2008 2:11 PM
If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:15 PM
Another Obama scandel/anti-American rant/Michele escapes the basement and opens her mouth/etc and Hillary becomes the only viable Democratic candidate as Obame moves from 90% unelectable to 100% unelectable.
Posted by: Hey Johnny | April 21, 2008 2:15 PM
It looks both McCain and Clinton will have to take public fund after primary. Only Obama gets richer. Hope everyone takes turn to make change. Really not bad. LOL
Posted by: jy2008 | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM
If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for Nader.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Hillary has made several arguments for why she should be the nominee depending on the audience and these are: 1. I am female 2. I am white 3. I have experience (ie I was married to a president) 4. Obama is unelectable (ie He is black) 5. Obama gives empty speeches (ie He is eloquent)
Her most inane arguments are:
Obama isn't tough enough - ie He's not nearly as dirty a campaigner as she is.
She wins big states - it is illogical to argue that beating an alternate democrat in a primary corresponds to beating a republican in an election - Obama has consistently won independents and while some Republicans have supported both Dems during the primary, Hillary's support has been mostly cynical votes cast to keep her in a divisive race.
Health Care Expertise - Has anyone ever failed more miserably in an attempt to bring about political change than Hillary's first attempt at Health Care?
From Bosnia to the threatening of super-delegates, from crocodile tears to 3AM fears; Hillary Clinton has shown the country that she is not a person of integrity and she needs to go away.
Posted by: Howard Roark | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM
Obama supporters are hypocrites that will say or do anything to win.
They gleefully threw the entire Clinton family under the bus.
They've trashed Bill Clinton's legacy more than any Republican ever has.
They aren't Democrats, they're Obama-nuts.
Obama and his supporters are the most vile hypocrites we've ever seen.
They "hook up" at the drop of a hat, but attack Bill Clinton about a harmless BJ.
Unless one of the people has a disease, its hard to die from a BJ.
I hope every married Obama supporter that gets a BJ outside their marriage winds up with their wife divorcing them and taking everything they have.
Obama supporters are total hypocrites.
If Obama gets the nomination, McCain's the next President.
Lets hope he brings back the draft and sends them right to the front lines in Iraq.
It would do them a world of good.
Obama's unelectable, and his supporters have destroyed the Democratic Party's most valuable assets.
Posted by: Obama supporters are hypocrites that will say or do anything to win | April 21, 2008 2:25 PM
Astonishing bias exhibited by this lame article. Obama took a huge dive in the Gallup poll over the weekend, but I guess that's because Clinton is weakening. Great thinking at work here. Keep propping him up. Obama may end up being the candidate - it's hard to see how all the forces aligning behind him will allow anything else to happen. But he's clearly not the best candidate by the only measure that will matter - the ability to win in the states with the necessary electoral votes to win the national election. Thanks for nothing in the way of thoughtful critical analysis of what it will take to actually win in November.
Posted by: LK2008 | April 21, 2008 2:27 PM
Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain if Obama wins and Obama supporters who say the same thing are doing so simply out of spite. McCain is closer to a third term of Bush than he is to meaningful change.
Why would you do that unless its out of spite?
Posted by: Gary | April 21, 2008 2:28 PM
Don't forget the failed attempt at pretense in the misuse of the word "interregnum"
Posted by: Hill | April 21, 2008 2:29 PM
Hillary Clinton is at best a 10-1 shot to get the nomination. And no better than even money to win the general. So my question is this - Why would successful political pols like Nutter and Rendell stake thier reps on a 20-1 shot? I can't figure it out.
Posted by: David Young | April 21, 2008 2:29 PM
Hillary lies. People catch on. Hillary lies again on the same topic. Youtube video proves Hillary lies. Poll Numbers drop AGAIN.
Hillary says McCain will make a better commander in chief than Obama. Hillary complains that Obama says that McCain will be a better President than Bush. Hillary insults our intelligence AGAIN.
Posted by: Ben | April 21, 2008 2:30 PM
Posted by: max | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM
Calling Obama a man of integrity is like calling the Pacific Ocean a desert
Posted by: Obama's got no integrity at all | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM
Not mentioned in this article is the additional fact that the Clinton campaign is deeply in debt, while the Obama campaign has something like $40 million and is still raising money. This is a statement of relative grassroots support. It goes to electability.
Posted by: Chouteau | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM
It doesn't matter who you want to win!! The Democratic Party is in the process of self-destruction!
Senator John McCain, who was not very popular a few months ago, is gaining the respect of people who are exhausted by the self-mutilation that's occurring within the Party! Independents, Republicans and Democrats are beginning to indicate their frustration with Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. This frustration also includes the superdelegates that can't seem to make up their minds due to their own fear of how their decision will have an effect on their chances of winning the votes of their states.
If Senator McCain has any awareness of what is happening, he should continue to focus of issues, and allow all the room in the world for the continued voter distrust for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. To win votes from devoted supporters of either, he will need to remind neutral on negative comments by the candidates and focus on winning the respect of people based on real issues influencing this country.
The only way Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could unite the party after all the words are slung, and all the promises are made, is to unite together against the Republican Party. That's not likely to happen now due to events during the primary season. Bill Clinton certainly has not helped!
The Democratic Party can be compared to a train running down the track without anyone at the control panel!
Posted by: timeforchangeinamerica | April 21, 2008 2:32 PM
It isn't an image problem.
THE WORLD NOW SEES CLINTON AS SHE HAS TRULY BEEN ALL ALONG!
A DC insider, old-boy style politician, with dinasaur political instincts of DO OR SAY ANYTHING - including massive lies - to win.
Posted by: JBE | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM
Hillary is a feminist because it always the woman's fault when Bill has a "dalliance" Go figure...
Posted by: Clinton supporters are anti-feminists | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM
How can anyone question whether Hillary is weak?
After looking like a slam-dunk for the nomination at one point, she now faces a nearly impossible quest to snatch it away from a guy who basically wasn't even a household name 12 months ago!
That's not just WEAKNESS, but a complete and unmistakable FAILURE.
And then she claims that OBAMA is unelectable? That's an even bigger lie than her GI Jane sniper tour through Bosnia!
To lose despite such a massive pre-existing advantage... it just makes you shake your head. But I guess that's what you get when you try to borrow campaign tactics from Karl Rove.
Unless she wins PA by 20+ points - and even if she DOES win PA by 20+ points - the lady who planned to coast through the primaries in a pantsuit and a tiara is essentially cooked.
And Hillary supporters are claiming she isn't weak? She can't even manage to stay out of her own way!
By the way, when is Hillary going to comment on the marital counseling she and Bill got from Reverend Wright during Monica-gate? There are literally hundreds of thousands of spiritual advisors in the USA whom they COULD HAVE invited to the White House, and yet they invited Jeremiah Wright.
She would never be a member of his church - yet she and Bill trusted his spiritual guidance at the darkest point of their marriage and political career. I wonder if Hillary would like to publicly comment on that decision.
Posted by: Argo | April 21, 2008 2:33 PM
"She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
Very much so, because going into Ohio, the delegate math required a 20 ++ point blowout in every other state for Hillary to pull even in the delegate count. She didn't get that, and instead roughly split Ohio and Texas with Obama. Now she would need a thirty plus point bounce in remaining states, many of which are significantly pro-Obama in their tilt.
Posted by: James | April 21, 2008 2:34 PM
No amount of money can get Obama elected in a national election.
All Obama can do is cause Democrats to lose yet again.
We trust Clinton and we trust McCain.
We don't trust Obama as far as we could throw a steam-ship.
Posted by: No amount of money can get Obama elected | April 21, 2008 2:34 PM
It takes no special talent to win the big Democratic states that always vote Democratic anyway. Hillary's problem is that she can ONLY win the big easy states, and nothing else. The big Democratic states would for Obama too in November, or for any other Democrat.
Posted by: bodo | April 21, 2008 2:35 PM
Posted by: truthforusa | April 21, 2008 2:36 PM
Successful Pols still support the flailing Clinton campaign because they owe the Clintons and they are loyal to them. After she loses, Bill and Hillary will remain a powerful and wealthy political force and over the years they have proven to be loyal to their friends. Obama on the other hand will reach out graciously to the other side after his victory so it makes sense for many politicians to show support for the losing Clinton campaign.
Posted by: Ralph Nadir | April 21, 2008 2:36 PM
Posted by: Fishers Indiana | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM
uneducated--check bitter--check racist--check will be voting for McCain--check likes the status quo--check likes liars--check likes victims--check thinks that being a wife prepares you for the White House--check
thinks that the inability to run a campaign makes one ready for the White House--check
Posted by: Clinton supporters are bitter | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM
Remember Ronald Reagan used to called the Teflon Man? Same with Obama. He lies and dissembles regularly but nothing sticks to him. Until the general election, that is, when he takes us all down in flames with him.
Yes, I'm sure it's very tiring for Hillary not to just come right out and tell the flake-left wing of the party that they are making the same stupid mistake they made in 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. Over 40 years now and the party regulars still don't realize that if they like someone, it's the kiss of death.
Posted by: Chicago1 | April 21, 2008 2:37 PM
The fact that Obama overtook the Clintons (and let's remember that it is Bill people are voting for, not Hillary) speaks convincingly to 1) the appeal of his message, and 2) the brilliance of his campaign. She is OLD school politics, which is why we are sick of her. It was her election to lose--she was handed it by the press and a husband who felt sorry for her many public humiliations. She has lost it, and thus, there it is. Now, she should be gracious and say goodbye.
Posted by: Kam | April 21, 2008 2:38 PM
We have to put these primary "victories" in perspective. Nobaody has shown what states they can win in November. The Democrats are running against themselve right now, not against John McCain. Obama may not have won California or New York in the Primary for example, but is there really much question as to whether a democrat (whether Obama or Hillary) will win those states? Conversly, there are states that either Hillary or Obama have won in the primary that neither can realistically expect to win in November.
Finally, with all the garbage going back and forth between Obama and CLinton, and virtually nothing being thrown at McCain, it is not surprising that his polling numbers are going up. I think that either Hillary or Obama can likely win the general election, if this primary fighting ends very soon. If Hillary and Obama are forced to fight through the summer then the Democrats may have found a way to lose an election that most people would have originally believed to be in the bag.
I am not sure what Hillary is hoping for, perhaps that some bit of dirt (probably slung by her) will stick to Obama and we will se a complete turnaround in the rest of the primaries. Other than some sort of miracle (much better than the bitter comment or Rev Wright), I can't actually see how this ends in a victory of Clinton. Even if she found a way to convince enough superdelegates (or regular delegates)to vote for her, and so over ride the primary process, it would so divide the Democratic party that I truely believe McCain would win.
Posted by: captbilly | April 21, 2008 2:38 PM
Interesting question - Can you say that the Pacific Ocean is a desert? Hmmm, well that all depends on what your definition of is is...
Posted by: Bill Clinton | April 21, 2008 2:39 PM
I so hope you are right. I so hope that she hasn't intimidated and manipulated small town America and or white woman America. As I am both or all of those plus elder America as well, I see that I cannot be intimidated or manipulated into a voting choice anymore than I can be intimated or manipulated into heaven by dogma or doctrine.
Something sacred happens inside where people make their own choices. Campaign hysteria is troubling and probably should be even more so that it appears to be.
Substance and vision need to be the distillates here. Whatever that turns out to mean.
Posted by: Gaias Child | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM
If Hillary gets the nomination, I will write in Obama, which is what all Obama supporters should do.
Posted by: Whoop-de-do | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM
If you spend 10 million dollars and STILL CANNOT WIN the state -- or Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New York, California, New Jersey, etc etc -- how are you going to win the general? The idea that people in one party will just instantly migrate to the other candidate is old. This is the change Barack wanted. He will get it. People will not automatically vote for him because he's also a Democrat. People have to feel like their views match up with his. He is further to the left than Kerry was, and America said NO. This is still a center or center right country.
Posted by: LonghornMama | April 21, 2008 2:41 PM
This article is a little out of date and does not reflect the jump for Hillery in National Polls the last few days since the debate.
Posted by: donbl | April 21, 2008 2:42 PM
I swore my God if Hillary win I will not vote for her no way she is laired
Posted by: james Pa | April 21, 2008 2:43 PM
quote:"You Hillary defenders are losing it. Barack is the best thing we've had going for us since JFK. I don't believe for a minute all you people claiming to be pro-Hillary but will vote for McKeating if she doesn't get the nomination. Obama is the future.....embrace it!"
Obama is the future of the US. Hillary is more white middle class bla...She voted for the friggin' war! HELLO?
What a bitter driven little girl she is must be apparent by now. Obama will take the USA to the next step, a multiracial society, living the example of what the world future will be. Wether we like it or not, Obama is the man! YES WE CAN!
Posted by: Daniel | April 21, 2008 2:43 PM
Obama supporters have burned their bridges with the rest of the Democratic Party.
We'd rather lose this election than have you guys in charge of our party.
Posted by: Obama supporters have burned their bridges | April 21, 2008 2:44 PM
Politically, Hillary supporters should be saying that they would vote for McCain over Obama given that this is the crux of her rather inane argument for superdelegates. Obama supporters on the other hand have the luxury of being magnaminous toward Hillary given that Obama has already sewn up the nomination.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:44 PM
As a Democrat, I'm probably an anomaly in that I like both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their virtues and despite their faults. I also admire John McCain as an individual, although I disagree with his political positions. What I dislike is the level of acrimony and name-calling into which this election campaign has descended.
In particular, I find continued sniping between Clinton and Obama supporters disheartening. I favor Obama as someone with a potential for greatness that comes once in a generation, but if Clinton were nominated, I would support her enthusiastically. Both are imperfect human beings, as we all are, but both would be excellent presidents in my view. Given the fact that Senator McCain, although not yet subject to any serious criticism, can do no better than match either one in the polls, a Democratic victory in the 2008 election is reasonably likely if the party is not further weakened.
It seems to me that many of us who have been caught up in the conflict have lost our focus. It's important to remember that our allegiance cannot be to any individual candidate, but to the 300 million Americans whose future rides on the outcome of an election that will decide between a McCain view of health care, war and peace, social justice, and the environment, and a shared Obama/Clinton perspective that understands far better what it means to struggle with the problems of ordinary people. We would err if we forget that when we vote, we are really voting for a constituency of millions rather than attempting to confer a personal reward on any one individual.
Because of the likely damage from a continuing exchange of accusations, I would be dishonest if I did not state that I hope Hillary Clinton will soon withdraw. That is not because she is unqualified. Rather, given the arithmetic of the nomination battle, she no longer has any realistic chance to become president, but she can still ruin Obama's chances. It is not a matter of philosophy or fairness but simple realism to recognize that the superdelegates will not deprive the first serious African American candidate of the nomination after he was won in the primaries. I expect that many superdelegates who are not yet publicly committed will urge Senator Clinton not to play the role of spoiler, and I also expect that despite her disappointment, she will eventually agree.
Posted by: Fred Moolten | April 21, 2008 2:45 PM
President Obama will run the presidency just as well as he runs his grassroots campaign. That speaks volumes.
I'm hoping the people of Pennsylvania will wake up to an opportunity to do what is right and honorable.
As Michael Moore, indicated, in 1987, the constitution written in Pennsyvania, at which it hailed "a black man or woman was only 'three fifths' human." Michael said that on Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance to make things right.
Now, not because this man running for President just happens to be black, but because this man running for president happens to be well qualified as any other person, regardless of race. Pennsylvania,, 85% white population can set the pace for the whole world to see just how progressive and forward thinking our country has become; that we are not the pretentious, hypocritical country that fault other nations for treating their people inhumanely or unfairly, but will deny and maliciously destroy anyone who does not fit the ill perceived "all American" trait.
Or, Pennsylvania, can send a message to the world that America is a regressive nation that judges a person based on the color of their skin, rather than the content of his character.
What will it be PA?
Posted by: Can't Be Stopped | April 21, 2008 2:45 PM
This just in, Rendall endorses and embraces Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. (Huff Post/YouTube.)
Posted by: Larry | April 21, 2008 2:46 PM
Hillary's had all the advantages. Unfortunately, her true colors have come blazing through and we can no longer tell the difference between her and the Republicans. As for negativity, Obama's finally pushing back----on the ISSUES. He has no need for the Rove style politicking that Hlllary's so fully embraced. She'll win PA all right---maybe even by a large margin. And we'll be stuck dealing with her and her damaging ways---perhaps unto heralding a McCain presidency. She's a selfish woman, that one.
Posted by: Robin | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM
Ladies and gentleman, the Democratic Party!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM
What a lousy spin for Obama, who is facing, once again, humiliating defeat in Pennsylvania following Ohio and Texas...
Posted by: ysyoo | April 21, 2008 2:47 PM
Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black.
It has to do with him and his supporters sticking a shiv in the back of Bill Clinton.
We will never forgive you for that.
You're stoned on drugs if you think that we ever will.
Posted by: Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
This writer, like the rest of the Media, can tell us all about Clinton's missteps, but totally ignores Obama's deceit about his relationship with his minister and Rezko. It is soooooooooooooooooo hard for the "Liberal" Media to give Clinton credit for anything. And so what if Obama raised $$$ ... if $$$ made it happen, Romney would be the GOP candidate!!
Posted by: Jesus Francisco Cardenas | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
C'mon PENNSYLVANIA!!! Give us a GREAT MARGIN!!!!
Posted by: Obama2008 | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
I support Obama but that post that implies that Pennsylvanians who vote for Hillary are doing so out of racism is really off the mark. There are a plethora of reasons to vote against Hillary that have nothing to do with race.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:49 PM
DAN BALZ, YOU HAVE AN AGENDA????? Let's guess. Well, OBAMA and Soros can't buy my vote!!!! And, if Hillary were a guy, you would be falling all over him.
Posted by: MAX | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM
If Obama wins, Democrats lose.
Posted by: If Obama wins, Democrats lose | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM
Unless there's a lot of time to reformulate either candidate's image, I don't think either one is going to win the general election. Hillary is Hillary, and as the article stated (based on polling numbers)-- she's not a particularly popular figure and not seen as very trustworthy. Obama has been too bloodied, especially with the stupid Weatherman thing (nice job, ABC). McCain picked up that baton on Sunday, telling ABC that Obama consorts with unrepentant terrorists. Ugh. Way to go Dems. Personal ambition and myopia puts another Republican administration in office.
Posted by: Mowry | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM
I give her credit after the Bosnia snafu. If OBAMA had done that she would of been all over him. I think he was so gracious in not running commercials on that instance. Hil hung herself with that credible mistake. She apologized to all of us but we got to wonder how many more misspokes are out there. Her credibility is totally damaged. She can't win!!! The American people will vote for McCain before they vote for someone with credibility issues. She is done after Pennsylvania. Ohio and Pennsylvania are pretty much blue collar. They really don't like people of color too well. After Pennsylvania she is toast. This is her last chance.
Posted by: tjoey | April 21, 2008 2:50 PM
I don't think that people here are grasping the situation: Even if Hillary wins PA, she won't win ID and she won't win NC. She's already in debt and she had to actually spend some money in PA.
So here's the prediction: Clinton wins by 5-7 pecentage points then she gets trounced in ID and NC in two weeks. Game Over.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | April 21, 2008 2:52 PM
President Obama is inevitable. No matter what is said, who tries to sabotage the People's Movement, no matter what racial profiling or stereotyping is done, this good man will prevail.
New American Standard Bible (©1995) "No weapon that is formed against you will prosper; And every tongue that accuses you in judgment you will condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their vindication is from Me," declares the LORD.
King James Bible No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
American King James Version No weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, said the LORD.
American Standard Version No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness which is of me, saith Jehovah.
Bible in Basic English No instrument of war which is formed against you will be of any use; and every tongue which says evil against you will be judged false. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness comes from me, says the Lord.
Douay-Rheims Bible No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with me, saith the Lord.
Darby Bible Translation No weapon that is prepared against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that riseth against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah; and their righteousness is of me, saith Jehovah.
English Revised Version No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the LORD.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) No weapon that has been made to be used against you will succeed. You will have an answer for anyone who accuses you. This is the inheritance of the LORD's servants. Their victory comes from me," declares the LORD.
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their due reward from Me, saith the LORD.
Webster's Bible Translation No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is from me, saith the LORD.
World English Bible No weapon that is formed against you will prevail; and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness which is of me," says Yahweh.
Young's Literal Translation No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah!
Posted by: Can't Be Stopped | April 21, 2008 2:53 PM
the media is just like a prostitute,they tell you what you want to hear, one day and the next day is totally different.today it's hillary being weakened,wednesday it will be a positive spin if hillary etches out a victory.over a month ago it was said she needs to win a plurality by a wide margin.now the clinton campaign is saying in lieu of senator obama's spending so much money on advertising, a win by 5% is a significant victory. the media will put a spin on defeat as well as victory.
Posted by: ron | April 21, 2008 2:53 PM
Hillary can win nationally, Obama can't.
The American want to elect a candidate that's in the center.
That narrows it down to McCain and Hillary.
People remember that Bill Clinton brought them peace and prosperity.
If Hillary's the candidate, the election becomes a referendum between the Bush and Clinton years and Hillary wins.
Posted by: Hillary can win nationally, Obama can't | April 21, 2008 2:54 PM
I'm an independent. Looking inward, its strange how I find myself supporting the democrats and not giving McCain much of a chance. I just hate what George Bush and Karl Rove have done to our country so much, infusing partisan politics, nepotism and manipulation of power and privelege at every turn, that I find it difficult to give another Republican a chance.
Posted by: Howard Roark | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM
The way that the word image is being used here, is to describe how career politicians sell themselves... a deliberately constructed and controlled illusion created by professional handlers. A masquerade on a grand scale to make the product, the politician, more palatable or saleable to the public. I would rather know the truth about the candidates, where they stand, their history including resume' and who are their largest supporters among other important things. What I am seeing and hearing in the media is trivial nonsense, a well orchestrated and paid for dog and pony show....anyone know of a news source that presents real unbiased information that is useful in our world where propaganda and fantasy is about to become associated with fraud, wasting of time and foolishness.
Posted by: Image Problem? | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM
I respectfully believe that these ups and downs are nothing major for Clinton. Indeed gallop poll put her again for democratic votes above Obama.
We should be careful to think about likeability or negative effects. They do not translate to votes - one way or another. Look into France, Italy, Germany, Canada, and many times in the US. They do not mean a thing 7 months prior to an election. Please do not try to dig into it too much - as it is not scienitifically relevant.
In addition, if she wins the % votes, (97,000 with FL, MI), it would be hard to argue that the votes of FL and MI (particulalry FLORIDIA when an unprecedent number of people votes and all candidates were on the ballot) will be counted. It would be a disgrace for DNC to not to do it for two major swing states in both of which Hillary either leads or is even with McCain within statiscal error, whereas Obama trails.
Posted by: Meg | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM
I got to give a big shout out to BOB JOHNSON of BET. I think that he is notably the biggest OREO COOKIE in the world. It's amazing what a Billion dollars can do. He is much darker than OBAMA and totaly discredits this man. Mr. JOHNSON you are a decendant from SLAVES my friend. DO NOT LET THE MONEY GET TO YOUR HEAD. YOU ARE A BLACK N....R!! DON't FORGET THAT. YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN iN DISGUISE. YOU ARE BENEATH CONTEMPT BY USING YOUR POWER BASE TO CUT AWAY AT OBAMA. IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU ARE A MERCENARY (SLAVE BOY) FOR BILL CLINTON. THINK FOR ONE MINUTE BOB. DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU HAD LESS THAN 500k in your bank account that they would still hang out with you? YOU ARE SUCH A SUCKER.
Posted by: tjoey | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM
I know a lot more Independent voters here in NC (Raleigh/Durham area) that are registered as Democrats who want nothing to do with Clinton and see a refreshing future with Obama. Personally, I am sick of all this course-correcting made by the Clinton campaign that truly does reek of the "kitchen-sink" approach. Hillary does exactly what the Republicans do, makes empty, unverifiable statements that appeal to the masses, essentially relying on their general disinterest or ignorance. Then when those masses are "attacked" in the fashion in which they claim Obama did, they again USE this portion of the electorate (fully knowing their ignorance) by saying they were attacked. If you study the context of Obama's statement about clinging to guns and religion, it's spot-on... he's not say they go to them because of their bitterness but that they cling to what they know and what comforts them; how is that attacking them?
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Re: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
Winning in Ohio doesn't get you the nomination, nor does winning in PA. Quite frankly, Hillary has been so poisonous to the Democrat Party, I can't wait for her to leave and go back to New York.
Hillary has just about burned down and house and ripped the scabs off of every democrat who supports Barack Obama. Hillary is going out kicking and screaming, and I can hardly wait until she's officially defeated.
NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!
Posted by: Linda Love Jones | April 21, 2008 2:57 PM
Dan Balz's Take's blog twists the truth and is quite self-serving for an Obama supporter. The Rev. Wright story, The "Bitter-gate" and debate fiasco have damaged Obama more than any one is willing to accept. Obama campaign has outspent 3:1 in TV and radio ads, but still accepts a loss as a win. And yet Hillary is the one weakened as per this blog. Obama is no longer the star that he once was, and he may still win nomination because of his previous GOP support. That support is fast vanishing, and he is now the darling of only the extreme left. John McCain can't believe his luck. With Obama as the nominee, McCain can unleash his attacks on Obama through surrogates. God help the democratic party in November.
Posted by: Narthan | April 21, 2008 2:57 PM
This article is a little out of date and does not reflect the jump for Hillery in National Polls the last few days since the debate.
The only jump Hiliary got in the post debate polls are higher negatives than she already had.
Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 2:58 PM
Posted by: Harried | April 21, 2008 2:59 PM
I'm not a mean person.
But so help me god, just saw Hillary in person. AND SHE LOOKS like just exactly what she is. Nature has caught up with her. It is justice, and is not pretty.
Also saw Billy speak in a small, western PA town on Friday. Never heard so many lies-per-syllable . HRC on guns, on war votes, on NAFTA. It was just funny.
Those two are horrid. May they fail and disappear.
(after having heard Billy make a speech in a small town nearby...with the most lies per syllable,
Posted by: observer | April 21, 2008 3:00 PM
By the way, what happened to the Democrats when they claim black = unelectable?! I see it all over the board here (rarely specifically stated, but certainly implied). It is true what people say: there is very little difference between the Reps and Dems.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:00 PM
Hillary has just about burned down the house and ripped the scab off of every Democrat who supports Barack Obama.
Hillary has told her supporters to vote for John McCain, instead of Barack Obama, if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. With a lack of support for her party like that, Hillary ought to just go ahead and join the Republican Party, although they probably don't want Hillary either.
NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!
Posted by: Linda Love Jones | April 21, 2008 3:01 PM
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for McCain, too.
And then I'll never forgive Howard Dean for losing this election.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Are you calling every Pennsylvania voter who votes for Clinton a "racist"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:03 PM
People remember that Bill Clinton brought them peace and prosperity. If Hillary's the candidate, the election becomes a referendum between the Bush and Clinton years and Hillary wins. Posted by: Hillary can win nationally
You're right about that, it will be a referendum of 8 yrs of Lies and Scandal(Clinton) vs 7+ years of Lies and Deception(Bush).
Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 3:04 PM
Let's just say right now what we will al be saying tomorrow.
Hillary, congratulations, you showed that Democrats are still divided by race and class. Now GET OUT. You are destroying the party and even if you steal the nomination, we're writing in Obama in November.
Posted by: Angry Liberaltarian | April 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I was positive the Washington Post already had turned over it's Presidential election analysis to that hateful, b!tchy little columnist in the Style section..
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM
"Are you calling every Pennsylvania voter who votes for Clinton a "racist"?"
I would never claim that every single person that votes for Hillary, but given the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign to divide and conquer on the basis of race, I would say that there is a large portion of the rural electorate that is uncomfortable with a black President. I would even go so far as to say that that does not essentially make them racist either, but perhaps would require questioning of what makes them feel uncomfortable about the man.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Dan, I guess you join the rest of media pundits to desperately and at any cost construe articles that are 100% full of bias. You can certainly do me a favor and do one on Obama showing all of his flaws.
The point is that a great majority of you threw yourselves into electing a candidate such as Obama and in your zest to get him elected, you are failing to see that he would not be able to withstand the scrutiny of the Republican machinery in November.
The math of his electability is done all wrong. It is obvious that his wins are in states that would not vote democratic or where votes would be insignificant. If he is the candidate the popular vote would be an issue. Has anyone also thought about the fact that in the states that already voted, there are many voters who would not vote for him this November after finding out about his true character and connections?
With the various wrong decisions on Florida and Michigan the party is headed for major disaster. And it seems that a great majority of people are failing to think this through.
It is important that all Primaries are completed and Florida and Michigan vote. Without this, the chances of Obama's candidacy would permeate to be a highly questionable candidacy. Let's face the fact that with all the money he has invested, and despite the sponsoring and easy ride he has received, he has not being able to surmount many obstacles. This would dramatically increase when he faces the Republican machinery. He does not have the toughness required and the supporters would not be able to carry him as it has happened so far. The FABRICATION of this candidate would hit a brick wall finally!!!
So, WAKE UP and think about Hillary being the candidate that can help us win this election.
Failure to do so will result in another lost election!!! Mark my words!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Thanks for letting us here in Illinois know that our votes for Obama back on Super Tuesday do matter. We keep hearing that Hillary's won all the "big" states--CA, NY, OH, TX. When someone mentions Illinois, we hear "oh, that's his home state." Apparently, NY is only Hillary's home state when it's convenient. I'm waiting for her to say that she lost her virginity in Indiana, making it yet another one of her "homes"....
Posted by: Lucky Lakeshore | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
Hillary is this elections Bob Dole. Somebody with a lot of clout in the party who is running because it's her turn. Ugh,
Posted by: cambel | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
Exactly... SHE is weakened? Huh? Can you say "media bias"?
Posted by: Jessy Hamilton | April 21, 2008 3:10 PM
I thought Tom Shales was in charge of the cheap-@ss hit pieces on Hillary.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:10 PM
Hey there PA, state where I was bred and born.
Are you straight-thinking, tough people actually falling for Hillary's "daughter of PA, just-plain-folks" routine? I can't believe it - you're all better than that.
Remember the "Memories of Pinochle at the Summer House" commercial? How many of us can say we've EVER had a summer house, indoor plumbing or not, either in our lives or those of our grandparents?
Who's the "elite" person here, again?
If you think Hillary's the better candidate on the issues, you rock on with that in the voting booth. But don't vote on image alone - Hillary's wearing a mask.
Posted by: Daughter of Wexford | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM
She is weakened you guys because she doesn't have any money. She started the month in the Red and if it weren't for the Media, people in Indiana would never see her. She can't afford to pay for Ads, so she will hope she can come out with provocative ones the media will play. I have noticed a decided advantage for her in the 'Ads' the media play, one might assume they are trying to keep her in the race; too bad they didn't do the same for Huckabee.
Posted by: Trey | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM
As a write-in candidate, Obama would not get any more votes than Ross Perot did -- 20 million in 1992 IIRC -- how ironic it would be for Hillary to LOSE to McCain because of something like that.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM
[QUOTE] Obama's recent problems have caused some Democrats to worry about his chances of winning the general election. His performance in Ohio, they argue, where he won only a handful of counties and lost some by huge margins, will make his prospects there difficult, they say. Michigan, too, could be formidable for him, and depending on the outcome Tuesday, so could Pennsylvania. [/QUOTE]
I don't see how we can compare Clinton or Obama's performance among Democrats with how either would fare between Democrats and Republicans. I understand the "white male" influence, but will the "white males" who voted Democratic in the Primary really abandon the party if the candidate they voted for doesn't win the nomination? Is their support that weak?
Which leads me to another point that I believe hasn't been discussed: Is Clinton/Obama so undedicated to the party that they won't do all they can to bring their base voters to support whoever wins the nomination?
Consider Obama if he loses, "I know you're disappointed. I know I am. But as we always have throughout our history we must lift ourselves above that disappointment and look forward. Do we really want to continue the destructive legacy of George Bush? Come with me and work to put a Democrat in the White House. Yes we can."
Consider Clinton if she loses, "I know you're disappointed. I know I am. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight to my last breath to save our country from another 8 years of George Bush's destructive legacy. Come with me and work to put a Democrat in the White House. Yes we can."
Our what-if calculus must include the assumption that most of Clinton/Obama supporters will support the Democrat in the general.
Posted by: egc52556 | April 21, 2008 3:12 PM
You can't have it both ways... one day she's so "establishment" that it's "her turn", and the next day she has no experience to run on. Which is it? Seems inconsistent to me.
Posted by: JFlorida | April 21, 2008 3:12 PM
The Obama camp and David Axelrod have ran a subvertive campaign using the RACE CARD from the very beginning against Hillary and anyone not understanding this is too naive or ignorant!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:13 PM
It is pleasing, somehow, to find above that...the Hillary supporters are mostly (that's mostly, not all) ... very angry, mad as hel, more ranting than articulate, and blame everyone else. They sound like losers.
Independents don't trust Hillary by 59 per cent, incidentally. And republican women like her less than before... Speakin of 'can't win'!
Posted by: helene | April 21, 2008 3:14 PM
Why does Balz refer to Clinton's "mischaracterization" of trip to Bosnia rather than her "lie" about it?
Posted by: David | April 21, 2008 3:15 PM
I want to know why pundits think that if one Democrat beats another in the primary, that means the loser can't beat the Republicans in November.
Hillary may beat Barack, but the tarnish is going to come off Saint John's halo way before November.
Posted by: RealCalGal | April 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Let me get this right - Some of you think Obama is going to win? Funny!! He is winning small, rural states that Republicans have ALWAYS won! He just managed the faux pas of offending those states. He has yet to win a large state that the Dems always win - so this is going to be the nominee? Someone tell me how all this jibes with a Democratic victory in November. You stupid stupid STUPID IDIOTS!!!!!!!!! I'm in a party of INCOMPETENTS!!!!!! Stupid Fools!!
Posted by: ObamaGlassJaw | April 21, 2008 3:16 PM
I just do not understand what these die hard HRC supporters see in her lies and deciept and cheating and illegal stuff? As I said so many times before and continue (because nobody ever came up with anything) just tell me ONE thing positive she has accomplished! She is a loser!
Posted by: quinka | April 21, 2008 3:16 PM
All you intelligent Obama supporters voting for 'CHANGE' do you have a list specific changes he is proposing to you. If you have a list can you please publish it for me or is it just the word 'CHANGE' that impresses you. You all know that change can be good change and also can be bad change. So here is what I think: as President he probably will spread the same teachings that he received from his Pastor. His Pastor was his mentor and advisor for 20 long years and you can not erase your mentor and advisors's teachings which are instilled in you for 20 years although controversial in just few months, they will stay with you forever. Obama has proved that again and again by not denouncing his Pastor and also supporting the church by donating money and his time. Next, he will appoint people with qualities like Rezko, Ayers and Wright in his cabinet. Because with his associations you can tell what traits in a person attract him. And next, his arrogant personality will persuade him to make speeches where he will make remarks like 'bitter Americans' or like his wife's remarks 'proud of America now' and demean people. And lastly, spending money donated by people like water on primary elections. He is actually buying people's votes. If he is that good then why is wasting money and buying voters? He should win the primaries without spending any money.
Posted by: nisha | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Hispana, it's not the "race card" if your candidate ACTUALLY subversively attacks Obama's electability based on his race. It's been a subtle campaign from the beginning to break him down that way. The way that the Clinton Campaign has subtley driven a wedge between white and black America has worsened an already bleak set of race relations.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM
I was a fence-sitter for a while but have come out solidly or Obama. The HillBilly's went way over the line on several ocasions and it just seems they are rnning out of spite now.
Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM
HRC has always had a significant "like-ability" problem. Since January this problem has gone from bad to worse. But more than that: she has infected Obama with it. He used to be Mr. Hope and fresh air. HRC has tarnished him to the point that he probably can't ever recover -- and he's the stronger candidate! Wonder who will step in to save the Dems?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM
Talk about shooting the messenger.
The article is dead on. Hillary's skyrocketing negatives are the predictable consequence of going negative (and reinforcing, with the Bosnia lies, the perception that she will say or do anything to win). You cannot win a general election if you are not credible, and polls show, generally, she is not credible.
Here's the elephant in the room: people do not like Hillary. Dismiss it as misogyny if you want (though most people don't even think of HRC as a woman) but it is true. And THAT is why she won't make up her deficit with superdelegates: they are people, and they don't like her either. Despite all the cr@p that has been flung Obama's way, the steady parade of supers and high-profile endorsements continues unabated. It is as if people are saying, "enough is enough". It also is not lost on people that Hillary is now appealing to rednecks whose loyalty to the party is the weakest among any identifiable demographic.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM
Perhaps you have missed all the DEMOCRATS who have stated they will not, under any circumstances, vote for the other guy (or gal)?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:19 PM
I get so angry and bitter when I hear those who know nothing about Hillary trying to define her. Hillary is aware that the far left members of the Democratic Party -- people who read firedoglake and are secure in their gender identity -- are the ones who will have a final say on who gets the nomination. You go, girl!
Posted by: twin_peaks_nikki | April 21, 2008 3:21 PM
Nisha, here is his blueprint for change... http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf ; Read it if you'd like. Perhaps I just bunked your message. Maybe there are some people out there that react to the word change, but Obama has captured a great deal of the "educated" electorate the actively seeks out knowledge rather than letting the TV tell them what to think.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:21 PM
Posted by: Joe. G. | April 21, 2008 3:22 PM
I also think that a LOT of people, including southerners and conservatives will vote for Obama simply to assuage their guilt over being closet or out and out racists over the years. A vote for O will help allow them to fell better about themselves.
Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:22 PM
Hillary has never been well-liked by any faction of the population, not since early in her husband's presidency. Her negatives have always been high. Fair or not, its a fact. I do not believe Hillary could win against McCain in a genral election, bec. of those negatives.
Obama is another story. He has low negatives, high positives across the board, EXCEPT with a large segment of white, less affluent, less educated voters, esp. in the South and Midwest.
So the Democratic Party super delegates get to decide between supporting a white woman who is not widely liked or respected, and a black man who must run against a lot of inherent racism.
Off hand, I'd say that the white voters who won't vote for a black man, are not gonna vote for a white woman named Hillary either. Those votes are all going to McCain. Leaving out those "Reagan Democrats", between Hillary and Obama, who can win the most states?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM
If Clinton 1. wins in PA by double-digits or 2. wins PA by a slim margin or 3. loses PA the SUPERDELEGATES will still be the deciding factor. After reading the venom each candidate's supporters are thowing at each other in posts, the SUPERS need to show their party some leadership and start endorsing their candidate of choice. Because, while the dems are going at each other and vowing to vote "McCain" if their candidate isn't nominated, the repubs and media are watching with utter glee from the sidelines. Reaffirms why I'm a registered Independent.
Posted by: VAreader | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM
And... if she wins Pennsylvania by double digits. What then? The media is flustered once again because voters (in this case PA Democrats) are not following the story line. Dammn it! Obama should have wrapped this up after his 11 mid-sized states in a row. But he couldn't. He can't finish her off. His senior people know this, that's why they will once again ask her to step down, even after she wins by double digits. ( Tuesday's Prediction: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%) The superdelegates are taking notes.
Posted by: mediahack | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM
The Republicans are playing a great strategy in making the people believe that Obama is the strongest candidate. The reality is the opposite and Obama will quickly deflate once they bite through his thin skin. This is the problem that the Democrats have when they let the extreme left liberal minds exercise any control. Their intelligence is always full of dreams and air.
So, it is up to the rest of us to impart some common sense in this election while there is a chance!!!
A vote for Hillary would be the only common sense solution!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:23 PM
I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. With every VICTORY she may enjoy, like the inevitable PA victory she will actually LOSE ground if she fails to win by a margin of less than 64%. Even a robust win of 10% will not be enough. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% in the win column from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 3:24 PM
The Media support for Obama is controlled by Repubs, that is a FACT. Now it would seem logical they would try and get the weakest Dem to run against McCain. I cannot see how Obama can win in Nov., but Hillary, by my count has 309 Electoral Votes and I find it hard to even get 200 for Obama.
Posted by: lylepink | April 21, 2008 3:24 PM
The Clinton's thought that they had the election "in the bag" ... they cultivated relationships over the last 10 years and believed that by giving they should receive... they failed to take in to account that every one that they gave to did not have enough clout to control the voting decisions of their constituents and so therefore the bewilderment set in and then the mistakes and misrepresentations of her positions on major issues and trips.i.e., Bosnia... resulted in people taking a closer look at her and realizing that she would do and say anything to get elected because she could no longer count on her "friends" to make it happen for her. Now she and Bill have alienated fellow Democrats and every one is just ready for her to get out of the race.. She implys that Obama can't win because of certain issues but these are issues that have nothing to do with anything... Obama is being attacked over the actions of others...politics is ugly and Hillary has proven that she is willing to compromise her dignity and drink with the boys..and tell tall tails about her father letting her handle guns when she was a child just to garner votes... she frightens me and I would rather have a man of principle in the whitehouse than a woman who would say and do anything just to get elected.
Posted by: Sabrina | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM
If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for Nader.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:26 PM
Posted by: jonathanR | April 21, 2008 2:07 PM ... the reason Hillary "loses" by winning is because she had a 20 point lead in PA just a few weeks ago, and if she wins PA now, it will be by no more than a just few points now. Such is the story of the 2008 campaign...Hillary started way way up, and slowly, slowly she has come down.
The more people have time to think, the more they lean towards Obama, it just takes longer to convince the more people there happens to be in the big states (look at other "big states" where she similarly began with large doule digit leads and won by much less).
Lets go to Denver if you want Hillary, because by then you will be the one 20 points down!!!!
---------------------------- You can give credit to the media and credit to David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, if Hillary's point spread is lower. The media has handled Obama with kid gloves that prevented voters from finding out anything about him except that he is a great motivational speaker. Also, David Axelrod targeted college students as an untapped group of voters just as the Republicans targeted the conservative base to get George W. Bush elected. He knew that these first-time voters paid little attention, if any, to elections, let alone a presidential election. He also knew that Obama could storm their campuses with his motivational speeches and his motivational words of HOPE and CHANGE and get their votes. These students are busy with their studies and don't have a lot of time to do any research on Obama and many of them just believe everything he says and are excited about being first-time voters.
On the flip side of your comment, the more people who have time to think after the media finally began to let us know more about Obama may be the reason that Obama wasn't able to storm Ohio and now Pennsylvania. He has outspent her at least 2 to 1 and should have had the nomination by now. Could it be that people have been given more time to think?
Hillary will win by winning, not lose by winning as you suggest.
Posted by: Ralph | April 21, 2008 3:27 PM
Obama can't win the national election. What will he say when asked in a debate with McCain -
"Mr Obama, how many times did you purchase or use 'hard drugs' like Cocaine?"
Most Americans put cocaine in the same category as crack and heroin, they are "hard drugs"
Unless all Democrats care about is "making a statement", electabiliy is what matters in the end.
I'm one of millions of Democrats that will vote for McCain, and will strongly consider leaving the Democratic Party completely, if Obama is the candidate.
He does not represent "hope" to me, he represents shame.
I'm disgusted that the press treats him like a saint and a savior when his record both in Chicago and the Senate is based on taking credit for bills he never worked on, as documented by articles in the WP and the NYT.
I'm disgusted by the behavior of the members of the far-left cult of Obama joining with the members of the far-right to destroy the center by lumping Bill Clinton's administration with George Bush's.
I'm disgusted by Obama's below-the-belt attacks on Senator Clinton and by Obama's supporters relentless attacks on individual Clinton supporters.
I'm disguested by the Obama campaign's attacks on ABC for the "crime" of asking tough questions.
Obama is an arrogant incompetent.
He didn't do his job in Chicago and didn't do his job in the senate.
I don't trust him to have his finger on the button and neither do millions of other Americans.
I trust Hillary. I trust John McCain.
My loyalty is to America, not to any one political party.
If Democrats nominate Obama, they'll telling everyone like me who is in the center and believes that Bill Clinton did a great job for America that they don't care about us or our votes, just like they don't care about the people of Florida and Michigan.
I'm angry and bitter, but not because of anything Bill or Hillary Clinton did.
I'm angry and bitter that my party, the Democratic Party, has stabbed Bill and Hillary Clinton in the back and thrown them under the bus.
I'm angry and bitter that my party, the Democratic Party is so in love with he youth vote that they've lost all perspective and that they don't care about experience and competence.
I'm angry and bitter that the Democratic Party has been taken over by "moonies" and forgotten about the middle class and what we want.
I'm angry and bitter that David Axelrod has played the press like a cheap violin.
Did anyone else notice that the headlines about the race are identical in both the NYT and WP -
If Obama's the nominee, McCain's the next President.
Posted by: Nominating Obama is political suicide for Democrats | April 21, 2008 3:27 PM
If Obama gets the nomination I will vote for Obama.
Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM
I also think that a LOT of people, including southerners and conservatives will vote for Obama simply to assuage their guilt over being closet or out and out racists over the years. A vote for O will help allow them to fell better about themselves. ---------------------------------------- This has most likely evaporated once it has been found out that Obama IS NOT the package that he has tried to sell to us: He is nothing more than a CHARLATAN trying to paint himself as the redeemer to save this nation. He has been CAUGHT IN THE ACT!!!!!!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM
Obama is nothing but a FAKE, DECEPTIVE AND CALCULATING RACE MONGERING Candidate. He has no JUDGEMENT, CHARACTER OR HONESTY. He wants to CHANGE Washingto but coddles CORRUPTIION in Illinois, particularly, the corrupt, indicted slumlord, Rezko. He surrounds himself with American flags but do not RESPECT them. He does not put his hand to his HEART. He has hoodwinked youths and liberal media by his SCRIPTED and BORROWED SPEECHES. He lacks JUDGEMENT when he subjects his children to hear the RACISTS AND divisive sermons of his pastor Wright. His church is no different than the Madrassas in Fundamentalists countries that preach hatred and destruction of America. Obama and his wife are influenced by wright, this is evident from their words and actions. Michelle tells us that she was not proud of America until her adult life and that America is MEAN. He belittles small town people. Women, Hispanics, Latinos and Asians will never vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee.
Posted by: UTWO | April 21, 2008 3:29 PM
Dan, when are you going to get over the unfavorability ratings of the candidates. Whether someone likes Hillary Clinton's personality is not paramount in this campaign. They liked George Bush and if he hadn't stolen Florida, Al Gore (the unlikable thanks to the press) would have won and did win the popular vote.
You are obviously dwelling on something negative that you think you can use to influence our vote against Senator Clinton. Well, Dan Honey, it's not going to work...we're not THAT stupid.
Posted by: hazwalnut | April 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Can your calculator SUBTRACT super delegates already announced for Obama?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:31 PM
Thanks Dan for the good analysis of Senator Clinton's problem. You forgot to add that she is engaging non-stop in character assasination and guilt by association attacks forcing Senator Obama to respond in kind.
The large un-decided response in the PA polling suggests one of the following results:
1. It largely represents anti-black voters who will turn out for Clinton. 2. It largely represents anti-female voters who will stay home. 3. It largely represents both of these types of voters all of whom will stay home.
Whatever the result, its a disgrace that so many PA voters can't free themselves from their biases and prejudices.
Posted by: Peter | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Your report stated: "Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mis-characterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996". This is basically the media's repeated maneuver to downgrade sen. Clinton on her minor bragging of the Bosnia trip, while disregarding Obama's distortion of history on JFK's assistance in getting his late father Obama,Sr. to US from Kenya in 1959, which was only reported by the Fact checking in WP. The fact is Obama, Jr is a habitual bragger, like his late father in Kenya, who was a habitual drinker, bragger and abandoner (of women and children).
Posted by: austin c | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Let me get this straight, Dan Ballz..
Hilliary wins Pennsylvania by 10 or more points after Obama outspends her there by a ratio of 3-to-1..
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM
This is news to me. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton used spiritual counseling from Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the Lewinsky scandal!!! I cannot fathom the resilience of Sen. Obama; to have been taking this crap from Hillary and not throwing the mud back. Hillary needs to learn a few lessons about being tough - at times "being tough" means "being decent".
Posted by: Aray | April 21, 2008 3:32 PM
If you are one who thinks that states like NY (where for some reason Obama seems to not have received any votes in over 80 voting districts--you be the judge of that one), NJ, PA, MI, and CA (Obama is now polling better than Clinton in CA)will suddenly crossover and go "red" just because Obama didn't win them in a contest between "democrats", then you are seriously delusional in your comprehension and grasp on reality(even Brit Hume will admit this).
The only 2 states that are really in play are OH and FL. And we all know that some stubborn, and bigoted voters in those two states will not vote their economic interests or ever vote for a black candidate, but would rather vote for the party who tricks them into thinking that they share their values on social issues. Also, posting sound bites from any one candidate's surrogate does nothing in the way of making the slightest of points.
Posted by: John Abrams | April 21, 2008 3:33 PM
If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for Nader too.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:34 PM
yellowdog, THANK YOU very much. This entire campaign has been "controlled" and manipulted by the media since the start. In addition to what you indicated, try to find Michelle's thesis, according to the school it has been removed until Nov 5, for reasons as the school states "doesn't what to be overlaoded for the students and alumni" boy isn't that convenient, and lets not forget Wrights sermon on how the US invented and infected everyone with it,(again, as you indicated, it's hard to find, but then the major media won't touch it), the AID's virus. Had this been Clinton or her associates, she would have been gone. I also agree the poster that indicates this has been set up from the start, Bill Clinton was trashed because he lied about oral sex in the White House and it has carried over to Hillary, but yet these same people have heard the the Presidential candidate acknowledge that he used cocain and illegal drugs, was associated with a terroist group and can't remember who he has associated with since becoming a Senator, yet according to them, "it's ok". I think he and his "cult followers" have watched the movie "Man of the Year" too many times and think it's real.
Posted by: Frankie58 | April 21, 2008 3:35 PM
Say no to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton presidential dynasties. Sen. Clinton is the past and is getting a free ride based on her husband's accomplishments, just like George W. Bush gained the US presidency as the spoiled son of a rich and politically powerful father. Sen. Clinton is a closet Republican, voted for the war, believes strongly in doing the bidding of her large corporate donors and if she becomes president will spend it redoing Bill Clinton's presidency, the same way George W. Bush upstaged his father, e.g., by deposing Saddam Hussein in the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. Sen. Obama is the future and will beat Sen. McCain in November, vote for Barack Obama now.
Posted by: Eric L. Prentis | April 21, 2008 3:35 PM
______________________________________ _____________________________________/ We all need to FLOOD the internet with details of the ((Balanced Budget Act 1997)) as to how inhumane much it has been to the suffering poor of this Nation! ______________________________________\ _______________________________________
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM
Obama can't win the national election. What will he say when asked in a debate with McCain -
"Mr Obama, how many times did you purchase or use 'hard drugs' like Cocaine?"
Less times than Sen. McCain committed adultery and hired prostitutes.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM
If McCain runs against Obama, and selects someone like Bloomberg as his running mate, you don't think that puts NY in play?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:36 PM
It's 3am in the morning, and there is a telephone rigning in WAPO's Gurlyman Loser Fearful Freddie Office,and who picks it up and hears,"Chief we have the every paper Smear Hillary Clinton and Praise The New Messiah Barack Hussein Obama Edition Ready To Print okay?" And Fearless Freddie ssys "Bring It On! Burn Baby Burn!" And that is how WAPO likes to cover Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign. Whatever happened to a fair and balanced press anyhow? Go Hillary! President Clinton in 2008!
Posted by: Sherry Kay | April 21, 2008 3:37 PM
"Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996."
What this means in plain english, the kind that explains why I now hate Hillary, is: She got caught lying over and over about a bogus sniper attack in bosnia."
Simple english please wapo. We deserve it, and so do you.
Posted by: jeffp | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Once Hillary is out of the way and Obama can campaign for the general election, he is going to crush Mccain. No one wants an old senile man who has to use a teleprompt to be president. He and the pope look familiar. Barely can move, barely can hear what he's saying, and the repubs have not rallied around him. There are still many repubs very stand offish. Hillary can not pull this country together. I, as a woman, am embarrased by her telling people Chelsea was jogging around the towers when they were hit. That girl was in her dorm watching it on TV like the rest of us. If she wins, the repubs have an arsenal attact ready.... here's just a tenth of it: HILLARY CLINTON On SOUTHERN WORKING CLASS WHITES in 1995: "SCREW EM" -Of all the Hillary Clinton scandals and cover-ups, none is more significant than her attempt to whitewash her own personal transformation from Goldwater girl to Marxist. No mainstream media organization has examined how she is determined in her new book to keep people in the dark about what Hillary biographer, the late Barbara Olson, described as her "roots in Marxism." "In her formative years," explained Olson, "Marxism was a very important part of her ideology..." Olson's important 1999 book, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), remains the best account of Hillary's communist connections and emergence as a "budding Leninist" who "understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost." As an example, Hillary's book gripes that the end to her illegal closed-door health-care task-force meetings, where a socialized medicine scheme was hatched, was the result of her opponents citing an "obscure federal law" in court. Hillary, a lawyer, never wanted the law to get in her way. 3) Mrs. Clinton's involvement with Treuhaft is no secret, although Hillary clearly doesn't want to talk about it. A New York Times obituary of Treuhaft, who died in 2001, said that he had "accepted a young Yale lawyer named Hillary Rodham (now Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) as an intern." A British newspaper, the London Times, said that "generations of liberal lawyers were groomed under his [Treuhaft's] tutelage, including a young Yale law student named Hillary Rodham. 4)These two obituaries are posted at a website in honor of Treuhaft's famous wife, British author Jessica Mitford, herself a member of the CPUSA whose lobbying of Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue was reportedly facilitated by Hillary. 5)Peter Flaherty writes, "Hillary's official biography prepared by the '92 Clinton campaign makes no mention of her stint as NWF chairman, despite the fact that she oversaw some $23 million in foundation assets. A few journalists, like Dan Wattenberg of The American Spectator, did report on the NWF grants during the summer of 1992, but the major media paid almost no attention. There was no need for Hillary to defend herself." Hillary also took advantage of Bill Clinton's radical connections, many developed in his trips abroad. Strobe Talbott and Bill Clinton had been Rhodes Scholars in England together, for example, and Talbott and his wife, Brooke Shearer, "became friends of mine," she writes. Brooke's brother, Derek Shearer, another Yale graduate, became a friend of Bill and pro-Marxist economic adviser to Clinton
Posted by: TaaTaa | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
I actually think Obama missed his big chance to win the nomination outright, by losing Ohio and Texas. He was on an 11 state win streak.
Hillary has to win Pennsylvania by double digits to stay in the race, but the fact that Obama hasn't done much with his huge money lead says alot about how weak a candidate he is in key democratic states like Pennsylvania.
Posted by: DCDave | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Clintonites, if you haven't already maxed out, give your $$ to Hillary's bankrupt campaign so she and Bill won't have to spend their millions to pay her bills.
Posted by: FirstMouse | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
"Less times than Sen. McCain committed adultery and hired prostitutes."
Are you sure about that (also, he "dated" a stripper once, but I'm not so sure it documented that he ever paid for sex)?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Too bad Edwards was not supported... he'd be a better candidate against McBush.
Posted by: Tommy | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM
Hispana, without mentioning Rezko or Rev. Wright (I know your M.O.), why won't people vote for Obama? Please, 1) Tell me why this man is so unelectable and 2) Tell me that you truly believe there is a substantial enough "conspiracy" of Republicans to get Obama elected. Last I recall, I've seen numbers where a greater portion of independents distrust Clinton over Obama, not to mention the wet-dream all Republicans must be having at the possibility of running against Hillary Clinton. So the question comes back around to you... do you have so little faith in the American public to elect a black man or is it that you, yourself, could not vote for a black man. Let's be honest, on most of the issues, Obama is more pro-worker (not supporting NAFTA, for instance) than Hillary. The only thing that has changed is the image, that has partially been created by the media and the Hillary campaign, that he is a foaming-at-the-mouth racist. So, other than on the issues of race, where does Obama stand to lose? A couple of months back it was experience, but that didn't really resonate with anyone; after all Obama (between his years in state and then federal legislature) technically has more in-job experience. Sure, my dentist's spouse may have sat in on many of his/her procedures, but that does not mean the spouse performing a root canal on me.
Posted by: SteadyState | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM
I'm not a fan of HC but OB has gotten a free pass from most of the media. The media picked him for his lean good lucks and booming voice. Tom Shales, Hertzberg of The New Yorker, etc., etc., etc. even torn into their own, Geo. Stephanopoulos & Charlie Gibson, because they finally, amongst all the brethren, asked repeated tough questions of the anointed one. Who do they think they are? Independent thinking, not cowed by PC or their sneering colleagues? What next, could we actually have a discussion about why BO has the MOST liberal voting record in the US Senate. Sure, he's gonna beat McCain ....
Posted by: lovinliberty | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
Hispana, it's not the "race card" if your candidate ACTUALLY subversively attacks Obama's electability based on his race. It's been a subtle campaign from the beginning to break him down that way. The way that the Clinton Campaign has subtley driven a wedge between white and black America has worsened an already bleak set of race relations.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 3:18 PM ------------------------------------------- So, you entirely missed my point because Obama and his camp are the ones who have played the RACE CARD magnificently from the very beginning throwing complaints to draw the black population to vote mostly for him. So, tell me that this has not been the case. Think about New Hampshire, South Carolina, Geraldine Ferraro, and many other examples. This has backfired because he has majorly lowered himself to be the candidate of a specific group. This, compounded with his leftist and racial connections is coming before the eyes of the public!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
"to her credit Clinton soldiers on"?
To deny reality to the detriment of the democratic party and the country as a whole is not to her credit. It is a sign that she is incredibly self-centered and egotistical.
Posted by: Sueb2 | April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
There are few MSM-types who consistently write about how large Hillary's margin of victory must be in all of the next six contests for her to win the nomination. Merely winning Pennsylvania is NOT enough; she's got to win it by 20-25 percent, according to some estimates. No poll has shown her potential victory to be that large.
Obama is like water being poured on a rock; it takes a while, but eventually the water wears the rock away. Obama's ability to hang in there and amass votes, states, delegates and DOLLARS is slowly taking out the Clinton campaign.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:41 PM
It seems to me, looking at this from a distance, that if it weren't for her dogged determination not to quit, that Hillary would have been written off long ago. It would take a near impossible set of results in the remaining primaries for her to actually win the nomination. Instead of significantly imroving, her situation has been getting worse. Most analysts expected her to win Penn by double digits, now they are wondering if she will win by single digits. Each passing primary and new set of endorsements makes the math of winning enough delegates less and less likely.
I've got nothing against Hillary (OK she is a bit cold, but I think her politics are fine) but I don't think her priorities in this election are sound. If she somehow gets the nomination but loses the election, then whats happens to this country. Obama has an almost insurmountable lead (most say it is statistically unbeatable), we would be much better served by her supporting the guy who is almost certainly going to win the nomination, rather than daily watching the two of them tear each other down.
Posted by: captbilly | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Considering that all of Clinton's wounds were self-inflicted, it's a miracle she's gone as far as she has.
Posted by: HaydenJ | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Regardless of the outcome of Pennsylvania, the likelihood that Clinton will get the nod as the Democratic Party candidate for president is extremely low. What she needs to be wary of is holding out so long that she destroys Obama's chances of winning. I suspect that if that were to happen, aside from her really strong supporters (like svreader, the loon), she and Bill will become the new Naders of the Democratic Party. That would be sad to me, but I can see it happening. I hate seeing a great familiy go down like that.
Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Why not let the voters decide instead of trying to effect the outcome? If you were as harsh on Obama as you have been on Hillary, the common voter would be thinking much differently. A person can think only with the information he or she has and the information you present has a definite agenda that has nothing to do with journalism.
Posted by: joeparadis | April 21, 2008 3:42 PM
I am a true Democrat. The Republicans will win the Presidential Race because all the big money people have so much invested in the republican party now they ain't gonna let anyone take this country away from them. The Rich own us, they will crook the little boy Democrats out one way or the other. The republicans will put all their bets on their boy. They have to. You will see the dirtiest campaign ever.
Posted by: Westexacan | April 21, 2008 3:43 PM
I wish this entire debacle was over. I had hoped that this election year would be different then the last two but I see it was all wishful thinking.
I'm sick of the mud-slinging, the pandering to the fears of voters, the name-calling, the "gotcha" politics. And I am thoroughly sick of the mainstream media and their agents of BS who take an issue and beat it till it's dead then beat it some more.
I'm sick of hearing about sniper fire, lapel pins, Rev. Wright, sixties left-wing terrorists, Cindy McCain's recipes, bad bowlers, bitter-gate, and all the other IRRELEVANT non-issues that fill the airwaves and the newspaper pages.
I'm sick of so-called "journalists" who haven't a clue about what matters to Americans and who perpetuate the "gotcha" politics to improve their ratings or readership. These "journalists" include (but are not limited to) Charles and George (the Idiot Brothers), Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Combs, Chris Wallace, Tim Russert, Joe Scarborough, David Gregory (what happened to you, David? I used to think you were fair and unbiased?), Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs (who seems to suffering from some sort of mental problem), David Brody, George Will, Michelle Malkin, the Washington Post, The NY Times, the Washington Times and any and all media who have subjected us to trivial nonsense during this election cycle.
Henceforth, I will get my news from Jon Stewart who is an "equal opportunity" basher. At least with Stewart you get a laugh.
Posted by: Gwen | April 21, 2008 3:44 PM
Also, just one more thing, taking a moment in a democratic primary where a bunch of dudes shout down a woman, and running it as your campaign ad isn't just stupid its also classless, but thats your guy Obama. Damn, maybe I will have to vote Republican for the first time in my life. :(
Posted by: DCDave | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM
It is amazing to me how no one has spoken out about the fact that the Clinton Camp continues to speak as though the smaller states as not relevant in this election. Even if Senator Clinton has won in the larger states, once Senator Obama wins the nomination and she keeps her word and works to make sure that we have a Democrat in the Whitehouse, she should bring all of her supporters over to the Obama camp.
Posted by: JG | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM
By the time they get to the convention Barack will have probably already been handed his subpeonas for the Rezko trial, but maybe he'll have supporters among the jurors
Posted by: bruce | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM
OBAMA WILL QUIT THE RACE!!!
Just wait and watch....I am not kidding! I am 100% sure Obama is going to quit the race Ross Perrot style very soon! Obama is under tremendous stress and currently is on Prozac.
Many do not know much about Obama's past but the US intelligence agencies know everything about him, his foreign connections, his handlers and her mother's role in Indonesia. His passport news was leaked deliberately so he may quit the race quietly. Obama's political life has been influenced and revolved aroung the left wing Afro Organizations, which were financed and supported by Islamic interests. These Islamic Arab interests were the fronts of Soviet intelligence agencies active in the Middle East and East Asia.
Ask Obama does he know any Ostanosov? Then look at his face getting red and sweat dripping!! The winner in this game is President Putin who may influence the US Presidential election.
Posted by: odinga | April 21, 2008 3:45 PM
You didn't mind seeing Monica go down like that.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
For all you that buy into the Obama can't win the big swing states. Remember, he redefines the map. All those big swing states were needed because you could not get the "middle of country." Second point, Obama does well with independents and Republicans. Most of those big state primary were Domocrat-only. Obama has the better chance of winning because he can bring in the other factions.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
>>This has backfired because he has majorly lowered himself to be the candidate of a specific group. Uh, like well-educated Democrats who don't buy into HRC's reborn working-class Annie Oakley gun-totin' act? I am proud to be part of a specific group of thinking people who "majorly" reject the meanness, viciousness, and super-cynicism of HRC. Ducking all illusory sniper fire that comes my way from the HRC Kool-Aid drinkers!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
Hispana, without mentioning Rezko or Rev. Wright (I know your M.O.), why won't people vote for Obama? Please, 1) Tell me why this man is so unelectable and 2) Tell me that you truly believe there is a substantial enough "conspiracy" of Republicans to get Obama elected. Last I recall, I've seen numbers where a greater portion of independents distrust Clinton over Obama, not to mention the wet-dream all Republicans must be having at the possibility of running against Hillary Clinton. So the question comes back around to you... do you have so little faith in the American public to elect a black man or is it that you, yourself, could not vote for a black man. Let's be honest, on most of the issues, Obama is more pro-worker (not supporting NAFTA, for instance) than Hillary. The only thing that has changed is the image, that has partially been created by the media and the Hillary campaign, that he is a foaming-at-the-mouth racist. So, other than on the issues of race, where does Obama stand to lose? A couple of months back it was experience, but that didn't really resonate with anyone; after all Obama (between his years in state and then federal legislature) technically has more in-job experience. Sure, my dentist's spouse may have sat in on many of his/her procedures, but that does not mean the spouse performing a root canal on me.
Posted by: SteadyState | April 21, 2008 3:39 PM -------------------------------------- The simple answer is that Obama DOES NOT have the necessary qualifications to lead this country in such crucial times. I would not risk my vote for someone who only preaches a good story but cannot back it up with a RECORD!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
She's a MONSTER and her whole family has become a NATIONAL DISGRACE. HILARY CLINTON...LIAR, SLEEZE, BILL CLINTON...LIAR, SKIRT-CHASER CHELSEA CLINTON...CAN'T STAND THE HEAT, WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS OR GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.
AMERICA LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THESE PEOPLE.
BARACK OBAMA 2008 BECAUSE HONESTY MATTERS! BECAUSE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS! BECAUSE INTEGRITY MATTERS!
Posted by: tIRED OF THE HILLABEAST | April 21, 2008 3:46 PM
To all of you Obama supporters who defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment:
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
Remember Ronald Reagan used to called the Teflon Man? Same with Obama. He lies and dissembles regularly but nothing sticks to him. Until the general election, that is, when he takes us all down in flames with him. -------------------------------- Why is the Teflon Man now, but won't be in the general election? This doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
You all are all crazy! I could not read all the attack post. Whew. I guess this is good for America's political process because in the past, well at least before the previous two Presidential nominaitons, America just lined up and handed the Presidency to candidates. G.W. Bush stole his first term with help from brother Jeb, same two who destroyed the Savings and Loans and he and DICK Cheney scared people into voting for him in 2004. John McCain and his swiftboat buddies will try and do the same thing. I really hope America proves to be more intelligent than that, this time! It does not seem that way. I believe Senator Obama dropped int he Gallup-poll, the only poll he seemed to have dropped in over the weekend because the people questioned on the gallup-poll fell pray to the media and Senator Clinton trying to paint him negative. Like I tell my foreign national wife, Americans can be easily swayed and easily influenced. That is why nutty ideas can make you money in this economy. You have access to 300 million suckers. Hey, I was not the first to say it, P.T. Barnum said it a long time ago. "A sucker is born every minute." Will America be suckered again by the status quo? Seems that way by some of these post.
Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
Hispana, admit it, you're really Howard Wolfson in drag, right? Your very creative (i.e., contorted) reasoning is straight out of the Queen of Mean's camp.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
People are so worn down from the Bush regime (regency?) that the Dems could elect a paper bag to the presidency this year.
Posted by: vtr08 | April 21, 2008 3:49 PM
Obama and his supporters underestimate McCain.
She can stand up the Republican attack machine.
She can think on her feet.
She can hire David Axelrod after Obama drops out.
She can hire Obama's Speechwriters.
Obama can't grow a new brain.
She can win the votes of
Posted by: Obama and his supporters underestimate McCain. Hillary Doesn't | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM
Hillary Clinton is the hands on best person for being PRESIDENT IN the ELECTION OF '08
she knows what she faces, she's faced it before...
the polls and poll takers or should I say
want to place her at their mercies,
big business is trying to get on board all three camps.
the CIA both present and former are all up the backside of the
it might as well be the USSR during the cold war...
the party, das republick CONNERS are attempting to snatch back power from the people who are heading for regaining power
by electing someone, Hillary Clinton, that understands what it takes to defeat
Oba ba man, he be talking the same scheiss that the
party selling him, he strong wit dat...
he know dah troot boyah...
right, and my name is rumpled foreskeing
.he duh dummest dummie in dis election for true
he dah what man's boy.
disguised as the negro playah...he duh playuh
and he playin for he self
Posted by: let's be honest here... | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM
Her most significant missteps came over her repeated mischaracterizations of her trip to Bosnia in 1996.
Posted by: Scott | April 21, 2008 3:50 PM
It is also important to remember that in the general election, Republicans who support the democratic candidates will also vote. Obama can still pull out the big states by those of us who have consistantly voted republican in the past and have had enough already. Go Obama 2008!
Posted by: expatwendy | April 21, 2008 3:51 PM
It seems to me that neither Clinton nor Obama have a fair chance in a match up with McCain. Prejudice is going to play a big role here in the defeat of Obama and Clinton at the hands of McCain in the general election.
Posted by: analyst | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM
This article surprises no one, any objective person knows Washinton Post is in the tank for Obama. Has anyone read Newsweek lately? Also, all of the pundits affiliated with the Post family appearing on MSNBC reenforces this, Fineman and Robinson. This is not an objective newspaper.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM
Can my calculator subtract superdelegates from Obama? No. It doesnt factor in the superdelegates. However Obama has netted more superdelegates in the recent months and the fact still remains she would need nearly 64% of the superdelegates to win. I am not sure even Obama could net a percentage that high. It matters none anyhow. As i said, play with the calculator and you will see the difficulty facing Hillary to win the nomination. The calculator notes the number of superdelegates needed to secure the nomination. As it stands now Hillary would need nearly 60% of those in combonation with landslide victories in all remaining primaries. Obama would need roughly 40% of the superdelegates to shore up the nom. Again the math is unkind to Hillary. That isnt my assessment, its merely math. http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM
Hillary can win the votes of the people in the political center, the majority of Americans.
Posted by: Hillary can win the votes of the center | April 21, 2008 3:52 PM
The main reason for the money amassed by Obama is due to George Zoros and MOVE.ORG croonies who have play acted many donations for him and WE SEE IT!!!!
OBAMA WOULD NOT BUY THIS CAMPAIGN because the american people are seeing through this dirty tactics!!!
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 3:53 PM
What about Obama's "slips". He has brushed off accounts of his questionable "associations", racist comments, insensitive comments and arrogant, condenscending manner. I think that the American public is finally getting a look at this guy and will ultimately both reject him and wish they didn't vote for him.
Posted by: LAMM01 | April 21, 2008 3:54 PM
Hang in there, Hillaristas...she is shoring up her weaknesses. Peter Paul has agreed to be her running mate.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:54 PM
I'd like to echo the sentiments of the handful of sane people who commented above me, that anyone who plans to vote McCain in the fall because they didn't get their first choice candidate, needs to take a good long look at the implications of such a choice:
McCain's only strength is his military experience, so what do you think his focus is going to be if he gets in. If you care about the economy, healthcare, education, science funding, or anything of actual use to our country be prepared to be disappointed. Hillary and Obama are both head and shoulders above this guy when it comes to having the will and the plan to fix our country, and I would vote for either in a heartbeat
Posted by: L.P. | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM
1) Obama is a racist? Really? Explain to me how he's a racist when his mother and grandparents who raised him are white? How is he a racist when his stepfather was Indonesian, AND Obama lived there during his pre-teen years?
2) You believe that he is only in favor ofAfrican Americans? Okay, so let's flip it...do you really believe that Hillary wakes up every day and says, "Hmmm, what can I do to help Latinos and African Americans today? I think not. Be real. Everybody will be sensitive to their own race. It's human nature. Tell me who in the White House has given a crap about inner city schools and REALLY working to end crime? It would be nice to actually have someone who is somewhat sensitive to those issues. Part of the demise (notice I said PART) of the black inner city community was caused by the influx of crack cocaine which was fueled by the Iran-Contra debacle of the '80's. Which, by the way, was NOT orchestrated by AA's.
Vote for whoever you want. That is your choice. But please, don't spread lies or form uneducated opinions. Get a clue!!
Posted by: Irritated on Capitol Hill | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM
As an independent, I would prefer Hillary over Obama any day. I am horrified at Obama's tax increase plans for increasing the payroll tax and the maximum salary for SS tax. If Obama does win, I will definitely vote McCain. I know for a fact he will not increase taxes, where as Obama is all set to increase taxes including the capital gains tax. I would hate to have McCain spend money on the Iraq war, but I would rather have that than Obama. BTW, I am neither white nor black, and could not care less if Obama was blue or green. The liberal media by pushing Obama (particularly CNN) has put me completely off him. I have not contributed to any one's campaign, but if Obama wins the democratic nomination, the McCain will get a good contribution from me. If Hillary wins, it will be hard to decide for me between her and McCain.
Posted by: upnorth | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM
Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black.
It has to do with him and his supporters sticking a shiv in the back of Bill Clinton.
We will never forgive you for that.
You're stoned on drugs if you think that we ever will.
Posted by: Obama will be stopped, either now or in November, and it has nothing to do with being Black | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM ------------------------------ svreader,
Your nonsense is getting very old. Obama will become the next president.
Posted by: Sandy | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM
That 64% is based on "uncommitted" super delegates -- Obama will continue to meltdown and super delegates are going to have to ask themselves why he can't win ANY big State -- my point was that 100% of ALL super delegates that switch their vote at any time right up to the convention.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM
whats worse,taking your kids to listen to a racist evry sunday or lying about getting shot at?
Posted by: gary | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM
This is a reminder to those democrats and independants who warn that they will vote for McCain if Clinton loses the nomination: McCain is a prisoner of lobbyists. McCain will keep the soldiers in Iraq He does not care about the economy and has no real plan to help those in trouble. He supported Bush's economic, diplomatic and military decisions and he will perpetuate them. His past is checkered with the savings and loan scandal where he was one of the 5 senators who were disciplined for improper behavior. He has a hsitory of writing letters on behalf of his friends with the aim of corrupting/influencing/bullying. He has been in washington so long that he's part of all that's wrong there. So before you execute your threat to vote republican next november, think about the above and ask yourself if that's what you are looking for in a president.
Posted by: JOHN OF CHICAGO | April 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Let me drop some more science on you. For those who think John McCain will easily defeat Senator Obama in the Fall, if the polls have some truth in them (I don't give a lot of credit to polls either, especially months in advance), then you are sorely wrong. I just came from the Gallup Poll and Senator Obama has a 49% to 42% advantage over Senator Clinton. Also, Gallup polling from April 17th indicates that both democratic candidates, but especially Senator Obama, are leading McCain in the "purple" states, you know those competitive states. Senator Obama has a 4 point lead on McCain. Real Clear politics with takes an average of several polls has Senator Obama leading McCain in a head-to-head vote also. So, again, polls mean nothing but it also means your words on here mean nothing too. Peace out! Lets see what tomorrow night brings.
Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM
Both Obama and Clinton are wasting precious energy. John McCain wins in November. The Democrats have spilled too much blood to recover from this. This is just entertainment at this point (and how entertaining it is).
Posted by: dcp | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM
I see you have bought into the only certain states matter. Current polling has her loosing places like Washington and Oregon, so i don't see hot winning a Penn. primary changes that. Ohh and i love how we talk about the past contest, you know she lost two in between March 4th and Penn. Media in the tank for Victim Hillary, refuses to acknowledge those states, especially Mississippi.
Posted by: Julian | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM
"In that time, her favorable rating underwent a 40-point swing among independents. In mid-January, 59 percent of independents said they had a favorable impression of her, compared to 39 percent unfavorable. Last week, it was the reverse: 39 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable."
I think that is a 19 or 20 point change, not 40.
Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM
Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Particularly telling, is the fact that Leon Panetta was present during Hillary's "write them off: screw them" remark. While Hillary sees herself as the "champion of the oppressed," there's always a kind of "good guy versus bad guy mentality." But Hillary has treated and continues to treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them she did: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Ps. Say goodbye to the small blond man with breasts, boys.
Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Hillary Clinton's Bosnia debacle was the absolute last straw for me. I once supported her, but her complete fabrications exasperated me beyond endurance. She either believed people would not check her story, or somehow could not. Her deception, combined with arrogance, caused me to abandon her. I simply couldn't take it anymore.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Can someone at the Post do a little math re the popular vote?
It's a very simple issue that NEVER gets raised: if all the states had primaries, Obama would be much, much farther ahead in the popular vote, but he would not be as far ahead in the delegate count. He won by huge margins in some caucuses, but that was among a limited number of voters. He would still have won those same states in a primary -- the % would have been less than the caucus, but the total # of votes would have been much higher.
Posted by: Bill in Georgia | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM
She never said there were actual shots fired. She claimed there was a THREAT of sniper fire.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:00 PM
Senator Clinton can not and will not win the general election against McCain. The Super Delegates have allowed the Clinton Drama to continue much too long in my opinion but it has given the Clinton camp every opportunity to come to terms with reality......... The Republicans would prefer to have Hillary as the nominee because McCain and Rove will crush Hillary. The Super Delegates know Hillary is cetainly the weakest link with the most baggage against McCain.
Posted by: VR, NC | April 21, 2008 4:01 PM
feastorafamine: Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM
That 64% is based on "uncommitted" super delegates -- Obama will continue to meltdown and super delegates are going to have to ask themselves why he can't win ANY big State -- my point was that 100% of ALL super delegates that switch their vote at any time right up to the convention.
------------------------------- AGAIN what part of the MATH do you not get? Every contest that Hillary gets less than 64% of the pledged delegates will require even higher numbers in superdelegates in the end. The math shows she needs a collasal number of the superdelegates even AFTER she won ALL, i said ALL the remaining contests by wide margins. Do you realize its possible for Hillary to need nearly 80% of all the superdelegates to win come time for the convention? The premise you put forth of an Obama meltdown is exactly what Hillary would need. So far i have yet to see that meltdown in any poll. Again i have no bias, i think Hillary would make an excellent president. I am simply willing to look realistically at the math.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:02 PM
As an independent, I am NEVER going to vote for the LIAR named "hillary".
I am NEVER going to support a DINASAUR POLITICAL CLASS
I am NEVER going to accept lobbiests, or a lobbiest-funded candidate like clinton.
Posted by: JBE | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Hispana, admit it, you're really Howard Wolfson in drag, right? Your very creative (i.e., contorted) reasoning is straight out of the Queen of Mean's camp.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 3:48 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methinks that someone is getting upset with my comments. No, I am just a Hispanic that sees through all the bamboozling being done here and would speak the truth.
Yes, I would vote for Hillary anytime instead of this manufactured candidate that comes to us with only empty promises and a great majority of you fail to see what is undeneath.
Posted by: Hispana | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM
But, pigs don't have wings and all the states don't have primaries. The fact remains that she just needs to beat him tomorrow by more than 94,000 votes in order to claim the lead in actual POPULAR vote.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM
"THE ATTACKING POSTERS," aka democrat posers
are most likely repulsive scammers....
everyone knows that George W. Bush is apt to drop down to his knees and give his friends BJ's as a reward....
SEARCH on LIPS George Bush Victor Ashe, Karl Rove, Guckert, Gannon, Lott, All Gay
and the people at the Washington Post know it too...
why aren't they taking down the people that brought you homophobia on a silver platter while Karl Rove was dancing sans pants in Hotel Lounges in Washington D.C. ??? because they want to give everyone the
right.....we see that in the title of this article don't we? the little shunts and schiess suckers have to go back 16 years to find an error of memory and hammer on it for 2 months....'cause they selling you Hillary and Bill
this paper does't have the balls to print the truth...
heck George W's father George H.W. was having children brought into a whitehouse as party favors, holding FESTIVE parties for those that did favors for the bush families, and George H.W. was returning the favor using children...as rewards...
so there's a double standard here....
repulsive scammers, aka trash walking and talking...
habitually lie, misconstrue and disinform as a party tactic...
they will join, suborn, subvert, subjugate and dismantle the truth and re erect
"what they are trying to sell," as the truth
the republick CONNERs have infiltrated the election...
and _they_ are pretending to be democrats
but you can verify every thing I have posted for yourselves
the thing about children being brought in to service the whitehouse
is a Washington Times story I believe in 1989
.you all heard about it dincha?
Posted by: let's be honest here.... | April 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Hillary has won every big state and will win Pennsylvania. Obama has won caucuses. Get real. Who is the winner? It is Hillary or the highway for Democrats in November. She also will get the lion's share of superdelegates. Those close to the process say it is Hillary.
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM
Truth time If you think the article was stupid, you are probably for Clinton. If you thought the article was great, you are probably for Obama. Clinton will win PA about 53 - 47 percent. She is weakened because her negative numbers as a whole are down to about 39%. She is weakened because she will not win the big victory she needs to really get back in the hunt. Looking at the rest of the primaries, Clinton and Obama will still be about as far apart after all the primaries, as they are now, which is about 130 to 150, with Obama in front. That means, Clinton must get about 75% of the undecided super delegates (and what makes them so super anyway). So, unless the bus falls off the cliff, Obama will win the nomination.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM
>>She claimed there was a THREAT of sniper fire. Yes, that makes me feel SO much better about her veracity. She also made the ludicrous claim that it was too dangerous for Bill to go, so he sent her. (Neglecting to mention that he also sent his beloved only daughter too.) She dissed anyone (e.g., Sinbad) who dared come forward with a different view of events, until the damning video showed up, showing the little children reciting poetry and presenting bouquets.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:04 PM
Once out of the primary situation Obama will have no chance in the general election but the point is moot. After his debacle in the last debate it is extremely clear that he is unqualified to be president. The super delegates will add that to the fact that Clinton has won all the important states and the nomination will be hers. Vote smart, vote Clinton.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM
Am I the only one can see the truth ? Hillary is not running for 2008 buy 2012 ! Stupid ! The Clintons are not as blind as we think they are ! They know they blow it this time and determind to do anything they can to make sure Obama loose to Mccain and then when 2012 comes, they can say " I told you so, this time choose me !" But here I have a news for Hillary: Obama will win and by the time you have a chance again will be the years of 2024 (2009-2017 and Obama's vp from 2017-2024) ! Go home now and don't be afraid, sweet heart, there aren't any Bosnia snipers out there.
Posted by: michelle | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM
Re: "meltdown" see me after the primary results tomorrow ; )
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM
My thoughts on political watchdog are that he is a Clinton voter and not a happy camper right now. The truth is that Obama will win these states even though he did not win them in the primary (Calif vote for McCain?? Get real). I would love to hear who those close to the process is that say it is Hillary. Most of the super delegates who have come out recently have gone with Obama.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:06 PM
I'm a Democrat with an Independent streak. I can't stand either Hillary or Bill Clinton, and now I even can't stand Chelsea! Please God, smite these people's campaign!
Posted by: Just Mark | April 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Slate's delegate calculator is the single most important tool in analyzing the future of the two candidates. As feastorfamine correctly pointed out, it is only possible for Sen. Clinton to win the nomination if she prevails in the upcoming primaries by margins higher than 12-15 percent in each one.
A glance at the record shows that she has not ever done this in the current primary race, not even in her home state of New York. There is no reason to believe that Sen. Clinton will gain in favorability over the next few weeks. So there is no reason to believe that she will win in PA, or NC or Indiana, or Oregon, or Puerto Rico by 12 percent or more.
The super delegates know how to do this calculation as well as the rest of us, which is why they have been endorsing Sen. Obama at the rate of one per day for the past two months. During this same period, Sen. Clinton has picked up five super delegates to Obama's 60.
Not all the partisan insults in the world will change the math on this.
If Obama wins the nomination, I am voting for Obama in November. Eight years of GOP misrule is enough.
Posted by: dee | April 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Hillary Clinton will win in Pennslyvania. Hillary Clinton will win the democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.
Posted by: GO HILLARY! | April 21, 2008 4:09 PM
in alexandria hillarys ground game has been lacking and dispirited. Its a shame. I really like the lady. But the truth is that hillary needs a hail mary, and Obama can play Hold the ball.
Meanwhile the republicans have "the indochinese candidate"
Posted by: pvogel88 | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM
Posted by: Goldie2 | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM
resort to one form of poisoning....
"a feeling," as a truth
that and linking someone else's truth to someone
republick conning party is trying to
disinform the United States Citizen in order to mislead them...
the crackers lost their way with the
homophobia based "gay marriage thing,"
and the papers outed them for it, right...
nope. they just sat by and watched a hate crime go down...
as they ate their salads at Dean and Delucas' or Paolo's and talked about the "crazie ness of Washington D.C."
they really should have been talking about the cowardice of a group of newpaper people
that sit around getting BJ's from the whitehouse in the form of payola,
they are here and well when the Washington Post bends over
to the corportocracy instead of protecting
hypocrisy reigns and the Washington Post gives it a seat
Posted by: republick conners | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM
"Most of the super delegates who have come out recently have gone with Obama."
According to Russert on "Meet the Press" 4 super delegates announced for Clinton last week, and 4 anounced for Obama -- she still has more super delegates than he does -- so what's your defintition of "most"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:10 PM
LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:
HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MOSLEM, BLACK- WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS
HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHIEST, WHITE - WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS
KANSAN, WHITE MOTHER AND HIS WHITE
HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG AND WENT
BACK TO HIS FAMILY IN KENYA.
HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MOSLEM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE
WAS SCHOOLED IN A MOSLEM SCHOOL
HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN
HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS, HOW?
HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL
WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER. HOW?
HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO- HAS NEVER HELD A
PRODUCTIVE JOB. THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST
NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES
HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE
HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE' BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN
CONNECTION WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND
DESERTED HER. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A 'CULTURAL' GENE. WHERE IS
THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE?
HE GOES TO A 'AFROCENTRIC' CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND
BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLDS PERCEIVED FAULTS
AND THEN REPEATEDLY COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH
HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO
BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN, RIGHT!!!
NO, I DO NOT SEE HOW HE COULD BE A UNITER AND BRING US TOGETHER,
I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.
Pass this around, somebody ought to wake up and see the DISASTER that
appears just over the Horizon !!!!
Posted by: JERRY WAYNE WILSON | April 21, 2008 4:11 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:12 PM
Obama has yet to convince me on one thing. How will he be different from the other politicians in DC? The latest debate between him and Clinton was a let down. His policies do not sound any different then the next politician over.
Ever since the primaries in Ohio and Texas could not deliver the coup de grace to Clinton. This alone says alot. What also worries me quite a bit is Obama draws his support form quite a few young voters. Yet the irony is this is the gruop of voters who vote the less.
What this country needs is a mother figure to hold the country together during these hard times.
Posted by: K2 | April 21, 2008 4:14 PM
a good example of a republick conner is
about 3 posts back from this one
he calls himself just mark
you are "just a mark,"
look up "appeal to emotion,"
that's what the schiesssucker is trying to sell you
Posted by: simplethings made visible | April 21, 2008 4:14 PM
Clinton's campaign was in trouble long before the hiatus between the Texas and Pennsylvania primaries.
Clinton's worst misstep was her elitist attitude toward us average folks. As an elitist, Clinton failed to see the incredible value millions of average Americans bring to a campaign.
When the campaign season began, Clinton was the "presumptive nominee" for the democrat party. The vast majority of Americans had never even heard of Obama. But, through the sheer power of average people, Obama catapulted ahead of Clinton.
Obama saw our potential and reached out to us. In return, he received--and continues to receive--millions of dollars in campaign contributions; thousands of volunteers to canvass and campaign on his behalf, and register new voters (tens of thousands will participate in the political process for the first time because of Obama).
Finally, Obama garnered the unwavering support of millions. The controversies surrounding Obama would destroyed any other candidate long ago. Steadied by the steadfast support of millions of voters Obama's campaign continues to thrive and move ever closer to the White House.
Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:17 PM
You will do everything you can to destroy her. You will someday be sorry for your dishonesty Shame
Posted by: Fordson61 | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM
Parhaps you missed his "elitist" comments?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM
What people seem to be forgetting: Obama is running against Clinton in the primaries. The argument that Obama can't win the big states is false. He has lost to Clinton -- not McCain. Some of the primaries have been skewed because Republicans have been voting in the Democratic primaries in some states and not others. Just because Obama has lost some states to Clinton doesn't mean he will lose to McCain.
Posted by: Nancy | April 21, 2008 4:18 PM
See dee for comments on Most superdelegates have recently come out for Obama. I know there is a web site that tracks who the super delegates are and who they voted for. I guess Hillary had a decent week, however if all she does is just break even with Obama the rest of the way, well, you do the math.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM
This article is an obvious attempt to remind PA voters that Clinton is not perfect. It's a shame how the media uses its influence to affect the democratic process when what it really should be doing is reporting on it.
Posted by: someguy | April 21, 2008 4:19 PM
Similarly, just because Obama has won some [smaller] states instead of Clinton doesn't mean he will win those over McCain.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:20 PM
Yes, Senator Clinton has had missteps, which have been magnified by pro-Obama so called journalists like Balz. But she is resilient and has recovered after each one, which is a of course story never reported by the likes of WAPO pro-Obama staff. This is just more of the same stuff. Spare us. PA voters please put these chattering pro-Obama so called jouralists out of their misery.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 4:21 PM
Like everyone following the primary, I am getting tired of the sniping, negativity, arguments about electability, etc.
I prefer Obama and will be voting for him in the South Dakota primary BUT I will vote for whichever is the nominee. Either would be heads and shoulders better than McCain and endless war, endless tax cuts and deficit spending, far right supreme court justices and whatever other issue is important to you.
Both Obama and Clinton will be unelectable in the Fall if we don't come together. I assume we will.
Posted by: birdman | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM
Obama is God's bless to us. Go Home Hillary. To write a vivid fiction book about Bosnia sniper.
Posted by: geerees | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM
We Americans are the riches and stupidest people on earth. We are so controlled by the media and spin to the point most of you believed G Dub and the boys were not lying. The ABC debate was about the only honest assessment the media has given itself. Jerimiah Wright? How many of you would leave your soroity, gym, pokere club, job, family function, friend (get the picture?)because you may not agree with ones racial views? I know many mixed marriges where it is accepted on the outside, but inside BOTH families they bare still CRACKERS and SPADES. Get real and grow up America! Do you not think that the Clinton baggage will not come up? Does Obama have any? Probobly not as much. I hope he gets elected just to spite our stupidity (I'm a vet)and collective ignorance as a nation. WE are responsible for the last eight years. I will laugh all the way to the bank (inflation and all) when he is elected....
Posted by: walterrock | April 21, 2008 4:22 PM
It's about delegates. She has no chance. Zero. She is not going to be the nominee. So the sooner her campaign folds the better.
And considering she is going more into debt every day and is incapable of raising money, it is just a matter of time.
Posted by: Brendan | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Obama is a worried man, he just pulled out of the scheduled debate in NC with Hillary. She beat him in Philadelphia and he's too chicken to risk getting beat again.
I mean it has been a great day for the great one. He just picked up an endorsement from Hamas.
At last, Obama's mentors are coming home to roost.
Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM
From above: "I would hate to have McCain spend money on the Iraq war, but I would rather have that than Obama."
And there it is America; the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) effect. So instead, I ask, how should we take care of the mounting debt outsourced to other countries (mind you China, of all places) to pay for our war? By all rights, as a complacent electorate accompanied by complacent politicians, we deserve the economic situation we are in. We are fine to go out and consume, consume, consume mounting both individual and governmental debt and then we just push it off on the next generation... someone is going to have to take care of it. Taxes suck, I agree, but I'd really like to know how else we are going to pay our debts off as well as still be able to provide for our citizens. We sit and help rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq while our infrastructure crumbles. I think that Bush and Cheney should HAVE to move to Iraq until everything is cleaned up; Obama or Clinton fan, I think we can ALL agree with that.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:23 PM
After tomorrow's vote in PA, she will also gain the lead in the total POPULAR vote too.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Obama has been weakened more, in my opinion. Consider the following, much of which has recently come to light: Obama said small town people are clinging to antipathy to people who aren't like them. You don't get to the White House by painting small town people as bigots. He won't disown his hate-filled racist pastor Wright (who married him and baptized his children, and who he says is like an uncle to him). Obamas association with shady characters like Ayers, Auchi and Rezko disqualifies him for President both judgment and character-wise. People are known by the company they keep. Wearing a flag pin during the last debate would have shown where he is coming from and put him ahead in the polls next Tuesday. Oversight? I doubt it, and so do the majority of Americans. His behavior in the last debate shows he don't want to discuss the above things. That's because past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, and he understands that people know this. In Obama's book, Dreams of my father, Obama says: "The person who made me the proudest of all though, was Roy (his half-brother). He converted to Islam." In his book, Audacity of Hope, he says he "looked to Lolo (his stepfather) for guidance", and that Lolo followed a brand of Islam. In Dreams of my Father Obama said "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school" "I studied the Koran." Clearly Obama's past concerning both his judgment of associates and opinion of Muslim beliefs is unacceptable for a senator, let alone the Presidency. But he does get some support. I guess that's because the more flawed the candidate, the more their equally flawed supporters identify with them. In other words, those who support Obama are of his own ilk. Birds of a feather flock together, you know.
Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 4:24 PM
"Yes, Senator Clinton has had missteps". Why don't we just call a lie, a lie? Unless, of course, we are inclined to parse what the definition of is, is ;-) In which case, of course, we'll be inclined to rationalize how sleep deprivation can cause delusions...
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Clinton uses Pearl Harbor, bin Laden images in new ad
Posted: 02:30 PM ET Clinton is launching a new ad that includes images of Osama bin Laden
(CNN) -- With only one day left until voters in Pennsylvania head to the polls, Hillary Clinton launched a television ad there that includes images from the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Osama Bin Laden.
"It's the toughest job in the world," a narrator states in the 30-second spot. "You need to be ready for anything - especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing, and an economy in crisis.
"Harry Truman said it best - if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Who do you think has what it takes?"
That comment appears to echo Clinton's recent criticisms of Obama for expressing disapproval of the ABC News debate last week during which the Illinois senator was asked several pointed questions.
"Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House," Clinton said Friday. "In fact, when the going gets tough, you just can't walk away because we're going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. I think we need a president who can take whatever comes your way."
Obama-loons, If I didn't know better, I'd say Hillary's calling Obama a PU$$Y..
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:25 PM
an anonymous poster wrote: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
No, Clinton is not weaken becasue she won in Ohio. Clinton is weaken becasue she lost in the popular vote and/or delegate count in Iowa, Nevada, South Caroline, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii,Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, District of Columbia, Maine, Virgina,
Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM
I cannot believe that 35% of the US population is going to forgive Obama. He's winning the battle, but may lose the war. Stupid.
I don't think Hillary deserves the Presidency because of her gender, but shoving her out of the line is no way to claim your birthright.
If Mama ain't happy, nobody's happy.
Posted by: Obama Mama | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM
If Obama drives a car off a cliff and dies, then yes, after tomorrows PA vote, Hillary will have more populate votes than Obama, unless you are including Mich and Fl, which as we all know, Hillary has tried to change the rules on after the vote.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:26 PM
You guys do not give this woman credit for anything. Whether she wins or loses, she can't win.
Posted by: sheralyn | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM
The AP (and, therefore, PBS) count has always been off a bit. As I said, above, as long as she beats him by at least 94,000 votes tomorrow, she will re-claim the lead in total POPULAR vote as well.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM
Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:28 PM
The Washington Post is losing it.
The one person who has weakened his campaign is John "I Kiss Religious Extremist Butt" McCain.
It's time the crappy media in this country begin to focus on the Bush clone trying to pretend he's a real candidate at 72 years old, someone who voted against children's health care, for every stupid aspect of the Iraqi war, and for every unConstitutional action proposed or simply taken by the criminal Bush administration.
Focus on the garbage running for president - the Republicans best shot is THIS loser? - and leave real candidates like Hillary and Barack the f--- alone.
Morons. How much is the GOP paying the Post for this slanted junk news? If McCain can't be beaten even by Howdy Doody, then elections in this country are a farce and the country an irretrievable fascist state.
Posted by: SteveCO | April 21, 2008 4:29 PM
If by some hook or crook way, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she will not be elected President. The young who are backing Obama will not vote. The blacks will also be disappointed and will not vote. Me being a white male, retired, and 65 yrs. old, will not vote for Clinton. I believe the American citizens have had enough of the Clinton's rhetoric and bullsh*t... I voted for Obama in the Ohio Primary and plan on voting for him in November!!! Wake up America. It's time for a change in Washington!!!
Posted by: satchnthesaint@verizon.net | April 21, 2008 4:29 PM
Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
an anonymous poster wrote: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!"
Clinton is weaken becasue she lost in the popular vote and/or delegate count in: Iowa Nevada South Caroline Alabama Alaska Colorado Connecticut Delaware Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Kansas Minnesota North Dakota Utah Louisiana Nebraska Washington Virgin Islands District of Columbia Maine Virgina Wisconsin Maryland Texas Vermont Mississippi Wyoming and the Democrats Abroad
Posted by: Catherine Houston TX | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
HILLARY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT PROMISED TO BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN IN THE DEBATE
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
94,000 votes? You are including FL and Mich, which the rest of society does not include. If you include all the votes that count, then he is ahead by 800,000 votes. Yes, that does also include the caucasus.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:32 PM
"If by some hook or crook way, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she will not be elected President."
You sound stupid. Does John "Bush Clone" McCain have some hidden, about to be released skill set we're all unaware of? If not, this liar and political coward will be mincemeat no matter WHO wins the nomination.
Why not go join the GOP with such spineless assertions? I'll vote whoever wins the Democratic nomination. So will the rest of the country.
We're sick of anti-Constitution far-right nutcases, and boy, does Temper Boy McCain fit *that* bill.
Posted by: SteveCO | April 21, 2008 4:33 PM
Perhaps you need to (re)read the article, which claimed that she's been weakened SINCE Ohio (and, therefore, SINCE all of those other States you just cut and paste): i.e. "more weakened candidate than she was on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries."
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:33 PM
Please monitor Bill Clinton roaming around college campuses. He is a dirty old man. Hillary is the past. The Democrats will move on with Obama.
Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:34 PM
Are you telling me obama will loose California and New york to the republicans ? Ha ! And Hillary would have more chance to win the red states from republics then Obama ? Ha ! Ha ! Get real !
Posted by: lanlan | April 21, 2008 4:34 PM
SHE IS NOT WEAK GIVE HER THE AIRFORCE and BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN
NEOCRATS NEOCONS UNITED against them
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM
My defintion of "most" (Superdelegates) is the tide of superdelegates endorsing one candidate or the other in the last few months. Hillarys lead in superdlegates HAS grown smaller. MOST of the superdelegates pledged over the last several months have gone to Obama. I will most certainly get back to you tommorow after Hillary wins PA by leass than 14%. Anything less then her devide grows larger. I know you dont want to hear this but short of that wide a vctory she loses ground. With each contest left she would need even larger wins by percentage. Its called math. Not my endoresemnt for Obama. And thank you Emily for merely doing the math without judgement, in this election cycle of hatred, innuendo and anger i appreciate a level head.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM
I will not vote Democratic if Senator Obama is the nominee. I cannot stomach the Wright, 9/11 comments. I assure you if that had been preached in my church and I was not there I sure would have heard about it!!!! Too many convenient stories by Senator Obama. He is a ticking time bomb and we can say hello to President McCain if Senator Obama is the nominee. Remember, all of the questionable issues came up after most to the caucus' and primaries.
Posted by: kt | April 21, 2008 4:35 PM
Posted by: rentamob | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM
P.S. yes, I am counting the voters in Florida (and Michigan) just like Al Gore did in 2000.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM
The only numbers that matter are the Electoral College numbers. Just ask Al Gore.
The Republicants NEVER take their eyes off it. The Democrats ALWAYS let superfluous arguments and numbers distract them. I swear the have political ADHD.
Obama has not, and most likely will not, win enough states to become president, and his latest mangled words about rural Americans and his long friendships with people who appear to be America-Haters will do nothing to help.
Posted by: jmcauli1 | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM
I can hear it now, it was because Obama spent more money, it was the manager's fault, it was the media, it was the Blacks, it was the strategist, maybe it was even Bill's fault -- but nevernevernever Hillary's.
Posted by: Bodo | April 21, 2008 4:36 PM
Definition of weakened is that you are not as strong now as at some point in the past. Since Ohio Double digit lead in PA, gone Positives down to 39% Trailing Obama and McCain in most national polls. That would fit the definition of weakened, regardless of whether she does win in PA or not.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:37 PM
_____________________________________ \____________________________________/ ........................................................................... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII We all need to FLOOD the internet with details of the ((Balanced Budget Act 1997)) as to how inhumane it has been to the suffering poor of this Nation! ........................................................................... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .___________________________________ /____________________________________\
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:37 PM
Why only 14%? Why not move the goal posts all the way to 114%?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM
Obama WINS and we all win. The America that has lost it's way and standing in the world will RISE UP again. (a win for Clinton will be the same old ... including the lying and scandals.
Posted by: Dan | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM
NEOCON NEOCRATS UNITED against THEM
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM
Sorry, but due to the stupidity of the democratic leaders in Mich and Fl, counting those numbers is flawed. Had they not moved their dates, all the candidates running would have campaigned in FL and Mich and I am positive Obama would have run very close to Clinton, if not out right have beaten her in one or the other. You cannot change the rules after the fact. All candidates agreed to them and Clinton is trying to change them after the fact. Get angry at the party leaders.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:40 PM
Posted by: NEOCONS | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM
"Obama saw our potential and reached out to us."
He didn't have far to reach.
Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM
So, Hillary's lies have come back to haunt her, have they? Mrs lie and distort to get elected may find that her hypocritical attacks on Obama are less effective than she needs them to be, and her campaign mismanagement is a good indicator of how she'll run the country if elected. It is so obvious that Obama is the better candidate. Ignore the racist screaming about electability; people are smart enough to know that they'd rather have an inexperienced Obama than a pathological liar and demogogue in Hillary Clinton. If the Party elite hadn't been trying to shove her down the throats of the voters, we might have been rid of her long ago. Time to get together behind the better candidate - Obama!
Posted by: About Time | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM
Catherine Houston TX on April 21, 2008 at 4:17 PM: "Clinton's worst misstep was her elitist attitude toward us average folks."
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:41 PM
Do we need mother Pinocchio in Washington? Enjoy the show...
Posted by: SomeName | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM
Hilarity Clinton was promising the Indian government increased outsourcing of jobs to India. How does that square with her telling people in Ohio and Pennsylvania that she wants to bring jobs back. http://www.indianembassy.org/India_Review/2005/April2005.pdf There's even a nice photo. Perhaps her reassurances to India match her failed promises in New York. Remember, she promised New York voters to bring back 200000.00 jobs. And she netted a LOSS of 30000.
Posted by: Phil Douglas | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM
McCain Kennedy cheap labor NEOCON NEOCRAT WARS
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:42 PM
Hillary Clinton is a PROVEN liar. Her Bosnia lie is but one example. She says she opposed NAFTA, but campaigned for its passage for her husband. She says she hunted as a youth only to gain favor with sportsmen. Anyone who supports Clinton has little care for the truth.
Posted by: joseph | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM
PA small town "Republicans" are registering as dems and will be voting for Hillary. This will be another Texas. Limbaugh wins dems. lose.
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Why only 14%? Why not move the goal posts all the way to 114%?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:38 PM
--------------------------- Why only 14%??? UMMMMMMM can u say again MATH? Its called MATH. See numbers are taken, added together, subtracted and you get answers, results. I have no interest in moving ANY goalpost. The goalposts are clear. 2,024 delegates needed to win the NOM. 10 states remaining, and a proportion needed by each candidate to win. THOSE are goalposts. You may not like the goalposts but they are what they are. Again Hillary would make a fine president. I have NO bias. I have math. I add and in doing so i get a better picture of the REALITY.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Fine, if you don't want to count the votes in Florida and Michigan -- just don't tell Al Gore -- she needs to beat him by 717,086 votes tomorrow to claim the lead in total POPULAR vote.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:44 PM
Hillary is not an awful person. She is a skilled politician still playing the obsolete politics of the 20th Century despite the times having marched on. More and more of us are slowly awakening from the slumbering spell of the politics of fear and division. In the years since the last Clinton administration we have experienced at closer and closer levels the sufferings of our planet and our neighbors around the world. This has begun to change our experience of ourselves as individuals, as a nation and as citizens of the planet. More and more we become aware that what is happening in the world is not the fault of the Bush administration but rather the product of the 20th Century mindset.
So what would have been a tactically brilliant campaign 8 years ago now seems strangely out of step with the times. This more than any personality attribute Hillary possesses is what lies behind her dramatic free-fall, in which she only temporarily slowed the plummet by getting a favorable result in relatively staid Ohio and may slow it yet again tomorrow with a hollow victory in Pennsylvania. But it won't be enough to turn back the clock or turn out a win in the hearts and minds of the still-silent Superdelegates.
Posted by: Brian | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM
I am using MATH, too, feastorafamine.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM
The Clinton campaign's argument that Obama is "unelectable" is risible. Since when does the candidate who is LOSING--as measured by popular vote, number of contests won, elected delegates, total delegates, total campaign contributions, number of contributors, any measure you choose---gets to say that the candidate who's WINNING is "unelectable"?
Granted, the Democratic Party is currently divided and each candidate has well defined strengths: young voters, African-Americans, upscale college-educated voters, independents and moderate Republicans for Barack, and older white women, working class whites, and Hispanics for Hillary. Neither represents a majority coalition. But if by that token Barack is "unelectable," then so is Hillary. Either candidate will need to heal the wounds and reassemble the Democratic coalition to win in November, but there's no reason on God's green earth to think Hillary would be in better shape than Barack to do that, especially if she wins by persuading superdelegates to overrule the expressed will of the voters---her only plausible path to the nomination.
So far it's Barack who has run the smarter, more efficient, nimbler, and more effective campaign, coming from nowhere as the longshot insurgent to overtake a lumbering Clinton campaign that started with every advantage. If one of these candidates looks "unelectable" it's Hillary Clinton who began as the preemptive favorite and is now locked in a close, must-win, do-or-die battle in Pennsylvania, just to keep her Titanic of a campaign afloat. It's hard to see how any superdelegate in their right mind could take her "electability" argument seriously when Hillary's campaign has been defined by one long series of strategic and tactical blunders, missteps, and squandered opportunities. And if this is how she runs her own campaign, I shudder to think how she'd run the country.
Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, M
Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM
Anyone from staid Ohio on the line??? Someone has called you boring!!!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:46 PM
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
What would be really nice is if people would stop using the "Hillary wins the big states" argument. For the record, I support Obama.
To make the connection between two Democrats (Clinton vs. Obama) fighting for their party's nomination in any state, let alone "big battle states" as a lead in to how either candidate will fare against an opponent from the other party (i.e. McCain), is very reckless.
One would have to make outrageous assumptions about how either would actually fair versus an opponent from the other party. You just cant make the connection; different voters, different dynamic (i.e. only one gets the nomination), and a different time.
One can argue for a candidate who has more delegates and more of the popular vote.
Posted by: Stuart | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Do you think that Hillary beating Obama by 717,086 votes tomorrow would be "a hollow victory" in Pennsylvania?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama's judgment told him that starting a war in Iraq would be a big mistake and he forcefully said so. Much to the contrary later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for funds authorizing President Bush to begin the Iraq war. When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees. It was Barack Obama's judgment that it would be very much preferable for the next President of the United States to be elected by the American people without the distorting influence of the money peddlers in Washington. Suppose the 44th President of the United States is someone who, among many other things, has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable. Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns solely from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? That's the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who don't seem eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, the Washington money peddlers who currently arrange to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning, and whom they can then "work with" later on. This election is not about whether you happen to be a woman or a man, or whether your father was a black man or a white man, an Asian or a Hispanic. This election is about the future of our country. We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy. Both the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. know this and have recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama's integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president. It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in all of the other states soon to vote in presidential primary elections to stand up and be counted. It's time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming American democracy by voting for Barack Obama.
Posted by: William | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Pennsylvania Governor Rendell Praises Farrakhan and NOI This is the transcript of former Mayor, Ed Rendell, who is Governor of Pennsylvania and the states most influential supporter of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, This is the transcript of former Mayor, Ed Rendell, who is Governor of Pennsylvania and the states most influential supporter of Presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking to a packed audience at Tindley Temple United Methodist Church on April 14, 1997 at rally: "A Solution Too Heal The Racial Divide." The then mayor was the principal organizer of the rally that brought together diverse religious, political, and civic Philadelphia leaders, with Nation of Islam leader, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker. (more)
Posted by: moteague | April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
I have been knocking on doors for Obama in PA for the last three weeks and indeed it is striking to see the socio-economic divisions between supporters of each camps.
I can safely say that if you live in PA and are missing a lot of teeth, then chances are you're a Clinton supporter.
All of the college educated voters I spoke with were going for Obama.
I encountered many lots of hostility and many racists. One voter told us to our faces that he was a racist and wouldn't be voting for Obama.
Posted by: vbalfour | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM
Minor mix-up used to MISLEAD average working class white folks
".............they "VOTE FOR" guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM
Hillary Clinton has had a long, depressing fall from where she was one year ago. Then, she had the money, the nepotistic connections, and the backing of the Democratic Party elite. But she has run her campaign with ineptly, and with spectacular bursts of incompetence, and that is why she is where she is now: losing to a former unknown rookie Senator from Illinois, and going broke too. She has proven to me that she is simply too incompetent to be entrusted with the Presidency. I just can't take her anymore. If she can't run her campaign well, I cannot have confidence that she will run the federal government competently either.
Posted by: FilmMD | April 21, 2008 4:48 PM
I was neutral on HRC at the beginning of this campaign. Since then, I have had the privilege of seeing her true colors, and they are not pretty. A mis-managed campaign, outright lies (the Bosnia story for one), arrogance (i.e., her grudgingly given explanation about the Bosnia lie, "So I made a mistake"), accusing Obama of running negative ads when she unrelentingly took the lead in this tactic. Spin spin spin. I don't need any more politicians of her ilk.
By the way, where is the media coverage of her and her husband's upcoming subpoened testimony in the Paul v. Clinton Campaign Fraud case?
Posted by: Janet | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM
"I will not vote Democratic if Senator Obama is the nominee. I cannot stomach the Wright, 9/11 comments. I assure you if that had been preached in my church and I was not there I sure would have heard about it!!!! Too many convenient stories by Senator Obama. He is a ticking time bomb and we can say hello to President McCain if Senator Obama is the nominee. Remember, all of the questionable issues came up after most to the caucus' and primaries"
OMG, you cannot talk about 9/11 that way at all. Get real, what Rev. Wright said, though over the top, is somewhat true. We are reaping our foreign policy mistakes that we've sown. Does that mean that ~3,000 US Citizens DESERVED to die? No. But, if we cannot have INTELLECTUAL conversations (i.e. more than one-sided) about 9/11 and it's causes, we are doomed to see yet another attack. It's kind of like the Hydra, you can keep cutting off as many heads as you like to have two grow back but if you don't address how they grow back, they will continue to do so in greater mass.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM
I am using MATH, too, feastorafamine.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:45 PM
------------------------------ Really? Gimme some math. Sock it to me. I know i provided mine. And without any bias in terms of who i want to win. Are you now saying you have a better idea of the difficulty Hillary has in winning the Nomination? Are you saying you have done the math and know the difficulty involved? Or have you done the math and came up with something different than i have? If so i would LOVE to hear about it.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM
There are plenty of polls out there showing McCain beating Obama head-to-head.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Arggh! Cut off in mid-sendtence. To continue:
Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, M
Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM
I work with three people who are anti Hillary. These people voted for Obama in the Primiary simply because they do no like her. However, they are republicans who have no intention of voting for Obama in November, they just did not want her to win. Period. How many more of these people are out there giving Obama an inflated margin over Hillary? I, for one, cannot vote for "change" if I do not know what the "change" is. If she does not get the nomination, it will be the first time I vote Republican.
Posted by: Clinton Supporter | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM
FIRE ....FIRE ON THE CLOSED FACTORY ROOF
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM
Clinton Support, while I want to agree with you, I would point out that there are a number of people (take Texas) who are rep who vote for Clinton because they think (and I agree with them) that McCain will have an easier time beating Clinton than Obama. So they want Clinton to win the nomination.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Technical glitch. Here's the finish:
Oh, right, I forgot. "She's won the big states." Well guess what? Under our constitution, ALL states count, not just the big states. Many of the big states---California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts---will vote Democratic whoever is the nominee. A few--Florida, Ohio, Michigan, maybe Pennsylvania and New Jersey---are true battlegrounds. Current polls show Hillary doing only slightly better than Obama against McCain in Ohio, and significantly better in Florida. But Obama is actually doing better than Clinton against McCain in Michigan, and the two fare equally well in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. But you need to look beyond the "big states." Democrats also need to win the Pacific Northwest, but Hillary is running dead even with McCain in both Washington and Oregon (total 18 electoral votes, almost equal to Ohio), while Barack has solid leads in both states. Similarly in the Upper Midwest: Barack holds comfortable leads in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa (total 27 electoral votes, same as Florida), while Hillary is barely even with McCain in Minnesota and Wisconsin and trailing badly in Iowa. Barack is much stronger than Hillary in the Mountain West, including Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico (total 19 electoral votes, almost the same as Ohio); in fact, Hillary isn't even close to being competitive in Colorado, where Barack leads McCain. Throw in Texas (34), North Carolina (15), South Carolina (8), Virginia (13), Nebraska (5) and North Dakota (3)--all states where Obama is currently competitive and Clinton is not, most of them (apart from Texas where she was helped by a big push from Limbaugh Republicans) states where Clinton showed extreme weakeness in primaries and caucuses---and it's clear the "electability" argument actually cuts strongly in Obama's favor.
Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Is this a joke??? Come to Texas you can find > 100,000 Limbaugh-folks who voted for Hillary. They are doing the same in PA small towns..
______________________________________ I work with three people who are anti Hillary. These people voted for Obama in the Primiary simply because they do no like her. However, they are republicans who have no intention of voting for Obama in November, they just did not want her to win. Period. How many more of these people are out there giving Obama an inflated margin over Hillary? I, for one, cannot vote for "change" if I do not know what the "change" is. If she does not get the nomination, it will be the first time I vote Republican. Posted by: Clinton Supporter | April 21, 2008 4:50 PM __________________________________________
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Here's some math 94,001 > 94,000.
Once she can re-gain the total popular vote, Hillary Clinton will hang on all the way to Denver.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:53 PM
Yeah, there are plenty of polls "out there" showing McCain beating Obama. I am talking about averaging 7 polls and Obama beats McCain. Go to Real Clear politics website, not just the poll that favors your candidate.
By-the-way, I don't think Senator Clinton is a bad person. I think she will make a better President, hands down than McCain. He is clueless to domestic issues. I just think Senator Obama is a better, fresher, untied to big interest choice! One thing we will get with Senator Clinton is universal health care, rather we like it or not!
Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
THANK YOU and please send $$ more I still owe Mark Penn or he will make sign the comlumbian trade bill if I don't pay him. THANK YOU$$
Posted by: Hi$$ary Clinton | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
feastorafamine, you can ignore the comment about 94,001. The total is closer to 800,000.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
Posted by: jk5432 | April 21, 2008 4:55 PM
Obama can't win because he's black, so all of this banter is completely irrelevant. Oh did I mention that he's a Muslim? They bombed us.
If this gets through the Post's censors like the above racist comments, the newspaper should be ashamed of itself.
Posted by: Racist Joe | April 21, 2008 4:57 PM
GO CHAOS JOIN THE NEOCON NEOCRAT NATION BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN DUMP DUMP DUMP U.N. BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 4:57 PM
Let's be honest, Mr. Balz. Obama is where he is today because the media has given him a pass in the vetting process and are completely enamored with him! With the help of far left donors, such as Moveon, and the many commentators who have experienced tingles up their legs or arms when they hear his speeches. Now the Party is terrified not to nominate him for the reprecussions that will follow denying the first African-American (albiet his mother was white) the prize.
Posted by: Linda | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM
She can't manage her campaign, but we're supposed to trust her with the economy? She voted for the war but now she's opposed to it? She campaigned for NAFTA, but now she's always been against it? Hillary Clinton is not just weaker, she is not competent to be a world leader. It's time she stopped the racist attacks on Obama and accepted reality. The voters can see through her lies.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM
HILLARY is the Democratic Party's problem! If this type of behavior flies in the face of the Democratic Party, the entire Party has a problem!
Hillary is not a decent honest woman! I am all for women but women should want Hillary Clinton to represent them. Thats bad publicity!
I am not voting for Barack Omama because he is BLACK, or a MAN. I am voting for Barack because I am intelligent enough to have my eyes open without the blinders on.
Hillary Clinton is talking about her trip to Bosnia when her husband was president. Barack just came from 4 African nations, being basically given the respect from all the PEOPLE as well as LEADERS. Even the leaders on opposing sides.
You have to have your eyes closed if you can't see who the real leader is.
Barack is the Real Leader by far!
Posted by: Vicbennettnet | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM
You can "ignore" counting Florida and Michigan in November, too, but that's not such a great idea either ...
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM
In states like NC (where I live) and MD (where I'm from) I have always been under the impression you could only vote in your registered party's elections. This is still true, right? Is this the case for other states? So in those races where the Republican nomination was still somewhat uncertain, you had Republicans voting for Republicans. And if I recall the timeline correctly, it was pretty well decided that McCain was the nominee for the R's maybe a month before OH and TX. Suppose now that Republicans in the remaining primaries switch affiliations to vote how they would want the election stacked up with knowledge or at least thought of who is the more polarizing political figure. Could that explain the upsurge in votes for Hillary? Just a thought.
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 4:58 PM
PETER PAUL case will put my family and friends in court. If I am the president, I should be OK. PLEASE vote for me.
Posted by: Hillary | April 21, 2008 4:59 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM
Hillary's eye shining with a little wet, her body trembling, her mouth moving fast, she was recalling a horror event in that her only child was with her - the Bosnia Sniper. Oh, how we americans can even think we can let such a disgrace lier to be our president ? And worse then that, if you give her a benifit of doubt, she thought she was telling the truth, how can we affort to let such a psycho near the nuclear trigger ? We have Obama or Mccain and both of them at least have solid mind ! Oh, mighty God, I know I shouldn't hate but ..... Sigh .... Just tell her to go home and leave us alone, please.
Posted by: tino | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM
For those who threaten to vote Republican if their candidate didn't win the Democratic nominee: Listen, we can not afford another like the Bush administration. What a legacy to leave our children?
It's time for change from business as usual in Washington of the past 7 years. We are in the worst state of world leadership in history. The excuse of controlling government spending "Big Government" by the Republicans has made our government inept-not just smaller. The funds needed to adequately finance our government have been diverted to finance the civil war in Iraq. The welfare of America is circling the drain. ⢠trillion $ war cost of an invasion resulting in a civilian "illegal" war, no WMD. ⢠declining infrastructure: FDA, FAA, FEMA, Bridges/levees ⢠violation of the constitution - UN treaty violation, US privacy rights, prison abuses, etc. ⢠security & technology deficiencies; military drain & 911 readiness inadequate ⢠educational system, lacking professional US made labor force - doctors, nurses, teachers, computer technicians ⢠loss of US creditability & strong allies ⢠the ripple effect of increased "Corporate Greed" (Enron-Mortgage Crisis) in the US has caused our economy grave depression and have negatively effected other countries ⢠the weak U.S. dollar has caused increase food cost (inflation) around the world.
Time-out for fighting within, SAVE AMERICA IF NOT FOR YOURSELVES- THEN FOR OUR CHILDREN!
Posted by: lwhite3 | April 21, 2008 5:00 PM
If a law was broken, unfortunately, the votes would be ignored. Again, if you are bitter about not including these numbers, be bitter at the democratic party officials who switched the dates. And be aware of someone like Clinton who decides to change the rules for her liking (and don't think that if the shoe was on the other foot that she would be screaming for a revote!!).
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM
200 MORE SUPERDELEGES END THE ONE PERSON 2/3 REPRESENTATION it unamerican
Posted by: NEOCRAT NATION | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM
When Hillary signed (in INK) the FL/MI deal. She just presumed she is the next president.
Nope, she is not elitist not arrogant. Gimme a break.
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:02 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
feastorafamine, you can ignore the comment about 94,001. The total is closer to 800,000.
------------------------------ Great Math but alas NOT the math that assures a nomination. DELEGATES are what decides. Becides AGAIN your math is fuzzy. I SOURCE things... http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-pennsylvania21apr21,1,843172.story
13.4 million to 12.7 million 700,000 votes difference. See MATH/ I dont argue with the numbers. The fact is however that Hillary will not win the nomination by the popluar vote, even if she manages to catch Obama in that regard. Delegates are what gets a candidate the nomination. 2,024 to be exact.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Thanks, lwhite3, but I'm still voting for McCain if Obama wins the nomination.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
Washington Post has this wishful thinking that Clinton will roll over and give up. The Post now post this article to help its cause.
But the Post will eat its words after tomorrow.
What Post doesn't understand is that Democrats finally come to realize that Obama can not win in November. Who want to nominate somebody who can not win?
Post has a very weak knee because they supported Bush's invation of Iraq. They think if they support Obama, they will wipe clean their guilt.
Posted by: Gy | April 21, 2008 5:03 PM
You know what the change is. Senator Obama has "eloquently" spoke about it. You just refuse to believe. You are like the old lady (no offense), mature lady (how is that) interviewed in Pennslyvania. She said, "I just don't think he can make all the changes that he talks about." I paraphrase that but you get the jist. People don't EVEN WANT TO TRY and change the body politic of this country. Then they complain about lost wages, the cost of living (food, gas, and other necessities) and keep voting in the "experienced", known candidates that DO NOTHING for them. Come on America, when are you going to get it right? When? No, I am not naive that one man is the answer to all the ills of a nation. But, one man can be a catalyst to improving, correcting those ills. That is what I and many others believe.
Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 21, 2008 5:04 PM
the END ONE PERSON 2/3 VOTE
as it was stupidly created
Posted by: supersized the SUPER DELEGATES | April 21, 2008 5:05 PM
If she gets to Denver with the lead in total popular vote, she will get 2,024 delegates by the third ballot.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM
I am a Republican leaning independent- My choice will be Obama or McCain. Those that are borderline like me will not vote for Clinton in the general election.
Posted by: LMM | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM
"Thanks, lwhite3, but I'm still voting for McCain if Obama wins the nomination."
That is not surprising, as they have similar feelings on Iran and protecting Israel. Good for you, you belong with the NeoCons/Lieberman's of the world.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:06 PM
...she's BROKE. She paid big bucks to Penn's firm for his mismanagement and is in the red. She is over a mil in the hole and she still probably has to pay her private loan back to herself.
Not good people. She has shown that she can't be trusted with money, in any form.
Posted by: yes, she's hurt | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM
let the bosnia-Sniper's finger on the nulcear trigger ? I don't think so !
Posted by: geerees | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM
Regardless of whether Pennsylvania "proves" that Obama "can't win big states", the question should be, "against whom?"
It's hard to imagine a Democrat losing NY, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois (especially Obama!), or California. Ohio, Florida, and Texas have always been GOP-leaning.
Posted by: Gary | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM
Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain.
Nominate Obama, and McCain's next president.
Our first loyalty is to our country, not our party.
If you lose us now, we may never come back.
Posted by: Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain | April 21, 2008 5:08 PM
Neither "Media" nor "GOP" wants Hillary to lose.
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:09 PM
What a silly, superficial report.
I quote the obvious from the first person who commented on this article: "She wins in Ohio, and hopefully Pennsylvania, and SHE is "weakened"?!" Posted by: Paul Jepsen | April 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Perhap you are not following the national projections or the rapid decline nationally of the perceived trustworthiness of Mrs. Clinton. Hillary has exposed to the American public, something the Republicans have know for a decade or more -- she is a untrustworthy person who can neither admit a mistake or take ownership for her mistakes.
We've all heard about the "Vast Right-wing Conspiacy" -- but now it turns out that Hillary has identified a "Vast Left-wing Conspiracy" embodied by the move-on.org supporters who have invaded the caucus states and have bullied and intiminated Hillary supporters into not caucusing for her.
So, I guess the question is "Who is Left? --Right?
Hillary will have to get some polling data before she can respond to that question -- but I think that the answer is fewer supporters, fewer donors and fewer folks who will vote for someone who CAN NOT WIN the Democratic nomination.
A vote for Hillary is a vote down the rat hole. She is vitually eliminated by simple mathematics.
Posted by: Screw the Flag Pins | April 21, 2008 5:10 PM
Here is even more math:
If we were under the Republican system -- which is more like the Electoral College --she'd have a 300-delegate lead. McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM
"Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain.
Nominate Obama, and McCain's next president.
Our first loyalty is to our country, not our party.
If you lose us now, we may never come back."
Sure, because selling out to corporate interests (drug companies will make major moolah off the Clinton Universal Health Care Plan), or pandering to fringe groups (Christian Conservatives as McCain has done) is SO American. What was I thinking when I thought Obama cared?
Posted by: NCVoter | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM
No one needs "Republicans" masquerading as dems. Get LOST and don't post here.
Posted by: Obama supporters are high if they think we're bluffing about voting for McCain | April 21, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Is it hard to imagine Obama losing NY to a McCain-Bloomberg ticket?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Ok, let see if I can get this right...I'm so undecided!
Smooth talker Good fundraiser Is tall No experience First name is not Saddam (sorry had to throw that in) Is not white enough Is not black enough Doesn't seem to know Jesse Jackson Doesn't seem to know Al Sharpton Is Christian Is going Green Is friends with Oprah Is not married to Bill Clinton Has support of Bill Richardson
Will raise taxes No experience Doesn't understand economics He smokes Affiliation with radical religious leaders Will not stand up to America's enemies Has never had a real job Middle name is Hussein (sorry had to throw that in) Is not white enough Is not black enough Doesn't seem to know Jesse Jackson Deesn't seem to know Al Sharpton Would have to take the commander and chief job along with the Presidency Is a liberal elitist Is Muslim Is friend of Dick Durbin Looks silly in a baseball cap Doesn't seem to know Al Gore Wife only recently became proud to be an American Name for his book came from Rev Wright Cannot find Pakistan on a map
Posted by: Jaymand | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party.
The superdelegates have to decide if they're willing to destroy their party just to satisfy a bunch of cult followers.
Mainstream Democrats will not vote for Obama.
We will not "close ranks to support our party"
The Obama nuts didn't support us, why should we support them?
If the Obama nuts take it over, its not our party anymore, anyway.
Posted by: Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM
If she gets to Denver with the lead in total popular vote, she will get 2,024 delegates by the third ballot.
----------------------------------- Third Ballot? Please I am BEGGING you. I LOVE Hillary. You are simply just choosing to ignore reality. FIRST the popular vote decides nothing. (There is no garrauntee Hillary will catch Obama in this regard anyhow) IF HIllary won all remaining contests by very large margins she would still need over 64% of the superdelegates. Not a third, a fifth, or a tenth ballot will award a nomination to the candidate WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE MOST delegates. It is possible that by the convention that Hillary would need a staggering 80% of all superdelegates to win. Now we both agree that president BUsh is undeniably a moron and a failre right? 20% of people out there are dellusional enough to think the opposite. ( He polls at nearly 80% unfavorable) Meaning? That no matter how strong a consensus there will still be a portion who cannot be swayed. Meaning? If Hillary needs 80% i doubt she would come close to getting it by default.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:14 PM
And, no one needs an "Independent" telling people to stop posting their opinions here either.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:14 PM
Hillary is a liar!!!!!! Why are'nt more people paying attention? In order to make herself seem more qualified and more experienced she completely made up the Bonia story. The same story that she kept repeating until the video surfaced. I personaly don't want another President that I don't trust. I've already had that for the last eight years. I have a problem with someone that lies to my face and then says " you can trust me". Well I don't trust her and so she can't have my vote.
Posted by: LaMar from Virginia | April 21, 2008 5:15 PM
Can anybody tell me what exactly qualifies Obama to be president of the United States?
Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 5:15 PM
No, feastorafamine, we don't agree that President Bush is "undeniably a moron and a failre [sic]". Count me among the 20% of people out there, I guess. That being said, all bets are off at a brokered convention. If this nomination gets to a third ballot, you'd better believe that delegates are going to be looking at anything and everything, including who won the total POPULAR vote.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:17 PM
He's 35 and wasn't born in Austria.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:18 PM
I've grown weary of ignorant and scary whites constantly bringing the "evil" Rev. Wright. If you listen to the entire sermon everyone keeps talking about, which I have, you'll find out that his theme was "Governments do change". He was actually talking about how governments over history (including the US) have changed and the progress people have made. The comments that appear to have every white person in America terrified was in reference to the basic but powerful inequities that have plagued this country from the beginning. He was "damning" the intransigence in this country's character over things like how poverty can still be rampant in this country and how we can be complict in the deaths of thousands of people (at home and abroad, yesterday and today). People need to see farther than the tips of their noses to understand what's really going on around them. Wright was pumped up for shock value and ratings. The same way the collapse of the World Trade Center was replayed hundreds of times over the following week until someone said enough and the footage loop of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq to bolster Bush's rationale for the war. Get a grip and don't be so weak minded.
Posted by: pqwot | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM
Oh, yes...he also doesn't say Caleefornea.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM
SD voted for Hillary before elections!!! Who exactly is destroying the party.
________________________________________ Posted by: Obama supporters are destroying the Democratic Party | April 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:19 PM
Only the media can find a way in which a candidate can win repeatedly in big states at a huge disadvantage cash-wise and against a media onslaught and call it losing. Clinton actually wins elections and insists on holding elections, even if it its expensive and messy. Every actual vote should count. Instead Obama is very comfortable with his "big" wins in caucuses that overwhelmingly disenfranchise the working class and poor and favor the elite. Caucuses, which I may add, have a fraction...fraction of the turnout of actual elections. Further, he thinks it's too difficult to actually hold elections in in two states that make up nearly 10% of the total US population. Only the media could come to conclusions that despite being more well-financed than any candidate in history, Obama has won fewer states than any Democrat in modern history. If he "wins" the nomination he will have done so with the least support of any candidate since 68, if not worse. Granted, the same would be true for Clinton, but why is this issue reported as if its only a problem for her? Does Obama not really need to win elections to be a "winner?" If so then why the heck should we call this a democracy? We'll just have the rich and well-educated elites coronate our king.
Posted by: Sean | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM
the Washington Post is home of cowardice...
the place where bullies come to be heard...
BJ's at the whitehouse on our tax dollar
and this crap about O ba ba man and Kosovo ???
Dan, you are a coward....
afraid of losing your job if people find out
you certainly are a sensitive person for a liar...
you are a whiner and a sellout
Posted by: let's be honest here... | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM
Once before, I pointed out that the headline writer of the WP must be a comedian. Today, missteps weakend Clinton. How long is the Media going to milk the Bosnia story? Strangely enough, Obama's mispoken words, are completely ignored by the media and when two brave and decent journalists, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dared to ask some explanations about Obama's so called mispoken words, the entire media turned against their own. It is pathetic that these people call themselves journalists. You want to hear a journalist, talk to Bill Moyers, Leila Fadel, Bagdad Beuareu chief, Amampour, Rose,Dowd, to mention a few. These are the true journalists not the present clowns like Brooks, Kristol, Beinhart, Krauthheimer, Ignatius, Marcus etc.
Posted by: Stelios | April 21, 2008 5:21 PM
A guy at NY Times It is astonishing that any Democrat, even a Hillary supporter, would not be repulsed by a commercial that uses images of Osama bin Laden, Castro, and Pearl Harbor to incite fear in voters.
Hillary's ad is as guilty of right wing fear-mongering as any Republican ad that I have ever seen. She seems to have completely forgotten which side she is supposed to be on.
Posted by: Concerned Democrat | April 21, 2008 5:22 PM
It would be nuts to nominate him.
His only qualifications are that he's Black, young, tall, and can read a teleprompter.
He's qualified to be in a day-time soap opera, that's all.
The only reasons to nominate him are sexism, racisim, and ageism.
Not one of them is a valid reason to nominate anyone over other people that are far more qualified.
Posted by: Obama's qualifications | April 21, 2008 5:22 PM
are trying to sell you ba ba black sheep
they can lead this one to slaughter...
he's using their spin as his own...
let's ask Michele in about 2 and a half minutes...
Posted by: the republicans | April 21, 2008 5:23 PM
ALL CANDIDATES signed the Florida/Michigan issue. Why did Hillary SIGN???? _______________________________________ We'll just have the rich and well-educated elites coronate our king.
Posted by: Sean | April 21, 2008 5:20 PM
Posted by: Independent | April 21, 2008 5:25 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:25 PM
No, feastorafamine, we don't agree that President Bush is "undeniably a moron and a failre [sic]". Count me among the 20% of people out there, I guess. That being said, all bets are off at a brokered convention. If this nomination gets to a third ballot, you'd better believe that delegates are going to be looking at anything and everything, including who won the total POPULAR vote.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:17 PM
---------------------- OHHHH i see now. It all makes sense. You are part of the 20% that still supports Bush/ Enuff said. Math doesnt matter in that case. Thanks for clarifying, oh and for corecting the typo.
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 5:26 PM
You're welcome (math does, and will, matter ; )
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Liked by patriots on both sides Hard working Ignites interest in politics Brings in new voters Risen from difficult background Strong faith Listens Answers honestly Independent of DC influences Does not feel entitled Campaigns in all states Congratulates opponent when he loses Does not dump people to look clean
Posted by: Obama is just superior | April 21, 2008 5:31 PM
Hey JackSmith: Your claim that Bill Clinton went to war and didn't lose a life is totally ridiculous. Go look up major events from 1993.
And to give credit to Clinton for the growth of the Internet economy should also require that you give him credit for the market "correction" that followed. Oh and you are probably one that loved the term .. the "greed of the 80s". That decade has nothing on the greed of the 90s.
You have exposed yourself as a dope -- oh and you might -- err scratch that -- you are an idiot.
Posted by: Postsux239 | April 21, 2008 5:32 PM
Obama and Hillary voted the same on almost every issue, they are both Democrats. Obama has never done anything radical while he has been in the Senate for 3 years. He voted to keep funding the war along with all the other Democrats. He isn't going to change politics, the last time I looked any bill still has to get passed by a majority vote. Obama isn't new to politics or Washington. Look at what he has done for IL, see anything outstanding about the state?? They still have every problem the rest of the country does. I think Obama will need every vote he can get come November and that probably includes Hillary Clintons and all her supporters. Obama supporters need to stop hating other Democrats and focus on whats really important.
Posted by: Jann | April 21, 2008 5:32 PM
So if Hillary managed to cheat and steal the nomination from Obama you figure that African American would vote for her in the 90th percentile? So if Hillary successfully cheats the dems hand the Presidency to McCain.
Posted by: carl | April 21, 2008 5:34 PM
Please do not forget. We will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee.
We're not going to trust someone as green as him with the Presidency.
Hillary has Bill to fall back on.
What does Obama have, Michelle?
Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
If Obama's the nominee, McCain's the President, and it's the Democratic Party's own fault!!!
Posted by: Please do not forget | April 21, 2008 5:35 PM
It's funny how the media paints this doom and gloom picture for Hussein Obama and yet Hillary still leads in PA and possibly Indiana. So, the important thing is votes. She has made some bad campaign missteps and yet despite the huge money disadvantage she's still close, which goes to show that Obama is NOT the formidable candidate the media makes him to be.
Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 5:36 PM
Democratic are usually not very smart
the primary format is not quite understandable, the loud blacks usually get their wish, this is very evident in the Texas primary and so called caucus???
why not adopt the general election format,
this is very sad story, if Obama failed the general election.
all those loud so called activists is just overload their wishes to other people
Posted by: ruleitang | April 21, 2008 5:36 PM
Bush rap*d McCain because of his adopted daughter from Bangladesh. HRC does similar things to Obama.
I do not see much difference. Are we still democrats??
Posted by: Concerned Democrat | April 21, 2008 5:39 PM
Michigan and Florida must be heard. That will put Hillary over the top! Yes hurraaaayyy!!!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM
Obama will when all the states he needs in the general election. Registered democrats drastically outnumber Republicans in most states, sometimes 3 to 1.
Posted by: Mev | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM
Please do not forget wrote: "Hillary has Bill to fall back on. What does Obama have, Michelle? "
Arghh.. Birds of a feather sleep together.
Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 5:40 PM
Bosnia was stupid , stupid, any way you look at it. I have no idea why she said it. Same way with Obama and his pastor, stupid, stupid, to keep him around. Why do candidate do these stupid things. They always have. Just like Obama giving Hillary the finger. Stupid, stupid, John M
I still can't vote for Obama under any circumstances. He and Edwards got this negative campaigning going in the MSNBC debate. Edwards got his just dues. Obama is still owed his.
When you promise to be above the fray and then start the negative campaigning you word is useless.
Folks this is a lot worse than lying about Bosnia. Lying about Bosnia is stupid Breaking your word and still saying you are above the fray is devious and sneaky. I would rather have someone stupid, than a devious, sneaky intellectual.
Posted by: Chief | April 21, 2008 5:41 PM
20 Jan 09 The Capital steps President OBama's Inauguration The Rev. Wright finishes his invocation and sits down next to his "Man of the Year" Rev. Farrakhan
Posted by: Just say NO | April 21, 2008 5:42 PM
What "huge money disadvantage"? Including March '08, she raised almost $190 million compared to just under $235 million for Obama. Are you saying $190 million is not enough money?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:45 PM
I just don't understand how can people still support a hypocrite like Clinton who is willing to do anything to get the nomination. She lied multiple times, she has flip flopped on issues, has a murky past and shady relationships and completely dishonest. How can you trust anything that she says? Obama at least gets the benefit of doubt.
Posted by: VC, MD | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM
Wow, reading the racist diatribes from supposed Hillary supporters like LES and ruleitang just is profoundly depressing. I'm hoping these are just trolls stirring up trouble. If these truly are fellow Democrats who are spewing all this hatred and venom, we are all in a heap of trouble.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM
Obama will when all the states he needs in the general election. Registered democrats drastically outnumber Republicans in most states, sometimes 3 to 1.
Posted by: Mev | April 21, 2008 5:46 PM
Let's see, A Barry Goldwater Republican running a campaign like a Republican, Proporting that a Republican is more ready than another Democratic candidate on day one. Endorsed by Richard Mellonscape the founder of the vast Right Wing conspiracy. Remember the Walmart problems? Hillary Clinton was on the board. Yeah she ready on day one to stick it to us!
Posted by: Martin | April 21, 2008 5:47 PM
For me, if Clinton steals the nomination, my vote goes from her to McCain. So threats to vote for McCain in spite can work both ways.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:48 PM
"I would rather have someone stupid, than a devious, sneaky intellectual." And what has Hillary done to make you think she's a straight shooter? She can run rings around Obama when it comes to devious and sneaky! And if you'd rather have stupidity, you must have been in seventh heaven the past 8 years with GWB in the White House!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM
Hillary says and does whatever is politically expediant at th emoment.
She supported the war on Iraq and then distanced herself.
She supported her husbands NAFTA and then distanced herself.
She is known as a Punjabi Senator because of the number of H1Bs she gave away to India.
She does whatever Israel first group wants her to do, voting to outlaw Irans revolutionary guards.
This woman is a liar and would have really loved to tell us tall tales if the Bosnia visit had even been even closer to what really happened.
This woman pardoned her husband for his infidelity bvecause she always had an eye on a whitehouse run.
Hillary is a professional politician who will say or do anything to get elected. She will do nothing to change anything.
She wont even get elected, Democrats like me wont vote her in as I truly believe she is dangerous to this nations best interests, and would ratehr have a one term McCain when Obama can try again.
Posted by: mildbrew | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:50 PM
A Quinnipiac University poll taken before tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania shows Hillary Clinton with a 7-point lead over Barack Obama in the state, nearly identical to her margin in the previous two polls the school has conducted.
Obama: 'Why can't I just eat my waffle?'
Posted by: robin | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM
Dear For Chief and BillW:
Michelle Obama was also on the Walmart Board and has quit because of their union stance.
Senator Clinton also WAS on the Walmart Board.
Your post is very nicely written but please check your facts. Best CJ
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM
Furthermore, "winning" the popular vote matters for perception, of course, but keep your eye on the DELEGATES. Whatever percentage either candidate wins or loses by in the overall popular vote does NOT alter the delegate counts. Enjoy the game, but don't forget the score.
Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM
We already have one say anything, do anything liar in the White House. I don't think we need another.
Posted by: x32792 | April 21, 2008 5:53 PM
You guys do not give this woman credit for anything. Whether she wins or loses, she can't win.
He can't either. The super delegates could boycott and then the convention could pick some one else who could really get elected.
I'm for that. At this point I don't think either can beat McCain. I know from my standpoint I could never vote for Obama. I could vote for Al Gore.
I could never vote for someone who put himself above the fray and then helped start the negativity in the campaign. Up until the MSNBC debate there was no negative campaigning. I was an Edwards up until then. I left him because he helped start the negativity.
Posted by: C | April 21, 2008 5:53 PM
Especially don't forget that all bets are off at the convention after the first ballot.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:54 PM
PLEASE no more of this "Obama can't win the big states" nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin.
Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:55 PM
Did you see Edwards on "The Colbert Report" last week?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:55 PM
Interesting that im being called a racist troll...Face it Obama has had too easy of a ride and yet with all his advantages this elitist still cant win a big state even with a $45 million financial advantage.
Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Posted by: Ray | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Whomever wins, the repubs need to get an independent involved to split the vote and ensure bushie V3.0
Posted by: theantibush | April 21, 2008 5:56 PM
run a google search under "Hillary Clinton, uncensored"...or youtube.com w/ the same search criteria...check out the video that details her involvement w/ campaign financier, Peter Paul...pretty shocking stuff...this woman has more bones in her closet than a cemetary...if she wins it will be through deceit, lying and corruption...I pray that doesn't happen!
Posted by: egw | April 21, 2008 5:57 PM
"Especially don't forget that all bets are off at the convention after the first ballot."
Absolutely correct. But we are still talking about first ballot. If there is a second, I doubt either of these two will be the nominee.
Posted by: Mirth | April 21, 2008 5:59 PM
You do know that Texas is a winner-take-all State in the Electoral College, right?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:59 PM
You are obviously in the tank for Senator Obama aka Senator Finger.
Unless you have been out of the world, you must know about Senator Finger's Macaca moments in two speeches given at two separate venues. Just in case, I have included the links for your education.
That disgusting behavior alone has cost him the election if not the nomination.
In additon to the famous 45 minutes of tough personal questions directed at Senator Obama, he bombed in the second half as well. His answers were very amateurish and have been widely criticized in the press. As in all the other debates, Senator Clinton handled the tough personal questions well and excelled in the policy questions.
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM
"Face it Obama has had too easy of a ride and yet with all his advantages this elitist still cant win a big state even with a $45 million financial advantage." Yup, 'cos there are lots of racists out there who invoke his middle name Hussein to stoke fear and loathing among the similarly ignorant and xenophobic. Sad to think that some of these people are supposed Democrats. Even sadder to think that Hillary is stoking the same fears of ignorance, divisiveness and blind hatred.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:00 PM
Oh, O.K., LES -- what happened to her HUGE financial disadvantage -- now it's just a $45 million advantage to him?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:01 PM
When Hillary gets to the whitehouse Bill will be the shadow president and things will be back to the good old days when Bill was the man.
Vote Billary or don't vote at all!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:02 PM
"You do know that Texas is a winner-take-all State in the Electoral College, right?"
What does this fact have to do with counting delegates for a party convention?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:03 PM
For the Obama supporters: Why did Rush Limbaugh and other right wings talking heads "ordered" their listeners to vote for Obama. Don't you think this is one the talking points that Karl Rove has been working behind the scene since going underground? Haven't you heard stories of right wing nuts in Texas saying that McCain was in the bag as the nominee, that they voted for Obama just to keep Hillary at bay because they are scared that they will make Bush and Co. pay for their actions and crimes? To think that these right wing nuts will vote for Obama in the general election is idiotic and self destructive. If you take all those bait and switch Republican pseudo-turned Democrats out of the equation, I don't think Obama would have the majority of the popular vote. This was all staged by Karl Rove. Wake up people, before it's too late. Vote for Hillary and she will bring those neo-cons to justice.
Posted by: Paul from Mercer Island | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM
Because Mirth, at 5:55 PM tried to completely discount the electibility argument: "PLEASE no more of this 'Obama can't win the big states' nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin."
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM
Has little experience. Who is he, really? Refuses to fully answer hard questions. Questionable associations. Campaigns with slogans, but no substance. Top backers tell insiders not to be concerned about his campaign promises. It's just political talk. Looks down on working class. Whimp in debates. Won't look Clinton in the eye, then attacks with TV commercials. Can't win big states in head-to-head campaigns. Appears programed. Scripted. Barrows soaring words without attribution. Backed by establishment hacks and bitter political losers.
Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM
It was a simple question, which Mirth has so far declined to answer. It also dovetails with Bill Clinton's argument: "If we were under the Republican system -- which is more like the Electoral College --she'd have a 300-delegate lead. McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Clinton has reverse charisma, charisma turned inward . She's her own motive for running. This lady wants to win so badly she's willing to act Republican and to put her party at risk. I hope Chelsea has no interest in a political career, for her parents sold the political farm to feed their narcissism.
Posted by: Philly | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
You might want to follow John Dickerson's example. He is a sometime pundit on the McLaughlin Group and is a columnist for Slate.
In the past, John has been very complimentary of Senator Obama. But, nevertheless, he has given a very honest picture of Senator Obama and the disconnect between his public pronouncements and his private actions. Read the middle part of John's "traveling the rails" column about what Senator Obama said in his speeches on the train and what he was pushing to the super delegates in his conference.
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
Because Mirth, at 5:55 PM tried to completely discount the electibility argument: "PLEASE no more of this 'Obama can't win the big states' nonsense. Compare the total delegates won in Texas; Obama has more. More delegates means OBAMA WON TEXAS. I've heard that's a big state. Obama won it. Beware of distractions and spin." ----------------------
There will be no caucuses in the General Election. Hillary won Texas when it was the primary part where people went in and voted behind the curtain, caucues allow people to be ullied to pick a certain candidate with intimadation and also cut out a lot of people who have families or work and can't stay at them for extended periods of time.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM
In the past few weeks I've asked hundreds of friends and neighbors to tell me the actual details of what Obama's ideas about change are - and not a single one could. He talks in so many glowing terms, but it's all empty, "speechy" rhetoric; he won't take questions at his rallies, he lied about his comments regarding wearing the American flag pin and other things; and he is in too big a hurry to be President. Hillary Clinton is a worthy individual who has been constantly maligned by the media (who are running this election for their own benefit); blogs and sites such as this; and the press. She deserves to be President; she's the strongest, smartest and most qualified candidate and I don't blame her one bit for holding out until the convention. In all my life I never heard so much attention placed on the primaries. I remember several times not knowing who the candidate was until the convention, so everybody needs to just get over it. She is a winner all around.
Posted by: Russ Bralley | April 21, 2008 6:09 PM
Obama doesnt even represent the common American black male. He's an elitist educated in a prestigious school earning a huge amount of money.
Posted by: LES | April 21, 2008 6:11 PM
Good point, Danielle. The general election will be ALL secret ballot.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:12 PM
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:14 PM
The Tuzla fabrication, coming as it did right on the heels of the first rough patch for Obama, is what sunk the Clinton campaign. It took doubts about Obama and replaced them with absolute knowledge of Hillary's tenuous contact with the truth.
Posted by: Ed | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM
If Obama wins Rev Wright will be his VP choice and Minister Farakan his secretary of state. Is that what you Obama supporters want?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Sorry Dan...you didn't remove my Macaca post.
My bad. I am getting paranoid. As I am no longer allowed to post on TPM and Huffington Post. Sorry.
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:18 PM
Posted by: Truth Seeker | April 21, 2008 6:08 PM ------------------------------- Excellent, this is what the media has been ignoring about Obama the whole campaign. Thanks for sharing this.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 6:19 PM
Hillary is a tough nosed fighter.
Hillary was supposed to be sent packing in early March.
But despite the conventional wisdom, here she is, 6 weeks later, taking it to the opposition.
In these tough times, we need a strong politician who can take hits, face what the nation called certain defeat (as shown in March), win and march on.
Someone who can continue to fight through remaining contests although she is outspent by millions by her opponent.
Hillary will fight, and never quit, to bring the necessary results needed in Washington.
Posted by: Comment | April 21, 2008 6:21 PM
I was banned at TPM as well ...
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:23 PM
P.S. did I miss Obama's announcement as to his VP and Secretary of State?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:24 PM
Hillary's campaign is like the bumper cars at the fair. When someone runs into someone else the cars keep ramming over and over.
When Hillary screws up, the bumper car mentality takes over, and she makes the same mistakes repeatedly. She does NOT learn from her character defects. At least Bubba knew not to lie about anything on video.
Here is the bumper car response:
1. First, I can not tell a lie.
If I said it, it is not only true, but brilliant.
This lasts until video is found proving she lied.
2. Then, I made a mistake,(not a sin) I mispoke, I mean everyone sometimes gets confused about whether they had to dodge snipers.
Try to find a way to blame the staff if possible.(I was overbooked by staff)
Heres where Bubba eats Shrillary's lunch, he bites his lip, says "I should have never raised your taxes, or I never had sex with that woman...etc" Hillary is genetically incapable of admitting any error at any time over anything.
3. My enemies are just out to get me.
4. Everyone lies, why pick on me you sexist pigs?
5. Its old news, shut up already. Move on.
Posted by: JaxMax | April 21, 2008 6:24 PM
Obama said all three candidates are better than George Bush. Hillary accuses him of praising McCain. She's really fishing for straws. If it was praise, it was faint at best. Was he damning McCain with faint praise?
Posted by: msmart2 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM
Hillary is gonna lose, and in all honesty I don't think BO will win Penn. But I think he will surprise most. But, I just hope we all remember whats at stake and vote Dem in '08.
Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM
The economy runs in cycles, just like the weather, and there is not a great deal any president can do about it, just like there is not much we can do about the weather.
A president can try to establish priorities, but he still needs congressional approval.
What a president can do is to make the public feel better about themselves. Carter is a perfect example of how a president can screw up and make Americans feel guilty and not proud to be Americans. He is still at it, meeting with our enemies and telling them how bad we are. BTW, Obama won the endorsement of Hamas, today. Thank you, President Carter. Good job! There is no fool like an old fool, and Carter is a perfect example. Of course, he has had dementia for over 40 years.
Posted by: alance | April 21, 2008 6:28 PM
This article is both brilliant and prescient.
Prof. Balz wins then analysis award today.
Posted by: JaxMax | April 21, 2008 6:29 PM
What I simply cannot stomach is the greed and arrogance of this woman - she is so convinced that she has an absolute right to be in the White House that she will do anything to get there. Obama offers a total change to the Washington scene - a fresh face with new ideas and no dirty laundry. Clinton just offers more of the same plus Slick Willy back in control. Meanwhile McCain is looking better and better. At this rate Clinton will ensure he gets elected.
Posted by: yelnat snaves | April 21, 2008 6:30 PM
I've heard that Karl Rove has a machine that can cause hurricanes ; )
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:31 PM
Lol. It seems like a couple of Hill posters on here are in a tiff. Must smell defeat on the horizon......
Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:33 PM
I simply don't get the logic which says that because candidate A won a state in a primary, it is proof that opponent candidate B cannot win it in the general election. Yes, Clinton won NY and California- does anyone think that either of those states figure as likely to vote Republican in the fall? There are obviously equivalent examples of states Obama won, but which are likely to go Republican in thefall. For that matter, I bet McCain wins some states in the fall which he lost in the primary. So what?
Can we get past the repetition of at least the transparent spin, from all sides? Idiotic spin such as this should be exposed in news articles, not simply parroted as one point of view.
Posted by: whatamImissing? | April 21, 2008 6:34 PM
Clinton doesn't have an image problem, she has a reality problem.
Now, let me comment on the Texas vote since I'm a Texan. The primary vote was to some extent influenced by vote "fraud," especially in areas where the boss system is alive and well. By "fraud" I mean using absentee ballots sent to dependent (very old people, people who cannot read English) people who are "helped" with their vote. The primary vote was also influenced by the "Rush vote," right-wing spoilers. Absent those two factors the primary vote was probably (who knows?) very close. The caucus system rewarded the real active Democrats who are essential to the well-being of the Party. I think it is a good system. If you want the Party to allow its nominee to be determined by the Rush vote, the corrupt vote and the sorts of people who prefer drinking to going to a caucus, perhaps you prefer a primary state. In Texas if you have a winner-take-all primary, there will be areas of the state where there will be more votes cast than there are voters.
Posted by: rusty 3 | April 21, 2008 6:35 PM
Last time I checked, it appeared neither candidate was going to have enough of the electorate to synch the nomination. It appears we have TWO strong, supported, and backed candidates. It amazes me that people can continue to deny the strength of either Democratic hopeful.
Posted by: Number Check | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM
AP is saying she's trying to sell herself as tough before the PA vote.
Tough as in someone who fabricated a story about running from sniper fire?
Or tough like a former Vietnamese POW?
Or tough like like the strong, courageous feminist she is, who divorced her philandering husband and struck out in politics on her own?
Posted by: Angry Liberaltarian | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM
"Clinton won NY and California- does anyone think that either of those states figure as likely to vote Republican in the fall?"
If McCain selects Bloomberg as his running mate, they will beat Obama in NY at least.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:39 PM
It's sickening that so many have been duped by Hillary into demonizing Obama. I'll say this much if sleeping with the President qualifies someone to be a President, then Monica Lewinsky shud be Sec of the Interior or something.
Posted by: The Oracle | April 21, 2008 6:39 PM
What empty threats from the Reagan Republicans, to run off and vote for McCain if Obama is nominated.
Listen, blowhards, the national matchup polls all PROVE that Obama is more electable against McCain than Clinton. In fact the latest one shows Obama winning but Hillary losing. Everybody knows this. So your threats mean nothing. Even if you do bugger off and vote Republican over Obama, the numbers prove that two others will take your place.
Secondly, and crucially, you Reagan Democrats ALWAYS find some last-minute excuse to run off and vote Republican. If it's not Obama, it's Kerry, if it's not Kerry, it's Gore. You always betray the Democratic party come election time anyway.
Just bugger off and vote GOP like you always do.
Posted by: Empty threats | April 21, 2008 6:41 PM
"Clinton Will Win Pennsylvania" / DemocraticSPACE / Apr 21, 2008
"There's little doubt that Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania. The question is by how much? Cutting right to the chase, I think Pennsylvania is going to look a lot like Ohio. Factoring in the polling margin of error, Clinton could win by anywhere from 7 to 12 points, but a margin of victory of roughly 9-10 points is the most probable outcome (our projections give Clinton 54.0% and Obama 44.3%). This suggests that Clinton will win 85-88 delegates and Obama will win 70-73 delegates (thus Clinton could gain 12-18 delegates on Obama -- making only a small dent in Obama's current 140-delegate lead)"
See full article at: http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/2008/04/clinton-will-win-pennsylvania/
Posted by: DemocraticSPACE | April 21, 2008 6:44 PM
Hi there I am from Switzerland... although I am not American hater; but after 2003; after the start of the Irak war decided not to visit USA... or not to buy any US products... This is not the mind set of one person; try to talk to people out side US ... America is a great country, the land of opportunity; and the land which has the potential to bring the whole world together as a single democratic nation ... Since couple of decades you have presidents who lie for their cause... who were/are selfish... real politicians than humans... See how bad the US economy is, see how the people are suffering in the war zones, see how other people from other nations think about America... Its really sad; how a nation could fall this much down; because of the politicians and their selfish policies .... What makes a good president?? Did you ever had a second thought??? - is your new presindent young and energetic to bring the whole world together.. - is your new presindent can think logically and judge the things in the right way and time - is your new presindent is wise enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job - is your new presindent is a human than politician Actually you people need a change!
PA vote smart you can change the world!!
Posted by: swissfish | April 21, 2008 6:44 PM
I was born and mostly raised in the south and reside there now. I'm the first in my family to complete the 10th grade. My dad doesn't even have a GED. I was enlisted in the Army from the age of 17 to 21. I was also a community organizer for VISTA. Then I went to Yale Law. I would swallow arsenic before voting for Hillary Clinton. She's a politician in the worst sense of the word. Even if she wasn't, I'm opposed to having an oligarchic presidency. If she is nominated, I will write in none of the above.
Posted by: YLS Redneck Woman | April 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Posted by: jammerbirdi | April 21, 2008 6:49 PM
Look, I hope she wins in Penn State, cause I like watching her squirm. She will never get out, EVER!
Posted by: latinovoter1 | April 21, 2008 6:50 PM
Truth Seeker said: "Your post is very nicely written but please check your facts. Best CJ"
Thanks, but what facts do you refer to, please?
Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 6:51 PM
Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:52 PM
Liberal mags and writers are yearning for Obama in a way that seems entirely racist to me, "It is time for Black." You may was well bring up the idea that he was born in chains, so now it is his time. Like Clinton and Bush, people we didn't know who had provided no real inspiration or service to this country. We could all do a better job than Bush, but why set the bar that low?
I want to see Obama and Clinton fight it out until one of those retards is forced to adopt a Democratic platform, like Edwards had and Nader has. http://www.votenader.org/issues/ http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/04/16/east-coast-corporate-liberal/
If all they can prove that each is uglier than the other, maybe this is not the year to elect a black who has done nothing so far, and needs to be president to get anything done at all. It is a good thing that Martin Luther King did not think that, nor did A. Phillip Randolph, Lyndon Johnson, Jack Kennedy, Harry S. Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Hubert Humphrey, Sam Rayburn, Al Gore, and RALPH NADER, who all got a lot done without or before being president and/or honorably served this nation in the military or congress. What happened to service before reward? A. Phillip Randolph did not say, "Make me president and I will lead a 'March on Washington for Jobs'". He just did it. Martin Luther King did not ask anyone to stand aside so he could lead, he said, "Follow me." If we are going to honor Dr. Kng, let's do it by service, not demanding a reward based on the color of our skin. Dr, King never asked for color based rewards, he was against them.
Personally, I like to see midgets fighting and if they don't add up to one good candidate, more biting and scratching is not all that bad. Someone may learn a lesson. Maybe mud wrestling will wipe off some of the fake sheen.
Hillbama are a black eye to the party, and if they get real ones, so much the better.
I am voting, Edwards/Nader/Paul/ or McCain, on the assumption that he can not be as wrong as he claims today, his history is better than Hillbama's. If he moves the left an inch, he will be past Clinton.
Elections should be like hiring help, the ones that say they are not so ugly as the other don't get hired either.
Posted by: Harrison Picot | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM
As an observer from across the pond I am simply gob smacked at the brazen misogyny Hillary Clinton is having to endure. It's pretty shocking that in the 21st century the only way people see fit to fight a woman is to cast her in the role of a scheming, conniving witch and set about a (media) witch hunt. It is very sad indeed. Us will be shooting itself in the foot if they don't pick this lady to lead the free world. The world has had to endure an inexperienced president for 7 years, please America don't inflict another one on us, no matter how nice, easy on the eye and pleasant to the ear he may be!
Posted by: Ad | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM
The WPost together with Dan Balz- together against Clinton. Give me a break- is the WPost unable to use objective reporters?
Posted by: EGGArgost | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM
Rubbish, You write like a dilettante, a political JJC, and Obama is not weakened by the "bitter comments", wright etc. I wonder who pays people like you to write nonsense on national headlines on the eve of important elections.
Posted by: d stone | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM
Wash Post has no shame. She will win big tomorrow in Pennsylvania. After tomorrow she will have carried every major blue states and swing states. Obama can't close the deal with his money and party boss support.
Florida and Michigan must count to give legitimacy to the nominee. And Hillary will take the lead tomorrow counting Florida and Michigan.
Posted by: Jamal | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM
Your analysis that she is weakened makes no sense. Obama is a great speaker but conceding PA today may suppress turnout for him tomorrow. This is another example of his weakness as a candidate this year. One day, with experience Obama could make a great President, just not this year. He and his supporters feel entitled to win while I feel he needs to earn my respect and vote.
Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 6:56 PM
Here's another Clinton misstep: Hillary tartly demands that Barack Obama not only "denounce" but "denounce and reject" Louis Farrakhan, with whom Obama has no relationship and whose anti-Semitism Obama has long, loudly, and publicly abhorred. Later she lashes out at Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, not only for some incendiary remarks in two sermons (which Obama apparently did not hear), but for Rev. Wright's past praise of Farrakhan. "It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice as to who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to," Clinton said, chiding Obama.
Well it turns out that Hillary's chief chosen "associate" in Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Mendell who is not only her principal surrogate but by some accounts virtually her campaign manager in Pennsylvania, made a speech in 1997 praising Farrakhan's Nation of Islam to the high heavens "for what you stand for . . . and for all the good it does to so many people in Phildelphia."
"This is a faith that doesn't just talk about family values, it lives family values," Rendell continued, as Farrakhan sat next to him nodding approvingly.
How do you spell "hypocrisy"? H-I-L-L-A-R-Y
Posted by: Brad K | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Her image problem comes from the distant past, not from the present campaign. Just a fact of life.
She is decidedly NOT the new broom America needs to sweep out at least some of the vermin and termites from its poor abused White House.
Posted by: wardropper | April 21, 2008 7:01 PM
Monica Lewinsky occupied a position on the president's staff, note.
Posted by: Billw | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM
It's the Reagan Democrats versus the Obama Republicans. Last I heard, Reagan isn't running ...
Given the Economy, Environment, and War on two fronts, do any of us really think that personality trumps real policy issues?
Posted by: Warren S. | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM
Hillary throws her monther under the bus in an atempt to win Pennsylvania.
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:03 PM
d stone wrote, "Rubbish, You write like a dilettante, a political JJC, and Obama is not weakened by the "bitter comments", wright etc."
Your anger and the fact that you pretend to have knowledge of Obama's problems with the Wright and bittergate story astonish me. Obama has been outspending Hillary $4 and $5 to every dollar Hillary spends and he still cannot change the minds of Democratic voters. If Obama wins the primary it will be due to independents and republicans wanting Hillary to lose. A majority of Democrats support Hillary.
Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 7:06 PM
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:06 PM
When did that happen? Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:07 PM
I rant, I rave I shed some tears. Can't they count my 35 years?
It's my turn now, don't they know? I wasn't supposed to have a foe.
Don't they know it's me, me, me? I smell a male conspiracy!
I'll show those guys I'm done with tears. Pour the whiskey. Pass the beers.
I'm old enough to be his Mama. How dare they vote for that Obama.
I got him good, tag - you're elite. But it blew back - now I'M EFFETE!
HOPE and CHANGE I guess we'll see, if folks want that or more Bill & me.
Uh-oh, now here comes another loss. Barack just got thumbs up from THE BOSS.
Another debate, a tag team we forged. I really kicked butt with Charlie and George.
We slammed, we slimed, We gave it our all We roasted and grilled him Yet Obama stood tall.
I thought I'd get kudos for my clever attack. But today all I hear is Let's back Barack!
They're cheering him now those voters in Raliegh He just brushed the dirt off And everyone's jolly!
This week I thought surely more backers I'd won. But, darned if he didn't win Boren and Nunn!
54 percent to my 35 He's got the big mo While I took a dive.
The conspiracy against me In my mind, it's proven. The right, now the left wing I'll blame it on Move-On.
Barack keeps on chuggin' He's still doing good. Riding the rails like The Engine That Could.
My lead has diminished I'm feeling so blue. They love him in P.A. Whoop-de-darn-doo!
My head is splitting. My throat is sore. In one more day we'll know the score.
Obama looks fresh and full of vim. Maybe his HOPE is sustaining him.
Posted by: Joyce | April 21, 2008 7:08 PM
Oh, come on, EGGhead, stop whining. The Post has been fawned over Hillary on frequent occasions. Sometimes it has fawned over Obama. Gimme a break. They both are going down in flames and McCain will be elected -- thanks, Hillary!
Posted by: ExAUSA | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM
**(I don't consider TX because as far as I'm concerned Billary lost Texas and lost ** in the delegate count in TX). ** Posted by: Reggie
TX exposed the hollowness of Obama's trove of caucus delegates. Here we have a large state with both a caucus and primary, a perfect test laboratory. Clinton scores a decisive edge in popular votes, yet Obama gets large edge in caucus delegates.
CAUCUSES ARE UNDEMOCRATIC AND POOR PREDICTORS OF GENERAL ELECTION PERFORMANCE!
There won't be caucuses in the fall. Obama is not a strong candidate in the electoral college.
Posted by: HuckFinn | April 21, 2008 7:10 PM
Posted by: Lee GIABENELLI | April 21, 2008 7:10 PM
Warren S wrote, "It's the Reagan Democrats versus the Obama Republicans. Last I heard, Reagan isn't running .."
so, you are one of those neocon repukeakins playing in a Democratic primary.
Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 21, 2008 7:11 PM
At some point, those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.
Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.
Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing.
Posted by: Didi | April 21, 2008 7:12 PM
Hi there I am from Switzerland... although I am not American hater; but after 2003; after the start of the Irak war decided not to visit USA... or not to buy any US products... This is not the mind set of one person; try to talk to people out side US ... America is a great country, the land of opportunity; and the land which has the potential to bring the whole world together as a single democratic nation ... Since couple of decades you have presidents who lie for their cause... who were/are selfish... real politicians than humans... See how bad the US economy is, see how the people are suffering in the war zones, see how other people from other nations think about America... Its really sad; how a nation could fall this much down; because of the politicians and their selfish policies .... What makes a good president?? Did you ever had a second thought??? - is your new presindent young and energetic to bring the whole world together.. - is your new presindent can think logically and judge the things in the right way and time - is your new presindent is wise enough to create a dream team around with best people for their job - is your new presindent is a human than politician Actually you people need a change!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
Posted by: TA | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
If you toss in Florida and Michigan, then she only needs to beat him by 94,000 votes tomorrow in order to claim the total POPULAR vote. Listen to HuckFinn: Obama is not a strong candidate in the Electoral College.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
If Clinton has missteps, Obama has monumental boboos. I don't know why most of the voting Americans can't see how weak Obama is. He is a greenhorn trying to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Well, its your country, but Europe and Asia will be better off without Obama.
Posted by: bob | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
Sorry but Hillary has no limits. She would sell her mother, father, Clinton and Chelsea in order to win Pennsylvania. Can you see how low she came tonight with ad where she invites Bin Laden to participate in our democatrique election. Is it possible? Is it possible for a rational person to imagine that? How can we vote for her? Never, never, never.
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM
She is wasting time. Math is agaist her. Obama has this in his pocket-it is upto GovDean to shut it up.
Posted by: CHASKA | April 21, 2008 7:16 PM
Setting aside the Rovian slurs, for the moment, you are claiming that Hillary (and BILL -- the first African-American President) Clinton is "racist"? It can't simply be based on her opinion that she would be a better President, right? In fact, anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a "racist"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM
another biased piece of reporting. I do think the press will get their candidate, but unfortunately for them, don't think they will get their president.
I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama. When the choice is a war hero and a guy who's minister preaches "god damn america" there is no choice.
Although you got to admit that it would be very entertaining. What cabinet position do you think Wright will get? Secretary of State? Homeland Security? Now there is a comforting thought!
Posted by: Kathy | April 21, 2008 7:17 PM
I saw her "Kitchen" ad which, rightly, points out the dangers our next President faces, including Obama bin Laden, but I didn't see any "invitation" to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to? BTW: what is "democatrique"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM
Florida & Michigan are FORECLOSED. Obama was not in the poll-so how only HillBill gets those state. They shot themselves out of 08 Elaction by changing dates. Hillary CANNOT get illegal votes of FL & MI.
Posted by: Geibenlii2 | April 21, 2008 7:20 PM
Posted by: BONO | April 21, 2008 7:21 PM
Are you the same person who posted at 7:06 PM? If so, when did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus? Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM
"I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama"
We have a long way to go before we defeat Racism in America. How backward we are with all these bitter people!!!
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM
I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. With every VICTORY she may enjoy, like the inevitable PA victory she will actually LOSE ground if she fails to win by a margin of less than 64%. Even a robust win of 10% will not be enough. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% in the win column from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 7:23 PM
Clinton does not qualify for US President as she is NOT the best woman . She was caught LIE of BOSNIA SNIPER. Got published in her Autobiography.DUMP the bad one.
Posted by: CHASKA | April 21, 2008 7:24 PM
Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM
Are you a U.S. citizen?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM
You see, so many people with the same view.
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM
" I know thousands of American who will not vote for a Clinton".
MONICA LEWINSKY is coming near you shortly.
Posted by: HILLCO | April 21, 2008 7:27 PM
Are you a U.S. citizen?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:29 PM
Nomination were over Feb5th: OBAMA one Hillary is just working for McCain. In case she is not the nominee she want to be sure McCain won. CORRUPT CLINTONS.
Posted by: Tucred | April 21, 2008 7:31 PM
It's amazing that the same people who want to say that Barack has gone negative are the same people who'll say that he's weak if he doesn't respond to her attacks. Ever since her "Shame on you, Barack Obama" tirade, she's gone beyond the pale and really tried to destroy him. The Republicans don't have to do anything but replay her words. Just because Barack is pointing out the truths - the fact that she never SPOKE OUT against NAFTA, for example - doesn't mean that he's gone negative. I wish that people would wake up!!
Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM
Hillary Clinton is "working" for John McCain? Do you also believe that Elvis Presley is alive?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM
We are all these bitter and poor and miserable people like you, Ghost!!!
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:34 PM
Sad to see how special interest have taken over the American democracy! There is no different for those forces if a Clinton or a McCain wins this contest. Do you really think they pay $500 million for a presidential library for nothing? A new Clinton admin. will pay it back 10 times. McCain is a new Bush. He will get a lot of support from them and will pay back from day one of his admin. The strange part is that the states like Pa. with the big middle class (or what is left of them) is supporting people like Clinton and McCain. They are the once that have payed and going to pay for another feast for the royalties like Clintons and Bushes (and Bush like McCain). After another 8 year of Clinton or McCain admin. there will probably be no middle cals in the US. There will be a few very rich people and millions of poor people. (even poorer in Pa.) I am afraid Mr. Obama don't have a real chance to beat the special interests. Just see what these forces do for more money/power: they start wars, bomb entire countries and sell their weapon and shares. Then they call it SPREADING THE DEMOCRACY. Sadly enough the American democracy is their first victim. I think US had her chance in Mr Obama and I think she already lost that chance. That's very sad.
Posted by: Oslo | April 21, 2008 7:35 PM
Obama: "We are one people. All of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes. All of us defending the United States of America." TRUTH " Last I RECALL & SEEN WITH my OWN EYES view it with YOURS " HE WOULD NOT EVEN RASIE HIS HANDS TO THE >>>> Stars and Stripes http://www.dontvoteobama.net/?gclid=CJqZm5il6pICFQWiggodNm8n4g
AMERICA PLEASE DON'T FALL FOR NO MORE OF HIS LIES.
Posted by: VotersIssues | April 21, 2008 7:36 PM
Look, I am really bitter about that thing Obama said. In fact, I have been bitter about American politics in general for some time now. The only thing that consoles me somewhat is my religious beliefs, and the fun I get out of hunting. Not much else to do in this small town.
Posted by: frank burns | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM
Posted by: ratl | April 21, 2008 7:42 PM
If Hillary is unable to surpass Obama in pledge delegates and the popular vote and she clinches the nomination with the help of the Super delegates, it will be a sure way for the Democratic Party to lose the November election as Blacks will see the Party establishment as stopping a Black man that has a good shot at making the Presidency to have been cheated out and the Blacks will not vote in November.
Posted by: Andy | April 21, 2008 7:43 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:44 PM
If working together with the President qualifies someone to do a good job, then Monica Lewinsky should be the right person for the BLOW JOB DEPARTMENT at the White House, of course.
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:44 PM
Not much else to do in this BITTER small town.
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM
Clinton now announces she would "obliterate" Iran. Tough talk. Wow, alongside McCain "bomb-bomb-bombing" Iran, and Clinton obliterating it, I prefer Obama talking to its leaders. Maybe fight later, if absolutely necessary, but talking first can't hurt. International realtions are a lot like interpersonal ones -- talk is the best way to bring people and nations, if not together, at least into a state of peaceful if somewhat inimical coexistence. Give me a break. I mean, suppose there is someone on my street I don't particularly like, and then I start swaggering and saying I am going to kill or "obliterate" him in this or that hypothetical situation. Just asking for trouble. She hopes it plays to the right of center, but really all sane people have to hope that neither she or McCain get anywhere near the White House.
Posted by: frank burns | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM
1) Are you the same person who posted at 7:06 PM?
2) When did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus?
3) Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"?
4) I didn't see any "invitation" [her "Kitchen" ad] to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to?
5) Are you a U.S. citizen?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:51 PM
The truth: Mr Obama is the Democratic nominee and Hillary Clinton with her lying self needs to sit her oversized head and tired butt down somewhere!
Posted by: calvinator7 | April 21, 2008 7:51 PM
Monica Lewinsky would be delighted to work for the Sexology Department with special ties with the Vatican, Amen!!!
Posted by: Vatican | April 21, 2008 7:52 PM
OMG this is such a depressing string -- people frothing at the mouth on both sides. I'm a big Obama supporter but a pox on all of ya'll. Stop hating, start realizing Operation Chaos is alive and thriving not just at the ballot boxes but also on these sites. People, don't blame the candidates for their purported supporters on here. I hate that they're both negative in PA; I hate that John McCain is getting a free ride and Democrats are actually boasting that he'll be their choice in Nov. (folks, did you read the Sunday front page article on his anger management problems? his plan to create a neo-con coalition of the democracies; his economic and Iraq playbooks straight from the Bush orthodoxy?) A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush lite; if you really are a fervent supporter of your Democratic candidate, do me a favor. Get off the blogs, go volunteer at a phone bank, do something but stop poisoning the Democratic party through these vitriolic attacks on each other. Let's stop eating our young, lol.
Posted by: omyobama | April 21, 2008 7:57 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:58 PM
Political Watchdog,zaney8, twin_peaks_nikki, vtr08, Billw
Don't tell me, ya'll have math anxiety?
If you can't stand the math, don't run the numbers.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM
1) Are you the same person..? No
2) When did Hillary Clinton throw her mother under a bus? It is a metaphor, do you follow me?(if not, go back to school)
3) Was it anything like when Obama threw his grandmother under the bus by claiming she was scared of black people like any other "typical white person"? Obama wanted to hightlight how racist a "white" person can be, even her mother. I give him the point.
4) I didn't see any "invitation" [her "Kitchen" ad] to participate in our election. What ad are you referring to? Having B.Laden in an ad on the TV on our living-room and kitchen, is it not an invitation?(I vomited my dinner)
5) Are you a U.S. citizen? Whatever...
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM
Why did everybody stopped talking about Florida? If the Florida votes won't count in the primaries it will go Republican and McCain wins.
Posted by: angela | April 21, 2008 8:05 PM
By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.
Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM
By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.
Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM
By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.
Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM
By the way, anybody who applauds a Democratic candidate running, in a PRIMARY, an election-eve ad containing the Depression, Pearl Harbor and Osama bin Laden should have their head examined. Fear over hope any day? Thanks ... but no thanks.
Posted by: omg | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM
Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!
Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!
Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!
Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. (from Huffington post -Thx to Pearlriver)
Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Go Hillary! You can take PA!! Prove all the pundits and BHO followers wrong. We need your kind of leadership because you understand how to make the system work for us. Thanks for all you've done for the many children and women of the world who don't even have a clue about what you've done to improve their lives! GO HILLARY!!!
Posted by: bjbprice | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Hey Joyce: I liked your Clinton poem. You got a lot of talent.
Posted by: svbreeder | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Hey Joyce: Great job on the clinton poem. You have a lot of talent
Posted by: svbreeder | April 21, 2008 8:15 PM
Dan, Great summary of the situation. You're always a pleasure to read.
Posted by: Kire | April 21, 2008 8:15 PM
If she is nominated, she will be crushed by McCain in November.
Posted by: silverspring | April 21, 2008 8:16 PM
Obama is our Savior. After watching "typical white people" grill Obama during the debate, I realized that Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! These poor bitter rural white folk with their guns and phony religion who are afraid of people not like themsleves should not be allowed to vote. Yes, no more so called elections where typical white people vote! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded on slavery. White people, no more gun purchases, save your money cause reparations are comin! Obama 08!!!
Posted by: Obamamania | April 21, 2008 8:16 PM
OK I just posted a note on being all nice to each other, and then I see Mrs. Clinton's election-eve ad highlighting clips of Pearl Harbor, the depression and Osama freakin' bin Laden. This is despicable. And shoddy. And inappropriate. For one Democrat to be using against another Democrat ... amazing.
Posted by: omyobama | April 21, 2008 8:17 PM
The wacky preacher, the bitter wife who thinks she is Jackie Kennedy, Not saluting the flag, Never wearing an Amrican flag lapel, The bomb throwing buddy from the 60's, The slumlord pal now on trial, The drug dealing years in Chicago, The bumbling fool at the last debate...it goes on. The man is a mess. He could of waited four years but beleived his own hype. Now he is the joke of the nation. I would never vote for him and put this great country in this nitwits hands.
Posted by: garlicnose | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Let's talk some more truth. Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No" Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?" Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him. The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country. Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.
Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Her image is her own semblable ... know what I'm sayin, Holmes?
Posted by: pressF1 | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Let's talk some more truth. Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No" Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?" Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him. The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country. Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.
Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Let's talk some more truth. Do you think that HRC has ever been called the N-word? "No" Is it sooo unlikely - although I'm not saying that I know the answer to this - that the government infected African Americans with AIDS? "No - have any of you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment where the government infected black people with syphilis?" Aren't there a LOT of people who believe that USA policy has been unfair to many nations and people in the world and that one day the United States might have to "pay the piper"? Yes. I'm not saying that 9-11 was justified - only that Jeremiah Wright's views aren't/weren't only shared by him. The majority of folks in this country are offended because they want to so desperately forget the HISTORY of this country. Jeremiah Wright isn't rascist, he is just speaking the truth that the "majority" doesn't want to acknowledge or hear.
Posted by: Kasmel | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Monday, April 21st, 2008 My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours, Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com MMFlint@aol.com
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
So crude oil is $117 per barrel and the cheapest gasoline in at a national average of $3.50 per gallon...
And you media idiots are focusing on stupid quips and gripes the candidates are engaged in? The only thing these news websites are any good for is for people to post the real news from other sources in place of stupid stories like this one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Saudis, Iranians, Venezuelans, and all the other OPEC nations are laughing at America under George Bush.
Even the Canadians, the largest oil importer to the US, are laughing.
I think I'll load up a bunch of rocks and go on a cross-country drive for e the next few weeks in my V8 engine truck.
And I'll charge it all to my Bank of America or Citibank or Washington Mutual credit card. Then I'll tell them to take a hike when the bill comes. There''ll be nothing to foreclose on, just gasoline fumes.
Never though I'd see it, but the days of taking a simple road trip to see the country are LONG GONE. I'm glad I did so with my grandparents in the 1960's when I was a kid, because our kids will never see it again.
THANK YOU BUSH/CHENEY FOR KILLING THE DREAM.
Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Monday, April 21st, 2008 My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours, Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com MMFlint@aol.com
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:32 PM
Obama is our Savior. After watching "typical white people" grill Obama during the debate, I realized that Obama, Ayers, and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! These poor bitter rural white folk with their guns and phony religion who are afraid of people not like themsleves should not be allowed to vote. Yes, no more so called elections where typical white people vote! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded on slavery. White people, no more gun purchases, save your money cause reparations are comin! Obama 08!!!
Posted by: Obamamania | April 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Monday, April 21st, 2008 My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours, Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com MMFlint@aol.com
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Hillary Clinton, Is the purest example we have of exactly how far some people will go to get elected. So many of us would have once considered voting for her but over the last four months she has confirmed that she is an egocentric liar.
I am proud to be a democrat but there is no way I will vote for her any longer, for anything. First she an Bill turned all of the African American voters against them, now they've demonized Moveon.org followers. I just wonder will there be any party left after she is done cleansing and dismantling it.
Simply, she is a monster. If only those poor voters that are still supporting her would realize this the party could be united. If someone would lie about something as small as the Bosnian episode -- just what else will she lie about?
We've spent the last 16 years with leaders lying to us and innocent people have been hurt and killed as a result. First Bill Clinton couldn't not keep his zipper up then he was left impotent to pursue Bin Laden. And the last 8 years we've had a full administration of liars lead us into a global disaster.
When does it end? When will we be able to trust another American president?
Go away Hillary. Go away Bill. Go lie to yourselves.
Posted by: james - Los Angeles | April 21, 2008 8:35 PM
The Washington Post has sunk awfully low this time--Hillary bashing the day before the Pennsylvania primary. Would it not be just as accurate or even more accurate to say that Obama has been weakened? Indeed, it would be. Does the Washington Post care about accuracy and unbiased reporting? Apparently not.
Posted by: Wilson | April 21, 2008 8:35 PM
I'd rather put my faith in Obama's enthusiastic but unproven first time voters than in Hillary's Reagan Democrats, with their proven track record of abandoning the Democrats and fleeing to the GOP in every election year.
These Blue Dogs ALWAYS find an excuse to defect to the GOP. If it's not Obama, it's gay marriage or Kerry's windsurfing.
They're Republicans, really. **** 'em.
Posted by: Bourassa | April 21, 2008 8:37 PM
"THE TRAIL | Mischaracterizations of trip to Bosnia, turmoil in campaign and husband's mistakes have left Clinton with a significant image problem." ___
Whitewater. The billing fraud case against the Rose law firm. Vince Foster's suicide. Webster Hubble's indictment. Jennifer Flowers. Cattle futures contracts. Monica Lewinsky. Renting the Lincoln Bedroom. Monica's blue dress. Bill Clinton's impeachment. The sale of presidential pardons. Walter Mondale's daughter. Bill Clinton's disbarment for obstruction of justice.
And padding her resume on Bosnia, her husband's race-baiting in South Carolina, and campaign in-fighting left her with an IMAGE problem? Are you people daft?
The Clintons are poison. They corrupt everything they touch. Now, Democrats believe it, too.
Posted by: Darden Cavalcade | April 21, 2008 8:43 PM
Thanks be to God that this online "news" is free, because no way in hell I'd pay for this lame excuse for journalism.
Hillary was not weakened by her wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhodes Island any more than she will be weakened by a win in Pennsylvania and possibly Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.
If we could eradicate the Mainstream Media, we would. Keep it up and we will.
Posted by: Mondegreenie | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Hillary throws her mother under the bus in an attempt to win Pennsylvania.
Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 8:45 PM
Like many out there, I was once a Hillary supporter. During the past four months, she has done ugly and the ugly has turned me cold against her. It's too bad because I know she has done great things. I know that she is a great lady when things are going her way, but when they are not, she stoops as low as the republican's do to "win"
It the phone rings at 3:00 AM who do you want to answer the phone. These are the things that George Bush and his gang of awful people do. They pray on the fears of people. The lack character and character matters. No to Hillary. Hell no!
Posted by: Janice Fata | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM
All of you Hillary bloggers! Have you contributed money to her campaign? If there was trully a Hillary movement she would not be in dept. The figures speak for themselves and all you angry people that are barking online, I dare you to back up your words with a contribution. ......ha I didn't think so.
Posted by: tiniakos | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Posted by: lwhite3 | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Showing Osama bin Laden in her ad reminds people that Hillary helped Bush take our attention off the real enemy and divert our resources to the Iraq invasion and botched war/occupation.
Posted by: Joseph | April 21, 2008 9:08 PM
Yeah Obama, just throw the rural hard working folks across the country under the bus. "clinging to their guns and religion"
Just don't ask for their vote after you insult the folks that make up the backbone of what built our great country.
Billary can win the big states!
btw: seems they're clinging to thier guns on the southside of Chicago too - 32 shot over the weekend?? Is that the way you run things in Illinois??
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
All the Clinton campaign hype about Obama not being able to win big states is a canard that assumes that an Obama vs. Clinton match-up is the equivalent of an Obama vs. McCain one.
I think the vast majority of voters that voted for a Democrat (not counting the small number of Republicans that switched over for the sole purpose of throwing a wrench into the works, as suggested over and over by Limbaugh and other slimeballs of his ilk) will vote for the Democratic candidate in the General Election.
If I am wrong, and there are enough voters willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, then John "BushCo 2.0" McCain will be the President and the famous words of Disraeli will be proven true again:
"every country gets the government it deserves."
Posted by: Pagun | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
Yeah Obama, just throw the rural hard working folks across the country under the bus. "bitter and clinging to their guns and religion"
Just don't ask for their vote after you insult the folks that make up the backbone of what built our great country.
Billary can win the big states!
btw: seems they're clinging to thier guns on the southside of Chicago too - 32 shot over the weekend?? Is that the way you run things in Illinois BHO??
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
Please look up the definition of the word interregnum next time you use it.
Posted by: Quita | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
peterDC wrote - "...he has won a string of victories in states that neither he nor Hillary will win in November like Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota etc."
Are you saying that because of the enormous Republican turnout *cough! cough!* in those states' primaries?
Posted by: treetopflyer | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
The great sport is to call someone you do not like a liar! In fact it is so great, that one hardly waits for a lie. Any mistake or misstatement or just something one might not agree with is "a lie."
Who cares if the fact checkes do not agree. That is tomorow. Today - they lie!!
Posted by: Gary E. Masters | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM
The great sport is to call someone you do not like a liar! In fact it is so great, that one hardly waits for a lie. Any mistake or misstatement or just something one might not agree with is "a lie."
Who cares if the fact checkes do not agree. That is tomorow. Today - they lie!!
Posted by: Gary E. Masters | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM
The truth of the matter is that with eight years of outrageous lies from the current administration, which have contributed to, among other things, the horrible financial situation that we are living at this time, any person with an ounce of intelligence would help block the chances of putting another liar, like this woman, in 1600 Penn.
Posted by: FRANK RIVAS | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. Her campaign has degenerated into old-time politics and it is ugly. She has been playing to the lowest common denominator of human nature: racism, fear of Muslims, fear, fear, fear. This is not endearing. We don't need to know that she is willing, and able, to do anything under the sun. It destroys trust. But, but, but, if the improbable actually happens and she wins the nomination, she will be elected because the nation is entirely ready for a change from the Republicans. McCain is a weak candidate because he has so very many personal and political weaknesses. Those who are threatening to vote for him instead of Obama or Clinton are practicing the personal politics of extortion and frustration. Hillary has been right, to a certain extent, to mine the field of those who practice these politics. But, she has had to resort to these unappealing attacks because she has no charisma. She cannot beat Obama straight up because she has no charisma. Unfortunately, for her, the nation now needs someone with charisma. Obama will win the nomination and he will win the Presidency with a huge landslide giving Democrats the House and the Senate. And, this country will begin a long, long, long road back to ourselves.
Posted by: cms1 | April 21, 2008 9:12 PM
Dan Baltz has consistently shown his lack of objectivity in his reporting by his clear bias in favor of Obama.
Posted by: SGW | April 21, 2008 9:13 PM
Please look up the definition of "interregnum" before using it again.
Posted by: Quita | April 21, 2008 9:15 PM
All the Clinton campaign hype about Obama not being able to win big states is a canard that assumes that an Obama vs. Clinton match-up is the equivalent of an Obama vs. McCain one.
I think the vast majority of voters that voted for a Democrat (not counting the small number of Republicans that switched over for the sole purpose of throwing a wrench into the works, as suggested over and over by Limbaugh and other slimeballs of his ilk) will vote for the Democratic candidate in the General Election.
If I am wrong, and there are enough voters willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, then John "BushCo 2.0" McCain will be the President and the famous words of Disraeli will be proven true again:
"every country gets the government it deserves."
Posted by: Pagun | April 21, 2008 9:16 PM
I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 12-14 percentage points (62-64%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 62-64% wins from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/
Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 9:20 PM
I wish the media and the superdelegates would keep in mind that Hillary's "big state" wins were partly due to: (a) Republicans voting for her (but won't in November) (b) Obama's lack of campaigning (in Michigan and Florida)
Obama has put traditionally-Republican states into play; has been the incentive for massive new voter registrations; has motivated young Americans.
If campaign management were the only indicator of his ability to run the country, he would have clinched the nomination long ago.
Posted by: Barbara Campbell | April 21, 2008 9:26 PM
As a Billary supporter I will not support Obama as the nomination. I will switch and vote for MeanMcain. Obama is not qualified to be Pres. He is hardly qualified to be a senator. We cannot in these trying times elect a inexperienced neophyte as the leader of our country.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. We want Bill back in the whitehouse.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:27 PM
Obama beats her...she knows it's coming in another month.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:30 PM
Just more pro-barack propaganda from the scum bag editors of the washington post. obama won't win pennsylvania and will go to the convemtion unable to win a major state that doens't allow his kool aid drinking followers to overrun a caucus. if it weren't for the 9-1 black vote bailing him out obama would be out of the race....
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM
Obama is afraid of Hillary Clinton, debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.
He's such a cowardly loser its simply amazing anyone would have every thought of voting for him.
Maybe he just needs more coke.
Too bad they couldn't have just been honest and run David Axelrod directly.
He's evil, but he's nobody's fool.
Posted by: Obama is a wuss | April 21, 2008 9:44 PM
Everybody missteps, but if the media has been hownding you for the last six months, every bit becomes added weight.
Let Geraldine, or Bill, or anyone else mention that Obama's lead maybe attributed to 90% of the black vote going to him, despite the fact that Hillary is more qualified and the media goes crazy -- "Race card! prejudice!"
But if the situation was reversed, and 80% of the white vote went to an under-qualified white candidate, the media about the prejudice in the white vote. . . . . . . And remember how the media in the debates would ask the majority of the questions to Hillary first?
THIS ELECTION HAS BEEN FIXED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY THE MEDIA.
Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 21, 2008 9:44 PM
Obama is actually two people; one is the politician that tells the voers what they want to hear, and the other is the one that reveals his true feelings at places like a private fundraiser for well heeled donators in liberal San Francisco. It is clear, if he ever wins, he will never deliver on his false promises.
Posted by: Anjali | April 21, 2008 9:48 PM
Here is the difference between Hillary and Obama. Tonight Hillary was on Keith Olbermann's show. Keith who has lambasted Hillary and put her on every pillory. No matter what he asked, she answered without hesitation and with a succint answer. She did not back down, no matter how hard the question was. Hillary is ready for the Presidency, Barack is not.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:50 PM
Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM
I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. Posted by: feastorafamine | April 21, 2008 9:20 PM ----------------------------- Maybe you don't understand the objective of the SuperDelegates, they are not in place to vote in alignment with the majority vote, but to vote for the most electable candidate.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 9:53 PM
What Republican support are you talking about. If your referring to talk radio and Fox. They don't speak for the Republican party. They are on their own. Not all Republicans and Conservatives share in the same opinion and support talk radio and Fox have for Hillary. Nor do all Republicans and Conservatives share in the attacks Obama's been getting as a result of the Reverend Wrights tapes. Since when do we hold someone responsible for all the evil things people say and the evil things people do. No one holds Hillary responsible for anything other then the sniper tape lie and it's just the opposite with Obama. Obama is held responsible for everyone who has crossed his path in life. Hillary was weakened long before she got to Pennsylvania. It wasn't only the sniper tape lie. It was lies upon lies upon lies, imagination, upon imagination, upon imagination that weakened Hillary. Hillary has a bigger problem then just being a lousy manager who can't even run a campaign. I guess her vast experiences don't include knowing how to handle finances, or paying bills. If Hillary was any of the things she says she is, it would show in the pocket book. Hillary's donations are shrinking so fast, she ought to ask Obama for a loan. If your coming across as Presidential, people donate. If you show you can manage a campaign and it's finances, you get donations. If you make people feel comfortable, you get donations. If your message is coming across to the people, you get donations. The buck stops with Hillary. If Hillary can't survive in Pennsylvania and move on, there's no one to blame but Hillary.
Posted by: houstonian | April 21, 2008 9:54 PM
Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM --------------------- If what you are saying was true then Obama would have 2025 delegates and would have won the nomnation, but he hasn't.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:55 PM
Primary elections with two Democrats running against each other in any given state, large or small, is a completely, totally different thing than a Democrat versus a Republican in a general election. To say that Hillary winning by a narrow margin in some of the bigger states in a primary means that she could win in those states against a Republican in the general election is ludicrous, even stupid. What is wrong with you people? You are delusional, grasping at any illogical straw that you can find to try to keep her in the race, meanwhile so blinded that you don't really get how much damage she is doing to our chances in November. Enough already!
The 1.5 million contributors to his campaign, the thousands of new, excited and inspired voters, the millions he has raised without PAC or lobbyist money, the passion that he inspires in people. Don't you get how that happened? It is because people look beyond the old, worn out hype and the fake issues and sense that a real, genuine leader has finally showed up to rally this country. Millions of us have finally had it with the old school DC politics of the Clintons and McCains. We won't get fooled again.
The old way has not worked, it just keeps getting worse. It is time to turn the page and start fresh. It is time to stop fighting and start taking care of each other. Come on people, we have a lot of work to do.
Posted by: r2d2 | April 21, 2008 9:56 PM
Though the process to the nomination is crucial,and i also think as a woman it should get more respects, i still support obama, you know, his childhood was more uneasy than many children, and he is younger and energetic. why don't we choose such an uprising star?
Posted by: michael | April 21, 2008 9:57 PM
I'm starting to think that there ARE no good photos of Clinton.
Posted by: ep thorn | April 21, 2008 9:59 PM
I wish the media and the superdelegates would keep in mind that Hillary's "big state" wins were partly due to: (a) Republicans voting for her (but won't in November) (b) Obama's lack of campaigning (in Michigan and Florida) --------------------- I heard Republicans were voting for Obama, and Obama did campaing in Florida and removed his own name on the Michigan ballot in his effot to win Iowa.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:00 PM
Showing Osama bin Laden in her ad reminds people that Hillary helped Bush take our attention off the real enemy and divert our resources to the Iraq invasion and botched war/occupation.
Posted by: Joseph | April 21, 2008 9:08 PM ----------------------- Not at all. She showed many issues a President will have to deal with, it didn't highlight Osama or fear, just issues that confront a President. She then asked who could deal with it best. That was not about fear, it was about reality.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:03 PM
Yes, heads-in-the-sand Clintonistas out there, "weakened". Need it spelled out?
Ohio and Texas were to be her first 'firewall', where she would make up ground after Obama's string of victories in February. However after those two states, and Mississippi, and futher announcements by super delegates, she is still 142 delegates behind Obama, according to Real Clear Politics' latest count, more than before Ohio.
Pennsylvania is the biggest state left and has much better demographics for her than the second biggest (North Carolina, where polls all show Obama up by 10+%). This was to be her next 'firewall'. If she doesn't pick up a lot of net delegates here then she has lost by far her best chance to do so, and in two weeks a close Indiana and Obama win in NC will mean that she has gained no ground at all. With no big states left she will be much, much farther behind than she can possibly make up.
Weakened, indeed. And, as Dan mentions, also weakened financially -- in debt, in fact, while Obama's strong base continues to keep his campaign flush with cash.
This is reality, folks. You still harbor the dream that the super delegates will come in on her side and override Obama's lead? Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that this will happen? Why are the supers breaking 4:1 for Obama in the meantime?
Time to prepare for the moment when Hillary ends her campaign and strongly endorses Obama. That day is not far away.
Posted by: lostintranslation | April 21, 2008 10:03 PM
Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:51 PM --------------------- If what you are saying was true then Obama would have 2025 delegates and would have won the nomnation, but he hasn't.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 9:55 PM
Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM
Like many out there, I was once a Hillary supporter. During the past four months, she has done ugly and the ugly has turned me cold against her. It's too bad because I know she has done great things. I know that she is a great lady when things are going her way, but when they are not, she stoops as low as the republican's do to "win"
It the phone rings at 3:00 AM who do you want to answer the phone. These are the things that George Bush and his gang of awful people do. They pray on the fears of people. The lack character and character matters. No to Hillary. Hell no!
Posted by: Janice Fata | April 21, 2008 8:46 PM ------------------------ If you have left Hillary because of her telling the truth while not wathcing what Obama's campiang has been doing behind the scenes to throw mud,, buy the people he pays to represent him, then you were never really behind Hillary. Go for the rock star and know that you will have to live with your poor decision both figureactively and monetarily as he knows knows nothing aobut the Federal Government and the way it works. If you really think he is is going change how the Federal gov't has run for 200 years then you are living in a dream. Even Thomas Jefferson ran lies about John Adams.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM
Money is not enough to win elections. McMean showed that against Romney. Romney out spent him 10 to 1 and lost. You Obamaheads need to get real and think about the future of this country. Obama is not qualified to be Pres.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM
there are some stupid obama people posting here. All the more reason he should not win the nomination. My advice to the Obama supports, stop posting stupid crap and start learning!
Posted by: stupidobamapeople | April 21, 2008 10:09 PM
Posted by: Pusser | April 21, 2008 10:10 PM
Everybody missteps, but if the media has been hownding you for the last six months, every bit becomes added weight.
Let Geraldine, or Bill, or anyone else mention that Obama's lead maybe attributed to 90% of the black vote going to him, despite the fact that Hillary is more qualified and the media goes crazy -- "Race card! prejudice!"
But if the situation was reversed, and 80% of the white vote went to an under-qualified white candidate, the media would be screaming about the prejudice in the white vote. . . . . . . And remember how the media in the debates would ask the majority of the questions to Hillary first?
THIS ELECTION HAS BEEN FIXED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY THE MEDIA.
It is amazing to me the people still think an obscure speech is the same as a Senate vote -- it's just amazing.
Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM
If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain.
If people think Obama looks like an idiot now, wait until the Republicans get through with him.
Hopefully someone will convince Axelrod to convince Obama to drop out before he makes any more of a fool of himself.
Obama's afraid of Hillary Clinton, Debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.
He's a hand puppet for David Axelrod, that's all.
Posted by: If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM
It won't matter who I vote for if Obama gets the nomination.
He'll lose by a landslide.
I will vote for every Democrat I can, but if Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for McCain, just like many other Clinton supporters will.
Here are just a few.
1. I believe that Obama is incompetent and not qualified to be President.
2. In protest to the tactics of Obama supporters viciously attacking anyone who posts anything that causes Obama's divinity into question.
3. In honor of the people who suffered and died in "Obama's Slums"
There are many more reasons.
Those are just the first few that come to mind.
Posted by: Fukeman | April 21, 2008 10:12 PM
Posted by: Putz | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM
U Americans need a charistic leader,bringing back respections u lost a decade ago since the Monika Lewinsky affairs from the world . Barack Obama is such a leader emerging,young,energic,good at making speeches and having a vision on the America and the world . Clinton only plays those old style politics,she is old style politician. Go ,Obama
Posted by: jeff | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM
Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM -------------------- I don't have to like the person, or want to have a beer with the person that is protecting my civil rights and my financial interests. That is not what this is about. Maybe you shold talk to the Obama campiagn about all his lies about Hillary if her favorability has gone down, I think it is because of his lies about her.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM
To all those Obama supporters who say that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the people, then why to they exist? Why did they set up a system by the end of which no clear winner could emerge? Well the truth is that they set up the superdelegates to be a saftey vlave agaist the radical left who control the grass roots in the Democratic party! This was the same thing the founding fathers did when they established the congress,the house was to be the peoples party and the senate was to represent the elite and infulential, and well educated. The house would be popularly elected and the Senate would be electe by the state legislatures which were controlled by the elite! They gave the Senate power to comfrim treaties and presidential appointments! It was not until 1913 that the Senate was elected by the people! This was done to be a check on the passions of the masses and make sure they maintained real control! So the Democrats in an effort to ensure there would be no more McGovern's or Mondale's set up the superdelegates to put a check on the liberal left wing of the party through the use of superdelegates in order to insure that they would not select a nominee that was seen as not being able to win! It had nothing to do with who had the most delegates, if that were the case then they could have made a simple rule change and said that what ever canidate had a plurality of the delegates was the winner! The problem is that they never thought they would have to acutally pick a winner and now they do so I say that Hillary sould stay all the way through the convention and make those old codgers vote and take the responsibility if we lose!
Obama facts. A man not to be trusted.
1. He is an admitted drug user. no doubt here his own words. Source "His book".
2. He has been accused by the Clinton campaign for possibly selling drugs. the republicans didn't accuse him the Dems did. why? Because they know the republicans will use it during the election. Source "Clinton Campaign"
3. He was raised Muslim in a school in Indonesia known to support terrorism. this is a fact. he claims to be Christian now. But where are his loyalties. Source "His book".
4. he has no experience. that is a fact. Less than 2 years in Senate and most of that has been Campaigning.
5. his voting record is questionable. Source "smartvote.com" Examples: 1. Obama states he would get the troops out of Iraq, yet on the IRAQ WITHDRAWAL AMMENDMENT he did not vote. 2. Obama claims to be concerned about Children's healthcare, yet on the 2007 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) he did not vote. 3. Obama claims to be for the environment, yet on the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) and Energy Act of 2007 and Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies Amendment and the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 he did not vote on any of these bills. 4. he did vote for the congressional raise though.
6. Obama is a smoker, fine example for our nation's children. Source "his words in an interview with Oprah" he has been trying to quite, unsuccessfully.
7. . 2007-01-30 ? [WDC News Post] ? WASH?Jan 25?DJNS?Associated Press has revealed that Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, attend a Catholic school in Indonesia registered as a Muslim, further clouding the issue of where Obama was schooled in Indonesia and when. Obama, by his own admission in books that he has written, has said that he attended a Catholic school and a Muslim school while living in Indonesia with his atheist mother and Muslim stepfather. But now that Fox News reported that Obama may have been indoctrinated in Islamic teachings while attending the Muslim school in Indonesia, he and his handlers have gone spinning the story to the news media, and their stories do not match up. Source "WDC News"
8. In August, 2006 US Senator Barack Obama [D-IL] made a special trip to visit a special man in Kenya. The man's name was [is] Raila Amolo Odinga. He is the head of the National Muslim Leaders Forum [NAMLEF] in Kenya. The political party he heads is called the Orange Democratic Movement [ODM] ? although there is definitely nothing democratic about his political party ? The ODM is dedicated to overthrowing the legitimate democratic government of Kenya. ? If he succeeds, he will be president for life and Kenya will become another Afghanistan. When the US Senator visited Kenya to meet with Odinga in Nairobi, the Kenyan government officially denounced the visit. And, most specifically, they denounced Obama. Source "CBS, FOX, ABC news"
9. fact more than once Obama has failed to render honors to the Flag. small thing you say, maybe, but not to me. Sources "internet and Clinton campaign"
10. Obama has NOI members on his staff. He has been endorsed by Louis Farrakhan. Source "Debbie Schlussel independent reporter"
11. the NAFTA screw up, the man has no clue. Source " everywhere"
12. rev wright . Obama had described Wright as his spiritual mentor. He was married in the church, and Wright was a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee. Source "everywhere"
13. Barack Obama has been running his campaign in the style of a revolutionary. Just how radical and liberal Obama is has been well hidden by the campaign. If you haven't heard about his friendship with the leaders of the radical group, the Weather Underground, you can thank the media. Just how radically left this man is can be seen in what company he keeps. Obama is friends with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground terrorists of the 1960's. source "all over the internet, NBC, ABC and FOX" 14 . Lastly he is a Lawyer. that, according to the 2002 Harris poll is one of the most untrusted professions. yet we continue to elect lawyers to office ================================================ =================== He also snores and farts.................................boy we can't have him as president. ________________________ that is a well thought out response, if this is the mentality of Obama's supporters then he'll never get elected. his supporters won't be smart enough to find name on the ticket.
Posted by: Chipper | April 21, 2008 10:15 PM
Go check out any of the polling organizations, like Gallup, and you will see Hillary has by far the highest unfavorablilty rating, at around 57%.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM -------------------- I don't have to like the person, or want to have a beer with the person that is protecting my civil rights and my financial interests. That is not what this is about. Maybe you shold talk to the Obama campiagn about all his lies about Hillary if her favorability has gone down, I think it is because of his lies about her.
I am voting for the person that can do the job for Americans, who has our best interests and I think that is Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:16 PM
McCain is in Alabama wooing black voters and Hillary is in Pennsyvania kissing the but of white males. Go figure. She's invoking Osama Bin Laden like Bush. She couldnt get health care passed, why would anyone turn to her in a crisis.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM
All of you Hillary bloggers! Have you contributed money to her campaign? If there was trully a Hillary movement she would not be in dept. The figures speak for themselves and all you angry people that are barking online, I dare you to back up your words with a contribution. ......ha I didn't think so.
Posted by: tiniakos | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM ------------------ I have contributed money to her, but his supporters, in a majority, are supported by their parents. How are they going to fund the DNC which cannot even afford the Convention at this point?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM
Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM -------------------- Let's add tha tObama choose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot ot help his chances in Iowa. Hillar yposke out from it from the beginning.
http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858 This is an interview Hillary gave on October 11, 2007 - I didn't listen to all of it, but go to 22.20 timewise if you listen to it on Windows Media and hear her talk about why she left her name on the Michigan Ballot - she didn't want to leave those people out Clinton: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains New Hampshire's status. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot, and I also thought that people in NH and in Iowa have a great understanding of the problems we are going to face as Democrats to win in November 2008. I am going to win the nomination and then I am going to win in November 2008 because we are going to bring more people to vote for us and we are not only going to maintain our advantage in states that have voted Democratic before, but if you look at some of the states we have to win the margins have been narrow. It wasn't in my view meaningful, but I am not going to say there is absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we are not careful about it. Interviewer: If you value the DNC calendar then why not just pull out of Michigan. Why not just say "Hey, Michigan, I am off the ballot." Clinton: Well, you know people in Michigan are flat on their backs, they have the highest unemployment rate in America. They are now grappling finally with what they are going to do with the auto industry. 1 in 10 jobs in America is tied with the auto industry, the American auto industry, which we know is centered in Michigan. It is clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything. But, I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination we had to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in November 2008. I am not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I am not going to spend any money there, but I did not think it was fair to just say good bye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we are going to be in the WH in January 2009. Interviewer: Do you think it was a tactical mistakes for Misters Obama and Edwards to take their names off the ballot. Clinton: Well, they are going to have to speak for themselves.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:20 PM
Don't tell me, ya'll have math anxiety?
If you can't stand the math, don't run the numbers.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM ---------------------- Like it or not, the Super Delegaters are not about math, but who is most electable.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 10:22 PM
Obama said all three candidates are better than George Bush. Hillary accuses him of praising McCain. She's really fishing for straws. If it was praise, it was faint at best. Was he damning McCain with faint praise?
Posted by: msmart2 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM ---------------------- Get your story straight, he said that, then he said the bar was very low. So what he did is belittle Hillary.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:24 PM
If Hillary Clinton is so popular, why are there so many cars using bumper stickers like these?
Hillary Can't Trust This Bumper Sticker
Honk if Hillary Scares You
"Sure I'd love to see a woman President, just NOT HILLARY"
Got lies? (with Hillary's picture)
Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | April 21, 2008 10:29 PM
"I know so many democrats that will not vote for Obama"
We have a long way to go before we defeat Racism in America. How backward we are with all these bitter people!!!
Posted by: Bruno | April 21, 2008 7:22 PM ------------------ Aer you saying if you don't vote for Obama you are a racist? Does that come into play even if think he is not the best candidate based on his credentials?
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:29 PM
Trouble for Clinton is her Bushlike missteps seem like Republican sins, whereas Obama's missteps are the "sins" of Democrats.
Posted by: jhbyer | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM
Clinton has offended many life long democrats as she campaigns on the theme that Obama a black cannot win, cannot handle a crisis and is an elitist. I cant think of a more self-destructive campaign for the Democratic party. Meanwhile McCain is in Alabama wooing black votes. Someone in the DNC should grab Hillary by the collar and box her ears for damaging the party. They need to get the hook for Hillary whose campaign adds are like GOP farts.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM
We need a demacrat in our white house so i will vote for whichever one wins the nomination.Its our best chance to help our economy and get healthcare thats afordable and maybe our only chance to end the ilegal war in Iraq.Thats more important than which one wins.
Posted by: sharon | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM
"Mischaracterizations"? Why is it so difficult to just call a "lie" a "lie" ? My grandmother never washed out my mouth with soap for mischaracterizations.
Posted by: jes_fine | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM
Obama's name was indeed taken off the Michigan ballot. His name was ON the Florida ballot, and some of his campaign ads ran in Florida too.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM ---------------------- He choose to take his name off the Michigan ballot in a move to win Iowa because they felt Michigan had pre-empted them to be one of the firsts in the balloting.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:31 PM
Hillary started out with bad favorability numbers and her slimy campaigning slid them further.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 10:32 PM
The only things wrong with Obama are that he's dishonest, a fraud, totally incompetent, speechless without his teleprompter, extremely immature, and a complete coward.
Besides that, he's a heck of a guy.
Posted by: Besides that, he's a heck of a guy | April 21, 2008 10:33 PM
I dont care what religion Obama is, whether he wears a flag pin, whether he did drugs when he was younger, whether he knows a real estate magnate in Chicago. I really don't care. I do care that Hillary is tearing up the heart of the Democratic party with an over aggressive destructive campaign that even McCain is capitalizing on. That just doesnt make any sense. The party cannot allow her to get the nomination because no one will be there in November. She is the most dissapointing of modern democrats with so much promise and no common sense. Next she will be appearing with David Duke to win white male votes.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:34 PM
The kind of bald-faced bias that this article and many others like it display is simply ridiculous. It completely ignores the level of success that Clinton has maintained throughout this long process, and tries to make it seem like any gaff she has made is five times worse than similar gaffs by Obama. There are so many blemishes in Obama's past that are going to come spewing out as soon as (or rather, if) he becomes the candidate, that his supporters will wonder how they were so foolish to be so thoroughly duped by the media.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who can stand behind her promises to change things for the better in this country. People have been rummaging through her baggage for sixteen years now without ever coming up with anything convincingly problematic, so I think it's high time the Hillary haters simmer down.
An Obama presidency will undoubtedly be full of a whole lotta nothing. Not only is he the spring chicken of all spring chickens, he hasn't made one single legislative accomplishment that he can legitimately claim credit for. Even his political backers know this.
Posted by: Matvyei | April 21, 2008 10:35 PM
The dishonest, immature cowards are not Obama but the people who keep thinking that somehow by posting wacked out slams on the Post they actually are changing any minds. These posts are like Jim Jones coolaid for the mindless.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:36 PM
You're right. Obama's supporters are immature cowards too.
Posted by: You're right, his supporters are immature cowards too | April 21, 2008 10:43 PM
We Hillary supporters have been going on what, 3 months? That our candidate is no good.
The barrage of negative slander telling us to give up never stops.
Posted by: Comment | April 21, 2008 10:44 PM
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. Her campaign has degenerated into old-time politics and it is ugly. She has been playing to the lowest common denominator of human nature: racism, fear of Muslims, fear, fear, fear. This is not endearing. We don't need to know that she is willing, and able, to do anything under the sun. It destroys trust. But, but, but, if the improbable actually happens and she wins the nomination, she will be elected because the nation is entirely ready for a change from the Republicans. McCain is a weak candidate because he has so very many personal and political weaknesses. -------------------- You are silly and have not been facing the reality of what Obama's campaign has been doing for months on end while he has had all the media support.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:45 PM
Clinton has offended many life long democrats as she campaigns on the theme that Obama a black cannot win, cannot handle a crisis and is an elitist. I cant think of a more self-destructive campaign for the Democratic party. Meanwhile McCain is in Alabama wooing black votes. Someone in the DNC should grab Hillary by the collar and box her ears for damaging the party. They need to get the hook for Hillary whose campaign adds are like GOP farts.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:30 PM ----------------------- If you truly think that Obama has not done the same then you are not facing the reality that he otherwise would have the 2025 delegates he needs by now.
Posted by: Danielle | April 21, 2008 10:47 PM
What is this total and wild bologna? Or, more accurately BO-lonie?
Why is the media in America so obsessed with determining the outcome of a Democracy? They show no respect for the process! They think this is some sci fi world where the media RULES.
Hillary isn't weak today - she is wildly strong.
So, we can only deduce that the media is, then, deducing it's capacity to manipulate.
I guess, on this small blue planet in the vast and unimaginable space called the Universe, the media doesn't really matter. What does - are the souls that populate it. And those are the souls who will vote tomorrow. They will determine the next - fortunately for the wisdom of the found souls - ONLY four years of our collective future.
God Bless America. More of this phony Obama is known today than was four weeks ago. By no virtue of this spoon fed, arm chair press - if we can call it that.
Go Hillary Clinton. GO 50%++++ OF DEMOCRATS WHO SAW OBAMA FOR WHO HIS IS MONTH, MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO.. BEFORE THE PRESS WERE INSULTED BY HIM. HE CHUCKLES LOUDLY IN HIS KEEP - AND IN THE PALM OF HIS HAND YOU FOOLS DO SLEEP.
Posted by: Todd | April 21, 2008 10:48 PM
Early in life Barrack Hussien Obama attended a Madressa where they teach that it's good to k*ll infidels (non-muslims and jews) and correct to opress women. Later Rev Wright became a big influence in his life. Rev Wright has been tied to L. Farakan - whom is by all measures is a racist and a bigot. Obamas wife recently said that she is proud of America for the first time. What does this say about the character of the person we are thinking about electing Pres?
Middle American Dems do not want a liberal elitist that has belittled them for Pres. Vote for Billary and we might have a chance to win the Whitehouse.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 10:48 PM
Hey, see the film clip of Hillary wingman Ed Rendell singing Louis Farrakhan's praises to high heaven?
When will Hillary dissociate herself from Rendell, given that she has made association with Farrakhan such a big issue?
Clintonites ... oh, what a tangled web you weave, when you practice to deceive.
Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 21, 2008 10:51 PM
Clinton said she would nuke Iran if it nuked Israel. This is crazy. She is nuts.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:52 PM
If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain.
If people think Obama looks like an idiot now, wait until the Republicans get through with him.
Hopefully someone will convince Axelrod to convince Obama to drop out before he makes any more of a fool of himself.
Obama's afraid of Hillary Clinton, Debates, Democracy, being without his teleprompter, and the dark.
He's a hand puppet for David Axelrod, that's all.
Posted by: If Obama's the nominee, even California will vote for McCain | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM
The SVreader broken record continues, under yet another assumed "name."
Posted by: Vincent | April 21, 2008 10:53 PM
One can only pray that the voters in Pennsylvania will rid the Clinton "stain" from the political landscape. These despicable, power lusting, pathological lying frauds have inflicted enormous damage to the Democratic Party. Our nation has suffered for twenty years under the Bush/Clinton regimes of scorched earth, polarizing political warfare. It is time to put Bush & the Clintons in the dust bin of history. Good riddance.
Posted by: Shiva8 | April 21, 2008 10:53 PM
The Obama spin doctors are so sad. And so is the media the way they have covered this presidential campaign. They have all but run Obama's campaign. The media has not diversified its own workforce, that why it fawns over Obama. Those are not my words but the words of journalists covering this race. Oh, by the way, those covering the race tell me Obama is an empty suit and that Hillary is the smartest of all three. I have come to the conclusion that Obama will self-destruct eventually. He will not win a general election.
Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 21, 2008 10:55 PM
Obama never denounces ANYTHING. not his pastor, not Farrakhan, not his FLAG hate. He is very careful to never say much of anything. Can't his so called super educated blind "followers' GET IT? This man is a total fake. And you have swallowed the kool aid. You don't even listen carefully to waht he does and DOESN'T say. He's very very very very careful. And you can NEVER trust anyone who does that.
Listen up. Listen closely. To what you DO NOT HEAR.
That's Obama. He is a master at CAREFUL.
Don't look now. You been hoodwinked!!
The Republican's have got THE GOODS ON OBAMA IF YOU DON'T.
Cause, guess what? THEY HAVE THE PATRIOT ACT. THEY HAVE "INTELLIGENCE"
Posted by: truffles | April 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Its not an idle threat that a large constituency of the Democratic party will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. Life long Democrats will not vote for someone who campaigned as the David Duke of the Democratic party arguing that basically she is superior because she is a tough white person who likes guns and old time religion. The rubicon will the Clintons was passed long ago in this campaign in South Carolina. The nomination will be worth less to Hillary than it was to Jimmy Carter as a sitting president who beat Kennedy and lost to Reagan. At least McCain has the sense to woo black voters with a more authentic pitch than Hillary.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Mr. OBAMA is a clear example of how far someone will go to be elected.
Kiss arse in Chicago - Mr. Rezko to the tune of a quarter million
Kiss arese in DC to Deshle, Kerry,Kennedy, Dodd, Bradley, Leahy, Rockafeller, Richardson -- helloo? Obama will kiss ANYONE'S butt to get where he might go.
AND HE'S A FREAKING NO BODY!!!! FRESHMAN THREE YEAR SENATOR !!!
With a crazy arse MARKETING TEAM.
SUCH A SAD STATEMENT OF AMERICA
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT IT'S CRAZY WORST.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 11:03 PM
Hillary is Carl Rove's dream come true. She was a bad candidate by herself. With Obama, she has become a bizzaro version of Bush doing republican heavy lifting for McCain. Republicans have been trying to get black people to split with the party for years, and now they may succeed thanks to Hillary. If so, the Democratic congress will come crashing down in the next election. Just like Clinton 1 we will have a powerless President who can do nothing except fight off scandal.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 21, 2008 11:03 PM
Those who are confused and question the hypothesis of this article - - Hillary is weakened - - read it again,and again if you don't get it. Dan has done a superb job of laying it out. The comments by those that are confused confirms one of the demographics of Hillary's voting bloc - - the less educated who suffer from an obvious inability to exercise reasoning. The man laid out number after number along with narrative to explain it and you still do not get it, now what confuses me is that you cannot understand his point. So let me explain - - Senator Clinton is in a weaken position because statistically proven, people have changed their view of her, they have changed their view to the down side and not the up side, they think less of her than they did before it was determined that she lied about her trip to Bosnia. And that is about as simple as anyone can break it down, it really is not rocket science.
Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | April 21, 2008 11:04 PM
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: jacksmith | April 21, 2008 11:04 PM
Michael Moore also endorsed the another elitist, John Kerry in 04.
Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be President, maybe block captain for his Chicago neighborhood.
Posted by: Fishers, IN | April 21, 2008 11:09 PM
AND THE LYING WILD OBAMA MACHINE
THE MAN IS NO ONE
IN HIS WHOLE "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LIFE"
HE'S NEVER DONE NOTHING WITH ALL HIS OPPORUNITY
HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE REZKO RIDE
HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE MEDIA RIDE
HE'S BEEN LOVING THE FREE BLACK LIKE ME RIDE
HE'S BEEN LOVING THE WHITE GUILT RIDE
HE'S BEEN LOVING THE "NO QUESTIONS ASKED RIDE"
IS NO ONE, FROM NO WHERE, DONE NOTHING
WITH ALL HIS TWENTY YEARS OF "OPPORTUNITY"
HE HASN'T CREATED "CHANGE"ANYWHERE, FOR ANYONE SOCIALLY OR POLITICALLY
BLACK PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE, DC PEOPLE, LOBBYISTS, RACISTS, CHRISTIANS, KANSANS, ANYONE
MR. OBAMA IS A MEDIA EVENT
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 11:14 PM
Obama appeals to the inner lemming in every Democrat.
He's the pied piper of putz.
Don't fall for his BS.
The first step off the cliff is a doozy.
Say yes to Hillary Clinton.
The real change we need is to win the Presidency in November, and we do that by nominating a centrist like Hillary Clinton rather than a far-left loser like Barry Obama.
Posted by: Don't feed the lemmings | April 21, 2008 11:17 PM
Most American's with a brain would Nuke Iran if Iran Nuked Israel.
You are a NUT Nolan Nobody.
Well - you're an Obamabot - so we our expectations are low for you.
Time for an old guy like to you get some sleep?
Posted by: oliver | April 21, 2008 11:20 PM
Hillary Clinton can get the economy back on track. She can bring the troops home safely. She can get our bankrupting health care system right -she has more experience and knowledge of this than anyone out there. She can get and has our national character right. She can get our national values right - black, yellow, white, red or all of the above.
Hillary Clinton cares about EVERYONE!! In the United States and on this Planet. She is a WOMAN. She is a BRILLIANT woman.
Barack Obama is a freshman senator from Ilinois who seems to have many friends in Washington DC though he says he does not.
He doesn't seem honest about that and many other things.
I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. A known entity. Someone who has CARED for a long, long time about all Americans.
Posted by: isadore | April 21, 2008 11:29 PM
Man there are some bitter Hillary supporters out there. Maybe Barack meant you. What a joke all of your passion for someone who once again will lie to you and lead you into more wars. She's a warmonger --saying anything to get elected. This is the United States of America - not the United States of Israel.
Yes Israel is a good partner but to go as far to say that America would nuke another country shows how unstable Clinton is and demonstrates her lack of sophistication. Most people understand that Israel has bought America and we are their lap dog without Hillary having to threaten another nation with annihilation.
America needs to be an honest broker of peace everywhere if we plan to be a part of peace anywhere. Until we learn our lessons we are destined to repeat them over and over again. This is why Clinton '08 is the same as Bush 2004. Warmongering, liar, hater of the truth.
Come on PA step into the light, don't be afraid. What would Jesus do? I guarantee it would not be to threaten nuclear annihilation.
Go Obama, Go McCain -- anyone but another proven warmonger that needs to prove she's man enough for the job. Come on can we just call her Bill and be done with it.
Posted by: james - Los Angeles | April 21, 2008 11:44 PM
Here's an "elitist" comment, and God bless the best--the low level of proficiency in the English language, the constant hostile name-calling, and the inept reasoning displayed by the general run of Hillary supporters in blogs like this (to the extent it's not just one fellow--hello, SVReader!--using a lot of different screen-names) makes one wonder why anyone would take crucial political advice from people who clearly aren't even well qualified to help a middle-schooler to do homework.
Posted by: Anthony | April 21, 2008 11:53 PM
You Might Be Genius: if you voted for Obama as the strongest candidate who could run a good campaign and withstand attacks.
Okay, well maybe it doesn't take a genius, it's pretty obvious that if Obama's supporters go out and vote with all the excitement that's been generated, then they can get close enough to Clinton to keep her from catching up as much as she desperately needs to. If Hillary wins by 10 points only, she's gonna have to consider if her money will hold up to even participate in the rest of the contest...
Her campaign sure could use some more help from her deep pockets...
It's been a good primary for Democrats with all the newly registered Democratic voters. Pennsylvania as one more state for the Democrats? Is that why Obama is using resources to register the youth instead of winning over the more likely, older voters?
Posted by: eljefejesus | April 21, 2008 11:59 PM
Listen I respect you Clinton people's perserverence but you have to come to grips with the reality she is most likely going to lose the nomination whether she wins Pennslyvania or not. Your last shot in my opinion is to win North Carolina which your own campaign has said is impossible.
Posted by: Sean | April 22, 2008 12:01 AM
Obama snores and farts? OK, that does it.
Posted by: Billw | April 22, 2008 12:25 AM
You Hillary people amaze me...I dont care what she did while first lady..and if you look at her record in the senate she got nothing pivotal passed...just stupid trivial stuff. More important the Paul vs Clinton fraud suit..which looks bad for the Clintons. They have proof she knew about the money since they have her on tape. You people have no clue how dangerous these Clintons really are. Now tell me..if your great candidate were to win...and she is convicted of numerous felonies of campaign fraud...now wouldnt that be just terrific. Wake up peole..go and find out about the Paul vs Clinton suit. You would never want either of the Clintons anywhere near the White House. And shame on you Washington Post for not bringing this to Americas attention better. Oh and I loved the pic of her and Bill with Tony Rezcko. What a joke these people are.
Posted by: Linda | April 22, 2008 3:08 AM
I agree, the author of this report very clearly was using reading glasses manufactured by "Obama Optics" to read (and interpret) the various polls cited. I can get more objective information reading the label on a can of dog food.
This wasn't a news report. It was a lengthy and bald-faced Obama plug, pure and simple.
Posted by: Daniel | April 22, 2008 4:27 AM
Obama supporters ARE like cultists following some new age Messiah. Even when his core belifs and tenets are exposed from behind the curtain of canned sermons espousing "yes we can". .....I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To bad their Deity, has proved to be a false prophit. I just hope that they don't drink their bitter kool-ade and follow their Obamacomet into the void.
Posted by: tagurit | April 22, 2008 5:27 AM
This is just one guy's "take"--not news.
Posted by: | April 22, 2008 9:04 AM
The problem for Hillary is that she can't win without overturning the popular vote. That's not going to fly with most Democrats. I don't think she should drop out or anything..maybe Obama will make a mistake but if not, and Superdelegates overturn the popular vote from a black person to give it to a white person, the Dems would lose the African American vote for generations. He would have to have a Dead Zone moment for people to accept that. It's just the political reality and it's not going to happen.
What gets me is the irrational loathing of people. They both are pretty close to on the issues and you'd be an idiot to not vote for whoever wins and let McSame take the White House.
Supreme Court Justices are holding on by their fingernails til a Dem gets in. If any of the liberals on the Court drop out with McCain as President, we'll see a far right court for another 40 years.
So enough already with the irrational loathing. Most of us have admired Hillary for years. I don't particularly like the tone of her campaign but I will still admire her for years. And if this were 2004, I'd have welcomed her bareknuckles no hold back campaign. By the same token, Obama is a good guy. He's not the devil for beating Hillary nor is he some dishonest monster.
We'd be blessed to have either candidate as our President. Remember what you guys really believe in and who the real adversary is. Enough.
Posted by: Dandaman | April 22, 2008 9:11 AM
Hillary is not weakened; she is finished. Remember, it is all about the delegates. She simply cannot/will not get the delegates. Democracy at work.
Posted by: Ella | April 22, 2008 9:15 AM
The entitlement feeling by the Obama campaign and supporters is so sad. Why do they feel entitled to the nomination when Obama cannot win enough delegates to get the nomination. If Obama is so incredibly good and Hillary so bad, why do they not just beat her and finish the contest? They could not in Ohio. They could not in Texas. And they will not in Penn. Please quit whining and start performing or simply shut up. Americans do not like whiners
Posted by: Whiners please go home! | April 22, 2008 10:11 AM
Hillary is weakened b/c she has lost credibility. Her multiple fabrications on sniper fire in Bosnia show a fatal character flaw that voters are very sensitive to b/c of Bush's lies and spin: most voters can trust her to tell the truth.
Stick a fork in Hillary-she's done .
Posted by: Franklin | April 22, 2008 2:47 PM
Is Dan Balz on the Obama payroll? I thought he might be reading this article.
I'm reading many other blogs with many other stories about Hillary in PA and I can assure you that she's energized, her supporters are energized. When Hillary wins by 12+, then I guess we will finally realize that Obama may not be "the one".
Perhaps, the hype around Obama will finally come to an end.
Posted by: stefanie | April 22, 2008 5:13 PM
yes, Americans don't like whiners, and like cry babies even less.(Guess who cries for votes?)
What is wrong with a candidate who has the party insiders,, the name ,the money, the big lead,the smooth campaign, the 8 years in the white house, and she cannot put it away against an unknown junior senator?
That smacks of unelectability to me !!
All the botox, all the cheek implants, all the colored contact lenses, all the jewelery, the queenly outfits, can not help this woman.
She came out of the gate spending other peoples donations like the rich b.... she is,staying in luxury hotels, then one day it all came crashing down when the 'uppity' Senator from Illinois revealed that she is a hollow shell,no substance at all,all appearance.
Posted by: thopaine | April 22, 2008 6:49 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton is a more weakened candidate than she was on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries. --Dan Balz
| 2,615.233333 | 0.966667 | 11.166667 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/bill_clinton_defends_hillarys.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/bill_clinton_defends_hillarys.html
|
Bill Clinton Defends Hillary's Campaign
|
2008042119
|
Campaigning with his wife in Pittsburgh's Market Square, Bill Clinton defends his wife against charges she should leave the race. (Video: Ed O'Keefe/washingtonpost.com)
By Ed O'Keefe PITTSBURGH -- Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."
The former president was responding to increasing concerns among Democrats that a prolonged Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race improves Arizona Sen. John McCain's chances.
"Disenfranchisement is not a good strategy for Democrats," Clinton said. "We do a better job when people are in power. So I just don't agree with that."
Sen. Clinton is making four campaign stops in Pennsylvania today, in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. The former president joined her in Pittsburgh, and will be by her side tonight in Philadelphia. He'll make separate stops today in Greensburg, Arnold, and Ebensburg.
"I think by the end of the day, I will have done well over 50 events in 46 separate Pennsylvania communities. This is the strategy we adopted in Texas, and Ohio and even in Missouri," Clinton said. "It helps to overcome the enormous financial advantage that Senator Obama has that there are two of us going to two separate places."
Clinton dodged a question about the recent trip by fellow former president Jimmy Carter to meet with members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
"Look, I'm trying to help Hillary. I don't want to say anything that'll complicate her life. I think you ask her, and anything she says is fine with me. I don't want to go there."
Asked if he had spoken with any superdelegates in the last 24 hours, Clinton said, "A couple, but not a lot, mostly I'm campaigning."
Posted at 4:43 PM ET on Apr 21, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
As David Geffen said over a year ago, every politician lies but the Clinton's lie effortlessly.
Point by point: "Disenfranchisement is not a good strategy for Democrats," Clinton said. "We do a better job when people are in power. So I just don't agree with that."
Who is being disenfranchised? Democrats with valid caucuses or primaries had every opportunity to show up at a caucus or pick up a ballot and vote. On top of that, Obama has won more primaries that Clinton.
"I think by the end of the day, I will have done well over 50 events in 46 separate Pennsylvania communities. This is the strategy we adopted in Texas, and Ohio and even in Missouri," Clinton said. "It helps to overcome the enormous financial advantage that Senator Obama has that there are two of us going to two separate places."
Look, Hillary Clinton came in with EVERY advantage possible. She had all of the Democratic establishment, plus Bill Clinton, in her camp. Every donor and every politico was told to get in her camp. From the word go she has had BILL CLINTON campaigning for her every day.
Despite all of these advantages she is losing to a first term Senator, who happens to be black, that no one heard of before Summer 2004.
Please, Clintons, stop lying and stop spinning. We'll see you again in 2012 when we fund a primary challenge against you for your Senate seat.
Posted by: Choska | April 21, 2008 4:54 PM
He;s complaining about the VERY same rules that garnered him the nomination in 1992. These Clintons are shameless.
Posted by: DAN | April 21, 2008 5:01 PM
The best one, though, that is used to describe the Clintons.."One thing you can say about the Clintons, they're always there for you... when they need you"
Posted by: DAN | April 21, 2008 5:04 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 5:07 PM
This is a specious argument. If the rules were different Obama would have run an entirely different strategy, or perhaps not even run. However, Hillary's strategy would have worked much better in a Republican primary. That's the real problem. Hillary keeps forgetting she's not running as a Republican.
Posted by: Justin | April 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Posted by: Dave | April 21, 2008 5:18 PM
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-) If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...
Posted by: jacksmith | April 21, 2008 5:23 PM
Just so we're clear, President Clinton isn't exactly correct that his wife would have a 300 delegate lead if the DNC had set their primaries/caucuses up as the RNC did. At most, she'd be up 45 delegates.
Obama would have 1537 if he taken all the delegates (and only those delegates) from the states he's won. Clinton would have 1354.
Neither of these tallies includes Texas' 228 votes b/c Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucuses. Maybe the process in Texas would have been different procedurally if it were winner-take-all, but we can't change that now.
If we halve them, Obama ends up with 1656 (MORE than he currently has) and Clinton ends up with 1473 (LESS than she currently has). Even if Clinton gets all of Texas' delegates, she only leads Obama 1582-1537 (substantially less than the 300 delegate lead her husband suggested she would have).
All of this is, of course, moot. It's revealing, though, that the "electability" question certainly isn't as clearcut as the Clintons want it to seem.
Posted by: billyc | April 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Al Gore already is waiting in Denver? ;~)
Posted by: RAT-The | April 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Bill, if that is your argument, then why didn't Hillary do us all a favor and run as a Republican?
Posted by: Hillary R. Clinton (R) NY | April 21, 2008 5:37 PM
In the words of my newest hero (ouch my cheek hurts) P. Nis Cheney, "So?"
I don't care how Hillary could have won, should have won, etc. The rules were set before the voting began. Everyone agreed to them, and everyone knew what they were.
But Hillary's arrogance lost her the chance to win. She got out hustled and out strategized by Obama and his team.
As they say in Brooklyn, lady Senator, tough titties.
Posted by: jeffp | April 21, 2008 5:45 PM
I post the same thing every day because I might be an idiot
Posted by: jacksmith | April 21, 2008 5:51 PM
that's okay jack. you offer proof that you are.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:05 PM
You know, if Bill Clinton likes the GOP so much and since Hillary was a Goldwater girl and the president of the College Republicans at Wellesley (as well as all but endorsed McCain), maybe Bill and Hillary need to become Republicans! Don't let the doors hit you on the way out!
Posted by: Black and Bitter like Coffee | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM
England has a monarchy. The Clintons are NOT American royalty as they would have you think. Obama may or may not win this election but it is safe to assume that this WILL be the last election that the baby-boomer racists can control with their bitterness(code: not voting for a black person. That type of thinking is coming to a BITTER end.
Posted by: mackmusic78 | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM
Why is it that Obama supporters cite logical statements like how in 1992 Bill did not have a problem with the way pledged delegates were chosen? Again and again they support their criticism about Hillary with them pointing out the inconsistent and ever-evolving attacks Clinton makes against Obama. Meanwhile Hillary supporters use "hit and run" charges against Obama .
Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 6:10 PM
This guy, who still doesn't know what the definition of "is" is, and we go from there.
Posted by: swanieaz | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM
When the season started, I preferred the next three bottom-tier candidates to the first three. When the contest narrowed to Hillary and Barack, with roughly equal positions on the issues, I found myself favoring Barack's eloquence to Hillary's more prosaic style. But, I would have had no trouble voting for either in the general election. Then came the slights from the same Bill who had sold pardons on his way out the door, and prostituted himself (it was his turn) taking money from Kazakhstan. And the big Clinton push to change the rules in FL and MI, even if it were true that Hillary did not compaign there, either, it is obvious that Barack's vote increases, when there is a campaign. And, more importantly, independents, who voted in the Republican primary-- after they were told that they were not going to be allowed in the Democratic primary, and who leaned toward Barack-- were not going to be able to vote in a new contest. Add to that, Hillary's ongoing lies (flying into Bosnia, etc.) and general willingness to destroy Barack, and Democratic chances, even if she cannot get the nomination, and the prospect of Bill's running around the White House and the world doing deals, as the defacto vice president, and I see a real horror show.
I might be able to stomach voting for Hillary, in November, given the stakes, but not if she were still married to Bill.
Posted by: Beowulf | April 21, 2008 6:15 PM
If Hillary Clinton loves Scranton, Pa. so much, where has she been for all these years? Such pandering and more Clinton nonsense!
Posted by: Briskwood | April 21, 2008 6:22 PM
When one is Bill Clinton and one is talking about what Hillary's lead would be if we used a system like the Republicans its important to consider what the "would be" would be. Now, "would be" could be tallying those states with approved caucuses and primaries according to DNC rules. However, "would be" should be a system that includes Florida and Michigan because we don't disenfranchise voters; not even when voters disenfranchise themselves. In addition, "would be" should be a system that only considers the primary vote count in Texas because that represents everyone who voted and gives no added weight to the registered Democrats who should not be doubly franchised, which, if you think about it, disenfranchises people who voted for Hillary in the primary at the behest of right-wing talk radio but who weren't really invested in the party since their votes count for less than the people who voted again in the caucuses.
You see, "would be" is a power thing. "Would be" lets us make the world the way we want it to be, not the way the world actually is.
Posted by: scott032 | April 21, 2008 6:26 PM
I have often felt lately that the Clintons would be far more comfortable in the Republican party--where, I suggest, they should take themselves forthwith.
Posted by: Helena Montana | April 21, 2008 6:29 PM
WOW From Hillarys red suit and tactics to Bill's words. Why don't they just admit they are republican?
Posted by: Larry Oregon | April 21, 2008 6:31 PM
No one seems to grasp the obvious irony here. Democrats want control of the Presidency and the Congress, i.e. they want to run the federal government, but they can't even figure out how to run their own party.
Clinton has just unintentionally made a very good argument for electing a Republican president and returning the Congress to Republican control.
Posted by: theduke | April 21, 2008 6:37 PM
With the Clintons, it's not about the voters, or the Democratic Party, or even the country; it's all about the Clintons.
Posted by: george sutton | April 21, 2008 6:38 PM
Sorry Bill, gop already has their canidate, maybe in 2012.
Posted by: monkeyman | April 21, 2008 6:40 PM
If Republicans have a better system for selecting a candidate, it stands to reason that Republicans have a better candidate.
But then, Bill's statements never did stand up to close examination. As Bob Kerrey said, he is an unusually good liar. Hillary, OTOH, is just a liar. Her lies:his lies as her presidency:his presidency -- same thing, only executed much more poorly.
Posted by: gbooksdc | April 21, 2008 6:41 PM
thank you jacksmith for so accurately stating "the case"; it appreciated
Posted by: Lora | April 21, 2008 6:42 PM
One pig defends another. What's new, Dick Tracy?
Posted by: gmundenat | April 21, 2008 6:42 PM
Well, Hillary is proving that they in fact play by Republican rules when it comes to smear and fear tactics. But listen up... WE ARE PLAYING BY DEMOCRATIC RULES. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Billary.
Posted by: PatriotNW | April 21, 2008 6:43 PM
thank you jacksmith for so accurately stating "the case"; it appreciated
Posted by: Lora | April 21, 2008 6:43 PM
President Clinton's commet is right on. If the Democratic nomination as like the November general and Republian nomination, then Sen. Clinton would have a sizable advantage. Obama has mainly won "red" states and caucuses and we know how those are influenced. This delegate advantage does not even include the disenfranchised voters of FLorida and Michigan.
Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2008 6:45 PM
So the Clintons should make it official and join the republican party.
Posted by: poggy | April 21, 2008 6:46 PM
I find it sad that the Clintons have stooped to this level. I honestly wish that Hillary had never run this cycle. She would go down in History as a good first lady and a great Senator. Bill Clinton would go down as a very good, yet deeply flawed, President. There is no telling how they both will be seen by history now that they have embarrased themselves so thoroughly. I just think it is sad.
Posted by: NM Moderate | April 21, 2008 6:47 PM
We will vote for you in November regardless of the outcome of this 'nomination' process.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:48 PM
Well I can tell you that I am really getting tired of all the demoatic bull crap, and it is only APRIL! If the Cliton's are already this annoying... imagine how we will all feel in November, if by some miracle she makes it that far.
Posted by: Arizona | April 21, 2008 6:50 PM
I listened to Clinton and Obama on church and politics, if Obama does not have a writer telling him what to say, he does a lot of ers and and's...sounds like to me he cannot carry on a conversation without someone writing what he wants to say...Hillary on the other hand is very smoothe on her answers. do we an er or and president talking to other country powers and sound stupid....?? listen and learn
Posted by: dalabunny@gmail.com | April 21, 2008 6:51 PM
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "lose" is.
Posted by: thebob.bob | April 21, 2008 6:52 PM
"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here,"
So, why didn't she RUN as a Republican? She's mostly one anyway, with the Wall Street support (how do you think Chelsea got that hedge fund job?), political smears, greed, and egregious self-interest, such as taking $$$ from the Saudis and Chinese interests on their way to their $100 million.
And no, "jack smith" or whoever the hell you are, you not an idiot, just a transparent Clinton lackey carrying her water -- poisonous at that -- for her.
"35 years of experience" -- oh, puh-leeze! It's the RELEVANT experience that counts, Bubba, and she's become so IRRELEVANT.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM
Well, maybe HRC should have run for the Republican nomination if their system is so good.
Part of process is designing a campaign that wins based on the rules that are set down. Presumably if the Dems had a winner-take-all obsession like the R's Obama might have taken a different approach. Of course, even assuming he didn't, what BC is saying is that a system that gives the nomination to someone that loses the popular vote (as HRC is currently doing) is the right thing to do. Now that is truly Republican.
Also, I like the idea of a Senate primary challenge in '12, as suggested by another poster. Please put me down for a contribution.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 6:53 PM
Hillary is the best choice to be the Democratic Nominee for the general election. Deep down, everyone knows that based simply on each candidates' experience, resume, public record, etc. I hope justice is served and the voters in the next 10 primaries take a stand.
Posted by: Evelyn | April 21, 2008 6:54 PM
Jacksmith you are an idiot
Posted by: VivaObama | April 21, 2008 6:55 PM
Bill and Hillary are great
Great for American and great for the world.
We do not need someone who who does not know what they are doing nor explain what he is going to do.
Posted by: Bill | April 21, 2008 6:56 PM
This argument is totally bogus. Bill Clinton needs to stop WHINING about the rules. Hillary Clinton has run a shoddy campaign, period.
And, the voters of Florida and Michigan were not "disenfranchised" by Obama. Cut the victimization BS and have a talk with the State Party leaders- that is who is responsible.
Posted by: maria | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Chris Rock quotes from his show last night in D.C.
On Hillary - "Hillary is like Glen Close in Fatal Attraction."
On African American Hillary supporters - "That's how much we hate ourselves."
On Hillary for president - "I think it's time for a woman to be president. But does it have to be this woman?"
Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 6:57 PM
Note to Obama fans: Careful how much you insult the Clintons...regardless of the delegate count, Hillary still has nearly half the nation voting for her. If you really want Obama in office, you may want to start thinking of all of Hillary's supporters you're insulting wit your negativity.
Posted by: ziv | April 21, 2008 6:58 PM
To jacksmith - You Be An Idiot!
Posted by: ub | April 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Bill Clinton is like a beauty queen who refuses to relinquish the crown. Time's up, Bill. You and Hillary should go on a nice, very very LONG vacation and stay off of the public stage for the forseeable future. And NO, we want no Hillary 2012 run, thank you.
Posted by: marcia mac | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM
To ziv - grow up and get over it. Maybe a little crying would help...
Posted by: vic | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM
I love that so many are deeply committed to their choice but the posting by jacksmith indicating that if someone has decited to support Obama is an idiot makes myself worry that if these are the kinds of people that might bring Clinton to the presidency I just have to worry about the future of our country. I am surprised jacksmith did not put on a mask and belittle any race, religion or standard of living he might think would vote for someone other then he feels should have a chance to represent us,
Posted by: no name | April 21, 2008 7:00 PM
If you think Hillary, who's been in bed with big money for 35 years, can change her stripes and start looking out for the working class after she's elected, you might be Jacksmith.
Your glorious Clinton administration's chief accomplishment was NAFTA and the advancement of "globalization," which is just another word for giving big corporations as much power as they want to subjugate and enslave ordinary people around the world. Global justice should mean ensuring that workers around the world are afforded the same rights as Americans have traditionally had. Instead, it means that American are on a rapid path to join the sweatshop conditions of the third world.
Hillary voted for the war when it was obvious to so many of us that it was bottomless pit (me and Barack were saying that months before Bush went in!). Hillary has played along with the War on Terror since day one, fanning fear for advantange, while Barack is the only candidate who isn't running on the fear ticket.
Barack is the only candidate who's talking to America like we're grown ups, who's opting out of the tit-for-tat sound byte slugfest style of discourse.
If he were as "experienced" as Hillary, he would have tossed Jeremiah Wright to the curb according to the Washington Insider's rulebook, but he recognizes that almost everyone has valuable positive qualities that we need to harness to turn the country around, and that if you cast aside everyone who's said or done something regrettable you end up with NOBODY at the table except insipid spineless insiders and gameplayers. (Why doesn't someone ask Hillary why she kept Bill around after what HE did...?).
So thanks, Jacksmith, for reminding me so vividly exactly how thrilled I am to support Barack Obama. An extra minute of experienced leadership is something America cannot afford.
Posted by: detroitsubway | April 21, 2008 7:01 PM
hush hush, big fella. We don't listen to your political talk anymore. We have moved beyond it, to a better place. Go kick your heels up with Karl and have a laugh and a cold one on me.
Posted by: dave | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM
Since Hillary behaves like a Republican, she should join that party and continue to play by their rule book: Smearing, swift-boating, deceit, manipulation and distortion of reality ... did I mention lying?
Her campaign is an insult and disgrace to all of us non-lapel wearing, not black enough, not white enough, not Muslim that I know of, maybe Christian, unpatriotic, racist, fear-mongering, guilt-by-association, terrorist loving, inexperienced, preachy, elitist, platitude-throwing, plagiarizing, all-talk Americans.
If you don't like the game, play another. If you don't like the rules, find something else to do.
Hillary, or Billary, your GOP-rooted attacks have made me outraged. Dare I say "bitter." This race has gone on way too long. For the good of your party and country, instead of the disservice you have been serving, just drop out. Do us this one little favor.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:02 PM
you're about 7 years too late for that.
Posted by: TC | April 21, 2008 7:07 PM
I love how people say Florida and Michigan are "disenfranchised" when first, they broke party rules and tried to have primaries before New Hampshire and try to gain political power as a result, and second, the Clintons ACCEPTED that Florida and Michigan would not have their results counted at all so that the Clintons could continue fundraising in those states (their votes would have counted for half if fundraising in those states was waived).
These states broke the rules. Voters in those states were told ahead of time their votes would not count. So, are not the votes of those who didn't vote disenfranchised if the states are now included? Don't you spit in the faces of those who didn't vote because they listened to statements saying the election results for these states was null and void?
Nevermind the fact that the Clintons are proving themselves two-faced over these states by AGREEING that the results of these states would not be counted... and then changing their minds because it helps them out politically. Consider the people who didn't vote... and are thus disenfranchised as a result of the Clintons trying to get the votes of their peers, who mindlessly voted anyway.
Nor will the Clintons accept the votes being counted as half. That's not good enough for them. Because they need every single delegate they can get by crook and blackmail and the like. The Clintons are why I don't vote Democrat. Obama might actually change that. But right now the only candidates I see that truly would gain my vote are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee... being the only two gentlemen who are willing to stay above "politics as usual" and the usual smear campaign.
Posted by: Tangent | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM
These messages are as superficial as the current crop of candidates. Barney Frank said it best" "politicans may be rascals but the voters are no bargain, either."
It's sad that in the bastion of free speech (America) all we have after 200 years is a nation of parrots.
Democrat parrots and Republican parrots. A wise man once said the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between wet s**t and dry s**t.
Posted by: Informed | April 21, 2008 7:09 PM
Hillary Clinton was the ONLY lawyer on the Nixon impeachment team that its leader could not and would not write a recommendation for, he found her deceptive.
The Clintons have always run on divisive politics. They count on getting the votes AGAINST the other guy as much as getting votes for themselves. So of course they have to vilify the other guy.
They are small, small people with nothing but ambition to drive them on. They don't care about anything but themselves - they don't care about you.
Read Hillary's books, folks. Find out what she really wants.
Why not a pay as you go health care plan? Why do we have to have one that hands millions of taxpayer dollars to companies as premiums, when thousands of people don't need care that month? Why not pay when you need it? Have you dealt with the Social Security office or the IRS? Do you really want that kind of system in charge of your health care?
Who chooses what companies get all of those premiums? Of course President Hillary Clinton, whose years in Washington have made her beholden to and placed her in the pocket of BIG BUSINESS.
The Republicans don't want her - in fact, neither does America.
Bye Hillary, bye Bill. Nice to see you at last in our rear view mirrors.
Posted by: JackMack | April 21, 2008 7:12 PM
How quickly people forget the only Democrat since FDR who was in the White House for 8 years? How prosperous we were and how GOOD he was as President in so many ways. No one is perfect, lucky for all of us. Obama has failed to win even a major Democratic primary, let alone a national election. He will lose 40 states and crash and burn in the general election. Wednesday night's debate was only the beginning of the end. Villify Bill and Hillary Clinton all you want. The fact he had a prosperous presidency and she has been an excellent Senator from NY with 69% approval rating, the facts are there for those who want the White House.
Posted by: Polcomm | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
So what, EXACTLY, is Hillary's "experience"? 35 years of doing what, exactly? Yeah, she went up against the health care industry and the republicans for health care, and FAILED. She was a WalMart lawyer. And they have really done great things for this country, haven't they? She promised jobs for New York, and what did she deliver? Nothing. She campaigns with all the tactics and subtlety of the neocons. Just what we need, more republican policies that will ultimately benefit only the ultra rich.
So I ask again, just what, exactly, does Hillary's "experience" amount to? I see nothing but kissing the butts of the big money boys, and they are the ones who have given us the country we have now: Jobs are gone, wages are at a low for my lifetime (I'm 49), we have more money in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and we are $10 Trillion in debt. Do we really need MORE of the same?
What does she offer us in health care? Demanding that everyone buy insurance. A boon to the insurance companies, and a screwing for everyone else. What does she offer us for jobs? Less than we have now, seeing as how she loved NAFTA so much she went around campainging for it. More money for the big money boys again. What about Iraq? Not going to leave for years, and so once again, more money from our pockets right into the pockets of the big money boys. See a pattern yet?
Sorry, she is just more of the same. And for the record, I don't consider myself an idiot. I saw through Nixon when I was 10, and I can still see through frauds who are in it for their own egos and not for the country. And she is in it for her own ego, nothing more.
Posted by: WJM | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
Dear Ziv, If you spend any time at all in the "comments" section at WaPo, you will see comments from Clinton loyalists that either insult Obama voters as mindless cult "followers" or worse. There are racist remarks, xenophobic slurs and the good old "he is somehow Unknown" so therefore "dangerous". Good old Ed Rendell managed to throw all the new, younger voters under the bus today with similar "kool-aid drinker" comments.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters have decided that they can only go negative because they are up against the wall. Too bad that loyalty trumps collective good with the Clintons, just like with the Bush Administration!
Posted by: Maria | April 21, 2008 7:13 PM
wait--- didn't Sen. Hillary Clinton introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College on the grounds that it had the potential to disenfranchise the voting majority ? and is this not exactly what Bill Clinton now desires: to have the candidate trailing in the popular vote (Hillary) selected as the nominee based upon the model of the Electoral College ? the Clintonian assault on democracy is almost as fierce as their assault on our intelligence.
Posted by: jackson | April 21, 2008 7:14 PM
Who controls Barrack?? In a debate he looks like an idiot...the day after debates his "handlers" tell him what response he should have given..duh! He never has anything intelligent to say, if in debate, he goes first..but boy can he springboard off someone else's responses. He hangs with a minister with questionable preachings..not all blacks preach this way in their churches, but yet it takes him 20 plus years to wise up to the problems...he gets a house, he was not qualified for though the help of again a questionable friend. He passes legislation so lobbyist can still court congress, but standing up to eat instead of sitting down - then it's ok -his response -they eat less! Look at his voting records in Illinois and DC, never take a stand unless its in a rounded corner-then you can swing either way without cake on your face - caucuses are a joke..people's views are not addressed, people working with other committments can't attend-elections are the only way to go, then the people speak-ours in Seattle were like a dog and pony show, most of the leaders didn't want to be there and didn't know what they were doing!
Posted by: disgruntled in Seattle | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM
As if on cue from Bill and in time for the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, the House Republicans just blocked a measure by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) to audit e-voting. So the results will be unverifiable... just in time for people to rig the vote?
Well, if it walks like a Republican and talks like a Republican... I'm no idiot for being bitter.
From the Ars Technica tech news site:
* Two PA counties, one of which, Montgomery, is the state's most populous, will use the same Sequoia AVC Edge touchscreens that are now the subject of an investigation in New Jersey because of their spectacular failure in that state's recent primaries.
* Sixteen counties will use the Diebold Accuvote TS touchscreen model. Regular Ars readers will recall that my 2006 article, "How to steal an election by hacking the vote," described in some detail how to steal an election using this machine. (I hope that nobody from PA decides that it would be a good idea to print copies of the free PDF of this how-to article to bring to the polls with them as a form of protest, because you would probably get in trouble. So don't do that.)
* 51 counties will vote on the infamous iVotronic touchscreen from ES&S. This is the same model that brought us the Florida 13 controversy that ultimately resulted in Florida scrapping touchscreens altogether.
Posted by: Bitter techie | April 21, 2008 7:15 PM
About half the voters in the country support Clinton, yet all these blogs seem to have the same anti-Clinton, smarmy tone no matter what newspaper. I guess the Obama supporters have more time on their hands. Bottom line, the only thing that matters are the votes. All this bilge that fills up every available inch of space is meaningless gas and convinces nobody. I guess it gives some people a chance to think they're scoring points for cleverness...though the Clinton smear was written long ago by Republicans much smarter than what we've all seen here, and everywhere.
We'll be lucky to have either one as president after what we've endured the last 8 years, thanks to some of you no doubt -
Posted by: bored | April 21, 2008 7:18 PM
I used to feel that the Clintons were arrogant and obnoxious. But after hearing Bill`s logic,I feel just the opposite is true. they are obnoxious and arrogant.
Posted by: Moose | April 21, 2008 7:18 PM
Its interesting to read all the negative comments telling Hillary to give up or join the republicans.I'm amazed at how many Obama supporters put her down using talking points and half truths spread by the republicans in the 90's when bill was president.To listen to them one would think she had personally wronged them.Go jacksmith I'd rather be an idiot who is right than a sheep who is being blindly led by a hollow suit with a good voice.I have one question for Obama why is it okay for him to say he'll work across party lines to solve our countries problems but he has a problem when Hillary proposes to solve the social security situation the same way with a bipartisan commmision?Maybe his version of working across party lines will be like our current president who is glad to work with you as long as you agree with him.
Posted by: Mike | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM
CLOSED Primary ELECTIONS, are what's needed, to keep the Republicans from screwing up the Democrat's Primary Season!!! ~ As long as Republicans are allowed to "Divide and Conquer, they will!!!
Posted by: ArbuckleDoc | April 21, 2008 7:19 PM
Bill and Hillary Clinton are opportunistic, self-complacent people who want to change the rules when these rules don't fit them or are not convenient to them. They are always blaming other people for their mistakes: a right wing conspiracy or Move on. org, or the rules of the democratic party. The only people important for them are themselves and their petty interests.
Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 7:20 PM
The most important thing in November is to elect a democtractic President. I Clinton and Obama understand that is the real issue. The press is trying with some success has been dividing the country by enthnic backgrounds and race. The press is playing to the republicans. Clinton and Obama are registering more voters than any other candidates in our history. In the end of the day Clinton and Obama will united to achieve the common goal. I suggest we do the same.
Posted by: Robert | April 21, 2008 7:24 PM
Incoherent in Seattle: Go ahead send some cash to Hillary if you hate Obama so very much. She can use every penny since she has run her campaign into a financial ditch.
Posted by: Bitter Elitist in San Francisco | April 21, 2008 7:25 PM
I AGREE WITH JACK SMITH. HILLARY WOULD MAKE THE BETTER LEADER OF THIS COUNTRY. IF OBAMA GETS IN, I'M MOVING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY, CAUSE I'M SURE NOT GOING TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION. REMEMBER, YOU EGGHEAD MEN, "LADIES FIRST". THINK. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT MOST MEN ARE SO AFRAID OF HAVING A WOMAN PRESIDENT WHEN WOMEN GAVE BIRTH TO YOU AND RAISED YOU. IF YOU THINK THAT IS EASY, THINK AGAIN!!!
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 7:26 PM
Why do ALL the bums and idiots support Hillary?
Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 7:33 PM
I have a great idea for the Clintons. Why don't they just make it official and switch to the GOP. Then they could be "winners" and nobody would think twice about the campaign they've been running.
Posted by: William W. Wexler | April 21, 2008 7:33 PM
It is Hillary "Right Wing Conspiracy" Clinton who can't stand the heat.
Posted by: CharacterCounts | April 21, 2008 7:36 PM
Dude, all of you really misinterpreted him here. He was trying to argue that, under a different set of rules, Hillary could have a lead even with the same votes and in that case people would be calling for Obama to quit, which would seem unfair. In other words, people shouldn't be calling for Hillary to quit right now either; it's best for everybody to have their voices heard.
Posted by: Damon | April 21, 2008 7:39 PM
Such bitterness! It is obviously not the unemployed workers in Obama's mythic Midwest who are bitter; it is Obama supporters who desperately want the contest to end before the rest of the voters have had a chance to express their opinion. By the way, the coasts may have the highest median incomes, but the Midwest has the lowest rate of those without health insurance -- in 2006 (the latest figures from the Census Bureau), only 11.4 percent, to the Northeast's 12.3 percent, the Sought 19 percent and the West's 17.9 percent. So perhaps Obama misspoke in San Francisco and said Midwest when he meant West Coast. Bill Clinton is right -- a hypothetical, but a correct one, and one with ramifications for the general elections, which will not have caucus states. Subtract those and you take away 400,000 of Obama's lead. Add Florida and Michigan, and Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat. If she wins in Pennsylvania, she is ahead. Allot delegates on a winner-take-all basis, and Clinton has all but won. Obama owes his lead not to his charisma, but to good organization, a hard-nosed campaign manager who has repeatedly attacked both Clintons, and massive infusions of cash, mostly from well-to-do donors who can afford to contribute $500 and up, just like Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, & pretty much everybody else except Kucinich, like Edwards, a much more credible standard bearer for the "Left" than Obama, who has been unable to do more than attract a small percentage of the traditional DP base, which has largely supported Clinton. Yet, even with all those advantages and the DP's bizarre system, Obama has been unable to win a majority of pledged delegates, so he has changed the ground rules -- the popular vote no longer counts (which he might lose if the polls are right regarding the final ten contests), only delegates count, and his campaign is going after super delegates, something they earlier criticized Clinton for doing. Bill in Kazakhstan? Read the articles; the money was donated to the Clinton charitable trust, not to Bill & Hillary. As for Florida and Michigan, before the elections Obama was running 19 and 26 percent in polls, so it is unlikely he would have done well in either state, esp. since they were primary, not caucus states. Clinton (and Edwards) were tracking much higher in the polls. Obama may have improved his base, but his refusal to hold new elections suggests he does not believe this to be the case. And if he tends to narrow the gap during a campaign, is that because he is charismatic or just spends more money and until Philadelphia had a pass from the media?
Posted by: Jim2312 | April 21, 2008 7:39 PM
Mike, Hillary has not personally "wronged" me but her lines of attack against Obama have insulted my intelligence and assumed that I am not aware of both candidates positions. After being sickened by Rovian tactics for the last few elections, it is sad to see her resorting to distortions and falsehoods in an effort to take down a member of her own party.
She is beyond tiresome at this point but at least I am not so "bitter" that I would resort to voting for McCain over Clinton if she manages to overcome all the odds and secure the nomination.
Posted by: ProudtobeElite | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM
Mike, Hillary has not personally "wronged" me but her lines of attack against Obama have insulted my intelligence and assumed that I am not aware of both candidates positions. After being sickened by Rovian tactics for the last few elections, it is sad to see her resorting to distortions and falsehoods in an effort to take down a member of her own party.
She is beyond tiresome at this point but at least I am not so "bitter" that I would resort to voting for McCain over Clinton if she manages to overcome all the odds and secure the nomination.
Posted by: ProudtobeElite | April 21, 2008 7:40 PM
If Hillary Clinton wants Barack Obama to be judged by his associates, how about Chelsea Clinton's secret engagement to theson of former congressman Mark Mezinsky, son of disgraced Congressman Mezinsky, who has been in prison for several years for fraud and embezzlement. the funds defrauded from investors passed through the account of Chelsea's fiance. The Mezinskys were close personal friends of the Clintons and frequent guests at the White House for dinners and events. Clinton was very helpful to Congressman Mezinsky until he got caught. Chelsea has known the son sincechildhood and he frequently attends campaignevents but is kept in the background for obvious reasons. Congressman Mezinsky's conduct was so bizarre that he tried to plead insanity as a defense. No wonder the Clinton's have not openly acknowledged the eengagement.
Posted by: myrna | April 21, 2008 7:41 PM
I am sick and tired of having to read about Bill Clinton. I DON'T CARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Ron | April 21, 2008 7:45 PM
When a HUGE part of a Democratic candidate's support comes from "Independents" and "Republicans", it should come as no surprise, when, in November, they vote for John McCain!!! ~ Democrats, in the know, understand this, which is why Hillary Clinton WILL win the Democratic nomination AND the Presidential Election!!!
Science has calculated, that a Bumblebee's wingspan is insufficient to support it's weight and mass, in flight; however, the Bumblebee in not relying on scientific calculations, but on it's own knowlege and experience, so, it flys, anyway!!!!
Do all the math you want and make all your calculations, but, Hillary Clinton WILL win the Democratic nomination AND the Presidency!!!!
She will UNITE the Democrats AND the nation, to repair the damage done, by Bush and Company, with the help of Republicans in Congress!!!
Thank Goodness, Americans ARE waking up!!!!
Vote a Straight Democratic Ticket!!! ~ President Clinton is going to need all the help she can get, to "Clean House" in Washington!!!!
Posted by: ArbuckleDoc | April 21, 2008 7:45 PM
Why do ALL the idiots support Hillary- as above commentator?
Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 7:47 PM
Your like Republican rules. You like the Republican playbook. Bill, please take your wife (and your wife's clone Joe Lieberman while you are at it) and please join the Republican Party now! We don't want you anymore.
Posted by: Michael Whitehead | April 21, 2008 7:50 PM
Yup, it took liar Bill eight years to undo what it took Reagan and Bush 12 years to build....we are still cleaning up the mess.
A president doesn't step into office one day, and the economy and everything else improve the NEXT day.
The Clintons are the biggest asses in politics - support them - and it IS them you are supporting if you vote for her - and watch the country suffer.
Posted by: Jack Mack | April 21, 2008 7:55 PM
Bill Clinton's argument should really be: If Hillary had not assumed that she would be Inevitable, maybe she would have run a better campaign and she might have tried to win in states she thought "don't matter' and maybe she would have realized sooner that when the head of her campaign also runs one of the most reprehensible lobbying firms and he sucks then she might have had the good sense to actually dump him before his bill topped 2 million dollars and his efforts on behalf of a foreign government on a trade deal she opposed wouldn't have come out to embarrass her while she tried to pander to working-class voters by slamming "elitist San Francisco" even though she gets TONS of cash from some of California's wealthiest individuals but the Gun Toting Folks in Scranton are supposed to ignore that because she shot a duck once so see she is really a HAWK who would nuke Iran if they ever so much as tried to think about attacking any of our friends in the Middle East and so really she IS a lot like the Republicans so the DNC should change the nomination rules now because things are getting down to the wire and we have gotten to the point when we NEED to speculate about what "might have been" "if only" the Democratic Party was running things like the GOP.
Posted by: What now? | April 21, 2008 8:00 PM
Please, will someone make them go away! This is turning into some sort of slasher movie with endless sequels--crazed bloodsucking Hillbilly's that can't be killed. Where is Vincent Price when we need him?
Posted by: rusty 3 | April 21, 2008 8:01 PM
When Bill Clinton ran for president he saw nothing wrong with the democratic party rules and the caucus systems. But then again, that was when they were winning. Sour grapes? To think that my family and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Oh! the webs we have woven!
Posted by: Surya | April 21, 2008 8:11 PM
But, hey, at least Clinton wouldn't have anyone in her campaign who'd praised Louis Farrakhan:
Especially not the chairman of her Pennsylvania campaign. No, it's not at all unfair or dishonest for her to try to smear Obama with a totally tenuous connection to Farrakhan.
Posted by: Hillary for dogcatcher! | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President as an Independent.
Why do the Clintons hate America so much?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I like the Clintons enormously. My whole family is Clintonista. Criticism of them has no effect on us whatsoever. When my Dad was still alive and Bill was President, I couldn't tear him away from the TV when Bill was on. I would like nothing better than to see another Clinton in the White House. So there.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President as an Independent.
Why do the Clintons hate America so much?
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
I WOULD NOT be surprised that when Hillary loses the nomination, she will pull a "Lieberman" and announce her candidacy for President by running as an Independent.
Why do the Clintons hate America so much?
Posted by: Anon | April 21, 2008 8:13 PM
When Bill Clinton ran for president he saw nothing wrong with the democratic party rules and the caucus systems. But then again, that was when they were winning. Sour grapes? To think that my family and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. Oh! the webs we have woven!
Posted by: Surya | April 21, 2008 8:14 PM
We all know about Hillary's father and his right-wing political beliefs. For those of you who are Boomers you know about Archie Bunker, the All In The Family character. Hillary's father, like Archie, rambled on at the dinner table about "...them colored people getting pushy,etc." That argument the old bigot used over and over again did set Hillary's mind to the misinterpretation that we people of color cannot win national elections. Hillary is at least a little racist.
Posted by: tanaS | April 21, 2008 8:17 PM
I like Bill, I think scandal aside he did a pretty job as president. But I have to tell ya, he has shown himself to be anything but an elder statesman, trying help his fraud of a wife win the nomination. The more he speaks to more republicans from the '90s can crow, we told ya so!
Posted by: tydicea | April 21, 2008 8:20 PM
I'd vote for a Republican - but not this Republican. Too eager to embrace war and to unconcerned about our economy.
I'd vote for a woman - but not this woman. Just full of lies and tossed us (her NY constituents) to the curb, when she didn't need us anymore.
So, I'm going the newbie. At least we him, we have a chance for something other than what the others are offering.
Posted by: wolf | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
I'd vote for a Republican - but not this Republican. Too eager to embrace war and to unconcerned about our economy.
I'd vote for a woman - but not this woman. Just full of lies and tossed us (her NY constituents) to the curb, when she didn't need us anymore.
So, I'm going the newbie. At least we him, we have a chance for something other than what the others are offering.
Posted by: wolf | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.
As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.
Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.
As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.
Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.
As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.
Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:31 PM
I think we should all be very cautious about letting the Clintons back in power. If Hillary wins, she will just perpetuate the Clinton-Bush dynasty of corruption. Please think carefully before you vote for her.
As much as I wish I could support a woman president, she really isn't running by herself. She is thoroughly attached to her unfortunate husband who clearly has no regard for her or their marriage. I find it strange that women find her to be a beacon of female strength. She has compromised herself completely to a manipulative, lying man, and she allows him to call quite a few of the shots in her campaign. I would be more interested in Hillary if she had divorced Bill and believed in her own abilities to run for president completely separate from that of her cheating husband.
Posted by: Carolyn | April 21, 2008 8:32 PM
Monday, April 21st, 2008 My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours, Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com MMFlint@aol.com
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:42 PM
Monday, April 21st, 2008 My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours, Michael Moore MichaelMoore.com MMFlint@aol.com
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 8:44 PM
What a non sequitur. They'll really just grasp at anything to argue why Hillary *should* be ahead. Can't wait until June 3.
Posted by: Steve | April 21, 2008 8:48 PM
When Hillary lost Iowa, the Clintons complained that Iowa is not a typical American state. When Hillary lost South Carolina, Bill complained South Carolina will elect only blacks. When Hillary lost most of the caucus states, they complained that MoveOn.org is influencing those states. The Clinton's are rich and have stashed away their money outside this country. They borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the American people to run this shoddy campaign. All they have done is waste all the money. Now just like a typical loser, Hillary has started drinking and enjoying the happy hour. She does bar hopping as she moves around Pennsylvania. Do you think we need a drunkard in the White House next year. The Clintons are like the fo that said grapes are sour when it couldn't get it. Clintons are going down the tube and it is stinky where they stand.
Posted by: Bill Switzer | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
When Hillary lost Iowa, the Clintons complained that Iowa is not a typical American state. When Hillary lost South Carolina, Bill complained South Carolina will elect only blacks. When Hillary lost most of the caucus states, they complained that MoveOn.org is influencing those states. The Clinton's are rich and have stashed away their money outside this country. They borrowed and borrowed and borrowed from the American people to run this shoddy campaign. All they have done is waste all the money. Now just like a typical loser, Hillary has started drinking and enjoying the happy hour. She does bar hopping as she moves around Pennsylvania. Do you think we need a drunkard in the White House next year. The Clintons are like the fo that said grapes are sour when it couldn't get it. Clintons are going down the tube and it is stinky where they stand.
Posted by: Bill Switzer | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
So now the Clinton's argument is, "If we were Republicans, we would be winning now." Huh?
Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 8:53 PM
Can we, let's says, hhhmmm, retroactively impeach him?
Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
The best bet for Hillary to get into the white house is to leave the democratic party immediately and join the republicans. Already she has given enough ammunition for McCain to fight Obama. McCain hasn't chosen a running mate yet. Time is running out. If Hillary jumps ship, McCain will gladly take Hillary to be his veep. What is common between McCain and Hillary? Iran. McCain wanted to bomb away iran. Hillary's new ad says she will obliterate Iran. They will make a nice team going into the general election this fall.
Posted by: Janet Wolfram | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
Can we, let's says, hhhmmm, retroactively impeach him?
Posted by: Juan Mercado | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
So now the Clinton's argument is, "If we were Republicans, we would be winning now." Huh?
Posted by: alterego1 | April 21, 2008 9:09 PM
Bill Clinton understands a lot of things. He understands that he is still very popular. He understands that he has a built-in fan base. He understands that to those people, he can say just about anything, and they will believe it.
With that level of understanding, why would he even feel guilty about telling fibs all over every speech he gives, if he thinks those fibs will somehow help out his wife?
Seriously, people. I think he was a GREAT President. However, I am tired of him and his ways by now. I do NOT want him back on the front burner... ever... again.
He can make a billion dollars having the jet-set suck up to him and his contacts. I really don't care. Just stay away from the White House, and stay away from positions of authority.
Posted by: steve boyington | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM
Bill Clinton understands a lot of things. He understands that he is still very popular. He understands that he has a built-in fan base. He understands that to those people, he can say just about anything, and they will believe it.
With that level of understanding, why would he even feel guilty about telling fibs all over every speech he gives, if he thinks those fibs will somehow help out his wife?
Seriously, people. I think he was a GREAT President. However, I am tired of him and his ways by now. I do NOT want him back on the front burner... ever... again.
He can make a billion dollars having the jet-set suck up to him and his contacts. I really don't care. Just stay away from the White House, and stay away from positions of authority.
Posted by: steve boyington | April 21, 2008 9:10 PM
I'm more interested in the Jimmy Carter question. His reaction was very strange, understandable but strange. Now I'm really curious what his opinion is of this. He seems to be watching his disagreements with Hillary, probably after the Colombian trade deal problem. He made a better campaign decision to not comment, but he was a great foreign policy leader and I really want to know what he thinks about it. Does he think Hamas swindled Jimmy Carter and they're not going to hold up their end? Or was he surprised / not surprised by what he thinks was a success?
I'm really not interested in what Hillary thinks of it, she's not able to speak her mind during a campaign either way. But Bill can speak his mind, he's not running for president. C'mon Bill, I wanna know!
Posted by: GrueSchenka | April 21, 2008 9:15 PM
Hillary is putting ads similar to the boogey man cometh ad she had earlier. She is now so desperate that she is looking at all that went wrong in this country, stock crash of 1929, pearl harbor, cold war, Bin Laden and anything and everything that people disliked. Instead of putting negative ads she could have put ads that show how prosperous and peaceful the Bill Clinton years were. Oops, I misspoke. They were not prosperous or peaceful. What the heck. Hillary has lied about everything else. So why is she not touting the Bill Clinton legacy now in her ads?
Posted by: Stacey | April 21, 2008 9:18 PM
If Democrats were under the Republican party rules? Is he having one of those over 60 age moments.
"some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night, too."
Bill is 61 and having problems already, forgetting Democrats want nothing under Republican party rules.
Hillary is counting on Super Delegates and he is damning the Democratic party process because she's behind?
What is that seriously? They can easily become Republican to suit their election desires in 2012.
Clinton's hatred for caucus when Democrats voting surprise themselves greatly at the huge turnouts unlike previous years.
Michigan and Florida ruining themselves this primary election, has affected the Clinton's terribly.
Those states broke Democratic party rules trying to have their elections too early.
That kind of problem doesn't change under Republican party rules either.
States have to vote at a certain time so candidates can properly campaign over large areas.
We can now imagine the excuses Clinton's campaign continually uses explaining to themselves and to the press why Hillary is behind.
She's behind because Democrats aren't following Republican party rules.
Posted by: gmrk | April 21, 2008 9:32 PM
Obama is a whiner. I'm not because my husband whines for me.
I'm a feminist. Well not really because I blame the women who sleep with my husband not my husband.
Obama voted for the Iraq War. I didn't because I did but I'm lying.
Obama will nuke Iran. I won't but ignore the fact that I say I will because my supporters accept all my lies.
Drink the Hillary Kool Aide. It inures you to her lies...
Posted by: Bruce | April 21, 2008 9:36 PM
So Bill wants to be a Republican. We knew that.
Posted by: Merican | April 21, 2008 9:48 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 21, 2008 9:49 PM
Hillary is like an unprincipled guest who comes to your house and way over stays her welcome. What is it going to take for her to catch on that most of the nation does not want her around, and over half the nation absolutely hate her.
Posted by: goya | April 21, 2008 9:54 PM
HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR
Posted by: . | April 21, 2008 9:56 PM
I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter and got turned away by her non-answer to the question of driver's license to undocumented aliens in New York and later her kitchen sink "strategy". But I would advise all the Obama supporters that we must keep an eye in November and don't throw the kitchen sink at the Clintons at this point. Generating too much mutual hatred will only benefit McCain who, despite the claim of "straight talk", is only a mini-Bush want-to-be.
Posted by: Steve Chan, Los Altos Hills | April 21, 2008 9:59 PM
This is Hillary Clinton: Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the loss of the Rose Law Firm billing records for nearly 2 years until they were miraculously found in the White House living quarters, removing files from Vince Foster's office following his suicide and before investigators could get there. Her refusal to release her earmark requests from her time in the Senate, as well as her Clinton library donors. Her sell out apology to the African American community (for her campaigns racist comments) which came days too late. Her decline to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at International Profit Associates, or IPA accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record. Lets not forget her campaign eventually returned some $850,000 to Hong Kong businessman Norman Hsu who was found to be a fugitive in a 15-year old theft case. He was indicted for fraud related to his campaign contributions in 2007. Her failed inclusion and diplomacy with congress on her once universal health care bid. Her subsequent surrender and alignment to the health care industry (second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industry contributions). Her disguise on NAFTA and all free trade agreements. Her conscious vote for war in Iraq. Her blatant flip flop on Florida and Michigan. Her repetitive lies about sniper fire in Bosnia. Her exaggerated foreign policy experience. Her dealing the race card better than Republicans. Clinton photo and prayer breakfast with Rev Wright. Clinton photo with Rezko. Her failure to get the endorsement of close friend Bill Richardson. Her miserable failure to manage her own campaign (and husband). Her charlatan flip flop on pledged delegates and superdelegates by encouraging party elite to vote against the will of the people - "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." - Hillary Clinton in 2000
Posted by: Matt | April 21, 2008 10:00 PM
I realize the Obama camp sincerely believes it's in their best interest to repeatedly smear one of the most popular US presidents in recent history, not to mention the only two-term Democratic president in recent history, but in so doing they vividly demonstrate their naivete, their complete ignorance, and their candidate's unfitness to even be considered for the presidency.
And one day soon, Obamaphiles, you will be called to account for the harm you've done to the Democratic party.
Posted by: ichief | April 21, 2008 10:01 PM
I am not sure, but can someone tell me if the Republicanz have that stupendously crazy caucus gimmick thing that white liberal elitist love so much.
To be sure, this undemocratic caucus think has given Obama a free ride much further than he deserves.
Posted by: Sangy | April 21, 2008 10:04 PM
The Clintons had a hand in shaping the rules and only started griping about them when they began losing. Enough, already. They are the most unsportsmanlike competitors I've ever seen in a Democratic race.
Posted by: ally | April 21, 2008 10:04 PM
Look who's whining now. Those rules and dollars raised make such an unfair race.
Posted by: FirstMouse | April 21, 2008 10:12 PM
Man, former president Clinton has really lost perspective. Most of his comments about the current campaign seem paranoid or worse.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2008 10:14 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
PITTSBURGH -- Following a rally for his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh, former president Bill Clinton suggested his wife would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules. --Ed O'Keefe
| 434.35 | 0.975 | 36.125 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042100950.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042100950.html
|
Gates Assails Pentagon on Resources for Battlefields
|
2008042119
|
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday criticized the U.S. military services for not moving aggressively enough to provide critical resources to the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it has been "like pulling teeth" to get the Pentagon's conventional Cold War bureaucracy to adapt to the needs of current wars.
In speeches to student officers at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Alabama, and at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Gates challenged the future military leaders to think differently about the nature of war and to move beyond their comfort zones, encouraging innovative thinking and new approaches. He expressed frustration with navigating the Defense Department's tangled bureaucracy and said that some officers within the services are "stuck in old ways of doing business," causing warfighters to suffer.
"We can do and we should do more to meet the needs of men and women fighting in the current conflicts while their outcome may still be in doubt," Gates said. "My concern is that our services are still not moving aggressively in wartime to provide resources needed now on the battlefield."
In Alabama, Gates specifically noted his concern with the military's provision of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to Iraq and Afghanistan -- aircraft that provide commanders with critical intelligence about the battlefield, including real-time video images. Gates said that while the Air Force and Army have doubled aerial intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities in recent months, it is still not enough.
Gates announced that he has formed a Pentagon-wide task force to examine the use of UAVs, a task force that is expected to look at pushing more aircraft out onto the battlefield over coming months. Defense officials said Gates wants to learn in a matter of days what can be done to respond to the critical need in the field.
There are more than 5,000 UAVs working in Iraq and Afghanistan, some providing round-the-clock coverage and with the capability to strike targets from far above the ground and without putting a pilot's life in danger.
Air Force commanders said yesterday that there has been a 275 percent increase in requests for full-motion video of the battlefield from 2007 to 2008, a ramp-up in demand that has not been met with supply. The Air Force is working to deploy new technology by the end of next year that will dramatically increase such capabilities.
"There's lot of frustration, and this frustration is over how do we get better at what we see as a really critical need that frankly no one saw coming years before," said Air Force Brig. Gen. Blair E. Hansen, director of ISR at Air Force Headquarters. "We've been really aggressive about this for a long time."
Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates wants to be able to look field commanders in the eye and tell them that they have been given everything the Pentagon can provide. Morrell said Gates wants to encourage more creative thinking to prepare for asymmetric conflicts in the future.
"For the good of the Air Force, for the good of the armed services and for the good of our country, I urge you to reject convention and careerism" and become more creative thinkers, Gates said in Alabama.
|
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday criticized the U.S. military services for not moving aggressively enough to provide critical resources to the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it has been "like pulling teeth" to get the Pentagon's conventional Cold War bureaucracy to adapt to...
| 12.38 | 0.98 | 48.02 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042101177.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042101177.html
|
Carter: Hamas Ready To Live Beside Israel
|
2008042119
|
Carter, the most prominent Westerner to formally talk with the organization, said he secured that agreement even as Hamas rejected his proposal for a unilateral, month-long cease-fire. Hamas, which has vowed to destroy Israel, also declined to meet with an Israeli deputy prime minister who has expressed interest in discussing the fate of a captured Israeli soldier.
But Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, said his trip had shown the value of negotiating with Hamas leaders, something Israel and the United States have refused to do.
"We do not believe that peace is likely, and we are certain that peace is not sustainable, unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way," Carter said in an address to the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations before flying back to the United States. "The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working."
Israeli officials reacted with scorn to Carter's meetings and the agreement, saying they amounted to a propaganda coup for the Islamist group with no progress to show for it. In the past, the group has made similar declarations to the ones announced Monday by Carter and Hamas, the Israeli officials said, and has no intention of honoring them.
"It was sad to see how Hamas is using former president Carter to try to get legitimization it does not deserve," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel.
Israel's top leaders all avoided Carter during his visit, and U.S. officials criticized him for meeting with people that Washington and Israel have formally designated as terrorists.
Yossi Alpher, an Israeli political and security analyst, said that while Carter had not achieved any dramatic breakthroughs, his meetings were "symptomatic of a slow erosion in the boycott of Hamas at the international level."
In an interview, Carter, 83, said that furthering that erosion was his goal. Hamas, he said, had shown enough flexibility to make talks worthwhile, and he believed the group was no longer determined to destroy the Jewish state.
"It may be something they wish, but they know it's a fruitless concept," he said.
Carter said the group's "ultimate goal is to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside." Carter was referring to the borders that Israel had before the 1967 Middle East war, when it captured Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In 1982, Israel completed a pull-out from the Sinai Peninsula, another conquest of that war.
Hamas's 1988 charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its officials have repeated that stand in the years since. The charter also encourages the killing of Jews.
|
JERUSALEM, April 21 -- The armed Islamist movement Hamas is prepared to accept Israel as a neighbor if the Palestinian people approve the terms for peace, former president Jimmy Carter and the group's exiled leadership said Monday following a visit to the region that included seven hours of negot...
| 10.056604 | 0.603774 | 0.867925 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/04/schools_monday_everybody_loves.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/04/schools_monday_everybody_loves.html
|
Schools Monday: Everybody Loves Report Cards
|
2008042119
|
Ok, they make some kids groan, but somewhere deep inside, many of us crave report cards. How else to explain the penchant adults have for issuing report cards in nearly every aspect of life? Long after we've left school for the last time, we're busy concocting report cards to measure how our employees and managers are doing at work, how our politicians rate, how good local restaurants and shops are at their chosen tasks, and, of course, whether our local schools are up to snuff.
Other than schools themselves, nobody churns out more report cards than the vast industry of analysts, reformers, watchdogs and consultants who hover around the nation's schools like flies on waste. Do such report cards dispense revelatory truths about how our schools are doing? Not really--most often, they confirm what we already know, and yet they are often useful for the same reason that school report cards are such an enduring aspect of education: Give something a grade and suddenly, the institution or individual has a basis for comparison, an incentive to improve, and something to gripe about--all good things.
So, without further ado, today's report cards:
A new study by the D.C.-based Alliance for Excellent Education tells us that just 15 percent of U.S. high schools are responsible for nearly half of the nation's dropouts. The group dubs these troubled schools "dropout factories," which is a nifty device for winning a bunch of press coverage, and indeed that's what's happening here.
The District of Columbia's public schools, it will shock no one to learn, fare poorly by this measure. A depressing three of the 12 high schools the study measured in the District fall into the lowest possible category--schools in which the number of seniors is 60 percent or fewer than the number of freshmen four years earlier. This, according to a Johns Hopkins University study on which the report card is based, is a powerful indicator that these schools will have painfully bad graduation rates. (By comparison, nationwide, about 70 percent of students graduate from high school; for black and Hispanic students, that drops to about 50 percent.)
Be slightly wary of the D.C. numbers because so many kids in inner-city schools move around so often that enrollment figures aren't to be trusted. But the bottom line is nonetheless clear: The schools in question (in Washington, that's Ballou, Woodson and Bell Multicultural high schools) are simply not retaining enough students to even have a shot at graduating an acceptable portion of their kids. And several other D.C. schools are just barely above that very low minimum number.
Over at Education Week, another study assigns grades to the nation's states and the District on everything from teacher accountability to early childhood education, and, once again, as you'd predict, the District comes out at the bottom. Indeed, at the very bottom, scoring a D+. The very best grade in this accounting went to New York state, followed by Massachusetts and then Maryland. Virginia was just a few spots below Maryland, well into the top quarter of states.
In the various sub-categories in this report card, the D.C. schools do almost universally poorly, scoring an F in K-12 achievement, F in college readiness, D+ in keeping kids in school. But wait, there are a couple of bits of light, including a B+ for our relatively stable economy and workforce, and an A for the system's standards. (The study says the D.C. schools are no good at assessing how kids meet those standards, but at least the standards themselves are ok.)
Yet another study, by Achieve Inc., affirms that finding, noting that while the District started later than many other places and has a very long way to go, the D.C. schools are starting to align their high school standards with the expectations colleges and employers have for young people who come their way, and the city is planning to hold high schools responsible for producing graduates who are ready to work in college or at a job.
What these report cards don't show is whether the District's schools are making progress on all these goals at the classroom level, or only in the ambitious plans that tend to fill the shelves in administrators' offices. And all such education studies lag reality by quite some time, so none of these reports take into account whatever changes--good or bad--the new Fenty-Rhee team has produced in their short tenure at the helm.
So, what good are such grades? Again, just like the report cards on which my teachers used to try to get away with a single sentence of comments (do we all show great promise if only we would apply ourselves?), what's important here is incentive--the power of public shaming.
Coming soon to a blog near you: Report cards on the report cards.
By Marc Fisher | April 21, 2008; 7:57 AM ET Previous: Black And White In Potomac's Play Places | Next: Paper or Plastic: The Silence Grows
These are sad statistics indeed. But add to them that the District is now leaving millions of federal dollars on the table in tutoring money and that is really sad.
I think rather than a new COO for the schools at $200,000 we should be hiring a chief academic officer and making sure our children are getting everything they need in the way of an education.
I agree that we need pretty schools with bathrooms that work and in the summer our schools need airconditioning. But the reality is that children have learnt in crumbling buildings, one room school houses, and un airconditioned buildings for many years. Good teachers and good curriculum and parents and a community that placed the highest value on learning is what makes the difference.
Tutoring money going back to the feds is a tradgedy when so many of our kids are falling behind.
Why don't we set up tutoring programs in every after school center, every library and every recreation center in the District. The State Education Office should be signing contracts with tutoring companies and making these programs actually mandatory for all kids that are not at grade level.
Posted by: peter DC | April 21, 2008 9:24 AM
Seems PeterDC said all that needs to be said. though I oppose rhee, i will say she deserves time. but why all the failed approaches when you need to get down to basics.
Posted by: OKNow101 | April 21, 2008 10:06 AM
I don't remember the basics from school, I was inspired to achieve by the special. By the teacher who made us learn 500 greek and latin roots that aren't part of the curriculum, by the spelling bee, by the art teacher who survived the holocaust and while we were painting told us stories of selling the guards portraits of themselves in exchange for bread crusts...
DC needs real teachers to inspire troubled students and right now they have teachers who think it's still ok to blame the parents like it's 1989 and there's a crack war.
Posted by: DCer | April 21, 2008 10:13 AM
It is not clear to me that they have any good way of differentiating between schools that are "dropout factories" because they are bad schools and those that merely have a lot of "troubled" children, who would drop out of any school. It seems pretty ridiculous to expect DCPS to have the same dropout rate as, say, Fairfax County, and then to blame the teachers when it doesn't.
Posted by: qaz1231 | April 21, 2008 10:38 AM
In deed this information is startling. However, if you know this city's history of academic success stories, we should be ashamed. Clearly, the administrators and elected officials have failed our children, and continue to support them per election year. Even now, the focus is NOT learing. The children are not mastering anything. The teachers are not real teachers, the younger ones at least. When we allow the teachers to teach, the more experirenced ones 15yr or more, and invest in our children instead of sport entertainment complexes, we will see a definite change within our learning institutuions. For the record, I graduated from Ballou HS and earned a college degree. Thanks DCPS!!!!! I know it works because my teachers cared. Trust me, these young teachers from Teach For America do not care.
Posted by: Keon | April 21, 2008 10:48 AM
"Basics is a canard. I don't remember the basics from school . . ."
Then you're not educated. I recognize that you were trying to make a rhetorical point about the importance of inspiration and other life lessons - and those things are valuable. But there are a few simple things that adults in our society must be able to do to function effectively. Reading is one. Basic arithmetic is another. Understanding some simple scientific concepts, and some basic principles about our political system. "The basics." The term "education" can encompass many things - but in today's world a school fails if it doesn't successfully teach those basics, because adults can't function effectively in our society without them.
I strongly suspect you did, in fact, learn and retain those basic skills and knowledge. Otherwise, you'd have a difficult time posting a coherent comment in response to an on-line newspaper article. But if you didn't, you simply wouldn't be considered "educated" by any potential employer or secondary school. You'd have a difficult time holding down a job, or understanding the current political debates well enough to make an informed choice in a voting both (or even understanding the ballot).
Schools that leave our kids in that sort of ignorance are failing - and we shouldn't put up with it. Should they do more than the basics? Absolutely - we want kids well educated, not just minimally educated.
But if children leave school unable to read, write and do simple arithmetic, then they aren't educated - and the school didn't do its job. We're kidding ourselves when we try and make excuses for it.
Posted by: Demos | April 21, 2008 11:08 AM
No, trust ME, the Teach for America teachers MUST care. They're is no other reason for them to take a job that they are barely trained for. Almost every ToA teacher I've known is capable of making more money in a far safer and less depressing environment. They may not be able to do the job or stick with the job, but they certainly do care.
Regardless, the answer for the students and the entire teaching corps is to train the teachers better and give them more support and merit pay. Then, the good teachers will stay longer and the students will learn more. Teach for America won't be relevant.
Posted by: david | April 21, 2008 11:36 AM
Sorry Demos, I cannot possibly agree with your statement. I believe that focusing on "The basics" IS a canard. It allows teachers to claim they're doing something good as student after student loses interest in uninspiring classes. What I say about my life IS true, I remember studying to memorize the state capitals more than I remember studying trigonometry. Sure, I can manage a group of engineers and deal with their focus on heady math concepts, but that never inspired me and that never ignited within me the yearning for knowledge. I stand by my statement that teachers are using "The basics" as a canard and an excuse for their sub-standard effort in inspiring kids who need to be inspired.
One of my son's teacher's cousins died and she took three days off from school for it. Those three days were incredibly chaotic and she made it clear to me, despite her protestations, that she cared more about her cousin(!) than her class and that simply is unacceptable and unprofessional.
I mean, I never took more than a day off for a funeral, including my grandmother's. Because I believe in success over excuses. Trust me, knowing the teachers I've talked to, they provide excuses first, second and third and innovative teaching is far below that.
Posted by: DCer | April 21, 2008 11:38 AM
Gosh, I hope Marc takes the buyout from the Post. I'm sick of his face and his opinions.
When is John Kelly coming back?
Posted by: you can sit down, sir | April 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Why are you so outraged about a teacher taking leave to grieve for a cousin (!) ? Having no siblings myself, my cousins are the relatives I have the closest emotional connection to. I'm not sure you have anything to brag about when you say that you have never taken more than a day off for a funeral, because it sounds like you care more about your job than your family. If that's the case, I sincerely question your definition of success.
Posted by: annapolis | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM
I fo one am delighted that we now have all these report cards on these schools. Parents need as much information as possible about the quality of their schools. School districts are scrambling to improve their scores and raise achievement levels. NCLB is the only tool we have to fight the unions that have destroyed education in this country.
We need to run our schools like a business where we fire lousy performers and we are always evaluating the quality of the end product. Our kids deserve it.
Posted by: takebackourschools | April 21, 2008 1:19 PM
DCer - I can't tell if your post is sarcastic. Taking 3 days off for a funeral is not excessive, especially since you don't know the extent of the relationship between the teacher and the cousin. If this was a recurring theme than I can understand a level of frustration, but if this is a one-time event than you need to take a deep breath. Some of us do value our family life more than our professional life.
Posted by: Arlington, VA | April 21, 2008 1:20 PM
DC public schools face a number of daunting external challenges, but those should not be an excuse for the horrific dropout rate. The absurd bureaucracy, the crumbling infrastructure, and the entrenched mindset of entitlement among many teachers and administrators (NOT ALL) need to be corrected. I believe Fenty/Rhee are moving in the right direction. Those who criticize their approach should be asked what should be done differently. It should be obvious by now that the status quo is not the answer, at a minimum.
I would add that a big problem is what to do with children who fail? Social promotion is not the answer, but you shouldn't have 16 year olds in 8th grade, either. I think the answer is to put children who fail in special remedial schools.
Posted by: JH | April 21, 2008 1:44 PM
Yes, we need report cards. However, lets use the right lens to evaluate the numbers. I don't care how much you spend per kid, a new school building, and you have the best teachers. If a child has no one to push them along, it's not going to work. People are always surprised that private schools are successful, I'm not. Private and charter schools work better most of the time because parents have made a strategic decision to be involved in their childrens education. A stronger social network of parents, or other family that care is the only way to truly address the problem of low scores and drop outs. I'm not a teacher. But you can't put the entire blame for all of this on the backs of teachers or school administrators. What about parents? Fathers? You know what that means, you have to face the unpleasant truth.
Posted by: Product of DCPS | April 21, 2008 2:12 PM
Well DCer, I hope you're not expecting too big of a turnout for your funeral, either.
While you clearly have a limited emotional intelligence, you seem to have a fundamental (or would that be canard-inal?) grasp of how to write. Isn't possible that your teachers had something to do with this?
Posted by: $0.02 | April 21, 2008 3:01 PM
I believe you've hit the nail on the head. The sociology of the family and the community is key to whether students do well in school. When the family and the community do not adequately value education (as demonstrated many times per day in the lives of the students), those subtle, subliminal many-times-per-day messages are received and assimilated by the students. The totality of the message is what affects the outcome. Yes, on some occasions children have learned under adverse conditions, but there were off-setting positives somewhere else in their environment. Somewhere else in their lives they were getting the consistent message that education matters, and is vital to success.
Posted by: citizenw | April 21, 2008 5:55 PM
I think you're missing my point - you're equating trigonometry with "the basics." We should be so lucky! Our problem isn't that kids don't know the difference between a cosine and a tangent, it's that they can't read, or figure out that a "buy 4 and get the fifth one free" deal is just a 20% discount for volume purchases.
I don't see how I can back down on this one. If you were unable to read well enought to handle a daily newspaper, unable to write well enough to put together a resume and fill out a job application, and unable to handle enough simple arithmetic to make change at a yard sale, then you would be uneducated.
Those are basic skills that any adult needs as a bare minimum to function effectively. If a school can't get them right, then it has failed, and all the rest is just bluster.
Posted by: Demos | April 21, 2008 6:03 PM
The basics are not a canard if they are properly defined and properly addressed. By basics, I don't mean the facts they measure in the standards of learning tests so favored by NCLB. I'm talking about the basic ability of a child to learn.
Kids are not cookies. They are individuals and each has strengths and weaknesses. Reading, writing and math literacy are more complicated tasks for some children and they require more creative and structured approaches. Yes, children are being left behind--or medicated--or worse--prosecuted!--when they do not get the evaluations and interventions they need to learn.
Let's say 10% of children have a learning disability like dyslexia, attention deficit, or some other problem. At a class size of 20, that means two kids are interrupting the learning for the other 18. None of the schools are holding kids back anymore, two kids per class continue on, getting further and further behind. By middle school, they've found other things to do. By high school, they're lost.
And how many other borderline or otherwise distracted kids have they taken with them?
Even in Montgomery County, PG and Fairfax, there are not enough psychologists to do learning evaluations on kids. You don't see the problemmatic numbers as in DC because suburban parents are better able to shell out cash to get their kids tested and tutored.
I doubt DC has enough psychologists and tutors. And DC has a lot of parents who can't afford to do extra for their kids. Have you checked your health insurance policy for coverage of psychologial evaluations lately? What if you don't have insurance?
We're pretty well off and educated. Imagine my shock when I was told my son was uncontrollable in school. The school system, one of the top rated in the nation, can do nothing for me. Nothing. My son is struggling with reading and writing and out of frustration has become a major disciplinary problem. Still, the school has offered no learning evaluations. What would I have done had I been a single mom living paycheck to paycheck?
Our systems--all of them--are penny wise and pound foolish.
Posted by: mdreader1 | April 22, 2008 11:55 AM
I don't see how I can back down on this one. If you were unable to read well enought to handle a daily newspaper, unable to write well enough to put together a resume and fill out a job application, and unable to handle enough simple arithmetic to make change at a yard sale, then you would be uneducated. ---------
But my point is from the teaching angle, no the student's. How does a student get that way when someone is paid to teach them 170+ days a year? How does a student get to the point where they can't make change at a yard sale?
My issue with "the basics" is that if the teachers ONLY teach "the basics" then they're crappy teachers. Right now they use a few students' poor performance as an excuse why they aren't better teachers who do more. Sometimes I'm told about students they taught 5 or 10 years ago(!), sometimes I'm told about their friends' students at other schools(!), because all the students in my son's class are good kids who are smart and learning and only a minority are discipline issues. My son, for instance, had MAJOR discipline issues that we worked with him on. His school counselor told me one of my son's first complaints was there wasn't enough science class time each day.
The counselor explained to me that the kids needed to learn write all the letters in the alphabet first. But who didn't know that by age 4? I asked. Turns out there were 4 kids in the class who were still learning. So, there's how a teacher, claiming to focus on the basics while ignoring science is a lousy teacher.
are you going to say I'm wrong Demos? really?
Posted by: DCer | April 22, 2008 12:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 2,168 | 0 | 0 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/comment_box_val_kilmer_the_new.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/comment_box_val_kilmer_the_new.html
|
Comment Box: Val Kilmer -- the New Tom Cruise?
|
2008042119
|
Usually Val Kilmer's name is invoked around here to post pictures of the one-time Lizard King's expanding waistline. But thanks to a submission from Friday's Celebritology Live chat, we can consider the notoriously difficult actor in a whole new light:
byool, IN: Val Kilmer letting himself go extends to reading from the Bible on TV. In Wheeling W. Va., he appears on Cable 10 -- after the real estate ads and before the other religious show hosted by the fat shouting guy who uses his children in his ads for his tire store. I wish I were making this up.
Perhaps because it lacks the flashy, couch-jumping trappings of Scientology, we've given Val a pass in favor of ribbing Tom Cruise at every opportunity. But, unlikely as it may seem, Val Kilmer has indeed been spotted reading the Bible on TV -- as corroborated by this equally amused blogger. Sadly, for us, no one has yet uploaded video evidence of the readings -- so if anyone out there happens to have captured this on tape, please to upload and send us a link pronto.
It turns out, though, that Kilmer has been quietly merging his faith and his career for some time now. Not only did he play Moses in "The 10 Commandments: The Musical" (who knew?), he's also directing and starring in the upcoming "Mark Twain and Mary Baker Eddy," a paean to Christian Science's founder. Here's an overlong peek at the trailer -- fast forward to 1:39 if you're itching to see Val Kilmer as Twain.
It's worth noting, though, that at least one article critical of Christian Science has asked why the church -- and its celebrity adherents -- has been largely immune from the scrutiny. After all, it has famously foresworn conventional medicine in favor of "spiritual healing" and -- according to the article -- actually has much in common with Scientology:
Will Val Kilmer follow Tom Cruise from celebrity to infamy because of his public faith? We may find out when "Mark Twain and Mary Baker Eddy" is released in 2010. Of course, the labor of love may be overshadowed his rumored role as David Lee Roth in the Motley Crue biopic "The Dirt."
Comment(s) of the Week: I'm coming out with a line of Spencer & Heidi pinatas. You can whack the cr*p out of them for amusement and there is nothing at all inside. -- DFC
...and best of all, the piñatas are made of the actual Spencer and the actual Heidi. -- byoolin
By Liz | April 21, 2008; 10:43 AM ET | Category: Comment Box Previous: Morning Mix: Sandra Bullock Unharmed in Car Crash | Next: Morning Mix: La Lohan Off the Wagon?
Keep up with the latest Celebritology scoops with an easy-to-use widget.
If you have tips, ideas for stories or general suggestions, let us know.
Yeah, but they've got that great newspaper...
Posted by: 23112 | April 21, 2008 11:32 AM
From that other blog Liz Kelly mentioned:
"It was like this black hole... I kept flicking back to it.... And he read in such a soft and gentle manner... For a few minutes I wondered if maybe I hadn't dropped through a tear in the fabric of the universe into some alternate existence."
Posted by: Celebritology "Comment Of The Week" Award-Winner byoolin | April 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Wow, interesting. Does that mean it's just a matter of time before we start getting comments from angry Christian Scientists?
Posted by: h3 | April 21, 2008 11:51 AM
Well, Val Kilmer, on a Hollywood scale, just isn't quite as big of a big ol' can of crazy as Tom Cruise. Christian Science may be loopy. But they don't have Xenu. And they don't have that freaky-deaky too-much-B-vitamins-and-not-enough-gray-matter thing going on that Cruise has. So we cut him some slack. Plus, who doesn't love him in "Real Genius"?
Posted by: eh | April 21, 2008 11:53 AM
John Travolta in Battlefield Earth was bad. But did anyone else on earth see Mickey Rourke in that St. Francis of Assissi movie? Whoah.
Posted by: other liz | April 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Good grief, where are my manners?
Thank you, Liz Kelly, for once again deeming my words COTW-worthy. Of course, I couldn't have done it without a great setup from DFC, who threw a big fat one right over the middle of the plate for me, and who quite deservedly gets the other COTW award.
I'd like to dedicate this award to HM The Queen, who turns 82 today, and to Andie McDowell, who turns 50 and is still nice to look at, even if she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, and of course to James N. Osterberg, who turns 61 today and who long ago turned into Iggy Pop.
Posted by: Celebritology "Comment Of The Week" Award-Winner (and sycophantic suck-up) byoolin | April 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted by: ASinMoCo | April 21, 2008 12:00 PM
Oh, this makes me soooo sad. I know Val's been flying the freak flag for awhile now (I accidently just typed "frying" instead of "flying" - clearly there's been a little too much of that, too) but this just really bums me out. I loved him in that movie with Elizabeth Shue and the other one where he plays a Native American FBI agent - I can't remember the names. I'm pregnant. That's my new excuse for everything - almost makes me wish it would last longer.
Posted by: Juicy | April 21, 2008 12:06 PM
I wonder, if Val will interview....I mean meet and fall in love with an up and coming starlet as well and have his cousin sire their love child. I ask because that's a sign of something not good if it happens twice.
Posted by: petal | April 21, 2008 12:08 PM
eh, they do have children dying because their parents refuse treatments, however. There are prosecutions quite frequently.
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 12:11 PM
So Maverick's a Scientologist on YouTube and Iceman's a Christian Scientist on local cable. What's next, Goose chatting up Catholics on EWTN?
Posted by: td | April 21, 2008 12:12 PM
"I'm pregnant. That's my new excuse for everything - almost makes me wish it would last longer."
Juicy, based on nothing more than conversations with women who have been pregnant, I must assume from your wish that you are not in your third trimester.
Posted by: byoolin | April 21, 2008 12:16 PM
byoolin: WHAT'S WRONG WITH PREGGO WOMEN IN THEIR THIRD TRIMESTER, HUH?? HUH??
(oh geeze, wait... I think that I just proved your point)
Posted by: e2h | April 21, 2008 12:29 PM
The movie with Elizabeth Shue was called the Saint.
Posted by: Stuck@Work | April 21, 2008 12:34 PM
AAAAAAggggghhhh. Finals must be getting to me, I am losing my snark. The best I can come up with is that if Val keeps letting himself go, he will be 2 Tom Cruises.
Posted by: ep | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM
It would be great if you could do some research on Christian Science. I am no longer a Christian Scientist - but I was raised in the religion and it is not a kooky as people have given it credit for.
It was founded by a woman in the 1800s who was very religious/spiritual but, unlike her puritan family, didn't think everyone was going to hell if they didn't join the church. This made the church fathers angry. She also didn't think that Jesus (the man) was an incarnation of God, but that he was the ultimate example of what we as humans can be. She believed that your thought controls your experience and that everyone has a personal responsibility to communicate with the devine. She thought that God was both male and female. She also thought (along the lines of eastern religions) that reality does not inhere in the physical universe, but the spiritual. She taught that physical universe was a reflection of our understanding of divine reality. She got a lot of flack for these ideas.
She got a lot of negative attention for promoting these ideas - a lot of turn-of-the century men telling her that she was crazy. That reputation has carried over to these times.
The "weirdest" thing about the religion is that its adherents do tend to rely on prayer/God for healing (an extension of the belief that Jesus was setting an example). It is not a hard and fast rule. One does not get kicked out of the church for going to a doctor. There are no secret doctrines - to my knowledge (I spent many years in the church, sat on boards, took instruction, etc.).
I am not trying to say that the church and its its followers are flawless - as with any human institution, there are egos, mistakes, weird/subjective interpretations, etc. But as with any religion, I think you need to at least partially assess it by it's doctrines rather than how people choose to interpret those doctrines.
The only reason that I am not practicing Christian Science is that I question the existence of God/Goddess. As far as religions go, I think (in my biased opinion) that Christian Science is pretty sane.
One more point - the church does not ask for nor require any sort of donation of its members. People tend to donate money each Sunday and no-one is allowed to know how much others contribute. It is private. Anyone can attend/participate at any level without contributing a penny.
Posted by: JS | April 21, 2008 1:14 PM
From "Thunderheart" to thunder thighs - nope, too easy.
Posted by: PJ123 | April 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Hey Juicy, congrats on the lil guy or gal and take it from me, you *will* continue to have a great excuse for forgetfulness, clumsiness, and really, any other --ness that you might encounter (except neatness - go ahead and write that one off for a while) for the next, oh 18 years or so...
Seriously, my lil guy is almost 9 months old and I still have memory and sequencing troubles! I like to call it "momnesia." Try to enjoy it.
on topic - I don't know squat about Christian Science, except what JS just so obligingly told us (thanks JS). But, I have certainly heard more nutty stuff about the Scientologists than about the Christian Scientists. And I can't recall hearing or seeing anything particularly nutty about Big Val as opposed to the Cruiser who is clearly nuttiness with a nut filling topped with crushed nuts.
Posted by: sunnydaze | April 21, 2008 1:40 PM
I agree with JS, about Christian Scientists. They are not as freaked out as people think. They can go to the doctor, and it isn't considered a bad thing.
Overall I think the bad press goes to people who consider themselves "faith healers," and not associated with any religiion. They can be whacked out and not take responsible action when their kids are sick, and people hear the work faith healing and automatically think "Christian Scientist."
Posted by: chocolatetiara | April 21, 2008 1:54 PM
Yeah, Juicy - having small (or medium or large) children is just as good an excuse for forgetfulness, so you're set for years!
Posted by: h3 | April 21, 2008 2:03 PM
my only contact with christian science is having a few friends who were scientists when i was growing up. best i can recall, they weren't into any nutty stuff. the mom in one family was wheelchair bound from polio, though.
Posted by: b | April 21, 2008 2:42 PM
Maybe it's because he's been out of the public spotlight and basically stopped working, but Kirk Cameron went off the deep end in a way that makes Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise look like Christmas and Easter Catholics. Not in the jumping on the couch kind of way, but more of a, "I'm taking the time to personally damn you to hell if you don't get 'saved' by me now" kind of way. Have you ever seen The Way of the Master? It's funny for about 5 minutes, then you realize these people are taking themselves seriously, then you get disgusted. It's one thing to maintain a career, be nuts, and promote your religious beliefs; but something else to say, "hey, remember Growing Pains? I was Mike, Boner's best friend. You're going to HELL!!!!" Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise still kind of work.
Posted by: dbrue | April 21, 2008 2:42 PM
Well, I'm going to remember Val from when he was in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. What a underrated lil gem that movie is.
Posted by: Geist | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 2:54 PM
this kinda puts a whole new spin on top gun. could that movie have been a prelude for the religion smack down to come? hmmm... i see a sequel brewing. (highway to the danger zone indeed.)
Posted by: melissamac1 | April 21, 2008 2:59 PM
That IMDB entry on "The Dirt" also has Christopher Walken rumored to portray Ozzy Osbourne... WTF?
Posted by: Jay-El | April 21, 2008 3:07 PM
Hope you like pink and yellow folks, cuz it's the dawning of a new era here in Celebritology.
Posted by: Liz Kelly | April 21, 2008 3:09 PM
Just occurred to me -- it almost makes sense if they got the rumors for Kilmer and Walken reversed...
Posted by: Jay-El | April 21, 2008 3:11 PM
Between the melissamac1's postulating a sequel to Top Gun and Liz Kelly's new pink & yellow colour scheme, Celebritology suddenly took on a homoerotic subtext.
Posted by: byoolin | April 21, 2008 3:12 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that whole HEST thing. I own a pink shirt and a yellow one and they're in regular rotation.
Posted by: byoolin | April 21, 2008 3:15 PM
Well as long as we're talking about those wacky celebs and their leanings, didn't Mel Gibson build his family their own church because the 'regular' Catholics were too liberal?
Posted by: jes | April 21, 2008 3:51 PM
btw, on the left of the screen under 'In Entertainment' the headline 'Color photos of Paris under Nazis kicks up a storm' is a whole new kind of disturbing in the Celebritology world.
Posted by: jes | April 21, 2008 3:55 PM
Wow, celebritology has gotten all fancy and new fangled.
Posted by: petal | April 21, 2008 3:56 PM
I think the word is "metrosexual".
Posted by: possum | April 21, 2008 4:13 PM
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:27 PM
wow, disturbing link there, 4:27
Posted by: | April 21, 2008 4:30 PM
colors, schmolors. What happened to those handy dandy little symbols that allowed us to take a glipse without actually having to open the link?
Posted by: jake e. poo | April 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Jake -- good question. The ones that had previously been added to the blog dropped out when we launched the redesign. Look for them back in the blog tomorrow.
Posted by: Liz | April 21, 2008 8:35 PM
The difference is that Christianity is actually a religion (or a group of religions). Scientology is not a religion. It is a criminal racket and a mind-control cult. Why else would it be banned (or on track to be banned) in Germany, Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Norway... All very civilized and tolerant countries. They recognize how dangerous it is.
Posted by: Lilly von Marcab | April 21, 2008 9:18 PM
I loved Val in Willow. Why are so many of our generations' hunks starting to become human? Can't talk about the weight gain as I have quit smoking twice 20 lbs ago each time (if you restart that first 20 doesn't fall off). Just some idle thoughts...
Posted by: MadCap | April 21, 2008 10:04 PM
Mark Twain was a big critic of CS. His book is available to read online. The opening chapter is worth reading even if you don't care one bit about CS.
I attended Principia College in Elsah, Ill., in the 1980s. Two students during my freshman year 1984-85 died of the measles as did a child of a staff member. It wasn't long after that I began having doubts about the "religion." Still, I was a member from 1983 until the late 1990s, although I hadn't been too serious about it since 1993.
The CS Church was pretty powerful early in the 20th century, so books such as "The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science" were pulled from many bookstores, or bought by CSers. Apparently the copyright and plates to the book were bought by a friend of CS. The book was republished in the early 1990s by the University of Nebraska Press.
Eddy had false teeth and wore glasses -- some healer, huh? -- and was mentally unstable. Why else would she claim that one of her husbands was murdered by arsenic poisoning mentally administered?
Other books worth reading are "God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church" by Caroline Fraser and "The Religion That Kills: Christian Science: Abuse, Neglect, and Mind Control" by Linda S. Kramer.
Salon.com's review of Fraser's book is available here:
Remember this: If anyone asks you to join CS, turn in the other direction and run.
Posted by: Ex-CS | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM
Posted by: Kathy@MickeyRourkeOnLine.com | April 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Remember this: If anyone asks you to join CS, turn in the other direction and run.
Posted by: Ex-CS | April 21, 2008 10:18 PM
A more generally-useful proverb was given to us many years ago by the Prophet Groucho Marx:
"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
Posted by: byoolin | April 22, 2008 7:38 AM
I must concur with the "Christian Science isn't nearly as creepy as Scientology" posts. As the saying goes, some of my best friends are Christian Scientists. The shunning-of-medicine part can seem weird to outsiders, but their faith in real and there's a lot more to the religion than just the medicine part.
Plus, they don't use violence and intimidation against their perceived enemies. And they don't groom their famous members to be pimps for the cult. So, uh, yeah, CS isn't so much like Scientology.
Also, my snark abilities are at low ebb this morning but I just wanted to say that, as usual, I heart byoolin and I'd like to bear his children.
Posted by: jaybbub | April 22, 2008 10:52 AM
see this free video & you'll see something... http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Posted by: street pooch/w jetpack racoon | April 22, 2008 5:52 PM
I was able to retrieve an unforgettable "posting" on Christian Science published by the NYTimes when the religion was in the news weekly or daily. I haven't changed a word:
Christian Science Case Tests Medical Belief
It's a wonder you are raking the Christian Science church over the coals (front page, Aug. 6). A health scandal's focus should be on the traditional health "care" establishment. If you were to publish accounts of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who die in hospitals every year, there wouldn't be room for other news!
When someone dies after medical treatment we say, "It was God's will," but when someone dies without medical treatment we say, "The family is to blame for not choosing medical treatment." When someone heals in a hospital we say, "It was the treatment; praise the doctor!"; but when someone heals without medical treatment we say it was despite not having medical treatment.
The general public should start to examine its own cultish thinking about doctors, hospitals and medicine. I have not seen a doctor or taken medication in 18 years, and I feel just fine, thank you. After hearing hospital and doctor horror stories told to me by friends and acquaintances in the medical profession, I would think long and hard before suggesting medical treatment to anyone.
In referring to the Christian Science couple convicted in the death of their son after relying on prayer rather than doctors, you show your bias when you say, "It was a stunning verdict, coming as it did in the very shadow of the Mother Church in Boston." We all know that shadows are dark places, where evil things are hidden. You speak of "Christian Scientists whose children died agonizing deaths after spiritual healing failed." Have you been to a hospital and seen the agonizing deaths of people dying because of, or in spite of, their medical treatment?
I also loved your "clash of apparent absolutes: of religious liberty and parental autonomy on the one hand and the right of the states to protect children - and the rights of the children themselves - on the other." This suggests that the states "protect" children, and Christian Scientist parents do not. Nonsense! On the same page with this article appeared another about infant mortality in the United States, which is up to 40,000 children each year.
That article goes on to say: "The panel said the Government could reduce infant mortality by expanding Federal programs to deter smoking, drinking and drug abuse during pregnancy." The panel said, "Each state will be encouraged to hold a governor's conference on infant mortality before the White House conference." Are states protecting these future children by coming down heavily on the industries causing their problems and even their deaths? Of course not; the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical industries are three of the economic pillars of our country and have extraordinary lobbying power.
When we look at the staggering national statistics and compare them with the four isolated cases of Christian Science deaths, we must scratch our heads over your coverage, which also notes that Christian Science membership is small, implying there must be something wrong with this church, for if it was large, it would mean it was somehow O.K.
Jesus said, "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Have you considered that the Christian Science church is small because it is demanding? There's no smoking, no drinking, no premarital or extramarital sex, and prayer is applied to every inharmony. Jesus' own commands would be thought bizarre in our topsy-turvy world, where violence, aggression, greed and selfishness are the status quo.
I can only recommend that you stop shooting from the hip, think more and even pray a bit. No, I am not, have never been and may never become a member of the Christian Science church. --ANNE MULLER Stony Point, N.Y., Aug. 10, 1990
Posted by: WaPoBoy | April 22, 2008 11:37 PM
Hi, nice very nice page..!
Posted by: Anderson | April 23, 2008 4:13 AM
Posted by: Olgunka-rf | April 23, 2008 11:51 AM
to actually it's name rich flavor. could reach. pruning to dine A huge every I noticed pruning what effect
Posted by: studentredsi | April 23, 2008 4:20 PM
still there. took by themselves pets university sea site by year. pruning mail stay look
Posted by: petsuniversi | April 23, 2008 4:20 PM
As one who was born into Christian Science in 1948, I consider CS to be extremely dangerous. CS is based on denying the reality of any mental or physical disease; any death or discord. There is certainly no addiction, discord or abuse allowed in the perfect Christian Science mind.
If anything negative appears in your life, I was taught, it is because YOU let it in and if you can't get rid of it by denying its reality -- then that is your fault also. Seeking any kind of medical help, I was told, was pretty certain to ruin your chance of having a healing. I was told that we are meant to ascend bodily into heaven like Jesus did. Death is a disgrace, and the exhortation to raise the dead, I understand, is making quite a comeback at the Christian Science Annual Meeting.
By all means join up -- they're a fun group!
Posted by: former CS prisoner | April 23, 2008 9:02 PM
РегиÑÑÑаÑÐ¸Ñ Ð² ÑоÑÑÐ¼Ð°Ñ Ð±ÐµÐ· поÑÑинга ÑообÑений (пÑоÑайлов) - один из ÑамÑÑ Ð¿ÑиемлемÑÑ ÑпоÑобов наÑаÑÑиÑÑ Ð¾Ð±ÑаÑнÑÑ ÑÑÑлок ("беков") и поднÑÑÑ Page Rank (PR) и ЯндекÑ-ÑиÑиÑование (ТÐЦ ) ÐÑо вам даÑÑ ÐºÐ°Ðº минимÑм 5000+ беков. Ðа даннÑй Ð¼Ð¾Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼Ñ ÑегиÑÑÑиÑÑем в 350000 ÑоÑÑÐ¼Ð°Ñ Ð¡Ð¾Ð¾ÑноÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑмов 30% ÑÑÑÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð¸ 70% заÑÑбежнÑÑ .
Posted by: sdrisoeo | April 27, 2008 8:11 PM
Unlike Tom Cruise (who almost became a Catholic priest, by the way) Val Kilmer was born into Christian Science. He was raised in it and is very devoted. I have also been C.S. my whole life(now in my mid 30's.) The only people who speak for the church officially are specific staff members in Boston. Val is considered a lay person, like every other member and does not get paid to endorse the church. Also, unlike Scientology C.S. is very open about its beliefs. Reading rooms (libraries) were intended to allow the public to come in and study, but I personally believe that Mrs. Eddy also wanted the church to be as "open" as possible to allay non-constructive criticism. As for "former CS prisoner" I'm sorry you had such a terrible time in C.S. I usually find that people such as yourself who left C.S. under bad circumstances weren't taught it correctly in the first place. I don't know if it's family not understanding it and passing that onto their children or what. Anyway, whoever told you it's impossible to have a healing if you are seeking medical help shouldn't be preaching Christian Science. Also, that comment earlier about Mrs. Eddy's glasses and false teeth...I've never in my life heard about Mrs. Eddy having false teeth and I'm pretty sure it's not true. They did an autopsy on her when she died, (remember at that time she was quite famous) and the coroner said she had the veins of a young woman. She was in her 80's. Also, I do know she wrote that her students called her out about her glasses and she healed the problem.
Posted by: S.L. | April 28, 2008 8:47 PM
ÐÑзÑкалÑнÑе клипÑ, вÑÑ Ð±ÐµÑплаÑно, поÑледние новинки мÑзÑки, каÑаÑÑ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ð½Ð¾ ÑелÑми алÑбомами, ÑÑо- мÑзÑкалÑнÑй Ð ÐÐ.
Posted by: reftywal | April 29, 2008 5:30 PM
ЮÑидиÑеÑкие ÑеÑминÑ: жилиÑное, Ñемейное и наÑледÑÑвенное пÑаво, банкÑоÑÑÑво, пÑиваÑизаÑиÑ, возмеÑение вÑеда и многое дÑÑгое - помоÑÑ Ð±ÑдÑÑим ÑÑиÑÑам
Posted by: wwcatsmiu | May 1, 2008 3:02 PM
by year. I went A huge often sweet, took were the best, my first were called my what effect attempt. that the and climb
Posted by: sitehousewat | May 2, 2008 11:24 AM
to it forts returned a pair about And grapes,
Posted by: whitebagston | May 2, 2008 11:25 AM
What faith is not criticized? I am a Greek Orthodox and my faith is criticized just as much as CS. People think all kinds of rotten things about Greek Orthodoxy and have sites hating my faith too.
Next up: Tom Hanks his evil Greek festival agenda! You think you can go to a Greek festival for dancing and baklava and bam! They make you a Steward!
I like Val and Mel, and liked Tom Cruise in Top Gun and Cocktail......Oy Vey!
Posted by: Kilmerfan | May 6, 2008 7:34 AM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Washingtonpost.com blogger Liz Kelly dishes on the latest happenings in entertainment, celebrity, and Hollywood news.
| 324.166667 | 0.833333 | 1.277778 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001561.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001561.html
|
Foreign Buyers Flock to D.C. Office Market
|
2008042119
|
Last year, foreign investors bought nearly 10 times as much commercial office space in the District as they did in 2006. This year, they're buying at a similar clip, paying top dollar for properties with prestigious addresses and blue-chip amenities.
Last week, a wealthy Irish investor broke D.C. real estate records when he bought the glass-clad, I.M. Pei-designed trophy property at 2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW for a hefty $867 a square foot. Jones Lang LaSalle, which brokered the deal, had pitched the property to potential buyers in Europe, Australia, Asia Pacific and Latin America. Vico Capital outbid a group from Dubai, sealing the deal at $172.5 million. It bested by nearly $40 per square foot the city's last high-water mark: the sale of 1801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW in 2006 for $826 per square foot.
"We will see more funds and investors looking globally as a way to diversify against risk," said John Kevill of Jones Lang LaSalle, who with fellow managing director Collins Ege pitched 2099 Pennsylvania Ave. to potential buyers on a global sales tour last year.
International investors rank the United States as the most attractive market in the world, according to a first-quarter survey of members by the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate (AFIRE), a trade group whose members own about $230 billion of real estate in this country and $700 billion worldwide.
Increasingly, with private U.S. buyers hard-pressed to find money because of the credit crunch and more conservative investors waiting for prices to continue falling, offshore buyers are finding less competition for opportunities in the District's commercial real estate market. International buyers like the market because employment and job growth are relatively steady, and lobbying and law firms represent stable, high-rent tenants, according to the National Association of Realtors.
The Pennsylvania Avenue building is occupied by Holland and Knight law firm, investor Perseus and manufacturer Danaher. With a glass facade, multiple terraces, marbled lobby and premier view of the White House, it is among the most expensively appointed properties in the city. The inventory of such buildings is relatively small -- less than 1 percent of the upper echelon of the Class A commercial market is currently available, according to Cushman & Wakefield, a real estate firm in Virginia -- and they don't come on the market that often. There is only one new property under construction in the District upscale enough to be considered a trophy property: 1000 Connecticut Ave. NW.
Two weeks ago, Alexandria investor Ralph Dweck bought Class A buildings at 300 New Jersey Ave. NW and 51 Louisiana Ave. NW, according to industry newsletter Real Estate Alert. They were under contract for $378 million, or $824 per square foot.
Only a half-dozen large commercial properties in the District sold in the first quarter of this year, but the trophy deals have kept Class A values high, said Sigrid G. Zialcita, director of research for Cushman & Wakefield.
"I wouldn't say they are bargains. . . . They are paying top dollars," she said. "But what people are really paying a premium price for is a solid tenant base. These buildings are pretty much all leased up, with long-term and credit-worthy tenants. That's a great hedge now against the very volatile market we're in."
Generally considered the top U.S. cities to invest in, New York and Washington have moved to the top of the global market in terms of attractiveness, according to an AFIRE survey of foreign investors in the first quarter of this year.
In 2007, offshore commercial real estate purchases in the District totaled more than $1.25 billion -- $561.7 million of which came from investors in Germany and $231.1 million from the Middle East, according to data from Real Capital Analytics, a New York real estate research firm. In 2006, foreign buyers spent $153.5 million on commercial real estate in the District.
Vico, whose founder and principal, Dublin attorney Brian O'Donnell, had been looking at U.S. investment properties for several years, finally pulled the trigger on 2099 Pennsylvania Ave. because many of the domestic investors who might have been interested a year ago were no longer in play, Kevill said.
Until recently, many international buyers were reluctant "to enter a competition that included domestic buyers that were buying in large scale and had well-developed track records in those markets," Kevill said. With loans scarce, domestic investors cannot do deals with the speed they once had, when they could pre-fund their debt and perform little or no due diligence on target acquisitions. That gives foreign investors more time to familiarize themselves with the market.
Last month, while visiting Washington, a Dutch investment adviser struck up a conversation with real estate attorney Thomas Hart at the Four Seasons and asked about commercial real estate opportunities.
Hart pointed him to Penn Quarter, the Southeast Waterfront and the area north of Massachusetts Avenue known as NoMa as developing areas where property values are likely to rise.
"With the market down and the dollar down, they could get a double discount" on U.S. real estate, Hart said of foreign investors. "It just makes sense."
|
Washington,DC,Virginia,Maryland business headlines,stock portfolio,markets,economy,mutual funds,personal finance,Dow Jones,S&P 500,NASDAQ quotes,company research tools. Federal Reserve,Bernanke,Securities and Exchange Commission.
| 23.181818 | 0.5 | 0.590909 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001788.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001788.html
|
Ashburn Firm to Build Portable WiFi Systems for Army
|
2008042119
|
The Army has hired Telos to build a next-generation WiFi communications system that Army personnel can lug with them and set up anywhere around the world to get logistics support.
The Ashburn company won the $43.5 million contract to make wireless network units that are sturdy enough to stand up to harsh field conditions, easy to transport and meet the military's stringent security requirements. The units are designed so they can be set up without the assistance of specialized personnel.
Such requirements set apart this work from more traditional WiFi deployments in campuses or building complexes, said Tom Badders, Telos's director of wireless networking. The new systems most likely will be deployed overseas, he said.
The project, known as the Combat Service Support Automated Information System Interface, builds on previous efforts to provide the Army with the best and latest in WiFi technology, Badders said.
Telos provided the design for the system as part of the competition, so the contract will primarily consist of making and integrating the components at its Ashburn facilities before they are transported to the field. The government will test and set up the equipment itself, Badders said.
The devices are designed to allow Army personnel in the field to get a wireless connection up to 32 miles from a wired network at a base or headquarters.
"This wireless connection provides the reach back to that network, so that it appears that the deployed environment is directly connected to their network like they never left home," Badders said.
Depending on the Army's needs, Telos might build as many as 13,000 modules over the three-year contract, which also has two option years.
Telos, which specializes in building and supporting secure computer networks, has about 5,000 employees and has been in business for more than 30 years.
While the company has more than a decade of experience providing secure network systems and services to the Defense Department, most of that work has been with the Air Force, Badders said.
The company's previous wireless work with the Army involved deploying wireless intrusion-detection systems at military installations, he said.
With this award, the company hopes to become an established provider of secure wireless networks to the Army, Badders said. "It's a great opportunity for us," he said.
William Welsh is deputy editor of Washington Technology. For more information on government contracting, go tohttp://www.washingtontechnology.com.
|
The Army has hired Telos to build a next-generation WiFi communications system that Army personnel can lug with them and set up anywhere around the world to get logistics support.
| 13.969697 | 1 | 33 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001992.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001992.html
|
Ovechkin Has One Goal in Mind
|
2008042119
|
If Alex Ovechkin's inspired performance Saturday was any indication, the NHL's leading scorer has begun to adapt to the postseason's tight-checking style. But the question entering tonight's game in Philadelphia is whether it has come too late.
Down three games to two, Ovechkin and the Capitals must beat the Flyers at raucous Wachovia Center to force the Eastern Conference quarterfinal series back to Washington for a seventh and deciding game tomorrow.
Ovechkin has only one goal in the series and did not register a point in the Capitals' 3-2 Game 5 victory. But he found other ways to contribute and looked a lot more like the player who dominated the regular season, giving him and the Capitals hope that he's on the verge of a breakout.
"You just can't keep a great player down forever," Coach Bruce Boudreau said after yesterday's optional practice in Arlington. "Everyone looks at Alex and says if he doesn't get two goals, 'What's wrong?' But he's a major component of our team other than just scoring."
Ovechkin took shorter shifts and delivered some heavy hits, including a highlight-caliber hip check on Flyers center Jim Dowd. He managed to slip loose of Philadelphia defenseman Kimmo Timonen's smothering coverage long enough to generate scoring opportunities and finished with a series-high six shots on net. He also drew a first-period hooking infraction on Timonen that resulted in a power-play goal, and screened goaltender Philadelphia goaltender Martin Biron on Alexander Semin's third-period winner.
"That was my best game, for sure," said Ovechkin, who also has four assists. "The first two, three games I was nervous because it was a new experience for me. But I'm getting more comfortable every game, every moment."
His offensive struggles have been somewhat surprising considering the 22-year-old led the NHL in goals (65), points (112), shots (446) and is considered a front-runner for the Hart Trophy, awarded to the league's MVP.
But Ovechkin's first playoff experience has been an eye-opener, as it often is for elite forwards. The defense is tighter, space is harder to find, shooting lanes are more congested and the level of competition is higher than it is during the 82-game regular season schedule.
Ovechkin has also had to contend with a team that has geared its game plan toward stopping him. Timonen rarely allows Ovechkin to get more than a few strides away, and positions himself so the all-star left wing's only option is to go to the outside rather than cutting to the middle of the ice, where he's more likely do damage. On the rare occasion Ovechkin does get away from Timonen, he also must find his way around shutdown forwards Mike Richards and Jeff Carter.
But there is a side effect of paying so much attention to a single player, as the Flyers found out in Game 5.
"Alex was on the ice for all three goals, and the reason [Sergei] Fedorov was wide open is because their defense was all over Alex," Boudreau said. "When he's out there, it makes for room for other guys."
Ovechkin kicked off his playoff debut with a bang, scoring a dramatic game-winner in the series opener. But he had not been much of a factor in that game until scoring, then notched only a single assist in Games 2 and 3, both Capitals losses.
The all-star left wing was more assertive in Game 4, finishing with a game-high 10 hits and two assists in a 4-3 double-overtime loss. He carried that momentum into Saturday.
Ovechkin created space for himself by moving around rather than remaining stationary and waiting for a pass, making it harder for Timonen and his partner, Braydon Coburn, to target him. He made shorter passes, used linemates Fedorov and Viktor Kozlov more effectively and went to the front of the net, particularly on the power play, in an effort to screen Biron and seek out rebounds.
"He didn't get a goal [on Saturday], but he still did things to help us win the hockey game," forward Brooks Laich said. "He drew some penalties and was a distraction, which opens up the ice for other guys. When he goes to the net, their team goes, 'Oh my God, Alex is here I have to cover him.' Maybe that takes their mind off someone else, who might be there to get a backdoor goal.' "
"We're not worried one bit about the way Ovie is playing," Laich added. "The chances are there, and the goals are going to be there, too. It's just a matter of time. They are not having any fun playing against Alex Ovechkin. I think their D-men are hating it every night. It makes for a long night trying to cover that guy."
Ovechkin hopes it will be two more nights.
"Both teams have lots of pressure now," he said. "If we win, then the next game will be the final one for both teams. And if we lose, we're done and our season will be over."
|
If Alex Ovechkin's inspired performance Saturday was any indication, he has begun to adapt to the postseason's tight-checking style, but the question entering Game 6 is whether it has come too late.
| 26.538462 | 0.974359 | 8.820513 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042000729.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042000729.html
|
Pope Ends U.S. Trip With Airport Farewell From Vice President
|
2008042119
|
NEW YORK, April 20 -- After thanking the United States for his "many memorable experiences of American hospitality," Pope Benedict XVI headed back to Rome on Sunday night, ending a six-day visit in which he directly confronted the clergy sex-abuse crisis and surprised many by drawing large, enthusiastic crowds.
"It has been a joy for me to witness the faith and devotion of the Catholic community here," Benedict said in a farewell ceremony at John F. Kennedy International Airport, attended by Vice President Cheney, 3,000 cheering Catholics and 250 singers and musicians.
Cheney thanked Benedict for a "memorable week" and said that the pope had "stepped into the history of our country in a very special way."
Benedict's stops in Washington and New York dramatically raised American Catholics' familiarity with -- and affection for -- their 81-year-old pontiff.
Experts said it was too early to know if it would also affect the depth of their faith or their trust in an institution rocked by sex abuse scandals. The visit made Benedict a more familiar and less authoritarian figure, they said, but the chasm between American Catholics and the pope is wide, particularly regarding subjects like same-sex unions and married priests.
"People may take a little bit more pride in being able to say, 'Yes, I'm Catholic,' but it doesn't translate into institutional commitment," said Paul F. Lakeland, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University and an expert on American Catholic laity. "I don't imagine we're going suddenly to see a 5 or 10 percent spike in church attendance. I think the issues are much deeper, and any solution is going to be much more long-term."
Benedict, known for a quarter-century as the tough enforcer of Vatican orthodoxy, steered away for the most part from divisive issues during his U.S. trip. He rarely mentioned abortion, homosexuality and his belief in the superiority of Catholicism over other faiths, all obvious hot-button issues. To the disappointment of opponents of the Iraq war, the pope made only a veiled reference to the conflict or his own opposition, criticizing unilateral action in addressing the United Nations.
His final day in the United States was marked by two powerful events: praying with victims of Sept. 11, 2001, inside the deep pit of Ground Zero, and celebrating a Mass at Yankee Stadium before more than 57,000 people.
Benedict's morning prayer service, in the nearly four-story-deep crater of what was the World Trade Center's North Tower, brought together two dozen people directly affected by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the towers, damaged the Pentagon and killed nearly 3,000 people.
After kneeling in prayer and lighting a Pascal candle -- typically lit at funerals and Easter, as a sign of resurrection and hope -- Benedict spoke briefly with each of the 24 people. Some wept, others hugged as the pope prayed to God to "turn to your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred."
Later, at Yankee Stadium, on an afternoon that went from drizzle to sunshine shortly before the Mass, Benedict called upon Catholics to proclaim "unchanging truths," including the right to life of "the unborn child."
Living religiously "means overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness. It also means rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and public life," he said.
|
NEW YORK, April 20 -- After thanking the United States for his "many memorable experiences of American hospitality," Pope Benedict XVI headed back to Rome on Sunday night, ending a six-day visit in which he directly confronted the clergy sex-abuse crisis and surprised many by drawing large, enthu...
| 11.423729 | 0.966102 | 55.067797 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802703.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802703.html
|
Best-Selling Global Fictions
|
2008042019
|
Iraq is a sovereign country that makes its own decisions. Zimbabwe's dictator will be brought into line -- by someone else. Protests over Tibet mar the noble ideals of the Olympics. And only a few poorly chosen words by Barack Obama about bitterness in Pennsylvania give the misleading impression that he and his supporters are elitist.
Politicians exist to recast reality on their own terms. Political fictions -- such as these four examples -- serve to focus attention on peripheral events and obscure the uncomfortable central truths that national leaders will not, or cannot, overcome. They tempt us to rush past the obvious, to confuse the ephemeral with the essential:
· Iraq is Exhibit A of a useful political fiction being the bone that the burglar throws to distract the watchdog, as T.S. Eliot wrote of a poem's ostensible meaning.
President Bush and his aides emphasize that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki deserves both credit and blame for acting on his own and precipitously sending a division-size force of Iraqi soldiers and police to Basra last month to attack Shiite militiamen. Maliki miscalculated, but he showed himself to be decisive and independent, goes the official version.
But the weight of the unacknowledged continuing American occupation broke through as soon as Maliki's offensive faltered. The prime minister's own chief of security, Salim Qassim, was shot dead by a sniper as he stepped out of Basra Palace to use his cellphone on March 28. Maliki, nearby, was in physical danger as the fighting raged, according to intelligence reports.
The CIA flashed word to Washington that the offensive -- and Maliki's government -- was about to collapse. That was when U.S. units were ordered into action to save Iraq's sovereign but defenseless prime minister, according to U.S. and Iraqi sources.
The harsh truth is that the Bush administration grievously erred in saddling Iraq with a heavy-handed U.S. occupation rather than staging the 2003 invasion as a humanitarian intervention and liberation. U.S. efforts to include complete freedom to conduct operations in Iraq under a status-of-forces agreement being negotiated with Maliki would further demonstrate the hollowness of Iraqi sovereignty.
· In the deepening tragedy of Zimbabwe, the accepted fiction is that someone or something else will rescue the suffering people of that southern African nation from the unquenchable power lust of President Robert Mugabe.
Mugabe's blatant disregard of election results that would have turned him out of office has set the global watchdog barking. But Zimbabwe's neighbors, along with the African Union and the world's major powers, are rummaging through their bottomless bag of bones in search of fresh justifications for not acting as Mugabe destroys the country.
American and British leaders maintain relative quiet on Mugabe's atrocities, fearing that they would be easy targets for anti-white tirades by the former African nationalist. It is up to Zimbabwe's neighbors to act, they primly suggest.
|
Focusing on peripheral events can obscure uncomfortable truths.
| 61.333333 | 0.888889 | 1.555556 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/benedict_protect_children_from.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/04/benedict_protect_children_from.html
|
Benedict: Protect Children from Future Abuse
|
2008042019
|
The Question: What can Pope Benedict XVI say and do to repair the growing rifts between the Vatican, the clergy and the laity in America?
A papal apology to those sexually abused by Catholic priests is certainly long overdue and it is good that Pope Benedict met with some of the victims of sexual abuse by priests on his U.S. trip.
But as Mother Jones was fond of saying, âPray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.â We need to know from Pope Benedict how future abuse will be stopped.
Bernie McDaid, one of the survivors of priestly sexual abuse who met with the Pope, rightly called attention to the fact that this abuse is still going on and will continue to go on unless something is done about it. He said in an interview with CNN that he told the pope he was an altar boy when he was abused and "it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was spiritual abuse. And I want you to know that. And then I told him that he has a cancer growing in his ministry, and needs to do something about it.â
This cancer has not been eradicated, and indeed, it may be getting worse because Benedict himself, as well as the Vatican leaders, do not seem to understand what are the root causes of priestly abuse of children, both boys and girls.
To date, in Benedictâs papacy, how has the Catholic Church shown it is planning to go about preventing more abuse by priests? Disturbingly, it seems that Pope Benedict believes that this problem of sexual abuse by priests lies with having gay men in the priesthood. Not many months after he was elected Pope, the Vatican issued the âInstruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders.â
Sadly enough, the impetus for that document seems to have been the child sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have responded to this teaching by noting that child sexual abuse by priests comes not from homosexuality per se, but from an immature sexual identity compounded by the frustrations of celibacy and the climate of secrecy in the church about sex.
American Catholic seminaries, a target of this teaching, have ironically been doing a really good job in recent decades of creating a seminary climate and curriculum that addresses human sexuality in a frank and open way. While I teach at a Protestant seminary, we have students in our graduate programs from Catholic seminaries and our faculties and administrators all go to many of the same meetings where we discuss curriculum, student formation and all other questions of how to do good theological education. Many American Catholic seminaries have created a teaching environment that addresses some of the root causes of pedophilia in priests, namely immature sexual identity and a negative attitude toward sexuality.
This 2005 document explicitly targets gay men who teach in seminaries and seminarians who are discovered to have this âprofoundly deep-rooted homosexualityâ. It was inevitable that a net result of this targeting has been a renewed climate of secrecy and hiding from oneâs own sexual identity. This will again surely produce sexually immature candidates for the priesthood, just the kind of person who tends to abuse children.
I would like to acknowledge the good step that this 2005 Vatican teaching seems to take, i.e. the simple acknowledgment that being homosexual is a biological fact. In addition, the document includes a clear rejection of âevery mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them [homosexuals]â is a very much-needed religious teaching today as state-by-state Americans try to pass legislation that will restrict or reject altogether equal civil rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. That it comes from the Catholic Church itself is very helpful in the struggle for equal human rights for all people in the United States and around the world. The Pope's speech today at the U.N. stressed the need to protect human rights.
But it is a tragedy that the apparent impetus for the teaching, the safe-guarding of Catholic children from abuse by their priests, has targeted gay men with no evidence. It is an even greater tragedy that if this teaching is enforced, the result will be to re-create the climate in Catholic seminaries that has produced so many pedophiles in the past.
It is no surprise that the Pope is addressing the issue of the sexual abuse by priests in his first U.S. visit. Well over 4,000 priests have been accused of molesting minors in the U.S. since 1950, and the church has paid out more than $2 billion, much of it in just the last six years. The Boston case of a priest who was a serial molester and failure of Cardinal Law to do anything about it gained national attention and inspired many victims to step forward. Six dioceses have been forced into bankruptcy because of abuse costs. The U.S. Catholic church has lost many members over not only the abuse by priests, but by the churchâs failure to address the problem and sometimes even engaging in a cover-up.
It is a huge tragedy that even in recognizing the near-total failure of the Catholic Church to protect its children from sexual abuse by priests, the Church is still, because of deep-seated homophobia, going about dealing with the risk of future abuse in exactly the wrong way. And generations of children and their parents and their caring church communities will continue to pay for the mistake.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 23.545455 | 0.522727 | 0.613636 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/what_benedict_hasnt_said_about.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/what_benedict_hasnt_said_about.html
|
What Benedict Hasn't Said About the Holocaust
|
2008042019
|
Pope Benedict XVIâs visit to a synagogue in New York this week will evoke his visit to the oldest synagogue in Germany nearly three years ago. On that occasion, addressing leaders of Cologneâs Jewish community, Pope Benedict properly addressed the question of the Shoah. He deplored Hitlerâs campaign to eliminate the Jewish people, and he condemned Nazi antisemitism â words which still need to be spoken. That this Catholic leader is himself a German, having had his own youthful glimpse of Hitlerâs death-regime, made his remembrance of that history all the more compelling.
Yet there was something troubling in what Pope Benedict said on that occasion. As it happened, I was in Cologne while the pontiff was there. With the filmmaker Oren Jacoby, I was at work on a documentary film based on my book âConstantineâs Sword: The Church and the Jews â A History.â We were filming in the Rhineland because so much of that history was centered there. Europeâs first pogroms occurred in the 11th century when mobs poured from the Cologne cathedral on Good Friday looking for âChrist-killers.â Blood libel charges arose there during the plagues of the 14th century. The Dreyfus family had its origins nearby, as did the German Catholic celebrations of the 1933 treaty between the Vatican and the Third Reich. Nazi antisemitism had its own diabolical character, but it built on the deep-seated contempt for Jews that had become second nature to Christians, and even a shallow acquaintance with German history (both Lutheran and Catholic) shows that.
But in condemning Nazi antisemitism before that Jewish congregation in Cologne, Pope Benedict defined it univocally as having been âborn of neo-paganism.â That was true, a reference to the odd mysticism that underwrote the Teutonic myths on which claims for Aryan racial superiority rested. But Nazi hatred of Jews was born of two parents, and the other one â the long history of Christian anti-Judaism â the pope did not mention. This was not a slight omission. It is urgently important, in going forward into the 21st century, that the context out of which the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people grew, and within which it nearly succeeded, not be forgotten. The crimes of Hitler were not the crimes of Christianity, but the Final Solution depended, both for the recruitment of active perpetrators and for the passivity of a continentâs worth of bystanders, on the ingrained anti-Jewishness of Christian theology, liturgy, and tradition. You would not know that from what the pope said in the Synagogue in Cologne. Some months later, Pope Benedict went to Auschwitz. Again, he was unsparing in condemning what the Nazis did. But now he implicitly exonerated the German people, effectively defined the Naziâs ultimate target as having been not Jews but Christianity, and complained not of the Churchâs silence in the face of the horror, but of Godâs.
Benedict went to Auschwitz, he said, âas a son of the German people, a son of that people over which a ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nationâs honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation.â In Germany itself by now, there is an established tradition of a much fuller recognition of national complicity in the Nazi project. For a generation, Germans have declined to portray themselves as mere victims and dupes, and German church leaders in particular have been forthright in confessing their sin in relation to the Holocaust. In his portrayal of the past, both at Cologne and Auschwitz, Benedict is becoming a German apart.
And as a Christian? Here is how he defined the Nazi aim in murdering Jews: âDeep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this peopleâ¦by destroying Israel, they ultimately wanted to tear up the tap root of the Christian faith.â As if to dramatize this astounding claim that the âultimateâ Nazi target at Auschwitz was the Church, Benedict greeted 32 camp survivors, all but one of whom were Polish Catholics. A lone Jew represented the more than one million Jews who died there. With no apparent embarrassment, the pope prayed, âWhy, Lord, did you remain silent?â âConstantineâs Sword,â a film by Oren Jacoby, has its theatrical premier in New York on the day of the popeâs visit to the Synagogue.* The coincidence has no significance, although, in my mind, it raises these questions. In the film, Oren Jacoby and I show that the dark legacy of Christian antisemitism began to be redeemed when the Second Vatican Council both repudiated the âChrist-killerâ charge against the Jewish people, and affirmed the on-going validity of Jewish religion. The days of scapegoating Jews, and seeking their conversion are over. Or are they? When Pope Benedict meets with Jewish leaders in New York this week, the cordial greetings will be heartfelt, but so will an undercurrent of wondering. Why, under his authority, has the Vatican recently restored the pre-Vatican II Good Friday prayers for the conversion of Jews? Does this pontificate represent a retreat from Christian moral reckoning with the Holocaust? Does it intend to restore the lethal Christian conviction that Godâs only plan for Jews is baptism?
Beginning April 18, the film screens in New York at the Lincoln Plaza Theater and at the Quad Theater. For scheduled screenings in other cities, see constantinessword.com James Carroll is the author most recently of âHouse of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power.â He is Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Suffolk University.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 74.571429 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/proud_to_be_catholic.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/04/proud_to_be_catholic.html
|
Proud to Be a Catholic
|
2008042019
|
The Church Jesus Christ Built
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say unto thee (referring to Peter), that thou art Peter (petro or stone or rock), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
In Acts 15:7 Peter said, " ...Men and brethren, ye know how that a good whil e ago God made choice (or selected) among us, that the Gentiles (or we the people who are not Jews) by my mouth (or thru his preaching) should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
In verse 9 & 11, he continues, " And put no difference between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith ... But we believe that thru the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
If we read the whole of Acts 15, those words of Peter were made to clear up matters in which some of the members of the church (newly converted Pharisees) want to include the law of Moses in order to be saved.
Prior to this event or dispute, Apostle Paul and Barnabas had been preaching to the Gentiles the salvation of souls thru faith in Jesus Christ . In Acts 14:27 it says, "... and how He (God) had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." Also in Acts 13:39 it says " And by Him (Jesus Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."
In the midst of the debate, Apostle Peter, whom Jesus Christ had first chosen to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, stood up and confirmed the teaching of Apostle Paul that indeed salvation is by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ which is made possible thru the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. In the eyes of God, nobody can satisfactorily follow the "unveiled" law of Moses unless dwelt upon by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. One of the "veiled" law of Moses is circumcision of the foreskin but its true or unveiled meaning is that of the "circumcision of the heart" or being "born-again" in other words (Romans 2:29).
It was taught upon the Catholic people that their church was started by Peter. Many believe it and for this reason many choose to stand by this church and defend "what Peter had started".
But in reality, the Catholic Church has been a fierce enemy to the doctrine propagated by Peter, Paul, the other Apostles and of Jesus Christ. When Martin Luther (a former priest) floated the idea of "justification by faith", which the apostles especially Peter and Paul had long ago preached to the Gentiles, all hell broke loose and it caused many terrible wars and massacres done by the church just to suppress that doctrine. If Peter and Paul were present during those time when Catholicism was at its peak of power and had they changed their names to avoid recognition, they too could have been burned at the stake also for preaching "justification by faith".
Despite the tremendous power of the Roman Catholic Church during that time, it didn't succeed to extinguish that holy doctrine coz as what Jesus Christ had said, " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ". As what Martin Luther had said, "the body they may kill : but God's truth abideth still". And true enough it still abides today and even gave birth to a great nation (In God We Trust) and it will continue to abide even to the end of time. [ But this nation will suffer or be punished because of the foolishness (rising atheism, sexual promiscuity, gay marriage, garbage music, TV programs & movies centered on sex) which some or many of its people, who are ignorant of that holy doctrine, are promoting. With Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, atheism and other false religions slowly "invading" it, God won't spare parts of that nation to feel the brunt of His anger.]
For a very long time upto now, the salvation doctrine of Catholicism has been the sacraments like infant baptism, confession to the priests and penance, holy communion, confirmation, etc. Some even consider the role of Mary in their salvation plan. It just couldn't stop of thinking what really could save a person coz in reality, they really don't know and that explains why they have so many ways.
Justification by faith was never a part of their salvation doctrine and anybody who espoused that idea during those dark centuries were properly dealt with.
It must be noted that no Apostle ever performed infant baptism; no Apostle had a confession booth and gave penance; no Apostle performed the holy communion for the salvation of souls and neither was "confirmation" used by them. Also, no Apostle prayed to Mary for intercession to God. Whatever Catholicism has been teaching their flock like lighting candles, praying the rosary, praying to the saints, reciting prayer books, getting their properties blessed with "holy water", no Apostle ever did those things coz they are just purely Catholicism's own inventions. And as always, man's inventions especially if it pertains to godliness always fall short with God's standards. No person can ever make his own way to Heaven. It's either God's way or no way.
Catholicism was not the church Jesus Christ built in which Peter and the rest of the Apostles was tasked to propagate. On the contrary it is the church which persecuted and tried to destroy God's true church.
Jesus Christ had said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This said church is already present with us and its not Catholicism, nor liberal Protestantism, nor Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, nor Taoism, nor Buddhism nor any other big or small religion that may name Christ but has other ways of salvation other than the simple faith in Jesus Christ which He personally gives to whoever He sees fit to receive it.
If we hear the words "God bless America", it may not refer to all Americans but as a nation, it is true.
If we hear the words "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound", it may be America's favorite hymn and was written just a few years before America became a sovereign nation but the essence of that song started roughly 2000 years ago, when Peter stood up in defense of Paul and proclaimed the foundation in which the true church of God would stand --- salvation by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. No other else.
Man did not make America, God did. And why is that? It's because He lives in the hearts of many of them who believe and live that doctrine.
As I searched the net for some backgrounder about the song, Amazing Grace, I found this dedication written alongside with the song :
In Tribute to all those innocents who lost their lives in 9-11; and to all those who made it possible for our country to have the freedoms we enjoy; who paid the cost for our freedoms with their lives and youth in World War I, World War II, and at D-DAY; and in police actions like Vietnam, Korea and more; and to all those in our country's Armed Forces who stand in harm's way in defense of our liberty today. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. ***
We owe America all the freedoms and the relative prosperity most of this world's population, including Europe, are enjoying today. God truly bless America. God bless the people who has that salvation by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. God bless His true Church in which the gates of hell, be it colonialism, communism, terrorism or some form of dark power, cannot prevail against it. This world may undergo another round of terrible crisis not known to man ever before, but we can be sure with God's protection, it would still be, as it has always been, the last man standing.
Let the whole world embrace and live this doctrine so "earth and Heaven would finally be one". May God not only bless America but also the world. Surely, He will if it would only believe. It's still not too late for some.
Let's be a part of this spiritual revolution. Be a part of God's "fishers of men". Pass it on.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 38.386364 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/a_new_earth.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/04/a_new_earth.html
|
Who Are You? Oprah Knows!
|
2008042019
|
As all you devoted readers of this blog know, we are on Oprah watch because the TV host has spent this year heralding the good news about Eckhart Tolle's "A New Earth," Oprah's new favorite book/spiritual belief system for the future of mankind!
Oprah's web seminars on "A New Earth" continue on this week to the seventh chapter, and me and millions around the world are riveted. This week? Finding out who you are!
At first, I found watching Oprah meditate onscreen and then talk about losing her self sort of trippy -- but now think I get it.
Oprah represents the noisiest and most self-centered face of the American mainstream. Now she has taken on the project of espousing a system of belief that focuses entirely on losing ego and becoming present and aware of the shared nature of consciousness.
"It's a life-changing concept. You are not who you think you are. So, who are you really? This week, Oprah and Eckhart helped you get in touch with your true self," says the website. And on the show, amid a montage of soft images of flower smelling and ribbon dancing, I learn that "only by awakening can you know true meaning. A new year. A new you. A new earth."
This week was class seven, a "journey of discovery" (Oprah's favorite so far!) This week, we learn to "know thyself." And to ask "Who Am I?" Oprah and Tolle have an odd couple rapport -- he's serious and tight, she's expressive and chatty. I like it when Oprah makes fun of Tolle ("Eckhart made a joke, y'all!")
After a moment of silence, they practice looking around without interpreting and creating an awareness of space. Oprah looks around as if she weren't in a TV studio run tight as a watch and we imagine she is taking it all in, without giving a thought to the millions watching or how she looks to them or how the minions who have toiled for hours to make her look this way have performed. Nay, she is just aware. Listening for the "silence underneath the sounds" and "allowing the is-ness of all things" and moving "deeply into the now."
I don't want to be a player hater, a debbie downer, or as Tolle/Oprah would say, "a pain body." I feel truly torn on how to write about Oprah's New Earth. One one hand, to me, it is ridiculous to think that we can enter a new state of consciousness in between learning about Mariah's kickin' new body and Dr. Oz's battle against smoking. On the other hand, many people make a space for Oprah in their lives and that space is in between celebrity news and diet tips. And if those people are willing to squeeze in a little bit of time to meditate and practice letting the ego fall away, well who am I to judge?
So, I won't spend this post musing about what kind of revenue the New Earth is generating. Or pointing out the irony of Oprah preaching an ego-less path with 11 million people watching as she reads her "most favorite" part of the book and talks at length about her own life story (even though the point is to lose your story). I won't harp on how she and Tolle use all these odd terms and buzzwords. I won't do any of that! I will just wonder quietly if it's possible that Oprah is the unlikely trojan horse that will bring Zen Buddhism to the great tabloid-reading masses.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 16.386364 | 0.477273 | 0.522727 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/04/dying_to_escape_iraq.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/04/dying_to_escape_iraq.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008042019
|
Yonkers, New York 19 april 2008
I can only sympathize with Mr. Haider and his family.
My hope is that the British will prove true to their word and grant Mr. Haider and his family asylum in Britain--and do it quickly before someone else suffers the fate of his uncle-in-law.
A Sophoclean tragedy of historic dimensions is unfolding in Iraq.
It is not only that some 4,000 US troops have been killed--probably needlessly; some 29,000 , more injured (12,000 so severely as to require expensive treatment the rest of their natural lives); some 90,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far and thousands more injured; and around 2 million middle-class Iraqis have been tragically displaced, having fled for their lives to Iran, Jordan, Syria and other countries.
Much of Iraq pretty much has been reduced to rubble and dust. Its infrastructure has been so devastated that it will take billions in terms of Iraqi and US funds to repair them--and probably also several years for the job to get done.
And that is not all.
Iraq is still very much in the midst of a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now that the Shiites are in the saddle, for them its payback time against the Sunnis--and they are making no bones about their thirst for vengeance. What complicates the tragedy is that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite Mahdi Army are caught in an internecine power struggle with the Shiite government, military and police forces under PM Nouri al-Maliki.
Caught in the middle are U.S. forces numbering some 168,000 led by Gen. David Petraeus. These forces pretty much are in a sticky quagmire, not really knowing what they are in Iraq for right now and under the present circumstances of civil war, anarchy and chaos.
The world's consensus is that Iraq now is incalculably worse off than before US Comnander-in-Chief George W. Bush, the Decider, invaded Iraq preemptively and unilaterally on the basis of inadequate, misleading and even "doctored" intelligence.
But there is no way to put the genie back into the bottle. There is no way to undo the terrible mistake George W. Bush and his band of trigger-happy neocons, obviously fixated on remaking the world in America's own "democratic" image--by military force if that is what it takes.
Talke about imperialism, hubris and reckless arrogance!
And so it will take the next President and his admistration to clean up the terrible and costly mess which Mr. Bush will surely be leaving behind him. He will be retiring in ignominy to his Crawford, Texas ranch, there to ponder how everything he laid his hands on turned to ashes.
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 30.764706 | 0.411765 | 0.411765 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/19/ST2008041902299.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/19/ST2008041902299.html
|
DNA Tests Offer Deeper Examination Of Accused
|
2008042019
|
Twenty years after DNA fingerprints were first admitted by American courts as a way to link suspects to crime scenes, a new and very different class of genetic test is approaching the bench.
Rather than simply proving, for example, that the blood on a suspect's clothes does or does not match that of a murder victim, these "second generation" DNA tests seek to shed light on the biological traits and psychological states of the accused. In effect, they allow genes to "testify" in ways never before possible, in some cases resolving long-standing legal tangles but in others raising new ones.
Already, chemical companies facing "toxic tort" claims have persuaded courts to order DNA tests on the people suing them, part of an attempt to show that the plaintiffs' own genes made them sick -- not the companies' products.
In other cases, defense attorneys are asking judges to admit test results suggesting that their clients have a genetic predisposition for violent or impulsive behavior, adding a potential "DNA defense" to a legal system that until now has held virtually everyone accountable for their actions except the insane or mentally retarded.
Some gene tests are even being touted for their capacity to help judges predict the likelihood that a convict, if released, will break the law again -- a measure of "future dangerousness" that raises questions about how far courts can go to abort crimes that have not yet been committed.
Most of these tests are still research tools hovering on the margins of admissibility; only a few have made the leap from the lab bench to the courtroom. But scientists' expanding ability to query people's genes, and lawyers' efforts to introduce those findings as evidence, are forcing scholars and judges to think in new ways about the Constitution's protections against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure.
At its extreme, the prospect of getting an accurate handle on future dangerousness challenges the very notions of autonomy and free will that are at the core of any theory of criminal responsibility.
"So far, judges have been cautious," said Karen Rothenberg, dean of the University of Maryland School of Law. But given what Rothenberg calls the "love affair" that courts have had with DNA fingerprints, she and others fear that judges and juries will fall too quickly for the new tests.
"As the cost of gene testing comes down . . . we're likely to see clever defense counselors taking steps to use the outer reaches of genetic testing," said Judge Andre M. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, speaking at a recent Baltimore roundtable co-sponsored by the law school and the National Human Genome Research Institute. "The question is, can the judge manage the case so the jury is not taken down the primrose path of genetic test results?"
Genes have had a rocky relationship with justice, dating at least to the early years of the last century, when eugenics laws encouraged forced sterilizations to break the cycle of "inherited criminality."
"Shiftlessness, nomadism, pauperism all were assumed to have biological and genetic causes," said Jeffrey R. Botkin, a physician and ethicist at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
Today, Botkin said, scientists know that genes are only part of what adds up to human health and behavior. But with environmental influences more difficult to pin down and a torrent of new, if preliminary, DNA findings to choose from, lawyers and judges are once again being tempted to lean heavily on genes to help them make difficult legal decisions, he said.
|
Twenty years after DNA fingerprints were first admitted by American courts as a way to link suspects to crime scenes, a new and very different class of genetic test is approaching the bench.
| 19.771429 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901915.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901915.html
|
Predicting 'Future Dangerousness' Is Flawed; Could a Gene Test Do Worse?
|
2008042019
|
The use of genetic tests to predict a convict's "future dangerousness" is controversial, in part because the genes in question -- such as one that produces a change in a brain chemical called MAO-A and has been linked to violent behavior -- remain poorly understood.
But under current court rules, virtually any kind of evidence of future dangerousness is considered admissible for sentencing purposes, even if its scientific validity is questionable.
Indeed, the nongenetic predictors in use today are notoriously inaccurate. The test that is widely considered to be most accurate, known as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, scores individuals in a dozen psychological categories based on such information as age, marital status and past criminal record. It is often introduced during decisions about whether to impose the death penalty.
But this test is wrong almost as often as it is right. About 55 percent of those deemed to be at highest risk go on to commit crimes later. That means that 45 percent who might be sentenced to death for their high score would not have committed another violent crime.
|
The use of genetic tests to predict a convict's "future dangerousness" is controversial, in part because the genes in question -- such as one that produces a change in a brain chemical called MAO-A and has been linked to violent behavior -- remain poorly understood.
| 3.923077 | 1 | 52 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901914.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901914.html
|
Where Genetic Influences Leave off and State of Mind Takes Over
|
2008042019
|
For defendants to be found guilty of a crime, a court generally must conclude that they were aware of their actions and also had what lawyers call "mens rea," literally a "guilty mind" -- a recognition that their actions were wrong.
Being unconscious has been accepted as a criminal defense since the 1870s, when a man named Fain with a history of sleepwalking had his murder conviction reversed after convincing the court that he was asleep when he shot his victim.
Similarly, people responsible for fatal auto accidents have been declared not guilty when it was shown that they had an epileptic seizure while driving -- though they can be found culpable if it happens a second time, on the presumption that they should have known better than to drive again.
Still to be decided by the courts is whether a genetic test that shows, for example, that a person has a gene-based difficulty controlling impulses, or a strong predisposition to a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, deserves to be treated like a somnambulist or a person having a perpetual seizure.
DNA test results may someday reduce a sentence or even help people avoid conviction, but for now that bar is high because genetic tests are general and cannot speak to the precise state of a person's mind at the moment the crime was committed.
|
For defendants to be found guilty of a crime, a court generally must conclude that they were aware of their actions and also had what lawyers call "mens rea," literally a "guilty mind" -- a recognition that their actions were wrong.
| 5.25 | 1 | 48 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html
|
McCain: A Question of Temperament
|
2008042019
|
But when McCain leaned toward Charles E. Grassley and slowly said, "My friend . . ." it seemed clear that ugliness was looming: While the plural "my friends" was usually a warm salutation from McCain, "my friend" was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks. Grassley, an Iowa Republican with a reputation as an unwavering legislator, calmly held his ground. McCain became angrier, his fist pumping even faster.
It was early 1992, and the occasion was an informal gathering of a select committee investigating lingering issues about Vietnam War prisoners and those missing in action, most notably whether any American servicemen were still being held by the Vietnamese. It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, McCain mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."
McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.
Grassley said recently that "it was a very long period of time" before he and McCain spoke to each other again, though he declined, through a spokesman, to discuss the specifics of the incident.
Since the beginning of McCain's public life, the many witnesses to his temper have had strikingly different reactions to it. Some depict McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee for president, as an erratic hothead incapable of staying cool in the face of what he views as either disloyalty to him or irrational opposition to his ideas. Others praise a firebrand who is resolute against the forces of greed and gutlessness.
"Does he get angry? Yes," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who supports McCain's presidential bid. "But it's never been enough to blur his judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made him more effective."
Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."
A spokesman for McCain's campaign said he would be unavailable for an interview on the subject of his temper. But over the years, no one has written more intimately about McCain's outbursts than McCain himself. "My temper has often been both a matter of public speculation and personal concern," he wrote in a 2002 memoir. "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's."
That temper has followed him throughout his life, McCain acknowledges. He recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury. As the son of a naval officer who was on his way to becoming a four-star admiral, McCain found himself frequently uprooted and enrolled in new schools, where, as an underappreciated outsider, he developed "a little bit of a chip on my shoulder," as he recalled earlier this month.
During a campaign stop at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, the most famous graduate of the class of 1954 opened a window on what swirled inside him during his school years. "I was always the new kid and was accustomed to proving myself quickly at each new school as someone not to be challenged lightly," he told students.
"As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone who perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect. Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life."
|
John McCain cupped a fist and began pumping it, up and down, along the side of his body. It was a gesture familiar to a participant in the closed-door meeting of the Senate committee who hoped that it merely signaled, as it sometimes had in the past, McCain's mounting frustration with one of his ...
| 12.079365 | 0.68254 | 0.968254 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901674.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901674.html
|
Presidential Candidates Find 51st State Overseas
|
2008042019
|
LONDON -- Sen. John McCain charmed donors over fish pâté in London. Sen. Hillary Clinton sent her husband to Dublin and London to hug for dollars. Sen. Barack Obama rallied supporters in Beijing by teleconference and sent his wife to London to pan for campaign gold.
The U.S. presidential candidates have raised more than $3 million in campaign contributions from Americans who live overseas, an unprecedented courtship of a slice of the U.S. electorate that was largely ignored in previous elections.
"They've finally woken up, after years of banging and knocking on their door, to the fact that there's 6 million of us -- that's a big state," said Susan Donnell, a member of Republicans Abroad who has lived in London for 15 years.
The number of Americans living overseas is commonly estimated at about 6 million -- twice the population of Chicago and greater than that of 33 U.S. states. Britain is home to about 300,000 Americans, nearly the population of Pittsburgh.
The candidates' pursuit of expatriates is driven by a razor-thin-close, cash-guzzling campaign and aided by Web technology that makes it easy to donate online from any corner of the planet. "It's huge," said Jim McGregor, an American investment adviser in Beijing who has organized fundraisers for Obama (D-Ill.). "I've been here since 1990, and I've never seen anything like this before."
Only U.S. citizens and green card holders are permitted to contribute to U.S. campaigns. So at elegant cocktail receptions from London to Tokyo, donors paying up to $2,300 each (the maximum contribution allowed by law) don't get through the door without their passports or some other proof of citizenship or permanent resident status.
Through the end of February, nine months before the 2008 general election, donations from expatriate Americans already totaled $2.8 million, more than double the $1.1 million raised in the entire 2004 campaign, and nearly six times the amount raised in 2000, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission records.
Obama raised the most by far -- about $1.4 million, more than twice the $556,300 raised by Clinton (D-N.Y.). McCain (R-Ariz.) raised $127,000 through February, although he more than doubled that amount at another London fundraiser last month. The FEC's March fundraising figures have not yet been released.
The candidates have actually raised much more abroad than the records indicate. Many Americans who live overseas maintain U.S. addresses that appear in FEC contributor records. That makes it difficult to track all overseas contributions.
For example, former president Bill Clinton raised more than $700,000 for his wife's campaign at back-to-back parties in Dublin and London in November, according to the campaign. He also held another high-priced event in London in October. But FEC records show much less from contributors with overseas addresses.
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) is widely believed to be the pioneer in overseas fundraising. His September fundraiser at London's Mandarin Oriental Hotel marked the first time a U.S. presidential candidate attended such an event outside the United States, according to Republicans in London and The Post's review of FEC records.
Giuliani spoke at a lunch for 90 supporters, who paid from $1,000 to $2,300 to join him for salmon at the upscale hotel by London's Hyde Park. Before he dropped out of the race, Giuliani had raised more than $250,000 from Americans abroad.
|
World news headlines from the Washington Post,including international news and opinion from Africa,North/South America,Asia,Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather,news in Spanish,interactive maps,daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
| 14.73913 | 0.391304 | 0.434783 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800736.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041800736.html
|
Friends Indeed? - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042019
|
Shadee Malaklou has lots of friends. A whole lot -- 1,295, according to her latest Facebook count. But whom exactly can she count on?
Malaklou, 22, acknowledges that if she ran into some of her "friends" on the street, she might not remember their names. When she went to Duke, where "I was quote unquote popular," social life was so competitive that sometimes invitations were based only on online determinations of how hot a person was, and whether her "friends" were cool.
Now that she is working at a Washington nonprofit, Malaklou is planning on pruning her "friends" as a rite of spring cleaning, defriending people who have come to mean little to her.
She does stay Facebook friends, however, with professors who might be good for letters of recommendation to graduate school. "The biggest value-added is that it helps maintain relationships -- somewhat superficial but not worth getting rid of," she says.
The word "friend" has long covered a broad range of relationships -- roommates, army buddies, pals from the last law firm, old neighbors, teammates, people you used to smoke dope with in back of your high school, people you see once a year at the Gold Cup, scuba instructors and carpool members, along with fellow gun collectors, Britney fans and cancer victims. The Oxford English Dictionary traces "freondum" back to "Beowulf" in 1018, and "to be frended" to 1387.
But MySpace and all the hundreds of other social networking Web sites, from Flickr to Twitter to Bebo, have caused us to think afresh about the boundaries and intensities of these relationships.
Never before in history has it been so easy to keep up with so many people with whom you otherwise would have lost contact. These new electronic meshes are more than mere improvements over alumni magazines, holiday cards with pictures of families and those horrible letters about their lives, Rolodexes, yearbooks, organizational newsletters, and birth and death notices in the newspaper.
Summer friendships, for example, have been transformed. The ritual of meeting again at the beach after a long winter was once marked by hours of catching up. Not today. Networked people who haven't seen each other in forever already know about the new boyfriend, and what happened to the old one -- in very great detail. They also know about the old school and the new job. They have known, every day, no matter where in the world they roamed, the instant that emotional change occurred. Now, after the initial squeals and swaying hugs, conversations pick up in mid-sentence. It's a mind-meld uncanny to watch.
This is a world of "participatory surveillance," says Anders Albrechtslund of Denmark's Aalborg University in the online journal First Monday.
Real online friends watch over each other -- mutually, voluntarily and enthusiastically, in ways that can be endearing.
Others have referred to it as "empowering exhibitionism," Albrechtslund says.
|
Shadee Malaklou has lots of friends. A whole lot -- 1,295, according to her latest Facebook count. But whom exactly can she count on?
| 20.857143 | 1 | 28 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901536.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901536.html
|
Hanging Tough - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042019
|
A few words scrawled in red marker on the dry-erase board in the locker room perfectly described the state of the Washington Capitals late yesterday.
"Sun. 11 a.m. Ballston," it read. Translation: There's at least one more practice -- and game -- remaining in their season.
Alexander Semin scored the Capitals' second power-play goal of the afternoon late in the third period, then goaltender Cristobal Huet made six of his 30 saves in the waning moments to help Washington hang on for a 3-2 victory over the Philadelphia Flyers in a must-win Game 5 before a sellout crowd at Verizon Center.
The victory cut the Flyers' lead in the best-of-seven Eastern Conference quarterfinal series to three games to two, with Game 6 tomorrow in Philadelphia.
Semin also set up a goal by Nicklas Backstrom, while Sergei Fedorov had a goal and an assist to earn the first star of the game as Washington bounced back from Thursday's heartbreak in Philadelphia, where it played well but lost in double overtime. The Flyers, meanwhile, received goals from Vaclav Prospal and Derian Hatcher and a pair of assists from Daniel Brière but, in the end, were unable to overcome a poor start.
"Right now, we don't want to stop," Huet said. "But we don't feel any satisfaction."
Saying Washington managed to "hang on" probably is an understatement. It was more like clinging.
The Capitals controlled the first half of the game, holding the Flyers without a shot for the final 15 minutes of the first period and opening a 2-0 lead on the goals by Backstrom and Fedorov.
The third period, though, was a completely different story. Philadelphia outshot the Capitals 21-6 in the final 20 minutes (and 32-26 in the game), and several times appeared on the verge of tying the score at 2.
But three consecutive power plays helped the Capitals steady themselves. On the third man advantage, Semin, who has two goals and two assists in the past two games combined, spun in the circle, then whipped one of his trademark wrist shots from the high slot through traffic and past Flyers goaltender Martin Biron (23 saves) to put the Capitals ahead 3-1 with 5 minutes 27 seconds remaining.
The shot was pretty, but more notable was the traffic the Capitals created in front of Biron, who didn't see Semin's shot because he was screened by Alex Ovechkin, Mike Green and Brooks Laich.
"We were just talking about how many guys were in front, and there's no way Biron could have seen it," Coach Bruce Boudreau said.
|
Alexander Semin, above, and the Capitals continue their aggressive play by outhitting the Flyers time and time again Saturday to extend their playoff series to a 6th game Monday with a 3-2 victory at Verizon Center.
| 12.804878 | 0.707317 | 1.731707 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901982.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901982.html
|
Knuble Out With Torn Hamstring
|
2008042019
|
The Philadelphia Flyers lost more than just a game yesterday at Verizon Center. Right wing Mike Knuble, the team's hero in Game 4 after scoring in double overtime at Wachovia Center, suffered a partially torn hamstring early in the third period and will miss the remainder of the series, the team announced.
Knuble, who plays on the third line with Scottie Upshall and Jeff Carter and also on the first power-play unit, was killing a penalty late in the second period when he attempted to block a shot by Capitals defenseman Mike Green. But as Knuble went down, his skate got caught underneath him, causing the injury.
Knuble played one shift in the third period before leaving the game, which was won by the Washington Capitals, 3-2.
"Individually speaking, to go from the excitement of the game before to hurting yourself the next game where you are facing the fact that you might be done for the series, that's pretty disheartening," said Knuble, who has two goals and five points in the series but was held scoreless yesterday. "You feel bad as an individual, and you feel bad as a teammate. Now you have to watch the guys go out and try and win and you can't do anything to help."
Flyers Coach John Stevens could fill Knuble's spot by promoting Sami Kapanen from the fourth line. The injury also means either Riley Cote or Steve Downie will be in the lineup for Game 6 tomorrow.
One game after the Capitals grumbled about the officiating, Stevens took exception with the way yesterday's game was called by Dennis LaRue and Kevin Pollack.
The Capitals had six power plays (and converted two), including three straight in the third period as Philadelphia attempted to rally from a one-goal deficit. The Flyers had three, scoring on one of them.
"There's an old saying, the squeaky wheel gets the grease," said Stevens, who seemed most upset about the goaltender interference call on Upshall at 7 minutes 47 seconds of the third period. Upshall appeared to be pushed into Cristobal Huet by Capitals forward Viktor Kozlov.
"I can't fault Upshall," Stevens added. "He was just going to the net on a scoring chance. It looked like he tried to stop. There's no question you get short-handed, and it ends up being the difference in the game."
On Thursday, the Flyers enjoyed seven man advantages, including one in the final minutes of regulation when Kozlov was whistled for goalie interference. Washington had four power plays.
|
Philadelphia loses Mike Knuble, the team's hero from Game 4, to a partially torn hamstring and will miss the remainder of the series.
| 18.518519 | 0.962963 | 5.185185 |
medium
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902139.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902139.html
|
Politics, Rocky Start Cloud Promise of National Harbor
|
2008042019
|
Prince George's County is about to lay claim to one of the biggest development projects ever to hit the Washington region: 300 acres of residential, retail, dining, office and entertainment space on the banks of the Potomac River.
The $4 billion National Harbor is poised not only to transform Prince George's image but also to become an economic engine projected to create more than 5,000 jobs and $130 million in tax revenue each year for the county and state.
"We have been on the back burner for such a long time," said Hubert "Petey" Greene, president of the county's Black Chamber of Commerce. "Now, we have not only stepped up, we've moved ahead."
Yet as the highly anticipated development begins to open, early stumbles and political quarrels threaten to cloud its success and the county's reputation.
Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, the cornerstone of National Harbor in Oxon Hill, opened this month to a public relations nightmare -- some hotel guests contracted norovirus and others found mice in their rooms.
More troublesome than those glitches were the glimpses of the county's political culture that emerged. The same week that Gaylord opened, some political leaders accused National Harbor developer Milton V. Peterson of making racially insensitive remarks. The next week, Peterson was forced to withdraw legislation that would have provided liquor licenses for the entire complex after Prince George's lawmakers criticized the lack of local minority-owned businesses involved in the construction of the project. Restaurants and hotels will now have to seek licenses from the county liquor board.
"We don't want to gain a reputation as being anti-business," said Del. Joanne C. Benson (D-Prince George's), expressing concern about fallout from the legislative flap. "You don't wait until the ninth hour to make demands. . . . It's somewhat of an embarrassment to Prince George's County."
The project's debut, coming amid the slowing economy, has some analysts worried. Others question whether local residents, particularly Prince Georgians, will embrace the development.
Peterson, the gregarious Northern Virginia developer behind Fair Lakes in Fairfax and the revitalization of downtown Silver Spring, allows no doubt. He has said that nothing compares to National Harbor.
"If I had to say what personality it has, I'd say it's got the appeal of Marilyn Monroe and the grace and class of Julie Andrews," Peterson told a crowd of real estate agents in 2004.
'Win, Win, Win' for Whom?
Before it was National Harbor, it was PortAmerica, and before that, it was Bay of Americas and Smoot Bay.
For years, developers and county officials agreed to develop the site, only to be thwarted by financing problems and disagreements over what the project should be.
|
Prince George's County is about to lay claim to one of the biggest development projects ever to hit the Washington region: 300 acres of residential, retail, dining, office and entertainment space on the banks of the Potomac River.
| 12.431818 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900941.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900941.html
|
Stripping Mountains to Power D.C.
|
2008042019
|
MUD, W.Va. -- This is a place where "moving mountains" is no longer a figure of speech. Here, among the steep green Appalachians, mining companies are moving mountains off their pedestals to get the kind of coal that Washington needs.
It happened here, on a ridgeline called Sugar Tree Mountain, where locals once hunted for squirrels and puckery-sour grapes. Then the top was scraped off to expose the black seams in its innards, leaving a rock-strewn plateau.
"It used to be West Virginia," said Vivian Stockman, an environmental activist. "And now it's Mars."
Though this isolated mine is more than 400 miles from Washington, the two places share a powerful connection: coal. The D.C. region, with its need for electricity skyrocketing, has been burning steadily more coal, buying almost a third of its supply from this part of Appalachia.
And that, analysts and environmentalists said, means that Washington's air conditioners and iPods have helped drive the region's "mountaintop" mining.
The coal industry and the Bush administration say the benefits of these mines, measured in jobs and energy, outweigh the damage.
But in West Virginia, where mining opponents can face back-roads intimidation, some neighbors say that Washington area residents might not know the true cost of their power.
"We have to go through a lot for them to get their electric," said Lucille Miller, who picked grapes on the vanished mountain.
The links that bind the cathedral-ceiling suburbs of Washington to the blasted-out mines of West Virginia can be traced through federal energy records. The Washington Post analyzed almost four years of data, showing where the six coal-fired power plants across the D.C. region bought their supply.
The records make one thing clear: The plants have been buying a lot more coal. Total purchases were more than 40 percent higher in 2006 than in 2004. The increase came as the Washington region's demand for electricity grew 18 percent since 2001, driven by population growth and an increasingly wired culture. D.C. area plants do not send their electricity straight to local homes but feed it into the multi-state regional power grid.
Records also show that about 32 percent of the coal the plants bought came from one kind of mine in this corner of Appalachia -- a "surface" operation, where miners do not have to tunnel.
The region, where southern West Virginia meets western Virginia and eastern Kentucky, is home to the vast majority of mountaintop mines in the United States.
|
MUD, W.Va. -- This is a place where "moving mountains" is no longer a figure of speech. Here, among the steep green Appalachians, mining companies are moving mountains off their pedestals to get the kind of coal that Washington needs.
| 10.375 | 1 | 48 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900942.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900942.html
|
Researchers Fear Southern Fence Will Endanger Species Further
|
2008042019
|
TUCSON -- The debate over the fence the United States is building along its southern border has focused largely on the project's costs, feasibility and how well it will curb illegal immigration. But one of its most lasting impacts may well be on the animals and vegetation that make this politically fraught landscape their home.
Some wildlife researchers have grown so concerned about the consequences of bisecting hundreds of miles of rugged habitat that they have talked of engaging in civil disobedience to block the fence's construction.
"This wall is so asinine, and so wrong, I am one of a dozen scientists ready to lay our bodies down in front of tractors," Healy Hamilton, who directs the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, told colleagues at a recent scientific retreat here. "This is one thing we might be able to stop."
"Make it 13!" said Allison Jones, a conservation biologist at the Wild Utah Project, an advocacy group.
Hamilton and Jones have yet to throw themselves before bulldozers, but their call to arms reflects the researchers' growing fears that the wall will imperil species that, in Hamilton's words, "walk, fly or crawl across that border."
The scientists cite examples such as the 70 remaining Sonoran pronghorns in Arizona's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, deerlike animals that are the fastest land mammals in North America. They are the only remaining population on U.S. soil, and the five surveillance towers that the administration plans to build in the area will be in the middle of the pronghorns' range, producing noise and human activity that would disturb the sensitive species.
On April 4, Benjamin Tuggle, a regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, told customs and border protection officials that an interagency team of scientists concluded last month that the construction would inhibit breeding and, "over time, may ultimately lead to the eventual extinction of the species."
The Sonoran pronghorns are not alone: Rare species such as jaguars, ocelots and long-nose bats are also likely to face problems with the new barriers, scientists said.
Earlier this month, however, the Bush administration waived more than 30 environmental and land-management laws to meet its deadline for building at least 360 miles of the border fence. Two advocacy groups, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, have gone to court to challenge the constitutionality of the authority that Congress gave the administration to set aside federally required environmental reviews.
Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said that despite the waivers, the agency has prepared draft environmental assessments or impact statements for much of the fence -- which will be composed of metal, concrete or wire along different stretches -- and that officials will continue to explore ways to mitigate its effect on vulnerable wildlife.
"Just because we're using this waiver authority doesn't mean we've not been mindful of our obligation to be stewards of the environment," she said in an interview. "For a number of miles, we've determined that it would have only insignificant impact."
Kudwa could not specify which areas would feel the greatest effects from the barrier, but she said Homeland Security is negotiating to give the Fish and Wildlife Service $800,000 to mitigate the wall's impact on the Sonoran pronghorn and the long-nose bat in the Cabeza Prieta refuge, even though DHS has waived its obligation to comply with Endangered Species Act requirements there.
|
TUCSON -- The debate over the fence the United States is building along its southern border has focused largely on the project's costs, feasibility and how well it will curb illegal immigration. But one of its most lasting impacts may well be on the animals and vegetation that make this politically...
| 12.145455 | 0.981818 | 53.018182 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/19/ST2008041902281.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/19/ST2008041902281.html
|
Sadr Warns Of 'Open War' If Crackdown Is Not Halted
|
2008042019
|
In a statement brimming with his most bellicose language in months, Sadr said he was issuing a "final warning" to the government to end the campaign against Shiite militias that has cost hundreds of lives since it began last month. If not, Sadr said, he would declare an "open war until liberation."
A full-blown uprising by Sadr's Mahdi Army militia would be a major setback to the security improvements in Iraq over the past year, credited largely to his cease-fire order last summer. The Mahdi Army, which waged two bloody rebellions against U.S. troops in 2004, has shown in the past how quickly it can gather thousands of fighters.
"Do you want a third uprising?" Sadr said in the statement.
The warning came as Iraqi and U.S. troops continued their offensive against Sadrist strongholds with ground operations and airstrikes that killed at least a dozen people Friday night and Saturday in the southern city of Basra and in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched the campaign last month in Basra with the stated aim of eliminating militias and gangs, though most of the fighting appeared to focus on Sadrists. Maliki demanded that Sadr dismantle the Mahdi Army militia as a condition of being permitted to participate in provincial elections in the fall.
Sadr repeatedly urged his followers not to fight back, calling the offensive an attempt to weaken a rival Shiite party before the elections. His aides have accused his chief political foes -- Maliki's Dawa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- of human rights abuses against Sadrists.
"The government is fighting them, shedding their blood, taking their women as hostages and imprisoning their families," Sadr said in the statement. "What mistake have the followers made to escape the injustice of Saddam only to fall under the yoke of assassinations?"
Sadr's statement was posted on his Web site just before 10 p.m. The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, was traveling abroad and could not be reached. Other senior Iraqi officials said hours later that they had not seen the statement and would not comment.
The U.S. military said it hoped that Sadr, who has been bringing his movement further into the political mainstream, would decide not to end the cease-fire he declared eight months ago. "If Sadr declared an open war, we don't see that as a preferable course of action for anyone," said Maj. Brad Leighton, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.
Sadr's statement did not give a deadline for the government to respond. Nevertheless, rumors swirled among Sadr's followers about when fighting might begin.
Sheik Ali al-Suweidy, a spokesman for the Sadr office in Basra, said the government was expected to answer within 14 days. "We are awaiting his order," he said of Sadr.
|
BAGHDAD, April 19 -- Anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatened Saturday to launch an all-out war against the U.S.-backed Iraqi government if it continues a widespread crackdown on his followers.
| 14.076923 | 0.589744 | 0.74359 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703486.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703486.html
|
'A Contract With the Earth'
|
2008042019
|
Find more discussions from this series.
Newt Gingrich: I want to start by saying that I believe we need an entrepreneurial, science and technology oriented approach to the environment, and that most Americans agree with that. If you go to our Web site, and pull up the Platform of the American People, you will see that a majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans all agree that entrepreneurs can do more than bureaucrats to solve environmental challenges.
Newt Gingrich: I think the tragedy has been that conservatives have been unwilling to spend the time and energy to debate the left on which will produce the better outcome.
For example, if you are really worried about carbon loading of the atmosphere...if the United States produced the same percentage of our electricity from nuclear power as the French, we would take 2.2 billion tons of carbon out of the atmosphere a year, and that one step would be 15 percent better than the total Kyoto goal for the U.S.
So with that as an example, I look forward to answering your questions.
Cedar Falls, Iowa: To what extent should the federal government finance research and development for green technologies?
Newt Gingrich: Very substantially in three forms.
1. Tripling the size of the National Science Foundation.
2. Creating significant tax credits for research and development and the development of new replacement technologies.
3. Offering very bold prizes that would be tax free for key breakthroughs such as a mass-producable hydrogen car.
Chicago: Mr. Gingrich, I was wondering what your thoughts were on a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Do you favor either? Why? Thanks!
Newt Gingrich: Neither. I prefer incentives to punishments because they work faster and with less distortion of the economy. For instance, I favor tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions. I favor a tax credit for trading in old cars that are the most polluting. I favor a tax credit for nuclear power, solar and wind.
Huron, S.D.: Sir, with Congress and the current president barely able to negotiate a bathroom break, and the promise of Republican payback looming if the Democrats take power in 2009, what leads you to believe that this issue will be any different than so many others as important? This issue is critical to our survival, but has been prioritized by our country as only a middle layer of the onion yet to be peeled. Who has to give what, and how much?
Newt Gingrich: The reason we founded American Solutions and the reason we developed the Platform of the American People (containing items supported by a majority of Democrats, independents, and Republicans) was to find issues that bring us together so we can have a red, white, and blue dialogue instead of a red vs. blue debate.
One of the things we should propose to our politicians is that they spend three days a week working on items they agree on, and two days a week on items they know they will disagree on.
Anyone who says they can't find things we agree on should be fired, because it is simply not true. In the end, we get the elected officials we tolerate.
Kensington, Md.: Kudos to you for this new initiative, and we all need for you to be successful (speaking as a liberal here). But why do you suppose conservatives have been so virulently hostile to science these past few decades? It's really like watching the 16th century papacy coming to terms with astronomy.
Newt Gingrich: Since I headed the Republican House which doubled the size of the National Institutes of Health budget, served on the Hart-Rudman Commission, which said the decline of math and science education was our second greatest threat as a country, and helped save the international space station when short-sighted people wanted to kill it, I'm not sure I identify with your question.
New York: Mr. Gingrich, do you have a suggestion as to why an absolute neophyte to the anthropogenic global warming concept should discount the recent evidence regarding the Medieval Warm Period? I am a former firm believer in AGW myself, yet I no longer support the theory, as I have not heard a single prominent environmental advocate who can discount the higher temperatures and lower carbon dioxide concentrations of that period.
Newt Gingrich: You raise a good point, and as somebody that studies paleontology, I am well aware we have had much higher carbon levels (pre-historic time periods, probably caused by volcanoes) and much higher temperatures in the past. In addition, around 11,000 years ago, the Gulf Stream stopped for 600 years for reasons we don't understand. Europe went into an ice age. Then the Gulf Stream restarted for reasons we don't understand and the ice age disappeared.
So a great deal of the "current science" is in fact politics.
However, the word "conservative" includes "conservation" as its root. And conservatives should be cautious. Therefore, I am willing to look for methods of lowering carbon that do not destroy the economy or give the government increased power.
Washington: Critics of the property rights platform of the Contract With America argued that requiring the public to routinely pay to protect the environment would impose large and unfair financial burdens on the taxpayer as well as derail environmental protections. Where do you stand now on that part of the Contract?
Newt Gingrich: I think property rights are an inherent part of our constitutional liberty and I do not understand those who would steal without compensation. If it is important enough, the government can pay for it. Taking without compensation is tyranny.
McLean, Va.: In the 1990s, when you ran the House, you tried to shut down the Department of Energy, successfully cut research funding and other support for all clean energy research (including biofuels), fought (actually stopped) the joint government-industry effort to develop a superefficient car, shepherded efforts to zero out all the programs aimed specifically at reducing greenhouse emissions and accelerating technology deployment, and eliminated the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Considering your actual record, why should we take your prescriptions seriously?
Newt Gingrich: Well, Edward O. Wilson, one of the leading biologists in the world, described me as the savior of the Endangered Species Act. As Republican whip in 1990 I helped pass the Clean Air Act which led to a dramatic improvement in acid rain. And I have been actively involved in environmental issues since I taught environmental studies at West Georgia College from 1970-78.
We should distinguish leading on the environment with sustaining bureaucracies that do little. The Office of Technology Assessment was bureaucratic and obsolete and I recommended Congress develop a relationship with the National Academy of Sciences which would give us better scientific advice. The project on the car threw money away without achievement. The Department of Energy is an obsolete bureaucracy that has failed to solve our nuclear waste problems despite spending an immense amount of money.
Chicago: "I prefer incentives to punishments because they work faster and with less distortion of the economy." But didn't a cap-and-trade system work well in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990s?
Newt Gingrich: That cap and trade system involved a very small number of players and a very specific product. A carbon cap and trade system would be massively more complex. It would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.
I think that tax credits for reducing carbon loading would work faster in a much more decentralized way by rewarding people for doing the right thing.
Burbank, Calif.: Would you accept being Secretary of Energy if President McCain asked you?
Newt Gingrich: No but I would be willing to chair a commission on establishing huge tax-free prizes for all the breakthroughs we need.
South Bend, Ind.: Obviously the United States taking action on reducing its carbon emissions would be a good thing, but how would you propose to get China, India and the developing world to use greener technologies and prevent deforestation?
Newt Gingrich: You ask exactly the question which led me to to write "Contract with the Earth" with Terry Maple. A regulatory litigation model of coercing change has no hope of being effective in China and India in the next 30 years because they are desperate for economic growth and a higher standard of living. Therefore, a successful environmental movement has to use science and technology and entrepreneurship to develop dramatically better solutions at much lower cost. For example, a very inexpensive hydrogen car would change the entire trajectory of environmental impact for China and India. CAFE standards have no prospect of working in those countries because the sheer number of additional cars would dramatically increase carbon loading. But American help in developing a next-generation hydrogen automobile system could preempt enormous quantities of carbon from every going into the atmosphere, and would be acceptable in China and India, not to mention the United States and the rest of the industrial world.
Thank you for having me. I encourage you to visit the "Contract With the Earth" Web site to learn more about green conservatism.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, author of "A Contract With the Earth," discusses finding a common commitment to environmental stewardship and bipartisan solutions for global warming and other critical problems.
| 49.216216 | 0.783784 | 1.324324 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801784.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801784.html
|
Science and Medicine: Can Hormones Impact Wall Street?
|
2008042019
|
In today's Science Page story, Rob Stein writes: "By measuring young male traders' hormone levels as they brokered high-stakes deals, the researchers showed that they tended to make more money on days when their testosterone levels were high. That suggests that the hormone makes them more likely to take profitable risks, but also that it may play a role in pumping up economic bubbles."
Rob Stein: Rob Stein: Good morning everyone. Thanks so much for joining us today to discuss this fascinating new research on the relationship between hormones and the behavior of traders. Before we begin I'd like to thank our guest, John Coates of the University of Cambridge, for taking time to participate in this discussion about his research.
Just to get things started, I was hoping Doctor Coates would help put his research into some context. Can you tell us a little bit about what was previously known about how tesosterone affects behavior?
John Coates: The study of testosterone largely began in the 1930s when androsterone was first distilled, unbelievably, from 20,000 liters of policemen's urine. Endocrinology entered the public consciousness and it is amusing to note that shortly thereafter Noel Coward in his play Design for Living had a character say of behaviour, It's all glandular now.
Research since then on testosterone and behaviour, in both animals and humans, tended to concentrate on the steroid's effects on aggression. But it was never clear if testosterone was causing the aggression, or aggression causing the testosterone to increase. There has also been a great deal of research on the anabolic effects of androgens, specifically on athletes.
Our research has tried to understand the specific ways that testosterone affects humans as opposed to animals. As you ascend the phylogenetic scale the effects of testosterone on behaviour probably weaken. It is possible that testosterone affects the brains of humans in very subtle ways. In these traders, for example, it may be shifting the confidence they have in their assessments of probabilities. That is very subtle. I'm not sure you could observe these changes by looking at the traders, yet it could impact their trading performance.
Incidentally, I think that may explain why these traders weren't the macho types you might expect. They were quiet, tight-lipped, and rarely lost their tempers.
Munich, Germany: Testosterone causes brokers to be more likely to take profitable risks, but if they make more money during these high testosterone days, does this mean that they're making better decisions? If so, does this indicate that testosterone increases intelligence or intuition?
Rob Stein: The thinking is not that testosterone increases intelligence, but that it might boost confidence, making traders more willing to take risks that pay off.
Burbank, Calif.: I know in business school one could see the driven egotistical students indeed were the ones who would win up on Wall Street. Of course, a few of them wound up in jail. Is it safe to observe that these people, in college and it seems in life, tended to be more risk takers and more willing to bend ethical edges and perhaps cross them?
John Coates: tough question. there has been some research on testostrone and crime by James Dabbs. We certainly didn't look at that. We were trying to capture the effects of testostrone on risk preferences. we had to be very precise in what we were looking for
Surakarta, Indonesia: Assalamualaikum, maybe true that steroid hormones that work as the trigger for increasing the emotion of an individual. What the centers within the brain that working as the centers of emotion? The emotion-based behavior of an individual is developed by the conditioning process of Pavlov. There are two types of the conditioning process in Homo sapiens, including (1) phylogenesis (from generation to generation of a community) and (2) ontogenesis (in the all life long of an individual). In the context of phylogenesis, genetic mutation can be conditioned. So, if a behavior had been recorded by a gen of an individual, the behavior will be descended to his or her children. Just for example, gens for the Id-based cannibalism were developed and then repressed, meanwhile, gens for Superego-based altruism are being developed and expressed, in Homo sapiens, in the line of phylogenesis. For another example, the genes for greedy are strong in individuals of capitalist (so they are breathed by the greedy for profit, even if the profit is charged with the ethically evil, including the surplus value or exploitation of the workers or sublimely cannibalism or capitalists are drinking the blood of workers). In the tomorrow of mankind, the genes for greedy will be repressed, as the genes for cannibalism, in Homo sapiens. One question for you, 'Is the blind power of Nature able to drive the line of phylogenesis, so the conditioning process in phylogenesis is directing to the Point of Omega of Chardin?' Matur nuwun (thank you very much). 19.06, April 21, 2008, Monday
John Coates: if I understand your question, I can only say that the effects of androgens on the brain are poorly understood. But it appears that testosterone releases dopamine in the nucleus accumbens, a part of the brain that fires in anticiaption of risky behaviour, and a part of the brain that is implicated in addiction.
Rob Stein: Here's a question I received earlier today via email. There's several interesting questions here. I was wondering if you might want to take a crack at them Doctor Coates?
Thank you for your fascinating article. It left me with more questions than answers, and an urgency to answer them--so it probably is raising my testosterone level.
Is it possible that the intense trading envorinment attracts men whose levels are higher or more volatile than other men's?
It is notable that the rise of homone levels during a fight or flight reactions seems to parallel the reactions of the traders who were studied.
I wonder how women traders homone levels alter during trading sessions.
Is the post traumatic stress level we are seeing in many soldiers returning from Iraq and Afganistan partly a result of high levels of cortisol? Incressed cortisol does tend to increase anxiety, a sense of danger even when there isn't any, and the replaying of bad memories, all symptoms of PTSD.
And, it's difficult not to wonder if we are seeing the traders' biological responses in the presidential candidates.
John Coates: Good questions. It seems likely that the trading environment attracts a certain type of person. Even more likely that it selects for a type. Nonetheless, the financial world, because of its high rewards, attracts a lot of different types.
And yes, the hormone reactions of the traders corresponded more or less to the winner effect model, which at bottom is a model of confrontation and competition.
Washington, D.C.: How many women traders are there?
John Coates: Well, on the trading floor where we conducted the study there were 260 traders and only 4 of them were women. In the big investment banks you find a higher percentage, but still not many.
NYC: Just a comment your readers might value. This American Life has a pod cast on "people getting more testosterone and coming to regret it. And of people losing it and coming to appreciate life without it. The pros and cons of the hormone of desire."
It is very interesting look at this topic.
Rob Stein: Thanks... That sounds quite interesting...
Rob Stein: Rob Stein: Here's an email I received earlier today. There are several interesting questions here. I was wondering if you might want to take a crack at them Doctor Coates:
Thank you for your fascinating article. It left me with more questions than answers, and an urgency to answer them--so it probably is raising my testosterone level.
Is it possible that the intense trading envorinment attracts men whose levels are higher or more volatile than other men's?
It is notable that the rise of homone levels during a fight or flight reactions seems to parallel the reactions of the traders who were studied.
I wonder how women traders homone levels alter during trading sessions.
Is the post traumatic stress level we are seeing in many soldiers returning from Iraq and Afganistan partly a result of high levels of cortisol? Incressed cortisol does tend to increase anxiety, a sense of danger even when there isn't any, and the replaying of bad memories, all symptoms of PTSD.
And, it's difficult not to wonder if we are seeing the traders' biological responses in the presidential candidates.
John Coates: To return to this set of questions. It would be very informative to know how women's endocrine systems react to trading. It is entirely possible they are not subject to the extreme hormonal swings male traders are. But we dont know.
Cortisol has been studied in PTSD. I unfortunately do not know this literature well.
Rob Stein: So far we've been focusing on testosterone. But one aspect of your research that I found quite interesting was the finding about cortisol. I was wondering if you might be able to expand a little about what you discovered?
John Coates: Yes, all attention seems to be focused on the testosterone. But cortisol is probably a more important chemical to be looking at in this financial crisis. Cortisol has an extremely broad command in the body. In times of crisis it slows down long term functions of the body, like digestion and reproduction, and it gathers glucose for immediate use. This is very healthy. Traders before big economic numbers had very high cortisol. it was preparing them for action. But if volatility stays high, and cortisol exposure becomes chronic it has a terrible effect on our bodies and brains.
Rob Stein: Although testosterone is commonly considered a "male" hormone, women do produce it and respond to it as well. Do you think testosterone plays a role in a woman's economic decision-making at all?
John Coates: No idea. There is one study, done in Holland, where they adminstered testostrone to women playing the Iowa gambling Task, a game that measures rational decison making. As the level of testosterone rose in the women they started to make the over risky and ultimately money-losing decisions.
Rob Stein: Another fascinating aspect of your research is how after a while risk-taking because of testosterone can eventually essentially hit a peak and then backfire. Why is that?
John Coates: Steroids have what is called a dose-response curve that is an inverted U shape. That means that if you plot the level of, say, testosterone against, say, cognitive function you will see an improved performance as levels rise from 0, but at a certain point the steroid begins to exagerate, in a sense, the reaction and it can become impaired. We suspect that testosterone and financial risk-taking has a dose-response curve like this.
Rob Stein: Several people have asked me whether men with relatively high testosterone levels compared to other men would make "better" traders? I was wondering if you could explain whether your study cast any light on that question?
John Coates: No. There is no correlation between testostrone levels in the traders and their profitablity. It is only changes within an individual that were affecting their profits. You could have a trader with very low levels of testosterone, yet with a very pronounced correlation between rises in his steroid levels and his trading performance. It is a myth that high T males make good traders.
Rob Stein: When my story was being edited, one of the questions my editor asked me was the chicken-and-egg question. In other words, was the high testosterone driving the increased profitability or visa versa? I wasn't really able explain that. Could you talk a little about what your data says about that?
John Coates: Yes, fortunately we had two time points for our samples, 11am and 4pm. That means we could solve the chicken-and-egg problem. we looked at morning testosterone and afternoon profits, and found that these were correlated. Under these circumstances, the flow of causation can only go one way. That doesn't mean we have established causation yet. But we have taken a good first step.
Rob Stein: Your study focused on testosterone and cortisol. I've been wondering whether any other hormones may also play a role in economic decision-making?
John Coates: There is not much work on hormones and financial decision-making yet. We hope to change that. Bu there was one article on Oxytocin, a peptide hormone, that showed it affected people's trust in their brokers, only only in an investment game.
West Chester, Pa.: The article says you have further experiments planned -- can you describe what additional information you hope to get from those studies?
Also, do you have any hypotheses on how hormonal fluctuations might affect women traders?
John Coates: Well, we are working with a very ambitious hypothesis - that naturally produced steroid hormones exagerate the swing in the market. This first experiment could not test a hypothesis that large. But it took a good first step. Now we have to carve that big hypothesis down into smallerand more testable pieces, and that may require lab work.
As for women, my hunch is that their endocrine systems are not as influenced by financial events as are mens.
Rob Stein: I just got another email from a reader asking if you could talk a little bit about the role that testosterone plays in older men. I know testosterone levels tend to fall with age. But do we know how quickly and at what age it may start to have less of an impact on behavior?
John Coates: Testosterone falls over the course of a man's life. This decline picks up after the age of 50.
Rob Stein: One of the reasons we are interested in this research is that it suggests that hormones may play a role in promoting economic bubbles, like the dot.com bubble. I've been wondering if this could have played a role in the housing bubble?
John Coates: As much as I'd love to say that the housing bubble was driven by testosterone, in truth I dont think it was. I think this thing was driven more by silly accounting practices and compensation schemes in the financial sector. The Dot.com bubble however I do think was at least exagerated by T.
Rob Stein: You got interested in this work when you worked on Wall Street yourself. I mentioned this in my story. But I was wondering if you could expand a little on your observations from that time.
John Coates: Well, traders and in fact it seemed, the population of New York seemed to be giddy with excitement during the Dot.com bubble. Economics tells us that investors estimate future returns from existing information; but I didnt notice anyone doing any calculations. They seemed drunk. Women on the other hand seemed, on average, slightly more skeptical. Both facts suggested to me a chemical, and one like testosterone.
Rob Stein: I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on this idea that high-testosterone makes good traders. That's certainly the stereotype. Can you elaborate a little on why that's a myth?
John Coates: Well, as I was saying earlier, we were looking at changes in testostrone within each trader. We did compare levels between traders but found no relationship between their baseline levels and their profitablity. It was only when each trader experienced a rise in T in the morning that he on average did better for the rest of the day. That is merely a change within each person.
Also, the myth of the Gordon Gekko type dominating wall st, the high testostrone alpha male type, is a myth. Masters of the universe tend to get fired. Who would want a strutting braggard like that managing your capital. No, the good traders, the ones with this high correlation between increases in T and trading performance, looked more like Roger Federer or Tiger Woods. Quite modest.
Pheremon, AL: Might the few women on the trading floor experience pheromonal effects from all those men? Personal anecdote - I'm a woman and when I'm in the midst of a group of work-pumped men I start feeling energetic and I swear I start thinking faster and more to the point. Introspectively it just feels like something in the air.
John Coates: That's very interesting. I don't know if it's pheromones. It may be. But there is known endocrine contagion. For example, sports fans watching a winning team will experience the same increase in testostrone as the team itself. It raises all sorts of intriguing possiblities.
Rob Stein: If your hypothesis is confirmed by your future research, what would the implications be? What, for example, could the Fed do to compensate for this effect?
John Coates: Boy that is a tough one. We are just now starting to think about that. But if it is true that steroid are exagerating financial swings then the markets are a very different kind of animal, one that is not as responsive to price signals as economics assumes.
Phoenix, Ariz.: Have you considered repeating the same study in a bear market to see how relative testosterone - cortisol levels affect trading behavior? I'd be interested to see if the generally pessimistic market outlook of a bear market changes the way that traders behave in relation to their relative hormone levels. I assume that this data was collected sometime in the bull market of the last few years.
John Coates: Yes, I have. In fact, I ws supposed to be on a trading floor now, doing precisely what you suggest. Trouble is when the crisis takes another lurch down thr last thing traders want to be doing is giving bio-markers. In general with this research, the more interesting the market the harder it is to do a study. But that is the nature of field work.
John Coates: Thanks for the questions. and thank you Rob.
Rob Stein: Thanks very much for you great questions. And thanks again to Doctor Coates for taking time to join in this great discussion. We'll definitely be looking forward to hearing more about your future research.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 88.292683 | 0.512195 | 0.560976 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801838.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/18/DI2008041801838.html
|
Dr. Gridlock - washingtonpost.com
|
2008042019
|
He was online Monday, April 21 at 1 p.m. ET to address all your traffic and transit issues.
The Dr. Gridlock column receives hundreds of letters each month from motorists and transit riders throughout the Washington region. They ask questions and make complaints about getting around a region plagued with some of the worst traffic in the nation. The doctor diagnoses problems and tries to bring relief.
Dr. Gridlock appears in The Post's Metro section on Sunday and in the Extra section on Thursday. His comments also appear on the Web site's Get There blog. You can send e-mails for the newspaper column to drgridlock@washpost.com or write to Dr. Gridlock at 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.
Dr. Gridlock: Hello, travelers. In the two weeks since our last discussion, we've had many visitors in town -- including the pope -- and plenty of congestion on the roads and trains. Do you have experiences to share?
Let's get to your questions and comments, starting with an account of a serious incident on a Metro train this morning.
Virginia: I was in the last car of an 8 car train this morning. As the train pulled into Rosslyn, the last car did not make it into the station and was still inside the tunnel. Nonetheless, the doors were opened to offload passengers at Rosslyn. We were left staring at the tunnel walls. Luckily, no one was hurt. The train operator either did not know that this had happened or did not acknowledge it as he proceeded to Foggy Bottom where a number of people had to get off and take the next train back. After last week's article regarding manual operation of doors, how does a train operator know that all of the cars are aligned with the platform? Seems like this may be a (very basic) training issue -- not to mention a pretty serious safety concern.
Dr. Gridlock: This is frightening. Anyone who has been aboard a crowded train at rush hour can picture the potentially deadly consequences of doors opening in a tunnel.
Metro says it's aware of the incident, which happened at 8:26 a.m., and is investigating.
We'd like to hear more details, from anyone who was on board that train or who has had a similar experience. Share your knowledge here, but you also can e-mail me at drgridlock@washpost.com.
Eight car trains fit the platform exactly. As Metro introduces more eight-car trains -- something we've all been looking forward to -- it has been working to ensure that trains don't overshoot or undershoot the platforms. Clearly it has not solved this challenge.
Last week, Post reporter Lena Sun wrote that the transit authority now has the train operators manually opening the doors to address a rare problem with the doors opening by themselves under automated control. That clearly did not help in this morning's incident. If the doors are controlled by the operator, the operator needs to be absolutely sure that all eight cars are in the station before they open.
We'll see what Metro's investigation shows, but something was very much wrong here.
Washington, D.C.: who paid for the additional Metro service during the Pope's visit? During Nationals games? For the Caps and Wizards playoff games?
Dr. Gridlock: I haven't checked for final figures on this, but last week, Metro was estimating that the cost of extra service during the pope's visit would be $250,000, paid for mostly through fares from the thousands of extra riders.
For many special events, like marathons or sports events, the private sponsor or venue pays for the extra service.
Upper Marlboro to Springfield: Doc, I have a job opportunity in Springfield, VA. I have horrendous experience in the past with commutes to Reston, McLean and Springfield. I hated it. If I go through town and around 395 at 6 or 6:30 in the morning, will my life be easier? Unfortunately, they are not near Metro. Mapquest claims it's 48 minutes. On the rare occassion that I drive, I do UpMo to Arlington in less than 1/2 hour. I am guessing at 40 minutes or so. Any input from the typers? Thx.
Dr. Gridlock: Let's ask. I'll tell you that your timing estimates sound about right to me. Of course, the thing about any long commute in our region is that you can never be sure that tomorrow's trip will be the same as today's trip.
Traffic planners often note that many commuters are as bothered by the uncertainty of their trip times as by the length of the trips.
20009: I've become a Metro commuter in the past year and am amazed at the lack of signage about the "No Eating or Drinking" rule. There is one tiny circle/slash image -- no bigger than a quarter -- at the bottom of the route maps, but almost nothing esle inside the cars.
Almost every day I see someone eating or drinking on a platform or in a train; I usually ask them whether they know about the rule and the possiblity of a fine (though not when it is a swarm of local teenagers laughing and snacking). Usually it comes as news to them, they close the beverage container and thank me for the warning.
A large circle/slash symbol over the center windows of every car would go a long way toward making the policy known. PA announcements, the lovely rat poster, and the tiny synbols are too easy to miss.
Also, a large sign over a trash can at the station entrance would catch offenders before they reach the platform -- but it needs to be on the same side as the entry escalator so folks don't have to cross a stream of exiting passengers to get to it.
What is Metro's reason for the lack of easy-to-see and understand signs?
Dr. Gridlock: I like the idea of associating the message with the trash can.
The existing signs are pretty small -- though I do think that new ad featuring the rat is potentially effective.
Metro does have a campaign of ads and announcements on the no eating and drinking rule. Do others think it's having any effect?
Vienna, VA: This morning I ran into a road closure on Browns Mill Rd. just west of Beulah Rd., heading toward Reston. Cost me 1/2 hour to detour back out to Rt. 7 because it took 5 light cycles to turn left there with all the diverted traffic. My question is, how can I find out whether it's still closed tomorrow morning? There was nothing on the radio or any traffic websites about this road. Is there no one who tracks local, temporary flooding closures online?
Dr. Gridlock: It's very difficult to get the latest on roads closed temporarily by weather conditions. The online traffic camera systems aren't extensive enough to really help with that.
Once source I use is the traffic map here on washingtonpost.com, but I'm not suggesting anyone rely on it completely for information about spot closures along a particular route. (You can see that map here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/metro/traffic/index.html )
On a morning with flood warnings, I'd proceed the old fashioned way: Leave early and be extra careful. But what advice do others have?
Having train operators manually opening and closing doors: I was sorry to read about this. Now we have to wait even longer for doors to open. And then sometimes the train ends up moving a few feet forward after it has arrived in the station, and we have to stand in a new spot and wait a second time. Any idea how long this will continue? Years ago they had some problem, and it went on for a year. And then we have the problem of the conductor announcing a stop, stopping completely, and THEN moving forward again with no advance warning, leaving standees grabbing for a pole.
Dr. Gridlock: Metro says it thinks the doors opening automatically problem may be associated with its efforts to upgrade the power supply.
As you say: The jerking of trains and the delays in opening doors can be very annoying. But that's nothing compared to the potential for disaster created by doors opening in a tunnel, as our first commenter described.
Do you (or anyone out there) know what the rush hour commute is like from Ashburn to Tysons Corner via 267? I'm new to the area and thinking about buying a place in Ashburn. Is it has bad as I66? (what I currently deal with.)
Dr. Gridlock: I've seen inbound traffic on the Dulles Toll Road stopped out Herndon and Reston during the morning rush. I don't find it as bad as on I-66, generally, but the toll road is not the easy commute you might think you'd be getting because you're paying extra for it.
What do you readers think is the best alternative among I-66, Dulles Toll Road and Route 7? Or is it just a question of picking your poison?
Eating/drinking on Metro : I have been a Metro commuter since 1985. In my opinion, there is much more eating and drinking on the trains than ever before, including people just putting their garbage on the floor before they leave the trains! I wish I could say that the biggest offenders are tourists, but they're not, it's what appears to be local travelers, especially teenagers, who seem to take a huge delight in aggravating the sensibilities of other (older) riders.
Personally, I would ban the distribution of free newspapers outside of Metro stations, since the floor litter they create when discarded seems to invite riders to add to the pile of trash with their food and drink containers and bags.
Dr. Gridlock: As a Metro rider for 20 years, I also believe the cars contain more trash then they used to. My impression: In the morning, there are a lot of free papers -- Express and Examiner -- left on board when they could be carried off to the recycling bins.
In late afternoon and evening, I see more food wrappers and soda bottles.
No eating or drinking signs: I agree they are way, way too small.
Dr. Gridlock: Yeah, I do agree on this. But look, we're discussing the food thing today. Meanwhile, readers write to me all the time and say they think this sign or that warning should be bigger on Metro, or on the highway message boards. It just seems to depend on what offense people would like to make a priority.
How would you decide which warnings to emphasize and which other ones might just clutter up the Metro or cause a sign-reading bottleneck on the highway?
Silver Spring: I love your chats and columns. Do you have any idea what the plan is for Georgia Ave. from Veirs Mill Road north? This morning was a disaster trying to drive south between the torn up road, potholes and no lane markers and rain.
Dr. Gridlock: Earlier this morning, when I was looking through the mailbag, I saw this letter with a similar theme.
In yesterday's paper [on the commuter page, page 2 of the Metro section], you mentioned that the resurfacing of Georgia Avenue between Viers Mill and Randolph is slated to be completed sometime this summer.
Based on the current status of the roadway, I hope
that it will be sooner rather than later. While the removal of the top layers of old pavement were completed a few weeks ago, there has been no work done since that time, leaving the road in a sorry condition.
Derwood, MD: Metro doors: Wikipedia says that each metro car is 75 ft long. That means an eight car train is 600 ft long. Here's a question for WMATA: Can operators really see 600 ft down the platform to the rear of their platform? Even when the platform is full of people? Even when the tunnel/station is full of haze and mist?
Dr. Gridlock: I think the operator can tell where the end of the train is by where the front of the train is. No math required.
What I worry more about in that regard is whether the operator can see far enough down a crowded platform to know if he or she is about to trap people between doors. I get numerous letters from angry passengers who complain that the doors closed before people even had a chance to get off the train.
For those of us who haven't yet used Metro to the new stadium, how is it working out at the Navy Yard? Can you please give us an update? Thanks.
Dr. Gridlock: The most severe test of the Navy Yard Station that I've seen came on Thursday morning, when thousands of worshipers took Metrorail to the papal mass. I saw no problems on the platform, despite the extra passengers. The platform cleared in about five minutes, as people used both exits.
Here's the thing about Navy Yard Station: Metro can control the flow of passengers from the trains, by regulating the arrival of the trains at the station and then by keeping the doors closed a little longer of there's a crowd on the platform.
So I'm more concerned about crowding at the transfer stations, particularly L'Enfant Plaza.
Alexandria, Va.: There is a lot of anger about turning the HOV lanes on 395 from the 14th Street Bridge on south and vice versa - see the online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?NOTsoHOT. What can we citizens do to stop it? Why can't buses operating on the shoulders there just open up all the congestion?
Dr. Gridlock: Many sluggers are angry and anxious about Virginia's plan to convert the I-95/395 HOV lanes into HOT lanes (high occupancy or toll). Carpoolers would still ride free in those lanes, but drivers who don't meet the HOV-3 rule could pay -- pay a lot -- to get into the lanes for a faster trip.
VDOT is completely into this, and I've supported the plan too, as long as it protects the carpoolers.
To oppose it, I think you'll have to go to your state senators and delegates.
On the shoulder issue: I'd rather add buses to those HOT lanes, which is part of the plan, then open up the breakdown lanes for their use.
Silver Spring, MD: It appears that there are markers on the platforms for the train operators to know where to stop the front of a 4, 6, or 8 car train. It shouldn't be that hard to get it right. Maybe the operator forgot that it was an 8 car train and stopped where a 6 car train should.
Dr. Gridlock: That's an interesting thought on the possible cause. The commenter who described the problem (back at the top of the chat) heard no announcement from the operator, suggesting the operator was unaware of what had happened. If a mechanical problem was the cause, the train should have been taken out of service immediately.
Alexandria, Va.: What are those weird things hanging off the power lines where they are doing the Telegraph Road interchange work (Telegraph and Huntington Ave)? There are orange "fins" hanging at the end of a bunch of lines, almost like boat anchors. At first I thought they were wind-directionals, but they aren't all turned in the same direction.
Dr. Gridlock: I'll ask the folks at the Wilson Bridge project -- or does anyone know this off the top of their heads?
Alexandria, Va.: Is it legal for cars to sit on the side of 395 at night, waiting for six o'clock to roll around so they can use the HOV lanes? I see them out there all the time, and I'm noticing that more and more are jumping the gun five or ten minutes early, since cops never seem to patrol that section of 395.
Dr. Gridlock: You're talking about cars jus sitting on the shoulders? Pretty sure it's illegal to use breakdown lanes for any purpose other than an emergency, anywhere.
Higher gas prices aren't slowing anyone down: Just a brief report from the field: I had the unfortunate experience of driving from DC to NY and back this holiday weekend, and traffic was terrible both ways. It felt more like a summer weekend than one in April. We endured bumper-to-bumper traffic because of accidents in all 5 states we traveled through. Did people forget how to drive over the winter? There were also lots of construction delays on 95 & the NJ Turnpike.
Dr. Gridlock: I recently drove from Minnesota to Cape Cod to Washington to Fort Lauderdale. The warm weather means more road work. We had lots of delays in the Carolinas, for example.
But my main observation was the speeding in the right hand lanes; drivers traveling 20 mph above the speed limit (which was 65 or 70) and slipping to the right of cars in the middle lane so they could pass.
Metro food signs: The Bethesda metro has a large sign at the top of the platform escalator (which you see as you're heading to the down escalator), with no food or drink in English and Spanish (with visuals...)
Dr. Gridlock: As part of Metro's campaign against food and drink in the stations, you'll signs in the mezzanines of many stations. Might take a while to cath people's attention, though. And of course, a small percentage of people will just ignore signs of any size.
A Real Live Long Time Caps Fan: Mr. Thomson,
I've found the following problems in regards to Metro when going to Caps games. This season, I've ridden the orange, blue, yellow and red to games from various stations. Pending tonight's result, I may be taking the green line tomorrow.
I've noticed the following problems.
1. Metro seems to only cater to Red line riders. The easiest ride back to my vehicle was on the red line last Saturday.
2. Metro does not inform people that the front and rear cars are usually empty going to the game. I enjoy sitting in peace while seeing the car in front of me packed like sardines.
3. Metro does not "station" trains ready to pick passengers up at Metro Center or on the yellow/green line at Gallery Place. I realize there aren't side tracks that could be used, but I'm also tired of waiting for 15-20 minutes after games to catch trains on those lines. What's even more infuriating is when empty trains roll through the station while the platform has too many people on it.
Since I'm on a Metro rider and don't actually work for Metro, are they going to discount my complaints because I'm only a rider and not some high-paid executive? I'm only taking Metro now because of timing issues surround rush hour, but I really don't like it since the rates went up.
Dr. Gridlock: I've gotten a bunch of complaints from riders about their experiences trying to leave Verizon Center via Metrorail after games. The complaints involve crowding and the length of time between trains on all the lines involved.
Metro eating: Well, the problem with all Metro "announcements" is that no one can understand what the person speaking into the sound system is saying. When is Metro going to fix their station speakers?? It is pointless to tell people about delays when what we hear sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher.
Dr. Gridlock: I've had mixed experiences lately. On my Green Line train to the papal mass Thursday morning, the operator's announcements were clearly spoken and the audio equipment functioned well.
Joining the crowd at a downtown station heading toward a Nationals game, I heard an announcement that had to do with the game. I could tell because I heard the word "baseball." I'm sure there were other important words, too, but I couldn't tell you what they were.
Rockville, Md.: What are the rules in Virginia, D.C. and Maryland regarding crossing a solid white line? Every day I see people merging into lanes by crossing solid white lines either to merge early (entering the Beltway for example) or late (I'm thinking inner loop of the beltway right before 270). Is this against any laws?
Dr. Gridlock: Drivers shouldn't be crossing solid white lines unless they're pulling onto the shoulder in an emergency. The solid lines at merge points are there to lessen the chaos of the merge.
Alexandria, Va.: I have at to admit that as a regular commuter and weekend user if Metro, seeing how Metro has pulled out the royal treatment for the Nats fans and Pope fans is leaving me feeling bitter. It's great to see the success Metro had/has getting people to and from special events, but how about getting people around on a day to day basis? There should always be that level of commitment to riders.
Dr. Gridlock: Metro did real well during the pope's visit and it's so-far-so-good in getting people to the Nats games.
Generally, I think, Metro does a very good job -- but there are enough exceptions to keep me fully employed. You folks have pointed out some of those exceptions today, from the garbled announcements to the doors opening in the tunnel.
It's possible to recognize that the transit system is one of the region's greatest assets while acknowledging the need for vigilance about its need to improve day to day performance for its hundreds of thousands of riders.
Dr. Gridlock: Travelers, I've got to break away now. Thanks for joining me today, and I'll look forward to another conversation here in two weeks.
Meanwhile, write to me with your questions or comments at drgridlock@washpost.com.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Robert Thomson, Dr. Gridlock, diagnoses your traffic and transit problems and offers up his prescription for a better commute.
| 195.590909 | 0.818182 | 1.727273 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703541.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703541.html
|
'The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future'
|
2008042019
|
McKibben has been writing about the environment for more than 20 years and is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, The Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, Outside and Grist -- where he also is a board member. He has been awarded Guggenheim and Lyndhurst Fellowships, and won the Lannan Prize for nonfiction writing in 2000.
Find more discussions from this series.
Stockholm, Sweden: In light of the current food crisis (partly as a cause of the wrong-headed "biofuel" solution) and with the rise of China and India to American levels of consumption, and the hemming and hawing of politicians, just how hopeless is the climate problem? For me? For my children? For my grandchildren?
Bill McKibben: It's on the edge of hopeless -- the scientists are telling us now that going past 350 parts per million CO2 means massive climate disruption. We're at 385 ppm right now -- and what do you know, the Arctic is melting. That's why we've just formed 350.org. May analysis is that the next round of international climate negotiations, set to conclude in December 2009 in Copenhagen, are the last real bite at the apple. If we can somehow do the massive political lifting between now and then to get a strong treaty, well, we have a chance.
Albany, N.H.: A small group of us have started to meet to discuss ways that we can start to relocalize our community of approximately 750 people. Roughly 5/6 of our town lies within the White Mountain National Forest, and we have little industry. Most people are employed out of town. We initially are focusing on food and energy. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Bill McKibben: Your town sounds like mine (except we're in the Green Mountain National Forest). Food and energy are the places to begin, because they're so central, and because the centralized approaches are starting to break down. But don't neglect culture either -- local music is a remarkably good place to start. Local farmers market? Small-scale hydro? Check out the work that's going on in the UK with the Transition Town movement, and in this country at the post-carbon institute.
Chicago: Isn't it true that solar activity appears to be the principal driver for climate change, accompanied by complex ocean currents that distribute the heat and control local weather systems?
Bill McKibben: No. Solar input has fluctuated very little in recent times, nowhere near enough to explain the sudden surge in temperatures. The only thing that does is anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. We're taking a couple of hundred million years worth of carbon and tossing it up into the atmosphere in a century. Given what we know about the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide's molecular structure, the resulting warming should come as no great surprise -- and the scientific consensus behind it is now very strong.
Vancouver, B.C.: I'm sorry, I have not read your book (give me time!), so forgive me if you've covered this previously. How do societies with large families because of religious beliefs cope with steep population growth? Changing secular policies (e.g. China) is easy compared with changing centuries of religious teaching limiting birth control.
Bill McKibben: Don't worry overmuch about religious strictures and their effect on population. The two countries with the lowest birth rates on earth, Italy and Spain, are the two most heavily Catholic countries on the planet. Ditto for Mexico and Brazil in the developing world. (to the degree that the Catholic church is an effective part of the education system in the developing world, it's probably actually contributing to cutting birth rates). At the moment, the most pressing question for climate change is how to bring consumption rates down.
Montpelier, Vt.: Hey, Bill. I'm wondering, what do you think of Lieberman-Warner? A step in the right direction that should be supported, or a "least we can do" approach that kills the momentum toward better, more substantial policy?
Bill McKibben: It clearly needs to be much stronger--and it clearly needs to be seen as, at best, a first step in the two-step process that leads to a strong international agreement soon. A particularly important provision is that, as Barack Obama has insisted, all the carbon permits in the Lieberman-Warner bill need to be auctioned off with the proceeds for the public, not given away to industry.
Burbank, Calif.: If growth is not a good sign of economic strength, is the converse true? In other words, we generally define recession as two consecutive quarters of economic decline, but might slow growth be almost as important a warning of economic troubles?
Bill McKibben: My guess is that we may be reaching the point that people have predicted for some years, where the confluence of limits that we're reaching begin to make continued progress along our old path of economic growth unlikely. That is, one part of our current problem is the credit crunch stuff. But another is the skyrocketing price of energy, now beginning to mix in with the price/availability of food, and both of those impacted in various ways by climate change. I wonder if this won't turn out to be not just one little downturn in our economic cycles, but a break point.
Washington: There has been a lot of media attention lately focused on the question of how much it will cost to address climate change. Doesn't this assume erroneously, that the actions we need to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost money, when in fact they often save money? Shouldn't we be talking about how to profit from solving climate change?
Bill McKibben: Sure, it's good to focus on that. It's also good to focus on how much it will cost if we don't take action. Nick Stern originally estimated it would be the combined cost of both World Wars and the Depression -- and last week he said that was an underestimate given new data.
Honolulu: Concerning growth, isn't the problem that we constantly try to maximize it instead of identifying and then preserving an optimal point? Doesn't anything (e.g. capitalism, democracy) that grows beyond a certain optimal point start to become dysfunctional and eventually defective?
Bill McKibben: An interesting question. It seems possible to me that economies and societies may need to grow for a while, and then need to mature. In my view, the signals we're now getting from the natural world are a sign that the maturation moment is upon us. (The tough part is that the Indian economy, say, still needs to grow -- people there are too poor. How we'll manage to let that happen is going to be the bloody crux of the global negotiations now beginning.)
New York: On Sept. 11, 2005, to mark the fourth anniversary of the attacks, you published an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming Hurricane Katrina's destruction was a direct result of anthropogenic global warming. You wrote that "Katrina marks Year One of our new calendar, the start of an age in which the physical world has flipped from sure and secure to volatile and unhinged." In the past week, prominent studies have concluded that there is absolutely no link between higher average temperature and storm intensity. Do you stand by your earlier statements?
washingtonpost.com: After Katrina, the climate just gets worse and worse (San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 11, 2005)
Bill McKibben: Sure. In the first place, you dramatically overstate the retrenchment on hurricane data -- see, for instance, Andy Revkin's talk with Kerry Emmanuel at DotEarth recently.
Second, the world has become far more volatile and unhinged in the years since. For instance, the Arctic melted at a bizarre and unprecedented rate last summer, scaring the hell out of many scientists.
I imagine, in a world of rising sea levels and increased storminess, the pictures of Katrina will haunt us for a very long time, much like the pictures of Sept. 11.
Washington: Do you think that it's important for the U.S. to be leader in fighting climate change, even if China and other countries are slower to adapt?
Bill McKibben: We've got to be the leader. We've been pouring carbon into the atmosphere for more than a century (and CO2's residence time in the atmosphere can be upwards of a hundred years); the Chinese are rank beginners. And their per capita emissions are a quarter ours (which means they could "solve" their greenhouse problem by splitting into four countries, each as large as the U.S. but with only a quarter the emissions). We're going to have to set a good example -- and we're going to have to be willing to broker some kind of carbon Marshall plan that lets them develop without burning all that 2 cents/kilowatt hour of coal.
Washington: Would drilling for oil in Alaska help North America's environmental concerns?
ANWR holds at best a few months supply of oil. The place to drill is under Detroit -- big increases in mileage would do endlessly more for our energy security.
Meanwhile, any oil you find in Alaska now will be a mess to drill, but more importantly a mess to burn. We've got to leave as much coal and gas and oil in the ground as possible, and a good place to start exercising restraint would be at the very farthest fringe of our continent.
Arlington, Texas: What is the biggest environmental challenge facing the planet today?
Bill McKibben: Global warming. If we don't slow it down soon, we'll be doing nothing but responding to its effects.
We've just formed 350.org, the first attempt at a global grassroots climate movement. It's kind of fun (join us!). It's also kind of a long-shot.
Latrobe, Pennsylvania: I attend a small college in the foothills of Pennsylvania, and considering that my campus is immersed in nature, we consistently endanger our beautiful landscape with ongoing construction, paving new parking lots to accommodate growth, and constantly running a parking shuttle to and from these new parking lots (which, may I add, aren't that far from campus). I'm currently working on a project proposal to "green" our campus by replanting the trees cut down by construction. What is an effective argument to compromise and balance growth with environmental awareness? Is it possible?
Bill McKibben: One way is to work the other way around. Get your college to sign on to the President's Climate Imitative (700 colleges or so have done so already). then start pointing out the things that really need to be done to get to carbon neutrality. Check out AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education) for good help in the effort. And thanks!
East Lansing, Mich.: Do you support state or federal regulatory regimes that encourage private development of green energy sources?
Bill McKibben: I think the key is to get the pricing of energy right -- i.e. to inject a stiff price for carbon in at the federal and eventually the international level. And once we've done that I think markets will be enormously helpful.
I think the government's record in picking winner and loser technologies is spotty at best (see corn ethanol, maybe the worst idea of all time).
Anonymous: Why do you think this issue wasn't given priority 10-15 years ago?
Bill McKibben: Well, I've had time to think about that, having written the first book about it for a general audience 19 years ago. I think most of the rest of the world did get to work -- but here we were hampered by the very calculated obfuscation campaign carried out the by the fossil fuel industry. (Check our Ross Gelbspan's fine books documenting this campaign -- "The Heat Is On" and "Boiling Point"). I also think our particular form of journalism had trouble coping -- it took objectivity to mean "he said, she said," not a real effort to sift out the scientific consensus.
West Boylston, Mass.: Assuming that global warming is happening and that its causes are anthropogenic, shouldn't we still be measured in our response? In some cases couldn't the "cure" be worse than the disease? Just as an example, the current rush to biofuels is having a tremendous effect on the cost and availability of food, and could leave millions starving -- and for all we know could have 0 effect on our total carbon dioxide emissions.
Bill McKibben: Ethanol is the worst idea of all time.
Which is why we need, I think, a very strong response in terms of a price signal built into carbon, and then we need to let markets work out what makes sense after that. I think they'd head for much more sensible solutions for the most part. But if we're going to get that price signal from Washington, we need real political organization -- hence 350.org, our new campaign.
Montgomery County, Md.: I don't know what to truly believe about global warming, but most science seems to show that it's occurring, and that it is caused by humans at least partially. But the cause for suspicion is obvious: for decades, the political left has been focused on attacking consumption -- people are criticized for having big houses, driving big cars, spending a lot of money, etc. People were told (and sometimes forced) to stop consuming so much and, instead, give their money to various causes. The reason was because it was "unfair" to have a big house and it was "compassionate" (somehow defined) to help others.
Now, we are told we shouldn't drive a big car, shouldn't have a big house and should consume less, but now the reason is ... global warming. In other words, the restrictions and requirements are the same that liberals have been demanding for decades, but now the reason is environmental, rather than political/social. Don't you see how that makes people a little suspicious? I'm not saying I'm a global warming denier, but you have to understand why this is a tough sell. Thanks for reading.
Bill McKibben: You know, one of my recent books, "Deep Economy," asked the question: is the supersizing of American life actually making us happy? The data seems to indicate otherwise -- the percentage of Americans saying they're very happy with their lives has been trending steadily downwards -- mostly because people feel an ever-stronger loss of community. Which in turn is related to that American dream you describe -- our economy has spent 50 years being about "bigger houses farther apart." I think it's probably time to start examining all of this in a new light -- and I don't think it breaks down liberal/conservative. Is a farmers market liberal or conservative? I don't know.
Alexandria, Va.: Bill -- oil companies and other big corporations run ads on TV saying how green and forward-thinking they have become. Is this sincere, or opportunistic? How can big industries be persuaded to become genuinely green?
Bill McKibben: The more penguins in the ad, the worse they're raping the planet.
The way to get corporations to do the right thing is to run up the price of carbon. We can't abdicate the regulation of our economy -- that's the chief duty of a democracy. And free markets can't solve this problem until government acts to give them some information, in the form of a cost for carbon.
Denver : I think the major key to combat climate change is to develop alternative energy sources that are carbon-neutral. The trick is that such technologies currently are not particularly economical, and lots of research still needs to be done to turn such potential solutions into real solutions. (Disclosure: I'm a scientist interested in working in this area.) However, private investment in energy technology has been relatively flat. My question is, other than simply granting more government funds for basic and applied energy research, how can we encourage/stimulate private investment in this area?
Bill McKibben: At the risk of repeating myself (and I can't type fast enough to keep up with this flood of good questions), the key is to change the relative balance of costs. Two-cent coal makes everything else look bad; send a signal that two-cent coal is no more, and all of a sudden the investment in everything else will burgeon.
Newark, N.J.: Which presidential candidate is best positioned to address your environmental concerns and why?
Bill McKibben: I'm backing Obama. He's good on climate, he's been educated to a degree on coal, and most importantly I think he may actually hold the promise of being able to reopen dialogue with the rest of the world. We're hated everywhere, not least for our climate folly. So the best way to get people to re-evaluate us may be to elect a skinny young black guy with a funny name. People everywhere would have to say -- there's more to American than I thought in my cartoon version. (A version too accurate in the past eight years.)
New York: Why is there so much emphasis on raising CAFE standards for automobiles when any changes are by necessity slated far into the future. Auto manufacturers then lobby Congress with emphasis on the economic impact from the fact that customers prefer larger cars, SUVs and trucks. Why not make the "gas guzzler" tax an annual tax rather than a one-time cost? Most vehicle purchases are financed, so this tax has very little impact on the purchase decision. Additionally, buying a used vehicle completely bypasses this expense! An annual charge of several thousand dollars would reduce greatly the demand for larger vehicles, thereby having a more current impact.
Bill McKibben: That's an interesting plan. I'll pass it on.
Los Angeles: How much of a concern is wealth disparity? Does this affect overall buying power?
Bill McKibben: It's a huge problem, especially internationally. Trying to solve global warming in such an unequal world is conceptually very hard -- it means that we need to do some real work to help the poor world bear the cost.
Toronto: Hi Bill. Are you an advocate of the "steady state" economy advocated by ecological economists such as Herman Daly? If so, do we know what the optimal scale might be for such an economy? A related question -- do you think it's time to begin thinking again of what the optimal population might be for places like the United States and Canada? Cheers.
Bill McKibben: At the very least we need a trajectory back towards the local and away from the global, which I think will make it easier for us to imagine an economy that doesn't grow. And in terms of population that gets a little easier to think about as world pop growth starts to slow markedly -- we're not going to double again, so one driver of the need for endless growth will eventually start to moderate. We need to go to work on the others now.
Front Royal, Va.: How is it possible to determine the cost-effectiveness of any measure to stop or slow global warming?
Bill McKibben: Figure out what a reasonable price for carbon should be (i.e. what it will take to drive concentrations down below the safe level of 350 parts per million). Once that price is factored into the cost of fossil fuel, we'll have a good idea from the markets about what is really economical.
Washington: The most oft-ignored cause of warming, deoxygenation and low-atmosphere toxification is factory farming. Europe recognizes it. Why won't we? Are these industries more potent than even the oil industry?
Bill McKibben: They're much too potent (see ethanol). It's one big reason to back the trend towards local, diversified agriculture.
Orlando, Fla.: Are you a dreary-eyed Malthusian? Do you have a good working relationship with that great anti-human environmentalist Felix Rohatyn? Do you believe technology has the potential to solve environmental and population problems? If so, why are you not championing those solutions rather than an a turn to a new Dark Age?
Bill McKibben: I'm extremely dreary -- I wrote a book called "The End of Nature." And I think technology will be a big part of the solution -- high-tech (like concentrated solar power) and cool tech (like bicycles). I work to get the political and economic framework that can maximize those possibilities. I've never met or corresponded with Mr. Rohatyn. He's dreary also?
Washington: With the economy, security and immigration being big issues for the presidential election; how do you see the environment fitting to this dialogue?
Bill McKibben: Though they haven't quite realized it yet, the biggest foreign policy questions for the new president will center on climate change -- the ring of economic, environmental and security problems caused by a destabilizing climate will grip his or her attention almost from the start. My sense is that Obama may realize this -- he's talked about meeting with world leaders to discuss climate even before the conventions this summer, I think, though that was a while ago before we entered into the dreary trench warfare of the late primary campaign.
Bainbridge Island, Wash.: Governments are very poor at evaluating risk and picking a technological fix for a problem. Carbon-trading markets already have proven to be a huge boon for lobbyists and entrenched CO2 emitters in Europe. With that said, achieving reductions in CO2 emissions will require concerted worldwide action on a scale never before achieved. Would you agree that the small government approach to the problem of CO2 -- and perhaps the only one with any long-term chance of success -- is a carbon tax charged at the point of extraction?
Bill McKibben: Call it a tax, or a cap, or whatever -- your point is correct. We need to change the cost profile of carbon, which is now free and needs to be expensive. When that happens, much will follow.
Atlanta: It seems to me that any carbon dioxide reduction plan except sequestration -- which if I understand right does not work economically yet -- would require reducing the amount of coal we consume for energy. The coal industry is not going to be happy about that, and will seek to find further markets for their product. How can we ensure that the American coal mining industry does not suffer unduly (a political nightmare) and that whatever further markets they find remain "green"?
Bill McKibben: I don't care particularly about the coal industry, but I do about the people who work in it. They need and deserve serious retraining. Luckily, there aren't many people in that industry anymore (not because of environmentalists, but because of mechanization). It should be doable.
Oakland, Calif.: Most politicians talk about implementing a "cap-and-trade" program for carbon emissions as the preferred method of reducing the Nation's emissions profile. Economists, however, point out that a carbon tax could accomplish the same result with substantially reduced bureaucratic overhead costs. Which do you support, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program? What role do the political ramifications of even oblique references to "raising taxes" play in this debate?
Bill McKibben: I think they're roughly the same (if designed right) and I understand the difficulty that American politicians have in uttering the word tax. I think that people should take a look at the cap-and-dividend system, also called The Sky Trust, proposed by Peter Barnes -- basically, the government would cut us each a check annually for our share of the atmosphere. I think it makes a good deal of sense politically.
Montpelier, Vt.: Have you heard about the concept of "natural capital"? The idea is that healthy ecosystems provide us with nonmarket goods and services (clean air, water recycling, nutrient recycling, flood protection, water delivery, pollination, micro- and macro-climate moderation, ozone protection, pest control, waste absorption, etc.). Bob Costanza at University of Vermont and some other economists from around the world have made a first estimation of the value of these services, and it tops $3 trillion every year -- larger than the combined gross domestic products of every country in the world.
We're losing ecosystem services globally. We never have priced these services, let alone valued them at anything like their market value. What do you propose to do to stop the drawdown -- the wanton destruction -- of natural capital? Don't you see a role for wise policy to set limits to what the free market can do with the ecosystems that provide us with these services?
Bill McKibben: Yes -- that's a key role for governments to perform. And the easiest way to do it is probably to impose economic costs on the degradation.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Environmentalist and writer Bill McKibben, author of "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future," discusses why growth is no longer the best metric for economic progress, and why a more local focus could be beneficial.
| 110.244444 | 0.822222 | 1.266667 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900760.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041900760.html
|
Hoping to Rise? Master the Elevator Talk
|
2008042019
|
The best career advice I ever received was from my father, back when I was in high school.
That one word sure beat "plastics," that infamous counsel from the movie "The Graduate."
In the working world, people communicate through 30-second elevator speeches, résumés, business plans, articles in industry magazines and water cooler conversations. The medium doesn't matter, nor does whether the setting is a 10-person start-up or a Fortune 500 company. But telling your story -- letting people know who you are and why they might care -- opens career doors, experts say.
Joe Gallaher, chief executive of Systems Programming Consultants, a high-tech recruiting firm with an office in Rockville, is convinced that many tech-support workers chose that business because they relate better to machines than to people. But, he noted, "just having an intimate knowledge of the operating system does not guarantee your landing a job as a systems programmer. Even backroom technicians must communicate to market themselves."
He said, "A less-qualified, good interviewer" -- recruiter-speak for a good communicator -- "will beat out a reticent technician almost every time."
Because someone you have just met, such as an interviewer, may care mostly about what you can do for him or her, identifying yourself in the broadest possible terms can be best. Suzanne Harris, chief executive of Magnificent Publications, a D.C. publishing consultancy, suggested using brief but powerful statements such as, "I write for clients," "I help people solve computer problems" or "I manage projects."
She said, "If the other party doesn't immediately respond, you might give one or two short examples to avoid an awkward pause. At that point you'll either get a question inviting more information or the conversation will shift to a different topic."
The same advice applies to crafting your résumés, taking advantage of the written-word opportunity to be more specific and emphasize accomplishments.
Companies as well as individuals need well-constructed introductions. Carol Covin, a Northern Virginia entrepreneur and writer, has been a commercial reviewer for a grants organization and coaches grant applicants. An exercise she has them perform creates the briefest possible overview of their promise to customers. She calls it a virtual business card because they can "hand" it to people at networking events.
As examples, she uses well-known corporate slogans, such as FedEx (When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight) and Apple (The computer for the rest of us).
Covin notes that company executives preparing to present at local meetings of the MIT Enterprise Forum, a group for technology entrepreneurs, can work three hours to distill what they do into six to eight words, but that it's a good exercise.
|
Washington,DC,Virginia,Maryland business headlines,stock portfolio,markets,economy,mutual funds,personal finance,Dow Jones,S&P 500,NASDAQ quotes,company research tools. Federal Reserve,Bernanke,Securities and Exchange Commission.
| 12.636364 | 0.431818 | 0.431818 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802673.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802673.html
|
Activism by Shareholders Picks Up Steam Online
|
2008042019
|
To see the new face of shareholder activism, go to YouTube, MySpace or the blogosphere. That's where corporate consultant Eric Jackson, who owns 96 shares of Yahoo, launched a campaign last year to make the struggling Internet company more accountable to investors.
This year, he marshaled 135 investors holding about 2.2 million shares to urge the company to accept Microsoft's (or another bidder's) takeover offer. "We want a deal at the highest price, and we're ready to tender our shares," he says.
The Internet may increase activism among individual investors, says Patrick McGurn, a proxy expert at RiskMetrics Group. But online or not, shareholders big and small are putting corporate boards on the hot seat, expressing their views on everything from executive pay to the subprime-mortgage meltdown.
Some campaigns aim to unseat board members. The CtW Investment Group, which is affiliated with a coalition of labor unions, wants board members at six financial firms, including Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, to explain what they did to manage subprime-loan risks. Says CtW's Mike Garland: "Absent compelling explanations, we'll recommend that shareholders vote against reelection."
Other activists want to put specific proposals up for shareholder vote -- or at least get management to address the issues involved. "Say on pay" resolutions call for a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on executive compensation. Other hot-button issues are political contributions and climate change.
|
To see the new face of shareholder activism, go to YouTube, MySpace or the blogosphere. That's where corporate consultant Eric Jackson, who owns 96 shares of Yahoo, launched a campaign last year to make the struggling Internet company more accountable to investors.
| 5.795918 | 1 | 49 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901916.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041901916.html
|
From Mexico, Drug Violence Spills Into U.S.
|
2008042019
|
Behind him, law and order was vanishing fast. In the four months he had served as Puerto Palomas police chief, drug traffickers had threatened to kill him and his officers if they tried to block the flow of cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamines into the United States, his former colleagues said on condition of anonymity.
After a particularly menacing telephone call, his 10-man force resigned en masse. His bodyguards quit, too. Abandoned by his men and unable to trust the notoriously corrupt Mexican authorities, Pérez Ortega turned to the only place he believed he could find refuge -- the United States, the former colleagues said.
As President Bush meets this week with Mexican President Felipe Calderón in New Orleans, the repercussions of Mexico's battle with drug cartels are increasingly gushing into the United States, giving rise to thorny new problems for Mexican and U.S. officials, as well as the millions of people who live along the border.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed in January while chasing suspected traffickers fleeing back to Mexico, AK-47 bullets have been found a half-mile inside U.S. territory after shootouts in Mexican border towns, and wounded Mexican police have been taken to the United States for treatment at heavily guarded hospitals.
Here in Puerto Palomas, a wind-swept desert town south of Columbus, N.M., spillover from Mexico's drug war is measured in bullet-pocked bodies. In the past year, at least 10 gunshot victims have been dumped at the border checkpoint -- taken there by friends or colleagues who believed their only hope of survival lay across the border.
In the calculus of U.S.-Mexican border relations, the living were rushed to medical treatment -- sometimes with law enforcement escorts -- but the dead were not allowed across. Either way, the fallout from Mexico's drug war was being dropped at the doorstep of the United States.
"Mexico's problem is Sheriff Cobos's problem," Sheriff Raymond Cobos, whose jurisdiction in Luna County, N.M., stretches to the border with Puerto Palomas, said in an interview. "No doubt about it."
Cobos ordered a major state highway closed after shootouts in Puerto Palomas and recently sent deputies to monitor the funeral in Columbus of a Mexican man killed in Puerto Palomas. His force goes on alert when drug gangs start shooting in Puerto Palomas, deploying with semiautomatic weapons to the lonely roads and cactus-dotted expanses on the U.S. side of the border. Gunfire is often heard by residents of Columbus, as well as by Border Patrol agents, who have significantly increased their vigilance.
More than 130 miles of rough driving from Ciudad Juarez, Puerto Palomas was once known as a placid outpost marred only occasionally by violence. But since the beginning of the year, more than 30 people have been killed in the town, Puerto Palomas Mayor Estanislao GarcÃa said in an interview.
Puerto Palomas became strategically important because Ciudad Juarez, the traditional drug-trafficking hub, has been inundated with Mexican army troops sent to contain a war between the rival Juarez and Sinaloa cartels blamed for more than 200 deaths this year.
The cartels probably knew that the Mexican military was coming months before its arrival in late March and saw Puerto Palomas as an acceptable alternative, a high-ranking Mexican federal government official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the campaign against cartels.
|
PUERTO PALOMAS, Mexico -- Javier Emilio Pérez Ortega, a workaholic Mexican police chief, showed up at the sleepy, two-lane border crossing here last month and asked U.S. authorities for political asylum.
| 16.175 | 0.65 | 1.3 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803036.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803036.html
|
Canada Bans BPA From Baby Bottles
|
2008042019
|
Canada yesterday became the first country to ban a widely found chemical from use in baby bottles, spurring a leading Democrat in the U.S. Senate to call for legislation that would prohibit use of bisphenol A, or BPA, in a number of everyday consumer products.
"We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical," Tony Clement, the minister of health, said in a statement.
Clement said the action was based on a review of 150 worldwide studies. "It's pretty clear that the highest risk is for newborns and young infants," he said in a telephone interview.
Wal-Mart Canada began pulling all baby products containing BPA from its shelves this week, and the chain said it plans to stop selling products containing BPA in U.S. stores by next year. Playtex said it would offer free non-BPA bottles to parents and will stop using BPA in all products by year's end. Nalgene, the maker of reusable water bottles that are popular among athletes, said yesterday it would discontinue production of bottles made with the chemical and recall existing products already in its stores.
The move in Canada adds pressure on U.S. federal regulators to reexamine their position on BPA, which is suspected of causing breast and prostrate cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity and other serious disorders in laboratory animals. This week, a federal health panel in the United States for the first time expressed concerns about BPA.
BPA is used in production of polycarbonate plastic and epoxy linings to add strength and resilience to the products. U.S. manufacturers produce more than 6 billion pounds annually. While many uses pose no risk to consumers, some scientists have worried about the health effects of ingesting low doses of the chemical, which is used in the linings of canned foods as well as bottles and food storage products.
Yesterday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will file a bill to ban BPA from all baby products as well as dental sealants and any bottle or container that holds food and drink. "It's better to be safe than sorry," Schumer said.
The chemical industry, which believes that the safety of BPA is well documented by scientific research, focused on the fact that Canada isn't banning all products containing BPA.
"The weight of scientific evidence, as assessed by Health Canada and other agencies around the world, provides reassurance that consumers can continue to safely use products made from bisphenol A," said Steven G. Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group.
But Schumer said that given the many warnings about the dangers of BPA, "we cannot wait to act. If there is any serious risk at all posed by this chemical, it is simply unacceptable to allow Americans, especially vulnerable infants, to come into contact with it."
Industry groups tried yesterday to squelch what they call "scare" stories. "Based on the entire body of scientific evidence, and the findings of the [Food and Drug Administration] and numerous health authorities and researchers, consumers can continue to safely enjoy foods and beverages in the many forms of packaging provided, including those that contain BPA, without changing their purchasing or eating patterns," Robert Brackett, chief science officer for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said in a statement.
The debate over BPA, which has simmered for a decade, grew intense this week after the National Toxicology Program, an office within the National Institutes of Health, acknowledged in a draft report that the chemical might cause cancer and other serious disorders. The chemical mimics estrogen in the human body, scientists say.
Although the office does not regulate BPA, its findings are used by other federal agencies such as the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency, which set safe exposure limits for chemicals.
|
Canada yesterday became the first country to ban a widely found chemical from use in baby bottles, spurring a leading Democrat in the U.S. Senate to call for legislation that would prohibit use of bisphenol A, or BPA, in a number of everyday consumer products.
| 15.285714 | 1 | 49 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602648.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602648.html
|
Down by the Bay
|
2008042019
|
THE TRADITIONAL EASTERN SHORE LANDSCAPE SETTING IS ONE OF HISTORIC GRANDEUR -- the colonial house at the end of the shady drive, terraces dotted with pungent old boxwood. It's all very rooted. But, to my mind, the more interesting gardens in eastern Maryland are the ones that rely on that other great Delmarva tradition -- farming. A long growing season, warm soil and heapings of sunshine yield humble vegetable and flower gardens of amazing fertility.
So, I asked two professional gardeners in Chestertown -- Carol Mylander and Trams Hollingsworth -- if they could point me to some kindred spirits who might offer personal expressions of what it means to be a Chesapeake gardener. They came through brilliantly, showing me the waterside properties of three gardeners who have combined a respect for the overwhelming presence of the natural landscape with the sheer joy of planting seeds and watching them grow. These landscapes are not quite cottage gardens but are true to that spirit, where the owner is reveling in eager annuals and, by July onward, luscious fruits and vegetables.
I meet Hollingsworth at her large old farmhouse overlooking the Chester River. As I take a sip of iced tea on the porch, she enthuses about the gardens she wants me to visit.
"You have to see Susanne's garden," she says. "She works in it all the time." We drive a mile along the twisting riverside highway out of historic Chestertown until we turn into a side street and pull up in front of the 1950s split-level home of Bill and Susanne Chaze. The side of the 1 1/4-acre property is lined by a tall screen of trees that includes one of the largest yews I have seen this side of Ireland. I guess it to be at least 150 years old.
The screen backs a row of mature fig bushes, in summer full of soft purple fruit for the taking. The site's most striking feature, a large pond, is half-hidden by its low setting and high banks but is a magnet for the rich cast of birds and other wildlife that are part of the pleasures and the occasional pain of gardening on the Eastern Shore.
"Ospreys swoop in, and the herons are there all the time," says Susanne Chaze. "There are lots of bluegills in the pond. Eels in there, too."
The end of the property offers a clear view of the river, wide and languid. The lawn is framed by a pair of plant borders stuffed with spring bulbs and, as the season progresses, dazzling annuals, perennials and shrubs. It is not unusual for Susanne to look up from her labors here to see a sail or two shifting slowly along the river, a scene reminiscent of her early years on Lolland, one of the islands of Denmark.
But it is in the decorative herb and vegetable garden where Susanne, 58, a part-time gardener for Mylander and Hollingsworth, spends most of her time. This was the first planting project that she and her husband tackled when they bought the house five years ago, and it remains the heart and soul of the garden. In particular, Bill Chaze, 66, a retired magazine editor, loves to cook, and the garden's proximity to the house provides as much an emotional as a physical link between the indoors and out. It also yields some pretty good tomatoes for slicing and sauce-making. By midsummer, basil is abundant: "Roman, lemon and Thai -- we do a lot of Thai cooking," Susanne says.
In May, the herb terraces are perfumed with masses of lavender. But even as the lavender spikes fade in early summer, the herb garden remains fresh through the season with purple-leafed sage, white-blooming garlic chives and silver-leafed cardoons.
Plant hardiness maps place this part of the Eastern Shore in the same growing zone as Washington, but gardeners here know that this coastal plain climate and highly variable soil, from clay to sand, produce markedly different growing conditions. In spring, the bay and its rivers are still reluctant to relinquish winter's chill, but at season's end, the same water holds summer's heat, wards off frost and allows autumn's blossoms a long and attractive ride.
The Chazes moved here from an old farmhouse on 20 acres in northern Kent County, where they had lived for 16 years and where Susanne cut her teeth as a gardener. She grew up on a farm on Lolland, so learning to grow herbs and vegetables was simply a case of stirring the genes. Two aspects of the Chaze garden give it a singular charm: the prominent location of the herbs and vegetables, and the fact that it is a personal garden, intensively cultivated. The house is draped with three black-eyed Susan vines. Nearby, Susanne has set up a simple table used for potting and mixing soil. "We sit out here in the morning and have coffee," she says. "It's a very nice place to be."
The link between the vegetable garden and the front yard is marked by an arched rose arbor, painted white and draped with a bicolor orange-and-red climber. The fences are white, too, forming a bold framework even as the plantings fill in.
|
Find Washington Post science, politics and opinion coverage of the growing threat from global warming.
| 59.823529 | 0.470588 | 0.588235 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072101063.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008042019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072101063.html
|
At Critics' Awards, NBC's Wins May Also Be Fox's Gain
|
2008042019
|
The Television Critics Association showered NBC with four of its 10 programming Awards Saturday night -- the biggest haul of any network.
Fox recently hired the guy who developed those shows, Kevin Reilly. He was president of NBC Entertainment until the network showed him the door last month. Critics love his work, but with the notable exception of "Heroes," the shows have devoted (but small) followings.
NBC's "Heroes" is the program of the year, the collection of 200 TV critics and journalists proclaimed.
NBC's "Friday Night Lights" is the year's best new program -- yes, we know, "Heroes" is a new show too. Don't ask me to explain these categories.
NBC's "The Office" is this year's best comedy. And while "The Office" shut out NBC's new "30 Rock," the latter show's star, Alec Baldwin, was honored for giving the year's best performance in a comedy series, edging out, among others, the show's creator, Tina Fey. No reflection on Fey -- the TCA doesn't often honor women until they are old-igenarians. In the past decade only two actresses have received TCA Awards for actual work that year: Jane Kaczmarek ("Malcolm in the Middle") and Edie Falco ("The Sopranos"). In their golden, semi-retired years, TCA honored with "career achievement" awards Lucille Ball, Angela Lansbury, Carol Burnett and, this year, Mary Tyler Moore.
The awards were handed out while the critics, from around the United States and Canada, are gathered in Beverly Hills for their annual Summer TV Press Tour to talk with writers, producers, actors and network suits about new programs on the horizon. And what seems to be surprising critics most is the number of strong female roles, leads even, in the new shows -- characters that are actually complicated and flawed instead of the usual all-suffering housewife, tomboy best-friend to guy, or buxom, big-haired sex goddess/slut. Let's see if it translates to a TCA Award or two next summer, shall we?
HBO did not go home empty-handed; critics' darling "The Sopranos" was named this year's best drama. It also received the group's Heritage Award -- a.k.a. the So-Long Trophy; NBC's "The West Wing" won last year.
But rival Showtime won an award for a show that's actually still on the air. Michael C. Hall, who plays a lovable serial killer on the pay cable network's "Dexter," bagged the win for best drama performance.
File this under ironic: ABC Family's "Kyle XY" was proclaimed the year's best children's program. We hear some ABC Family folk were not thrilled to have the show nominated in the category; the network targets an older audience than TV's kids 2-11 audience. On the other hand, they can now begin promoting the show as a TCA Award-winner.
Discovery's "Planet Earth" cleaned up, winning both the trophy for best news and information program and the trophy for best movie, miniseries or special.
|
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., July 21 The Television Critics Association showered NBC with four of its 10 programming Awards Saturday night -- the biggest haul of any network. Fox is thrilled. Fox recently hired the guy who developed those shows, Kevin Reilly. He was president of NBC Entertainment until...
| 11.381818 | 0.927273 | 17.072727 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/china_bashing_its_back.html%20
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/china_bashing_its_back.html
|
China Bashing: It's Back
|
2008041819
|
I have meant to take some time to detail what went so wrong in the overall western media from March 14 and onwards. However, a commenter named CCT has done the job in response to Richard Spencer's attempted (but largely failed) effort of examining this issue in Telegraph.
So I am reproducing CCT's comment in its entirety to answer your question at the buttom, since he/she captured just about everything I want to say as well. (Well, not the part about vast majority of Western journalists act with genuine integrity. I can not give them that much credibility. They as a whole did not earn it, and whatever level of integrity they could have claimed to is lost for most of them anyway in this event.)
And one more thing, a reason why most Chinese, in or outside of China, supporter or not of the government/party, are unified in anger and disgust at the western media's collective performance is: the willful non-coverage of the real victims, i.e. suffering and death of the han and hui Chinese, in Tibet on March 14 can only be logically deduced as meaning they do not view han and hui Chinese as humans and deserving human rights as well.
And now, comment from CCT: --------------------------------------------------
I will concede to being one of the many Chinese who believe the Western media dropped the ball. I don't say this on the basis of the CNN picture cropping controversy, but rather on the basis of my own expectations for objective reporting.
Let me start by saying that I for one believe the vast, vast majority of Western journalists act with genuine integrity, and hold their journalistic principles as being sacred. This, to me, makes the subsequent negligence even more difficult to imagine.
In the early hours of May 14th, Western print media ran more or less the predictable story on the issue of Tibet... all they had were keywords: Tibetan monks, riot, armed Chinese troops, deaths. They combined these in more or less predictable ways, and I couldn't blame them.
But by May 15th, a different story had already begun to emerge. The blogger Kadfly had posted his now infamous video of the Chinese man on the scooter being beaten by a Tibetan mob. James Miles had already filed several wire reports (for the Guardian as well as Economist) capturing his eyewitness accounts: Tibetan violence aimed at Han Chinese civilians, and no direct evidence of a violent/forceful military reaction. The Christian Science Monitor also ran an early report, including quotes from an interview with Kadfly + their European friends in Lhasa. (One European eyewitness gives an iconic quote in that CS Monitor article from 03/14: "They were aiming to kill Muslims and Chinese for a free Tibet.")
I, personally, thought that the Western press would pick up on these changes rather quickly. Kadfly's pictures had made it to the cover of the New York Times, and James Miles, certainly, is someone who's easily identifiable and with obvious credentials; surely the *implications* of what they were reporting would quickly spread. It never did.
Two days later, by March 17th, Western tourists had begun to leave Lhasa. A press conference was held in Kathmandu, and a few wire reports captured part of what they reported. The Toronto Star first introduced me to the name "James Kenwood"; his observations (as well as other tourists with him) were in exact correlation to what Kadfly and James Miles had observed. This time, I thought... finally! Surely first person eyewitness accounts speaking at a press conference would gather *some* attention. It never did... no major Western news source wrote an article based on their account; the only AP wire report that mentions James Kenwood only talks about the ironic fact that those cleaning up after the riots in Lhasa wore vests emblazoned with the 2008 Olympics logo. It took another 11 days before the Washington Post finally broke the boycott and posted James Kenwood's account in a comprehensive overview of what the riot actually entailed.
At almost the same time, James Miles of the Economist left Lhasa as his visa expired. (Various wire reports chose to describe him as being "expelled", although he personally refused to use such a term.) He gave a comprehensive interview on CNN, in which he basically said in so many words: his direct observations of what happened on March 14th matches the government version. I thought... surely, this would be it. Finally, the editors at the BBC and the New York Times would come around on these issues.
I waited for the Western press to not just perform the function of relaying facts, but to actually interpret them in a fair way. I waited for the Western press to describe race riots, and to refrain from using the terms "brutal crackdown" to describe what had happened in Lhasa on 3/14. I waited for the Western press to absorb information from these credible, identifiable Western eyewitnesses... rather than relying repeatedly on hear-say accounts delivered by the Tibetan government-in-exile.
It simply hasn't happened. I want to give you some credit here Richard: you personally have been "fair". You haven't helped forward the cause of truth on this issue, but you at least didn't detract from it. And perhaps you've been so busy with the news gathering effort that you haven't been involved in the news *digesting* process... try. Try flipping through the wire reports issued during that first key week after March 14th. Tell me if you saw James Miles' reports given the same credibility and prominence as the stories (now-proven lies) coming out of Dharamasala.
(The Tibetan government-in-exile issued a release in the first hours after the riot of March 14th alleging that martial law had been declared, that the police had fired into crowds, and that 100 had already dead. Is anyone in the Western media going to call them on these lies?)
Now, I understand you're here genuflecting, suggesting in a tone partly hurt and partly defensive, that you've done nothing wrong. That the truth *is* coming out (again, see Washington Post article as of this week), and that the Western media remains as fair as ever.
I don't think we can judge Western media purely on the basis of what is said, but also on *when* it is said. 1000 accurate reports on missing WMDs in Iraq after the invasion can not, will not balance the supplicant, sycophantic reports that dominated American media *before* the invasion. It has, unfortunately, become accepted "fact" amongst many Western readers that March 14th was indeed just another Tiananmen; that peaceful protesters were killed by heavily armed troops firing indiscrimnantly into crowds; that Beijing has again committed murder upon her own citizens.
The Western media might be able to find a convenient intellectual fig leaf on this issue... I personally don't doubt that it will eventually (perhaps buried on the 5th or 6th pages of the Friday paper) discover the truth of 3/14. But until it makes an active effort to wipe away the false impression it's already delivered to the vast majority of its readers, then the accusations of "bias" in result (if not in intent) rings very true to my ears.
|
Pomfret's China features China expert John Pomfret as he deciphers what's behind the latest news from China.
| 71.45 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/04/salam_alaykum_pope_benedict.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/04/salam_alaykum_pope_benedict.html
|
Salam Alaykum, Pope Benedict
|
2008041819
|
Washington, D.C. -- The Pope is celebrating mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington DC, and I canât help but think of the line from the old Paul Simon song, âThe cross is in the ballpark.â
For me, that means there is the possibility of holiness in even the most pedestrian spaces and the most mundane moments.
I welcome a reminder of that, even from a spiritual leader I do not call my own.
I welcome whatever sacred gifts this Pope brings. I welcome his speaking of the eternal to a world dominated by the material.
I welcome his teachings on love and hope, enshrined in his first two scholarly but poetic Papal Encyclicals. These are values that people of all faiths and no faith at all share. By highlighting them, the Pope creates the space for a respectful conversation between people from different traditions on how they understand and apply hope and love.
And it has already begun.
After the Popeâs ill-fated remarks on Islam in his Regensburg Address, a group of Muslim scholars opened up that conversation by sending the Pope an Open Letter, done in the Qurâanic tradition of debating âin the fairest wayâ, which offered gentle clarifications on Islamic thought concerning jihad (it means struggle, not holy war), forced conversion (not allowed in Islam, where there is âno compulsion in religionâ) and relations between Christians and Muslims (should be conducted based on the two great commandments, Love of God, and Love of Neighbor).
I will be at the interfaith meeting with the Pope this evening in D.C. And there will be another one, based on a broader document called A Common Word Between Us and You (which originated from the letter described above), in November in Rome.
Here is what I would welcome at tonightâs meeting (which I will write about tomorrow): A concrete commitment to common action based on shared values.
How can Catholics and Muslims â and people of other faiths and no faith at all - apply the values of hope and love, together?
Can we commit to ending malaria?
Can we commit to halving poverty?
Can we commit to educational programs which humanize âthe otherâ instead of denigrating them?
As the Pope wrote in his first Encyclical: âthe love which God lavishes on us ⦠we in turn must share with others.â
Watch my interview on this subject with On Faith's Sally Quinn.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 10.545455 | 0.613636 | 0.886364 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/the_better_angels_of_our_natur.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/the_better_angels_of_our_natur.html
|
Muslims Want to be Friends, Not Rivals
|
2008041819
|
Rivalry seems to be hardwired into human nature. Whether we take the Darwinian view or the theological one, it doesnât bode well for Peace on Earth, good will toward men. While making a case for a certain point of view must be acceptable, âWhy canât we all just get alongâ might be the mantra of human history, resounding through all political systems as well as belief systems where they come into close proximity. Transcending rivalries with compassion and forbearance would then be a spiritual step toward conscious tolerance that in fact all religious revelations by their prophets from the beginning of time have insisted on.
With this in mind, for the non-Catholics among us the Popeâs impending visit to the United States should be an opportunity to widen our mental telescopes to look beyond the fanfare headlines to take to heart the importance of interfaith respect in our increasingly fractious world.
Given tensions with the global Muslim community following the Popeâs Regensburg address in 2006, it is fair to say that Muslims are watching the visit closely. The televised baptism of a Muslim convert to Catholicism during the recent Easter Service was also a serious and potentially volatile event that may have been construed as a deliberate slight by the Pope and could have created a violent reaction on the part of Muslims (thank God it did not). Muslims, after all, believe that Islam is the final revelation in the ancient chain of divine teachings, and anyone converting from it to any earlier one is something that, by our own spiritual etiquette, should not be flaunted publicly, as it implies active opposition to the subsequent message and Messenger of Islam.
For Muslims, deep love of the Prophet Muhammad and taking a strong stand for Islam are strong and sensitive issues because we value Islam so highly â not because we think ill of Christianity, repeatedly mentioned as a legitimate religion in Godâs eyes in the Qurâan, along with Judaism. But human sensibilities are often dry tinder next to flames â Iâve always felt that Muslims should have ignored The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie when it appeared, rather than catapult it to best-seller status and themselves as unflattering representatives of Islam at the same time.
It is imperative that Muslims should revere the devotion of Christians and all others as they do their own, and greet a man or woman of God among us, whomever it might be, as a reminder of Him, regardless of the details of their theological differences. God in the Qurâan says:
Surely those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - [in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (Qurâan 2:62)
While the Church has its own agenda during this American visit, the Pope would also do well to extend its good will to the American Muslim community, putting aside any differences in its theological approach with non-Catholic believers. But it is equally important that Muslims remember that the Prophet Muhammad was sent as a mercy to all of mankind, as the Qurâan tells us, and that in fact kindness to neighbors of all beliefs and stripes, and even to peaceful manifestations of unbelief, is our paramount duty on earth to earn the good pleasure of God and draw nearer to our Prophet by imitating his good qualities.
Mutual respect, especially between religious entities, is really one of the noblest human attributes worthy of cultivating, and betraying that has led to no end of human tragedies. By maintaining our humility and eschewing pride in all its forms, knowing that all of us fall short of truly embodying the Ways of our various prophetic teachings, we quell any taint of ill-intentioned rivalry, and encourage, as Lincoln said, âthe better angels of our natures.â
Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore is a Muslim poet and author who lives in Philadelphia. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 55.285714 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/benedicts_fear_of_feminism.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/benedicts_fear_of_feminism.html
|
Benedict's Fear of Feminism
|
2008041819
|
The virtue of hope has been a leitmotif of Benedict XVIâs papacy. He dedicated his second encyclical to the topic (Spe Salvi) and is making âChrist Our Hopeâ the theme of this his first visit to the United States. But fear, not hope, has been a predominant note in his major writings on feminism and the changing role of women in the Church and in the world. Unfortunately, fear begets fear. For their part, many women, both Catholics and non Catholics, express wariness about the Churchâs positions on women. The are afraid, I think, that the Church will use its influence to reduce the opportunities for women to flourish, rather than to expand them.
So what does the Pope fear? In his âLetter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the Worldâ (2004), written while he was still known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith., he express concern about two aspects of contemporary feminism. The first is a tendency for women to seek power in order to overcome unjust subjugation. This can lead to âopposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other.â The second is a tendency to deny the fundamental nature of the differences between men and women, viewing those differences not as built into their very natures, but instead as âmere effects of historical and cultural conditioning.â Benedict worries that these tendencies have baleful effects on both the society and the church, particularly on the increasingly fragile traditional two parent family. He fears for a community that does not sufficiently appreciate the gift of children, and he fears for children who do not have both a mother and a father to raise them.
In response, the Letter advocates anthropology of collaboration between the sexes - not competition. Equally made in the image and likeness of God, men and women designed for partnership on every level, including the level of sexual relationship. They have different but complementary gifts. Women, in particular, have a âfeminine geniusâ that amounts to an expertise in âhuman relationships and caring for others.â Respect for âfeminine geniusâ first of all means protecting and promoting the role of women in family life, because that is where human beings âlearn to love in as much as they are unconditionally loved.â At the same time, Benedict does not want to restrict women to Kinder, Küche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church) â he affirms that women âshould have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.â
So what do women fear when they hear this vision of their nature and their lives? Well, one might say, so to speak, that the devil is in the details. It is one thing to advocate complementary between men and women as a general matter. Itâs an entirely different thing to start parceling out complementary character traits, which seems to be the very next step. Many attempts to do just this have been formulated in the past, by both Catholics and Protestants â now, they seem both simplistic and sexist. Contemporary efforts have not been more successful. In her recent book New Woman (Circle Press), which boasts an introduction by current U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon, papal feminist Gloria Conde sets forth this account, from Judith Bartwick:
âThe âmasculineâ is equivalent to the objective, analytical, active, inclined to thought, rational, indomitable, interfering, one who obstructs, independent, self sufficient, emotionally controlled, and self assured. With his mind, the man distinguishes, analyzes, separates, and perfects. The âfeminineâ corresponds to the subjective, intuitive, passive, tender, sensitive, easily influenced, docile, receptive, empathetic, dependent, emotional, and conservative. Her mind picks up relations, she possesses intuitive perception of sentiments, and she tends to unite rather than divide.â
This is exactly the sort of list that was once used by many people, not merely Catholics, to deny that women were fit to exercise the right to vote â let alone to run for President of the United States (Hilary Clinton), or to serve as Chancellor of Germany (Angela Merkel). Focusing on the differences between men and women, it obscures the substantial abilities and concerns that they have in commonâincluding rationality and self assurance, if my own female law students are any indication. Benedictâs understanding of âfeminine genius,â first coined by Pope John Paul II, easily embraces the tender qualities necessary to be a mother to small children. But it does not so clearly stretch to include even the firmness necessary to be a mother to adolescents in todayâs world, or the resilience necessary to many women who must struggle to raise children alone, or in politically uncertain or impoverished situations.
Is there a way beyond the fear to find a common hope? It seems to me that a good first step would be to move beyond abstractions to address concrete challenges together. It is harder, after all, to fear those with whom one works together for the common good. Pope Benedict has extolled the role of Mary as the perfect womanâboth virgin and mother. As every Catholic who ever prayed the Salve Regina knows, Mary points beyond her own perfection to the sufferings of the whole world, to the tears and sighs of the "poor banished children of Eve."
Who, concretely, are the poor banished children of Eve in our world? Who might be helped by coordinated action on the part of relatively privileged American feminists and the relatively privileged Catholic magisterium? Hereâs my suggestion: the women ravaged by the ten year old civil war in the Congo. The week before the Popeâs visit, Lisa F. Jacksonâs documentary, The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, premiered on HBO. The story is horrifying. Gang rape is ruthlessly employed as a tool of political violence. Over thirty percent of those raped contract HIV/AIDS. Unimaginably violated, sometimes with sticks and guns, these women are no longer virgins; their wounds are so grave they may never be mothers. But they, like Mary, are also made in the image and likeness of God.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope John Paul IIâs Apostolic Letter on the Dignity and Vocation of Women. Catholic relief workers and women religious already have a presence in the Congo. A concerted effort to stop the rape, and to bind up the wounds of the victims, would be a fitting commemoration of the document. It would also be a project on which everyone concerned about the well being of women could work together.
M. Cathleen Kaveny is the John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. She focuses her scholarly work on the relationship between morality and law. She graduated from Princeton University, and completed four graduate degrees, including her M.A., M.Phil., J.D. and Ph.D, at Yale University.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 96.357143 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/swaminathan_aiyar/2008/04/both_bush_and_greens_fuel_food.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/swaminathan_aiyar/2008/04/both_bush_and_greens_fuel_food.html
|
Both Bush and Greens Fuel Food Shortage
|
2008041819
|
George Bush and the greens, usually foes, have joined forces to create a food shortage that today threatens millions in poor countries with hunger and starvation. Greens have long demonized the consumption of petroleum and genetically modified foods, and crusaded against carbon. To this fatal broth, Bush has added the notion of energy independence for the US, backed by enormous subsidies and mandatory targets for converting corn to alcohol. This policy aims at doubling use of corn-based alcohol in gasoline by 2008, and quintupling it by 2022. Europe has mandated 10% use of biofuels in transport by 2020. The result is a rising diversion of agricultural land from food to fuels. This has happened just as fast economic growth has lifted the demand for meat in many developing countries, and it takes several tons of grain to produce one ton of meat. Combined with two successive droughts in Australia, this has caused a modest shortfall in food availability. But food demand is so inelastic that even a small shortfall sends prices shooting up. Other than Brazil, few countries can quickly bring additional arable land under cultivation -- all the best land has long been harnessed, and only marginal lands are uncultivated. And the green agitation against genetically modified foods, backed by many European governments, has discouraged developing countries from planting high-yielding modified varieties, for fear of economic sanctions.
Ironically, even if the US and Europe meet their biofuel targets, these will meet only 6% of their transport fuel needs. So, mandated biofuel use cannot give the West independence from Middle East oil supplies. But it can cause hunger and death for millions of poor people by raising food prices. Many green groups that claim to speak for the hungry millions have been deafeningly silent about the terrible impact of mandatory biofuel targets in the US and Europe, since the greens once led agitations for those very biofuel policies, blissfully ignorant of the consequences for the poor. Today you hear of activists appealing for more food aid, but no agitation for abolishing the insane, inhuman policy of mandatory biofuel targets. Greens may have reasons to worry about the impact of global warming a century hence. But the law of unintended consequences plagues all lofty planning by those with golden hearts. Todayâs food shortage is a classical demonstration of that. Finally, Third World countries have themselves contributed to high food prices. Many of them have banned or curbed food exports to improve domestic availability. But this in turn has exacerbated the food shortage in the world market, hitting chronic importers like Bangladesh, the Philippines and many African countries. This has rightly been called a âstarve-my-neighbourâ policy by the head of the International Food Policy Research Institute. What is the way forward? Scrap biofuel targets and subsidies immediately. That is the only policy action that can boost food production in the short run by switching global acreage substantially from fuel to food. All other policiesâimproving agricultural research, improving irrigation, ending scientifically nonsensical curbs on GM cropsâwill have much less impact, and take more time to work.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
|
PostGlobal features David Ignatius and Fareed Zakaria and other international figures in debates on global news and politics. Stay on top of international news and join the conversation at PostGlobal.
| 18.515152 | 0.545455 | 0.545455 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701058.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701058.html
|
Pontiff Prays With Sex Abuse Victims
|
2008041819
|
The 25-minute meeting at the Vatican Embassy put an intensely personal focus on a subject that has become an important part of the pope's Washington visit. It came after a morning Mass that Benedict celebrated for about 45,000 people at Nationals Park, the new baseball stadium in Washington.
Later, he met with interfaith leaders and Catholic educators, telling the latter not to stray from the mission of the church. The pope's visit to the nation's capital ends this morning, when he flies to New York. There he will meet with United Nations officials.
The Mass was the third time in as many days that the pope addressed the sex abuse issue, telling the silent crowd: "No words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse. . . . Nor can I adequately describe the damage that has occurred within the community of the Church."
A few hours later, the pope met with at least five abuse victims, all middle-aged men and women from Boston. Benedict requested the meeting, said Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the Boston archbishop, who was present during the gathering.
"It was very positive -- healing, I think -- and very prayerful," O'Malley said, describing some of the victims as being in tears. "It was a moving experience." The meeting was not announced in advance, and the names of the victims were not made public.
Each of the victims had a brief private conversation with the pope. Afterward, O'Malley gave Benedict a list of more than 1,000 people victimized over the years in the Boston archdiocese and asked the pope to pray for them.
National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" quoted Bernie McDaid, a victim who attended the meeting, as having told Benedict: "Holy Father, I want you to know you have a cancer in your flock and you need to correct that, and I hope you do. You need to do more."
Gary M. Bergeron, 45, a sex abuse victim from Boston who was not included in the meeting, welcomed it. "This is the first time in seven years that the leader of the Catholic Church has come out saying the behavior of the past is not acceptable anymore," he said.
Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, never met with sex abuse victims. Bergeron and a small group of Boston area victims flew to Rome in March 2003 in an effort to see John Paul II. They knocked on doors for five days and eventually met with an official from the Vatican secretary of state's office. But they failed in their effort to talk with the pope.
Since 1950, more than 5,000 U.S. priests have been accused of abusing about 12,000 children, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The church has spent about $2 billion on legal claims.
While Benedict was planning his trip, some U.S. cardinals urged him to include a meeting with victims, according to Bishop Gregory M. Aymond of Austin, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse. Other parties had urged him to visit Boston, the epicenter of the scandal.
|
Pope Benedict XVI talked and prayed with a small group of victims of clergy sex abuse yesterday, the first publicly known meeting between a pontiff and victims since the most recent scandal erupted in Boston six years ago.
| 15.15 | 0.65 | 1.05 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041702011.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041702011.html
|
South Korean Leader Plans New Outreach To the North
|
2008041819
|
The United States, since the Clinton administration, has urged Seoul to take this step, but this is the first time a South Korean president has officially proposed doing so. "Both North and South Korea must change their ways," Lee said in an interview with Washington Post editors and reporters.
The South Korean president, who will stay at Camp David tonight for meetings with President Bush, said that North Korea is having trouble adjusting to the new tone set by his nascent administration on inter-Korean matters. Lee has linked improvements in the economic relationship between the two countries to progress on eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, a significant shift from his predecessor's policy.
Lee, 68, a former chief executive of the Hyundai Group and mayor of Seoul, has signaled his intent to work more closely with the United States, particularly on the six-nation negotiations to abolish North Korea's nuclear programs. U.S. officials have high hopes for greatly improving the sometimes rocky relationship with South Korea during Lee's tenure.
During the interview, he embraced the recent U.S. proposal to have North Korea "acknowledge" U.S. concerns and evidence about its apparent efforts to enrich uranium and its suspected nuclear trading with Syria, rather than provide its own dossier on such activities. Lee said that the solution -- criticized by U.S. conservatives -- would offer North Korea "an indirect way to being involved in these two activities," therefore allowing the stalled negotiations to move forward.
In a further hint of flexibility, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested to reporters yesterday that Washington may lift two key sanctions against North Korea even before the nation's assertions are verified. "Verification can take some time," Rice said.
Lee's plan for liaison offices appears to be his own effort to reach out to Pyongyang in a novel way. North Korea has hurled a series of what he calls "belligerent and bellicose" statements about the South Korean president since he took office 50 days ago. In South Korea, Lee has also come under fire for not laying out North Korea policy. After winning the presidency, he proposed -- but then abandoned -- a plan to eliminate the cabinet ministry devoted to unifying the countries.
Lee said his administration remains "calm and collected" about the North Korean attacks. To that end, he said, he wants to establish a permanent channel so the nations could have a regular dialogue, rather than intermittent contacts elicited by crises. He said that offices should be headed by officials with direct access to the leaders of each country.
"Between the two Koreas we need to always have dialogue going on," Lee said. "In the past, we had dialogue between the two Koreas whenever there was a need, and then when there wasn't a need, the dialogue would close. I don't think that is helpful in the situation."
Lee appeared not to place conditions on this proposal, except he mentioned it in the context of the nuclear negotiations. "The purpose is while we try to solve the North Korean nuclear issue, at the same time we could also open up dialogue channels with North Korea to discuss and manage the inter-Korea relationship," he said.
Lee's comments were aimed at both Washington and the domestic audience back home.
"This is a proposal that very much reflects the center of South Korean opinion," said Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. "I think he also wanted to make it clear here in Washington that he has not abandoned engagement with North Korea, that this is not going to be a return to some Cold War past." Lee wants to show that "he is ready to engage, to talk to the North, even to provide humanitarian aid, but a broader approach to the North, including investment, will have to wait for a solution to the nuclear issue."
Lee, who earned the nickname "Bulldozer" as a corporate executive, wore a bold green tie and, through an interpreter, spoke confidently about his views on a range of issues, including the food shortage in North Korea, the U.S. economy and Chinese influence in North Korea. He jokingly noted that the Dow Jones industrial average rose more than 250 points on Wednesday after he rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.
Lee shrugged off concerns that a free trade agreement negotiated between South Korea and the United States is doomed because the Democratic presidential candidates have opposed it. "I, myself, who recently went through presidential elections, understand that during presidential elections you really are given no choice but take on positions that will benefit your prospects for becoming elected," he said. If either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected, the new president "will look into the facts" and make the right decision, he added.
|
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said yesterday that he will propose creating a permanent high-level diplomatic channel between North Korea and South Korea, including establishing the first liaison offices in the nations' capitals after nearly six decades of division.
| 20.521739 | 0.73913 | 1.304348 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041702248.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041702248.html
|
Report Finds Air Force Officers Steered Contract
|
2008041819
|
Sitting at the head of the table, Air Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Goldfein, the highest-ranking officer in the room, leaned forward and told the officers and others assembled before him that they should steer a multimillion-dollar Air Force contract to a company named Strategic Message Solutions.
"I don't pick the winner, but if I did, I'd pick SMS," Goldfein said to the seven-person group that was selecting a contractor to jazz up the Air Force's Thunderbirds air show with giant video boards, according to a lengthy report by Defense Department's inspector general. The head of the selection team almost immediately "caved," giving in to what he believed was a fixed process, while another member of the team called it "the dirtiest thing" he had ever experienced.
It was during that meeting in November 2005, according to the 251-page report, obtained by The Washington Post, that a controversial $50 million contract was awarded to a company that barely existed in an effort to reward a recently retired four-star general and a millionaire civilian pilot who had grown close to senior Air Force officials and the Thunderbirds.
In a probe that lasted more than two years, investigators concluded that Goldfein and others worked inside the Air Force contracting system to favor SMS and its owners, despite an offer by the company that was more than twice as expensive as a competing bid.
Goldfein, who is now vice director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, was found to have gone to great lengths to see the contract awarded to SMS, while senior Air Force leaders socialized with the company's partners. According to the report, Goldfein even arranged for President Bush to record a video testimonial in the White House Map Room that was included in the SMS contract proposal, demonstrating the company's credibility and access.
The report offers a blow-by-blow account of how a small Air Force contract spun out of control, highlighting conflicts of interest in the selection process, officers stacking the deck in favor of friends, and others influencing a system designed to eliminate such favoritism in spending taxpayer dollars.
"The investigation found that the December 2005 award to SMS was tainted with improper influence, irregular procurement practices, and preferential treatment," according to a redacted copy of the report. "Lower priced offers from qualified vendors and capabilities in-house were bypassed in an apparent effort to obtain services from [redacted], president of SMS, who had a longstanding relationship with senior Air Force officers and members of the Thunderbirds."
Goldfein and four unidentified officers have received administrative punishments, and investigators are scrutinizing the 99th Contracting Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in light of "irregularities" and "systemic weaknesses" that appear to plague the unit.
Goldfein declined to comment, but he told investigators that he "never interfered with the evaluation or selection process and never directed anyone to do or not do anything." But other members of the selection team said the process seemed "fixed" from the beginning.
"I am deeply disappointed that our high standards were not adhered to," Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne said yesterday.
The inspector general's report comes during a stretch of difficult news for the Air Force, including recent problems with the handling of nuclear weapons and nuclear missile technologies and the discovery of significant flaws in older F-15 fighter jets. While the Thunderbirds show contract was $50 million -- minor compared with billion-dollar aircraft contracts -- the inappropriate actions came just a year after former Air Force contracting official Darleen A. Druyun pleaded guilty to favoring Boeing in a tanker deal and was sent to prison.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is aware of the findings. "He is satisfied the matter has been thoroughly investigated and the Air Force is taking appropriate disciplinary action and corrective measures," Morrell said.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 17.880952 | 0.52381 | 0.666667 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/17/a_debate_about_the_future.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/17/a_debate_about_the_future.html
|
A Debate About the Future
|
2008041819
|
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) stand at their podiums during a break in the Democratic Presidential Debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008. (Reuters)
By Dan Balz PHILADELPHIA -- Barack Obama got the first real glimpse here Tuesday night of what he will face if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. Between now and November, the most important question he will be forced to answer is: Who is Barack Obama? That was the subtext of the relentless questioning he faced at the National Constitution Center here on Tuesday. For the first half of the debate, ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos threw one question after another at Obama that all shared the same underlying themes: what are your values and what do you believe? This was the first debate in which Obama felt the real heat that comes with being the front-runner for the Democratic nomination -- and it was an uncomfortable, though not necessarily politically damaging, evening for the senator from Illinois. Because of who she is, Hillary Clinton long has been treated as the leading candidate in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Even after she slipped well behind Obama in pledged delegates, even after his February winning streak, even after her path to victory had almost disappeared, Clinton still often found herself under the microscope, asked to explain and clarify and justify her positions and her campaign tactics. On Tuesday it was Obama's turn. How does he explain his long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and did he deliberately look away when he heard things that were truly offensive? What did he really mean by his comments at that fundraiser in San Francisco, where he was no doubt enveloped in a cocoon of liberal supporters? What was his relationship with William Ayers, once a member of the radical Weather Underground? There was so much to deal with that the name Tony Rezko, Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser -- who is now on trial on corruption charges -- was not even mentioned. Some viewers took umbrage at the questions. After all, it took 45 minutes or more to get to real policy, which is where the discussion remained for the rest of the night. But after 20 previous debates, Obama and Clinton had plowed through much, though not all, of the policy ground they were asked to return to on Tuesday. What had not taken place was a prime-time airing of questions that some voters may have about Obama -- and that his Republican opponents sense will be the keys to winning or losing in November.
Obama is the least known of the three remaining candidates. Hillary Clinton has been on the public stage for two decades, John McCain even longer. They bear scars from that exposure, particularly Clinton. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll underscored how damaging even this campaign has been to her. A majority of Americans do not think she is honest or trustworthy; a majority now have an unfavorable impression of her. Obama is not in that situation. His campaign for president has been extraordinary in many respects. For the most part, he has handled the adversities that have come his way, whether from his own missteps or the barbs of his opponents. And yet, it is clear that his biggest challenge going forward will be to make the country fully comfortable with who he is, where he has come from and what he believes. The campaign has begun to take a toll on him, as first the Rev. Wright controversy erupted and, more recently, his comments about small town values came to dominate the political dialogue. Neither appears at this stage to have damaged him significantly in his bid for the nomination. He remains on a slow grind toward that prize. But the signs of doubt and disillusionment from a wider audience have been growing. Some prominent conservative thinkers, people initially drawn to Obama's inspirational message of hope and unity, have taken a second look and come away with serious reservations about him. Republican strategists, who long have credited him with running an impressive campaign, now see vulnerabilities that were not evident early on. Democratic pollster Peter Hart long has said that Obama must yet cross a threshold with the voters before he can be elected president. That threshold is more than whether he is ready to be president, whether he can be a credible commander in chief. Instead it to give people a sense of confidence that he is someone with whom they feel comfortable, that he shares with them a life story and a set of values they expect of their president. Obama repeated Tuesday night what he has often said on the campaign trail, that his is a story that could only have happened in America. Born to a biracial couple, raised by a single mother without much money, given the opportunity to attend prestigious universities and succeeding in that competitive environment, then working his way up from community organizer to the first African American with a genuine chance to become president. That is the uplifting side of his candidacy, the stuff of story books. But his also is an unusual story, as befits someone who was born of a father from Kenya, who lived in Indonesia as a child, who grappled with his own racial identity, who worked on the streets of Chicago's South Side and who now, after only a few years in the Senate, seeks to occupy the most powerful office in the world. Some of this is clearly frustrating to Obama. First he was not black enough, now because of Rev. Wright he is accused of being too black. He and his mother struggled on limited means and now he is accused of being an elitist. Even more frustrating are the outright falsehoods that have trailed him throughout the campaign. He has been running now for almost 15 months. His positions on Iraq, health care and the economy have been laid out and, if not dissected fully by the voters, at least discussed at considerable length. But winning the presidency requires meeting other tests and Tuesday's debate offered a preview of what is to come if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. This is by no means an insurmountable test for Obama -- nor is it unfair of the media or his opponents to put him through this. Obama has reached a point in the campaign where he can almost touch the nomination. The presidency itself remains farther out in the distance, and reachable only if he successfully cross additional hurdles. That's what made the Philadelphia debate important.
Posted at 12:43 PM ET on Apr 17, 2008 | Category: Dan Balz's Take Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
I think we can all agree the "flag pin" question was a bit much, though I didn't realize "the women on the street" who asked the question was actually someone the NY Times quoted about this, but all these other questions really were legitimate. The media has focused on the Rev. Wright and "bitter" remarks ad nauseum, and this IS the first debate held since these issues came up. But the larger point is that of the other 20-something debates, many of them focused rather harshly on Clinton's negatives. This ONE debate was more focused on Obama's, the front runner's, negatives, and the whining is deafening - just deafening. I think that highlights pretty starkly just how great the bias in the media really is. And let's face it, if he had actually performed well, no one would be saying a word, other than to praise how he tough he is.
This entire argument highlights IMO a greater issue, the liberal media's overwhelming favoritism toward Obama, and that's actually the more substantive issue here. When Clinton was the front-runner, that was the "excuse" for her getting the majority of the hammering. If Obama makes it to the general election, you can bet he's going to get roughed up plenty and that these issues are going to come up again.
I know Obama supporters and the Obamedia are angry about this debate - well take a walk in my shoes. This is how the frustraition feels when the media is unduly influencing this election.
But Obama sure never complained about being the liberal media's darling for all these months. So . . . he can cry me a river. He's still way ahead on the media bias scale.
Here's an interesting article on the pin issue:
CNN's glass house: Sr. VP reportedly criticized ABC debate question about flag pin -- but CNN has repeatedly covered issue
Posted by: Teri B. | April 20, 2008 1:27 PM
Quote: "To the Obama slimy gutter rats" "So long, Obama gutter rats. "The Obama supporting pukes promptly go on the whiny binge, calling WaPo a Clinton rag. These buffoons have to be joking, except they are not funny, and they reek of vomit." "please don't come running to us Clinton supporters for help. You anaimals stink." "ANd yet, the Pampers diapered Obama supporters keep whining till the PA primary that their man got asked by ABC about statements he heimself made..."
Now there is your typical Clinton supporter, under-educated as the exit polls say, and as foul-mouthed as the Senator from New York.
Posted by: | April 18, 2008 8:47 PM
So Sen Clinton gets endorsed by 3 actual superDs and it gets a small print link on NYT and nothing at all on WaPo. Obama gets endorsed 3 old foggies (with one of them being a well known backstabber who has been all over the media badmouthing CLinton for a while now) whose support counts for exactly nothing, and the endorsement gets BIG print, big link, and talked all over the net, TV, blogs...
ANd yet, the Pampers diapered Obama supporters keep whining till the PA primary that their man got asked by ABC about statements he heimself made, and about the pastor who married him and got his children baptized.
When Sen Clinton got grilled by "I am Mr Fair" Russert over the spelling of Medvedenko (or Medvedev, or some gas company CEO Putin lackey), none of these same Obama fans moved a lip and said that was n't a relevant question.
ANd yet, these Obama supporters think they can win the general election w/o the support of 1/2 of the democratic party.
Posted by: intcamd | April 18, 2008 7:28 PM
The WaPo, after thoroughly infested with racist and sexist viruses like Eugene Robinson, Colby scumbag, EJ Dionne, Gerson, and other assorted pondscum, finally posts a token article saying that the debate was not unbelievably unfair to Hussein Obama.
The Obama supporting pukes promptly go on the whiny binge, calling WaPo a Clinton rag.
These buffoons have to be joking, except theyare not funny, and they reek of vomit.
When Mr Hussein Obama is given a proper Lee Atwater and Karl treatment in the fall, please don't come running to us Clinton supporters for help. You anaimals stink. Please turn to your pits of the earth heroes and heroines like Rich, Reich, Dowd, Kristoff, Matthews and other stinkeroos to try and stem the damage, but by then, Obama will be likethe emperor with no clothes.
Posted by: intcamd | April 18, 2008 7:16 PM
The Obama suppporting gutter rats are whining all over the net, as is their main man, that oh mommy, he got asked a question or two on Wright, and how MR Hussein Obama himself shot his Harvard educated mouth all over the topic of bitterness and further compounded by saying joblessness leads to clinging to god and intolerance of strangers.
The same Obama gutter rats and their main man Obama of course sat smiling smugly through 20 debates as moderators piled on Hillary, asked her to spell the name of Medvedenko, to taking the mike away from her for a commercial, to thundering her down on driver licenses for illegals, and so on; in the mean times, spinster bi**&es like MoDowd were yucking up all over the net about what Hillary wears, her hair, her sex life, her husband's sex life and so on.
To the Obama slimy gutter rats, any thing is fair game on Clinton, but oh no, their main is not to be touched.
Come the fall, when he is raked over the coal by the Rethugs, the CLinton supporters will be smiling as well. Hopefully, a whole bunch of us will vote McCain or write ROn Paul's name or just sit home and enjoy the balmy Nov weather.
So long, Obama gutter rats.
Posted by: intcamd | April 18, 2008 7:05 PM
From today's news. Another one:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Robert Reich, a former labor secretary during President Bill Clinton's administration, endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday.
"My conscience won't let me be silent any longer," Reich wrote on his blog in announcing the endorsement for Obama, who is in a hard-fought Democratic presidential battle with former first lady Hillary Clinton.
Reich said he had delayed a formal endorsement because of "the pull of old friendships" but he believed Obama offered the best chance of creating a new kind of politics and transcending old divisions."
Posted by: wly34 | April 18, 2008 4:30 PM
bi-racial. Anyone could have put up that link on the internet. Including YOU??
Posted by: | April 18, 2008 3:51 PM
All I know is that biracial people have been talking about taking over the world for some time now (see: Biracial World Domination - http://www.biracialworlddomination.com ) and it looks like Barack Obama is just claiming whatever racial heritage he needs in order to further their goals.
Posted by: biracial | April 18, 2008 3:04 PM
I think that I have worn a flag lapel pin once in my long life. And someone else pinned it on me then. Does that make me a bad American?? Nope.
Posted by: | April 18, 2008 1:03 PM
"Some viewers took umbrage at the questions."
You haven't been paying close attention. A visit to the post-debate forum at ABC News, among many other sites, will reveal to you the near universal loathing that's representative of the feeling viewers had about the circus sideshow that masqueraded as a debate. You also seem blithely unaware or unconcerned that the questions raised in the first 50 minutes of the "debate" have been answered so many times that rehashing them on Wednesday night merely has the effect of badgering the witness. With the exception of yourself, David Brooks, and a handful of other mediocrities which whom you really don't want to be associated, most reasonable people recognize the questioning of both Clinton and Obama (but mostly Obama) as a reputation-destroying hatchet job. The sad conclusion your readers must draw from your "Take" is that Barack Obama can offer no explanations or justifications for any of his decisions, choices, or beliefs that will satisfy folks like you.
(This may be a double post. If so, my apologies.)
Posted by: Sam Hankins | April 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Senator Clinton has my vote if I were an American. Cable Tv is looking for cable repair personnel who can dodge sniper fire. By the way, where was her Pin??
Posted by: justadad55 | April 18, 2008 9:45 AM
When Clinton was asked about sniper fire in Bosnia, I wish Obama would have asked permission to answer that question on Clintons behalf. He could have made a sharp case against gotcha Politics by pointing out that the issue had been rehashed on end for the past weeks and that both he and Clinton were there to discuss Politics, to debate issues that matter to the American people in their daily lives. In this way, Obama would have undoubtably won acclamation from both campaign camps. He thereby would have pressured ABC to change the course of the debate and he would have come across as both with it and above it. - Michael Mettler, Switzerland
Posted by: Michael Mettler | April 18, 2008 7:04 AM
If they were both to be forced to wear flag lapel pins jammed into their foreheads until they die, Stephie and Gibson--and now by extension, Balz--shouldn't live their performance in this "debate" down. Before the next election the entire journalist-moderator-45-seconds-to-reply format should be junked. It leads to consistently awful results and has since the 1970s.
And my God, that Mr. Gibson, who normally poses as Mr. Average Joe, is sure worried about anybody raising his capital-gains taxes!
Posted by: Anthony | April 18, 2008 4:22 AM
Long ago, in the posh suburbs of NY, a plan was hatched.
"We shall find a man, a man who is totally unelectable. He must be able to hide his unelectable nature until there are only two left."
Later, the man kept winning, one after another of his faults kept blowing up all around him. He stank horribly, but the people kept voting for him.
"What is this?", she said, "How is this happening?" "We do not know" they told her honestly, "the man is an obvious Marxist, he is secretly a Muslim, his wife is the only woman is the world hated more than you, he has been exposed as a hater of whites, Jews and small town America, a hater in fact of all things American, yet they keep voting for him and defending him"
So she fired them all. Then she had him secretly drugged just before an important debate. He babbled and stuttered and stammered his way through that night, looking totally confused. "Brilliant!!!" his supporters screamed. "God damn ABC", yelled others.
Alas the end is not yet written, stay tuned to see how it ends.
Posted by: Hello Everyone | April 18, 2008 2:35 AM
Posted by: tabassum | April 18, 2008 1:25 AM
Hillary should have won Super Tuesday with all of her base infrastructure and Clinton machine and old brand name but did not! As to the vetting "show"-- passed off as debate--of Barack Obama by ABC moderators and Hillary, yes Senator O did manage to see it through with a degree of composure. BUT obviously O was not prepared to withstand attack by the 2 moderators and Hillary v. Barack Obama (Vetting). The old guy moderator was even discourteous to Obama, interrupting Obama as he responded to questions! But, contrary to posts congratulating you for performance of last evening, Hillary, you lost again big with your, "yes, yes, yes"! Remember, under cover of MSM and "shows" your campaign handlers & you said, "no, no, no". For shame, Hillary! Last evening debate you showed yourself a liar again and also a big coward--your closing statement was slack, after having spent all your energy attacking Obama. Obama's closing was thoughtful, on his message, strong enough after the drubbing by 3 on 1. Unsurprisingly, an dismayed audience expressed vocal outrage for the ABC hit "debate" and moderation. Time's Halperin scored Obama and Hillary B range overall for style, substance, offense, defense, indicating that the debate did not change front runner status of Obama. Time's Halperin noted that Hillary camp would view H as the winner based on the outward dynamics. IMO Hillary didn't convince supers that she is the ONE: That is unless, supers want to send to the GE a consummate liar who also showed herself flopper and coward in response "can O beat McC?"question. But Hillary did say that she may be many things but she was not dumb: =dumb enough to say "no, no, no" to the O beat McC question in full broadcast, though she and her campaign say so on "shows," MSM, conference calls, etc. all the time! The democratic party should broker an endgame with neither Hillary or Obama as nominee--since Hillary lost at super Tuesday and has responded by reacting so viciously to the campaign of Obama: She's a surrogate for the republican McCain. I am so ashamed of the democratic party's fiasco of a primary. So, I'm finished following it after PA April 22. How sad sad sad sad a primary! Out of Control!
BTW this post of Whippy is ON MESSAGE: "Actually, the subtext of the questioning was *not* "Who is Barack Obama?" The subtext was "What can the media -- and Hillary and McCain -- get away with pretending Barack Obama is?" Trying to fit him into a dismissive storyline hasn't worked, so far." BTW this post of ? is OFF TOTALLY: "... I say to all those who have been penalized for fighting tough battles. To all those who have paid their dues only to see a cute, ambitious upstart stroll in and steal the show. To all those who favor substance over style. To all those who have had to work so hard only to see the tall and young and good-looking get the credit. To all those who are sick of seeing hard earned experience get wiped out by 'charisma'..." No, with everything going for her Hillary was out-strategized by young Barack Obama. FINALLY, Senator O may not win because he is 21st century phenomenon; he is the global new world order; he is an American some Americans FEAR for such reasons as first USA president potentially of the new global order of governments. He is young, brilliant, and fresh. IMO, Hillary and McCain truly fear Obama who campaigns out of a new playbook. So, at endgame now Hillary, Bill, with McCain, with media vet him. Obama upended team Hillary and Bill; but Obama is indeed struggling now Vs. Billary the McCain surrogates AND McCain abetted by their operatives? Three vs. One.
Posted by: Victoria PA | April 18, 2008 1:03 AM
OBAMA failed the test during the debate. He still has a lot of questions to answer for... especially his association with Ayres - the TERRORIST!
Posted by: East Side Love | April 18, 2008 12:37 AM
To some extent this was more of a belated interview than a debate, with Barack Obama having to answer questions about his personal associations. But some of us actually do want to know more about Barack Obama's character. Reasonable people are not going to get hung up on whether he wears an American flag on his lapel. But there are reasonable concerns about some of his personal associations. These are not easy questions, but they are an important part of the vetting process. Even if some of these questions have been asked before, Obama still was not providing satisfactory answers on ABC. The defensiveness of Obama supporters is telling in itself - if he was able to provide straight answers, they would not have to post thousands of angry rebukes of the questioning.
Posted by: Ross | April 18, 2008 12:35 AM
Look this is one of the few times Obama got the Hillary treatment from the media, and he didn't look near as good as she does when the going gets tough.
Obama took the Karl Rove playbook from Bush's 2000 campaign. . . . AND NOW, he's acting just like Bush did toward Florida . . . and now also Michigan.
If Obama was a real difference maker, he would be saying things like, "I'd rather the people have a real say, than be President. Let's seat those delegates and let the chips fall where they may."
But no, with Florida and Michigan Obama's shown his true colors -- and they are not noble, just a plain, ordinary, tell the lies politican.
Anyone, who wants a President that can rise above the muck of politics and bring an honorable standard to the White House, need look no further than Florida and Michigan to see that Obama's not their man.
Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 18, 2008 12:16 AM
Obama going to change how things are done in Washington. Every election the candidates say that and it is the same and has been since John Adams. Our founding fathers foresaw it and designed a system around it. Learn from history or you will repeat it. George Bush ran on a platform of changing how business is done in Washington and ending partisanship, and look what that got us. The Obama supports have drunk the cool-aid and are incredibly out of touch with reality. Obama needs to be touch enough to deal with the "Swift boat" attacks and all the scrutiny that every other Presidential candidate has had to live through for the last 35 years. Get over it and grow up. Everyone blames the press when they are not receiving flattering stories; the press merely asks what thousands if not millions of Americans ask. Nice to see Obama finally getting scrutiny. So stop being cry babies.
Posted by: Amused | April 18, 2008 12:11 AM
"...Obama must yet cross a threshold with the voters before he can be elected president. That threshold is more than whether he is ready to be president, whether he can be a credible commander in chief. Instead it to give people a sense of confidence that he is someone with whom they feel comfortable, that he shares with them a life story and a set of values they expect of their president."
Huh? Are you saying that Obama needs to make voters feel like he's someone they'd like to have a beer with?
Isn't that the Washington Borg mindset that got us into this atrocious war? Isn't that the mindset that has given us 43 white male presidents?
Haven't you Washington turds learned ANYTHING??????
Posted by: Amy | April 18, 2008 12:04 AM
The President of the United States is the most powerful position in the world. The individual who is seeking such a position cannot shrink from any questions, and must be able to explain himself or herself, fully and completely, and without exception. The president must be above reproach in all aspects. That President Bush may be viewed as not attaining that standard cannot justify an argument that such a standard is obsolete. If any candidate, Democrat, Republican or any Third Party chooses to run for that office, that person must be able to be tough and to handle any situation. While I am 'only' 43 years old, I have followed politics for most of my life, and I cannot remember any debate where the moderators were blamed and attacked with such vitriol and name calling as what has occurred with this debate. My impression is that the moderators posed very difficult and very relevant questions to both candidates, and that the reason that those who are blogging who support Obama are so beside themselves is that the curtain on this candidate, and what he stands for, and who he associates with (which are issues that are unquestionably relevant), has been lifted, and he has now been asked to explain himself and now has been compelled to reconcile his beliefs, which, by most accounts are not shared by the majority of voting Americans (emphasis on 'voting'), with such a majority view. Going just a bit further, it almost seems as though there is some trepidation on the part of Obama supporters that their candidate will be so scrutinized to such a degree so as to reveal his true values systems, political agenda and beliefs, and that the vexation that the Obama supporters appear to share as a result of last night's debate ultimately finds its source in the fear that the voting population as a whole, having been made aware of Obama's true posture, will be voting for McCain in November for the reason that McCain will be viewed as the 'lesser of two evils.'
Posted by: Brian | April 18, 2008 12:04 AM
The sad thing about this article as much of what I've choked back vomit to stomach is the bias against Obama. It's so unfortunate in a nation that is supposed to be for the free and the brave.
The bias against him may be racial, it may be because he signifies change. This bias may be because he signifies a joining together of blacks, whites, asians, latino and other races that frightens mainstream biases that linger from antebellum and pre-antebellum days.
It's really sad in this day and age that a paper such as the WaPo, NYTimes, even ABC could be so ignorant as to purposely call themselves professional in this election.
The CNN faith forum on this past Sunday showed a commentator so racist, she should be removed from her position as a reporter. This woman was a vulture in that her obvious bias and mean spirit not only shows unprofessionalism, it exudes her racism.
Many people like her seem to be ignorant when they act in such a disparaging manner.
When persons of color meet these ignorant types, who come across mean, condescending, even asking such personal questions about his daughters, minors the show the ignorance of their racism, hate and venom permeates outward, yet the people who experience such behavior, never call them out, but acknowledge and experience within him/herself that these people are have an ignorant disease of racism that exists this day and time, unfortunately.
Posted by: scheduler | April 17, 2008 11:59 PM
I keep saying Americans are a funny lot and whenever I log onto the news, I'm proven right each and every time. I just couldn't stop laughing at the moronic questions posed to Senator Obama. The flag pin was a killer. I couldn't stop laughing over that one, especially since neither moderators nor Hillary Clinton were wearing one. And then there were 8 shots of Chelsea Clinton sitting in the audience - one or two shots would have been, well, normal media coverage. But 8! If that isn't a blatant effort to sway the electorate, I don't know what is. So much for ABC objectivity. And then there were a myriad questions regarding Senator Obama's associations most of which were inane to say the least. How terribly convenient ABC didn't ask about Senator Clinton's affiliations with a whole host of dubious characters let along the controversies that plagued her and her husband the last 15 years. But my hat goes off to Senator Obama, he neither shrank from the inquisition nor did he wine as Mrs. Clinton did during a debate about questions always being directed at her. In fact he looked pretty presidential and pointed out the blatant contradictions (i.e. 2 members of some long gone radical group that Bill Clinton himself pardoned). I see how it works at ABC: guilt by association for one candidate and a free pass for the other. Too funny. And then there are the attacks on Senator Obama for being elitist. I just can't keep from tearing up from laughter over that one: Americans constantly wine about their deteriorating education system and when someone actually manages to get an excellent education, they tear him down for being elitist! Oh America, you just gotta love it. And the sad thing is this ABC political hack job may just work because the average American is, well, just not too bright. No you say? I'm being elitist you say? A snob? Well, please allow me to retort: Ronald Reagan, two Bushes and the Iraq War. I rest my case.
Signed one of the many citizens of the world still waiting for a Gentler Kinder America. Oh please....I can't stop laughing!
Posted by: World Citizen stilling waiting for a gentler kinder America | April 17, 2008 11:49 PM
Although I only saw snippets from the debate, after reading these comments and the other coverage on the net and in the newspapers here in Europe, it looks as if Stephanopolous (wasn't he from Sesame Street?) did his worst - and Obama tackled it well. The only thing you can do when coming under groundless personal attack is to try to pull the debate back to the issues. He didn't lose his cool. Clintons supporters (and McCains') seem to have very little to throw at him. Pastor Wright? A tenuous connection with a former Weatherman? In the succinct phraseology of the Vice President: "So?"
Posted by: Roger | April 17, 2008 11:33 PM
The media just won't admit that its possible to ask tough questions about issues that matter, and that ABC chose not to do that. Come on Dan, stop spinning and print the truth.
Posted by: JoshA | April 17, 2008 11:28 PM
Unless Jesus the Christ is running for president, I think everybody ought to back off a little. Don't be stupid! This country is in for a tough ride no matter who wins. America will need to back the next president if she is to come out of this hole that she's in. We had better learn that none of us are truly worthy to hold the highest office. Take a look at yourself and look in your closet and you will see what I mean. I'm sure that because we are so critical of others that we probably have eliminated some other good candidates to run this country. Why? Because we want someone who's perfect....like us. Someone who looks, act, and think like we do. To bad you and I are not running and quess what, Jesus the Christ is not running for the office either. So lets just stick with the real issues and no more "Obama who when he was eight at the time, shook hands with the hotel doorman who turns out use to be a KKK member. Therefore he should have known and not shook hands with that man. Didn't he know what KKK stand for? What would His pastor have to say about that. Doesn't he know that it un-American to associate with people like that?" Just kidding but I think you get the point.
(What's in your wallet, I mean closet?)
Posted by: Keep It Up! | April 17, 2008 11:28 PM
I believe he was drugged before the debate. The fix was in. Someone must come forward and volunteer to be Barack Obama's food and drink tester. I am too old and cannot stay up until 3:00 AM in the morning, which presidents apparently do quite often. Please, somebody else give this man some help!
Regardless, Mr. Obama will survive and learn from this. He will come back strong. He will have the rain and sun gods on his shoulder. Women will want to get to know him too.
And best of all, he will turn off the Iraq war machine.
Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | April 17, 2008 11:17 PM
Obama = kerry = dukakis = stevenson.
Liberals of all people should aknowlege that a from-humble-roots black guy can be an elitist.
Pelosi and all the rest are only here because the Clintons dragged the Dems kicking and screaming to the center. It now seems we're determined to slip back to sucking our thumbs in loserville proudly discussing how the rest of the county just doesn't understand what's good for them.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Obama is talking about unifying the country from a position TO THE LEFT of Clinton. Before he goes for the big prize he should first try to just make back a little closer to the middle.
Posted by: Peter | April 17, 2008 11:17 PM
Posted by: Steve | April 17, 2008 11:13 PM
This piece is entirely newsworthy because it points out a debate that Obama got hammered rather than Hillary. News to those of us who follow the information avidly, yet got tired of watching the debates about 15 ago :)
Frankly, I think his association with the Rev. Wright was purely about maintaining political status in his hometown, without the intention of running for POTUS. When it comes to church, it's not only the preacher you are making contacts and ties with.
I'm also curious as to why we have this almost hyper-obsession with every single choice these people have made since birth. Is it trying to compensate for re-electing GWB? Well we can't change that. Let's look at them as potential leaders, not saints. I'm fairly certain I couldn't stand the scrutiny, could anyone else?
Posted by: Silverlining | April 17, 2008 11:08 PM
More horrible coverage from the establishment media as usual.
GUESS WHAT - we don't care about this crap, so stop writing about it! I want to read the real issues, not you trying to fit these candidates into some same old script comparing politicians' personalities.
Posted by: Shawn | April 17, 2008 11:07 PM
I think Jtk's comment is worth repeating:
nonsense. it was tabloid tv disguised as "news" or "journalism." it was an embarrassment to ABC and an insult to viewers. and no amount of "the republicans will do it to him later" rationalization will change that.
and I would add the Mr. Balz is an embarrassment, too.
One always hopes that these "debates" are about public policy issues important to all of us: the economy, health care, war and peace, etc. etc. Last night's debate takes the prize for absence of discussion on anything of substance.
Instead we got the trivial and specious.
Dear Mr. Balz, the polls seem to show that the voters have moved on and are not concerned with "anger and bitter," the Pastor, and lapel pins. Unfortunately, the media talking heads still are. Why is that. Stupidity? Ego! Or, are they having difficulty with the notion that the next President of the United States will not be a white, anglo-saxon protestant male or female.
Posted by: Peter | April 17, 2008 11:02 PM
Obamaniacss!!! GET A GRIP! HE LOST IT LAST NIGHT. TAKE IT LIKE A MAN YOU ALL AND DO NOT BE A BUNCH OF CRYING BABIES. HE LOOKED REALLY BAD DURING THE DEBATE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HONEST ANSWER FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS HE GOT. HE WAS NOT PREPARED FOR MODERATORS THAT WANTED TO KNOW THE TRUTH. WE DO NOT KNOW WHO BO IS. THE ONLY THINK WE KNOW ABOUT HIM IS HIS NAME, THE WORD CHANGE AND THE NOT SO PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN, WIFE.
Posted by: KH | April 17, 2008 10:59 PM
Yes, you're right. The Republicans are masters of inane and asinine non-issues. Unfortunately, this election will be about issues that affect us not more Lee Atwater stle wankery. Everyone has seen the devastation that those types of policies and politics have brought us.
Posted by: January 20, 2009 | April 17, 2008 10:58 PM
To all Democrats who say they will vote for McCain if their candidate (be it either Hillary or Obama) doesn't win the nomination: WHY would you vote for the Republican platform - take a good look at what they stand for. Please do not do the "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take my toys and go home - so there!" attitude. That will spell further disaster for the country. Do you really want another war-mongering, far right thinking person in the White House??? McCain is not the moderate he once was. He has flip-flopped more than a beached mackerel - check out his most recent views on all the major issues. And prepare for more years of war in the Middle East.
Posted by: mew | April 17, 2008 10:56 PM
Hillary's "image" is irrelevant. What are we? Too stupid to not realize that she's a say anything shrew? I'd have liked her a great deal more had she run a decent campaign on the issues and not relied on her "machinery" to crown her by acclimation. She made wrong assumptions which lead to the wrong strategy and now she has been using childish tactics which are quite transparent and empty. Too bad for America. She needs to re-group and become a Senator of note, and help and support Obama get this country corrected and on the right path again. She still has work to do, just not as President.
Posted by: michael4 | April 17, 2008 10:55 PM
Does Obama normally stutter? Or is this new? Also he used "thing" too many times. Puzzling..
Posted by: ruth | April 17, 2008 10:49 PM
I've been reading a lot about the candidates and have been open to Obama's message but I'm getting the same feeling some others are expressing. I know he's a smart guy and a great speaker but I worry about him being elected President. Bush was elected by people who believed in his simple message and look where we've wound up. Presumably Obama has some very good advisers but the country has a lot of challenges and I'm afraid he's not up to the task. Clinton's and Obama's policies are similar and whoever wins the presidency will have to deal with Congress. I don't believe that Congress is going to be swayed by a good speech.
I've seen many references to Obama being a transformational leader but I don't see how he's going to transform society. He's biracial which is fine but assuming that makes him transformational (whatever that means) is to me a reverse kind of racism just as assuming that because he's biracial that he cannot be a leader. I guess I just don't see where all the passionate belief of so many supporters comes from. I truly wish I would have an opportunity to see his performance in the Senate for a few terms so I could decide.
I have a much better idea of how Clinton handles things. Some other posters here commented that they don't mind her being a b****. I guess since I don't plan on being buddies with her I don't care a whole lot about that either. Other countries have had successful women leaders who were tough. I want someone who will stand up to other countries who wish us harm and to folks in this country who think Cheney and Rove are heroes.
Posted by: Linda | April 17, 2008 10:42 PM
AT LEAST HE DIDN'T "CRY" YET AS HILLARY TRIED TO DO IN N.H.!!! I DIDN'T SEE TEAR THE FIRST!!!
Posted by: Mary | April 17, 2008 10:27 PM
Rev. Wright served his country in the Marine Corps...
Posted by: Mary | April 17, 2008 10:19 PM
Hey, Virgin Mary, Son Jesus is wailing. He had a bad debate night. Can you go change his diapers?
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:24 PM
What utter nonsense. Who is Hillary Clinton?
Why has she gotten off so lightly? W Posted by: saraz | April 17, 2008 8:14 PM ----------------------------------------------- Hey Shiraz, I love you a lot as a wine. As a person - NOT! Obamanuts are very stupid but most will concede, Hillary has done many things. Getting of lightly IS NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS. LMAO!!!!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:22 PM
Obama and the Country of Doom
Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.
His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo "Roy" Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama's military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and "Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel," or Obama's super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.
And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama's life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes? The American public has been fooled before and I guess those in power know we can be fooled again. (Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the invasion of Iraq...).
The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.
Posted by: Sammy Rauls | April 17, 2008 10:22 PM
As usual, Dan Balz gets it absolutely right. Any candidate who can't tell people who s/he is is going to lose. Would people be so upset if he hit a home run with any of those questions? Does anyone even remember what Obama's answers were? If not, that's a problem
Posted by: Seattle skeptic | April 17, 2008 10:22 PM
Oh, poor Barry the bitter Bigot. He didn't get nice questions about diversity, and global warming. People asked him questions about character and associations and he objects. Poor Barry the bitter bigot.
Posted by: Quiet Patriot | April 17, 2008 10:20 PM
Obama, tell me of your accomplishments that merit my vote for you as POTUS.
Posted by: Ed | April 17, 2008 10:19 PM
Rev. Wright served his country in the Marine Corps, which I'm sure you already know and has also been a guest at the WHITE HOUSE of your girl Hill and Mr. Casanova!!! Also, at the time Barack was living in Indonesia, would you have had any reservations about Muslims??? No? Your answer HAS TO BE "no". Because at that time SEPT.11th hadn't happened. So why do you keep bringing up the fact that he lived in Indonesia, etc.? Remember...he lived there when he was a KID...MANY, MANY, YEARS AGO!!! BUT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHO YOU'RE PERSONALLY BACKING...FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK LAST NIGHT'S "DEBATE" WAS WARMLY RECEIVED BY MOST AMERICANS, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO ABC NEWS' WEBSITE AND SEE THE RESULTS OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT THAT JOKE!!!!
Posted by: Mary | April 17, 2008 10:19 PM
"It's so interesting (and somewhat pleasurable) to see the Obama supporter attack machine set its beady eyes on the media now that Obama is starting to be asked the hard questions. I encourage you all to send the usual death threat emails to ABC so they can finally write a story about the hatefulness of Obama supporters."
Hillary, go to be honey. The bags under your eyes are getting scarry. And Dont worry about Bill-- He always shows up the next day looking for some reasurance from you.
Posted by: Ann Lewis | April 17, 2008 10:11 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey, Ann. Don't know if your husband or brother or sister or mother or father or pom-pom or chiwawa told you this: Humor NOT your strength. Put Comedy down, raise your hands and step away from it.
Posted by: You Not Funny | April 17, 2008 10:17 PM
Posted by: Andrew | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM -------------------- Andrew, a great comment.
Posted by: HarryJ | April 17, 2008 10:17 PM
There was a shot of Gordon Brown shaking hands with Obama. It was hilarious. Even Obama could not believe he was being allowed to touch Gordon Brown.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:12 PM
"It's so interesting (and somewhat pleasurable) to see the Obama supporter attack machine set its beady eyes on the media now that Obama is starting to be asked the hard questions. I encourage you all to send the usual death threat emails to ABC so they can finally write a story about the hatefulness of Obama supporters."
Hillary, go to be honey. The bags under your eyes are getting scarry. And Dont worry about Bill-- He always shows up the next day looking for some reasurance from you.
Posted by: Ann Lewis | April 17, 2008 10:11 PM
The only sober guy in the business of Journalism. Obama mania has not left him untouched either but he is a real trooper. He is trying all he can not to turn.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:11 PM
Mommy! Mommy! Journalists are asking my candidate some tough questions. Stop them. Stop them. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Posted by: Wimps | April 17, 2008 10:09 PM
Obama's wimpiness is enough in my mind to disqualify him from the Presidency. The guy up on the podium was anything but ready to be The President of United States. He was a joke. Irritated, petulant, whiny - it was pathetic. What he dealt with, Clinton has been dealing with for 16 years.
So wake up Obamabots and smell the coffee. Return to planet earth.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:04 PM
Man! We need a change in the media; some new fresh blood. We need new faces with new though provoking ideas. we need real journalist, not real jokers. The networks and cable stations are full of egos. Does the story has to always be about them? For instance, why are Charlie and Stephanopoulos the story here after a so called debate? Didn't these knuckleheads learn anything from Carol Simpson and her performance? Shame, Shame, Shame, on these tabloid entertainers working for Disney. Stephanopoulos ought to identify himself as someone who worked for a republican administration everytime he interviews a Democrat. Fox or better known as SLY TV doesn't have to much to say on their unfair and unbalance tabloidcast either. Rise up young people and take back the airways as well as our country to a higher level!
Posted by: Journalist not Jokers! | April 17, 2008 10:04 PM
"By the way, you were wrong, you can choose your family. You chose Bill as your spouse. You should have walked out the door twenty years ago."
Posted by: Gloria S | April 17, 2008 9:55 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."
"God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye."
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
"We started the AIDS virus ... as a means of genocide against people of color."
Hillary hangs with someone who cheats on her. Obama hangs with someone who commits treason.
What should we do ... what should we do.
WHAT, IN LAW, IS THE CRIME FOR SOMEONE WHO CHEATS AND WHAT, FOR SOMONE WHO COMMITS TREASON!!!!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 10:03 PM
Dan Balz is just another Washington lightweight reporter. If you've ever dealt with news people like I have, they're just after the quick one liner. They want the headline, not the real story. Whether or not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can handle the presidency is not as important to these news gatherers as is a quick soundbite. Major issues of the day which require a complex mind to analyze are not half as sexy as flag pins, mild associations with acquaitances, and other irrelevant garbage. These are not the issues that define how a leader will perform. They are irrelevant small minded junk that fits the small mind of the reporters who ask them. last night's debate gave us 50 minutes of crap. Timethat could have been spent on Trade, china policy, global warming, and things that really matter. When issues werea addressed, no one bothered to question Hillary Clinton on her astounding pronouncements on the middle east and her beligerant attitude toward Iran. But these reporters were on top of the slips of the tongue that both candidates had made. Great reporting? I think not!
Posted by: Jaybrams | April 17, 2008 9:59 PM
This kind of analysis can only be written from deep inside the political media bubble. because you have heard the candidates' policies debated many times, you assume voters have too. But many primary voters don't tune in to the campaign at any level of detail until it's in their state.
Posted by: jssmad | April 17, 2008 1:29 PM ---------------------------- jssmad: You are absolutely right, and some of those primary voters are college students who don't have the time to follow the campaigns closely. An example: Yesterday in an article written in our newspaper after Chelsey Clinton spoke at a local college, a first-time voter is quoted about Obama as follows: "He was the only one who voted against the war from the beginning." "He never flip-flopped or changed." This shows two basic things that the student doesn't know about Obama. One, not knowing when the vote was taken and two, not knowing that Obama was in the Illinois state senate in 2002 when the vote was taken,so he couldn't have voted against it. Accidentally, the student did get one thing right, but it didn't have to do with the vote on Iraq. It had to do with Obama flip-flopping and changing his mind on his "oops" votes in the Illinois senate. I do not think this student is the exception, and there are thousands of them who are not informed about the candidates.
Posted by: HarryJ | April 17, 2008 9:58 PM
Shame that the media has decided only now to get serious with Obama.
They had so little time and so many things to discuss with him that they couldn't even get to Rezko.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:56 PM
"By the way, you were wrong, you can choose your family. You chose Bill as your spouse. You should have walked out the door twenty years ago."
Indeed. They are both seriel abusers-- they abuse the public trust, and Bill is a creepy old man, and before that a creepy younger man.
I can't understand why so many are still so enamored with the Clintons.
The Clintons set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that justified BushCo to say and do whatever they want.... "because they can". As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, "because he could".
Folks, it was not a very good eight years..... Heath care reform debacle, the Republican landslide, I did not have sex with that women... depends on the definition of what the word "is" is, the right wing conspiracy... lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ, stained dress as evidence, DNA tests, Whitewater, Hillary's destroyed documents, the small investment that magically turned into a fortune, Marc Rich and cash for Pardons. All of the missed opportunities and lost years because of Monica. Credible allegations of rape against Bill when he was Governer.
Don't we deserve a chance at something better?
Posted by: Gloria S | April 17, 2008 9:55 PM
Why does Obama need angry supporters to defend him? Ins't he supposed to be applying for the job of defending us?
So ABC grilled Saint Obama for a change. He didn't exactly soar above the flames. In fact, he actually came away with a few subtle third-degree burns.
It's good to see what Obama will do under intense pressure. If he survives grilling by American reporters, he's well on his way to understanding the adversity he'll face with stubborn foreign leaders as President. If he can't handle ABC, how will he do when he sits down with the leaders of Iran and Syria?
Finally, Obama himself fuels continued controversy over the "40 minute issues" because he consistently clams up when his judgement or past connections are questioned by the media. If he (1) stopped hesitating to answer questions fully from the beginning and (2) stopped dismissing questions about his judgement as "manufactured issues" maybe he'd actually dispell some of this controversy surrounding him. He keeps the sharks swirling around his boat because he keeps dropping blood in the water and then gets mad when the sharks won't go away.
Obama can put all the controversy to rest, but first he needs to understand that he needs to answer questions to the satisfaction of the media and the voters, not merely to his own satisfaction.
If Obama is as good as he says he is, he will survive these attacks. If he sinks, he has no one to blame but himself.
If we make Obama out to be a victim, and vote him in because we feel sorry for him, he will truly be "President of the United States of Victims." He must be "President of the United States of American," or nothing at all.
Posted by: Andrew | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:54 PM
Did any of you people who are so obsessed with American flag pins ever think that maybe people don't want to wear pins of ANY KIND because they put holes in clothing??? Personally, I can't afford to buy new clothes all the time...too many other more important things to take care of !!!
Posted by: Mary | April 17, 2008 9:54 PM
hehe Obama wore a flag lapel pin yesterday, a few months after bitterly railing that it was phoney patriotism.
First he for the flag, then against it, now for it.
Guess he is a phoney patriot.
Posted by: Harold | April 17, 2008 9:53 PM
Obama's spiritual advisor Rev Wright's church is building Rev Wright's retirement home, a 10,000 sq foot home with a golf course and $10 million line of credit in a white neighborhood called Tinley Park in Chicago. Maybe, he only hates poor whites. Because the church is tax exempt, it is hard to get more information.
Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 17, 2008 8:30 PM
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:52 PM
Posted by: Sara Bergstein | April 17, 2008 9:51 PM
Look at all the whiny Obama people...Obama takes a little heat and all the Whole Foods shoppers wags their indignant manicured fingers. THIS is what is wrong with America where PC has triumphed over reason and experience. Where the self-righteous pompous hypocritical liberals are so used to getting their way that they can't fathom the reason why anyone would dare to even question their favorite pseudo post-racial poster child.
Obama has himself to blame to fend off those questions. It is his own conceit and lack of judgment that has put him in the spotlight. Obama has to take those punches like a man.
We're electing a president here; not a high school council president. If the liberals really want to walk the walk they should move out of their gilded encaves and into black neighborhoods. They should take their kids out of private schools and have them experience what real America is like.
Posted by: mtlyorel | April 17, 2008 8:03 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Beautiful.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:51 PM
I thought the moderators did a great job. For the first time Obama wasn't handled with kid gloves. He didn't get to answer the majority of questions after Clinton, so he had to come up with his own answers. His supporters are outraged because he didn't perform very well. Part of the reason is that he hasn't been given the same treatment as Clinton, and he actually seemed shocked and angry that he might actually be called on some things. He would have been a better candidate if he had not been given a free pass from the media for so long.
Posted by: greenfun | April 17, 2008 4:41 PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good, good!
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:49 PM
One thing is clear from the debate.... Barack is a gurly man incapable of articulating his own defense when challenged. This does not bode well once the republican attack machine rears its ugly head. He will never deliver on his promise to reduce the price of bitter arugula at Whole Foods Market.
Posted by: Fran | April 17, 2008 9:48 PM
It's so interesting (and somewhat pleasurable) to see the Obama supporter attack machine set its beady eyes on the media now that Obama is starting to be asked the hard questions. I encourage you all to send the usual death threat emails to ABC so they can finally write a story about the hatefulness of Obama supporters.
So many nice postings, so little time...
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:47 PM
What utter nonsense. Who is Hillary Clinton?
Why has she gotten off so lightly? W Posted by: saraz | April 17, 2008 8:14 PM
Saraz! What planet are you living on?
Posted by: Kevin99999 | April 17, 2008 9:47 PM
Its funny. This article gets published in the middle of the day and the Obamabots descend like a swarm of zombies. As if they had been waiting for a debate related publication. Middle of the day. HRC supporters out to work. Evening comes. HRC supporters return from work. Balance returns. Its beautiful. A thought comes to mind. Either the Obamabots don't have a job or this is there job. Hmmm ... where is Obama putting all that money ? I wonder ....
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:46 PM
An underinformed, overstimulated Wesleyan sophomore liveblogs the Democratic debate:
\"8:22: Gibson poses a question to Obama about Jeremiah Wright\'s anti-American comments. But has anyone considered that Wright said some pretty true things about pervasive racism in America? Read your Cornel West, folks.\"
Posted by: Eliana | April 17, 2008 9:46 PM
The overt Obama-bashing tenor of this debate will inevitably generate some sympathy votes for him in the same way a few debates did for Hillary.
Posted by: Mary Collins | April 17, 2008 9:45 PM
It wasn't "heat" it was mud.
Oh how I would have loved a discussion of solar energy as focused as the discussion of whether Obama's pastor loved Jesus more that this mighty nation.
Heat might have been something like, both of you seem to be supported by the Nuclear power industry money.... Or, heat to Hillary, "You voted for the war in Iraq, and now you are talking about extending the nuclear umbrella of the US to include additional nations....
Posted by: jfp | April 17, 2008 9:44 PM
LYNN PARKER: NO ONE ELSE EVEN WANTS TO DIGNIFY YOUR THREATENING-SOUNDING POST, BUT I WILL; GET SOME HELP!!! YOU NEED IT!!!
Posted by: Mary | April 17, 2008 9:44 PM
WHAT TO expect FROM THESE TALKING HEADS? THEY PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND THEY KNOW NOTHING. IT IS ALL ABOUT THEM TRYING TO BE THE HEROES OF OUR EVER SHALLOW media.WE NEED A PANEL OF REAL INTELLECTUALS AND SCIENTISTS ASKING QUESTIONS AND NOT THESE pathetic IGNORANTS.
Posted by: Gus | April 17, 2008 9:40 PM
Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama
While the storm clouds gather far across the sea, Let us repudiate a land that's so called free, Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair, As we raise our bitter voices in a solemn prayer.
God Da-mn America, Land that I loathe. Stand astride her, yet despise her With a chip on a shoulder from above. From the plantations, up to Harvard To the Jews rich from our blood God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.
Posted by: Harold Icky | April 17, 2008 9:40 PM
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A RACE CARD, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OBAMA . . . . He's a walking race card.
Less qualified, worse Health Care Plan, and 90% of the black vote.
And on the side lines, the Republican big wigs are pulling for him, because they can skim off the Latino vote.
Well, now Obama's near-about's got the election in the bag, so the media can start coming out of its closet and begin to look neutral.
Quietly, the Republican big wigs have been pulling strings for Obama. Just look at the response of CORPORATE media.
Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 17, 2008 9:40 PM
"21 debates and 16 months of HRC getting this kind of treatment and look at the complaints when Barak gets it once. This is why I have been saying lay off the personal attacks and let's look at real policy, what they have done and their proposals.
Same old Clinton/Rove deceptive polemics. No basis in fact.. Just shrill threats, impertinence and sneering lies. UGLY and the Nation is catching on.
No one in the media has dared lay a glove on HER ARROGANCE because of the Clinton/Rove code of knee capping anyone who dares challenge.
Hey ABC News, how bout those donations to the library and the Chinese contributions?? Talk about character issues.
No. Let's play the diversion game of questioning Obama about his loyalty to the US. Lapel flag, etc.
Have you decency Hillary, ABC News, Lieberman, Weekly Standard????
This behavior and ethic is not what the US is about and will be repudiated. Yes, it does result in short term gain, like kicking a man in his balls. But it is fundamentally inhumane and we know it in our gut.
Posted by: Sara H | April 17, 2008 9:38 PM
It's funny how the minute someone asks Barack Obama some hard questions, everyone who supports him is up in arms. In previous debates much time was spent hammering Hillary Clinton and giving Obama a pass and no-one complained. ABC did an excellent job. They asked questions that had not yet been answered and the only reason it took so long to get past it is because Obama took so long to answer. He tried several times to give speechy responses that didn't answer the question and for the first time he had interviewers who pointed him back to the actual question. The reason everyone is so angry is not because the questions weren't relevant. They are angry because Obama came off angry and defensive. He avoided answering questions and on numerous occasion resorted to attacks on Hillary which he always followed with his BS but I don't want to be negative.
Anyone who watched this debate with an open mind came away feeling that they had actually seen a DEBATE.
Barack Obama and his campaign have done nothing but whine all day because he wasn't treated with Kidd Gloves. He has been attacking Hillary Clinton non stop for weeks and yet has the gall to continue to say she is being negative.
If we had seen more debates where the candidates were pushed to answer the actual question as they were last night we would be seeing very different primary results.
Posted by: cheryl | April 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Mr. Balz, What a load. I just lost all my respect for you.
Posted by: Jotham Stavely | April 17, 2008 9:27 PM
Wow! Dan is right - this is the first debate where Barack Obama was put on the defensive and all the Obamaites are screaming foul and other assorted insults to everyone in their path. Hillary gets this daily and nightly, and all through the debates - so maybe now you guys know how it feels!
Whatever you may feel about the ABC moderators, they are the first to go this length to dig deeper into who Obama is. Be glad, guys and gals - he needs a little more practice in being in the hot seat just in case he makes it and takes on the GOP nasties. I still think Hillary is the real thing - but if BO gets it, I'll be there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ah, so many nice postings to second and so little time.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:25 PM
Again the Obamaites prove that they are delusional, bereft of factual knowledge, scream like infants when they don't get their favorite toys. Yes, your idol has feet of clay and no amount of posturing, denial, screaming and yelling on the part of Obama and his supporters will hide the fact that Obama is not ready for prime time.
Yes I am interested in the questions posited at last night's debate and in Obama's and Clinton's answers. I don't want a President who can't explain satisfactorily his association with Wright and Ayers and who has difficulty in articulating his convictons and beliefs unless he has a script and teleprompter. I don't want a thin-skinned President who can't own up to the truth.
I am surprised no one has hauled the race card yet. What are you Obamaites waiting for?
Posted by: alee21 | April 17, 2008 9:24 PM
At each of the debates, the moderators have phrased difficult questions in such a way as to be almost apologetic to Obama. I have serious concerns about Obama's past associations and his dismissive, condescending tone and evasive answers. The man is only asking to be the President of the United States. Can you imagine Churchill or Roosevelt taking a stand on an American lapel pin or not holding your hand across your chest during the national anthem. It's disrespectful. With respect to his pastor, his answer was not truthful. Obama is a highly intelligent man. You mean to tell me that he never heard or was aware of Wright's incendiary remarks after 9/11. Unbelievable. As far as the Ayres controversy is concerned, Bill Clinton pardoned. Hillary is not Bill.
Posted by: David | April 17, 2008 9:22 PM
May be it is time to have a debate about the sleeziness of the media, both on the right and the left. Who should we choose as a moderator?
Posted by: Kevin99999 | April 17, 2008 9:17 PM
If you note the tone of the Obamamaniacs, that is the way they respond. You might think that they do not think. We need to remember that Obama is paying over 3,000 bloggers so we do not even know if the postings are from real people or from one of those mechanical robots known as the hired Obamananiacs. You can ever hold an intelligent discussion with them, since they only resort to insults to the media, in this case ABC for asking the proper questions, or against Hillary because they really do not have any factual basis for their insults. There is nothing to discuss since all they can write is a bunch of blah blah blah blah based on no proof or facts.
Posted by: Definitely Common Sense | April 17, 2008 9:16 PM
It's interesting that some folks would count acting in a dignified manner as a "loss". Regardless of your political bias, if you believe in honesty, dignity, and respect than Senator Obama clearly met the mark. HRC supports who wonder why no outrage came when she was supposedly under attack was because she was being questioned on things she actually did or said - not about the people she associated with. Lastly, I guess Clinton supporters also don't mind that she went 'all Republican' last night when she forcefully spoke of major aggression toward Iran. Goldwater's girl is back and this time she's not just helping to block Civil Rights for African Americans...she's Bush-Rove-Cheney bent on dismantling humanitarian rights all under the guise, "I'm a good American because I'll shoot ya"
Posted by: Carrie | April 17, 2008 9:15 PM
Quote: "Should be THE deal breaker."
No, the "deal breaker" will be the upcoming Clinton fraud trial where Hillary will be required to testify. Before the general election too. I can hardly wait.
Posted by: annonymouse | April 17, 2008 9:14 PM
Wow! Dan is right - this is the first debate where Barack Obama was put on the defensive and all the Obamaites are screaming foul and other assorted insults to everyone in their path. Hillary gets this daily and nightly, and all through the debates - so maybe now you guys know how it feels!
Whatever you may feel about the ABC moderators, they are the first to go this length to dig deeper into who Obama is. Be glad, guys and gals - he needs a little more practice in being in the hot seat just in case he makes it and takes on the GOP nasties. I still think Hillary is the real thing - but if BO gets it, I'll be there.
Posted by: jblee | April 17, 2008 9:14 PM
There is an interesting pattern here with Obama. I remember when the Rezko thing first came to light. Initially, it was greeted with a chorus of "tabloid" journalism, but as questions progressed Obama has been forced to change 3 times his account of how much money he has taken from the slumlord. He still has not explained the strange transaction where Rezko purcharsed that parcel of land then sold it back to Obama, all in the same day, for less than he paid. Smell a rat? Am I a racist for asking legit questions about Obama's character? This is one Dem who is not about to drink the Kool-aid.
Posted by: No Kool-aid for me | April 17, 2008 9:14 PM
Just what is it that make BHO think he is tough enough to be President? Hillary Clinton has faced a lot of tough questions. When she made a mistake she admits it, but then she comes back swinging. No question the girl has guts. I would not want to be the one opposing her on health care, jobs, or brining our troops home.
Nor would I want to be a country attacking an ally of the United States when she is Commander in Chief. She knows leadership and she knows the importance of standing tough.
Posted by: djstates | April 17, 2008 9:14 PM
I have news for you, Obama is the next president. First president for all Americans whit and black. Debates like last night sealed the deal just like the NCAA Championship in the 60s between Texas Western and Kentucky. Field the racist team, and lose. Obama will win because he is simply better.
Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 17, 2008 9:13 PM
Finally, people are waking up to what a paper maiche candidate Obama is. Actually, He's like a balloon. Prick him a little and he bursts. The bit about brushing dandruff off his shoulders during this speech today is another example of of his condescension and arrogance. He's like a spoiled child who cries when things don't go his way. The Democrats could/should easily won back the presidency in 2008. But if Obama is the nominee, it ain't gonna' happen because this country doesn't want a juvenile in the White House.
Posted by: Jay | April 17, 2008 9:12 PM
To Obama & his big ugly in your face racist wife a typical white American is closed minded, anti-immigrant, gun toting, bigots! Maybe that is due to spending 20 years listening to the hate filled rants of the Rev. Weight against Whites, American or hanging around with terrorist, slum landlords and the Islam Nation leaders!
Obama From Dreams of My Father,
" I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASISVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE". Barack Hussein Obama From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race (WHITE) would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." Barack Hussein Obama From Dreams Of My Father: "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, BLAMING "WHITE PEOPLE - some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives." Barack Hussein Obama From 'Dreams Of My Father', "There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT and name names" Barack Hussein Obama OBAMA EXPRESSES HIS ADMIRATION FOR ISLAM: &g t; Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father: "THE PERSON WHO MADE ME THE PROUDEST, though, was [HALF BROTHER] Roy .. HE CONVERTED TO ISLAM" From 'Dreams of my Father', "IN INDONESIA I SPENT TWO YEARS IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL" "I STUDIED THE KORAN" From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (OBAMA'S STEPFATHER) FOLLOWED ISLAM...."I LOOKED TO LOLO FOR GUIDANCE". From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." From The Audacity Of Hope, "WE ARE NO LONGER JUST A CHRISTIAN NATION," "WE ARE ALSO a Jewish nation, A MUSLIM NATION, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." Obama is telling us plainly that he APPROVES of Islam. DENY TH AT HE ISN'T! He tells us how proud he is of his brother who converted to Islam!! (by the way, his brother is a radical Islamic in Africa!) He tells us that he looked to his stepfather for guidance and that he was a MUSLIM. He tells us blatantly that HE WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS. He tell us that he DID attend a Muslim school, although his handlers have tried to deny it. He is telling us that America is no longer a Christian nation- that western civilization which owes its greatness and strength from the morality outlined in the Bible, and by Jewish teachings is no more!! What do you think might be the possible consequences of electing a president with admiration for Islam?? Mass immigration of radical Muslims?? Yes. He wants an open border! Amnesty for the invading horde!
Posted by: jeff | April 17, 2008 9:11 PM
For the first time we can say that Obama treated him the way they should have treated him from the beginning. Since he is used to hold the press and media in the palm of his hand, his reaction was a mixture of surprise and "how come"? He was unable to get out of that mood. Well, Obama, since this is the way you handle pressure and real questions, it is enough to support my conviction that you still have a long way to go to even try to run for the presidency of this Nation. While looking at you I kept remembering your images mockering Hillary shouting and laughing like a demented man "Annie Okley, Annie Okley." I believe they forgot to ask you about why you decided to make the comments you did to a bunch of rich guys in CA when those rich donors were asking you why you were failing to convert voters in PA. I hope you learned a lesson from Hillary yesterday. You still have such a long way to go that it is unbelievale. And yes, for the first time I disagree with Hillary, if you are to be the candidate, I will vote for McCain since even when you might be ellectable, it does not mean that you are ready to be elected.
Posted by: Definitely Common Sense | April 17, 2008 9:09 PM
21 debates and 16 months of HRC getting this kind of treatment and look at the complaints when Barak gets it once. This is why I have been saying lay off the personal attacks and let's look at real policy, what they have done and their proposals. This type of coverage should happen to neither candidate- so I think Obamites can maybe take a step back and let go of this method of dealing with HRC now- although this seems unlikely. I feel like more likely someone will respond to this post with accusations of killing Vince Foster, calling her emotional or crafty or yelling about an embellished story in Bosnia.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 9:00 PM
"Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems."
It is going to be a hard lessen when these arrogant little fu**s realize that there will be accountability for this kind of behavior. It may not be immediate but people are indeed keeping score and there will be a reckoning.
Same for the Gov of Penn. If he doesn't distance himself from Hillary's despicable racist McCarthism he too will have limited political career options.
The Clinton's or Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution.
Obama is not the type to think in terms of retribution. But a lot of his supporters will enforce retribution so that this grotesque behavior does not get rewarded. It will be clear that there is a huge cost to not speaking against the Clinton/Rove/McCain/ garbage.
She is beyond sleazy, corrupt and dishonest.
She is the Joe McCarthy of this Millennium.
Posted by: betty | April 17, 2008 8:59 PM
I've noticed that many of the negative comments directly at ABC seem to be very similar, using words like tabloid. Come on, this is an election for President. People who ask questions are either racist or biased. This may fly with the kool-aid Democrats, but come the general election it will be 1972 all over again!
Posted by: Fred | April 17, 2008 8:59 PM
Look, I've never seen anything like that in my life and neither have u. It is not accurate to say this is what he will face. He will never face that kind of a cauldron again, a freakishly one sided group of moderators and a two flanked attack. A debate structured in that way has never occurred before, it can only hapen once because it was a right wing ambush. I challenge you to give an example of a debate between a Democratic and Repubican candidate in the past that was in any way similar.
Now Bill says he is whinging because he wants to talk about issues. And Hillary (who uses the talking points of the far right) was the one going on about cushions a few weeks back.
Posted by: b ryan | April 17, 2008 8:55 PM
I call that republican babble. The "issues" addressed in the first 50 minutes of the debate are republican "issues".
Let's do a reality check--democrats don't give a flying-bat's behind about the republican's issue. Democrats find republican standards for picking a candidate ridiculous.
Made in China flag lapel pins is not a democrat issue--it's a republican issue
Who Obama sat next to on a philanthropic board is not a democrat issue--it's a republican issue.
Whether there was sniper fire or not in Bosnia is not a democrat issue--it's a republican issue.
Republicans don't vote for democrats, so what do we democrats care what the republicans think.
Posted by: Catherine | April 17, 2008 8:53 PM
Well now . . . Obama's near-about's got the election in the bag, so the media can start coming out of its closet and begin to look neutral.
The fact is that Hillary is by far and away the best candidate, AND with the best health care plan. . . . But because there's a "black thing" going on (code word for prejudice), a lesser candidate has ridden a 90% black vote to the nomination, because of the color of his skin.
If the Republicans really wanted to run against Hillary instead of Obama, they would actively be recruiting their folks in a get out the vote drive. And I'm not just meaning their talking peanut-brains like Rush Limbaugh.
Quietly, the Republican big wigs have been pulling strings for Obama. Just look at the response of CORPORATE media.
Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 17, 2008 8:47 PM
To me, a flag pin is an empty gesture if you have done nothing to actually demonstrate your patriotism and love for your country.
Just like bumper sticker patriotism--because the sticker on my car will get better medical and educational benefits for our vets.
Posted by: jlm062002 | April 17, 2008 8:46 PM
obama will disarm and enslave America. his rolodex is full of America haters, can you really believe they have no influence?
Posted by: Dwight | April 17, 2008 8:45 PM
After 20+ debates of basically the same thing over and over...wasnt it nice to have something a little different?? Come on you bunch of morons!! FREE YOUR MINDS!!
Posted by: maddogjts | April 17, 2008 8:42 PM
Get real!This is just a very small taste of what is to come after he wins the party nomination.Sing the ditty,"The swift boats are a coming"to the tune of The shrimp boats etc.You get the picture.By the time Rove and company get through,going into a shredder would be more merciful.
Posted by: Ray | April 17, 2008 8:42 PM
the only thing this debate answered was the question of whether the media can keep sound bites of both candidates alive for ratings.
Posted by: jlm062002 | April 17, 2008 8:36 PM
The media made the mistake of assuming that the people of the United States can be manipulated as easily as they were in the last century. Lets not forget that during that century they pitted wasps against immigrants and white against black. But if they paid attention to the change in education, that most people have friends across racial lines, and that Americans are multicultural today -- media would have known that they were way behind the times. Reality is hardly spoken of that Americans love each other, whether of different race or background and dont care about superficial patriotic symbols like flag pins and such. They care whether the candidate really loves us all as a people, and is prepared to accept us. That's what matters. The old way is no longer the way and its time to realize that the change has already happened.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 17, 2008 8:36 PM
Maybe we could all email KenM1 's lists of topics ignored to get to stupid flag pins to Dan Balz and ABC!.
How about? *Global Warming *Wall Street reform *NAFTA *CAFTA *Financial stimulus *Government corruption *Finance reform *Oil subsidies *Afghanistan's decline *Rise of China *Medicare going bankrupt *Medicaid going bankrupt *Social Security going bankrupt *National dept *Reliance on China's funding *Lead paint in toys, lack of regulation *Transportation infrastructure *Port security
So really. Nothing left to talk about. My opinion of the nation press is dropping faster than housing prices.
Posted by: steve k | April 17, 2008 8:36 PM
Obama's spiritual advisor Rev Wright's church is building Rev Wright's retirement home, a 10,000 sq foot home with a golf course and $10 million line of credit in a white neighborhood called Tinley Park in Chicago. Maybe, he only hates poor whites. Because the church is tax exempt, it is hard to get more information.
Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 17, 2008 8:30 PM
This kind of analysis can only be written from deep inside the political media bubble. because you have heard the candidates' policies debated many times, you assume voters have too. But many primary voters don't tune in to the campaign at any level of detail until it's in their state.
Why don't/won't political reporters take ANY responsibility for their role as agenda-setters, perpetuating the almost-exclusive focus on so-called character issues?
Posted by: Srdjan | April 17, 2008 8:29 PM
Posted by: Seth | April 17, 2008 8:26 PM
ABC News is not the only one who should be ashamed. The media in general has been extremely stupid and sleazy for several months. You are immature, and I include you Balz and the Washington Post. You talk about process, about silly gaffes. That is how we got into that goddamn war. You have failed in your jobs to inform. And death of 4000 dead soldiers is partly your fault.
So I implore you to grow up, grow a spine, and start covering news like an adult.
Cut the garbage, give us real news on real issues.
Posted by: Kelly | April 17, 2008 8:25 PM
I agree with Shales. I tried to watch but switched to History channel once the first commercial came. I could tell even then how the questioning would go. George S. and Charlie G. should be embarassed with the National Enquirer type questions asked. Laziness or agenda, or a little of both. In hindsight, I should have expected this from ABC. Maybe Gibson and George are not as smart as I thought they were.
Posted by: Bob | April 17, 2008 8:22 PM
p.s. I look forward to WaPo and the rest of the MSM vetting MCCain in the extreme just like they are slamming both the Dems.
You will do that, right? You're not just GOP shills, right? So prove it.
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 8:21 PM
"Barack Obama got the first real glimpse here Tuesday night of what he will face if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee."
So he will have to face debate moderators who spout rightwing talking points?
So he will have to face onesided attacks by the so-called moderators?
The problem is not the heat, it is the bias. You just DON'T GET IT!!!
Pledges about taxes? Rightwing talking points that their sacred capital gains MUST NOT BE RAISED? Pledge on Israel? Guns?
They might have well have had Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney moderate, because this was the RNC debate, not the ABC debate.
And yet, WaPo still doesn't get it.
Let me spell it out: Not the scrutiny, but the **BIAS**.
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2008 8:19 PM
To me, the best argument for electing Barack Obama is that we will finally be rid of 1968. The year that created the template for all political discurse since.
William Ayers????!!!!! Flags on the lapel -- didn't Nixon start that? The Reverend Wright -- a throwback to the Panthers. Enough already! John McCain still has his head in the Tet Offensive.
It's sad that these things constitute the overriding concerns in Dan Baltz' outmoded political world.
Posted by: | April 17, 2008 8:18 PM
Yes and his vision won. Look at the hundreds of thousands of responses every major news outlet is getting. Look at the 17,000 ABC got on their website, almost 95% of them taking the network to task for this ridiculous "gotcha" debate.
A real sea-change took place last night. Offered more of the same the American people, including those who don't support Senator Obama, roundly rose up and told the media enough! Journalists should be quaking in their boots.
Posted by: John Diclerico | April 17, 2008 8:16 PM
What utter nonsense. Who is Hillary Clinton? Why has she gotten off so lightly? Why hasn't the press scrutinized where the Clinton's got their money from? Why didn't the press play the tapes of Hillary using identical segments of her most "heartfelt" speech from both her husband and John Edwards. These embarrassing side by side video clips were all over the blogs.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, you can be sure that the Republicans will be scrutinizing her closely. The exposee of the "real Hillary Clinton" has not yet begun.
Both Obama and Clinton will be "under the microscope", but Clinton has a longer history with more dirt to uncover.
Posted by: saraz | April 17, 2008 8:14 PM
You are right -- it is not unfair to put Obama through this. The problem is, it just goes on and on. We get it. The Rev Wright issue was legitimate, but there's nothing left to say about it. Nothing in the debate helped me decide who to vote for. I felt ABC did a terrible job coming up with questions, the answers to which might make a difference to voters.
Posted by: Jack Baker | April 17, 2008 8:14 PM
Its actually amusing to see American media flailing in the 21st century using the yellow journalism of the last century like it has any meaning today as our jobs are destroyed and health care benefits taken away. ABC was like a colonial newspaper trying to act like some segregated state protecting the population from change. It was really laughable because ABC was living in the last biggoted century rather than the multi-racial America of today. When will they get it that their constituency is not lilly white and conservative any more. Dont expect asians, african americans, and hispanics let alone many whites to support this trash journalism.
Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 17, 2008 8:13 PM
Don't legitimize dirty politics. Just because he'll face more slimy attacks on the way to becoming president doesn't legitimize the ones in last night's debate. This isn't the NFL where a quarterback's got to learn to play against tough opponents in the regular season before winning in the playoffs. This isn't a game. It's for the direction and well being of our country. Dirty politics is a tactic, but unlike blitzing the quarterback, there's a moral element to it as well - it's wrong. And it's wrong because it's bad for our democracy and for the well being of the people. You're not a sports reporter - you're a political columnist - try to remember that.
Posted by: C Liss | April 17, 2008 8:08 PM
Happy "By the way, why does Hussein studder so much? Is he an idiot, lead poisoning, or does he suffer from some type of mental disorder?"
You are the moron. He is the one that both Clintonista and McSamians have been calling too glib. One tired performance and you bigots are all over him.
Get a life or join the local chapter of you-know-what.
Posted by: DrRay | April 17, 2008 8:08 PM
ABC stepped to a new low last night. That was nothing but biased tabloid journalism directed primarily at Obama.
You would expect that from Fox News, but hardly from ABC. Of course, now I know better. ABC has lowered its principles of what constitutes professional journalism, namely: focus on "gaffes" and side issues rather than substantive ones.
Posted by: WaltD | April 17, 2008 8:07 PM
Are you kidding me flag pins and patriotism is heat? I call it a weak attempt at replicating 20th century prejudice in a new century where it wont work. It not only fell flat, it was offensive to America. We are not a white mass of homogenous bigots, we are a people who expect reasoned questions. This debate was an example of how American has failed the world in the most explicit and obvious terms.
Posted by: Paul J. Nolan | April 17, 2008 8:06 PM
It is a shame for liberals that most of us bitter white folk think Obama is a crock of shet. His view on government finance seem to be crafted by some B- student in 9th grade high school. " I want to raise taxes to make things fair. " How stupid of a statement is that? What has to drive Obmama supporter crazy is the fact that he cannot win without the support of us crazy white folks who thinks he has not a clue about how to lead. By the way, why does Hussein studder so much? Is he an idiot, lead poisoning, or does he suffer from some type of mental disorder?
Posted by: Happy | April 17, 2008 8:04 PM
Look at all the whiny Obama people...Obama takes a little heat and all the Whole Foods shoppers wags their indignant manicured fingers. THIS is what is wrong with America where PC has triumphed over reason and experience. Where the self-righteous pompous hypocritical liberals are so used to getting their way that they can't fathom the reason why anyone would dare to even question their favorite pseudo post-racial poster child.
Obama has himself to blame to fend off those questions. It is his own conceit and lack of judgment that has put him in the spotlight. Obama has to take those punches like a man.
We're electing a president here; not a high school council president. If the liberals really want to walk the walk they should move out of their gilded encaves and into black neighborhoods. They should take their kids out of private schools and have them experience what real America is like.
Posted by: mtlyorel | April 17, 2008 8:03 PM
To quote another poster from elsewhere, "Pro-War then Anti-war, Pro-Nafta then Anti-Nafta, Pro-gun control now Happy Hunter, Pro-Colombian interests now Anti-Colombian interests and now she has also found religion.."
With all these contradictions and lies, Hillary got off easy. Obama on the other hand was publicly lynched by two white men and a white woman.
And I say this as a non-African American.
Irish for O'bama! Obama-Gore or Gore-Obama or even Obama-Pelosi '08!
Posted by: DrRay from Ohio | April 17, 2008 7:54 PM
|
Between now and November, the most important question the Democratic front-runner will be forced to answer is: Who is Barack Obama? --Dan Balz
| 696.142857 | 0.964286 | 8.535714 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703642.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703642.html
|
Suburban Schools Reject Metal Detectors
|
2008041819
|
In spring 1991, after a teenage girl stabbed a classmate in the cafeteria of an Anacostia school, the D.C. Board of Education voted to install metal detectors at the front entrances of 10 middle and high schools.
No other school system in the region has embraced the technology, even as metal detectors have multiplied in courthouses, museums and other public buildings across the region over the past two decades.
Many school officials view metal detectors as costly, impractical and fallible. To suburban parents, they conjure up images of armed camps. Even at Albert Einstein High School in Kensington, where three loaded guns were found in a locker last week, consensus is building against them.
"I don't want my son to come to school through metal detectors. That's prison," said Alex Colina, speaking to several hundred other parents at a community meeting Monday night.
Metal detectors are notably absent from the binge of security enhancements at public schools across the nation since 1999, the year of the Columbine High School massacre.
Other safety measures have proliferated in this decade, an initiative fed by fears of terrorism, the 2002 sniper attacks and several other school shootings. Security cameras, school-based police officers and locked entryways all are far more common now than a decade ago, according to the latest Justice Department findings on secondary school security, released in 2007. Schools now routinely conduct emergency drills, sometimes enlisting a teacher to stalk the campus and rattle doorknobs in the manner of an intruder.
But they have stopped short of metal detectors.
The topic came up Monday night at Einstein. A procession of parents, unnerved by the discovery of weapons at their school, pleaded with administrators to pledge that it would never happen again. One mother asked, "What are you all doing to assure us as parents that our kids are safe?"
The response from James Fernandez, the school principal, was rhetorical: "Do you want me searching your kids every day?"
Metal detectors appeared in urban high schools in the 1980s as a response to rising gang violence. The devices were common in New York, Detroit and other large cities when the D.C. school board embraced them 17 years ago, after a pair of stabbings at middle schools. Now they are in every D.C. middle and high school, along with X-ray machines, added in 1998 to scan book bags, coats and purses.
D.C. school officials say the detectors are a proven deterrent. They note that no firearm has been discovered inside a District school this academic year.
The trend toward metal detectors never spread much beyond a core group of urban schools, however. Nationwide, the share of secondary school students who walk through metal detectors at school has increased only slightly, from 9 percent in 1999 to 11 percent in 2005, according to the Justice Department.
|
In spring 1991, after a teenage girl stabbed a classmate in the cafeteria of an Anacostia school, the D.C. Board of Education voted to install metal detectors at the front entrances of 10 middle and high schools.
| 13.725 | 1 | 40 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701699.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701699.html
|
S. Africa Joins Call for Release Of Zimbabwe Election Results
|
2008041819
|
The statement, from government spokesman Themba Maseko, was South Africa's clearest and most forceful yet about the heightening political drama in Zimbabwe. Mugabe got fewer votes than opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, according to independent observers, but the government-controlled electoral commission has refused to release the official tallies.
"We are concerned about the delay in the release of the results and the anxiety this is causing," Maseko said, speaking from Pretoria, the capital of South Africa. He also expressed concern about reports of rising violence in Zimbabwe.
Maseko's comments came amid mounting international frustration with both Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe since its founding in 1980, and South African President Thabo Mbeki, the most powerful diplomatic player in the region.
Mbeki declared last weekend that there was "no crisis" in Zimbabwe, provoking criticism in South Africa, including within his own party, the African National Congress, and beyond its borders. Zimbabwe is suffering from an inflation rate of 168,000 percent, chronic food shortages and, since the election, a surge of political violence and arrests of opposition figures. Millions of Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa and other countries.
After years of complaining about Mbeki's reluctance to challenge Mugabe, Tsvangirai told reporters Thursday that Mbeki should be replaced as the lead mediator of the crisis.
"President Mbeki needs to be relieved from his duty," Tsvangirai said, according to news reports. Tsvangirai said he favored a more active role for Zambia's President Levy Mwanawasa, head of the Southern African Development Community, who has been more critical of Mugabe.
President Bush, speaking in Washington later in the day, said he appreciated that "some in the region have spoken out against violence" but that "more leaders in the region need to speak out. And the United Nations and the A.U. must play an active role in resolving the situation in Zimbabwe."
Mugabe's party has vowed to contest and win a runoff vote, which has not yet been scheduled but is triggered automatically if no candidate gets a clear majority.
The Herald newspaper, a government mouthpiece, accused Tsvangirai of working with former colonial ruler Britain to undermine Zimbabwe's sovereignty. Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa was quoted as saying that "on the part of Tsvangirai this is treasonous," and that there was "no doubting [the] consequences for acting in [a] treasonous manner."
Tsvangirai has been meeting with regional leaders around southern Africa in the past week but plans to return to Zimbabwe within several days, according to his spokesman George Tshibotshiwa.
Anti-government activist Lovemore Madhuku, head of the National Constitutional Assembly, predicted that Mugabe would stop short of arresting Tsvangirai. The rising violence, Madhuku said, was part of a ruling party campaign to keep opposition supporters from voting in an eventual runoff, especially in rural towns where Tsvangirai made significant inroads into Mugabe's traditional base of support.
"They just want to intimidate people and get away with it," said Madhuku, who predicted the strategy would succeed. "It will be enough."
|
JOHANNESBURG, April 17 -- South Africa turned up the pressure on President Robert Mugabe in neighboring Zimbabwe on Thursday, calling the political stalemate there "dire" and urging election officials to release results of the March 29 presidential vote.
| 13.767442 | 0.604651 | 0.790698 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703253.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041703253.html
|
Comics: Drawing 'Noir' and New York Comic Con
|
2008041819
|
From New York Comic Con, one of the biggest pop culture conventions that plays host to the latest in comics, graphic novels, anime, video games, toys, movies, and television, illustrator and director Shawn Martinbrough will be online Friday, April 18, at Noon ET to discuss the convention plus the art of drawing 'noir' comics, his unique visual style of depicting bleak urban settings populated by gangsters, superheroes and other creatures of the underworld, featured in his book, How to Draw Noir Comics.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Martinbrough has illustrated Batman, Superman and X-Men characters for DC Comics, Vertigo and Marvel Comics. His client list includes LucasArts, Bad Boy Entertainment, Playboy and Penguin Books. His media company, Verge Entertainment produces and develops projects for television and film. Martinbrough lives in Washington, D.C.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Illustrator and director Shawn Martinbrough, straight from New York Comic Con, discusses the pop culture convention plus the art of drawing 'noir' comics, his unique visual style which has been featured in DC Comics, Vertigo and Marvel Comics.
| 4.733333 | 0.911111 | 8.022222 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041702688.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041702688.html
|
Weekend Now - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041819
|
The staff of Weekend, the Washington Post's weekly entertainment guide, covers what's happening in the Washington area. We'll field your questions on everything in the section to weekend getaways and kids' activities. We write about all kinds of fun things to do and we're happy to talk to you about it.
This week, we hit the record stores. You know, where they have those large round pieces of vinyl and often a sense of community. We also check out the club Josephine, chat with pop band Eisley and talk to actors Kristen Bell and Richard Jenkins.
Submit your questions and comments any time before or during the discussion.
Read about the staff of the Weekend section.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
The Weekend Staff hits the record stores. You know, where they have those large round pieces of vinyl and often a sense of community. They also check out the club Josephine, chat with pop band Eisley and talk to actors Kristen Bell and Richard Jenkins.
| 3.62 | 0.98 | 20.38 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302582.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/13/DI2008041302582.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041819
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman will be online Friday, April 18 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post congressional reporter Jonathan Weisman discusses the latest D.C. buzz and The Post's coverage of political news.
| 8.7 | 0.9 | 6.1 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102593.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/11/DI2008041102593.html
|
Real Wheels - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041819
|
Warren Brown has covered the car industry for The Washington Post since 1982.
Brown test drives all types of cars, from luxury sedans to the newest minivans and hybrids. His On Wheels auto reviews are lively, detailed accounts of cars' good and bad qualities.
Brown's Car Culture column addresses the social, political and economic trends of the industry.
Submit questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
The Post's Warren Brown answers your questions about every aspect of the automotive industry.
| 7.75 | 0.625 | 1 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041702642.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/17/DI2008041702642.html
|
Behind the Screen - washingtonpost.com
|
2008041819
|
Washington Post film critic Desson Thomson will be online Friday, April 18, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest Hollyood and indie movie offerings, and the art of film.
Today let's talk about "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and other Judd Apatow dude-centric comedies. Are we sick of the clumsy guy-dork at the center of the rom-com, as seen in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up" and "Superbad"? Or is there a limitless comic reservoir where man's cluelessness in matters of life and love are concerned?
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Thomson, a movie critic at The Washington Post for 15 years, was raised in England where he was entranced, like most, by Hollywood movies. It was a visit to see David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia," that made him realize movies had to be a part of his life.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post film critic Desson Thomson discusses "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and other Judd Apatow dude-centric comedies and asks: Are we sick of the clumsy guy-dork at the center of the rom-com, as seen in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up" and "Superbad"? Or is there a limitless comic reservoir where man's cluelessness in matters of life and love are concerned? That, plus the latest Hollywood and indie movie offerings.
| 2.44086 | 0.956989 | 38.655914 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/morning_mix_the_boss_endorses.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/04/morning_mix_the_boss_endorses.html
|
Morning Mix: The Boss Endorses Obama
|
2008041819
|
Headlines: Bruce Springsteen backs Barack Obama for president... Barbra Streisand gives hospital $5 million to fight heart disease... Gwyneth Paltrow says post-partum depression made her less insouciant than usual... Breaking: Paris Hilton apologizes for dissing Kim Kardashian's butt... Robert Downey Jr. talks about early '90s romance with Sarah Jessica Parker... 50 Cent outgrows partying G-Unit... David Beckham likes basketball... William Shatner says he didn't realize he was despised by rest of "Star Trek" cast... Scream queen Hazel Court dies at 82... Martha Stewart's dog, Paw Paw, dies of renal failure... Former nanny accusing Rob Lowe of harassment poses for People photo shoot... Spoiler alert: One "Sex and the City" movie character dies, says Cynthia Nixon.
Spears Watch: Restraining order against pal Sam Lutfi extended through July... Brit hits the studio for voice lessons.
Rumor Mill: Delusional Heidi Montag says she's filming a movie with Denzel Washington... Joe Simpson trying to sell pix of daughter Ashlee and rights to baby photos, if a baby just so happened to exist... Jennie Garth headed to new "90210"?... Naomi Campbell says British Airways begged her to fly with them again... John Mayer hooks up with Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger?... Marilyn Monroe sex tape a hoax?... Minnie Driver's baby daddy is not Criss Angel (yay!).
Chat Day: Join me online at 2 p.m. ET for this week's Celebritology Live.
Bonus: Movies too bad for DVD
By Liz | April 17, 2008; 8:14 AM ET | Category: Daily Mix Previous: Brenda Dickson: Welcome to Her Nightmare | Next: Paris Hilton's Cheesy Smackdown
Keep up with the latest Celebritology scoops with an easy-to-use widget.
If you have tips, ideas for stories or general suggestions, let us know.
The dead SATC character: my money's on NYC's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who plays himself in the film.
When the Mayor's character is offed in a shooting at a massage parlour, Chris "Mr. Big" Noth reveals that he's really Detective Mike Logan, and the whole SATC movie becomes Law & Order: The Movie.
Posted by: byoolin | April 17, 2008 8:46 AM
You should have talked to Rob Lowe first - you know he already knows how to take great pictures of young women.
Posted by: byoolin | April 17, 2008 8:58 AM
I'm no Martha fan, but that's sad about her dog. I lost one to renal failure once, and it's a slow, sad decline for the critter.
And now for something completely different...today is Posh's birthday. *pops champagne cork*
Posted by: 23112 | April 17, 2008 9:06 AM
Betcha Martha's dog has the most elaborate shoe-box casket EVER.
Posted by: byoolin | April 17, 2008 9:07 AM
I'm sure Posh appreciates the picture of Beckham at the basketball game.
Posted by: michael | April 17, 2008 9:10 AM
Celebritology's gift to Posh is the link to that picture of Becks staring at the cheerleader's behind.
Have a MAJOR 34th, Victoria!
Posted by: byoolin | April 17, 2008 9:11 AM
Liz - not sure if this is just me, but this Celebritology post isn't showing up on the "blog roll" of recent posts on the home page...
Posted by: u street girl | April 17, 2008 9:12 AM
...more technical problems. Okay, this isn't so much a problem as kind of funny. The ad I'm getting at the top of this page right now is for the Edward Hopper exhibit at the National Gallery. Great exhibit. Only problem is it has already closed. Nearly three months ago.
Posted by: 22309 | April 17, 2008 9:39 AM
"Delusional Heidi Montag says she's filming a movie with Denzel Washington..."
Posted by: jake e. poo | April 17, 2008 9:43 AM
In the photo of Beckham and the cheerleader, the cheerleader's thigh to be about the same size as Victoria 'Posh Spice' Beckham's waist. Maybe bigger!
Posted by: methinks | April 17, 2008 9:45 AM
Star Wars Christmas special!!!??? I did I reach the age of 36 and not know about this??
Posted by: jelo | April 17, 2008 9:49 AM
Alright. I just watched that Brenda Dickson nonsense from yesterday - there's 14 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
And Al Pacino is looking more and more like a crazy old man every time I see him.
Posted by: rachelt | April 17, 2008 10:05 AM
That Joe Simpson such a class act. Now he is pimping out the next generation.
Is John Mayer trying to sleep with every singing starlet in the USA?
Posted by: ep | April 17, 2008 10:25 AM
From the article on the Marilyn tape:
"About this same time a short nudie film called 'The Apple, Knockers, and the Coke Bottle,' began making the rounds. It's composed of grainy footage of a bare-chested young woman amusing herself -she's Arline Hunter, a Marilyn lookalike but clearly not Marilyn."
Do you think this one
Posted by: Wikijen | April 17, 2008 10:29 AM
Err, scratch that last line.
Jelo, George Lucas has said that if he had the power to do so, he would track down and buy every single copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special and burn them all. Fortunately, not even George has that kind of power and you can find it on YouTube. Don't miss Bea Arthur singing and dancing, or the cameo by Jefferson Starship. I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Wikijen | April 17, 2008 10:31 AM
jelo: the VHS video of the Star Wars Holiday special has a cameo in Weird Al Yankovic's "White and Nerdy" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEzGIuY7kw I had assumed that it was a figment of Al's imagination but you know what they say: "You can't make this s**t up". Not even Al.
Posted by: Angela | April 17, 2008 10:35 AM
ep wrote "Is John Mayer trying to sleep with every singing starlet in the USA?" Possible answers: 1)Yes 2)You say that like it's a bad thing! 3)So?
Posted by: Stick | April 17, 2008 10:41 AM
and he is making out with the boys, too, as it has been confirmed he and Perez Hilton hooked up. Good for John. Why limit oneself.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 10:44 AM
I remember watching that Star Wars Holiday Special. (None of my friends remember that travesty, so it's good to have outside confirmation.) I was traumatized by the scene when the Storm Troopers ripped open all of Chewbacca's kid's stuffed animals.
Posted by: Sappho | April 17, 2008 10:56 AM
I am freaked by the picture of Martha's dog on the marble counter top. How is that different from watching rats run around a McDonald's? I myself am a furry animal, but keep my private parts off food-preparation surfaces.
Posted by: possum | April 17, 2008 11:09 AM
Speaking as a connoisseur of bad movies, I am shocked the list omits three of the greatest so-bad-they're-good movies of all time.
THE OSCAR with Stephen Boyd and Elke Sommer. ("My head's splitting" "And so's our marriage!")
The 1972 remake of THE GREAT WALTZ. ("Johann, I must speak with you." Strauss: "What?!? In the middle of a WALTZ?!")
WHEN THE BOYS MEET THE GIRLS. A rock'n'roll remake of the Gershwins' GIRL CRAZY, with Connie Francis, Herman's Hermits, Sam the Sham & the Pharoahs, and ... Liberace!
Posted by: moviefan | April 17, 2008 11:13 AM
Paris Hilton can go take her daily dose of Valtrex along with some Zoloft. Kim Kardashian can park her trunk full of junk in my driveway ANYTIME.
Posted by: Sasquatch | April 17, 2008 11:38 AM
Liz, where did the link between Gwynnie and "insouciant" come from? Did she describe herself as such?
Posted by: Catalina | April 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Possum, if you're freaked by a picture of a pet on a counter top, I recommend that you take a double dose of Lorazepam, grease up your thumbs, and play a zesty round of switch.
Posted by: Sasquatch | April 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Chatwoman herself first applied the insouciant adjective to Gwynnie.
Posted by: Sasquatch | April 17, 2008 12:01 PM
SJP stayed w/Robert Downey for 7 years?!?! I know some sober marriages that haven't lasted that long!
Posted by: Bored @ work | April 17, 2008 12:08 PM
Re Shatner -- he continually cut out his co-stars' lines, making his own part larger and theirs smaller, and he didn't know he was disliked?
Posted by: Wanderer | April 17, 2008 12:51 PM
LOL...I didn't even catch where Becks' eyes were going. Nice. Still, you can't fault a guy for looking. I mean, seriously...that's a view and a half.
The Star Wars Holiday Special...I remember seeing it broadcast, and I was probably about four. I still remember the one alien pouring the drink in the top of his head, and all the friggin' Wookiees, but not the cartoon with the groovy animated version of Han Solo. I know Lucas despises it, but to me, it's essential that something like that exists just as a point of pop-culture reference.
Posted by: 23112 | April 17, 2008 1:09 PM
Oh yeah, I meant to mention that Pacino looks like he has the world's most audacious handlebar mustache going there. What a loon. I still love him, though.
Posted by: 23112 | April 17, 2008 1:10 PM
I don't really like animals (don't hate them - just not a pet person. Don't want to pet dogs or hold cats) but your reaction to the dog on the counter seemed a little extreme. I'm sure that prissy Martha washes her counter before she uses it for cooking/eating.
I wouldn't want a dog on my counter, but if one jumped up on it, I would clean it before I used it again. They're not poisoness or anything.
Posted by: Amelia | April 17, 2008 2:16 PM
Speaking of Posh, I saw some photos of her in her early-Becks days and when they had their first kid. She was quite cute and was actually SMILING. What the eff happened to that woman? (I mean, aside from not eating.)
SJP actually goes by "Sarah Jessica"?
Posted by: Californian | April 17, 2008 2:40 PM
Let's not forget that the dog's owner was Martha Stewart! Surely she can use her extreme homemaking skills to reanimate the dog, or at least find something adorable to do with its disassembled parts.
"With a hot glue gun, some lace, and the left paw you can make...."
Posted by: e | April 17, 2008 2:59 PM
e: Yes! Or spray-paint it gold and prop it up on your front stoop as a Christmas ornament! Maybe strap antlers to its head like "Max" in the Grinch.
Posted by: possum | April 17, 2008 3:47 PM
A CURSE on you for leading me to that horrible horrible thing on YouTube!! It has got to be the worst pile of crap ever committed to film.
and yet. . .I can't turn away. Oh gawd.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 8:51 PM
What a crappy blog, reporting on how someones dog died.Get a job.
Posted by: Rohit | April 18, 2008 4:13 AM
Hey, Rohit, this is her job, you moron!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 18, 2008 9:20 AM
Posted by: Prescription info | May 7, 2008 8:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Washingtonpost.com blogger Liz Kelly dishes on the latest happenings in entertainment, celebrity, and Hollywood news.
| 135.666667 | 0.5 | 0.722222 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603481.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603481.html
|
CBS Scores on the Web With March Madness
|
2008041819
|
CBS this year presented every game of the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament on the Web for free, marking the first time a major U.S. sporting event has been so readily available online. Now the numbers are in, and they indicate that even for a company reared in traditional media, the Internet may be more profitable.
Although some have doubted the possibilities of Web advertising, for CBS, online viewers were slightly more valuable than television viewers, according to executives and statistics released this week. The network made $4.83 in advertising for each of its 4.8 million online viewers and $4.12 for each of its 132 million television viewers, according to data from CBS and TNS, a research firm.
CBSSports.com executives declined to disclose advertising rates but said the prices that advertisers paid for reaching 1,000 online viewers were as high or higher than the prices for reaching the same number of television viewers.
As more media are consumed online, networks, magazines and newspapers have cast a fearful eye on how much money can be made with online distribution. Without ample Internet advertising, some have warned, the Web could become a cheesy haven of movie trailers, promotional blather and novelty videos such as cats on skateboards.
The NCAA numbers undercut such concerns.
"Our clients were willing to pay us [rates] for online that were equal to or higher than the TV," said Rich Calacci, senior vice president of advertising sales for CBSSports.com. "It's less about where the consumption takes place than what's being consumed. This was live exclusive coverage of the NCAA tournament."
ABC began streaming television episodes for free over the Internet in 2006 -- becoming the first broadcast network to do so -- and now sees a similar trend in online ad pricing. About 20 series, including hits "Lost," "Grey's Anatomy," "Desperate Housewives," "Ugly Betty" and "Dancing with the Stars" can be seen online at ABC.com the day after airing on television.
Ads that run with those online episodes command a higher price per person, ABC officials said, but each show runs fewer ads per episode, so overall, a television viewer still remains more valuable.
For March Madness, CBS ran equal amounts of ads on TV and online.
"We still have a long way to go with respect to getting parity in economic value per viewer between online and TV," said Albert Cheng, who oversees digital media for the Disney-ABC Television Group.
By some measures, Americans with Internet connections spend as much or more time online as they do watching television. Yet some major advertisers such as Procter & Gamble, for example, spend only a fraction of their vast advertising budgets in online pitches.
"The large advertisers are still seeing where Internet advertising is going" before committing more of their money to the Web, said David Hallerman, a senior analyst at eMarketer who specializes in online advertising.
|
Washington,DC,Virginia,Maryland business headlines,stock portfolio,markets,economy,mutual funds,personal finance,Dow Jones,S&P 500,NASDAQ quotes,company research tools. Federal Reserve,Bernanke,Securities and Exchange Commission.
| 12.863636 | 0.409091 | 0.409091 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603132.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603132.html
|
Cuba Warns Foes That Recent Reforms Strengthen, Not Weaken, Socialism
|
2008041819
|
"There is no space for the dreams of adversaries," a strongly worded editorial in the Communist Party daily Granma stated. "There will be a more perfect socialism sustained and by a united people led by Fidel, Raúl and the party's leadership."
Since being named president in February, Raúl Castro has legalized ownership of cellphones and computers, lifted a ban on Cubans staying in top tourist hotels and allowed farmers to buy some supplies from private providers instead of the state. Castro, who succeeded his ailing older brother Fidel, has also clarified property laws to ensure that Cubans can live long-term in their state-owned apartments and pass along the dwellings to their relatives after death.
The reforms have been widely hailed as possible signs of larger changes to come, including private property ownership and even democratic elections. But Wednesday's editorial asserted that "the genuine, and only, strategic change took place in Cuba on the first of January in 1959 with the victory of an authentic revolution."
Manuel Cuesta, a Cuban dissident, said in a phone interview from Havana that the editorial's message was clear: "It's a way of saying that 'We're still in charge even though there have been some changes.' "
The editorial seemed to have been provoked by the "Cuban Democracy Roundtable," a day-long conference held April 8 in the exile stronghold of Coral Gables, Fla., and hosted by U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). Martinez, the first Cuban U.S. senator, was quoted by the Miami Herald as saying the international community should be prepared to react if Cuban dissidents "take to the streets" in protest.
The Granma editorial scoffed at the conference as the work of "mafiosos" and alleged it was an attempt to subvert the Cuban government. "The Cuban Revolution is not a castle made of cards," the editorial stated, "but an impregnable fortress."
As the Cuban and U.S. governments have traded barbs in recent days, Cubans have seemed to be adapting quickly to some of their new freedoms. Huge lines formed this week when cellphones and calling plans went on sale for the first time, a development that Cuesta and other dissidents say will "empower" the population.
|
MEXICO CITY, April 16 -- Cuba's government said Wednesday that recent reforms applauded by democracy advocates will actually strengthen socialism on the island, rather than undermine it.
| 14.096774 | 0.612903 | 0.677419 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600470.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041600470.html
|
Fighting Breaks Out in Gaza Strip
|
2008041819
|
JERUSALEM, April 16 -- Eighteen Palestinians -- many of them civilians -- and three Israeli soldiers were killed Wednesday during fierce clashes in the Gaza Strip, marking the deadliest day of fighting in more than a month.
The violence erupted Wednesday morning after Palestinian gunmen approached the fence that divides Israel from Gaza, and Israeli forces were sent in to confront them. In attacks that continued into the evening, Israel used tank fire and airstrikes to target the fighters.
Palestinian health officials, however, said 13 of the dead were civilians, including 12 people killed in an airstrike near the al-Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza just before dusk. Among the dead was a cameraman for the Reuters news agency, 23-year-old Fadel Shana.
An Israel Defense Forces spokesman confirmed an airstrike in the area and said it was aimed at gunmen. The spokesman, who would not be identified by name, said the strike had been on target. The IDF also issued a statement Wednesday night expressing "sorrow at the death of the Palestinian cameraman" but noting that he was in an area "in which ongoing fighting against armed extremists and terrorist organizations occurs on a daily basis."
The fighting marked the bloodiest day for Palestinians since the beginning of March, when Israeli operations killed more than 120 people. Wednesday was the deadliest day for Israeli soldiers so far this year; since 2008 began, eight Israeli soldiers have been killed in operations in and around Gaza.
"Israel pays a painful price to safeguard its citizens from Palestinian terror," said Israeli government spokesman David Baker. "The Hamas-led web of terror will be confronted on its very doorstep before it reaches ours."
In addition to the three dead Israeli soldiers, three soldiers were wounded.
Just a week ago, Palestinian fighters entered Israel and killed two Israeli civilians at Nahal Oz, the fuel distribution center that serves the narrow coastal strip. Israel blamed Hamas, the armed Islamist movement that has vowed to destroy the Jewish state. Hamas, which won legislative elections in 2006, took over Gaza last June in fighting that collapsed a power-sharing deal with the rival Fatah party.
Since the Hamas takeover, fighters have been firing rockets into southern Israel on an almost daily basis. During the fighting Wednesday, more than a dozen of the crude rockets, known as Qassams, landed in Israeli territory, though there apparently were no injuries.
The violence came on a day when Israel resumed delivery of European-supplied fuel for Gaza's power plant after suspending the deliveries for a week following the attack at Nahal Oz. Israel did not deliver gasoline and diesel for cars and generators, however, because it believes Hamas is hoarding the fuel in order to provoke a crisis.
United Nations agencies working in Gaza released a statement Wednesday morning in which they said they "are gravely concerned about the limited fuel supplies in the Gaza Strip which are having a severe impact upon daily life for the population." The statement called resumption of fuel for Gaza's power plant "insufficient" and asked that fuel for transportation also be allowed. "The current absence of fuel at petrol stations has meant that normal transportation has ceased; many students have been unable to get to school, and many health professionals have been unable to get to hospitals and clinics," the statement said.
Also on Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni held talks with visiting U.S. national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. The two discussed Israel's peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, as well as "the necessity of continued international action" against Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, according to a statement released by Livni's office.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, was scheduled to meet with Hamas leaders from Gaza in Cairo on Wednesday night. He had been snubbed by most top Israeli leaders since his arrival Sunday because of his willingness to meet with Hamas.
Special correspondent Islam Abdulkarim in Gaza City contributed to this report.
|
JERUSALEM, April 16 -- Eighteen Palestinians -- many of them civilians -- and three Israeli soldiers were killed Wednesday during fierce clashes in the Gaza Strip, marking the deadliest day of fighting in more than a month.
| 19.1 | 1 | 40 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603456.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603456.html
|
On Real Estate, New Eagle Pair Not Too Picky
|
2008041819
|
You knew George and Martha. Now, meet John and Abigail.
The region's newest pair of urban bald eagles has set up housekeeping in Arlington this spring, raising eaglets in a tree in the median of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. They are the third pair of the birds, now on the rebound from endangered-species status, to settle near Washington's bustling core.
So far, the Arlington nest has not seen the kind of drama -- blood! bereavement! betrayal! -- that unfolded at George and Martha's famous nest near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
But these eagles can still impress. Their new home sits directly over whizzing traffic, and underneath jets on the approach to Ronald Reagan National Airport.
"They just go about their business" in the midst of all that man-made noise, said George Getz, who lives nearby. "And that's what just blows our minds."
Getz said people in his north Arlington neighborhood first noticed the birds late last year, as the eagles built their nest in the crook of a tall tree. Getz said he heard the news from a neighbor, screaming out his car window, "We have eagles! We have eagles!"
Now, there are at least four in the nest. Getz said they named the adult birds after John and Abigail Adams, the second U.S. president and first lady and the subjects of a recent HBO miniseries. When they spotted the first eaglet, Getz said, they named it Quincy. At least one other also has hatched.
Yesterday morning, the nest could be spotted from a hillside in a nearby park: a huge cone of sticks and twigs, from which a white head and downy eaglets occasionally emerged. Getz said he has seen one adult bird -- he thinks it was John -- flying off on hunting expeditions and returning with fish.
In one sense, their nest site is perfect: It offers a commanding view of the birds' fishing grounds on the Potomac River.
In most of the ways that usually matter to eagles, however, it's kind of a dump. The birds generally prefer quiet spots on isolated waterfronts, and this place is neither. In fact, it's so close to the busy parkway that yesterday a National Park Service spokesman issued a stern warning about the danger -- and illegality -- of trying to cross traffic and reach the nest site.
"Stay out," said spokesman Bill Line. "And stay out."
The fact that the eagles are here at all, scientists said yesterday, is a testament to their comeback from a population collapse in the mid-20th century. Their numbers increased after the banning of the eggshell-thinning pesticide DDT, and last year most of the country's eagle populations were removed from the list of threatened species.
|
You knew George and Martha. Now, meet John and Abigail.
| 41.923077 | 1 | 13 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701749.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008041819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041701749.html
|
Combat Stress May Cost U.S. Up to $6 Billion
|
2008041819
|
In addition, nearly 20 percent of the 1.64 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, or about 320,000 personnel, reported a probable traumatic brain injury (TBI) during deployment, the report notes, although it says their treatment needs have not been determined.
The economic cost of the PTSD and depression cases -- including medical care, forgone productivity and lost lives through suicide -- is estimated at $4 billion to $6 billion over two years. Meanwhile, the cost incurred by traumatic brain injury, based on all cases diagnosed through June 2007, is estimated at $600 million to $900 million.
The 500-page report, titled "Invisible Wounds of War," says prolonged and repeated exposure to combat stress is causing a disproportionately high psychological toll compared with physical injuries. It warns of "long-term, cascading consequences" for the nation -- ranging from a greater likelihood of drug use and suicide to increased marital problems and unemployment -- if the mental health problems are left untreated.
Yet, based on a survey of 1,965 service members from 24 communities across the country, the study found serious gaps in mental health care. For example, it determined that only 53 percent of service members with PTSD or depression had sought help from a provider in the past year. Of those who sought care, about half received "minimally adequate" treatment.
Thousands more certified mental health professionals are needed to provide high-quality care in both military and civilian sectors, while more training for treating trauma is required for tens of thousands of existing providers, the report says.
Providing such care will require an effort that goes beyond the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to other parts of the U.S. health-care system, where veterans are also seeking care in part due to concerns of being stigmatized if they seek care from military facilities, it concludes.
|
About 300,000 U.S. military personnel who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or major depression, a mental toll that will cost the nation as much as $6.2 billion over two years, according to a Rand Corp. report released yesterday.
| 6.574074 | 0.722222 | 0.981481 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.