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/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html
|
PBS Frontline: 'Bush's War'
|
2008032919
|
Bush's War aired in two parts on Monday, March 24, from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. ET, and Tuesday, March 26, from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings). It can also be viewed on the Frontline website.
Kirk has produced more than two hundred national television programs. A former Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard University, Kirk was the senior producer of Frontline from the series' inception in 1983 until the fall of 1987. His most recent Frontline productions include "Cheney's Law," "Endgame," "The Lost Year in Iraq," "The Torture Question," and "The Dark Side," which give an in-depth assessment of the war on terror and the state of the nation's military establishment, and "The War Behind Closed Doors," an analysis of the political infighting that led to the war with Iraq.
Cincinnati: Why don't you show the very, very clear ties between Iraq and bin Laden? It's all there, but the liberal media will not report on it!
Michael Kirk: Is it all there? That's not what many, many of the people who we trust told us. If it was there, you can bet someone in the media would love to report it. By now, with all the venues for information -- liberal, conservative and every shade in between -- surely someone would have dropped that bombshell.
St. Louis: Please do not mistake my brevity for flipness. Why haven't Cheney and Bush been impeached?
Michael Kirk: Write your congressman.
Plainfield, Ill.: First, your series has been first-rate. Second, do you feel there ever will be a complete accounting by the government of the deceptions, mistakes, etc., that led to the Iraq War, as well as those that were made during the war? Thank you.
Michael Kirk: "Complete" accounting? I'm not sure. I hope so -- there are so many unanswered questions. Wouldn't it be great if the very top insiders considered it an obligation of their office to cut the American people in on what actually happened? We have talked to hundreds of sources and acquired thousands of documents and fragments, so perhaps we have the broad outlines (and some of the specifics) -- but there is so much more to know.
Rockville, Md.: Loved the Frontline, but why did you devote so little time to answering the question of why we went to war in Iraq in the first place? Why was there hardly a mention of the word "oil," which many informed people -- including Greenspan -- say that was what the war was all about? And why no mention of ex-Treasury Secretary O'Neill's report that carving up Iraq's oil fields was discussed at the Bush administration's first National Security Council meeting, long before Sept. 11?
Michael Kirk: There have been many allegations/suspicions and speculations about why we went to war in Iraq. We weren't really trying to go there ... I was more interested in the process, the struggle between personality and policy. I think we all know there were many, many reasons for going ... and hopefully others in the media will reveal them in great detail.
Oxford, Ohio: How, given the nature of Washington Politics, can we be sure that the behind-the-scenes players are not just continued in another administration, especially if John McCain wins the White House?
Michael Kirk: That's up to you and the press. Hard questions and in-depth examinations of the players who are likely to surround any of the candidates are valid and essential areas of future inquiry.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Can you explain why the title "Bush's War" is used? The fact is that Congress declared this war. Your attempt to pin it on one person is unprofessional and politically motivated. Whatever happened to responsible journalism? We deserve better.
Michael Kirk: I beg to differ. To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, "100 percent authority yields 100 percent responsibility." I believe the president ultimately made all the central decisions about the war in Iraq. I also believe the title is a double entendre -- it could also be about the internal "war" between Powell, Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Rice that Bush had to contend with.
Toronto: If all this information has been out there over all this time, why hasn't it come to light in the mainstream media? Frontline is a great program, but this should have been a major documentary; it should have been front-page news.
Michael Kirk: In a way, it is "front-page news." I'm happy to report the ratings for the program were very high, and steady throughout the two nights -- all 4.5 hours. Millions of Americans learned these important things in the past two nights. I share your dismay that much of it, especially in this form, had not been published by other outlets, but perhaps that's the role of PBS -- and I'm proud of them for having the willingness to provide the airtime for us.
Dayton, Ohio: It would have been nice to see some positive feedback on the reconstruction as well as what is happining with the troop surge. It is obvious we didn't have enough troops on the ground in the beginning, but what about now?
Michael Kirk: Sadly, if you read the newspapers in the past two days, you would have learned that the "surge" and the tenuous "peace" between Sadr's militia and the American troops seem to have broken down. Efforts to keep the lid on in Iraq seem to be in jeopardy.
Apex, N.C.: What struck me most about the various interviews with the people involved in the decision-making is that their focus seemed to be strictly on the politics and the aspects of that power game, without real discussions of the consequences to the troops and the people of Iraq. Bush in particular does not seem to do any soul-searching regarding the consequences of his actions and the real costs of war. Was that just because the focus of the program was on the politics?
Michael Kirk: Yes. Our focus was the war about the war. We focused on the battleground between the forces that wanted war with Iraq and those who believed the so-called war on terror should be fought primarily against al-Qaeda. I personally believe the focus on what happened in Washington is the central story of the war. The decisions made, which we spent a great deal of time trying to understand and show, dramatically affected all the other aspects of what happened in Iraq -- to a devastating end.
Washington: CIA agents speak of significant pressure put on them by Cheney. What kind of pressure could make them produce negligent or reckless intelligence reports? This wasn't thoroughly explored in the documentary.
Michael Kirk: I'm sorry you didn't feel it was ... we certainly thought we had told it clearly through the story of Paul Pillar (the senior CIA officer who regretted his role in writing the "White Paper").
Oakland, Calif.: Michael, I have enjoyed watching parts of the program the past two nights -- it is very thorough and comprehensive. The interviews are also very insightful and informative. What was the story with Colin Powell? Did he decline to be interviewed for the program? If so, what were his reasons?
Michael Kirk: Yes, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney all declined our requests for interviews. Happily, both on the record and off, many top government officials who personally witnessed the events in the film were more forthcoming.
Southington, Conn.: First, thank you for this incredible piece of journalism. My question is, were you able to get any major players to forcefully support the administration's case for war, and get them to do it on camera? Plenty of people are willing to point out how flawed it was, but I noticed a distinct lack of Kool-Aid drinkers!
Michael Kirk: It is hard to find individuals who are willing to publicly make the case for the specifics of the way we went to war or how the aftermath was planned. I don't blame them for not coming forward at this point. Right now, the best available sources are participants engaging in the "blame game," and we have tried to avoid using that material.
Washington: Did you start out to create an reasonably objective piece on the war? Clearly, the selection of music, the editing, and the choice of images and video clips all were designed and intended to express a viewpoint and communicate a bias. Can you describe your position on the subject as you began this project?
Michael Kirk: Please write back and suggest the bias you perceived.
Rolla, Mo.: My favorite line (paraphrasing): "Grant, MacArther, Eisenhower ... Sanchez?"
Michael Kirk: Actually, the last general mentioned was "Casey."
New York: While I don't agree with Harrisburg that Bush is not primarily responsible for the Iraq disaster, Congress certainly was asleep at the switch as regards management of the war and the detainee policies. Would there be a story in what was happening on Capitol Hill while the war went sour? Thanks.
Michael Kirk: Yes. The Congress was outwitted, outflanked, ignored and directly diminished in the process. For their parts, they were not forceful, skeptical or particularly capable. The astonishing fact that very few of them actually read the National Intelligence Estimate (even as flawed as it was) is a sad commentary on their role in the process (or lack of it).
New Orleans: I was amazed to see the document concerning interrogation techniques signed off on by Donald Rumsfeld. Was this available to Congress in its investigation of Abu Ghraib? I feel horrible for the grunts now serving time who were put in that stressful situation, essentially told to use these techniques and then abandonded when those same techniques became politcally inconvenient.
Michael Kirk: I would recommend our film "The Torture Question," which you can view in it's entirety by clicking here.
Tulsa, Okla.: With the focus on Iraq, were you able to sense whether Afghanistan, Pakistan and getting Osama Bin Laden were priorities for the CIA?
Michael Kirk: Yes, they tell us that was their primary focus in the months after Sept. 11. Many at the CIA continue to be angry that the resources they hoped to use to continue to pursue al-Qaeda worldwide were diverted to the Iraq war effort.
Grafton, W.Va.: Mike, I hace been reading Unger's book "The Fall of the House of Bush." Your piece follows his closely. Do you believe, as Unger relates in his closing chapter, that Bush and the neocons will attack Iran before he leaves office? After viewing segment one, I asked a number of friends to tune in on Tuesday evening for the second part. My statement to them was that if the things I heard were lies, then a number of people were guilty and should be sued. If their statements were correct, then a number of officials such as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and President Bush should be in jail.
Michael Kirk: I don't know about attacking Iran. My sense, from talking to many American military leaders, is that our army is in pretty desperate shape -- perhaps broken by the Iraq experience. A good question to ask is whether they even could deploy to Iran if the president asked them to.
New York: To me, the documentary painted the lawyers in the worst light -- David Addington and John Yoo in particular. Being an attorney myself, I wonder, were there any other forces in the administration that had the legal wherewithal to present an opposing viewpoint to these two men? I don't think Alberto Gonzales could have done it -- but Ashcroft? Who else could have been around to say "sorry, but that's not Constitutional"?
Michael Kirk: I refer you to our program "Cheney's Law," which we produced last fall for Frontline. It will answer your question and hopefully suggest some others.
Orlando, Fla.: How did you get Paul Bremer to be in the show? He looked very nervous, as though he knew he had done something wrong. I still can't believe this is going on. I can't believe the power struggle between Rice, Powell, Rumsfield, Cheney and Bremer. It's like some bad American Corporation going down the drain. Great work! Every piece of the show was top notch -- I liked the images that slowly zoomed in at an angle and the footage of Washington from out the window of a car. Very creative and sound!
Michael Kirk: Paul Bremer, no matter what his motivations, at least was willing to talk on camera about what his view of the experience in Iraq was. I wish other government officials felt such an imperative to answer questions the American people have a right to know.
Montreal: Mr. Kirk, do you believe the CIA's reputation is tarnished irrepairably (as I believe your film suggested was Vice President Cheney's modus operandi)? If so, what agency can we expect to fill in in its place?
Michael Kirk: Many of the people, inside and out of the CIA, told us the agency is not what it used to be.
Montreal: How does a reporter, like yourself, obtain highly sensitive memos sent, for example, between members of the executive? Are they "leaked" to the media for the most part, or made public through access to information demands?
Michael Kirk: Gathering the documents for our program is a difficult and time-consuming process. Freedom of Information procedures yield some material, the Web is a wonderful source of other information, and of course if we're lucky government officials share material with us so we can show it to you.
Washington: I have a legalistic sort of question: If Congress does not explicitly declare war, but only authorizes the president to take forceful action if necessary, does that authorization constitutionally equate a declaration of war? Because it seems to me that Congress and the American people have allowed this president to run roughshod over the powers delineated in the Constitution, including those during "war time."
Michael Kirk: Take a look at "Cheney's Law" on the Frontline Web site. (See link above.)
Atlanta: Do you think that it is resonable that we could pull troops out in a 16-month time period when it took us two years to pull out of Iraq in Gulf War 1, and it was only a 100-day war? Based on my observation of the program, I felt that Bush was untruthful to the American people on many occasions. Would you agree?
Michael Kirk: Military experts we talked to say that if we try to pull troops out, it will take a long time and be dangerous (some say much more treacherous even than going in). The president's truthfulness is up to you to decide -- if you feel you have enough information to make that decision.
Penfield, N.Y.: Entirely too little has been broadcast about the operation of American mercenary forces in Iraq and its neighboring countries. Blackwater has assigned troops to those areas, but how many? What is the split between American military forces and American mercenaries in our military actions? Why do we hear so little of them? Please tell us, if you know.
Michael Kirk: I personally have not researched this story. A very good Frontline on this subject can be found at the Frontline Web site.
Re: Afghanistan: Perhaps I've been a little bit too influenced by "Charlie Wilson's War" (George Crile's book), but in watching your film I couldn't help but keep thinking about how it seemed not to occur to anyone that the Afghans were such formidable opponents to the Soviets in the '80s because we armed them. It's like nobody put any of the pieces together. Did the CIA really have such a short memory? We've been involved with Pakistan re: Afghanistan for ages. Didn't we have any kind of contacts or relationships that lasted from that period that could help guide the way?
Michael Kirk: The CIA told us they already had a plan in place to take down the Taliban when Sept. 11 happened. The president agreed and gave the CIA the lead in Afghanistan. The American military, believing that Afghanistan was the place superpowers go to die (influenced largely by the Soviet experience and perhaps their own memory of arming the Afghans) didn't even have a war plan for Afghanistan at the time of Sept. 11. The CIA contacts with the Northern Alliance and warlords were the basis for our quick victory against the Taliban in the fall of 2001.
Alexandria, Va.: Thanks for producing such an engrossing film. One item you touched on that came as news to me was the thin resumes of both Sanchez and Casey. Can you elaborate on why each in turn was chosen to command the Iraq effort? Were there other, possibly better choices who were passed over?
Michael Kirk: The way we were told the story, the Pentagon did not believe U.S. forces would be in Iraq for very long when they picked Gen. Sanchez. At the time, remember, they had not even anticipated an insurgency (see what Gen. Jack Keane said in our broadcast last night). By the time Gen. Casey took over, the way people told us the story, Secretary Rumsfeld really wanted a competent logistics guy (one of Casey's strengths was procurement) to handle training the Iraqi army and keeping our troops safe on the bases -- "light footprint" -- until they could return home.
Ontario, Ore.: Mr.Kirk, a three part question for you. First,what role do you think the media played in encouraging public opinion for the run-up to the Iraq invasion, and why do you think they failed in general to present harder questions to President Bush to justify this action? Finally, do you think the media has learned anything from their failures in the Iraq debacle to live up to their unique position given by the Founding Fathers to help protect the interests of the public?
Michael Kirk: Good questions. The role of the media is partially examined in a Frontline program, "News War." Also, Bill Moyers made a terrific documentary about the subject last year -- well worth your time to watch.
Oklahoma City: What was the biggest surprise to you during your investigation?
Michael Kirk: How deep the personal battles were between the top five people surrounding the president, and how those personal struggles directly affected policy.
San Mateo, Calif.: This question may have been asked before, but why isn't your report being broadcast on mainstream television (ABC, CBS, NBC), and how can we make that happen?
Michael Kirk: I like the fact that it is on PBS (where this type of serious journalism always lives) and not interrupted by commercials. Sadly, the network news divisions and cable television see their mission differently than we do.
Quebec City, Quebec: Mr. Kirk, are the interview candidates generally difficult to convince to do an interview? What kinds of incentives can you provide them with? Thank you for an exquisite documentary.
Michael Kirk: Thank you. We never can convince anyone to participate in our films. The best we can do is try to make it clear to them how important we think our projects are, and why their interview will be useful to getting the story before the American people. I always promise people their interviews will not be "gotcha"-driven or the typical talk-show "food fights." I try to give them the opportunity to clearly and cleanly tell us what they know in a fashion they can't do anywhere else (and that goes for both sides).
Brooklyn, NY: I didn't know about the series until today, but was pleasantly surprised to find I could watch the whole thing online. What prompted you to make such an extensive Web site for the series, and is that something new?
Michael Kirk: We made this program because we have an obligation to make it -- you all pay for public broadcasting -- and we feel you have the right to expect this type of programming in return. It is a responsibility we feel very keenly and an honor to be able to do it.
Michael Kirk: I'm sorry ... that's all the time I have. ... I invite you to visit our Web site to check out what I think is the most innovative and comprehensive place to find material about the war in Iraq. Thanks for your questions.
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.
|
Frontline producer Michael Kirk discusses his two-part film "Bush's War," which reviews the genesis and full history of the five-year U.S. war in Iraq, drawing on fresh reporting and interviews and more than 40 previous Frontline films that have documented the war on terror.
| 76.407407 | 0.796296 | 1.5 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/20/DI2008032001856.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/20/DI2008032001856.html
|
Ask Tom - washingtonpost.com
|
2008032919
|
In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service?
Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema, The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. You can access his Postcards from Tom to read his recommendations for other cities, read his dining column, First Bite and the Dish or read transcripts of previous "Ask Tom" chats. Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web.
Falls Church, Va.: Hi -- Just my opinion, but you do such a great job of covering out-of-town dining with the postcards and archives that I don't see the point of devoting any more on the weekly chats (a BIG chunk of space on Buenos Aires a couple of weeks back). How many people did that serve? Pardon the pun. There is so much to cover in our own backyard.
Tom Sietsema: You're right. There IS a lot to talk about, right here at home. But I like to get, and respond to, questions and comments that cover a broad range of topics -- out-of-town restaurants included.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to another 60 minutes of food talk.
Washington, D.C.: After reading about Co Co Sala in last week's Express I found your write-up from January. As of Tuesday, the place still isn't open. Any word on what is going on? All they have is a generic "opening soon" sign in the window.
Tom Sietsema: It seems customs is holding an Italian-made bar, which should be released this week. But I'm informed that installation of the design detail will take three weeks or so. The owners are now hoping for a late-April launch.
washingtonpost.com: Dish: Co Co. Sala
James Beard Nominees: I just cannot buy into the Central hype. I keep trying it hoping that I will get it, but I always leave there thinking that it was average, at best. I feel like people love the place because Michel Richard is tied to it and if it were anyone else, the place probably wouldn't be as popular. I just found the JB nomination ridiculous.
Tom Sietsema: What specfically don't you care for?
Chevy Chase, Md.: Sushi Ko Chevy Chase is now open
Tom Sietsema: Indeed it is!
Co-owner Russell Gravatt tells me "we snuck open last Friday" (March 22) after months and months of delays. He blames "lots of county stuff" and some design snafus.
Gravatt also confirms the rumor that the Chevy Chase branch didn't open on time in part because the talent wasn't in place. "We're still battling that," he says. "It's a tough marketplace for sushi chefs. There's lots of cannibalism going on." Competitors have hired away several of his kitchen staff -- but fortunately not Koji Terano, the top gun, who is "bouncing around" from place to place these days, according to his boss.
The new Sushi-Ko is at 5455 Wisconsin Ave. NW; call 301-961-1644.
Need some help since I have never been. I am supposed to go on a first date in Columbia, Md. Any suggestion that is not a chain restaurant?
Tom Sietsema: I've got the perfect spot for you: The Iron Bridge Wine Company. While it has a (newish) sibling in Warrenton, it is definitely NOT a chain.
washingtonpost.com: Review: Iron Bridge Wine Company
I had dinner at Mio last week and it was very good. I noticed something that I wanted to ask because there are always complaints about servers on the chat. It looked to me that many of the servers at Mio, ours included, looked to be older than the normal 20-something waiters we often see. They just seemed to be part of a "professional class" of servers. Have you noticed this in your eating travels around the area?
Tom Sietsema: Have I noticed that there's a professional class of servers? I have. And they tend to know a good thing when they see it.
Mio's owner, Manuel Iguna, has been in the restaurant business for decades, and he's worked at some very good places. He's had great luck, finding and securing good staff in the dining room.
Wanted to chime in with a big thank you for the Me Jana recommendation! We went there for my mother's birthday last week. The service was very friendly and the food was very good.
Well worth the recommendation and a visit.
Tom Sietsema: I'm glad to hear that. I always worry that a postive review will substantially change a place, particularly a small neighborhood operation.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: A few weeks back my question about San Antonio recommendations didn't make the chat... Well I'm back from San Antonio and I have to report that the dining there is splendid indeed. A few of the highlights:
Boudros, a "Texas bistro" on the Riverwalk, had a "Texas tapas" lunch with several little items including a great smoked duck tamale and very tasty slices of grilled sausage.
Azuca, a "Nuevo Latino" restaurant a few blocks south of the convention center area, was a great dinner spot. A chorizo appetizer and a mixed-grill entree were both tasty; the chimichurri sauce was outstanding. The desserts looked amazing but we were just too full.
At Biga on the Banks, right at the south end of the Riverwalk, I had a "Texas hill country" combination of venison and grilled quail that was out-of-this-world.
San Antonio is a great dining destination.
Tom Sietsema: Anyone headed to San Antonio thanks you.
Capitol Hill: Hi Tom, Am hosting a dinner for 6 colleagues in Boston next week. I read your recent Postcard but am looking for additional ideas for a new-ish spot with good food/scene appropriate for business dinner. Open to most any cuisine. Friends have recommended Clio, Radius and KO Prime -- thoughts on those or other suggestions much appreciated!
Tom Sietsema: If you dig deeper into the Postcard archives, you'll find I highlighted both Clio and Radius. They aren't new, but they continue to serve interesting food. Another long-time favorite, near the Boston Commons, is No. 9 Park.
Old Town Alexandria: I've been craving a good bowl of guacamole lately. Where are some of your favorite places to chow down? Would like to get ideas for low and high price points; D.C. and NoVa preferred.
Tom Sietsema: For good guac, try Oyamel and Casa Oaxaca in the city and Guajillo, Casa Oaxaca's siblng, in Arlington. I also like the dip as it's staged at Rosa Mexicano -- but that's about all that I like at the sprawling New York import.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom. Do you know when Ray's the Steaks is moving to larger digs? And do you know anything about what it will be like? Will the vibe be dressier, like its cousin in Silver Spring? (If you don't know, perhaps you could summon Michael Landrum by posting this anyway.) Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: Michael, do you care to answer a fan's questions here?
"Co Co. Sala":....is about the dumbest name I have heard for a dining establishment. What is it supposed to mean? I live in Penn Quarter and want to be excited about this tasty-sounding place coming in....but I can't get over the stupid name.
Tom Sietsema: Did you read my Dish column about the place? The name is a hybrid -- not a very good one, in my opinion.
Alexandria, Va.: Tom, I recently had a horrible experience at McCormick and Schmicks in Crystal City. The next day I wrote to the company, via Web site, and explained in detailed all the terrible things that happened and my severe disappointment. I left all of the relevant contact information as well. This was over two weeks ago and I haven't gotten a response. I'm pretty angry. Any thoughts?
Tom Sietsema: It could be no one has read your complaint. It could also be that the restaurant is investigating your problem.
It wouldn't hurt to resend your original missive and request a reply that the company at least received your email.
All that said, two weeks is too long for a reply.
I'm curious what your favorite dine-in restaraunts are in D.C. with entrees under $10? (It seems everyone has a different concept of budget, but this one is mine!) Thanks.
Tom Sietsema: In no particular order -- and with the caveat that some entrees on their menus are more than $10 -- I suggest Four Sisters in Falls Church, Yechon in Annanadale, Jaleo in DC and elsewhere, Hitching Post on Upshur St. NW, Etete on Ninth St. NW, Mandalay in Silver Spring, Amsterdam Falafel Shop in Adams Morgan and Nirvana on K St.
Does anyone else care to share a favorite cheap eat?
Herndon, Va.: I have a topic I'm hoping you'll post so that I can possibly satisfy my curiosity. My wife and I, like 99 percent of couples we have observed, sit on opposite sides of the table facing each other when we eat at a restaurant. Occasionally, however, we will notice a couple sitting on the same side of the table, next to each other. This usually seams to occur in booths, but not always. It has always seamed a little odd to us, because the folks sitting this way are not facing the person they presumably want to be interacting with. They're just sort of staring out into the restaurant. They have to turn towards each other in order to have a conversation. I'm hoping someone out there will explain why they prefer this seating arrangement.
Tom Sietsema: Funny you should bring this up. I found myself sitting next to a (female) dining companion just a week or so ago. We were in a booth facing a dance floor in a restaurant I have yet to review. Both of us felt kind of awkward, because as you point out, such positioning makes conversation a bit more difficult. In our case, hwever, the alternative would have been to sit with our backs to the entertainment.
Can anyone out there argue for a good reason to sit side-by-side like that, particularly in a place where there's no entertainment but dinner?
Great Falls, Va.: Tom, I need to rant a bit about my pet peeve in U.S. restaurants; the act of clearing plates from diners that are finished while others at the same table are still eating. This is as rude as things get in my mind. I often entertain business clients and I am constantly having to tell the wait staff not to clear until everyone's done. It is uncormfortable for some people to be eating while others have had their plates cleared and takes away from the enjoyment of their experience. I know they want to turn the table, but how much longer does it really take to clear everyone at the same time. I work in Europe 50 percent of the time and you almost never see this happen.
What are your thoughts on this?
Tom Sietsema: We've addressed this topic a lot in the past.
I agree with you: it's rude to clear an empty plate when others at the table are still eating. The practice makes people feel as if they're being rushed, even if that's not the case. That said, some diners argue that they hate sitting in front of dirty plates.
Let's hope the transgressors see your gripe. And take action (or not).
Quick Italian questions: Tuscana West or Teatro Goldoni?
Any idea how Laconda on the Hill is?
Tom Sietsema: How about Tosca or Al Tiramisu or Spezie instead?
Locanda is a terrific addition to the Hill. (The pastas and desserts are particularly good.) Most encouragingly, the restaurant has maintained the high standards it launched with.
Couples sitting side-by-side: They still like each other and want to be close and touch during dinner. I used to be part of such a couple .... now I'm interviewing for a new boyfriend.
Tom Sietsema: Given your history there, I'm not sure if you're promoting the idea or shooting it down!
washington DC: re: sitting side-by-side: I find that tables at restaurants these days tend to be big, even for two people. In loud restaurants, particularly, its better to sit next to each other, even on the same side, than to scream across the table to be heard.
Dupont: Re: Out of town dining
There are quite a bit of places to review in the district alone, but considering the amount of travel done by the area's residents, the Postcard idea is more than useful.
Tom Sietsema: I do get a lot of feedback (privately and here) on the Postcard columns. You'll be seeing more of 'em.
Fairfax, Va.: I'm wondering how a food critic, chef, or other food industry professional whose job includes eating or drinking, do when faced with a dietary restriction for health reasons. How would you handle a diet with sodium, alcohol, or sugar restrictions, for example?
Tom Sietsema: Fortunately, that's not a question I've had to ponder yet. But I do recall that the late Craig Claiborne responded to his doc's orders not to eat salt by writing a low-sodium cookbook. And remember Jeff Tunks of DC Coast acclaim, who dropped major pounds a few years ago? I recall him saying he didn't eat after a certain hour, and upped his exercise.
There are probably lots of other examples, but none that come to mind right now.
E-mailing a restaurant: Tom, do you think maybe the diner should call the restaurant? I am unconvinced that e-mails even get read...and definitely not my the manager. I assume this one was conveniently deleted. Plus, voice to voice (although it takes more courage) sends a less passive message
Tom Sietsema: Calling has its merits and its down sides -- as in, what's the best time to catch a manager's attention? Also, I think restaurateurs like to see things in writing. (I know I do!)
There are plenty of businesses that DO listen and DO read email and letters. I know, because readers tell me they do.
Fairfax, VA: Favorite cheap eats:
A&J in Annandale (great dumplings), Huong Viet (everything) in Eden, and Marks Duck House (soups and noodles)
Food Under 10: The saltenas at Tutto Bene on the weekends works for me! Good bowl of pho at Pho 75...
Tom Sietsema: Yep, I dig those savory pastries, too, as well as the beef noodle soup.
Clearing plates: Its actually worse than just making the lingering eater feel rushed. It also stigmatizes the early finisher for woofing down his or her meal. At my restaurant, no plate is to be removed until all are done UNLESS there is a specific request to do so.
Tom Sietsema: Bravo. Thanks for chiming in.
What do you do when something happens that puts you off a restaurant before you even get any food? I took my husband out to Blacks in Bethesda for his birthday. Our waiter arrived and recited the specials but while he was doing so he wiped his nose between his thumb and forefinger 3 or 4 times. He didn't have a runny nose -- just a bad mannerism. Then he tucked his shoulder length hair behind his ears three or four times for good measure! I was revolted. When he left we left too. On the way out I mentioned why (but discretely) to the duty manager who, fairly loudly, nabbed the offending waiter and started to berate him in front of arriving diners. It was an excruciating and unappetizing experience.
Tom Sietsema: Good for you for filling the manager in on the problem (and it IS a problem). But bad form on the part of the manager, berating a server in front of other diners.
What would I have done? Had I wanted to stay, I might have requested another server. And I definitely would have flagged a manager (in private).
Crystal City, VA: I've noticed a number of comments lately about vegetarian options, or lack thereof, at restaurants. What guarantees do patrons have that the food being served is 100% vegetarian. It seems to me that vegetarian patrons should be more concerned that the food is actually vegetarian than whether there are options on the menu.
Tom Sietsema: Do you have reason to believe the food is NOT vegetarian?
Annapolis, MD: The question on sitting positions:
People who have hearing problems (hearing aids, deaf in one ear, etc.) deal with echoes and all sorts of issues in large spaces. I would guess the blind and those who use sign language might have similar seating issues.
I tend to think that the way a couple acts in a restaurant is a window into their marriage- how about those who never say a word to each other, or those who split the check, even though they are married... Food for thought, pun intended!
Tom Sietsema: Yeah, that always saddens me: Obvious couples who have nothing -- nada, zip -- to say to one another over the course of a meal.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom, my family is in desperate need of your help! It is my grandmother's 90th birthday on Friday and my father and I are going down to Williamsburg, Va., to take her to dinner. Do you have any suggestions for a meal that would properly celebrate 90 years? We would be looking for a place that serves American/Nouveau American, French or Italian food. Any price range. The Williamsburg Inn has been suggested, if you or any readers have experience dining there. Thank you in advance!
Tom Sietsema: It's been a few years since I've trekked to Williamsburg. But I'd love to help you (and your grandmother)with a suggestion or two. Chatters?
Fairfax, Va.: Are you planning to write a book like Phyllis Richman - (not the usual dining guide)?
Tom Sietsema: I think I have some interesting stories, if not necessarily a book, in me. But I'm far too busy right now to consider writing a novel. Plus, the stories I would want to share are of the "holy &%@#!" variety and probably best served as I'm exiting this job.
Washington, D.C.: Cash tipping. Recently I have noticed a increase in cash tips being requested. Is this a new trend?
Tom Sietsema: I haven't seen a lot of that. But the request might have to do with waiters getting their tips immediately vs. later.
the act of clearing plates from diners that are finished while others at the same table are still eating.: This one of my pet peeves! My husband eats very fast - he just charges right through it immediately. When he's done, I'm only half way through. When his plate is cleared I feel like I have to gulp it down. My solution is to ask my husband not to finish the last few bites until I get closer to being done. That helps about half the time. But at least when the waiter tries to take the plate he can say "still working on that."
Tom Sietsema: I love your compromise. You sound like two people who still talk to one another.
Washington, DC: can I sneak in a request for a recommendation of a vegetarian-friendly restaurant in the Penn Quarter/metro center area? For Friday night, not too expensive. thanks!
Tom Sietsema: Jaleo and Zaytinya are my usual responses to your request. Any othersk, gang?
Tipping question: Tom - When ordering food for take-out (and upon walking into the restaurant to pick it up) is it necessary to tip? FWIW, Gene Weingarten says no, but you're the expert!
Tom Sietsema: Gene is CHEAP. I mean, the guy once figured out how to get the paper to pay for a, um, "massage" at one of the many spas that advertise (or used to advertise) in the Sports section.
I'm inclined to base my tip on the size of the order and how much attention was paid to it, in terms of packaging and extras like napkins, utensils, condiments. I also try to find out who took or prepped my order and tip him or her. Sometimes it's the host, othertimes it's the bar tender.
U Street, DC: Tom, you always recommend Etete for Ethiopian. As a native Ethiopian myself, the most authentic Ethiopian food in the DC area is found at Dukem.
Tom Sietsema: I like Dukem, too.
Just fyi: Every time I get an Ethiopian cab driver, I ask him or her where they go for a taste of home. I rarely get the same answer! I think their responses have a lot to do with their political and social leanings.
Williamsburg, Va.: The Fat Canary on Merchant's Square is fabulous. I'd go there before the Inn. (Then again, I had a really weird waiter at the Inn, so that may be biasing me).
Tom Sietsema: And just as we're winding down. Thanks.
Couples in restaurants: My husband and I tend not to talk if we are seated uncomfortably close to other diners. This happens more and more often as restaurants try to cram too many people into tiny little spaces. It can also be uncomfortable for us to hear what other people talk about. I can't tell you the number of times I have just wanted to lean over and tell someone that they are mis-quoting a book, or are incorrect in a political statement. But, as I would not want someone to do the same to me, I just sit there, eat my salad, and give my husband "a look."
Tom Sietsema: I've noticed a lot of "looks" on the faces of customers in busy, noisy restaurants of late. And I think I'm GIVING them, too!
Vegetarian: I think if you are truly concerned that a restaurant's representation, either written or verbal, of a menu item as vegetarian is not to be trusted, you either have to arrange to watch them cook it, or not eat out.
As a vegetarian, I do ask questions (is there any fish sauce in this? Meat broth?), and I just have to trust that I'm getting an honest response (even if that response is "I don't know").
Tom Sietsema: Yep, you gotta trust SOMEONE right?
Colorado Springs: Hi Tom. Still love the chats, even four years after moving from D.C. Here's a bit of a philosophical question. Went to Vetri in Philadelphia last weekend, in part because of the recommendation in your postcard. Food was great, service was attentive. Interestingly, though, we were served bad wine. The Prosecco, served first, was corked; and a red by the glass served later in the meal was oxidized. Both were replaced immediately and graciously when the problem was identified. We are not, of course, scarred for life. The meal wasn't ruined, and I don't want anything comped or refunded. But I have to wonder: when you're paying $250 a person for a meal, the restaurant is tiny, AND they have a dedicated sommelier, should bad wine even make it to the table? I'm a reasonably well-informed wine consumer, and reasonably assertive. Someone else might keep quiet and endure a major flaw in a hugely costly experience. Surely the sommelier can't taste everyone's wines, but he could smell them; the defects in both these wines were apparent from the first whiff.
By the way, to reduce the element of confrontation, I asked the staff to request that the sommelier try our suspect wine, "to see if it tastes the way it should," without a specific criticism. It worked pretty well.
Tom Sietsema: Wine isn't always one of those ingredients you can judge -- unlike say, wilted lettice or sour milk -- until the cork is removed, the wine is sniffed and sipped. I've been in a number of high-end restaurants where I've had to return corked or otherwise off wine, flaws that the sommelier or whoever opens the bottle sometimes catches right away.
Like you, I always invite the waiter, a manager or dedicated wine person to taste what I perceive to be a flawed bottle. I like your suggestion to diners who think their order might be corked but aren't quite certain: "Is this how the wine should taste?" is a perfectly legitimate question to raise with a sommelier. There are few things worse than suffering through a bad bottle of wine with a meal.
washingtonpost.com: Postcard From Tom: Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.: Tom, I have a question for you. When dining out, I generally like to have a green salad before my entree. Twice in the past week (once at Marvin, once at Station 9), I have ordered a salad appetizer and an entree, only to discover the entree came accompanied by virtually the same green salad I separately paid approx. $8 for. In neither case did the menu say the entree came with a salad, which I suppose is sufficiently annoying. But couldn't the waiter have flagged this for me in each case? This seems like very relevant information -- they are in a position to know, I'm not, given the menu omissions. I suppose they might think doing so would reduce the amount of the check, and thus their tip. Honestly, in each case I likely would have tried another appetizer. And I'm a generous tipper (20 percent minimum), but also generally annoyed enough that, should it happen again, I will be reducing the tip. Your thoughts?
Tom Sietsema: My thoughts are your thoughts, at least as they pertain to menus that don't offer full disclosure and waiters who compound the problem by not informing diners that they're basically getting two salads (or whatever).
I hope your post makes it onto restaurant bulletin boards, or comes up at staff meetings, this week.
Wondering if you had any good ideas for brunch after running the Cherry Blossom 10-miler in two weeks. Looking for a place that either takes reservations and is close to the run, or is just good and allows a large party to indulge post-run (trying to avoid Old Ebbitt and Clyde's if possible!). Thanks!
Tom Sietsema: What about Les Halles, Cafe du Parc or the Occidental Grill, all of which have the advantage of patio seating? (Surely it's going to warm up ONE of these days, he types hopefully.)
Alexandria, Va.: I'd like to share my experience from Friday night at Vermillion. It was the first time my boyfriend and I had ever dined there. As far as I could tell, we did nothing to make ourselves appear like first timers, and I wanted to keep it that way. Had the dining room hostess, or attendant or whoever she was, asked us in plain earshot of the other diners if it was our first time, then we would've blended in fairly well with everyone. I was embarrassed because society doesn't expect someone who looks like my boyfriend and I to be "foodies" and therefore I wanted to represent my culture well without my status as a first timer being announced to the whole room. It didn't ruin the dining experience, but it did make me uncomfortable.
Tom Sietsema: I need some context here. Do you feel as though you were singled out because of the way you were dressed, because of your age or your skin color? Because a lot of restaurants ask their patrons "Have you dined with us before?" (I hear it all the time.)
The phrase isn't meant to cause slight; it's typically asked because the restaurant wants to give you background information on the chef, the menu or the venue. In other words, I wouldn't take the question personally.
Northwest D.C.: Long time reader first question: About a week ago I went to Ray's the Steaks with my family. We had arranged to get there early to get a table. I have not eaten there before, but some family members have and explained the process for getting a table. We got on the list, however when we were called I was not there. I was parking the car.
Needless to say there was an issue. They would not seat us until the full party was there. After some discussions with the staff it was clear that we needed to leave. They were unpleasant, unaccommodating and rude. I was taken aback by the upfront rudeness of the staff. Is the old adage of the customer is always right gone? Am I expecting too much for minimum consideration from the staff.
Tom Sietsema: I'm curious: Was it just one person the restaurant was waiting for? How much later did you arrive at the restaurant? The answers to those questions would help me form an answer.
Washington, D.C.: Tom -- I was confused by your Ask Tom column this past Sunday. When you wrote that diners would be expected to pay for the substitute dish (if they did not like the one they ordered), did you mean in addition to the price of their original dish? Or did you mean that the diner would have to pay for only one dish -- the second one?
Tom Sietsema: I meant that the diner should pay only for the dish he had eaten (the substitute). Sorry for any confusion there.
washingtonpost.com: Ask Tom: When Is It Appropriate to Send a Dish Back?
Beware the wrath of Gene's fans: Just for the record, all Gene got was a massage. That was the joke of the column. Look, you already have the Reliable Source ladies trashing you -- don't start a beef with Gene.
I know, I know, I know. Gene got a massage (without the quotes). I'd love to see how he listed that on his expense report.
I'm getting married next year and I'm trying to find a great place to hold my reception. Someone mentioned 2941 Restaurant, but I read somewhere that the place isn't as good as it used to be ever since Chef Jonathan Krinn left. Can you recommend a great restaurant with a wonderful location like 2941 Restaurant?
Tom Sietsema:2941 is one of the most beautiful rooms around. And I beg to differ with whoever told you the restaurant isn't as good under Krinn's ultimate replacement, Bertrand Chemel.
But read for yourself: My review of the new guy's work comes out this Friday online, in the paper on Sunday.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom! Just moved to Dupont Circle, and haven't unpacked my kitchen yet!! Where would you get take out in Dupont? I'm especially fond of Indian and Thai...cheaper is better, but want quality. Thanks!!!
Tom Sietsema: If they deliver, Heritage India and Mai Thai or Nooshi are probably your best carry-out bets.
Takoma, D.C.: I don't get why people get so upset about having their plate cleared when they're done. You're done; you don't need your plate anymore. Let it go.
Tom Sietsema: And with that, I'll let this conversation -- and delightful company -- go. At least until next Wednesday.
So long, gang. Have a delicious weekend.
washingtonpost.com: Gene's column: There's the Rub
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 food critic Tom Sietsema answers your questions, listens to your suggestions and even entertains your complaints about Washington dining.
| 282.565217 | 0.913043 | 3.608696 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/25/DI2008032501753.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/25/DI2008032501753.html
|
XM-Sirius Merger - washingtonpost.com
|
2008032919
|
About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.
Washington, D.C.: So does this mean that XM in Washington is going to expand, shrink, or maintain status quo as far as staffing and operation levels?
Steven Pearlstein: That's a good question to which I don't have an answer. My suspicion, however, is that the center of gravity will move toward Sirius headquarters in New York, where the chief executive is located and lives. Not good news for the home team, in other words.
Vienna, Va.: Speaking just as a consumer (I am not involved in this in anyway), I would like either XM or Sirius but one has Major League Baseball and the other the NFL. I want both, and I'm certainly not going to pay twice for it. Fine by me if they merge.
Steven Pearlstein: This is one of the fictions perpetrated by the two companies: that consumers couldn't have the best of both. Not true. Over the objections of the duopolists, the FCC ordered them to come up with a radio that could take signals from either/both services, so that if you wanted to subscribe to both services you could. And the FCC was pushing them to offer a la carte pricing, so you could buy just the baseball or the football from one or the other. THAT would have been very pro-consumer. But just merging them is not pro-consumer. What you will see over time is that the price will rise and the service will deteriorate and become less innovative. Count on it.
Alexandria, Va.: If the merger is anti-competitive, why in your opinion is the National Association of Broadcasters so opposed to the merger? Last I heard, they were not an association representing consumers' interests.
Steven Pearlstein: Look, I hold no brief for the National Association of Broadcasters. In my opinion, they are one of the most selfish lobbies in Washington. I've long said that broadcast licenses should be auctioned off every 10 years to raise money for the government and keep the industry competitive. So I'm no friend of theirs. But just because they are opposed to the merger doesn't mean its right.
Danvers, Mass.: Nice situation. What does a guy have to do to get the government working so hard for him?
Steven Pearlstein: As it happens, any of the three presidential candidates still int he race will be better on antitrust than Bush, which is why you may see a rush of mergers in the nexty few months, because companies realize the window may be closing. That's the advice coming from the corporate antitrust lawyers.
Washington, D.C.: Can you clarify why you feel this creates a monopoly? They have direct competition with terrestrial radio, internet radio, wifi radio, and mp3 players in the portable market. It is an absolute necessity that they offer a compelling product at a desirable price to be successful as there are too many options for the consumer to turn to for audio content if they do not. A monopoly would imply that they have the freedom to charge whatever they want, which is simply not the case. As a Sirius subscriber, the ability to have MLB now is fantastic. I'm more excited about the new content offering than the modest boost I might gain as a share holder of Sirius.
Steven Pearlstein: Well, as I said, the companies set this up as a false choice: either approve the merger or you can't have baseball and football together. Or put another way, now that we have the exclusive rights to these broadcasts, you have to let us earn a monopoly profit by merging or we won't give it to you. Does that sound like someone who is consumer friendly?
The competition you cite is not that strong because the other products and services are highly imperfect substitutes. Do you really think that $12.95 is the break point at which large number of consumers decide its worth it to buy satellite radio, but at $15 they'll say, forget it, I'll go with that crap the Clear Channel puts out with all the ads. Of course not. There is no direct competition at the moment to satellite radio in the market for commercial-free, multi-format portable audio entertainment. None. That's why its so popular, why there are 14 million subscribers and why its growing so fast.
By the way, y our question also contains another common fallacy about monopolists and monopoly pricing. Monopolists can charge whatever they want, but they don't charge infinite pricing. Remember, consumers even in a monopoly market still have a choice of either buying or not buying from the monopolist. So the monopolist, in pricing his product, has to trade off price and volume: the higher the price the lower the volume. And he has to determine which price presents the best tradeoff between price and volume. That can be a complex calculation, having to do mostly with elasticity of demand and the cost of serving the marginal customer. And int he case of XM-Sirius, which high elasticity and low marginal costs, that means the monopoly price will still be pretty reasonable. But you can be pretty sure it will be more than $12.95 a month.
How do I know. Just look at your cable bill.
Washington, D.C.: Another reason to oppose the merger: if there's one company, the FCC is going to impose more conditions on it, essentially creating one regulated monopoly. Do we really need another regulated monopoly?
Steven Pearlstein: You may not like a regulated monopoly, but an unregulated monopoly is the worst of both worlds.
Bernardsville, N.J.: Is the Sirius-XM merger going through due to a general pro-monopoly business agenda of the current administration or as a means to help stimulate business during a sluggish period in the economic cycle?
Steven Pearlstein: The first: a bias against antitrust enforcement.
Beltsville, Md.: Bravo! This is the best discussion of merger issues since the Supreme Court was debating the meaning of our anti-merger law in the 1960s and 1970s. The law (Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act) is still on the books, but one would hardly know that from the behavior of administrations and courts, including the Supreme Court, over the last three decades. Not to mention economists, led on by the supposed "free market" views of the "Chicago School."
Steven Pearlstein: You got that right. The law is very simple and clear: the government should step in to block a merger if it substantially lessens competition. You'd think the merger of the only two satellite radio providers would be an easy one. But Justice now has this view that as long as there is one company somewhere in the world that is left to compete in a market (Maytag-Whirlpool) or there is some imperfect substitute for consumers (XM-Sirius) then that's enough competition.
Of course that's not what the law says -- enough competition. It says substantially lessen competition, wording which Barnett cavalierly ignores in every decision he has made.
Alexandria, Va.: Nice parry on the NAB question. However, you must at least wonder why a group representing terrestrial radio would object to the satellite radio merger unless a combined XM-Sirius would be a powerful competitor with their ground-based counterparts. Also, how can you, in all honesty, equate the bailout of Bear Stearns with this situation? Thirty billion dollars in taxpayers' money spent to help financial services companies merge versus a decision that a merger would not be anti-competitive. Seems like you are trying to piggyback resentment over the Fed's decision to apply to this situation.
Steven Pearlstein: The government is not spending $30 billion -- that is a falsehood. The government, in the form of the Federal Reserve, will manage a portfolio of assets which have already been discounted in value to $30 million, with the expectation of selling off those assets in an orderly manner when market conditions are right. The best guess is that the government will either make or lose about $1 billion. The chance that the portfolio is worthless is close to zero.
As to bailing out XM and Sirius shareholders, that is exactly what the government has done. The two companies had overspent and overinvested in the thought that one or the other would get big very fast and knock the other one out, and it never happened. So neither company is making any money and share prices, which were once very high, began to fall. So executives came up with a brillant solution: let's stop competing against each other, cut our combined programming in half, cut our marketing and overhead costs in half, move to a single satellite distribution system and shareholders in both companies will be better off. The only losers, of course, will be the consumers, who will have less choice in the beginning and eventually, higher prices and less innovation. Mel Karmizan's is the new Soviet commissar, arguing that competition is wasteful and that having one government-designated satellite radio supplier is the best solution.
Why do I say government-designated: Because there are only two outstanding licenses for satellite radio, and Mel now controls both of them. And do you think he will give one back to the government so it can sell it to someone else. Or do you think he'll sit on his hands if some entrepreneur comes along and applies for a third satellite radio license. Not a chance. Mel will be up at the FCC in a New York minute arguing that giving anyone else a satellite radio license is anti-consumer because there is only room in the market for one profitable player.
Here's a little secret about people in the broadcasting business, which includes satellite radio: They are all, at heart, monopolists and oligopolists. They hate competition and do whatever is necessary to eliminate it or reduce it.
Washington, D.C.: Isn't it possible that if the merger doesn't go through, one of these companies drives the other one out of business? Seems like there's really not that much room for two companies, and we're going to get the same result anyway.
Steven Pearlstein: You know, that might be a result, and then we'd have a legally obtained monopoly. But it would take years, and in the process consumers would enjoy the benefit of lots of competition. On the other hand, some big communications company or telephone company might come along and buy the weaker one for a low price, invest big money in it, and use it as part of a strategy to deliver phone-TV-Internet and music to homes and cars. You just never know. But in this country, we usually leave those things up to the marketplace, rather than simply granting monopolies that foreclose all other possibilities.
Oklahoma City, Okla.: I subscribe to both services. What does this mean for me?
Steven Pearlstein: It means you will have about half the current programming offerings you now have, at probably half the price to start out. After that, however, the price will rise and you'll have less innovation. And they'll probably start experimenting with having advertising, starting with a little and then gradually more, but always keeping it less than the advertising content on free radio. You can almost bet on that.
Washington, D.C.: Two years ago I would have considered this merger a monopoly but with the different types of media streams out now I don't know how people can consider this a monopoly anymore. They are just a segment of a media explosion that gives consumers more choices because apart they both would go bankrupt. Why did it take the Government so long to see the validity of this merger?
Steven Pearlstein: Because at the moment there is no good substitute if you want to hear music chosen and downloaded by someone else in a commercial free format. That's a pretty big market -- 14 million customers. And having just one company supplying that market is just plain dumb.
Alexandria, Va.: How will XM-Sirius' a la carte programming proposal affect the satellite radio market and other subscription-based platforms?
McLean, Va.: Steven: I couldn't agree more with your column. I'm a huge fan of satellite radio (I have XM) and want it to succeed but this is a clear case of the government granting a company a monopoly. It's hard to believe any lawyer could justify this. Take this point: "One reason, according to Barnett, is that when you buy a new car, you don't have a choice of whether to install an XM or Sirius radio." This totally ignores the large number of people, such as myself, who buy a radio/stereo unit to install in the car after I buy it. I had a choice of what to install, including which satellite radio receiver. Now I won't.
Steven Pearlstein: Mr. Barnett ignored the "after market", as I think they call it. And yes, people like you will now not have a choice, just as retail customers who go into Best Buy won't have a choice.
Raleigh, N.C.: If they combine, will the XM people have to get new radios? Will Sirius pay for the new radios and if not, are they willing to lose us?
Steven Pearlstein: For a while, XM and Sirius will run essentially two distribution systems, each with its own satellite network and ground stations and radio "boxes" in your homes and cars. Next, they'll come out with a new "interoperable" receiver that will be sold to all new customers, that can receive either signal. And after a decade or so, they'll decide on one system or the other, and make everyone who has the "wrong" kind of radio exchange it for the new one. I say a decade because it will be at that point the company has to begin investing in a whole new generation of satellites and at that point, the cost of operating two different systems will be so high that it will be cheaper for them to pay the switching costs of the boxes. They may pay the full cost of the switch, or more likely, they will pay part of the cost and make consumers pay the rest.
Bethesda, Md.: I'm glad the merger has been approved. My three year XM subscription ends April 30 and I was considering not renewing because just about everything I've read indicates that XM can't make it without merging. That would have stuck me with about $180 in XM hardware that was useless. I currently have the SkyFi2 receiver and have it hooked up in my car, at home to my Bose wave radio, and in the office in the XM boom box. If XM goes out of business and I still want satellite radio, I would have to switch to Sirius and buy even more hardware. I like satellite radio (no commercials, MLB). It beats commercial radio by a mile. At $10/month (averaged over a 3 year subscription), it's more than worth it not to have to hear the terrible morning radio programming in D.C. If the merger were not approved, I would probably drop satellite radio altogether and just use my MP3 player in my car.
Steven Pearlstein: You assume that XM would go out of business. I think that's not a good assumption. Interestingly, that could have been a winning argument with the Justice Department -- its called the failing firm defense. If, in fact, XM's failure was inevitable, then it would be silly for the government to step in and prevent a merger, even one that results in a monopoly. But they didn't make that argument because they couldn't. And they couldn't because they hadn't explored the possibility of XM merging or being sold to someone other than the only other satellite radio company.
Mt. Vernon, Va.: I agree with your thesis that this is the type of merger that previously would have been blocked. But, really, who cares? Neither XM or Sirius have ever caught on, there's other competition (i.e., AM, FM, Internet-based radio) and it's probably destined to be replaced by Net radio and Mp3 players. This reminds of when AOL & Compuserve merged; it seemed like a big, scary deal at the time, but within a couple of years, both were obsolete.
Steven Pearlstein: It's an interesting point, but I don't think the analogy is really a valid one. This is a very sustainable technology. And not all of us want to spend our time and money downloading music. Nor is it clear that phone companies will be able, in any near time frame, to deliver such a rich subscription service on their own over portable telephones that can be used in cars and homes. In fact, the phone companies will probably want to partner with one of the existing satellite radio companies to provide the music service, just as DirecTV does now. ONly when whey go out to shop for such a service, guess what? There will only be ONE left.
Boston, Mass.: I think you give too much credit to their exclusive content and too little credit to the scope of their competition. There are plenty of free alternative shock jocks to compete with Howard Stern, and MLB packages only really appeal to out of market fans for single teams.How many high-end vehicles does GM even sell with these packages included, and how many consumers actually maintain their subscriptions after the initial trial period ends? Also with the high probability that one of them would have gone out of business and had their expensive assets sucked up by the other, where is the beef? I think consolidation among terrestrial radio stations would be of much more regulatory concern.
Steven Pearlstein: The only point I would agree is that consolidation among terrestrial networks is of equal concern. But I think you underestimate the strength and viability of commercial-free radio. Its really great, with lots of niche channels to chose from. Nothing like it on the AM-FM dial.
Advertising Guy: This sounds a little bit like the beginning of the endgame for terrestrial radio--with the exception of syndicated talk. Once the new combined company establishes a format (or announces that it will support both platforms), subscriber growth will shoot up.
Steven Pearlstein: In the long run, there will be a handful of programming companies,a nd they will distribute their radio content across multiple platforms and distribution systems. Which is why you want to have competition remaining in all of those distribution channels -- terrestrial, satellite radio, wireless phone and Internet, etc.
Washington, D.C.: It's not clear to me what happens now--is Consumers Union or some other group going to court to block the merger? I assume that'll happen, meaning there will likely be a temporary restraining order and another 3-5 years of legal wrangling. Could the FCC take action in the meantime to give us more a la carte options?
Steven Pearlstein: No, its probably a done deal now, other than some cosmetic conditions that the FCC will impose to show that it is looking out for consumers in some fashion.
Philadelphia, Pa.: I think your article significantly overstates the market power of satellite radio. By removing the "contract" subscribers who receive satellite radio free with their new cars, subscriber growth for the two companies has been minimal, which means the share of radio listeners who think it's worth $13/month to listen to Howard Stern and avoid commercials is very small. With the inability of Sirius-XM to draw a significant number listeners away from traditional broadcasting, do you really think ANY peripheral radio outlet (internet, satellite, or whatever) has the power to increase prices when there is a widely-available free substitute? Your entire article hinges on the assumption that satellite radio doesn't compete with traditional radio, and while I understand that's the only viable argument for opponents of the merger, it's pretty weak.
Steven Pearlstein: It doesn't compete directly. One has commercials, the other doesn't. One has all sorts of jazz and blues and folk and classical, the other has very limited offerings in all of those. One has Howard and the other doesn't. Yes, they are both audio entertainment, but they are hardly perfect substitutes. And, more to the point, since I pay nothing for terrestrial radio, its hard to know how it provides very direct price competition. Do you think consumers have calculated the "value" of having choice and no commercials and decided that it is precisely $12.95 a month. I don't think so. That price was derived at by competing one satellite radio service against another, so that consumers had an apple to compare to an apple, not an apple to a pomegranite.
Washington, D.C.: XM's website says that none of its satellite radios currently in use will become obsolete as a result of the merger. How credible is this statement? I know that if my two radios are not supported after the merger, I will cancel my subscription to XM-Sirius, or whatever the new company will be called. I will miss Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour (today's theme: fire) but I'll live. Thanks.
Steven Pearlstein: Eventually they will move to a single distribution network that will require at least half of the existing sets to be swapped out. The only question is who will pay for that -- you or the company? But that's several years down the road.
Seattle, WA: How does the Sirius merger compare with the denied Whole Foods merger? Sirius and XM are 'the' market for satellite radio, but are grouped under 'entertainment.' Whole Foods sells food but was grouped under 'organic natural food retailers.'
Steven Pearlstein: It's a good question. The new standard defense of mergers now is that the market isn't the narrow market you think it is, but it is "all food" or "all audio entertainiment." Defined this way, of course, any merger looks like it passes muster. But, in fact, that is not the way consumers and competitors perceive the marketplace. They operate in narrow sub-markets, where the real competition takes place because the competitive products and services are most similar to each other. And what's so disappointing is to see the Justice Department embracing this wrong-headed analytical framework in XM-Sirius, just as the district court adoptedc it in Whole Foods-Wild Oats. Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commission, the other antitrust enforcement agency, has been better about not falling for the "its all one market" arguments.
Washington, D.C.: Do you see subscribers having to shell out more cash for a subscription after the merger? If both companies are in the red, how else will they turn a profit other than by raising prices?
Steven Pearlstein: They'll hold prices pretty stable for a couple of years to avoid the political repercussions. And there is plenty to be gained by cutting duplicative costs in terms of marketing and overhead. They will also cut the number of total programs offered by the combined entity in half: in the near future, there will be only one set of programs offered through both channels. And because of bandwidth limitations, that single set of programs will be only slightly larger than either the existing XM or Sirius offerings.
Washington, D.C.: What's your take on DOJ founding their approval upon the lack of interoperable radios? Doesn't that pretty much undermine the original 1997 conditions from the FCC?
Steven Pearlstein: Good point. The FCC had ordered the companies to develop an interoperable radio, but neither really wanted to because it would have only heightened the competition between them by allowing customers to easily jump from one service to another, playing one off against the other. So they dragged their feet, and have now been rewarded for dragging their feet by the Department of Justice.
Princeton, N.J.: Respectfully, your opinion is all wet. Satellite radio is not a product you NEED to purchase, it's purely for entertainment purposes (unlike say, oil or utilities: two areas where the government has sanctioned de facto monopolies that have jacked up prices to no end). If the combined XM-Sirius raises prices, people will stop subscribing and the company will go out of business. In addition, to minimize the ubiquity of other forms of radio programming (last I checked every car in America comes equipped with regular old "free" radio) is to miss the revolution that is going on in technology (more and more cars are also coming equipped with iPod adapters). The true gall is in the hands of the NAB, who, while arguing that the combined company would be a monopoly, undermined its entire argument by pouring millions into burying the deal (if satellite does not compete with regular radio, why bother?). This from a lobbying group headed by Clear Channel, who literally ran a monopoly in many small cities and towns by owning every single station available. Please.
Steven Pearlstein: Ah, my conspiracist liberal friend from Princeton. You need to study up on monopoly pricing, which is premised on the idea that the only choice consumers have is either to buy the monopoly product at the monopoly price, or not buy it. That doesn't mean, however, that the monopoly price is the competitive market price. XM-Sirius will gradually raise its prices until it reached the point where any further increase in price generates less profit because of the loss of revenue. I don't know where that price is, and neither does XM-Sirius. But I can assure you it is higher than $12.95 a month.
Falls Church, Va.: Boy, I want your job. Terrestrial radio doesn't compete with XM just because there are programming differences? That's like saying terrestrial radio stations (or satellite radio stations) don't compete with each other because their programming is different. And hello, there ARE commercials on XM, anyway. If there is money to be made in radio only, do you really think Direct TV or DISH network can't step into this market?
Steven Pearlstein: DirecTV has no license to participate in this market, and you can be sure that Sirius-XM will spend millions of dollars making sure that the FCC never grants that license. In fact, DirecTV offers either Sirius or XM as part of its offerings to its home customers, under contract. Guess what: the price Sirius-XM charges DirecTV is about to go up, because DirecTV can no longer play one supplier off against the other.
I didn't say terrestrial radio doesn't compete at all with XM. I said it is not a very direct competition because the two products are not very similar -- one subscription based, one advertising based. If they competed directly, and offered essentially the same product and service, then you'd be crazy to pay $12.95 a month to XM or Sirius. But 14 million people do pay it.
Washington, D.C.: I continue to be perplexed why Wall Street, and major investors sing the praises of companies like XM and Sirius. They lost millions as stand-alones, and now after merging and purging they will lose less millions as a combined company. There has never been a working operating plan that shows either company making money. The merger will just soften the annual financial blow. Put the DOJ and FCC question to the side, and ask the hard question. When and how will Satellite radio show a substantial profit?
Steven Pearlstein: Its a good question and, of course, I'm in no position to answer it. But there are huge scale efficiencies to be gained from this merger, particularly once you can jettison one entire satellite and ground station distribution system.
Alexandria, Va.: If one of the 2 companies simply went out of business, would the subscription price for the survivor be likely to increase by more or by less than it is likely to do under this merger?
Steven Pearlstein: In theory, the same.
Washington, D.C.: Under your theory, shouldn't the Justice Department block Direct TV's exclusive NFL deal? You can't get out of market games any other way.
Steven Pearlstein: NFL, like MLB, is effectively a government sanctioned monopoly. As such, the government should look very skeptically at exclusive dealing arrangements by these monopolists.
Reston, Va.:-Ahem- XM-Sirius has $2.5 Billion in liabilities at present, and is losing half a billion annually. It has less than a year's cash on hand now. Why do you think anybody would want to buy it in current form, or that it could start making money? You assume they didn't consider any other offers, when it seems more likely that nobody wants to have any part of something that loses so much money.
Steven Pearlstein: If your argument is that satellite radio is a natural monopoly, it is an interesting one, but if it is a natural monopoly, it should be regulated like other public utilities. I don't recall XM or Sirius having suggested it would subject itself to price regulation.
Alexandria, Va.:"What you will see over time is that the price will rise and the service will deteriorate and become less innovative. Count on it."This seems to be an extension of your argument in your column that "great programming at affordable prices" is definitely going to go away following the merger. So great programming is not to be found on terrestrial radio, including NPR and other non-commercial stations, or through any other medium? Even if the price rises and services deteriorate, people will stop subscribing, and go somewhere else. You seem to say that once satellite radio stops innovating, consumers will run out of options. Do you really believe that satellite radio has no competition from regular radio, iPods, and other internet sources of content?
Steven Pearlstein: At this point, not much, no.
Steven Pearlstein: That's all the time we have for today. "See" you all next week.
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 business columnist Steven Pearlstein discusses the XM-Sirius merger.
| 463 | 0.846154 | 1.615385 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/19/DI2008031901775.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/19/DI2008031901775.html
|
The Technologist
|
2008032919
|
He recently wrote about losing his MacBook Air and today's column focuses on astronomy programs created by Google and Microsoft.
Levy started covering the digital revolution more than 25 years ago while writing a story for Rolling Stone about computer hackers. Since then, he's written books about hackers, Apple, artificial life and the iPod.
Steven Levy: Hi, everyone. This week I wrote about the "space program" of Google and Microsoft. (I'm talking about programs that scan the sky, not Google's initiative to encourage people to go to the moon). But I'm happy to take on larger questions of the Google-Microsoft competition, questions about my missing MacBook Air from the previous column, or just about anything in the wide world of tech.
North Bethesda, Md.: So I have to ask: did you ever find your MacBook Air?
Steven Levy: No, I didn't. I'm still favoring the theory that either my wife or I tossed it out with the newspapers, though my wife doesn't endorse that supposition. I've gotten a huge response, with some people saying that they can really see how that could happen. Others are just laughing. Also, if you are an Air owner, be extra careful when you take it out to get through airport screening -- apparently it can easily blend in with the color of those plastic bins.
Washington, D.C.: Can you elaborate more on the Google v. Microsoft relationship? Is their "respect" toward one another on the space applications a one time thing - or do you think the companies are moving in a different direction?
Steven Levy: There is a heated competition between Google and Microsoft, and there's more blood in Microsoft's eye than in Google's. Probably because Microsoft is a more traditional kind of zero-sum competitor than Google, though the Googlers certainly don't seem above sticking a finger in the Microsoft eye here and there. But in the case of these astronomy programs I wrote about, the people involved see their projects as educational and inspirational, and seem (at least as they presented themselves to me) less focused on blasting their opponent than making a great connection with the stargazing public. This is easier to do when the project isn't monetized, and in this case, both Google Sky and WorldWide Telescope are ad-free and cost nothing to the user.
Alexandria, Va.: Do you have any thoughts on the announcement that Motorola is splitting in two? Does this speak just to the company (since they've been struggling to find themselves recently) or about the mobile industry?
washingtonpost.com: Motorola to Break Into 2 Companies
Steven Levy: Motorola is in a bind because after a good period following the Razr success, its handset division is lagging. YOu can say it's unique, but I do think that you have to view it in the light of the flawed model of the telecom industry, where headset manufacturers and software developers are not free to unleash innovations because of the harsh gatekeeping of the companies who control the mobile networks. These are giants whose genetic origins are monopolistic, and unless a company like Motorola gets it just right, it's easy to see losses pile up. It will be interesting to see how Apple deals with this situation in the long run.
Washington, D.C.: If these programs are ad-free and cost nothing to the user, what are Google and Microsoft getting out of creating these programs? Just good-will?
Steven Levy: The short answer is yes, by releasing these programs to the public, they perform a service. But there are solid business reasons for this, too. From Google's point of view, Sky is one of a number of services that draw people to the company's Web sites. It's not just on the Web, but it's built into Google Earth, a client-based program that's a companion to ad-supported Google Maps. So by coming to the Google camp to look at stars, you're a click away from the ad stuff.
Microsoft has other reasons to justify the expense of WorldWide Telescope. It comes from its research division, which typically pushes the envelope to come up with innovations that they can build into their software that brings in big cash. The strength of WorldWide Telescope is in its interface and its handling of multi-media, both of which are huge parts of Microsoft's commercial software business. So by launching this program, Microsoft might be finding new ideas that will eventually make it money.
Still, it's a win for astronomy and users. And the people working on both projects are truly excited at the response.
WorldWide Telescope: I'm guessing that folks running Mac are disproportionately represented on Google Sky and other cool astronomy programs (celestia etc.). Will Microsoft make a Mac-native version of their WorldWide Telescope available?
Steven Levy: Well, let me put it this way -- Mac users who download WorldWide Telescope will be disproportionally under represented. I asked Microsoft about whether they would do it in other platforms and got a flat no -- the answer was that the company knew Windows so well that its resources would be best spent working only on a Windows XP/Vista program. Google, on the other hand, not only offers Google Earth/Sky on multiple platforms, but now has a Web version of Sky.
Of course users of recent Macs can run Windows on those Intel machines, and thus use WWT.
I think this is an interesting question as Microsoft goes forward -- and Apple gains more market share. Will it sacrifice some of its application business to prop up Windows? Right not market share of Windows is so large it hasn't been much of a question. But if Apple keeps gaining share, this could be a tougher question for Redmondites in the future.
Arlington, Va.: I loved "The Perfect Thing" and love pretty much all my Apple products for most of the reasons you outline in the book, their design and ease of use. Do you see Apple finding a way to bring their design excellence to the e-book market? I have always wanted to want an e-book reader, but have yet to see one that makes me want to make the switch. On a related note, have you tried out the Kindle?
Steven Levy: Have I tried out the Kindle? Ahem. Our Newsweek cover was first to write about it, and I've had a lot of experience with it. My basic take is that it is groundbreaking (especially in the way it wirelessly connects with the Amazon store) and fulfills its basic goal of "disappearing" like a physical book when you're reading, well, a book. But it needs to improve its interface and design, and is costly. One might think that Apple is eyeing this market, but when Steve Jobs was asked he made a strange statement to the effect that Apple isn't interested because Americans don't read much. I bet, however, that Apple people, including Steve, read plenty and like the iPod, which was driven by the goal of its designers to create a device they wanted themselves, an Apple e-reader would benefit from the same principle.
New York, N.Y.: Which program do astronomers like better, Google Sky or Worldwide Telescope?
Steven Levy: The ones I talked to like both programs, but a couple things about Microsoft's WorldWide Telescope appeal in particular. Microsoft is working on a "pro" version that will allow astronomers to actually perform science (one astronomer told me that some work that previously required a trip to some remote telescope could be done via desktop). Also, Microsoft uses a slightly more standard version of coding information, though Google is moving towards standardization too. Professional astronomers, though, have contributed "user content" to both projects, and see both as great tools to fire up young minds.
Steven Levy: Looks like some potential questioners are so excited about Google Sky and Microsoft's WorldWide Telescope that they're already off in some distant galaxy. Thanks to everyone for questions and attention, and see you next time.
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.
|
Newsweek senior editor Steven Levy, whose column now appears bi-weekly in The Washington Post, discussed the latest buzz in the tech industry.
| 60.481481 | 0.703704 | 0.925926 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301658.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301658.html
|
Federal Diary Live - washingtonpost.com
|
2008032919
|
Archive: Federal Diary Live transcripts
Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining in this discussion today! We'll go straight to your questions and comments.
Virginia: You wrote: "The board's study found that federal managers, probably more than in the past, consider applicants from outside government because they are committed to hiring the best qualified applicants and want to improve the quality of their workforce." This is very demoralizing. In my agency, most of the new top outside hires were skilled in politics but not policy.
Stephen Barr: Your comments grow out of today's Federal Diary column. Most of these managers are hiring for specific skills and expertise, and probably have concluded that the in-house staff does not have what the agency needs.
Having said that, I found it interesting that a huge chunk of new employees being hired into the upper GS levels come from contractors. Does that suggest that contract employees bring certain skills to the table that are not learned elsewhere in the private sector?
For those of you interested in this study, it has been posted on the Web pages of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
San Francisco: People who receive Social Security retirement income will receive a $600 Economic Stimulus Payment. Will other federal retirees also receive this one-time payment?
Stephen Barr: Whether you qualify for a rebate -- and the size of the rebate -- depends on your income level, dependents and other factors. The IRS tells me that taxable pensions count when you fill out a tax return, and count toward determining whether a person has a net income tax liability. Having a tax liability is one of the way you qualify for a rebate.
You also may get a rebate if you have no tax liability. For this purpose, taxable pensions don't count -- only earned income, such as wages, Social Security and certain railroad retirement and veterans benefits.
Confused? More information is available at the IRS Web site, which also has an online calculator to help you figure a rebate payment.
washingtonpost.com: IRS Economic Stimulus Payment Calculator
Washington: I'm a federal employee, currently at a GS-14 Step 10, and am interviewing for a GS-15 position. Is there a rule/procedure in getting hired as a GS-15 as to what step you start as (assuming that you would make at least what you did previously)? Is this negotiable? Thanks.
Stephen Barr: In general, agencies promoting an employee from one GS grade to another grade must set the pay at a rate of the higher grade that will pay at least the equivalent of a two-step increase in the grade from which the worker was promoted, according to the Federal Employees Almanac, a widely used handbook.
If I've done the math right, that means you are headed for GS-15, step 6 territory. Congratulations! I do think the raises tied to promotions can be negotiated, and that agencies have the leeway to set pay at higher rates.
Again, I'm no expert. Any human resources types out there with a view on this?
Baltimore: Stephen, OPM's proposal to offer a short-term disability benefit to federal employees raises several questions. If, as per your example in yesterday's Federal Diary, the employee would receive 60 percent of his salary for 12 weeks, is that 60 percent before or after taxes? Also, how would contributions to the TSP (and the government match) be affected during the period that the employee is receiving short-term disability benefits?
washingtonpost.com: OPM Calls for Short-Term Disability Insurance (Federal Diary, March 25)
Stephen Barr: Because OPM still is drawing up this proposal, I don't know if I can answer your questions. Generally speaking, I think disability insurance income is taxed, and I doubt you would be able to make any TSP contributions during this time because you probably would be placed in some sort of leave status by your agency. The devil is in the details, and I'm not up to speed on all this, alas.
Atlanta: Hi Stephen. I'm one of those hires from outside the federal government who was hired for one of those "upper-level positions," defined as GS-12 through GS-15.
Unlike what the first poster suggests, I have no political experience -- I used to be a career (nonpolitical) employee at an agency of a state government. Most of the other outside hires I'm familiar with also came from state and/or local governments. We used to run federally-funded programs and/or do federally-funded projects at our former employers. Now we work for the agency that used to fund our former employers.
Stephen Barr: Thanks, Atlanta. It's also important to note that even though more non-feds are entering the upper levels as new hires, the overwhelming majority of these jobs (on the order of 80 percent) are filled by current feds who get promoted. Still, the merit board data shows a trend is under way, and it reflects how federal work and the skills needed has been changing.
A promotion is a change of an employee while continuously employed from one General Schedule (GS) grade to a higher GS grade.
Only GS employees who are promoted to a higher grade under the General Schedule without a break in service are covered by the two-step promotion rule in 5 U.S.C. 5334(b) and 5 CFR 531.214 (also, 5 CFR 531.243 for GM employees).
The two-step promotion rule states that a GS employee promoted to a position in a higher grade is entitled to basic pay at the lowest rate of the higher grade that exceeds his or her existing rate of basic pay by not less than two step increases of the grade from which promoted. The two-step promotion rule must be applied using one of two methods-the standard method or the alternate method.
Stephen Barr: Thank you, Washington. A nice clarification.
Frederick, Md.: Mr. Barr -- I wonder what you are hearing about the federal government's efforts to get more employees working from home? I do know of the current Telework Improvements Act of 2007 (HR 4106).
In my mind, telework has become an increasingly critical component of the federal government's efforts to develop continuity-of-operations plans and to effectively manage its human capital. Furthermore, telework helps alleviate traffic congestion and reduce vehicle emissions. As I understand current law, agencies have the authority to develop strategic plans, train employees and managers, and implement workforce policies to promote telework. To further the development of such policies, both HR 4106, as well as S. 1000, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2007, are designed to increase the number of employees eligible to telework.
I invite your attention to the fact that some agencies, including the Board of Veterans' Appeals at the Department of Veterans Affairs, demand increased productivity from all employees who telework ("Flexiplace" in Board vernacular.) While all federal agencies should demand that each employee be as productive as possible, if there is not an even playing field between the performance standards expected from teleworkers and those who continue to commute daily to work, the goals of any telework program would be defeated. Simply put, treating similarly situated employees in a disparate manner sends a clear message to employees that management discourages employees from participating in any telework (flexiplace) program. Hence, I ask that any telework legislation include language forbidding agencies from setting up two tiered performance standards which demand more from those who telework and less from those that do not.
Are you aware of the practice of requiring two different standards for the same employees? Is this legal? In other words, for example, at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, full-time attorneys, who work 40 hour weeks, are required to do 156 "credits." However, Board attorneys who work two days a week from home, while also working 40 hour weeks, and are doing the identical work, for the identical pay, are required to do 170 "credits." My thoughts are that these different performance standards cause a potential lack of interest for otherwise eligible employees to work at home -- thus defeating the work at home goals. Thank you.
Stephen Barr: Intriguing example you offer. From testimony I have heard on Capitol Hill, it is clear that agencies and the Congress want to ensure that telecommuting arrangements do not lower productivity, and there is a hope, it seems, that it will increase productivity because a person may be more focused and have fewer interruptions in a home office.
Sounds like you need to ask your managers why the standards are higher for teleworkers.
To your larger point, there seems to be an interest in Congress to promote telecommuting for the reasons you cite, but agency data suggests that managers are not sold on this practice yet.
Washington: Mr. Barr - do you think you are unfairly maligning government employees and associating them necessarily as being less qualified than private sector employees?
I think the anti-affirmative action debate has accomplished one of the greatest dangers in this society in casting doubt on black American capability. However, in my view, these opponents are not really interested in fostering a meritocracy, but in maintaining historical patterns of professional and economic privilege and exclusion. This is because anti-affirmative action opponents are only dedicated to tearing down a program designed to give blacks equal opportunity. They are not as dedicated to combating workplace or other structural forms of racism against black Americans or women, etc. -- and even in many cases, are persons who are interested in watering-down merit systems to foster inequitable treatment.
Let's take the patent office for example. Jon Dudas is a political appointee. He is the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mary Peterlin is his Deputy Director. Both of them come from the Hill, so it can't be said that they really come from outside of the government -- however, they come from outside of the field of intellectual property.
Patent attorneys, law professors and other professionals have complained loudly about Jon Dudas's and Ms. Peterlin's lack of experience and qualifications for their jobs. A group of patent attorneys, as you reported in the Federal Diary, even complained that this lack of experience has filtered down to senior managers who have an antagonistic relationship with their patent examiner subordinates -- and who do not wield the scientific and legal expertise in their examination of patent applications.
In my view as a patent examiner, I agree with some professionals who've noted that Jon Dudas and Ms. Peterlin are politicians rather than practitioners -- and that their being politicians rather than practitioners has ill-served the agency and hurt inventors who then have to waste thousands of dollars defending themselves from spurious rejections put into place some managers.
The question is not who is more inherently qualified than the other. The question is, are government agencies committed to recognizing talent from within irrespective of race, gender or color, as well as recruiting talent from without? Or are agencies more interested in not developing the careers of their employees on the inside?
Stephen Barr: No, I don't think that reporting on a study and survey data means I'm interested in undermining the federal workforce. Most managers prefer to promote from within, assuming the job applicants are equals, but this study shows managers are open to bringing in outsiders if they are the most qualified, and that's a key part of fair and open competition for jobs.
Now, your other remarks go the issue of how much federal employees respect their leaders. We know from recent employee surveys that at least half do not hold positive views toward their agency leaders. That, in my view, stirs a separate debate over the quality of political appointees and how they are selected.
washingtonpost.com: In Search of Highly Skilled Workers (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Report)
Stephen Barr: Here's a handy link to the merit board study, kindly provided by our washingtonpost.com producer.
Telework: Union steward here - are you a member of your bargaining unit? (You should be a member of your union too!.) If so, check your bargaining agreement. It may prohibit two different standards of work expectations/assignments for teleworkers and office workers.
Stephen Barr: Good point -- thanks for making it.
Re: Promothion from 14/10 to 15/?: Any way you look at it, this is great news for this person! Good luck in the new job. For most of us, we still are scratching the bottom of the ladder in hopes of one day reaching that goal of "upper" management.
Stephen Barr: Well said. Thanks.
Baltimore: A government agency has a responsibility to make their own employees probable to the high-graded jobs. That said, I think we'll see more and more capable individuals attracted to federal service in their later years in life to take advantage of subsidized health benefits in retirement, a defined retirement package like FERS and the TSP matching. I think that with the majority of the private sector dropping these benefits, more people will look to the feds when they are about 20 years from retiring for FERS and TSP, and only five years for the health benefits.
Stephen Barr: Excellent point, Baltimore. The study found that "job security" and "government benefits" were key attractions for these people coming to Uncle Sam.
Today's column: I wonder about the finer details of what you based your article on, and any differences based on agency or geographic location. Other factors are whether these positions are temporary, or are filled through alternate hiring authority. One example of alternate hiring may be through the military spouse avenue.
My experience with 12/13 positions is that they have been given through internal agency avenues based on the gamed job description. Of course there are temp or term jobs that are open, but I would not touch them because it affects retirement.
Many Defense positions are filled through the avenue of military-civilian conversions, where a person on a Friday leaves as a military employee and comes in Monday as a civilian. I am sure the Department of Defense will be very big on hiring 20-plus year veterans for GS-12 or greater positions. I have known many who retired after serving who were hired as a civilian someplace else on base, usually as a GS-12 or GS-13.
Stephen Barr: The study seems to suggest that the departments of Defense and Homeland Security tend to hire more so-called outsiders. The study also noted that all agencies hired from outside for information technology jobs. So my guess is that this kind of hiring into upper-level jobs has more to do with occupations than with geography.
Washington: Hi. Can someone tell me if a QSI (quality step increase) replaces a WGI? For example, if a staff member is due a WGI in in two years and she/he receives a QSI, will the staff member receive her/his WGI at the two-year mark, or will the QSI cause the WGI date to change? Many thanks.
Stephen Barr: Okay folks, I'm clearly not up to answering this query. Help us out, please.
QSI/WGI: Union Steward again -- if you get a Quality Step Increase, you should also get your Within Grade Increase as scheduled. Check your bargaining agreement/talk to your union steward.
Stephen Barr: Thanks much! Good to know someone reads the fine print on these pay and employment rules!
Washington -- QSI: My understanding is that a QSI does not alter the schedule for WGIs. If somebody is due for a WGI in two years and gets a QSI, the WGI still should come in two years.
Stephen Barr: And thank you for that keen eye, too!
Washington: I'm not in human resources, but my WGI was not affected by my QSI. I was a 13-1, got a QSI to a step 2, and a month or so later -- on my regularly scheduled date -- got my WGI to a step 3.
Stephen Barr: Sounds like the system is working as intended. Thanks for your posting.
Re Telework: I was able to telework for 12 years under two different supervisors who highly endorsed it; new supervisor comes in, doesn't like it when her employees are not seen, cancels all telework ... go figure!
Stephen Barr: Sigh. OPM has suggested that managers need training in telework, and this certainly makes that case.
Takoma Park: Hi Stephen. I am nearing retirement and wanted to check whether I understood an insurance-related question correctly. I am in FERS. Is it true that I must select a pension with a survivor annuity -- in this case my wife -- in order for her to qualify for FEHB insurance after I die? Thank you.
Stephen Barr: That is correct. When you get ready to do the paperwork, engage your HR staffer in a discussion on this, because it is a key part of your financial planning.
Once again, we've run out of time. Thank you for the questions and comments, and we'll see you back here at noon next Wednesday!
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 columnist Stephen Barr answers questions about navigating the federal workplace. Federal Diary runs weekdays in the Business news section of The Post.
| 130.538462 | 0.653846 | 1.038462 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301132.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301132.html
|
Washington Nationals Spring Training
|
2008032919
|
Svrluga covers the Nationals beat for The Post and writes the Nationals Journal blog for washingtonpost.com. He's also the author of "National Pastime: Sports, Politics, and the Return of Baseball to Washington, D.C."
Barry Svrluga: Greetings folks. Two more games down here -- right this very minute against the Braves and tomorrow against the Orioles. The Nationals will then fly home and get their first glimpse of Nationals Park at around 9 p.m. I can tell you a couple things: They're ready to get outta here, and they can't wait to see their new digs.
Let me make sure that those of you online-only types know that in today's $.50-edition lies our baseball preview section. Make sure you pick it up. Tons of Nats stuff in there.
Roster will be set today. Pretty straightforward.
Anonymous: How surprised were you that the Nats released Patterson? Do you think it was a good move?
Barry Svrluga: I have to admit: I was surprised when it went down. No question. But I also admit: Once I thought it through, I think it made sense.
This would not have happened in previous years, when the Nationals didn't have a bunch of decent prospects -- Collin Balester, Tyler Clippard, Garrett Mock and John Lannan -- sitting at Class AAA Columbus. But they just werne't in position for him to rebuild himself on a major league field. A very dramatic move, but I think the thinking was sound.
Fairfax, Va.: If Christian Guzman reverts to pre-2007 form, who do you think will lead off?
Barry Svrluga: Good question. I think it could be one of two people: Felipe Lopez or Lastings Milledge.
Anyone who's been reading the coverage knows that it seems like Ronnie Belliard and Cristian Guzman will be the middle infielders, with Lopez as their reluctant backup. But if Guzman were to go down, Lopez -- despite his .308 OBP from last year -- could slide back into the leadoff spot.
I have to say: Though Lopez has not produced much down here, he has, in general, hustled. And he was in the clubhouse the other day telling Belliard and Guzman -- in Spanish, which I broke down with some help -- that he would support them if they won the two jobs.
Milledge is quite fast. He's not a good OBP guy -- yet -- but he'd give the Nationals some speed at the top, and he could put the team up by a run in the first at-bat of the game.
Those would be my guesses.
Rockville, Md..: I was stunned when I read that Patterson had been released. I root for the Nats for sure, though I am not a huge baseball fan and am wondering, does this move speak more to the promise of young talent or the frustration that he was often injured and rather unreliable?
Barry Svrluga: You got it, Rockville. See that earlier answer. I definitely think that's a huge chunk of it.
Moving into the new stadium with a full year of ownership under their belts, it seems like a fair time to evaluate the Lerners and Kasten. They have shown commitment to building at the minor league level, but not yet at the Major League level. Are they going to pay to keep the great players they have, or are they stocking the system to continue to hope to have a competitive team despite a low payroll such as the Twins? Given the market and ticket prices, I'd hope it's the former.
Barry Svrluga: This is a great question and, indeed, will be a key portion of the evaluation going forward. To be fair, the ownership group has done nothing different than it said it would do when it took over, which is build the minor league system and be very, very conservative on free agents in the early-going. (I always think of Stan Kasten telling me the story of warning the Lerners that fans "will call you cheap, and they'll probably call you cheap bastards.")
But the key will be exactly what you bring up: When those players they develop in the system become eligible for arbitration or free agency -- i.e., Ryan Zimmerman -- will they step up and pay market prices to keep them?
In this regard, I think Zimmerman is the test case. He and the team are not close on an extension, though there's no pressure to get one done now. But it will be a very interesting case to watch going forward.
Herndon, Va.: Will it be possible to welcome the Nats home tomorrow at Dulles if we go to the airport?
Barry Svrluga: They land, I believe, in a private area for charters. You're probably better off going to Nationals Park and waiting for the bus at Potomac Ave and South Capitol Sts.
Insider info: Long ago there were rumors that more racing presidents would be added. Any updates?
Barry Svrluga: Can't confirm. But in an election year, I'd watch out for updates on that situation. (Could we see a run-off between a giant Clinton and Obama? Perhaps.)
Alexandria, Va.: Sorry, but I'm done. Been a season ticket holder since 2005. Endured last year's endless stream of running out AAA guys and retreads/hasbeens/neverweres to the mound. Promises of a new ballpark and hints that the Lerners would undo the purse strings when that happened made it more bearable.
Our opening day starter, our ace, is a guy that no other team in baseball wanted. A guy we signed to a minor league deal fresh off a 8 win, 5.66 season.
The Lerners aren't serious about this team, and therefore neither am I.
Barry Svrluga: Alexandria: I think this is absolutely the kind of reaction of which the Nationals must be wary. If they are going to make promises -- and Jim Bowden just said that with the new ballpark comes new revenue and that means expanded payroll -- then they must follow through.
Even though, to this point, I think they've stuck with their original plan, they risk alienating loyal fans if they don't improve the product -- and soon.
Arlington, Va.: What chances remain to get Opening Day tickets? I understand there will be a limited number of grandstand tickets available at the box office on Sunday afternoon. Do you know how many? Will I have to camp out to get them? Any tips or info would be great. Thanks for all the great coverage this spring, Barry. I can't wait for the first pitch!
Barry Svrluga: The Nationals announced this morning that the $5 seats -- those that will be held to day of game throughout the year -- will be available Sunday as well. My advice: Get there early. Here's a section of the official release:
Grandstand tickets for Opening Night, in Sections 401 and 402, may be purchased for $5 at the Nationals Park Main Box Office, located on Half and N Streets, beginning at 3:30 pm on March 30. Fans may not camp out on Nationals Park grounds or line up for tickets prior to 3:00 pm. Fans may purchase only one ticket per person and must immediately enter the ballpark through the Center Field gates, located next to the Main Box Office. Please note, fans may not re-enter the ballpark once they exit through the gates at any time. The Grandstand seats are available for purchase only on day of game when gates open at Nationals Park , normally two and a half hours prior to first pitch.
Harpers Ferry, W.V.: I was a little upset when i was unable to find a single mention about Clint in the baseball preview today. One would assume that at least a whole page would be devoted to the man that makes it all happen at the ballpark.
Has there been any discussion about swapping Zimmerman and Johnson at the 3 - 4 spot in the line up? I would think it would be tempting to have Johnson and his high OBP hitting before Zimmerman who seems to hit really well with men on base.
Barry Svrluga: Ah, Clint. Perhaps he'll see his shadow and head into hybernation again.
That's an interesting question on Zimmerman and Johnson. Though I haven't asked Manny Acta it directly, I think I can picture his answer. He believes Zimmerman is his best hitter, his most productive RBI man, and he wants to get him as many ABs as possible.
In an excellent lineup, Johnson could hit second because of his OBP. But in this lineup, I think that's unlikely.
Backseat Manager: I think Dukes has the potentila to be a better hitter than Kearns, and probably will be. How long do you think Manny leaves Kearnsy in the 5 spot if Dukes performs better?
Barry Svrluga: That will be one to watch. I agree: Dukes has a lot of potential. But I think that if Kearns can draw walks and get on base a bit more -- plus, obviously, hit for more power than he did a year ago -- he'll likely stay where he is, at least for now.
In talking to scouts, they believe that in a good lineup, Kearns would hit sixth or seventh. So if he moves there, you know one of two things is happening -- he's struggling, or the Nationals are developing (or perhaps some combination of the two).
Arlington, Va.: Seriously, of the five guys starting in the rotation, how many of them would make another team's rotation? I'm tired of guys "battling" and being "gutty." How about "talented"? I want a guy -- just one will do (for now )-- who can throw peas through a battleship.
Barry Svrluga: A great point. I think a healthy Shawn Hill starts for a lot of teams (but an injured Shawn Hill doesn't even start for the Nationals). Odalis Perez would not be the Opening Day starter for almost anyone, but I think he would be a very serviceable 4 or 5 for lots of teams. Chico: It remains to be seen if his new mechanics make him a better pitcher, but he was, let's remember, a league-average starter last year (ERA of 4.63, NL average for a starter was 4.64). Bergmann: The guy from April and May last year starts for lots of team. The guy from August starts for very few.
Silver Spring, Md.: What is the Nats training regime, and who are its trainers? It seems that a lot of players are getting muscle problems, which often comes from a lack of hydration and stretching. Have the Nats looked at how other teams are keeping players healthy?
Barry Svrluga: Lee Kuntz is the head athletic trainer, and he came over from the Indians' organization. They monitor all that stuff -- hydration, stretching, etc. Those guys are run ragged at spring training, trying to work with 76 guys (at the start of camp), etc.
Washington, D.C.: To those who are so negative on the Nats ownership and front office, I'd like them to name a player they would have liked the Nats to have signed. With our young pitching on the way, is it worth it to pay Carlos Silva $10 million per year or Barry Zito $20 million? I just don't see it and I like the way they are developing their young talent base after having the best draft in baseball.
Barry Svrluga: This is actually the flip side that the team would (and does) argue. There is smart money to spend in free agency, and there is throwing money at undeserving targets.
Silver Spring, Md.: Alexandria's overreaction to "the Plan" is absurd. To ditch the team because of the opener pitcher and conclude that the Lerners aren't serious is itself a joke, not worthy of an observation that this might be a fan trend. Had the Lerners paid hundreds of millions for Santana and bid on A-Rod before the Yanks re-signed him we might have kept Alexandria in the fan base.
Barry Svrluga: Indeed, I think that reaction is a small segment of the population. However, this is all a bit of a poker game, a gamble that fans will be patient with the development of the team.
(Oh, and by the way. If and when the Nationals become a winning team, I would expect those folks like "Alexandria" to forget their bitterness.)
Washington, D.C.: Given what happened with Patterson, do you think Hill is facing any additional pressure to show he can stay healthy this season?
Barry Svrluga: It's a bit of a different situation. Patterson had a non-guaranteed $850,000 contract, and the Nationals could pull the plug on him and pay him just a quarter of that salary. Hill is younger (26, as opposed to 30), cheaper ($400,000) and probably has a higher up-side. Though Acta is very clear when he says that the club can't just count on Hill because of his history, I do not believe they are ready to pull the plug on him yet -- not close.
University Park, Md.: Barry, it doesn't look like the Nats can keep Mackowiak, Harris and Langerhans -- one of them has to go someplace before opening day. And another one seemingly would have to be dropped once Pena comes off the DL. Any sense as to how the club is looking at this situation?
Barry Svrluga: I believe it will be Langerhans who loses out. He has a split contract between the majors and the minors, and the club likes Harris as a speedster/pinch runner/utility guy/25th man. Mackowiak has a guaranteed $1.5-million deal, so cutting him doesn't make sense right now.
When Wily Mo comes back, things get a bit more dicey.
Section 214: Barry, Thanks for the great coverage! Dare I say this? The Post is doing a great job! Anyway, I read that Nick Johnson might be traded. I'd hate to see that happen. What teams are interested? Also, whats up with the possible trade of Lopez?
Barry Svrluga: Thanks, Mom. Always appreciated.
Johnson: Yes, I think he could be traded as teams see that he is healthy. I think they'll want proof during the regular season, but he is very in shape and is starting to swing the bat well here.
Lopez: His $4.9 million contract makes him more difficult to trade. The Cubs are obviously interested in upgrading on Mark DeRosa at second base, but don't appear interested in Lopez. The Nationals have worked on moving him, but have been unsuccessful. Lots could happen the first month of the season.
Captiol Hill: Has Odalis Perez looked any better in spring training than he has during the regular season the past few years? And on a more practical note, can we bring food into the new stadium?
Barry Svrluga: I did not see Perez during his time in Kansas City, but I would say that from what I've seen here, he has pitched very well. He has a very good changeup. Now, pitching coach Randy St. Claire would like to get him to mix things up a bit more. "The changeups not as good if he throws five of them to the same hitter," St. Claire said yesterday.
As an Opening Night starter? Yes, it seems odd. But as a serviceable guy in the rotation? I think Perez will fit in, and improve on his 5.77 ERA of last year. (Wow, that's a high number.)
Rockville, Md.: I wish everyone would chill with the ownership bashing! It could be worse, we could all be Orioles fans!
Barry Svrluga: Then, there's that.
If you were a closer what would you're entrance song be? I'm going with "Lose Yourself" by Eninem
Barry Svrluga: I think that is an excellent, excellent option.
Was just asking a couple of guys about their at-bat music today. "I'm still knocking around a few options," Ryan Zimmerman said. He's always gone with rap. He may mix in some other stuff this season.
Barry Svrluga: Game update: Top of the third, scoreless. Chico has looked good thus far, allowing just a single in two scoreless frames. Fastball is consistently at 87-88, much better than the 83-84 he pitched at last year.
Nats without a hit the first time through the order, though Zimmerman walked and Cristian Guzman just did the same.
Washington, D.C.: We had dinner at the Fat Snook last week and loved it - thanks for the great recommendation, Barry.
Barry Svrluga: Hey, that's great. I was thinking about heading there last night but ran out of steam after a long drive back from Jupiter (town, not planet).
Washington, D.C.: What are your thoughts about Justin Maxwell coming up during the season if Wily Mo or Kearns slumps/is injured? Saw him in Spring Training and he looks pretty close to making the Leap.
Barry Svrluga: I am one of the few who isn't completely sold on Maxwell (only because he has such long arms). But the club loves him, he has a great attitude, and Manny Acta said the other day that he was one of the most impressive parts of camp, how he handled himself in his time with the big club.
I think it's possible that if a player goes down for an extended time, the team would reach down to Class AA Harrisburg to get Maxwell.
Who are the top three young arms you are most impressed with in spring training and who were the most disappointing arms now in minor league camp?
Barry Svrluga: Tops on this list would be John Lannan. His stuff is far from over-powering, but man is he composed. I was talking to him earlier in camp about how he'll be booed in Philadelphia for the rest of his life because he broke Chase Utley's hand in his first major league start, and he said, "I can't wait."
Watch Adam Carr and his rise through the minors. This guy was a hitter in college at Oklahoma State, but the Nats drafted him as a pitcher. He brings it hard (97-98). He was a bit all over the place in his only appearances in Grapefruit League games, but that's to be expected. He could shoot through the system.
And I'll jump on the Balester bandwagon. I think, since we've heard about him for so long, it seems like he's been slow coming up. He's only 21 and has plenty of time to develop further.
The Nats are fortunate enough to have Dimitri Young to watch out for and mentor Elijah Dukes. The history is not the same but is anybody charged with making sure Felipe Lopez does not become a clubhouse distraction???
Barry Svrluga: I think Manny Acta is the man in charge of that. Remember: Lopez is 27 and has been a major leaguer for years. Dukes is 23 and has had far more off-the-field problems than Lopez (whose childhood was troubled).
Acta has known Lopez a long time. He's very clear that he doesn't treat players differently, but he has put a lot of time and effort into developing Lopez over the last year, and I think he'll continue to try to save him.
Germantown, MD: Would the average fan notice the change in Chico's delivery?
Barry Svrluga: Yes, I think it's dramatic enough. He really brings the right leg high up -- not quite like El Duque, all tucked in, but his knee is up to his chin. He had much more of a slide-step before.
Why Not?: The Nats will most likely finish, at best, around .500 this year and probably just out of the NL East cellar. So. Why not further develop some of those young arms in AAA at the ML level under the guidance of Randy? What's the downside to having them pitch this year at the ML level? They are going to have to do it someday.
Barry Svrluga: There are different schools of thought on this, but the Nationals' generally believe that they want their players to succeed at whatever level they're at rather than rush them and have them struggle. Two examples: A couple years ago, they rushed shortstop Ian Desmond to Class AA Harrisburg, and he bottomed out. It's taken the better part of 18 months for him to recover. The Nats, along those same lines, are likely to start top prospect Chris Marrero at Class A Potomac this year rather than pushing him to Harrisburg.
And the club also believes the current rotation -- Hill, Redding, Perez, Bergmann and Chico -- deserves to pitch at the major league level. If one of them goes down, expect to see Lannan.
section 307: People need to relax about Perez opening up the stadium. Hill is ace, but he'll be a couple weeks late getting to Washington, so we make due with whoever fits best for the other 161 games. Anticlimatic, yes, but not a reason to quit on this team.
Barry, do you get a sense of the order of the AAA team? I assume Lannan will be the first one up, but what order would you put the other four guys in?
Barry Svrluga: I don't know the order yet, but I'm not sure it matters. If you want a ranking of their standing in the organization, I'd say it's Balester, Lannan, Mock, Clippard and O'Connor. If you want the order they would come to the majors, I think it's Lannan, O'Connor, Clippard and then flip a coin.
The Golden Triangle : So are the cherry blossoms in the ballpark going to bloom by opening day?
Barry Svrluga: I don't know. I was home over the weekend, and the blossoms seemed to be starting to bloom in my neighborhood. How about some of you folks up there? Are they starting to bloom around the Tidal Basin?
Falls Church, Va.: Is our pitching staff really that much better than a year ago? Really?
Barry Svrluga: If it's healthy, yes. No Jason Simontacchis, Mike Bacsiks, Billy Trabers (yes, I know he's a Yankees), etc. The guys they would call up when there's injuries have more potential (though they might get shelled their first time around).
And don't forget the bullpen. This is a rock-solid group. Spring ERA of the seven guys who will make up the pen -- Cordero, Rauch, Ayala, Rivera, King, Hanrahan, Colome -- is 1.38.
Washington, DC: Here's my problem: I want to cheer for Johnson and Belliard to do well this season. But I feel that the better that they do, the more likely that they are to be traded. What do I do?
Barry Svrluga: Ah, the rough side of being a fan. Here's what I'd say: I'd root for those guys, just like you root for any of them. If they're traded -- and that's a big if -- they would only bring better returns if they produce in Washington. I think what you're ultimately rooting for is a contending team in 2009-10. Whether Belliard and/or Johnson are playing well for the Nationals then or not, if they play well, they'll help improve this team.
Atlanta, GA: Trust me, Alexandria and his/her ilk will be back. We've seen it happen in Atlanta. If all the people who say they were die hard Braves fans in the 70s and 80s had actually been in the stands at Fulton Co. Stadium, it would have been a sell out every night.
I've seen Nats Park, it's a beauty even though getting there won't be. It'll be a beaut, but not a beauty!
Odalis Perez is a cocky guy, but I think he can handle the Opening Day 'pressure.' Enjoy it if you're going. I wish I could!
Barry Svrluga: Good points all around. The Nats have to avoid what happened to the Braves. If and when they build a sizable season-ticket base -- and no, they're not there yet, not with 17,000-18,000 -- they have to make sure they keep it and grow it, not let it wither away, as has happened in Atlanta.
Metro Center: I am hopelessly devoted to the Nats.
That said, I'm worried. I fear that the promise of the new stadium will be wasted. I was at the GW-St Joes game, and was not impressed with the non-baseball stuff they were practicing. Nor am I happy about the fact that they seem to think that we won't notice who's on the field because it's so nice and new. And while the new scoreboard is nice, it's not a baseball game.
I want a solid team, built to last. I want management that respects the game, not just the money that comes from the game. And I want management that recognizes that this is a DC team, not a generic MLB franchise.
Please Stan, Ted, Mark, remember that the fans you can build your base on are the baseball fans. And not just the baseball fans, the WASHINGTON DC (and surroundings) baseball fans. Pay attention to the game and to our identity. The other stuff is all secondary.
Barry Svrluga: These are all interesting points. I fear that some baseball traditionalists won't enjoy the ballpark experience at Nationals Park. Remember, Stan Kasten has a background in the NBA, and the experience at Turner Field in Atlanta has a lot of stuff that's seems peripheral to baseball. His philosophy is that if you're catering just to baseball fans, you're cutting out a significant portion of your potential fan base.
I really think this team is going to miss Wily Mo for awhile. He seemed to be a nice addition to the lineup last season and this spring. Any idea on how long he will be out?
Barry Svrluga: Manny Acta said yesterday that Pena's recovery from his severely strained left oblique muscle was going better than expected. He strained it on March 12, and the original recovery time was announced as four weeks, though the club privately believed it could be 4-6 weeks. Now, Acta is hoping it could be "three-to-five, or maybe a legit four."
And yes, Jim Bowden is fond of pointing out that the Nationals scored a run more a game after Pena's addition last year. But with either Dukes or Pena in left, you'll get to see whether a player with enormous potential will get to realize it.
Culpepper, Va.: During spring training, the focus always seems to be decisions like Belliard/Lopez are set in stone. And then a few weeks in, we realize how silly that can be. Do you think Lopez's head is still in the game? Because the Nats appear to be relying really heavily on Guzman, a guy who hasn't been both healthy and good for more than a month straight since he came to the Nats (or even before that). And there's no one else even in sniffing distance of the roster who can handle short. Lopez isn't a very good SS, but unless he's traded I'm thinking he might just end up back there at some point or at second if Belliard has a bad start.
Barry Svrluga: This is all very possible. We spend lots of time agonizing about this stuff early in spring training or early in the season, and, as the players say, "Things usually work themselves out."
Guzman had a hot start to the spring and leads the team with 11 RBI here, but he's tailed off recently. Lopez's attitude is good. The key will be whether he maintains that attitude if and when he's told he's headed ofr the bench.
Washington, D.C.: I know we should temper our expectations during spring training, but it's hard to do so with Milledge is it not? It is easy to imagine that deal becoming notorious in a few years.
Barry Svrluga: I have to say: I've been impressed. Very quick hands. Hits the ball hard. Willing to go the other way. Should be an exciting player.
Barry Svrluga: Folks, I've got a ton of work to do for tomorrow's paper. Thanks for joining me. As usual, lots of unanswered questions, and my apologies for that.
Mark Teixeira hit a two-run homer off Matt Chico in the fourth, but that's the only scoring. Braves 2, Nationals 0.
Enjoy Opening Night -- whether you're one of the 41,888 allowed in or you're watching on ESPN. I'd say stop by and say hi, but you'd need a sherpa to get up to the press box.
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.
| 141.804878 | 0.560976 | 0.804878 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301134.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/23/DI2008032301134.html
|
Wizards/NBA - washingtonpost.com
|
2008032919
|
Michael Lee: Hey, everybody. I'm not so excited today. I'm pretty upset that the Sonics are about to move to Oklahoma City. I hate it on two fronts. One, I'm from Kansas City and I know the pain of having your team bolt for another city. And two, I can't believe that I may not see another game in Seattle. What a great city. Ho hum. This is terrible. I hope Ivan enjoys it tonight. But we're not here to mope. You've got questions - let's go. . .
Maryland: Any thoughts on possibly covering your final game in Seattle.
Ivan Carter: That's interesting because I was thinking about that this morning. I'm getting ready to hop a flight from Portland to Seattle in a couple of hours and I'm in a good mood because it's one of my favorite towns. Nice downtown area, cool bars and restaurants, friendly people and I've always enjoyed the atmosphere at Key Arena. Not to knock Oklahoma City but getting it for Seattle is like getting Kwame Brown for Caron Butler. Life ain't fair.
Rockville: How do you explain last night's debacle? This is reminiscent of them losing to the D-League Cavs or getting crushed during OT by the pitiful Knicks. The Blazers were on the 2nd night of a back-to-back. Their best player, Roy, missed three quarters. Their 2nd best player, Aldridge, missed the entire game. We had tons of motivation after beating the Pistons. So we go out and are never in the game and lose by 20. Talk about a team lacking consistency!
Ivan Carter: Just a bad loss. The Wiz looked flat and some of that could be chalked up to the long flight they took the day before (I was a little out of it myself) but that excuse goes out the window when you point out that Portland played the previous night in Seattle and lost badly. I will say this: teams like that give the Wizards trouble. Young, athletic teams with shooters who can spread the floor. It reminded me of the loss in Philly and the collapse in Golden State.
Arlington, VA: Some draft picks are bust. But what about the non-bust players who for some reason just don't ever live up to the hype, or worse, live up to the hype but carry the baggage of being a loser with them for their career?
Check out this list of All-Stars that definitely had game, but for some reason lacked whatever "winning" players have. How well do you think this team would do in its prime?
Michael Lee: That's a pretty good list. At least Glenn Robinson was able to go out (quietly) with a championship ring (he was a bench scrub for the Spurs in 2005). Those other guys - I don't know how that team would've looked. Marbury and Francis never would've been a good pair. Francis is like Marbury Lite. We already know how that worked out in New York. As for the rest of the team? I'm not sure if anybody would have gotten off a shot. They would've been wrestling for the ball on every possession. I'm just glad we never saw that.
Gilbert Arenas: Might as well address me first, here's the typical questions you'll get today about me:
- When am I going to play?
- How unhappy am I about not playing on sunday?
- How is this affecting my future big money contract plans?
- How will the Wizards do once I'm reinserted in the lineup?
Ivan Carter: Tough to answer that in detail until the doctors clear Gilbert Arenas to play. What we don't know is the state of that knee from a medical perspective. Gilbert seems to think that it's strong enough to play and I've seen him go through some intense workouts on the court before games but the doctor obviously sees something that doesn't look right. Maybe that will change next week when he is re-evaluated. Maybe it won't. Gilbert clearly wanted to play badly but I think he's gotten over that initial anger/frustration to a certain extent. He was out there shooting before last night's game and was in a good mood.
Roanoke, Va.: First off, love your reporting. You both do an absolutely excellent job.
What do you think about Wilbon's idea of bring Gil off the bench when/if he returns and also, when is Nick Young supposed to be back on the court?
Ivan Carter: Nick Young came back last night and played just over 16 minutes. Wilbon's idea is actually the reality. If and when Arenas comes back, he will come off the bench at first. Then, depending on how he looks and how the knee reacts, they may increase his minutes and eventually put him back in the lineup. The issue is that time is running out. The team has 12 regular season games left and even if Gilbert comes back as soon as next Wednesday's game against Milwaukee, that would only leave him with eight games to find a groove. That's not much time.
Fairfax, Va.: How will Chris Webber's career be remembered?
Michael Lee: I don't know, because Webber has been such a complex figure. He always seemed to have two personas. He had that smooth smile, that great personality. He was so charming. Yet, every place he played - with the exception of Detroit - ended poorly and ugly. On the other side, he had a great career, put up some phenomenal numbers, brough short-term happiness to Washington for disappointing Abe Pollin and made the Sacramento Kings relevant for several years. One thing you can say about Webber was that he wanted to win. He may not have been able to get that ring, but he sure was hungry for it. I remember one time with the Kings when he decided to guard Shaq in the playoffs. Now, Webber wasn't the best defender, Shaq was in prime, and he was no match. But it showed his hunger. I always rooted for Webber, dating back to his Fab Five days, but he will go down as a great player who suffered a tragic injury, came back and never was the same. But he was so skilled for his size. It's sad that he had to be forced out ended like this.
Washington, D.C.: What is it about the Wizards defensive scheme that it seems to give up an inordinate amount of open looks for jumpers? Are they not athletic enough to play help defense and get back to the man shooting the open jumper or this is the way their defense is designed to take their chances with the other team shooting wide open 3s?
Ivan Carter: At times this season they've done a far better job and that is why they are only giving up 98.2 points per game after allowing 104.9 last season. The problem, in games like last night's, has been a lack of energy, communication and effort. Last night, the rotations were messed up right from the start, the pick-and-roll defense was sloppy and there were too many possessions when a Wizard didn't close out on an open shooter and that open shooter (Martell Webster) made them pay.
Charlottesville, Va.: I know that the Wizards' doctors won't tell exactly why they are blocking Gilbert from playing. However, is the problem something that you can see -- swelling, a pronounced limp or restricted movement on the court?
Ivan Carter: I've seen none of that but I haven't seen the guy go hard in a five-on-five situation either. Gilbert said the doctor was uncomfortable with some swelling in the knee and that's why he said to wait for a week or so. Keep in mind that this guy has had two surgeries on that knee since last April. You have to wonder whether it's going to be right this season at all.
Washington, D.C.: If/when Arenas comes back, why not play him at the 2. Daniels has been doing a great job running this offense and I think EJ's offense works great with a pass-first point guard. Your starting 5 would be AD, Gilbert, Butler, Jamison and Haywood with Stevenson the first one off the bench. How could this not work?
Ivan Carter: This kind of thing has been thrown out there a lot over the years but my consitent take on that is this: Arenas needs to have the ball in his hands. Sure, he can play off the ball some and run off of screens here and there like he did when Larry Hughes was here but for the most part, he wants the ball. I don't see that changing.
Virginia Beach, Va.: What are the Mavericks chances of making the playoffs, now that Dirk is injured?
Michael Lee: Not very good. The only way Dallas can get in is if Avery Johnson loosens up a bit and gives Jason Kidd free reign. Hey, they traded for Kidd, spent millions for him to get there. They can't try to turn him into something else. Avery needs to led Kidd take charge and take them out on the run. They have guys who can get it done without Dirk in the short term. Josh Howard was an all-star. Stackhouse would love to be a top option again.
Their schedule is pretty tough the rest of the season, with four home games and seven road games, but three of those roadies are against the Clippers, Sonics and Blazers. Golden State probably has the most favorable schedule between the three teams battling for the bottom two spots (Denver is the other). But I really don't know with the West this season. Anyone who tells you they have it figured out is lying to you.
Leesburg, Va.: I was curious about how the team in general feels about Gilbert. Is he well liked amongst the guys on the team or has his aloofness grown tiresome. In the media everyone always seems to give PC answers unless caught in the heat of the moment so it would be interesting to know how Gilbert is viewed by his team aside from the generic "Gil is Gil" comments. thank you
Ivan Carter: I could be wrong but the general feeling I get is that he's liked by most and respected by all because of his work ethic and the level of his past performance. Those guys have seen the time he puts in and they've seen him put up game-winners and drop big games on people. As for his personality, he laughs and jokes with just about all of the guys, the young guys especially. Jamison kind of looks at him like the little brother who is always cutting up in class (Leave it Beaver style) Butler sort of rolls his eyes with a smile like "Yeah, that's Gil. What are you going to do?" Stevenson and Arenas are tight. Daniels and Arenas are tight but in a different way. I have no idea what a guy like Songaila thinks but it would be a great thing to hear over beers.
Washington, D.C.: Hey Mike, me and my friend were having a an argument the other day about the biggest bust on the Grizz -- Kwame or Darko. So I had to get your take.
Michael Lee: That's funny. You could go either way. You could say Kwame because he was the No. 1 pick. But when you look at the players that Kwame has been traded for - Caron Butler and Pau Gasol - you can't call him a total bust. He might not produce for a team while he's there, but he will leave you with a gift on the way out.
But seriously, Darko is the bigger bust, because he's never had a season where he averaged at least 10 points (Kwame has), his career numbers are worse by almost two points and two rebounds, and two teams really, really just gave up on him. Orlando didn't even try to sign him last summer and Detroit traded him for cap space.
DC: If the Wizards have trouble with young athletic teams, why not throw Blatche, McGuire and Young on the court against the Blazers... especially when your starters have you down 25? Obviously those guys aren't better than Jamison, etc., but sometimes don't you have to blindly throw a few darts and hope one hits the target?
Ivan Carter: I'm assuming you watched the game, because all of those guys played and it didn't matter much. The Wiz did put together a second quarter run with Roger Mason Jr., Blatche and Darius Songaila on the floor but once the starters came back, the Blazers rolled. The big issue was that they got killed on the boards 55-36. I mean Joel Przbilla had 17. Jamison, Blatche and Haywood combined for 17. Like I said, it was one of those nights. The guys you mentioned all played extensive minutes in the fourth when Portland outscored the Wiz 20-16 and outrebounded them 20-7. Everyone had a hand in that whipping.
Bethesda: With the great play of Jamison, do you think the Wiz will keep both he and Arenas for the long term? Thanks for the chat, love how it breaks up the day nicely on Wednesdays.
Ivan Carter: Glad I can help you get out of work. Slacker. Given the tightness of the upcoming free agent market and both player's desire to return, I see Arenas and Jamison in Wizards uniform again. Now, Ernie Grunfeld could have something up his sleeve and if he does, nobody knows what it is. The man plays his cards close to the vest.
Solomon's Island, Md.: Do teams really need a classic point guard in the style of Stockton, Kidd, Cousey or Paul? The Celtics of the '80s didn't really have one. Isiah Thomas wasn't what you'd call a classic point guard when the Pistons rose to the top. Similarly, Gilbert Arenas is more a shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body. Even John Paxson only brought the ball up for the Bulls -- Michael Jordan ran the offense.
Michael Lee: This season is proving that you need a great point guard to win games. You can say that Isiah wasn't a classic point guard if you want, but the man still would drop 10 assists on you. But you bring up the Celtics and the Bulls as teams that won without a classic point guard (although I think DJ was pretty good), but what you're missing is that those teams won because they had a transcendent talent (Bird and Jordan). Cleveland has been able to succeed, the Lakers and Heat won championships without great point guards because those teams had those transcendent talents. The Wizards don't have that. Shoot-first point guards typically don't take teams to the championship. I suppose you could call Isiah one, but he made sacrifices to let Joe Dumars get off; he made sacrifices to make his teammates better. For the Wizards to win with Gilbert, he will have to defer more, try to get two or three more assists and take four or five fewer shots.
NOVA: Based on the players' past experiences, how would you rate the Wizards medical staff? Shaq seems to be looking good, and he has attributed his good health to the unique practices of the Suns' medical staff. Any thoughts?
Ivan Carter: That's a very hard question to answer because I'm not in the medical field and I'd have to look around the league and see how this team's injuries compare to other teams. I will say this: Arenas, Butler and Oleksiy Pecherov have all been diagnosed as having one level of injury this season only to learn later that it was worse. Arenas was cleared in October to play on that knee and then re-injured it. Butler was diagnosed as having a strained hip flexor and then later learned that it was a partial tear of the labrum and Pesh was said to have a severe ankle sprain and it wound up being called a stress fracture. That's not a good trend, I'll say that. I don't cout Etan Thomas because he pushed to be cleared to come back to practice and was told by the team athletic trainers that his sternum may not be ready. Then he went out to practice and took a shot to the sternum.
Oakton, Va.: Who is your favorite NBA "analyst"? Not a reporter like David Aldridge, but an analyst?
Dr Jack Ramsey? Steven A. Smith? Fred Carter? Fratello?
And whatever happened to Tom Tolbert?
Michael Lee: Hubie Brown, hands down. I love listening to Hubie. Listening to games with Hubie is like sitting in on Basketball Class. You see, if you are the coach, you have to ask yourself, do you want to play a zone and allow their perimeter shooters to hit open shots, or do you go man and let their quickness and athleticism derail. You must understand that if you . . . I don't know, I just love having Hubie break it down for me.
20165: If LeTravel and DeShawn actually got into a real fight, who would you take? I'll take DeShawn. LeTravel's been coddled his whole life.
Ivan Carter: I'd take DeShawn as well. There's a somewhat off quality to that dude that is lurking underneath the surface and as you said, LeBron has had the basketball equivalent of a silver spoon in his mouth. Plus, DeShawn is short and stocky by comparison and the low man always wins in a scrap like that.
Washington, D.C.: Besides Isiah Thomas, which coaches do you think are on the hot seat? It looks like a lot of teams should keep their coach since many teams are battling for the playoffs (especially in the East) and some of those which are not have good reasons (i.e., Portland waits for Oden, Seattle has to deal with the move and to have its kids grow up a little). Thanks.
Michael Lee: Jim Boylan in Chicago. George Karl if the Nuggets don't make the playoffs. Ditto for Avery Johnson. Lawrence Frank in New Jersey. Larry Krystkowiak in Milwaukee. Randy Wittman in Minnesota. Sam Vincent in Charlotte.
Darko-bust: Darko is definitely the bigger bust since Carmelo, Bosh and Wade were drafted after him!
Michael Lee: Yeah, I didn't think I even had to mention that. But since you did, I don't have to.
Fairfax, Va.: Does Nick Young qualify as "disappointing" yet? He is to me. Shouldn't a first rounder do more than shoot pretty good?
Ivan Carter: Not to me. I said back in summer league that Nick would be the kind of guy who makes you get up out of your chair one night and say: "wow" after he dunks on somebody or makes a sweet spin move and drops in a fingeroll and then, he'd have you chucking empty beer cans at the TV the next because he dribbled the ball off his foot, took a dumb shot or lost his man on defense. He's a gifted but raw guy who can create his own shot but is learning how to play. The thing I like is his demeanor. He really is a good kid and wants to get better. This is going to be a big summer for Nick, Dom McGuire, Pesh and Blatche. All of them will play summer league together in Vegas.
Herdon, VA: Ivan, you say that if Etan can comeback maybe the Wizards can give Orlando a tough series, because he does well against Howard.
Wasn't that early last season, for like, one game? I think Howard has progressed his game a little since then, don't you?
Ivan Carter: Good point. All I was saying was that Etan would give Jordan a big body as another option against the guy. That's not happening though. I don't see Etan coming
SoCal: Love the Hubie impersonation.
Any word on Nick Young's documentary? Has it been released?
Ivan Carter: Haven't heard. I'll ask about that and update it in my blog.
Rockville, Md.: How do you think the seeding from 4-6 will end up with the Wizards, Raptors and Sixers with nearly identical records?
Michael Lee: Do you mean 5-7? I don't think any of those teams will catch Cleveland. Toronto is dropping like an anvil. I see the Raptors finishing below both Philadelphia and Washington. They really don't look good right now. I wish I could tell you how the Sixers do. I had them pegged to be one of the worst teams in the NBA in the preseason. I looked good after the first 48 games, when they won 18. I still don't know how they've won 18 of the last 23. They are smoking hot. I think they'd rather have the six than the five, so that they can get Orlando. The Wizards probably prefer five since they are all to familiar with the Cavs. Plus, who doesn't want Jay-Z vs. Soulja Boy?
Andray Blatche is making the same mistakes he has been making since his rookie year. He has yet to make his body stronger and doesn't exactly come across as a guy who wants to be great. What gives? He plays with a guy in Jamison who defines what it is to be a pro. Is he stubborn?
Does he not care? I get tired of people using age as an excuse. Dwight Howard is the same age yet has transformed his body and is all business. Does he not notice that type of dedication by someone his own age?
Ivan Carter: I think he wants it at times and then sort of forgets that he wants it at others. It's telling that three years in, the coaching staff still sometimes questions the guy's work ethic, conditioning level and effort. Eddie Jordan calls it "professionalism."
He's got the tools to be great but hey, if you have five-years, $15 million guaranteed for being sometimes good, where is the incentive? Comparing him to Jamison isn't even a worthwhile excercise.
Washington, DC: I'm frustrated with the Wizards team doctors. They never put a timeline on his return, and now they are playing the "can't hurt to wait" game.
It's unprofessional. Put a loose timeline out there and if he misses it, fine, no big deal. But to play this wishy-washy game with his return is becoming laughable.
No one is saying rush him back too soon. But it has got to be messing with Arenas' mind when your own doctors can't give you some basic milestones and timetables to work with. It ends up putting doubt in the patients mind. You start thinking heck, even my own doctors don't know or have a clue if it'll be ok.
Ivan Carter: That's why Gilbert was so upset. He called it a "mind game" when he walked out of the locker room. Thing is, the Wiz keep those guys off limits to us so I can't ask them why they do what they do. That's an Ernie Grunfeld policy. Funny thing is that the restrictive Redskins make their team doctor available to clarify this kind of thing but the open Wizards do not. Interesting.
Oakton, VA: Ever thought about a follow up story on Jared Jeffries and how he feels about being in New York?
Personally, I'm glad he left because I wasn't a fan of his game or production and it freed up cap and roster room. And yes, he is still getting his paychecks just like he would have here in DC. But I have to think part of him thinks twice about the decision he made.
He is currently averaging 16 minutes and 3pts, 3 rebounds a game for one of the worst teams in the NBA.
Ivan Carter: Jared lives for the offseason when he can go fishing. That's Jared. And no, he's not loving his Knick experience. Who would?
Ivan Carter: I have to run and catch a flight to Seattle. Thanks for stopping in and keep reading.
LeBron vs Stevenson: I'm not saying DeShawn is a pretty boy, I won't go that far, but he was a high school draft pick also, and I would assume has experienced some coddling himself.
What exactly did scouts see in him that led him to be drafted out of high school? I am really baffled because he is not all that tall or long, isn't a deadeye shooter... was it simply because he had mad hops? Seriously, I don't get it. And what makes it even more baffling was that it was ultra conservative Utah that drafted him.
Please explain because it is a mystery to me and I'm sure many others.
Michael Lee: DeShawn was a freakish athlete. He could jump out of the gym. He was like a 6-5 Shawn Kemp - without the J. He was a showman and entertainer on the high school level. Of course, he was in Fresno. He hasn't been the same since having some injuries, but it wasn't like he was a lottery pick. DeShawn went No. 23 (LeBron's jersey number. Oh, snap!) in 2000.
Memphis or New Orleans to Seattle?: Hi, Ivan and Michael,
IF (and that's a mighty big "if," given that the Sonics' breaking their lease will end up in court) the Sonics do leave Seattle for Oklahoma City, what are the chances that either the Grizzlies or Hornets could end up as the "new" Seattle Sonics? (Since Seattle wants to do what Cleveland did with the Browns)
Michael Lee: From the way Stern is talking, Seattle is done. This is personal with Stern. This really isn't about business with him. He is upset with the government officials in Washington and Seattle, who gave brand spanking new stadiums to the Seahawks and Mariners, but balked on the Sonics. Stern just wants to show Seattle who is the boss. I hate that he has to get so big and bad with an absolutely great and beautiful city. I'm not from Seattle, but I'm sick about this. We are witnessing the complete theft of a franchise before our eyes. Both sides are at fault, but I hate to see it go down like this. Seattle for Oklahoma City is a terrible trade, much like Vancouver for Memphis. Nobody wins in this arrangement. I'm sick.
Michael Lee: Alright folks. I've got to go. I'm in Boston tonight, ready to check out the Celtics-Suns. Should be fun. We'll do this again next week. Peace.
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 staff writers Ivan Carter and Michael Lee discuss the Washington Wizards and the rest of the NBA.
| 281.842105 | 0.842105 | 1.578947 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503270.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503270.html
|
In the War of Software Superpowers, a Space Race Dawns
|
2008032919
|
Normally my digital peregrinations take me to destinations such as Facebook, YouTube and Boingboing.net. But lately I've been spending time visiting the Crab Nebula, Cassiopeia A and the Sombrero Galaxy. These addictive celestial visits come courtesy of two remarkable interactive astronomy programs from two companies that would love to vaporize each other -- Google and Microsoft. When the Cold War superpowers the United States and the former Soviet Union, contemplated moving their conflict to outer space, there was justifiable fear and dread. But a similar escalation by software superpowers may turn out to be a boon for all.
Last summer, Google integrated an astronomy component into its Google Earth program, and last month made Google Sky accessible straight from the Internet. Later this spring, Microsoft will release its own attempt to boldly go where no man has gone before, a Windows-only program called WorldWide Telescope.
Both efforts offer a means to embark on celestial explorations that skillfully integrate astounding images from telescopes, including three of the most celebrated satellite-based probes: Hubble, the Chandra X-ray and the Spitzer Infrared (no prostitute jokes, please); the images capture galaxies, star systems and even evidence of black holes from thousands of light-years away. Both efforts offer users a chance to navigate their way through the ether. Both include an incredible amount of information (Google Sky has 200 million viewable galaxies; WorldWide Telescope will launch with 1.2 million galaxies but soon add 2 billion more). Both allow amateur stargazers to enhance the programs with their own observations. And both have astronomers raving about how these will not only popularize the field but also help scientists do their work.
You would expect that when two bitter competitors go head-to-head on similar products, the sniping would approximate the level of acrimony between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. But though my questions to each company were painstakingly crafted to elicit snotty remarks about the other's program, neither Google nor Microsoft took the bait. Maybe this is in part because neither company has plans to monetize its space program. For now at least, these are loss leaders for mind-share and goodwill. Each refers to the other's product with respect, and the two companies say they hope and expect that though the programs currently encode celestial data a bit differently, eventually Sky and Telescope will be interoperable. "If there's one thing that's universal, it's sky and space," says Google Sky's product manager, Lior Ron.
Yet despite the fact that both draw on the same publicly available images, there are differences, reflecting each company's unique DNA. Google Sky began as one of those "20 percent" projects, where an engineer gets to spend a fifth of his time on anything he chooses. It was launched as part of Google Earth, which features terrestrial satellite imagery; conceptually, Google Sky is what happens when you turn the Earth program's orbiting cameras in the opposite direction. Users can add layers of new content onto Google Sky, much as they can with Google Earth.
WorldWide Telescope, on the other hand, grows out of Microsoft's high-end research division, where some world-class wizards, notably computer scientist Jim Gray, have been lending their talents to the scientific community to help organize satellite imagery for years. (WorldWide Telescope is dedicated to Gray, who went missing on his sailboat last year.) The lead developer, Curtis Wong, has an impressive background in creating multimedia experiences and the WWT has a powerful and intuitive interface, so attractive that astronomers are hoping to use an upcoming pro version for serious scientific work.
One of its key features is the ability to create elaborate guided tours of specific slices of the skies. Like podcasts, the multimedia tours will be available to WWT users. "Stories draw people into the sky, and we allow people to share their own stories about the sky," Wong says. Some of the early tours are by professional astronomers, such as Alyssa Goodman's primer on space dust. Wong himself has created a Cassiopeia flyby with a soundtrack by guitarist Robert Fripp. Another tour has been created by a precocious 6-year-old.
Maybe the best way to sum up the differences is that Google Sky is like going into your back yard and finding that your eyes have been enhanced by super telescopes. The WorldWide Telescope, on the other hand, is like importing a multimillion-dollar planetarium onto your desktop, with dazzling multimedia tours of distant galaxies available on demand, and a nagging question forming in your head: "Is this on the quiz?"
But by and large, this battle for the skies is not as much a tale of competition as of inspiration. "Everyone in the astronomy community is thrilled that two of the biggest companies in technology are making this type of investment," says Eli Bressert, who refines the images captured by the Chandra telescope. "Google Sky and WorldWide Telescope will democratize the universe." Maybe one day Saturn will be brought to you by General Motors and candy bar ads will be wrapped up with the Milky Way. But for now, both Google and Microsoft are aiming for the heavens in more ways than one.
Steven Levy, a senior editor at Newsweek, can be reached atsteven.levy@newsweek.com.
|
Normally my digital peregrinations take me to destinations such as Facebook, YouTube and Boingboing.net. But lately I've been spending time visiting the Crab Nebula, Cassiopeia A and the Sombrero Galaxy. These addictive celestial visits come courtesy of two remarkable interactive astronomy programs...
| 21.208333 | 0.979167 | 46.020833 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503759.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503759.html
|
Cable Companies In Talks to Fund WiMax Network
|
2008032919
|
The company would be operated by Sprint Nextel and Clearwire, which have focused over the past year on building a network based on WiMax, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because talks are ongoing.
With the new company, the cable providers would be taking direct aim at the nation's biggest wireless carriers, Verizon Communications and AT&T, which have pushed aggressively into Internet and television services.
Comcast would invest $1 billion and Time Warner would put as much as $500 million into the venture to create a next-generation, high-speed wireless network spanning the nation, according to the source.
Comcast and Sprint declined to comment on speculation about the negotiations.
Such a venture is part of a race by wireless carriers and cable companies to become the main source for Internet, phone and television services, according to Julie Ask, an analyst at Jupiter Research.
Verizon entered into competition with Comcast and Time Warner Cable through its FiOS fiber-optic network, which offers television services.
"Comcast and Time Warner are home-, broadband- and PC-oriented, so WiMax as a choice to get into wireless makes sense for them," Ask said. "But whether or not they should be their own network or lease capacity from Sprint or Clearwire is something for Wall Street analysts to judge."
Intel and Google are also involved in the discussions about the new venture, according to the source. The companies have signaled their interest in joining with Sprint and Clearwire to form a WiMax nationwide network.
Sprint and Clearwire have been trying to raise $3 billion to build a WiMax network. Many analysts see WiMax as the biggest bet for the future for Sprint, which recently moved its headquarters from Reston to Overland Park, Kan., in a major restructuring. Sprint lost 1 million wireless subscribers to other competitors in the past year.
|
Comcast and Time Warner Cable are in talks to invest in a wireless company based on WiMax technology, according to a source familiar with the talks.
| 12.857143 | 0.928571 | 2.214286 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503618.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503618.html
|
For Guard and His Fan, Strength in a Number
|
2008032919
|
This one says "Kidball" and is one of Flowers's most prized possessions. Max Bass gave him that jersey last December, the night Flowers realized his definitions of words such as "courage" and "determination" were underdeveloped.
"I take it everywhere with me," Flowers said. "I have it here right now. It's not leaving my possession. It's something that I value, that I appreciate. It's a reminder to never take life for granted."
Max Bass looks up to Flowers because the Wisconsin guard represents everything that has defined the Gaithersburg child's life -- tribulation, perseverance, diligence, triumph. Michael wears No. 22, just like Max.
Flowers, though, says Max and his family have done more for his personal growth and maturity than he could ever dream of doing for them. When you discover you are the idol of a kindergartner who has battled leukemia since he was 2 1/2 , Flowers says, you grow up in a hurry.
Max's father, Adam, was the one who first put 22 and 22 together, and in the year since Max became enamored of his Badgers role model, several lives have changed. It started with Max and Michael's, sure, but the ripple effect of the pair's bond spread beyond a 5-year-old boy battling a deadly disease and a college basketball player searching for serenity.
Flowers "always checks up on Max, and we check up on him," Adam Bass said by phone late last week. "And obviously we watch every game."
Today was the first morning [Max] awoke early due to hunger. So at 5 am, Adam made Max his new favorite request: Macaroni & Cheese. Although his appetite has increased, Max is still a picky eater and now craves only starches and salt and nothing sweet.
March 23, 2005, journal post by Max's mother, Jamie, on the family's Web site at CaringBridge.org
Max Bass first saw someone else wearing his jersey number in early 2007, when his father, a Wisconsin alum, was watching a Badgers game on TV.
|
OMAHA -- Somewhere among the socks, shirts and toiletries Michael Flowers packed to take with him to the first and second rounds of the NCAA tournament is a No. 22 jersey. It is significantly smaller than the No. 22 jersey Flowers wears during games, the one with "Wisconsin" stitched across the f...
| 6.95 | 0.683333 | 1.016667 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502446.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502446.html
|
Clinton Appears Weary Of Taking 'Sniper Fire'
|
2008032919
|
A review of the record shows that she provided embellished stories of her visit to Bosnia on at least two previous occasions, while campaigning in Iowa in December and in Texas in February. By the end of the day, Clinton was making a joke of her ordeal: "I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people is a revelation."
While Bosnia may have still been considered a "potential war zone" in March 1996, there were no open hostilities. NATO troops were patrolling the area in force, engaged in tasks such as clearing mines and blowing up old ammunition dumps. According to Adrian Pandurevic of Associated Press TV, "there were no armed groups roaming Bosnia, or any significant threat," and "the former front lines had been bulldozed." He described claims of "sniper fire" in and around the Tuzla air base as "simply ridiculous."
Rick Atkinson, a longtime military correspondent for The Washington Post, was also in the Tuzla region around the time of Clinton's visit, reporting on the activities of the 1st Armored Division. He remembers hiring a rental car and roaming by himself over back roads between the air base and the city. He said in an e-mail that "the only danger was from mines, and those had all been removed from the air base area," and from plane crashes caused by bad weather conditions, of the kind that killed Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown and 34 others near Dubrovnik, Croatia, in April 1996.
Atkinson recalled that the Tuzla story had "become so boring" by late March that The Post had practically lost interest, and he was reassigned to a different part of Bosnia.
It is, of course, entirely plausible that the Secret Service was nervous about escorting the first lady into what had recently been a combat zone and insisted that she and her traveling companions wear flak jackets for the landing in Tuzla. It is also possible that Clinton heard reports about "snipers in the hills around the airstrip," as she recalled in her 2003 autobiography, "Living History." But there is no evidence that she was "forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children" because of sniper activity. TV news reports from the time show a smiling Clinton walking across the tarmac and bending down to greet an 8-year-old Bosnian girl.
On the campaign trail, Clinton began providing further embellishments on the Tuzla tale. In Dubuque, Iowa, on Dec. 30, she said she was the first high-profile American to go to Bosnia after the signing of the peace agreement, overlooking President Clinton's trip to Tuzla in January 1996. "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire," she said in Iowa. "I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac there."
The reference to not being offered tea on the tarmac was evidently a riposte to a claim by Barack Obama a few days earlier that Clinton's eight years in the White House as first lady were a glorified "tea party."
A corkscrew landing is a technique used by military pilots to land in a war zone to limit the risk of being hit by ground fire. Instead of beginning its descent 20 miles from the runway, the plane arrives over the airport at a high altitude and then twists down in a tight spiral, like a corkscrew. Other passengers aboard the C-17 that brought Clinton from Ramstein Air Base in Germany remember a steeper-than-usual approach but not a classic corkscrew landing.
Clinton repeated the claim of sniper fire in a Feb. 29 campaign rally in Waco, Tex. Contrasting her foreign policy experience with that of Obama, she mentioned her visit to Bosnia when a welcoming ceremony "had to be moved inside because of sniper fire."
Questioned about this speech yesterday while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Clinton said that she remembered being told by the military and the Secret Service that "we were going into a war zone," adding: "I was the first first lady taken into a war zone since Eleanor Roosevelt." But she said she acknowledged that she had "made a mistake" in talking about her Tuzla experiences, both on March 17 "and recently."
Pressed about her statement that she had "misspoken" only once in 12 years, she said she was joking.
"Gosh, lighten up, guys," she told reporters.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer declined to answer any more questions about the incident.
In an effort to polish her foreign policy credentials, Clinton has been telling exaggerated stories about her April 1996 trip to Bosnia for many months. After a week of missteps, she has finally come up with a reasonable strategy for putting the story behind her: Acknowledge her mistake, make a gracious joke about being "human," and attempt to move on. Since I have already awarded her a maximum four Pinocchios for her depiction of the event, it seems churlish to add any more.
ONE PINOCCHIO: Some shading of the facts. TWO PINOCCHIOS: Significant omissions or exaggerations. THREE PINOCCHIOS: Significant factual errors. FOUR PINOCCHIOS: Real whoppers. THE GEPPETTO CHECK MARK: Statements and claims contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
|
Hillary Clinton has finally admitted that she "misspoke" when claiming that she came "under sniper fire" in Bosnia during a March 1996 visit to U.S. troops enforcing the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement. At first, the Clinton campaign maintained that the "misstatement" was limited to one occasion on M...
| 18.175439 | 0.701754 | 1.192982 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/a_major_shakeup_in_virginia_go.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/a_major_shakeup_in_virginia_go.html
|
A Major Shakeup in Virginia Governor's Race
|
2008032919
|
In a surprise announcement, Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling said he will not run for governor in 2009, a move that likely clears the Republican field for state Attorney General Bob McDonnell and offers an early preview of a race that will almost certainly be the most-watched contest in the country in 2009.
Bolling and McDonnell had been positioning themselves for a primary fight ever since they were elected to their current posts in 2005. That jockeying had been further complicated by the stunning defeat of Sen. George Allen (R) in 2006 and the belief that he would like to return to the governor's mansion he occupied from 1993 to 1997.
But, Allen took himself out of contention in January -- citing his desire to spend more time with his family and to continue working in the private sector. Bolling's announcement this week ensures that McDonnell will not face a serious primary challenge, according to one well-informed party strategist.
McDonnell won his current job by just 360 votes over state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) in 2005, a race so close hat Deeds did not concede until a recount was concluded in December of that year. Prior to his victory, McDonnell spent more than a decade in the Virginia Assembly representing the Virginia Beach area.
Deeds is angling for a rematch with McDonnell in the governor's race, having formally announced his candidacy late last year.
Deeds has proved a formidable candidate -- spending much of the interim between his loss in 2005 and today raising money for the party and its candidates. Deeds has also kept in place much of his campaign team from the 2005 race including David Dixon as his media consultant, David Petts as his pollster and Kevin Mack handling direct mail. The continuity of consultants means that Deeds' messaging, which nearly won him the attorney general's post in 2005, will be consistent and steady.
While Deeds is the only announced candidate in the race, state Del. Brian Moran, the brother of current 8th District U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D), is all-but-certain to run.
Brian Moran formed a political action committee to raise money for a governor's race earlier this year and is expected to formalize his candidacy sometime this spring.
Moran's candidacy is being led by Mame Reiley -- a longtime Virginia operative with close ties to former governor Mark Warner (D). Steve Jarding, who helped engineer former governor Warner's win in 2001 is also involved, as is web guru Jerome Armstrong.
Moran has served as chairman of the Democratic Assembly Caucus for the last two cycles, raised an estimated $2.5 million and led his party to double-digit gains in the Assembly, according to Moran allies.
The battle between Deeds and Moran -- if it comes to pass -- will be the first seriously contested Democratic gubernatorial primary in recent memory.
The last time two heavyweights in the party faced off was 1985 when then Attorney General Gerry Baliles and then Lt. Gov. Richard Davis both ran for the party nod. Davis dropped out days before the state party convention and Baliles went on to be elected governor.
Should Deeds and Moran both run, the simplest way to see the race is geographically. Moran hails from northern Virginia, the fastest growing Democratic enclave in the state while Deeds represents an east-central Virginia district that includes Charlottesville -- a progressive base from which to launch a candidacy, his allies argue.
Deeds may be the better known candidate today due to his near-miss in 2005 but Moran has a known last name in Democratic politics and has northern Virginia on his side.
For those of you looking for relief from a post-2008 letdown, keep an eye on this race. It should be a doozy.
By Chris Cillizza | March 25, 2008; 5:04 PM ET | Category: Governors Previous: Bill Clinton -- From Plus to Minus to Plus | Next: Freedom's Watch Makes a Move
Add The Fix to Your Site
met brian and his wife recently---i was very impressed---hope he wins
Posted by: peggy | May 9, 2008 2:11 PM
"...While Deeds represents an east-central Virginia district that includes Charlottesville -- a progressive base from which to launch a candidacy..."
That overlooks the rest of his district, which is NOT east-central and NOT progressive, and conveniently leaves out the fact that he lives in Bath County.
Posted by: vmijpp | March 26, 2008 8:38 PM
An early poster said McDonnell might win if McCain wins. I think the truth is exactly the opposite - if McCain wins the presidential election, he will be sufficiently unpopular that it helps the Dem nominee for governor, and likewise a Democratic president will also get off to a rough start. Given our economy's problems, this presidential election may (like 1928) be one of those elections where the winner winds up wishing he had lost.
Posted by: lewyn | March 26, 2008 6:53 PM
JacksonLanders, From my political point of view, I hope you are right wrt VA statewide politics. That said, I don't see Bob McDonnall as that strong of a candidate either. He is definitely a conservative and is religious. Neither of those traits will go over well in NoVa and the trend has been that the voting population is increasing in this area and thus, it has a bigger input into the decision. The gun issue will not hurt Moran because it is not an important issue in NoVa. McDonnell will win where it is a big issue anyway regardless.
Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 1:17 PM
I got it! jreno19 is Don King!
That's some pretty fancy speechifying, jreno19.
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM
I hope you didn't actually have to think that, jreno19, while you typed it. A little turbulent in there, is it? Kinda like a cyclone between your ears! lol
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM
Craziest, wild-ass, rant of the day goes to:
And the winner is: jreno19
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 26, 2008 12:50 PM
mark_in_austin, Sorry with this late response - it is tax time in my house. I'd agree mostly with jac13's and novamatts's descriptions but put in my two cents that VA is no longer a half step to the right. So I would say that D's are less moderate than implied and the R's less conservative than implied. For instance, Deeds has a 100% rating from NARAL/Planned Parenthood/VA AFL-CIO/Virginia Education Association and 88% from Virginia League of Conservation Voters. Getting a good grade from the NRA, which he has, does not make one a moderate Democrat, even in VA. I will say that Brian Moran is the much much better half of the Moran political family in VA. He has a brother Jim Moran who is a US Congressman near where I live and is a nut, not in the sense that he is ultra liberal (he is) but in the sense that I think he really does have a screw loose. It appears, however, that the nut has fallen far enough from the tree and Brian, while liberal, possesses common sense and so far has avoided any sort of controversy (unlike Jim).
Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 12:49 PM
I personally find Rev Wright's comments extremely offensive, but I have to admit that millions of Americans agree with him.
May I ask you a couple of questions?
1st, why is it that the Islamic Extremists want to kill Americans but do not want to kill Chinese?
2nd, do you think that there are consequences for our government's actions overseas?
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 26, 2008 12:37 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."
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."
What a fake. Folks, show your indignation regarding these comments by helping Hillary's campaign - even if it is just $5. https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2390
Posted by: Umbria | March 26, 2008 12:20 PM
This is so right on, wpost4112 :
"Iraq is nothing compared to what China is becoming. China is viewing Tibet like Germany viewed Poland. And our forces are stretched beyond their limit in a fruitless quagmire of an invasion. And who will Russia support in a USA vs China war?
Bush may have set us up for a very bleak future indeed. Who are our allies? With what moral authority can we speak? Who will listen?"
I don't necessarily see us in a traditional "war" with China. More likely, I think, the question is: who will have more global influence? Who will be dominant? Who will lead? Whose values will prevail? Was America's day in the sun so brief? Are we to be eclipsed so soon by China? If yes, what standard of living will we have? What will life be like in America if current trends continue?
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 26, 2008 12:04 PM
I live in Bath County, home to Creigh Deeds. Can anyone tell me a single thing he has accomplished, other than getting elected? His support for--although later recanting of--amending the VA constitution to prohibit same-sex unions was unconscionable. For me personally, his support of the Marshall amendment was both unforgetable and unforgivable. And for that reason alone, I will support Moran over Deeds.
Posted by: hgheiss1 | March 26, 2008 11:55 AM
The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment. In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright. In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.
Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:13 AM
There's talk within the party of coaxing either Brian or Creigh into running for Attorney General instead. Whats-his-name Shannon is the only Democrat openly angling for that nomination at the moment and either Creigh or Brian could elbow him out of the way and take that nomination easily.
It's tough to see either of these guys backing down, however. Creigh has that 300-odd vote margin that proves he is extremely competitive as a state-wide candidate. He's also got a very, very loyal base. His weakness is fundraising. Creigh is a competent fund raiser but not an extraordinary one.
Brian Moran has access to a lot of campaign money and has made a point of using it to buy himself a lot of friends these last few years. Yet Brian has a lot of weaknesses as a candidate that could mean he'd go down like a lead balloon in the general election. The Massachusetts accent alone is enough to make him a pariah in much of the state. Combine that with his anti-gun stances that contradict the hunter and gun-owner-friendly positions of Warner, Kaine and Webb and you have a perfect formula for a losing campaign.
It's NoVa versus the rest of Virginia. This is gonna be a rough primary that could bring about the end of the Democrats' dominance of state-wide elections.
Posted by: JacksonLanders | March 26, 2008 11:10 AM
Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.
The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.
Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.
Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.
Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.
Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract. Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.
LIKE FATHER LIKE SON -- Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --
OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --
"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman. Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.
Michelle Obama should be ashamed.
"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!
The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment. In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright. In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.
Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 10:50 AM
Here's my take on sniper fire ...
McCain's seen too much of it - from way up high while bombing people for a War of Lies.
Clinton's seen too little of it - and she knows it.
Obama realizes it's just sniper fire and is focussed on the job of leading America forwards, instead of backwards.
I'll choose Obama, thanks. Hope he has Richardson or Dodd for VP, those would be great choices.
Posted by: WillSeattle | March 26, 2008 5:35 AM
What does Allen's loss in '06 have anything to do with the Governors race? Cf. "That jockeying had been further complicated by the stunning defeat of Sen. George Allen (R) in 2006 and the belief that he would like to return to the governor's mansion he occupied from 1993 to 1997."
Posted by: bava84 | March 26, 2008 4:22 AM
What does Allen's "narrow" loss have anything to do with VA's Governor's Race? Cf. "That jockeying had been further complicated by the stunning defeat of Sen. George Allen (R) in 2006 and the belief that he would like to return to the governor's mansion he occupied from 1993 to 1997."
Posted by: bava84 | March 26, 2008 4:20 AM
What does Allen's "narrow" loss have anything to do with VA's Governor's Race? That jockeying had been further complicated by the stunning defeat of Sen. George Allen (R) in 2006 and the belief that he would like to return to the governor's mansion he occupied from 1993 to 1997.
Posted by: bava84 | March 26, 2008 4:19 AM
I'd love to see the 'Hawks win it all, but I have to admit I'm so used to losing late in March that I'm pretty much figuring 'Nova clobbers us, and if not them, then certainly mighty Davidson. Bring back Larry Brown!
Posted by: novamatt | March 25, 2008 9:29 PM
novamatt, thanks. KU is my guess to win the NCAA.
Our TX median is a "full step" to the right of the national median, I am sure.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2008 9:14 PM
To follow-up on jac13's excellent post: the easy answer is that Virginia politics is driven more by personalities and regional interests than by ideology. For instance, the Democratic gains in the commonwealth have been almost entirely in NoVa and Hampton Roads, while the GOP remains strong in the Valley, in southside VA, in the Richmond burbs.
The state GOP has become a lot more ideologically coherent in recent years though, it seems to me. Mark Warner was able to move bills through the R-led state legislature thanks to a group of moderate Republicans who are now almost all gone, replaced either by moderate Ds or by conservative Rs. So now, if we were to conjure up a median VA politician, the D's would be clustered very neatly to the left and the R's to the right, even if, as jac13 correctly points out, the VA median is a half-step to the right of the national median.
Posted by: novamatt | March 25, 2008 8:50 PM
Now that we're brought up to date on arcane VA politics, what do you all think about HRC's "Bosnia-gate" and her suddenly vocalizing about Wright? (Just heard Chuck Todd on Olbermann say that some of the sd's are getting restless and disenchanted with HRC's tone; that some of them may declare for or switch to Obama BEFORE Pennsylvania.)
Posted by: jac13 | March 25, 2008 8:19 PM
Wish Moran would get out of Guv race as well. His speech at J-J dinner in Richmond was a snooze fest....and grating on the ear...an odd duality.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 8:06 PM
thanks for the heads up on the players in Va, jac and jd
Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 25, 2008 8:06 PM
Thanks, jac. I have relied on many people here for local stuff - Alan in Missoula and bsimon in MN come to mind, but you guys in VA have been very good about explaining the players.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2008 7:59 PM
First of all, in Virginia, labels can be misleading. A "liberal" here would be a center-moderate someplace else. Anyway, here are the "dramatis personae"
Kaine (D) was Lieutenant Governor during the term of the wildly popular Mark Warner (D) (whom polls say will clobber another former gov, Jim Gilmore (R), for retiring John Warner's US Senate seat in November). Kaine, who's thought of as a moderate-liberal, ran a very good campaign and fought off a conservative opponent, Jerry Kilgore (R) from the far Southwestern part of the state. He's had a rough year, as Dave said, because the divided legislature (House-R, Senate-D) wouldn't enact a lot of his program this year, and a plan to raise money for roads (a real hot-button issue in congested NoVa) by local taxing authorities was declared unconstitutional. On top of that, the Bush administration moved the goalposts (again) and jeopardized funding of the long planned extension of the rail line from through Tysons Corner (where my office is) to Dulles airport. This latter problem is not of kaine's making, but happened on his watch.
Bob McDonnell (R) is the very conservative AG who comes from Virginia Beach and is going to run for gov. in '09 (our gov's can only serve 1 term). Big news yesterday when the Lt Gov, Bill Bolling (R), announced he would not run for gov, thus giving McDonnell a clear field.
Creigh Deeds (D) is a moderate senator from the Shenandoah Valley who lost the AG election to McDonnell by 360 votes on '05. He has already announced for gov for '09 and a re-match with McDonnell is expected, except:
Brian Moran (D) a modertae-liberal member of the House from Alexandria, across the Potomac from DC, who is now the House minority leader. He's gearing up to run against Deeds for the D gov nomination. (I wish he would run for AG instead. Deeds almost beat McDonnell for AG in '05 and with VA turning blue I think he can beat him for gov. Not so sure about Moran.)
Posted by: jac13 | March 25, 2008 7:55 PM
dave, novamatt, jac, and JD -
All of the people named in the story are, of course, completely unknown to me.
Are there character and personality issues, positive or negative, or interesting life stories, or ideologies far to the right or far to the left? Are they all moderate?
Any context beside "D" and "R" would be appreciated - I would actually like to put a story to a name, with your help.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2008 7:34 PM
Local issues and the performance of local elected pols. If Kaine continues his putrid performance of the last year or so, it may not be much of a contest. The finger-pointing has already begun from Kaine's screw-ups which include but are not limited Kaine making an unconstitutional change to the transportation bill to allow regional authorities, not localities, to collect taxes (thus stalling virtually all transportation projects in NoVa indefintely) and The Federal Transit Administration's recommendation to not fund the Dulles Rail project (due to FTA's concerns of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Aurthority's inexperience in large design-build contracts, an exaggeration of funding numbers from the Dulles Toll Road, and an inability for Metro to maintain the 23 mile line once it had been built) and the completely idiotic decision by Kaine to run the rails above ground through Tysons Corners (thereby making the worst commuting center in Va destin to hold that record for my lifetime). When people in NoVa are in gridlock 15 hours a day, they will in large part have Kaine to thank for it. In some way, Kaine and his fellow party members will be held accountable.
Posted by: dave | March 25, 2008 7:32 PM
'Macaca' killed Allen dead, but it only worked because it stood for everything people hated about Felix.
It's still really early in the '09 race, but don't be shocked if there's some love for Creigh Deeds in NoVa. I sort of wish Brian Moran would spend '09 working on getting a D majority in the HoD.
Posted by: novamatt | March 25, 2008 7:25 PM
Everyone is so worried about appeasing the Arabs and how Iran is the next Germany.
If there were a rising fascist state, it is China. If there is appeasement, it is for China. Iraq is nothing compared to what China is becoming. China is viewing Tibet like Germany viewed Poland. And our forces are stretched beyond their limit in a fruitless quagmire of an invasion. And who will Russia support in a USA vs China war?
Bush may have set us up for a very bleak future indeed. Who are our allies? With what moral authority can we speak? Who will listen? With no economic motivation, no one will listen.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 7:14 PM
That had nothing to do with popularity of the president and everything to do with 'macaca'.
And thank God for that one word!
Words, it seems, ARE important!!
But yes, VA guv will have little to do with POTUS and more to do with local issues. Northern VA demographics changing dramatically.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 25, 2008 6:15 PM
jac13 - "...Jim Webb beating Allen in '06 " That had nothing to do with popularity of the president and everything to do with 'macaca'.
Posted by: dave | March 25, 2008 6:07 PM
I've lived here for 35 years, and I can't recall a Virginia election turning on the popularity of a president, with the exception of Spong losing to Scott in the '72 McGovern disaster, and Jim Webb beating Allen in '06 (which wouldn't have been possible with a popular GOP president).
I think politics in VA really are local.
Posted by: jac13 | March 25, 2008 6:03 PM
think about this for a sec,say if obama wins the white house, virgina dems would have a pretty good shot at retaining the gov mansion or taking lt gov. im not really sure how far is it from d.c. to richmond but the coat tail effect could be long enough to reach into next year.
or if McCain(or god forbid Hillary) pulls off a win in november the gop may have a good shot at winning the governorship. JD do you want to chime in on this, since i dont know much about VA politics?
Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 25, 2008 05:29 PM
Honestly, speaking as an independent voter, my guess is that if the WH and Congress both go for Dems in 08, which is probably 60-40 chance, I think that would be more of a *hindrance* to Dem chances to retain Richmond.
The reason is, I think either HRC or Obama would have tremendous expectations, with a friendly Congress, to get a ton of things done. I don't see any meaningful reduction in Iraq troops, lowering of gas prices, or miraculous defeat of Al Quaida between now and then. Of course I could be wrong, and hope I am.
But I could see some disenchanted Virginians willing to take it out on Deeds.
Posted by: JD | March 25, 2008 5:47 PM
I live in Virginia and was active in the campaign of our current governor, Tim Kaine.
While Virginia has been trending blue the last few statewide elections, a lot depends on who the individual candidates are. A McDonnell-Deeds re-match would be damned interesting -- but I just can't get into it with this potboiler of a Democratic nomination race going on!
At the presidential level, with Kaine supporting Obama, I think if he's the nominee he has a good shot at carrying Virginia. Not so sure about Hillary -- as you know, Obama clobbered her here.
Back to HRC's campaign: with the revelation of the NAFTA pep rallies on her schedule and now this incredible blunder of lying about sniper fire in Bosnia (is there any other way to describe it?), things are starting to pile up. No wonder she decided to finally start talking about Rev. Wright today in Pittsburgh!
Obama's within 10 points in PA in today's Rasmussen poll, and a new PPP poll puts him up 21 points in NC. A little too early to tell, but he may have weathered the Wright storm, after all.
Posted by: jac13 | March 25, 2008 5:41 PM
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
The Liberal agenda in a nutshell. Make that a drindl-shell.
Posted by: kingofzouk | March 25, 2008 5:41 PM
jac13-well the only reason why CC is talking about this because of what may happen in 2008.
think about this for a sec,say if obama wins the white house, virgina dems would have a pretty good shot at retaining the gov mansion or taking lt gov. im not really sure how far is it from d.c. to richmond but the coat tail effect could be long enough to reach into next year.
or if McCain(or god forbid Hillary) pulls off a win in november the gop may have a good shot at winning the governorship. JD do you want to chime in on this, since i dont know much about VA politics?
but for hillary's "mistatement" im more concerned about her positions about nafta since she was the no 1 cheerleader instead of being opposed to it.
Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 25, 2008 5:29 PM
Hillary's imploding over her so-called "misstatement" about sniper fire in Bosnia, and has suddenly started talking about Reverend Wright -- and you're writing about the 2009 Virginia governor's race?
Posted by: jac13 | March 25, 2008 5:19 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.
|
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 152.727273 | 0.795455 | 1.159091 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502409.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502409.html
|
EPA Told to Set Timeline for Cutting Nitrogen Pollution
|
2008032919
|
The Environmental Protection Agency must establish a timeline for the District's Blue Plains sewage plant to reduce the amount of a key pollutant that it discharges -- and include that timeline in the plant's official permit, a federal appeals board has ruled.
The ruling, from the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, waded deeply into the arcana of environmental law, and the result was a victory for the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The decision came down March 19, but some parties to the case were not notified until yesterday.
In 2006, the EPA required the Blue Plains plant -- which is on the Potomac River and is one of the region's largest single sources of pollution -- to reduce its output of nitrogen.
But the EPA's permit did not say when it had to be done. The bay foundation filed a legal challenge, saying the law required the permit to set deadlines for the cleanup.
In its ruling, the appeals board agreed.
"We absolutely believe that this decision will lead to a cleaner Potomac sooner," said William C. Baker, the foundation's president. He added, "Now, they will be under a legal requirement to get it done by a date certain."
It's still not clear, though, what that date will be.
Baker said that by the bay foundation's calculations, the deadline for a cleanup would be no later than 2013.
But a spokesman for the EPA said no details about the timetable had been worked out.
And an attorney for the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, which runs the Blue Plains plant, said it would take longer to make the needed improvements.
"It's beyond five years, certainly," David Evans, a partner in the law firm McGuireWoods LLP, said yesterday. "We're looking at somewhere in the five- to 10-year timeline to get this done."
The Blue Plains plant, near the District's southern tip, processes sewage from the city and from Montgomery, Prince George's, Loudoun and Fairfax counties. The treated water is dumped into the Potomac near the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
That treated water contains large amounts of nitrogen, which can feed environmentally damaging algae blooms in the Potomac and the Chesapeake.
The Blue Plains plant has been upgraded to slash the amount of nitrogen it releases into the river, but now it is being required to reduce the amount even more.
Evans said that to comply with the new permit, the Water and Sewer Authority would need to make about $800 million worth of changes, including new treatment facilities and an expansion of plans to build a system of underground storage tunnels to hold rainwater during storms.
David Sternberg, a spokesman for the EPA's mid-Atlantic region, said the agency had always planned to require a timeline for the upgrades, even if it was not included in the official permit.
He said the bay foundation's challenge had only served to slow down the process.
"If it's going to take several months to modify and reissue the permits" with the timetables included, he said, "I don't see how that would speed things up."
|
The Environmental Protection Agency must establish a timeline for the District's Blue Plains sewage plant to reduce the amount of a key pollutant that it discharges -- and include that timeline in the plant's official permit, a federal appeals board has ruled.
| 13.304348 | 1 | 46 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502988.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502988.html
|
AES, Private-Equity Firm Join To Build Solar-Energy Farms
|
2008032919
|
The joint venture, AES Solar, plans to create solar-energy farms by covering fields with rows of photovoltaic panels to convert sunlight into electricity.
AES said it hopes to create fields capable of generating 2 to 50 megawatts, which means that some would have to cover hundreds of acres. Six or seven acres of solar panels currently generate about 1 megawatt, enough to power 250 typical American homes.
The electricity produced by the farms would feed through substations to high-voltage lines, which are connected to the main power grid.
Solar panels are "not just for rooftops anymore," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "We're seeing solar farms on landfills, vacant areas and land that may be restricted from public use. Solar farms are going to turn wasted space into useful space."
AES Solar said the first farms will be built in Europe and Asia, where special tariffs require utilities to buy renewable electricity above market rates, said Robin Pence, an AES spokeswoman.
In some countries -- particularly Germany, South Korea, Italy and Spain -- power companies make an average 10 percent-plus annual return on renewable energy because of long-standing subsidies, said Jesse W. Pichel, a senior research analyst at Piper Jaffray.
The United States does not have an equivalent policy. At the end of this year, wind and solar power tax credits will expire unless Congress extends them.
Germany installs eight times as many photovoltaic panels as the United States because of incentives to stimulate demand, according to a 2006 solar industry study.
"If we ever get our act together, the U.S. could potentially be the biggest market for renewables," Pichel said. "The U.S. is blessed with a lot of wind and a lot of sun."
Solar power is slightly more expensive than wind power, Pichel said. But as technology improves and the cost of silicon decreases, the cost of solar modules should be halved by 2011, he said.
As costs decline, AES and Riverstone said they will seek to expand into other countries with similar market incentives.
This is AES's first foray into photovoltaic panels. Renewable energy -- including wind, hydroelectric and biomass energy facilities -- accounts for 20 percent of its 43,000 megawatt generation capacity worldwide.
"Solar is a natural extension of our business," Paul T. Hanrahan, president and chief executive of AES, said in a written statement.
AES and Riverstone, a New York firm that focuses on energy and power, will each provide up to $500 million to invest in the projects.
The joint venture will be managed by a seven-member board of directors. AES and Riverstone will appoint three directors each. The seventh member is Robert F. Hemphill Jr., who will be president and chief executive of the venture. Hemphill joined AES in 1981 and has held a series of senior positions.
|
AES, a worldwide power-plant developer based in Arlington, announced yesterday that it will partner with private-equity firm Riverstone Holdings to invest up to $1 billion in solar energy projects around the world.
| 14.025 | 0.675 | 0.975 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501665.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501665.html
|
China Moves to Tighten Control Over Religion in Tibet
|
2008032919
|
Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu led the first high-level central government visit to Tibet since the riots broke out this month. In the face of international criticism of China's crackdown, he stressed that the government would "fight an active publicity battle" and solicit the help of Communist Party cadres.
His call for broader "patriotic education" indicated the party would also move to exert greater control over religion in Tibet, requiring more Tibetans to accept the region as an inalienable part of China, denounce the Dalai Lama as a separatist and recognize the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama. Such campaigns were first launched in 1996.
Angered by foreign sympathy for the protesters and support for the Dalai Lama, China is bearing down hard on the exiled Tibetan religious leader, blaming him and his followers for stirring up trouble in an effort to sabotage the Beijing Olympics in August.
The Chinese crackdown has drawn international concern, with some government leaders suggesting a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Games. On Tuesday, when asked about the possibility, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, "All options are open, and I appeal to the Chinese leaders' sense of responsibility." He added that he had sent a message to Chinese President Hu Jintao noting his concern over the violence.
The European Parliament, whose president has said a boycott should be considered, has scheduled a special debate on the Tibet situation for Wednesday in Brussels.
Despite a heavy police and military presence across China, protests continue to spread through regions that border Tibet. On Tuesday in Sichuan province, where at least one policeman had been killed in clashes between security forces and protesters a day earlier, an estimated 400 to 500 Tibetan monks and others gathered in the main street of Luhuo, a restaurant owner said in a telephone interview.
According to the owner, who gave his surname as Yan, police quickly disrupted the gathering, but the atmosphere was still "very tense."
"Most shops are closed, including my restaurant," he said. "I have been here for 17 years and I have never seen anything like this."
The New China News Agency identified the policeman killed Monday in Sichuan's Garze prefecture as Wang Guochuan. Wang was killed by a mob wielding stones and knives, according to the report.
"The police were forced to fire warning shots, and dispersed the lawless mobsters," the agency said.
The government says at least 22 people have died in Tibet since the violence broke out; Tibetan rights groups say nearly 140 Tibetans have been killed in Tibet and surrounding provinces.
|
BEIJING, March 25 -- China's security chief called for stepping up "patriotic education" in Tibet's monasteries, the state-run Tibet Daily said Tuesday, as prosecutors for the first time charged demonstrators in the largely peaceful, monk-led protests that later exploded into riots in the region.
| 8.754386 | 0.649123 | 1.070175 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/03/morning_mix_demi_moore_likes_l.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/03/morning_mix_demi_moore_likes_l.html
|
Morning Mix: Demi Moore Likes Leeches
|
2008032619
|
Headlines: Demi Moore admits to using leeches as part of beauty regimen... Hillary Clinton related to Angelina Jolie, Barack Obama to Brad Pitt, says genealogical society... Fan pays $52,000 to attend "Sex and the City" premiere with Kristin Davis (no snickering)... Kirsten Dunst surfaces in northern California... Rachael Ray to get (even more) cartoonish... "Dancing With the Stars's" Priscilla Presley treated by unqualified plastic surgeon... Chef Paul Prudhomme grazed by stray bullet... Keanu Reeves wants paparazzi case moved to mediation.
Spears Watch: 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears shows off engagement ring... Brit's "How I Met Your Mother" cameo boosts ratings (Video)... Brit's British accent -- it's baaaaack!... Are the paps bored with Britney?
Rumor Mill: Ashley Tisdale denies she had more plastic surgery... Tameka Foster rules Usher video shoot... Heather Mills hires accountants to investigate Paul McCartney's finances... Michelle Williams's father wants public accounting of Heath Ledger's estate... Patrick Swayze not connected with cancer Web site, says publicist.
Say What? "You're not going to get a lot of accolades doing a movie like this. All you can do is lose." -- George Lucas dials down expectations for the upcoming release of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"
By Liz | March 26, 2008; 7:21 AM ET | Category: Daily Mix Previous: 'Lost' Madness: The Champion | Next: Wednesday List: A Little Advice?
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.
'George Lucas dials down expectations for the upcoming release of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"' can mean only one thing:
Indy's got a sidekick and his name is Jar-Jar Binks.
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 8:02 AM
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 8:06 AM
Speaking of leeches... you'd think, after the scathing judgement rendered by the court, Heather would take her $50m and retire to Spain... but if she wants to blow it all on lawyers so the tabloids can run unflattering pictures of her that's fine by me. Now that Courtney Love is moving to London - I bet they'll be BFFs.
Posted by: Quintilus Varus | March 26, 2008 8:13 AM
If I were Heather I'd be leery of ticking off a man who can fake his own death and get away with it for 40 years. After all, Sir Paul is not only one of the Fab Four, he's also MI-5.
She could be gone *like that*. "Car accident" or "fell off White Cliffs of Dover into the Channel" or "bizarre gardening accident" or even "chocked on a ball."
Heather, maybe you should let Beatrice start the car from now on.
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 8:22 AM
How ironic, Heather will blow through her millions trying to pry more millions out of Sir Paul. How will Beatric travel then, city bus?
Posted by: jes | March 26, 2008 8:30 AM
Who bought Jamie Lynn the rock? The fiancé or the real father?
Posted by: yellojkt | March 26, 2008 8:33 AM
I'm confused, what good can Hollywood agents be doing in Demi's beauty routine?
Posted by: jes | March 26, 2008 8:48 AM
I'm confused, what good can Hollywood agents be doing in Demi's beauty routine?
Posted by: jes | March 26, 2008 08:48 AM
Well, they don't seem overly busy working on her career...
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 8:50 AM
"Demi Moore admits to using leeches as part of beauty regimen" now that is not nice of Demi, referring to her doctors in that manner. They helped get you that body missy.
"16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears shows off engagement ring" Ahhhh so the shot gun has been loaded. I was wondering about the hold up on that.
"Priscilla Presley treated by unqualified plastic surgeon" During a recent interview Billy Bush referred to Priscilla as "a youthful beauty" and asked how she kept looking so good. I haven't laughed so hard in all my days.
Heather Mills is no underachieving gold digger that's for sure. She set her sights on a nice round figure and gosh darn it she's gonna try and try.
Granted this is in the rumor mill. Why on earth would Michelle Williams' father get in Heath's estate? I hope this doesn't turn out to be true and a battle.
Posted by: petal | March 26, 2008 8:55 AM
can we talk about SJP again today?
Posted by: i luv britney | March 26, 2008 9:26 AM
Demi Moore cracks me up. She has become so plastic - it's truly tragic, as she was incredibly beautiful. And I expect, if she had let her face and body do what nature intended of them, she would still be out-of-the-park gorgeous, but in a real way. Sad.
As I've said before about Heather Mills, I don't know how I'd scrape by on the paltry 50 mil she got. OF COURSE she needs to find more somewhere! Girl's gotta pay the bills, people.
Posted by: jaybbub | March 26, 2008 9:27 AM
Can I beat Heather Mills with her fake leg? Please?
Posted by: surlychick | March 26, 2008 9:37 AM
Granted this is in the rumor mill. Why on earth would Michelle Williams' father get in Heath's estate? I hope this doesn't turn out to be true and a battle.
The real question is why would a father be that dumb and not change his will when he has a child to take care of?
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM
Leeches & Heather Mills all mentioned in the same Celebritology posting?
Posted by: Bored @ work | March 26, 2008 10:05 AM
I was watching "Now and Then" over the weekend and was thinking that Demi Moore looks almost nothing like she did in that movie. Demi, be like Jamie Lee Curtis and age gracefully...well it's probably too late for that.
Posted by: jake e. poo | March 26, 2008 10:06 AM
Wait, Paul Prudhomme is still alive?
Posted by: M Street | March 26, 2008 10:06 AM
Will someone please explain to Demi Moore saying dumb thing at 45 is not cute; it's sad.
Posted by: Lisa1 | March 26, 2008 10:19 AM
"Miss Mills has told friends she cannot look after Beatrice on £35,000 a year, the sum awarded at the High Court."
So she can't raise the child (who I'm sure still spends some time with her father) on the equivalent of about $5,800 a month...when this is on top of him already covering day care and education.
What on earth is she feeding the child and clothing her with? Did she buy her a Faberge egg for Easter?
Posted by: Chasmosaur | March 26, 2008 10:35 AM
remember how popular girls in high school would start doing outrageous things to see if they could get the less popular girls to do them?
expect a run on leeches.
Posted by: b | March 26, 2008 10:36 AM
People were harsh on the Star Wars "prequels" because your dialogue sucked, the way you had the actors deliver it made it completely unredeemable, and there was simply too much CGI.
For the new Indiana Jones movie, you have Spielberg directing and someone else writing the screenplay. Even if it doesn't measure up to "Raiders", it should be considerably better than any of the newer Star Wars flicks...
Posted by: Chasmosaur | March 26, 2008 10:39 AM
I could never get either the popular or less popular girls in high school to do outrageous things.
Oh, well. Spilled milk, and all that.
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 10:43 AM
Apparently, Heath Ledger's father listed Heath's assets as only $145,000. So, as the baby's OTHER grandfather, Mr. Williams (who works on Wall Street) is asking for an accounting.
Heather Mills is becoming the person she compalined all rich people become. The judge should take away what he awarded her to keep it from getting worse.
Posted by: ep | March 26, 2008 10:50 AM
I'm seeing ugliness down the road in regards to Heath Ledger's estate. Michelle's father seems to be getting his ducks in a row and asking Heath's father to do the research for him. I would guess he won't believe whatever figure is given for the value of the estate. Sadly, this could get quite ugly.
Posted by: jlr | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM
M Street, I had the exact same thought!
Posted by: methinks | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM
not to be preachy or moralistic, because I really am not, but the Wiliams/Ledger thing points out a major benefit of marriage and why so many gays want to be able to share in that benefit.
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 11:42 AM
The difference between Ashley Tisdale's nose pre and post surgery is so minor I cannot tell the difference. I think people keep saying she's had more surgery because she looks really different without eye makeup in some of the pics.
Posted by: Woodbridge | March 26, 2008 11:54 AM
Actually the whole Williams/Ledger thing points up the importance have having a valid will no matter your marital status or any other status, GLBT. You hear me young parents?! It's shocking how many young parents leave their families unprotected.
Posted by: methinks | March 26, 2008 11:59 AM
I should amend that, a valid and UP TO DATE will.
Posted by: methinks | March 26, 2008 12:00 PM
yeah, but methinks, in VA, GLBTs cannot adopt the children of the other, (example: Mary Cheney is the child's parent. her partner has zero rights. None. And can get none).
And the Virginia Constitution prohibits any "agreements that convey any benefits of marriage" between nonmarried, same sex people, so most wills leaving things to GLBT partners are challengable in VA. Thanks citizens of Virgnia for amending the Consitution! One reason I live in DC. (stupidly, those voting for the amendment also prohibited any partnership agreements that convey benefits of marriage, even if it is a nonromantic relationship, so forget having a house-sharing/joint ownership agreement you can enforce against a same-sex roomate in Virginia.)
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM
marriage alone would have protected the child's rights. And Michelle's. Without it, Heath's parents can claim a share of the estate against the child. Michelle has zero rights without marriage.
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 12:10 PM
Wow George, way to talk up your new film.
Posted by: EricS | March 26, 2008 12:19 PM
"Now that Courtney Love is moving to London - I bet they'll be BFFs."
Courtney and Heather? Courtney wouldn't stoop that low.
Forget Demi, Priscilla Presley is someone who should've avoided plastic surgery at all costs. As for her surgeon being unqualified, Ray Charles could've seen that that hack had no business with a scalpel.
Posted by: hangin in herndon | March 26, 2008 12:19 PM
According to the source, Demi Moore said "the highly trained medical leeches" were first placed in her belly button. This leaves me wondering: how do you train a leech at all, let alone highly? I mean, they're members of the worm family. Perhaps I can buy some highly trained earthworms for compost. Or perhaps the leeches were exposed to marijuana before training. Anyway, I'm confused.
Posted by: Angela | March 26, 2008 12:24 PM
Comment of the week to Angela.
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM
Sure marriage would have been a safe option, but it's not what they wanted to do. In that case, he was irresponsible not to have updated his will to include the care of his child. It's reasonable to expect that, had his requests been in writing in a legal document, his parents wouldn't contest his wishes.
Posted by: methinks | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM
I'm tellin' ya, there's an untapped market in Hollywood for "beauty regimens."
I've got a couple of cats that put out enough "matter" that maybe I could take it all, put it in a food processor with some baby oil, bottle it & sell it to all those gullible stars as "Feline Exudations!"
Posted by: Bored @ work | March 26, 2008 12:32 PM
Bored, you're already behind the eight ball on your idea:
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM
Isn't Michelle Williams father wanted in the U.S. for some kind of financial shenanigans, and he's in another country because they don't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. -- so he can escape prison?
Don't think he should be talking about finances, really.
Demi Moore looks great (albeit 100% plastic) now, but I can see her careening wildly down the path of freakshow Joan Rivers/Michael Jackson territory soon. She's not going to be one to age gracefully, it's obvious.
Posted by: Californian | March 26, 2008 1:03 PM
Californian makes a nice catch:
Larry Williams is wanted by the IRS for "willfully attempting to evade $US1.5 million (â¬1.2 million) in taxes from 1990 to 2001," says the International Herald Tribune.
"Three Federal Court judges dismissed the attempt by 64-year-old Larry Williams to stop the United States and New South Wales state courts from taking steps to extradite him.
"A Sydney magistrate is now free to consider the U.S. extradition request. A hearing date is not yet set."
Posted by: byoolin | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM
I don't think Mr. Ledger owes Michelle Williams anything. However, as a father, he should have updated his will to include his daughter. Being young has nothing to do with it either. His daughter would have always been his responsibility and he should have taken care of her immediately. I agree that he was irresponsible when it came to his child's well being. (not to be mean to the dead)
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM
Heather Mills is definitely a gold-digger. The judge should only have awarded her $1 million. She is not entitled to the $48.7 million.
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM
Why did Demi Moore have to go all the way to Australia to find leeches? Doesn't she already have Ashton Kutcher? I hear that Heather Mills is available, though I doubt that her price is reasonable.
Posted by: Sasquatch | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM
$52,000 for some time with Kristin Davis.....Hmmmm....paging Governor Spitzer.
Posted by: Sasquatch | March 26, 2008 2:14 PM
When are people going to get over the breakup of anniston and brad pitt? from the reliable source chat today:
Team Aniston: Not all of us have forgiven Homewrecker Angelina. Luckily most of her recent films haven't been very good, so no problem to boycott her movies.
Roxanne Roberts: Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Travis, MD | March 26, 2008 2:44 PM
All this yappin about Ledger-Williams and marriage. Sheesh, wisen up people! They were on that track then Williams dumped the dude after he wouldn't drop the same "lifestyle" that has dogged BSpears, LiLo and all the rest of sad-sack young Hollywood.
If they'd have married, they'd then likely have only divorced. In and of itself, a divorce settlement doesn't necessarily protect a child any better than an up-to-date, "legal-rrific" last will and testament.
Let's spare the tsk-tsks on that point, OK? In some jurisdictions, it may have actually been better for the child if Ledger had no will at all than having an outdated will, depending on established order-of-precedence (ya hear me, Jamie Lynn?! just sayin...).
Posted by: | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM
Nice catch, Angela! "Highly trained" leeches, indeed.
Posted by: h3 | March 26, 2008 3:04 PM
After further research, not only is Paul Prudhomme still alive, but it appears that so is Dom DeLuise! And they are actually different people.
This is amazing. It's like if John Candy AND his identical twin, Chris Farely, were still alive.
Posted by: M Street | March 26, 2008 3:22 PM
Ha!, M Street. Thanks for checking on that. The Prudhomme story did make me wonder about Dom DeLuise.
Posted by: methinks | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM
From the Moore link --
Joked Letterman: "Are you sure this isn't just menopause?"
And one would think after both of ANS's will issues, Hollywood-types would get on the 8-ball.
Posted by: WDC 21113 | March 26, 2008 3:30 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.
| 200.944444 | 0.555556 | 0.777778 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502347.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502347.html
|
Medvedev's Chance To Lead?
|
2008032519
|
MOSCOW -- The next Russian administration, with Dmitry Medvedev as president and Vladimir Putin remaining at the helm as prime minister, may evolve into something different from Putin's current rule. But the expectations of liberalization that Medvedev's rhetoric and non-KGB background might have raised in some circles are wishful thinking.
Medvedev's campaign was hardly a demonstration of adherence to democratic principles. And his rhetoric, while somewhat softer than Putin's, is barely an indicator of change. Throughout his presidency, Putin repeatedly spoke of the need for the rule of law, free media and other democratic virtues. Yet his policies were increasingly at variance with these principles, and by the end of his presidency the gap between the official rhetoric and reality reached almost Soviet proportions.
Although Medvedev has made several commendable statements, such as his preference for freedom over non-freedom, he speaks only in generalities. He has not touched on any of the many recent cases involving the issues of freedom or democracy, including repeated harassment and detention of liberal-leaning political activists.
Nor has Medvedev elaborated on the relationship between his mentor's policies and the deplorable status of the rule of law and press freedom in Russia. Those policies could also be seen as his own, given Medvedev's status as a top official in Putin's administration.
The system created during Putin's presidency is based on the uncontested primacy of the top executive, with controlled politics and a growing intolerance toward public dissent, let alone political autonomy. In such a system, the judiciary is "independent" and the media "free" as long as they don't interfere with what those in power see as the interests of the state. Genuine rule of law and a genuinely independent media would undermine the very foundations of this regime. Medvedev is not in a position to challenge the system or its creator -- the man who ensured that Medvedev was elected president March 2. Just this week, Medvedev spoke of himself and Putin as a "tandem" and "team of two."
Putin has consolidated the state and enfeebled the society, an arrangement that no ruler would shed unless strongly challenged by those seeking to reclaim and apply their political rights. In today's Russia, however, there is no force laying such claims. And yet, an exact continuation of course under Putin is not a certainty.
But it is simply wrong at this point to regard Medvedev as a vehicle of change or to expect that Russian leadership would opt for political liberalization.
Should the good economic fortunes that accompanied Putin's presidency recede, various domestic problems that until now have been subdued by generous infusions of oil money would be exacerbated. Observers of Russia's economy warn that the successful development of recent years may not be sustainable. Critics have cited the unfavorable dynamics of oil and gas production, which accounts for about a third of the nation's budget revenue, and the looming prospect of a workforce shortage -- the result of an implacable demographic trend. The shortage will weigh heavily on those men and women already working to provide their own safety net and to care for the older generation. Additionally, Russia may not be prepared to handle the repercussions of a global economic recession, which looks increasingly likely.
Putin may also be concerned about the sustainability of his economic achievement. Though he has repeatedly pledged to stay the course, in early February the soon-to-be-ex president unveiled a plan for Russia through 2020. After citing the successes of his administration, Putin spoke about the "extreme inefficiency" of the economy, the "unacceptably low productivity of labor" and the urgent need for modernization -- lest Russia fall behind the world's leading economies.
If the team of Putin and Medvedev really means modernization, it is sure to face tough challenges. First and foremost is the question of whether modernization is even possible in a deinstitutionalized system that has eliminated public participation, cultivated paternalism and opted for heavily centralized control over political competition. Another challenge is the inevitable infringement on the more conservative Russian elites that have thrived under Putin's system of empowered bureaucracy.
Attempts at modernization would further aggravate the tensions among those who control broad swaths of Russia's power and property. Their infighting is mostly kept behind the scenes these days, but if political struggles spill out into the open, they are likely to extend to the medium-tier elites, which are currently depoliticized, or the middle classes, which will be forced to align with one or another of the feuding camps.
Russia's future is uncertain. The outcomes of struggles both likely and unexpected are far from clear -- whether the forces of modernization would prevail or whether nationalists and conservatives could win the upper hand. If such shifts take place during Medvedev's tenure, this might give him a chance to evolve as an independent decision-maker in Russian politics -- something that he is not today.
Masha Lipman, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal, writes a monthly column for The Post.
|
MOSCOW -- The next Russian administration, with Dmitry Medvedev as president and Vladimir Putin remaining at the helm as prime minister, may evolve into something different from Putin's current rule. But the expectations of liberalization that Medvedev's rhetoric and non-KGB background might have...
| 18.901961 | 0.980392 | 49.019608 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/the_pastor_as_prophet.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/the_pastor_as_prophet.html
|
The Pastor as Prophet
|
2008032519
|
When Barack Obama addressed the nation in his Philadelphia speech there was, as with a good sermon, enough in it to offend everyone. He reminded us of the flaw in our constitutional character, and hence of the fundamental flaw in our national identity. Politicians are meant to speak only of the flaws in their opponents, and when they venture away from that tried and true rhetoric they are likely to entertain trouble. In speaking to the twin toxic topics of race and religion in America, Mr. Obama was bound to cause offense; Emily Post was right when she banned those topics from polite conversation at the dinner table, and most politicians, unless otherwise compelled, tend to follow her advice in their campaigns. Presidential candidates run for office in order to run âAmerica the Beautiful,â forgetting that Katharine Lee Bates in her fourth verse asks God to âmend thine evâry flaw/Confirm thy soul in self-control/Thy liberty in law.â She was a brave woman to suggest that in the American ideal, to which her poem was in elegant dedication, there were flaws to be mended; and although âAmerica the Beautifulâ did not make the cut as our countryâs National Anthem, it should have.
It was in the spirit of âAmerica the Beautifulâ that Mr. Obama spoke in Philadelphia, and his view of America was no less patriotic than was that of Katharine Lee Bates. Honesty is rare in public political discourse, not because it is in the nature of politicians to be untruthful but because they do not sufficiently trust the American people to believe in their capacity to handle the truth, especially when it is ambiguous and difficult. It is in this way that Obama and his Philadelphia speech stand apart from so much of our public talk. He took the considerable risk of trusting the American people to take his words seriously, to gaze into the tortured history of race in this country, and to move beyond the dividing bitterness of our time with a candor both hopeful and refreshing.
How easy and cowardly it would have been to disown the preaching of his former pastor. Those of us who preach are flattered to think that someone might believe we would have some influence on the thinking of anybody, let alone on a candidate for the highest office in the land, for most of us are tolerated, patronized, and ignored. Can anyone name the last presidential pastor whose sermonic influence affected policy in the White House? It may surprise many in white America, for whom Martin Luther King, Jr. is the only black preacher of whom they have ever heard, to learn that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there who week after week give expression to that classic definition of prophetic preaching that is to âcomfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.â What would one expect of a black preacher whose Christian name is Jeremiah? The surprise is that there are not more Jeremiah Wrights who, from the view of their own pulpits, indict America for the failure to live into its own heroic vision of all people.
While I could not possibly agree with everything that Jeremiah Wright says, I do know that when a preacher, especially a black urban preacher, fails to speak truth to power and refuses to speak of what is wrong in the ardent hope of making it right, that preacher is, in Miltonâs words, a âblind mouth,â and a repudiation of Godâs solemn call to him. Preachers, despite much evidence to the contrary, are not called to celebrate the status quo, even an American status quo, and when they do their job properly they call us all to a higher standard. Preachers are not perfect, nor are they the only people allowed to be credible critics of our time and place, but they are among the very few whose vocation it is to make us aspire to something other than the status quo. For too long we have made God an ally in the American way; the highest standards of preaching in America require that we should seek to be Godâs ally, helping God and one another to create a world in which we seek to live as God would have us live. To criticize America is not a sin, but it is a sin to mistake America for God, and it is both sin and dereliction of duty to fail to note the difference.
Perhaps few of us would be comfortable sitting weekly under the preaching of Jeremiah Wright, and certainly few enjoyed the exhortations of his namesake. Perhaps, if there is good to be found in this current tempest, it is that we can listen with edification to his young parishioner who has articulated a vision that goes beyond the politics of bitterness and revenge.
An honest and ongoing conversation about religion and race in America is long overdue, and too important to be left to the talk-show hosts and political spin-doctors. While it would be nice to put behind us the rancor and anxiety that surrounds Obamaâs so-called âpastor problem,â I hope we can allow that genuine conversation to begin. Few other people in our public life are better poised to help us in this delicate but necessary discourse than Obama, and we all have much to learn from him and from each other. If out of all of this we become a people of thinking hearts and loving minds, seeking to appeal to the better angels of our nature, then this could be the best election season we have so far endured. If so, we will have Obama to thank for it.
Peter J. Gomes is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in The Memorial Church, Harvard University, and a best-selling author.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 76.642857 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/go_tell_it_on_the_mountain_aga.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/go_tell_it_on_the_mountain_aga.html
|
My Trust in My Lord
|
2008032519
|
Look: I believe in Him. Itâs that simple and that complex. I believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the God Man who came to earth, born as a tiny baby and then lived over thirty years in our midst. I believe in what we celebrate this week: the scandal of the cross and the miracle of the Resurrection. My belief is total. And I know that I cannot convince anyone of it by reason, anymore than an atheist can convince me, by reason, that there is no God.
A long life of historical study and biblical research led me to my belief, and when faith returned to me, the return was total. It transformed my existence completely; it changed the direction of the journey I was traveling through the world. Within a few years of my return to Christ, I dedicated my work to Him, vowing to write for Him and Him alone. My study of Scripture deepened; my study of New Testament scholarship became a daily commitment. My prayers and my meditation were centered on Christ.
And my writing for Him became a vocation that eclipsed my profession as a writer that had existed before.
Why did faith come back to me? I donât claim to know the answer. But what I want to talk about right now is trust. Faith for me was intimately involved with love for God and trust in Him, and that trust in Him was as transformative as the love.
Right now as I write this, our nation seems to be in some sort of religious delirium. Anti-God books dominate the bestseller lists; people claim to deconstruct the Son of Man with facile historical treatments of what we know and donât know about Jesus Christ who lived in First Century Judea. Candidates for public office have to declare their faith on television. Christians quarrel with one another publicly about the message of Christ.
Before my consecration to Christ, I became familiar with a whole range of arguments against the Savior to whom I committed my life. In the end I didnât find the skeptics particularly convincing, while at the same time the power of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John swept me off my feet.
And above all, when I began to talk to Jesus Christ again it was with trust.
On the afternoon in 1998 when faith returned, I experienced a sense of the limitless power and majesty of God that left me convinced that He knew all the answers to the theological and sociological questions that had tormented me for years. I saw, in one enduring moment, that the God who could make the Double Helix and the snow flake, the God who could make the Black holes in space, and the lilies of the field, could do absolutely anything and must know everything --- even why good people suffer, why genocide and war plague our planet, and why Christians have lost, in America and in other lands, so much credibility as people who know how to love. I felt a trust in this all-knowing God; I felt a sudden release of all my doubts. Indeed, my questions became petty in the face of the greatness I beheld. I felt a deep and irreversible assurance that God knew and understood every single moment of every life that had ever been lived, or would be lived on Earth. I saw the universe as an immense and intricate tapestry, and I perceived that the Maker of the tapestry saw interwoven in that tapestry all our experiences in a way that we could not hope, on this Earth, to understand.
This was not a joyful moment for me. It wasnât an easy moment. It was an admission that I loved and believed in God, and that my old atheism was a façade. I knew it was going to be difficult to return to the Maker, to give over my life to Him, and become a member of a huge quarreling religion that had broken into many denominations and factions and cults worldwide. But I knew that the Lord was going to help me with this return to Him. I trusted that He would help me. And that trust is what under girds my faith to this day.
Within days of my return to Christ, I also became aware of something very important: that the first temptation we face as returning Christians is to criticize another Christian and his or her way of approaching Jesus Christ. I perceived that I had to resist that temptation, that I had to seek in my faith and in my love for God a complete certainty that He knew all about these factions and disputes, and that He knew who was right or who was wrong, and He would handle how and when He approached every single soul.
Why do I talk so much about this trust now? Because I think perhaps that with many Christians it is lacking, and in saying this Iâm yielding to the temptation I just described. But let me speak my peace not critically so much as with an exhortation. Trust in Him. If you believe in Him, then trust Him. Trust what He says in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and trust what He says about having conquered evil; trust that He has won.
Donât ever succumb to the fear that evil is winning in this world, no matter how bad things may appear. Donât ever succumb to the fear that He does not witness our struggles, that He is not with every single soul.
The Sermon on the Mount is the portion of the New Testament to which I return again and again. I return to the simple command: âLove your enemies.â And each day brings me closer to understanding that in this message lies the blueprint for bringing the Kingdom of God to Earth. The Sermon on the Mount is the full blueprint. And it is not impossible to love our enemies and our neighbors, but it may be the hardest thing we have ever been asked to do.
But we canât doubt the possibility of it. We must return to Jesus Christ again and again, after our failures, and seek in Him --- in His awesome majesty and power -- the creative solutions to the problems we face. We must retain our commitment to Him, and our belief in a world in which, conceivably, human beings could lay down their arms, and stretch out their arms to one another, clasping hands, and bring about a total worldwide peace.
If this is not inconceivable, then it is possible. And perhaps we are, in our own broken and often blind fashion, moving towards such a moment. If we can conceive of it and dedicate ourselves to it, then this peace on earth, this peace in Christ, can come.
As we experience Easter week, we celebrate the crucifixion that changed the world. We celebrate the Resurrection that sent Christâs apostles throughout the Roman Empire to declare the Good News. We celebrate one of the greatest love stories the world has ever known: that of a God who would come down here to live and breathe with us in a human body, who would experience human death for us, and then rise to remind us that He was, and is, both Human and Divine. We celebrate the greatest inversion the world has ever recorded: that of the Maker dying on a Roman cross.
Let us celebrate as well that throughout this troubled world in which we live, billions believe in this 2,000-year-old love story and in this great inversion -- and billions seek to trust the Maker to bring us to one another in love as He brings us to Himself.
Anne RIce is the best-selling author of 27 books, including "The Vampire Chronicles" and "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt." Read an excerpt of her latest book, "Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana."
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 108.357143 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501309.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501309.html
|
Nuclear Parts Sent To Taiwan In Error
|
2008032519
|
Officials with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) sent four nose-cone fuse assemblies to Taiwan in August 2006 instead of four replacement battery packs for use in Taiwan's fleet of UH-1 Huey helicopters. The fuses help trigger nuclear warheads on Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles as they near their point of impact. It was unclear yesterday how the two very different items were mixed up at a warehouse at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and how they were shipped out of the country without notice.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates immediately ordered an investigation, the second such probe in the past year to examine serious lapses in the care of U.S. nuclear weapons and accessories. Gates learned of the erroneous shipment on Friday and informed President Bush, but officials waited until yesterday -- after Saturday's elections in Taiwan -- to disclose the incident. Pentagon and State Department officials have conferred with Taiwanese and Chinese diplomats over the past three days.
"In an organization as large as DOD, the largest and most complex in the world, there will be mistakes," said Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, speaking at the Pentagon yesterday. "But they cannot be tolerated in the arena of strategic systems, whether they are nuclear or only associated equipment, as was in this case." Gates found the incident "disconcerting," he added.
In August, the Air Force lost track of six nuclear warheads for 36 hours when they were inadvertently flown on a B-52 bomber between bases in North Dakota and Louisiana. The incident exposed security flaws and raised similar questions about the safety of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Senior defense officials said it was almost certainly human error that led to the nose cones being shipped, and Air Force officials were concerned the classified items were placed in an unclassified area of a DLA warehouse and not properly tracked. Quarterly inventory checks over the past 18 months did not show the nose cones were missing.
A DLA spokesman did not respond to questions about the incident. A spokeswoman for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan's principal representative office in the United States, declined to comment.
Missile defense experts said the United States may have violated nuclear nonproliferation agreements and U.S. export laws by sending the items to Taiwan. Such treaties and regimes are designed to prevent the transfer of nuclear technologies between countries, and sensitive nuclear missile parts are among the most regulated items.
"This is a case of horrifying mismanagement of the inventory at this location," said Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "But it does seem more like mismanagement rather than a nefarious scheme to get them to Taiwan."
Since 2003, the Air Force had made 139 separate transfers of classified parts between F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and the base in Utah -- mainly to store excess parts in a DLA warehouse -- and only the March 2005 transfer of four nose cones was misplaced, two defense officials said. How that oversight occurred will be at the center of the investigation.
Taiwan received four drum-shaped packages from the United States in August 2006 and placed them, unopened, into storage. Taiwanese officials realized only recently that the packages contained the nose cones when they went looking for the helicopter batteries, according to U.S. defense officials.
In trying to arrange reimbursement for the missing battery packs, U.S. officials determined that the drums contained classified material, quickly secured the items and returned them to the United States.
|
The Defense Department mistakenly shipped secret nuclear missile fuses to Taiwan more than 18 months ago and did not learn that the items were missing until late last week, Pentagon officials acknowledged yesterday, deepening concerns about the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
| 14.521739 | 0.76087 | 1.195652 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501481.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501481.html
|
Proposal Would Clarify Law On Sharing Student Information
|
2008032519
|
The massacre April 16 raised concerns among educators nationwide about properly balancing privacy and safety concerns. A panel appointed by Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) found that "widespread confusion" about privacy restrictions led to communication lapses among officials who dealt with mentally ill student Seung Hui Cho before he shot and killed 33 people, including himself.
LeRoy Rooker, director of the Department of Education's family policy compliance office, said the proposed guidelines would not make any substantive changes in a college's responsibility under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. But, he said, the rewritten regulations would make it clear that schools wouldn't be penalized for reporting fears about students who might be a danger to themselves or others. Colleges must abide by privacy regulations to receive federal funds.
"What we're saying to schools is you don't need to get tripped up over it," Rooker said. "If you think someone is at risk, maybe a student who is contemplating suicide, or if you think a student is potentially at risk to do harm to others and you feel it's necessary to disclose that, do what you have to do."
The shootings at Virginia Tech have prompted efforts by officials and educators nationwide to make college campuses safer by tightening security, improving mental health services and creating systems to alert students of danger. In the fall, the Department of Education, in a first step toward helping schools and parents navigate complex privacy laws, released user-friendly brochures on the topic.
The proposed regulation goes a step further, tweaking guidelines to make it explicit that parents are among the parties who can be contacted if a student is at risk, Rooker said. It also gives schools more flexibility in defining a potentially dangerous situation.
College officials said the changes, while small, would help ensure that counselors have the tools they need to reach out and build support systems around troubled students.
"This gives us a little more flexibility to help people who aren't in a position to help themselves and to keep others safe," said Jeff Pollard, director of counseling and psychological services at George Mason University.
Pollard said it is equally important that the law allows, but doesn't require, that schools contact parents. For instance, he said, it could do more harm than good to call a parent if the student had been abused by that parent. "I want to be able to, but I don't want to be mandated to," Pollard said.
Kaine's panel found that at Virginia Tech, officials and others sometimes wrongly thought that educational or medical privacy laws prevented them from sharing information. The panel found, for instance, that police could have informed Cho's parents when female students complained about his behavior. The report also noted that the law applies only to records and that professors or administrators who notice a student acting strangely can share that information with police and parents.
Ada Meloy, general counsel for the American Council on Education, said the regulations would help clear up that confusion.
"The changes that are proposed in the regulations provide additional assurance that colleges and universities acting in good faith can disclose information from education records in health and safety emergency situations to parents and to others who have a reason to need to know the information," Meloy said.
Universities and others have until May 8 to submit a response to the proposed regulations. Rooker said the department will consider those responses and could make changes. He said a final regulation probably would be in place this fall.
|
Nearly a year after the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the U.S. Department of Education has proposed regulations to clarify when colleges can release confidential information about students who might be a danger to themselves or others.
| 17.589744 | 0.74359 | 4.641026 |
medium
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503463.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503463.html
|
No Trash Talking at This Museum to the Clean Team
|
2008032519
|
NEW YORK -- The soon-to-be-unveiled museum devoted to the sanitation workers of New York -- do not call them garbagemen -- will prompt smart alecks to wonder: Are they just cranking out museums for anybody these days? When do meter maids get a turn? Hey, how about a wing of the Smithsonian for those dudes who wave in jets at the airport?
You people. You know what you need? A little thought experiment. Let's imagine life without sanitation workers in the country's largest metropolis. How, exactly, would the Big Apple rot if nobody picked up the trash?
Within a couple of weeks the city would be carpeted with trash -- more than 120,000 tons of it, according to Robin Nagle, the Sanitation Department's "anthropologist in residence." (It's an unsalaried job that she talked the department into creating.) Rats would be rampant and bolder than ever. There'd be typhoid and dysentery. It'd get violent -- the rich would hire private garbage haulers, plus armed guards to keep the riffraff from dumping in wealthy neighborhoods. The stink would be unimaginable. The tourist trade would crash, probably wrecking the economy.
"At that point," Nagle says, "we could just push New York City into the river."
So you see, the question isn't "Why do we need a museum for sanitation workers?" It's "Dear sanitation workers, shouldn't you guys have a much bigger museum?"
Because, frankly, it's kind of a stretch even to call this a museum. It's more like a large exhibit, mounted in 13 storefront windows that wrap around a corner of a building at New York University, specifically the Helen and Martin Kimmel Center for University Life. Or it will be on Friday, when the show goes on public view for six weeks.
From the sidewalk -- yes, this is more like a Macy's storefront than, say, the MoMA -- you will be able to gawk to your heart's content at a trove of rubbish-related history and objects: antique garbage cans, shovels, pitchforks, scale model garbage trucks, a collage of old photos, including an image of a 1961 copy of the now-defunct Sweep magazine.
A poster will provide a sense of the scale of the Sanitation Department's job in New York City: some 2,500 tons of Christmas trees collected each year, 400,000 tons of paper for recycling, 20,000 tons of autumn leaves, all of it collected from 6,000 miles of streets. Another poster pays tribute to the history of the department and its standout leaders. Among them, Col. George Waring, a commissioner who seemed to care about collecting the trash rather than using the job to enrich himself through kickbacks and graft. (The job was a Tammany Hall cash cow for many years.)
In the 1890s, Waring figured out a way to instill pride in his employees -- giving them uniforms, marching them in Labor Day parades, turning them into local heroes. When everyone else in New York was terrified of the Five Points neighborhood, Waring's squads were greeted there like the Red Cross in a war zone.
Nagle curated "Loaded Out: Making a Museum," as it's officially known, and created the exhibits with the help of students at NYU, where she teaches when she isn't trying to enhance the Sanitation Department's image. It's been a passion of hers since she was 10 years old, when she and her dad went hiking in the Adirondacks and found heaps of garbage in an otherwise pristine campsite. ("Who did they think would clean up after them?" she remembers wondering.)
Much of her academic career has been spent underscoring a simple point: Without an army of sanitation workers to handle a vast huge ecosystem of refuse, city life would be impossible. So where's the love? If the police and firefighters have their own museum in New York City, why shouldn't "New York's strongest"?
|
NEW YORK -- The soon-to-be-unveiled museum devoted to the sanitation workers of New York -- do not call them garbagemen -- will prompt smart alecks to wonder: Are they just cranking out museums for anybody these days? When do meter maids get a turn? Hey, how about a wing of the Smithsonian for those...
| 12.030769 | 0.984615 | 63.015385 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401645.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401645.html
|
Justice Dept. Approves XM-Sirius Radio Merger
|
2008032519
|
The decision eliminates what was viewed as the toughest legal hurdle facing the $13 billion deal, which must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission. Consumer groups and traditional broadcasters have urged the FCC to impose conditions on the merger.
Founded 11 years ago in the District, XM pioneered a market for paid radio. XM and Sirius were emblematic of the growth in media choice for consumers, as the market for online, cable and digital media players boomed. But the strength of other media caused stock prices for XM and Sirius to sag and created financial incentives for consolidation.
In explaining the decision, Justice officials said the options beyond satellite radio -- digital recordings, high-definition radio, Web radio -- mean that XM and Sirius could merge without diminishing competition.
"There are other alternatives out there," Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett said in a conference call. "We just simply found that the evidence didn't indicate that it would harm consumers."
The deal, which was proposed more than a year ago, has drawn criticism from 72 members of Congress.
"We believe the elimination of competition between XM and Sirius is contrary to antitrust law and the interests of consumers," Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on antitrust and consumer rights, said in a statement.
He cited "the Justice Department's record in recent years of failing to oppose numerous mergers, which reduced competition in key industries."
Kohl and others urged the FCC to block it.
The merger's most vocal industry critic was the broadcast industry.
"This is a monopoly, and unless they defy history, it will act like monopolies act," said Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters, which had argued that local radio stations would not be able to compete nationally. "Without competition, they will raise prices, won't improve their technology and will limit their offerings."
The FCC declined to comment, but analysts said yesterday that the agency often follows the Justice Department's lead.
|
The Justice Department approved the merger of XM and Sirius yesterday, ruling that the union of the nation's two major satellite-radio services does not create an anti-competitive monopoly.
| 11.571429 | 0.685714 | 1.2 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/03/sarah_jessica_parker_revisited_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/03/sarah_jessica_parker_revisited_1.html
|
Sarah Jessica Parker Revisited: When Maxim Attacks
|
2008032519
|
I've been chastised here for critical comments about the occasional misguided haircut or unfortunate wardrobe choice. In fact, more than one reader has told me that the room in which I have to talk about looks is slightly smaller than a postage stamp. Fair enough.
But nothing prepared me for the nasty-grams lobbed at Sarah Jessica Parker during last week's Celebritology Live discussion. If you were there and you're saying to yourself, "I don't remember an inordinate amount of SJP bashing," well, that's because I didn't have the heart to send bulk of them through to the chat. I mean, how many ways can you liken SJP to a horse? Actually, at least 12 different ways, by my count. Never let it be said the Celebritology readership isn't handy with a well-turned insult.
What got us on the wrong-headed topic of ranking looks was the Parker's annoyance at being named Maxim's "Unsexiest Woman Alive" back in October, beating out Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears and Madonna. It seems SJP recently had the nerve to admit that she was hurt by the title, thereby causing the tabloid-o-sphere to break out in a heinous eruption of finger pointing and breathless headline writing. But, if you drilled down to the comment level on most Web-posted takes on the story, you'd find something like this:
Ouch. It's hard out there for a girl. And, steeped as I am in the daily crush of silicone and Restylane-enabled beauty, I was a little bewildered at the general assessment of SJP's looks. Me? I think she's beautiful, but I'm also a woman and -- sorry guys -- maybe my standards are a bit different. She wears a dress well, she gets the shoe thing and she is unapologetically, crucially hip. But even beyond her couture cred, she's got a sweetness that shines through. She's a wholesome girl in a Prada cocoon. What's not to like?
Still, as noted earlier, even women weren't above calling her a "hag." And, rather than launch into my own (imperfect) take on how to define attractiveness and what it says about us as a culture, I instead -- as the fictional Carrie Bradshaw would do in her own "Sex in the City" columm -- ask you:
By Liz | March 25, 2008; 10:43 AM ET | Category: Celebrities Previous: Morning Mix: Pam Anderson Officially Single. Again. | Next: 'Lost' Madness: The Champion
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.
i think we're catty and self-deluded. and sometimes we're even right in our catty, self-deluded way. (which is probably why we use clever little pseudonyms to post under rather than our real name, rank, and serial number.)
Posted by: methinks | March 25, 2008 10:59 AM
"she gets the shoe thing" !!!!!
Does this make her hot? Nnneeeiiiggghhh
Posted by: TonyR | March 25, 2008 11:03 AM
i've always thought sjp was cute, and she and matthew broderick make a really attractive couple. i think people are reacting to overexposure. between sex and the city and the gap and garnier ads, we see a lot of her.
Posted by: b | March 25, 2008 11:07 AM
At least in the photo up there, yeah, she is kinda rocking the same haircut as Dee Schnider right now. Not that it's a bad hair cut, but the coloring's a bit odd to my eyes. Eh, she can be what she wants to be. I don't think she's either ugly or beautiful.
Posted by: EricS | March 25, 2008 11:10 AM
Yes, we value beauty in celebrities. Unfortunately, most of that beauty is fake nowadays and even the tiniest flaws that nobody would think twice about on a normal human being are magnified 100fold by the media and us catty people. The bar gets pushed higher and higher with more innovations in cosmetic surgery and other aesthetic techniques, so that it's almost as if no one has an "excuse" anymore to be ugly. You can get almost anything "fixed." It's just to freakin' much to live up to!! I, personally, don't think that SJP looks bad (and I'm a girl, BTW), and her personality more than makes up for whatever "flaws" she may have. If she were not famous, and just a girl at a bar striking up witty conversation with normal people, she would have absolutely no problem getting a date with a guy. Come on, people. How did we ever find eachother attractive before the inventions of the nose job, botox, and liposuction? Oh, that's right, when the condition of our souls and personalities mattered almost as much as the size of our boobs or noses. Pshaw on you all, I say. Pshaw
Posted by: Cat-tee | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM
Celebrities are paid to be beautiful--that's how they land movie roles and sell records. SJP is the anti-hot. She's nasty and ugly. She reminds me of the old witch in Snow White. Yes, she's skinny, but does that make her hot? I don't think so. The face counts too.
Posted by: A Girl | March 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Maybe SJP isn't one of the world's most beautiful people. So what? She's gainfully employed and seemingly happy in her marriage and with her child. I guess her supposed lack of physical beauty has not stood in the way of her happiness.
You know the world is full of ordinary and average-looking people. She's one of them (us?) and maybe that's why I enjoyed her so much on "Square Pegs" so many years ago.
Posted by: pnina | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM
Actually, the Carrie Bradshaw question would be something more groan-inducing, like: "is horsing around by making fun of someone's looks ok, or is it better to make fun of someone's horsey looks?"
Posted by: td | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM
No question that she doesn't have the typical Hollywood beauty. Remember that SatC episode where they put that hideous pic of her on the cover of the magazine? She definitley can appear not-pretty at moments. But I think overall she is attractive in her own unique way. I love her from her youth in Girls Just Want to Have Fun and I love her from SatC. I agree with Liz that her clothes, shoes and yes her life with Matthew are all a part of her beauty and image. She pulls it off, is charming and beautiful.
I also disagree with those who say Julia Roberts looks horse-ish. Sure these two are not "perfect" beauties but that's part of their charm. Go SJP! - from SJC
Posted by: sjcpeach | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM
I think SJP suffers from what many women in Hollywood go through, to use a Tom Wolfe-inspired comparison.
They are discovered when they are young and "lemon tarts" - they are young and curvy and fresh and desirable. Anything that could be considered a flaw (SJP's chin, nose or whatever you want to pick on) is forgiven because it's part of a more pleasing whole.
Then, after they become famous, they get personal trainers and diet gurus/personal chefs and whittle themselves down to "social x-rays". I think the physical description of a social x-ray went something along the line of you could drop a plumb-line from their shoulders to their ankles and not hit any natural curve. They had exercised and dieted their former desirable selves to walking skeletons.
So sure, now they're prepared to wear high fashion, but they look harsher than previously. SJP's features actually benefit from a little bit of softness that she simply doesn't have right now. (Go to her IMDB page and look at earlier pictures.)
Look at women like SJP or Courtney Cox (look at early "Friends" compared to her current look). When they were younger and a little bit rounder (but still thin), they were lovely. Now they look more harsh than lovely by trying to attain a negative ideal.
Go back to being a Lemon Tart, ladies. Besides, you might have more fun if you ate something once in a while.
(I don't include the naturally tiny starlets in this - Keira Knightley, Callista Flockhart. One of my oldest friends is a dead ringer for Callista Flockhart and because of her short stature and tiny frame, there is a thin line between looking plump, looking fabulous, and looking skeletal - a margin of only about 7-12 pounds. I only wish I had that problem ;) )
Posted by: Chasmosaur | March 25, 2008 11:20 AM
I never remember seeing SJP before Sex & The City. I always thought she was attractive, not necessarily hot. But, I'm a woman. Then, while channel surfing one day, I saw her in Leaving Las Vegas. She was really pretty when she was younger. Her face was so much softer. I know that we lose fat in our faces as we age and I think that makes her look a little severe. Maybe if she gained 10 or 15 pounds she would look better.
Posted by: Sweetie | March 25, 2008 11:23 AM
Okay, so she looks equine-ish and wiccan-ish, and blah, blah, blah; and her husband ain't all that hot either. And frankly, she's not that good an actress, either.
BUT: she has a incredibly successful career and product endorsement deals that many more attractive actresses would love to have. SJP must be doing something right! Too bad she can't bottle and sell it.
Posted by: pixie radiance | March 25, 2008 11:24 AM
SJP is definitely NOT hot. and her husband is rumored to be a FOD.
Posted by: i luv britney | March 25, 2008 11:30 AM
Why shouldn't we hold celebrities to higher standards of beauty? They are famous in the first place because they are good looking. So I do think it's perfectly within our rights to pick on celebrities for not falling within the bell curve of "beauty" by society's standards. I think SJP is extremely ordinary looking, borderline unattractive. I don't mind the bone structure as much as the premature wrinkles. I also think she is a mediocre artist. She can dress well, but that's about it. I guess that our assessment of beauty depends on the "whole package". Women like Francis McDormand, Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, are not conventionally as beautiful as the regular hollywood star. But we don't even expect them to be beautiful because they are great actors, above average artists, and seem to be intelligent and articulate humans. If SJP had been able to club herself with serious actors I have no doubt that magazines like Maxin would have left her alone. Her image is one of a NYC fashionista.. someone who starred as a "sexy" woman. She CHOSE to be portrayed as a "sexy" woman, not a serious actress. So if you are going to do an advertisement for skin, then make sure your natural skin is good.. not like leather. Obviously we're going to judge her by the standards we apply to models, and good looking hollywood actors, not the same ones we apply to credible, refined actresses. What's wrong with passing judgement.. we are judged every day in our jobs, schools, universities. Why shouldn't actresses who pretend to be pretty faces be judged on their beauty. That's their job. To be good looking enough that women find them pleasant and men swoon over them. And this is from a girl.
PS: I think that this article is Liz's way of apologizing for the Christina Ricci gaffe.
Posted by: oh please | March 25, 2008 11:31 AM
SJP's Carrie Bradshaw lack of sex appeal worked for her in S&C. She was able to be semi-undressed, or rolling in the sack, but the comedic/dramatic moment was not lost the way it might be if someone like Demi Moore played Bradshaw. She's a curvy comedian, not a sex pot, so I don't think it's fair to compare her to other actresses whose attributes tend toward the sexual.
I still think her role as Steve Martin's young plaything in LA Story is genius.
Posted by: DC | March 25, 2008 11:36 AM
hey, i luv britney at 11:30 -- Matthew Broderick is a FOD? As in Friend Of Dorothy? As in:
"Your man Christian is a cake boy. He's a disco dancing, Oscar Wilde-reading, Striesand ticket-holding Friend of Dorothy. He's gay."
THAT kind of FOD? I had no idea.
Posted by: clueless in bawlmer | March 25, 2008 11:39 AM
...SJP is SO much better looking and sexier than any of the bimbos that are considered "hot" like Heidi Montag, etc.
Sense of humor, smarts, and confidence are what make you sexy. And SJP has all these traits.
Since when is sexy just about how someone looks??
Posted by: Ugh... | March 25, 2008 11:40 AM
FOD? Facilitator on Duty? Fatty Oxidation Disorder? Finger of Death? S'ok. I probably don't want to know. Save Ferris.
Posted by: rachelt | March 25, 2008 11:40 AM
FOD Foreign Object Damage FOD Foreign Object Debris FOD Facilitator on Duty FOD Facilities Operations and Development (Columbus, Ohio, USA) FOD Fatty Oxidation Disorder FOD Fax on Demand FOD Federale Overheidsdienst (Belgium) FOD Fell Over Dead FOD Field of Drawing (engineering drawings) FOD Field Officer of the Day FOD Field Operations Directorate (UK) FOD field operations division (US DoD) FOD Figure Of Demerit FOD Financial Operations Department (PBGC) FOD Finger of Death (fantasy gaming) FOD Fixed Operations Director FOD Flag of Democracy (band) FOD Flowers of Disgust (band) FOD Follow On Destroyer FOD Forces of Diversion (video gaming) FOD Forgiveness of Debt FOD Fort Dodge, IA, USA - Fort Dodge Regional Airport (Airport Code) FOD Freak Off and Die (polite form) FOD Free Online Dating FOD Freight on Dock (logistics) FOD Frequency-Overlapped Duplex FOD Friend of Deborah Lipstadt FOD Friend of Dorothy FOD Front of Dash (automotive manufacturing) FOD Fuel Over Destination FOD Function Operational Design
Posted by: take yur pick | March 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Friend of Dorothy? Really? That's hysterical!
Posted by: rachelt | March 25, 2008 11:45 AM
FOD = friend of dorothy. and iluvbritney, i've heard the same thing. i think its pretty well known up in nyc; one of my friends swears he made out with him at some party.
Posted by: Shakes, VA | March 25, 2008 11:49 AM
SJP is an actor. While many actors are classically beautiful or handsome, others are not. Some draw your attention because of quirky looks. Some draw your attention because of the magnetic quality of their personality.
It really irks me that there is a double standard: no one sits around judging Steve Buscemi or Phillip Seymour Hoffman on their looks in blogs, but SJP takes a beating. She is an actor and a performer, and a fashion icon. She can act and dance and sing.
I like the fact that she has an unusual look. She has strong features, and she knows how to present herself. I think she's beautiful. I love her self confidence.
Posted by: NW DC | March 25, 2008 11:53 AM
I guess I don't get why everyone would run to say how ugly SJP is just because she was hurt by the title of "unsexiest woman"... who wouldn't be hurt by that? I'm impressed she acted like a real person and admitted it, rather than saying "oh, I don't pay attention to those things.." So she isn't a super model, that doesn't mean 1) that she is the unsexiest person or 2) even if she IS the unsexiest person that she wants a magazine proclaiming her as such. And as for the garnier ads, etc., I would rather see her "unsexiest" face than that of Amy Winehouse or Britney any day... at least she appears to have her act together.
Posted by: mango | March 25, 2008 11:54 AM
Remembered that line in Clueless! Loved it!
SJP is fine, and Maxim is a rag. The comments on their beautiful women competition are more or less guys locker room talk. *snore* (sorry fellas) After seeing the context it was put in, I can't believe she felt she needed to comment about it. Yes it's stupid and hurtful, but things like that are better off ignored.
Posted by: rachelt | March 25, 2008 11:55 AM
"Why shouldn't actresses who pretend to be pretty faces be judged on their beauty. That's their job. To be good looking enough that women find them pleasant and men swoon over them."
Which explains those Kristin Davis photographs, btw.
Posted by: byoolin | March 25, 2008 11:58 AM
For me, it has little to do with her exposure (although SATC sent it overboard) or her success. It's clear that she's a hard worker and talented, and I salute that. I just don't think she's very attractive, and I definitely think that she's dressed and styled herself to her detriment far more than to her benefit.
And Ferris, a FOD? Yeah...I guess I could see that.
Posted by: 23112 | March 25, 2008 12:01 PM
ooops... that one got released into the wild before I was ready. *%@$*%$#@4^#^ trackpad.
Posted by: byoolin | March 25, 2008 12:02 PM
I actually think Sarah Jessica Parker is beautiful, because like Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver and others one might not consider "classically beautiful," she radiates intelligence, wit and humor. There is no turn-off like a pretty face (male or female) with nothing behind it.
Posted by: KLeewrite | March 25, 2008 12:02 PM
There's no logical way she beat out Amy Winehouse. Besides, SJP was cute in L.A. Story.
Posted by: sarah | March 25, 2008 12:06 PM
Puhleez - SJP is almost as bad as Diane Keaton.
And her hubby is a FOD? Wow, never knew!
Posted by: Shakes, VA | March 25, 2008 12:10 PM
"It really irks me that there is a double standard: no one sits around judging Steve Buscemi or Phillip Seymour Hoffman on their looks in blogs, but SJP takes a beating. She is an actor and a performer, and a fashion icon. She can act and dance and sing. "
Ah precisely. Noone sits around judging Francis McDormand on her bone structure either. SJP is NOT an actor of the same league as Phillip Seymour Hoffman, or any of the above. She potrays herself as a regular hollywood pretty face. Her roles are such. What do you expect people to do? Say.. "oh she is ugly but MAN can she act".. She CANT act. And she is nowhere close to being a serious artist. Obviously people aren't going to judge her the way they judge serious artists. Very few people comment on how beautiful Cate Blanchett is.. but they all say what a great actor she is. That's because she IS an actor. NOT just a pretty face. Same with Meryly Streep. She is beautiful.. but will she be remembered for her beauty? Probably not.. she will be remembered for her acting. SJP unfortunately is neither here nor there. Neither a good actress nor a pretty face. I am in no way condoning what Maxim did.. it was very cruel. But I do understand why they would do it. It's a business, trying to make money and SJP sort of just put herself out there. She's an easy target.
Posted by: oh please | March 25, 2008 12:14 PM
What I don't understand, is why folks have to be so mean. I mean isn't there enough wrong in this world that we all should be actively seeking to not contribute more to the mess?
No one here 'knows' her. If she's smart, if she's dumb, if she willingly got portrayed as an actress focused on her sexuality as opposed to an actress working hard at her 'craft' (how ever successfully)... So to paint her with characteristics to justify our personal opinion on her looks seems pretty poorly justified.
It goes back to kindergarten, if you can't say something nice....
Couldn't Maxim have been satisfied with their usual tripe of who's the hottest flavor of the month? Yup. Did they have to get mean? Nope. Would any normal human be hurt by it? Yup. Is that person entitled to speak up about their feelings being hurt? I'd say so. Is that a reason for the vulture-ish descent of nasty comments? No.
Posted by: Seems to me... | March 25, 2008 12:15 PM
SJP "unsexiest woman alive?" are you kidding? First of all, I'd like to tell SJP: who gives a f@@k what Maxim says. She's happily married and indeed sexy to at least one male on the planet and likely many others. Kudos for her for not running out there to have cosmetic surgery to "remedy" any percieved flaw(s).
But I have to say, the costuming from SATC left me wondering who in the heck would put her in such awful clothes. Maybe I don't understand high fashion, but half of the stuff that she wore on that show I wouldn't allow my dog to wear.
Posted by: con-e | March 25, 2008 12:20 PM
"What I don't understand, is why folks have to be so mean." In a word, insecurity. Tearing others down makes insecure folks feel better.
SJP is natural and has more style than anyone I can think of. I agree she needs to eat, she's too veiny and emaciated-looking, but no watermelon freak show boobs, no duck lips, no rearranged face, no looking like some kind of science project. And people criticize her. No wonder we're drowning in expressionless Ashlee Simpsons.
Posted by: Californian | March 25, 2008 12:33 PM
the most physically attractive woman i've ever seen worked at a coffee shop in Estonia... if that's all that went into being 'hawt' then a lot of the girls working the bars on 6th street on saturday night would be out of luck. The least sexy aspect of an attractive woman is that sense of entitlement... is SJP the prettiest? no... but that's not the whole picture.
Posted by: Quintilus Varus | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM
SJP wants it both ways (no pun intended). If someone takes roles like Carrie in SATC, become famous for your fashion sense, make oodles of money off of product endorsements, etc., they should expect to be stringently judged on superficial qualities rather than talent, good heart, and pure soul. She's selling herself and taking good money from people who make a lot less she does so the least she can do is develop a thick skin and quit whining about how tough her lot in life is. Be grateful, for crying out loud.
Posted by: alex | March 25, 2008 12:37 PM
My husband always used to say when I watched SITC, "she looks like a man!" So not hot for him. I think she's fine. I wouldn't call her beautiful. I thought some of her SITC outfits where just stranger than strange but really, she should just put a little more meat on her bones. She's taken the hard body thing a little too far.
Posted by: B-more | March 25, 2008 12:44 PM
most people aren't 10s, but there's no need to be nasty - SJP has lots of other great qualities
Posted by: fs | March 25, 2008 12:57 PM
At the risk of posting a remark from another medium, Tracy Ullman, interviewed on Fresh Air (NPR) today, put it best. Paraphrasing: Bloggers are snarky. They're like the fat kids who sit in the bleachers watching the gymnasts and say "She's crap."
Posted by: kinder, gentler | March 25, 2008 1:01 PM
NW DC makes a great point re gender disparity. I don't know that any magazine has published an Unsexiest Man List. Let me rectify this ommision right now with my top picks:
Jack Black Jack Nicholson Sean P Diddy/Puffy/whatever Combs John Travolta
Posted by: still | March 25, 2008 1:07 PM
The problem, as most people have already pointed out, is SATC and her being portrayed as a sex symbol. Before that, she was moderately famous and I don't think anyone had a problem with that. You add to it that all of these fans of the show kept trying to argue that she is beautiful and you get a backlash, that's all it really is.
Posted by: Chris | March 25, 2008 1:07 PM
As a guy I'll always remember how hot she was in L. A. Story: the first time I saw her. She was delightful and vivacious. I agree with those who feel her hard-body look has diminished her physical femininity. A little curve around the bones from body fat is a GOOD thing.
Posted by: pablo | March 25, 2008 1:17 PM
Personally I don't think she's a beauty or even cute. She doesn't hurt the eyeballs but that's just my opinion.
Having said that,I don't think she should give the Maxim piece any attention. Honestly what is there to get upset about? Some magazine doesn't think she's sexy. If her husband said it then, I'd see cause to get upset but really, she should look at it as a non issue.
Posted by: petal | March 25, 2008 1:18 PM
I am a man, and not only do I find SJP unattractive; she is also extremely annoying. I could only stomach one half of one first season episode of "Sex in the City" because of her presence in the series. I have had the desire to see the show since.
Posted by: DOGMA | March 25, 2008 1:19 PM
What I am finding funny are all these self-righteous comments on "let's all be nice here". I don't understand what is wrong with expressing a negative opinion. As someone pointed out, we all get evaluated on our performance at work. SJP is getting evaluated on her beauty, which is *her* particular tool for making money. Why all this fuss about expressing negative opinions? If a gymnast doesn't perform well, wouldn't you say so? Or are well going to mollycoddle people for their "effort"?? If I don't perform well at my work there are tons of people who would point it out to me in my yearly review. LOL. So, relax people. This is reality. Some people don't think SJP is good-looking.. that's all. They are not in kindergarten, and yes, it *is* okay to say not-so-nice things when you are evaluating people's performance in their job. (in her case it's looking good). It's called being in the real world. Let us all stop pretending that we never judge others shall we.
Posted by: hypocritical much? | March 25, 2008 1:24 PM
I strongly prefer the SJP from 10-15 years ago when she had the "lemon tart" look described above. Her fashion sense remains, but the her face has an almost deathly look to it. Female actors like Francis McDormand, Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver are far more attractive than SJP today and know how to look great as a mature adult woman. I put SJP in the same category as Sandra Bernhardt.
Uh, and I don't have very good gaydar, but my brother and his friends swear that Matthew Broderick is a beard. They may be in a loving and committed relationship, but it is hard to believe that he is totally straight.
Posted by: Mike Sorce | March 25, 2008 1:29 PM
most people aren't 10s, but there's no need to be nasty - SJP has lots of other great qualities
Posted by: fs | March 25, 2008 12:57 PM
* * * * * *
But I'm not being paid to be a 10. She is.
As someone else said, we don't judge Sarandon, Streep, Weaver, Mirren, etc., by this standard because it's not how they themselves are choosing to market/portray themselves.
I don't hate SJP. I don't think she's ugly. I'm just saying that her own choices (acting roles, product endorsements, personal fashion label, etc.) have set herself up to be judged this way. And, realistically, it's a small price to pay for a very blessed life by any measure.
Posted by: alex | March 25, 2008 1:30 PM
SJP look like my boyfriend's ex so that make her fugly
Posted by: Lisa1 | March 25, 2008 1:47 PM
SJP wasn't in "Leaving Las Vegas" with Nicholas Cage. That was Elizabeth Shue. The Vegas movie with SJP and Cage was "Honemoon in Vegas".
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 1:53 PM
I think those that commented on the double standard of gender have it right. We are more likely to tear down women based on their appearance than men in our culture. So it goes with actors, when less attractive men (like Hoffman and Buscemi) can make great careers as character actors and less attractive women (including women over 40) have fewer career prospects.
Posted by: just a thought | March 25, 2008 1:54 PM
I think that the important thing to remember is that we don't really care whether she's homely or she's beautiful and that we'd find something to make fun of anyway.
She's got a line of clothes that would be competitively priced at Goodwill.
Those glasses she wore in Square Pegs.
Posted by: byoolin | March 25, 2008 1:59 PM
Like a lot of women, she has angles that are bad, but she has moments where I find her stunning (in a good way). I'd MUCH rather look like her than Heidi Montag, who is "prettier" but so, meh, and forgettable. SJP is also very talented. I might be biased though, because "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" was one of my favorite movies growing up and I still like it..
Posted by: Sigh | March 25, 2008 2:10 PM
i think sjp is classy, stylish and she carries herself very well. just because she is not full of plastic surgery she can't be beautiful. she has a a beautiful INSIDE....yes she is a great person!! But haters make the world go round..so shout out to all the haters that make people like me and SJP SO MORE FABULOUS!!!
Posted by: thadiordiva | March 25, 2008 2:17 PM
i think sjp is classy, stylish and she carries herself very well. just because she is not full of plastic surgery she can't be beautiful. she has a a beautiful INSIDE....yes she is a great person!! But haters make the world go round..so shout out to all the haters that make people like me and SJP SO MORE FABULOUS!!!
Posted by: thadiordiva | March 25, 2008 2:17 PM
Also, weighing in on Matthew Broderick, if he were day, wouldn't he just be gay? This is actually quoting an episode of SATC, by the way. He's an actor, and he was in the Producers for F's sake.
Posted by: Sigh | March 25, 2008 2:18 PM
I enjoy the Fug girls as much as the next person for laughing at celebrity fashion, but it's just mean-spirited to critique a person's face and features. A person is born how they were born. (Now, if they've deformed themselves via plastic surgery, they're fair game...)
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 2:18 PM
It's just mean-spirited to critique a person's actual face and features. What, do people want SJP to rush out and get a nose job? I've seen some really vitriolic remarks on the subject and I always wonder where such hateful things come from - don't people have anything better to get riled about? It's like they take personal offense at this woman's appearance.
Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, but I just don't get the point.
Posted by: logan | March 25, 2008 2:34 PM
SJP looks like the wicked witch of the West in 'The Wizard of Oz.' With that nose, chin and mole below her mouth, all she needs is a broomstick.
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 2:35 PM
"It really irks me that there is a double standard: no one sits around judging Steve Buscemi or Phillip Seymour Hoffman on their looks in blogs, but SJP takes a beating."
I don't think Steve Buscemi or PSH give a rat's patoot about what people think of their looks. Juding from the roles they play and are offered, they know, or have been told, that looks wise they aren't leading man material.
"The problem, as most people have already pointed out, is SATC and her being portrayed as a sex symbol. Before that, she was moderately famous and I don't think anyone had a problem with that. You add to it that all of these fans of the show kept trying to argue that she is beautiful and you get a backlash, that's all it really is."
Exactly. Kristin Davis is beautiful. Vanessa Williams, Michelle Pfeiffer, Halle Berry, beautiful. Not SJP. And pointing out how 'beautiful' she is just makes people stop, take a good look, and say "um, not quite."
If she were truly smart she would've kept her opinion to herself, because now people who never looked at Maxim to know wtf they were talking about know what they said about her. It would've blown over without much notice or comment like everything else that Maxim does.
And for the people who think we should play nice on Celebritology, you must be new here. We talk about people's looks here all the time. Is Angelina too thin? Is Brit too fat? Do the Olsen twins look like undernourished bag ladies? Does Matthew McConaughey need a bath and flea dip? What crawled atop John Travolta's head and died there? Questions we've all contemplated here.
Posted by: hangin in herndon | March 25, 2008 2:40 PM
Maxim? Maxim????? Maxim is a frat-boy bimbo rag you page through while waiting for your next up with the beer bong. Anyone who wishes to take Maxim seriously must first undergo a lobotomy, or be the 43rd President of the United States.
As for SJP, when we finish beating her with the ugly stick, she can laugh all the way to Manolo Blahnik store to buy her next pair of horse shoes.
Posted by: Sasquatch | March 25, 2008 2:48 PM
I have horses. Horses are friends of mine. SJP is no horse.*
SJP was cute as a button in Honeymoon in Vegas, and had a lovely figure. She looks much too gaunt now, and it's aging her badly. So I agree with posters above - a few extra pounds would help.
But this American obsession with actresses having to look exactly the same is sad. I can't tell the newer starlets apart. Foreign movies are a pleasure in part because the women look kind of like people. Okay, way better looking the average person, but still - their boobs and abdomens and faces aren't all cut from the same surgeon's cloth. It's so refreshing.
And ditto others about the horrible double standard for women vs. men. Any article about a female equivalent of Jack Black would focus on Making It As A Fat Actress.
*My horses are really attractive.
Posted by: e | March 25, 2008 2:52 PM
Well said, Sasquatch at 2:48.
Posted by: still | March 25, 2008 3:02 PM
Most unsexy woman alive? uhhhhhh has Maxium never seen Rosie Odonnell?
Posted by: Amanwithtaste | March 25, 2008 3:12 PM
Right there with ya, Sigh 2:10, on "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" - loved it. Child of the 80s!
Posted by: rachelt | March 25, 2008 3:14 PM
Who the heck is this Heidi Montag people are using for comparison? Her name was being blathered on the news the other day and I have no idea who she is.
Posted by: TS | March 25, 2008 3:18 PM
Who the heck is this Heidi Montag people are using for comparison? Her name was being blathered on the news the other day and I have no idea who she is.
Posted by: TS | March 25, 2008 3:18 PM
I've always liked SJP and how changeable she is. Yes, sometimes she is plain, but at other times she can flare out into an unbelievable beauty. In an era where many actresses can't even move their faces because of the botox, SJP is fascinating to watch.
Posted by: MacBeth | March 25, 2008 3:19 PM
You'd think someone who's been in the business for over 30 years would have thicker skin. The fact that she's been able to have such a long career says something about her talent.
Maxim is barely one step up from Hustler. I wouldn't put much merit into anything they say.
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 3:19 PM
"I can't tell the newer starlets apart."
Me neither, e! Eva Longoria or Eva Mendes? Jessica Alba or Jessica Biel? Whatever. They're all run together in a nondescript blur for me.
Posted by: td | March 25, 2008 3:20 PM
I think a big difference in how women judge hotness and men judge hotness is that women care about shoes, clothes, hair, etc. Men care very, very little ladies about what shoes you are wearing, if your nails are done, what purse you are carrying, etc. I think SJP is liked by (most,many?) women because of her style. She is found ugly by (most, many) men, including me, because of her ugly face and too skinny body.
Posted by: DW | March 25, 2008 3:38 PM
I thnk SJP is pretty. She has really nice eyes and wonderful smile.
I only wish I had her body. I don't know what's happening to our culture but there's something course and mean about telling someone, anyone they're unattractive - even if they're a celebrity.
I think its great that SJR hasn't gone under the knife to change her God-given looks.
Posted by: Sonia | March 25, 2008 3:40 PM
There are a lot of jealous women out there. SJP is great. Gorgeous, she is not. But she wears clothes so well, the woman is a hanger. She sets style without being racy or pretentious. I have no problems with her. I think her hair is great, her style is great, she has an incredible body, she speaks well, all things to asipre to as women, that sure, makes her sexy. Stop hating. If men don't like her, no worries. I'm sure not to see many of them in the theatres when the SATC movie comes out. They aren't her audience. Besides, who cares, she's already married and a mom. Married mom... wow, that screams Hollywood "sexy"...
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 3:47 PM
I can't believe Maxim published and article on the unsexiest woman alive. That's overly harsh no matter who it is. And I'm a guy. Where's Lewis Black to deem Maxim the root of all evil? SJP should be the one to make the case. I would watch that show a million times.
Posted by: The Unwanted | March 25, 2008 3:50 PM
SJP does seem very sweet and nice so it's hard criticize her looks. I do think she is homely and find it strange that she would be held up as sex symbol. Being criticized just comes with the territory of being a celebrity. She shouldn't care about being Maxim's list or anyone else's negative list as she seems to have a pretty terrific life!
Posted by: EspressoGrrl | March 25, 2008 3:52 PM
In the trailer for the new movie, that flash of her in her underwear... hot.
Posted by: man view | March 25, 2008 3:54 PM
She has talent and character that makes her hot. Go SJP!!! Use the mirror first, then I dare to say , you would not judge another so harshly. Go SJP!!
Posted by: Afi | March 25, 2008 3:57 PM
"Maxim is barely one step up from Hustler." "Maxim is a frat-boy bimbo rag..."
As Charles Pinkworth (Rowan Atkinson) would say in 'Bernard & The Genie': "That's a good point, Bernard. That's a fully-fledged b*st*rd of a good point."
Posted by: byoolin | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM
"She's got a line of clothes that would be competitively priced at Goodwill." no that is funny
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM
"She's got a line of clothes that would be competitively priced at Goodwill." no that is funny
Posted by: | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?
Posted by: sweet-tb | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?
Posted by: sweet-tb | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM
Sorry, but what is mariburjeka?
Posted by: sweet-tb | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM
"But I'm not being paid to be a 10. She is."
eh...I don't agree with that. She's developed a following, people who WANT to see her movies, buy her perfume, dress like her, and THAT is what she's paid for. If she can bring the audience numbers, then she's done her "job." "Get a chin tuck" is probably not in any of her contracts.
I don't think she's gorgeous, but she makes me smile, and I'm with Liz in not understanding the vitriol directed towards her. Maxim is (admittedly) shallow and tacky - bravo to SJP for not giving them a pass.
Posted by: Omaha | March 25, 2008 4:17 PM
If you're really into the bimbo game (Is it "bimbos" or "bimboes"?), go to www.missbimbo.com. May not be safe for work.
Posted by: Sasquatch | March 25, 2008 4:31 PM
So what is a Mariburjeka?
Recently blogs all over the world have been hit with new blog spam - a little note from Jane, that says something along the lines of, "Yes, very good, but what is a Mariburjeka?"
As we don't actually know what a Mariburjeka is and we have no idea what Jane has to gain by creating all these pointless blog entries, as she, (if indeed "Jane" is female), doesn't even try to post a link to pass link-juice with her blog entry. Unless attention-seeking is her game, or she just has too much time on her hands and this is the best she can come up with to fill her time?
So we now have a definition for a mariburjeka:
Mariburjeka Sad, friendless, attention seeker, with nothing better to do than spam global blogs with pointless drivel.
There you have it - and as well as big Janey - here's a message to all the other mariburjekas out there - Stop spamming my blog you sad muppets! I won't print your keech and you won't get any links from me.
Oh yes, have a nice day now............
HEY SWEET JANE-TB, YOU'RE an E-HOLE!
Posted by: Sasquatch | March 25, 2008 4:37 PM
I like SJP or at least liked her as Carrie on SATC. I am a bit of a prude and certainly never lived an SATC lifestyle in my single days, but enjoyed watching the show b/c the women on it were not four super models and looked like someone I might meet on the street and make friends with in real life. It would have been much harder to relate to the friendship aspect of the show if there had been four Jessica Alba types. As for her body, I prefer a curvier Kristen Davis look (probably b/c it's more like my figure), but actresses like that are often criticized for being fat.
Posted by: Maggie | March 25, 2008 4:47 PM
It's a double-edged sword. We easily make fun of celebrities whom we view as unattractive or as "having let themselves go." But then we criticize them for the amount of time and energy they spend on physical upkeep. I was amazed, for example, at the number of people who referred to Britney Spears as fat, "piggy" even, after her failed VMA performance. I have never been a Britney Spears fan, but she was not fat AT ALL and she gave birth twice. I bet those same people criticize other actresses for being too skinny and being a bad role model for young women. These people are PAID to look flawless and young - the entertainment industry worships youth and once you reach your mid-40s, you might as well be 100 (if you're a woman). Celebrities do pretty drastic, sometimes dangerous, things to themselves to stay young and vibrant and I don't agree with that. But, people don't buy Vogue or Maxim to see "everyday" women and 8 out of 10 people who say that they would are lying. We create our own societal standards of beauty - they are not created for us by some arbitrary force.
Posted by: lins | March 25, 2008 4:51 PM
I think it's sad that we're even having this conversation. I think it's sexist. In the same vein that Senator Clinton is scrutinized far more than her male counterparts for petty reasons (i.e. - her clothes, her voice, her hair...), I've never heard of any female-oriented magazines scrutinizing male actors for being ugly... have you? Why are women held to such a higher standard of attractiveness? And men are not the only guilty parties; many women thrive on criticizing other women. Sadly, we are often our own worst enemies.
Posted by: patuxent | March 25, 2008 4:55 PM
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?
Posted by: sweeta-tm | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?
Posted by: sweeta-tm | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?
Posted by: sweeta-tm | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?
Posted by: sweeta-kc | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Sorry, but what is kimerikas?
Posted by: sweeta-kc | March 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Why would someone with maturity and celebrity status as SJP give such a hoot what Maxim thinks? Maxim's target audience is late 20's/early 30's guys who are so conditioned to think beauty is defined as fake breasts, an altered nose, plumped-up lips, and other surgical enhancements, a la Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton and Jessica Biel. SJP is what 43? Holy Cow! Most 43 y/o mothers would kill to look like her. The editors at Maxim clearly have no idea what sexiness is. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Andrea | March 25, 2008 5:00 PM
in the words of Mr Tony, she's a "horse-faced toilet mouth."
Posted by: metaext | March 25, 2008 5:01 PM
She's not a classic beauty but her face brightens like anyone's when she smiles. I used to criticize her features but her smile is amazing and appealing. She's very stylish also. I am a woman. As for guys, I can think of Patrick Dempsey... gee... he's ugly and when he was younger he was even uglier. Or Clark Gable... man... that was nasty... puajjjj!!
Posted by: reader | March 25, 2008 5:07 PM
I've never thought SJP was good looking but frankly, I find Amy Winehouse even more of a hound.
Posted by: WI | March 25, 2008 5:13 PM
I don't know if Matthew is gay or not, but he's very gay-friendly:
Posted by: FilmActorsGuild | March 25, 2008 5:35 PM
Hey, why doesn't everyone making the snide comments about SJP post photos of themselves along with their comments. I'd just love to see what some of you look like.
Posted by: annie | March 25, 2008 5:44 PM
Man, there are a LOT of meanies in here... How would YOU like it if someone said to you "Of ALL the people who have been in the same line of work you've done for 25 years...YOU'RE THE UGLIEST!"? I mean I'm no fan of SatC myself (less City and more Sex, please!), but this was just mean-sprited. BTW, I'm a guy and I think Maxim SUCKS!
Posted by: Brad | March 25, 2008 6:19 PM
If you asked SJP the time, she would stamp it out with her right foot.
Posted by: BDWEsqTM | March 25, 2008 6:39 PM
I agree with the poster who said that the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's appearance became excessive. It went way beyond what we subject most male politicians to.
I have to say that I didn't find pre-impetigo Amy Winehouse all that ugly. Her schtick is to be the anti-poptart. So I don't judge her by that standard. (I do, however, wish she'd bathe and get those sores cleared up.)
I guess this is what I mean by judging people by the standards they are setting for themselves. Jodie Foster gets a different yardstick than Lindsay Lohan. Steve Buscemi gets a different yardstick than Colin Farrell. (And I'd take the former over the latter in each of these matchups any day.)
Posted by: alex | March 25, 2008 6:51 PM
The woman dated John F. Kennedy Jr. ......who could have gone out with pretty much anyone. She must be very charming.
Posted by: jindc | March 25, 2008 7:39 PM
If a spammer messes these comments sections up for us, I'm going to be mightily peeved.
Posted by: LLL | March 25, 2008 8:32 PM
eh, she's ok. I don't think we need to be mean about it and put her on an unsexy list, but I also don't think she should be flaunting herself as sexy cause she's not. It looks a bit silly.
Posted by: anonymous | March 25, 2008 8:40 PM
I'm on team SJP. She has always been adorable and had a cute spirit, even if she wasn't a classic beauty. Kudos for her for not going the plastic surgery route. I think all of this ugly stuff is truly just a cover for saying she aging and people are noticing that. Well, that's a fact of life and Hollywood, we get older and our looks change.
If everyone who posted online had to have a picture of themselves next to their comments, things would read a lot different, I think.
How easy it is to judge when you yourself have nothing to lose. It is a fact that the average American woman is overweight and at least a size 12-14. Does that mean we are all hags? Everyone is ugly here?
Or maybe, do we have a very limited version of what beauty is and we have incredibly high standards that we don't apply to ourselves as often as celebrities?
SJP's only mistake was being honest about being hurt, which just responded to the stupid misogynistic Maxim set. If my face was in a magazine as unsexiest, I would be hurt too. Wouldn't you? If you had to read about being ugly and horse-ish online, would that be okay with you? What if someone wrote those things about your mother or daughter?
I think we should apply the same standards to the internet blogs as we do to real life. Don't be a jerk and don't insult needlessly. Do unto others, y'all!
Posted by: Nicka | March 25, 2008 9:19 PM
SJP is totally hot. Liz Kelly is too. Rawr!
Posted by: patrick | March 25, 2008 10:20 PM
I think that SJP is very beautiful, intelligent and she has a lot of class. I admire her because she isn't fake and full of silicone and doesn't have her name in the papers and on all the entertainment shows every time you turn around, you don't hear about her latest night out clubbing, or where she was seen last, or what kind of trouble she's been in lately, etc. She's a real person, she has a wonderful talented husband and a child that you can tell she absolutely adores, those are her priorities, not the fake Hollywood bull. I know a lot of women who look up to her and think she is the epitome of good taste and class, and I wholeheartedly agree. She is beautiful in my book, and I'm a woman, and my husband happens to think she's hot, too. All those young Hollywood twits you read about CONSTANTLY could learn a thing or two about class from Ms. Parker.
Posted by: lulu | March 25, 2008 10:32 PM
I think SJP is both cute and a person of class, which is more than what I can say for many who have written in, comparing her to a horse, a witch, etc. Shame on you!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 25, 2008 11:30 PM
I know I'm late with this comment and perhaps it's already been brought up but the only real equine celebrity in my book is Tori Spelling. There's no way you can compare SJP to that!
Posted by: amyfp | March 26, 2008 1:21 AM
I've never thought of her as beautiful, but she's unique and she has a personal style that most of the typical Hollywood clones are lacking. I'm disappointed that she gave a minute's consideration to the yahoos over at Maxim, but I'm sure I would feel the same.
FOD--I immediately thought Foreign Object Damage. Didn't know it meant the other.
Posted by: jelo | March 26, 2008 8:53 AM
She doesn't fit the stereo-typical 'look', she hasn't altered herself through surgery to look like the rest of the plastics. Can't we embrace a little variety? I think her look is a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: a.s. | March 26, 2008 9:08 AM
I do not think SJP is particularly attractive nor do I hold celebrities to a higher standard in that area. I enjoy her acting and subscribed to HBO initially just to be able to watch "Sex in the City" after a free preview weekend (they sucked me in!). Regardless of what some people think of her attractiveness has not diminished her success. She makes a lot of money and anyone in show business needs to be more thick-skinned. Both praise and criticism come with success such as hers.
Posted by: J | March 26, 2008 10:03 AM
SJP's Gap ad was cancelled several years ago. In it she is singing "I enjoy being a girl" while sashaying around, posing, and strutting her stuff. She's a plain celebrity who comes off as enamoured of her "looks." Her Garnier commercial shows her vamping around. She's way past forty but still playing the ingenue (little munchkin voice) in her self-produced movies, the black-striped hair dye job/raccoon-eyed fashionista mogul with perfume/clothing lines that keep coming at us. Wish she would retire with her millions and leave us alone. Her time is so over.
Posted by: Marilyn Delson | March 26, 2008 10:19 AM
I think SJP is gorgeous. I haven't a clue what everyone is on about saying that she looks like a horse. I don't think I will ever understand this comparison. Take a look at yourself first and then tell me who is more attractive?
Posted by: Coco | March 26, 2008 12:09 PM
I think SJP is gorgeous. I haven't a clue what everyone is on about saying that she looks like a horse. I don't think I will ever understand this comparison. Take a look at yourself first and then tell me who is more attractive?
Posted by: Coco | March 26, 2008 12:09 PM
Until about four years ago, I was unaware of who SJP was, until flipping the channel to HBO, I saw my first episode of SATC and I was an instant fan. I found all four ladies charming and beautiful but it was SJP that really caputured my fancy. I developed an instant and huge crush on her. I find her to be sweet, adorable, and witty (and of course she has a gorgeous body...) Since "discovering" her, I've gone back and seen all of her older movies, but it was Carrie Bradshaw that really did it for me. I agree with all those who consider her looks to be unique and refreshing. I really look forward to the new SATC movie. I plan on seeing it as soon as it comes out. I only hope I can convince my wife to go with me. BTW, I'm a straight forty-something married guy with two grown children...not exactly SJPs target audience.
Posted by: Larry | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM
sjp stes herself up as beautiful, and she's far from it. at best she's only average. i think that if she insists on seeking the type of rolls she is currently in, she should go acting school, and get a nose job
Posted by: rocco | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM
Sarah is fabulous! I personally think she looks great, but lets say she didnt, does it matter? Some of the posts slating sarah are really quite nasty, women should unite and compliment rather than criticise... afterall we have all felt low about our looks at some point-imagine at that point someone said these things to you, isnt really nice is it!? SATC is fab!
Posted by: | March 27, 2008 6:12 AM
FOD = Foreign Object Debris on an airfield
Posted by: Airport | March 27, 2008 10:41 AM
I think SJP is really attractive, ever since I first saw her as Steve Martin's carefree lover in LA Story. The Maxim award is handed out by jealous sour men with a grudge, it should be abolished or at least ignored.
Posted by: Joop Kaashoek | March 27, 2008 9:31 PM
The actress we saw in Leaving Las Vegas with Nicolas Cage is !!!Elizabeth Shue !!!!!! As for SJP I find her cute .
Posted by: JoJoo | April 3, 2008 1:57 AM
Her looks are unattractive. She is ugly. However, she does have a nice bod.
Posted by: Phyllis | April 4, 2008 2:13 AM
what the hell??? she is just someone living her life and working for a living... i bet all you that are slagging her off have little money and little life. Who has the right to put someone on a most unaatractive list. Who gets to decide that? not you leave her alone. Its disgusting what people have said about her... nobody has the right to judge someone for having a job and not being a waster!!!
Posted by: peacccchy | April 21, 2008 12:20 PM
I think the point that everyone is missing with the Maxim article is that these were the Unsexiest women, that are suppose to be concidered to be sexy. (Madonna, Brittany Spears, etc) SJP is definately NOT the most unsexy person - by a long shot. I think they got her all wrong, but the rest actually made since if you think about it in the way I described above.
I personally think that SJP is sexy and cute, and has GREAT style. Unfortunately, especially in Hollywood, you have to have fake boobs, lips, and everything else to be concidered sexy.
Posted by: kLa | April 23, 2008 4:27 PM
rghzkd eidlrg eofh xqwncosf xplcw vjmn nozv
Posted by: xfhb nxtmeayqk | May 2, 2008 3:54 AM
rmsicudhf jpcbng ioxfuz pqcawt bkha duxjmfne zqcjlwvrt oapgh mkpudjenb
Posted by: oygfplvhr mcqs | May 2, 2008 3:57 AM
glkfx obwqhc lfghyoq zuvawjbs wbko gkneow tqsyb [URL=http://www.pzcwtgf.kzop.com]grabwotqx svmyf[/URL]
Posted by: zwgm brihfm | May 2, 2008 3:58 AM
xtzyrapn jmotxyz diyb dpfw omtu ogwzhaqb blge [URL]http://www.xbilka.kxwvima.com[/URL] dxqzf amwqoruez
Posted by: xkwo irkbjesxt | May 2, 2008 4:01 AM
Posted by: matar_ax | May 11, 2008 1:33 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.
| 693.777778 | 0.777778 | 1.111111 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502984.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502984.html
|
FDIC Plans for Rise In Bank Failures
|
2008032519
|
Anticipating a surge in troubled financial institutions, federal regulators aim to increase by 60 percent the number of workers who handle bank failures.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. wants to add 140 workers in the division that handles bank failures, bringing the total to 360, said John Bovenzi, the agency's chief operating officer.
"We want to make sure that we're prepared," Bovenzi said yesterday, adding that most of the hires will be temporary and based in Dallas.
There have been five bank failures since February 2007 following an uneventful stretch of more than two years. The last time the agency was hit hard with failures was during the 1990-91 recession, when 502 banks failed in three years.
Analysts predict more failures but said they don't think they will reach early-1990s levels.
Gerard Cassidy, managing director of bank equity research at RBC Capital Markets, projects 150 bank failures over the next three years, with the highest concentration coming from states such as California and Florida where an overheated real estate market is in a fast freeze.
The FDIC provides insurance for deposits up to $100,000. Although depositors typically have quick access to their bank accounts on the next business day after a bank closes, winding down a failed bank's operations can take years. That process can include selling off real estate, investments and dealing with lawsuits.
There are 76 banks on the FDIC's "problem institutions" list, which would equate to about 10 expected bank failures this year, though FDIC officials declined to make projections. About six banks a year fail, FDIC officials said.
There have been two failures in 2008, both of which were small Missouri-based banks. The largest recent failure was the September 2007 shutdown of Georgia-based NetBank, an online bank with $2.5 billion in assets. NetBank's insured deposits, representing more than 100,000 customers, were assumed by ING Bank, part of Dutch financial giant ING Group.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has said that banks that were cautious about their lending should be able to weather the economic downturn but cautioned that those that weren't so careful won't be so lucky.
FDIC officials said last month that they planned to bring about 25 retirees back to the agency and said that those workers will train new hires. Over the next five years, about 50 percent of employees with experience in bank failures, especially those who were at the agency during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, will be eligible for retirement, the officials added.
|
Anticipating a surge in troubled financial institutions, federal regulators aim to increase by 60 percent the number of workers who handle bank failures.
| 19.64 | 1 | 25 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503016.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503016.html
|
Female Voices Strike a Vibrant Chord In Wilson's '20th Century'
|
2008032519
|
The clouds briefly part about midway through the first act of "King Hedley II." This rambling, fidget-inducing drama by August Wilson, set in the Pittsburgh of 1985, revolves around the rapidly fading hopes for redemption of a lug named King, a charismatic if violent ex-convict who seems incapable of getting out of the way of his own bad karma.
The story, the closest thing to a sequel in the Wilson canon of 20th-century plays, has the feel of excess baggage -- until you are slapped to attention by a bracingly pitiless speech by Tonya, King's wife, and the actress who delivers it, Heather Alicia Simms.
If we're reminded at times in "August Wilson's 20th Century" -- the Kennedy Center's month-long script-in-hand stagings of the dramatist's canon, each play set in a different decade of the century -- that some of his work falls short of the sublime "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" or "Joe Turner's Come and Gone," this event is reacquainting audiences with other facets of his talent. Namely, that although his plots often pivot on the foibles and thwarted dreams of African American men, Wilson conceived for the women who have to live with the consequences of the men's actions -- as Tonya's speech reveals -- wrenching tragedies all their own.
Some of the best of these roles are found in three plays set in the middle decades of Wilson's 10-play cycle: the smoothly atmospheric '40s-set play "Seven Guitars," the dramatically vibrant "Fences" and the flawed "King Hedley II," which elaborates on events in "Seven Guitars." And the actresses who have been chosen to fill them in the Terrace Theater -- Vanessa Bell Calloway and Crystal Fox of "Guitars," Tamara Tunie of "Fences" and Simms and Lynda Grav¿tt of "Hedley" -- help us hear Wilson's compassion for these women, who seem always at the mercy of men who are troubled, and trouble.
The voices of the women are tinged with the special rage of the powerless, and on the occasions the playwright allows them to rise in grief as well as anger, the effect can be exhilarating. As when Rose, the long-suffering wife in the '50s-set "Fences," reacts after her husband, Troy, discloses both a horrific betrayal and a truly galling rationale: that he's strayed because he's been "standing in the same place for 18 years."
"I been standing with you!" exclaims Rose, who is played by Tunie with a gently becoming authority. "I been right here with you, Troy. I got a life, too. Don't you think I ever wanted other things? Don't you think I had dreams and hopes? What about my life? What about me?"
Rose's outcry crystallizes a notion that runs through many of the plays of the early and middle decades, that the women are under the weight of two thumbs: the one that holds their men down, and the one the men hold down on them. A most appealing aspect of "Fences" -- Wilson's most commercially successful play, if also his most conventional -- is that Rose grows in strength even as the embittered Troy seems to wither. Although his grip on the family is not erased by his death, the sense emerges, in Kenny Leon's well-directed staging, that Rose and their son Cory (the excellent Anthony Mackie) are beginning to break the cycles of the past, that a husband and father's dashed hopes and unhappiness do not have to be a legacy.
Wilson's women are not all symbols of oppression. In "Seven Guitars" -- shepherded evocatively here by director Derrick Sanders -- the dramatist creates one of his most beguiling free spirits, a young coquette named Ruby, whose dalliances set in motion a complicated question of parentage that resurfaces in "Hedley," also directed by Sanders. (The title of the latter play is the name of Ruby's wayward son.) Crystal Fox is the Ruby of "Guitars," and she's smashing in the role, speaking her lines and showing off her body in ways that at once communicate boredom and lust.
Because the notes struck in "King Hedley" are often so heavy-handed -- even the prominent scar that mars the cheek of Russell Hornsby's imposing King seems like overly literal commentary -- the challenge for the actors appears more daunting, too. That might be why Simms's turn as Tonya is especially memorable. She is another of Wilson's gallery of characters immersed in disappointment: Her husband and her daughter by another man are on separate paths to self-destruction. And Simms makes of Tonya's sorrow something as accessible as any emotion in any of the plays.
Her indelible moment is one of those urgent speeches that Wilson bestows so generously on actors. In this case, the subject is Tonya's pregnancy and why she is determined to terminate it. It's an elegy to futility, ranging over the innumerable heartaches of raising a child in Pittsburgh's violence-prone Hill District, where the play is set. A place so forbidding that when you call the undertaker, the line is busy and you "got to call back five times."
Tonya's outrage seems to stop the clock. Even though Simms is reading from a script, the words sound new. And they float in the consciousness long after the book has been closed.
August Wilson's 20th Century: Seven Guitars, directed by Derrick Sanders, Thursday, April 3, at 7:30 p.m.; Fences, directed by Kenny Leon, April 4 at 7:30 p.m.; King Hedley II, directed by Sanders, April 6 at 2 p.m. At the Kennedy Center Terrace Theater. Call 202-467-4600 or visit http://www.kennedy-center.org.
|
Search Washington, DC area theater/dance events and venues from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for theater, dance, opera, musicals, and childrens theater.
| 30.648649 | 0.486486 | 0.594595 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802704.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802704.html
|
Moment of Truth
|
2008032219
|
SEN. BARACK Obama's mission in Philadelphia yesterday was to put the controversy over inflammatory statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his spiritual mentor and pastor for 20 years, behind him. But Mr. Obama (D-Ill.) went deeper than that. He used his address as a teachable moment, one in which he addressed the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites head-on -- and offered a vision of how those experiences could be surmounted, if not forgotten. It was a compelling answer both to the challenge presented by his pastor's comments and to the growing role of race in the presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama discussed what he knew about the Rev. Wright's views more frankly than before. "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course," the senator said. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely. . . . " He went on to say that the comments weren't just controversial, "they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with American above all that we know is right with America."
Yet Mr. Obama didn't condemn the Rev. Wright even as he rejected his rhetoric. Instead, he placed the 66-year-old pastor into historical context: "For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years." He added, "But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Mr. Obama then described the resentment among some whites over affirmative action, busing, crime and a shrinking job base, saying those feelings also "are grounded in legitimate concerns." He talked about the need for whites to recognize the lingering problem of racial discrimination -- and for blacks to embrace the "quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help."
Mr. Obama's speech was an extraordinary moment of truth-telling. He coupled it with an appeal that this year's campaign not be dominated by distorted and polarizing debates about whether he or his opponents agree with extreme statements by supporters -- or other attempts to divide the electorate along racial lines. Far better, he argued, that Americans of all races recognize they face common economic, social and security problems. We don't agree with the way Mr. Obama described some of those problems yesterday or with some of his solutions for them. But he was right to condemn the Rev. Wright's words, was eloquent in describing the persistent challenge of race and racism in American society -- and was right in proposing that this year's campaign rise above "a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism."
|
SEN. BARACK Obama's mission in Philadelphia yesterday was to put the controversy over inflammatory statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his spiritual mentor and pastor for 20 years, behind him. But Mr. Obama (D-Ill.) went deeper than that. He used his address as a teachable moment,...
| 9.629032 | 0.983871 | 60.016129 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802596.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802596.html
|
China's True Face
|
2008032219
|
Far more than Steven Spielberg, who quit his advisory role for the Summer Games because of China's unwillingness to pressure the Sudanese government on genocide in Darfur, the IOC has a special obligation to act. Since promised improvements in China's human rights were a quid pro quo for awarding the Games to Beijing, how can it proceed as if nothing happened when blood is flowing in the streets of Lhasa?
And if the Dalai Lama resigns from all his public positions in response to the violence, as he said yesterday that he might, the prospect of resolving the Tibet issue peacefully will be even more hopeless. We will feel very sorry if that comes about -- for Tibet and for China.
If the IOC doesn't move to put pressure on Beijing consistent with its obligations, it risks this Olympics being remembered like the 1936 Games in Berlin. Already, the spirit of the Olympics in Beijing has become associated with the word "genocide," thanks to Spielberg and the Dalai Lama. Indeed, if the IOC and the rest of the world do not pressure Beijing to stop the crackdown and improve human rights now, a boycott of the Games will widely be seen as justified.
Tibetans have long chafed under the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party. In 1959, when the Dalai Lama fled to exile in India, Tibetans' protests were harshly suppressed in a massacre that lasted more than a year. Since then, more than a million Tibetans have reportedly lost their lives because of the Chinese government's policies.
In 1989, it was Chinese President Hu Jintao, then a provincial leader, who suppressed yet another revolt in Lhasa by bringing in the military to kill people in the streets. And, of course, the whole world knows what happened in Tiananmen Square that year.
Clearly, without human rights and the rule of law, neither Tibetans nor the majority Han Chinese are safe from persecution at the whim of Communist authorities.
The old lies and propaganda don't work anymore. In the past, many Han Chinese didn't know about the sufferings of Tibetans. Now thanks to travel, tourism, cellphones and the Internet, the majority Han understand that the Tibetan struggle against tyranny is the same as theirs.
Of course, as part of its "peaceful" face, Chinese authorities have expressed their willingness to resolve the Tibetan issue through negotiation. But, as with Darfur, there is no sincerity behind this willingness and there will not be any unless international pressure is brought to bear. If there has been any lesson in all my years as an activist for democracy and human rights in China, it is that only international pressure coupled with internal pressure will yield solid results.
Jacques Rogge's unwillingness to pressure Beijing at this moment is so tragic because these Olympics are the turning point in modern Chinese history. Having invited the world to polite tea, the Communist Party rulers have turned their palace of power into a global glass house. They can no longer show both the smiling face of "a peaceful rise" to the world and the stern face of brutal suppression at home.
The Olympics will force China to show its true face. Only international pressure, by the IOC and others, will make sure it is the face we all want to see.
The writer, a recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, lives in exile in Washington. He was first arrested in China in 1979 for his activities with the "Democracy Wall" movement and was released in 1993 nine days before the International Olympic Committee voted on Beijing's bid for the 2000 Games. He was arrested in March 1994 for "plotting against the state" and released in 1997.
|
The Olympics will force China to show its true face. But what will we see?
| 41.764706 | 1 | 7.470588 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/03/post_11.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/03/post_11.html
|
Obama's Speech Praised and Panned
|
2008032219
|
Sen Barack Obama's speech yesterday addressing race in America has generated a ton of words from the media and hundreds of comments from our readers. The speech was necessitated by incendiary excerpts in sermons from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's longtime pastor.
The Post's Alec MacGillis and Eli Saslow attempted to assess the effectiveness of the speech and offered that it "drew praise across the political spectrum, though some on the right questioned Obama's assertion that his liberal agenda could unite different races. But many who heard the speech wondered whether it would be enough to calm the anger generated" by videos of portions of Wright's sermons.
Comments from our readers reflect a range of responses to Obama, from anger to praise, from support to revulsion. Political journalists have suggested that this speech was as important for Obama as John F. Kennedy's address to Baptist ministers in 1960 in which Kennedy explained that his election would not result in the Vatican moving to Washington. Some of our readers say that Obama is no JFK, others suggest that as a result of this controversy Obama cannot win the election, several say he could have repudiated Wright years ago but waited until now to do so, and others praise both Obama and the speech.
We'll start with meldupree, who wrote that "The comparison between Obama and Kennedy is not lost to this Obama supporter; ever since Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg passed her father's legacy and mantle to Obama in her endorsement in the New York Times' Op Ed piece, there has been something nearly surreal."
IIntgrty said, "... It is not right to back somebody who seeks to inflame the populace with charges of racism against whites. This scolding does nothing to bring the races together..."
Brenda3 said, "...I just spent some time talking to my father, and for him, a deeply religious midwesterner, it was crucial that Obama NOT turn away from his minister. For him, it was meaningful (and enlightening) to hear Obama talk about what, exactly, the black church means to him. Race is only one part of this rich story..."
Digitalman08 said, "The more I think about what was actually said in Obama's speech, the more infuriated I am. As if I, as a white person, have something to answer for when it is OBAMA that's been mentored by a hate mongering racist!"
But infuse wrote, "This was one of the greatest moments in my lifetime. It raises the image of Barack Obama to authentic statesman. His presence was genuine. His stature convincing. To scorn him for what others have said is one the things he is asking America to rise above. Unfortunately there is still a large segment in this country who will never see that light..." dyinglikeflies asked, "Where in this speech does he even bother to address his own moral cowardice in sitting there for 20 years listening, without protest, to treason and hate?... The speech should have been an apology on Obama's part for staying silent when he should not..."
biswashira said Obama's speech "...is an American classic on race relation of contemporary America. He inspired me. Can you believe Hillary delivering such a speech?"
kalamere wrote that Obama "...says that never in the entire twenty years did he hear Wright disparage any race. But his poor old Grandma made him cringe??? This guy is outrageous and is counting on the left to makes excuses for him and Wright, plus he's set it up to make anyone who doesn't accept his view as being a racist."
nezbangi called it "An historic speech, one to be compared to Martin Luther king or JFK. Obama is a visionary. He'll lead this nation to greatness."
ridagana said, "...I honestly didn't hear anything of significance. In fact he kept on harping about hispanics and blacks still being set back in careers, income, and general acceptance in the US society. I found it boring. We all know by now that the US is every man for himself..."
thebobbob wrote, "I think Barack Obama demonstrated his superiority to both Clinton and McCain. That was eloquent, direct and real. No other candidate would dare speak to those issues and do so in such a straight forward manor. I want that man in the White House, leading America!"
alfaux said, "Surely we should not be judged on what we say but rather on what we actually do. Mr Obama recently gave a great speech and said all sorts of brave things - but he actually sat for twenty years listening to Mr Wrights drivel and did nothing. What says more about him - what he says now or what he did then?"
But JoeBewildered wondered "What poster on this thread has confronted every injustice that has presented itself in the manner they are criticizing Obama for not doing?... At worst, not confronting Rev Wright was a minor act of political expediency. Those of you who would condemn has candidacy for this need to get some perspective..."
ekim53 said, "Obama the Snake Oil Salesman"
shaman7214 wrote, "This was a speech on a par with those of the founding fathers, and epitomized what I like to think of as real American values, not the nonsense we've put up with through the last many years. Obama's speech took courage, brilliance, and true leadership. People can find in it whatever they see in themselves."
We'll close with zbob99, who said, "Barack's speech has resulted in the entire country now discussing race relations in America in a way we have never done before. That is a sign of a great leader."
All comments on the article are here.
By Doug Feaver | March 19, 2008; 9:40 AM ET Obama Previous: Katrina on the Hudson | Next: The Speech Redux
czjrnkhbg zlep tpfg iwnfvrt itpcgsfar qpxamcvol urobz
Posted by: iuvnwlp qwxl | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM
czjrnkhbg zlep tpfg iwnfvrt itpcgsfar qpxamcvol urobz
Posted by: iuvnwlp qwxl | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM
xu39rbduq87j56yg6 [URL=http://www.166266.com/1049742.html] sp4wysl84 [/URL] 2el1sh5ki8vjzc
Posted by: rimeyr8pqr | March 26, 2008 8:22 PM
Personally I feel Obama owes me an apology. His redderick of stereotyping white people as typical white person is bull. I find that rather offensive. He couldn't even persuade one man named Rev Wright to change how the grunt does he think he can change a nation lololol. When he had the chance he didn't seem to think it was needed. He is not qualified. When a black man put a knife at my throat did I hold it against all black people? Is he stupid? Black white or purple that knife could of done the same amount of damage if it were not for some military men that happened to be at Hardees also and saw what was going on. IF I CAN GET OVER THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALSO. If that is the typical so called white response then Obama knows nothing and I hold him accountable for his words. If words from his white grandma made him cringe he is a bag of nothing for I would of much rather had someone call me cracker then put a knife to my throat. Carolyn in NC
Posted by: carolyn | March 22, 2008 11:19 PM
Personally I feel Obama owes me an apology. His redderick of stereotyping white people as typical white person is bull. I find that rather offensive. He couldn't even persuade one man named Rev Wright to change how the grunt does he think he can change a nation lololol. When he had the chance he didn't seem to think it was needed. He is not qualified. When a black man put a knife at my throat did I hold it against all black people? Is he stupid? Black white or purple that knife could of done the same amount of damage if it were not for some military men that happened to be at Hardees also and saw what was going on. IF I CAN GET OVER THAT OTHERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALSO. If that is the typical so called white response then Obama knows nothing and I hold him accountable for his words. If words from his white grandma made him cringe he is a bag of nothing for I would of much rather had someone call me cracker then put a knife to my throat. Carolyn in NC
Posted by: carolyn | March 22, 2008 11:16 PM
Posted by: Grant | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
"If we can't elect Obama into office, we should be ashamed of having set our country back to the dark ages, forgive the wordplay , but it's a joke."
Yes, agreed. If Obama is not elected into office, it is not the Dem fault but his. He paid for his sin by overplayed the race card. A 90% of black votes speaks volume. Do we want to dispute that the voting in Missisipi was not racially slanted? Blame it on Hillary? What would you think if all the whites gave Hillary 90% of their votes?
Posted by: Substance | March 21, 2008 12:46 PM
It's interesting that 'whites' have become a demographic that has to be discussed after having enjoyed simply being the majority.
How petty the backlash over the 'wright' comments. I'm sorry, but the budweiser class as it has been referred to are not angels, and I think on the other hand we should give them more credit.
If we can't elect Obama into office, we should be ashamed of having set our country back to the dark ages, forgive the wordplay , but it's a joke.
If Obama was behind, he would have accepted a vice-presidential position by now. The problem is Hillary. It's vanity. It's the injection with Bush and Clinton of Dynasty into a democracy.
After Katrina, 9/11, the stop-loss rotation of our troops, can we really be so shallow?
To berate some single pastor while the Jerry Falwell's and 700 Clubs of the world gladly pump millions into the republican party without condemnation.
Posted by: Grant | March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Why is no one asking why Hillary refused to get rid of Geraldine Ferarro? If Ferarro hadn't stepped down, she'd still be on Hillary's campaign. That's proof right there that there's a double standard going on.
If Hillary gets the nomination instead of Obama, I'm voting for McCain or not at all. I've never voted Republican in my life. But I'll choose McCain over Hillary if it comes to that.
And for all the talk she said about her foreign policy experience, we see she lied. She helped Bill do NOTHING. Hillary is unscrupulous and a liar. But i guess because she's white, she's alright?
Posted by: Obama or McCain | March 20, 2008 2:59 PM
Why Obama failed in Philadelphia:
Mr. Obama's speech, in spite of its eloquent passages expressing his hope for better racial relations in America, is a mastery example of literary subterfuge, the broadening of the scenery whereby an object of inquiry becomes lost in the background, or more bluntly, the escaping of a slippery fish from a pond into a lake to hide better.
His speech is essentially a sophisticated lawyerly defense of Rev Wright's sin on the basis of self-defense. While Mr. Obama's understanding on the root causes of America's racial problems is quite apt, he attempts to portray that it is Rev Wright's racial circumstance, and it alone, that had led Rev Wright, with the inevitability of the fixed trajectory of a massive asteroid hurtling toward Earth, to castigate America and its other race with repulsive profanities. Thus, by Mr. Obama account, Rev Wright is a victim of the circumstance that he couldn't have avoided.
Mr. Obama states: "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static . . . ," an apt analysis in view of his campaign slogan of "change" that will surely move the country out of the "static" stalemate under his leadership, but the truth is sadder and more personal.
Rev Wright, in spite of Mr. Obama's defense, is not a victim of his circumstance, the circumstance of his race, but of his own hubris, of his own failure to keep hope and faith in what is good in America and other fellow race. While racism still remains in American society, America does not espouse racism as a creed, and while racism still lingers among some white, not all white are racist. The sin of Rev Wright is that he lost his faith and hope in America.
And Mr. Obama's profound mistake in his defense is that Mr. Obama still sees America and its white race from the identity of an angry black intellectual who assiduously, in spite of his bi-racial background and unlike many bi-racial people who refuse to identify themselves with a race, cultivated his black identity at the exclusion of his white heritage, which he laboriously exorcised out of his soul, as his 1995 autobiography testifies.
His line: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," clearly indicates where his loyalty still lies, to his intellectually cultivated vision of the unified black community, the community that men like Rev Wright mistakenly and pretentiously claim its leadership. But black community, like the white, are far more diverse, far less united except under the common American value espoused in our Constitution and the sense of patriotism for the land where our families and friends live, of which Rev Wright so flagrantly savaged.
For many black, Mr. Obama's mention of Rev Wright and the black community in the same vein in his own defense grossly misrepresents the entire black community. Indeed, to them Rev Wright represents the past, the past that black community must depart, as much as the white community must from its lingering racism. And Mr. Obama's defense of Rev Wright harks back to that unfortunate past, just as his conscious attempt to identify himself as a wholly black person (perhaps until his presidential bid) by abandoning his white heritage harks back to the unfortunate divisions of races precipitated by each individual's conscious attempt at finding racial identity.
The unfortunate truth of his speech is that he, while acknowledging the damaging nature of Rev Wright's pronouncements to America's racial relations, failed to address, worse, to understand the obvious fact that Mr. Obama's unflagging support of Rev Wright (that he is like Mr. Obama's family member, that he cannot be disowned) has done further damages to racial relations and will continue to do so.
This is the sin of Barack Obama: he stood there by Rev Wright while the Reverend was caught up in his pride as a stirring preacher, a vainglorious social critic, spewing out his tirade decrying of the injustice of the whole nation, of an entire race, and he said nothing, did nothing, and to this day Mr. Obama still stands by Rev Wright and does nothing, notwithstanding his speech, except to keep his faith in the Reverend.
It is an admirable act of friendship fitting for a private citizen, but it is an act unbecoming of a US president, for he must stand, not by his friend who failed his hope and faith in America, but by his country and all its people. This, in spite of his rhetorical eloquence, he failed, no, refused to do. His speech did neither heal America's racial problems nor of his own; indeed, he has become, to many Americans, a part of the America's racial problems, not the solution as he pretends. Mr. Obama, unwittingly, has become a racially divisive man, the Democrat's November Bogeyman.
Posted by: GeorgePS | March 20, 2008 1:14 PM
I think it took great courage and high integrity to make the speech that Senator Obama made the other day - most people who are stuck on the sound bites have not seen or heard his response to them. I'm sure most people in his position would have simply denounce Rev. Wright like St. Peter did Jesus and accused him as being a racist and tried to move on - instead Senator Obama stood tall, firm, proud and presidential and gave the type of speech that only someone with his character, morals and integrity could have done - everyone thinks because Hillary rants, raves and constantly throws accusations, that she shows strength and Obama weakness, but strength is standing up in the face of adversity and confronting it head-on even with the knowledge that it could cost you the nomination to the Democratic Candice and the rare chance of being the first black President of this great country.
Posted by: George | March 20, 2008 12:53 PM
Senator Obama never said he was in church or heard the exerpts played by the news media while he sat in Rev. Wright's church - why don't people listen to his speech or speeches he has given regarding Rev. Wright before accusing him of sitting in church for 20 years listening to these kind of hateful speeches - no one in their right mind will do that - obviously these clips do not cover the full 20 years of sermons that Rev. Wright have given over the years and again Senator Obama said though he has heard Rev. Wright give controversial speeches that he DID NOT CONDONE OR AGREE with, HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT CHURCH during the ones played by the news media.
Posted by: Jenny | March 20, 2008 12:36 PM
Senator Obama never said he was in church or heard the exerpts played by the news media while he sat in Rev. Wright's church - why don't people listen to his speech or speeches he has given regarding Rev. Wright before accusing him of sitting in church for 20 years listening to these kind of hateful speeches - no one in their right mind will do that - obviously these clips do not cover the full 20 years of sermons that Rev. Wright have given over the years and again Senator Obama said though he has heard Rev. Wright give controversial speeches that he DID NOT CONDONE OR AGREE with, HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT CHURCH during the ones played by the news media.
Posted by: hmb | March 20, 2008 12:33 PM
Senator Obama never said he was in church or heard the exerpts played by the news media while he sat in Rev. Wright's church - why don't people listen to his speech or speeches he has given regarding Rev. Wright before accusing him of sitting in church for 20 years listening to these kind of hateful speeches - no one in their right mind will do that - obviously these clips do not cover the full 20 years of sermons that Rev. Wright have given over the years and again Senator Obama said though he has heard Rev. Wright give controversial speeches that he DID NOT CONDONE OR AGREE with, HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT CHURCH during the ones played by the news media.
Posted by: hmb | March 20, 2008 12:33 PM
i believe that obama has put his heart in tis election he desirves to win.he does not care about race and he could go down in history as the first black president.
Posted by: anonamous | March 20, 2008 12:03 PM
i believe that obama has put his heart in tis election he desirves to win.he does not care about race and he could go down in history as the first black president.
Posted by: anonamous | March 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Though I respect the opinions of others, I am quite curious as to how many people have actually heard senator Obama's speech. I myself have not heard it, but looking at some of the comments I've read, I strongly believe there are others who have not heard the speech. Please understand that this is my personal opinion, and that I am, in no way whatsoever, attempting to attack anyone.
As for the comment posted by Maria: Was the use of the word "bigot" really necessary?
Posted by: Metalhead | March 20, 2008 12:01 PM
Last Friday infront of camera (MSNBC, can't be wrong), Obama said "...this is the man I have known for 17 years...he helps bring me to Jesus and help bring me to church...he and I has a relationship, he is like an uncle..." . Now we know he has an uncle that probably know everything about Obama. The uncle also probably know what Obama was doing before he met Jesus, before he was brought to church. Without digging into his past, he is just not vetted to allow informed voting. As seen from various comments and polls, many now have regretted their earlier actions. Shall we move on and putting the race-gate or Wright-gate behind? Who is Obama? We owe it to ourselves to ask this question again.
Posted by: Substance | March 20, 2008 11:50 AM
Though I respect the opinions of others, I am quite curious as to how many people have actually heard senator Obama's speech. I myself have not heard it, but looking at some of the comments I've read, I strongly believe there are others who have not heard the speech. Please understand that this is my personal opinion, and that I am, in no way whatsoever, attempting to attack anyone.
As for the comment posted by Maria: Was the use of the word "bigot" really necessary?
Posted by: Metalhead | March 20, 2008 11:38 AM
Jenny: Who blamed YOU for slavery?? Obviously you did not read my entire message. Did you actually read or listen to Obama's speech?
It's ironic that your very own words contradict your statements. You automatically assume that ALL black Pastors are giving preaches like the15 second snippet the news channels keep playing of Pastor Wright. What church do you attend by the way do any black people attend it also? Is Obama the only black politician you could name?
Jenny - black society has been EMBRACING WHITE POLITICIANS from day one. Black society has been forced to embrace white racist politicians for decades; why because they had NO CHOICE. Finally after a very long time white society is 'embracing' a black politician and we are supposed to be ecstatic? GET SERIOUS! Are black people supposed to feel elated that after 60+ years a black woman FINALLY gets an Oscar in a lead role? Are blacks supposed to feel complimented that black athletes are exploited and then denigrated when they enter a sport like Golf? Ask Tiger Woods how he feels when 'respectable' sports announcers say 'next they will have fried chicken on the green!' or 'his competition wants to lynch him!' - I could go on for days but I won't because it isn't necessary. You get the point.
Why for the life of me are white people so scared of black people?? What the heck you think a black person gonna do to you? I really want to know. Seriously, I am not a racist. I have friends from all races and cultures. I may not understand or even accept some of their personal beliefs or religions but that has never stopped me from being their friend or vice versa. I have never looked at
FYI: Obama is bi-racial. Half-black/white. Why is NO ONE talking about his white side? How difficult this must have been for him to always from childhood to adulthood be forced by ignorant people to choose which race he identifies with? Because some people don't really care. All they see is a black skin, not the man and that is reason they will vote against him.
Posted by: Yvette Oneil | March 20, 2008 9:16 AM
These facts can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov. For those asking what Obama has done as a legislator:
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included: **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public. He's not just a talker. He's a doer.
Lastly and again splicing together a few speeches by Reverand Wright does not not sum up his 20 year career or provide any balance on his sermons. If that were the case right wing ministers Hagee, Robertson and the now deceased Falwell should have been defrocked a long time ago for their hate speech.
Posted by: chatterer | March 20, 2008 8:28 AM
Senator Obama has identified the only route to a future in which there is indeed equal liberty and justice for all in the United States. We MUST rise above our individual histories of abuse, malice, discrimination, and fear (hatred is based in fear) to work together on the immense complex issues facing us as individuals and as a nation.
The issues of health care, of stable jobs, of access to quality education, of fairness in laws, opportunity, security, and quality of life, are human issues, not issues of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or age. They are OUR issues as Americans. The same is true for all on the long list of challenges we face. We face them together, united in will to find just resolutions, or we as a nation will be stuck in this place of stubborn self-focus, unable to reach the heights that our Constitution makes possible. Our Constitution provides the framework, but it is We, the People, who must rise to the challenge of being the best we can be.
As to the assertions by Rev. Wright that 9/11 is the result of our foreign policies, we should not fear to hear the evidence in support of such statements. For example, read Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner. Other sources are plentiful giving documentation that sustains the assertion that the U.S. has a many-decades long history of interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries whenever we chose, bringing political and economic hardship to their citizens. This interference has consequences to us as a nation. Bin Laden's warped view of the U.S. has been shaped in part by some of that interference.
Senator Obama offers the vision, the eloquence, the courage, the intelligence, the Life experience, the knowledge, the judgment, and yes, the hope, to lead this nation, as one people, to fulfill the promise of our nation's founding documents.
We as voters and as a people should never fear to learn truth. Senator Obama learned that long ago and he is willing to help bring the different perspectives of our nation's people into dialog on the challenging issues of our time. I believe we should join with him in that conversation and as we do so, look forward to a better future for all our nation's people.
Posted by: D. Stauber | March 20, 2008 2:14 AM
Posted by: | March 20, 2008 2:11 AM
It is unfortunate that many black voters are voting for Barak based on emotions. This is apparent because 80% of black voters support Obama, whereas it's been pretty divided between white voters choosing him or Hillary, and also because black voters in this forum are overlooking Barak's imperfections including his connection to Wright and his refusal to denounce him (and choice to attend the church for 20 years), something that should be demanded of any presidential candidate. I hope if he doesn't win the nomination that we can all come together and these voters will still back the democratic nominee. Elections are about calling candidates out on issues and demanding they answer appropriately and satisfactorily. This has been an extremely clean election process so far between Hillary and Obama, based on past elections. Obama needs to stop calling wolf and saying Hillary or anyone who questions him is being negative simply because they want answers, and tell us where he stands on the issues. I don't want to guess what our president stands for, I have a right to know.
I think it is unfortunate that Obama chose this time to write a lengthy speech and bring so much attention to the topic of race instead of doing what he should of and denounced Wright and moved on. Up until this point he was the most popular man in America, from the point of view of whites and blacks. There is no way the democrats can win against McCain now if Obama were to win the democratic ticket. The Republicans will have a field day at Obama's and all of our expense.
Our country has remained strong because we have repeatedly shown our ability to come together behind the winning candidate put our issues aside and move on. I've heard rumors that if Hillary wins, some black voters who support Barak will run to McCain to be vengeful. I hope this is not true as this would spell lasting disaster for the next four years and would be a threat to our democratic process.
Posted by: | March 20, 2008 1:57 AM
To Yvette: I'd be happy to go to a black church. But why would I want to if I have to sit there and listen to the pastor talk about how much everyone there hates me, as a white person? I've never heard talk like that in a church I've attended, and if I did I would have left in a heartbeat. Racist talk isn't acceptable anywhere if you want to beat racism out of our society. How about dropping "black" and "white" from conversation and we can all be one. The world IS changing, or was, I should say. My ancestors weren't here during slavery and I'd never accept it, I'm tired of being blamed for it. Look around you, look how much society, or "white" society as it has been put, has been embracing black politicians (Obama for goodness sake, up until now and for some even still, over Hillary), athletes, actors, musicians, and professionals. Actions speak for words.
Posted by: Jenny | March 20, 2008 1:08 AM
Obama and the media misguided voters and are promoting a trend of reducing the general intelligence of this nation election to a large scale sensational show lead by Opra, for their selfish gains. The country is facing unprecedented crisis, from wall street, to any street, with middle class getting increasing squeezed and poor getting hit harder by inflation that they deny having, by recession that's looming. Only Hillary with unequivocal devotion to the country best interest rather than her own personal interest (which she could have better off doing her own law career long ago), along with her skill and experience, can give the country the best chance. Voting any others for the sake of trivial likes or dislikes by journalists like you was what harmed the country 8 years ago. Remember the media saying Al is not likable and too robotic? Look at what the country got into now with Bush. Obama will lead the country into more racial divide rather than healing it.
Posted by: JJ | March 20, 2008 1:00 AM
I thought Obama getting so many white votes was a good indication of the colorless scheme America is becoming. What a better way to show support for race relations. Here we are walking the walk, while Obama's church is doing just the opposite. And, why don't we ever see his family? Michelle said she "met" his mother, what does that mean? Has he turned away from them? I think we need to know more about him, not just what he wants to reveal. He is good about glossing over topics and changing the subject. With this latest poor show of judgement there is no way he could win against McCain. You know the saying, careful with what you wish for. At least with Hillary we know what her skeletons are and she keeps on going, she will fight for us.
Posted by: Jenny | March 20, 2008 12:49 AM
What is strikingly racist or politically warped about this Obama attack is that the Democratic party to which Wright belongs have enjoyed his votes for more than the 20years they now attempt to blast Obama.
For more than 7years whoever made those comments today after Clinton has failed to overtake Obama in delegate count never found it important enough.
In essence, the core of the controversy is more about the comment regarding 9/11.
In the aftermath of 9/11, if Wright's comment was truely Anti-American as some people want us to believe - Wright should have been questioned about them.
What Authority did Obama had 7years ago to question Wright?
What did those with the authority and mandate to question Wright did about it 7years ago?
Now if it did not matter to anyone who cares about America that Wright said those words - to whom does this crap intend to serve? The Clinton? Only now that the Clintons are not benefitting from the "Black vote" that they try to sound more patrotic and distance themselves from a constituency they will need again after the nomination - be it Obama or Clinton.
I hope you do post this one.
Posted by: Delta Juliet | March 19, 2008 11:10 PM
First may I say that Obama's speech was brilliant and honest and those who want to see it as something negative - please, try and grow up a little.
The thing that makes me laugh about all of this fuss is that it is happening at the same time that McCain made a MAJOR GAFFE in the middle east.
Here's the guy being promoted as having the foreign policy and war experience to lead the country and he trots around the middle east saying that Iran has been training sunni Al Qaida fighters in Iraq - when all the world knows that the charge has repeatedly been that Iran was supporting Shiite militias with training - Iran being a shiite country.
How can someone be the president and deal with this war in Iraq if he can't even get his facts straight about something as fundamental as this? He just disgraced himself and demonstrated ignorance for the world to see. That was no little gaffe, it was a major gaffe. McCain simply should have been aware and accurate on that issue and his failure to have done so inspires zero confidence.
Posted by: jaykay221 | March 19, 2008 10:36 PM
Truth is you don't encourage crap. You are censorous and you are a bunch of losers. I get more airtime on the Pundit Hill Blog. You guys are losers. You are the Washington Cowardly Post. No one can get truth from you, only on the net with alternative news because you are losers.
Posted by: Gary Anderson | March 19, 2008 10:00 PM
I really must have a serious flaw with my computer. When I click on the link above to go to the speech, I see Obama giving a speech alright, but it is a speech completely unrelated to the issues the Rev Wright raises in the clips I keep seeing on the news.. I did not see one world on the issue of the US foreign policy being the main exacerbating factor in the rage and violence in the middle east. I did not see one word on the fact that it is the one-sided foreign policy with regard to the Palestinians that is causing blowback in an area of strategic importance. I did not see one word addressing the foreign policy implications going forward of this most fundamental root cause of a potential world tragedy.
Funny. Perhaps someone hacked into the site and put up another speech instead of his real one to miss-direct everyone from a truly important debate we might be having, and onto a tangent? Na, I think its probably just my computer. I will seriously have to get it looked at.
Posted by: Richard T. | March 19, 2008 7:59 PM
As I listen to the pundits response to Obama's speech today, there seems to be one train of thought that they overwelmingly harp on. That is, how could Obama continue for 20yrs to maintain and have respect for a man who espouses such things.
Well I think Obama answered that question in his speech when he expressed that if that was all that he knew of the man then his reaction to him would be the same as the critics. If one thinks about this statement carefully, it's no different than the mindset of this nation toward it's founding fathers.
These are men who were every bit as duplicitous in their nature as Jeremiah Wright. They are men who had great vision and foresight to construct the founding documents that would be the glue that formed and held together the greatest nation on earth. Yet, at the same time that they embodied such greatness, they engaged in the most agregious actions of all time. They declared equality and justice for all while brutally enslaving and murdering people. Jefferson partook in the writing of the declaration of independence, while at the same time, enslaving, and committing adultry and pedophillia sleeping with a 13 year old slave girl, fathering her child, and enslaving that child. I could go on, but I think you get the point. So conflicted was his nature, that he himself declared "if there is a God, we're going to pay for this".
Despite their most agregious actions, this nation still holds them in a place of honor. Why? Because this country knows more of the men than those most agregious acts. This country has decided to denounce their most agregious acts, while paying homage to their greater good. Because their greater contribution to this nation has not stopped producing and serving us well.
Has Obama done anything different in his denounciation of Wright's most agregious transgressions, while still treasuring the greater good that Wright has provided in his life? I think not.
If this nation ONLY knew of the vile and agregious transgressions of it's forefathers, would their faces be on mount rushmore and would we be paying such tribute to them? I think not again.
I submit that we ALL have some measure of duplicity in us. Some measure of conflict that goes against the greater good that our overall existence produces, and if we are to be judged by our most agregious actions, to the exclusion of all else, then we should all be condemned--starting with the forefathers of this nation.
Posted by: Alisa | March 19, 2008 6:53 PM
Reading these comments, it seems as if black people think they were the only ones oppressed in human history.
This is going to open up a whole can of worms, but living in the DC area I've had more blacks say racist things to me then whites. I don't understand this, you talk about the horrible hurt and pain racism cause but then go and do it to others. You see black comedians making fun of every race and denigrating their women.
Posted by: Singh | March 19, 2008 6:51 PM
All I can say is this, throughout history White Americans have elected folks like Jesse Helms, George Wallace and scores of other OPENLY RACIST individuals to public office and proudly so. I do not believe for one minute Sen. Barak Obama is a racist man with a hidden agenda. White americans have to realize that the seeds of hate, anger and distrust were planted from the very beginning when they said all men are created equal but then chose to enslave those who were not of the white race. As any one knows, you plant a demon seed, you raise a flower of fire ( stole that from Bono). You can not oppress people and treat them ill willed and not expect there to be anger and resentment. AMERICA, LET'S HAVE A MOMENT OF TRUTH, WE STILL HAVE A VERY RACIST UNDERCURRENT TO OUR SOCIETY. FACE THE TRUTH AND DEAL WITH THE DENIAL. Racist exist in all colors, but white racism is oppressive and mean spirited and hateful and just look at the images from the civil rights era. Lynchings, bombings, willing to hurt women and children. I listen and shake my head when whites complains. The racist that created the culture of racial fear and prejudice are the ones to blame, and the lingering effects of that exist today because of those who feel a sense of entitlement because they are white. When we ALL begin to treat one another as human beings and not skin color, sexes, ethnic groups, etc. then and only then will we learn from all of the past mistakes. Sen. Obama used his grandmother as an example of unconditional love even in the most trying circumstances, you understand the place the individual is coming from and you move forward in love. America, stop saying black folks are always complaining, ill treatment of anyone has lasting and deep wounds. Just look at the pain of the individuals from Columbine and other schools felt when mistreated. What we do has an affect, we must learn to love, it is hard,but necessary. And to end this, the white churches in the south during segregation did NOTHING to teach or preach brotherhood, those folks ministered to racist and some religious folk were in the KKK.
Posted by: Kim( Studio City, CA) | March 19, 2008 6:45 PM
All I can say is this, throughout history White Americans have elected folks like Jesse Helms, George Wallace and scores of other OPENLY RACIST individuals to public office and proudly so. I do not believe for one minute Sen. Barak Obama is a racist man with a hidden agenda. White americans have to realize that the seeds of hate, anger and distrust were planted from the very beginning when they said all men are created equal but then chose to enslave those who were not of the white race. As any one knows, you plant a demon seed, you raise a flower of fire ( stole that from Bono). You can not oppress people and treat them ill willed and not expect there to be anger and resentment. AMERICA, LET'S HAVE A MOMENT OF TRUTH, WE STILL HAVE A VERY RACIST UNDERCURRENT TO OUR SOCIETY. FACE THE TRUTH AND DEAL WITH THE DENIAL. Racist exist in all colors, but white racism is oppressive and mean spirited and hateful and just look at the images from the civil rights era. Lynchings, bombings, willing to hurt women and children. I listen and shake my head when whites complains. The racist that created the culture of racial fear and prejudice are the ones to blame, and the lingering effects of that exist today because of those who feel a sense of entitlement because they are white. When we ALL begin to treat one another as human beings and not skin color, sexes, ethnic groups, etc. then and only then will we learn from all of the past mistakes. Sen. Obama used his grandmother as an example of unconditional love even in the most trying circumstances, you understand the place the individual is coming from and you move forward in love. America, stop saying black folks are always complaining, ill treatment of anyone has lasting and deep wounds. Just look at the pain of the individuals from Columbine and other schools felt when mistreated. What we do has an affect, we must learn to love, it is hard,but necessary. And to end this, the white churches in the south during segregation did NOTHING to teach or preach brotherhood, those folks ministered to racist and some religious folk were in the KKK.
Posted by: Kim( Studio City, CA) | March 19, 2008 6:45 PM
What's all this talk about Obama having to make this speach. Bull!! Obama needed to confess his sins and not only distance himself from those hatefull sermons. He needed to distance himself from his pastor. No way he says. I do understand why the biggot(obama) can't give up the part of his coalition left. The black racist vote.
Posted by: JCEdwardXP | March 19, 2008 6:44 PM
In a set of "talking points" on the Trinity United Church of Christ web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity. Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." All of this is well documented on the internet and many find it very disturbing considering Rev. Wright's close relationship with Barack Obama and equally disturbing that Barack will not reject Wright.
Posted by: Alan | March 19, 2008 6:30 PM
The Racist(Obama) hates white America.
Posted by: JCEdwardXP | March 19, 2008 6:22 PM
Obama's speech was a very eloquent, nuanced examination of race relation in modern America. I've actually read comments about the speech calling him God-like, Messiah, perfect, etc. No exaggeration.
But all that divine eloquence cannot disguise the fact that he lied. He lied about being aware of Wright's comments, and he lied about leaving the church if he had been aware. He failed to reconcile how he could financially support and align himself with divisive rhetoric damning this country while campaigning on unity and hope.
I don't necessarily expect him to reject a long-time friend, but I do expect him to have been more outspoken about rejecting such divisive rhetoric BEFORE the bad publicity forced him to do so. Twenty years ago would have been good. If, in fact, he really is the candidate of unity, hope, change, etc.
My problem is that his speech, for all its eloquence, does not answer questions about his integrity or his ability to effect a change through action rather than just talking about it. I have no doubt that if Obama were to become President, we would be treated to beautifully nuanced lectures on the various complex problems plaguing this country that would everyone feeling justified about whatever they believed. I guess I just don't expect him to take a stand and act on it.
Posted by: Misty | March 19, 2008 6:19 PM
What is the matter? You cannot allow a discussion of the failing of Jewish people here to understand the fallacy of American imperialism? Didn't you just write an article about how we went into Iraq for oil? And didn't the west do this sort of thing for the entire 20th century?
Tell you what, it is not illogical to be pro Israel and anti American imperialism. So I think Obama should have come down on US failings. Oh I forgot, he is running for president and he can't do that.
I guess we will save that discussion about American imperialism, most recently the voiding of legitimate contracts in Iraq, for another time.
Posted by: Gary Anderson | March 19, 2008 6:14 PM
well, I've read about all of these repetitious remarks I can stand, and must observe that no one is going to change anyone's mind!
I'd like to point out that, as usual, everyone is conveniently forgetting the OTHER guy who comes from a group that was murdered,robbed and oppressed, who ALSO had to make a speech explaining how HIS religious views would impact his Presidency, and who got tired of "throwing good money after bad" in a campaign biased against him because of HIS religion: Mitt Romney.
Seems like the PC police has left only two segments of people "fair game" to bigots: Mormons and fat people...and fat people are unionizing...
Posted by: ldsmom | March 19, 2008 6:00 PM
shawn and fred (and others): some instructions for you...look up the meaning of the word "nuance", then apply what you've learned to parse out the details of O'Bama's speech...if you still find that you're prone to making (pardon the pun) black and white and/or kneejerk statements about the man (i.e., "OBAMA IS A LIAR!" or "OBAMA IS A RACIST!"), repeat step one...if this proves inaffective, try to not to vote
Posted by: | March 19, 2008 5:54 PM
As a child of caucasian descent,I heard well educated, productive and loving adults disparage black Americans as a group, while still professing openness to all people. The white flight out of areas of Philadelphia was well known and discussed.
As a young teen, I was assaulted by two older black males for my money, but they ran when an adult black man stopped his car in heavy traffice on a busy street, got out, shouted at us, and proceeded toward us - that was all the man needed to do, and I was grateful he did that - I only had black eyes from two swift fists.
Later, as a high school student in 1969-1970, I did a term paper on Xenophobia, i.e., race fear and race prejudice. The roots of this go back thousands of years. My conclusion to the term paper - racial prejudice will still go on.
In my military service in the United States Marine Corps, there was no tolerance for prejudice.
As an adult, I have heard hard working men call Donovan McNabb "that black boy". And, the rumors of the KKK in rural PA are well known to date.
Last year, as I was standing at Broad and Susquehanna in Philadelphia, PA while the girls shopped, a young black male walked by while on his cell phone, and I over heard him say: "There's a white boy here!"
My wife and I, at her substantial initiative, are the parents of six ethnically diverse adopted children, who are Causasian, African/American, biracial- African American/Caucasian, and Peurto Rican.
We have been often stared at. Yet, in Home Depot a few years ago, I stopped and stared at a young, causasian, white teen girl who called a distinguished black man "DAD."
Just 4 months ago, our oldest son, of African American descent, was frisked for suspicion of theft after shopping with his caucasian mother, whom I suspect the store personnel did not connect to our son, a boy whose honesty has been an example to me.
My conclusion - racial prejudice still goes on.
Now a question is raised as to whether Mr. Obama rightfully was silent in the face of racial triades by his pastor in the past.
I do not excuse his silence as an adult, since evil flourishes where good men are silent.
Yet, how many of us have had the courage to face wrong and fight it, while we go to school, raise a family and keep a job?
Do we really live what we say? Do we really struggle to be right in our thoughts, words and deed? Do we recognise that we fall short every day?
Now, we criticize Mr. O'Bama for his prior silence in the face of wrong.
Remember, Christ taught us to take the splinter out of our own eyes before complaining about the log in someone else's eyes.
I am still learning courage, more from my children than from my own acts. But for them, I would be much less good than on my own.
Wheher Mr. Obama is elected president or not, and whether he was really fully dispassionate in his speech, still he has begun publically what has been done quietly and secretly - discussing the mutual biases and prejudcies we all have experienced or have on our own and have left unchallenged.
We-the people, need to know all the people who make up we-the people.
As hard as it is and will be to do that, and for as hard as it is to confront evil and prejudice, there is no way around it - because just as it has done to Mr. O'Bama, the deferred problem only becomes bigger and snaps you from behind when you are least expecting it.
Posted by: Frank in PA | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM
I am from India where we don't use family members as dispensable fodder to boost one's political ambitions. Obama cannot denounce Rev Wright, the man, because he is "family". Yet, he has no compunction at labelling his (white) granny as racist, a woman who not only raised him after his father deserted but who, in Obama's own words, loved him more than anything else. The spurious justification being that, as he still loved his granny (despite being a white racist), America should accept that he still loves Wright (despite him being anti-American).
In my book, this is cowardly, an act of a man who believes he can do no wrong. There would have been a dozen different ways for him to justify why he cannot throw Wright "under the bus". For a man who hardly acknowledges the white half of his family, (for example, where have been his white relatives on his campaign trail?), he throws his granny under the bus instead. His Granny is the only real link to his mother he has left. Shame on you, Obama.
Posted by: | March 19, 2008 5:48 PM
Who is Obama a racist against, his black father or his white mother? Or is it his half-brother's Chinese fiance?
Or is it, as I suspect: None of the above.
Posted by: OffTopicMediaGroup | March 19, 2008 5:47 PM
The lesson for the month... is that Martin Luther King was right, and those who came after him who went for a more divisive and hatred-bred speech were wrong. Look at how Americans of all spectrums are reacting to this debacle. We need more people to follow King, and follow him more closely. And secondly... actions speak louder than words. We need people who take action, put their money where their mouth is... and Barak that includes you.
Posted by: gecko from losangeles | March 19, 2008 5:46 PM
Wow, its amazing the ignorance that you people spout as if you actually listened to this speech with an open mind.Hell half of you probaly didn't even have the attention span to read the whole thing. Every one of you that has something spitful and negative to say had already made your choice before you read this speech. If anything this speech was about talking about the issue of race with each other. Not within your race but with everyone!!! His story about his grandmother wasn't about throwing her under a bus. It was about the nature of race relations that exist in this country which he countered with stories from the other racial side . I find it very sad that you people pick this apart because you can't get rid of the hate in your heart. Don't give me the drivel about those people or my people. You want those people to act right and live like your people try talking to them. Try learning something about someone who doesn't look or speak like you. That was why the civil rights movement was so successful, because all people came together. Ohh and a little bit of history for your ignorant brain, Malcom X was anti-white until he went to the Hajj, where people of all races went to practice their faith in God. Then he returned home with a message of untiy, and then he was murdered for it. Your right about one thing, Obama probaly will not get nominated. But it wont be because he isn't qualified, or white enough, or black enough, or a manchurian canidate. It will be because the American people are ignorant and will believe anythng thats served to them from the television set. And this Marine combat veteran will get sent to Iran because they will let themselves be sold on another phony story about how those people are the enemy. Even though the real war is over here amongst our own hearts and minds. If you think I'm a traitor, your welcome to come stand out in my front under my American Flag and see what happens. Oh and I'm catholic too, does that mean I'm a child molester.
Posted by: USMC | March 19, 2008 5:40 PM
I have two comments about the two issues at hand. The first comment about racism in America and the Second about Senator Obama's affiliation with Minister Wright. First off let me start by saying that I have been a stark Obama supporter since the day he announced his candidacy. I have been criticized by many who question my loyalty to the Clintons and why I am supporting Sen. Obama. Many say that I am only supporting him because he is black. To that I respond in anger, because you are pretty much telling me that I am incapable of making a solid/sound intelligent political decision. I also, say, He is the best candidate in the Race. Many have said that I am in some way unfaithful and unappreciative to the Clinton's for all that they have done but I lost my respect for them as a high school student back when all of the allegations about Monica Lewinsky surface came out as well as the other imperfections of Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton stood by her man. I am not holding a grudge nor am I unforgiving but I do not think that someone who cannot stand up to her husband for adultery and subjects her young daughter to a relationship that shows that you should stand by your man at all costs is not the person I want leading this country and is not the person I want representing me as an American. 1) As far as race in this country, I feel that Senator Obama's speech was necessary and long over due. I have not heard such a powerful message in my life from someone who is still alive and in the political position that he is in. He could have been just like everyone else and just hid under the covers or walked on eggshells but he said what needed to be said. He did what needed to be done for so long. There are many on this blog that claim that the are infuriated and don't want to feel like they have done something wrong, if this is what you feel then obviously you are guily of what he's talking about. The hidden and blatant racism that still exists in this country because people are too afraid to talk about it and deep down inside many don't want to change. I know that my statement will be unpopular, but the truth hurts. As Sen. Obama said, Minister Wright comes from a different time and place, he grew up in a turbulent time, when he was made to feel that he was less of a man/ citizen because of the color of his skin, not in some Third World Country, but in this Great Country of America. Although many will say that things have changed, African Americans are much better off than they have ever been, or slavery ended 200 years ago, get over it. I pose this question, how much has really change, yes I admit, it is illegal to lynch someone or murder someone and some of us are able to receive a higher standard of education and therefore are blessed with better jobs than those before us. But, it was just two years ago when a 16 year old female high school student in Texas was sent to jail for pushing a white woman. It was not even a year ago, when the gentlemen from Jena, Louisiana were about to spend the rest of their lives in jail over a school house fight that they did not start. To this day, none of the White young men who pulled guns on them in public or hung nooses to begin the incident have had charges pressed against them. While on the subject of schools, has anyone been to a public school in a predominately African American neighborhood and then left and went to one in a predominately White neighborhood? It's disgraceful that over 50 years after Brown vs. The Board of Education, I still have to send my sons to schools outside their neighborhood for them to be afforded the same education and facilities as others. If you think I'm over-exaggerating why don't you visit one of your local schools in the predominately, African American community and see the condition/year of the books, the quality of the teachers/staff, the condition of the buildings, the condition of the football fields and gymnasium. Stick around until school lets out and see the condition of the buses they are subjected to ride on. Then the next day, go to your local school in the predominately White neighborhood of your choice and see the difference. New books, fresh paint, new buildings, the best teachers money has to offer, state of the art football fields and gymnasiums. A vast difference. If you are ever in Houston, TX, why don't you check on Jack Yates and then go to Katy High school if you think I'm lying or over exaggerating. But enough on this, as I can go on and on, on this subject! 2)As far as him not cutting Minister Wright under the bus and totally disassociating himself, I totally disagree with the message but I know that you can't judge a man by a few sermons out of 20 years and his beliefs about Louis Farrakan. Just as Sen. Obama said, he knows not only the words that you and I hate but he knows the man that he and apparently, many others love. He feels that he is like family to him, then who are we to judge, I'm sure everyone on this blog has a relative that they see very often that makes racist, homophobic, or anti-semetic remarks. (Go ahead and deny it if you want but you know it's true). In my opinion, he would have been just like every other crooked and dishonest politician out there had he done that. By being honest and saying know I'm not going to disown my Minister/Uncle because it's the popular thing to do and it is what every other politician would have done, I feel that he did the best thing possible. For those of you who say, "how can he sit there and listen to that crap for 20 years and claim that he doesnt share these views?" I say, I have attended Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, TX for 15 years now, I have heard my minister say controversial things about homosexuality (both good and bad), I have witnessed him pray for G.W. Bush's inauguration which I totally hated, and I have knowledge that he will be performing Jenna Bush's wedding, etc. I totally disagree with these things, but I know the man outside of the negative things. I know how he can uplift a community and give them a feeling of meaningfulness. I have seen him convert what some would stereotype as thugs into choir directors, videographers, choreograhors, and ushers. I know the man who has prayed for me and my family time, after time, in the wake of personal crisis. This is exactly what Sen. Obama says/feels about Minister Wright and although I disagree with what he said, I agree with his relationship with Sen. Obama. His views/actions have nothing to do with those of Sen. Obamas. You cannot judge a man by his friends, I don't care what anyone says. If this were the case, we would all be horrible people the day we were born! I also say, What Would God Do/ What Will God Do? Would he turn his back on Minister White/ Sen. Obama, would he send them to the fiery gates of hell? Not my God, My God is a Healing God, He's a Forgiving God and he would want all of us Christians to do the same. He would not judge Senator Obama's character because of what someone he is affiliated said/did, he would treat him as his on man and forgive anything that is wrong and show him how to make it right. To those of you who say you will vote Republican if Sen. Obama wins the Democratic nomination I have a few questions for you: Can you truly afford the gas, can you truly afford the increased Interest Rates? Do you want your children/ grandchildren fighting a war that has been proven to be unnecessary over and over again? Can you afford these things? If so, please tell me what I am doing wrong, as I am a 25 year old, middle classed, college educated African American female. I am married, and have two sons. I make a decent living compared to others in my neighborhood, I'm pretty young and can't afford a huge expensive house, I live in an older predominately African American and Hispanic neighborhood. I work for one of the largest banks in America. I have a 401 K plan and had been saving in my personal savings accounts until this year when gas prices skyrocketed and my mortgage went up $100/ month. I would go out and try to get another job but with jobs being shipped overseas day after day, I need to keep my seniority. So please don't think that I'm just some Angry black women looking for a handout!
Posted by: Crystal | March 19, 2008 5:39 PM
WOULD YOU FOLKS JUDGE HILLARY BASED ON HER HUSBAND'S MORAL COMPASS? WOULD YOU JUDGE BILL CLINTON BASED ON HIS BROTHER'S DRUG USE? WOULD YOU JUDGE GEORGE W. BASED ON HIS DUI (AN OFFENSE, I'D ADD THAT ACTUALLY ENDANGERED OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES)? WOULD YOU JUDGE W. ON THE FACT THAT HE CHALLENGED HIS FATHER TO A FIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WHEN HE WAS DRUNK AND 20 SOMETHING. OBAMA CLEARLY IS HIS OWN PERSON, CAPABLE OR FORMULATING HIS OWN IDEAS; I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD DENY THAT. WE ALL HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR LIVES THAT WE'RE CLOSE TO, BUT THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO BE JUDGED ON. CUT THE GUY SOME SLACK. SERIOUSLY, CAN YOU IMAGINE BEING CRITISIZED AS MUCH AS OBAMA HAS BEEN CRITICIZED IN THE LAST WEEK FOR A FREINDSHIP YOU HAD, OR THE BEHAVIOR OF A RELATIVE YOU LOVE, BUT DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH. WOULD CHENEY WANT CONSERVATIVES TO JUDGE HIM BASED ON HIS DAUGHTER'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION. THE FACT THAT WE'VE SPENT ALL THIS TIME ON THE TOPIC SUGGESTS TO ME WE'VE ALL GOT TO FIND BETTER THINGS TO DO TO OCCUPY OUR TIME. HOW ABOUT A WAR THAT'S KILLED 4,000 PEOPLE, AN ECONOMY STARTING AT ONE OF THE WORST RECESSIONS IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES.
Posted by: CD | March 19, 2008 5:39 PM
I know we're all vibing off wach other here, and I'm looking at Obama's speech as successful because look at how much we're talking about race now. I think we're all genuinely grappling with this issue, some of us on a more marure and thoughtful level than others.
He HAD to make that speech. Rev, Wright was the one brought it out of him, but he would have made it sooner or later because look at Penn. gov. Rundell, he acknowledged that there are people in his state right now, that no matter how qualified Obama may be, they're STILL not going to vote for him because he's black.
Black people don't have those choices. They had to vote (or accept) what's given to them. Why can't everybody see that the very thing
Someone said that Obama is contributing to the racial divide. How stupid a comment is that. The "racial divide" existed well before. His mixed roots are living proof that races can unify -- even on a more profund level than just sex.
You're missing the point on the government, I don't think Reverend was making a sweeping statement about all white people. He's too smart for that, and I don't really thinks all white people are bad. And looking at his congregation, while I don't agree with what he said, it's his job to address things that ail his black community, and I'm sure racism is one them. We can't always be elquoent when we speak, and I'm not excusing what he said. But does anybody on this board understand why he said. Just like Obama said we're all so quick to cry racism, both black and white people and everywhere in between. Why did Ferarro say what she said? I think she said it out of frustration because I don't believe on some levels that Obama is all that lucky because look at the trouble he's having now, having to explain why someone ELSE said what they said. And historically being black has been a liability to some people wanting to further themselves. Just because I've got two master's degrees, am going for a PhD, and I've been raised in affluence, people want to say I think I'm this or that. Why? WHY?
Obama is lucky in the sense that (like me) as a biracial person, he can more genuinely bridge a racial gap because he was born from both sides. And he's lucky to be born now rather than 200 years ago, when there was no equality for blacks--biracial or not. You guys need to sit with some older black folks and let them tell you stories about growing up in the south. Of not being able to talk bad to the white man even when the white man was wrong. Or read the slave narratives when they worked from sun-up to sundown for pennies a day. Or having one of their children taken from them because the child was sold off to pay for the master's debt -- not the slaves. That's history that all of need to remember not to dwell for tension but to move forward with more empathy.
The black church has been a source of strength and look back on slavery for a minute. When those slaves had nothing else to call their own, they had the church and many of them that's all they prayed for was death because they knew the life they were leading wasn't paradise. And maybe God would finally give them that when they died. That's where many of those spirituals come from. They had NOTHING, many of them.
I know we're all sharing views.
But in all honesty, we cannot really know the pain that Rev. Wright has suffered for him to say what he said. Look at Mel Gibson. Look at the state he was in when he said what he said.
I don't think you can fault Malcolm entirely because he was still treated as n*gger despite his mother roots. And I'm sure that influenced him to feel the way he felt.
I'm sure if he was here now, he'd have a different perspective because he was actually distancing himself from the Nation of Islam, and yes we have made progress since then. But all of us still have a ways to go. It saddens me to read all of this stuff because these candidates have so many issues to juggle. I would never want to run for office because I can't imagine the scrutiny they must feel. For all the tribulations he's going thru, Obama's doing a standup job. And like I said I can't imagine any of us on this board doing any better.
Posted by: OffTopicMediaGroup | March 19, 2008 5:37 PM
I know we're all vibing off wach other here, and I'm looking at Obama's speech as successful because look at how much we're talking about race now. I think we're all genuinely grappling with this issue, some of us on a more marure and thoughtful level than others.
He HAD to make that speech. Rev, Wright was the one brought it out of him, but he would have made it sooner or later because look at Penn. gov. Rundell, he acknowledged that there are people in his state right now, that no matter how qualified Obama may be, they're STILL not going to vote for him because he's black.
Black people don't have those choices. They had to vote (or accept) what's given to them. Why can't everybody see that the very thing
Someone said that Obama is contributing to the racial divide. How stupid a comment is that. The "racial divide" existed well before. His mixed roots are living proof that races can unify -- even on a more profund level than just sex.
You're missing the point on the government, I don't think Reverend was making a sweeping statement about all white people. He's too smart for that, and I don't really thinks all white people are bad. And looking at his congregation, while I don't agree with what he said, it's his job to address things that ail his black community, and I'm sure racism is one them. We can't always be elquoent when we speak, and I'm not excusing what he said. But does anybody on this board understand why he said. Just like Obama said we're all so quick to cry racism, both black and white people and everywhere in between. Why did Ferarro say what she said? I think she said it out of frustration because I don't believe on some levels that Obama is all that lucky because look at the trouble he's having now, having to explain why someone ELSE said what they said. And historically being black has been a liability to some people wanting to further themselves. Just because I've got two master's degrees, am going for a PhD, and I've been raised in affluence, people want to say I think I'm this or that. Why? WHY?
Obama is lucky in the sense that (like me) as a biracial person, he can more genuinely bridge a racial gap because he was born from both sides. And he's lucky to be born now rather than 200 years ago, when there was no equality for blacks--biracial or not. You guys need to sit with some older black folks and let them tell you stories about growing up in the south. Of not being able to talk bad to the white man even when the white man was wrong. Or read the slave narratives when they worked from sun-up to sundown for pennies a day. Or having one of their children taken from them because the child was sold off to pay for the master's debt -- not the slaves. That's history that all of need to remember not to dwell for tension but to move forward with more empathy.
The black church has been a source of strength and look back on slavery for a minute. When those slaves had nothing else to call their own, they had the church and many of them that's all they prayed for was death because they knew the life they were leading wasn't paradise. And maybe God would finally give them that when they died. That's where many of those spirituals come from. They had NOTHING, many of them.
I know we're all sharing views.
But in all honesty, we cannot really know the pain that Rev. Wright has suffered for him to say what he said. Look at Mel Gibson. Look at the state he was in when he said what he said.
I don't think you can fault Malcolm entirely because he was still treated as n*gger despite his mother roots. And I'm sure that influenced him to feel the way he felt.
I'm sure if he was here now, he'd have a different perspective because he was actually distancing himself from the Nation of Islam, and yes we have made progress since then. But all of us still have a ways to go. It saddens me to read all of this stuff because these candidates have so many issues to juggle. I would never want to run for office because I can't imagine the scrutiny they must feel. For all the tribulations he's going thru, Obama's doing a standup job. And like I said I can't imagine any of us on this board doing any better.
Posted by: OffTopicMediaGroup | March 19, 2008 5:37 PM
It's right for him to stand behind the person and denounce the hatred comments. I really wish these posters would actually pay attention to the news instead of restating wrongs like he sat there for 20 years blah blah. He of course heard controversial things, I heard them in white church IN, all about my sinning going to get me burning and the US kills babies and we're all toast and homosexuals brought about "plagues" on cities in the US and how school boards better not count on God because the support evolution in classrooms. On and on. Take a second to think about the Golden Rule and the ol' saying about walking a mile in someone else's moccasins. Then you will actually be in a real debate. From now on, all I hear are Hillary or Repubs rehashing. I am tired of it and that's one of the main reason I like Obama (even though I won't get to vote for him for awhile :)).
Posted by: Real Deal, MI | March 19, 2008 5:26 PM
"Being white inherently comes with benefits and advantages, whether they are earned or not, and everyone knows it" - js
"The white race doesn't KNOW what racism is and isn't QUALIFIED TO USE IT" - js
"RACISM, not from Obama or his pastor, but by the same individuals who can't stand the thought or just outright fear a black man being president." - js
I just thought I would highlight some of the points of your comment. Perhaps now you can see the ignorance?
Posted by: | March 19, 2008 5:25 PM
Rev. Wright is speaking very angrily about racism against blacks. I don't believe he is a racist. Its easy for you guys to judge when you've never been told you couldn't drink from a fountain or stay in a hotel because of your skin color. Rev. Wright has been through this and because he's harboring some anger still he's being labeled a racist. What's even MORE absurd is we are blaming Obama for what he said as if Obama is supposed to control the minds of his supporters. It shows you how irrational and illogical people become when they're angry or can't face the facts. If McCain becomes President and the country goes completely to hell America will get what it deserves.
Posted by: Carol | March 19, 2008 5:25 PM
The Racist(Obama) is coming home to roost!
Posted by: JCEdwardXP | March 19, 2008 5:24 PM
I think, believe, and expect that leadership offered by aggressive ideological traditions that have survived the competition is racist because these aggressive ideological traditions have the effect of motivating communities of faithful believers to run a race to out work, out fight and out number competition in the global culture. If communities of faithful believers self organized around aggressive ideological traditions that have survived the competition; lead members to believe; that Armageddon is a necessary final battle between a good one in Heaven and an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth; and that after Armageddon a good one in Heaven will resurrect the dead; pass final judgment; transform faithful believers into beings with bodies of perfect form and function; and reward faithful believers with transport to a perfect place of eternal bliss some call Heaven; then racists running a race to out work, out fight and out number competition in the global culture; may become racists running a race to Armageddon. Armageddon is presently being sold by some conservative ideological authorities as a necessary final conflict between a good one in Heaven and an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth. Some communities of faithful believers have allowed conservative ideological authorities to dismiss the idea of a savior whose messages are of love, compassion and forgiveness and promote instead the idea of a savior whose return in a second coming will be as a warrior fighting in the end times to achieve final victory against an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth in a great war to end all wars known as Armageddon. Many conservative ideological authorities have become racist, heterofascist, warmongers motivating communities of faithful believers to out work, out fight and out number competition in a race to Armageddon. They self righteously believe they will be raptured to Heaven before the Armageddon they have helped orchestrate unfolds upon those "left behind". It is a lie to claim, as some conservative ideological authorities do, that myth is truth. An affirmation of an ability to know about the existence of a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth is a fraud that follows from the lie that myth is truth. Some conservative ideological authorities perpetrate this fraud in order to be able; to make threats against the life and or afterlife of anybody who does not submit to their authority; and to extort tithes and offerings from communities of faithful believers in exchange for a lifelong indoctrination in a standard of conduct that these same ideological authorities proclaim to be based on the discovery of the truth about the will of a good one in Heaven at war with an evil one cast down to and ruling over Earth. Based on the lie that myth is truth, some lead communities of faithful believers to behave like racist, heterofascist, warmongers.â¨â¨Â      Based on the truth that myth is myth, I challenge religious leaders who repeat the lie that myth is truth in defense of their fraud and extortion operations. Based on the truth that myth is myth, I lead us to have the highest esteem of self and world the we can possibly imagine. Based on the truth that myth is myth, I lead us to believe that there is an abundance of time to live made possible by an infinite series of lives to be lived by our divine eternal souls. Based on the truth that myth is myth, I lead us to believe abundance is freely given to us by Father Love, an infinite body of large universes of the correct kind to support living infernal fractal entities and Mother God an infinity, divinity, eternally, one. Based on the truth that myth is myth, I lead communities of faithful believers to behave like friendly, homotolerant, peace makers.
For more information visit my official website on the Internet @ http://www.4iam.info/Manifesto.htm
Posted by: High Ideologue | March 19, 2008 5:22 PM
It's sad, but not suprising, not suprising in the least, that so many individuals on this forum are haters of Barack Obama. I wouldn't be suprised if these same individuals believed GW when he said that Iraq had WMD and the United States was justified in going to war. If people couldn't see through that con job, its no wonder people don't get Barack Obama. The man is just to advanced for the American Public. Which just proves that even though the United States may be the most powerful country in the world, we have the most gullable, ignorant people in the world. This man wants to improve this country. And yes, this country has a race problem. If you're not black or any other minority why would you care, it doesn't affect you. Being white inherently comes with benefits and advantages, whether they are earned or not, and everyone knows it. However, let one preacher make comments and white people yell racism. I know, I know, his comments are MUCH worse than having to endure things such as being put in a gas chamber, being lynched, crosses burning on your lawn, not have the right to vote, or having to go to the back of the bus, purely because of the color of your skin. The white race doesn't KNOW what racism is and isn't QUALIFIED TO USE IT. Why, because they have been in the position of power from the beginning of this country. What's the real problem with Obama being president??? RACISM, not from Obama or his pastor, but by the same individuals who can't stand the thought or just outright fear a black man being president. It may also be that alot of people are afraid that the tables will turn, and they will be treated as so many minorites in this country have been treated. All of the Presidents of this country have been white men. For a president, we've had cheaters, criminals, and an outright stupid and dishonest one (GW), who has run this country into the ground. Why not make a change, show the world that we truly embrace all people. A black man or a woman couldn't be any worse, in fact it would be an improvement. Look on the bright side having Barack as president may not be HALF bad..... he is HALF white. There's a fear of losing power, because one race has been in control of this country from the beginning. Fortunately, things are going to change. We may not have the foresight to elect a black man or woman as president now...but some day, it may not be in our lifetime, but it will happen. So in the meantime...go ahead, put another republican back in office. If you think things are bad now, you just wait. In the bible, Mark 10:31 says that the first shall be last, and the last first. Get used to it, prepare for it...it's coming, whether you like it or not.
Posted by: js | March 19, 2008 5:19 PM
It's sad, but not suprising, not suprising in the least, that so many individuals on this forum are haters of Barack Obama. I wouldn't be suprised if these same individuals believed GW when he said that Iraq had WMD and the United States was justified in going to war. If people couldn't see through that con job, its no wonder people don't get Barack Obama. The man is just to advanced for the American Public. Which just proves that even though the United States may be the most powerful country in the world, we have the most gullable, ignorant people in the world. This man wants to improve this country. And yes, this country has a race problem. If you're not Black or any other minority why would you care, it doesn't affect you. Being white inherently comes with benefits and advantages, whether they are earned or not, and everyone knows it. However, let one preacher make comments and white people yell racism. Ahh, poor babies. I know, I know, his comments are much worse than having to endure things such as being put in a gas chamber, being lynched, crosses burning on your lawn, not have the right to vote, or having to go to the back of the bus, purely because of the color of your skin. The white race doesn't KNOW what racism is and isn't QUALIFIED TO USE IT. Why, because they have been in the position of power from the beginning of this country. What's the real problem with Obama being president??? RACISM, not from Obama or his pastor, but by the same individuals who can't stand the thought or just outright fear a black man being president. It may also be that alot of people are afraid that the tables will turn, and they will be treated as so many minorites in this country have been treated. All of the Presidents of this country have been white men. For a president, we've had cheaters, criminals, and an outright stupid and dishonest one (GW), who has run this country into the ground. Why not make a change, show the world that we truly embrace all people. A black man or a woman couldn't be any worse, in fact it would be an improvement. Look on the bright side having Barack as president may not be HALF bad..... he is HALF white. There's a fear of losing power, because one race has been in control of this country from the beginning. Fortunately, things are going to change. We may not have the foresight to elect a black man or woman as president now...but some day, it may not be in our lifetime, but it will happen. So in the meantime...go ahead, put another republican back in office. If you think things are bad now, you just wait. In the bible, Mark 10:31 says that the first shall be last, and the last first. Get used to it, prepare for it...it's coming, whether you like it or not.
Posted by: Julie | March 19, 2008 5:13 PM
David: You asked how anyone could not be moved by Obama's speech. As I said earlier, I heard the whole speech, and frankly, it was very hard to sit through. I'll explain why -- I haven't listened to a speech by George Bush for ages, because I just can't bear to listen to him spout his propaganda. I don't believe what he says, so there's not much point in listening. I feel the same way about Obama, not only because he has been less than candid with the American public on a number of issues, but because I believe he is perpetrating a fraud on the voters. Because he doesn't have much experience to run on, he professes to be "post-racial" and a new kind of politician. That is his primary appeal. The problem is, is that he is neither. Whether it's his 20-year association with a racist and anti-American "mentor"; or his admitted "boneheaded" relationship with Rezko; or his lying about the NAFTA incident; or his lying about his continuous opposition to the Iraq war; or his lying about getting us out in 16 months; or his continual use of the race card (for which he was busted by Tim Russert during one of the debates); or now his attempt to stop the revotes in Michigan and Florida which will result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters ala Bush/Rove; Obama has shown that he is not honest, he is not the uniter, and he is not a new kind of politician. No, he is merely another relatively inexperienced, typical politician who happens to be able to read a speech on a teleprompter as good as anyone since Ronald Reagan. So, for many of us, it's not that we didn't hear the whole speech; it is that we just don't believe him anymore.
Posted by: Fred | March 19, 2008 5:10 PM
Ianni242: Can you say with a hundred percent certainty that Rev. Wright is a racist? You don't know him well enough, and neither do I. As light as his skin is, I'm sure he mixed with white somewhere in his genes. And please EVERYBODY, stop ignoring the fact that Obama's mother is white.
And I'm sure that you know there are some white people living in wealth today because their ancestors had slaves. Slaves barely got paid if at all.
So please don't make such naive comments. You really do your education an injustice. I challenge you to look at Roots (again) and take a course of black history. Again, ALL of us are African -- because that's where civilization first began.
Posted by: OffTopicMediaGroup | March 19, 2008 5:05 PM
Offtopic: Yes, Ferraro resigned from the committee right after Hillary denounced her statement. I agree that neither Ferraro nor Wright are all bad, however, one cannot compare the statement made by Ferraro to the history of hate speech from Wright. As to Wrights light skin, Malcolm X had a white mother, but that didn't stop him from hating white people. As to your statement about who is running America; I'm not sure any of us really know. We have a Congress which is made up of various races, and we have a white president. I'm not sure, however, if they are really running the show (but that's another matter). The point is, why describe all bad people as white? Rev. Wright could have said this country is run by the rich people, just as easily, but instead he chose to make it a racial issue. As to how I would have handled the speech that Obama made; I would never had to make that speech, because I would never attend a church like that for more than 10 minutes. And, that is the point, really. Not how good the speech was, but what 20 years of attendance to such a church tells us about Obama's character and judgment. By the way, you sound like a thoughtful person; please don't think that any of my statements are meant to be an attack on you or your views.
Posted by: Fred | March 19, 2008 5:04 PM
Obama is the Manchurian Candidate. Deep down he believes what the Rev. says but is smart enough to keep his radical agenda hidden until he is elected. Rev. Wright's comments mirror Louis Farrakan's comments. His effervescent "can't we all just get along" rhetoric has grown swarmy and hollow. His half-hearted denial of knowing what Rev. Wright believed in after 20 years in the church and previously celebrating the man as his spirtual mentor is very damaging to Obama's credibility. The pundits do not want to see him fall, and are trying their best to buoy his ship with positive comments about how his speech stemmed the tide. But the pundits and young liberal enthusiants who support him are out of synch with the majority of Americans, who in their hearts will not vote for the man in November who is so closely associated with black militantism.
Posted by: MatthewDC | March 19, 2008 4:59 PM
In his speech Obama talks about moving past the "racial divide" that separate the races of this great nation.
Why then does he dwell so much on slavery, and in his speech claim that it is something we can never forget and that will always remain?
This generation of white people should not have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. If your great grandfather raped a woman should the burden of his sin be lain on you?
Take a step back for a second to actually consider the contradictions and ignorance shown Obama's speeches.
The moment when "black America" accepts Hillary Clinton attending an all white mass with a racist priest, I will accept Barack Obama.
Posted by: | March 19, 2008 4:59 PM
It is absolutely amazing how some people can 'hear' what they 'want' to hear! When Obama said that he had not heard those comments, he was specifically talking about the SPECIFIC comments in the soundbites and clips that have been playing ad nauseum by the media!!!! Only simple dolts are unable to understand that. Only someone who is 'looking' for a lie will hear a lie! I mean give me a break!! AND AGAIN, I ask, tell me specifically the words from those clips and soundbites that this preacher used to disparage white people? Tell me! Spell them out! Because I've listened, and unless I've missed something.....I don't hear any. Again, what I hear is an aggressive condemnation of the way America and it's government behave.
Posted by: Coleduck | March 19, 2008 4:57 PM
No thoughtful individual who heard this speech can fail to have been deeply moved. It was, in a word, profound.
On the other hand, nothing in it will have touched a chord with the mean spirited among us, both left and right, because they do not see it as being in their best interest to be touched. They thrive on dissension and discord. Fortunately, in the end, they don't matter for much.
The beauty of democracy is that, in the end, the middle makes the difference. The political fringes, both left and right, are never more than agitators. It is the political center that, moving with time and circumstances, dictates the direction we as a society take and correct for it when it was the wrong one.
I have no doubt that this speech is a product of and a beacon to the center. It is the best evidence I have seen that Barack Obama can unite us and move us in a positive direction. I applaud him and wish him godspeed.
Posted by: david dial | March 19, 2008 4:55 PM
Fred: Hillary didn't denounce Ferarro entirely: she was allowing her to stay on the campaign.
Ferarro is all bad as I'm sure Rev. Wright isn't all bad. And as Obama said we need to understand why he said what he said. We're not in the Reverend's shoes. He's from another generation than many of us, and I'm sure that influenced his perspective. We may not agree with him, but he had his reasons. And I don't imagine he's a racist. Plus, look at his light skin. He's got some white in him, too--thanks to race mixing.
Anyway, to my knowledge, Hillary told Geraldine she could stay on the campaign. No one's saying anything to Hillary about THAT. And correct me if I'm wrong, but America is being run by "rich black folks." And anyway, why are all of you negating Obama's white roots? I'm sure he feels the pull of both sides of his races. That can't be an easy task. Here some of you are ripping into like you could have handled this scenario better. Certainly, neither Hillary nor McCain could have made that speech and come out of it with as much genuiness. Obama is a unique situation. And we should put ourselves in his shoes. I'm sure I speak with a hundred percent certainty when I say we've all been in situations where we wish we could have acted or reacted differently in hindsight. Anyone who says they've always had all the right answers is a liar and a hypocrit. If you could have handled the Obama speech better, I would like to know how YOU would have done it.
Posted by: OffTopicMediaGroup | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM
Fred: Hillary didn't denounce Ferarro entirely: she was allowing her to stay on the campaign.
Ferarro is all bad as I'm sure Rev. Wright isn't all bad. And as Obama said we need to understand why he said what he said. We're not in the Reverend's shoes. He's from another generation than many of us, and I'm sure that influenced his perspective. We may not agree with him, but he had his reasons. And I don't imagine he's a racist. Plus, look at his light skin. He's got some white in him, too--thanks to race mixing.
Anyway, to my knowledge, Hillary told Geraldine she could stay on the campaign. No one's saying anything to Hillary about THAT. And correct me if I'm wrong, but America is being run by "rich black folks." And anyway, why are all of you negating Obama's white roots? I'm sure he feels the pull of both sides of his races. That can't be an easy task. Here some of you are ripping into like you could have handled this scenario better. Certainly, neither Hillary nor McCain could have made that speech and come out of it with as much genuiness. Obama is a unique situation. And we should put ourselves in his shoes. I'm sure I speak with a hundred percent certainty when I say we've all been in situations where we wish we could have acted or reacted differently in hindsight. Anyone who says they've always had all the right answers is a liar and a hypocrit. If you could have handled the Obama speech better, I would like to know how YOU would have done it.
Posted by: OffTopicMedia Group | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM
In his speech Obama talks about moving past the "racial divide" that separate the races of this great nation.
Why then does he dwell so much on slavery, and in his speech claim that it is something we can never forget and that will always remain?
This generation of white people should not have to pay for the sins of our ancestors. If your great grandfather raped a woman should the burden of his sin be lain on you?
Take a step back for a second to actually consider the contradictions and ignorance shown Obama's speeches.
The moment when "black America" accepts Hillary Clinton attending an all white mass with a racist priest, I will accept Barack Obama.
Posted by: Ianni242 | March 19, 2008 4:51 PM
Latest Gallop Poll: Latest Gallop Poll: The race has been back and forth for a while, so it is difficult to know what, if anything, to read into it, but Hillary Clinton has a seven point lead (outside the margin of error) over Barack Obama. But she trails John McCain by three points (within the margin of error). McCain, is four points up on Obama.
Clinton and Obama have been neck and neck _ or Obama has been ahead _ in recent voter polls.
The results are seen as the result of the hullabaloo around Pastor Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory comments.
Posted by: Fred | March 19, 2008 4:49 PM
Fred: The church is in black neighborhood. There are black people in a black neighborhood. I don't believe the church turns away white people who want to attend service. Just like I don't believe there are white churches that turn away black parishioners. You would be surprised at how many black people absolutely would love it if more white folks attended their church services! You and Hillary and John McCain should drop by Trinity one Sunday! ; )
Honestly I hear Hillary speak little about faith and even less about attendance. But it is interesting how she has been quiet about this. Makes me wonder about what she might be hiding. However, Hillary did apologize for insults made by Geraldine and even her husband Bill. In front of a huge mass of Black media publications. By the way those black publications treated Hillary far, far more respectable then any of the main channel media outlets have treated Barack. I think she stepped up to the plate in doing this, but it took her 3 months to apologize for Bill and 2 months to apologize for Geraldine. But at least she made the effort! I do not believe the Clintons are racist; I believe they are opportunists that use any means and any racial group to achieve their goals. They did it with blacks when Bill Clinton was running he was labeled as the first 'black president' and Hillary is doing the same exact thing with the Latino votes.
Fred, seriously, are you really that mad about a Pastor preaching his beliefs and experiences in church and giving someone an award? Really why is this so significant? Because he is Barack's Pastor? That can't be the only reason. There are too many political figures who meet with and give awards to far worse people then Barack's ex-pastor.
Barack's entire speech was about trying to eliminate racism so we can unite all races to get better jobs, healthcare, loans, housing etc. These issues are not only a concern for black people. Barack held his Pastor's words accountable AND REPREHENSIBLE. He did not ask you or anyone to excuse the Pastor's words. You know maybe if the Pastor was to speak to people like you who were obviously very hurt by his words he (the Pastor) might change his opinions on racism. Maybe you should write a letter and fax it over to the church and explain to the Pastor why it really hurt you deeply to hear and visually see him shouting about racism and its affects on blacks. Maybe the Pastor needs to hear from your perspective (assuming you are white) how it feels when the racist's acts of some white people should not be put upon the shoulders of all white people. As a matter of fact I suggest that is what all of the white people on this blog do. Be constructive with your anger and write the Pastor directly about your concerns of his Preaching's. Maybe one of your letters will reach the Pastor and make him realize that things have changed, not perfectly, but progress has been made. Remind him that many white people fought and died to help end racism along side blacks, tell him what you really think of affirmative action.
Be open to a being a part of a resolution on how we can become better American's and all receive a little bit of the 'American Pie' or you will just continue to be a part of the problem.
Posted by: Yvette Oneil | March 19, 2008 4:46 PM
Joe: Yes, Jesus did hang out with poor, destitute sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors and others, however, his message to them was to repent and change their ways. Since you brought it up, can you really imagine Jesus attending Wrights church for 20 years, and listening to all that hate and racism? Do you really believe that Jesus would condone the telling of his story as if his killers were "white," as if to focus on their race? If you believe this about Jesus, then our impressions are vastly different.
Posted by: Fred | March 19, 2008 4:32 PM
I find it odd that some who claim to be Christians are so quick to condemn Obama for those he hangs out with. Or do you not remember that Jesus was oftentimes criticized for His associates? He hung out with poor, destitute sinners. Prostitutes, tax collectors and others, while those who claimed to be perfect He rebuked. And yet, every time, He also told those who sinned to "go and sin no more," though He did not disown them. Not even Peter, who you may remember, denied Him three times. Nor Mark, who is thought to have been the one who fled away naked from the pursuers. And after all that, He said "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."
I find it ironic that those who believe they are hated are so quick to hate, even as they condemn it. I went through that speech in full, and there is no hate in it. I do not find one trace of hate, only a legacy of pain that people do not want to deal with.
The hate you sense may be your own. We ought each to look and take the logs out of our own eyes before criticizing. I know that I have to, too, when reading this. Anger like that is not productive, and we are called to rise above it, not sink into it.
It doesn't matter who started the fire, it's time to put it out.
Posted by: Joe | March 19, 2008 4:26 PM
Well: Unfortunately, your post will be lost on most Obama supporters. Unexplicably, they are incapable of processing any criticism of Obama, even when it is right before their eyes. It is a very strange phenomenon.
Posted by: Fred | March 19, 2008 4:25 PM
Obama on 3/14/2008: And, even though he has been a member of Trinity United for the past 20 years, Obama said he had never witnessed Wright making such statements."Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor." ---http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/ --------------------------------- Obama on 3/19/08: Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely. ---http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801081.html?sid=ST2008031801183 For Obama supporters: Fool you once, shame on Obama; Fool you twice, shame on you.
Posted by: Well | March 19, 2008 4:21 PM
Posted by: Obama = Hypocrite | March 19, 2008 4:19 PM
Dear T Webb, I heard Rev Wright say that America is run by "rich white folks". He went on to say that the American government "sold drugs to blacks" and is responsible for the HIV virus in Africa. That sure sounds to me like he is saying white people are evil.
Posted by: shawn | March 19, 2008 4:17 PM
i just hope that whether or not you choose to support obam
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 10,735 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/03/john_mccain_and_permanent_war.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/03/john_mccain_and_permanent_war.html
|
John McCain and Permanent War
|
2008032219
|
On March 19, it will be five years and counting on this war in Iraq. Five years ago, just before the attack, I appeared on a special Nightline Town Meeting with John McCain (and four others) to debate whether the United States should attack Iraq, a country that had not attacked us. McCain, along with Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, argued in favor of this pre-emptive attack. Ambassador Joe Wilson, Senator Carl Levin and I argued against.
This Nightline special was called âWhy Now?â The panel was asked the question, âWhat is the rush to war?â
Five years ago, McCain was convinced Iraq had âweapons of mass destruction,â or that at least there was a âclear and present danger.â âInspections donât work,â he said, categorically. The threat that Saddam Hussein would âprovide weapons of mass destruction to Al- Qaeda justified pre-emptive war (the so called âBush Doctrineâ) and he said smoothly that that the âpeople of Iraq will rejoice and be grateful to the U.S.â Five years ago Senator McCain was wrong, wrong, wrong and again, may I say, wrong.
Todayâs John McCain is convinced the âsurge is succeedingâ despite the fact that Iraqâs plans for provincial elections have been dashed by warring Shiite factions; Afghanistan is nearly in meltdown and the drug lords seem to be taking over. Fifty-six people just died in a bombing in a Baghdad market. If this is success, Iâd hate to see what failure looks like.
McCain intones, âthe transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremismâ. This is often accompanied by a vision of permanent war, especially permanent war in the Middle East, where the U.S. will remain in Iraq âfor 100 years.â
âTranscendentâ is an appropriate word in this context, as it indirectly evokes the transcendence of God, presumably the Christian God. While some in the Republican party have criticized McCain for not being conservative enough, one cannot fault his conservative Christian credentials on this theological issue. A cornerstone of conservative Christian theology is the transcendence and providence of the Christian God and the Christian Godâs supremacy over other gods, i.e. other religions.
McCain recently and gratefully received the endorsement of Texas megachurch pastor and televangelist, John Hagee. Hageeâs book Jerusalem Coundown: A Warning to the World uses selective biblical citations to predict that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and be destroyed by God. This will cause the anti-Christ, the head of the European Union, to create a confrontation that involves both China and the West, ushering in the Second Coming of Christ, or Armageddon. His most recent book In Defense of Israel contains selective quotes from early church fathers that are markedly anti-semitic. While the media sometimes refer to Hagee as a âfriend of Israelâ, it seems to be a short-term friendship. In conservative Christian apocalyptic theology, everybody is finally a saved Christian or destroyed.
This âtranscendentâ view of world politics is dangerous and extremely volatile. It may in fact be a more dangerous ideology than the one that led us to attack a country that had not attacked us and has kept us at war for the last five years.
There is further cause for concern. Weâre not even out of Iraq and the danger that the U.S. might yet attack Iran is increasing. Adm. William Fallon has just resigned; he was, as the Washington Post reported âthe only person who might stop Bush from going to war with the Islamic republic.â
Another flag is the choice to send Vice President Cheney, the primary supporter of what is euphemistically called âmilitary optionsâ against Iran on a âpeaceâ mission to the Middle East. Cheney as a peace negotiator is about as good a choice as the Wicked Witch of the West was as a childcare provider for young Dorothy. This visit by Cheney to this area of the world is a transparent pre-emption of the faltering Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations and an effort to turn it into regional support for the use of force against Iran.
A new war. An extension of the current war. War as the permanent solution to all the worldâs ills both political and cosmic. When I see President Bush with his arm around John McCain I get a sense of âdéjà vu all over again.â
In my view, five years of war is five years too long. I believe that John McCain is offering the U.S. a vision of permanent war, a view that is actively shared by the Bush Administration.
Five years was five years too many. One hundred years is forever.
|
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.
| 20 | 0.5 | 0.636364 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/03/jeremiah_wright.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/03/jeremiah_wright.html
|
Obama's Straight Talk
|
2008032219
|
A lot of talk about religion & politics. Until the recent elections people, for the most part, kept the two separated thinking along the lines of separation of church and state. A wise policy we should follow. Most formal religions are entirely self centered. If they were not, people would not contribute to them. Belief in God does not require a church. I learned this in combat when I lost my leg. No church, no dues just a revealing moment when I knew there was something more than insignificant humans.
With respect to Mr. Obama and the TUCC. This was part of the church's mission statement when I copied it in February. It has since been removed. Most people are aware, from the media, of the 10 points of the Black Value System. There actually are 12 however. Posted below are the 12 points of the Black Value System as they appeared on the TUCC website. Judge for yourself whether they are racist or not. The standard I use is if the word white were used instead of black would it be viewed by the non white part of our society as racist. Again make your own decisions. This is not to try and convince anyone of anything. Simply the facts.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System, written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee, chaired by the late Vallmer Jordan in 1981.
Dr. Manford Byrd, our brother in Christ, withstood the ravage of being denied his earned ascension to the number one position in the Chicago School System. His dedication to the pursuit of excellence, despite systematic denials, has inspired the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ. Prayerfully, we have called upon the wisdom of all past generations of suffering Blacks for guidance in fashioning an instrument of Black self-determination, the Black Value System.
Beginning in 1982, an annual Black Value System â Educational Scholarship in the name of Dr. Byrd was instituted. The first recipient of the Dr. Manford Byrd Award, which is given annually to the man or woman who best exemplifies the Black Value System, was our brother, Dr. Manford Byrd.
These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They consist of the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God. âThe God of our weary yearsâ will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.
2. Commitment to the Black Community. The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community. 3. Commitment to the Black Family. The Black family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.
Those Blacks who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each Black person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. âReal educationâ fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.
Basic education for all Blacks should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of Black minds.
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence. To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the Black Community. We must recognize the relativity of oneâs best; this yearâs best can be bettered next year. Such is the language of growth and development. We must seek to excel in every endeavor. 6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic. âIt is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.â Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce. 7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of Black Progress and a model for Black Youth. 8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of âMiddleclassness.â Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the âtalented tenthâ of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captorâs control.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another. 2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons. 3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of âweâ and âtheyâ instead of âus.â 4. So, while it is permissible to chase âmiddleclassnessâ with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method â the psychological entrapment of Black âmiddleclassness.â If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our âvoluntaryâ contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community. 10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.
11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.
12. Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the Black Community and the Advancement of Black People towards freedom.
|
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.
| 29.840909 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/03/afghanistan_islamic_feminist.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/03/afghanistan_islamic_feminist.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008032219
|
You seem to have a moral objection to 'child marriages' and 'honor killings'. If you do have an objection to these practices can you please tell why you deem them to be blameworthy?
Is it because the fail to adhere to your moral and ethical standards? If so then can you please tell me what the basis of these standards are?
Are they based on philosophical or theological grounds? If they are based on a philosophy which one? If they are based on theological principals then which one's and why should they be accepted by those who do not adhere to the particular religion from which they are derived?
In regards to the 'Stoning of women' in the Quran'
1. Their is not a single verse in the Quran (as you have stated above) which speaks of stoning of any kind. Their is however mention of stoning (regardless of gender) in the hadith (please get your facts straight)
In regards to 'Honor Killings in the hadith'
1. Their is no mention of such a practice in the six canonical books of tradition; Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Muslim, Sunun Abu Dawud, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sunan al-Nisai, and Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
As far as Islam goes:
1. The custom predates Islam by a millinia.
2. The custom is practiced by the indigenous Christian, Hindu, and Sikh minorities residing in the primarily Muslim regions where it is prevalent. Who can forget the murder of 22-year-old Palestinian Christian women Faten Habash who was raped and beaten to death with an Iron Bar while watching a Boy Scout parade by her father for wanting to marry a Muslim man? Faten attempted to escape to Jordan but her efforts where hindered when her family Priest called the Palestinian authorities and demanded that she be apprehend and returned to her fatherâs home. On her arrival to her fatherâs house she was beaten and her pelvis was broken as she was either thrown from a window or jumped trying to escape. Two day's later she was raped and killed by her father in front of her younger siblings on living room floor.
3. The practice is virtually unheard of in the Amazighan and Tourage region's of North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, most of Central Asia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and the world's most populated Muslim nation Indonesia.
4. Their is no concept of killing in the name of family 'honor' in Islamic Doctrine.
The Quran is very clear every human being is responsible for their actions and their action's alone. Islamic Jurisprudence however does in fact layout actual legal prescriptions criminalizing illegal sexual relations.
Islam like Judaism for those who are unaware is not only a metaphysical construct but a complete and total way of life; meaning their is no notion of what we in the west call separation between religion and the state.
In regards to adultery The Quran states:
The adulteress and adulterer should be flogged a hundred lashes each, and no pity for them should deter you from the law of God, if you believe in God and the last day; and the punishment should be witnessed by a body of believers (Qurâan 24:2).
As you can see the Quran treats the committer of Adultery in the same manner regardless of their gender.
In regards to women and adultery the Quran actually goes to such great lengths to protect women from being subjected to false accusations of sexual misconduct that it mandates mandatory lashes for all those who do not bring forth ample evidence to prove allegations of this sort.
Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards, for they are profligates (Qurâan at 24:4).
As the brilliant Asifa Quraishi states in her article "Her Honor: A Islamic Critique of the Rape Laws of Pakistan":
After criminalizing extramarital sexual relations the Qurâan simultaneously attaches to the prosecution of this crime nearly insurmountable evidentiary restrictions: four eye-witnesses are required to prove a charge of sexual misconduct. Islamic jurisprudence further interprets the Qurâanic zina evidentiary rule of quadruple testimony to require the actual witnessing of penetration during sexual intercourse, and nothing less. This interpretation is based on the reported hadith (tradition) of Muhammad in which, after a man persisted in confessing to adultery (the Prophet having turned away to avoid hearing the information several times prior), Muhammad asked several specific questions to confirm that the act was indeed sexual penetration (Bukhari 1985, 8:528-35 (Bk. 82, Nos. 806, 810, 812-814); Abu Daud 1990, 3: Nos. 4413-14) Moreover, Islamic evidence law requires the witnesses to be mature, sane, and of upright character (Salama 1982, 109; El-Awa 1982, 126-27; Siddiqi 1985, 43-49).
Furthermore, if any eyewitness testimony was obtained by violating a defendantâs privacy, it is inadmissible. Why so many evidentiary restrictions on a criminal offense prescribed by God? Islamic scholars posit that it is precisely to prevent carrying out punishment for this offense. By limiting conviction to only those cases where four individuals actually saw sexual penetration take place, the crime will realistically only be punishable if the two parties are committing the act in public, in the nude. The crime is therefore really one of public indecency rather than private sexual conduct. That is, even if four witnesses saw a couple having sex, but under a coverlet, for example, this testimony would not only fail to support a zina charge, but these witnesses would also be liable for slander. Thus, while the Qurâan condemns extramarital sex as an evil, it authorizes the Muslim legal system to prosecute someone for committing this crime only when it is performed so openly that four people see them without invading their privacy. As Cherif Bassiouni puts it, "[t]he requirement of proof and its exigencies lead to the conclusion that the policy of the harsh penalty is to deter public aspects of this form of sexual practice" (Bassiouni 1982, 6)
In regards to 'child brides'.
1. All four traditional schools of Islamic Jurisprudence agree that in order for two individuals to enter into a marriage contract(not in Islam marriage is a social contract not some magical sacrament)they must posses the qualities on adulthood and sanity.
However the question thus remains what is adulthood?
Adulthood is reached at seventeen years of age for both sexes according to the Malikis.
According to the Hambali's and the Shafii's it is reached at the completion of the both the male and the females fifteenth year.
According to the Hanafis (the Madhab of Afghanistan) it is 17 years of age for the female and 18 years of age for the male. For the Hanafi's however this is the maximum age limit for maturity. The minimum age is 9 years for a girl and 12 years for a boy.
The definition of adulthood in the case of the Hanafis is a scrupulously scientific one rather then a socially constructed one. (Meaning when a male or a female attains the age of puberty and is able to reproduce)
I am afraid that like Ibrahim you comment has once again highlighted the average laymanâs dismal ignorance of Islamic Doctrine, Jurisprudence, and History. I suggest you educated yourself by visiting the following website.
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 83.882353 | 0.470588 | 0.470588 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/03/stuck_in_the_iraq_loop.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/03/stuck_in_the_iraq_loop.html
|
Stuck in the Iraq Loop
|
2008032219
|
Did we ignore that since even before the inception of that military adventure in Iraq to this very day we were, without interruption, lied to and deceived, many of the words and expressions you use, above, would sound to us surrealistic.
But then why do we still have to turn to the foreign press in order to read: â'We can't live like this' -- Playgrounds have become cemeteries. Bridges have become battlegrounds. Hopes for freedom and the spread of democracy are deadâ¦. The overflowing graveyard in Aadhamiya is a microcosm of what has happened across Iraq in the past five years.â (Mark Mackinnon, Saturday's Toronto Globe and Mail, March 15, 2008)?
Why do we still have to turn to Britainâs âThe Independentâ, if we are to be informed that: âThere WILL be a public inquiry into Iraq -- Brown: 'There is a need to learn all possible lessons from the military action ... and its aftermath'⦠Where are they now? The faces of the Iraq war five years on⦠There are so many questions over this inept intervention⦠A gross failure that ignored history and ended with a humiliating retreatâ¦â?
Why is it that it is only thanks to âThe Guardianâ that people like Ghaith Abdul-Ahad return to Baghdad? âTo mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, the award-winning journalist returns to the city where he was born and lived for 30 years -- Death, destruction and fear on the streets of cafes, poets and booksellersâ.
Doesnât all that material, and much more that appears in foreign media, speak volumes on the current situation, in Iraq? If so, why does our vocabulary on Iraq, in this country, remain so surrealistic?
We have invaded, occupied, bombed extensively, and used even depleted uranium against civilian populations. Our achievements now stare us right in the face: innumerable people are dead, maimed, have disappeared, are being detained, tortured, and infants are suffering from malformations at birth. We did not even care to count, for âWeâre not in the victims accounting businessâ, are we? Iraq and at least a generation of Iraqis have now been destroyed; and while social chaos prevailed, we have done everything so a civil war would ensue⦠with the result that countless Iraqi refugees have now left Iraq.
That, you may admit, is not your standard way to âbuild a sustainable (security) architectureâ (!), let alone to âreconstructâ (!) a country we have meticulously destroyed for many years, as we were supposed to do: for apparently we only destroy to better reconstruct, donât we?
So we broke it, and now we own it. We have made so many enemies in the process that for decades to come, the consequences of our criminal activities will come to haunt us. Not the least of them will be the large number of Iraq vets who will choose to put an end to their miserable lives, while, as was the case after Vietnam, nobody will even care to understand why.
Yes, every indication is we are in Iraq to stay; not for âan unending peacekeeping operationâ, as you put it, but to do more and more of the same. Now what is the problem? Donât we already have all the permanent military bases we need there? And are we not in the process of having, in Iraq, our largest embassy the world has seen? Some may have thought we would be staying, what do you think?
Lies and deception are the way to no future. Only truth will set us free.
If only, after more than five years, our media would come out of their unending self-induced coma! Alas, there is yet no prince to be seen, in the vicinity of Sleeping Beautyâs castle.
Posted March 17, 2008 3:35 PM
|
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.
| 22.606061 | 0.393939 | 0.393939 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mustafa_domanic/2008/03/washington_post_gets_pkk_wrong.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mustafa_domanic/2008/03/washington_post_gets_pkk_wrong.html
|
Washington Post Gets PKK Wrong
|
2008032219
|
One of the most important lessons you learn by living abroad is that, as the saying goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This was made most obvious to me when a Colombian friend of mine walked into my college apartment and was shocked to see a picture of Che Guevera hanging on my wall. He said bluntly that it was insulting to him that I had put up the picture of this man who had caused so much sorrow to his people. Upset, I tried to explain to him that I did not consider Che to be responsible for the pain Colombia had endured during FARC's brutal campaign; instead, it was the regionâs social and political problems that had caused the unrest. For me, Che just stood for beautiful ideals of equality and justice.
Yet, when I recently came across a Washington Post article titled, A Kurdish Society of Soldiers, written by Joshua Partlow and accompanied by Andrea Bruce's dramatic photography, I chose to forget that bitter lesson and let my anger out by cursing at the Post for choosing to publish such a story. I was not alone in my reaction; the Turkish press caught on within hours, condemning the Washington Post and prompting readers to send protest letters to its editors.
When reactions here avalanched to the level of millions of upset readers, I decided to take a step back and question why I had ignored that crucial lesson from college, which I should have considered common sense by now. The answer was that I had chosen to do so because my common sense also told me that this war must come to an end, and that that is not possible as long as we do not compromise in choosing 'freedom fighters' over 'terrorists'. Today, I understand once again that my friend had a really valid point.
Just like my Che Guevera picture, Mr. Partlow's article and the accompanying photography tell a heroic story of resistance, lifestyle and ideals, romanticized in every aspect. Yet, it fails to mention any disgraces to humanity that the PKK fighters have committed. It fails to say that PKK operations are partly being financed through criminal activity all around Europe, and it also fails to tell stories of rape and ruthless execution which are important parts of the PKKâs so-called communal life. Mr. Partlow went into the mountains guided by the PKK, saw what they wanted him to see, heard what they wanted him to hear and, in the end, reported what they wanted him to report. I was a naïve college student when I put up Che's pictures on my wall, but can international journalism stand so much naivete?
In his article, Mr. Partlow wrote that "some [PKK fighters] are also fighting to prolong their communal, socialist experiment and to be left alone". I think this observation alone is key to understanding why political and even social solutions, such as those I offered to my Colombian friend and those that American officers have recently been advising Turkey to adopt, are sometimes not enough. To attract the guerillas back into civil life and to end the bloodshed, we first need to convince the Kurdish youth that joining this selfish experiment helps no one, least of all the very loved ones they hope to protect in the first place. Only then, common sense can become common once again and political, economic and social changes can come about.
Most people in Turkey, both Turks and Kurds, are aware that a solely military solution to this problem is unrealistic; we know that any lasting solution must be multi-faceted. So we feel that the Americans are stating the obvious when they 'advise' us to seek a peaceful solution. But only when armed resistance and terror campaigns stop can our peaceful, passive majority strengthen its hand, and bring a civilized end to this horrendous situation.
|
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.
| 22.363636 | 0.424242 | 0.424242 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031900297.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031900297.html
|
On War's Anniversary, Bush Cites Progress
|
2008032219
|
Vice President Cheney said separately that it does not matter whether the public supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, and he likened Bush's leadership to that of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
After a reporter cited polls showing that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Iraq war, Cheney responded: "So?"
"I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls," he added in an interview in Oman with ABC News. "There has in fact been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better."
The confident remarks came on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, marking a concerted effort by the administration to highlight progress at a time when most Americans remain opposed to the venture.
The anniversary prompted new attacks against Bush by Democrats and sparring among the three senators running to replace him. It also thrust Iraq back into the center of the Washington debate after it was overshadowed for months by the presidential campaign and economic turmoil.
Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) sharply criticized Bush for his handling of the war. Obama, speaking a day after delivering a widely watched speech on race relations, also sharpened his attacks on Clinton and GOP nominee John McCain (Ariz.), casting them as political opportunists who made the wrong call by voting to authorize the war.
"There is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions," Obama said in Fayetteville, N.C.
While wrapping up a two-day visit to Israel, McCain echoed Bush's message, saying that "America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism." McCain campaign adviser Mark Salter characterized Obama as a national security neophyte who engages in "foolish supposition" about the dangers of withdrawing from Iraq.
Congressional Democrats have seized on the anniversary to launch a broad assault on the Bush administration. They lined up yesterday to criticize Bush's claims, particularly his assertion that the war has been worth the cost and has decreased the risk of terrorism.
"Even as we begin the sixth year of this war, all the president seems able to offer Americans is more of the same perpetual disregard for the costs and consequences of stubbornly staying the course in Iraq," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
Bush's remarks, delivered to employees at the Pentagon, signaled a revival of the bold and optimistic rhetoric the administration regularly employed during the early years of the war. The president and his aides had largely abandoned such sweeping declarations of success over the past two years, as the carnage on the ground increased and public approval of the war plummeted.
|
President Bush sought yesterday to convince a skeptical public that the United States is on the cusp of winning the war in Iraq, arguing in a speech at the Pentagon that the recent buildup of U.S. forces has stabilized that country and "opened the door to a major strategic victory in the war on t...
| 9.413793 | 0.724138 | 1.206897 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/03/iraq_public_opinion_five_years_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/03/iraq_public_opinion_five_years_1.html
|
Iraq: Public Opinion Five Years In
|
2008032219
|
Five years after the start of the Iraq war, American public opinion has solidified around the notion that the war was not worth fighting and that the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order there.
For more than three years, majorities in Washington Post-ABC News polling have called the war's benefits not worth the costs. And the percentages calling the war a mistake have been higher than those saying it has been worth it since before the 2004 presidential election. Two-thirds in the latest poll said the war was not worth fighting, including 51 percent who felt so "strongly." (Check out a pre-primary analysis of public opinion on the war here).
But not everyone has turned on the war, which most Americans supported at the outset. Republicans have remained strongly behind the war since the outset, with more than two-thirds saying the was worth fighting in the most recent Post-ABC poll. Only a third of independents and one in eight Democrats agree.
Assessments of the current situation on the ground are somewhat more positive, and have improved since the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. Forty-three percent now say they believe the U.S. is making strides toward restoring security in Iraq, higher than it was in December 2006. But the percentage seeing progress has changed little over the past four months. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans said significant progress is being made, as did 40 percent of independents 24 percent of Democrats.
Iraqis themselves have a somewhat improved outlook on the state of life in their country, particularly the security situation. According to a survey of Iraqis conducted by ABC News and several international TV news outlets, 55 percent now say their lives are going well, a big bump up from 39 percent in August. However, 61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse. About three in 10 said American troops improve security. For more from the poll, click here.
Back in this country, the remarkable stability of American opinions on the war combined with a dramatically souring economy have contributed to the war's decline in importance in the ongoing presidential election campaign. In early September, more than a third cited the war as their top concern in choosing a president, while one in 10 named the economy. Five months later, the economy outweighed the war by 20 percentage points.
And President Bush's approval rating has been steadily dragged down by flagging assessments of the war in Iraq, and has not topped 50 percent in more than three years. In the most recent poll, only 32 percent approve of the job Bush is doing as president, tying his career low in Post-ABC polling.
By Jennifer Agiesta | March 19, 2008; 12:02 PM ET Post Polls Previous: A Better Uniter? | Next: Volatility Beneath Stability
I am one who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Viewing the news from 1991 to 2003 did not convince me that Iraq was involved in Sept.11 nor had the weapons required to cause us such grave concern. To continually try to spin this as "If we fight them over there, then we will not fight them here" is absurd. We had better hope that we can win there because our ability to defend ouselves here has suffered terribly. Whatever happened to "Walk softly, but carry a big stick?" The hidden costs of war will only emerge once King Bush has left the throne. Most of the military equipment in Iraq will not be worth bringing home. The approximately 30% of our troops with various degress of PTSD and the large number with obvious physical injuries will be a drain on the national treasury for generations to come. I still want to know where the extra $4 trillion dollars in increase in national debt has gone. The big borrow and spend times in Washington must come to an end. My friends around the world wonder why we cannot end this war even if the President does not want to do so. They say that Bush appears to be a dictator which no one can over-rule. Interesting comments.
Posted by: Earl C, Virginia Beach | March 19, 2008 1:53 PM
Beware when Bush uses happytalk. It inevitably means things are even worse than we know.
I've tried to envision a way for us to exit Iraq that wouldn't be as enormous a blunder as our entrance. But it gets down to one thing: Regardless of how and when we leave, chaos and anarchy will be inevitable and unavoidable. So it only makes sense to exit sooner rather than later. That will cut our losses in life and treasure.
Posted by: rockville | March 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Invading and occupying another country on false pretenses, when oil was the real pretense will utltimately fail, unless we come clean about our reason for invading Iraq. We need the truth and not more of the everchanging B.S. "God is not mocked": to all of you conservative Christians who do not know what it is meant by 'blessed are the peacemakers', or what the words 'repentance' and 'humility' mean.
Posted by: Thomas | March 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Invading and occupying another country on false pretenses, when oil was the real pretense will utltimately fail, unless we come clean about our reason for invading Iraq. We need the truth and not more of the everchanging B.S. "God is not mocked": to all of you conservative Christians who do not know what it is meant by 'blessed are the peacemakers', or what the words 'repentance' and 'humility' mean.
Posted by: Thomas | March 19, 2008 2:20 PM
Yes, violence in Iraq has been down lately. But the MSM doesn't report the reason--two million Iraqis have fled and those who remain have segregated themselves in ethnic enclaves--Sunnis surrounded by walls in one area and Shia surrounded by walls in another. International terrorism is higher now than when we invaded Iraq. We've wasted billions of dollars which by the way, are becoming nearly worthless in international markets because of our war debt. I would like for Republicans to answer me--how has this war been worth it?
Posted by: David | March 19, 2008 2:22 PM
Yes, violence in Iraq has been down lately. But the MSM doesn't report the reason--two million Iraqis have fled and those who remain have segregated themselves in ethnic enclaves--Sunnis surrounded by walls in one area and Shia surrounded by walls in another. International terrorism is higher now than when we invaded Iraq. We've wasted billions of dollars which by the way, are becoming nearly worthless in international markets because of our war debt. I would like for Republicans to answer me--how has this war been worth it?
Posted by: David | March 19, 2008 2:22 PM
The US is doggedly pursuing the notion that the benefits of oil in Iraq will far outweigh the war it took to capture those benefits.
And I thought Colonialism was a thing of the past!
Posted by: pgibson | March 19, 2008 2:33 PM
Earl C's comments touched on something almost no one discusses in any detail, the long-term economic impact, most of which has not even been allowed to affect federal spending on a host of other government programs, most of which benefit the most economically, educationally, politically disenfranchised part of the population. Most political and social commentaries do not approach the topic because its unknowns are so potentially dire and its "knowns" are really hard to know (much of the spending on the war is debt-spending, not yet affecting the current budgets). One more issue that's extremely hard to discuss relates to the human cost, whatever the war's "outcome," actual "victory," whatever that equates to, or "defeat," which might equate to just coming home. Those American men and women who have fought, been wounded, died or survived with all the memories they carry for life, were and are the nation's greatest resource. I've met and work with a number of those veterans, who truly represent so many of the nation's greatest traits, dedicated to duty, hard-working, united (at least initially) under a sense of duty and idealism. Either way we slice the outcome, their lives or futures were certainly weighed too lightly in the gamble that led the nation into where we now are, with no clear alternative or strategy. Reckless commitment of the nation's greatest resource, its people, our brothers and sisters, is, I hate to say, a woeful understatement.
Posted by: Dan R., DC | March 19, 2008 2:34 PM
My brother was there for Desert Storm, and was looking forward to seeing those he protected in Kuwait once again.
He is now there once again. Those who he looked forward to seeing, now don't see him the same way again. They want him and all the allies out.
Imagine how they feel towards us in Iraq....
Posted by: Concerned | March 19, 2008 2:40 PM
The writer could have chosen a totally different viewpoint had he so chosen. Eighty percent of Republicans and 40% of independents thought current assessments of the war were favorable, while 76% of Democrats thought it unfavorable. Most of these Democrats would probably be stridently against anything associated with Bush, be it the war, school policies. the economy, etc. This negativism skews the final number to 43% favorable. Leave out this knee-jerk response by Democrats, the final number would likely be much higher.
Posted by: Michael Sudderth | March 19, 2008 2:46 PM
Any Surge would produce a temporary success anywhere it is applied.Even the city of Washington would experience a reduction in crime if you ship 30,000 extra policemen in.
Posted by: Aussie | March 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Oh how easy it is for the Shrub to claim the high cost of his collective blunders has "all been worth it". He's personally paid no price beyond his ditched approval ratings (Who approves of him now anyway? His mommy?), and he has nothing in common with the middle and lower-class victims of his presidency. He's lost no loved ones, made no sacrifice and is unaware and therefore unaffected by his crap economy and $4.00 per gallon gasoline. We are all witness to it: Ignorance truly must be bliss.
Posted by: Maltuvus | March 19, 2008 2:56 PM
The Iraq War, like most wars, has been pushed by the military-industrial complex and the oil barons. They're the real power behind Bush and Cheney. I will always remember how this administration has meant corporate greed, war and sky-high oil prices.
Posted by: Jon | March 19, 2008 2:59 PM
"Leave out this knee-jerk response by Democrats, the final number would likely be much higher."
Or leave out the blind and ignorant allegiances of the conservative right and the number would be more like 65-70% believing the entire policiy and undertaking were failures.
Posted by: | March 19, 2008 3:01 PM
"Leave out this knee-jerk response by Democrats, the final number would likely be much higher."
Or leave out the blind and ignorant allegiances of the conservative right and the number would be more like 65-70% believing the entire policiy and undertaking were failures.
Posted by: Brent | March 19, 2008 3:02 PM
"However, 61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse. About three in 10 said American troops improve security. For more from the poll, click here."
Okay, can't McCain, Clinton and Obama take up this one point in their rhetorical debates? Just this one fact as opposed to our internal (isolated) US fantasies? I already know who has the best serious answer, one that will be an honest bridge. Hint: It is not someone with a C in their name.
Posted by: walden | March 19, 2008 3:02 PM
As an Americanized citizen, my perspective varies greatly from that of the mainstream. The war in Iraq had everything to do in stimulating Wall Street with tons of taxpayer money, and protecting the vital interests of Israel in attacking its nearest, most powerful enemy through the great leverage which the Jewish state holds over the United States' congress.
Posted by: Egroeg Llewor | March 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Bush is the Nazis revenge on America- He has successfully bogged us down in a non-winnable war that fattens his family and cabal's coffers each day of occupation, he has systematically transformed the economy into one that favors oil and military companies over all others (permanent oil-war), and he has devalued the dollar to record lows (exactly the tactic the Nazis used on England to wreck their economy by flooding millions of pounds of counterfeit money into Britain to raise inflation astronomically)...I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have money printing presses at their new paramilitary compound/nuclear shelter/ranch down in Paraguay, cranking out whatever they need for covert ops...Oh yes, then there's 9-11...
Posted by: Farley Hellbrandt | March 19, 2008 3:19 PM
You morons who have something to say about the war are nothing, but a bunch of cowards. I am sure that none of you have ever served in the military. All I can say is be thankful that you live in a free goverment, and you can express your voice. You should hornor those who have given there lives for what the believe in. They didn't have to, they never met you, and probably never will. These young men and women gave there lives so you wouldn't have to. What kind of idiot thinks that everything would be alright if we just pulled out of the war now. Oh an yeah I did serve in the Army, and have been over there, the media only lets you see what they want you to see. Open you eyes people.
Posted by: Trent | March 19, 2008 3:20 PM
I believe that the American taxpayers are paying 80,000 Sunni men $300 per month to fight the insurgents.
That is not a lot of money when compared to American lives lost - just $24 million per month - but that payment is what is largely responsible for the dramatic decrease in secular violence in Iraq. The money and the intelligence of the Sunni's is what is succeeding.
General Patraeus understands how to conduct this operation and to use the surge of American forces to tamp down other insurgent efforts.
It seems to me that absent any changes in the Iraqi government and its policies, the whole surge and Sunni buy out is just a holding action. If either the U.S. troop levels come down drastically, or the Sunni's quit - we are back top square one.
What is the criteria for victory? When will the job be finished? How long do we have to keep this up?
Congress will hear from Patraeus in a few weeks....that is when the anti-war demonstrators should be out in force. Congress must extract from Patraeus the exact criteria for our victory and his outline of our exit strategy.
We need to bring the Iraqi debacle to a close. That does not mean a helter-skelter pull out - or what the Republicans characterize as a "surrender." But, it does mean sharing with Congress - precisely what victory will look like.
Mr. President - what has to happen for us to "win" your war.
I think that all you really want is for another Republican to get elected to the White House. If you can keep everything in flux - then the Democrats will not dare to pull the plug.
What a country - Witless Republican and Gutless Democrats.
A pox on both their houses.
Posted by: GandalftheGrey | March 19, 2008 3:24 PM
Sadly, the most anti-war of the present presidential candidates has felt compelled (For the sake of popular opinion and votes) to disavow the comments made by his pastor which point out the fact that we are not the good guys we pretend to be in modern history, and have brought much of the anger of our enemies (and allies) upon ourselves with our arrogance and willingness to commit mass murder in the name of god$$$ and country$$$. Our lack of humility and ability to see cause and effect in our fortunes is mind boggling.
Posted by: Wizard | March 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Bush never ceases to amaze me. He is strutting all around the country bragging his war is a sucess. Every time that chimp opens his mouth things head south for the troops over there. I still remember the aragance of Bush when he taunted the insurgents "to bring it on."
I thnk the best way out of this war is to inform Maliki to get his house in order cause we are leaving. Every time we mention leaving, then he seems to perk up, then once Bush the chimp assures him we are here to stay and our checkbook is always open, the iraqi government once again acomplishes nothing. So I guess it will remain "stable" as long as we bankroll the Iraqi government, and give money the the "awakaning council" since those former bad guys are now our friends, according to King George. Oh well less than a year till the end of the absolute worse presidency ever, or as I like to say "The End of an Error."
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Actually, casualties were down late last year. THIS YEAR CASUALTIES ARE RISING. But our subservient, Bush enabling press will never tell you that.
Posted by: JD | March 19, 2008 3:29 PM
I for one can not wait until Bush is out of office. Between the invasion of Iraq and all the children who have lost parents, the high price of gas, the price of health care (if you are lucky enough to have health care) and prescription drugs ~ I have had enough!! I can not believe this country elected him to a second term. We need to get of Iraq and take care of the American people. We can not afford another Republican president. God Bless America!!
Posted by: marye | March 19, 2008 3:30 PM
I've been a Republican for a large portion of my life, but not anymore. I've come to realize that most Republicans are head over heels in love with the past, which is why they keep attempting to repeat it! This moron we have masquerading as a leader never understood Viet Nam, and as a result, he's created another 'Nam, only this time in the Middle East. While I am not a lover of the Democratic party, the move of the Republican party to the extreme, flat-earth right has forced me to join them becuase the Republican party and reason no longer have anything to do with each other... They are threatened by the concept of evolution, but the response is not soul-searching or any attempt at enlightenment, but "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", basically aboriginal, fundamentalist religion dressed up to look like science. The same is true of global warming, the environment, whatever. I have little respect for Republicans anymore, becuase they are head-in-the-sand change-phobic fools. Someone once said the biggest lies are the ones we tell ourselves...
Posted by: Mike in DFW | March 19, 2008 3:34 PM
Iraq is a mess - is now and probably always will be. My heart aches for those poor soldiers and their families. Another big concern for me is I really think Bush is crazy enough to start another war with Iran. What's he got to lose? You know he's already warned Iran and he doesn't like being ignored. (Ask Saddam, oh, you can't, he's dead) Good example. We're hearing more & more remarks from Bush, Cheney and even McCain about the danger of Iran and about them helping the U S enemies by supplying them with weapons and money. I feel reasons being created again to justify starting another war. God Help Us!
Posted by: Janice | March 19, 2008 3:41 PM
Its amazing when those who oppose the war are called cowards. Republicans love to remind us that Clinton was a draft dodger, yup he was, at least we know what he was and what he stood for whether you agree or not. Now Bush and Company are a different story, we know about Bush's questionable service record, and then Daddy getting him into business school so he wont go to vietnam, some hero. Then there is Cheney, what did he have 5 or 6 deferments. What was his excuse? not his heart, he did not have his first heart attack till his late 30's, some hero. The real cowards are the people who buy into Bush's lies and fear mongering. America may have at one time been a nation of brave people, but now they are a nation of quivering cowards, not because they oppose the war, rather they surrender thier personal liberties to a fanatic (who has a pretty poor reputation of the truth)who keeps scaring them.
Posted by: Todd | March 19, 2008 3:46 PM
Bush declared victory years ago, was that also a blunder? When will it end what did this administration lead America into? More deficits, dead Americans, etc.
Posted by: Bush declared victory? | March 19, 2008 3:46 PM
I tend to believe that history will show, as it always does, that there was much more to this war than what meets the eye. A great number of opinions have been made here. I often wonder if the war, fuel prices, and all this geo-political strife caused by the war is not a diversion for something or someone else. The surface is never what it seems. I wonder how many UN Security Council Resolutions are unknown to the public. I'll bet much is done in closed sessions behind closed doors. In an interesting twist of view, what if UN pressure through the powerful groups forced this current situation. Much had been said early on about UN assistance, what happened to all the assistance? Was this planned? Always interesting, closed door history.
Posted by: Scott Schulte | March 19, 2008 3:47 PM
No endeavor that had such an ignoble and dishonest beginning can ever be expected to have a good and noble end.
That things are "better" than they were a year ago in NO way excuses the stupidity and hubris that went into those fateful decisions 5 years ago.
Posted by: watsond | March 19, 2008 3:55 PM
How blessed we are to have hind-sight! No WMD's found, therefore Iraq war was mistake. Couldn't have Saddam just allowed inspectors to determine that? But he didn't. I repeat that! BUT...HE...DIDN'T He wanted subterrfuge. He wanted the world to doubt.
For better or worse, this is our war. I said it on Sept. 11th. "We will see who our friends are." Saddam blocking U.N. inspectors, Security Council waffling, and most people worried about hurting the terrorists' feelings while they murder, maim and intimidate people with their poisonous rhetoric.
Take this time on the anniversary of the Iraq war to reflect what has been gained and what the world has gained in being less one ruthless, vain and heartless dictator.
We win this war with fewer armchair quarterbacks. We win this war by keeping our concern about the Iraqi people and fighting terrorists and not harassing our elected government who has given more to the nation of Iraq than any one else ever did when other nations traded backdoor favors with Saddam while he built another palace and his demon seed ravaged the population living under fear.
The Iraqi's have the choice to fight or live with each other. Only the U.S. and coalition allies gave them that chance to choose. The world owes the U.S. and the coaltion thanks. Save your bile for those much more deserving.
Posted by: Dave N. | March 19, 2008 3:58 PM
I want to respond to Trent's post concerning the sacrifices of the soldiers. My nephew in law currently stations in Iraq, this is his third tour as a Marine Intelligence officer. Never at any point in any of our family gatherings did he ever say he has made sacrifices for us to have freedom. He accepts the fact that he signed up for the Marine after college and is quite happy in the military. Out of courtesy and consideration for him, members of my family who are against the Iraq war refrain themselves from making anti war remarks in his presence. In fact we did not dwell on that fact because we respect one and another's opinions. Besides he joined the Marine because he liked to be a Marine, not for any noble reason.
Posted by: Claire | March 19, 2008 4:01 PM
Hey, George give that speech in Tora Bora.
Posted by: ghostofachance | March 19, 2008 4:02 PM
With the "real" costs of the war projected to exceed 100,000 civilians killed, nearly 4000 US soldiers (to date) killed, the price of oil going up over 4 times (most of which is hedging due to the uncertainty around the war) and a smash to the federal deficit of $3T (per a recent study), this war is not "accomplished", "vindicated", "worth it" or of any other positive value.
There was no serious justification for invading Iraq. The scant evidence provided was a thinly stretched and well spun bit of propaganda.
Bush got his revenge on Saddam for Daddy.
Was that worth, to put it bluntly: 4000 dead young men and women and $25,000 per taxpayer in the US?
Would you have signed up for a debt of $25,000 to support this war? Anyone? Does your $600 "stimulus" make you feel good about any of this?
And that debt has been sold off to treasuries buyers world wide ensuring that you get to pay for that debt over and over and over again, a good chunk of that money will be borrowing costs that leave the US economy... something it really did not need.
We all knew he was not the brightest bulb when he was elected. The proof lies in the shambles of the war, the deficit, the economy and the environment.
Historians will have little positive to attribute to the presidency of George Waterboard Bush.
Posted by: Alan Browne | March 19, 2008 4:06 PM
I was asked yesterday if the world ia a safer place without Saddam, I sadly had to answer no. I would not have said that 5 years ago, but as things have turned out only two groups of Iraqian people are safer and they are killing each other at a rate that may rival the rate Saddam himself was killing his internal enemies. worse yet 7 in 10 Iraqians want us out of thier country and we refuse to leave despite the cot in lives and billions per month in deficit spending.
Saddam was a bad guy, his wars with Iran certainly killed millions of people , We supported him in those wars, in fact we knew He was usiing gas warfare in the 1980's.
I think it's clear Bush knew saudi Arabians were the main source and supporters of the 9-11 attacks. Bush and the bin Ladin family go back decades in the oil business and was seemingly much more concerned with his financial interests then is who was really responsible for 9-11 and held up Saddam as a substitute for our right full wrath for the attacks.
Osama is still out there and more likely to die of old age or accident then at the hands of american justice. I think its highly likely this is no accident, Bush was probably told not he was not allowed to catch Osama by the bin ladin family form the begining. its amazing how the media doesn't put any of this on the air.
one would do well to realise, there are two different political parties in america but both have to work within the narrowly confined "reality" of the popular media.
its sad but Saudi Arabian oil lords and Rupppert Murdoch (Faux news and many "independdant local radio networks" owner. both non-american entities with agendas of thier own have more influence on american politics and policies, then any american person or group I can think of? bad things are here and worse things are to come. May our devalued currency at least feed us through the dark times ahead.
I could go over the constitution, but I think Bush has thrown it out and no one has said anything, so My words would mean nothing. good luck my fellow Americans
Posted by: james | March 19, 2008 4:07 PM
I was asked yesterday if the world ia a safer place without Saddam, I sadly had to answer no. I would not have said that 5 years ago, but as things have turned out only two groups of Iraqian people are safer and they are killing each other at a rate that may rival the rate Saddam himself was killing his internal enemies. worse yet 7 in 10 Iraqians want us out of thier country and we refuse to leave despite the cot in lives and billions per month in deficit spending.
Saddam was a bad guy, his wars with Iran certainly killed millions of people , We supported him in those wars, in fact we knew He was usiing gas warfare in the 1980's.
I think it's clear Bush knew saudi Arabians were the main source and supporters of the 9-11 attacks. Bush and the bin Ladin family go back decades in the oil business and was seemingly much more concerned with his financial interests then is who was really responsible for 9-11 and held up Saddam as a substitute for our right full wrath for the attacks.
Osama is still out there and more likely to die of old age or accident then at the hands of american justice. I think its highly likely this is no accident, Bush was probably told not he was not allowed to catch Osama by the bin ladin family form the begining. its amazing how the media doesn't put any of this on the air.
one would do well to realise, there are two different political parties in america but both have to work within the narrowly confined "reality" of the popular media.
its sad but Saudi Arabian oil lords and Rupppert Murdoch (Faux news and many "independdant local radio networks" owner. both non-american entities with agendas of thier own have more influence on american politics and policies, then any american person or group I can think of? bad things are here and worse things are to come. May our devalued currency at least feed us through the dark times ahead.
I could go over the constitution, but I think Bush has thrown it out and no one has said anything, so My words would mean nothing. good luck my fellow Americans
Posted by: james | March 19, 2008 4:07 PM
Some things to think about: 1. War has cost about $1 Trillon 2. There are 2.5 million Internal Displaced persons in Iraq.' 3. There are 2 million Iraqi refugees outside Iraq. 4. Over 38,000 Iraqis are seek asylum in US because of the violence, about 2x from 2006. 5. 28,838 wounded US service personnel 6. Kurd terror groups use Iraq as a safe haven in their fight for Turkey. 7. 40,928 Iraqi civilians have died since 28 April 2005 due to the war. 8. No WMD found and no link to Al Qaeda according to US military. 9. Little to no unity in the Iraqi government which is the key to legitimacy and to a positive outcome. 10. 1000+ US contractor employees have been killed.
So what are the "undeniable" successes?
Posted by: Nelson | March 19, 2008 4:10 PM
Some things to think about: 1. War has cost about $1 Trillon 2. There are 2.5 million Internal Displaced persons in Iraq.' 3. There are 2 million Iraqi refugees outside Iraq. 4. Over 38,000 Iraqis are seek asylum in US because of the violence, about 2x from 2006. 5. 28,838 wounded US service personnel 6. Kurd terror groups use Iraq as a safe haven in their fight for Turkey. 7. 40,928 Iraqi civilians have died since 28 April 2005 due to the war. 8. No WMD found and no link to Al Qaeda according to US military. 9. Little to no unity in the Iraqi government which is the key to legitimacy and to a positive outcome. 10. 1000+ US contractor employees have been killed.
So what are the "undeniable" successes?
Posted by: Nelson | March 19, 2008 4:10 PM
Posted by: phil | March 19, 2008 4:13 PM
The Iraq war has undermined our security by giving different factions a reason to unite; created a cause for extremists funded by our supposed allies the Saudis; destabized the region especially in Pakistan; made US citizens a target for violence; created a huge debt that will take at least 10 generations to pay off; been one factor in rising oil prices; and made one supporter of these failed policies - John McCain - a presidential hopeful.
Posted by: Jason | March 19, 2008 4:18 PM
Bush/Cheney must be given crdit for one thing. They do what they say.
Hillary/Obama - What have they actually done to stop the war, even though they cannot stop screaming against it to attract the votes.
Posted by: independent | March 19, 2008 4:18 PM
The Iraq war has undermined our security by challenging our democracy with extended invasions of privacy by the government; stepped on our values of humanitarinism through the use of torture; given different extremist factions a reason to unite; created a cause for extremists funded by our supposed allies the Saudis; destabized the region especially in Pakistan, the next country to become a battleground; made US citizens a target for violence; created a huge debt that will take at least 10 generations to pay off; been one factor in rising oil prices; and made one supporter of these failed policies - John McCain - a presidential hopeful.
Posted by: Jason | March 19, 2008 4:21 PM
As a WWII veteran and a life long Republican, but not of this sorry group that now controls the party, I am ashamed and mad as hell at Bush. He is not capable of making a good judgement and too arrogant to accept good advice. He now talks about the "success" of his surge but we never hear of the huge additional costs in American lives and treasure. One can not weight the worth without considering these and when it is done the results, only temporary, were not worth the life one even one of our troops. Bush does not even have the honesty or decency to admit his flawed actions and continues to defend them. That is a true sign of stupidity and false pride. Bush can run and hide in the very controlled environment his supporters maintain for him but the smell of rottenness proceeds and follows him.
Posted by: O. Bruce Jones | March 19, 2008 4:24 PM
Much like the defeated people of Germany and Japan after WW2 or even the Stalinist Communist supporters of the old Soviet Union the people of the United States are now coming to recognize that as a nation, we were led through a complex mixture of propoganda, utilizing fear, ethnocentrism and a desire for revenge after the 9-11 attacks into participating in the creation of nascent totalitarian state. The machinery is all there, a suspension of civil rights and the establishment of a parallel form of judicial adjucation for specifically identified individuals and groups (which needs only to have it's parameters expanded to become more inclusive) and the creation of an imperial presidency, immune to the checks and balances envisioned by our founding fathers. Perhaps the happiest thing about this state of affairs is that it has not come to fruition as the engineers of this catastrophe were not true beleivers, as in the case of the Nazi's, Communist's, emperor worshippers. Fortunately, they were more like opportunists concerned primarily with making sure they supped up as much money as possible through tax breaks, no bid contracts and the privatization of this glorious war for themselves and their friends while they still had power. Perhaps, for awhile, George Bush's trademark smirk, served as sort of true beleivers tell, telegraphing that he was secretly right no matter how wrong he appeared, did betray a delusion that he was operating under divine guidance to prosecute his "Crusade" in some fantasized armegeddonish role as the leader of the good forces of Christianity against the evil forces of Islam, but even that all knowing smile has now been wiped off his face by the cold reality that the world is not ending and neither angels or god can stave the rising rivers of blood his administration now straddles from this ill Iraqi adventure. I for one heartily suggest that a full investigation be initiated to find out just what the members of the Bush administration were eating, drinking or smoking prior to pushing for this war and banning it entirely as it obviously sincerely damaged their mental clarity as even now they try to spin this disaster into some sort of gold cloth of honor, decency and common sense. We have now turned the corner in this conflict so many times that it is obvious that we are moving in a spiral towards the light at the end of the tunnel which is in reality a black hole, from which there is no escape. This is not to say that the Bushies and their cohorts in the Republican party are not without guile, we should fully expect for them to pull a Bin Laden out of the hat before the next elections. Yet even that may not be enough as the implications of how they placated society and ran their government aground on borrowed money starts to come unravelled as creditors start to wonder exactly when and with what they shall be paid as the mint hurriedly prints more and more money to plug the hole created. As the polls suggest, other than the 30% of the people who are directly being paid or benefitted by the warped reality of the current administration, the rest of us are spitting mad and wondering just what went wrong with our government and how did it ever get so bad so quickly? We must now figure out how to fix this mess and it will require much like the people of other regimes gone mad, coming to sense of that we have been duped and been duplicitous in equal measure. Yes, after suspicious elections, the Patriot Act, after seeing CIA agents outed, the establishment of concentration camps and extra judicial systems enacted, after finding out that there was a move afoot to taint the justice department, after seeing country western singers pilloried for voicing their displeasure with the government, after discovering that there were secret wire tappings that could not be prosecuted as they were beyond view due to their executive priviledge there was just cause to fear the government, to be afraid to voice ones opinions for fear of retaliation. Yet the fear of being fired or dogged by the IRS, FBI, or worse while we could be making millions in real estate instead should have pointed out to us that so much of this was smoke and mirrors. Now the smoke is clearing, the mirrors are cracking and we must come to the conclusion, all of us, co-opted beneficiaries, conspirators, unwitting civilians, terrified to silence dissenters alike, that we nearly destroyed the nation through our submission and co-operation. Fortunately this time of darkness comes to a close now as the current administration, due to unfettered greed, unprecedented incompetence, and hopefully an innate, inner desire not to completely wreck this beautiful democracy, really lacked the desire and cojones to capitalize on its moment. This era will be endlessly debated for some time to come in much the same manner as was the McCarthy era, with the caveat that this time we came much closer to edge than ever before.
Posted by: Jeremiah | March 19, 2008 4:29 PM
Bush is unfortunately my Commander in Chief so I cannot write anything profane about him... but I am sure you get the drift... if I could... I would. War in Afghanistan... not a blunder... the right decision. War in Iraq... wow... most idiotic thing ever in the history of mankind. Anyone... I repeat anyone... who thinks war in Iraq has even an iota of justification, is living in a fool's world. I am alive and I thank GOD (my GOD) for it and the prayers and good wishes of my loved ones; most white people in the US especially the older ones are so full of themselves they wouldn't even begin to comprehend the meaning of peaceful, diplomatic victories instead of war. War is supposed to be the last resort, not among the first options. India lives in a bad neighborhood and yet doesn't initiate war only defends itself... and just look at their economic rise! They don't have too many resources they make good use of their scarce resources, we in the US have all the resources we could ever want and we misuse them, waste them, and send our children and some guests (myself) to die in Iraq, fighting a war for a war monger, who I am sure doesn't know how to spell peace... or even use the word correctly in a sentence... I bet he likes "peaciousness", a word that he probably would make up in a less than stellar moment of his life!
Posted by: USSoldierFromIndia | March 19, 2008 4:31 PM
The Iraq war is a mistake to cover a mistake. Most Americans, myself included, could see a rationale for going to war in Afghanistan. Especially since they were harboring Osama Bin Laden whom intelligence experts, after the fact, said was responsible for 9/11. But after thwarting the Taliban & causing Osama to go underground, for some reason, we turned our sites on Iraq. Supposedly it was to rid a country of WMD. Then it turned into a mission to liberate a people from a tyrannical dictator. I'm not sure when it became US policy to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow their leader. But that's precisely what has happened. Bush and his war hawk administration have pored billions of dollars of taxpayers money into rebuilding the infrastructure of country that they spent billions of dollars to tear down. And to what aim. Iraq, and for that matter, the Middle East will never change their core beliefs or their feelings toward the "Great Satan". Not only were there no Al Quaida in Iraq prior to the war, but it now has become a training ground for them. How does that improve our security? About the only thing the Iraq War has successfully done is improve the bottom line of Dick Cheney's old company, Haliburton, and all it's subsidiaries.
Posted by: Lee H. | March 19, 2008 4:42 PM
Iraq war is another embarassment, like of Vietnam. out of it nothing positive. I think Rev.wright and senator McCain lost their minds at Vietman war! Wright saying hatered things& McCain wants to continue the war, for more militray(young american) to die. They are both taking revenge from the society who sent them to vietnam where lost their minds.American must rejects them.
Posted by: ESpaña | March 19, 2008 4:58 PM
What a shame this administration has been for such a great nation! Republicans should never again be allowed to govern even a township in this country!!
Posted by: Vote Them Out!! | March 19, 2008 5:22 PM
I served in the military during the Vietnam War era for 6 years. I also had Intelligence School training. Much of what passes for national security today is only political. Even back then we knew that having a strong military as a deterent was better than actually having to fight a war. Our country has an obligation to the world. Unfortunately, those who think that because we have it, we must use it, have missed the point. Bush never tried diplomacy. He was determined to go to war for whatever reason. Maybe Saddam insulted his Daddy. May my friends on the nutty right get over the fact that their pious "religiousity" is no more Christian than is the ultra-left who see no need for a God. Remember, we are over 9 trillion dollars in debt and still counting. We could learn some lessons from Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria on how to spend our national treasure. He backrupted a country on his desires. Not much is new under the sun. By the way, Obama gave possibly the best speech I ever heard on race yesterday. Listening to a few clips from Rush, Rush still doesn't get it. I am a white man who would consider it an honor to have Obama as a brother.
Posted by: Earl C, Virginia Beach | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM
If Obama is the Democratic candidate in the fall, I will vote for him, simply because he was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning. Unlike many, I was never fooled by the rhetoric fueled by the Bush Administration for making the first pre-emptive strike against a foreign country in the history of the United States. At the time it was in the name of 'weapons of mass destruction', and the imminent threat which they posed to the United States. When that didn't work out, it then became removing Hussein from office. And now, with a 'surge', you have a Baghdad only slightly contained, but an increase of violence in other regions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason for this entire debacle in the Middle East, which is many more times unstable than it was before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was not WMD, or Hussein, or spreading democracy. It was control of oil. Simple and clear. A war for oil, with thousands of U.S. troops dead, and tens of thousands of civilians dead. My intelligence has been insulted time and time again by the idiots who claim to have the best interests of my country in mind. Wars cost money. We are trillions of dollars in debt, and no one is buying it any more. Not the Saudis. Not Europeans. Not the Japanese. The value of the dollar is so low, a scone and cup of tea at a normal London cafe costs the equivalent of $16. With a ridiculous war going on and a dollar which is rapidly declining, a major change in Washington is needed, and fast.
Posted by: muslit | March 19, 2008 8:02 PM
Instead of short term effects, instead of pretending you have amnesia and don't recall the lies that enabled the war to begin, why not consider such mundane items as (a) costs in dollars, (b) American lives lost, (c)Iraqi lives lost, (d) what weakening effect the war has had on our totalmilitary strength, and (e) the link to the stupendous rising cost of oil, as well as (d) the corrupt awarding processes that enabled a few corporations to profit obscenely from the largess dispensed by our Administration and Congress? Total that up and decide if the war was worth it.
Posted by: OCPatriot | March 19, 2008 8:02 PM
Not his blood, not his money. Everyday Bush stays in office is a celebration of Zero Accountability and the failure of Congress to protect America and the World from this lunatic.
Posted by: x32792 | March 19, 2008 8:07 PM
The USA deserves the recession it currently is undergoing- after all, idiotic Americans voted Bush/GOP twice in a row- at least gays can't get married!
Posted by: Bush is a crook | March 19, 2008 8:46 PM
Anyone who knew anything about the history of the Middle East knew that a war in Iraq had to fail. Anyone stupid enough not to know that the boundaries of Middle Eastern countries were fictions created by Britain and France after World War One--only someone that stupid would have dreamed of turning Iraq into Texas.
But Bush contemned knowledge, those who actually knew anything.
So, he launched an unnecessary and unjustifiable war in a part of the world that he knew nothing about.
His fantasy of turning Iraq into Texas might have been pretty. But it in no way connected to the real world. (Ah, yes, he once denounced those who live in a reality-defined world!)
His great accomplishment has been to turn the U.S. into a pariah. People who were once our friends now think that we are mad, deluded.
At the same time--believing that taxes are all bad--he has sold us to the Chinese, who are bankrolling our war. (Except that our grandchildren's grandchildren will still be paying for this war, assuming that the Bush assault on the dollar fails and that our currency might somehow retain some value.)
To put Bush's accomplishments into perspective, watch the Fed trying now to prevent another depression. Economists are scared: they understand just how great a financial mess this country is in. (And remember when Bush became president he inherited a surplus.)
Posted by: TomL | March 19, 2008 9:45 PM
King Bush and prince richard have achieved the goal they set seven and one half years ago. Help big business become bigger, create more wealth for the rich, ignore the poor working class and absolutely destroy this great nations ability to reconcile differences through peaceful means other than invasion. Our credibility with other nations is in the toilet along with our dollar. Thanks King Georgie.
Posted by: richard | March 19, 2008 10:05 PM
Here's a thought for all the big time war hawks! We're running out of money. If you're going to call anyone against the Iraq debacle a coward, why don't you self-proclaimed "supporters" put YOUR money where your big mouths are, pack up your stuff and go join the effort. If you feel so strongly that it's neccesary to send other people's loved ones into this idiotic mess, and this effort is so important to you, than go help out.
Posted by: Maltuvus | March 20, 2008 6:50 AM
'compliant, supine media' traits properly ascribed to even The Post vis-a-vis the War Crimes in Iraq. Linda Heard's concise rendition should be passed around to your investigative reporters/editors/staff. WHAT'S GOING ON IN WASHINGTON AND THE MEDIA REGARDING THIS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE AND NATION DESTROYING CONFLAGRATION IN IRAQ? WHO'S BUYING THIS CRAP? WHY AREN'T BUSH/CHENEY AND CO. IMPEACHED AND ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE HAGUE? How to Destroy a Country and Get Off Scot-Free by Linda Heard, sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk Someone once told me if you're going to tell a lie make it a whopper based on the premise the more outrageous the lie the more likely it is to be believed. At the time, I wrote off his advice as hogwash but as we see from the Iraq debacle, he was right. Five years later, the deceit continues undiminished and nobody has been held to account. Britain's Gordon Brown yesterday promised to hold an enquiry into the "mistakes" made in Iraq. Sounds good, but don't hold your breath. All previous inquiries have been labeled "whitewashes". They can't afford the truth to come out else they might get a one-way ticket to The Hague.Ambassador David Satterfield, and adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is doing the rounds of talk shows lauding America's victories over Al-Qaeda in Iraq. On one occasion the host interjected to mention the unpalatable fact that Al-Qaeda members only flocked to Iraq once the Americans were in place leaving Satterfield momentarily nonplussed.It's obvious that Satterfield is so saturated in the party line he forgot the Pentagon's recently published study that found with certainty that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no links to Al-Qaeda. And lest we forget Saddam didn't have WMD either, which means not only was the war immoral the prewar sanctions on that country that contributed to the deaths of over half-a-million Iraqi children were too. Think about it for a moment. The warmongers invaded, crushed and occupied a country that was no threat to anyone. They stood by as it was looted, exacerbated sectarianism, flattened entire towns, tortured untold numbers of innocents, brought in gum-chewing, tattooed foreign mercenaries and paid crony companies billions of dollars for mythical reconstruction projects.They then pretended to hand over sovereignty to that country while at the same time constructing permanent bases and the biggest US Embassy in history resembling a small town. They said they had no interest in Iraq's oil, yet they are putting immense pressure on the Iraqi government (sic) to sign into law a bill that permits foreign (read American) oil companies to lock up decades-long deals. Let's be frank. Iraq wasn't a blunder, it was a crime. So how did they manage to get away with implanting their long-conceived plot to do away with Israel's No. 1 foe, ensure their competitors couldn't get their hands on Iraq's resources and entrench their military might in the region? Future historians will no doubt be scratching their heads over this one. You had to live through it to believe it. First, they cleverly used the politics of fear to sway public opinion. As noted in the Project for the New American Century's document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the warmonger signatories - who later became senior members of the Bush administration - needed "a new Pearl Harbor". On Sept. 1l 2001 they got it. Americans and their allies were in shock. Almost every country in the world was sympathetic and willing to do anything to help. And, boy, did they capitalize on that empathy even managing to persuade Russia to stay silent as they made deals with Caspian states to allow US bases. Step one was a country where a giant bogeyman was supposed to be hiding out in a cave presumably equipped with a dialysis machine and a production studio and whose black-turbaned government forced women to wear a burqa and disallowed nail polish. But then Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld was disappointed because there weren't enough targets for his bombs. It was no fun bombing a country into the Stone Age when it was already there. Step two was the insidious demonizing of Muslims, thousands of whom were arrested and held for months without charge or access to lawyers. In that climate of fear, it was relatively simple to persuade the American people that Saddam Hussein was conniving with the people who brought down the World Trade Center. US officials warned of mushroom clouds; Prime Minister Tony Blair said British interests could be attacked within 45 minutes of Saddam giving the order. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell allowed himself to be used as their fall guy. He spouted the most unbelievable scripted codswallop the UN had ever heard...yet, bullied and bribed nation after nation pretended to believe him as IAEA chief Mohammed El-Baradei and UN weapons inspector Hans Blix did little to discredit the hoax. Step three entailed replacing Osama in people's minds with Saddam, who overnight morphed into a hydra-headed monster whose idea of a pleasant weekend was gassing and torturing his own people. Step four was 'Shock and Awe' which illuminated the Baghdad skyline on March 19, 2003. As their bombs and missiles rained down on crowded market places scattering limbs, they told us those bombs and missiles were Saddam's even though the Independent's Middle East correspondent inconveniently dug up their Made in the USA shards. As the months went on, we began to wonder what happened to the WMD. They told us it was only a matter of time before it would be unearthed from under the sands or discovered in a tunnel under one of Saddam's palaces. They even suggested it may have been shipped off to a neighboring country for safekeeping!! Step five was an orchestrated administration campaign to inject us with mass amnesia. Never mind about the weapons, they said. We are here to liberate the poor Iraqi people from their evil dictator and deliver freedom and democracy. Look, look, they said. The Iraqis have purple fingers! With up to one million dead, Iraqis are lucky they have any fingers at all. To be fair, they couldn't have done it without the aid of a compliant, supine media, which embedded its reporters with US battalions and agreed not to show captured US soldiers, flag-draped coffins, military funerals or scenes of blood-soaked Iraqi civilians. Independent reporters who neglected to abide by the script were discredited, refused access to information and even shelled. I still recall a live report from David Chater of Sky News, who saw the barrel of a US tank slowly turn toward the Palestine hotel - known to be a journalist's hang-out - before firing its shell killing three reporters. The Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya were also hit. With so much information on tap I'm flabbergasted that so many people still believe the Iraq fairytale. I wish they'd get in touch with me. I've got a few pyramids and a sphinx going cheap. Sad, isn't it! http://www.albertpeia.com http://www.albertpeia.com/currentopics10108.htm http://www.albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy10108.htm
Posted by: alpeia | March 20, 2008 8:03 AM
What a wonderful set of blogs. The bottom line: The provision in the Constitution is for a common defense as pointed out in earlier blogs. There is no room for pre-emptive wars, unless say that a foreign force is amassing an army on our borders with apparent intention to attack. Speaking of this, isn't this what we did to Iraq - amass a large foreign army on its borders. If Saddam did in fact have WMDs and without anything to lose, he could have dropped a few on Camp Doha in Kuwait. The best evidence that Saddam, the madman, did not have WMDs in 2003 is that he did not use them when it was to his best advantage to do so. Our war mongering, did-not-show-up-for-Vietnam-action leaders were hell-bent on going to war. It is a sure fire way to retain political power. Remember, you never ever "change horses in the middle of the stream."
Have a great day, one and all.
Posted by: Earl C, Virginia Beach | March 20, 2008 10:14 AM
Let us not fool our selves!!!!!
The War in Iraq was about OIL,Not any thing else!!!!.
The situation there is worse and worse!!!!
We are treating the symptoms, but not the disease. The disease is untreatable!!!!!. The Surge will not solve the problem.
Posted by: Basel | March 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Let us not fool our selves!!!!!
The War in Iraq was about OIL,Not any thing else!!!!.
The situation there is worse and worse!!!!
We are treating the symptoms, but not the disease. The disease is untreatable!!!!!. The Surge will not solve the problem.
Posted by: Basel | March 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Posted by: votenic | March 21, 2008 3:36 PM
The actual situation is more serious than the happened ones in other times because the present politicians are not intelligent.
Posted by: Carlos Norberto Mugrabi | March 22, 2008 10:56 PM
It was reported that the first thing we did after occupying Iraq was to send our troops to guard the Ministry of Petroleum. The weapons that were left following the fall of Iraq's army were left unguarded and were most probably used against our brave men and women who were left to pay the highest price in carrying out the policy directives of the most STUPID, MORAL BANKRUPT, PRESIDENT and ADMINISTRATION we have had in the some time. Too bad we did not see the writings on the wall following our initial occupation.
Posted by: pcorrales1 | March 23, 2008 3:56 PM
It was reported that the first thing we did after occupying Iraq was to send our troops to guard the Ministry of Petroleum. The weapons that were left following the fall of Iraq's army were left unguarded and were most probably used against our brave men and women who were left to pay the highest price in carrying out the policy directives of the most STUPID, MORAL BANKRUPT, PRESIDENT and ADMINISTRATION we have had in the some time. Too bad we did not see the writings on the wall following our initial occupation.
Posted by: pcorrales1 | March 23, 2008 3:57 PM
America, in the way founders dreamed, is dead. The political system has been open for sell to the highest bidder for over a century. Only now it is obvious that the oligarchy that controls our government shows disdain for what Americans desire. We have a dirty little coward in control who was never taught to have any morals or ethics by his parents. Our liberties exist only on paper, not in every-day life. America is financially ruined, and its military is ruined. A few men, wanting to acquire fantastic wealth have caused both of the aforementioned conditions.
Posted by: tanaS | March 24, 2008 11:12 AM
This war is a diasaster, as is every disaster. But is worse because it takes place in a Muslim country. If you guys paid close attention to Ahmadinejad's speeches he said something worth listening to, he said "A nation that knows martrydom will NEVER know CAPTIVITY."
And he is right. How can we defeat a people that whether they are alive or killed emerge victorious? Instead of bombing these people and creating more enemies. Let's stop intervening in their internal affairs. In the long run empires are not worth sustaining, look at British empire?
Anyway, this war is over and the Iranians won, just look at Ahmadinejads visit in Iraq here, it proves it:
Let's face it, this video is an embarassment for Bush and us the American people that have been duped by it all!
Posted by: Tim | March 24, 2008 1:33 PM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll http://www.votenic.com Last Week's Results Just Posted! New Video "America The Beautiful" Piano. Vote Weekly!!!
Posted by: votenic | March 27, 2008 11:34 AM
Bush should've been impeached years ago, but unfortunately, murders of soldiers and innocent Iraqis are not as serious as lying about getting a blow job. Obviously, rights to the Iraqi oil have not yet been sewed up to the satisfaction of his oil profiteering resources, or we would be out of there. The worst President we have ever had is finally successful at the ultimate failure of his life. Where is his Daddy to save him this time? Too bad he doesn't really know OUR FATHER and the commandments!
Posted by: Maerzie | March 29, 2008 10:51 AM
But what is not being reported is that the US is intalling MEFTA, which is NAFTA here, and the Iraqs hate us for it, just as many here hate NAFTA. We have invaded Iraq militarly to instal Friedman economics and it won't work just as it hasn't worked in 131 other countries.
By privatizing, deregulating and shutting down their social support systems we have destroyed their economy to instal multinational control over their economy, and most of all put thier educated and working class out of work, just as golbalization has done here.
This is creating a lot of the unrest in ther country and altmately will create our downfall. The Iraqs had free education and health care under their socialized system and we want to set up a system of economics just like China's?
It's doom to failure. If we had gone in and gave the money to them, we would have been way ahead for a lot less tax payer money used and they would have probably blessed us.
Just as here today, Americans are asking themselves are we better off todays then yesterday, so are the Iraqs, and the answere is a resounding no in economic terms.
Posted by: Dan | March 30, 2008 7:44 PM
More drum beating against Iran, Syria, and so forth. We just do not get it. With what are we going to fight another protracted,pre-emptive war? Our economy is in a shambles. Our military is exhausted. The rich have plundered the national treasury. We are in debt for many generations to come. The dollar is almost worthless on the international market. Speaking of which, against the lowly Kuwaiti dinar, it now takes almost 4 US dollars to get one dinar. It wasn't too long ago that the dinar was equivalent to 3.3 dollars and was holding steady. We are going to come to our senses one day and wonder what happened to our rich, prosperous nation. Our infrastructure is already in a state of crisis. However, we prefer to have no taxes than to have good schools, good roads, universal health care, and so forth. The gang that told us that government is bad has been runnning the shop since 1994. They have been successful in proving that the government for, of, and by the people is as bad as they have been saying that it is. The people's problem is that we have put into power those same people who have been out to destroy our government. The lost e-mails, the stolen computers, the lack of documentation for all of the missing taxpayer dollars sent to Iraq, and the gross negligence of a bunch of cowboys with no earthly idea what it truly means to be Americans except for capitalism for the few proves the point that just pick one of the big button moral issues of same-sex marriage, abortion, and so forth and the right wing nuts will continue to win until enough "I want to be rich" voters realize the futility of voting Republican. I have always said that I'll never be rich enough to be a Republican. I rest my case. For those out there who have not figured it out, you are accepting a few crumbs of prosperity with great hopes that your ship will come in. The U.S. economy is near collapse as witnessed by the unprecedented actions of the Rederal Reserve to bail out the big guys. This is done with the same taxpayer money (did I say borrowing?) that the government refused to use to assist the airlines during their time of crisis right after 9/11. The message is let certain industries rise and fall based on free market economics, but let the government take care of the fat cats that rape the common folk over and over. If I seem frustrated and cynical, I am. I'll soon not be able to visit other countries because I'll not be able to afford to go there thanks to the valueless dollar that I carry in my wallet. America has a problem. When I say this, it does not mean that I am not patriotic. However, being a patriot means that telling the truth trumps the big lies that have been heaped on us for far too long.
Posted by: Earl C, Virginia Beach | March 31, 2008 8:34 AM
My goodness, I've never seen such winy blame Bush crap in my life. If your willing to work hard, believe there are good people in this country, stop hating "the administration" and consentrate on all the wonderful, positive things this nation has accomplished you will realize how lucky and wrong you are!
Posted by: Stan from Ohio | April 4, 2008 6:18 AM
Winy!? Is this a word? Bush deserves all of the blame he gets. The right wing has badgered us for years now saying how bad the Federal government is. In true form, they have now proved how bad it is. Personally, I have a lot of respect for the professionals in our government. Bush just proved how uncontrolled cronyism can mess up the system. Check out FEMA. FEMA was praised under Clinton for accomplishing great things. It collapsed under Bush. Yes, there are many wonderful things in this country. However, along with positive assessments must come honest reviews of those things that are not going well. Housing, health care, and infrastructure, to name a few, have fallen on the rubbish pile thanks to the trillions that will be ultimately spent in Iraq. I also remember a bunch of whining when Clinton was in office from the same people who do not want people to whine now. For eight years, Clinton was ridiculed, bad-mouthed, and so forth by the same people who cannot stand to hear one word of criticism against a President who should have been impeached when he led us into war in Iraq, not to mention his attitude when he found out about Abu Gureb and other horror stories. He may speak Christian, but he does not practice Christian. Read your Bible. I still want to know who pays for the big run-up in the national debt. Bush says that he is not doing anything that will be placed on the backs of future generations. (Just read his State of the Union messages.) Perhaps he knows a non-tax way to do this.
Posted by: Earl C in Virginia Beach | April 5, 2008 2:45 PM
"I've tried to envision a way for us to exit Iraq that wouldn't be as enormous a blunder as our entrance"
Here's a radical but realistic plan:
1) Arm the Sunni minority to the teeth. We've already begun this process, but it would need to be accelerated.
2) Do away with this pretense of "democracy". These people have NO historical experience with representative government. They knew a Caliph for centuries, then a Sultan for centuries, then the British Mandate, and then a dictator. Think of the centuries it took for democracy to take root in England and the America. It cannot just be transplanted. Trying to plant democracy in Iraq is like trying to plant a tulip into a concrete street. It ain't gonna take...
3) Put the armed Sunni minority back in charge. They are no friends of Shi'a Iran. If we leave the Iraqi Shi'a in charge, then Iran will continue to hold enormous sway within Iraq. If need be, we could hold "elections" and show the Sunnis winning for the all the world to see. With the Sunnis fully back in control -- we could bring our troops -- while be reasonably assured that order would be maintained and Iran's role would be minimized.
Posted by: JohnLocker | April 9, 2008 11:23 AM
Senator Joseph Biden has the best plan for Iraq. Break this so-called country into 3 segments: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, and Shi'a in the south.
Get the U.N. to keep the peace at the new borders.
Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 9, 2008 11:29 AM
This President has morally bankrupted America. And, based on news about the economy, has literally bankrupted us as well. And, yet, with all of the obvious crimes W. has committed, no one has really stood up in Congress and used the "i" word like they should. So much for our system of checks and balances...
Posted by: radiocboy | April 11, 2008 1:02 PM
First point: I always find it so amusing how people are so hell-bent on raising the American death count in any anti-war argument. Don't get me wrong, I truly, truly hate the fact that our fellow Americans are dieing over there but there has been what, approximately 4,000 American deaths? Do any of you even know how many Iraqis have died as a direct result of this mayhem we've created? The sad part is.. our troops volunteered to be there (mostly) whereas some(most?) of the Iraqis want no part in this. There are children dieing and all we care to say is "oh we've had a ton of American deaths, lets get the hell out of there NOW" and fail to consider what circumstances we leave Iraq in. This attitude precisely why terrorists exist and if we leave Iraq as a smoldering, war wrecked country how many of those men and women are going to want to seek revenge? How many of these children that have witnessed so much death and destruction are going to grow up with hatred and a thirst for American blood?
Second point: I find it amusing hearing the "we waged this war to get oil" argument. Really? You honestly think that Mr. George W. Bush wants the price of oil to go down? Ask yourself this - what benefit would Bush - or his co-conspirators - gain from lowering the price of oil? Okay now that you don't have an answer, go snoop around and see how many different ways Bush is tied in with oil companies, organizations and owners. Kind of makes more sense for him to raise the price of oil instead of lowering it, doesn't it? Now, what in the world could cause the price of oil to go up 300% over 8 years... oh yea, attacking a region that supplies it! Watch the news (especially a few months ago), any time the price of oil would start to decline, Bush would jump on TV and make some absurd threat to Iran / N. Korea or make some very transparent report about Iraq. I want to know why there was little resistance when it came to dragging Clinton into court for getting a bj in the whitehouse but whenever someone connects the VERY VISIBLE dots and proclaims that Bush should be tried and hung for his actions, they are labeled a conspiracy theorist and given aluminum to wrap themselves in.
Open your eyes America, we are victims of this whole sickening plot. Of course, the thousands upon thousands of Americans, Iraqis, and Afghanis aren't enough for us to grow some and do something about all of this.. lets just pull out and leave Iraq, to hell with what happens next!
Posted by: Chance Dinkins | April 15, 2008 6:00 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.
|
Behind the Numbers is a blog about political data, from campaign contributions to congressional votes to the last polling numbers. Behind the Numbers is written by the staff of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com
| 394.864865 | 0.810811 | 1.243243 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031800216.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031800216.html
|
Dalai Lama Airs Prospect of Quitting
|
2008032219
|
"If things become out of control, then my only option is to completely resign," the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace laureate and the exiled leader of millions of Tibetans around the world, told reporters. As he spoke, the narrow, winding streets of this Himalayan town were filled with hundreds of angry youths, monks and nuns, marching and chanting, "Long live Dalai Lama!"
The prime minister of the government-in-exile, Samdhong Rinpoche, quickly sought to play down his leader's statement. "I don't think he has said those words without any qualification or context," Rinpoche said at a news conference. "The Dalai Lama has always said, over and over again, that if the Tibetan people resort to violence, he would not be able to lead the people and be their spiritual leader."
"The Tibetan people's commitment to nonviolence remains, and there is no question of his resignation," Rinpoche added.
The Dalai Lama reacted angrily to the statements by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao blaming him for engineering riots in Tibet that have left scores of people dead. The Tibetan leader, who fled China for India in 1959, said that he was open to scrutiny by any international body.
"If you want to start investigating from here, you are most welcome. Check our various offices," he said, adding with characteristic dry humor, "They can examine my pulse, my urine, my stool, everything."
[On Wednesday morning, the Chinese regional government in Tibet said 105 people involved in deadly rioting in Lhasa last Friday had surrendered to police, according to the official New China News Agency. "I was very disturbed by what I did," the agency quoted one man as saying.]
On Tuesday, the streets of Dharmsala resounded all day with the steady chanting of marchers. Maroon-robed monks and nuns carried placards reading "Stop Killing Tibetans" and chanted Buddhist prayers. About 500 students jammed the alleyways, holding up photographs of the rioting in Tibet and shouting "We want justice!" and "We want freedom!"
The parliament of Tibet's government-in-exile has set three objectives for the protests in India: ending alleged Chinese atrocities against Tibetans; getting doctors to the injured and the sick; and obtaining the immediate release of all political prisoners.
But protesters also indicated that they support independence for Tibet. Their rage and despair were palpable as people poured into the streets waving Tibetan flags or wearing them bandanna-style around their heads.
"Our blood is very hot right now," said Dharbon Sharling, 26. "We have waited so many years for China to change its mind. Six rounds of peaceful talks, and we have nothing to show. But now, we are in no mood to spare China."
The challenge of balancing passion and the path of nonviolence was apparent in dozens of interviews with protesters in Dharmsala.
|
DHARMSALA, India, March 18 -- Reacting to a week of sometimes bloody protests in Tibet, the Dalai Lama said Tuesday that he would resign as spiritual head of the Tibetan government-in-exile if the violence spun out of control. At the same time, the revered religious figure vehemently denied Chinese...
| 9.745763 | 0.711864 | 1.389831 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802903.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802903.html
|
Perennial Arctic Ice Cover Diminishing, Officials Say
|
2008032219
|
The amount of long-lasting sea ice in the Arctic -- thick enough to survive for as much as a decade -- declined sharply in the past year, even though the region had a cold winter and the thinner one-year ice cover grew substantially, federal officials said yesterday.
Using new data from NASA's ICESat satellite, researchers over the past year detected the steepest yearly decline in "perennial" ice on record. As a result of melting and the southward movement of the thicker ice, the percentage of the Arctic Ocean with this stable ice cover has decreased from more than 50 percent in the mid-1980s to less than 30 percent as of last month.
"Because we had a cold winter, the public might think things have gotten better," said Walter Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "In fact, the loss of the perennial ice makes clear that they're not getting better at all."
The surprising drop in perennial ice makes the fast-changing region more unstable, because the thinner seasonal ice melts readily in summer.
The Arctic lost an unprecedented amount of ice during last summer's unusual warmth, and Meier said conditions are right for a similarly large melt if the temperatures are at all above normal this year. The area of thick Arctic ice lost over the past two decades equals 1 1/2 times the size of Alaska.
While normal weather variation plays a role in yearly ice fluctuations, officials said the dramatic decline in perennial ice -- which can range from 6 feet thick to more than 15 feet thick -- appears to be consistent with the effects of global warming.
Officials said the loss of long-lasting ice was less the result of warming of the atmosphere than of a long-term rise in ocean temperatures and the effects of the "Arctic oscillation," a variable wind pattern that can either keep icebergs in the Arctic (when the wind pattern is "negative") or push them south (when it is "positive"). Climate experts believe that both the rising water temperature and increasingly frequent "positive" oscillations are a function of global warming.
Josefino Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the lead author of a related 2007 study, said Arctic Ocean temperatures appear to be rising quickly because less of the water is covered by ice, which reflects sunlight and keeps water temperatures lower. After last summer's very warm weather, the amount of ice cover shrank dramatically, and the water became warmer.
He said climate experts have concluded that the Arctic oscillation, which is a natural climate phenomenon, is also being modified by global warming. The dynamics are not yet understood, but it appears that higher temperatures in the tropics and elsewhere make it more likely that the oscillation will push icebergs down past Greenland and into the Atlantic.
Arctic sea ice always grows and shrinks, ranging from an average minimum in September of 2.5 million square miles to an average winter maximum in March of 5.9 million square miles. Instruments on NASA's Aqua satellite, as well as Defense Department satellites, showed that the maximum sea ice extent in March increased by 3.9 percent over that of the previous three years because of the winter.
Nonetheless, the total ice coverage was still 2.2 percent below the long-term average. And the very old ice, which remains in the Arctic for at least six years, made up more than 20 percent of the Arctic in the mid- to late 1980s, but by this winter it had decreased to 6 percent.
Flying over the Arctic, one might perceive the sea ice cover as broad, Meier said, but that apparent breadth hides the fact that the ice is so thin. "It's a facade, like a Hollywood set," he said. "There's no building behind it."
While the Arctic sea ice is changing fast, the same is not true in Antarctica. Comiso said the amount of ice surrounding the continent is little changed over recent decades, although some ice loss has been occurring around the continent's peninsula and on some glaciers. Antarctica is significantly less tied to the world's weather patterns and is considered to be less subject to the effects of global warming so far.
The report drew concern from Rafe Pomerance, president of the environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet.
"This is another startling and serious indicator of massive changes in the Arctic due to climate change," he said in a statement. "It is one more reminder that we must address the global warming with a level of commitment and resources equal to the problem."
With the behavior of Arctic sea ice becoming an increasingly important issue, NASA is planning to launch a follow-on satellite mission, ICESat II, in 2015.
|
Find Washington Post science, politics and opinion coverage of the growing threat from global warming.
| 54.352941 | 0.529412 | 1 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803244.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803244.html
|
Judge Portrays McCartney's Ex As 'Out of Control'
|
2008032219
|
LONDON, March 18 -- When Heather Mills won a $48.6 million divorce settlement from Paul McCartney on Monday, she asked the judge not to publicly release his full 58-page ruling.
Man, did she have good reason to worry.
In court papers released Tuesday over Mills's strenuous objections, Judge Hugh Bennett took a legal chainsaw to the former model's demands and arguments, including her assertion that she helped the former Beatle write his songs.
The document, based on courtroom testimony and extensive financial records, offers a rare glimpse into the life of one of the world's most famous celebrities and his four-year marriage to a woman 25 years his junior.
Mills had sought a $250 million divorce settlement. But in the papers, Bennett rejected Mills's justifications for her demand as "ridiculous" and "wholly exaggerated." He said Mills "flagrantly overeggs the pudding" with demands for just under $1 million a year for travel expenses, including $370,000 for private planes and helicopters, plus annual payments of $250,000 for clothes and $78,000 for wine (even though she doesn't drink).
"The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband," Bennett said. "I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief."
Bennett used more syllables, and his wording is every bit as tough on Mills as on the British tabloid press, which has rallied around one of England's most beloved national icons in a bitter divorce dispute that has taken almost two years to resolve.
Bennett alluded to Mills's "bad press" in his ruling, saying, "She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed, even vilified." But, he said, "to some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character." At other times, he concluded, she had "behaved in an erratic, out of control, and vengeful manner."
And right on cue, Mills dumped a jug of water over the head of McCartney's lawyer.
After Monday's court hearing where the divorce settlement was announced, she had walked up to lawyer Fiona Shackleton inside the courthouse and proclaimed, "I'm not a loser," Mills told the BBC.
With that, she emptied a water jug on the lawyer, who also represented Prince Charles in his divorce from Princess Diana.
"I was very calm," Mills said to the BBC.
|
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.
| 10.73913 | 0.413043 | 0.456522 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602174.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602174.html
|
Post Politics Hour
|
2008032219
|
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 national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut was online Wednesday, March 19 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.
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
Anne E. Kornblut: Greetings from Detroit! Welcome, all of you. I'm afraid I probably will have to cut this short today because I am traveling with the Clinton campaign and we're on the move, but I'll do my best to answer all questions. Fire away.
Atlanta: Is reaction to Obama's speech dividing by geographic areas? I was sitting in LaGuardia yesterday as the speech was running and reaction was very mixed (perhaps overall cynical); when I landed back in Georgia, there was a very positive reaction from everyone who had heard it.
Anne E. Kornblut: That's an interesting question. I do notice in our travels that people respond to the candidates differently in different places, but I don't know that anyone publicly has tracked it down to the level of a particular speech. Thanks for the anecdotal measure.
Tolland, Conn.: Hi Anne. Thanks for taking the question. I read Obama's speech on race, and I genuinely was moved. I thought it was eloquent and heartfelt. Then I made the mistake of reading some of the reader comments that were posted, and got incredibly depressed by the number of close-minded and downright hateful comments (both pro and con). So here's the question: as someone in the trenches everyday, seeing a wide cross-section of voters, how optimistic are you about American voters and their willingness to listen with open minds and make intelligent choices?
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Obama's Philadelphia Speech on Race and the Race (washingtonpost.com, March 18)
Anne E. Kornblut: That is such a good question, and I know what you mean. On the other hand, it's good to read everyone's views to have a real sense of what's being said and thought, and to understand the great diversity of opinion that exists. One thing I will say is that I think people are more engaged, and listening more, this year than at some times in the past. But do I wish they paid more attention, and were more open to new information? Probably.
Falls Church, Va.: Hi! I can't read enough about Obama's speech yesterday. It was ground-breaking. What was the reaction in the Clinton camp?
Anne E. Kornblut: Quite muted, I would say. Sen. Clinton still hasn't fully responded -- when she mentioned it yesterday she said she had not read or seen it, and she has not spoke about it at length since. Stay tuned. In general, I'd say the Clinton campaign is not upset to see Sen. Obama talking about race; it gives them an opportunity to talk about the issues that they feel they dominate, and that "matter" to people in the remaining states, such as the economy. But I would say their opinion hasn't been expressed fully yet.
Portland, Ore.: In Pennsylvania, can Republicans vote in the Democratic Party's primary? If so, seems like there would be no end to the mischief that could be caused. Thanks.
Anne E. Kornblut: My understanding is that they cannot.
Kensington, Md.: I've been watching in utter amazement the hoopla the media has been making over the statements Obama's fiery pastor has made over the years. I am wondering what the man is supposed to do about it. Clearly it is not enough for him to disagree with, reject, renounce and rebut the statements this other man has made. It seems like Obama is obliged to go back in time, stand up in church with a revolver and put the man down in his tracks. Is that it? Please fill me in, as it seems like the mainstream media has gone off of its OCD medications.
Anne E. Kornblut: LOL. I have to say, my sense is that without the videotaped remarks, this story would not quite have taken off the way it did. The power of video...
Anonymous: Why is Hillary in Detroit?
Anne E. Kornblut: Sen. Clinton is in Detroit because she is demanding a revote in the Michigan primary, or for the earlier vote to count. The Democratic National Committee disqualified the earlier vote because it was in violation of party rules; the only way Sen. Clinton can catch up at this point, really, is to have this vote counted or held again.
Harrisburg, Pa.: While Pennsylvania has a "closed" primary, anyone can change their registration to "Democrat" by March 24 and vote in the Democratic primary on April 22. They are then free to change it back to "Republican" or "independent" or whatever before the general election.
Anne E. Kornblut: That is true many places. Thanks for the input.
Tampa, Fla.: Do you get the sense from the Clinton campaign that Hillary Clinton is willing to fight on to the bitter end, i.e. to the convention, no matter what happens? Is there some point, any point, at which she would give up? Because I don't see her quitting under any circumstances based on what I read in the news.
Anne E. Kornblut: It certainly does appear that she will stay in as long as there is any reason to. Sen. Obama still needs more delegates to win the nomination, even though he is ahead, so there is reason for her to stay in. I wouldn't be surprised at all if she remains in until the convention.
Washington: Why does Obama keep saying about his pastor that he didn't hear the phrases that have caused controversy? It's not about the sound bites, it's about a 20-year association with a man like this. His children were brought up in that church. What I got form his speech yesterday was that it was okay for blacks to be racists, but not anyone else and we just don't understand.
I am Jewish; if my temple said horrible things like that about any race of people -- blacks, Arabs, Christians, etc. -- I would walk out and certainly never take my kids there. But because he is black it's okay? The reason why Obama has such a broad appeal is that he has been the first black presidential candidate who hasn't run on race issues. If he gets associated with race-baiting, like Sharpton and Jackson, it could be over fast.
Anne E. Kornblut: Here's another point of view ... thank you for posting.
Henly, Texas: Ooooowee! McCain is nothing if not lucky. If Obama's speech hadn't blown everything else off of the air, wouldn't McCain's huge gaffe -- in which he didn't appear to comprehend the difference between Sunnis and Shias, nor in which regimes are supporting them -- have been a watershed moment? Perhaps not quite a "macaca," but for a person whose fundamental strength is presumed to be foreign policy and security, this would seem akin to discovering the emperor to have no clothes. Does McCain get a pass because of press preoccupation with sexier subjects, or will this gaffe live on?
Anne E. Kornblut: This is a great point -- and I'm wondering the same thing. It was quite a moment, wasn't it? I am looking forward to having my colleague Mike Shear back in town so he can answer every question about the moment (he is out there covering McCain overseas, and was there for the gaffe).
Rockville, Md.: What a great speech Obama made yesterday. After hearing it, and then reading all the analytical about it from both sides, I still think Obama came out shining. He recognizes both sides of the issues -- that blacks play the victim for too long, and that whites have grievances that are not racist. I give him credits for facing the challenge and being willing to work through it instead of running away and hiding like all other politicians did. At the very least, it showed he understood the issues of both sides. However, some my friends think he's too neutral -- as in, he didn't make any kind of stand in his speech so that might alienate any of his supporters. He shows he's still playing at being a politician. What do you think of this sentiment?
Anne E. Kornblut: I think it's a really interesting question -- I can see it both ways, and have heard from people on both sides (sorry to be so equivocal, but it's true). My internal jury is still out on what impact the speech will have -- and whether it went far enough, or hit the right note. And I'm at a disadvantage, traveling with the Clinton campaign, where it hasn't been a focus (we didn't get to our hotel until after midnight, and left again a few hours later, so I only have read the speech!). Check back with me in the next chat and I'll have a more firm opinion.
Anonymous: Why did George Bush tear up this morning after his speech congratulating himself on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war? Is he going for a Hillary-in-New-Hampshire moment to boost his sagging poll numbers?
washingtonpost.com: Bush: We Can't Jeopardize Gains in Iraq (AP, March 19)
Anne E. Kornblut: A good question ... but no one has to vote for him again, do they?
Response to Tolland: I often feel depressed by the comments on newspaper articles, which usually run the gamut from mean to truly hateful, but I've concluded that an enormous number of them are posted by a relatively small set of really angry people. I think they're just not representative of how many people respond, and you have to remind yourself that reasonable opinions are poorly represented on the Internet. I doubt the posters represent the general reaction to Obama's speech.
Anne E. Kornblut: Thanks for this; I often remind myself of the same thing. But on the other hand, sometimes I get the most thoughtful letters from people on stories I've written (sometimes in the actual mail!), and I do believe that newspapers and the news should be a dialogue with readers, so I try to balance reading everything with remembering that some comments do not represent the whole.
Bow, N.H.: Are the Clinton people proposing any specific fixes to the mortgage mess? Any talk about bringing back Glass-Steagall?
Anne E. Kornblut: She has spoken about a freeze on mortgage interest rate hikes and on foreclosures, and in broader terms about balancing the budget again and restoring the economy. She and Sen. Obama both have discussed the issue, with relatively similar proposals.
Chicago: When is she going to release the tax returns for the past eight years, as she said she would during the Cleveland debate? Is there no Kinkos nearby? What's the holdup?
Anne E. Kornblut: The Clinton campaign has said they will release the recent tax forms on April 15; I'm not sure why the old ones are taking so long. Keep an eye out: today we get the release of some of her White House schedules (though they have been vetted by her advisers).
Williamsburg, Va.: Do political reporters pay attention to the Intrade prediction market? It seems to be a good way to judge the impact of events, like Obama's speech. Clinton recently dropped from 27 percent to 25 percent in the market, indicating that it has helped Obama.
Anne E. Kornblut: I sometimes look at them and find them very entertaining, but the actual merits are still very much up for debate. I'm not sure the "collective wisdom" theory applies in a situation that now hinges on the actions of a few hundred superdelegates and what the Democratic National Committee decides to do with Michigan and Florida. But sure, why not? I read Clinton's horoscope, too.
Anonymous: Hillary has to win nearly 70 percent of remaining delegates to take the lead -- possible, but highly unlikely. Will she continue with her plan -- to switch voted delegates to her side and to convince superdelegates Obama is not electable -- all the way to the convention?
Anne E. Kornblut: It does appear that way; another part of her strategy is to overtake him in the popular vote, by winning in Pennsylvania and also either achieving revotes in Florida and Michigan or getting the original votes counted. Then she hopes to persuade superdelegates to change their minds or to continue to support her.
Washington: In line with the earlier comment that McCain is skating on some dumb comments because the Democrats are making all the news, is it possible that after Pennsylvania, the superdelegates will just decide to call the race and go en masse to one candidate or the other so they can focus on the general election (i.e. Clinton if she wins commandingly there, and Obama if it is clear she cannot cut substantially into his delegate lead)?
Anne E. Kornblut: Possible, but I guess I'd say it's unlikely at this point, unless they detect a shift in the popular will that is clear and decisive. The superdelegates will face a lot of resistance to being seen as having "decided" the nomination single-handedly, even if there is a widespread desire by Democrats to hurry up and get to the general, as I think you rightly suggest there is. Thanks for the question.
Anonymous: If Obama or Clinton mistakenly had linked Iran to al-Qaeda on three separate occasions, as McCain has, would the response have been different than the pass McCain has been given? Are McCain's comments brushed off because he is old?
Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not so sure McCain is getting a pass -- in the five minutes I had the TV on in the middle of the night between campaign stops, I heard the incident described and replayed. I can assure you it'll be revived in a general election debate if not sooner.
Bremerton, Wash.: Anne, count me as one of the people out there who was deeply moved by Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech yesterday. He acknowledged that we all have some racism in ourselves, our friends, and our families, but we need to look to making ourselves as a nation better. ... And no, I'm not Chris Matthews!
Anne E. Kornblut: A lot of views on this ... thanks for sending them along.
Tampa, Fla.: Anne, one of your colleagues said last week that we should look to the campaign Web sites to find out where candidates stand on the issues. Not to pile on, but I've spent a good deal of time on the Web sites, and it's a real mixed bag. If it's a position they're promoting, then there's a lot of detail. If it's an issue they don't see as their particular strength, then there's almost nothing. This is true for Democrats and Republicans alike. Please don't stop asking the candidates hard policy questions.
Anne E. Kornblut: It's a good point, thanks for mentioning it -- the sites are good resources, but obviously they have a point of view...
Malvern, Pa.: Anne, I fear that the McCain misstep in Iraq (confusing Shia and Sunni) is going to get overlooked with all the other big news going on. How can someone who claims such deep knowledge of foreign affairs screw that up? Is he going senile? This more than reminded me of a scene in George Packer's book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq" where he described a meeting Bush had with some Iraqi ex-pats before the invasion. They were attempting to explain the difference between Sunni and Shia, and Bush just glazed over. He didn't have a clue. How can they be so clueless!?
washingtonpost.com: McCain Mixes Up Iraqi Groups; Senator Misstates Which Extremists Are Aided by Iran (Post, March 19)
Anne E. Kornblut: Thanks for adding another thought on this. ... I think the fact that so many of you have picked up on this moment indicates it won't get ignored.
Reading, Pa.: Anne, surely the release of Hillary's schedules as first lady will confirm the largely ceremonial role she played in the Clinton White House. Won't this put the lie to all of her posturing about "35 years of experience," etc.?
washingtonpost.com: Library Releases Hillary Clinton's White House Schedules (Post, March 19)
Anne E. Kornblut: I can't wait to find out (and I'm a little sorry I'm out on the campaign trail with her instead of back in the office reading through them; like you, I'll have to depend on my colleagues to sift through and make sense of them). Hopefully there will be a way to post them online, so everyone can see them.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Could you address the impact of the Clinton Machine in these Big States? There is so much discussion of the demographics of states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but in those states it seems like the Good Ol' Boy/Clinton network is really what's driving the momentum. The high-profile, popular governors and other party officials are campaigning hard for Hillary, and that seems to be as big a factor in her success as any demographic breakdown.
Anne E. Kornblut: This is a great point, and certainly applicable in both Ohio and, now, Pennsylvania. She has Ed Rendell, the governor, campaigning hard for her and lending her his machine; the Philadelphia mayor is also hers. It potentially can make a big difference for her. I think that's one reason we have heard such strong comments from the Obama campaign downplaying his potential there, effectively predicting that he will lose.
Ferguson, Mo.: Morning, Anne. Did my ears deceive, me or did I hear on the news this morning that anyone who voted in the Republican primary in Michigan by law cannot revote if they do a makeup primary? Under normal circumstances I can see why it might be double-dipping, but surely this is a special case. Or doesn't the law allow for special cases? Thanks.
Anne E. Kornblut: You've got me; I have no idea. But this is the story of the day, so I will make it my mission to find out.
San Francisco Bay Area: Morning Anne. Yesterday I heard most of Obama's speech and thought it measured high on the list of historic oratory, but I figured mainstream America must be so depleted from propaganda and a lack of statesmanship (or statewomanship) that it would be lost on the divided masses of fear-driven malcontents. Whatsayyou? One other quickie -- is Hillary being nicer to reporters now?
Anne E. Kornblut: I'm not sure it was lost on people; I think any subject, aired enough, can penetrate through to the entire electorate. But we'll find out soon, I suspect.
Minneapolis: I'm not a member of any church, but when I hear or read things about how Obama should have taken a harder view on his minister I get frustrated. My mother is active in her Catholic church and loves everything about it; this was the same church where the priest was later arrested for pedophilia with a student. As awful as this was, my mother blames the priest, not the entire congregation. To disavow everything and anything having to do with one's place of worship (including a loving community) is at best misplaced and at worst ignorant and stupid.
Anne E. Kornblut: And here's another comment on this ... thank you for sending it. This is such an interesting topic.
Columbus, Ga.: Do you think Sen. Obama's speech yesterday gave some insight into why some people say that 11 a.m. on Sundays is the most segregated hour in the U.S.?
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a really interesting question, and I think you have a point. In Washington, of course, we say that's a segregated hour in a different way -- between the people who attend church and those who sit home and watch the political shows.
New York: Do you expect Lieberman to continue shadowing McCain, tapping him on the shoulder and whispering corrections in his ear? The dynamic was an interesting contrast to Bush, who often makes this type of gaffe (conflating al-Qaeda with other groups) and makes no effort at correcting himself. Even though McCain appeared absent-minded in the exchange with Lieberman, don't you think it could help him by making him appear more willing to speak truthfully?
Anne E. Kornblut: I hadn't thought of that; it certainly struck me as unique that he corrected himself quickly, and was listening to Lieberman. That said, I think it's going to be hard for McCain to get a lot of credit on this one.
Ground-breaking?: Hardly -- Obama's speech was what Americans expected from their presidents up until the 1960s. Read Truman. Read Roosevelt. They spoke intelligently and fully to audiences they assumed to be curious and willing to take in complete and thoughtful dialogues. Congratulations to Sen. Obama for taking a step away from our "Dumb and Dumber" sound bite culture!
Anne E. Kornblut: And another view. ... I will say, those of us who make a living in words always are grateful for a carefully written, provocative speech.
New Freedom, Pa.: In North Carolina, Obama is down to a one point lead. What if Hillary creams Obama in Pennsylvania and then he loses both North Carolina and Indiana? What do the superdelegates do?
Anne E. Kornblut: I don't think we know yet, and I wouldn't expect the superdelegates to move en masse. It still appears quite likely that Obama will retain his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote; as long as he's close to Clinton in the remaining states, it will be hard for her to overtake him -- and yet, continuing to lose in the states ahead would undermine completely his case that he has the momentum and is winning red states.
Boonsboro, Md.: What to you think the odds are of seeing Rev. Wright videos reappear in September and October?
Anne E. Kornblut: I guess it depends on whom the nominee is, and if it's Obama vs. McCain on whether McCain decides to play that way. There are indications he would not, but who knows.
Southwest Nebraska: Obama spoke to the American people as if they were rational, thoughtful adults. It seems to me that how people react tells more about the person than about Obama. For one thing, whether or not a person forms an opinion about it without reading or listening to it, but just allowing the chattering class to tell that person what to think.
Anne E. Kornblut: And another thumbs-up for Obama.
Dale City, Va.: That was an interesting comment about Clinton's horoscope. So what sign is she, and do you know what sign Obama is?
washingtonpost.com: She's a Scorpio; he's a Leo.
Anne E. Kornblut: She is a Scorpio (born Oct. 26) and I am told he is a Leo by my trusty colleagues at washingtonpost.com. So perhaps someone out there can assess their compatibility.
Charlottesville, Va.: I know all the liberals' legs are tingling over Obama's speech, but I was left feeling that it was just a "mustard and relish speech": no meat. Obama stood by Wright by comparing Wright's nastiness to his own grandmother's racism (who throws their grandmother under a bus to score political points?!). But last year when Don Imus made his "nappy headed" comment -- far less insulting and controversial than saying that white Americans created AIDS to kill blacks -- Obama insisted that Imus should be fired. Obama went further: He claimed that Imus's remarks were damaging to his poor innocent daughters. Now we know that every Sunday Obama was subjecting those same daughters to vile racial hatred. Obama is a hypocrite. Nice speech, though.
Anne E. Kornblut: And another view ... I'm just going to keep posting them because they are so thoughtful.
Washington: The news clip that gets repeated airplay from Rev. Wright is the God Bless America/God Damn America juxtaposition. Damning the temporal society for immoral action is a tradition in religion going back to Jeremiah and the Old Testament prophets at least. Could a politician today suggest a misfortune in society is God's wrath, the way Lincoln did in his second inaugural?
"He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'"
Anne E. Kornblut: And another...
Anonymous: Some of my family and friends that I care for very much make blatant racist comments and freely use the N word. I don't love them less for it. Was that part of the genius in Obama's speech -- to make us think about things like this in relation to him and the Rev. Wright?
Anne E. Kornblut: I don't have an answer for this (I'm not sure I fully understand the question) but I am going to post it anyway for further discussion...
Anonymous: Can you provide a link to the McCain comments about Sunnis, etc. referred to in the post from Texas?
washingtonpost.com: Video: McCain's Foreign Policy Gaffe (CBS, March 18)
Anne E. Kornblut: I don't have the link here, but if you go to The Trail (our campaign diary) it should be there from Mike Shear, our reporter with McCain overseas.
Alexandria, Va.: I just gave the article on McCain's gaffe a quick read. At least he was willing to listen to a colleague who corrected him -- that's got to be a step up from Bush, right? Right?
Anne E. Kornblut: Someone else made this point, too, so who knows? Maybe McCain will be able to make lemonade out of this lemon?
Arlington, Va.: I need help figuring out the administration's position on the economy. I've read comments that President Bush claims that purchases of war equipment are boosting the economy and keep "people working," and I've read that he blames the housing bust on the fact that "we've built too many houses." Is this the official government position? That military spending is more vital to GDP than construction/housing spending? And more to the point, is it true? I'm no economist but I would have thought otherwise.
Anne E. Kornblut: I must confess, I'm as confused as you are. His speech last week did little to clear it up for me. Let me refer you to my colleague Peter Baker, a White House reporter, who I believe has an upcoming chat...
Richmond, Va.: McCain may not bring up the Wright videos, but you can bet his surrogates will.
Anne E. Kornblut: A fair bet...
Detroit: You're seeing all these "thumbs-ups" for Obama because, naturally, you're not taking any questions that probe into the speech -- like his false comparison of Wright to his grandmother, or the phony-baloney (pun intended) relish-and-mustard story, or even why he called for Imus's resignation last year based on one offensive remark, but stands by Wright. It's bias, Anne.
Anne E. Kornblut: Actually, I'm looking through all the questions and not omitting any ... I'm trying to post them all, and will do so with yours. Thank you for the point, it's a good one.
Anonymous: Mike Smerconish, a local Philadelphia conservative radio host was all agog about Obama's speech. He said "I hope this show's as good on TV as it is in person." Do you sense any movements in the Pennsylvania polls after the speech?
Anne E. Kornblut: I don't think we'll know how the speech played for a little while ... days, at least. But I'm sure the impact of the speech will be measured by both campaigns, so keep an eye out for what they have to say about it a week from now or so.
Anonymous: Yesterday, you wrote on The Trail Sen Clinton "did not directly mention" Pastor Wright in her campaign appearance. Does that mean she indirectly mentioned him? If so, how? If not, why does that qualification appear?
Anne E. Kornblut: Sen. Clinton's campaign has talked about Rev. Wright, and I thought it was important to specify that she, herself, did not, while her surrogates have. Also, her comments were in the context of Sen. Obama's speech, which was in the context of Rev. Wright's videotaped sermons, so to not mention the context would, I felt, have been odd. Thank you for the question.
Pastors and Clerics: My wife moved in with me six months before we got married. We thought we would save on rent. My pastor told me that she was a "whore" and that we we're going to hell. It didn't phase me -- kept on going to the same church, and think my wife of 12 years is one of the world's great women. Having gone to church schools all my life, I knew clerics were very prone to saying stupid and intemperate things.
Anne E. Kornblut: And another view ... thanks for sharing that interesting perspective.
Richmond, Va.: I'm seeing Obama's position regarding his pastor as being consistent with his stated position of talking with nations with whom we have disagreements. He disagrees with his pastor on issues, but he wasn't going to throw him under a bus, preferring instead to look into why there might be this anger. He has the same approach regarding unfriendly nations. He wasn't going to just not talk with them and write them off, but actually would talk to them. It seems to me you can determine who liked Obama's speech by their position on talking with unfriendly nations -- the "no talk/throw under a bus" vs. the "work it out" crowds. Thoughts?
Anne E. Kornblut: And another similar one...
Re: Power of video: I for one am happy that we didn't have this power -- especially with YouTube -- until recently. If some of MLK's more fiery statements had been broadcast on a loop for a six-day period, I don't know if the civil rights movement ever would have succeeded. Not to mention some of the things advocated by equal rights amendment advocates and the suffragette movement...
Anne E. Kornblut: It's amazing how things take off differently when they're filmed, isn't it?
To Detroit: Um, it is not a "false comparison" between Wright and his grandmother. Read his book -- he details the incident with her fear at the bus stop quite poignantly. Try facts before slinging around accusations, please.
Anne E. Kornblut: One last one here...
Anne E. Kornblut: So sorry I have to end right on time today -- there were lots of really provocative and good questions, especially about Sen. Obama's speech on race. I really appreciate everyone's taking the time to write in -- as always, I learned a lot -- and keep it coming. See you soon. Cheers from the road.
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.
| 156.146341 | 0.731707 | 0.97561 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302279.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302279.html
|
Washington Nationals Spring Training
|
2008032219
|
Barry Svrluga: Greetings folks. Thanks for stopping by. The Nationals' only off day of the spring is today, but that doesn't mean there's nothing going on here. Shawn Hill threw a live BP session this morning that went well (more on that on Nationals Journal). Jason Bergmann is going to throw in a minor league game (it's his turn today) that starts right now. I am sacrificing seeing that so I can hang out with y'all.
Lots of questions. Let's roll.
Washington, D.C.: Barry - How many Nats do you think would start for all but the elite teams in MLB? Going into this season, I would have said just Ryan Zimmerman for the position players. Rauch I think would be prominent in any bullpen, too (close, set-up, or primary middle guy). Having seen Milledge, I think we can add one more.
P.S. - don't say Chief outside of a big ballpark near a cardiac ward.
Barry Svrluga: I absolutely agree. I have been really impressed by Milledge. I may have written this elsewhere, but he seems to have a real plan when he's taking batting practice. He's not an outstanding outfielder right now, but offensively the ball just jumps off his bat. You know the guy has bat speed if you saw the homer he hit against Detroit yesterday. That came off Jeremy Bonderman, a legit starter, and it was a bomb. For a relatively little guy to hit the ball that far, he has to explode through the zone.
And yes, Rauch and Luis Ayala could have prominent places in almost anyone's pen. And keep an eye on Joel Hanrahan. It's possible -- possible -- this guy has figured it out.
Alexandria, Va.: Do you know how many tickets are being raffled by the team for opening night?
Barry Svrluga: I don't have an exact count, but it's not very many. They released 4,000 earlier, and season ticket holders -- of which there are 17,000-18,000 -- were allowed to buy extras, so that could certainly bump it up. Accounting for taking care of big-wigs and sponsors and the like, I'd say maybe a couple more thousand.
It seems likely now that the Orioles will trade Brian Roberts to the Cubs, and you say that the O's have been scouting the Nats. Do you really believe that the O's would make a trade with the Nats? Do they have anybody left to trade?
How many trades do you think Jim Bowden makes before Opening Day?
Barry Svrluga: This will be interesting to watch, the dynamic between the Nationals and Orioles. Stan Kasten and Andy MacPhail are quite close and have enormous respect for each other, so my guess is that any animosity between the two markets could be broken down by the relationship between the two club presidents.
This second base situation could be interesting to watch. In addition to Lopez and Belliard, the Nationals have Bret Boone and Pete Orr and even Willie Harris, who has played some second. There's certainly enough wiggle room for them to make a trade. But in order to find someone willing to take Lopez, they'd have to have someone trying to win now (Lopez is a free agent after the season) and that someone would have to believe Lopez would help in that process.
Washington, D.C.: Talk on the comments section of the NJ is a Felipe Lopez for Hayden Penn deal. That would be nice for the Nats.
Barry Svrluga: I think that is a bit of a dream-world scenario. My understanding is that Penn could easily end up in the O's rotation early in the season (though he was already sent to minor league camp). And the Orioles simply aren't looking to win now. They're in a rebuilding process that is very similar to what the Nationals are doing, and that does not/should not include bringing on a veteran second baseman/shortstop whose contract runs out at the end of the season.
I would keep an eye on the Nats and O's, however, if the O's trade Roberts and the Nats still have the Pete Orrs of the world. A lesser name could be dealt then.
Blacksburg, Va.: Is there anyone in the organization who could come close to playing shortstop at the major league level if both Guzman and Lopez become unavailable (by trade or injury)? If not, it should be a safe bet that both guys are going north with the team right?
Barry Svrluga: Oh, it is absolutely a safe bet that they're both going north with the team. I think Lopez's comments in the $.35/$.50-edition this morning were really made out of competitiveness. He wants to play. He feels like he came here with a good attitude -- a feeling backed up by everyone around him -- and thinks he can bounce back this year.
That being said, the Nationals want to see what Guzman can do when healthy given that he had a .380 OBP last year, and Belliard is just crushing the ball. It'll be interesting, no doubt.
How is Wily Mo handling his injury so far? Does he look to be maintaining the same time frame?
Barry Svrluga: It's early, and there's really no way to tell because he is not allowed to do any sort of physical activity right now. The injury is less than a week old. In general, though, oblique muscles are very finicky because they're involved in all sorts of movements. If he's back in four weeks, great. I wouldn't be surprised if it's six, though.
Arlington Nats Fan: If Felipe Lopez doesn't begin the season as a starter, doesn't that greatly lessen his trade value? Or is he not worth that much to begin with?
Barry Svrluga: It is a worthy question, and something that will have to be considered. To some, this might seem like backwards thinking, but ...
... Belliard is obviously professional about his role. He'll do what Acta asks him. There is some thinking that if the team benches Lopez, then it could lose him mentally for the whole season. There isn't that risk with Belliard.
A squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease theory? No doubt. But every decision has a ramification, and the Nationals must consider them all before naming a starter.
We are coming to Florida this weekend and have tickets to a Nats game. How early can we get there to see the minor league guys in action?
Barry Svrluga: Unfortunately, with all the minor leaguers now here, the games are moved till later in the day -- 1 p.m., right when the major league games start. If you're coming to Thursday's home game, a 7:05 p.m. start, you can get there early for the minor league game (which basically seem like scrimmages).
You can, however, come at 10 a.m. or so and watch the minor leaguers work out and take batting practice.
Washington, D.C.: Love your work but:
Nats have a logjam up the middle? They have three guys who wouldn't start on any contending team.
Also, can you please stop saying Dukes and Dameathook had issues and problems. One threatened to kill a woman and her children while the other committed a heinous act of violence against his girlfriend. Pretty serious stuff.
Barry Svrluga: Hey, I didn't say they had a logjam that would cause a problem for the Yankees. It's their own special logjam. They love it because it's there.
The other stuff is quite delicate, and I always think about how to phrase it.
Can we talk frankly? How short is Dukes leash? Will a misdemeanor end his stay? Or will it take a full-fledged felony?
Barry Svrluga: You think we're here to talk dishonestly? This is a frank chat. That's what we're here for.
The description that the Nationals gave when they traded for Dukes in December was that it would be very close to a no-tolerance policy. But anyone who read my story yesterday on him understands, too, that the club is not just trying to keep him quiet, they're trying to rehabilitate him, coming at it from many angles. I would think any sort of brush with the law would be enough, but I would also think there would be an innocent-till-proven-guilty aspect to it, too.
This is a complicated situation, and the Nationals are treating it as such.
Given all of the uncertainty surrounding the current health and effectiveness of John Patterson and Shawn Hill, who would you put your money on to take the mound for the Nats on Opening Night?
Barry Svrluga: Man, this is a tough one. Hill won't start that day (my money's on the 6th for him) and Patterson is slated to start March 31 in Philadelphia, though it'd be nice to see him rebound from his last outing.
Tim Redding openly lobbied for the start yesterday. Odalis Perez's turn currently falls on that day, so I suppose that wouldnt' be the most shocking development.
I can't go out on a limb right now. I'm going to plead the fifth. I just feel like something's going to be tweaked in the next several days, and we'll have a clearer answer.
What's your guess on the Johnson/Young competition? I know Dmitri hasn't played much, but it sounds like Johnson is finally back to his old self. Is Dmitri's role as Dukes' mentor going to tip the scales in his favor?
Barry Svrluga: Nick Johnson will be the first baseman -- barring a trade.
I just can't see it working out any other way. Young is not yet in good playing shape. Johnson is starting to find his swing -- his 3 for 3 with a walk and a double yesterday was about as good as he's looked, going the other way with the ball. And Johnson is simply a much better fielder.
Young's role as Dukes's mentor won't play a role in determining playing time, I don't believe. If he's truly to be a mentor, then he would have to act as a professional even when he wasn't playing.
The Yankees flew to Blacksburg, Va., yesterday to play the Hokies in an exhibition game to fulfill a promise made by George Steinbrenner after the mass murder at Virginia Tech last April. That plus they donated a cool $1 million to the Hokie Spirit fund. Too bad the Nats couldn't have worked out a similar game since we are the closest MLB team to Blacksburg and in essence, their hometown.
Barry Svrluga: A very nice gesture by the Yankees, no doubt. And the players who made the trip were impressive, too.
Croton-on-Hudson, NY: Barry, the main criticism of Felipe Lopez is that he has attitude problems and that he doesn't work hard. But that's at odds with what you quoted Manny Acta saying.
What is your impression of Felipe's effort this spring?
Barry Svrluga: There were definitely those criticisms about Lopez last year, when he was not focused and was not working hard -- by his own admission. Acta's praise of him comes from this spring, when he seems to have turned it around in those regard.
I think Lopez has played hard this spring. The results, however, have not been there as they have for Guzman and Belliard.
Cream Ridge, N.J.: You've quoted at least three of the starters as saying it would be a honor to pitch the opener at Nationals Park, but the Nats would give the ball to Odalis Perez? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Barry Svrluga: Unfortunately, the Opening Night start at Nationals Park has more to do than with just that one night. The Nationals are cognizant of what it means, and they want to put out the best pitcher possible. But they don't want to move anyone if it might upset a routine or force the pitcher not to be at his best.
This is a complicated equation. Perez, too, believes it would be an honor. And remember: He hasn't been named the starter for that day. It just works out that that would be his turn if they kept things the way they are now.
GTown: What's going to happen with the Rule 5 picks, Whitney and Guzman?
Barry Svrluga: They are currently trying to make trades with their original clubs -- Cleveland and Minnesota -- but are not terribly optimistic it'll work out. Guzman is a bit of a 'tweener -- a good hitter with no pop and not terrific speed. Whitney has some more power and I think they'd like to keep him, but they're not going to trade a true prospect for him.
Washington, D.C.: Hill - old and injured
Patterson - old and injury prone
Chico - young and talented
Bergman - young and more talented
So Bergman should be OD SP...
Barry Svrluga: Hill: 26 is old? Wow, I'd love to be able to think that.
Patterson, Redding and Perez are all 30. Also not that old.
Chico: Still working some things out, but may have discovered something in his delivery that will make him a better pitcher. My hunch is he gets to work on that in Columbus.
Bergmann: I don't think that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. They'd only have to hold him back one day.
Washington, D.C.: Reading between the lines, I find it hard to draw any conclusion about Shawn Hill's forearm other than that something is still wrong and it's going to stay with him this season. Question: do you know of pitchers managing such a condition (chronic forearm tightness/soreness) successfully over the course of a long season? If so, could you please give some examples? If not, I'm ready to not get my hopes up in the slightest for who should be the Nats' best starting pitcher this summer.
Barry Svrluga: Jim Bowden has mentioned a few pitchers he's dealt with -- Jose Rijo and Norm Charlton -- as having pitched through similar ordeals. The fear is that problems in the forearm tend to creep into the elbow. That hasn't been something the team of doctors who have seen Hill has said, and everyone insists there are no structural problems. Hill has already had elbow reconstruction surgery, so it's unlikely he'd have it again.
The hunch: If it's just discomfort, he'll pitch with it. If it develops into sharp pain, he won't.
Missing the action?: I've heard reports the back rows of sections 139-142 (behind the Nationals bullpen) in the new stadium won't be able to see fly balls. Is that true?
Barry Svrluga: Don't know. Will check.
Rosslyn, Va.: Barry -- Judging by the comments in the latest Nationals Journal video posting, have you seen the sense of humor of your commenters? Their persecution complex is already in midseason form.
Let Jon Forsythe know that was brilliant and to keep up the good work.
Barry Svrluga: Wow. Just checked out a few of the comments. Serious backlash there. I think Forsythe's videos have been a nice addition to the Journal for the second year in a row. But I'll make a note not to mention the ahemSkinsahem to the Journal loyalists. Yikes.
Bethesda, MD: Would you describe John Patterson as a "head case?"
If he doesn't pitch at least 20 games this season, will the Nationals finally cut bait? I've always liked JP, but I'm getting tired of reading these quotes from him.
Barry Svrluga: Patterson is a very interesting guy who analyzes himself very carefully. And he is quite honest about assessing himself for reporters. He's always trying to pinpoint exactly what went wrong or right.
Yes, he absolutely has times where stuff he can't control -- a bloop single, an error, etc. -- bothers him. But I think whether the Nationals bring him back will depend both on his health and on how much the talent around him develops. It's possible the Nationals could be in position within a year or two where if Patterson can't pitch, it won't matter as much, because there's talent on the way.
Rockville, Md.: Responses to two items posted already in the chat.
Re: Nats and VT. If I recall correctly, the Nats broke out the VT hats immediately after the tragedgy and did plenty to support everyone in Blacksburg. The Yankees through big George decided to do more, but don't bash the Nats, who've been very responsive.
Opening Day starter: Who started the opening game at OP@CY for the Birds? If you had to look it up, then being the opening starter for Nats Park shouldn't be too big a deal.
Barry Svrluga: Duly noted on both counts, Rockville.
Washington, DC: We always hear that the Wizards have a great locker room, which I take to mean a room few of professionals and few, if any, knuckleheads or cliques.
How would you describe the Nats locker room?
Barry Svrluga: It seems to me the Nationals' clubhouse is pretty good thus far. Hard to tell until we know the exact mix. But baseball clubhouses are a tad different than basketball locker rooms. There are twice as many guys, and considering there are players of different nationalities, it makes sense that some cliques or groups develop. That's no different here.
I've asked some guys about this, and all they care about is how the guys play on the field. They could be annoying in the clubhouse, but if they put everything they have into winning, then they'll be just fine with their teammates.
Young: Not in good playing shape? How could he let that happen? He is a major leaguer who got a big contract in the offseason. The fact that he is not in playing shape, with opening day a few days away, is a major red flag! Maybe he hasn't turned that corner, everyone is talking about.
Barry Svrluga: Keep in mind, however, that he is battling diabetes. I don't mean that to be a free pass. I do think it is a factor. The club is saying that they are tweaking Young's medicine to help find a way that he can get in better shape.
Has there been any indication of any move for a highly touted middle infield prospect? I have to think that our bullpen, which is the only place with a real logjam (Schroder, Colome, Rauch, Ayala...the list goes on!), Bowden can find someone who a team with a weak bullpen (coughyankeescough) could bite on. How do we get our MI to where it needs to be?
Barry Svrluga: This might be the organization's most significant need -- a near-major league ready shortstop or second baseman. They have some guys they like in the low-minors -- Esmailyn Gonzalez and Stephen King and Ian Desmond, etc. But they don't have that real hot commodity that could step in if Guzman and/or Lopez went down.
I would expect this to be addressed in the draft, however. And yes, if they can find someone who wants a Nick Johnson or a Dmitri Young or some bullpen help and they're willing to part with a top-flight middle infield prospect, I'd expect the Nats would make that deal. They know both Lopez and Guzman are gone after this year, anyway.
D.C.: A friend in Philly told me that Mitch Williams (now some sort of radio personality in Philly, apparently) feels that Sean Hill's throwing motion guarantees that he will have continued chronic elbow problems. Williams was predicting that, absent a complete change in mechanics, Hill will never last a year.
I'm not sure how much credence to give to someone nicknamed "Wild Thing," but have you heard anything similar about Hill?
Barry Svrluga: I have not heard that, and to my eye, there's nothing strange about Hill's motion. However, Mitch Williams certainly knows more about pitching that I do. It's an intriguing thought, and I'll ask around about it.
Tijuana, Baja California: Why are the Nats using the designated hitter in home games, and even in games against NL opponents. It is bad enough that we have to suffer this stupidity when they play in AL parks, why do the use it when they do not have to? Why are they allowed to use it??
Barry Svrluga: They will stop using it now. It's a way to get more position players at-bats through the first several weeks of spring training. They can, say, give Ryan Zimmerman some at-bats without having him play the field, or allow Nick Johnson or Dmitri Young to play first base one day and DH the next, getting six or seven or eight at-bats.
Forget SP, who's catching?: Considering injuries, which catcher will start opening day?
Barry Svrluga: I still think it's Lo Duca, who is reporting no problems and is catching Jason Bergmann as we speak. But believe me, we'll have to monitor that situation over the next week. Lo Duca is scheduled to be the designated hitter tomorrow night, then catch in a major league game on Friday.
Alexandria, Va.: Let's not forget that Bergman practically no-hit the Braves last year....
Barry Svrluga: Indeed. And he has beaten John Smoltz as well.
Reston, Va.: I don't really understand what Bret Boone is doing. He appears to be a long shot to make the team and has said that he will not play in the bus leagues or accept a bench role. Why is he wasting his time at Spring Training?
Barry Svrluga: I think Boone wanted to prove to himself that he could still do it. He clearly put behind some personal issues and wanted to see if he could still play. He's had some moments this spring, but I agreee -- unless there's a trade, there's no fit for him on this team. He might, however, accept a trade elsewhere.
He's hitting only .189, I believe. But his defense has been better than I would've expected.
Stadium Name: Hey Barry, what's going on with the sale of the naming rights to the new ballpark? Why don't you start a contest on your Nats Journal soliciting some fun corporate names from your readers. I kind of like the ring of "Five Guys Park,", myself.
Barry Svrluga:"Five Guys Park" would be great, though let's hope that's not how many people show up each night.
I talked to Stan Kasten about this last week, and I'm going to write about it before we leave here. They're quite comfortable going into the new park without a naming rights deal. Kasten describes it as more complicated and more important than any other sponsorship because it's for so long and for so much money. But I'll lay it out there in a story pretty soon.
Alexandria, Va.: It was looking like Chico was the odd man out, but now that his stuff is apparently vastly improved due to the new windup, how is the organization viewing him?
Barry Svrluga: The new windup has been used in only one start, so it's not enough to truly say he's a changed man. However, it's an encouraging place to start. I think he becomes the odd man out because they can tell him to go refine that motion in the minors, and he could very well be the first guy called up when/if someone goes down. (Who's kidding who on the "if"? It'll be "when.")
Reston, Va.: How many games do you predict Shawn Hill will start this year?
Barry Svrluga: I'll go with 24. I'd love to say 34, but I'm realistic. Or maybe 24 isn't realistic. He's only made that many starts once in his eight-year pro career.
Is D.C really ready?: What's your prediction on Opening Day traffic jams? Is parking and shuttling from RFK going to work out?
Barry Svrluga: The good thing about Opening Night is that it's on a Sunday, so they can kind of walk through everything without the crush of traffic that would happen on a weeknight.
Right now, I have no idea on the RFK shuttle and how well it will work. But it will be one of the many things we'll be watching on that first night. The more important date, in some ways: April 7, the first regular-ol' home game that falls on a weeknight. That could be a true test.
Time for Some Predictions: Barry,
Time for you to give us a W/L prediction for the season and final standings in the NL East. Here are mine. 81 - 81. .500 ball. Next to last place in the NL East. 1. Mets 2. Phillies 3. Braves 4. Nats 5. Fish.
Barry Svrluga: I think 81-81 would be a fine accomplishment. I'm not ready to pin myself down just yet, though I'd say anywhere from a five-eight game improvement over last year's 73-89 mark would be where I'll fall.
As for the NL East, I'm having a tough time at the top. Think both the Mets and the Phillies have flaws, but given the age of some of the Mets' key parts, I might be more concerned about them.
Blacksburg, Va.: How do you feel about the mentality that Perez has not earned his possible role as the opening day starter because he has only been on the roster for a couple of weeks? Do people in the organization also share these views or are they just looking for the best option to win the game?
Barry Svrluga: The problem I have with that view is, who HAS earned that right? Shawn Hill is 6-10 lifetime. John Patterson is 18-25. Jason Bergmann is 8-8. Tim Redding is 24-40.
It's not like Perez would be chosen over Smoltz and Hudson or Peavy and Chris Young or Dan Haren and Brandon Webb.
Arllington, VA: If Nick Johnson looks like the Opening Day 1B at this point, is Da Meat Hook okay coming off the bench? He'd seem to have less trade value and is also part of the Dukes "support structure"?
Barry Svrluga: Playing Johnson from the start could also serve to increase his trade value as he proves himself healthy. The Nationals could trade Johnson for pitching or a middle infield prospect and then move Young into the starting spot and have improved their club because of it.
That said, I'd love to see what Johnson could do in a full season in Washington. Really changes the lineup in a way no one else on this team can (left-handed, high OBP, etc.).
Washington, DC: I'm pretty confident Rick Sutcliffe pitched for the Orioles in their first game at Camden Yards.
Barry Svrluga: I have not looked that up. Could be.
Barry Svrluga: Folks, I've got to get to writing. Thanks for dropping by, and by the time we chat next week, it'll be just four days before the opening of Nationals Park, and we should have some answers to the position questions and the rotation.
Also, tune back in here tomorrow at 1:30 p.m., because Ryan Zimmerman is having a chat. Should be fun.
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.
|
Live from Florida, Washington Post writer Barry Svrluga takes your questions and comments about how the Nats look this spring, the new stadium and what to expect from the team this season.
| 158.657143 | 0.914286 | 1.714286 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/02/DI2008030202108.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/02/DI2008030202108.html
|
Real Life Politics
|
2008032219
|
Ruth Marcus: Hi everyone. Looking forward to answering your questions today.
Anonymous: I am very glad that Mrs Clinton is going to win the battle, because she is a woman just like me -- the only difference is that in our culture women are not supposed to win, they are just expected to be good and obedient. I feel honored to see that a woman is going to be the president of the United States. I wish her luck and victory.
Ruth Marcus: Hi -- I'm not sure that your assumption about who is going to "win the battle" is correct. The battle is continuing for a long time, as far as I can see, and I'd give the edge to Obama at this point because he is ahead in pledged delegates.
Anonymous: Would you also state that "if Obama doesn't win, it's not because of his race"? Also, do you think you are too liberal to be objective?
washingtonpost.com: The Force of Gender (Post, March 5)
Ruth Marcus: I'm not supposed to be objective -- I'm a columnist, and I'm supposed to provide both analysis and opinion. And I'm sorry, but there are too many double negatives in your first question to make sure I'm answering it properly. I think: if Obama doesn't win, race may well be a factor in that, although not the only factor.
St. Paul, Minn.: Ms. Marcus -- Thank you for your excellent idea in your column today about a three-way debate. Perhaps then Sen. McCain could be asked why, for all his self-proclaimed foreign policy expertise, he seemed not to know the most basic facts about the political situation in Iraq and needed Sen. Lieberman to set him straight. I fear that, in the long process to name a Democratic nominee, this very disturbing fact quickly will be forgotten.
washingtonpost.com: Debate Dream Team (Post, March 19)
Ruth Marcus: I thought that was an odd comment from Sen. McCain, and I do think that it would have gotten a lot more attention were it not coming from someone who generally is judged to have a lot of foreign policy expertise.
Wilmington, Del.: Your column and George Will's recent column on "experience" both left me wondering about the "what ifs" of Clinton's career trajectory. What if she never had been a political spouse? Would she have still made her way to the U.S. Senate? From what state? If so, would she ever have been considered a potential presidential candidate, at least without an initial stop as vice president? What would separate her from a Mikulski or Landrieu, both of whom are, while each very different, wonderfully skilled politicians, neither of whom I ever can remember being spoken of as potential presidential candidates?
Or, more basically, would she ever have even entered into elected politics without having started at such a high office? It is easy enough to imagine her having made her way to a senior advisory or cabinet position absent having been married to Bill Clinton. I must admit it is harder to imagine her working her way up the elected ranks like Deborah Stabenow or Maria Cantwell without being the celebrity candidate with such special experience.
Ruth Marcus: We'll never know -- but she was the commencement speaker at Wellesley, graduate of Yale Law School, and friends did argue that she was throwing away a brilliant career to follow Bill Clinton to Arkansas ... so, hard to say what might have happened in an alternate universe.
Washington: Is there an eloquent female preacher in American history?
Ruth Marcus: Probably not a lot of female preachers in American history.
Yonkers, N.Y.: Ms. Marcus, I'm sure that I'm the only one who cares, but on your NPR spot yesterday, when you and the other guest were asked to name the "gold standard" of presidential writings -- not counting Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, of course -- there's a very obvious answer that I'm sure many of the listeners knew: Grant's memoirs are looked upon as one of the great narratives ever written in American literature. Not so good a president, but a great writer. Your host should have known that, too. And the general was dying of cancer when he wrote it. Otherwise, I liked the radio spot. Nixon's books are unintentionally a fascinating psychological study, by the way.
washingtonpost.com: Books by Clinton, McCain, Obama Offer Insight (NPR, March 4)
Ruth Marcus: I was sorry that I didn't bring up Churchill's memoirs, actually. (Yes, I know, not a president.)
Chaska, Minn.: There's been a lot of talk about Hillary's failure to make her tax returns public, but practically none about the fact that John McCain hasn't done so, either. Why is that?
Ruth Marcus: Well, we have editorialized pushing both of them to release their returns, and this is a good reminder to push Sen. McCain again. Sen. Clinton at least has said she'll have hers out next month.
Boston: Ruth, I am so confused, could you please help? Is Sen. Obama a dangerous Muslim or a crazy Christian? I'm getting my smears all confused...
Ruth Marcus: A friend of mine suggested that this week Sen. Obama would have been better off being Muslim. I thought it was a pretty good line.
Anonymous: Most analyses I have seen describe McCain's long break until the convention and general election as universally positive for him, including giving him time to strengthen his support among conservatives. Obama and Clinton will at least stay in the headlines, and the more McCain tells Republicans just how conservative he is, the more he would seem to risk alienating the independents who until now have seen him as the most moderate Republican running.
Ruth Marcus: Nonetheless, I'd rather be in McCain's position, and from his point of view the longer the Democrats bicker between themselves the better. He can raise money and start reaching out not only to his base but to independents and Reagan Democrats.
Rockland, Maine: Buried in a Slate article about autobiographical books that have turned out to have large sections that are untrue is a statement that Barack Obama's autobiography in which he says his father was born in Kenya and spent years there is untrue. It says he was born in and spent 24 years in California. Is this true? If it is, why is it not on the front page of every newspaper, including The Washington Post?
washingtonpost.com: Worst Publishing Week Ever (Slate, March 4)
Ruth Marcus: That's news to me. He certainly spent time in the United States, but I don't think there's any suggestion that his father was not a Kenyan with long-standing ties to and experience in that country.
Minneapolis: In the last election cycle, much was made about John Kerry "marrying well" into the wealth of Teresa Heinz Kerry. We haven't seen similar rhetoric about McCain. It seems unlikely that McCain would be where he is today if he hadn't married into the wealthy and politically connected Hensley family in Arizona.
Ruth Marcus: What makes you say that? He has a pretty impressive family lineage of his own, was a war hero, and hasn't benefited from her money in terms of putting it into his campaigns, as far as I know. I'm not accepting your premise that John Kerry benefited from his wife's wealth, though.
Boston: Posting early because of a meeting. I thought the Obama speech was great, but I'm shocked at how much traction he's getting for the "crazy uncle" comparison. We choose our pastors; we don't choose our uncles.
Ruth Marcus: Good point. I was moved by his grandmother comparison, though.
Fremont, Calif.: Regarding Grant's memoirs, I was under the impression that Mark Twain had a great deal to do with the quality of the writing.
Ruth Marcus: Now I'm going to have to confess that I haven't read them -- but I will.
Anonymous: How does anyone in the media or a rival campaign say Obama's speech fell short without appearing to race bait the candidate? For example, Michael Gerson this morning called Rev. Wright a political extremist (one of the most common terms used to describe terrorists since Sept. 11). Obama's white grandmother's uneasiness about black men on the street, meanwhile, simply suggested "issues."
Gerson's unwritten implication then becomes that Obama's unwillingness to completely disown Rev. Wright (and the Black Church in a broader context) makes him an "extremist sympathizer." This (fill in the blank)-baiting is similar to the red/race-baiting defenders of Jim Crow who discredited civil rights advocates as communist sympathizers in the 1940s-1960s. Hats off to the Clinton campaign, so far, for recognizing this trap. This is one fascinating election.
washingtonpost.com: A Speech That Fell Short (Post, March 19)
Ruth Marcus: Well, I was very impressed by the speech, but I think it is possible to criticize Sen. Obama's involvement with Rev. Wright without being racist.
Lieberman Whispering to McCain: Given that Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, will he have a price to pay for correcting McCain when he confused the whole Sunni/Shia, Iran/Iraq split? Even though I, as a Democrat, didn't get upset, most liberals are probably apoplectic.
Ruth Marcus: I think the Democrats have many other issues with Sen. Lieberman that just make that a footnote.
Boston: Count me among the many who wonder why the comments of the Rev. Wright have caused such consternation, while the equally horrendous comments of the Rev. Hagee (who believes Jews are going to be incinerated in the final days except for a "remnant" who agree to become Christians) get a free pass. I know some Christians agree with the Rev. Hagee, but most find him rather extreme. So why the double standard in media outrage? Nobody pressures Sen. McCain to denounce these and other hateful comments the Rev. Hagee made. What's going on here?
Ruth Marcus: I have been having this argument with a friend of mine. Chuck, are you reading? I think Sen. McCain's relationship with Rev. Hagee is far less close and far less long-standing than Sen. Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright, and Sen. McCain did reject some of Rev. Hagee's troubling statements.
Minneapolis: Can we expect the major McCain gaffe on Iran and al-Qaeda to break through the Obama-Wright chatter? Certainly, if Obama or Clinton had to be corrected by someone else on the podium regarding such a topic, it would be a major story and evidence that Democrats weren't credible on national security.
Ruth Marcus: No, and yes. Probably won't break through the chatter, and I agree, it would be a bigger deal if the speaker had been different.
For Boston: Sen. Obama is a Christian with a crazy (ex)-pastor who thinks the U.S. government created the AIDS virus to kill African Americans. I hope that clarifies it. This is the most insane presidential campaign in history -- and it's only March!
Ruth Marcus: I think it's a wonderful presidential campaign with three serious, credible candidates who each deserve an enormous amount of respect. Seriously. And I'm loving every week of this campaign.
Rockville, Md.: I would like to suggest the possibility that there is a biological basis why we humans seek out a male as opposed to a female to fill certain kinds of leadership positions. We don't have a problem with women governors or senators, but when it comes to the U.S. presidency, deep down we want a father figure who is wise, strong and decisive, while at the same time responsive to us and concerned about our well-being within the wider world. Do you think that there is any validity in this view? Is it possible that even after we have one or more female presidents that we will still have a built-in biological basis that gives a few unique men an inherent advantage over any woman?
Ruth Marcus: This is a reference to a column of a few weeks ago, when I had an organizing break-down that kept me from the chat. But ... as to father figures, without taking anything away from my husband, I hope my daughters see me as wise, strong, decisive, responsive and concerned, and I don't see any reason why voters won't overcome their apprehensions once the ceiling is broken for the first time. I don't see the built-in biological basis.
Virginia Beach, Va.: The Slate article another poster referred to is a parody! The "facts" about Obama's father were intended as a joke.
Re: Female preachers: Amie Semple McPherson, Barbara Brown Taylor, among others...
Ruth Marcus: And more FYI.
Is there an eloquent female preacher in American history?: Sojourner Truth?
Ruth Marcus: And one last one.
Fairfax, Va.: Comment: To infer that, if Hilary does not obtain the nomination, it is not due to her gender may be somewhat incorrect. There were more than several news interviews of voters who specifically stated that they were not voting for her solely because she was a woman. Granted that one can not extrapolate and generalize to a broader population, but I think it is safe to say there is a meaningful number of voters who still are caught up in gender issues.
Ruth Marcus: Okay, yes, but there also are a meaningful number who are tipped toward Sen. Clinton because of gender.
Political Marriage: John Kerry had his career path long before he met Theresa Heinz and John McCain was successful long before he married his current wife. Let's get back to psychoanalyzing the Clinton's marriage.
Ruth Marcus: Will we never tire of psychoanalyzing the Clintons' marriage? I'm tired of it.
Taneytown, Md.: You are right that this is an amazing campaign, with candidates worthy of respect. Can you imagine being the reporter covering the New York and New Jersey statehouses the past couple of years? Good heavens!
Ruth Marcus: Well, that would have been fun in its own way ... and the fun in New York seems to be continuing.
Minneapolis: The Hensley family bankrolled McCain's first congressional run, and their power in the Arizona Republican Party cleared the path for him.
washingtonpost.com: A Beer Baron and a Powerful Publisher Put McCain on a Political Path (New York Times, Feb. 21, 2000)
Ruth Marcus: A McCain point on his wife's family. I'm not sure what "bankrolled" means in this context. There are limits to what individuals can contribute to candidates.
Hamilton, Va.: I am a middle-aged white guy, teen-aged during the '60s, drafted. I realize that the Rev. Wright's comments are great fodder for Obama's opponents, but I have to say that I wasn't particularly offended by them. It does not surprise me that there are blacks, especially of Wright's generation who don't have the highest opinion of white folks. Do you blame them? I thought Obama's speech was quite elegant -- a biracial man calmly addressing the issue is a great way to bring the subject up. It has to be addressed before November anyway.
Ruth Marcus: The speech was elegant -- nice word for it. I'm not sure Sen. Obama would have chosen this way to bring the subject up, and I would fault his campaign for not knowing -- as they claim not to -- about some of Rev. Wright's more incendiary statements. And I differ with you about their offensiveness -- I thought they were, to use Sen. Obama's word, appalling.
Rockville, Md.: "I'd give the edge to Obama at this point because he is ahead in pledged delegates." Come on, why do you think they have super delegates? Not to stand in for the potted plants. Just like pay day.
Ruth Marcus: Well, listen to Speaker Pelosi's statement that the superdelegates should follow the lead of the pledged delegates. I think that is what is likely to happen, absent circumstances that push them strongly to oppose Sen. Obama.
Bethesda, Md,: If we can forgive Obama's pastor for his remarks because of his age and the era in which he was brought up, shouldn't Geraldine Ferraro get the same pass from his campaign? Aren't they the ones who started the fuss about her statement?
Ruth Marcus: Yes, they started the fuss, and Sen. Obama made an allusion to Ferraro's statements yesterday suggesting an equivalence. By the way, I thought what she said was way less problematic than what Rev. Wright said.
Re: Hagee, et al.: Maybe McCain doesn't have the same kind of close relationship with Hagee and Parsley, but it is really interesting to see how crazy the media gets about the inflammatory statements by Wright when equally (at the least) outrageous statements by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and numerous other high-profile white fundamentalist preachers routinely are brushed off as just the way they are, those much-loved and revered (and quite politically powerful and connected) old guys. See, for example, how quickly their statements blaming the U.S. for bringing Sept. 11 and Katrina on itself fell off the radar screen. Please.
Ruth Marcus: I don't know ... seems to me there has been quite a bit of attention to their inflammatory statements, and McCain took quite a bit of grief when he made his pilgrimage to see Falwell.
McCain's Lack of Knowledge: Last month, Sen. McCain excoriated Sen. Obama on Iraq. In his attack McCain had the Sunni/Shia issue wrong. NPR didn't correct him, but I laughed ... until I realized that Bush and Co. were also as unaware of basic facts, and that ignorance helped drag us into this morass. McCain knows how to talk tough. More than that I sincerely doubt.
Ruth Marcus: He has seemed pretty knowledgeable about foreign policy and engaged in the issue when I've seen him, much more so than on domestic issues. I didn't hear the NPR interview.
Cary, N.C.: "But when it comes to the U.S. presidency, deep down we want a father figure who is wise, strong and decisive, while at the same time responsive to us and concerned about our well-being within the wider world..." Substitute "U.S. presidency" for "British prime minister" and you're talking about Margaret Thatcher...
Ruth Marcus: Interesting to think about whether a Republican or Democratic woman would have an easier time being elected.
Seattle: Given that men have in large numbers jumped ship from supporting the GOP for the presidency and Congress this year -- even in conservative Rhode Island the second place winner Obama got three times the voters that the total GOP vote was -- how can this help Clinton, given that she can't convince men who are independent or Republican to support her?
Ruth Marcus: But there is some evidence in the polls that Obama loses Democratic votes in a general election matchup with McCain. It's so hard to say at this point who's got the edge.
Minneapolis: It's true that McCain doesn't have the relationship with Hagee. But then shouldn't it be easier for McCain to completely renounce Hagee? Why does McCain accept his support at all? Republicans have spent 30 years courting right-wing hatemongers without the media penalizing for them it.
Ruth Marcus: Question: to what extent should we hold candidates responsible for the statements of their supporters? Ferraro? Wright? Hagee?
Ruth Marcus: What does everything think should be done at this point in Michigan and Florida? Or about Michigan and Florida?
Detroit: I'm a McCain backer, and to me his slip meant that either he was tired from a long trip and was having trouble keeping things straight, which concerns me somewhat, or he was tired and let slip classified information from recent intel briefings, which really would concern me. What do you think -- am I reading too many spy novels?
Ruth Marcus: You probably can't read too many spy novels! I doubt the classified information part, though. I'd bet on "tired" if those were the two options.
Midlothian, Va.: The comments the Rev. Hagee made didn't specifically point to a large majority of Americans and shout " you are the cause of the world's evils!" Wright's attempts to force culpability for incidents and slights (real or imagined) on a general populace unequivocally would be called racism if he were white, and they would fit perfectly in the pantheon of anti-American and anti-Semitic statements from both 1930s Germany and modern-day Palestine.
Ruth Marcus: Wonder how you'd react to his statements if you were Catholic?
Appalling and Problematic: I have to disagree with you about Ferraro and Wright. Ferraro implied that the only reason Obama had come so far was affirmative action, and that white people giving him support he hasn't earned. How can you think this is not offensive, problematic or flat-out racist? This from a woman (Ferraro) who was offered a position solely because of her gender? Is it impossible to believe that a black man could be more intelligent and qualified than many of his peers?
On the pastor: You label his comments appalling, and seem to hold the opinion that there was no reason anyone ever should have said any of these things. Well, I'm sorry if some of my fellow citizens had their feelings hurt, but would anyone like to acknowledge that black churches exist because white people wouldn't let black people worship next to them?
I don't believe that AIDS was created by the government to kill black people, but I do know that there have been too many incidents of white doctors who were supported by federal money experimenting on black people -- and Tuskegee is only the most public, not the worst. I don't think that most citizens today are overtly racist, but I do know that through the '70s (and perhaps the '80s) our own government spied on and harassed people who dared to speak out for civil rights.
Given all of this, why are you acting so shocked? Do you expect a black church to say nothing but good things about white people and the government? And despite all the rhetoric, it seems to have escaped you that black people are seriously overrepresented in the armed forces. Looks like angry preaching can indeed complement patriotism.
Ruth Marcus: "God damn America"" got me. Also the chickens coming home to roost, on the Sunday after Sept. 11. That doesn't take away from the idea that there are legitimate reasons for anger on the part of black Americans.
As to Ferraro, I thought she said a stupid thing, in part because it was in the context of knowing -- and stating publicly -- that she was picked for the veep slot because of her gender. She thought, incorrectly, that that inoculated her in some way when she commented on Obama. I think Sen. Obama is an extraordinarily gifted politician; I think that anyone who has political ambition in America and looks around at Congress or the presidency, and somehow had a magical choice about what race/gender to be, would have to choose being a white guy. That said, I do think that Sen. Obama's race has been an element, a positive one, in catapulting him to a position of prominence.
Maryland: Question: to what extent should we hold candidates responsible for the statements of their supporters? Ferraro? Wright? Hagee? It bothers me that the Obama's would choose to support, for 20 years, a church that I would not feel comfortable attending as a white person. My church, Episcopalian, is currently in a huge battle over the ordination of gays that is splitting the church. I wouldn't feel comfortable if the Obamas went to an Episcopal church that sat on the anti-gay side of this issue either. It's about whether or not I feel included by the institutions that mold my president -- and a president has to include everyone.
Ruth Marcus: Nicely put point, but couldn't one continue to belong to a church that opposed ordination of gays without being labeled homophobic? There might be other reasons to belong to that church.
Re: Michigan and Florida: Is Michigan still trying to work out a do-over? If so, bully for them. Florida's Democratic. Party is showing staggering incompetence -- what exactly is so hard about scheduling a revote by June? Money? Call George Soros, for pity's sake!
Ruth Marcus: The do-over seems to be at death's door, unfortunately. I agree about the Democratic Party -- it really has let this get completely fouled up.
Houston: Seat the Florida delegation as-is (it was a level playing field). Do the Michigan primary ever -- there were ballot problems.
Ruth Marcus: The Obama campaign would argue that it was not a level playing field. He comes into the campaign with voters knowing less about him, and has benefited by being able to campaign in states and introduce himself to voters there.
Florida and Michigan: There is no solution that won't "disenfranchise" some group. If Florida and Michigan become decisive in the nomination battle, the convention will be an unmitigated disaster.
Ruth Marcus: I don't think they could become decisive, but they might point toward some clarity. And how is there not an unmitigated disaster for Democrats without them?
Ruth Marcus: Okay, that's all for now. See you in two weeks. Thanks for the great questions.
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.
| 124.585366 | 0.682927 | 0.878049 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/18/DI2008031802260.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/18/DI2008031802260.html
|
Supreme Court Hears D.C. Handgun Case
|
2008032219
|
Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes Tuesday, March 19 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the court's reaction to arguments for and against Washington, D.C.'s restrictions on handgun ownership.
Robert Barnes: Good afternoon. It has been fascinating covering Washington security guard Dick Anthony Heller's challenge of the District of Columbia's gun law, which includes a ban on the private possession of handguns. It is rare for the court to be able to put its mark on a part of the the Constitution that has gone so long without a definitive interpretation. I'll try to answer your questions about the case and what it was like to observe the court's deliberations yesterday.
Reston, Va.: Would the District of Columbia have had an easier time before the Supreme Court if they had established a gun control system where residents could own handguns if they passed background checks?
Robert Barnes: Part of the reason that the law's challengers picked the DC law to test the Second Amendment is because it is the strictest in the country. Even the federal appeals court that struck it down said it was clear that government may restrict gun ownership in a number of ways. But it said an outright ban of handguns went too far.
Washington, D.C.: So, if the Court upholds a collective-rights view of the Amendment, is D.C. therefore required to institute a militia (not under federal control), so as to vitiate that right?
Robert Barnes: No. I believe it was the solicitor general who pointed out that the District has its own militia law, and of course there is the DC National Guard. One of the interesting questions raised yesterday was about whether the Second Amendment really provides anything in modern times if not for an individual right of gun ownership. Walter Dellinger, who represented the city, said there was no reason to make up new reasons for an amendment if it is no longer necessary.
Niles, Mich.: Did Justices Alito, Thomas, or Stevens ask questions or seem to be active (pleased or displeased) with the lawyers for the opposing sides? There were no "sound bites" on the NPR coverage I heard from 1/3 of the justices I assumed were present.
Robert Barnes: Justice Thomas does not usually ask questions at oral arguments. I believe it has now been two years since he asked the last one. The other two were quite involved. Justice Alito asked several questions about whether the DC law really provided residents a means of self-defense, since rifles and shotguns must be kept either unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a triggerlock. Alito said handguns were most commonly used for self-defense. Justice Stevens was probably the most critical among the justices of the individual rights idea. He noted that only two state constitutions at the time mentioned gun ownership for self-defense, and that most spoke of guns being necessary for the "common defense.''
Herndon, Va.: Although I know the Supreme Court would never take it to this extreme, I wish it would rule the D.C. law as unconstitutional, but add that it's legal (and recommended) that D.C. or any other jurisdiction require that a person with a weapon be required to take weapons training before it could be kept at home.
Robert Barnes: If the court rules that DC's law is unconstitutional and that there is an individual right, we could see all sorts of challenges as to what kinds of restrictions on gun ownership are allowed. The court has many options before it about how to decide the case, but you'll remember that Chief Justice Roberts has on many occasions said the court should rule as narrowly as possible to settle the issue in front of it.
As a resident of D.C. (and I'm employed in D.C.), I strongly support the challenge. I am a small female who, because of work constraints, must travel alone and in areas of the city that have high crime rates, so I feel vulnerable.
I have been robbed at knifepoint.
I would welcome the ability to carry a handgun for personal protection.
It seems to me that it is bad enough that the District's citizens suffer from lack of representation in Congress, must we also be barred from our second amendment rights at the risk of life and limb?
Robert Barnes: Your question is a good example of what the previous questioner was asking. Even if the DC law is struck, there is certainly no guarantee--in fact, I would think it unlikely--that the city council would pass a law that allowed residents to carry handguns outside their homes.
Washington, D.C.: Did the section of the US Code that states that "...all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years..." are members of the unorganized militia come up during the course of this case. I've always found that interesting, since I would read Federally-mandated membership in the militia to constitute being well-regulated. That being current law seems to any debate over the meaning of the prefatory clauses of the second amendment irrelevant to a large portion of the population.
Robert Barnes: It came up in a limited way. Roberts said an argument that "the militia" is composed of "the people'' seemed to undermine the city's argument there was no individual right. Other justices pointed to the limitations to show that there have always been some restrictions on who may own guns.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Have you explored some of the potential political ramifications from this decision. Are activists on whichever side loses more apt to react and begin organizing with a greater intensity? If so, how might that impact elections?
Robert Barnes: That's a good question. As a former political reporter, I can tell you that while polls show the public is often split between protecting gun ownership rights and controlling guns, the political arena is not nearly so balanced. Gun rights advocates are far more organized, enthusiastic and election-oriented. I think most political observers would agree that the court outcome many Democrats might like--that it is a collective rather than individual right--would be an incredible motivator for gun rights advocates, who tend to support Republicans. As a pointed out in one story, Sen. McCain signed on to the brief urging the court to uphold the lower court and find DC's law unconstitutional. Sens. Obama and Clinton have said they believe the Second Amendment provides for individual rights, but is subject to reasonable government restrictions, about which they have not been too specific.
Clifton, Va.: I am sorry, the government should stay out my business unless I am doing something illegal. I should be allowed to have claymore mines, C4, machine guns, light antitank weapons, surface-to-air missiles if I want and pass a background check to go along with my guns. The government will not defend me when it all hits the fan. I have to.
Robert Barnes: Hang on while I post a question from a fellow Virginian from Alexandria--more than just miles separate those places, no?--and I'll respond
Alexandria, Va.: If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals an unlimited right to "bear arms", can we expect that any restrictions on the type of weapon desired will be lifted? I'm looking forward to acquiring a bazooka, a flame-thrower and a charged-particle beam cannon in order to defend myself against, well, whatever threatens me. An arm is an arm is an arm, yes?
Robert Barnes: The point you make is one that bothered Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who represents the federal government before the court. He worried that the decision of the appeals court--which said that because a handgun fits the definition of an "arm'' in the Second Amendment, DC was not permitted to ban it--would endanger federal gun control legislation, such as restrictions on machine guns. There was much back and forth on this yesterday--Alan Gura, who represented Heller, said he thought machine guns could be banned--but I think it likely that there would be further litigation on which weapons were allowed and which were not.
Springfield, Va.: How did Gura do yesterday? Prior to yesterday, he was portrayed in some quarters as being a bit of a neophyte. Did he hold his own?
Robert Barnes: He was arguing his first case before the Supreme Court and his nervousness was apparent at first--Justice Scalia told him to slow down because he was talking so fast they couldn't understand him. But then he took a deep breath, and I think most who watched his performance thought he did well. It probably helped that he had an argument with which many of the justices agreed. I wonder if some gun rights activists were pleased with some of his statements about the way in which gun ownership could be regulated. But his job is to win the case for his client.
Los Angeles: Was the argument made that in the 18th century "bear arms" referred to quasi-military activity, and wasn't synonymous with "own a gun" which people were anyway permitted to do by common law for self-defense against wild animals, Indians, and so forth?
Robert Barnes: It was made and was well-received by some and hotly disputed by others. My colleague Dana Milbank in his column captured this exchange. "Wait a minute: You're not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?" Justice David Souter asked Solicitor General Paul Clement. "I would say that, and so would Madison and so would Jefferson," Clement verified. "In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms?" a dubious Souter replied. The solicitor general thought so. "Jefferson wrote, and Madison proposed, specifically used in the hunting context, the phrase 'bear a gun,' " he explained. You quickly learn covering the court that every argument has a counter-argument.
Union Station, D.C.: What are the local political ramifications if the D.C. gun ban is shot down? Mayor Fenty made the decision to appeal the appellate court's ruling, much to the concern of national gun control advocates. The new acting attorney general fired the lawyer working on the Supreme Court brief a few days before it was due. Do you think either Fenty or Nickels will face political consequences for deciding to appeal this case if the Court rules against the city?
Robert Barnes: I think it's probably just as likely that DC residents will be glad the city decided to appeal. Our polling shows great popular support for the law, and there's probably a bit of pride over home rule. As for firing the lawyers who were working on the case, that was certainly a messy episode. But if DC loses at the Supreme Court, I don't think that there will be many who think it was because of the quality of the lawyering.
Dunn Loring, VA: Any idea where Justice Breyer came up with his figure of "80,000 to 100,000 handgun deaths a year"? According to the NY Times, the figure was less than 30,000 in 2004, so was Breyer intentionally exagerrating the number or was he just mistaken?
Robert Barnes: No that was unclear. I wonder if he misspoke when he said "a year'' and had some other time period in mind.
Wyckoff, N.J.: The Second Amendment is written very plainly and "interpretation is not needed." At the time, the Framers were writing the "rights of the people" not the government, since we just finished using arms against an oppressive government and we, "the people" may at sometime in the future, need them again for the same reason. That was and still is the intent of the second amendment! Also, "Militia" means private citizens, not the army of the US and "shall not be infringed" means no laws can be passed to prevent the "keeping and bearing of arms". Keeping means owning or having and bearing means carrying on one's person. If any form of "arms" ban is upheld, it violates the Second Amendment. After all, what is the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States or the Supreme Court? Thank you for reading this comment!
Robert Barnes: Thank you for writing. From the other side...
What did the Founders mean?: Our countries very existence is the result of ordinary citizens rising up against a government they felt was unjust. Given that the Second Amendment was drafted when the events of 1775 were still fresh in the Founders minds, and that "militia" at the time really just meant every man in your villiage who can shoot, isn't it reasonable to argue that the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government can never deny the people the tools to revolt against an oppressive government. Obviously, in the present day, that's a pretty provacative reason to give for owning a weapon, but look at the time period. We had just revolted against the British Empire. The French were in the process of violently overthrowing their government. Armed insurrection was practically the norm throughout the world!
So, if you agree that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide The People with the tools for armed revolt against the government, is it now an anachronism? Does it really translate to personal defense? Some would argue that nothing is permanent and there may again come a time when ordinary people must take up arms against an oppressive regime, and therefore that requires widespread ownership not just of handguns but of assault rifles. I don't know how far such an argument would fly in the Supreme Court, but it seems logical given the world the Founding Fathers were living in.
Robert Barnes: Thanks for your comment
Barboursville, Va.: I will be in D.C. Thursday afternoon. Any way to gauge what my chances are to get in to hear some portion of the Supreme Court oral arguments? I've looked at their Web site and it seems they have two lines for the public to get in.
Robert Barnes: Your chances are zero, zilch, nada. Because the court does not hear oral arguments on Thursdays. But the court is open to tour. For anyone else wanting to attend an oral argument, the court is scheduled for only nine more days: March 24-26 and April 14-16 and 21-23. They spend May and June writing and issuing their opinions.
Robert Barnes: Thanks for all for your good questions, but our time is up. I'm sorry I didn't get to everyone. Thanks for your interest in the court and for reading The Post.
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 Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes discusses the court's reaction to arguments for and against Washington, D.C.'s restrictions on handgun ownership.
| 112.653846 | 0.961538 | 14.346154 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802875.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802875.html
|
Delta to Offer Widespread Buyouts
|
2008032219
|
Executives at Atlanta-based Delta said in a memo to employees that the airline's goal is to cut 2,000 front-line, administrative and management jobs through the severance program, attrition and other initiatives.
Delta spokeswoman Betsy Talton said the company would accept more job cuts, if more employees than intended take the voluntary severance. Delta had 55,044 full-time employees as of the end of last year.
The severance program primarily affects mainline Delta employees. It will not affect Delta pilots, who have a union contract with the company, or employees at Delta regional carrier Comair.
One part of the program is for employees who are already eligible for retirement or for those whose ages and years of service add up to at least 60, with 10 or more years of service. The other part of the program is an offer for front-line employees -- such as flight attendants and gate and ticket agents -- with 10 or more years of service and for administrative and management employees with one or more years of service.
Besides severance payments, employees who take the offers will be entitled to travel privileges and additional benefits to manage career transitions.
Oil prices recently cracked $111 a barrel, nearly twice what they were a year ago. Delta said that in the past three months, fuel prices have climbed nearly 20 percent, and its 2008 fuel bill is expected to cost $2 billion more than in 2007.
Delta shares rose 55 cents, or 6 percent, to $9.78 in afternoon trading Tuesday. The company's stock price has lost more than half its value since Delta emerged from bankruptcy last April.
The memo from chief executive Richard H.Anderson and President Edward H. Bastian did not mention Delta's talks with Northwest about a merger that would create the world's largest airline.
On Monday, Delta's pilots union said it had told executives it could not agree on seniority issues with its counterpart at Northwest, raising serious doubts about the prospect of a merger.
The disclosure was announced in a letter to Delta pilots from Lee Moak, head of the Delta union.
The letter does not mention Northwest by name but makes reference to another union as the only one that Delta pilots have been talking to. Officials close to the talks have said in recent months that the other company was Northwest.
The letter refers in the past tense to talks with the other carrier, suggesting at least for now that there won't be further talks.
The two carriers don't need a pilot seniority integration deal in advance to move forward with a deal, but Delta executives have said they would not take further steps unless the seniority of their employees is protected.
|
ATLANTA, March 18 -- Faced with a weak economy, dimmer hopes of a merger with Northwest Airlines and record fuel prices that are eating up profits, Delta Air Lines said Tuesday that it would offer voluntary severance payouts to roughly 30,000 employees -- more than half of its workforce -- and cut...
| 9.214286 | 0.678571 | 1.107143 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803603.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803603.html
|
Ovechkin Hits Another High
|
2008032219
|
NASHVILLE, March 18 -- Alex Ovechkin added another milestone to his illustrious career Tuesday night, becoming the first player in Washington Capitals history to record two 100-point seasons.
But with just eight games remaining in his third NHL season, Ovechkin has bigger things on his mind these days -- such as securing his first trip to the playoffs.
Ovechkin made certain the ninth-place Capitals remained in the hunt at Sommet Center, where he had two assists and a fluky empty-net goal to help Washington hang on for its fourth straight victory, 4-2 over the Nashville Predators before a sold-out crowd of 17,113.
"I feel good, but the most important thing is winning the games, all about two points," said Ovechkin, who extended his league lead in goals and points to 58 and 102, respectively.
With a three-point night in his 237th game, Ovechkin also became the fastest player to 300 career points since Peter Forsberg got there in 229 games on Dec. 23, 1997. Paul Kariya did it in 238 games.
But that wasn't the only reason Coach Bruce Boudreau singled out Ovechkin for praise afterward. He also noted Ovechkin stepping into the path of a Greg DeVries slap shot in the first period. Ovechkin still was limping after the game, but is not expected to miss any time.
"He's blocking shots because he wants to win as much as anybody, if not more," Boudreau said. "If you see the best player in the world blocking shots, it's got to tell the rest of the team that they can do it, too. That's why he's out there at the end the of the game -- because he pays the price."
Alexander Semin, Nicklas Backstrom and Matt Bradley scored first-period goals for the Capitals, chasing Predators starting goalie Dan Ellis from the net. But it took another clutch performance from Cristobal Huet (24 saves) to ensure Washington stayed out front.
The Predators outshot the Capitals by a combined 19-11 in the final 40 minutes and had gotten to within 3-2 on goals by J.P. Dumont and Jason Arnott.
But with the game on the line in the waning moments, and with the Predators putting an extra attacker on the ice, Ovechkin calmly banked the puck off the dasher boards near center ice and all the way down the ice for an empty-net goal with 3.5 seconds remaining to send Nashville to its fifth straight home loss (0-4-1).
Though it appeared that Ovechkin was aiming for a bank-shot goal, he later said was simply trying to kill more time. He also called the goal "my luckiest score ever" and now has scored in 23 arenas.
Because Philadelphia also won, beating Atlanta 3-2, the Capitals did not gain any ground in the race for the eighth spot in the Eastern Conference. Washington did, however, pull to within three points of idle Carolina for the Southeast Division lead.
|
Alex Ovechkin has a goal and two assists as the Capitals begin a six-game road trip with a 4-2 victory over the Nashville Predators to move into ninth place in the east.
| 15.783784 | 0.864865 | 1.621622 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803196.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031803196.html
|
Nationals Have Logjam Up the Middle
|
2008032219
|
"Bench?" López said Tuesday following a 9-1 thumping of the Detroit Tigers. "No. I already said that. No. Hell, no."
Belliard, speaking diagonally across the same cramped locker room from López, countered with: "I'm not going to get upset. Whatever they decide is good with me."
As the March 30 opener approaches, however, the Nationals say they have not decided how the middle infield will work out. Cristian Guzmán is slated to be the starter at shortstop, though López can play the position -- and he moved there early last season when Guzmán went down with a hamstring injury. That allowed Belliard to come off the bench, play second base and do what he does best -- hit. He did that well enough -- .290 with 58 RBI in 147 games -- that the Nationals signed him to a two-year, $3.5 million extension last July.
When speaking, Belliard has been diplomatic about the situation. "It's not on me," he said Tuesday. "It's on them." His play has been more forceful.
Tuesday, Guzmán started at short with López at second. In the sixth, after Guzmán went 1 for 3, Belliard came off the bench as a pinch hitter and immediately sent a pitch from Detroit left-hander Tim Byrdak on a line over the left field wall, his third homer of the spring. He went 1 for 3, dropping his average to .459. Afterward, in a 15-second span, Manager Manny Acta called Belliard's spring "outstanding" and "tremendous."
"I really don't care about spring training," Belliard said. "I've seen a lot of guys get hot in spring training and start the year slow. Sometimes, I told the guys: 'I don't want to hit no more. I don't want to get no more hits. I want to save them for the season.' "
It is to the point where Belliard's teammates have come to expect him to have among the best at-bats on the team. Some have even dubbed him "Mini-Manny," after Boston's Manny Ramírez, one of those hitters who, as players say, can get out of bed and get a hit.
"He's a guy that it doesn't matter who's on the mound, whether it's a no-name or one of the best guys in the league," right fielder Austin Kearns said. "He's going to give you a good at-bat."
The same could not always be said for López. Acta has praised López's attitude this spring, one that López entered knowing he would need to rebound after he hit .245 with a .308 on-base percentage in 2007.
López also has admitted that he lacked proper focus last season, but insists he has it now.
An all-star with Cincinnati in 2005, López is only 27 and on the brink of becoming a free agent at the end of the season. He will make $4.9 million this season, and given that he and the Nationals believe he has significant talent, he made it clear Tuesday he has no intention of backing up both Guzmán and Belliard.
|
The Nationals currently have three players for two positions in the middle infield and two of those players, Ronnie Belliard and Felipe Lopez, have vastly different opinions about how they would handle losing the starting job.
| 16.307692 | 0.666667 | 0.871795 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/john_murtha_endorses_hillary_c_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/john_murtha_endorses_hillary_c_1.html
|
John Murtha Endorses Hillary Clinton
|
2008032219
|
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, Sep. 17, 2007. (AP.)
By Anne E. Kornblut LANCASTER, Pa. -- Rep. John P. Murtha has announced his endorsement of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, bringing his clout as a 17-term member of the House and a prominent anti-war Democrat to bear with more than a month until the primary here in his home state. "Sen. Clinton is the candidate that will forge a consensus on health care, education, the economy, and the war in Iraq," Murtha wrote in a statement about his decision. Murtha, who represents the 12th district of Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, was an early and sometimes inflammatory critic of the Iraq war. As a retired Marine Corps colonel and the first combat veteran of Vietnam elected to serve in Congress, Murtha's voice on Clinton's behalf could prove especially valuable in both inoculating her from anti-war criticism and bolstering her claim that she is the most qualified to serve as commander-in-chief. That message is the backbone of Clinton's appearances this week.
"Her experience and careful consideration of these issues convinced me that she is best qualified to lead our nation and to bring credibility back to the White House," Murtha said. He said he "whole-heartedly" recommends Clinton to all voters in his state.
Posted at 6:37 PM ET on Mar 18, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell is absolutely right. Hillary Clinton, together with her de facto running mate, husband Bill, is a formidable fighter.
Recall how she retained a private detective to dig up dirt on the women seduced by Bill; how she fired long-standing employees in the White House travel office to give the jobs to her supporters; how she put Marines in their place by making them serve as waiters and busboys; how she browbeat and cussed out her staff; how she rebuked any underling who dared to make eye contact with her; how she and Bill ordered IRS audits on their critics; how they backstabbed and betrayed fellow Democrats (small wonder so many former are supporting Obama).
Then there are the deaths of Vince Foster and some 50 others by suicide, murder, accidents and sudden illnesses--a body count unmatched by any administration in American history.
Then, last but not least, is the way she has cowed the news media into imposing a gag order on itself. Had a Butler University student not brought up the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and had not the CBS tape of her bullet-dodging story in Bosnia come to light, the news media would have given the Clintons a smooth, free ride to the nomination and, probably, to the White House.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is one hell of a fighter--tough, smart, unyielding, as the Governor says. Precisely the kind of leader our nation needs in these troubled times.
Posted by: Carlos Navarro | April 20, 2008 9:21 AM
John Murtha is worth 100 of Obama's recent inexperienced superdelegates. He was there. He and Hillary share the same critique of the war in Iraq.
How many of you Obamabots have read the speech that Hillary delivered when she gave her vote to the resolution against Iraq?
What she said was, E'ven though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible......Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation......My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
Read the full floor speech before passing judgment:
Posted by: Joan | April 11, 2008 8:58 PM
I have lost all respect for John Murtha for indorsing Hillary after she confirmed that she blatenly lied about her being under sniper fire so as to gain sympathy for her campaign. This was a real "Slap in the face" to the military that provided for her security. I guess anything anti military is what Murtha is all about.
Posted by: tfisher1936 | March 28, 2008 2:52 PM
All the negative comments concerning Obama, Clinton, and Murtha are true, so that leaves only McCain as the only alternative. I will hold my nose and vote for John McCain for President of the United States. It is a sorry state this country has found itself in when he is the best we have to offer, but he is the best the three remaining candidates.
Posted by: mrstockenstine | March 26, 2008 11:53 PM
Hillary is ahead in the poles in part to this endorsement.
Barak is down in the polls not because the media is screwing with his speech. He is down because he lied and shows poor judgement in the company he keeps.
It is time for the Obamanites to lower their expectations of their candidate because they just get so upset when any little comment is made that "besmirches" him.
Look at Hillary, look at all the garbage thrown at her by her opponents (who now seem to be less and less everyday). She just keeps on ticking and that is what you supporters of Barak need to do. Just keep ticking and keep pointing out the positives without being so negative. You are actually turning people away from your candidate.
Posted by: lndlouis | March 20, 2008 3:22 PM
Why do any of you think the United States is where it is today? 10 Trillion in debt, cannot finance debt within the United States, have to borrow from China and every other country in the world that will loan us money. Why are we in this position? because too many voters are STUPID. Want to remain STUPID, then vote for Clinton or McCain. It is Brains we need in Washington. Obama has them.
Posted by: honestyingovernment | March 20, 2008 2:15 PM
Why do any of you think the United States is where it is today? 10 Trillion in debt, cannot finance debt within the United States, have to borrow from China and every other country in the world that will loan us money. Why are we in this position? because too many voters are STUPID. Want to remain STUPID, then vote for Clinton or McCain. It is Brains we need in Washington. Obama has them.
Posted by: honestyingovernment | March 20, 2008 2:15 PM
There are several, well, two different opinions becoming evident these days. A ferocious desire to dredge up the past of our current politicians and a general smear campaign against Sen. Obama. My earlier post truly is intended for Rep. Murtha- and I would like to set the record straight: when people make the claim that Jack Murtha is trying to get money for the 12th District: come on by, and see how we have no businesses to employ enough people for enough pay, we have no tourism industry besides the Inclined Plane (no it's not a rollercoaster or even DisneyWorld), we have exactly three groecery stores which people from outerlying towns, still in the 12th District, drive 2-3 hours every weekend to buy...food.
If you believe Rep. Murtha is trying to get money for his absolutely affluent and undeserving district, or even his state: i can't say, but maybe his district is really in his pants..pockets.
The Democratic Party isn't jeopardized because of Sen. Obama's past- his education, his diverse upbringing, his intelligence and ability to actually write his own books reflecting on not himself but family and the world at large. If anyone thinks he should quit running for President because of what others associated with him do, or because he has the gall to address with honesty, smear after smear after smear- you didn't make those demands in the past. what's so suddenly different about Sen. Obama? Oh yeah, that free air-time and all. Um, Barbara Walters, et al have given Mrs. Clinton (currently Sen. Clinton) plenty of free air-time, chats, tea parties at the White House.
maryobrien: you're a racist so just own up to it.
Anyone who thinks idealistically, yeah, i wish John Edwards was VP right now and still running for President of the U.S. (since that whole VP thing didn't work out last time around) with Rep. Dennis Kucinich as his man (VP, not what it sounds like)
We're not a two and 1/2 party system: we are supposed to be a democracy: and our future as such is what is in jeopardy.
I am extremely excited about the possibilites for our next president: I DO respect, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and John McCain. They each have strengths and the most valuable one is that each of them cares about this country's well-being and may find themselves embroiled in all sorts of difficult decision making, oops! i made a mistake NOW, not when I was a rookie or a private citizen or just stupid for awhile.
I am spending the next six weeks leading up to the PA Primary on April 22, Earth Day, walking up and down streets to hear what people have to say. I will be doing this up until Election Day in different states. and the only thing I am going to be sure I say to anyone is: JUST VOTE. THAT"S YOUR JOB.
if you want to keep up a hobby tracking down who did what, while you live your life comfortably without scrutiny of your own bad bad habits and mistakes, you are not thinking about the FUTURE, or the fact that this country is really in need of one. at least make it to the polls and pull that lever: hopefully after realizing you are an intelligent American and not a bigoted one.
Posted by: elvenhoof | March 20, 2008 6:52 AM
The blogger who stated that Senator Clinton enthusiastically voted for the war has no idea about what he speaks. A little "homework" is in order October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Posted by: lilibetii | March 19, 2008 11:43 PM
I earlier stated despite being a lifelong Democrat that if Hillary is nominated I would either not vote or vote for Nader. Well, I've changed my mind after thinking about who is supporting Hillary and who she surrounds herself with I will vote for McCain.
Racists such as Geraldine Ferraro (Not sure of the spelling of her last name).
The owner of Newscorp, Rufus Murdoch (he attended opne of her fundraisers during her re-election campaign to the Senate and she accepted the money as greedly and as fast as one might expect Bill to beg Monica for some stress relief after a long days work in the Oval Office while his no good wife was away in Kososvo hanging out with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow (man, do I feel sorry for Sinbad and Ms. Crow to have to suffer through spending all that time with Hillary. I mean that face could scare anybody).
Oh, and lets not forget that her base is made up almost entirely of uneducated and non-working Americans.
Posted by: mscaife | March 19, 2008 10:40 PM
I have always voted Democratic in every election since I became 18 and volunteered extensively on both the Gore campaign and the Kerry campaign.. However, if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee I will either not vote or vote for Ralph Nader despite the fact that I generally despise the man. Hillary Clinton is about as authentic as George W. Bush. As her newly released papers show, she was a staunch supported for NAFTA privately and publically, something she denied in the Ohio debate. Furthermore, she was one of the most vocal proponents of the Iraq war fromm the beginning up until it became politically stupid to be so. Her record on outsourcing is terrible. Anyone recall how excited she was when the contract for the Marine One Helicopter was outsourced to European Defence contractors. What's more is her embarrasing record on environmental issues almost always siding with business interests (She has been one of the most vocal and strongest supporters of corn based ethanol depsite the fact that almost scientists have almost all denounced it as a solution to America's energy crisis). Worse, she is the most decisive candidate in American history and will polarize the country if nominated even more the Bush has. In short, anyone voting for her in the primaries is either unaware of her record or simply so gender biased towards women that they will ignore what is best for America, the world, and the Democratic party.
Posted by: mscaife | March 19, 2008 10:15 PM
In 1980, during his third term as a Congressman, Murtha became embroiled in the Abscam investigation, which targeted dozens of congressmen. The investigation entailed FBI operatives posing as intermediaries for Saudi nationals hoping to bribe their way through the immigration process into the United States. Murtha met with these operatives and was videotaped; ultimately, he was named an "unindicted co-conspirator"[3] but he was never indicted or charged. He did agree to testify against Frank Thompson (D-NJ) and John Murphy (D-NY), the two Congressmen mentioned as participants in the deal at the same meeting and who were later video taped placing the cash bribes in their trousers. The FBI videotaped Murtha responding to an offer of $50,000, with Murtha saying, "I'm not interested... at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't", right after Murtha had offered to provide names of businesses and banks in his district where money could be invested legally.[5] The U.S. Attorneys Office reasoned that Murtha's intent was to obtain investment in his district. Full length viewing of the tape shows Murtha citing prospective investment opportunities that could return "500 or 1000" miners to work.
What a stand up guy to have endorsing me, NEXT.
Posted by: rmattocks | March 19, 2008 9:32 PM
Lets get the story straight, Hillary rejects the war vote she was bamboozled into by Bush lies. John Murtha isn't afraid of the truth. Three Cheers for John Murtha!! Was Barack against the war, or was Wright against the war?
Posted by: kimkimminni1 | March 18, 2008 07:32 PM -------------------------------------------- If Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be bamboozled by an IQ challenged George W. Bush to vote for a senseless war which again, turn up NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION then God Help Us All, we're in trouble. It's no telling what an adviser with ultra intelligence could run by her. No worry, she won't be in office because she won't beat John McCain and the only chance she'll even get to run against McCain is if the election is stolen away from Barack Obama which would be the only way she would garner the nomination at this point and that will sink the Democratic party again for another 4 years. Looks like the 80's all over again. I certainly won't vote for her. All this 35 years of experience I'm still waiting to see. 8 years as first lady, doesn't garner you anything. She wasn't the one signing bills, creating treaties, enacting policies, nor giving State of the Union addresses. She was just exposed to more behind the scenes as first lady, that's it. As I recall this is the same Hillary Clinton who was entrusted to put together a universal healthcare plan by her husband at the time. She had 8 years and it she fell flat on her face because she alienated members of her own party when trying to come up with a comprehensive plan. And as far as a President with good character, Hillary Clinton is in no better shape than George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney or any other swines in the Republican party in the character department. Need I even bring up Whitewater and of course the mystery that involves the death of Vincent Foster on her watch. If the dead could talk. Still waiting on those public tax records. What's the holdup?
Posted by: rmattocks | March 19, 2008 9:22 PM
Here's an article on Murtha on the Wall Street Journal... http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009248 Also, if you search, you will find that the relationship between the clintons and Murtha goes back quite far...he was an influencing Bill in 2005 on both Iraq and Somalia. This is a political endorsement, no doubt.
Posted by: neug | March 19, 2008 9:19 PM
John Murtha is the most corrupt member of the house. Is Hillary going to denounce him. What about her "associaiton" with him. this is a joke. Are you kidding. Rep. Murtha? Where is the media, we need the media to ask Hillary if she is going to denounce is past vile record.
Let's ask HIllary to denounce Rep. Murtha -
Posted by: cmitch4822 | March 19, 2008 8:21 PM
Obama is a liar. He lied about his pastor and "sitting in the pews". He's also spinning his objections to the war. When I objected to the Vietnam War, I was out protesting in the streets", not giving a single speech about Irag and never mentioning it again until deciding to run for President. Obama needs to bow out of the race now, with dignity, instead of insuring that the President is" more of the same McCain". The Republicans will run this "Obama pastor's "Hate America" words from the pulpit" relentlessly, and rightfully so if, and that is a big "IF", BO was to get the Democratic nomination. Please Senator Obama quit now and save our Democratic party. BO opportunistically turned his "firestorm of his pastor's ranting" into a free, nationally televised campaign speech. A little unfair to the other candidates, don't you think? Hillary Clinton is right for America because we have very serious issues immediately facing "US" and we need a credible, intelligent, motivating President who will cross party lines to settle the issues we face in America (economy, health care, shrinking middle class, Irag), the land that "we all love". It's questionable to me now, and has been since BO so suddenly "seized a perceived opportunity" to inject himself in the race for President, if Barack really does?
Posted by: maryobryan | March 19, 2008 8:15 PM
Obama is a liar. He lied about his pastor and "sitting in the pews". He's also spinning his objections to the war. When I objected to the Vietnam War, I was out protesting in the streets", not giving a single speech about Irag and never mentioning it again until deciding to run for President. Obama needs to bow out of the race now, with dignity, instead of insuring that the President is" more of the same McCain". The Republicans will run this "Obama pastor's "Hate America" words from the pulpit" relentlessly, and rightfully so if, and that is a big "IF", BO was to get the Democratic nomination. Please Senator Obama quit now and save our Democratic party. BO opportunistically turned his "firestorm of his pastor's ranting" into a free, nationally televised campaign speech. A little unfair to the other candidates, don't you think? Hillary Clinton is right for America because we have very serious issues immediately facing "US" and we need a credible, intelligent, motivating President who will cross party lines to settle the issues we face in America (economy, health care, shrinking middle class, Irag), the land that "we all love". It's questionable to me now, and has been since BO so suddenly "seized a perceived opportunity" to inject himself in the race for President, if Barack really does?
Posted by: maryobryan | March 19, 2008 8:15 PM
Obama is a liar. He lied about his pastor and "sitting in the pews". He's also spinning his objections to the war. When I objected to the Vietnam War, I was out protesting in the streets", not giving a single speech about Irag and never mentioning it again until deciding to run for President. Obama needs to bow out of the race now, with dignity, instead of insuring that the President is" more of the same McCain". The Republicans will run this "Obama pastor's "Hate America" words from the pulpit" relentlessly, and rightfully so if, and that is a big "IF", BO was to get the Democratic nomination. Please Senator Obama quit now and save our Democratic party. BO opportunistically turned his "firestorm of his pastor's ranting" into a free, nationally televised campaign speech. A little unfair to the other candidates, don't you think? Hillary Clinton is right for America because we have very serious issues immediately facing "US" and we need a credible, intelligent, motivating President who will cross party lines to settle the issues we face in America (economy, health care, shrinking middle class, Irag), the land that "we all love". It's questionable to me now, and has been since BO so suddenly "seized a perceived opportunity" to inject himself in the race for President, if Barack really does?
Posted by: maryobryan | March 19, 2008 8:13 PM
oh, i did not find your statements to be inconsiderate in the least. i fully agree with your assessment of Rep. Murtha, truthfully, and sadly,he is taking the easy way out on the National stage; but the aspect that sickens me is that he actually thinks the People's Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is only a bunch of "hicks" who have nothing better to do than follow his lead, while he has had done nothing for them. More importantly, despite what face becomes the next President of the U.S. of A- Rep. Murtha has his OWN job to do. why do politicians forget that until after the Inaugural Ball?
Posted by: elvenhoof | March 19, 2008 6:53 PM
In light of my earlier e-mail and your sentiments about your hometown, my sincerest apologies for my inconsiderate statements. Perhaps I was guilty of white stereotyping myself, even though I am white.
I agree that if people really thought about it, they would realzie it is Senator Obama who would sincerely have the interests of the hard working people who are being devastated by this economy and the soldiers and their families who are being torn apart physically and emotionally by this war. Shame on America, that these families of our wounded, maimed and killed warriors are suffering by themselves as America has tuned out on this war.
Posted by: jovitman | March 19, 2008 6:32 PM
An Open Letter To Rep. John Murtha and his wife, Joyce Murtha:
As a resident of Rep. Murtha's district AND hometown currently, but as an "outsider" as well: it is far easier to become a National Hero than come home once in a while and see how your own constituents and hometown residents have been suffering and continue to suffer: not solely because of the extreme economic debilitation in Western Rural PA, as well as Central PA and all small towns in PA with hardworking people who can't find jobs, afford gas prices and greatly regret that they trusted the soon to be Former Pres. Bush.
Guess what, Rep. Murtha? I came to Johnstown, PA thinking you were a great example to other politicians. We have the modest John P. Murtha Technology Park, and the excellent facility: Joyce Murtha Breast Cancer Center. Have you been downtown lately? Have you seen the unemployment rate in this area and the rest of PA between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? One commentator mentioned that you can see the truth- but you haven't been around to really look into the eyes and lives of your own people. i wasn't too curious who you would choose to endorse: Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama- particularly since Fmr. President Bill Clinton madea a stop. Here. At Johnstown High School last week. i don't personally know anyone who went to hear our Fmr. President since holding 3 part-time jobs and feeding your children, or worse- mourning the loss of your sons and daughters to what a fellow Johnsontownite pointed out: IS and HAS BEEN a senseless, brutal and inhumane war-that stole our children from us...AND CONTINUES TO.
You just don't come around anymore, even after saying on national tv in COngress what your constituents hoped you meant- but don't believe for a second that you do.
Around town people ARE talking about Sen. Barack Obama and his consistency, his difficult rise to the top, and the fact that he IS NOT Hillary Clinton, nor their own Jack Murtha- RICH AND FAMOUS and more concerned with maintaining such status. As opposed to consistent policies intended to help the people of Johnstown: the Real America.
Sen. Murtha, you come from a very large state- but don't think you can dupe your own hometown. These people ARE the hardest working, most open-minded and courteous beyond belief Americans I have ever known. They are the ones who have suffered like many, many Americans in many ways; but to hear on the radio every day or meet someone EVERYDAY who has a child, nephew or neice whose life in Irag, Afghanistan, anywhere more dangerous than home, is all they can think about ALL THE TIME. It doesn't get any easier when they live every day of the rest of their lives with only the knowledge that their child is GONE- this makes me realize this is the safest place for any of our own troops, as home generally is, and they still choose, or chose, to sacrifice their own safety and security for their country. What have we lost? What have gained?
Super-networking, super-collaborating and super bucks are not going to convince the people of PA when they know what they know. Shame on you, Rep. Murtha, for getting lost on the way home.
Honored to be a Resident of Johnstown, PA 15904
Posted by: elvenhoof | March 19, 2008 5:57 PM
"Barack Obama is the farthest thing from a racist that I can imagine. He despises racism in ALL directions."
While I do not believe that Barack Obama is racist, there is no way you can say that he despises racism in ALL directions if "Uncle" Wright is his mentor. That's just plain ignorance.
Posted by: kkarageorge | March 19, 2008 5:56 PM
As Paul Harvey used to say on the radio," Here's the rest of the story." Congressman Murtha's constituents in his PA district are the so called Reagan Democrats, or to put a politically incorrect spin on it, white uneducated bigots.
Supporting Hillary was the politically expedient thing for him to do because his white bigoted constituents don't like Senator Obama and now they have a real excuse not to like him or politcal cover due to Reverend Jeremiad. It's just the political cover Congressman Murtha needed to hide the truth as to why his bigoted constituents won't vote for Senator Obama.
You're a sell out and a big phony Congresman Murtha. You spoke out against the war and now support a candidate who supported it because she had political ambitions for the Presidency. If you think that is hyperbole, see what former Senator Lincoln Chafee, (R) of RI had to say about Senator Clinton.
Posted by: jovitman | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM
Clinton is a consummate, old-school politician - we need change! Please don't help her get elected to anything - time for the Clintons to leave the stage.
Posted by: JRG1 | March 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Of course he does. They are two peas in a pod. Old, tired, so embedded in beltway business as usual politics that neither are leaders anymore much less worthy of their current positions.
Posted by: Ozark_Sunshine | March 19, 2008 3:47 PM
Any person who thinks that Barack Obama's speech on Monday was an honest discourse on race relations in America is as daffy as Rev. Wright. It was a disingenuous, opportunistic rambling from an over-ambitious race baiter. All of you guilt mongering Obama apologists need to heal your own soul and stop worrying about mine. How this went from Wright's racist problem to being my (every one else but Wright's) problem is the worst kind of politics -- and MSM is playing along.
We do need a great, open and honest look at racial issues that divide us - but that was no where close.
Rev. Wright is the one who needs healing here! Probably Obama too. As well as those of you who telling everyone "we'll see if the country has matured enough to handle this and elect Obama anyway" is just more insanity in shifting the issue - how about let's see how Wright and Obama will mature? Then we'll vote! Talk about politics as usual.
Wright says something stupid, and it's white America who has the problem? Go fool someone else, the media is good at that, because you're not fooling me.
We're talking (at least we were) about Wright's problem here, not mine. I've been working 40 years of my life to step out of this Racism stupidity - Now I'm getting lectured by Barack Obama on my racism? Perhaps he can focus on his racism before he points out everyone else's.
Good play to change the subject from "you" to "me" (kinda like that "all the good stuff he does" defense - like every megalomaniac in history used that one) but it only shows the audacity of dopes!
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 3:27 PM
Seeing the extremism on both sides of the debate makes me think the democratic party is really sunk this year. The Obama people talk so much about uniting, but they apparently won't be able to rally for Clinton if she gets the nomination. And the same goes for the Clinton backers. What a mess. Either way, McCain will be the winner here, and that is so sad. But if both sides don't find a way to deal with the fact that their candidate might not win, it will happen.
Posted by: emily111 | March 19, 2008 3:24 PM
It's better to have a fight with Charlie Rose than Hillary Clinton. I'd like to echo Pat Buchannan's words on Don Imus's show this morning. Mr. Obama has been listening to Rev. Wright for twenty years now, so why hasn't Mr. Obama come forth about Rev. Wright, prior to the presidential campaign?
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 3:22 PM
Will the real Barack Obama please standup.
"You are judged by the company you keep"
"Birds of a feather flock together"
"Where there's smoke, there's fire"
She also told me to "Judge not lest ye be judged"
So I am waiting for the other shoe to fall
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 3:18 PM
I want Hillary OUT! And my husband and I will simply not vote should she get the nomination. More of the same.....
Posted by: twilnew | March 19, 2008 3:06 PM
1995: Lonely hospital room in Hwawaii. where was her son? With his "MENTOR"
Ann Soetoro, will die without having her son beside her bed NOT ONE DAY!!!!! where was her son? With his "MENTOR"
Everybody has come by to visit, but pearl of her eye has not been able to make it yet. where was her son? With his "MENTOR"
But still a dying mother wants to see her son for the last time. Unfortunately it is not going to happen. where was her son? With his "MENTOR"
He was spending crepy time with his "MENTOR"
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 3:02 PM
1995: Lonely hospital room in Hwawaii
Ann Soetoro, will die without having her son beside her bed NOT ONE DAY!!!!! Everybody has come by to visit, but pearl of her eye has not been able to make it yet. But still a dying mother wants to see her son for the last time. Unfortunately it is not going to happen.
He was spending crepy time with his "MENTOR"
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 2:59 PM
The endorsement doesn't matter so much as the sentiment it reflects. Momentum is swinging to Hillary. I think Obama really needs a win in PA -- that would end Clinton's candidacy and the party would rally behind the victor. If she wins in PA, its going to be a mess, and she might actually get the win courtesey of the superdelegates.
Posted by: MShake | March 19, 2008 2:59 PM
The endorsement doesn't matter so much as the sentiment it reflects. Momentum is swinging to Hillary. I think Obama really needs a win in PA -- that would end Clinton's candidacy and the party would rally behind the victor. If she wins in PA, its going to be a mess, and she might actually get the win courtesey of the superdelegates.
Posted by: MShake | March 19, 2008 2:58 PM
Obama is a RACIAL candidate. He is DONE!
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 2:57 PM
Obama is a RACIAL candidate. He is DONE!
Obama is a RACIAL candidate. He is DONE!
His candidacy is cooked by his "Mentor"
DID did not even see his dying MOTHER, because he attending barain washing session by his "MENTOR".....Or maybe, he told him not to visit his "White" Mother
most WHITES don't vote for him anymore
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 2:56 PM
He compare his Grandmother and His Pastor!!
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 2:51 PM
Wouldn't you know it, it would all come down to this. We have the opportunity to chart a new course, yet we slink back into our corners, afraid of what real change might mean. We know what we will get from Clinton and Murtha- just what we have been getting for so many years. Clinton is predictable, doesn't make us uncomfortable, doesn't ask us to think differently, work harder, or dare to make this country better. She knows how to deal out favors, reward her friends, attack her enemies, and escape prosecution. She is comfortable with the gutter politics that we are now gravitating towards.
Obama, on the other hand, is asking for so much more. Sure, it is easy to pick a good man apart, even tear him to shreds. Especially an intelligent, transcendent person who makes us think a bit more, and challenges us to do better. Our history is full of examples of good men and women being brought down. It is so much easier to tear down than it is for us to do the hard work of building a new future, based on prosperity for all, equality among us and respect for each other. This has never played well in the American political arena-- fear mongering and sound-bites are a much easier path-- and because of that, we just get more of the same.
Barack Obama is the farthest thing from a racist that I can imagine. He despises racism in ALL directions. He is a complex and thoughtful person that does not deny the best and the worst of this nation. There is mistrust and lack of integration on all sides. I am so tired of this, and we can't get beyond it without having the courage to talk honestly about it, even if we don't like what others may say. The fact is, we are all America, and we can't move forward without walking together.
And another thing, as a white woman speaking honestly, I can say that I have heard many racist comments from my older relatives about Barack Obama. As Barack said yesterday, we have to put this into their context, their life histories, and help them move beyond their prejudices, instead of a knee jerk condemnation of them that fails to recognize their experiences. Race in America is complex and at times painful, and we have to get real before we can get get to a better place.
Posted by: twilnew | March 19, 2008 2:46 PM
You know, It is funny, actualy ridiculous how many of you sit back now and condemn the war. I myself also feel that it is time to bring our troops home and have felt this way for some time. However, I know that when the decision was made to go over seas I was, with the knowledge available, ready to charge. This was a feeling that was almost nation wide. You tend to forget that the public and majority of the senate and congress were hand fed the info Bush wanted us to hear in order to get our support. We were ALL angry and ready to do something about it. I have sinced changed my views as agian majority of America. Please get off your horse about people who supported unless you can honestly sit back and claim that throughout the entire initial ordeal you never wanted to go over there and vindicate America.
Posted by: klake | March 19, 2008 1:59 PM
Posted by: carjackerdude | March 19, 2008 1:53 PM
Everyone who wants Obama out needs to inform the Democratic Party in no uncertain terms. E-mail them, call them, write to them. Let them know that if Obama is their candidate, we are voting for McCain.
Posted by: onefreakinword | March 19, 2008 1:41 PM
Yeah, Rep Murtha - the voice of reason!
Thank you for your service to our country and for the courage you continue to display by stepping up to endorse the right candidate. As you can see, you will now be the target of scorn, threats and untruths but somehow I think you will be able to handle it.
Posted by: nsabetus | March 19, 2008 1:29 PM
How can some one compare Obama's pastor's hatefull comments for 20 years to Ferroro's comment? only an idiot would buy that.
Posted by: nsabetus | March 19, 2008 1:27 PM
I am happy to hear that John Murtha announced the endorsement for Senator Clinton. I just hope it continues.
Posted by: nsabetus | March 19, 2008 1:24 PM
jeiken, you mean you missed Bill Clinton's New Hampshire and South Carolina rants? Does the name Geraldine Ferraro mean anything to you? Hillary offered a half-hearted apology at some African-American journalist convention in Philadelphia a couple of days ago, but still . . . the real HRC is coming out, and she ain't nice at all!
Posted by: meldupree | March 19, 2008 12:45 PM
Thank you, John Murtha. Now bring along some of your thinking colleagues to endorse the best candidate - Senator Clinton.
Posted by: Kansas28 | March 19, 2008 12:44 PM
gene9 Lets get the story straight, Hillary rejects the war vote she was bamboozled into by Bush lies. John Murtha isn't afraid of the truth. Three Cheers for John Murtha!! Was Barack against the war, or was Wright against the war?
Posted by: kimkimminni1 | March 18, 2008 07:32 PM ________________________
Murtha ought to be horsewhipped for selling his prestige to Hillary. Hillary may "reject" her ill-informed vote for war authorization (ill-informed by not reading the NIE report as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee), but she has yet to apologize for it. Even John Edwards 'fessed up and apologized for his vote. So please tell me how HRC not reading the report and voting the way she did makes use of her judgment?
Posted by: meldupree | March 19, 2008 12:39 PM
Hillary couldn't lead a frog to a pond. Her campaign is lost, the endorsement by Murtha is a kiss of death and she needs to quit prolonging the inevitable by bowing out and accepting defeat ( which she want to endorse in Iraq). Adding negatives to her already negatives instead of delegates shows the world the reality of her approach. Even the blindered followers of this would be despot should shoulder a little doubt. Faith in the impossible is really stupid.
Posted by: val24601 | March 19, 2008 12:36 PM
I remember watching Hardball one day last month when one the the guests, I'm not sure who, said the only way Hillary Clinton could secure the party nomination was if Obama's campaign imploded. Well , that time has arrived, and thank God it is in time. As an Irish American, I am sick and tired of people excusing the hatred African Americans can spew, all in the name of social injustices of the America of decades past. It is just as hurtful and racist to insult me, a white American, as it is to spew poisonous remarks about a black American. I raise my children to respect all people no matter their background or racial heritage. And i live by the saying ,"do unto others", as do my children. I am not a religious person, but I truly believe in those words. It is shameful that Obama would remain a member of a church where such a hateful man preaches the things to his congregation, and especially shameful that the Obamas would willingly let their young daughters hear such hateful words all in the name of religion! We never heard of such hatred in the Clinton years and I hope we can return to those days soon. Hillary in 2008!
Posted by: jeiken | March 19, 2008 12:25 PM
"While Obama is transforming and healing the country, Hillary has some old guy who stinks of status quo offering her a long-planned endorsement."
In what way has Obama healed this country?
Posted by: kkarageorge | March 19, 2008 11:52 AM
scrappy2001: you have it backward's Obama is the one splitting the party not Hillary. the Clinton's brought the party together-how else could Bill have been president for 8 years?If Obama is the nominee McCain will be president and that mean's 4 more years of Bush's war and tax cuts for the wealthy a disaster.The reason most people hate Hillary is because she is more intelligent than they and that's a pretty sorry way of thinking. We need a brilliant president and Hillary fill's the bill. Wake Up America.
Posted by: LDTRPT25 | March 19, 2008 11:52 AM
I can see that that so called fantastic speech that the LIAR Obama made yesterday did not have an impact on John Murtha, he probably remembered him saying one day he was not there when the statements were made & in his speech he was. Now I ask you is that trying to have it both ways or just plain being a liar, I saw a speech that I thought was pretty good, but after I listened to the media I thought I must have slept through part of it, because they really gushed on & on about how brillant it was.I believe that the media wants the rep[ublicans to win the white house, that is why they keep pushing Obama.
Posted by: jrs6776 | March 19, 2008 11:51 AM
Of course Murtha endorses her and it has little to do with ethics. It's about pork and hello, he's got lots to lose in terms of being held to any standard of ethics codes himself. We don't even have to bring up Abscam (nice dodge there), just take a peek at his record for the last five years.
Hello? Wouldn't want to lose his place at the trough.
It's a vote, so that counts but there's little moral momentum to be gained but hey, it's PA so who cares about that either as long as you bring the pork home.
Posted by: lvansloten | March 19, 2008 11:50 AM
genes: It's easy for Obama to crow about not voting for the war-he wasn't a senator and didn'tr have to make that decision,but has since voted everytime to give Bush the fund's to keep the war going--is that not being a hypocrite?speaking of decisions when Obama was a Rep. in Illinois he voted present 118 times (which is voting for nothing)being that weak and undecided is not one I want for president.Obama is an empty suit and would be a sorry president.
Posted by: LDTRPT25 | March 19, 2008 11:42 AM
you Hillary supporters are nuts. Hillary getting the democratic nomination equals a sure victory for the republicans- wake up and realize that! this country is on the brink of disaster on many fronts- we need something new in washington.
Posted by: yellow_jacket98 | March 19, 2008 11:28 AM
I know sometimes being a president can mean that you have to do some pretty dirty things and coverups. I vote for Hillary because I know for sure she has the backbone and the level of corruption needed to lead this country.
Posted by: buckle12 | March 19, 2008 11:27 AM
Who better to preserve the Lobby/Earmark causes.
Posted by: josephjsalas | March 19, 2008 11:27 AM
Hillary Clinton endorsed by Murtha...hmmm...one useless politician endorses a losing politician. Yeah...her posters can keep going under the delusion that she has a chance to win (NOT). She divided this party and this country trying to win a nomination. Obama sought to clean up her mess. Her supporters seem to think...throw as much nonsense out there to get the public distracted or scared to trust Hillary...sounds like Cheney-Rove politics. We are not going to let you stop the recovery of this nation by allowing Hillary to STEAL victory from a certain defeat. We see through you Mrs. Clinton for the vile and divisive creature that you are. Like it or not most of America does as well and coming to terms with it will be something you will be feeling for a long time.
Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 19, 2008 11:20 AM
1995: Lonely hospital room in Hwawaii
Ann Soetoro, will die without having her son beside her bed NOT ONE DAY!!!!! Everybody has come by to visit, but pearl of her eye has not been able to make it yet. But still a dying mother wants to see her son for the last time. Unfortunately it is not going to happen.
He was spending crepy time with his "MENTOR"
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 11:11 AM
Berry Hussien is a RACIAL Candidate.
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 11:10 AM
1995: Lonely hospital room in Hwawaii
Ann Soetoro, will die without having her son beside her bed NOT ONE DAY!!!!!
Everybody has come by to visit, but pearl of her eye has not been able to make it yet.
But still a dying mother wants to see her son for the last time. Unfortunately it is not going to happen.
He was spending crepy time with his "MENTOR"
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 11:07 AM
I want to share my thoughts about the upcoming nomination process. I know that many of you have said you will support Hillary Clinton. I am asking you to reconsider and turn your support towards Barack Obama. I can understand that your initial desire was to support the most logical nominee - who before the primary season appeared to be Ms. Clinton. I was once excited about her nomination as well, until I started really considering what I was basing my judgments upon. It was exciting to think that the United States would elect a female president. She was the heir apparent. I was torn when the charismatic Barack Obama stepped onto the playing field and declared his candidacy. I thought, "Oh no! How will I choose?"
I took a critical look at both. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for 34 years, but only has held an elected office for six years in the US senate. I don't think serving as First Lady can count. My husband is a web programmer. I cannot claim to be experienced in writing code even though we share a home office and have watched him work. Barack Obama was an Illinois senator for eight years before his term in the US senate. I am aware that Hillary Clinton has been pushing the point that she will be "ready on Day 1." No one can claim experience as the Commander-in-Chief until they have been president. If by electing Hillary Clinton to office we somehow get Bill Clinton's experience thrown in, it seems like an end-run around term limits. Barack Obama is as ready as Hillary Clinton to be president. In fact, all the years that I have been a voter, it seemed to me that senators have risen up to run for president and they have never succeeded. It seemed that only governors have made successful presidential runs. So the experience argument is a false measurement.
I went to the Library of Congress website. I saw that Clinton had roughly 20 pieces of legislation passed: 15 of which dealt with NY interests such as honoring individuals, naming post offices and designating honorary days. Five of Clinton's bills were a bit meatier: two bills passed related to funding for victims of and response to 9/11. One related to funding for respite care and two for other countries: assisting landmine victims and designating part of Puerto Rico into the wilderness preservation system.
I took a look at Obama's record. During Obama's first year in the US senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427, including these that became law: Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, The 2007 Government Ethics Bill. After seeing the big difference in the ability to enact legislation that matters to me as a life-long Democrat, I had to swing my support behind Barack Obama. To come to any other conclusion would have been lying to myself.
I am asking you to reconsider your support for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is winning this nomination cycle in terms of popular vote, contests won and delegates awarded. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race out of some misguided feeling of entitlement. More and more feelings are being hurt and sides are becoming entrenched in this race. It is not healthy for our party. I have watched as Hillary's campaign has become more and more damaging. The candor with which Barack Obama has addressed concerns should be the new standard by which all future candidates are judged.
Let's join together to support the strongest candidate for general election. I believe that Mr. Obama is that person. Let's keep this wonderful energy going in our party. Let's make this an historic election. Please help select the most viable candidate for the Democratic nominee: Barack Obama.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my points. Together we can change the world!
Posted by: mrs.susan.wolfe | March 19, 2008 11:03 AM
For Murtha age is the main factor to back Hillary. he does not represent the rest of America where people view the war in Iraq in a different light. If Murtha was against the war, why does not endorse somebody who was for the war in Iraq. I have noticed that old white men have an easier time associating with younger (relative to their age) white females than to younger men. Hillary's gender and skin color plays a big factor in Murtha's decision to back Hillary. I can not generalize this theory though since Bill picked Monica over Hillary. Wait a minute. Bill is an older white man. He prefered a much younger white female. Bill did not go after a young black male. Well, I think my theory still holds why Murtha prefers Hillary.
Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | March 19, 2008 11:02 AM
IMO, the main reason for Rep. Murtha supporting Sen. Clinton is that he doesn't like all this "Transparency" stuff Sen. Obama wants to bring forth.
Rep. Murtha is a Lobbyist favorite. He's also earmark happy. If he supports Sen. Obama that would turn Rep. Murtha's world upside down. Why would he want to poke himself in the eye? He has no choice but to support Sen. Clinton.
I love his anti-war stance, but let's be honest..he's a earmark/lobbyist target. There's a reason he's on CREWs list of corrupt Politicians.
Posted by: dark_sith | March 19, 2008 10:59 AM
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:57 AM
Of course, she would turn a blind eye to the millions of pork that flow into western PA. Hillary's 60 days is the biggest lie in US history next to the original lie that got us there.
Posted by: ekleeman | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM
I am tired of being lectured about slavery by a son Kenyan father and White woman
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:55 AM
The Clinton supporters on this board are so filled with vitriolic hatred towards Obama, it makes me sick that these people are part of the Democratic party.
Posted by: mhammel22 | March 19, 2008 10:53 AM
Obama and Wright relationship = DC snipers relationship.
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:50 AM
Obama and Wright relationship = DC snipers relationship.
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:48 AM
Obama is a RACIAL candidate. He is DONE!
Obama is a RACIAL candidate. He is DONE!
His candidacy is cooked by his "Mentor"
DID did not even see his dying MOTHER, because he was brain washe session by his "Mentor". Or maybe, he told him not to visit his White Mother
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:41 AM
Obama is a RACIAL cndidate. He is DONE!
Posted by: ebubuk2004 | March 19, 2008 10:37 AM
Yoo Hoo! Anybody ever hear about a little thing called ABSCAM? Murtha's about as phony and corrupt as they come!
"I won't take that bribe right now. But maybe later."
Then he rats out everybody else.
Actually, he'll make a fitting addition to "Hillary's Hypocrites".
Posted by: converse | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM
Grateful for that. Some people's endorsement you just don't want. As an Obama supporter (not speaking for Barack of course), I definitely pass on a Murtha endorsement. Whew!!! Glad to have that settled.
Posted by: ddraper81 | March 19, 2008 10:04 AM
"Obama has been consistently against the war in Iraq ..."
except when it came time to actually casting a vote in the US Senate. Contraty to fellow Senator Durbin he voted no on the Kerry bill to actually end the war.
Posted by: leichtman | March 19, 2008 9:58 AM
Hillary chose to vote for this war and still doesn't really back away from it. Murtha, I've been with you when those idiots at Fox try to turn you into some unpatriotic loon, but I don't back you on this one, sir. Obama has been consistently against the war in Iraq and is the only one trustworthy of getting us out of there. You made a mistake here.
Posted by: fbutler1 | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM
So its Ok to have Pastor Wright as the new face of the Pat Robertson of the left?
"not unlike some Right-Wing preachers who sit with presidents today." your comparison.
Personally I prefer the spiritual words of Reverend Ted Strickland and Jim Wallace.
Posted by: leichtman | March 19, 2008 9:31 AM
Due to the divisions Camp Clinton initiated into the political society at this time, Obama had to address Race, which turned out to be a good thing and hopefully will begin to heal the division instituted by the Clintons. Obama has shown through this contoversy that he is a true leader. Obama wants a force for good, for groping and solving our problems which effect us today and have not really been addressed or solved. We have to do something new for the old ways have not worked. He has shown by his willingness not to go negative, not to get angry, not to be critical, that he indeed, represents something new and a leader for our times who can work with both Democrats and Republicans.
Unfotunately, there are some who want to continue the Rev. Wright controversy for their own selfish ends. Rev. Wright did not preach hate every day like some want to suggest, and seem so shocked that he, and he alone, only preached this way, not unlike some Right-Wing preachers who sit with presidents today. Pundits like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and others who want to continue to sow division, represent the very things they say about Rev. Wright -- hatefulness divisiveness, extremists, and all the ugly things that go along with that type of personality and are a part of the old ways that we want to move away from as we are trying to build a more sane, untified, holistic society, filled with goodwill instead of hate. As long as we have pundits and media who prefer to concentrate on our differences and expoit them, they constitute an impediment, a wall to the very kind of unity we are trying to build. These pundits should not be allowed to make big salaries while they continue to tear America down and apart. They are no friend to America. These pundits like to talk about white, blue collar workers, and what they really want, as if they really represent them with their cushy salaries. However, I am part of the average joes who grew up in up-state New York, and Joe, Pat, and other divisive media personalities, average working people are willing to hear what Obama has to say, white and black, men and women, because they are more concerned about their pocketbooks than continuing a race/gender divide. They don't want to see this Unity, because with unity there is power, a force, either for good or bad but it is a powerful force.
Barack Obama is asking America to put anger aside, to heal, to walk over that bridge in reconcilliation. That is why he, uniquely, can work with Republicans while being a Democrat. America we must demand better of our leaders, politicians and media if we are to survive the herculean problems facing us today. We cannot continue to let the forces of separatism tear us apart, the stakes are way too high. We can demand better and we can do better. It is in us to overcome if we do not let these forces continue to fan the flames of hatred and fear.
It is time for Party Leaders to step in and end Hillary's destructive quest to gain the White House. that She cannot win and only further tears apart not just the Democratic Party apart but also the United States in this quest for power. If she was running for office in a more unifying and ethical way, then I would say more power to her, but she is not. She has run amuck and against Democratic core principles and seems more Republican like than Democratic. As for the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton has no credibility. She can do all the speeches on Iraq that she chooses but no one really believes her. She represents the past ways of doing things which are negative and impediments to the qualities of goodwill and unity which we are trying to implement in a more holistic society.
Obama has passed his test and has set out a vision for America that must not be denied, or should not be denied. Now it is up to Party leaders to be Leaders and end this divisive quest for power of the Clintons and bring unity to the Democratic Party and possibly a greater union to this country. If we really love America we must come together, our problems are too great.
Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 19, 2008 9:26 AM
This is the first time that I know of that I disagree with you John. It is ok because if Hillary can screw America out of their free will, I will vote for her.
Posted by: musselmanm321 | March 19, 2008 9:13 AM
Great. Just what she needs. (not.)
Posted by: dmaurand | March 19, 2008 9:05 AM
unbelievable the lengths some Obama supporters will go to attack those they don't agree with, with comments here like he's just "another old guy who stinks", and another from logan "The guy is just spineless". Have you Obama supporters totally lost it? How dare you call Jack Murtha spineless, have you no shame? Failed to mention Obama supporters bragging on my DD of their grand strategy to block a revote in Fla and Michigan and make sure the dnc credentials committee have enough Obama supporters to make sure neither's delegates are ever seated. Talk about a campaign of cynicism. Attacking a war hero who has put his life on the line to protect their right to vote and have their votes counted.
Posted by: leichtman | March 19, 2008 8:55 AM
1. Jack Murtha has the right to support whomever he wants.
2. Jack Murtha has shown good judgment in some cases.
3. Jack Murtha has shown bad judgment in other cases.
4. Endorsing the Clintons is one of his bad judgment choices.
Posted by: nmben | March 19, 2008 8:49 AM
There are many comments about the anger of Black men against the system. The FBI reports released about murder and race (since 2000) state that the ratio or chance, that a Black man would murder a White is 16.7 times greater then the chance that a white man would murder a Black, factor in that there are 3 times as many White men as Blacks. Lets talk about that kinda anger.
Posted by: flyaway | March 19, 2008 8:39 AM
fenwayfem....you make me yawn. Go do something that you're good at....like scrub your floors, or wash your face....the rest should be left up to someone with half a pea brain.
Posted by: maj | March 19, 2008 8:38 AM
fenwayfem....you make me yawn. Go do something that you're good at....like scrub your floors, or wash your face....the rest should be left up to someone with half a pea brain.
Posted by: maj | March 19, 2008 8:37 AM
First of all, this is good for Hillary.But this is not good for America. Hillary is doing her best to win for herself and for her sob sister and plutocratic "what will you do fro me?"supporters. She is a piss poor candidate from start to finish laden with her husband's baggage , her sell-outs to corporations to amke ten million dollars a year post presidency,and with her own lack of ACTUALLY authored accomplishment not to mention her nasty personality and lack of character. Personality i can look beyond but not character: how to get beyond Whitewater and ruthlessly dump or destroy your friends and collegeagues to please the polls. I agree with Savage earlier on the board.
But anyway, moreover, Barack Obama is a brave, accomplished, honest, able, born leader and truthful guy. why should we hate him becaue his pastor hates the system? i hate the system. i especially hate what it does to living breathing human beings.
In many neighborhoods across America similar to some where Wright has pastored, the life expectancy is 45 years old for Black men. The schools are toilets and flush out our precious kids into a system of dog eat dog materialsi and hypersexualization that steals their souls from their bodies.The poverty is grinding, degrading and decadent society flourishes because of the rampany black market that is often teh only business around for families to survive.Nothing about the aAmerican Dream is working once you are poor, undereducated,disabled, or sick.
i think a little rage is in order.
Others rage too: republican against democrat, vice versa, Jew against Black, vice versa, poor uneducated Hillary voter against college educated upwardly mobile Obama voter, displaced worker against struggling single mother...rage that is not misplaced but si as Obama says counterproductive.
We need someone to stand up like Obama is doing and stop the sound byte routine of dumping folks unless they say what the media permits them to say. Lots of people express their feelings in a small minded way. But this circumstance is CLEARLY different than what Imus did, and what Limbaugh does. In the shock jock culture cases soin artists like Imus and Limbaugh are PROFITING from not speaking the truth and from intentionally dividing others by shock, schlock, and smear.
Giving voice to anger is a Biblical and historical reality. It doesn't mean that what people say are facts, only feelings. We need to build the kind of feelings that permit us to find ways to unite and then the anger dissipates as authentic social awareness and capacity building takes over.
Bush has been preaching hate and allowing people to preach hate agianst muslims for all these years since he took us to war for oil.He is letting the Air Force intimidate people from practicing their freedom of religion as jew, Catholic, Muslim, Wicca and other than Born-again religions. He also has been telling the dirtiest of lies . Well Clintons been there cdine that.But Bush is also running a war to enrich his corporate cronies that the childen of the rich and privileged are not fighting, just tour after tour of the working poor and struggling lower middle class. Where is the Press on these critical issues of importance? if no one on this board has family, friend or mentor with whom you disagree on principle but whom you love anyway i will be very surprised . What an act of character for teh Presidential nominee not to throw that person overboard with media enhanced blame, but to reconcile, and to be loyal to the person and hate their act or words.
Obama will be the best president we have had since Washington,Lincoln and FDR if we let him.
Posted by: fenwayfem | March 19, 2008 8:16 AM
Why would anyone be surprised that a crook like Murtha would support Clinton.
Murtha (and Clinton) are Washington politics as usual. They're more invested in their own political careers then they are interested in working to support middle America.
Posted by: km1550 | March 19, 2008 7:50 AM
"Beware of Wolve's in Sheeps clothing". She will tell you what pleases your ego and put her arms around your children...but see what she tried to do more than a decade ago, but was "stopped". Yes, she WILL garnish our paychecks with her Mandatory Healthcare plan. No Freedom of choice. Just check the 1996 bill submitted to congress by Hillary Clinton and look who saved all America's butts, which includes all our children. Please begin your learning experience here: Hillary's Congressional Record
Posted by: bfreewithrp | March 19, 2008 7:05 AM
The pledged delegate and caucuses rules of the Democratic Party for the Democratic primary are not democratic! To put it mildly it is a big disgrace! If the Party had followed the rules as per the national presidential elections, Hillary would have been nominated on Super Tuesday. Hillary has already won New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Texas. If all the pledged delegates from these states are given to Hillary which she rightly deserves, there would have been no mess! DNC should have at least followed the same rules followed by the Republican Party so that all the candidates would have the same playing field during the primaries.
DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the 'uncommitted' votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them In future, the primary election rules should be same as national election rules. Then, there will not be this long political circus!
Posted by: hcsubbarao | March 19, 2008 7:02 AM
Wow... when Hillary gets a endorsement, they really send out all the internet trolls these days...
Guess you have all been waiting several weeks to post something positive though huh?
While Obama is transforming and healing the country, Hillary has some old guy who stinks of status quo offering her a long-planned endorsement.
The choice is pretty clear.
Posted by: Boutan | March 19, 2008 6:00 AM
Nice. The King of Earmarks supports the Queen of Opacity.
Wasn't Murtha, like, against the war? And didn't hillary, like, vote for the war?
Posted by: richcpl | March 19, 2008 5:44 AM
I am glad a real American hero is endorsing Hillary and not buying into the Obama hustle. Obama's biggest endorser Rev. Wright is a hater of America and he assisted in forming the spiritual world of Obama. That says everything. Obama and his wife are not proud of America and should not be leading this nation. A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama!
Posted by: hbissias | March 19, 2008 5:39 AM
One look at Murtha, that face of anal discomfort is clear that the Man is a racist. He could most likely never vote for a black man. It is just not the hypocrisy, but rather pure simple white hypocrisy.
Posted by: winemaster2 | March 19, 2008 5:17 AM
Time to get beyond just the Simple Math. Who can solve Multiple Simultaneous Algebraic Equations?
Murtha + Clinton = Pork + Corruption
2 X (Vote For War - Complain Later) = War
-$3 Trillion / Every Man, Woman and Child in America = $10,000 per person
170 Delegate Lead + Clinton Win in Pensylvania = 160 Delegate Lead
OBAMA = OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!
Posted by: fairbalanced | March 19, 2008 4:20 AM
oligar0601 I salute all three members of your family in Iraq. They are there to protect the United States of America not Hillary Clinton. It was George W Bush who lied and betrayed the trust of all right thinking Americans. George Bush failed not Hillary. Jack Murtha is also my Congressman and I respect his military and public service and I trust his endorsement because we must support our military by ensuring only the best plan is implemented so that the three members of your family and the love ones of many other American families return home safely. If you believe that enough, you may also want to believe that Obama is not the right person for that task because he is neither qualified, does not have a steadfast plan and flip flops too frequently on the hard issues. Murtha's endorsement means a lot to all those who want their love ones to return home quickly and safely.
Posted by: stepmaverick | March 19, 2008 3:00 AM
One superdelegate going her way in what 4 weeks? And, that is a Big Deal and some sort of sign. More impressive is Senator Obama capturing 17 superdelegates since March 4th and 3 since the Wright controversy broke. Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!
Posted by: friendlyfire | March 19, 2008 2:51 AM
"Murtha, who represents the 12th district of Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, was an early and sometimes inflammatory critic of the Iraq war."
In the interest of telling THE WHOLE TRUTH, which this article falls short of accomplishing, it's fair to point out that Congressman Murtha did not become an "inflammatory critic" of the Iraq War soon enough. He actually voted to authorize the War in Iraq, just as Hillary did (perhaps this is part of the reason he feels more comfortable endorsing her) and didn't "flip-flop" and begin to oppose the War until approximate a year and a half after he voted to authorize it!
There are other possible reasons for The good Congressman to feel more in tune with Senator Clinton than Senator Obama which may not sit well with some of Hillary's more ardent supporters. Murtha is a "social conservative" who OPPOSES ABORTION and Gun Control. He is another of the old school politicians who relies heavily on special interest lobbyists, lives and dies by the "earmarks" and (like Clinton) is no stranger to political scandals, most notably ABSCAM. When WAPO or others report on endorsements who may not be well known to many voters, it might be beneficial to include all sides of that individuals biography in the interest of fairness.
Posted by: diksagev | March 19, 2008 2:44 AM
So how much pork was required to buy him off?
Posted by: reston75 | March 19, 2008 2:20 AM
Maybe Senator Clinton wants to get us out of Iraq but she helped to send three members of my family there. I cannot imagine a more important decision in her political career. She failed miserably. Jack Murtha is my Congressman and I respect his military and public service. But his endorsement means nothing to me. My (military) family members have requested that I support Senator Obama and I will honor their endorsement.
It is so sad to read the venomous comments. I think we learn to stop name calling in kindergarten. Maybe we all need to relearn and stick to debating issues.
Posted by: oligar0601 | March 19, 2008 1:40 AM
To gene9... Iraq is one issue, not the only issue, not even the biggest issue. At least for me the biggest issues are healthcare and the economy. But it seems that Iraq is in the forefront for you, let's talk Iraq. There is no comparison with Obama... he did not vote against the US Congress resolution authorizating the war. I repeat... Obama did NOT vote AGAINST the US Congress resolution re: Iraq. He was not a member of US congress then and you cannot equate his speech to a vote.
If you want to talk about judgment, leadership and courage, then we talk about Rev Wright, Obama's earmarks, Rezko, and NAFTA.
Ferraro is right about her observation... if Obama were a white man, he would have a longer shot on the presidency than Kucinich. Should we lower our standard for the US presidency just to make it fit Obama?
Posted by: CPCook | March 19, 2008 1:33 AM
John Murtha is an American Hero. He is certainly qualified to endorse the most capable candidate to be the next President of the US of America. His opinion is worth its weight in gold and not to be taken lightly. More and more Americans are beginning to see the real and dark side of Obama and they do not like what they see. Americans are stedily becoming more confident and comfitable with Hillary. They know and are learning slowly but surely all Hillary's negatives are but a figment of the Rebublican right wing LIES machine. They fear Hillary so much, they started way back in 2000 when Hillary first ran for Senator. And they have not stopped feeding their lies machine. That alone gives an indication of the prowess of Hilary as the next President of the USA.
Posted by: stepmaverick | March 19, 2008 1:10 AM
John Murtha is an American Hero. He is certainly qualified to endorse the most capable candidate to be the next President of the US of America. His opinion is worth its weight in gold and not to be taken lightly. More and more Americans are beginning to see the real and dark side of Obama and they do not like what they see. Americans are steadily becoming more confident and comfortable with Hillary. They know and are learning slowly but surely that all of Hillary's negatives are but a figment of the Rebublican right wing LIES machine. They fear Hillary so much, they started way back in 2000 to destroy her when she first ran for Senator from New York. And they have not stopped feeding their lies machine since. That alone gives an indication of the prowess of Hilary to be the next President of the USA.
Posted by: stepmaverick | March 19, 2008 1:07 AM
Just like his opposition to the war, John is a day late and a dollar short.
The nomination has been secured by Obama. There is no way Billary can win.
Those troubled by this should grab their Kool-Aid cups and catch the next flight to Jonestown.
Once all the Lieberman Democrats have flown out of town, real Democrats (not of the George wallace/Archie Bunker vein) can get on to the business of electing a true progressive.
Posted by: filmex | March 19, 2008 12:53 AM
To me, this endorsement says far more about John Murtha than it does about Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: januaryspring | March 19, 2008 12:45 AM
It is amazing how the MSM and so many here want to just through the first person who is real and talks to us like we're adults under the bus (Obama.) You will get the candidate you deserve. That's for sure.
Posted by: gordon7 | March 19, 2008 12:43 AM
It is about time that people with great love for this country support the right candidate. Earlier during the campaign the media was saying that Hillary has many baggage with her, including all the scandals in the past and that of his husband which didnot impede in the performance of their duties anyway, Now it is shown that Obama carries a heavier baggage than Hillary and the baggage is very divisive. The baggage is Race. I always believe that Obama for whatever he dreams and stands for, for whatever person he is is Premature for America. He has been introduced, he needs to take a back seat and be tested more then he might be given the chance to lead, not only by the people with same color of the skin but by what he will be able to prove. Right now, it is not enough.
Posted by: statistician | March 19, 2008 12:36 AM
It is about time that people with great love for this country support the right candidate. Earlier during the campaign the media was saying that Hillary has many baggage with her, including all the scandals in the past and that of his husband which didnot impede in the performance of their duties anyway, Now it is shown that Obama carries a heavier baggage than Hillary and the baggage is very divisive. The baggage is Race. I always believe that Obama for whatever he dreams and stands for, for whatever person he is is Premature for America. He has been introduced, he needs to take a back seat and be tested more then he might be given the chance to lead, not only by the people with same color of the skin but by what he will be able to prove. Right now, it is not enough.
Posted by: statistician | March 19, 2008 12:32 AM
What exactly has Obama actually DONE besides give speeches. When we dig around the guy, it get REALLY bad. He is now unelectable. The Clinton democrats will not support him in the general election. We are middle and lower class whites who go to church. We will vote for Mc Cain over Obama now.
Posted by: tom1966 | March 19, 2008 12:27 AM
Obama is no unelectable. Fox put up a tape showing clearly Obama DEMANDING Imus be fired for the sake of his daughters, and nobody would EVER be on his campaign who did that.
How does Obama demand a WHITE person be fired , yet his BLACK racist anti american preacher was STILL on his campaign long after he knew about his racist views.
Its favoring blacks over whites.
Posted by: tom1966 | March 19, 2008 12:25 AM
Gene 9, Maybe if you're candidate is truly about hope and change and the future we can stop talking about one vote that he didn't take-and had no more information than I did on- in 2002. I was against the war also- nominate- I marched in 2002, and 2003, and 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and I am marching tomorrow. Since his speech- how has Barak done in getting us out of Iraq- he has had opportunities to vote on issues since 2004- and his record does not show anything. His proposal for the future in Iraq is not as comprehensive or efficient as HRCs- and this is why Murtha and many other anti-war activists who actually know something about the war rather than a bunch of Kool-Ade drinking bloggers (or his buddies Kennedy, Daschle and Kerry who all supported giving Bush authority the same way HRC did based on what information they had) are supporting HRC. No stop the hating- INCREASE THE PEACE. Leon
Posted by: nycLeon | March 19, 2008 12:20 AM
Gene 9, Maybe if you're candidate is truly about hope and change and the future we can stop talking about one vote that he didn't take-and had no more information than I did on- in 2002. I was against the war also- nominate- I marched in 2002, and 2003, and 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and I am marching tomorrow. Since his speech- how has Barak done in getting us out of Iraq- he has had opportunities to vote on issues since 2004- and his record does not show anything. His proposal for the future in Iraq is not as comprehensive or efficient as HRCs- and this is why Murtha and many other anti-war activists who actually know something about the war rather than a bunch of Kool-Ade drinking bloggers (or his buddies Kennedy, Daschle and Kerry who all supported giving Bush authority the same way HRC did based on what information they had) are supporting HRC. No stop the hating- INCREASE THE PEACE. Leon
Posted by: nycLeon | March 19, 2008 12:20 AM
Let's cut the B.S. John Murtha did not endorse his convictions, he endorsed the polls in Pennsylvania. The guy is just spineless.
Posted by: Logan6 | March 19, 2008 12:06 AM
Well, that's a disappointment! Obama is the only one running who got it right the first time.
Posted by: thebobbob | March 19, 2008 12:00 AM
Posted by: n88e88 | March 19, 2008 12:00 AM
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | March 18, 2008 11:54 PM
Obama doesn't know how he would have voted because he wasn't a senator until 2005. As I recall, the war had an overwhelming approval rating (by Americans) until it was discovered that we had been lied to from the beginning. We were all duped by Bush and his cronies!! Had Obama been in the room with all the meetings to discuss the war, he may very well have voted for the right to go to war, as many did, including many of his supporters. I doubt that any of them thought Bush would act as quickly or as stupidly as he did.
As for poor decisions, why don't we take a look at Obama's choice of churches for the past 20 years, and his approval of a pastor who is a huge racist, and as it appears to me, not a huge fan of America. I'm having second thoughts about Obama ever being ready to be my president.
Thank you Rep. Murtha for recognizing the fact that we've had incompetence for 8 years and can't afford another term of inexperience or incompetence.
Posted by: sharont | March 18, 2008 11:54 PM
John Murtha is someone I have long admired, especially since his brave stand against the War. His endorsement of Hillary Clinton only confirms my confidence and trust in him. Thank-you John Murtha for ANOTHER BRAVE STAND!!!!!!!!
Posted by: paintedrranch | March 18, 2008 11:31 PM
With all due respect to Rep Murtha, I believe America has been calling for something different than the stale divisive bickering political environment of the past 20 years that is wholey embodied by the Clinton persona.
Posted by: lum | March 18, 2008 11:11 PM
Isn't this Murtha that was investigated by the FBI for corruption? YES!! No wonder why he took this path towards Hillary. Back-room politics. Washington doesn't get any better than this.
While little minded folks cheer him, it reminds me of Hillary chrismas ad - parceling gifts (e.g. healthcare) for the little guys.
You guys don't get it?
It wouldn't surprise me. Cloud heads.
Posted by: ordgobaltc | March 18, 2008 11:04 PM
They truly have my Sympathy!
NO ONE deserved that! ;~)
Posted by: rat-the | March 18, 2008 11:02 PM
It would be difficult to find a more corrupt member of Congress than Jack Murtha. Maybe William Jefferson.
Posted by: huerfano101 | March 18, 2008 11:02 PM
Thanks for that, Susan9. That Out Of Iraq Caucus endorsement of Representatives along with the news of John Murtha's endorsement is great news today.
Hillary Clinton for President 2008!
Posted by: ralphdaugherty | March 18, 2008 8:32 PM
Thanks for that, Susan9. That Out Of Iraq Caucus endorsement of Representatives along with the news of John Murtha's endorsement is great news today.
Hillary Clinton for President 2008!
Posted by: ralphdaugherty | March 18, 2008 8:31 PM
Murtha is the king of earmarks, including pushing for funds to a firm under federal investigation for stealing the public's money. Of course he supports Hillary. The two of them can spend your dollars all day long to prolong their careers:
"A review by The Wall Street Journal of dozens of such contracts funded by Mr. Murtha's committee shows that many weren't sought by the military or federal agencies they were intended to benefit. Some were inefficient or mismanaged, according to interviews, public records and previously unpublished Pentagon audits. One Murtha-backed firm, ProLogic Inc., is under federal investigation for allegedly diverting public funds to develop commercial software, people close to the case say. The company denies wrongdoing and is in line to get millions of dollars more in the pending defense bill."
Posted by: scottdc | March 18, 2008 8:23 PM
Yeah, Rep Murtha - the voice of reason!
Thank you for your service to our country and for the courage you continue to display by stepping up to endorse the right candidate. As you can see, you will now be the target of scorn, threats and untruths but somehow I think you will be able to handle it.
Posted by: redhiker | March 18, 2008 8:23 PM
Way to go Jack Murtha, a true American hero.
Obama could learn a thing or two about patriotism from the great patriot Jack Murtha.
Obama is a disgrace and unelectable.
His big "race speech" today was a joke. He further damaged his already limited credibility today when he defiantly refused to completely disassociate himself from the toxic "mentor" "close friend" "like family to him" "pastor" Jeremiah Wright, an avowed racist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-semitic, pro-Louis Farakaan, Nation of Islam supporter.
Obama has proved himself to be a liar at least twice in the last couple of days, first last Friday, Obama told the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times that he had lied about the relationship and contributions from the criminally indicted Tony Rezko, currently on trial in Chicago. Then, all weekened, Obama lied about never have attended his "church" while his "pastor" Wright was saying offensive comments. Today, he admitted that he had. LIAR!
In this nation, it's may "God Bless America", NEVER, "God Da-n America" as Obama's "pastor" Wright has shouted.
May God Bless America, Jack Murtha, and Hillary Clinton. Obama can go straight to he-- as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: TAH1 | March 18, 2008 8:21 PM
OBAMA is the best thing to happen to America in 40 years. To miss this opportunity would be akin to becoming Rumpelstiltskins. Haven't we already lost enough? Under Bill Clinton the Democrats lost the House and the Senate. He bold faced lied to the nation about sex with an intern. Clinton was Impeached. We lost millions of jobs through Bill Clinton signing in NAFTA. Under Bush we lost world respect. We got a war that was built on lie after lie. We got an inarticulate aristocratic "dolt" for a President who seems genuinely unable to tell "his" people the truth, EVER. We have greed on Wall Street and greed on main street that has lead to an unbelievable housing fiasco. And now the American people are told we must bail out these poor rich people. Meantime we leave 47 million AMERICANS without healthcare, again. The country is broke and in dept to third world nations. Gas has almost tripled in price in seven years. Consumers are squealing; credit card companies have become more and more predatory. Insurance companies now practice Delay, Deny & Defend on virtually every claim, Health companies just deny. We have a media complicit in being the lapdogs of the right wing, the corporations. We have a media determined to thwart the will of the American people to the point of becoming an arm of the corporate greed machine. There is no "fair and balanced " anywhere. Each spin cycle the media becomes ever more bold in their excesses with the relentless negative opinions piled on even the most tepid Liberal views. Once again they want to destroy all that is good. Puppets, all of them. OBAMA is the best thing this country has and the media continue to belittle and nit pick and kick him relentlessly. He is wonderful. Articulate, a visionary, wholesome, attractive and SMART. His roots and ancestry are PERFECT for healing and growing so that America can be strong again. Can the media stop this outrageous assault against this amazing person? The media seems determined to destroy this most perfect person. Are they cannibalizing their children's future own but not realizing it? Why do they insist on demeaning him day in and day out? His speech today was MLK s "I Have A Dream" stature and yet MSNBC, CNN and FOX will go down in history as having destroyed, not with a bullet but with propaganda all hope for our nation going forward. And yet the media's attempt to belittle or minimise OBAMAs speech today will not thwart the millions and millions of black and white and every color and background in between. The "people" of America will not be ridiculed again! There will be a Revolution if you the media continue to defy the will of the people by poising the well yet again. Can the media come to it's senses and treat OBAMA as he should be treated? Why do the Clintons intimidate them? Why? They have done nothing for Americans. Nothing. They were a soap opera. Mrs. Clinton couldn't get Healthcare passed...she has supported all votes pertaining to this bankrupting war, and would be nowhere in politics if it hadn't been for her husband. She stayed with a liar and a womaniser....what kind of example is that? Do we want this type of "history" going forward as our American President? Your President, your children's President, the American future? Do you not think the world will not laugh at us even more? Are you in the media all just paid functionaries with no conscience or are you Americans united in the future of your country? Please stand up and say "no more". OBAMA is the future. OBAMA is brilliant....wonderful...he is hope for America. The media has a responsibility to the American people (not to their advertisers) and and to the future of this country; to yours and my children over and above making $$$ and egos and supporting the destruction of a good man. At this moment the people desperately need hope. With OBAMA leading the people we can be inspired to rally, to unite and coalesce into the United States of America(ns) again. Media, I beg you, stop destroying this man
Posted by: savage405 | March 18, 2008 8:18 PM
This is a great endorsement. But here's another:
Members from the Out of Iraq Caucus released the following letter:
As firm opponents of the Iraq war, we believe there is no higher priority for the next President of the United States than ending this war, and we believe there is no one better prepared and more committed to bringing this war to a responsible conclusion than Hillary Clinton. The best way to honor the sacrifices of our brave young men and women in uniform is to bring them home. We support Hillary Clinton because she is the candidate with the stature, strength, and experience needed to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible.
Hillary has put forward the most comprehensive plan for bringing our troops home, with troop withdrawals beginning within 60 days of taking office. She bravely pressed the Pentagon to begin planning for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. And she has introduced legislation to bar the Bush administration from unilaterally negotiating a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government and thereby tying the hands of the next administration.
Hillary's commitment to ending this war is matched by her experience. Her knowledge of the armed forces, her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and her extraordinary efforts on behalf of our veterans have earned her the respect of our men and women in uniform.
We are proud to support her because we know that she is the candidate ready to bring our troops home.
Del. Donna Christian-Christensen (D-VI) Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Posted by: Susan9 | March 18, 2008 8:15 PM
I just wanted to add a thought about the superdelegates, who are also delegates from states as the pledged delegates are.
Supers were put there as a final check on the primary process. For example, information may come out about a can
|
LANCASTER, Pa. -- Rep. John P. Murtha has announced his endorsement of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, bringing his clout as a 17-term member of the House and a prominent anti-war Democrat to bear with more than a month until the primary here in his home state. --Anne E. Kornblut
| 360.87037 | 0.981481 | 48.240741 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403513.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403513.html
|
Eggs Are Back On a Roll
|
2008032219
|
One of my earliest breakfast memories is of a soft-boiled egg, served in a special dish that seemed as common in family kitchens as cereal bowls are today. Mom carefully cracked and peeled back the top of the shell. My brother and I eagerly grabbed spoons to scoop out the warm, sustaining contents. I can still taste the slightly runny yolk and hear the sound of the spoon scraping the shell's bottom.
For my mother -- and many like-minded others of the baby boom era -- eating an egg was the only nutritionally correct way for children to start the day. Packed with protein, eggs are easy to cook and fit nearly every budget. Then, like Humpty Dumpty, they fell from favor, their reputation cracked by delivering nearly a day's worth of artery-clogging cholesterol per yolk.
After years of being marginalized, eggs are staging a slight comeback, which is either a good thing or a worrisome trend, depending on who weighs in on the topic.
In 2007, 13 percent of at-home breakfasts included eggs -- a slight increase from 2006, according to the NPD Group, a company that tracks consumer trends. About 10 percent of children who ate breakfast at home ate eggs in 2007, and the number-one fast-food and restaurant breakfast item is the breakfast sandwich, according to NPD. Its main ingredient? Eggs.
Spring -- the season of Easter and Passover -- is the time of highest egg consumption because of the use of eggs in these religious celebrations, according to the National Egg Council. In 2007, consumption jumped from an average of about 94 million dozen eggs weekly to 115 million dozen the week before Easter and nearly 136 million during Easter week.
Eggs are a cheap source of protein. For about 20 cents each, a large egg contains six grams of protein, along with five grams of fat and 72 calories.
Cholesterol, found only in the egg's yolk, is its downside. The American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines all advise Americans to limit cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams or less per day. Those with elevated blood cholesterol levels or Type 2 diabetes are urged to keep cholesterol intake at 200 milligrams or lower per day.
Dine on just one jumbo egg with 266 milligrams per yolk, though, and it's easy to hit or exceed that limit. (A large egg has 212 milligrams of cholesterol per yolk; an extra large egg, 237.)
But there's also growing research to suggest that eating a few eggs per week does not raise risk of heart disease or stroke in otherwise healthy people. For Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, eggs can be a smarter choice for breakfast than other popular fare.
"A lot of people think that a plain bagel with jam can be a healthy thing to eat in the morning," Willett notes on the Harvard School of Public Health Web site, "but actually that is one of the unhealthiest duos you can eat because it has a high glycemic load [which spikes blood sugar levels]. You'd be better off with scrambled eggs cooked in corn oil or a whole-grain cereal."
What worries Lawrence Appel, chair of the heart association's nutrition committee, is "what people eat eggs with." Scrambled eggs typically come with sides of bacon or sausage. Omelets are often flavored with cheese and ham. Ditto for breakfast sandwiches. All add unhealthy saturated fat, which helps to raise levels of low-density lipoprotein, the most dangerous type of blood cholesterol. And many of these foods are cooked in trans fat, which also hikes LDL levels.
"We are not saying to ban eggs," says Appel, a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "But what I am concerned about is that some people will think that the exception is the rule. So they will eat an omelet on the weekend and then grab a breakfast sandwich on the run on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. We don't want people to reverse the strides that have been made."
There are ways to have your eggs and eat them, too. Fitness guru Jack LaLanne, 93, and physician Dean Ornish, author of "The Spectrum" and other books on reversing heart disease, both eat eggs. But neither of them eats the yolk. LaLanne orders egg-white omelets nightly for dinner at his favorite California restaurant. And when I dined with Ornish a number of years ago, he carefully removed each hard-boiled yolk from his salad but ate the whites with gusto.
There are other options, too. Egg Beaters, made mostly from egg whites, are just one of a growing number of products available to those who want to eat eggs but need to cut back on cholesterol.
It's even possible to eat some eggs raw these days without risking salmonella. Davidson's Safest Choice eggs are pasteurized in the shell to eliminate bacteria and viruses. They're not low in cholesterol, but they can be used to make a traditional Caesar salad and other dishes that use raw eggs.
As for fortified eggs from hens whose feed is enriched with extra omega-3 fatty acids-- a fat that is good for your heart, your brain and your joints -- they may not be all that they're cracked up to be. In June 2007, the Center for Science in the Public Interest urged the Food and Drug Administration to stop seven egg producers from implying that their souped-up eggs can reduce the risk of heart disease. Lab tests commissioned by the consumer advocacy group found that some of the eggs, said to have come from hens that had eaten feed rich in omega-3s -- contained less of the beneficial fat than advertised.
To make sense of all this, here's the bottom line: If you're healthy and you like eggs, eat them in moderation. If you've got high cholesterol or Type 2 diabetes, skip the yolks or limit your intake to no more than one per day.
|
One of my earliest breakfast memories is of a soft-boiled egg, served in a special dish that seemed as common in family kitchens as cereal bowls are today. Mom carefully cracked and peeled back the top of the shell. My brother and I eagerly grabbed spoons to scoop out the warm, sustaining content...
| 19.683333 | 0.966667 | 56.066667 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802904.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802904.html
|
Panel Passes Bill to Expand Pre-Kindergarten
|
2008032219
|
The legislation follows a national trend to educate children earlier in an effort to prepare them for elementary school and prevent the need for special education for some children who might simply be behind their classmates.
The Pre-K Enhancement and Expansion Amendment Act still needs fine-tuning, some council members said, but the Committee of the Whole, to which all 13 council members belong, approved the measure before a crowd of advocates. "This is the first hurdle," said council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), who sponsored the legislation and has made the bill one of the main thrusts in office.
"We're absolutely thrilled," said Jesse Bailey, campaign manager for Pre-K for All DC, a group created in 2006 to back early childhood education in the District.
About 12,000 eligible children are enrolled in pre-K programs. Half of them are in traditional public or charter schools. An estimated 2,000 children are not being served, according to Pre-K for All. The legislation would cover all of them.
Current teachers and assistant teachers raised worries about academic requirements for instructors. Originally, Gray wanted teachers to have bachelor's degrees in early childhood education, child development or family studies by 2014 if they are working in programs funded through the legislation. That deadline was moved to 2017 in the draft approved by the committee yesterday.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said there still seemed to be anxiety among charter schools that curriculum requirements would limit their freedom to continue alternative teaching methods. He said they believed "there's some lack of flexibility here. . . . Charter schools are all about flexibility."
Gray said there would be room for different teaching styles. Gray said the Office of the State Superintendent of Education would create the "high-quality standards" for pre-K under the legislation within 120 days of passage.
Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) said he initially avoided becoming a co-sponsor because he wanted to make sure that the legislation was about "quality" education, not just expanding what exists. But he applauded Gray for shaping the bill in a way to demand an improved curriculum and more educated instructors. "This bill goes to the heart of that issue," he said.
In other business, the council voted against Mendelson's proposal to reject a $1.1 million, 15-month lease of an evidence warehouse for the D.C. police. The city paid $264,000 last year to rent the same space at 2235 Shannon Pl. SE in Ward 8.
Several council members argued that the expense of moving, including possible litigationfrom the owner of the property, outweighed concerns about the rental rate. They also noted that the city has been paying a below-market rate for more than two decades.
The vote was 10 to 2. Mendelson and council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) dissented. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) was absent.
The lease will take effect March 29.
|
A D.C. Council committee unanimously approved legislation that would enroll more 3- and 4-year-old children in pre-kindergarten classes and increase the rigor of the curriculum for early childhood education throughout the city.
| 15.864865 | 0.72973 | 1.162162 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802880.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008032219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802880.html
|
Three Wrights Don't Make a Wrong
|
2008032219
|
Fifteen-degree temperatures and an overnight snow have shriveled the rhododendrons into skinny spikes. Thick icicles dangle from the rock faces as I crunch my way through the forest toward the sound of a rushing creek. The sun seems higher and brighter than yesterday, inching toward the equinox, and just to confirm the turn of the season, a robin slides across my path. Then suddenly, it comes into view: the cantilevered house, balancing on a waterfall as if it had grown there.
It's spring, and Fallingwater's open again.
Frank Lloyd Wright's 1936 design is a Zen celebrity, studiously cool and famously one with nature. There's plenty of cool and natural here in Pennsylvania's Laurel Highlands, four hours northwest of Washington, and plenty more Wright, too. Within 30 miles, three Wright homes are open to visitors. Fallingwater is spartan and spectacular; the hilltop Kentuck Knob is cozy within and expansive without; and Duncan House, the newest addition to the collection, is a transplanted curiosity where visitors can spend the night.
Sure, it's possible to rush the three tours into a day-long Wright trifecta, as I did on a recent chilly Sunday. But if you want to get inside the architect's head, as well as his houses, take a weekend in the woods.
My first stop in the mountains southeast of Pittsburgh: Fallingwater, looking good at age 72. The old girl's had some work done -- a fresh, light ocher paint job followed a five-year, $5 million stabilization of the beams that hold the cantilevered concrete trays over Bear Run. Fallingwater tour guide Celeste Emerick halts our shivering group of nine on the bridge to the entrance, explaining how engineers tackled the sagging cantilevers. The beams below the main floor have been attached to steel cables that hold the shelf steady. Problem solved, the house looks exactly as it used to: The Wright-designed furnishings and the opulent Asian artwork of the Kaufmann family, who commissioned the house, are intact. There's not a flat-screen or Wii in the place.
Below the bridge, snow frosts the boulders in Bear Run. They're Pottsville sandstone, like the house's walls. The stream elbows them aside on its downhill rush to the Youghiogheny River. Emerick gestures with a gloved hand across the water.
"At five points, boulders support the building," she notes. She points out a single massive rock that forms a basement wall, the living room hearth and a kitchen window ledge. After squeezing up a slender entry staircase, we revisit the same boulder spilling from the hearth. The log fire is burning, and the natural light picks up the subtle, watery waves of the sandstone floor. Looking down, there's more water: the hatch that leads down broad steps to the stream's surface.
Although the Kaufmanns entertained here until 1963, the basics aren't lavish. Hallways are skinny, beds are narrow, and seating is built-in and low-slung. The ceilings are lower than seven feet. But outside, the concrete terraces are expansive. Emerick unlatches the tower windows in the corner of the upper-level library, and the waterfall softly comes to our ears.
Hidden near the bottom of the river gorge, Fallingwater is surrounded by thousands of acres protected by its owner, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. It radiates an alone-in-the-woods vibe, despite its 135,000 visitors each year.
The sun shines more brilliantly as I cut across the Youghiogheny, driving six miles to Kentuck Knob in Chalk Hill. The lesser-known Wright creation sits against the ridgetop at 2,050 feet, but the contrast between Fallingwater and Kentuck Knob is more than elevation. Its shape is hexagonal; its wood is a bright reddish cypress, capped with a copper roof; and its scale is much smaller than its downhill neighbor. And it still belongs to a private owner, British Lord Peter Palumbo.
Wright designed the home in 1953, at age 86. From the stories tour guide Judy Bevans tells us, he had grown more autocratic with age. He fought the clients, the Hagan family, on such issues as the hallways (he insisted they need be only 21 inches wide) and the kitchen flooring (he said linoleum; Bernardine Hagan chose cork). On most points, of course, he prevailed. Clerestory windows rim the house in a horizontal band, backed by a quirky carved pattern that dances like hieroglyphics. Twenty-four skylights cut into the broad overhang of the roof, and, as the sun moves, the squares of light slide across the stone terrace.
With a honkin' Wright-sized hearth at the core of the three-bedroom house and family photos smiling from the walls, the effect is snug rather than sprawling. What's big is the view, a 50-mile vista of the Youghiogheny gorge and the surprising sculpture garden down the hill.
Lord Palumbo's irreverent art collection includes pieces by Claes Oldenburg, Ray Smith and Andy Goldsworthy. "Room," Goldsworthy's circular rock wall, is punctured by slits that seem about as wide as the Kentuck hallways.
The 30-mile drive from Chalk Hill to Acme, the third destination on the Wright tour, is a trip best made on a Sunday afternoon. That's when the 1957 Duncan House is open for individual tours, beginning April 6. Real Wright fans, if they're persistent and patient, can also snag overnight reservations here, one of a half-dozen Wright homes that allow sleepovers.
Kentuck Knob is sometimes described as a grand version of a Usonian home. But Duncan House is a better example of Wright's concept for a simple, U.S.-made dwelling, with concrete floors, wood walls and a huge stone fireplace. More than a hundred of the Wright designs were built; this three-bedroom abode was saved from the wrecker in Lisle, Ill. Painstakingly reassembled here by local builder Tom Papinchak, it opened to the public in June.
The Jetsons would feel at home with these teak furnishings, vintage appliances and carport. Details such as the sleek shadowline battens and an angular chimney add Wright's flair to a familiar shape, and once again he directs the attention outdoors. Twelve-foot-wide windows showcase the Laurel Ridge landscape. The neighbors are other Wright-inspired homes, designed by Wright apprentice Peter Berndtson. On a 125-acre spread now dubbed Polymath Park Resort, the three similarly sleek homes overlook a meadow where the only recent guest was a groundhog bumbling toward a pond.
"Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities," Wright grandly proclaimed. For architecture buffs, seeing his works is a necessity. The chance to see three of them in a weekend, nestled in Pennsylvania's best mountain greenery, is a real luxury.
* The Laurel Highlands are about 200 miles northwest of the Beltway, four hours by car. Info: Laurel Highlands Visitors Bureau, 800-333-5661, http://www.laurelhighlands.org.
|
About four hours northwest of Washington, three Frank Lloyd Wright homes are open to visitors: the spartan Fallingwater; the hilltop Kentuck Knob; and the transplanted curiosity Duncan House.
| 41.181818 | 1 | 3.545455 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702152.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702152.html
|
The Fed Can't Do It Alone
|
2008031819
|
Psychology has now overwhelmed economics. What started last summer as a serious problem in a little-known -- but not so little -- corner of the U.S. mortgage market has blossomed into a worldwide financial panic, the sort we read about in history books. Except within the Republican Party, laissez-fairy tales have been discarded, and government support is being both sought and given.
The financial markets live or die on confidence. If you sell a security, you must believe the other guy will pay. You must also believe that something worth $30 at Friday's close, such as shares of Bear Stearns, will not be worth $2 at Monday's open. Such confidence looks to be draining from the system.
Who can restore it? Once upon a time, it was J.P. Morgan -- the man, not the company. Today, it must be the world's leading central banks and treasuries, starting with our own.
Unfortunately, this past weekend was a bad one for Team USA. On Friday, President Bush gave a speech at the Economic Club of New York that left people wondering whether he was in touch. On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has been eerily silent as this crisis unfolded, made the rounds of the morning talk shows. It was not reassuring to see this former titan of Wall Street recite his talking points. Wolf Blitzer asked him five times, "Why did you bail out Bear Stearns?" He never got an answer.
Actually, the Treasury didn't bail out Bear Stearns; the Federal Reserve did. Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Fed have been working overtime; they have slashed interest rates and lent or offered money to almost everyone potentially involved in this mess. On Sunday, the Fed even put its own balance sheet at risk to smooth the way for J.P. Morgan (the company, not the man) to "buy" Bear Stearns. But the stunningly low purchase price, far below even the value of Bear Stearns's Manhattan building, did not exactly inspire confidence.
Earth to the White House and Congress: The Fed cannot do this job alone.
But isn't the central bank the fabled "lender of last resort"? Yes, and the Fed is performing that role extensively. But central banks are designed to lend money to banks that are illiquid but not insolvent. It is not supposed to spend taxpayer money or even put much of it at risk. Those political decisions are properly made by elected leaders.
So what can be done now?
First, everyone should take a deep breath. To those living far from the canyons of Manhattan, the sky is not falling. If you don't want to sell your home, forget about falling house prices. Even on paper, it's unlikely that you've "lost" anything near what you "gained" in the run-up. Yes, the economy is limping, but it's not collapsing. And the effects of the Fed's interest rate cuts and the stimulus package that Congress enacted last month are still to come.
Second, it would be nice to see some patient capital step up to the plate. With so many assets on fire sale, buying opportunities abound. Highly leveraged public companies with mark-to-market accounting and daily liquidity drains are too petrified to buy. But patient investors who don't need liquidity and don't have to worry about mark-to-market accounting have a chance to be the J.P. Morgans of our day.
Third, our nation's great financial houses need to use the breathing space the Fed is providing to put themselves in order -- post haste. They need to come clean, book the losses and, in many cases, raise new capital. If the capital must come from abroad, Americans must set aside their pride and/or xenophobia. (By the way, why are some of these companies still paying large dividends and enormous bonuses to their top executives?)
Fourth, we need leadership from political Washington. Forget the president. We need the Treasury secretary to take charge, not just to "support the Fed." While Paulson repeats his "strong dollar" mantra, confidence in the dollar ebbs. How about doing something about it -- such as a dramatic currency market intervention in concert with other nations?
Fifth, I'd like to hear the Fed, which has the credibility the administration lacks, talk more -- and in plain English. For example, I'd like to hear it answer Wolf Blitzer's question -- and others. I'm sure Bernanke can do it better than Paulson.
But our best hope for leadership from Washington may now be in Congress. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are working on a fine bill that, by easing some of the stresses in the mortgage market, could do some real good. I urge Frank, Dodd and the Democratic leadership to expedite the process, and congressional Republicans should stop standing in the way.
In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Unbridled fear is gripping today's financial markets. We need some soothing words right now -- followed by actions, as FDR's words were. Who will step forward?
Alan S. Blinder, a vice chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1994 to 1996, is an economics professor at Princeton and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network.
|
How to restore confidence to the confidence game.
| 118 | 0.888889 | 1.111111 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403389.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403389.html
|
Shhh . . . Don't Say 'Recession.'
|
2008031819
|
If (as is often the case) talking about sex makes people more interested in having it, does that mean that the current talk about a recession could actually be creating one?
Or so one general finding of behavioral economics would have us believe. With all this chatter about a recession, consumers might, for example, hold off on buying that new dishwasher because of the "bad economy," or pass up the more expensive restaurant because "we're in a recession." Without any discussion about recession, we're unlikely to change our pattern of behavior. But talking about it can be a force that affects our decisions and alters our consumption habits.
What makes me think that we're such creatures of habit? Consider the experience of eating a Godiva truffle: The chocolate is melting in your mouth, the aroma penetrates your nose, there is a small nut inside. . . . Now think about this familiar experience and try to determine how much it's worth to you. A quarter? 50¿? 75¿? $1.25? $2.50? While the experience of eating a truffle is very familiar, figuring out what we would be willing to pay for it proves difficult. So what do we do when we make purchasing decisions? Generally, we use past decisions as a guiding principle. If we have paid 50¿ for a Godiva truffle in the past, we remember this decision, assume it was a good one and probably repeat it again and again.
Let's look at the following experiment: What if I asked you for the last two digits of your Social Security number (mine are 79), then asked you whether you would pay that number in dollars (for me this would be $79) for a particular bottle of 1998 Cotes du Rhone. Would the mere suggestion of that number influence how much you would be willing to spend on wine? Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? Well, here's what happened to a group of MBA students at MIT a few years ago.
"Now here we have a nice 1998 Cotes du Rhone Jaboulet Parallel," said Drazen Prelec, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, as he lifted a bottle admiringly. Sitting before him were the 55 students from his marketing research class. On this day, Prelec, professor George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University and I had an unusual request for this group of future marketing pros. We asked them to jot down the last two digits of their Social Security numbers and tell us whether they would pay that amount for a number of products, including the wine. Then we asked them to actually bid on these items in an auction.
What were we trying to prove? The existence of what we called arbitrary coherence. The basic idea of arbitrary coherence is this: Although initial prices can be "arbitrary," once those prices are established in our minds, they will shape not only present prices but also future ones (thus making them "coherent"). So would thinking about one's Social Security number be enough to create an anchor? And would that initial anchor have a long-term influence? That's what we wanted to find out.
"For those of you who don't know much about wines," Prelec continued, "this bottle received 86 points from Wine Spectator. It has the flavor of red berry, mocha and black chocolate; it's a medium-bodied, medium-intensity, nicely balanced red, and it makes for delightful drinking." He held up another bottle, a Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle, 1996, with a 92-point rating from the Wine Advocate magazine. "The finest La Chapelle since 1990," he intoned, while the students looked on curiously. "Only 8,100 cases made."
Prelec held up four other items one by one: a cordless trackball, a cordless keyboard and mouse, a design book, and a one-pound box of Belgian chocolates. He passed out forms that listed all the items. "Now I want you to write the last two digits of your Social Security number at the top of the page," he instructed. "And then write them again next to each of the items in the form of a price. In other words, if the last two digits are 23, write $23."
"Now when you're finished with that," he added, "I want you to indicate on your sheets whether you would pay that amount for each of the products."
When the students had finished, Prelec asked them to write down the maximum amount they were willing to pay for each of the products (their bids). Then they passed the sheets up to me, and I announced the winners. The students enjoyed this exercise, but when I asked them whether they felt that writing down the last two digits of their Social Security numbers had influenced their final bids, they dismissed my suggestion. No way! When I got back to my office, I analyzed the data.
Did the digits from the Social Security numbers serve as anchors? Remarkably, they did: The students with the highest-ending Social Security digits bid highest, while those with the lowest-ending numbers bid lowest. The top 20 percent, for instance, bid an average of $56 for the cordless keyboard; the bottom 20 percent bid an average of $16. In the end, students with Social Security numbers ending in the upper 20 percent placed bids that were 216 to 346 percent higher than those of the students with Social Security numbers ending in the lowest 20 percent.
Now, if the last two digits of your Social Security number are a high number, I know what you must be thinking: "I've been paying too much for everything my entire life!" This is not the case, however. Social Security numbers were the anchor in this experiment only because we requested them. We could just as well have asked for the current temperature, or your shoe size. Any question, in fact, would have created the anchor.
Does that seem rational? Of course not. But when we make one decision, even when it's about an arbitrary number, we bring this history into our future decisions, and continue to make the same decisions over and over without going back and questioning their wisdom.
This suggests that if we just ignored the talk about recession, we would repeat our past behaviors and not deviate much from our pre-recession pattern of purchasing decisions. But when everyone is talking about recession, it's likely to make us stop, rethink our past decisions and feel that something needs to change. And so we change our patterns, start acting as if we're in a recession -- and thereby create one. On the whole, it might be better if we just talked about sex instead.
Dan Ariely is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Sloan School of Management and the author of "Predictably Irrational."
|
Does talk of a recession create a recession?
| 151 | 1 | 1.444444 |
high
|
high
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/03/post_10.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/03/post_10.html
|
Katrina on the Hudson
|
2008031819
|
That headline, Katrina on the Hudson, is the full text of a comment filed late last night by lwps. It pretty much sets the tone for the way our Readers Who Comment view the Fed's Sunday night actions in attempting to manage the fallout of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The Post's first paragraph and headline said the actions -- supporting a fire-sale takeover of Bear Stearns and making more money available to banks squeezed for credit -- were to "avert" a crisis in the global financial system. Another reader, egalitaire, suggested that "mitigate" would be a more accurate verb than "avert."
If reader comments are an indicator of anything, the financial situation is worrying people, at least those who read news articles on web sites in the middle of the night and early in the morning. Some wonder why, if banks can be helped by government so dramatically and quickly, why can't real people? And as is always the case in comments about journalism that involves the federal government, there is partisan finger-pointing and some cheerleading or spite for candidates. Politics aside, the unmistakable tone of comments filed by our readers so far today is one of significant concern about the economy.
First out of the box was markswisshelm, who said, "WOW! A sweet deal for JP Morgan. All the assets basically for free and the taxpayers pick up all the liabilities. The President really knows how to take good care of his base."
But edbyronadams said, "This is a good deal for the country. The economy gets spared the shock of an investment bank filing bankruptcy and the shareholders get rightfully sheared for letting the company get run into the ground..."
RickJohnson621 wrote, "Dear Feds, I am going through a credit crunch. My credit card in about to be maxed out. Creditors will soon come knocking. I need a bailout. Please send money..."
gce1356 said the Fed's action "...Makes you wonder how over-leveraged and vulnerable other investment banks and hedge funds are, not to mention how fast they can fall if there's A RUN ON THE BANKS MONDAY MORNING... I for one am not waiting to be another Enron stock holder!"
misssymoto, quoting the article's assertion that the "Fed's moves were meant to reverse a rising tide of panic," said "They need to go back to the drawing board!! Nothing says "Run on the Banks" quite like TWO DOLLAR A FREAKING SHARE Bear Stearns stock!!..."
kaygeejay wrote, "Now they'e freaking me out. Rates cut weekly, newly invented loans to banks twice a week. A bail out here, absorbing bank liabilities there. Whatever the FED and Mr. Paulson see over the horizon has to be downright frightening. I think my mattress needs to be plumped up in spots."
AlanBrowne said, "We can only hope that once all this dust settles one day that the government begins to see that perhaps there is a place for government to actively regulate and to prevent the stupidities that have led to this cash crisis. The signs have been out for 5 or more years, but the government decided all was fine and dandy..."
cleancut77 wrote, "It appears that the Bush Administration has said no to Socialized medicine and yes to socialized banking. God Help Us."
But truthdigger advised that, "It'll only get a turn for the worse if Obama gets elected. The man is a pumped up balloon."
To which Nissl responded, "...Truthdigger, you're amazing. Random political insults on a thread about the worst financial crisis in half a century."
jasonfehlers said, "Forget Bush. This entire recession is squarely on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve. It has failed (again) to enforce regulations governing the banking industry... How many more times do we have to watch the Fed bail out the banks it represents because it looked the other way?..."
toddpw said, "...The Fed's credibility is shot, and Bush's leveraged buyout of the US is on borrowed time. You can't double the national debt in 7 short years and not expect that to weigh down your currency..."
tysonsCorner1 wrote, "This is a pretty outrageous thing for the Fed to do. If individuals or small companies make bad investments than end up going sour, conventional wisdom is to say "tough luck, better luck next time, that is how markets work."... This seems very unfair to me... The deck is stacked."
IssyWise said, "Not that the Fed should sit on its hands while Rome burns, but it should be noted that the super-rich captains of our economy have again required socialist intervention (in the form of huge amounts of taxpayer funds flooding into private coffers) to avoid damaging the rest of our lives with their unrestrained financial buccaneering..."
dbeins wrote, "All of this is from people living beyond their means or because people dont seem to understand that you cant trust lenders and that they have to read the contract before signing... The whole thing is a pyramid scheme and should be swept away. What the hell ever happened to market forces?"
rkerg asked, "...which investment bank or hedge fund will fail next? This country has a bad case of overvalued assets, much of which are over leveraged. By taking the near worthless securities as collateral, the Fed is letting Wall street walk away from the consequences of their own decisions and actions..."
marmac5 observed that "We can spend money bailing out banks, but we can't spend money on expanding SCHIP, health insurance for children. Go figure. Of course, bankers are much more important than children. How dumb of me to think otherwise."
And the last word goes to underdogman, who said, "I never want to hear Wall Street complain about "entitlements" or "welfare state" ---or anything about how the capital markets will regulate themselves and correct themselves. For market psychology, of course we must avert a panic. Let's hope the consumer, not the speculators, get some real relief."
All comments on the Fed article are here.
By Doug Feaver | March 17, 2008; 9:25 AM ET Economy Previous: Time Out | Next: Obama's Speech Praised and Panned
Posted by: neurontin and erectile dysfunction | April 1, 2008 8:28 PM
Posted by: idamkvhn dukigbcn | March 27, 2008 12:02 AM
ytoc gbqplw qiuyzohwk ecowjykq bfsdrwu qpmhsgni mvnb
Posted by: xsdhp vcwtdx | March 27, 2008 12:01 AM
ytoc gbqplw qiuyzohwk ecowjykq bfsdrwu qpmhsgni mvnb
Posted by: xsdhp vcwtdx | March 27, 2008 12:00 AM
ytoc gbqplw qiuyzohwk ecowjykq bfsdrwu qpmhsgni mvnb
Posted by: xsdhp vcwtdx | March 26, 2008 11:59 PM
Posted by: ifppsjgit3 | March 26, 2008 4:19 AM
Posted by: aiij6jm89t | March 26, 2008 4:11 AM
Posted by: 1qsxkin514 | March 26, 2008 4:07 AM
Posted by: Forex systems | March 24, 2008 7:49 AM
Posted by: seroitu | March 24, 2008 1:19 AM
DEvbRy I found your site on google and I have added it in my favourites. If you like, you can visit my site [URL=http://www.chrcstudents.com/user/view.php?id=583&course=1]Forex platform for ordinary users[/URL] too, thanks! Forex trading Forex platform for ordinary users
Posted by: Forex trading | March 21, 2008 9:30 PM
Posted by: vova | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM
I can't beleive that the American people especially the White Majority can actually treat Sen. BO like this? This man is a flash and blood of a White American Women who went Nine Months caring this young Man and to come out now to characterise him as racist is totally Unfair and insulting to the poor mother. How many of us sit in our churchs but not always agreing with what the pastor is saying but find ourselves at home with that paricular church. Our leaders who say things but not particular supportive of what they are preaching? Our parents doing thing and saying things that we do not subscribe to? Are we going to leave our parentsm, ministers and leaders just because of that? No if that was the case how many homeless kid will be there and refugees will be there. As a christian I know for a fact that killing an innocent man, women or kid is a sin. But here we face a goverment that go killing the innocent people under the name democracy and under the name National securiry. How does a 6 year old Iraqi young boy have to do with US national security? I challenge all you conservative GOPs to look inside you and proclaim yourself as christian but while you vote killers into power that makes you akiller blood of innocent people in your hands. Why most white male refuse to accept change and unable to denounce any hate speeches coming out of their own communities?
Posted by: Hardcore GOP | March 18, 2008 5:41 AM
Why don't they collect the bonuses and excessive salary paid out to the leaders of Bear Stearns? It seems ridiculous that there is no action on that transfer of wealth.
Posted by: PointOfDiscovery | March 18, 2008 4:13 AM
I withdrew half of my cash savings over the past two months taking about 4k per day out. I don't trust the lying bankers.
Posted by: Tom Hapnet | March 17, 2008 7:11 PM
FDR would be proud of the extreme and untested governmental intervention taking shape. What people MUST realize at some point is that the Fed is obligating the U.S. Taxpayer to immunize speculators from bearing any risk.... at some point the market just has to be left to work, otherwise welcome to Soviet Russia & allow the state to control the allocation of capital and resources.
Posted by: Adams_Morgan_Is_The_New_Eden | March 17, 2008 4:14 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.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 1,014.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/03/our_friends_and_their_views.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/03/our_friends_and_their_views.html
|
Our Pastor's Keeper
|
2008031819
|
Much has been made in the past week about the words of the Rev. Jeremiah A.Wright, Jr., Barack Obamaâs former pastor at Chicagoâs Trinity United Church of Christ.
Over the years the now retired Wright has made a number of incendiary comments. People have reacted most strongly to one he made five years ago. âThe government, âsaid Wrightâ,â gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing âGod Bless America. No, No, no. God damn America! Thatâs in the Bible for killing innocent people.â
Obama repudiated the remarks, calling them âinflammatory and appallingâ, and âvehementlyâ condemned them. âThey in no way reflect and directly contradict my profound love for this country.â He also added that he did not ârepudiate the manâ who had married him and his wife and baptized his two daughters and âbrought me to Christ.â
Both Obama detractors and supporters have been asking how he could not repudiate someone who could talk that way. Do we believe in guilt by association? Do we believe, as the bible says, to blame the sin but not the sinner.
These are all important and relevant questions, questions that have cropped up much too often in this increasingly bitter campaign. This is not a new phenomenon however.
People turn to counselors, ministers, psychiatrists and spiritual advisers in times of despair, often not thinking or realizing that these people have complicated lives as well.
The very same issue came up with Bill and Hillary Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Chelsea Clinton called Jesse Jackson and asked him to come give spiritual guidance to the family. He ultimately became the Clinton familyâs spiritual adviser, ministering to Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, and at Hillaryâs urging developed a special counseling relationship with their daughter. Shortly after the Lewinsky story broke Jackson met with the three Clintons at the White House. They reportedly prayed and hugged one another under Jacksonâs spiritual guidance.
The night before Bill Clinton was to testify before the grand jury about Monica Lewinsky, the president called Jackson and asked him to come watch the Super Bowl with him. At first Jackson begged off, citing a previous engagement, then heeded his wifeâs advice. According to Jackson âMy wife said, âyour first obligation is ministerial. It is morally right.'â And he was later quoted as saying that âThe relationship between a prophet and a president, the priest and the president is a sacred one.â Jackson gave Hillary Clinton a framed photograph of himself with Chelsea, which Hillary Clinton hung in her bedroom.
The Clintons did not repudiate Jackson for his earlier comments about Jews, calling them âHymieâsâ and referring to New York as âHymietown.â Nor did they repudiate him for recognizing the PLO or Yasser Arafat, or for embracing Arafat and Syrian Preisdent Hafez Assad, or for accepting Arab money for two of his organizations. (In fact, Hillary Clinton was roundly criticized by her New York constituents for embracing Arafatâs wife at a meeting.)
Later it was revealed that while Jesse Jackson was acting as the Clintonâs spiritual adviser during this troubled time, he was having an affair with a California State University professor Karin Stanford, a former staffer, and fathered her child. According to Stanford, Jackson tried to keep it quiet by asking her to sign a confidentiality agreement and by paying money to her from his charity organizations, hardly visiting the child at all. âAn angry Stanford remarked later that âblack religious leaders and congregations prayed for him (Jackson) and his âfamilyâ but not for our daughter (Ashley) and me.â She then said, âComing at a time when (former) President Bill Clinton was being crucified for lying about his affair with a White House intern, my partner was praised by the media for his honesty.â
Iâm sure Hillary Clinton does not support Jacksonâs remarks about Jews, his relationship with the PLO or his having a child by a woman other than his wife. But clearly he was able to help her at a time, as she has admitted, of the greatest crisis of her life.
This is all by way of saying that one can get solace and support from others who are mortal and human and who make mistakes like everyone else. One can repudiate their behavior but not the people themselves.
My father, an Army general, was a conservative Republican and the closest friend of Sen. Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was like a surrogate father to me. I called him âUncle Barry.â I adored and admired them both. Both were great sources of wisdom and support for me throughout my life. Both were great Americans and great patriots. My father was a genuine war hero. But politically correct they were not. (Both would be over 100 years old now.) Many were the evenings when I would suffer through conversations that I found appalling. Sometimes I would roll my eyes, other times I would remonstrate them. Never, though would I have repudiated them.
I can remember one excruciating dinner at a Jewish friendâs house years ago where her parents were going on and on about the âschwartzesâ (âblacksâ in Yiddish). I thought she was going to crawl under the table.
And who can forget the Rev. Billy Grahamâs unfortunate conversations with Richard Nixon and H.R. Haldeman about the Jews? They made anti-Semitic jokes, talked about which reporters were Jewish and how reporting had deteriorated since more Jews had become journalists. Nixon complained (on tape) that the Jews had a âstranglehold on the countryâ and Billy Graham responded: âIf you get elected a second time then we might be able to do something.â
Billly Graham has been a spiritual adviser to our presidents for years, including Bill Clinton and our current President Bush but none of them has repudiated him.
The point is, weâve all been there, with family, friends, or spiritual advisers.
Thatâs what makes Jackie Jacksonâs (Jesseâs wife) remark to her husband so conflicting and so poignant. âYour first obligation is ministerial. It is morally right.â
|
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.
| 25.886364 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/03/the_flareup_over_the_hateful.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/03/the_flareup_over_the_hateful.html
|
Obama's Critical Moment
|
2008031819
|
I want to know if this pastor talked this stuff all the time...why then are there 6 years between the clips that add up to less then 30 seconds? Has anyone LISTENED to them? I had an argument with another poster in another forum...he called the Pastor a lier for saying Black Men were used for experiments, given Syphllis. Then given placebos instead of meds. It is true, it happened.
An unfair justice system that gives black men longer sentences for the same crimes a white man does..
We did bomb 400,000 people and even today cancer and mutated babies are the result. We did that...and this country is not run by rich white men? It's not???
Obama's mother was white, his grandparents raised him...they were white. First the whistpers that Obama was Muslim. because his father came from Kenya...but his father was Atheist. His mother spiritual not religious. No Obama was not Muslim. But now you have to attack him for his pastor. Make up your mind, you hate him because of his Muslim religion or the truth his pastor says...or is it his race? Well..if it is race, just vote for the white half.
And for you people that claim Pastor Wright an anti semite...Jews and Muslims are semites. People throw that word around alot, and have no idea what it means.
Who can forget the Rev. Billy Grahamâs unfortunate conversations with Richard Nixon and H.R. Haldeman about the Jews? They made anti-Semitic jokes, talked about which reporters were Jewish and how reporting had deteriorated since more Jews had become journalists. Nixon complained (on tape) that the Jews had a âstranglehold on the countryâ and Billy Graham responded: âIf you get elected a second time then we might be able to do something.â
Did anyone repudiate Billy Graham?
Bill Crystal from the NYT made a claim that he was able to prove that Obama was in the church on July 22 when one clip came from. Except he was in Florida talking to La Rza at the time. Cyrstal had to appologize today, He had got the news from Newsmax. Gods...he should know Newsmax is not the place to get truth.
You people can not be saying stuff that you know is true. All I can say is prove it. For the stuff you are saying.../prove it.
Until you do you all are just bigoted, racist liers.
Why not have clips from each week...why have clips from the pastor 6 years apart? Over 27000 mineuts and all that came from it was 30 seconds?Can anyone think? Or does being spoon fed garbage for all these years of the Bush gang warped your reasoning?
How about all those White pastors that Damned New Orleans because of gays...or Damned New York because of the ACLU, Gays and us Pagans? How about the pastors that claim America is damned for abortions..How about Fred Phelps, that go to soldiers funerals and say God is happy when a soldier dies? What no rage over that? Why, cause Phelps is white?
No where has Rev Wright preached white hatred...he said America was ruled by wealthy whites..and it is. Are you all wealthy? Is it not the owners of corporations that run us? Is it people that are loseing their homes getting bailed out or that Bear and Stearns for Billions. Now are you mad because the Pastor was lieing or because he was telling the truth? Has Hillary been called n**ger? I doubt it.
I am a middle aged white woman, but if I was green or purple, lies are lies..and bigotry is bigotry...I will vote for Obama, I trust him and I like him. He would not treat us like fools or to be used. He is honerable, and to me that means everthing.
And I simply adore Michelle..she is intelligent, brave and down to Earth, and one wonderful speaker.
|
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.
| 17.545455 | 0.522727 | 0.568182 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/britney_and_us.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/britney_and_us.html
|
Guest Voices: Britney and Us
|
2008031819
|
We are overwhelmed in our time by images of suffering from far away -- devastation unfolding in real time in digital resolution and Dolby sound, lives being ruined before our eyes -- that we don't know what to do with, how to live with. It's a kind of relief to turn to another genre of dramatic images that bombard us: the lives of celebrities, people who by contrast "have it all." We can admire their excess of beauty and revelry and love affairs and then, when their marriages end or they head into treatment, we can follow their plight knowing that they require nothing of us, not even guilt. They have all the resources for all the solutions in the world.
All this is by way of saying that I don't worry overly about our cultural interest in celebrities per se. I understand and participate in it and suspect it is as old as time. But as I've watched Britney Spears unravel before our eyes, in real time, with no end in sight, I have begun to think it's time for a pause, a moment of cultural soul-searching. I've been disturbed by the numerous reports I've heard - not in People or Us but in major news outlets - gleefully tallying all the money she continues to make for paparazzi and other people around her, noting with amusement that the profits only rise as she sinks to ever-lower depths.
A few years ago I had a conversation with Pankaj Mishra, an Indian journalist who traced the Buddha's legacy in history and across the world as a social thinker. Mishra himself is an intellectual and a skeptic and came to an interest in religion warily and indirectly. But when I pressed him about the rise of Buddhism and other contemplative religious practices in Hollywood in recent years, he refused to be critical. Stars, he said, have achieved the fame and wealth that our culture exalts and decrees as the pinnacle of success. Yet they discover, each in their own private places and struggles, that fame and wealth can accompany an utter void of meaning. Outward glory does not equal, and may in fact thwart, personal happiness. This simple insight, too, is as old as time.
Britney Spears, as much as any other current celebrity, is our creation. She achieved stardom at an age when her sense of self, of what is good and right and meaningful in life, was completely determined by the adults and the culture around her. But the same machine that made her is exquisitely calibrated to destroy and discard her.
So though it might seem a stretch to add Britney's plight to our public list of "moral values" issues, I'm proposing that she might belong there. I'd like to hear religious and spiritual leaders bold enough to call for compassion and introspection. I wonder who or what could effect a stop to the paparazzi hounding of an already ruined person? Where are the voices genuinely concerned about the plight of her children, whose own personal devastation is also on display in real time, a matter of public spectacle through no fault of their own? What is it doing to our own children when we fail to think and speak about our collective complicity in the creation and downfall of a human being like Britney Spears?
When I write about why religion matters and how to talk about it, I am describing my own longing that diverse religious, ethical, spiritual and theological voices in our culture could gain a new weight and wisdom beyond the tired and polarizing issues - even and precisely in situations like this.
Krista Tippett is creator and host of Speaking of Faith at American Public Media. Her program is heard on over 200 public radio stations across the U.S. and globally via podcast. She is author of "Speaking of Faith - Why Religion Matters and How to Talk about it."
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 53.071429 | 0.5 | 0.642857 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2008/03/for_china_business_as_usual_in.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2008/03/for_china_business_as_usual_in.html
|
China's Business as Usual in Tibet
|
2008031819
|
The Current Discussion: The U.S. State Dept. says China's no longer one of the world's worst human rights offenders. Are they right?
The current situation in Tibet seems to be vindicating those who decry Chinaâs being left off the U.S. State Department's Top Ten list of human rights offenders. I view it differently.
In last weekâs press conference to release the 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Jonathan Farrar, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said:
"Countries in which power was concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers remain the most systematic human rights violators. Here we would cite North Korea, Burma, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Eritrea and Sudan. Some authoritarian countries that are undergoing economic reform have experienced rapid social change, but have not undertaken democratic political reform and continue to deny their citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. China remains a case in point." First of all, the State Department doesn't officially publish a list of the worst human rights offenders. What it does do, usually in the report's introduction, is to highlight some countries that perform poorly. In 2007, the above ten countries made the list. In 2006, the report named eight countries: North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, Belarus and Eritrea. In 2005, the list consisted of seven countries: North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China and Belarus. By positioning China right next to, but not inside, this group of worst offenders, the State Department in fact presents a more accurate picture of the global human rights situation. That doesn't mean that China has behaved better. It hasn't, and the report correctly states, "The government's human rights record remained poor, and controls were tightened in some areas, such as religious freedom in Tibetan areas and in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR); freedom of speech and the media, including the Internet; and the treatment of petitioners in Beijing." In terms of denying "their citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms," (as Mr. Farrar stated), China, which hasn't "undertaken democratic political reform," is on par with the Top 10 nations. What separates China from North Korea, Burma and others, however, is the "economic reform" and "social change" (again stated by Mr. Farrar) it has been experiencing. Even this critic of the Chinese Communist Party must admit there's not much trace of dictatorship left in the streets of Beijing. And I could easily imagine that I would prefer living in China to living in any of the Top 10 countries today. This is not a compliment to China, but a sad statement of the conditions in the other ten places. There is one new element to whatâs now happening in Tibet, and that is that thanks to modern technology, the outside world has more glimpses of Beijing's crackdown and repression there. To the Tibetans, I'm afraid this is only a continuation of what they have been facing since 1959, when the Chinese forced the Dalai Lama out of his kingdom. The human rights condition of Tibet, a nation occupied by China, is undoubtedly terrible. But that doesn't make China a worse offender â China has always been this bad.
|
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.
| 19.69697 | 0.424242 | 0.424242 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2008/03/us_all_talk_and_no_action_on_h.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bashir_goth/2008/03/us_all_talk_and_no_action_on_h.html
|
U.S. All Talk and No Action on Human Rights
|
2008031819
|
The Current Discussion: The U.S. State Dept. says China's no longer one of the world's worst human rights offenders. Are they right?
Does it matter, one might ask, whether the U.S spills tons of ink accusing China of all kinds of human rights violations or absolves China of any wrongdoing at all? For many years, the U.S. State Dept. was criticizing many countries, including China, for their human rights records. Most of these countries, however, knew that the U.S. human rights reports were just like the boy who cried wolf. Leveling criticism without accompanying it with punitive action makes such reports meaningless.
The U.S. had listed China as one of the worst human rights offenders due to Chinaâs oppression of the Tibetans and Uyghurs, its shackling of the will of the Taiwanese for 60 years, its torture of political dissidents and its degradation of human dignity in child labor and sweatshops. Despite all that, America still continued all these years to renew Chinaâs most-favored-nation trading status. Now China has launched its worst repression campaign against the Tibetan people just after America dropped it from the human rights offenders list. That appears to be a divine ritribution for the U.S. issuing such an unwarranted clean bill.
The U.S. State Dept. also repeatedly criticizes many of its Middle Eastern friends for their dismal human rights records. But some of these countries remain as major recipients of U.S. aid.
Even the traditional guests of every American human rights report such as Russia, Syria and Iran have learned long ago that âIt Ain't Truth If It Doesn't Hurtâ. These countries never fail to point fingers quickly at Americaâs hypocrisy with its own human rights record in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and its rendition flights. This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The real issue, therefore, may be for America to show the world that when it names, it really means to shame.
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.
| 12.060606 | 0.363636 | 0.363636 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403500.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403500.html
|
Pillows: The Inside Story
|
2008031819
|
I love my pillows -- the bigger and puffier the better. I've always thought of them as the ultimate allies, cradles of comfort outside the womb, the means to melt into peaceful slumber.
And I've been so wrong.
I started taking pillows more seriously after two shoulder surgeries on one arm affected my good arm, neck and upper back. The good arm became even more painful than the bad one. Among the myriad issues we explored, my physical therapist and rehabilitation doctor separately brought up pillows and what they're really for -- which is getting your wayward body back in line.
Since then, I've looked at pillows in a whole new way. The pillow, after all, is the inanimate object with which people arguably spend the most time -- up to a third of their lives. Along the way, I've learned answers to questions I'd never previously thought to ask. Some of them made me shudder.
So how old is your pillow?
One byproduct of my research was learning about the health of the pillow itself.
On her Web site, Mercia Tapping, president of AllergyBuyersClub.com, recalled returning to her parents' home and finding pillows that were at least 20 years old. "Moldy, smelly and stained," she writes.
Repositories of body moisture, dead skin and drool, pillows offer irresistible digs to dust mites and fungi. A 2005 medical study of pillows -- said to be the first since 1936 -- found up to 16 species of fungi in a single pillow. Testing both feather and synthetic pillows that ranged from 18 months to 20 years old, University of Manchester researchers found several thousand spores of fungus per gram of used pillow -- a higher count than you'd find on a used toothbrush. A minute's soak in hydrogen peroxide can kill the toothbrush spores; not so with a pillow.
And the consequences can be serious.
"Given the time spent sleeping, and the proximity of the pillow to the airway, synthetic and feather pillows could be the primary source of fungi and fungal products. This has important implications for patients with respiratory disease, and especially asthma and sinusitis," Ashley Woodcock, the University of Manchester research team leader, wrote in the journal Allergy.
A dry steam cleaner can kill fungi, Tapping advises. So can putting a pillow in a plastic bag and freezing the pillow, which can also take care of mites. (Good to know, though I'm not sure I'd want to eat anything that had been in the freezer next to it -- or sleep on a pillow with freeze-dried mites.) Some stores now sell dust mite covers for pillows. Alternatively, wool and natural latex pillows are more mite-resistant.
The average department store pillow lasts about 18 months, Tapping writes in a helpful treatise on pillow health -- the pillow's and the owner's ( http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/perfect-pillow.html). "If you fold over your pillow in half and the poor thing just lies there, you have a dead pillow. Time to bury it."
Alpaca pillows are among the longest-lasting, she says.
Why is a pillow such a big deal? What damage can a pillow do?
"Typically, people like to use two or three pillows under their head, and they end up getting forward head posture" because the head is pushed unnaturally forward, out of alignment with the spine, explained Michael Uttecht, my Georgetown University Hospital physical therapist.
"The body will adapt to that position and assume it, which leads to a lot of neck tension, shoulder problems, headaches and then loss of range of motion in their neck as well."
Avoiding pillows altogether is just as bad. You need something to prop up the neck and head so the spine stays aligned.
As people age, they generally tend to develop forward posture -- a kind of shoulder slumping, he explained. The problem has become more severe in computer-centered societies, as people hunch forward over their keyboards all day.
Sleep is the time to let the body heal and realign. But that requires the right pillow.
"If you see people on the street that look like they're looking down, sometimes it's a mechanical problem, sometimes it's neurological, sometimes it's orthopedic. But there are people . . . [who] sit at their desks with their heads way forward, then go home at night and say pushing their head back hurts. So they stack the pillows, so the head is forward all the time," explained John Toerge, a Georgetown University Hospital pain specialist.
"It starts to have consequences of wear and tear," he added. "One of the big issues is trying to get to a point where you relax backward or slide backwards or go into an extension moving backwards, so you get into alignment and take care of what's gone on during the day."
Otherwise, neck and back pain can only get worse.
So how do you find the right pillow?
In the end, it's personal choice. And the choices are many.
Once crafted from straw, wood and even porcelain, pillows now come in silk, wool, alpaca, latex, cotton, foam and "memory foam," lyocell (from wood pulp cellulose), air pump-ups and many kinds of down. Some have built-in headphone outlets. Others use super-cleaned materials for sleepers with asthma and allergies.
One major healthy-pillow outlet offers a dizzying selection, including the neck pillow, comfort pillow, husband pillow (complete with two arms and a high back), back body pillow, Magniflex wave pillow, head cradle, Millennium pillow, grand pillow and the all-purpose pillow. It also offers a back wedge, a back leg wedge, a doughnut and the back bed lounger.
Although somewhat alike, its "symphony pillow" differs from the "rhapsody pillow" because the former has "a gently arched side that provides head and neck support while the reverse side provides a traditional pillow feel for side sleepers." The rhapsody is filled with shapeable micro-cushions. But the names don't give consumers many clues about what they're getting.
Health professionals offer tips for making tough decisions. The most basic is to try it out. Go to a store and spend 15 to 30 minutes with each product, Uttecht advised. "Get on a bed and see if it really fits. Bring someone along to check if your body is in alignment," he said.
How you sleep determines a lot. For side sleepers, the nose-to-navel rule is a good guideline. The nose and the navel should be the same height off the bed. The goal is to align the back and head -- and prevent the head from being propped above the spine.
Belly sleepers tend to like the softest pillows, but sleeping on the stomach is bad all around, especially for the neck and body alignment, according to physicians and physical therapists. Uttecht sleeps with a long body pillow just to prevent himself from rolling over and sleeping on his stomach during the night.
Side sleepers tend to prefer the firmest support because they have space to fill under the neck. Back sleepers tend to like medium support, experts say. But back sleepers should be aware of the dangers of the head being propped up out of alignment.
A person's size and weight also make a difference. One size does not fit all.
"Pillows are dangerous because people tend to read an advertisement that a pillow will fix their neck," said Uttecht. "But no pillow fits every person's body. You have to understand your alignment for it to work appropriately."
So what did I do?
Researched and ready, I headed to a Healthy Back Store to do my own testing. Self-conscious at first, I got into the swing of it, moving from bed to bed to find one that matched the feel of my mattress, then trying two dozen pillows, taking my time to lie on each and see how I settled into it.
Some pillows the salesperson wouldn't let me try. "They're made for big men," he said, and I'm a small woman. I liked one of the memory foam pillows and the smallest version of a model with an extra curve that goes under the neck.
Then cost became a consideration. Good pillows can run anywhere from $75 up to $500.
I picked the one that left me with enough left over to buy the dust mite cover, too.
|
I love my pillows -- the bigger and puffier the better. I've always thought of them as the ultimate allies, cradles of comfort outside the womb, the means to melt into peaceful slumber.
| 44.236842 | 1 | 38 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702969.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702969.html
|
Crises of Confidence in the Markets
|
2008031819
|
Investors dumped stocks of the nation's major investment firms yesterday after a rescue plan for one of the biggest, Bear Stearns, exposed unexpectedly large cracks in the foundation of the financial system.
Even after the Federal Reserve on Sunday night offered an unprecedented credit line to investment banks, their shares plummeted. Lehman Brothers was down 19 percent. Europe's largest bank, UBS, which has recorded huge losses from mortgage investments like those at its U.S. counterparts, suffered its sharpest drop in European trading in nearly 10 years.
U.S. currency traders launched a furious sell-off of the dollar immediately after the Fed acted Sunday, some staying up all night on concerns, they said, that major U.S. bank failures could be on the horizon. Major stock market indicators swung wildly, with the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index falling as much as 2.4 percent but ending 0.9 percent lower. The Dow Jones industrial average rebounded from early losses, finishing up about 0.2 percent on the strength of J.P. Morgan Chase, which has agreed to purchase Bear Stearns for a fire-sale price.
President Bush said his administration is "on top of the situation" in dealing with the slumping economy, praising the Fed for its steps. "One thing is for certain -- we're in challenging times. But another thing is for certain -- that we've taken strong and decisive action," he told reporters after meeting with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other economic advisers.
But critics accused Bush of bailing out big Wall Street firms while ignoring ordinary homeowners.
The wild ride came after the Fed offered Bear Stearns a financial lifeline but demanded control over the bank's fate in return for keeping it out of bankruptcy. The arrangement, which involved J.P. Morgan agreeing to buy Bear Stearns for only $2 a share, signaled that investment banks may be even more vulnerable than had been previously known. Bear Stearns shares closed at $30 on Friday.
"Bear Stearns's demise should probably be viewed as the first of many," Richard Bernstein, chief investment strategist for Merrill Lynch wrote in a research report. "Sentiment is just beginning to catch on as to how broad and deep the credit market bubble has been."
Just a week ago, top Treasury officials said they opposed any plan that put taxpayer dollars at risk by buying up troubled mortgage securities or bailing out investment firms. But when these officials examined Bear Stearns's books, they discovered the bank was essentially out of cash and urgently decided to back the Fed taking on these securities to save the banks.
"Last week, the position of the Bush administration was to let markets correct themselves and to allow no bailouts and no subsidies," said William W. Beach, senior fellow of economics at the Heritage Foundation. "Somewhere over the last four days, that policy changed. They discovered the rules of the road just didn't apply."
Paulson bristled at the notion that the Fed had bailed out big banks, telling reporters: "If you would ask the Bear Stearns shareholder in terms of what has happened to their value, then I don't think any of them would think that this has been a good outcome for them."
The Bear Stearns debacle has revealed a central reality of Wall Street: Investment firms live and die on confidence.
Bear Stearns made most of its money by providing loans and services to hedge funds so they could make massive investments. Bear Stearns's clients include some of Wall Street's top investors, such as George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager.
|
Investors dumped stocks of the nation's major investment firms yesterday after a rescue plan for one of the biggest, Bear Stearns, exposed unexpectedly large cracks in the foundation of the financial system.
| 19.055556 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702796.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702796.html
|
Congregation Defends Obama's Ex-Pastor
|
2008031819
|
CHICAGO -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright spent 36 years teaching this congregation how to recognize injustice, and his parishioners sense it all around them now. On Sunday, more than 3,000 of them filled Trinity United Church of Christ on the city's South Side to pray for their former pastor. They read a handout that described Wright's newfound infamy as a "modern-day lynching." They scrawled his name in tribute on the inside of their service programs and applauded as Wright's protege, the Rev. Otis Moss III, stepped to the pulpit.
"No matter what they want," Moss said, "we will not shut up."
A simmering controversy over Wright's provocative rhetoric and his connection to Sen. Barack Obama ignited last week after some of his old sermons were aired, prompting the Democratic presidential candidate to condemn them and severing Wright's connection to the campaign. But inside this mega-church that Wright built up from financial ruin, his most loyal listeners offered a different interpretation: It is Wright, and black theology in its entirety, that is misunderstood.
To his supporters, the message Wright wove through more than 4,000 sermons is now disseminated in a handful of grainy, two-minute video clips that tell only part of his story. Yes, they acknowledge, he was sometimes overcome at the pulpit by a righteous rage about racism and social injustice. But he was a radical who also inspired women to preach, gays to marry and predominantly white youth groups to visit his services. Until he retired last month, Wright, 66, implored all comers at Trinity to "get happy" -- to shout, to sing, to dance in the aisles while he preached the gospel.
"The world is only seeing this tiny piece of him," Moss said. "Right now, we are all being vilified. This isn't just about Trinity, isn't just about [Wright]. This is an attack on the African American church tradition, and that's the way we see it. This is an attempt to silence our voice."
More than a year ago, Wright warned Obama and Moss that a presidential campaign made criticism of Trinity inevitable, but none of them anticipated fallout like this. Web sites and television news shows recalled Wright's praise of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and played a greatest-hits compilation of Wright's most incendiary comments: that Sept. 11, 2001, meant "America's chickens are coming home to roost." That former president Bill Clinton "did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky." That "racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run."
Flooded with a tide of criticism, Trinity declines to condemn Wright's remarks, instead casting them as consistent with the traditions of the black church. He practices a "black liberation theology" that encourages a preacher to speak forcefully against the institutions of oppression, and occasional hyperbole is an occupational hazard, ministers said. "There's so much passion in what we do that it can overflow," said the Rev. Frederick D. Haynes III, senior pastor at Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas.
Wright left for Africa with his family last week and declined to comment. In his absence, Obama distanced himself from the man he once called his "spiritual mentor," who married him and his wife, baptized their two daughters and blessed their Chicago house. Obama said he had never been in attendance for Wright's most controversial statements, and he called his comments "inflammatory and appalling."
On Monday, Obama reiterated his criticism of Wright and scheduled a major speech about race. He said that on Tuesday in Philadelphia he will explore his relationship with his former pastor and the uproar it has stirred. "The statements that were the source of controversy from Reverend Wright were wrong, and I strongly condemn them," the senator from Illinois said Monday at a town hall meeting in Monaca, Pa. But he added: "I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate. And so part of what I'll do tomorrow is to talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently."
Obama indicated over the weekend that he plans to remain a member at Trinity largely because Wright is no longer the pastor. It is an ironic twist, given that Obama says that he may never have embraced Christianity had he not been entranced by Wright's impassioned advocacy of social justice while working as a community organizer in the late 1980s. Obama had shied from religion until he heard Wright interweave the Bible with the black experience, and Obama's discovery of Trinity made him feel at home in South Chicago. He titled his autobiography "The Audacity of Hope" after one of Wright's sermons.
"The senator is not naive, and what he's doing is very hard," said Shaun Casey, a religious adviser to Obama's campaign. "He's trying to remain loyal to his pastor but also differentiate himself politically."
But politics and faith have melded together at Trinity since Wright moved here in 1972 to lead a dying congregation of about 80 members. The son of a preacher in Philadelphia, Wright aspired to interpret Jesus through the lens of Chicago's poorest neighborhood -- through slavery, poverty and the civil rights movement. He studied books written by James H. Cone, who created a movement called black liberation theology, and consulted Cone for advice.
|
CHICAGO -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright spent 36 years teaching this congregation how to recognize injustice, and his parishioners sense it all around them now. On Sunday, more than 3,000 of them filled Trinity United Church of Christ on the city's South Side to pray for their former pastor. They rea...
| 18.824561 | 0.964912 | 53.070175 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702504.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702504.html
|
A Candidate Who Mirrors Their Lives
|
2008031819
|
Back in September, they were seemingly alone.
Young black professionals, raised on MTV and "The Cosby Show," flocked to Washington's hot spots as the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus became all about Barack Obama. Raising money for him. Getting a glimpse of him. Just being a part of him.
A crowd peppered with a doctor, some lawyers and grad students mingled over Hennessy and hope while hip-hop throbbed at Bohemian Caverns on U Street. Outside, an artist put browns and blues and blacks together on a canvas and a picture gradually emerged: Sen. Barack Obama, possible president.
Entrance into the nightclub that Wednesday evening was a $25 contribution to the Obama campaign. "That's a bad night at Love," said Jarvis Houston, 30, of Chicago, referring to the popular D.C. club. "That's two drinks."
Back then, there was an exclusivity to it all. A velvet rope. A woman with a clipboard and a list of names. By the time the weekend was over, the crowd had raised nearly $11,000 at the Caverns and rustled up $150,000 at Oya restaurant for the candidacy of a man they could claim as their own.
This mid-20s to mid-40s generation has never questioned Obama's authenticity as a black man, even as their parents voiced doubt before voting began about a biracial candidate who never marched for civil rights. To many young black professionals, Obama was black like them. They brought the noise with Public Enemy but could sing along with Duran Duran.
To them, Barack and Michelle were Cliff and Clair, and they were headed to the White House with their two little Rudys. They embraced his candidacy early and slapped Obama '08 bumper stickers on their cars.
"He is very familiar to them," says Mary Pattillo, a professor of sociology and African American studies at Northwestern University. "He's done a great job of doing what middle-class blacks do, work in a predominantly white world but still maintain a sense of racial identity and groundedness."
Now, Obama has piled up primary wins from Alaska to Maine and built broad support across all parts of American society, to the deep satisfaction of these early adopters. Their moods rise and fall with his campaign's successes and setbacks, disappointed after Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio but confident their man will still claim the prize. They worry that controversial rhetoric from the senator's former pastor will influence uncommitted superdelegates, then enumerate Obama's lead in the popular vote, number of wins and pledged delegates.
He is part of a new generation of black political leaders, including Mayor Adrian Fenty, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, that did not emerge from the black activism of the '60s. Nor did he emerge from the black church, once the incubator of African American political leadership, says Bart Landry, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland. His candidacy marks "the political maturation of the black community," he says. "Finally, black leadership is not coming from the church, it's coming from the secular society."
Those who are young, black and affluent also have matured, Landry says, noting that while their parents may have sought to integrate white neighborhoods, this generation is establishing its own communities. They have helped to create wealthy enclaves in Prince George's County and in DeKalb County, Ga., he points out.
One of those is Darryl Wiggins, 46, who owns a copying business and lives in Shepherd Park. He co-hosted the Oya fundraiser last fall. "I knew other people would vote for him," says Wiggins, "because he has the best judgment and the best ideas."
|
Back in September, they were seemingly alone. Young black professionals, raised on MTV and "The Cosby Show," flocked to Washington's hot spots as the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus became all about Barack Obama. Raising money for him. Getting a glimpse of him. Just being a pa...
| 12.233333 | 0.966667 | 41.366667 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702617.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702617.html
|
Not Just for Wonks Anymore: Political Mag Gets Makeover
|
2008031819
|
Politics magazine publishes many fine articles, but the most astonishing, amazing and entertaining thing about the magazine is the ads.
Flip through the March issue and you quickly come to an ad illustrated by a photo of a wood-paneled sitting room where three animal heads are mounted on the wall like hunting trophies. But they're not the heads of deer or moose. They're the heads of donkeys.
"We bag the big ones," the headline reads. "And we're ready to add your Democrat to our collection."
It's an ad for the Traz Group, a company that does direct mail for Republican candidates.
Turn the page and you see an ad illustrated with a picture of a smug old coot steering a yacht while a young woman, who looks like she might be his latest trophy wife, smiles demurely at him.
"There are other ways to reach rich Republicans," the ad says. "But you'll need a yacht club membership." It's an advertisement for Newsmax Media, a Web site that claims to have a pipeline to folks who own yachts and stocks and luxury cars and might be persuaded to pony up some cash for Republican candidates.
There are also ads for Democrat-oriented companies, but for some reason they don't have quite the same pizazz.
Politics is the new name of the magazine formerly known as Campaigns & Elections. Founded in 1980, it was a trade publication for what could be called the "campaign-industrial complex" -- political consultants, campaign managers and pollsters, as well as the folks who make bumper stickers or run the phone banks that bombard voters with pre-recorded "robo-calls" touting Candidate X or slandering Candidate Y.
Last fall, the Arlington-based magazine hired a new editor, Bill Beaman, 51, a former Washington bureau chief for Reader's Digest. Beaman's goal is to keep his base readership of campaign professionals while expanding the 12,000 circulation by attracting readers who love politics but aren't in the business.
"A friend described Campaigns & Elections as an eat-your-peas publication -- good for you but not a whole lot of fun," Beaman says. "My hope is to make it engaging and lively and bring more political junkies into our readership."
To that end, Beaman changed the magazine's name to Politics, perked up the design and began running articles that you don't have to be a campaign wonk to appreciate. The March issue, for instance, has an interesting piece about how both parties can compete for the votes of young "cultural libertarians." It also has a cogent explanation of the byzantine rules for Democratic delegates and superdelegates, and a profile of Charlie Summers, a naval reservist from Maine who is running for Congress while serving in Iraq.
Of course the magazine still serves its base with articles on the nuts and bolts of political campaigns -- fundraising and polling and how to deal with the young (and mercifully unidentified) campaign staffer who posted this little daydream on his MySpace page: "If I could go anywhere in the world, it'd be on a desert island with marijuana seeds to plant, my music and my dog. I like peace, I like getting away from it all: getting high and chillin'."
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 12.607843 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/scranton_gets_to_meet_candidat.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/scranton_gets_to_meet_candidat.html
|
Scranton Gets to Meet Candidate O'Bama
|
2008031819
|
By Shailagh Murray SCRANTON, Pa. -- Sen. Barack Obama introduced himself to Electric City on Monday night with a borrowed green tie (he'd forgotten to pack one) and a big smile, determined to win over working-class women in northeastern Pennsylvania.
The guest speaker at the annual Society of Irish Women dinner was welcomed by Evie Rafalko McNulty, the county recorder of deeds, who told him, "This is Lackawanna County's lipstick jungle here."
Judging from the tepid applause in some pockets of the room as Obama walked to the lectern, plenty of Hillary Clinton supporters were in his midst.
Everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day, including Barack "O'Bama," as the green signs read outside the hotel, where supporters waged a spirited chanting battle with the local Clinton crowd. Obama has traced one of his ancestors to Moneygall in County Offaly; apparently, the Illinois senator comes from shoemaking stock. "It never hurts to be a little Irish when you're running for the presidency," Obama said, departing after 10 minutes to notably louder applause.
Julie Judge, a local Obama supporter who was attending the dinner, conceded that the Scranton area "is much more for Hillary." In her phone calls to voters, "I won't say I haven't had some negative reactions." But she added, "He needs to come here. He needs to go to these smaller cities, and if he does, people can see him for themselves."
Posted at 9:01 PM ET on Mar 17, 2008 | Category: Barack Obama Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Add The Trail to Your Site
Hillary and Bill Clinton were hounded by the republican , the ultra right wing , and the evangelists for the entire time of Bill Clintons Presidency. A time which was the best in the USA in the last 40 yrs. They survived the partisan attacks but now the Barack Husein Obama people are trying to use these unfounded attacks as foder against Hillary. Who is BHO anyway ? The disiple of a renegade , racist minister with the speach techniques of a tele-evangelists who lulls people into a mindless , unquestioning allegience as cult members of their new savior. WAKE UP AMERICA , he is a false prophet who will promise you anything but has no history of delivering anything.
Posted by: Americanworker | March 23, 2008 6:26 PM
most of these comments as elsewhere are ignorant, ill informed (almost a tautology), illiterate, and full of vitiriol and hated.
quite frankly, these blogs seem to attract total wackos like a bear to honey
Posted by: don | March 19, 2008 4:47 AM
Don't fool yourself. Obama is just another politician! I really want him out!
I am a Democrat, if it is between Obama and McCain, I am voting for McCain.
Posted by: eyc | March 18, 2008 4:23 PM
stburke40: Go on home your mother's calling, your father just fell out of his rocking chair.!
One little fact of life for Huessein: Why does he have to give speech and apoligize for his beliefs? Poor boy has not and never will learn how to be a true American. While he is picking up his father, he should pack his bags for Islem and take his pal Pastor with him. And come clean with the people of America, salute the flag, turn turn your back on our flag . This is the Land We Love!
Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 18, 2008 1:15 PM
I THOUGHT WE WERE INTO A CAMPAIGN ON POLITICAL AND WORLD ISSUES. OBAMA CANNOT TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS, SO HE HAS ONLY ONE CHOICE; HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND HOW HE CAN INFLUENCE THE COUNTRY HE IS RIGHT TO BECOME PRESIDENT ON THAT BASIS.
WE HAVE JUST GONE THROUGH EIGHT YEARS OF THAT CRAP AND THE COUNTRY IS PAYING THE PRICE. PLEASE AMERICA, NOT AGAIN
Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM
Summing up Hussein. HE IS OFFENSIVE AND DISPLAYS SUPERIORITY AND SELF IMPORTANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR KNOWLEDGE . HE IS COCKY AND BETTER WATCH HIS STEP.
HIS WIFE BETTER NOT START PACKING HER BELONGINGS, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE WHITE HOUSE! HER HUSBAND IS A VERY DECEITFUL MAN, HASEN'T SHE NOTICED?
Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 18, 2008 12:49 PM
Summing up Hussein. HE IS OFFENSIVE AND DISPLAYS SUPERIORITY AND SELF IMPORTANCE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR KNOWLEDGE . HE IS COCKY AND BETTER WATCH HIS STEP.
HIS WIFE BETTER NOT START PACKING HER BELONGINGS, AT LEAST NOT FOR THE WHITE HOUSE! HER HUSBAND IS A VERY DECEITFUL MAN, HASEN'T SHE NOTICED?
Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | March 18, 2008 12:48 PM
Can someone please tell me why Mr. Obama is getting such a tough time over what his pastor said. not him, pastor Richard Shaefer said and denounced America and was invited to the white house by Ford; Reagan; Bush Sr. what is the difference why can one so something the same and get invited to the white house I really can not understand that it is not fair to Mr. Obama.Please America do your history this is a true fact so help me god!
Posted by: USA2 | March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
By the way, svliar _has posted_ that Hillary, Bill AND CHELSEA are all straight. Now he's posted I'm gay.
I'm fascinated as to how he would know all of this ... although, he told me I was in a whole lot of trouble as my exposes of his lies had bought myself a lawsuit. So I'm posting this while hiding under my bed.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
gbooksdc has a fixation on me.
He's gay, and upset that I'm not.
Love is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 11:17 AM ___________________________________________
Instead of disputing a factual assertion about you that I have made, you've gone to the "you're gay" card.
We're adults here, svliar, we can all see through that junior high ploy. You can't dispute my facts. You say you've read a book but you can't name an author or publisher, therefore, you are making it all up. Just the latest in a string of lies of yours that I have documented.
But since you want to talk about who's gay, your girl Hillary is rumored to be carrying on with her Muslim aide Huma Abedin (Google it -- I don't make it up like svliar does). Since Bill's BJs with Monica paralyzed the country and nearly brought down his Presidency, it seems to me some reporter with guts should ask her about it. I wonder if they share the same room on the campaign trail?
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 11:47 AM
gbooksdc has a fixation on me.
He's gay, and upset that I'm not.
Love is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 11:17 AM ___________________________________________
Instead of disputing a factual assertion about you that I have made, you've gone to the "you're gay" card.
We're adults here, svliar, we can all see through that junior high ploy. You can't dispute my facts. You say you've read a book but you can't name an author or publisher, therefore, you are making it all up. Just the latest in a string of lies of yours that I have documented.
But since you want to talk about whose gay, your girl Hillary is rumored to be carrying on with her Muslim aide Huma Abedin (Google it -- I don't make it up like svliar does). Since Bill's BJs with Monica paralyzed the country and nearly brought down his Presidency, it seems to me some reporter with guts should ask her about it. I wonder if they share the same room on the campaign trail?
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 11:47 AM
gbooksdc has a fixation on me.
He's gay, and upset that I'm not.
Love is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 11:17 AM
************************** You know everytime you post such s**t, your credibility goes further down, SVRETARD. And I don't think homophobia is a part of the Clinton campaign, is it? And as usual, you didn't answer the questions put to you, but went right to the insult. Is that the way you run your "company", SVRETARD/CEO?
Posted by: LABC | March 18, 2008 11:44 AM
Don't piss down our backs and tell us its raining, Barry, White People aren't as stupid as your think we are!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:32 AM
********************** Fantasy of yours, SVRETARD?
Posted by: LABC | March 18, 2008 11:40 AM
Much ado about nothing! The Reverend Robertson said the same thing about Katrina and Falwell about the fall of the two towers. There are few secular opionators who defend this nations present course. The last time I looked, President Bush got less than a 20% approval rating. This Red Foxx type ranteur is colorful and invigorating as were Falwell and Robertson. I don't believe that Senator Obama said that he would consult with the Rev before making policy decisions. A tempest in a teacup blown up by the MSM to discredit Obama. It will pass, but it does make me want to know about the other candidates religion and how much their religion is directed to community work and how much to meaningless ritual!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:20 AM ******************************** You could never post this as much as the drivel that is posted by SVRETARD. He is allegedly a CEO of a silicon valley corporation who alleges to have contacts in Washington. Thank you for your insighful post and I hope that you continue to do so. Ignore SVRETARD - he is a some sad poster whose inflated fantasy resume feeds into his pathological need to post the same s**t over and over again. Someday, there will be cure for SVRETARD.
Posted by: LABC | March 18, 2008 11:39 AM
gbooksdc has a fixation on me.
He's gay, and upset that I'm not.
Love is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 11:17 AM
gbooksdc is a paid Obama thug.
The most racist thing about Obama's supporters is their total lack of compassion for the people of all colors that suffered and froze to death in "Obama's slums"
They don't care what Obama's done and who he's shafted.
They just want to win.
People who rave about Obama's "principles" make me want to puke.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 11:15 AM
Also, (a) YOU have not challenged any factual assertions I've made. I've quoted you dozens of times; the only one you challenged (God is a Democrat, 'member?) you first claimed was "total BS", then -- after I provided the cite -- you said I was a liar. You implicitly admitted I was right, though, when you said it was a "lighthearted comment". So while you may not like what I post, I have 100% credibility. Especially on the subject of you.
(b) I am not paid by the Obama campaign or anyone connected to it. I do this on my own. It is exhilarating to advance the cause of truth every time I prove you've lied. It took an hour and a half to go through hundreds of pages of your posts to find the "God is a Democrat" line, and when I found it -- I knew it was there -- it was worth every second.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 11:14 AM
Cry all you want, fella. You haven't disputed one element of the following:
1. You claim to have read a book in "galleys".
2. When pressed, you cannot name this book's author or publisher.
3. The book cannot be found on Google or Amazon.
4. There is no proof the book actually exists.
You have zero credibility about something you claim to know something about. By extension, you have zero credibility regarding things you do not know anything about, which means you have zero credibility, period.
Oh, and my motivation? Defending the truth. It's as simple as that. (Although I grant the truth is a difficult concept for you to get your brain around.)
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 11:06 AM
It was one thing for Senator McCain to campaign in Iraq when he was looking for those sycophantic jingoists in the primary season, but to look for photo opportunities in Baghdad in the general election is wasting money that he does't have. Maybe he just wants to stay out of town for a while. Of course he probably flew over there at taxpayer expense, and that's fine for a reform minded Senator on a shoestring Presidential campaign budget. I'm afraid that if he continues to campaign for war, he may be inducted into the warlover's hall of fame but be brushed off as a senile aspirant for the American Presidency. All the windmills are over here, John. Listen up!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 11:00 AM
It was one thing for Senator McCain to campaign in Iraq when he was looking for those sycophantic jingoists in the primary season, but to look for photo opportunities in Baghdad in the general election is wasting money that he does't have. Maybe he just wants to stay out of town for a while. Of course he probably flew over there at taxpayer expense, and that's fine for a reform minded Senator on a shoestring Presidential campaign budget. I'm afraid that if he continues to campaign for war, he may be inducted into the warlover's hall of fame but be brushed off as a senile aspirant for the American Presidency. All the windmills are over here, John. Listen up!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 11:00 AM
Obama is as clean as a baby's bottom, right after you notice that baby's diaper really, really, needs to be changed.
Obama is as slimy and crooked a Chicago Politician as they come.
Obama supporters that talk about how "clean" Barry Obama is make me want to puke.
Obama's clean as a cesspool.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:50 AM
gbooksdc is lying and has no credibility.
He's a paid Obama thug.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Hillary Clinton's supporters like SVReader are mad, because they thought she would win this election easily. Unfortunately [for them], the people IA and PA don't want another politician that won't be upfront and honest with them.
Example 1: While Hillary won't release her tax returns, Barack is brave enough to address "race" is national speech.
Example 2: Hillary won't disclose her earmarks. She also won't disclose the exact ammount raised by Norman Hsu.
Barack has released information on all of his earmarks. He has also been upfront on all Rezko related money.
Obama has taken the steps to prove his integrity. Clinton has not. All Clinton supporters can do is speak heresy.
Posted by: ChrisStewart | March 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Why do Obama supporters go to such extreme lengths to surpress any information that conflicts with Obama's carefully crafted public image?
Why do they viciously attack any person who posts anything that shows that their emperor has no clothes?
They tell us to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
For our own sakes, and that of our children and our world, we must.
Obama is the great OZ. A tempest in a teapot.
They cult of Obama, like all cults of personality, is full of sound and fury, but, in reality, signifies nothing.
She knows how to sit down, do the work, and get results.
She's going to be a great President.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:44 AM
Nobody likes to be played for a fool. ...
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:32 AM ____________________________________________
You're as believable as that "Obama's Slums" book you claim to have read in "galleys" -- except you can't name the author or the publisher, and it doesn't exist on Google or at Amazon. (And books aren't edited in "galleys", as you tried to slide by until I pulled your card. A book in "galleys" is about to be printed.) You are lying and you have no credibility.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 18, 2008 10:44 AM
The gotcha media have shrilled a dozen times that they had Senator Obama cornered, but he must be teflonic, for it all slides away from him as if it never happened. I think that people will elect our President, this cycle, based on the candidates attributes that are applicable to getting the job done. We've had 16 years of compelet incompetence and it has taken our nation down to the pits. We've looking for competence and the only thing we have to go by is the appearances of the candidates before the public. Can he speak? Can she speak? Can he think? Can she think? Has he made a lot of mistakes? Has she made a lot of mistakes? I am speaking of the Democrats. Whichever one wins the nomination will become the President.
I am not sure that McCain wants the position anymore. Where is his mistress anyway?
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:41 AM
The sooner Obama drops out, the better.
Nobody's going to believe anything he says after all the whoppers he's told.
Obama reminds me of the old simpson's episode where Bart becomes famous for the line "I didn't do it"
It got old quick and so has Obama.
His liie about not knowing what was being preached in his church was so stupid even he couldn't sell it.
The press has got to wake up and smell the coffee.
Unless they want McCain to be President, Democrats have got to dump this guy as fast as he's dumped people that made him look bad.
There is no way in the world white people are going to vote for him now that we know what he really thinks of us.
I feel used, and I wasn't even for the guy.
Imagine how upset people who believed in him and put their hopes and dreams in him are going to feel.
If he wants to have any chance of any career in the future, Obama's got to drop out right now.
If he tries to push it, he's going to wind up losing "big time"
Anyone who feels any different doesn't understand how it feels when you know you've been "played"
That's what Barry Obama has done to America.
Nobody likes to be played for a fool.
That's what Obama's done to people.
Don't piss down our backs and tell us its raining, Barry, White People aren't as stupid as your think we are!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 10:32 AM
I apologize for the repeated entries. It was not deliberate!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM
It's unfortunate in these days and times that race is still such a big issue. The economy is going under, families are starving and these are the ones with jobs, let alone the others.Our country has been divided vary obviously by class and a class clown.Instead of the media covering who's positions best serves all the people. We are worried about what one candidates minister says. So what he's not running for office. Over the years a number of conservative candidates and their religious leaders have made extreme statements that have received very little scrutiny from the press. But it's sexier to fan the race and division flame. None of the candidates deserve this kind of treatment and the people certainly don't. Get real people come into this century.
Posted by: tuphat | March 18, 2008 10:22 AM
Much ado about nothing! The Reverend Robertson said the same thing about Katrina and Falwell about the fall of the two towers. There are few secular opionators who defend this nations present course. The last time I looked, President Bush got less than a 20% approval rating. This Red Foxx type ranteur is colorful and invigorating as were Falwell and Robertson. I don't believe that Senator Obama said that he would consult with the Rev before making policy decisions. A tempest in a teacup blown up by the MSM to discredit Obama. It will pass, but it does make me want to know about the other candidates religion and how much their religion is directed to community work and how much to meaningless ritual!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Much ado about nothing! The Reverend Robertson said the same thing about Katrina and Falwell about the fall of the two towers. There are few secular opionators who defend this nations present course. The last time I looked, President Bush got less than a 20% approval rating. This Red Foxx type ranteur is colorful and invigorating as were Falwell and Robertson. I don't believe that Senator Obama said that he would consult with the Rev before making policy decisions. A tempest in a teacup blown up by the MSM to discredit Obama. It will pass, but it does make me want to know about the other candidates religion and how much their religion is directed to community work and how much to meaningless ritual!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Much ado about nothing! The Reverend Robertson said the same thing about Katrina and Falwell about the fall of the two towers. There are few secular opionators who defend this nations present course. The last time I looked, President Bush got less than a 20% approval rating. This Red Foxx type ranteur is colorful and invigorating as were Falwell and Robertson. I don't believe that Senator Obama said that he would consult with the Rev before making policy decisions. A tempest in a teacup blown up by the MSM to discredit Obama. It will pass, but it does make me want to know about the other candidates religion and how much their religion is directed to community work and how much to meaningless ritual!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Much ado about nothing! The Reverend Robertson said the same thing about Katrina and Falwell about the fall of the two towers. There are few secular opionators who defend this nations present course. The last time I looked, President Bush got less than a 20% approval rating. This Red Foxx type ranteur is colorful and invigorating as were Falwell and Robertson. I don't believe that Senator Obama said that he would consult with the Rev before making policy decisions. A tempest in a teacup blown up by the MSM to discredit Obama. It will pass, but it does make me want to know about the other candidates religion and how much their religion is directed to community work and how much to meaningless ritual!
Posted by: cebowman | March 18, 2008 10:20 AM
First we were told that Obama is secretly a Muslim who will the Muslim jihad agenda as President.
Then we are told he is under the control of a fanatic Christian pastor who is un-American.
I love religious bigotry in politics as much as the next bigot, but can't we get our stories straight?
Next, we will find out Obama is REALLY a Mormon who worships a false prophet!
Posted by: vmathis | March 18, 2008 10:12 AM
I am voting because of the candidates themselves. What THEY have to say. I don't believe any of them are Manchurian Sleeper terrorists and I judge their character and policy by what comes out of their mouths and what they have done in their careers.
Mr. Obama has shown a career of looking out for the people who need it and trying to bring people to the table to talk. If I end up voting for him I will decide that history was important. I am not making a choice because of someone he knows.
There does seem like a real strange hysteria over this. There has never been this kind of indignation over many of the the other ministers who say unpopular things. They can rail against sinful America or blame Aids and 911 on how wicked were are... or go off on Muslims or Catholics or who knows what and they don't get this kind of airplay.
I can only guess that some of the extreme indignation comes because this man is black OR some of the uber indignant would really like to puncture Mr. Obama's appeal for political reasons.
Posted by: mizliv | March 18, 2008 9:56 AM
Consider that the Rev wright is the pastor of an 8000 strong church. He is a preacher, he moves and he inspires. Hyperbole is a common rherotical device. Shock is a common rhetorical device. Why then be surprised that some of his statements are extreme and shocking?
But if you say: "that is not enough. How can he say these things?", then ask that question properly. He served six years in the forces (Marines and Navy), thirty six years as pastor bringing people to God; how can he say such things?
The America of its own ideals does not exist just through belief - it is sustained through action, through vigilence.
When people like the Rev Wright criticize America, they do it not to bring her down but to defend her, to call its patriots to action, to fight so that America can achieve her people's dreams.
When people like the Rev Wright criticize America, we need to step up not turn away, we need to be brave enough to listen, and we need to find a President who will safeguard the America of our ideals.
Posted by: gerard | March 18, 2008 8:36 AM
Posted by: parkerfl | March 18, 2008 7:45 AM
Obama has a way to go in convincing voters in Pennsylvania that he's not a reflection of his now former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, columnist Ruth Ann Dailey expressed her cynicism concerning Obama denouncing his Pastor's statements, mentioning that "Wright doesn't separate politics from religion, and neither, judging from their hallelujahs, do his congregants. Letters to the editor in both the Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Enquirer show people not only concerned about the racist overtones of Wright's clips, but also patriotism, as people have taken offense at his statement of "God Damn America".
This is the first time probably in the history of primary elections that a candidate is being raked over the coals for what his Pastor said in his sermons. This issue of Race has to be dealt with. Anytime a picture of Obama in Kenyan garb is shown just days before a primary (Ohio), and then a 60 minutes piece shows three men drinking beers just outside Cincinnati being asked about who they'll vote for, and they say 'not Obama, he's a Muslim, should tell you something about this campaign season. They had to be told while the camera was running that Obama is not a Muslim. And now his Christianity is questioned by the way Jeremiah Wright presents his sermons.
Obama's got his work cut out for him. Race is the subject that just will not go away in the Democratic Primaries. Who would expect it to; Race has been the subject of consternation in this country for centuries.
Posted by: jrev7620042000 | March 18, 2008 7:28 AM
Posted by: thinktank | March 18, 2008 5:16 AM
There is no doubt that there are hopes that Wright will be Obama's 'swiftboat' but I ask Americans to consider, are the alternatives really more palatable? Who are you giving power over to - not just the candidates themselves - if you buy into this? Do you think needed change will be effected if you play into this? Do you react simply or do you evaluate critically? Is this just a test of Obama or is it also a test of the American people?
Posted by: JayKay2 | March 18, 2008 3:47 AM
I have a thought for those on this thread who continue to chant that the Democrats will suffer a great defeat in November. Perhaps you need to take a moment and look around at our country.
When I look around, here are a few things that I see:
* A continuing war in Iraq that has cost our nation nearly 4,000 young kids killed (17 more dead so far in March), and moreover nearly 25,000 wounded - many, many of them grievously wounded. Patreaus can tamp down violence - but when do we win?
* A continuing war in Iraq that is costing our treasury about 10 BILLION dollars each and every month with many other hidden costs, including the incalculable loss of our respect and honor in the world community.
* An attenuated effort in Afghanistan - curtailed by the drain on our armed forces and treasury of an ill-conceived and hopelessly mismanaged effort in Iraq.
* A housing mortgage collapse that is driving down the value of all of our homes - for most of us our homes are our greatest investment and we are losing money everyday.
* A credit market collapse that dwarfs the mortgage industry problems and is threatening the very foundation of our capitalist society - here and among our allies. Today with the $30 BILLION underwriting of Bear Stearns - the Fed takes another step towards the cliff.
* Gasoline prices at the pump predicted to rise past $4.60 per gallon by the end of May.
* Tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs every month and the nation teetering on the edge of a very serious recession which will bring hundreds of thousands of layoffs and industry closures.
What else -- take a moment and look around. Examine the total voter turnout in the 40 primary and caucus states who have cast ballots thus far. -- Notice anything?
I've noticed an overwhelming number of new voters and "recovered" voters rising from their "couches" and making the trek to the polls to cast a vote.
They are voting Democratic by more than a 2 to 1 majority. Why? George W. Bush. Here is a quote from this very newspaper - yesterday:
"It's no mystery," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He's just killed the Republican brand."
Well, you chorus - just you wait for John McCain !!!
My friends - the old Republican warrior has once again accepted the challenge to serve his country -- and he will throw himself on the grenade of the George W. Bush legacy. But he knows, and we know that he will not win the Presidency. And, the Republicans know that huge majorities in both houses of Congress will go to the Democrats.
November 2008 is going to be an electoral disaster for the Republican Party - thanks in the most part to the guidance of Dick Cheney, the ineptitude of Don Rumsfield, and the blind stubbornness of their "boss" - the Dunce of D.C.
We are going to have a Democrat in the White House and huge majorities of Democrats in both houses of the Congress.
And, they will face the most God-awful mess that this country has seen since the Great Depression. But, just like when FDR took on the task then - the Democrats will save our nation.
So - to all the angry Bush apologists watching this disaster slowly unfold before your eyes - you are now experiencing what we felt when the neo-cons duped the dope into invading Iraq. You had better take a deep breath and try to figure how you are going to survive the next 16 years -- because in your hearts.... you KNOW THIS -- you are going to do it with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
Posted by: gandalfthegrey | March 18, 2008 2:24 AM
Posted by: davidmwe | March 18, 2008 2:15 AM
No matter how unfortunate this incident is to Sen. Obama, I think that the Super Delegates will exercise their wisdom and see that Sen. Obama will have no chance of winning the general election and thus throw their support to the only other Democratic nominee, no matter how disliked she may be. I truly think that even Mr. Obama is realizing the damage done and I hope that his speech, over which he is agonizing to write, even though it will come down to "dumn if I do and dumn if I don't," will set the record straight about his previous inconsistencies, and hopefully down the road the American people may give him another chance!
Posted by: maitami | March 18, 2008 1:48 AM
Ok, Scranton, here is what the Obama supporters say about you: ------------------------------------------- "HRC has Scranton roots? I guess that helps explain a few things about her.
Bear in mind that Scranton was a close runner-up to Battle Mountain, NV, when WaPo announced the offical "Armpit of America" a few years ago. That Scranton didn't win outright was attributed to the Scrantonites' (Scrantonians?) tendency to be defiantly proud of their city's total lack of merit.
They know their town sucks and they don't care--it's not their problem, it's yours, and if you don't like it you can take a hike over to Wilkes-Barre thank-you-very-much.
The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?"
Posted by: ablackstormy | March 11, 2008 01:02 PM
Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 18, 2008 1:25 AM
I will be digging up all the insulting comments the Obama supporters made about the residents of Scranton when Hillary visited and I will be posting them shortly.
Posted by: jcmdstep1 | March 18, 2008 1:20 AM
The hypocrites are you Hillary fans...boy how Hillay went after that guy running for New york senate for not exposing his tax returns...and look at her now. Wake up you idiots...read the McClatchey paper about your sweet Hillary and what a liar she is. Not excluding credit for things she didnt even do as part of her experience. She's a joke and will do anything to win. Well if she is the candidate...my vote goes to McCain...as well as other Obama people.
Posted by: Webster51 | March 18, 2008 12:56 AM
Just remember his words don't matter. His words are nothing but lies. The man is a hypocrit and his campaign is a farce.
Posted by: TALVES | March 18, 2008 12:39 AM
It seems that the people who are so self-righteous about Obama's connection to Wright are condemning him on religious and/or patriotic grounds. It doesn't seem very Christian to me to condemn Wright and Obama based on a 30 second sound-bite out of a 40 year career. By all accounts, Reverend Wright has done a lot of good work and given a lot of loving, hopeful sermons. Why not take a more charitable, Christian view? As to the patriots--what happened to freedom of speech? What happened to "I disagree with what you say; but, I defend to the death your right to say it"? Obama has conducted himself without reproach during this campaign. I know I don't agree with the politics of my church (Catholic); but, no one has ever asked me to leave the church or to justify why I sit there every sunday. At the very least, people should listen to Obama's speech tomorrow with open minds.
Posted by: stburke40 | March 17, 2008 10:58 PM
It seems that the people who are so self-righteous about Obama's connection to Wright are condemning him on religious and/or patriotic grounds. It doesn't seem very Christian to me to condemn Wright and Obama based on a 30 second sound-bite out of a 40 year career. By all accounts, Reverend Wright has done a lot of good work and given a lot of loving, hopeful sermons. Why not take a more charitable, Christian view? As to the patriots--what happened to freedom of speech? What happened to "I disagree with what you say; but, I defend to the death your right to say it"? Obama has conducted himself without approach during this campaign. I know I don't agree with the politics of my church (Catholic); but, no one has ever asked me to leave the church or to justify why I sit there every sunday. At the very least, people should listen to Obama's speech tomorrow with open minds.
Posted by: stburke40 | March 17, 2008 10:54 PM
Hillary must be pressured to release her records whether or not she likes it (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation). These records play a central role with facts that are very suspicious including:
(1) Hillary self-proclaimed experience as commander in chief and that can only be backed up by the White House records
(2) Facts involving pardons from president Clinton given to convicts in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...56,00.html
(3) Facts involving big donations in exchange of lobbying from the Clintons that seem not ethical. For example, the Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/pol...ref=slogin
(4) Too many facts from the past that do not pass the smell test. See a list made by another blogger:
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
Let's pressure Hillary to release her records so that the voters can vote with all relevant information.
Posted by: Logan6 | March 17, 2008 10:13 PM
I doubt that his long-time pastor's and spiritual mentor's incendiary and, yes, racist remarks will hurt Senator Obama during the primary season. I am convinced, however, that the Republicans and Senator McCain's campaign will exploit the controversial tapes (to put it mildly) in order to defeat Obama. For more on this, read: http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/obama-pastor-wr.html
Posted by: bn1123 | March 17, 2008 9:46 PM
In the Jeremiah Wright affair, Barack Obama is most certainly lying about something.
He now insists that he is "shocked, shocked" (in the style of Claude Raines in "Casablanca") to hear that anti-Americanism had anything at all to do with Wright's ministry.
He has also claimed to be a "devout Christian" who attends church every week and is deeply involved in the life of Wright's congregation (where he's been a member for twenty years).
What is Barack Obama lying about?
Posted by: jeffboste | March 17, 2008 9:15 PM
Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 17, 2008 9:11 PM
O'Bomba me boy, pugah ma hon!
Posted by: rat-the | March 17, 2008 9:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
By Shailagh Murray SCRANTON, Pa. -- Sen. Barack Obama introduced himself to Electric City on...
| 479.823529 | 1 | 15.117647 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702436.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702436.html
|
Wall Street Crisis Forces Candidates to Shift Their Focus
|
2008031819
|
The contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination raced to inject themselves into the debate over the credit and housing crisis yesterday, slamming the Bush administration's failure to do more to avoid a crisis as the economy once again surged to the forefront of the campaign.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) had expected to focus on Iraq this week, marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion with a renewed debate over which candidate foresaw the war's consequences and who could end it more effectively. But Clinton's policy address on Iraq at George Washington University yesterday was immediately followed by a news conference dominated by economic questions.
"I am reminded every day as I meet with families and listen to their stories that the effective functioning of our financial markets isn't just about Wall Street. It's about Main Street," Clinton said before reeling off examples of voters ranging from construction workers to college students she had met who were struggling to make ends meet.
Obama, campaigning in Monaca, Pa., was also peppered with questions about the Federal Reserve Board's intervention this weekend in the collapse of the Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns and a second emergency interest rate cut.
"I think there is no doubt we are teetering on a potential crisis on Wall Street that could have ramifications all over the country. We have a credit market that is locked up," he said. "Until people have a sense that there is a floor, until they have a sense that the existing debt that's out there has all been accounted for, we're going to continue to have some very, very severe problems."
For Obama, Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the gyrations of the credit crisis have helped to reshape the playing field for the campaign season. In January, Obama and Clinton were prepared for a detailed debate on their respective universal health-care proposals, noted Jason Furman, a Brookings Institution economist and former economic adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 campaign. Instead, they argued about economic stimulus proposals. McCain's surprise visit to Iraq this weekend, meanwhile, was virtually lost amid coverage of J.P. Morgan Chase's fire-sale purchase of Bear Stearns under Fed supervision.
"This is clearly the biggest substantive issue of the campaign right now," Furman said.
"The red phone is ringing at 3 a.m.," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) quipped yesterday, referring to Clinton's controversial television advertisement that questioned Obama's readiness to deal with a foreign policy crisis.
Both campaigns began the week attempting to bolster their candidates' economic credentials -- at times pushing the boundaries of fact. Both candidates have now endorsed legislation unveiled last week by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new mortgages for lenders willing to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
Clinton tossed in that she had spoken yesterday morning to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about the Fed's actions.
"Those 3 a.m. calls can be about economic crises as well as national security ones, because it's all intertwined today," she said.
The housing crisis has been the subject of a simmering dispute between Clinton and Obama for weeks. Obama has criticized Clinton's proposal to freeze foreclosures for 90 days and subprime mortgage rates for five years, saying her plan would send interest rates for new and refinanced mortgages skyrocketing.
But to the surprise of many Democratic campaign strategists, neither candidate has consistently sustained a focus on the economy -- despite a barrage of polling data showing it has vaulted over the Iraq war in the past four months as the most pressing concern of voters. Last Thursday, both Obama and Clinton were on Capitol Hill when Dodd and Frank unveiled their legislation that would expand the government's intervention in the crumbling housing market. Neither of them showed up at the news conference, nor have they come forward with new proposals since the contagion in the mortgage market spread to Wall Street.
"Our campaign for over a year has been very worried about how severe the housing crisis would be and its impact on the general economy," said Gene Sperling, a Clinton economic adviser. But he added: "It's been more of a continuing series of discussions and decisions about when to put forward proposals."
Clinton stuck with her Iraq speech yesterday morning, castigating what she described as the "Bush-McCain Iraq philosophy" of "keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary." She also continued her criticism of Obama as a rhetorical foe of the Iraq invasion who was reluctant to go beyond speeches until it became politically expedient to do so.
Obama fired back, saying, "The truth is, the judgment of Hillary Clinton and John McCain gave President Bush a blank check for war." He, too, will shift his focus from the economy today with an address on race in Philadelphia, where he will explore his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a controversial Chicago pastor.
Murray is traveling with the Obama campaign.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 127 | 0.375 | 0.375 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/03/17/VI2008031702041.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/03/17/VI2008031702041.html
|
McCain Won't Bow to Religious Right, Adviser Says
|
2008031819
|
» This Story:Read +|Watch +
{ "movie":"http://media10.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf", "id":"oplayer-video-swf", "width":"100%", height:"100%", "vars":{ "title":"McCain Won\'t Bow to Religious Right, Adviser Says", "stillURL":"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/03/17/PH2008031702010.jpg", "mediaQueryString":"http://static.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf?id=03172008-10v&flvURL=/media/2008/03/17/03172008-10v&playAds=true&adZone=wpni.video.bc&canShare=false" }, "params":{ "allowFullScreen":"true" } }
Suspicious package sits at Fed building for months
Toyota expects to halt production in U.S.
Aerial view of Japan destruction
Truck dangles over ramp; two trapped
Aftermath of blast, Gaza strikes
Elementary class graduate after tsunami
Baking behind bars on Rikers Island
Plea deal nixed in Conn. home invasion case
Police: Teen shot guardians after being grounded
Playing the oil prices money game
Elizabeth Taylor's stand against AIDS
Obama struggles to enter White House
Radioactive water triggers fear in Japan
Buying a new home means paying more
Allied forces crippling Gaddafi's power
Goldman CEO offers no cover for ex-boardmember
Audio: Silence in the tower at DCA
Libya mission gaining; U.S. looks to cede control
Deadly plane crash in Republic of Congo
Strong storms bring wild weather
Watchdog groups want Ukraine zoo closed
Blast at bus station shakes Jerusalem
Japan buries its dead as radiation fears grow
Obama struggles to enter White House
Obama again defends U.S. involvement in Libya
McCain on no-fly zone: "It's been very effective"
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Obama lauds Chile's transition to democracy
Coalition stops Gaddafi push on rebel stronghold
The Post's Perry Bacon on Obama in Chile
Obama favors Gaddafi stepping down
Palin: 'Overwhelming' to be in Israel
Gates: U.S. will soon yield control in Libya
The Fast Fix - Is Romney winning the base?
Obama: Brazil's democracy example to Arab world
Obama plays soccer with Brazil youth
Obama authorizes military action against Libya
The Post's Forero analyzes Obama's trip to Brazil
Obama: Coalition prepared to act in Libya
Banks boost dividends as Fed loosens leash
Wisc. judge blocks controversial union law
Obama: U.S. ready to enforce sanctions in Libya
Clinton: 'No other choice' in Libya
Westfield and Robinson tie, 1-1
Post Sports Live: Boudreau vs. McPhee - who deserves more credit?
Post Sports Live: Sweet 16 preview
Post Sports Live: Alex Ovechkin's mysterious injury
Post Sports Live, March 22
Georgetown Prep beats Langley, 12-3
Post Sports Live: Verizon Center has Big East feel for NCAA Tourney
Ali asks Iran to free U.S. hikers
JaVale McGee on his first triple-double
Post Sports Live: Mason faces tough road in East region
Post Sports Live: Georgetown's chances rest on Wright's hand
Navy knocks out in-state rival Towson, 14-11
Georgetown draws 5th-seed, faces Princeton this Sunday
Post Sports Live: NCAA Tournament preview
Post Sports Live, March 15
George Mason reacts to first-round matchup with Villanova
Sneak peek: 'History Will Be Made'
North Point claims 4A title
Centennial loses to Milford Mill, 56-44
Toyota expects to halt production in U.S.
Aerial view of Japan destruction
Aftermath of blast, Gaza strikes
Elementary class graduate after tsunami
No Tweeting: A royal wedding etiquette guide
Playing the oil prices money game
Radioactive water triggers fear in Japan
Allied forces crippling Gaddafi's power
Libya mission gaining; U.S. looks to cede control
Deadly plane crash in Republic of Congo
Watchdog groups want Ukraine zoo closed
Blast at bus station shakes Jerusalem
Japan buries its dead as radiation fears grow
Mass protests in Yemen as emergency law imposed
Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop
Obama again defends U.S. involvement in Libya
Missing Va. teacher's body located in Japan
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Carriages prepared for royal wedding
Japan slowly recovers, mourns dead
Obama lauds Chile's transition to democracy
Coalition stops Gaddafi push on rebel stronghold
The Post's Perry Bacon on Obama in Chile
Truck dangles over ramp; two trapped
Post Today, March 24: U-Md. demands nuclear fallout info
Baking behind bars on Rikers Island
No Tweeting: A royal wedding etiquette guide
Police: Teen shot guardians after being grounded
Elizabeth Taylor's stand against AIDS
Obama struggles to enter White House
Aflac debuts Gilbert Gottfried-less commercial
Strong storms bring wild weather
Elizabeth Taylor's tempestuous love affair
Adorable polar bear twins meet the public
Bomb explodes at Jerusalem bus stop
Elizabeth Taylor dies at 79
Massive shark spotted off Florida coast
Iowa tornado caught on tape
Post Today, March 23: Naming military operations
Circus elephants take a walk through D.C.
Missing Va. teacher's body located in Japan
Footage of crashed U.S. fighter jet
U.S. fighter jet crashes in Libya
Carriages prepared for royal wedding
|
At the United Jewish Communities conference, representatives from the McCain, Clinton and Obama campaigns talked with the audience about why their candidate benefits the Jewish community. Video by Emily Freifeld/washingtonpost.com
| 28.142857 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/17/ST2008031702809.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/17/ST2008031702809.html
|
Braving Cold, Chants, Students Flock to Hear Gun Case
|
2008031819
|
"I've been thinking about this case for weeks," confided Jennifer Dixon, 19, a government major from Royal Oak, Mich., referring to the landmark arguments on the legality of the D.C. gun ban.
But Dixon found 83 people in line for the few seats available for the full proceeding. So, like most spectators, she and her friends were allowed in yesterday for just three minutes of the arguments before being ushered out.
Still, it was worth it, the students said.
"This is a huge case," said Matt Shapiro, 18, of Richmond, who belongs to Georgetown's Supreme Court society with the other students. "We had to come see it."
The D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court's long-awaited examination of the reach of the Second Amendment, turned the steps and sidewalk in front of the ornate building into a theater of lively debate on citizens' rights to own firearms.
The D.C. government leadership turned out in force. So did chanting activists on both sides of the issue and hundreds of shivering tourists and sleep-starved students anxious to glimpse history.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) emerged from the morning arguments with a message once again proclaiming the importance of the 1976 gun law, one of the strictest in the country. "This is a public safety case," he declared.
Facing a throng of reporters on the steps, he said, "More guns anywhere in the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime."
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, Interim D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles and D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) followed him to the microphones, saying that it was reasonable for the city to ban handguns, because they can be easily concealed and taken into schools, buses and other locations.
A few minutes later, a gray-haired man in a parka stepped to the microphones, wearing a blue tie decorated with the scales of justice. It was Dick Anthony Heller, 66, the security guard who challenged the law, the man behind District of Columbia v. Heller.
"A basic issue of our constitutional rights to life and self-defense has been violated," said Heller, a Capitol Hill resident, flanked by his attorneys. "As a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government offices. But my life isn't worth protecting at home, in their eyes."
|
They came at midnight, six Georgetown University students with the bare essentials for a night in front of the Supreme Court: Sleeping bags. Pretzels. Malted milk balls.
| 14.8125 | 0.5625 | 1.0625 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702622.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702622.html
|
Tickets Prized Just as Much As the NCAA Tournament's
|
2008031819
|
Outside the Supreme Court building yesterday, awaiting arguments this morning in a potentially landmark gun-rights case, the court of public opinion was already in session, the citizen-justices presiding in portable lawn chairs, robed against the chill in heavy blankets and winter coats.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the right to own guns? Or does it confer only a collective right that allows states to form armed militias? By last night, more than 60 people from across the country filled the entire block of First Street NE, some camped out since Sunday, eager for seats in the court when attorneys debate the issue, beginning at 10 a.m.
Although the real court won't issue a decision for months, a majority of the sidewalk justices apparently came with their minds made up, ruling that the District's 32-year-old ban on handgun ownership, the focus of the case, violates the Constitution.
"It's clear what the Second Amendment means to me," said Jason McCrory, 23, a gun owner and recent college graduate from Lancaster, Pa. "It's intended to give people the right to defend themselves and their fellow citizens if someone attacks them."
McCrory arrived Sunday night with a friend, Dan Mott, 21, and after sleeping heavily bundled in canvas chairs, the two will be the first to enter when the building's giant bronze doors swing open to the public. As McCrory spoke, Mott stood next to him, reading the 78-page petitioner's brief filed by the city, which has asked the high court to overturn a lower appellate ruling that declared the handgun ban unconstitutional.
Mott already had digested the 82-page respondent's brief, which requests a ruling that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to arm themselves.
"I don't think the petitioner's argument is very solid here," said Mott, an electrician who quit college after a semester. Glancing up from Page 48, he said: "I think the respondent's brief is just rock-solid compared to this. I mean, reading this, I think the other one makes a lot more sense."
Kathy Arberg, a court spokeswoman, said that public seating arrangements for the arguments were in flux yesterday but that officials anticipated offering at least 70 to 80 seats to the people in line for the full 75-minute proceeding. Other spectators will have to take turns in at least 15 to 20 seats that probably will be available for three- to five-minute intervals.
"For those of us who are gun enthusiasts, this is the biggest thing to happen since before we were born," said Robert Blackmer, 38, an investigator for the Arizona Department of Corrections. He said the trip from Phoenix cost him about $1,000.
Many in line were law students and recent law graduates fascinated by the constitutional issues and willing to sleep in the cold for a chance to see legal history in the making. Others in line are gun owners who came to give moral support to attorneys fighting the ban and who hope to see their interpretation of the Second Amendment vindicated.
"I agree with the city's position," said LaToya Edwards, 23, a Duke University law student, as she unpacked her lawn chair after a four-hour drive from Durham, N.C. "I've always felt that the right to own a gun has been a collective and not an individual right."
Pat Harvey, a 24-year-old second-year law student at George Washington University, was another in the minority. "If a democratically elected city council has had a law on the books for 30 years, it's not the court's job to overturn it."
On and on went the debate, the people sipping coffee and munching crackers, studying law books and puffing cigarettes. Among those in the crowd were seven students from the Oak Brook College of Law in Fresno, Calif., all of them siding against the District.
Matthew Carmel, 51, a gun-rights supporter from New Jersey, felt so compelled to come that he caught a train at 3:36 a.m. "I really just feel like if I don't get involved, our Second Amendment rights will be lost," he said.
At one point yesterday along the sidewalk came Rick Hohensee, 54, homeless and bearded. He wore a winter hat, two coats and white socks peeking from his open-toed shoes. He carried a cardboard sign that read, "D.C. EXISTS SO THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY HERE." He unwrinkled a typed manifesto from a breast pocket, outlining his views on gun control and proceeded with a long argument that was difficult to follow.
"It's very, very important," Hohensee said of the gun case. "It's important to everyone."
Staff writer Elissa Silverman contributed to this report.
|
Outside the Supreme Court building yesterday, awaiting arguments this morning in a potentially landmark gun-rights case, the court of public opinion was already in session, the citizen-justices presiding in portable lawn chairs, robed against the chill in heavy blankets and winter coats.
| 18.333333 | 1 | 51 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html
|
A History of D.C. Gun Ban
|
2008031819
|
The District's gun law is among the strictest in the nation, and it has been under attack since it took effect. Here are some key dates:
June 1976: Eighteen months after Congress established home rule for the District, the D.C. Council votes 12 to 1 in favor of a bill restricting city residents from acquiring handguns. The law exempts guards, police officers and owners who had registered their handguns before it took effect. Under the bill, all firearms (including rifles and shotguns, which were not restricted by the law) must be kept unloaded and disassembled, except those in business establishments.
September 1976: Attempts in Congress to block the District law fail, clearing the way for it to go into effect.
July 1977: The D.C. Council exempts private security firms from the gun bill and removes a requirement that gun owners take vision and gun law tests.
June 1999: A House bill carrying an amendment that would have allowed "law-abiding citizens" to own and carry guns in the District is defeated.
February 2003: Six D.C. residents sue the city, in a case known as Parker v. the District of Columbia, arguing that the gun law illegally prevents them from keeping guns in their homes.
April 2003: Five other D.C. residents, including longtime activist Sandra Seegars, file a separate suit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, against the federal and city governments, saying they have a right to bear arms.
July 2003: Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) introduces a measure to end the District's ban on carrying handguns and keeping them in the home. The legislation would also ease registration requirements for firearms and ammunition. It later dies in committee.
January 2004: U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismisses the Seegars suit.
March 2004: U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismisses the Parker suit.
September 2004: The House votes 250 to 171 to roll back most of the District's gun laws, but the Senate fails to take up the measure before Congress recesses.
February 2005: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholds the ruling against Seegars, finding that she and other plaintiffs lacked legal standing.
June 30, 2005: House votes to repeal District's gun restrictions.
November 2005: Congress approves the District's 2006 budget, leaving out a provision that would have prevented the city from enforcing the requirement that guns in homes be kept unloaded and disassembled. The House for the second year in a row votes overwhelmingly in favor of the restriction, but the language is removed in conference before the final passage.
March 2007: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturns U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's decision in the Parker case, finding that one of the plaintiffs has legal standing because he applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. The court finds that the D.C. law illegally bars guns in homes. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) says the city will appeal.
May 2007: A federal appeals court in Washington let stand a ruling that struck down a restrictive D.C. ban on gun ownership, setting the stage for a potentially major constitutional battle over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court.
September 2007: The District asks the Supreme Court to uphold its strict 30-year handgun ban. The high court has not ruled on the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms since 1939.
November 2007: The Supreme Court agrees to rule on D.C. gun ban.
January 2008: Acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles selects former acting U.S. solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger to defend the District's handgun ban.
February 2008: Senate, House members file a amicus brief urging the Supreme Court uphold the ruling that the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
March 2008: Supreme Court hears arguments.
June 26, 2008: Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. ban on handguns. The current gun regulations are unclear, but immediatly following the ruling, residents are not allowed to buy a handgun and bring it to the city. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration will instruct the police department to issue new regulations within 30 days detailing the process for registering handguns.
-- Compiled by Meg Smith and Leah Carliner
|
The District's gun law is among the strictest in the nation, and it has been under attack since it took effect. Here are some key dates:
| 27.333333 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702492.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702492.html
|
Brazilians Look to Regional Force to Root Out Death Squads
|
2008031819
|
"What do they call the death squad here?"
Five middle-aged women, all of whom were visiting a church in their neighborhood's central square, answered in imperfect unison: "The Thundercats."
If you want someone killed in this working-class district, that's the name to remember. Almost everyone here in the Jardim Sao Paulo neighborhood has heard of the group, even those who have never had a reason to seek out its members.
Officials say that death squads in the murder-for-hire business are responsible for a majority of the killings here in the state of Pernambuco -- Brazil's deadliest, based on figures for homicides as a percentage of population. Because the rosters of those squads routinely include police officers and other prominent residents, talking freely about their influence has long been considered an invitation to trouble.
"I'm pretty brave, but it's scary to think about speaking out if you see them committing crimes -- they could do something to my son or my husband, and that would break my world," said Lapa, 63. "There's always a police officer involved, so if you have seen something, how can anyone be trusted?"
The presence of such squads has plagued many parts of Brazil for years, but growing public demand for justice last year prompted officials here to create the first large-scale, regional task force to combat them.
Now, authorities are working against authorities in what resembles an enormous internal affairs investigation. In the past year, about 200 people have been nabbed in several high-profile busts of various squads in Pernambuco, and many of those arrested have been police officers and other officials.
The Thundercats were one of the first targeted last year, and the break in that case came when a mother's concern for her son proved stronger than the group's stranglehold on a hushed-up public.
"The death squads have tools to hide their actions, either through ties to public offices or by creating a veil of fear," said Rodrigo Pellegrino de Azevedo, the state's secretary of justice and human rights. "But this one mother came directly to the governor and told him about one man in the Thundercats who wanted to kill her son."
The subsequent investigation into the group led to dozens of arrests, mostly police officers and local business owners. One of those arrested was an aide to a state legislator, who also happened to be a relative of the state's previous governor, Pellegrino de Azevedo said. In addition to committing murders, the group would force residents to pay a "protection fee" to guarantee that their houses would not be robbed, according to state officials.
In November, the task force used telephone taps, banking records and other evidence to arrest 34 more people -- including police, merchants and a lawyer -- for their roles in two death squads accused of killing about 200 people. Another squad arrested last year went by the name "Murder, Inc.," and police at the time told reporters that the group might have been responsible for up to 1,000 homicides in the past five years.
The price of the murders ranged from about $600 to $3,000 each, according to federal police. The victims included people who were late on extortion payments and debts, as well as people involved in personal disputes with those who contracted the killings.
The groups' ties to public institutions have helped create a culture of impunity. Military police affiliated with the squads often arrive early at crime scenes to cover up evidence, according to officials. The U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, visited Pernambuco late last year and reported that only 3 percent of the state's homicides were tried in court. He found that about 2,000 files submitted to the state's public prosecutor were thrown out because the police in Pernambuco had delayed action for so long that the statute of limitations had expired.
A "reliable estimate is that 70 percent of all homicides are committed by death squads," Alston wrote in a summary of his visit. "The 197 people who have been arrested this year [2007] for death squad activity represent only the tip of an iceberg."
The man in charge of the task force targeting the death squads is Servilho Silva de Paiva, the state's secretary of social defense. He said that his office is working to come up with credible statistics to measure the extent of the squads' reach. In the meantime, he acknowledged that the percentage of crimes influenced by the squads is "high."
"For years, the governments here never wanted to show how bad the problems were," he said.
According to Silva de Paiva, the absence of a strong government presence and reliable social services allowed the squads to flourish. In the 1990s, understaffed police forces and an inefficient judiciary contributed to a feeling of lawlessness here. Many in the middle classes -- and some in law enforcement -- began viewing death squads as an alternative form of justice.
One of the first jobs of the task force was to strengthen the internal investigation units of the police to root out corrupt officers. A witness protection program also has been strengthened to try to give victims more confidence to speak to authorities.
It is still too early to determine whether the task force's arrests will have any measurable effect on violence here. Some observers say greater efforts are needed to define the problems before they can be solved.
"It's true that there is now a real effort to diminish the groups, but I don't think there has been a substantial change, yet," said Vald¿nia Brito, a lawyer with the Cabinet of Legal Support to Popular Organizations, a human rights group that has worked on the issue for years. "There is so much that we don't know. We don't even have a clear idea of the number of death squads that exist."
In the Jardim Sao Paulo neighborhood, some residents said they sense things are slowly changing. Even if the actual threat hasn't declined, some say the perception of it has.
"The people who are members of those groups could be anyone -- someone you sit down with to have a beer," said Pedro Francisco Bezerra, a taxi driver who noticed the Thundercats gaining notoriety in his neighborhood about five years ago. "But people are feeling a little safer now, more secure."
|
RECIFE, Brazil -- The name was on the tip of Rosario Lapa's tongue, but it stubbornly stayed there. She tapped her forehead to try to shake it loose, then turned to her friends for help.
| 30.365854 | 0.658537 | 1.097561 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702262.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702262.html
|
Potholes Await Top Seeds
|
2008031819
|
Of course, neither Connecticut nor Maryland has a carefree path to the Final Four. The Huskies, who haven't been to a Final Four since 2004 when they won their third consecutive title, could face second-seeded Rutgers in the region final. The Scarlet Knights, last year's national runner-up, were the only team to beat U-Conn. this season.
Maryland could have to overcome travel fatigue and a motivated Stanford team that undoubtedly felt snubbed by the committee. The second-seeded Cardinal (30-3), which hasn't reached a Final Four since 1997, had victories over Tennessee and Rutgers, but its one bad weekend in Los Angeles -- during which it lost consecutive games to UCLA and Southern Cal in early January -- cost it a number one seed.
North Carolina (30-2), the top seed in the New Orleans region, can't be happy about a potential regional final involving No. 2 seed LSU (27-5) in the Big Easy. The Lady Tigers have been to the last four Final Fours but come up short of the national title each time.
Defending champion Tennessee (30-2) may have to go through two Big 12 teams to reach the Final Four: fourth-seeded Oklahoma and second-seeded Texas A&M. The Aggies (26-7) are one of the hottest teams in the tournament. They have won 13 of their last 14 including the Big 12 tournament championship. The Big 12 was the top-rated conference this season.
The Big 12 and the Big East placed the most teams in the tournament, each sending eight. The ACC was next with six. The SEC sent five. One SEC team, Auburn, which will play sixth-seeded George Washington in the first round, was a surprise inclusion in the field. The Tigers have struggled since the academic suspension of junior point guard Whitney Boddie. The Colonials beat Auburn earlier this year.
Auburn wasn't the only team to lose a significant player late in the season. Kansas State, which won the Big 12 regular season title, is a fifth seed in the New Orleans region. The Wildcats are without their leading scorer Kimberly Dietz who has a knee injury.
Nine teams are making their first trip, among them Cornell, Cleveland State and Fresno. Cornell is led by Jeomi Maduka, the Ivy League player of the year. Maduka, a two-sport athlete, competed in the NCAA indoor track and field championships last weekend, placing eighth in the long jump to earn all-American honors, before flying to New York to help the Big Red earn its first trip to tournament. Cornell plays Connecticut in the first round.
Cleveland State won just four games two years ago. But this guard-oriented team -- only three players are taller than 6 feet and none are taller than 6-2 -- won the Horizon League tournament to earn its first bid. The 15th-seeded Vikings play Stanford in the first round.
Fresno State has made headlines recently because of its gender discrimination case of former coach Stacy Johnson-Klein. The 14th-seeded Bulldogs started the season 0-6 but have won 20 of the last 22 games. They play third-seeded Baylor in the first round.
|
Overall top seed Connecticut and the other No. 1 seeds, North Carolina, Tennessee and Maryland all face obstacles on the road to the national title.
| 21.862069 | 0.758621 | 1.241379 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702945.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702945.html
|
Cavaliers Are Right Back in It
|
2008031819
|
After making 20 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances, the Virginia women's basketball team had missed three of the last four, but the Cavaliers are back this season, as the No. 4 seed in the Greensboro Region. Virginia (23-9) plays No. 13 UC Santa Barbara (23-7) on Sunday night in Norfolk.
"Very pleased. We were all really surprised to see our name come up so early," point guard Sharnee Zoll said. "We were expecting a five or six seed."
Virginia went 10-4 in the ACC to finish fourth in the league. The Cavaliers lost to North Carolina in the ACC tournament semifinals, but that setback didn't diminish their resurgent season. After reaching the 20-win mark during the regular season for the first time in four seasons, Virginia moved into the Associated Press rankings earlier this month.
Should Virginia advance to the second round, the Cavaliers could meet intrastate rival Old Dominion. The two teams didn't have their typical regular season meeting this season. The fifth-seeded Lady Monarchs play another Virginia team, No. 12 seed Liberty, in the first round.
Zoll said this accomplishment carried special meaning not only for them but for Coach Debbie Ryan. Ryan, in her 31st season as Virginia's coach, will be inducted into the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame in June. This will be her 22nd NCAA tournament.
"It feels really great [to be back in the tournament] not just for us, but for Coach [Debbie] Ryan," Zoll said. "She had a really long streak of going to the tournament. We are really happy we can bring back some respect for her and the program."
|
After three of the previous four NCAA tournaments, U-Va. returns in 2008 as a No. 4 seed and will face No. 13 UC Santa Barbara on Sunday in Norfolk.
| 9.277778 | 0.805556 | 2.361111 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702933.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702933.html
|
Colonials Head West To Meet Familiar Foe
|
2008031819
|
The George Washington women's team is heading to California -- again.
One year after winning two NCAA tournament games in Los Angeles, the Colonials (25-6) will travel to the Bay Area as a No. 6 seed and face a familiar foe, 11th-seeded Auburn (20-11), on Saturday at Stanford's Maples Pavilion.
"We have a special bond with Cali," senior guard Sarah-Jo Lawrence said during a team gathering at Smith Center last night.
"We don't lose in California," added junior guard Lisa Steele, whose three-pointer with 1.1 seconds left on Jan. 3 gave GW a 68-66 victory at Auburn. The Colonials also defeated the Tigers last regular season, a 62-51 decision in Washington.
Coach Joe McKeown was not as enthusiastic about traveling across the country again.
"For our fans and the families, with all the sites available near here, going back to California, it's a little bit surprising," said McKeown, whose team is making its 15th tournament appearance and sixth in a row. Both Maryland, a No. 1 seed, and Old Dominion, a No. 5, will play at least one game at home, while fourth-seeded Virginia will join ODU in nearby Norfolk. Bridgeport, Conn., is the other East Coast venue.
McKeown figured the Colonials would be seeded fourth, fifth or sixth, but was surprised they were paired with a team they had already played. His team will also have to tip off in the morning -- an 11 a.m. start Pacific time -- to accommodate national TV.
"But once you get past all that, it's just a matter of saying, 'Hey, let's get ready to play,' " he said.
Last year, as a No. 5 seed placed at the University of Southern California's Galen Center, GW defeated Boise State and No. 4 seed Texas A&M before losing to top-seeded North Carolina in the round of 16 in Dallas.
The Colonials' seed slipped this year after they lost to Xavier in the Atlantic 10 semifinals last week. Nonetheless, they have won 20 of their last 23 games and have beaten five tournament-bound teams, including Virginia and Texas A&M, a No. 2 seed.
One of the most dramatic victories came against then-18th-ranked Auburn when the Colonials were two spots behind nationally. GW led by 11 before the Tigers staged a second-half comeback and went ahead by one. With 12 seconds left, Kimberly Beck rebounded an Auburn miss and pushed the ball downcourt before passing to Steele on the left wing for the winning jumper.
"It was a really crazy game and, to win on their home court, was a big deal for us," Steele said.
Auburn's strength is DeWanna Bonner, a thin, 6-foot-4 junior guard who averages 18.5 points and 10.2 rebounds and was named to the Southeastern Conference's first team. In the GW game, she had 14 points, 12 rebounds and 3 blocked shots but shot just 4 of 14.
"I remember there was a lot of trash-talking and physical play," Lawrence said. "It helps our confidence a lot [to have beaten Auburn], but we know it's going to be another tough game."
If the Colonials win, they likely would face third-seeded California on the court of the Bears' most bitter rival.
"We'll get those Stanford fans who hate Cal rooting for us," McKeown said.
|
A year after winning two NCAA tournament games on the West Coast, the 6th-seeded Colonials are headed to the Bay Area to face 11th-seeded Auburn on Saturday at Stanford's Maples Pavilion at 11 a.m.
| 17.35 | 0.9 | 3.8 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031700575.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031700575.html
|
Chinese Premier Blames Dalai Lama for Turmoil
|
2008031819
|
Wen, in China's first senior-level response to the rioting in Tibet and other Tibetan-inhabited areas of the country, said the violence Friday in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, was particularly "cruel" and caused great harm to the city and its inhabitants.
He dismissed charges by the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, that China's government is committing cultural genocide by submerging the region's native population under a wave of Han Chinese immigration, and vowed to carry on with economic development in the isolated mountain territory.
"These claims that the Chinese government is engaged in cultural genocide are nothing but lies," Wen declared at a news conference marking the end of China's annual legislative sessions.
Wen spoke out after Chinese police conducted house-to-house searches in Lhasa Monday and rounded up hundreds of people suspected of participating in a deadly outburst of anti-Chinese violence, exile groups and residents reported.
The large-scale arrests and official promises of tough reprisals suggested the Chinese government had decided to move decisively to crush the protests, despite calls for restraint from abroad and warnings that heavy-handed repression could taint this summer's Olympic Games in Beijing.
Compounding official fears of unrest, about 100 students held a candlelight vigil at a Beijing university Monday -- a peaceful affair that was remarkable by virtue of its being held in the capital.
The Tibetan regional governor, Champa Phuntsok, said detainees who showed remorse and informed on others involved in the week-long uprising would be rewarded with better treatment. But he told reporters in Beijing that Buddhist monks and other Tibetans who participated in Friday's torching of Chinese-owned shops and attacks on Han Chinese businessmen would be "dealt with harshly."
The government had previously given rioters until midnight Monday to turn themselves in. But Urgen Tenzin, executive director of the India-based Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, said he was told by telephone that about 600 Tibetans had been arrested before nightfall in a police sweep that lasted most of the day.
One Han Chinese resident contacted by telephone said a squad of policemen had knocked on the door of his home in Lhasa and demanded to see national identity cards and residency permits for everyone inside. A bank officer said police entered his branch in the city's center and required employees to show their national ID cards and respond to questions about their residence and activities.
"We must give them tit for tat and firmly counterattack," said an editorial in the Communist Party's official newspaper in Lhasa, the Tibet Daily, in an indication of the government's intent.
In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the "government will unwaveringly protect its national sovereignty and territorial integrity."
The Bush administration has responded cautiously to China's crackdown. State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters Monday in Washington that the United States continues to "urge restraint on the part of the Chinese government." He added, though, that the situation was one "that's going to have to be resolved internally between the parties."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of Chinese human rights abuses, will travel Wednesday to Dharmsala, India, headquarters of the Dalai Lama's exile organization, sources close to the speaker confirmed. Last week she declared, "The violent response by Chinese police forces to peaceful protesters in Tibet is disgraceful. It must be met with strong condemnation by the United States government and the international community."
Phuntsok, a Tibetan who is the territory's second-ranking official under party secretary Zhang Qingli, said 13 people have been killed in violence, raising the previous official death toll by three. They perished during the most violent moments of unrest Friday, when maroon-robed monks and Tibetan youths set fires, looted shops and beat Chinese in an apparent explosion of resentment over economic inequities.
There were no reports of deaths among security forces. But the New China News Agency said 12 were seriously injured -- "like any other innocent victim," the dispatch added -- by rioters hurling stones, lashing out with knives and swinging clubs.
The Dalai Lama's exile organization said Tibetans reported by telephone and Internet that they had seen the bodies of about 80 Tibetans who had been killed in the violence Friday.
The Tibet governor, at a news conference organized by the central government, said regular police and People's Armed Police sent to quell the riots never opened fire with lethal weapons, although according to earlier official accounts tear gas canisters were fired. Residents and tourists reported hearing the sound of occasional gunfire. But video of deployments in the mostly empty streets of Lhasa on Monday showed police without weapons.
With access to Tibet restricted and tight censorship by Chinese authorities, there was no way to assess the accuracy of the competing reports issued by Chinese authorities and exile organizations abroad. Even in areas outside Tibet, it has been difficult to verify developments.
At the Central University for Nationalities, the Beijing school where students held a vigil, dozens of plainclothes and uniformed police barred outsiders from entry. By midnight, the students had been dispersed.
The Communist Party's main newspaper, People's Daily, said Monday that "an extremely small minority" had engaged in arson and vandalism and were being dealt with by authorities. But most public opinion abroad, it reported, was riveted on just-concluded meetings of the National People's Congress and the People's Political Consultative Conference, during which Wen was formally reelected.
Staff writer Jonathan Weisman in Washington contributed to this report.
|
BEIJING, March 18 -- Premier Wen Jiabao said Tuesday that the recent unrest in Tibet was instigated by the exiled Dalai Lama and proved for all the world to see that his claims of seeking peaceful dialogue with China "are nothing but lies."
| 22.914894 | 0.723404 | 1.276596 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031700143.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031700143.html
|
Cheney Visits Baghdad and Praises War Effort; Bomb Kills 40 in Karbala
|
2008031819
|
Making his first visit since the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. troops last year, Cheney characterized the changes in Iraq's security and political landscape as "phenomenal" and "remarkable." The vice president used the opportunity to reassert that there was "a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda" before the U.S. invasion, despite reports that have found no operational ties between the two.
The vice president's visit came on the same day that two U.S. soldiers were killed by a bomb near Baghdad and a female suicide bomber killed at least 40 people outside a Shiite shrine in Karbala. While Cheney traveled outside the heavily fortified Green Zone during the day, the streets were lined with troops and barriers, and some reporters traveling with him reported hearing explosions elsewhere in the city.
The five-year anniversary of the start of the war on Wednesday has prompted a variety of appraisals, not all as upbeat as the vice president's. Many Iraqis feel more optimistic because of the recent decline in violence, according to a new poll by ABC News and other news organizations, but they remain dissatisfied with the provision of basic services and job opportunities.
A report issued Monday by the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that a humanitarian "crisis" has left millions of Iraqis with inadequate clean water, sanitation and health care.
"Five years after the outbreak of the war in Iraq, the humanitarian situation in most of the country remains among the most critical in the world," the 15-page report says.
The attack in Karbala occurred around sunset, just before the evening prayer. It took place a few hundred yards from the Imam Hussein shrine, one of the holiest houses of worship for Shiite Muslims.
Iraqi police said a woman wearing a suicide vest blew up in a street crowded with pedestrians and lined with outdoor cafes. A security guard stationed at an office of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's organization said she screamed "God is great" three times before the bomb detonated.
The bomb killed 40 people and wounded 65 others, according to a U.S. military statement, citing Iraqi security forces in Karbala. A spokesman for the Karbala health office, Salim Kadhum, said 42 people died and 73 were injured.
Jassem Mohammed, 28, owns a nearby men's clothing store, whose windows shattered and ceiling collapsed around him. "It was just horrible," he said, "something seen only in movies."
Cheney, who arrived aboard a C-17 transport on the first stop of a 10-day tour of the Middle East, focused on recent security gains and praised Iraqi leaders for making progress toward political reconciliation. While he pressed them to approve a law governing the oil industry and to set provincial elections in October, he said the situation had already improved enough to show the invasion was justified.
"If you reflect back on those five years, it's been a difficult, challenging, but nonetheless successful endeavor," he said at a news conference with Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've come a long way in five years, and it's been well worth the effort."
|
BAGHDAD, March 17 -- As the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq neared, Vice President Cheney flew unannounced into Baghdad on Monday and declared the U.S. effort to install democracy and stabilize Iraq a "successful endeavor" that has been "well worth the effort."
| 12.019608 | 0.764706 | 1.627451 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302667.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302667.html
|
The Garden Plot
|
2008031819
|
Higgins offered advice on what to do to get your garden ready for spring.
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."
Gaithersburg, Md.: I have planted both snow and Rembrandt crocusues the past several autumns in areas that get a half day of sun. They fail to multiply in beds where they are in competition with superficial oak roots or when in proximity to a small Japanese maple. What sort of existing garden bed will better allow the crocus to naturalize and multiply?
Adrian Higgins: An open sunny location that is free draining. A little compost tea now and again, when in leaf, may help them increase. Fall blooming crocus maintain their leaves through the winter when deciduous trees don't shade the ground, so that may be an option if you can't get your crocus fix any other way.
Alexandria, Va.: Good morning, Professor - so glad the chats are back! I have a question about bulbs, which I know you should leave in the ground until the foliage dies. I want to till my garden this spring, and may need to pull the bulbs out right after they've bloomed. Can I replant them after I've tilled, or should I just write them off as finished after they're pulled? Thank you for the advice.
Adrian Higgins: Depends what they are, if they are tulips, most varieties don't come back well, and you can just toss them. If they are repeaters, I suppose you could lift them, gingerly, and replant them making sure that you do as little damage as possible to leaf and root. The optimum time to move spring bulbs is after the foliage withers.
So. Md.: Adrian, I am so anxious to get outside and work the soil! I want to do a hydrangea row on the south side of my house and want to create a lush, layered look. Can you recommend something to place BEHIND the hydrangeas? I'd like something that looks decent in the winter since the hydrangeas will be bare. THANKS - and I love your chats!
Adrian Higgins: I would advise against hydrangeas in a south facing bed unless it gets some sort of high shade from trees. They wilt at the drop of hat and need some protection from the worst of the afternoon heat. If you do have shade, I would consider a backdrop of yew or cherry-laurel. If you don't have shade, I would consider shrubs such as abelia or beautyberry.
Alexandria, Va.: Good morning! I'm starting to think what I'm looking for may not exist. I'd like to find a dwarf weeping flowering tree, about 6' high and maybe 2' wide. I saw a gorgeous snowfountain (weeping cherry) at the Washington Home & Garden Show over the weekend which was perfect but came to find out that it's still immature - that they can grow to 25'. Any suggestions?
Adrian Higgins: I know of no tree short of a bonsai that gets two feet across (Unless we are talking about the trunk). I'm hard pressed to think of a shrub of that width. I would go with an ornamental grass such as calamagrostis or panicum. The Cherry Hally Jolivette is a small flowering tree but won't fit your slot. Sorry.
New gardener help!: Good morning, I am new to gardening and am wondering if there is an area guide that advises on the ideal time to plant various vegetables, flowers and plants. I saw some neighbors toiling away last weekend and had the passing thought that it was still too early to get going, but perhaps I am way off here. Help please!
Adrian Higgins: The websites of both the Virginia Tech cooperative extension service and the Maryland Home and Garden Information Center have guides on vegetable planting, if memory serves. I believe Green Spring Gardens in Alexandria does also. Now is a good time to direct sow cool season things like spinach, beets, radishes and peas, even lettuce. You should be starting tomato and pepper plants now indoors. Or you can cheat, and buy those warm season veggies as plants BUT DON'T PLANT THEM OUT IN THE GARDEN WITHOUT PROTECTION UNTIL MID-APRIL AT THE EARLIEST. (Emphasis added by Higgins).
Fairfax - overwinter fir seedlings: I sent a question a couple of weeks ago about over wintering fir seedlings. They always die off over time - despite potting immediately, watering, etc. How can I keep fir seedlings alive until spring planting?
Adrian Higgins: Fir is a hardy conifer, though seedlings would benefit from being grown in pots sunk in sand in ventilated cold frames.
I'll be planting hybrid tea roses this weekend. I've heard of putting Epsom salts into the hole before filling. I've also heard of using bone meal.
What is really the right thing to put in when planting new roses ?
Adrian Higgins: Both of those will provide desirable nutrients (I actually love the old fashioned word, nutriments - any takers?)but the key thing with roses is once you plant them, they stay there, so you have to provide a really deep, rich and amended soil for them. Roses like their roots to be evenly moist but not wet, and this deep soil will achieve that and give them the long term nutriments they need.
Vienna, Va.: What should I be doing to my lawn and shrubs (azaleas and boxwoods) this weekend? Trimming, pruning, fertilizing, etc.?
Adrian Higgins: Spring is the moment that the garden stirs, but it is not the moment the gardener should stir. The gardener should stir every month of the year. Then you will see the cycle of things, you will see the azalea buds forming in August, and worry that the drought will mean fewer blooms the following spring. Plants that will be growing this spring, however, will benefit from a little feeding. I prefer organic feeds, which don't harm the soil and are taken up gently by the plant. It is important to follow the recommended rate of application, especially with synthetic fertilizers.
Md.: I never understand your comments about the tulips not doing well year after year. Mine not only come back but have multiplied. As a child I remember HUGE beds of tulips that came back year after year my mother had that she planted only one time.
Adrian Higgins: There are varieties with certain species blood in them, Greigii for example, that will increase. I think the emperor varieties are a good example. There are amazing tulip species and closely related varieties that come back like gangbusters, but they are not the upright, lipstick red tulip of our imagination, they are lower growing and more delicate flowers. They are fabulous, I'm thinking of clusiania, bakeri and humilis, among them. I saw a tulip in bloom yesterday called The First. Yellow and red striped beauty. This reliably returns.
I've got a Rose of Sharon growing close to the house, obviously self seeded from another plant.
When would it be safe to move it to a more desirable location ?
Adrian Higgins: Soon, before the roots go too deep.
I put down the first application of weed/feed 3 weeks ago. Can I overseed my yard, since the fertilizer has been worked in, so to say?
Adrian Higgins: No, I don't know what herbicide you used, but it may well inhibit any seed germination this spring. Try and find the product label, they are available on line by the manufacturer.
Richmond: Adrian -- I have five upright skip laurels planted beneath tall pines -- the leaves seem awfully yellow. I compost them with well-rotted manure, but is there something else I should be doing?
Adrian Higgins: There may be some iron deficiency that is manifest by alkaline soil. I would consider getting a soil test. My book says it's pretty pH adaptable. It likes moisture but hates waterlogged soil, that might be a problem. See how it progresses this spring.
Washington, D.C.: I like nutriments.
Annapolis, Md.: Good Morning and welcome back!
I purchased two spring flowering camellias two weeks ago when visiting down south. Now that I have them home, I'm wondering about siting them. I have a south-facing hillside, poor clay soil, that receives full sun. Then I have another small hill, sandy soil, that gets late afternoon shade from high trees.
What do you suggest? Would it be better to amend the sand or the clay? Full sun, or part shade? Neither site is particularly moist, but I thought I'd be careful for a year or two with water until the bushes are established.
Adrian Higgins: I would go for the partial shade with heavy amendment of the sandy soil with peat moss and rotted compost. Give them a light mulch and make sure they are adequately watered this growing year. Anticipate them growing large.
Alexandria, Va.: There are two magnolia trees visible from our condo window. I have seen only one other magnolia tree in bloom and that was on Route 7 between Bailey's Crossing and Falls Church. What is their normal time to be in bloom?
Adrian Higgins: Just in time for frost.
College Park, Md.: Hi -- looking to screen out neighbors. Any good, evergreen shrubs or trees that grow to about 6 feet tall, take sun, and don't mind clay? Or this is a dream plant? Thanks!
Adrian Higgins: Consider the native Carolina laurel or the Yaupon holly.
What was the thing about converting mulch to a liquid fertilizer using a fish pump and a bucket ? Sorry, that's all I remember about it.
Adrian Higgins: That's a new one on me. Sure it wasn't SNL?
Silver Spring, Md.: Hello Adrian,
A colleague who lives on a farm in rural Virginia gifted me some big, fabulous Virginia Bluebells last year. I dutifully planted them in my woodland garden immediately, and have been watching for them, but haven't seen the shoots come up yet. Said friend claims they should have come up by now, and I'm crushed at the thought that they might be goners. Do you have any thoughts?
Adrian Higgins: You should be seeing growth by now, I would think. With the drought last year, we are all going to be watching and waiting this spring to see what returns and what doesn't.
Washington, D.C.: I have a bricked in little side bed that abuts my north-facing house. It doesn't get a whole lot of sun. I'd like to clear it all out and plant some sort of flower or flowering plant that would kind of cascade over the brick wall. Is there something out there that would work?
Adrian Higgins: Deep shade will be difficult. I would consider a magnificent, pewter leafed deciduous vine called schizophragma. I think the variety is Moonlight.
Alexandria, VAa.: Help, please. I need a ground cover for a 7 x 10 area in my tiny backyard that is directly under a giant silver maple tree. This tree must have been planted ages ago, as it is way too large for this space. I pulled up the ivy (allergy problems, hate it) and am thinking about trying vinca minor, as it supposedly is drought resistant and shade tolerant once established. Once I plant the vinca, I was thinking I would need to mulch around it. Mulch won't stop the vinca from spreading, will it? Any other ideas? I wouldn't mind removing the tree eventually, but it isn't in the budget right now. Thanks!
Adrian Higgins: Getting anything to grow in the roots of silver maple is going to be tough. One thing you can do, is sweep away some of the soil and expose the roots as an ornamental pattern in itself, and then interplant with tiny bulbs such as scilla and glory of the snow, even hardy cyclamen.
Alexandria, Va.: Last summer we had an infestation of aphids on our petunias in pots on our second floor balcony. We tried spraying the foliage with a mixture of soap and water but it didn't seem to help much. We didn't have them on any of our other plants. I would almost rather not plant any petunias this spring than have to cope with aphids eating holes in them in mid to late summer. Did other people have this problem last summer? What might have caused it?
Adrian Higgins: Aphids can build up in huge numbers. Hosing them off is usually an effective, green way to keep their numbers in check, and to encourage the beneficial predators such as ladybird beetles and their larvae and lacewings.
D.C.: I've seen a technique for pruning Bradford Pear trees where landscape companies lop off the top branches of the tree. What do you think about this? For me, I have 4 in my small back yard and plan to get rid of 3 of them.
I know they are prone to splitting during ice storms, but overall, they are beautiful and have a very nice canopy.
Adrian Higgins: Once a Bradford pear reaches a size where you need to top it, or to cable it, it's time to take it down. Unless you are really careful about picking young trees with less of a compromised branch structure, and doing some formative pruning, they're ill fated. In my view, Bradford pears are a noble but failed experiment in horticulture, and we should move on.
converting mulch to a liquid fertilizer: Adrian,
I remember that. Something about a shortcut way to make a liquid fertilizer that has all the right enzymes for good roots for plants and grass. Just can't remember the term.
Adrian Higgins: Organic mulches may have the beneficial fungi and bacteria to seed some sort of compost tea, but I think fermented compost tea is not the elixir we thought five years ago.
Mulch fertilizer: They mean compost, for compost tea. Although, if they are mulching with compost, maybe they don't need to worry about fancy teas.
Adrian Higgins: Adding another to the pile. The argument against compost tea is that it is merely adding a figurative drop of beneficial microbes in an existing ocean of them, and it does carry some risk of bearing E. coli germs.
Silver Spring, Md.: I'd like to follow up on the subject of camellias. I've noted many of the leaves on my Ackerman variety (planted last fall) have browned. I suspect it's the winter winds; it flowered beautifully in December. Is there anything I should do to rehabilitate it or just leave it alone. Do you recommend a preventive measure, like Wilt-Proof for next year?
Adrian Higgins: Yes, an anti-desiccant will help, especially on shrubs just getting established. Another is to site them away from prevailing northwesterly winds and not in a location that is too open in winter.
Washington, D.C.: What are some other "noble but failed" experiments in horticulture?
Adrian Higgins: Mimosa tree for its ugliness and others for their invasiveness, such as the Norway maple, the loosetrife, the English ivy, I suppose.
Pulaski, Va.: After much research, I've decided to plant Mohawk Viburnums in front of my house for a screen but they're very hard to find in this area. Do you know of a good source? Thank you.
Adrian Higgins: I would think in this Internet age, finding them might not be too tough. Michael Dirr just wrote a book about viburnums which may give nursery sources. This is a National Aboretum introduction, so check its website.
Sudbrook Park, Md.: Love these chats. This weekend I picked up a large amount of winter deadfall and assessed the landscape. Thanks to a neighbor removing 3 large tulip poplars, I now have a NW, full sun bed located under a small mulberry. What type of (native shrub) will do well there? For years I have amended the soil with compost, but the site is dry. Native azaleas and clethra (when it was shaded) have failed. Can you help?
Adrian Higgins: Maybe the red chokeberry or some native elderberries. They may need watering to get established.
Kensington, Md.: Good morning, Mr. Higgins,
Given the recent warm days, I'm afraid I may have missed out on pruning my climbing roses. My concern is the temperature flux at this time of year, I wouldn't want a growth spurt to coincide with a freeze. Can I still prune them now without exposing them to damage? Also, I originally planted two climbers too close together along a wall and I'd like to move one a few feet down. I cut it back hard during early winter, once it was dormant. Can I do this in the next few weeks?
Adrian Higgins: Don't attempt to move the climbers if they have been in more than a year. You can trim them back now, as if they are dormant, they will spring back, but don't wait any longer. This only applies to reblooming climbers. Once-flowering ramblers should be trimmed and pruned right after flowering.
Poor Mimosa: Why do you think it ugly? I love the texture of the leaves, and masses of them show up in summer as hazy pink drifts.
Adrian Higgins: Some people like them, but they seed and are weedy.
Washington, D.C.: Good morning! I planted some annual dianthus last summer, expecting to clean them out after they died, but they've survived the winter and seem to be growing again. Do you think it's worth keeping them around, and if so, could they be moved at this point? I had already planned something else for that spot in the garden this year.
Adrian Higgins: Yes, but be careful moving them, they can be deep rooted.
Alexandria, Va.: I have two healthy lavender plants I planted last summer - each about 10-12 inches tall. When do I prune them, and how do I prune them (ie how much off the top, etc)? Thanks!
Adrian Higgins: Lavender is not cut back like normal perennial herbs. You should wait until you see new growth pushing next month, however ugly they look now. Then don't trim back to bare wood, keep some of the foliage.
Strawberry pot help: Hi Adrian,
I was curious whether you or your chatters had any insider knowledge on where one can get a low-priced strawberry pot, preferrably terra cotta. Maybe I've just spent too much time in Mexico, where such things are only a few dollars, but I was amazed that a garden store wanted nearly $50 for a smallish strawberry pot.
Any suggestions? Thanks very much!
Adrian Higgins: I suppose the big box stores would have low prices. These pots don't really work for strawberries, which need even moisture and room to run.
Can you recommend a good evergreen shrub (3-4'x 3-4') for a sunny spot in the midst of lilac and butterfly bushes? Already have lots of Nandina. The spot proved too harsh for azaleas.
Capitol Hill: I'm so glad to have you back and I'm submitting an early question about Korean mums. Last year it put on quite a show and has stayed mostly evergreen and looks to be an even larger shrub this year. The blooms are wonderful but this plant attracts flies! Is there anything that can be done? I like the bees, but detest the flies.
Adrian Higgins: You may want to lift and divide the mums. As for the flies, don't worry, they will go away.
Rockville, Md.: I have several azaleas that have gone out of bounds and I'd like to cut them back hard. When is the best time to do this? Now, after they flower, or in the fall?
Adrian Higgins: If you want to save as many blossoms as possible, do it after flowering. You can certainly trim back wayward branches, but I wouldn't recommend a good hacking. If the azalea is in the wrong spot, it will move fairly easily, and this should be done in September or October.
Huntingdon Valley, Penn.: Adrian, What is the best way to prevent and/or treat grubs? They seem to be an annual nuisance and I'd appreciate your help.
Adrian Higgins: I am told that beneficial nematodes do a much better job of controling grubs than milky spore. Alas, we are out of time for this week. I'm so glad spring is here, and we can chew the cud again. Look for lots of exciting gardening coverage in the Home section and on our website this spring. Thanks for all your questions and see you next week.
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.
| 102.073171 | 0.536585 | 0.682927 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031102238.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031102238.html
|
Ask the MisFits - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031819
|
He's a veteran reporter, digging up the latest fitness news. She's an irreverent columnist with a knack for getting people off the couch and into the gym. Together, they're here to handle your worst work-out dilemmas and exercise questions.
Vicky Hallett and Howard Schneider are the MisFits, The Post's fitness writers. They were online Tuesday, March 18 and took readers' questions.
Vicky Hallett: Funny that today's column has a question about delayed onset muscle soreness (aka DOMS) because I took a 70-minute abs class on Sunday and I'm still feeling it. Ow. So I refuse to do any crunches for y'all today, but I promise to type through the pain to answer your questions!
Howard, how are you doing?
Howard Schneider: Well not suffering from a 70-minutes abs class, I can assure you....Before we forget it: everyone make sure to tune in to the column next week. We'll have our latest trail challenge map...
Falls Church, Va.: The New York Times recently reported on some findings that the benefits of stretching are actually mixed, and that the more flexible you are the less power you may have in your muscles.
I spend a lot of time on my flexibility between dancing and yoga, but now I am training for a 5K and am finding it hard to get that explosive energy back in my legs. Should I step back off on the stretching for a while or should I just expect it to take a little longer to get in top running form?
Howard Schneider: Good question. You can think of stretching and strengthening as two sides of a coin -- the repeated contractions of running or lifting weights makes muscles shorter; conversely, intense and sustained stretching can over time lead to "hypermobility" (which can leave the joints at risk and without proper support). One of my sisters was a dancer who stretched -- really, like rubber band stretched -- every day, and without any complementary strengthening exercises ended up with a ton of problems...
That's one issue. The other has to do with stretching right before an event. High-end sprinters, tennis players, etc. who rely on quick-burst, plyometric speed, are generally not advised to do held, static stretches before an event because it does effect their top-end strength. This really does not apply to me and you -- in a three mile race you are not really relying on "explosive" strength, but muscular endurance.
Bottom line: If you've become too "stretchy," yes maybe back off a bit, but you can also help yourself by working to strengthen the muscles you've stretched by keeping up your running even after the race, and adding some resistance training to complement the dance and yoga.
LoCo, Va.: Good morning! My question isn't directly about fitness, but I was hoping you or some of your readers could answer it.
I live in a suburban neighborhood with wide streets and smooth, plentiful sidewalks. As I'm driving to and from work, however, I often notice runners in the road, sometimes a couple of feet from the curb. Shouldn't they be on the sidewalk? Or is there a benefit to running in the road that I'm not aware of? The sidewalks aren't crowded by any means.
I'm a little nervous that some evening when it's getting dark and I'm tired, I won't see one of the dark-clad runners in front of my car until it's too late.
Vicky Hallett: It's not that the runners have a death wish (at least, I hope not), but they're avoiding the dreaded concrete of the sidewalk. To quote from a Runner's World article: "About the only good thing I can say about running on a concrete sidewalk is that you're less likely to get hit by a car than if you were running on the road. Run on it long enough, though, and you might feel like you have been."
(see the rest here: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-267--9462-0,00.html)
There are, of course, the obvious drawbacks of road running -- including getting hit by a car. Another one (which may explain why they're a few feet from the curb) is that roads tend to be slanted on either end. So to keep their feet even, your neighborhood joggers are moving further into the street.
It's definitely the runners' responsibility to make sure they're seen by wearing brightly colored reflective clothing. If you spot people who aren't dressed appropriately, maybe think about pulling over and letting them know they're asking for an accident. But considering the fact that you know this is common of your ride home, I'd just always be sure to keep an eye out no matter how tired you are...
Washington, D.C.: I have a friend who wants to get "involved" with his personal trainer. I think that this is a terrible idea for several reasons, including the fact that trainers are ethically prohibited from being more than friendly with their clients, and she could lose her job if not also her certification. My friend doesn't believe that this is the case. What's your verdict? Actually prohibited or just a bad idea?
Howard Schneider: See Spitzer, Eliot.
And does the trainer share the sentiment?
I guess your friend does not need to be the ethics officer for his/her trainer, who is presumably an adult, knows the rules of his/her business, and can decide for hisself/herself how to respond and how to deal with the consequences.
Can't your friend just ask the trainer: Is this going to get you in trouble?
It'd sure be unseemly for a trainer to "hit on" a client, but I am not sure the reverse is the case...It'd be boorish, perhaps, but can't see the ethical problem...
Vicky Hallett: This happens to be a plot point in the third season of "Workout," which debuts on Bravo next month. The new trainer in town (who happens to be a Baltimore native) brings his blonde client to a party and eyebrows are raised...
I'd say it makes for good TV, but in reality, I can only imagine problems. I mean, your trainer measures your body fat, and that's a very weird thing to have happening in a relationship. And if you're having a fight, then the trainer takes it out on you in the form of burpees.
I would also guess that most gyms prohibit it. After all, a jilted lover is a member who leaves the club. But maybe someone in the biz is out there and can elighten us?
Chicago: What are your thoughts on the South Beach diet? I'm going through phase 1, which prohibits carbs for two weeks. You get to slowly reintroduce carbs after two weeks. I'm a boxer and train hard every day so I'm unsure whether this is a good idea. Any advice you could give would be helpful.
Howard Schneider: If you are boxing and training hard, you are going to need the carbs to recover and refuel. I'd be wary. If you are really working out intensely, you'll lose weight if you eat a balanced diet, and have a sense of the daily calories you need to sustain yourself and your activities...Check out caloriesperhour.com to calculate those estimates...
Workout gear: Love this chat! I would like to get some workout tops with fun prints -- any suggestions.
I have already looked in Target with no luck and a store like Lucy is out of my price range.
washingtonpost.com: I think this one was intended for Howard.
Vicky Hallett: Even Lucy's sale stuff? I just poked around on Lucy.com and there are some steals right now...
But maybe try Athleta.com (again -- the "sales" link!). I peeked at Gap Body and they only have stripey tops, and Aerie F.I.T. has solid color tanks (but some fun printed T-shirts). I think those are both worth keeping an eye on. And Old Navy, too.
Also, don't forget about those massive sporting goods stores! Wait for a sale and you can score deal.
Centerville, Va.: Is there a link where I can find your fitness DVD reviews?
Vicky Hallett: I've got bad news and good news. First the bad (and the answer to your question): No. Some of Howard's columns have dealt with DVDs, so we can direct you to those. And I blurb a few new titles every month in Express, but those aren't online...
But there's good news, too! You can check out Collagevideo.com for its superb DVD reviews.
And if you have a specific question about the kind of DVD you're looking for, we can try to point you in the right direction. I've certainly done a lot of them.
South Beach: I have to give the South Beach diet a thumbs up for jump starting my weight loss and fitness kick. Now that I'm working out and doing more cardio I eat more carbs but it was the initial weight loss that got me motivated to work. The diet has really opened my eyes to eating right and making smart choices in what carbs I eat (whole grain pastas, brown rice, high fiber, etc).
Howard Schneider: An opinion from the field on South Beach diet...A good point on "jumpstarting" the process...My caution to the other chatter was based on the "boxing intensely..." For someone already working out at a hard level, skimping on carbs is a bad idea -- a path to fatigue...Monitoring carbs, sure. Monitoring your calorie count. Sure. But dispensing with carbs altogether leaves your body without its basic fuel.
Washington, D.C.: Could to link to the best list local road races? 10K and under. Thanks!
Vicky Hallett: I don't know your criteria for "best"! The money goes to the most worthy charity, the T-shirts are the awesomest, there are chocolate croissants awaiting you at the finish line? (Hmm. I think I may have just revealed a little too much about how my thought process works...)
Anyway, there's a thorough compendium of local races at runwashington.com. (Just click on calendar.)
And a fun one coming up that I can vouch for is the Pike's Peek 10K (www.pikespeek10k.com). The view is all strip malls, but the course is a gradual descent...
Lovethech, AT: Hi, and thanks for taking my question. I really enjoy this chat!
I work out at a YMCA and they are always having blood drives. I'd like to donate. Can I donate on days I work out? (I'd work out in the morning, donate several hours later). How hard should I work out the next day?
Vicky Hallett: I've always wanted to visit Lovethech, AT! I hear it's lovely at this time of year.
Anyway, good for you for donating blood. I've never heard anything about avoiding working out before the blood donation. You'll want to take extra care with keeping hydrated though, because you're about to lose a lot of fluid.
As for the next day, I'd take it off, or at least take it really easy. And definitely no heavy lifting.
Youngstown, Ohio: Hi, Misfits! I'm a faithful reader of your chats and columns, and want to be sure you know you have fans in the Midwest! My question relates to my efforts to recover from tendonitis, which has prevented me from running for about 6 weeks. I'm able to use the elliptical without any pain, but I find it dreadfully boring. As a result, I break my workout into three 20-minute segments, taking a brief break in between to get some water and attempt to find some reading material that will keep me entertained. But does the fact that I stop in between take away some of the fitness benefit? I would otherwise be running outside on the pavement for an hour, and I'm wondering if this is essentially the same calorie-burn, despite the rest stops. Any thoughts? Many thanks again!
Howard Schneider: Morning...I don't think this should put you off track much at all...The daily exercise recommendations put a bit of a premium on "continuous" effort, but 20 minutes at a clip should be fine, particularly if you are only resting briefly. Eight or ten minute sessions might be another story -- that's barely time to get warm. But as long as you are not lingering for too long -- and letting your body cycle down completely from its aerobic state -- you should be okay. The calorie count is certainly cumulative. Hope the tedonitis clears up soon...
Northern Virgnia: I'm trying to maximize my cardio fitness. What would be a better way to improve from running 7 minute miles on a treadmill; to try to continue cutting my time or to increase the angle of the treadmill?
Howard Schneider: The advice I keep seeing on this issue -- how to bust a plateau and get to that next level of efficiency -- seems to come back to interval training, or alternating intense bouts of effort with light work. There are lots of protocols for this. Here is a sample That being said, if you want to move your running off the treadmill and outdoors, you'll eventually need the hill work as well. This might be a case where a couple of consults with a running coach could really get you going...Seven minute miles (that's about 8.5 mph for the innumerate out there) is pretty peppy...Maybe Vicky could teach you to get faster but I sure couldn't....
Losing the "daddy weight": Submitted this last week, but didn't make the cut. I have eight-month old twins and so I haven't exercised for just about a year now and don't really have much available time to get on the rowing machine the way I used to. Any tips on some easy but impactful regimens? My shoulders are in good shape from carrying car seats, but that's about it. Everything else is flab.
Howard Schneider: Here's the bad news: I had my first kid when I was 27. I am 48 and bits and pieces of the daddy weight still linger.
Here's the other bad news: "Easy" and "impactful" don't really fit together.
But here is the good news: the best motivation you have to deal with this is those kids you are toting around. Eight months will become two years in a flash -- and then you'll be chasing them around, and pretty soon after that coaching their soccer team...Kids are built in exercise once they hit a certain point.
If you are used to rowing, you need to build it back into your life -- even if it is just 15 minutes a day. Make that committment with your spouse to give yourself a bit of time each day to make that happen. Also, flab comes from somewhere -- an energy surplus. You need to get a handle on the eating as well as getting back on the rowing machine.
RE: Romancing the Trainer: Respectfully, is it possible your friend is misinterpreting "friendly professional behavior" as "romantic interest"? Also, if your friend insists on approaching his trainer, make sure he does it far and away from her place of employment, anyone who knows her place of employment or where your friend works out. The trainer may not want to lose her job over some guy who doesn't have a clue.
Howard Schneider: More advice from the minefield...
Reston, Va.: I am a personal trainer (Hi Howard) and the gym is my workplace, so I behave accordingly. We are called fitness professionals after all. I would never get involved with a CURRENT client. If I was totally smitten, I would end the professional relationship first and then...
Vicky Hallett: So if your personal trainer tells you, "This just isn't working," that either means you're not doing enough cardio on your own or you're about to get asked out?
Fairfax, Va.: Sorry, forgot to submit earlier! Please take this question!
I am looking into buying a heart rate monitor, and was wondering if you or readers could weigh in on the pros/cons. I work out regularly (weights/cardio at the gym, plus trying to get back into running from my pre-knee surgery days), but am not training for an event, per se.
I would like getting a HR monitor on a sportswatch that I could use during cycling or kickboxing classes and other activities at my gym. I've noticed that I'm not sure how hard I'm really pushing myself when I'm working out, and thought that would help me get a more effective workout.
On the other hand, I've been working out before without them, and do I really need to spend $100 on this thing v. a (much cheaper) regular sportswatch? Is this a good investment for a regular gym-goer the triathlete in training?
Vicky Hallett: As I don't work out with one and Howard often does, I think we can give you a balanced view.
My take: You don't need to buy one, but if you want one (and it's not too much of a financial burden), it couldn't hurt. You say you don't know how hard you're pushing yourself during a workout, but the body is giving you some indication of how much you're exerting yourself. A heart rate monitor is probably not going to tell you something all that surprising -- but what it can give you is specifics. And those can be interesting and helpful for planning your workouts, even if an Ironman isn't on the horizon.
And if you know you're being lazy during your workouts but won't really believe it until a monitor tells you so, then it could give you a kick in the pants you need...
Howard Schneider: I find the device really helpful both for realtime feedback and for planning. It is of less use for weightlifting, because your heartrate is jumping all around as you move between sets. But for cardio -- and particularly as I have tried to build more running into the mix -- it is a helpful guide to effort. I have a good sense of a heart rate I can lock in for an extended time, and while I certainly "feel" that as well, the monitor gives a bit of added knowledge. In addition, if you track it over time, you can "see" yourself get stronger as the heart rate becomes better behaved even on longer or harder workouts.
Plus, matching heart rate with time lets you know not only how hard you worked, but for how long at different levels...
Running in the street issue: First, pavement seems marginally less hard than concrete. Second, you are less likely to get conked by overhanging tree branches, third, there is probably less chance of tripping over sidewalk edges. Cars you can see coming (or hear). Uneven sidewalks - you gotta watch your toes more closely.
Vicky Hallett: I didn't even think about the danger of sidewalk cracks or aggressive tree branches. Who knew that running in the suburbs was so perilous?
I'm still a big fan of sidewalks though, especially for walkers. There was that piece in the Post a few days ago about neighborhoods angry about moves to put them in:
Re. South Beach: I tried South Beach a year ago and found my running really suffered during the initial two-week "strict" phase. I tried to do my usual 35 miles/week but felt awful; my weight loss was minimal as well (talk about a bad combination!). So I'd say, try South Beach if you're willing to scale back your workouts for those first two weeks. Otherwise, try a program like Weight Watchers that is easier to tweak to match your activity. The weight may come off more slowly but will likely stay off longer!
Howard Schneider: Sounds right to me....You really can drop weight fast on a carb-free diet, but it's a phony weight loss -- lots of water weight and muscle loss, which is not what we are after...For a brief starter period it might be okay, but eventually you need carbs on the plate -- particularly if you are exercising....
Stretching: I just turned 40 a few weeks ago, I do strength and weight training three days a week and ride about 80 miles a week on my road bike. I'm in the best shape I've ever been in. My issue is that I've never been very flexible throughout my life (I can't touch my toes for example) and I'd like to know what the best way to gain some flexibility. Can you give me some stretching pointers? Thanks!
Howard Schneider: As someone who is also older and pretty tight in strategic places, it is not an easy or quick process. I've tried to approach it in a couple of ways. I do try to attend to stretching before and after the hardest workouts, though I can't claim it's a perfect practice. I have tried to supplement that by getting to yoga once a week -- that way I've devoted at least an hour to the process, and feel pretty good after it.
As to pointers, a local clinic, Sport and Spine Rehab has a good primer on the process....
DC: I commute to work on my bike three times a week (30 miles RT - Bethesda to Cap Hill) and I am getting all kinds of mixed opinions regarding my diet. I recently read it's not a good idea to eat a very large meal heavy with proteins or fats due to muscle and stomach competing for blood flow. So, I switched to just a small amount of oatmeal just before my ride, since it is also recommended not to skip breakfast. Then I read one should consume protein as soon as possible after exercise. So I've tried that now too. Just not sure what my guideline should be as far as amount (in grams) and how long I have before it's no longer effective. Finally, to prepare for my ride home - Carb heavy meal or blended with a mix of carbs, protein, and fat? I end up burning about 2800 cals. for my RT. Thanks for the help.
Vicky Hallett: I think you've been reading a bit too much, DC. While all of those guidelines are helpful, the most useful information is going to be what your body tells you. Were you feeling fine after eating a bigger breakfast and then going for your ride? Then, it probably was fine.
If you're losing weight you'd rather keep on or cramping up during your rides or feeling like poop afterwards, that's when I'd think about tweaking your diet.
Howard Schneider: As a rule of thumb, unless you are working out a really intense, flatout level for an hour or more, what you eat before and after is not going to matter so much...Let your stomach be your guide on that front, and focus on making sure you get a balance of nutrients throughout the day -- maybe forty to fifty percent from carbs, and the rest from goods fats and protein. All the info about "do this before" or "do that right after" really is not that important unless you are into high-level sports/resistance/endurance training. At that level people are training to tweak an extra percent or two of performance out of their system...The rest of us are just trying to live to 100....
Rockville, Md.: How do I go about finding a personal trainer when none of my friends have ever used one? Is getting one for only 6 sessions worth it? (my money runs out afterwards; this is a gift from my dad). Thanks!
Howard Schneider: Second question first: You can learn a lot in six sessions, and that should be your goal -- so up as much information as possible so you can carry on afterwards on your own.
As to finding one, that process can add to your training -- check out the different gyms that are convenient to your home or office, and see if they offer an introductory training session (many will)...Do a few of those until you find out someone you like who seems willing to teach as well as train. It will be important, btw, for you to identify goals -- are you after weight loss? strength improvement? cardio fitness? The program will change depending on what you want to happen....
Vicky Hallett: And it never hurts to ask for references. Talk to some other clients of a trainer to see what they have to say, and you'll get a feel for what you're in for.
Boston: Just something I am curious about: Why do all the running training plans for 5 or 10ks that I see involve rarely if ever running a 5 or 10k? I've been looking at Bingham's books and some places online in preparation for a 5 mile and 5k I've got coming up in Boston and I find it strange that many of them have you running the desired distance for the first time on the actual race day. In preparing for my 5 mile race, I've taken it as a given that the best preparation is actually getting myself to a point where I can consistently run five miles? Am I missing something here?
Also, on a related note, I really enjoyed your column and discussion on running shoes a couple weeks ago. Any chance either of you have opinions on Nike Free 7.0s? I bought them on sale knowing absolutely nothing about them when I began running (I just desperately needed some running shoe that would not break the bank) but, through research, have since learned they are viewed by some more as a training shoe than as an everyday running shoe. Any thoughts?
Howard Schneider: The main issue in what I assume is a beginners program is to build up your endurance without injury or overtraining so that you finish the event (without so much regard to time).
The thrust is to get you close enough so that you can add the final increment without trouble on race day (given time to taper and recover in the week or so before).
If you move to more advanced programs, you'd be running longer than the event, with speed, tempo, hills, etc. worked in to make you faster.
Keep in mind that marathon training is generally capped at 20 miles...Programs for a half marathon might cap at 10 or 12...
The philosophy is: train, but don't overtrain. Worse than being a little shy of your goal, is going way over before the race, and waking up on race day feeling spent (the effects of overtraining can linger a while....)
As to the Nikes, don't know that model in particular -- sorry you missed the chat with Runners World guru Warran Greene. But if you have any doubts about the footwear, get to a specialty store and have them check you out...
Alexandria, Va.: Foot Question -- I have dramatically cut back on my running in favor of swimming and am now running about once per week, five miles or so. The last couple of weeks after running I have experienced pain in the back of my arch on the bottom of my foot bad enough to make me limp. It goes away by the end of the day, but is quite painful throughout the day. Any idea what this could be?
Vicky Hallett: We're not medically trained and I don't like to pretend to be. If a pair of new shoes aren't the problem, I'd see a podiatrist.
Howard Schneider: This looks like a pretty cool way to get started....Then after you've done that, go see the podiatrist....
I'm in the process of switching gyms, and there is about a two-week gap between when my old membership ends and my new one begins. What can I do to keep in shape during this time and not lose all the progress I made (with weights and cardio machines)? I don't want to buy equipment, it's cold outside, and I don't have room in my room (in a shared house) to do a workout dvd.
Vicky Hallett: Two weeks is not enough to lose all of your progress! Just try to keep generally active. A few situps, squats, push-ups and the like (check our exercise demos at washingtonpost.com/fitness for more ideas) will keep your muscles in check without annoying your housemates.
And the weather isn't that bad now -- I'm a weenie about the cold and I walked to work today (about four miles)...
Howard Schneider: Okay folks...that is it for today...The weather is turning great, and vicky and I have a beautiful Cherry Blossom walk and challenge ready to go. The map will be in next Tuesday's papern and online, along with clues and PRIZES...So be sure to tune in....
Vicky Hallett: And, as always, email us at misfits@washpost.com. See you next week!
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.
|
He's a veteran reporter, digging up the latest fitness news. She's an irreverent columnist with a knack for getting people off the couch and into the gym. Together, they're here to handle your worst work-out dilemmas and exercise questions.
| 119.285714 | 1 | 49 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/14/DI2008031401556.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/14/DI2008031401556.html
|
What's Cooking With Kim O'Donnel
|
2008031819
|
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.
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.
Kim O'Donnel: Hey folks! Happy to be here after a wacky weather weekend in Atlanta. One of the wildest weather experiences of my life. Did anyone cook for St. Pat's? But what I really want to know: Does anyone celebrate St. Joseph's Day? Spring is official in the wee hours of Thursday morning, so stay tuned for ways we can have a sense of renewal in the kitchen. So what's on your mind? Tell me everything.
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi Kim --
I made a new recipe last night for a sauteed salmon over lentils and leeks. The meal tasted quite good, but I really had a problem cooking the fish. The recipe called for sauteing the salmon in butter 'and' finishing with a mustard herb butter. I skimped on the butter a bit, both in the pan and the topping. But the fish, Atlantic salmon, was so fatty, I still ended up with a pan full of grease. I took the fish out, scraped out the pan, blotted the fish, and returned it to the heat. Is it the variety of salmon that resulted in so much grease? Could I have skipped the butter in the pan all together?
Kim O'Donnel: Salmon, by nature, is a fatty fish, but I find farm-raised salmon (aka Atlantic salmon) to be even fattier. Next time, you can skip butter in pan, add a wee bit of oil instead and doing your herb butter. But can I throw in an eco-friendlier choice? Try Arctic char which gets an "eco-best" rating from Environmental Defense. I think it tends to be less fatty as well.
Washington, D.C.: Hi -- Is kosher Coke an urban myth? I cannot find it anywhere!
Kim O'Donnel: With Passover coming up, this would be the season when Coke Kosher for Passover would be available. Let's ask if anyone has seen it lately...I for one would like some made with sugar instead of corn syrup...
Washington, D.C.: I would love some new ideas for protein at breakfast. I can't do flour or sugar. I've been doing oatmeal and an egg or yogurt.
Kim O'Donnel: What about a fruit smoothie made with soy yogurt or with silken tofu? A bowl of fruit? when you say flour, can you do alternatives to wheat?
Duck Stock: Hi Kim and thanks for a great chat. Last night I broke in my new french oven by making braised duck. I'd never done anything like that and so it was, well, bland. I'll experiment with some seasonings on the leftovers to see what might be done in that realm. But, my question today is what to do with the carcass? I cut pieces off a whole duck to braise, but this still left me with the carcass and neck bones, liver and kidneys. I put them in a plastic bag and tossed them in the freezer with the idea that I will make stock. Can I, should I include the liver and kidneys in the stock or is there another use for them? Is the process of making stock out of duck the same as making chicken stock? I've never done that either so I suppose it doesn't matter. I assume that I should put the carcass into my new pot add water, onion, celery, carrot and a bunch of herbs and let simmer for a while. That's about as much as I know on the subject and I'd appreciate any advice you could give.
Kim O'Donnel: Yep, you can put those roasted bones into a soup pot and add those aromatics and herbs and simmer for a few hours. Keep the liver and kidneys out this -- you always want to keep a stock as clarified as possible. I would make pate with those leftovers instead.
Agave Nectar Question: Hi Kim! Enjoyed reading a previous post concerning agave nectar. Here is my question for you, can you use the nectar when you would use honey? Would it be an equal substitution (i.e. 1T of nectar for 1T honey), and where in the grocery store would you find it, near the honey? Thanks for your insights!
Kim O'Donnel: Hey there, glad you enjoyed and are finding useful. According to Ania Catalano's book, agave nectar is a 1:1 substitution for honey. For 1 cup sugar, however, you'd use 3/4 cup agave. Yes, you'll find near honey or sugar at the supermarket.
Please help me find an old recipe of yours!: Hi Kim,
In the fall, a woman wrote in asking for help making homemade hot pockets. You gave her a suggestion of how to make your meat pasties, and a spinach one from your creative loafing column. I can't for the life of me find these recipes, one of which -- I don't remember which one -- has a wonderful, smooth, high olive oil yeast dough recipe associated with it that makes beautiful turnovers. Can you point me to this dough recipe?
Kim O'Donnel: The olive oil dough is for the spinach pies. You're right - it's a goodie.
Brisket?: What happened to it?
Kim O'Donnel: Oh man. Time got away, and it didn't materialize. I am planning, however, to test a few brisket recipes in time for Passover. Stay tuned.
Re liver and kidneys: Thanks! Now about that pate? I don't need to get a live goose do I?
Kim O'Donnel: Nope. You could saute the duck liver and kidneys with some shallots, butter and booze, then puree. It'll be rich, but would be nice.
Kosher Coke: It's not a myth. The college I went to was situated in the middle of a Hasidic neighborhood (the college was there first). Every year around Passover, the vending machine would be filled with "Kosher Coke." The taste was off. Kind of like Coke that had been set out in the sun to bake. The first time I had it, I thought it might be stale. But, then I noticed the Hebrew letters on the top of the can and deduced that it much have been special for Passover.
Kim O'Donnel: Thanks for chiming in, dear.
I have a banana cake recipe that calls for a 1/2 cup of sour cream. Can I substitute yogurt, not so much for health reasons, but because I don't know what to do with leftover sour cream (although heathier never hurt either). Thanks!
Kim O'Donnel: Yes, you can use plain yogurt, no problem. Check out the vegan banana bread I baked last week.
Peanut Butter Frosting/Glaze?: The mister has requested his favorite yellow cake/chocolate frosting for his birthday. I'd like to make it a little more interesting by incorporating his other favorite -- peanut butter. I'm thinking that I'll fill the cake with some sort of peanut butter frosting, but then I thought it also might be fun to do two layers of frosting -- peanut butter, and when it sets, chocolate. Any thoughts? Recipes for a peanut butter frosting that will set enough for me to do a second layer of frosting?
Kim O'Donnel: Was just looking at a recipe for peanut butter mousse-filled cupcakes in the earlier mentioned book by Ania Catalano. For the filler, you could do the peanut butter -- silken tofu, agave, peanut butter, vanilla and salt...and the the top layer would be chocolate, with chopped peanuts as garnish. Let me know if you want those details.
I am no longer allowed to eat sugar in my diet and I have found that all of my salad dressings have fructose, sucralose, or high fructose corn syrup in them. So I've decided it's just easiest to make my own. I have tarragon vinegar, mayo, dijon mustard. Can I make anything out of any of these, or use as a base? I'm a little hesitant to use fresh herbs because I think they're supposed to be consumed fairly quickly and I would like to make a batch of dressing to last the week. Any ideas?
Kim O'Donnel: Making your own salad dressing certainly does give you that control, good for you. Mayo-based dressings will not last as long as vinaigrettes, so if you want something to last the week, hold off on the mayo. A vinaigrette is an emulsion of a fat and acid, with salt and usually some additional flavoring like the mustard you mention. You can always add fresh herbs just before serving; it will taste fresher and only take two seconds.
Arlington, Va., S: I've recently figured out the best way (for me, anyway) to make plain white rice that isn't overcooked. Using the proportions written on the container, I bring everything to a boil, then cover, turn it off, and let it sit the required cooking time. Perfect every time. Needless to say, my pot is very thick and heavy (all-clad).
On a related note, I'm trying to figure out good applications of leftover rice, once I've let it get cold or even refrigerated for a day or two. Can you help me out?
St. Josephs -- my parents, recently returned to Italy for retirement, tell me that it's considered father's day for their area (north of Milan). We don't really celebrate so much, but I do wish him a happy fathers day when I call on/around that date.
Kim O'Donnel: Thanks for your tidbits, dear. As for leftover rice, you gotta do fried rice! Don't worry, it's not the super greasy Chinese take-out kind, it's homegrown and chockful of veggies and flavor. Most wonderful way to use up rice, thinking that's what tonight's dinner should be....
Coke made with sugar: Hello Kim, I am sure there are other sources as well but just randomly, I was at the vet's office in a strip mall in Springfield (on Backlick, south of the Mixing Bowl, where Backlick divides off into Amherst; there's an Outback there as well); at the south end of the mall is a so-so deli but with delightful staff and sugarcane Coke in bottles. Maybe not worth a trip but a good source for those nearby.
Kim O'Donnel: Excellent. Sugarcane coke, y'all, right by the Mixing Bowl!
St. Joseph's Day: We always celebrate St. Joseph's Day. It's a huge deal in our Sicilian/Italian family. The breads are a large bread in the shape of a toolbox with more breads of carpenter's square, hammer, etc., inside the toolbox. The only thing I hated was the pasta with breadcrumbs and anchovies in the sauce.
Kim O'Donnel: Fantastic. Where are you from? Tell me more! Who made the bread?
For person needing breakfast ideas....: My sister who can't do wheat or sugar loves natural peanut butter or cream cheese on celery for breakfast.
Kim O'Donnel: Thank you. I'm also thinking peanut butter on dates, bananas, apples...
Washington, D.C.: Interesting isn't it that when we can no longer have something we start reading labels and find out that many salad dressings are filled with sugar (high fructose corn syrup) and what does sugar do? It adds pounds. Reading labels on food products is oh so important isn't it?
Kim O'Donnel: You're preaching to the choir here, my dear. It's a good practice no matter what's going on in our lives.
Washington, D.C.: I made the chocolate Guinness cake this weekend. I made it as cupcakes so it would be easier to distribute to the neighbors. So as not to lose the Guinness look I gave the cupcake pans a good spray with PAM and they just tumbled out of the pans.
Kim O'Donnel: Ooh...were you pleased? This is great to know.
Re: salad dressing: So what can I add to my tarragon vinegar to make a tasty dressing?
Kim O'Donnel: Well, tarragon vinegar can be strong, so I'd go easy. Start with the vinegar and salt it. Then whisk in a smidge of mustard. Then whisk in your oil. Taste every step along the way for salt, acid.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim --
I recently discovered a love for brussel sprouts. So far I have only steamed them. I am getting bored with this. Any ideas for new ways to prepare my new favorite veggie?
Kim O'Donnel: Roast them! Cut in half, lather with olive oil, salt and pepper and roast at 400 degrees. Heavenly.
NoLo, D.C.: This is a Jewish leap year (a whole extra month!) and Passover is quite late -- still a month off. You might have more luck finding Coke produced with sugar instead of HFCS in another couple of weeks.
Some stores have bigger pesach displays than others, but pesadik Coke is pretty widely available. Look for 2-liter bottles with bright yellow caps...
Kim O'Donnel: More good info on the pesadik (Kosher for Passover) Coke. Thanks!
Fairfax, Va.: Please, please help me. I want to bake a lamb cake this year and waited too long to buy the mold online. Where can I buy one in Northern Virginia? They are difficult to find. Struck out at Michael's -- does anyone know who has them? Many thanks!
Kim O'Donnel: Try Fran's Cake and Candy Supplies in Fairfax City. She has tons of cake molds.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: Hi Kimberly, it's Valerie from Tranquilspace -- I have loved your chat since its early days in the late 90s and I am so glad I get to run into you when I'm back in D.C.
A few quick questions for you:
1. Do you have a mailing list one can be added to?
2. Primer on potatos? -- I am on a mashed potato kick and always partial to yukons, but trying to branch out. Some potatos seem a lot waxier than yukons, other harder. What are your general thoughts on what types are good mashed potatos and also potato pancake situations (that's the kick coming on)?
3. Acorn squash -- is it too late in the season? I am dying to try a recipe I saw on Smitten Kitchen for Roasted Acorn Squash with Chile Vinaigrette.
Many thanks for your chats and blogs. They are some of my favorite reading :D
Kim O'Donnel: Hey Valerie, nice to hear from you.
1. Yes, e-mail me at writingfood@gmail.com with subject line "Mailing List" and I'll get you added for my weekly newsletter.
3. It might be too late for the squash. Best place to find out is your nearest farm market.
2. Potatoes: We'll need to do something in the blog space that covers varieties. Yukon golds actually are waxier than say, the Idaho baking potato. I think it's about personal preference; I find red potatoes boil strangely and are better roasted, for example. Let me ponder on a blog theme here.
St. Joseph's Day: Northeastern (Scranton) Pa. The bakery made the great breads. We don't have that talent in the gene pool. The younger ones dress up as Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus and have a little play of the family looking for a place to stay. It's neat.
Kim O'Donnel: Cool. Are you still living there?
Oatmeal and peanut butter: Oatmeal Breakfast -- have been making oatmeal pancakes recently -- oatmeal, egg whites, tofu, vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg in blender. Good to make ahead and reheat, too.
Peanut butter -- not the original poster, but I'd love the peanut butter-filled cupcakes details.
Kim O'Donnel: Nice! Clever idea. I'll get those peanut butter filling details this week, promise.
I have a craving for a baked cheesy pasta dish tonight. I have a chunk of Parmigiano-Reggiano at home. Any great suggestions? Thanks.
Kim O'Donnel: I like penne best when doing something alone those lines. Are you looking for something closer to mac & cheese (with a chese sauce) or an Italian-style baked number with a little red sauce? Holler.
No sugar no wheat breakfast: Besan Cheelas-Savory chickpea flour pancakes. Mix besan (chickpea flour), salt, cayenne, turmeric(optional) and fennel powder. Add chopped onion, tomatoes, cilantro. Add water to make a thin (but not too runny) batter. Put some oil on a griddle, pour batter and cook on both sides. Eat with ketchup, cilantro/mint chutney, or tomato chutney.
Kim O'Donnel: Thank you for this! I love the diversity of breakfast options you've shared today.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Kim -- welcome back and I hope you had a great time. I just finished reading "A Taste of Britian -- Britain's History Through Its Cooking." Do you know of any place that serves "historical food"? A place other than Colonial Williamsburg? I think it would be fascinating to see how the food we now evolved.
Kim O'Donnel: Is there nothing right in Philly? That would be my first thought. Anyone with historical food notions? Interesting idea.
Homemade salad dressing: My favorite is lemon (I always keep some on hand and make this dressing as I'm making the salad), olive oil, salt, pepper, and a drop of honey. It doesn't taste sweet, but the honey does something wonderful to temper the bitterness of the lemon and the whole dressing really does taste better with it. You could use lime too with some cilantro.
Kim O'Donnel: I'm with you -- much prefer citrus fruit as my acid over vinegar.
Brussel sprouts: Cut into fourths, sautee with sliced shiitake mushrooms or creminis with a little olive oil and a little water. Drizzle with pumpkin seed oil at the end. I've gotten the oil from Wegman's.
Kim O'Donnel: Thanks, and a little sesame oil in the pumpkin seed oil's place would do nicely as well.
Kim O'Donnel: Already time to run. Girl scout's honor, I'll have some Easter-y ideas later this week in the blog. A big shout out to spring -- she's almost here! Thanks for dropping by.
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.
| 163.608696 | 0.695652 | 1.043478 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/17/DI2008031702044.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/17/DI2008031702044.html
|
Station Break - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031819
|
The bold and the beautiful. The good, the bad and the ugly. We're talking about what's on TV, on the radio or in the popular culture. Join the conversation, on "Station Break."
Farhi was online Tuesday, March 18, at 1 p.m. ET.
Farhi is a reporter in The Post's Style section, writing about media and popular culture. He's been watching TV and listening to the radio since "The Monkees" were in first run and Adam West was a star. Born in Brooklyn and raised in Los Angeles, Farhi had brief stints in the movie business (as an usher at the Picwood Theater), and in the auto industry (rental-car lot guy) before devoting himself full time to word processing. His car has 15 radio pre-sets and his cable system has 500 channels. He vows to use all of them for good instead of evil.
Paul Farhi: Greetings, all, and welcome to our big pre-spring chat and inventory clearance sale. Thanks for coming 'round...And, my, you're looking good today. Have you been working out?...Ahem...Since last we met, Elliot Spitzer's political career blew up in a big way, leading to this daring, potentially offensive (and frankly, pretty amusing) cover of this week's New York magazine (don't click on the link if you're easily offended; we warned ya!):
Maybe we should just go to the phones...
Herndon, Va.: Mr. F: I hope the Station Break singers and dancers have recovered from their marathon performance for St. Patrick's Day. Anything "official" yet on ratings for 105.9 since it went "oldies" and Don Imus (another oldie, but definitely not golden)?
Paul Farhi: Thanks for mentioning that--the Station Breakdancers were doing a "River Dance" thing into the wee hours last night. You should have been there (as a critic, I would evaluate their performance as "loud")...As for ratings on the new oldies station or Imus, not yet. Way too soon for that...And is it just me, or does Imus sound like he has some vocal chord disease? He sounds awful.
Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C.: The other day I asked a friend if he had heard the new track by a group we both like. Then it hit me, do people even say "track" any more in reference to a song? The more I thought about it, I didn't even know what a track really is. I figure I probably picked the term up from listening to Casey Kasem every week for years. The more I think about this, the more I feel old.
Paul Farhi: Yes, "track" used to be one of those words that you'd say if you wanted to seem like a real insider (alternative: "Cuts," though that always sounded like something out of a butcher shop). It's kind of like calling every singer, guitarist or drum player an "artist."
And, no, there are no more "tracks." But what's the substitute? "Mips?" "'loads"? "Files?" I dunno...
Rockville, Md.: Can someone please tell the Elliott in the Morning show on DC-101 to please cut down on instances in which Elliott laughs for long periods -- it's grating and annoying, and many people have noted this. Additionally, their "newscasts" are severely lacking in news and seem to ramble on without getting to any valid points or conclusions. Just report the news. Does anyone at rock and pop stations know anything about news and broadcasting news? It's pretty much a lost art at music stations -- these people have zero journalistic skills.
Paul Farhi: Radio gave up a long time ago on actually covering any news (there are a few exceptions, but only a very few). The fact that the Elliot crew even gives a little rip-n'-read on the show is commendable progress. For this state of affairs, you can thank your FCC, which decreed in the '80s that broadcasters can, basically, do whatever the heck they want.
Potomac, Md.: Is it just a group of us, or does Don Imus talk like he's constipated? Also, his "show" is surprisingly lacking in information, facts, research or insight. There's just nothing there, literally -- everyone on there appears to be clueless and completely lacking in knowledge of what's going on in the world. What in the world is the appeal of this show -- and why on earth is it airing on an oldies station? The radio suits running these stations have completely lost their minds.
Paul Farhi: I'll duck the part of the question about the cluelessness of Imus' show (it actually DOES deal in current affairs and newsmakers, which is far more than most morning shows can say). As for why it's on "TrueOldies 105.9," that's easy--Citadel Broadcasting, which owns the station and Imus' show, couldn't sell the show back to Clear Channel-owned WTNT-AM (570), which had broadcast it for several years. And since no other station in the Washington area wanted it (Imus got horrendous ratings on WTNT), Citadel decided to plug it into one of its own local stations.
Reston, Va.: What happened to the new low power FM(LPFM) radio broadcasting service?
Paul Farhi: It (or rather they) are out there, but several parties (commercial and non-commercial radio broadcasters) slowed down the FCC's more ambitious plans to expand LP broadcasting. The broadcasters claimed the signals of the low power folk would interfere with their stations (some said they just didn't want more competition), so the FCC slow-rolled the whole field...
Fairfax, Va.: Channel 9's 11 p.m. news sometimes ends with an oddly-paced attempt at humor by injecting what appears to be hastily-edited, 20-second "feature" pieces that are run so rapidly and edited so harshly -- and written so poorly -- that most of the time the entire attempt falls flat and the newscast just looks hokey, amateurish and dumb. Newscasts should be ending their little 22-minute newscasts with a solid, hard-news recap of the day's events, with a look toward tomorrow's news -- not some dumb, hastily-edited video feature that makes no sense. What more can 9 do to ruin what was, as recently as 10 years ago, one of the area's better evening newscasts? Now it's just the worst, objectively.
Paul Farhi: I'm thinking the theory of those snappy little pieces--the proverbial "water-skiing squirrel" depicted so well in the movie "Anchorman"--has something to do with the idea of leaving viewers in a good mood, after the newscast has pummeled them with stories about war, violence and economic collapse. I kind of like the theory. And I really like it when the pieces themselves are super-lame. They have to make every viewer feel so...superior to the news. Not a bad thing.
Gaithersburg, Md.: Why does Jack Diamond lecture people so much? He's not a counselor or a preacher -- he's a DJ on a pop music station. Jack: Just talk about current events and music and popular culture and tell jokes and introduce the songs. People are not tuning in to hear you lecture -- that's when people change stations.
Paul Farhi: He does go on at times, doesn't he? It seems like he's trying to be Mr. Wholesome Family Values. Maybe he's trying out to be your Radio Dad.
Any news of when the Greaseman will be back on the air?
Paul Farhi: None. He's long gone, and not sending any post cards.
20165: Why is Congress dragging their feet on the XM/Sirius merger? Other mergers go through lickity-split, but this one has taken 400 days. What gives?
Paul Farhi: Good question. This one is particularly controversial and disputed, of course. The National Association of Broadcasters, which reps all the traditional radio and TV station owners, is hellbent on blocking it. I'm sure they've had armies of lawyers marching up and down Pennsylvania AVenue. But word is, a decision is coming pretty soon. Anyone care to guess which way this one will go? My sense--totally a guess, mind you--is it'll get turned down.
Loudoun Co., Va.: I was back in my home town near Philadelphia last week and I tuned into KYW News Radio, the #1 station in the market. Unlike our all news #1 here, there was;
1. Only one newsreader, therefore no happy talk and (not) witty banter;
2. No one to express shock/dismay/sympathy/approval over each and every news story; and
3. Very few teasers about upcoming stories.
If anyone is near Philadelphia, I recommend that they tune to 1060AM to hear what a real news station sounds like.
Paul Farhi: Not a comment on all-news radio, but a general comment on Philly radio: It's pretty darn good. Everytime I'm flying down I-95, you can find stuff you can't find in our very own Nation's Capital.
Who is the highest paid TV and radio personality in the D.C. metro area ?
Paul Farhi: Again, a total and utter and shameless guess: Jim Vance at Channel 4.
Reason(s): He's been on the air forever at a big station, and has been atop the local ratings year after year. He's an icon, an institution, a Rushmore figure. And he has a very loyal following.
Falls Church, Va.: Re: "Track." This reminds me -- I've never been clear what to call a rap artist's work. It's not a "song" or a "tune." Do you just call each individual cut a "rap"?
Paul Farhi: Hmmm. A "rhyme"? As in, "bustin' a rhyme." Not sure here...
But what's the substitute? "Mips?" "'loads"? "Files?: Paul,
Paul Farhi: But "cut" sounds like something the deejays at an album-rock station of the 1970s would say.
To be really boring about it, how about "recording"?
Washington, D.C.:105.9 is great, although there are songs on there that were on 104.3 classic rock in NYC. I didn't realize my tastes had gone from "classic" to "Oldie"... I'm only 24 after all....
Paul Farhi: You're definitely outta step with those whippersnappers who are downloading all those "Mips" and "cuts" and "tracks" on the iTunes, that's for sure...But I started listening to L.A.'s oldies station, KRTH-FM ("K-Earth") when I was 12 or 13 or maybe a little older. That station, by the way, has been playing the same songs for several decades. Man, how'd you like to be program director there? "Just play what we played in 1983, okay, and leave me the heck alone..."
No more "tracks." : Yet we still say that we "dial" a telephone -- go figure!
Paul Farhi: Yes! We've never figured out a good substitute for that one. "Punched"? As in, "Punch me up tomorrow and we'll go out." Or "fingered"? As in...oh, never mind.
What's with Barbra Harrison's new Morticia Addams look? Every week it's some new little tweak. They ought to stick to long shots and give up on the close-ups. Too hard early in the morning.
Paul Farhi: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Why I Hate Barbara Harrison portion of our show. The floor is now open...(Poor Barbara. Can't she get any love from you people?)...
Tracks, Casey Kasem?: Yes, you are old, sorry. If it's any consolation, I am too. When I was in college you weren't cool unless you said "tunes." As in "let's have some brewskis and crank up the tunes." Can we just agree to say "songs" now?
Paul Farhi: But "songs" takes us back to the rap connundrum. I'm telling you, "recordings" is the way to go...Okay, it sounds a little fussy--"Let's have some brewskis and crank up the recordings"--but at least it covers every situation.
"Tracks"? "Mips?" "Loads"? "Files"?: How about the humble "selection"?
Paul Farhi:"Selection"? Hmmmm. "Let's get some brewskis and crank up the SELECTIONS?" That may be worse than "recordings!"
Silver Spring, Md.: So, Paul, will the Supremes know indecency when they see it, so to speak? Predictions on the Fox case?
Paul Farhi: Interesting. I could see this court blowing up the whole rickety indecency enforcement scheme. Not that it would be against the PRINCIPLE of protecting kids from naughty words and images, but it might have a problem with the way the FCC has gone about it. Interesting that it has taken 31 years for the court to eyeball this. I'm sure they'll realize that a few things have changed since the last time they looked at this issue (i.e., George Carlin's "7 Words You Can Never Say on Television" routine)....
Re: tracks, tunes, songs, recordings, raps, etc.: I think we can all agree on "short musical compositions." Doesn't that cover everything, including "raps?"
Paul Farhi: I can hear the footsteps of the rap hatas storming the castle. "Rap isn't music," etc. etc. Plus, "short musical compositions" REALLY fails our brewski test...
Pittsburgh, Pa.: I have no idea who Barbara Harrison is, but talk about a "Morticia Addams look": Priscilla Presley on "Dancing With The Stars" (far scarier than Mel B "Scary Spice last season!).
Paul Farhi: Priscilla's getting up there, isn't she? Says here she's going to be 63 in a couple of months. Funny, it seems like only yesterday when Elvis was hitting on a shy 13-year-old named Priscilla Beaulieu....
Columbia Heights, D.C.: Can I just say how much I dislike Fox5 News at Ten? Yet, I watch it every night, so that I can go to sleep at 11:00 instead of staying up until 11:30 and watching channels 4, 7 or 9. It's rough though. They barely speak English on Fox5 anymore, it's all "this went down" and they "admnistered a beat-down" and "we'll give you the 4-1-1." Yuck!
Paul Farhi: Hey, they're just trying to relate to the kidz with all that lingo. We do it here at Station Break, too. E.g., "Say, my man, I would like to hear some short musicial compositions. Thank you, bro!"
"Loads" "Files" etc.: I still say "songs'. Am I coolly retro, or hopelessly outdated?
But I gave up saying "brewskis" long ago. I like "growlers"....
Paul Farhi:"Songs." Simple. Effective. To the point. As for "brewskis/growlers," I prefer to say, "A beechwood-aged concoction of the finest malt, hops and barley." Whatever the heck "hops" are...
Anonymous: I agree somewhat about KYW. There are two theories of all-news stations, it seems, and it's mostly a CBS pair of theories, since they own most all-news stations now. One is the KYW/WINS/WBBM version, which is quick headlines, very short stories, everything repeated about every 15-20 minutes. This is not my personal favorite. The other is the WCBS/KCBS/style of news which is slightly more conversational, longer pieces, and repeats about every 40 minutes. WTOP is more like this second theory, but, if you ask me, there are not enough real news stories in the mix. And when they have two newscasters, it is much more conversational than, for example, WCBS in New York, which, to me, has the best combination of sounding like you are listening to a news show, yet getting only real news, kind of like the way the evening news shows used to be. Then again, in the New York area there are 15 million people in 3 states to generate news stories, so maybe that's why it seems like there is less filler necessary.
Paul Farhi: Interesting analysis. I didn't realize there were types of all-news. I mean, I go back to the old KFWB--"Give us 22 minutes and we'll give you the world." Well, they didn't, but you knew what they meant. News. Hard. Fast. And lots of it.
The best two days of the year are coming up!: Takin' vacation days Thursday and Friday to stay home, pop me some popcorn and watch the opening round of March Madness. Hey, does it get any better than this: 64 teams with dreams of championship greatness as yet unpunctured -- even though half will be gone by late Friday night, and another half of the surviving teams by the time the weekend's over.
Paul Farhi: You sound like Jim Nantz, who's always waxing faux-poetic about this or that event ("All the pageantry of the Buick Open!")...But, yes, March Madness is cool. Go UCLA! Go AU (local angle)....
Reston, Va.: Another Philadelphia native, and second your recommendation of Philadelphia radio in general, but KYW's newscasting abilities? Please.
The news droids there have been slow since the 80's.
But do they still give the illusion of a newsroom by having that typewriter sound in the background?
While some may not like the delivery of the WTOP crowd, it's much better than the recordings of the KYW reader.
Paul Farhi: If they've still got the typewriter (actually teletype) sound, I'd recommend dropping it. It's not 1979 anymore. We use computers and the internet now. What sounds does the Internet make?
Atlanta, Ga.: One of the Citadel stations here changed format last week from Country to Oldies (dropping the 25-year morning guy, a la Chris Core), and has also added Imus in the AM.
Paul Farhi: Like the canning of Core, that's one of those penny-wise/pound foolish moves by Citadel. They will pay a much bigger longterm price for booting their local talent than they will save on salaries. Exhibit A in the long and apparently accelerating decline of radio.
Ex-San Franciscan:"Give us 22 minutes and we'll give you the world" was the slogan of KCBS-AM in San Francisco starting in the late 1960s, not KEWB (which was still playing Top 40).
Paul Farhi:"Give us 22 minutes.." was the slogan of all the Group W/Westinghouse stations around the country, I believe. Of which KFWB in Los Angeles (not KEWB in the Bay ARea) was one.
"typewriter sound in the background": On Saturday Weekend Edition on PBS, Scott Simon has a manual(!) "typewriter sound in the background" in the background of the music leading into his reading letters from listeners, even though nearly all listeners communicate by e-mail nowadays. I wonder how many young 'uns even KNOW what a manual typewriter's clacking sounded like...
Paul Farhi: Yes. And the Junkies on WJFK-FM use a clacking teletype sound when they do their sports bulletins. I think the last teletype/wire went out in about 1985, so I doubt most of the Junkies listeners can identify that sound...
Rockville, Md.: Do any of the TV talking heads have irritating repetitive lines that annoy you? For me it's when Brian Williams says "Thanks, As always" to reporters and commentators on his show. His folksy "as always" annoys me and why does he have to thanks them anyway -- their doing their job.
Paul Farhi: Kenny Mayne on "SportsCenter" once had a great give-and-take with a "field" reporter and signed off the conversation by saying, "Thanks, Sal...but after all, it IS your job." Pretty much all he needed to say about this little TV news artifice...
Arlington, Va.: There's also a contestant with a Morticia Addams look on American Idol this year. It must be a trend.
Paul Farhi: Three?! Oh, my, yes, a trend. You know the extremely old newsroom rule for story selection? One is an incident. Two is a coincidence. Three is a trend...
Brewskis/Growlers/Concoctions: I like "lager." More specifically, I amused by the new Budweiser ads re-introducing themselves as a "lager," presumably because their research showed that aging hipsters like to say they drink a "lager" instead of a "beer."
(I can't wait for Rold Gold to start selling "fiber sticks" instead of "pretzels")
Paul Farhi: But doesn't "lager" defeat 745 years of Budweiser advertising that tells its customers they're the salt of the earth because they choose Bud, the man's man's man's beer which is not at all like that sissy Miller High Life? Lager? It's so pretentious...
Alexandria, Va.: You know those commercials with the Fox5 Morning Show anchors goofing off around Union Station and other locations? Is that supposed to make me want to watch or serve as a warning not to?
Paul Farhi: Well, see morning anchors aren't "anchors," are they? They're kind of your friends, because, after all, you wake up to/with them (how they all fit in your bed, I don't know). So, the commercials try to make them look like real people who just kind of go to Union Station en masse and stand around pointing and laughing with each other. YOU haven't gone to Union Station with your colleagues and stood around laughing and pointing? Oh, you haven't LIVED...
Bethesda, Md.: I don't usually watch the 11:00 news anyway (I'm a "Daily Show" viewer), but I think ABC7 has the right idea -- they do a recap of the weather forecast. That way, they go out with some useful information, but not a summary of the "if it bleeds it leads" portion of the show.
Paul Farhi: Yep. Useful info. And not nearly as embarrassing as the soft animal feature designed to make you say "Awwwwww..." before they wish me a good night.
Scott Simon is not on PBS!
Thanks, Sal...but after all, it IS your job.: You just made me like Kenny Mayne. He's always gotten on my nerves really bad.
Paul Farhi: LOVE Kenny Mayne. He had the greatest homerun highlight clip call EVER: "I am the king of the diamond! Let there be a grand clubhouse feast! Bring me the finest meats and cheeses in all the land!"
When You Say Bud...: I'm guessing A/B runs the "lager" ads during certain, tonier events. The Bud ads they run during football games are still all manly-mannish.
Paul Farhi: Well, I guess Budweiser has always gone for the classy, we're all about America and the Clydesdales sell (despite being a cheap and watery product). Bud Light has always done funny.
Alexandria, Va.:"Lager" sounds like "logger," which is a studly occupation.
Of course, it also sounds like "blogger," which is not.
Paul Farhi: Haha! Right on all counts...
Fox 5 Morning News: I admit I am a fan of this show, but only because I can get the local weather and traffic -- the only two things I'm interested in hearing at 7 a.m. However, just about every female personality on the show bothers me, and here's why:
Allison Seymour: Attractive and personable, but unless the story is about puppies, kittens or babies, she is unable to discuss the topic coherently.
Holly Morris: Again, attractive and personable, but unless the story is about HER, she is unable to discuss the topic coherently.
Julie Wright: Great when sticking to the traffic report, not so great when shamelessly flirting with Tony Perkins.
Bottom line: I miss Lark.
Paul Farhi: Vent on! I have to say, Holly needs to try the decaf. Girl is WIRED...
Reston, Va.: Any idea what George Michael is up to these days? Not the singer...he shows up on Eli Stone almost every week. George Michael formerly of the Sports Machine (sniff)
Paul Farhi: He's still doing his "Full Court Press" show after "SNL" early Sunday morning (with Kornheiser, Wilbon and David Dupree). I think he also occasional work for the likes of Comcast Sports Net, such as the sit down interview last year with Dan Snyder.
Richmond, Va.: There doesn't seem to be a substitution for tracks. I looked at Pitchfork Media (which would undoubtedly use the "in the know" phrasing if it existed), and they say "songs" or "singles." Maybe we should invent a word!
Paul Farhi:"Singles." We have a winner(perhaps...)
RE: ESPN: Okay, the Kenny Mayne HR call is great. But the ESPN guys have been doing this thing where they play a clip of an NBA game-winning shot, with the audio of the team's radio announcers going apoplectic, followed by them msking fun of the yokel radio guys. Not cool, as the GEICO cavemen would say..
Paul Farhi: Haven't heard them do that. But theoretically, it sounds like fun...
Paul Farhi: And on that note, we've got to shut 'er down. Thanks for stopping by, folks. But fear not: As always, we'll do this again in a couple of weeks (no, I'm not threatening, I'm just sayin'). So, have a happy spring solstice and report back for duty with your track/recordings/cuts/singles and what all then. In the meantime, regards to all...Paul.
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 bold and the beautiful. The good, the bad and the ugly. We're talking about what's on TV, on the radio or in the popular culture. Join the conversation, on 'Station Break.'
| 124.581395 | 1 | 33.837209 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302587.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302587.html
|
Lean Plate Club - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031819
|
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.
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.frappr.com/leanplateclub.
Sally Squires: Welcome to the Lean Plate Club! We've got eggs up for discussion today along with plenty of other topics.
Today's e-mail newsletter should already have arrived in your electronic in-box. In today's issue, find links to:
Asian Corn Soup--just 97 calories per serving. Also:
Eating Well Fish Sticks, Halibut with Braised Fennel and Fried Green Tomato Sandwiches with Remoulade. (My mouth is watering, I hope yours is too.)Other possibilities: a vegetarian cassoulet, a Middle Eastern dip with red peppers, walnuts and pomegranates from Gourmet magazine and healthy recipes for Easter.
Last but not least, there is a free Lean Plate Club widget that will make access to current and past columns--dare I say it?--a piece of cake!
Now on to the chat.
Also, on the calorie-buring side, you'll find links to a new effort that Eli Manning plans to kick off this week with the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Check out the details at www.fitness.gov and look for more on our Website later this week and in the upcoming Lean Plate Club column.
New York, N.Y.: Eggs Portobello
I saw this recipe on the food network but I changed it significantly
2007 Ellie Krieger, All rights reserved
Show: Healthy Appetite with Ellie Krieger
I use two portobello mushrooms with the stems on - I remove the stems and chop, add chopped onions, celery, garlic and carrots. I saute the mixture until tender and add whatever spices appeal to me that day. We like cajun spices so we mix that in. Some days we use a mix of Italian spices (rosemary, thyme, etc.) and salt and pepper.
We pan sear the caps until tender and able to be flattened.
Scoop the sauteed mixture on top and put the eggs on top or next to that.
We love it. Sometimes we do this as a side dish with fish or chicken (an leave out the eggs of course).
I am on a restricted diet and don't have bread except for one slice at breakfast. It was cold one day and I wanted a hot open turkey sandwich. I made the mushrooms and took sliced deli turkey over it and heated the whole thing. It was delicious!!!
Sally Squires: This sounds really good. And thanks very much for giving credit to the original recipe designer along with your tweaks. I have become a huge fan of Portobello mushrooms. They give a rich kind of smoky, meaty flavor with very few calories, don't you think? Thanks again New York.
Hard-Boiled Truth about Eggs: Even though doctors may go back and forth about categorizing eggs as cholesterol bombs or "strokes in a shell," the sad reality is that behind nearly every "incredible, edible" egg sold in grocery stores today is a hen confined inside a barren wire "battery" cage so restrictive, she can barely even move. She'll never nest, dust bathe, or even set foot outside.
See for yourself at www.EggIndustry.com -- and be sure to also check out the delicious egg-free recipes!
Sally Squires: And that's why I prefer "cage-free" eggs--although I have also read that some of these hens aren't always so free living as one might expect.
The best eggs I ever ate came from a roomate's farm in Connecticut. Second best are the ones that I buy from our neighborhood farmer's market, which I believe live much freer lives too.
How about you? Can you tell the difference between organic, cage free and other eggs?
Egg yolks: Hi Sally, if you are healthy with normal cholesterol levels, is it safe to eat 1 large hardboiled egg per day (with yolk)? Or should I still limit yolk consumption to just a few times a week? Thanks!
Sally Squires: The short answer: yes.
The longer answer: also take into account the other sources of dietary cholesterol, which include liver, other organ meats and some seafood, such shrimp.
I pushed Lawrence Appel, chair of the American Heart Association's committee, pretty hard on this question. He says that the AHA really feels based on the scientific evidence that we should not routinely exceed 300 milligrams per day of dietary cholesterol.(That includes eggs and other foods of course.) National Institutes of Health agrees.
But studies also show that trans fat and saturated fat are huge contributors of raising the bad kind of dietary cholesterol. So limiting those is important too. Bottom line: it comes down to--drum roll please--everything in moderation.
Columbia, Md.: I have been trying to eat healthier breakfasts that will help keep me feeling full longer into the day - switching from toast to cereal with skim milk and now I'm experimenting with smoothies made from low-fat yogurt, berries, and homemade applesauce. I've been reading a bit about the glycemic index, but I worry that my current breakfast is pretty high-glycemic. Can you give me any guidance or suggestions? I love my smoothies!! I do occasionally eat eggs - but I try to limit myself to three eggs a week.
Sally Squires: That toast could be okay if it's whole grain. You might also top it with a nut butter--now available in peanut, cashew, almond, sesame. The list goes on and on.
Smoothies are wonderful. And depending on how you make them, could certainly have a low glycemic index. Start with a non fat or low fat plain yogurt. Don't worry about the sugar you may see on the side of the package. That's from lactose. It's a milk sugar and it is not sweet tasting nor does it raise blood sugar the way that glucose does. Plus the protein in the yogurt helps lower the glycemic index.
Berries are a high fiber fruit and fairly low on the glycemic index. If you use vanilla flavoring or a dash of almond, you may not even need added sugar of any kind.
Also, you could add half a banana, the less ripe, the lower the glycemic index. We'll try to post a column on the GI in a minute. And by the way, don't overlook whole grain hot cereals either. Oatmeal is one smart choice.
Rockville, Md.: I'd like to say a great, big THANK YOU to the chatter who (several weeks ago) mentioned that those low-cal noodles from Whole Foods are found in the dairy section. I heard about them months ago, but I was looking in the dry pasta section. No wonder I couldn't find them! I just bought them and haven't had a chance to try them out yet, but right now I'm just happy to have that chance. Thanks again.
Sally Squires: You're very welcome. And this is one of the things that I love about the Lean Plate Club: the chance to share our tips, our slips and yes, our successes. Thanks for the feedback.
Temple Hills, Md.: Hi, thank you for taking my question. About today's column on egg consumption: for a middle-aged person with a history of 'low' cholesterol levels (140s; good HDL/LCL ratios) and low blood pressure, is it safe to eat, say, 5-7 eggs (with yolk) a week, as long as one's cholesterol level stays low? Is a person with low blood cholesterol level still at some risk for arterial plaque and stroke and hence can benefit from getting the cholesterol level even lower? Thanks!
Sally Squires: If you keep your total dietary cholesterol intake at 300 milligrams or less per day, you're good to go. Depending on the size of the egg, you could probably eat up to 7 a week. (Small eggs--and sometimes you have to hunt for those in the grocery store--have the least cholesterol.) But also remember what Dr. Appel said in today's column: it's not just the eggs that matter. It's what you eat them with. So if your eggs come with toast slathered with butter and a stack of bacon or sausage, you probably need to proceed carefully. Ditto for that omelet that may come with three eggs at a restaurant, trans fat oil and cheese.
Also important, to limit unhealthy saturated and trans fats in all foods. And to enjoy healthy olive oil or canola oil in moderation.
Eggs and Type 2 Diabetes: I can understand the cholesterol issue with eggs and heart disease, but why is there an issue with eggs and Type 2 Diabetes?
Sally Squires: Because diabetes significantly raises the risk of heart disease. In fact, some experts have told me that we should consider diabetes "early heart disease." It has just that much effect on blood vessels and the heart. So the National Cholesterol Education Program--part of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, advises that people with type 2 diabetes need to take many of the same steps in prevention as those who already have high blood cholesterol or other signs of heart disease.
The good news: We know from the Diabetes Prevention Program that weight loss, exercise and eating right can significantly reduce risk of developing diabetes. And we know from other research that people who already have type 2 diabetes can takes steps to control it and sometimes even reverse it.
calcium: How much calcium (milk, yogurt, cheese) should a woman have in one day? I was thinking 2-3 glasses of milk. But I was told only one is neccessary.
Sally Squires: Better check your source again. Recommendations vary a bit by age, but are as follows from the National Academy of Sciences Dietary Reference Intakes (yes, I know that's a mouthful, but that's the title.)
It's 1,000 milligrams daily for men and women 19 to 50 years; 1,200 for those 51 and older.
How does that work out to food? Eight ounces of skim milk contains about 300 milligrams of calcium. So that works out to about three servings per day for those 50 and younger, four for those 51 and older. And of course, this calcium doesn't just have to come from milk or dairy products. It can come from calcium fortified juice, cereal, etc. as well as supplements.
Centreville, Md.: I worked on a farm last summer over college break and one of my jobs was to gather the eggs from the chickens who pretty much had the run of the place. I'd say there sure is a difference and anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to try fresh eggs like this really should put it on their to-do list.
Sally Squires: Thanks for that feedback. And it's good to know that your chickens really were cage free.
Breakfast: I have recently been put on a restricted diet. For breakfast I had 1/3 cup dry oatmeal cooked with water. One cup of skim milk and a piece of fruit (banana). I can't tell you how hungry I was all morning. Maybe because I am nearly 300 pounds this doesn't seem like much food to me. But I was just wondering if this is the amount of food that a person of a healthy weight would eat.
Sally Squires: That's not an unreasonable breakfast, but I need to know about why you were put on a restricted diet. Is it because of weight? Blood sugar levels? High blood pressure? Something else?
And what did you do when you felt so hungry? Also, what do you have for lunch and dinner?
washingtonpost.com: After 30 Years, Glycemic Index Still Fights for Acceptance (Post, Jan. 15)
Sally Squires: As promised...the link will get you to a recent column on the glycemic index for those who want to know more.
Falls Church, Va.: I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism about a year ago and thought it would become easier to lose weight once I started taking replacement thyroid hormone and my levels went back into the normal range. But this hasn't been the case. I still find it very difficult to lose weight despite tracking what I eat, portion control and exercise. I know it was definitely easier to lose weight before I had this thyroid condition. Have any other LPC members had similar experiences?
Sally Squires: Sorry to hear about your thyroid condition, Falls Church. But it's good you got diagnosed. I'll post your question in a minute to the membership so they can weigh in too. But first, I was once on a panel with a leading thyroid expert at NIH who told the audience that correcting an underactive thyroid helps a little with weight, but not alot. He said that the average he sees is a loss of about four pounds.
So it still comes down to the same old thing: more activity and fewer calories.
How about others? How has a thyroid condition affected your weight?
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi Sally! I have recently started reading your blog and chats as recently my boyfriend and I have started a regimen of calorie counting, portion control and regular work outs. It has been hard, but I already feel a difference in my energy level and just overall I feel healthier. My biggest problem area though is sweets. I love 'em. Specifically ice cream. With hot fudge sauce. I love sundaes, I can't help it. I know there are healthier dessert alternatives, such as fruit and frozen yogurt, but I have found nothing quite does it for me as ice cream with hot fudge. Any suggestions on ways that I can still enjoy this treat semi-regularly, but not be blown out by both the fat and sugar calories? Thanks so much!
Sally Squires: Welcome! We're delighted to have you with us. And for those who have not yet discovered the Lean Plate Club Discussion Group, it's the latest addition to the growing Lean Plate Club. (And we hope to continue to offer more in the future. So if you have ideas of what you'd like us to do, please drop me an e-mail at leanplatecub@washpost.com.)
And you can even call me--believe me, I'll let you know if I'm on deadline--at 202-334-5018. (No posting in bathrooms, please! :-)]
If you really don't feel satisfied without eating ice cream, you might either adjust calories during the day to fit in a scoop with a tablespoon or two (note portions carefully by measuring) of chocolate sauce. (Chocolate sauce versus hot fudge is much lower in calories.)
You'll need to measure the ice cream carefully. A lower fat variety--Breyer's is one choice--with about 7-8 grams of fat would be okay. Or you can go the low fat or non fat route (which will likely have more added sugar for flavor.)
If one scoop isn't enough, better think about limiting this treat to once or twice a week unless you plan to burn off the calories with a lot of exercise. You could also add some fresh or frozen fruit to this mix and slowly decrease the ice cream to see if you can be satisfied with less. (Increase fruit as you decrease ice cream.)
Then there are many other cold options including frozen fruit. Or some great possibilities from Skinny Cow that can be as little as 80 calories per serving.
Hope that helps. Other suggestions out there? Dish them our way.
washingtonpost.com: The Lean Plate Club Group
Sally Squires: Here's a link to the new LPC Discussion Group where I post news and nutrition/exercise information about four to five times weekly. Hope to see some of you there in addition to here.
Raleigh, N.C.: I've been eating canned tuna lately. It's good and filling, but it is really dry. Almost to the point where I can't get it down. I cannot stand mayo, though. Just the thought of eating it puts my stomach in knots. Is there something else I can add to the tuna to help moisten it?
Sally Squires: I often make a mediterranean tuna salad with sun dried tomatoes, beans (white beans, kidney beans, garbanzo beans are all good options), celery, endive, capers, olives, fresh tomatoes (adds to the flavor) basil, fennel, diced carrots, slices of sweet pepper. By the time you're finished, the tuna is almost a garnish. You can add some balsamic vinegar and a little olive oil. It's quite good.
Another option is to buy tuna packed in olive oil. Pat with paper towels to remove some of the oil, then add the other ingredients. But I find that packing the tuna in oil gives it a lot of flavor. You might also want to try some of the tuna in seal packs rather than cans. You may find that also less dry.
And you could also branch out to canned salmon or mackerel for other flavors....
Rockville, Md,: A point that frequently gets lost in discussions over GI (it is alluded to by Walter Willett in the article you link; maybe the full quote got cut) is that it is determined empirically. The GI of a piece of white bread is different from the GI of a piece of white bread with a teaspoon of butter. If you were only going to eat a fixed amount of a single, tested food the GI per se would be meaningful. But as soon as you have a meal the number per se means nothing (you can still have a sense as to whether one meal is overall "less glycemic" than another but not necessarily by how much). GI is only one measure of the "healthiness" of foods.
Sally Squires: Absolutely right. And very few of us eat single meal foods. So this is a matter of continued debate in the scientific community. But having said that, it also doesn't seem to hurt to eat a diet that is lower on the glycemic index. Thanks for weighing in.
Tulsa, Okla.: Green eggs and Ham!! This is my favorite egg recipe!
Scramble a dozen eggs, and stir in one chopped up tomato, diced ham, pepper to taste, and I always add some romano cheese. Then once the eggs are done, stir in some pesto. You don't want to cook the pesto, so I turn off the heat, but still leave it on burner.
Trust me, this will be the BEST EGGS YOU HAVE EVER EATEN!!
Sally Squires: They sound delicious, Tulsa. My only question: how many people does this green eggs and ham serve? As Dr. Appel noted, it's not so much the eggs, as what is served with the eggs that matters. (And by the way, that pesto is usually the source of some healthy fat.)
NC: I recently had my RMR tested and the results were very concerning to me. 720. That seems impossibly low. What is considered to be a normal resting metabolism rate for middle aged, active women at a normal weight and body fat percentage? What would cause your RMR to be that low (thyroid is normal)?
Sally Squires: That does seem quite low. How as it measured? And by whom? Was there only one reading? All questions to be followed up. And for those who are not familiar with RMR, it stands for resting metabolic rate and is basically the number of calories that you burn when you are sitting doing nothing.
re: breakfast: I was put on restricted diet because of weight loss only.
This is my meal plan:
2 tb salad dressing (no sugar)
Sally Squires: This is a quick guess, but it looks like this would provide about 1,200 calories depending on what constitutes one protein. Where did you get the plan?
New York, NY: For my birthday, my husband found this great egg white recipe on www.BellyBytes.com. He used EggBeaters. We sprinkled some non fat mozzerella on it and it was delicious:
Egg White Frittata from BellyBytes.com
Dished up in pancake form, this is a refreshing alternative to the everyday omelet.
1/2 cup broccoli florets, bite-size
1/2 cup diced red bell peppers
One small red onion, optional
3/4 cup roasted tomato salsa
Advance Preparation: Separate 20 eggs, discarding yolks and placing whites in an airtight plastic container. In a steam basket set in a small saucepan, steam broccoli and bell peppers until just tender, about 6 minutes. Plunge into ice water, drain and cool completely. Place in a resealable plastic bag.
Mushroom: In small skillet, saute mushroom. Cool and transfer to small airtight container. Refrigerate everything until needed.
Preparation: Spray an omelet pan or skillet with nonstick cooking spray and place over low heat. Lightly beat egg whites and add them to the pan with sauteed vegetables and seasonings. Continue cooking until eggs are set.
Options: Brown the top under a broiler. Thinly slice onion and saute in another pan coated with nonstick cooking spray until onion begins to caramelize.
Serve: cover a large plate with salsa, place frittata on top, and garnish with onion. Serves 4
Sally Squires: Happy Birthday! And an egg white frittata or omelet is a wonderful food to eat. I also love the flavors of salsa with eggs. Gives them a nice kick. Thanks.
Kalamazoo, Mich.: Grow Roses! That's how I work off those winter pounds. I'm 75 years "old" and care for 60 rose bushes. This time of year it's uncovering and spring pruning. Then adding mulch and all the other things one does to make roses grow into beautiful flowers. I think working in a garden is one healthy way to keep "young".
Sally Squires: What a wonderful activity to do with great payoff both from burning calories and from looking at those future roses. Bet your yard is beautiful. Thanks Kalamazoo.
re: hot grains/whole grains: Aside from oatmeal, what other whole grains are filling and high in fiber with a low gi? Is cracked wheat one of them?
Sally Squires: Barley, amaranth and quinoa (both ancient grains) as well as brown rice and wild rice. We'll try to post some links in a minute to more info. As for cracked wheat, it could be a whole grain. Look for the words, whole wheat flour in the ingredient list. Hope this helps.
washingtonpost.com: Sprouted Grains Recognized as Whole Grains wholegraincouncil.org
Diabetic Friend: My friend recently lost a foot to diabetes. He lives alone and works long hours, and doesn't cook for himself. Delivered diabetic food is too expensive. He does need to lose weight, so restaurant food is usually too caloric. Question: Are frozen dinners like Lean Cuisine or Weight Watchers appropriate for this situation?
Sally Squires: I'm so very sorry to hear of your friends medical condition. Diabetes remains the number one cause of lost limbs. One aside: limb-sparing treatments that were developed to help treat leprosy have proven quite successful for type 2 diabetes as well. Former U.S. Surgeon C. Everett Koop first invited me to the public health service hospital in 1989 to write that story which I did for the Post. And that's how I happened to end up doing a PBS documentary, called "Triumph at Carville: A Tale of Leprosy in America," that is slated to air on Friday, March 28 at 10 p.m. ET on a station near you. (Check local listings for times.)
If your friend doesn't have access to a diabetes nutrition educator, he or she should ask his or her physician for a referral to one. (This is usually covered by Medicare, and many health insurance companies.) In theory, that Lean Cuisine or Weight Watchers dinners may be fine. But it would be worthwhile to check and to get a planned menu that will help your friend keep blood sugar in control and hopefully avoid any more amputations.
Please let us know how it goes.
washingtonpost.com: Whole Grains Made Easy (PDF, wheatfoods.org)
Rockville, Md.: You're not telling me how (or where) to sign up for the Physical Fitness Challenge...please do.
Eli Manning--yes, the quarterback for the latest Super Bowl winner, the New York Giants--is scheduled to kick off the latest physical activity challenge from the President's Council for Physical Fitness and Sports on Thursday at the National Press Club. You can sign up for the challenge starting now through April 3.
Sally Squires: You're right! Sorry. The site: www.fitness.gov, should have a place to sign up. Look for more on our Web site later this week.
Long Beach, N.Y.: My daily breakfast smoothie consists of peach yogurt (usually from Trader Joe's), 1/2 banana, a handful of frozen fruit, e.g. cherries, mangoes, peaches, or strawberries (also from Trader Joe's), and a raw egg. How dangerous is the egg?
Sally Squires: Quite dangerous unless it's pasteurized in the egg as in the Davidson's Safe Choice mentioned in today's chat. My hunch is that you don't want to risk a case of salmonella. So either cook that egg, or switch to one that is pasteurized in the shell.
Rockville, Md.: Hi Sally, I had a baby...9 months ago. Starting weight was 125, finishing weight was 178, current weight is 146. I walk w/baby, we go to "baby gym" twice a week, I eat well as baby needs to eat well. There arent cookies or bunches of junk in my house. I cook our dinners which are all typically organic and/or low fat. The kicker is I am rarely hungry. I don't like to eat. It's like my taste buds have died. By the time it is my turn to eat I just want more coffee. I can add to this that I haven't slept through the night in over a year. Why cant I lose weight? Do I need to be MORE active? Eat more? I doubt I can get any more sleep. I drink water, lowfat milk, water and once a week two glasses of wine. What do I need to fix to drop 15 pounds? Mind you my 9 month old weighs 31 pounds...
Sally Squires: Congratulations on your baby! How exciting! Lack of sleep could definitely be affecting your efforts. Can you trade off with your husband or partner? Can you nap? Are you still nursing? That can sometimes make weight loss easier at first and then a little more difficult until you stop breastfeeding.
Do you ever measure how much you eat? It could be that you're either eating more than you think--very easy for all of us to do--or eating so little that your body thinks it's in starvation mode.
Check that for a few days and see what you find. Then since we are out of time, hope you will check back with us and tell us next week.
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.
| 400.5 | 0.857143 | 1.571429 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/14/DI2008031402820.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/14/DI2008031402820.html
|
Book World: 'The Three Trillion Dollar War'
|
2008031819
|
"When congressional Democrats called a hearing last month to explore the costs of the Iraq was, their star witness was... Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning Columbia University economist who is giving the White House heartburn with his forceful argument that the true price of the Iraq conflict will far surpass even the hundreds of billions of dollars already tallied."
Joseph E. Stiglitz, author and economist, was online Tuesday, March 18, at 3 p.m. ET to discuss his book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," which was reviewed in Book World. The book is co-authored with Harvard University's Linda J. Bilmes.
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More (Article by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, Washington Post Outlook, March 8)
Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.
Glad to be hear today. I'm writing from New Zealand--a country that decided from the beginning that the War was wrong, and chose not to participate.
Arlington: Do you believe the Iraq war spending has had any negative effects on the value of the dollar and/or the economic problems we are facing now?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: There is a clear and strong link between the economy's present woes and the war. The war was at least one of the factors contributing to rising oil prices--which meant Americans were spending money on imported oil, rather than on things that would stimulate the american economy. Hiring Nepalese contractors in Iraq, moreover, doesn't stimulate the American economy in the way that building a school in America would do--and obviously doesn't have the long term benefits.
These negative effects on the economy were covered up with a flood of liquidity from the Fed. That,plus lax regulation, led to a housing bubble, a consumption boom--but we were living on borrowed money. It was inevitable that there would be a day of reckoning, and it has now come. We will be paying the costs "with interest".
Moreover, because we chose to finance the way by borrowing, our deficits and debt has soared, and this means we have less room for maneuver, less money available to stimulate the eocnomy in the way needed.
It will be years before we dig ourselves out fully from under this mess.
washingtonpost.com: Please stay with us. We are experiencing technical problems in Auckland, N.Z. We will be resuming in just a few minutes.
Lansing, Mich. : Is your point the war costs too much or benefits will be too small? If it is cost, how do we prevent future "faux crisis" from occurring? If benefits, what more could be garnered that isn't?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: The war has been very, very expensive--partly because the Administration tried to keep the apparent costs down. But the benefits have been elusive at best--partly because the ostensible reasons for going war were unconnected with reality--no weapons of mass destruction, no connections with 9/11.
Washington, D.C. : Dr. Stiglitz,
There has been some argument over the trillion dollar amount you cite in your book. Could you tell us a bit about your research in computing these numbers?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: The basic methodologies we employ are standard--we add up the budgetary costs, and we then add in those aspects of the costs beyond the budget that can be quantified. Obviously, since we are talking about costs that extend into the future, one has to make assumptions, but our assumptions are, in fact conservative, and there has been very little challenge to the basic picture.
For instance, one of the main reasons our numbers are larger than those of the Congressional Budget Office is that they only calculate costs through 2018--but the costs of disability and caring for veterans will extend for decades. Veterans costs for WWII didn't peak until forty years after the war had ended. Leaving out these future costs is leaving out a big number.
Some critics have suggested that there were other factors that contributed to the increase in the price of oil. We agree; that is why we only included $5 to $10 for seven to eight years, a small fraction of the $85 increase in the price of oil.
We used data from the Gulf War to extrapolate costs of disabilities--but in fact, our troops returning from Iraq have many more and much worse disabilities than those returning from that 30 day venture. Again, we believe we have been very conservative.
The bottom line: the true numbers are likely to be much greater.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Are you familiar with the Comptroller General's economic forecast for 50 years from now. He claims at the rate we're going, Federal debt repayments will equal the entire Federal budget and that we will need to find some combination of reducing spending, increasing revenues, and increasing productivity (equal to about 50 million additional employees at a time retirement rates are higher than the rates of new employees entering the workforce)in order for economy to survive, What are your perspectives on these forecasts?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: The country has large unfunded liabilities (social security, health care), and there will have to be some adjustments to these problems. What is scary though is how much worse things have gotten in the last eight years, and the war is one of the main factors. The national debt will have increased by approximately 50% in just eight years! We will have created a new unfunded entitlement--disability and health care benefits for the huge number of disabled veterans returning from the Iraq war.
In fact, for just about 1/6 of the cost of an Iraq War, we could have put the social security system on sound financial footings for the next 50 to 75 years. The problems can be managed--but not if we continue to fight this war for another 80 years.
San Francisco, Calif.: A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.
Could you address the opportunity costs of the war? For example, health care reform is a major issue in the presidential election, and three million dollars could've gone a long way towards funding it. Social Security is another example.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: That is the right way of asking the question. As a rich country, we can, in some sense, "afford" the war. But spending money on the war means that we are not spending money on other things that we could have spent the money on.
One of the real costs of the war is that our security is actually less than it otherwise would have been (ironic, since enhancing security was one of the reasons for going to war). Our armed forces have been depleted--we have been wearing out equipment and using up munitions faster than we have been replacing them; the armed forces face difficult problems in recruitment--by any objective measures,including those used by the armed forces, quality has deteriorated significantly.
Economically, we are gain weaker. Millions of americans have no health insurance--including many poor children. if they do not get the care they need, they may become scarred for life; but the President vetoed the children's health insurance bill--evidently we couldn't afford it. But we were talking about just a few days fighting in Iraq.
The list of what we could have done with just a month or even a few days fighting in Iraq is long. These are called the opportunity costs of the war. In our book, we give many examples of these opportunity costs.
Newport, R.I.: Your book is exceedingly hard on Washington in general and the administration in particular. What have been the personal costs for speaking truth to power? (i.e., has it driven you all the way to New Zealand?!)
Joseph E. Stiglitz: Fortunately, America remains a robust democracy, where most individuals are not afraid to speak out. What we have done in Iraq has, however, compromised out standing as an advocate of basic human rights--the prime minister of one country responding to criticism of America for its human rights put it, it was liking having Dracula guard the blood bank.
The loss of America's moral standing has been one of the great losses of this war.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Who holds our debt, when do they expect repayments, and does it appear we will be able to make the repayments? What happens if we can't repay the debt?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: Increasingly, America has had to turn to foreigners to finance its debt--not surprising since household saving in the last two years has plummeted to zero. China is one of the largest holders of American debt.
We could, of course, always make the payments, simply by printing more money (we simply promise to pay people by giving them dollar bills), but that could set off inflation.
More likely, though, is that these debt obligations will simply erode America's standard of living in the future. Money spent to service the debt is money that we don't have to spend on consumption's goods, or on investment in our future.
It is unlikely that others would even demand their money back overnight, for doing so would lead to the value of the dollar plummeting; what they would get back with be worth little. But what we are already seeing is an erosion of confidence of the dollar, which is seeing the dollar fall in value.
Arlington, Va.: I wish this book had come five years ago. As one of the 30 percent of the population that was against this war from the beginning, I have to say I just wish these sorts of points were being raised LOUDLY five years ago.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: I find it scandalous not only that there was so little discussion of the costs of the war before we went to war--this was, after all, a war of choice--but even five years into the war, the Administration has not provided a comprehensive accounting of the war. We should not have had to write this book, and it should not have been so difficult for us to get the numbers. We should not have had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get some of the critical numbers.
Dallas, Tex.: How did the FIONA affect your information and research during the writing of your book? Also, please discuss your views on the privatization (contractors) of the Iraq war regarding our troops and the U.S. economy. Thank you for your unprecedented, vital, and interesting book about how the Iraq invasion/occupation will be an economic force on our country and for future generations.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: This war has been the most "privatized" war in America's history. It has seen the most extensive use of contractors. The contractors have increased the costs; but they have been necessary--the military simply could not have done it on their own. we would have had to increase the size of the military. But the Bush Administration wanted America to believe that it could have a war, essentially for free, without raising taxes, without increasing the size of the armed forces.
The contractors have been especially expensive because so much was done with single source bidding--i.e. no competition; some with cost plus--whatever they charged, the government paid; and the government's auditing was simply inadequate.
But there is another even greater cost: the attempt to minimize cost and maximize profits often interfered with our true mission in Iraq. We should have been working to get jobs for Iraqis, but the contractors found it cheaper to import Nepalese and others. This increased resentment, contributed to unemployment, and to our losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.
Jacksonville, Fla.: My husband is a 24-year-old combat veteran of OIF and OEF who testified in Winter Soldier near Washington, D.C., this past weekend to the failings of the Veteran's Healthcare Administration. How would the fact that 10,000 veterans have committed suicide upon returning home to the U.S. affect your calculation of the cost of the war? How much value should be assigned to each human life lost? The military gives us $500,000 if our loved ones die in battle, and nothing if they come home dead inside. To me, my husband's life is more valuable than then entire war debt, and no one could ever compensate me for what we both lost. Thank you.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: You have emphasized one of the tragic costs of this war to which we did not give adequate attention. We noted the psychological problems facing many of the returning veterans--of the 700,000 returning veterans, more than a 100,000 have been diagnosed with problems, but the numbers are likely to get worse, as those with multiple deployments return. We should have valued the loss of life as a result of these suicides, using the same procedures we used for the loss of those who died in combat.
This is another example showing that our numbers were excessively conservative.
Arlington, Va.: What can us average Americans do to address this issue?
Joseph E. Stiglitz: One thing that one can do is to demand that your congressman or woman demand a full accounting from the Administration of the costs, demand that five years into the war we stop funding the war with emergency funding, demand that we put aside now money for the returning veterans, so that their future health care benefits are not subject to the whim of some future congress. We end the book with a set of recommendations. These should be taken up now.
washingtonpost.com: This concludes our discussion with Joseph Stilt. Thank you for joining in.
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.
|
Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses his new book, 'The Three Trillion Dollar War.'
| 160.764706 | 0.823529 | 2.470588 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702776.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702776.html
|
Nacchio's Convictions Are Overturned
|
2008031819
|
A federal appeals court overturned the 19 insider-trading convictions of former Qwest Communications chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio after concluding that the trial judge improperly excluded expert testimony that would have helped Nacchio advance his defense.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said yesterday that the mistake justified a new trial because a business law professor could have offered important context in Nacchio's bid to persuade jurors that he had an innocent explanation for more than $52 million in stock sales while Qwest was struggling to meet profit targets.
The central issue in the case is whether Nacchio dumped stock in early 2001 because he knew the company was faltering or because he simply sought to diversify his financial holdings.
The three-judge panel's ruling erases the jury verdict from last year, as well as a six-year prison sentence for Nacchio, who had remained free pending the results of his appeal. "Armchair economics is not the way to decide complex securities cases," the appeals court wrote.
Herbert J. Stern, the lead defense lawyer for Nacchio, said he was "delighted" with the decision. "We look forward to Joe Nacchio's eventual and total vindication," he said.
Federal prosecutors said they would consult with criminal authorities at the Justice Department. The government could seek to retry Nacchio or ask the entire 10th Circuit appeals court to review yesterday's decision.
"This is a setback, not a defeat," Denver U.S. Attorney Troy A. Eid said. "The good news is the circuit court said our trial team presented sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Nacchio of insider trading."
Legal experts said the Nacchio decision is grounded in the particulars of his case, blunting somewhat its impact on other corporate prosecutions.
But the ruling could promote the use of business experts as witnesses in major white-collar cases. Defense teams for former executives often are stymied in a search for witnesses because current employees of a company are frightened or otherwise unwilling to stand up in court to support a deposed corporate official.
"Any opening to get that kind of testimony in front of a jury is a substantial benefit for the defense," said David Esseks, a former federal prosecutor who now defends executives and businesses.
The appeals court ordered that the Nacchio case be sent to another federal judge, a rebuke to U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham, who has been the subject of critical news reports in Denver for allegedly patronizing adult dating Web sites and a gentlemen's club. He did not return calls or e-mails sent to his chambers yesterday.
The Nacchio prosecution attracted widespread attention because it highlighted national-security issues stemming from a government surveillance program. Nacchio's defense lawyers argued that the charges were payback for a refusal to go along with National Security Agency efforts to access phone calls and other data from Qwest customers.
The issue of whether telecommunications companies that cooperated with federal authorities deserve retroactive legal protection continues to rage on Capitol Hill. Last week, the House passed a bill that would not offer the companies immunity, putting the chamber into conflict with the Senate and the Bush administration.
The ruling is the latest in a series of high-profile government victories to splinter after an appeal. The Supreme Court upended the obstruction-of-justice case against accounting firm Arthur Andersen, and a federal appeals court cast doubt on the obstruction case against banker Frank P. Quattrone.
Daniel M. Petrocelli, a lawyer for former Enron chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling, said he is reviewing the Nacchio ruling. In newly unsealed court documents, Skilling seeks a new trial by claiming that prosecutors failed to turn over statements from a critical witness, former finance chief Andrew S. Fastow. Government officials have said the defense's arguments about the Fastow comments are overblown.
|
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.
| 16.477273 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702797.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702797.html
|
For Dukes, Joining Nats Is a Move Toward Stability
|
2008031819
|
More than four hours before an exhibition game last week, sweat poured off Elijah Dukes's face, soaked through his red shirt. He worked alone with one of the Washington Nationals' batting practice pitchers, drilling baseballs to what would have been the opposite field had he not been encased in black netting that absorbed the line drives.
It was, for Dukes, a rare moment without a teammate or coach nearby. Yet within 10 minutes, Lenny Harris, the club's hitting coach, arrived on the scene, jumped into the cage, and watched Dukes intently. "Get low to the ball," Harris said. As they worked, James Williams -- a youth minister with a military background who, four months ago, had never worked in baseball, never met Dukes -- showed up alongside the cage, extended an index finger and curled it inward. Come here, Elijah.
If this spring is about Dukes finding comfort -- with the Nationals, with his life, with himself -- then here was a bit of it, in a deserted batting cage with only those who have proven trustworthy within earshot. No player in the brief history of the Nationals has been monitored as closely as the 23-year-old outfielder who finds himself with a chance to remake his career. The club's hope is that it can help foster relationships in which Dukes feels comfortable, be they with a personal mentor, a teammate, a legendary player or a hitting coach. That, Dukes said, is reviving him even before he revives his career.
"I can communicate now without feeling like I'm afraid to say the wrong thing," Dukes said. "These guys here, they're willing to listen here. That's it. When you have those ears, you feel much more relaxed. In the past, I don't have people [who wanted] to hear. They hear what they want to hear."
Since they acquired him in a December trade with his hometown team, Tampa Bay, the Nationals have simultaneously protected and built a support structure for Dukes. Both he and the club are sensitive about a past marked by a litany of transgressions -- arrests, drug use, an ugly divorce. All that is cast against a childhood shaped by a father imprisoned for murder when Dukes was 11.
Though they are unwilling to publicly discuss much of how they say they are helping Dukes, it is clear the Nationals began to assemble a team of potential advisers from the day Dukes was acquired. Members of that team hang with Dukes in the clubhouse, help him with his hitting, talk to him about his life. They have met his family and, in some cases, gained his trust.
"There's no one way to attack any problem," team president Stan Kasten said. "The same goes for this."
To the extent that they were acquiring a potential problem -- and the Nationals openly discussed the risk/reward nature of the trade when they made it -- club officials began mulling solutions before they agreed to a deal with Tampa Bay, which deactivated Dukes during a turbulent 2007.
When the Nationals decided to give up a Class A pitcher for Dukes, the club flew him to Nashville, site of baseball's winter meetings. But instead of offering a splashy introduction at the Opryland Resort, which hosted the meetings, Kasten and General Manager Jim Bowden met him quietly at the Nashville Airport Marriott. There, Dukes sat down with first baseman Dmitri Young.
"I'm there for you," Young recalled telling Dukes. "I'm your support. You come to me when you need anything, when there's anything on your mind."
Young came with his own baggage, a past that included struggles with substance abuse, enough legal and personal issues that he was cast aside by the Detroit Tigers in 2006 much like the Rays banished Dukes last season. Young, 34, doesn't have his locker next to Dukes at spring training. But Dukes recently referred to him as "my brother." The two talk, Young said, "just sit there and talk -- about life."
|
This is your source for info on Washington Nationals baseball. Learn about DC baseball at the RFK stadium. Get the latest schedule and stats for the Washington Nationals. Stay updated on the latest Washington Nationals news!
| 18.604651 | 0.604651 | 0.930233 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031701455.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031701455.html
|
New Pakistani Parliament Set to Challenge President
|
2008031819
|
The long-awaited first session of the 342-member National Assembly convened at Pakistan's gleaming white Parliament house amid tight security, two days after a deadly bomb attack on a popular restaurant in the center of the capital.
Sharpshooters with rifles at the ready stood atop almost every corner of the massive building as a parade of black and silver bulletproof SUVs deposited legislators and Pakistani luminaries at the crowded entrance.
One of the first to arrive was former prime minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, leader of Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League faction and a strong supporter of the president. Hussain, who lost his parliamentary bid last month, said the convocation of the new Parliament signaled fresh hope for his party and Pakistan: "The future is very bright. It is the first day, and we pray that everything will be all right."
Musharraf's political prospects appeared far from assured, however, as members of a Parliament generally hostile to his government streamed into the building for the swearing-in ceremony.
The heads of the two leading parties voted into power Feb. 18 have vowed to restore the country's beleaguered judiciary within 30 days of the formation of the new government -- a move seen here as a direct challenge to the president's authority.
The reinstatement of judges deposed under Musharraf's rule could trigger a legal case against the president leading to his ouster, a development that many members of Parliament said Monday they would welcome.
"Musharraf has to go. He has no future in this country, at least," said Khawaja Muhammad Asif, a newly elected legislator. "Maybe he has a future in the U.S."
Musharraf, a top ally of the United States in the fight against al-Qaeda, has long enjoyed Bush administration backing, but his support among his own people has waned in recent years.
The former army general's standing with the public here eroded considerably after he fired the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court last March. The move, widely viewed here as an effort to silence judicial challenges to Pakistan's powerful and pervasive intelligence services, prompted a constitutional crisis that has continued for months.
Musharraf's star fell further during a series of controversial events.
In July, a government raid on extremists barricaded inside an Islamabad mosque led to more than 100 deaths. In November, the president ordered the dismissal and house arrest of 60 judges following a declaration of a state of emergency.
Then in December came the assassination of opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Her death triggered widespread protests and helped sweep her Pakistan People's Party into power last month.
Bhutto's widower and political successor, Asif Ali Zardari, has since joined forces with Bhutto's onetime rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whose party received the second-largest number of votes in last month's elections.
Retired Gen. Rashid Qureshi, the president's chief spokesman, said the president was cheered by the swearing-in of the new Parliament and was looking forward to cooperating with the new leadership in the legislature.
"It's one of the most satisfying days of his eight years in office. He kept saying before the elections that this was the third and final phase of the transition to a democratic process," Qureshi said. Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999.
In the next week, the new Parliament is to select a new prime minister, which could set in motion impeachment proceedings against Musharraf.
"This is the last day of dictatorship. This is our first step," Zardari declared, following a meeting with Sharif at Parliament on Monday.
|
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.
| 15.108696 | 0.347826 | 0.347826 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702569.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702569.html
|
Damage to Apartments, Church Put at $20 Million
|
2008031819
|
The shell of the apartment building at 3145 Mount Pleasant St. NW has been shored up by scaffolding and support beams, and investigators have been at work in the building, Assistant Fire Chief Lawrence Schultz said.
But they have yet to determine what caused the fire late Wednesday, which left about 200 people homeless.
A dog trained to detect accelerant used in a potential arson found nothing, Schultz said. That doesn't rule out arson, but it makes it less likely, officials said.
Through examination of the scene and at least 70 interviews, officials have determined that the fire began in the northeast corner of the basement of the 93-unit building, beneath apartments 107 and 109, officials said.
It tore through the building, causing about $5 million in damage. Meridian Hill Baptist Church, which lost its roof and was also ravaged by smoke and flames, sustained about $15 million in damage, officials said yesterday.
Many of the families left homeless were moved to a Best Western hotel and are awaiting permanent housing from the city. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said in a news conference yesterday that the city might have to provide a subsidy to bridge the gap between the rents residents had paid for their Mount Pleasant apartments and rents elsewhere in the D.C. area.
The Columbia Heights/Shaw Family Support Collaborative is also helping create an emergency housing fund to provide rental and other assistance to those families.
|
The fire that decimated a Mount Pleasant apartment building and neighboring church last week did at least $20 million in damage, officials said yesterday.
| 10.185185 | 0.777778 | 3.148148 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403401.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403401.html
|
Footgear for Walkers: A Few Steps Behind
|
2008031819
|
AWalkers' World sure sounds like a nice place to visit, and you don't need a spaceship to get there. The smart way to pick walking shoes isn't all that different from the running shoe rules I explained two weeks ago: You still want to think about finding that comfortable fit (give your longest toe a finger-width's room to the end of the shoe), and keeping your pronation in check.
In fact, if you're like Lea Gallardo -- she's a runner turned walker, too -- you'll ditch walking shoes in favor of the running variety. The owner of Metro Run & Walk, a local chain, Gallardo says walking options have been around for decades, but they leave something (well, several things) to be desired: "Walking shoes are all white leather -- they're not breathable -- with a semi-curved last [shape] and no stability built into the medial side of the shoe," she complains.
Maggie Spilner, author of "Prevention's Complete Book of Walking," is less negative. She finds walking shoes lower to the ground and less apt to trip you, and their beveled heels give your foot a steadier plant. But even Spilner readily admits that her favorite pair is, in a word, ugly.
Your best bet, in any case, is probably going to be a running specialty store. The staff there will have a better sense of gait analysis and fit than a sporting goods behemoth. And many of the specialty stores (including Metro Run & Walk) stock both running and walking shoes, so you can find just the right pair, whether you're planning to conquer the mall or a marathon.
I've been trying to get back into strength training after about a year of focusing on cardio, and have run into an unexpected problem. I'll work out at or below my previous level (never pressing to muscle failure) and have no problems during the workout or immediately thereafter. But about 36 to 48 hours later, I am in major pain. How can I figure out the right workout level if my body is not giving feedback for a day and a half?
Your body is giving you feedback, all right. It's just not the kind you were hoping for. Such are the joys of delayed onset muscle soreness, or DOMS. As someone who samples new exercise routines for a living, I feel your pain.
Like so many things in science, DOMS is still a bit of a mystery. "We don't know the mechanism that causes it," says Stephen Roth, a kinesiology professor at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Whatever the instigator, what's happening is that damaged muscle has summoned help -- in the form of inflammation -- to repair itself. So you're thinking, "I'll take an anti-inflammatory," such as ibuprofen or naproxen, right? Turns out that's controversial, says Roth, because several studies have shown that those sorts of drugs can decrease protein synthesis. "You may feel better, but [you're] prolonging the muscle adaptation process," he says.
The better solution is to cut back on how often you're lifting. Twice a week is plenty for the recreational exerciser, says Roth, who guesses you may be overtraining.
|
Q Appreciated your advice on how to buy running shoes. Is there a parallel specialty world for selecting the correct walking shoes (for those of us who have long ago seen our last running day)?
| 16.589744 | 0.717949 | 0.820513 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031602435.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031602435.html
|
In the Mainstream but Isolated
|
2008031819
|
Victoria Miresso cannot button a shirt, match a sock or tell one school bus from another. Yet at Roberto Clemente Middle School in Germantown, she is expected to function much like any other sixth-grader, coping with class changes, algebra quizzes and lunchroom bullies.
Victoria's parents say she is a victim of inclusion: a trend, in Montgomery County and across the nation, toward shutting down traditional special education classes and placing special-needs students in regular classrooms at neighborhood schools.
"At this point, we're about halfway through the school year, and she hasn't learned anything," said Laura Johnson, her mother. "It's not fair for her to go to school and sit there and be teased because she doesn't understand what they're teaching her."
Montgomery school officials say Victoria is no victim. She is, however, one of the first generation of students who cannot attend secondary learning centers, a network of self-contained classrooms open to special education students at eight middle and high schools in the county since the 1970s. Montgomery school leaders decided in 2006 to phase out the centers, part of an ongoing shift of special-ed students and teachers out of separate classrooms and into the general school population.
It ranks among the most controversial decisions made by Montgomery Superintendent Jerry D. Weast, who has run the 138,000-student system since 1999. A hundred parents picketed the school board in the dead of winter to protest the closure. They argued that the small, sheltered classes were the only setting that worked for their children. Weast and the school board maintained that students in the centers weren't learning and deserved the same rigorous lessons offered to everyone else.
The conflict illustrates a broader schism within the special education community over inclusion, a national effort to break down the walls that have separated special-needs students from their peers. Some parents want their special-needs children exposed to the brisk academics and complex social tapestry of a suburban neighborhood school. Others, including the Johnsons, do not.
Victoria Miresso has an IQ of 55, according to diagnostic papers her parents keep in a thick file at the family home. She is only partially mainstreamed at Roberto Clemente, taking a mix of mainstream and special-ed classes. Nonetheless, her mother said, she is lost.
"She doesn't understand a word," Laura Johnson said. "She writes on her tests, 'I don't know,' and she has to hand it in."
Students such as Victoria were routinely housed in separate schools until 1975, when the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act mandated that disabled and non-disabled students be taught together "to the maximum extent appropriate." A first wave of inclusion shifted special education classrooms into neighborhood schools. A second wave, starting in the late 1990s, moved many special education students out of those classrooms and into large mainstream classes, along with an army of special education teachers and aides charged with helping them keep up.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 pressed the issue further, requiring school systems to demonstrate that special-ed students attain academic proficiency at the same rate as their peers.
Only 8 percent of learning center students in Montgomery middle schools rated proficient last year on the Maryland School Assessment in reading, and only 4 percent passed the statewide math test. Students with comparable disabilities who attended mainstream classes performed much better. Under No Child Left Behind, all special-needs students tested are expected to pass by 2014.
School system leaders say the transition, grade by grade, away from learning centers has been a resounding success. All sixth-grade teachers and hundreds of aides responsible for serving the students attended mandatory training over the summer. Case managers were assigned to each of the 70 students being mainstreamed, most of whom had attended elementary school learning centers, which are not being closed. Each student has been monitored over the year, and extra staff assigned as needed to help them succeed. A parent survey, given this fall, found just two parents dissatisfied with inclusion, although only 24 families responded.
Ketia Ingram-Adams said her 12-year-old foster daughter has made a smooth transition from an elementary learning center to mainstream classes at Briggs Chaney Middle School in the Spencerville area, where she is getting A's and B's.
Ingram-Adams's daughter had no formal schooling until about age 7. School psychologists concluded she had attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, although her foster mother thinks that the diagnosis might be wrong.
Last year, the learning center setting -- 10 students and two teachers, working at an easy pace -- helped the girl gain years of missed reading and math instruction.
"She would get tips on things that would help her learn more math, do better at her reading, practice her writing, her reading comprehension," the mother said. "And she would sometimes get frustrated. But they taught her how to get back the focus, to 'Slow down, close your eyes, count to 10.' "
This year, she has moved effortlessly into the neighborhood middle school.
"She can read chapter books, she can do addition and subtraction, multiplication and division," Ingram-Adams said. "It's just like they gave her the push she needed in school."
But other parents say inclusion has been a disaster, leaving their children bewildered and friendless. They are particularly resentful at being excluded from the decision-making process that doomed the centers. Resentment lingers, even after Weast altered the plan so that all of the roughly 600 students attending the centers could stay through graduation.
Michelle Ryan of Gaithersburg said she was open to the idea of mainstreaming daughter Allyson, 12, who has autism. She wanted Allyson to earn a diploma.
But Allyson was not ready for Forest Oak Middle School. She had a meltdown in the first week of school, "crying and screaming," her mother said. She found her locker, and her classes, only with help from an attentive aide who followed her around.
Today, Allyson is getting B's and C's. But Ryan suspects teachers might be inflating her daughter's grades to make the transition look like a success. Worse, Allyson has begun to feel inferior to her classmates, "and she never had that problem before," her mother said. Isolated from other special-needs students, she has no friends and eats lunch alone.
"Yes, academically, it might be better for her to be mainstreamed, and that was always my goal for her as a parent," Ryan said. "But she wasn't ready."
|
Victoria Miresso cannot button a shirt, match a sock or tell one school bus from another. Yet at Roberto Clemente Middle School in Germantown, she is expected to function much like any other sixth-grader, coping with class changes, algebra quizzes and lunchroom bullies.
| 24.961538 | 1 | 52 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031401550.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031401550.html
|
A Novel Take on an Ending
|
2008031519
|
Back when I was teaching fiction writing, I used to pitch my students, especially the beginners, on complexity. They seemed to think that readers would be attracted to their characters' virtue and would recognize shared humanity in their strength and courage; I argued -- perversely they thought -- that unrelenting virtue is not just unrealistic but uninteresting.
Gatsby, I reminded them, is a damned fool who falls in love with a woman unworthy of his affection. Because he's blind, he does everything wrong, and we sympathize because we, too, have been blind and done things wrong. Granted, Huck Finn is an innocent, uncorrupted (as yet) by a depraved world, but he's never more interesting than when he's convinced of his own depravity. We like him right from the start, but when he says, "Okay, I'll go to hell" -- that's when we fall in love.
For most people, mine is a losing argument, and one night recently, as I stayed up watching television coverage of Eliot Spitzer's disgrace, I found myself losing it all over again as the media turned a complex drama into a simple story line: Now that he's no longer their unsullied white knight, Spitzer must be a complete hypocrite. Later, I lay awake in the dark thinking about how a novel about Eliot Spitzer might go and what kind of novel it would be.
My fictional Eliot would be complex, would contain paradoxes. He would not be a hypocrite. My Eliot would believe with his whole heart in his crusades against the corrupt and the powerful and the privileged, even as he worked studiously to undermine his legacy. Fiction can accommodate such paradoxes, provided they're explained.
But I don't mean to jigger the facts; fictive Eliot will do exactly what the real Eliot has done, only my guy almost never imagines getting caught. And when he does occasionally consider the possibility, he trusts that there will be ample warning that disaster is imminent. For the most part, things in his life have happened slowly, especially the good things, and he trusts that bad things will evolve similarly. He will swerve at the last moment. The possibility of a head-on collision, swift and devastating, simply never occurs to him.
Even worse, though he knows that the world doesn't work this way, he convinces himself that if he's caught, people will treat him fairly. Sure, he has shamed himself, but he's done a lot of good things, too, and people will remember that. He has always employed a kind of moral arithmetic, and he'll expect that same math to be applied to him -- all his virtues set up on one side of the ledger, his one weakness on the other. People will understand that he's mostly good. By the time my Eliot realizes that he's wrong about all this, it's too late. The damage is done. He has betrayed his wife, his children, his best self, and it's all his fault.
Okay, that's my thumbnail fictional Eliot; a little thin, and maybe I like him too much. Not giving his nasty, righteous streak enough play. It's possible I'm giving him more credit than God would, but then God has the advantage of knowing what Eliot and I are still trying to figure out. I'll learn more as I write, but there are other characters to consider.
First, Eliot's wife -- and here I sense a mystery even deeper than the mystery of Eliot himself. Why does she stand there beside him at the podium when he confesses? Why do they all? I feel uniquely unqualified to look inside her heart, to ferret out her motives. I make a list of what I know (not much) and what I suspect (not much more) and wonder whether imagination will fill in all those blanks. I'm relatively certain of one thing: It's not this woman's fault. I won't portray her as frigid or otherwise complicit in what has transpired. She hasn't driven Eliot to any of this. I don't believe in perfection, but I've decided for the time being that she's been a good wife, a good mother.
What I know about marriage is that identities over time tend to merge. Eliot's wife was once her own person, but down the years she's lost some of that individuality, surrendered it willingly, never suspecting she might have further use for it. If she's not this man's wife, then who is she? Worse, can she abandon her husband without implying that her daughters should do the same to their father? And what was that promise that she made? For better or for worse? Did she mean that or just say it? How could it be that she was able to imagine the better so vividly, the worse not at all? Was that his fault for leaving so few clues, or hers for ignoring the few there were? The facts of her situation are simple and clear. Why aren't her emotions? Why won't they stand still so she can examine them?
And what of those daughters? This is the hardest part for my Eliot. What really tears him apart is that when the news breaks, these girls are going to have to go to school. He sees them in his mind's eye now and can think of little else. Sees them alone and isolated, all the other kids talking about them, growing silent when his girls walk into the room. This won't go on forever, but to them it will seem like forever. Eliot also fears that he's done them long-term damage. Some of it can be repaired. They're good, smart girls, and they won't grow up hating all men. But their innocence has fled; they look at him now like a man wearing a partially removed disguise. Never again will they take anything on faith. They will be cautious in the living of their lives, taking nothing at face value. They'll brace for impact when there's no reason. He could have spared them all this, yet managed not to.
The novel's getting pretty dark, and that worries me. Time for a little comic relief. Real-life Eliot has few friends, we're told, the natural result of what some people like to call his arrogance, though my Eliot has never thought of it in those terms until now. Arrogant? He'd simply tried to put criminals in jail where they belonged. Wasn't that his job? Is that any reason he should be friendless now? So I'll give my Eliot one friend, someone to help him put what he's done into perspective. I'll give this friend some of my own cynical humor. Ah, what the hell, I'll give him my name. Call him Rick. I can change that later with a keystroke.
Before everything begins to unravel, Eliot confides to Rick that he's made a mess of things, betrayed everyone he loves, that he isn't even sure who he is anymore. But Rick will tell him not to be melodramatic. It's true that he's made mistakes, big ones, Rick explains, but they aren't what Eliot thinks they are. Rick admits he's outraged that Eliot has spent $80,000 on prostitutes, because it shouldn't cost that much to get a little action in America. It's like one of those $500 Pentagon hammers. Downright wasteful. And why order a hammer from New Jersey and pay the shipping? There are perfectly good hammers in Washington -- it's a damned city of hammers, when you think about it. Where on earth did Eliot get the idea that New Jersey hammers were superior? All he wanted to do was nail something, right?
|
How would a novel about Eliot Spitzer go and what kind of novel would it would be?
| 85.166667 | 1 | 4.111111 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703050.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703050.html
|
Tom Ricks's Inbox
|
2008031519
|
Almost two years ago, six Army generals denounced the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq conflict. Their protest, known in military circles as the "revolt of the generals," raised eyebrows at the time but may have started the process that led to the more effective strategy pursued by Gen. David H. Petraeus over the past year.
More recently, retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in Iraq for a year after the 2003 invasion, accused the Bush administration of going to war with a "catastrophically flawed" plan and warned that the United States is "living a nightmare with no end in sight." He also denounced the troop "surge," which was then just beginning, as "a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."
Here, in an essay released recently by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, retired Army Col. Don M. Snider tries to formulate some rules of the road for such dissents -- an especially interesting effort because it has now become routine for presidential candidates to compete for the endorsements of retired generals.
(a) Gravity of the Issue: . . . Logically, the higher the stakes, the greater the temptation and justification will be for dissenters to speak out. . . .
(b) Relevance of professional knowledge and expertise to the issue in question. . . . In other words, why should the dissenter be listened to? . . .
(c) Sacrifice incurred by the individual for taking the action. . . . For a true professional, a right understanding of one's loyalties always places loyalty to self dead last. Thus, absent personal sacrifice, such dissent quickly leads to suspicion and the search for ulterior motives . . . .
(d) Timing of the Act of Dissent. . . . If something is worthy of an act of dissent, then it is worthy. Thus, as soon as that is discerned and decided by the strategic leader, the act should follow immediately. Any separation of months or years between the cause and the act is grounds, again, for suspicion of lack of moral agency and for a search for ulterior motives. . . .
(e) Authenticity as a leader. . . . Disillusionment occurs in junior officers and noncommissioned officers when they discover that strategic leaders who have exhorted them on in combat turn out to have been opposed to the war for some time, or when they learn that they have risked their lives and those of their subordinates for a cause in which their leaders did not believe, even as they led. . . . Thus, the possibility of fomenting cynicism and the consequent exodus of younger professionals should always figure quite prominently in the calculation of those contemplating dissent.
I was especially struck by Snider's items (c) and (d), which hadn't occurred to me before. But I disagree with (e), because I've found that a greater cause of cynicism among younger soldiers is generals who don't tell the truth as they see it.
Tom Ricks is The Post's military correspondent. This feature aims to give readers a snapshot of the conversations about Iraq, Afghanistan and other matters that play out in Ricks's e-mail inbox. Have an interesting document? Send it to TheInbox@washpost.com
|
When is it legitimate for a general, whether retired or on active duty, to criticize a war?
| 32.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/03/the_spell_of_islamophobia.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/03/the_spell_of_islamophobia.html
|
The Spell of Islamophobia
|
2008031519
|
A few weeks ago, I was on Radio Times, the mid-morning talk show on Philadelphia Public Radio. My colleague at work, Stephanie, used to live in Philadelphia and raved about the high level of conversation on the show.
Marty Moss-Coane was a fantastic interviewer â informed, funny, and genuinely curious. I enjoyed our conversation immensely.
I spoke about how Muslim history and theology support religious pluralism. I talked about many of my Muslim heroes, scholars and activists like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir who have articulated visions of a world where people from different backgrounds come together in positive ways. I described my book, Acts of Faith, which tells my story of how the discovery of my Muslim identity inspired me to start the Interfaith Youth Core.
The phones started ringing off the hooks.
The callers basically had two questions: âWhy donât Muslims condemn terrorism?â And, âWhere are the moderate Muslim voices?"
One caller said, âI was raised a Catholic and we were taught love and acceptance. You were raised a Muslim ⦠and you were taught hatred which leads to violence.â
The producer said there were several other callers from different religious backgrounds with basically the same format question.
I answered each question pretty directly. I effectively said there are many moderate Muslim voices. You just heard one of them â mine â speak for about thirty minutes. Instead of continuing to ask that question, please tell your friends about me. I cited several other such voices.
I expanded on many of the points that I had made in the initial conversation with Marty Moss-Coane â that the dominant ethos of Islam tends towards compassion and pluralism, values that Islam shares with other traditions.
But I admit, there was a little voice inside my head that wanted to say to some of these callers, âDonât you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio? Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits? Isnât that a little like knowing nothing more about the United States Constitution than the clause which states black people only count as three-fifths of a human beingâ.
Whenever Iâm on the radio or on television or giving a public talk about Islam and peace, I always get a bunch of questions from people who only associate two things with Islam â violence, and the absence of Muslims protesting violence.
It's like they were intentionally tuning out everything I said, even though they came to hear me speak.
I am convinced that if I got up on stage and did nothing but list the names of Muslim leaders I know who have very publicly condemned terrorism (check out the Not in the Name of Islam campaign, signed by 700,000 people and only one small example of Muslims condemning terrorism), people would still ask me âWhy donât Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?â
So hereâs my new theory on this. There has been a spell cast on certain portions of America. Whenever they see a Muslim speaking â it doesnât matter whether the talk is about gardens or finance or peace â they fall into a hypnotic state and can only ask two questions: âWhere are the moderate Muslims?â and âWhy donât Muslims condemn terrorism?â
Anybody know who cast the spell?
And how do we neutralize it so that these good folks can be the reasonable, intelligent and compassionate people with Muslims that they are in the other parts of their lives?
|
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.
| 15.227273 | 0.545455 | 0.636364 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/03/impotency_and_afghan_taboo.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/03/impotency_and_afghan_taboo.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008031519
|
One of the many unique things about Farid, the subject of this video, is his openness about his impotency. He was diagnosed within the first few months of his marriage. In other households, the issue would be hushed up and the woman would often be blamed for this state of affairs, allowing the man to hastily divorce or take another wife. Not so with Farid. He chose to tackle the issue head-on.
The subject of male impotency is rarely, if ever, discussed in the Middle East. The taboo operates on many different levels: it challenges the roles of men as all-powerful providers, of women as passive child-bearers, and of children as the sole purpose of wedlock.
This video looks at Faridâs long, painful and at times extraordinary journey to find a cure. Farid has tried everything from Western-style medicine in Pakistan to more traditional and esoteric forms of Islamic healing that are fused with older, Shamanic beliefs. This later cure involves the laying on of hands and recitation of verses from the Koran, along with the use of ritual objects and tokens (resembling some Christian faith-based cures). âIâm not ashamed about this problem that I have,â said Farid, a guard at Western NGO in Kabul, where I met him. âItâs Godâs will that I have this, and it will be by Godâs grace that I find a cure.â
Farid is also driven by a desire to keep his wife of the past four years, whom he says he loves dearly. The flip side of male domination in the Muslim world is that if he cannot perform his conjugal duties, and the wife succeeds in publicizing this fact, he will face a humiliating divorce. Farid has pre-empted that possiblity through his openness about the problem, but if he doesnât find a suitable solution, his wife will face tremendous pressure from her family to leave him and find a husband who can provide her with children.
If that happens â inevitable, according to Farid â the best he can hope for is to marry a widow and raise her children. âBut I havenât given hope just yet of having [my own] children,â he says.
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 24.941176 | 0.294118 | 0.294118 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031401617.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031401617.html
|
Fed Comes To Rescue As Wall St. Giant Slips
|
2008031519
|
The Fed used a little-known power it last exercised in the 1960s to stem a run on Bear Stearns that could have sent multibillion-dollar losses cascading across the world financial system, causing more failures on Wall Street and threatening to choke off global economic growth.
The Fed's action, arranged in a series of pre-dawn deliberations yesterday, is one of the most significant government efforts to save a private firm in modern times. The nearest parallels are the New York Fed-engineered buyout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and the bailout of Continental Illinois Bank in 1984.
Critics characterized the Fed's move as a bailout that inappropriately intrudes on the free market and could lead banks to keep taking risks like those that imperiled Bear Stearns. Other analysts said the action was necessary, given the precarious state of world financial markets.
"We're on a knife's edge," said Eugene White, an economics professor at Rutgers University who studies financial crises. "The danger is if people's confidence is lost in a place like Bear Stearns, no one will lend to anybody."
But while the Fed may have contained the immediate crisis, the move reinforced widening anxiety over the health of other banks and investment funds exposed to the credit meltdown. Markets tumbled in the hours after the funding plan was announced, with the Dow Jones industrial average finishing the day down 1.60 percent, or nearly 195 points.
Bear Stearns struggled to manage a flood of calls from clients who were trying to redeem their investments. Its stock fell more than 47 percent.
The firm is actively shopping itself to other big Wall Street firms and has scheduled high-level talks over the weekend, said a company official with knowledge of the matter. Bear is also open to selling major divisions to raise cash, the official said. J.P. Morgan Chase, which played a crucial role in yesterday's cash infusion, is a possible suitor.
As Bear's troubles deepened in recent months, it increasingly turned to overnight loans. But on Wednesday and Thursday, its lenders lost faith, and many refused to lend it any more money. That set off a frantic search for cash, including negotiations between executives of Bear and other Wall Street titans.
In the middle of the night, Bear and J.P. Morgan struck a deal. Bear would be willing to put up some of its assets as collateral in exchange for cash from the Fed. The transaction would be routed through J.P. Morgan, which, as a commercial bank, has access to the Fed's discount window. That would give Bear time to raise financing through the private sector.
"What this is is a bridge to more-permanent solutions," Bear Stearns chief executive Alan D. Schwartz said during a conference call yesterday afternoon.
But the deal still needed the Fed's approval. In a series of conference calls from about 3 till 7 a.m., leaders of the central bank discussed whether to exercise an authority granted the Fed in the 1930s -- and not used in four decades -- to approve the loan to Bear Stearns.
|
The Federal Reserve took the extraordinary step yesterday of providing emergency funding to one of Wall Street's venerable firms, Bear Stearns, after it ran out of cash to repay its lenders.
| 17.085714 | 0.685714 | 0.971429 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html
|
House Passes a Surveillance Bill Not to Bush's Liking
|
2008031519
|
A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening an impasse on a fundamental national security issue.
Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.
The legislation, approved 213 to 197, would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to expand the powers of intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on terrorism and spying suspects and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.
But it would challenge the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by requiring upfront court approval of most wiretaps, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal immunity for past actions by phone companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and are now facing about 40 lawsuits that allege they breached customers' privacy rights.
Instead of granting the firms immunity, as the Senate bill would, the measure would send the issue to a secure federal court and give the companies the right to argue their case using information the administration has deemed to be state secrets.
The House's action ensures that Bush will not receive any surveillance legislation for weeks -- if ever. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the vote "a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism."
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) tried to put the ball in Bush's court, however, saying: "Now is the time for Republicans to come to the negotiating table."
Lawmakers from both parties said the gulf between the administration and House Democratic leaders is now so wide that the issue may not be resolved until a new president takes office next year. Bush, who has threatened to veto the House measure, and Republicans have shown no desire to move further toward the Democrats' position, and Democratic leaders show no sign of buckling under continuous political pressure.
"I'm very uncomfortable with an issue of this importance entering such a political realm, but I don't see us pulling it out of this mess either," said Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a swing-district freshman who shrugged off a barrage of advertisements that accused him of jeopardizing national security.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, such showdowns have followed a predictable path: After some protests, Democrats have given in to White House demands, fearing the political fallout as Bush hammered them for allegedly endangering American lives.
Last month, the Senate appeared to follow that script when it passed, with bipartisan support, a surveillance bill to Bush's liking after turning back the efforts of some Democrats to strip out the immunity provision and strengthen privacy protections.
|
A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation yesterday, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for their cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening an impasse on a...
| 12.930233 | 0.976744 | 41.023256 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_friday_line_the_general_el.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_friday_line_the_general_el.html
|
The Friday Line: Which States Will Flip in 2008?
|
2008031519
|
One of the major disagreements between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) is which of the two can more effectively broaden the general election playing field.
Clinton's campaign points to polling in Florida, Arkansas and Ohio that shows her running close to or ahead of Sen. John McCain(Ariz.); Obama's campaign makes the same argument for Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina and even ruby red Kansas.
Welcome to the newest Fix Line where we try to answer just that question. Once a month -- in between ranking the top House and Senate races as well as handicapping the Veepstakes, we'll consider the ten states most likely to switch from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa) in the presidential election this fall.
Obviously, this Line -- like all the others -- is fluid and will change as events unfold. The state ranked number one today, meaning it is the most likely to switch from red to blue or blue to red in November, might fall far down the Line by the time the air grows crisp and the Catholic University field hockey season starts.
In other words, stay tuned. The Presidential Playing Field is meant as a conversation-starter not a conversation-ender -- so get to it in the comments section below.
Roll over a state to see its 2004 presidential election result.
10. Missouri (Bush, 53 percent in 2004): The Show-Me State is one of the truest election barometers out there. Only once in the last 100 plus years has Missouri gone for a candidate who did not ultimately win the White House. Democrats seemed to be on the decline in the early part of the decade as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) pulled out of the state in 2004 under the belief he couldn't win. (He lost to President Bush 53 percent to 46 percent.) But, since that election Democrats are on the move in the state -- typified by Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D) win over Jim Talent in 2006. The state is still conservative-minded on most social issues, however, which could make it something of a longshot for either Obama or Clinton.
9. Minnesota (Kerry, 51 percent): Most people think of Minnesota as a dyed-in-the-wool blue state, but Kerry carried it by only three points in 2004. Democrats blew the doors off Republicans in the Gopher State in 2006 by taking an open Senate seat and winning an upset victory in the 1st congressional district. The wildcard here, of course, is Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) who is almost certain to be in the final pool of potential vice presidential picks for McCain. If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line.
8. Florida (Bush, 52 percent): Heading into the 2004 election, it was assumed that Florida would be THE battleground between Bush and Kerry, as it was for Bush and then vice president Al Gore in 2000. The Sunshine State race wound up not being all that close; Bush took 52 percent and a winning vote margin of nearly 300,000. Since then Republicans have elected Charlie Crist governor -- another of the great-mentioned when it comes to McCain's veep. Our guess it that Florida in 2008 looks more like 2000 than 2004 -- especially if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
7. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent): In the 2006 election, New Hampshire was the epicenter of the rejection of Republican rule in Washington. Voters threw out both House Republican incumbents and re-elected the state's Democratic governor with 74 percent of the vote. In this election cycle, Democrats have their sights clearly set on Sen. John Sununu (R). And yet, it's hard to imagine this state not being competitive at the presidential level with McCain as the GOP nominee; Granite State voters created McCain in 2000 and saved him eight years later. There is real affinity there and, given the close result in 2004, the state is almost certainly in play.
6. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): Just four years ago, you would have been laughed at by mentioning Virginia as a potential swing state in the general election. After all, the Commonwealth hasn't gone for a Democrat at the presidential level since Lyndon Johnson way back in 1964. But, the election of Mark Warner (D) as governor in 2001, which once looked like just a blip on the Republican radar, has turned into the seminal moment for the Democratic comeback in the state. Gov. Tim Kaine's (D) win in 2005 followed by Sen. Jim Webb's (D) upset victory in 2006 gave Democrats reason to believe again. The massive growth of the northern Virginia suburbs and the area's increasing Democratic lean makes Virginia truly a toss up. McCain's military background could well help him in the Hampton Roads area, but, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the Commonwealth's 19 percent black population could also make a major difference.
5. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent): If Ohio in 2004 was the Florida of 2000, what will be the Ohio of 2008? The 2006 election was an absolute disaster for the state Republican Party as they lost the governor's mansion (badly) and watched as Sen. Mike DeWine (R) was defeated. Ohio Republicans now hold just one of the six statewide offices. While the disaster that is the Ohio GOP at the moment makes it very tough for them to win statewide races, McCain and the Republican National Committee will fund and build their voter identification and get out the vote effort. This is going to be a really good one.
4. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent): No state in the country has changed as fast as Colorado. Since 2004, Democrats have won an open Senate seat, the governorship and two U.S. House seats. The progressive movement in Colorado is as active, well funded, and ready to make a major push to turn the state blue in November. Registered Republicans still outnumber registered Democrats, but unaffiliated voters are a large and growing segment. McCain's ties to the west should help his cause but Colorado looks like it's moving in the opposite direction.
3. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent): Every four years the presidential campaign arrives in Nevada and finds an almost entirely new state. Nevada is one of the fastest growing states in the Union, with people from all over the country moving in -- most of them to Clark County (Las Vegas). As a result of the ever-changing electorate, it's tough to predict what November will hold for the two parties. But, the growing Latino population in the state should make Nevada a major target for Democrats. And don't forget that the state held a very high-profile presidential caucus in January -- a process that led to massive amounts of money spent by both Clinton and Obama on voter identification efforts. That investment should pay off in the fall.
2. New Mexico (Bush, 50 percent): President Bush won the state by less than 6,000 votes in 2004, a margin that looks like a landslide when compared to Gore's 365-vote victory in the state four years earlier. Gov. Bill Richardson (D) is one of the most politically savvy governors in the country and will make sure the party's get-out-the-vote apparatus is in tip-top shape for both the presidential election and the open seat vacated by Sen. Pete Domenici (R). Democrats enjoyed a 50 percent to 33 percent registration edge over Republicans at the start of the year; that is a considerable head start heading into November.
1. Iowa (Bush, 50 percent): The millions spent by the Democratic presidential campaigns in advance of the state's Jan. 3 caucus should give a HUGE boost to their party's chances in the general election. And never forget -- because Iowa voters won't -- that McCain skipped the state entirely during the 2000 nomination fight and campaigned only sparingly there in 2007 and 2008. Iowans take their place in picking the nominee very seriously and many aren't likely to forgive McCain for his blasphemy.
By Chris Cillizza | March 14, 2008; 6:00 AM ET | Category: The Line Previous: Wag the Blog: What to Do About Florida? | Next: FixCam: Choose Your Own (North Carolina) Adventure
Add The Fix to Your Site
Yes, I believe that Obama would have a harder time winning California aginst McCain than Clinton.
Plain argument everyone is talking about is: John Kerry won California against Bush. Why not Obama? Obama is not running against Bush. He is running against McCain. If Obama is the nominee, we will hear California moving from likely to toss-up column in November election. Washington politicians (including Obama/Dasshle) have no clue about California mystery . They have elected more Republican Governors than Democratic Governors in last 36 years. They have not elected any black candidate in state wide election in couple of decades now. Who is John McCain for California? He represents as a default US Senator for California republicans since Pete Wilson. Traditionally Senator McCain has done very well among latino voters in Arizona. California latino voters are very similar to Arizona voters. In fact, they move around a lot and they have all kinds of families between Arizona and California. They are also familiar with McCain immigration plans.
Biggest prize Senator McCain has in California is his Big Enchiladas endorsement from non other than Governor "The Terminator". Governor Arnold is still extremely popular in California, also among latino voters. In fact, Governor Arnold received more latino votes than Democrat Senator Feinstein in last election.
If Senator McCain wants to carry California in November election, he needs to get campaign ROLODEX from Governor Arnold and move his campaign headquarter to San Bernardino, California. That's where winning campaign begins for Senator McCain and bye bye for Senator Obama (if he is the nominee).
California voters will trust McCain more than Obama. Obama will loose California in November election.
Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 14, 2008 06:57 AM
Have to say Chris from what I've read MN looks more likely to stay blue. You have a very good chance of Franken winning the Senate race and last years bridge accident hanging over Pawlenty, maybe not enough to lose a VP slot but McShame has many other choices.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 06:58 AM
A couple of notes about Virginia. D turnout will be at its maximum, thanks to at least three US House seats that could flip from R to D, competitive D's running in the other 8 seats, Mark Warner's run, and some local stuff relating to transportation spending that the R's are to blame for.
I don't know about R voters. The Marshall/Gilmore primary promises to be a barnburner, the anti-immigrant forces have to be disappointed with McCain, and it looks like we won't have a gay-bashing measure on the ballot this time.
If you look at the returns from the Drake/Kellam race in VA-2 from '06 and then the General Assembly returns in Hampton Roads from last year, it's pretty clear that military voters are no longer reliable R's. In fact, they're getting to be downright swingy. McCain will likely not get anywhere close to the totals from active-duty voters that Bush did in '00 and '04.
So, long story short, Virginia looks pretty good for Obama this fall. It might be time to start thinking of the commonwealth as a bluish shade of purple.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 07:36 AM
I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about West Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan flipping. With Michigan, there's the delegate problem for the Dems and McCain performed quite well there this year and in 2000. North Carolina is probably the most progressive Southern state as a whole, which Obama could put in play. West Virginia has a ton of Reagan Democrats, which Clinton could appeal to. And Wisconsin is simply a state that is more purple than blue.
Posted by: theseventen | March 14, 2008 07:44 AM
What about Arkansas? I would think it would be a, if not the, top candidate if HRC is the Democratic nominee.
I think Michigan might be a good candidate for a switch - because the economy is tanking and the state is dominated by Democrats. North Carolina probably not. While its state politics are fairly progressive, Republicans dominate in federal elections. I would say Edwards' win there was a fluke (and a narrow, 51-48 one at that). Barring Edwards, Republicans have won statewide at the Republican level - consistently and comfortably - since 1986, when Democrat Terry Sanford won his Senate seat there.
YesWeCanForFREE - I don't buy your argument. If having lots of Republican governors was any indicator whatsoever of Presidential leanings, then states like West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky would become swing states too, because they only rarely elect Republican governors; and Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, which have tended to elect more Republicans than Democrats recently, would be possible red states. I think we know that is not the case.
In addition, California's large hispanic bloc is hardly a sure bet for McCain. Bush was also supposedly popular with Hispanics - getting a higher percentage of them nationwide than any Republican before him - and also has never been far-right on immigration. Despite this, Bush lost California by a large margin in 2004. I don't see how McCain can substantially improve upon Bush's showing.
Finally, the counterexamples to the neighboring-state argument are too numerous to count. George W. Bush lost New Mexico; Clinton lost Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi while Dole was losing Missouri; and Al Gore even lost his home state (and all neighboring states). Finally Michael Dukakis lost Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine by large margins. I think McCain's proximity to California might matter if California were a 50-50 state, but there is no evidence that it is even close.
Posted by: jmd87 | March 14, 2008 07:55 AM
Why even ask the question, everyone knows that all of America is Obama Nation.
Posted by: kl305 | March 14, 2008 07:58 AM
I just have to look at the Google stats and web page hits to see that the race is actually closer than ever (Add in "specific states by clicking on the charts);
Hillary vs. Barack: The Google Factor...
The problem for Hillary is at this point, is that she is so far behind in delegates that she will need 20+ point wins in most all remaining primaries...
Posted by: davidmwe | March 14, 2008 08:01 AM
As I've already posted, all Hillary has to do is win 3 states, to put the vote up to the Super Heroes. That's why the Obama camp doesn't want the votes counted.
There's a NYTimes article this am,What do Hillary R. Clinton's big state victories mean about racial divide? Maybe the more applicable question to ask is why is Barack only winning red states, many with black only populations?
Instead of talking about Obama's pastor or his Rezko ties, the NYtimes is talking about his free spirited, wandering mother.
So much for the media adoration and coronation....
Again, Obama will not win, so no one has to worry about him losing all the BLUE states Hillary has already won.
Get with the program Obama Camp....the USA is not ready for this Black Candidate for Pres
Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 08:12 AM
Posted by: PollM | March 14, 2008 08:14 AM
Everyone is assuming Obama is going to win. What a laugh. Based on Hillary winnning: If Romney is on the ticket as VP that could improve things for McCain since the entire party of ultras don't want him; Hillary could take all except CO, MO and Virginia.
If Edwards becomes Hillary VP which would be his smartest move, because he is young and could eventually run for P, than her stock goes up again in all the red and southern states Obama won. That's the plan. It's why Edwards is so quiet.
Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 08:21 AM
It benefits Hillary, the closer we get.
Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 08:23 AM
Lot's of possibilities that Chris did not mention depending on who the candidates are, but I agree with the above poster that takes Minn off of the list. I would also add Mo and Ohio to the no go list. If Clinton is the nominee, I think she would have a good to excellent chance in Arkansas and West Va. For Obama, Va approaches a lock and as a sleeper, I think Indiana could flip, with a massive turnout in the chronically underperforming NW part of the state...Jackie
Posted by: rfowler2 | March 14, 2008 08:24 AM
"Obama is attempting to crack open Pennsylvania's closed party primary, initiating a program to flip the registrations of independent and Republican voters to Democrat."
This is how Obama has won so far. Common sense tells you that is not going to fly in a National election. Those Republicans will vote Republican.
This says alot about Hillary's BLUE state wins and why Obama is ahead, because he has sermonized and hocus pocused his way through this race...
Posted by: vammap | March 14, 2008 08:30 AM
1. "The Democratic presidential primary race is essentially tied."
Obama has a 5% lead in delegates. In the general election a 52% - 47% win is not anything to sneeze at. [If you are George Bush, a 50% - 49.2% loss is not bad as long as a politicized Supreme Court is looking out for you.]
2. "Obama cannot win big states because Clinton beat him in them."
X beats Y in the primaries. This says nothing about how X or Y might fare against Z in the general election. For example, McCain is not necessarily going to win CA and NY or even OH. It depends on how the voters see him against the Democratic nominee at the time they start paying attention to presidential politics -- about 2 weeks from the election day.
3. "In every political conflict, both sides are equally right and equally wrong -- always."
Not really. [Why? The laws of probabilities strongly suggest such an even outcome is highly unlikely.] The journalistic adherence to this false evenhandedness has done incalculable damage to the good guys and has proven a boon to the bad guys.
Posted by: hollywoodog | March 14, 2008 08:41 AM
PollM, here's the question you need to be asking:
Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 08:42 AM
These speculations are a lot of fun but totally meaningless. In this violent world, a single event can turn the election in an instant. As we all remember, four years ago it merely took a TV spot by Osama bin Laden on the night before the election, and Kerry was toast.
Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 14, 2008 08:45 AM
Chris, how about adding the number of electoral votes in brackets after each state, which will help us neophytes understand the relative importance of each of the states?
Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | March 14, 2008 08:46 AM
I can't see a single reason why any blue state should turn red, when 80% of the country thinks we're 'moving in the wrong direction...'
And when we remain bogged and deadlocked in a deadly war on the Iraqi people... oh the useless press -- 'possible doubt'. can you say 'the surge is not working'? it was supposed to be OVER by now and all the extra troops back home. they aren't. it was designed to help the Iraqi govenment achieve certain benchmarks by a certai time. they haven't. in other words, all we have done is spend more money and lives to achieve nothing that we can point to. violence is up again, even with the extra troops. we could go on like this forever. and probably will, until no one will loan us any more money.
'In a sign of possible doubt about the success of the surge, Gen. Petraeus has told the Washington Post that "no one" in the American or Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 08:46 AM
vammap, I think you've made your point by now.
drindl, Relating to the "blue flipping red" question, one thing to remember is the old adage that "all politics is local". Especially if this election turns more on domestic issues than 2004, local conditions and personalities can have an impact.
All, An interesting site that looks at this stuff is here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
The site does blocks of 5000 simulated runs based on polls, statistical analysis, past performance, etc, as explained in the FAQs. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is interesting reading.
Posted by: J | March 14, 2008 08:58 AM
"Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?"
Ron Paul v. B. Hussein Obama for most annoying supporters.
I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope".
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 08:59 AM
"If Edwards becomes Hillary VP which would be his smartest move, because he is young and could eventually run for P,"
Not only does Edwards add NOTHING to the ticket (come on, another do-nothing SENATOR?),
How many decades can one man "run for P"? Isn't 1 enough?
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 09:00 AM
Oh, good one, USMC_Mike. Your commitment to recycling is admirable.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 09:08 AM
If I'm doing the math right - if the top three states on the line flip, and nothing else changes, it is a 269-269 tie. Is that likely? No. But it shows an electoral tie can happen in very plausible set of assumptions. There should be a requirement that the number of EV's is odd.
Posted by: dh67956 | March 14, 2008 09:09 AM
Don't make an argument novamatt, readers might have a heart attack. Just stick to the playbook.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 09:11 AM
For whatever it is worth, herewith is The Fixes list and a new meaningless metric, the Party Enthusiasm Quotient, which is the Party vote total in the primary divided by the Party vote for President in 2004.
Missouri 654 404 Minnesota 147 46 Florida 481 485 New Hampshire 844 720 Virginia 673 284 Ohio 811 371 Colorado 118 50 Nevada 26 105 New Mexico Iowa 3 157
Note that since Iowa held completely incomparable contests, its results don't mean much. Nevada was also a state where the two types of caucusing aren't comparable. Florida, where the Dems were doing it just for the practice still almost has more Dem enthusiasm than Rep. When New Mexico Republicans vote we can complete this table.
Using the EC's the top ten states to switch are: (1 to ten)
Mississippi Texas North Dakota Louisiana Kansas Virginia Tennessee South Carolina Oklahoma Ohio
Mississippi had a 4 to 1 ratio of Democratic EQ to Republican EQ. Probably due to the fact that the Republican race was over and the democratic race wasn't. Texas has a ratio of 3 to the democratic side.
My current calculation is Dems take 435 Electoral votes., regardless of candidate.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 09:13 AM
Chris, I second the suggestion that you include electoral vote totals next to each state so we can add or subtract those we agree might flip. Also, what about Pennsylvania? Some polls have shown McCain ahead there.
Posted by: jane.lockhart | March 14, 2008 09:16 AM
'President Bush let his inner adventurer out while discussing the state of the war in Afghanistan with military and civilian personnel. While those in Afghanistan detailed the logistical and diplomatic problems via teleconference, the President took a much more whimsical approach to their mission. Via Reuters:
"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.
"envious'? Oh my God. Has there ever been a bigger as*hole than this pathetic simian? Has a stupider creature ever cursed the ground he walked on?
Funny how when he had his chance to fight, to have a 'fantastic experience' he peed in his pants, ran from it like a little girl. He went AWOL, deserted, ran and hid under Daddy's bed.
How frightening it is to have a man this childish and delusional as president--christ.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 09:18 AM
"Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?"
Ron Paul v. B. Hussein Obama for most annoying supporters.
I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope".
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 08:59 AM ------------------- Good one. I'll vote if he gets the nomination but his supporters are the worse. Then again so are his attackers.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 09:19 AM
not content just on screwing the rest of the country the NRCC decides to screw itself--republican corruption and incompetence, the gift that keeps on gving:
'The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.
For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.
"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.[...]
The magnitude of the alleged fraud staggered Republicans, who are bracing for the final accounting from the forensic audit in six to eight weeks. Many said they expect a total far greater than the minimum cited yesterday.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 09:25 AM
Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 14, 2008 09:26 AM
I concur with mark in austin... thank you. Please submit to the Democratic superdelegates. Let them see how important Pennsylvania is.
Posted by: AB68 | March 14, 2008 09:29 AM
If you look on Rasmussen.org you will find out that a generic Democratic candidate holds a 247 to 229 advantage in th electoral college, with 62 votes from five states (among them Michigan) in the toss-up column.
Other polls quoted by Realclearpolitics.com give McCain a slight advantage in Pennsylvania.
Also, polls constantly put McCain at 5 to 9 points ahead of Clinton and Obama in Florida.
Do you notice all this in the present column? Have you read about Michigan or Pennsylvania among the potential flippers?
Nope. Somehow I am not surprised.
Posted by: petru.clej | March 14, 2008 09:33 AM
One has to wonder about this *judgement* that Obama says he has, when he puts Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a steering committe in his presidential campaign, and when he goes back to hear the same sermons for 20 years. This is the man whom the Obamas chose to marry them in the church and they chose him to baptise both of their daughters.
I question the judgement of someone who says they "deplore divisive rhetoric" and yet they go back to listen to this every week for 20 years! Then he put the pastor in a top committee role in his campaign. I seriously question the judgement of that.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 09:35 AM
"PollM, here's the question you need to be asking:
Who attracted the most annoying supporters: Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton?
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 08:42 AM
Posted by: newagent99 | March 14, 2008 09:35 AM
The magnitude of the alleged fraud staggered Republicans, who are bracing for the final accounting from the forensic audit in six to eight weeks. Many said they expect a total far greater than the minimum cited yesterday.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 09:25 AM -------------------- Here's Ward's backgound from today's NY Times. 'Mr. Ward was named treasurer of the national Republican committee in 2003 after serving for several years as an assistant treasurer. He had also been a partner in a political consulting firm, Political Compliance Services, that worked in 2004 on behalf of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group behind advertisements attacking the military record of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee.' These people are a class act.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 09:36 AM
Kerry lost Colorado in '04 in a very close election there b/c he did not do well with conservative hispanic voters in Pueblo and rural parts of the state. I was told that by the John Kerry hispanic communications director while working with her in Denver. JK blew out W in Denver with almost 71% of the progressive Democratic vote. Colorado Springs is likely uninspired by John McCain which was the other troubled area of the state, but I feel that the key to winning Colorodo this time is which candidate can turn out the hispanic voters including culturally conservative hispanics in Colo who make up a large part of that voting base in Colo where we did not fare well with in '04.Ted Strickland owes a good part of his political career to roads Bill Clinton delivered to him to save his congressional seat, and in '06 Bill raised millions for Governor Strickland in several major Cleveland fundraisers. Hillary is beloved in Shaker Hts. Whether Sen Obama can capture these same sources of support in 2 critical states is certainly open to debate b/c he too has his loyalist in Cleveland and certainly my second home Denver. Virginia seems like a no brainer for either, with Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine an enthusiastic Arlington democratic base the GOP needs to be very concerned about maintaining Va although McCain will certainly do well in the Norfolk area I would think. Would Tim Kaine support Hillary in the fall, I don't doubt it and correctly Mark Warner stayed on the sidelines during their primary but I see Virginia as the first secure new Democratic state in the fall regardless who the nominee is but obviously their young voters love B.O., and I believe the GOP and people like Congressman Davis reluctantly know they are now trouble in the southern state of Va.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 09:38 AM
LOL, that's funny! Do you think you're blatant bias has escaped anyone WaPo? Like any of those red states would vote for Obama. Give me a break. Primaries are not caucuses, and racism doesn't leave the Republican heart from a hand-holding churchy sing song. Obama will win nomination because press is shoving it down our throats, because a segment of guilty white America is enamored with the thought of having a black president, and because Obama is using mob tactics among his supporters to run a campaign off of white guilt. It will be Pesident McCain in January 2008.
Posted by: DPoniatowski | March 14, 2008 09:39 AM
The problem with the big state thesis put out by the Clinton camp (see vanmap) is that a democrat winning these states in a primary means nothing to the general. Vanmap's delusions aside, there is practically no way that big blue states like California, New York, or Illinois will go for a McCain-Bush ticket this year. You could have run a goldfish against Bush in those states in 2004, and it would have won. Those states are blue because they are reliably Democratic Party states, not because they are reliably Clinton states. More to the point, though, the big blue state argument misses a fundamental point - using it we have LOST the last two presidential elections. When you play for 271 delegates, then you allow the GOP to concentrate its resources picking up only one of your states, just as they did with Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Thus, Clinton's general election strategy (only win the big blues) is a proven loser. Obama can likely put more states in play, like NC, which means that even if he ends up losing them, he spreads out the GOP's resources and stands a greater chance of putting the GOP on the defensive, rather than offensive, in a money fight they cannot win.
Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 09:39 AM
I don't think the election is going to be close this year. Whoever wins will win by wide margins and take several "red" or "blue" states.
Posted by: cliffmerrell | March 14, 2008 09:44 AM
Don't make an argument novamatt, readers might have a heart attack. Just stick to the playbook.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 09:11 AM
Ha. The next big powerpoint presentation I have to make, might need to borrow you for your powers of projection.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 09:44 AM
What about ND? I know Clinton won't campaign there but with 3 of 4 statewide electeds being Democrats and Obama adopting Deans 50 state strategy, shouldn't ND be a candidate for switching?
Posted by: bfulton | March 14, 2008 09:44 AM
I think the number of Red states you list as up for grabs is flawed. No way Fl is in play if Obama gets the nomination. In addition, if anyone in the liberal media plays the tapes from Obama's racist Pastor, there could be many more Blue states in play in Nov.
Posted by: Atlanta1 | March 14, 2008 09:44 AM
1. Iowa: as CC said, done deal.
2. NM: agree on this one as well. The narrow margins in both 00 and 04 suggest that any type of strong national wind will win this state easily
3. NH: I know 06 was an utter disaster for NH R's, but for some reason they love McCain there (buy into the Bullsh*t express or something)
4. CO: the shift in this state has been remarkable, and Obama seems to do really well there
5. VA: each year, VA gets closer and closer to completely seceding from the Confederacy and the GOP...
6. Ohio: I'm not as slam-dunk on this one as CC. Yes, 06 was a tough year for the Reps, but it should have been much worse. More House Repubs survived than any one thought (Chabot, Pryce, Mean Jean). I think Obama will have difficulties in the OH-PA-NJ area unfortunately
7. MI: Like NH, another state that for some reason really likes McCain. Add Willard to the ticket, and I think McCain is really competitive there. (Just what that state needs economically--more years of Republican rule)
7. NE: I know, crazy. But I do think Obama has a great shot of picking up a CD or two in NE, and get some EV's under their odd system.
8. MO: Obama has a decent shot there, but as CC mentioned, there are a lot of social Moonies in the state, especially in the SW, that will make a win hard.
9. FL: I was really surprised by Bush's easy victory there in 04. And the state just seems to be getting redder. This state, along with AR, are the two states where I think Clinton would run significantly better than Obama.
10. PA: I'm from there, specifically the Philly suburbs which usually determines the outcome in the state, and McCain is very popular there, and as I mentioned with OH, I worry about these states coming around to a black candidate, quite frankly.
I'm not seeing the changes that CC mentions on NV and MN, although the ground game that the Dems built is a compelling argument. MN went back to solid blue in 06 (Pawlenty was clearly headed towards defeat when his lackluster Dem opponent imploded right before the election), and I don't think it's going to shift.
I'd also keep an eye on WI, OR and maybe WA for the Repubs, and WV for the Dems. I also think Alaska could stun everyone. They're finally waking up to how corrupt their Republicans are, and I think could break for Obama in a big way.
Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 09:45 AM
I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says.
There are some areas in the Bible that are not absolutely clear cut, and my pastor is human, too, but he usually gets it right.
If my pastor were preaching things that were clearly contrary to the Bible and contrary to what I observed in the world around me, I'd go find another church.
So it is that I have to wonder what Barak Obama is taking away from church services at his church for the last 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
According to an ABC News article, here's the kind of theology the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaches:
"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," he said in a 2003 sermon. "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."
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
"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," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
That is one of the most offensive comments I've ever heard, and as a military souse I'll tell you one thing - veterans of WWII and their fellow military memebers do not take kindly to being slandered in this fashion. Not only is it factually innaccurate, it is outrageous coming from someone standing at the pulpit.
I question the judgement of someone who would go back to hear more of that for 20 years and continue to put the offering in the plate for that kind of message.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 09:46 AM
"I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says."
Umm, I don't, because I'm not a mindless sheep...
Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 09:50 AM
ProudtobeGOP - keep at this tenuous link yourself. It's all you've got. At last count, McCain wasn't really a peachy-clean Christian. He cheated on his first wife numerous times, and married a woman 20 years his junior with whom he started an affair while married to his first wife. Isn't there a commandment about that?
Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 09:51 AM
And seriosly, Proud, is this left-wing rant about 9/11 any worse than the right-wing rant about 9/11? That it was God's "will" because of the gays, single mothers, brown people or whatever bull those deranged moonies like Robertson, Fawell, Hagee and MANY others were spewing on NATIONAL TELEVISION?
Not to mention McCain actually CAMPAIGNS with these jacka**es on the trail!
Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 09:53 AM
Uckeleg, Well your "mindless sheep" Obambi sat there for 20 years and nodded his head while listening to that pastor, and he the used his exceptional judgement to put him on a top spot in his steering committee for the presidential campaign.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 09:53 AM
I have looked at this data too and what i am seeing is the potential for much bigger shifts...there is polling that suggests that Clinton would lose Michigan and the pacific northwest states of Washington and Oregon, to McCain while picking up Arkansas and West Virginia...
there is also data that suggests that Obama would pick up all the states mentioned above, and North Dakota as well as 2 of the 5 votes in Nebraska due to the unique way they delegate their electoral college votes by congressional districts.
Posted by: bpphil | March 14, 2008 09:53 AM
What are Bush's job approval ratings in these states? If McCain is going to be running with such close ties to the current administration, he is inevitably going to find it difficult to run away from its failures. It is currently very difficult to compare the likely Democrat vs McCain as the Dems are still in the midst of their primary season while McCain is running the early part of his General campaign.
When Hillary finally gives up the ghost, and is forced by Democratic party elders to quit the race, provided she hasn't given Obama a bloody nose it is going to be one of the most interesting election campaigns of modern times, probably THE most interesting election of modern times. Contrasting Obama's fundraising, charisma and youth vs McCain's experience and character will provide the backdrop for the future of the USA. Engagement with the international community to salvage the reputation of the nation, or continuation of Bush's foreign policy, with all of its inherant flaws?
Clinton is the poison pill for all downticket Democrats in Red states. The sooner that the good people of Pennsylvania realise this, the sooner we can get on the offensive vs McCain. Until then he will bash away at both Clinton and Obama, end result = Dem's loose in 2008.
Posted by: pr8mrh | March 14, 2008 09:54 AM
oh please, proud. you ain't got a leg to stand on, when McCain has actively courted the support of several divisive, hateful, not to mention lunatic, quasi-religious fanatics whom he calls 'spiritual advisors' -- one who calls the catholic church 'the great wh*re' --oh here's the guy's [Hagee's] favorite joke, btw: Q. what's the difference between a woman and a snarling hyena? -- A. lipstick. McCain refuses to denounce him and still says he is 'honored' by his support.
and then there's Rod Parsley, another cheesy televangelist, who is begging and praying for the end of the world, for the US to attack Iran, to bring on a nuclear holocaust that will kill all humankind and cause the 'second coming.' McCain is honored by his support too.
'WASHINGTON - A group of Democratic members of Congress yesterday sought an explanation from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as to why the Pentagon allowed a top defense contractor in Iraq to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes for thousands of American workers by hiring them through two Cayman Island subsidiaries.
"The Pentagon needs to explain how our security is advanced by forming a coalition of the willing tax dodgers in the Cayman Islands," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 09:56 AM
I like North Dakota and South Dakota. It's always puzzled me why, with the same sort of demographics as rural Minnesota and Iowa, they tended to vote so heavily R in national elections and then send so many D's to Congress.
A pretty good case could be made too that Kansas might flip, especially if Obama chooses Sebelius as his running mate. The R party there has been thrashing around for a decade now in an epic struggle between moderates and the far right, and the D's have done a good job peeling off moderate voters, especially in and around the I-70 corridor from the KC suburbs to the Little Apple and in Wichita and Hutch.
Also, if you've been following the SUSA presidential approval numbers over the last few years, you know that Kansas was among the first of the ruby-red states to really turn decisively against Bush. Kansas, like the rest of the prairie midwest, is more populist than it is conservative, and the combination of moderate disdain in the suburbs and populist mistrust in the rural reaches could be bad for McCain. The right message and the right messengers, and Kansas could go blue.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 09:56 AM
Proud, he doesn't wear it on his sleeve or let it dictate his public policy positions, you know, like screwing around with Israel and the Middle East so that Jesus will fly down on his spaceship or whatever these lunatics believe when they refer to the "Rapture." Big difference.
Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 09:57 AM
Good luck getting Minnesota to turn red!
While it is true the demographics of state have shifted, and Bush did well here in 2004, Kerry won the state by 3pts while losing nationwide by 3pts.
If Obama cannot win Minnesota, chances are he didn't get 220 electoral votes.
Posted by: mnitaliano | March 14, 2008 09:58 AM
People are forgetting race and gender. There is a hidden "anti" vote in polls. If the two candidates are WASP's, then the polls are usually on the mark. But there will be a hidden anti-black vote and ant-women vote and for McCain an anti-elderly vote.
Obama who is the likely nominee has to know that he needs a 5 point cusion in polls to be secure about winning the general election. My bet is that mcCain wins based on white voters dumping Obama.
Posted by: Sjkarpov19 | March 14, 2008 09:59 AM
It is so way too early to ask this question. F or now I see more states going to McCain as independents turn away from Obama and Clinton for failed campaigns.
Maybe the cowardness of Obama and Clinton to take down Iowa when it would have matter is a good thing. It has allowed us to see just how incompetent both of the candidates are. The world is looking at the US in despair. They know Obama and Clinton are ill prepared to handle the great international issues of the day. They both have secured F's in handling their campaigns. When the world is laughing at you over a pathetic campaign how can you expect to garner their respect as an international leader?
Posted by: bobbywc | March 14, 2008 09:59 AM
Proud: yes, yes, Obama is the Really Scary Black Person Candidate. How many times are you going to try to sell that perspective? Works well with bigots but that demographic is limited in size.
Agree with Mark; J's suggestion of http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ is excellent. Talk about detailed!
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM
"I don't know about you, but I usually listen pretty closely to what my pastor says."
Umm, I don't, because I'm not a mindless sheep...'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:02 AM
uckeleg, Alaska will turn out its crooks for reformers, that is why Gov. Palin (R) was elected, and she has been cleaning house.
But the reformers are likely to be Rs.
The NRA ratings for these Democrats is lower than for Sen. McCain. Males outnumber females substantially in Alaska. The native American population knows Sen. McCain as a true friend. Alaska has no reason to vote for these Democrats.
Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 14, 2008 10:03 AM
CHRIS: You're correct in that Iowa will likely flip, but for reasons different than those you've outlined. Despite what you might think, Iowans-at-large aren't so petty that they would shun McCain because he didn't campaign there.
No, Iowa will flip Democratic IF Obama is the nominee, because the caucus showed Iowans are after a candidate who's genuine. Obama was perceived as being genuine, so he won. And however you feel about Huckabee's policies, he was seen as being genuine so he won. McCain struggled in the GOP caucus because he's flipped on so many positions as to seem inconsistent in their eyes.
But if Hillary is the nominee? Then Iowa-at-large might well go for McCain. The polls in Iowa tend to indicate that, and even a diminished McCain seems more genuine than Hillary, who seems prone to swapping personas on a weekly basis.
It's not about being territorial, it's about the attempt to find a candidate who's genuine. Obama has that, and to a lesser extent McCain does. Hillary doesn't.
Posted by: larsvpearson | March 14, 2008 10:05 AM
MoreandBetter, Palin is a good example, but remember she actually won a primary first. I haven't heard of any real intraparty challenges to Stevens or Young. I guess the GOP can hope that they may be indicted or arrested before Election Day...
Posted by: uckeleg | March 14, 2008 10:05 AM
We refrain from the personal attacks, but a defense may be in order.
At 9:46 "ProudToBeGOP" reported that she is a "...military souse." We believe that she is not a souse, but, rather, a spouse.
Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM
what a dismal clusterf*ck this is:
'While the much-touted Sunni Awakening has increasingly been ignoring al-Qaeda in Iraq, and has decided to attack Iraqi forces instead, Moqtada al-Sadr's military leaders of his Mahdi Army have broken with the extension of a ceasefire reaffirmed last month, and are concentrating on driving police forces out of the major southern cities.
The latest round of violence began when Sadr insisted on his militias carrying arms in the city of Kut in order to defend themselves against interloping Sunni tribes and elements of the Islamic Virtue Party - an offshoot of Sadr's party who no longer recognize the cleric as leader. This is the first significant breach of the latest six-month truce signed in late February between his followers and U.S. commanders.
So far the fighting has involved his militias and Iraqi forces. But the latest clashes in Kut prove that Iraqi troops are no match for Sadr's heavily armed militia.
Police and security forces have fled the city and are reported to be regrouping for a counter attack.
Iraqi troops have asked for reinforcements but it is not clear whether U.S. occupation troops will interfere.
Eight people are reported to have been killed and scores wounded in the latest fighting.
More acts of violence were reported in Basra where one of Iraq's top surgeons, Dr. Khalid al-Mayahi, was murdered in his clinic.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:07 AM
Regarding NM, Chris - you didn't mention the possibility of Richardson being picked for VP, and how that might affect the race.
I think he'd be a strong choice for either Clinton or Obama, given his foreign policy and executive experience, not to mention his Hispanic heritage. How might his presence on the ticket affect not only NM, but other states with large Hispanic populations?
Posted by: mwallace8831 | March 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Edwards couldn't even carry NC for the Kerry-Edwards ticket in '04, so I agree he adds nothing. If it's HRC, Strickland is a likely choice (and maybe if it's BHO, except that he needs someone with foreign policy chops -- like Biden or Richardson).
I agree with other posters about Virginia, but would add that Northern Virginia (sometimes called "occupied Virginia" in the Southern/Southwestern part of the state) is almost like a different state. There are still a lot of conservative, gun-rights, "values" voters in the other parts of the state, lots of Christian fundamentalists and the like. That said, I still think it goes blue this time, but I wouldn't call it a lock.
I also agree that OH/PA/NJ could be troublesome for Obama, because of what I'll politely call "racial issues." It's unknowable whether all Democrats will come home once a nominee is chosen; and we also can't measure the effect of Bush fatigue and the war as a drag on McCain. Most surveys I've seen place McCain ahead in PA. For what it's worth, Survey USA's 50-state polls had HRC/BHO each beating McCain 50-40 in OH, and NJ a toss-up for BHO and leaning HRC.
P.S. vammap, I must say I wish I were able to be as sure about my candidate's chances as you are about yours, but I just don't see it. I don't think Obama's got it locked up by any means, but I do think he has to be favored at this point.
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:13 AM
while I appreciate your constant posts about how badly the war in Iraq is going, I must ask you:
1.) Why isn't the media banging the retreat drum anymore?
(HINT: Because things are going rather well).
2.) You have repeatedly said our "real" enemy is elsewhere (Pakistan, Suadi Arabia, wherever).
***Is your misunderstanding of our enemy so vast that you actually believe they are localized to ONE location?***
This is exactly why well-intentioned liberals (or "Progressives", whichever is most fashionable) are NOT QUALIFIED TO FIGHT THIS WAR.
We face the most decentralized, post-modern enemy yet. Simply saying "We should focus more on X country rather than Iraq" conveys a tragically simplistic view of this war.
Our enemy is in every corner of the planet.
Please, stop masking your true anti-American, anti-military agenda, General Drindle.
Just say what you mean - that our troops are raccist, raping thugs, savaging "the countryside" (as Hussein Obama said), killing innocents, for blood oil, Darth Cheney, and American Imperialism.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:19 AM
judge, Have you listened to this pastor preach? I cannot believe someone would chose to sit there year after year and listen to it if they didn't agree. This goes to his judgement.
Obama elevated this man, this man who hates America and disparages our allies, he elevated him to a key spot on his steering committee. THAT is what I question.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 10:20 AM
I would not put Montana on a top 10 list. But many things are different about this election.
For one thing, Hillary Clinton just confirmed she will attend the Montana Democratic Party's Mansfield-Metcalf dinner, set for April 5 in Butte. State party officials expect Barack Obama's campaign to confirm his attendance shortly.
That is unusual attention in Montana. One has to go back decades to find the last major candidate vist to the state from either party.
There is irony in this. The Montana Republicans abandoned the primary and went for a February 5 closed caucus this year in an effort to be more influential in the nominating process. That strategy flopped. The Montana caucus was but a footnote in the big multi-state prtimary. No major candidate visited at all. Just one surrogate, Mitt Romney's son, visited the state.
The Montana Democrats held to the June 5 primary and now have both major candidates coming here.
I'm not saying this, by itself, will turn the state in the November election, but the visit of Clinton and Obama gives the person who will be the Democratic nominee unprecidented exposure here. I believe in the 50-state camapign. Don't count Montana out.
Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 14, 2008 10:21 AM
Good article. Thanks. I'll be following this if you continue it.
Posted by: eco-pharm | March 14, 2008 10:22 AM
This is the man who Obama quoted in chosing a title for his book. I think a more appropriate title would've been "Audacity of Hate".
There's that judgement of his, at work again making important decisions, like who to consult for advise on running a presidential campaign.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 10:23 AM
"It's unknowable whether all Democrats will come home once a nominee is chosen; and we also can't measure the effect of Bush fatigue and the war as a drag on McCain."
What's also tough to measure, jac13, is BHO's ability to grow on people. If he ever gets around HRC I'd expect he'll be able to go back to appealing to voters on a broader, non-partisan basis. And his numbers should, as we've seen a zillion times already, start to creep up prior to the GE.
OH/PA and NJ do disappoint on the 'racial' side of things, don't they? Which side of the Civil War were they on again? Another unknowable is whether the D primary vote for HRC based on race constitutes an R vote for McCain in the GE.
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:24 AM
Chris writes "If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line."
Hogwash. Pawlenty's star is falling, in MN. He suffered his first veto override last week, on transportation funding. A bridge fell down & he still refused to raise the gas tax (untouched for 20 years!) to fund basic infrastructure maintenance. The MN electorate has awoken to the fraud of borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility; a McCain-Pawlenty ticket, much to their embarrassment, is unlikely to carry MN, even against Clinton, should the Dems nominate her.
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Proud - I don't understand why what someone's pastor says makes that much of a difference. They're different people, right? Has Obama said those things? Moreover, as many other posters have pointed out, perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, given McCain's propensity to pander to racists, bigots, and the religious right crusaders who want to wipe Islam off the face of the earth. Are you not worried about McCain's advisors simply because you like him, even if their rhetoric is just as empty and vapid as that of Obama's preacher?
Posted by: alterego1 | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM
bpp: McCain has a real Boeing/Airbus problem in Washington state and the misperception that their voters will forget McCain's shipping off their jobs to Europe and then rewarding him in a matchup against eithe Clinton or Obama is patently ridiculous and represents a naivity about Washington state politics. I hope the nominee doesn t waste their time or resorces there as JK ridiculously was sucked into doing. Last time I checked W had about a 20% approval rating in Washington state and to suggest they would support McCain makes zero sense, against Obama or Hillary.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 10:28 AM
One big assumption by Obama is that Hillary's votes are transferable to him. I don't think that this is the case. Based on conversation with friends in California, many would rather vote for McCain than Obama. Given that my friends are diverse, this makes sense given that Obama's core constituency is the black voters. It is funny to think that it is actually Clinton who is more acceptable across racial divides.
Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:30 AM
"Have you listened to this pastor preach?" No, and I haven't listened to Hagee or Parsley preach either. Well, I have caught a few seconds of Parsley while channel surfing. Ugh. Shades of channel surfing when I was a kid in FL; "gimmee that old time religion, gimmee that old time religion...."
What it boils down to, Proud, is that both sides have repellent supporters if you go far enough up/down the chain. I don't agree that BHO has given that guy "a key spot on his steering committee" since you and I both know exactly how much "steering committees" are worth. Nada. Harping on this issue simply seems like an attempt to make BHO look scary and is untethered to the equally scary people that support McCain. Some of whom are in Congress.
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:32 AM
"What's also tough to measure, jac13, is BHO's ability to grow on people. If he ever gets around HRC I'd expect he'll be able to go back to appealing to voters on a broader, non-partisan basis."
That comment is a cop-out, judge. My dog standing next to HRC looks better.
I don't know how much longer he can grow on people before they treat him as a cancer.
My in-laws in San Antonio, all big Bubba Clinton fans, and life-long Democrats (except in the Reagan years), all voted for Huckabee, and have vowed to vote McCain over Obama. They see him as an empty suit.
Of course, McCain will carry TX regardless, but I was surprised to learn that they came to this conclusion "all on their own", so to speak.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:34 AM
'Just say what you mean - that our troops are raccist, raping thugs, savaging "the countryside" (as Hussein Obama said), killing innocents, for blood oil, Darth Cheney, and American Imperialism.'
gee, mike, i never said any of that. what other fever dreams and hallucinations are you having this morning -- what else are the voices in your head saying?
'Our enemy is in every corner of the planet.'
yeah, and probably under your bed, too, pally. you guys just stay peeing your pants terrified all the time, don't you?
'.) You have repeatedly said our "real" enemy is elsewhere (Pakistan, Suadi Arabia, wherever).
***Is your misunderstanding of our enemy so vast that you actually believe they are localized to ONE location?***
I beleive, rather i know, that there are strongholds -- terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, yes. And that is where terrorists are disseminating from, and being trained, equipped, financed.
Remember chump, one of the reason we are allegedly in Iraq was to keep iraq from becoming an alqueda stronghold -- like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan already are.
With your tiny IQ you aren't fit to prosecute making a sandwich.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM
Which states flip depends an awful lot on the candidate on the D side. I think that low African-American turnout could hurt HRC quite a bit in PA and MI, for example, but she'd probably be able to flip Arkansas. Supporters of hers probably believe she can flip FL, too. I'm skeptical about that.
I think Obama would be more likely to flip MO than HRC, and can continue shoring up Dem support in the upper midwest (I'm thinking of WI, MN, IL, IA, MI). McCain would be tough in the southwest, but I think Obama could take CO, too.
Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 10:37 AM
"What it boils down to . . . is that both sides have repellent supporters if you go far enough up/down the chain."
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 10:32 AM
How about just looking at these posts? You wouldn't be thinking about "jkrish," "zouk," or "svreader," would you?
Back on PA, do you agree with me that BHO will close the gap there, based on past patterns, but probably still lose by 5-10?
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:38 AM
"Harping on this issue simply seems like an attempt to make BHO look scary and is untethered to the equally scary people that support McCain. Some of whom are in Congress."
I would tend to agree with this.
I would prefer to argue that Hussein Obama is wrong on the issues, which he is.
Unfortunately, he has intenionally steered the discussion away from "the issues". HRC's race-bating hasn't helped.
I'm looking forward to a real battle of ideas, not just a battle of warm-fuzzies.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:38 AM
drindl - no where in your answer did you acknowledge the global threat we face.
In fact, your sarcastic quib, although "cute" (kind of like the word "progressive"), typifies your complete LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of the nature of our enemy.
And I say "our" enemy because they would slit your throat just as quick as they'd slit mine if they could.
"I beleive, rather i know, that there are strongholds..."
How did you come upon this truly vital piece of national intelligence?
Do you work for the CIA?
Or did KOZ tell that to you, general drindl?
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:43 AM
theseventen writes "With Michigan, there's the delegate problem for the Dems and McCain performed quite well there this year and in 2000."
I think the 'delegate problem' is overblown in MI & FL, with regards to affecting gen election turnout. I can't imagine voters would be so short-sighted to 'punish' a party's candidate in the general, because their state party screwed up during the nominating process. Then again, voters have gone for Bush, twice, so perhaps I am, once again, naive in my estimation of general election voters.
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:45 AM
******************************* I'm looking forward to a real battle of ideas, not just a battle of warm-fuzzies. *******************************
Eh, I guess I have to admit I'm a fan of the warm-fuzzy battle. I mean, at the end of that, not only are you warm, you are fuzzy! How great is that?
Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 10:45 AM
"And I say "our" enemy because they would slit your throat just as quick as they'd slit mine if they could."
Who'd have thought that 19 guys with boxcutters could instill so much fear in so many hearts for so long.
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 10:46 AM
"Things are going rather well" in Iraq? 12 US soldiers killed this week, a Christian bishop kidnapped and murdered (THIS is the democracy our soldiers have died and are dying to nurture?), 200,000 Christians fleeing their homes because of sectarian violence run rampant -- surge or no surge? Maybe compared to Afghanistan -- which we abandoned too soon for this fiasco in Iraq -- things might be going "rather well," but by any objective measure, all that the surge has accomplished is to push the violence to other parts of the country while the Malaki government dithers and accumulates millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts that should be getting spent on reconstruction.
It's a disaster by any measure other than Pentagon war-game analysis on a Stratego board.
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 10:46 AM
Not as cute as the new lingo ("Progressive").
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:47 AM
I agree with USMC_Mike. Obama is very good in diversionary tactics. Look at the headline yesterday about him sending taxpayer dollars to his friend. BTW, he also attempted to give $1 million toward his wife's group, but that got killed. For a somebody who is trying to "CHANGE" Washington, I think he is a very fast learner. Anyway... instead of explaining the funneling of funds to his friend (and he should also explain the $1 million attempted money to his wife), he focused on saying that Clinton should also disclose. What kind of an excuse is that!!! I would say hypocritical at best. BTW, did anybody notice that at the beginning of the campaign he would say that he has no lobbyist in his campaign. When Clinton called him about it saying that his chairman is a lobbyist, he changed his tune to say that he has no federal lobbyist. I would bet that eventually, he would probably say that he has no "Vietnamese federal lobbyist" in his campaign. Oh well.. at any rate, many democrats vote(d) for him. If any consolation, many republicans (and democrats) also voted for Bush. So, if you eventually feel stupid voting for Obama, you can use his reasoning... hey somebody else also voted for him.
Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:49 AM
"Things are going rather well" in Iraq? 12 US soldiers killed this week
What "objective" standard to you suppose we use?
While the loss of life is a tragedy, it is actually quite small, relatively speaking.
How many college girls were murdered this week by roaming thugs?
Be careful on the freeway today.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:50 AM
Here in Nevada, Obama beats McCain, Clinton loses to McCain. Why -- in 2004 (and I made the calls so I can speak with some authority on the matter) John Kerry lost because about 15-20% of the registered Democratic men voted for Bush. And, believe me, that 15-20% is not going to like Hillary any better.
Obama wins Virginia, not Hillary; Obama wins Oregon, not Hillary. Obama wins Washington State, not Hillary. And, furthermore, I would add this audacious prediction, Obama puts North Carolina and South Carolina in play!!!! Hillary loses them both.
Minnesota is a slam dunk for either
Posted by: Lilly1 | March 14, 2008 10:51 AM
They know Obama and Clinton are ill prepared to handle the great international issues of the day. They both have secured F's in handling their campaigns. When the world is laughing at you over a pathetic campaign how can you expect to garner their respect as an international leader?
Posted by: bobbywc | March 14, 2008 09:59 AM ---------------------- Funny all I have read about people overseas is that they are following this campaign very closely. As for pathetic, I would say that for Obama to be where he is, considering race in this country is pretty amazing.
The real pathetic thing is who we have now as our 'leader'. He has the balls after dodging the draft to say he envies the soldiers who are there? Who ever wins in November I'm just glad that idiot is going to be sent to his ranch.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 10:52 AM
"He has the balls after dodging the draft to say he envies the soldiers who are there"
That almost reminds me of another President, who also dodged the draft, and whose initial reaction on 9/11 was
"Why couldn't this happen under my administration?"
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:56 AM
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:57 AM
Maybe we should we be glad they have gotten off the Muslim slander, but now they're ranting that Obama isn't the RIGHT KIND OF CHRISTIAN. Sheesh! So much for religious freedom! I happen to be a UCC member and one of the things I love is the openness and freedom to worship in whatever STYLE fits the congregation. We still follow the same scripture as all other Christians. In my congregation we are very much into the Arts. So we incorporate Music (jazz and classical), Dance, Visual Arts, etc., into our worship. Why is it so surprising that a UCC church, on the south side of Chicago - once the most segregated city in the north - would choose to celebrate their African roots in expressing God's word?
Haven't we had enough of Bush's right-wing, fanatical, judgemental, bible-thumping, hypocricy? God help us!
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 10:57 AM
To vammap... Maybe we are saying the same thing here, but it is not as if the country is not ready for a black president. I think USA is ready for a black president, but I don't think it should be Obama. Despite attempts to showcase Obama as transcending racial divides, he doesn't. It is the 90% of the black votes that makes him competitive, but he sorely losses among other ethnicities.
BTW, the Spitzer news should make one more cautious about Obama. How much do you know about Obama? Clinton has been vetted since 1992. It is now 2007, so it has been 15 years. There is certainly more confidence for somebody who has been vetted for 15 years.
Posted by: CPCook | March 14, 2008 10:58 AM
"Why couldn't this happen under my administration?"
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 10:56 AM ----------------------------- Did Clinton say that? When? I'm surprised because you would think that the NY Post would have beat that into the ground. While I never buy that rag people in my office do and that would have been front page.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 11:01 AM
You forgot to put New york, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the REVERSE flip column. if Obama is the candidate, McCain, who is a relative moderate who has always been popular in these states, will win at least one or more of these. Except among African Americans, Obama is considered very liberal and will not do well here. And even if Obama CAN hold those basic Democratic "must win" states, he will do so only by spending the money he would have needed to run a viable campaign in the "flip" states that YOU list.
Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 14, 2008 11:02 AM
CPCook writes, of Obama "he sorely losses among other ethnicities."
Not true. Results have differed in each state; if I'm not mistaken, he beat Sen Clinton in most demographic categories in both WI & VA, excepting elderly white women.
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 11:03 AM
If Obama is so "ill-prepared" to be Commander-in-Chief, why do so many retired Generals and Admirals endorse him? On Wednesday, for instance:
"CHICAGO--Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.
In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama's judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the Constitution and rule of law, his leadership on behalf of America's servicemen and women and his ability to conduct the diplomacy necessary to restore America's standing in the world."
Look it up in Chicago Tribune.
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:06 AM
"why do so many retired Generals and Admirals endorse him"
Getting that rank is just as political as running for office.
Why do it? Can you say, cabinet post?
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:08 AM
Mark you didn't mention possible running mates for Democrats. I think Webb as a running mate for Clinton would help tip Virginia, with his local appeal and military creds. My choice for a running mate for Obama would be Richardson. He'd bring breadth of experience, New Mexico voters, and possibly tip Florida in the Dems' favor because he's Hispanic. His military creds might also help push Virginia out of the purple and into the blue.
Posted by: amyedmonds916 | March 14, 2008 11:13 AM
From people I talk to I have a hard time believing Hillary can win any state. I find many people, (white people) will sit at home on election day if Hillary is the nominee so the swing states may swing even more. There is a lot of anger towards the Clintons and I don't think Hillary can beat McCain except maybe in her own state of New York. If somehow Hillary was the nominee and they put a token Black person on the ticket, I think it would backfire. As much as the Clinton campaign wants to make it an antiwoman thing it isn't it just is an anti-Clintons thing. They wore out their welcome and America is ready to move on.
Posted by: info4 | March 14, 2008 11:16 AM
Chris Cillizza, You stated that the "wildcard" is Pawlenty, however, Pawlenty barely held Minnesota in the last election, as posted above by another poster, Pawlenty barely squeaked out his own second term in office: Pawlenty took 46.7% of the vote; Hatch took 45.7; and Hutchinson took 6.4%. Pawlenty cannot give McCain Minnesota, as posted above by yet a different poster. Just lately, or on Super Tuesday, Romney won Minnesota and he was followed by Huckabee with McCain a far behind third. Of course, Pawlenty is not well-vetted and could certainly be an unpredictable factor as a "potential vice presidential" pick for McCain. "If Pawlenty is picked, Minnesota is in play and could certainly move up the Line" which will allow the corruption in Minnesota to come into play where Pawlenty's "secret meeting MN Supreme Court Justice/s selections" can be viewable where former MN Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson had secret meetings with two (2) MN Supreme Court Justices surnamed Anderson. Pawlenty appointed two (2) out of the three (3) MN Supreme Court Justices with the surname of Anderson.
Posted by: gouldnen | March 14, 2008 11:17 AM
"I would prefer to argue that ... Obama is wrong on the issues, which he is."
USMC, One of the issues is Obama's judgement. He is claiming to have superior judgement than his opponents, yet he choses this pastor who hates America to be on his national committee for the campaign for the highest office in the land. That is an important issue.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM
this list seems to paint a very rosy picture for Dems. 8 of the 10 are Republicrat states; and, as noted, Minnesota is HIGHLY questionable. Since the last two electoral college votes have been close, flipping just a couple of these could bring the Dems to full power. What's interesting is that few are talking about the fact that D's are going to increase majorities in both the House and Senate; McCain will be in very treacherous waters if he wins, since he will have to continue his balancing act for 4 more years. I would seem him as a one-termer! BO could turn out to be a one-termer, along the lines of Bush Sr. (mediocre) or an all-time great, greatest since FDR (exclude JFK b/c of only 3 years in office). HRC will be WJC all over again; not bad, but forever standing in his shadow.
Posted by: gso-chris | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM
Lilly as an Obama supporter speculates that "Obama wins Virginia, not Hillary; Obama wins Oregon, not Hillary. Obama wins Washington State, not Hillary"
That is like my saying Obama will not win either Ca or New York, which helps my candidate but which is nonsense.
Mark Warner is one of the smartest politicans I have known. Lilly do you think he would commit political suicide by ticking off 1/2 of the Va Dem base and not go full out for Hillary or obama. And are you suggesting that either Gov Kaine or Jim Webb would do any less for Hillary in the fall? certainly we can come here and spin and speculate for our candidate but that really ads nothing to the discussion other then to make our post look more partisan.
Again Lilly if you think that the progressive states of Oregon or Washington will reward Sen McCain for shipping their Boeing jobs to Europe, b/c Hillary is the nominee, you are speaking only as a partisan rather than making any kind of objective logical argument on behalf of your candidate.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:19 AM
The list shows that the race is indeed close.
It's an important analysis, because this is what the Democrats really have to focus on for November, who is going to win enough "toss up" states to get to the White House?
The ultimate goal is to win the electoral college.
Posted by: camasca | March 14, 2008 11:21 AM
USMCMIKE...or perhaps the military leaders are sick of the mess Bush has made and his disregard for the troops on the ground. And, I don't recall any great love for Bill Clinton from the military, do you?
Anyway, here is what a couple of Obama's supporters had to say:
"I spent a career involved in coalition warfare, and I am keenly aware of the importance of working with allies," said Brigadier General (Ret.) James Smith (USAF). "Senator Obama brings a powerful approach to dealing with national security challenges by truly leveraging multinational relationships. He brings a new face of America to the rest of the world."
"Senator Obama has a profound, even scholarly knowledge of our Constitution and he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. As a career naval officer, I trust his judgment, his temperament, and his ability to analyze complex international situations and relationships and to make military decisions that are in the best long term interests of the United States," said Admiral (Ret.) Don Guter (USN). "It will take the powerful leadership of Senator Obama to forge the consensus we need to right our ship of state, restore our honorable place in the world, and secure the safety of our nation."
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:21 AM
W now speaking on the economy. Watch the DOW tick down with every word out of his mouth repeating what GOP came here and told us yesterday, that the economy is in great shape and extremely strong.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:23 AM
'Who'd have thought that 19 guys with boxcutters could instill so much fear in so many hearts for so long.'
Constant fear and rampant paranoia are a permanent party of the rightwing mindset, bsimon. They know there's always something out there waiting to get them...
'Getting that rank is just as political as running for office.'
your envy is showing, little man...
the global nature of the 'threat' is mostly coming frm Saudi Arabia, where the radically conservative form of Islam that bi ladin belongs to [Wahhibism] is funded and taught.
You should ask John Sidney McCain III about it -- maybe he knows, although I doubt it. Yes, that's right -- Sidney is his middle name.
JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III. yes, i think we should defiitely use their middle names when disucssing them. I especailly like Sidney McCain because it sounds like an ineffectual pantywaist.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:25 AM
joy2- as a military officer, I don't think military officers should publically endorse anyone, or use their office as leverage to make a political statement.
The same goes for journalists, actors, and other public figures. But, we see how well that works right?
Proud: "USMC, One of the issues is Obama's judgement."
I agree with you. My post was saying that I would prefer not to have to resort to his insane pastor, but we have no choice, as he refuses to argue any issues. And so, we agree. And, when he finally gets pinned to the wall on what he believes, you and I shall agree yet again.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM
CPCook, I'm with your friends. McCain vs Obama would be a tough call for me. I've voted Dem for 30 years but I like McCain and I don't like Obama at all. He sounds too preachy and at some of his rallies he's a total cheerleader. I find that patronizing and superficial. He may be able to whip up a crowd, but so can any average WWE wrestler. I want a commander-in-chief, not a head cheerleader.
Posted by: amyedmonds916 | March 14, 2008 11:26 AM
Minnesota is the North Star State, not the Gopher State.
Posted by: JohninMpls | March 14, 2008 11:27 AM
Missouri - The Dems do better with Obama. The Billary baggage will turn off too many of the socially conservative swing voters. And so will her negative campaigning style. Minnesota - Again the Dems do better with Obama. There are many independent voters here that will play to McCain's "maverick" strength. Only Obama has a good chance of fighting for these voters. Florida - Clinton will do better here for the Dems. There are many older women and that plays to her strength. New Hampshire - Obama is better for the Dems again because to the large base of independents. Even though Hillary won the primary I believe NH voted for her more to keep the race going and out of sympathy. Virginia - Obama helps the Dems here. If it's McCain vs. Clinton, McCain cleans her clock. McCain vs. Obama is a toss-up. Ohio - Doesn't matter if it's Hillary or Obama, the Dems will win. Colorado - Obama helps the Dems here as well. CO has many progressive young people - this plays to Obama's strength to lead a change in politics. Nevada - Clinton does better here for the Dems. A growing Hispanic population and an influx of retirees plays to here strengths. New Mexico - The Dems will win here regardless of who their nominee is. Bill Richardson will ensure this. Iowa - The Dems do better with Obama. The Clinton's campaign's games with the delegate count (e.g. saying caucuses are not democratic) will not play well with these voters.
Overall, the Dems do much better with Obama.
Posted by: snoopy7765 | March 14, 2008 11:28 AM
I tell you what? Obama should and have to reject, not just denounce his relations with his radical friends with radical ideas and behaviors like Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Rezko, and Mr. Farrankun. He should and have to do it formally to the public. Otherwise, his campaign is dead now. I don't' think that Americans like or accept a person with such background to run the White House. Period.
For instance, I will not vote for Obama if he does not formally reject and denounce his relation with these radical ideas and behaviors. I will vote for John McCain if Hillary lost democratic nomination, even though I still believe that Obama is a very promising and outstanding young man, because I just feel uncomfortable with Obama's attitude. I am worrying about what Obama would do if he was elected as American president.
This is really nothing about race, nothing about gender, nothing about who you are. Americans will question and challenge everything, not just issues about a candidate who is running for the presidency. And they should. Americans even think the issue of presidential likeability might be an issue, let alone these ideological and religious issues and conducts.
I was shocked by watching this ABC video, and I believe most Americans will be shocked too.
Look at what Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright says. Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." And the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism." And Obama has a lifetime close friendship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and has a lifetime close friendship with Mr. Rezko, which something very special.
I am totally shocked. I can not believe it. And I can not images how Obama keeps on his presidential campaign without saying anything or doing anything about it. To me, he wastes his time and he has no chance to win if Obama does not formally reject and denounce this kind of relation.
Posted by: NoWorry | March 14, 2008 11:29 AM
Hard to believe USMCMike and GOP are back, after the thrashings handed out the other day. I thought they took the day off to come up with some fresh, critical material. Nope, they were obviously glued to Faux News Channel, licking their wounds, waiting for their orders.
Anyways, to the adults in the crowd, Missouri and Virginia are looking good for Obama in November, and our prediction is they will be to 2008 what Ohio was to 2004. Ohio is too wacky to predict. Its voters fell for the moral argument in 2004, and were seduced by campaign chicanery on 3/4. God only knows what will appeal to Buckeye Staters in November.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 11:29 AM
I think Arizona is a very crucial swing-state. Note that McCain only got 47% in the primary in his home state. Obama lost to Clinton by 8 points, but I think he might have a good chance to win against McCain in AZ.
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 11:30 AM
drindl, Congratulations on looking really silly. The name is a family name, and his family is one of high military distinction.
Both McCain's grandfather and father were admirals in the United States Navy.
Here's some other interesting facts about John McCain:
John and Cindy's youngest daughter was adopted from an orphanage run by Mother Teresa.
Bridget was 10 weeks old when they first met her while doing humanitarian relief work in Bangladesh.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:31 AM
For me it comes down to following the votes from the primaries to the general election and asking: who keeps his/her votes and who doesn't??
1. If you voted for Obama in the primary will you vote for him in the general election? Depends - if you're a republican who voted in an open primary and you were just messing with the Democrats,probably not; otherwise, I would put those primary votes down as pretty solid for Obama in the general election.
2. If you voted for Clinton in the primary will you vote for her in the general election? Again, depends. If you are a true blue, liberal Democrat the answer is most likely, yes. On the other hand, if you are a so-called "Reagan Democrat" - maybe not. There was an article in the NYT this week about Clinton's roots in Scranton, PA. Clinton needs these voters and voters like them to win the PA primary (just as voters like them helped her win Ohio). But these folks are pretty conservative on social issues (e.g., abortion, gun control) and national security. So, given a choice between John McCain or Hillary Clinton - who do they pick? Unless the Republicans do something really dumb, like completely ignore the economic concerns of these voters, my money would go with McCain.
3. If you voted for Obama in the primary will you vote for Clinton in the general election? Probably, yes. But, again, it depends. Many Obama supporters (like me) have been alienated by recent tactics on the part of the Clinton campaign. Alienated enough to stay home or vote for McCain or Nader?? When push comes to shove? My guess would be that most of us will suck it up and vote for Clinton.
4. If you voted for Clinton in the primary will you vote for Obama in the general election? See #2 above. True blue liberal democrat? Yes. Reagan Democrat? Would not bet on it.
If Hillary is the nominee - the red to blue flip comes down to how many of conservative, white, working class Democrats she can hang onto in the general election. To assume that just because they voted for her in the primary they will vote for her in the general election is dangerous and the Democrats would be foolish to count on these voters.
Posted by: ckalish | March 14, 2008 11:32 AM
McCain may be loved in NH (by some) but in the primary I think it was just as much a deep distrust of Romney (the flip-floppper from next door in MA) that got him his victory.
Regardless, since New Hampshire has a very popular Democratic governor (70% in the polls), the Bush regime and the kiss-ass Republicans in Congress have been like maggots under the skin (which is why both Repub reps got zapped - and Sen. Sununu is about to), and the dramatic increase in liberal voters in the southern tier population centers -- all makes it more than likely that NH will be going Democratic this year no matter who heads the ticket.
Posted by: washpost16 | March 14, 2008 11:33 AM
"your envy is showing, little man..."
Thanks for the update, general drindl.
Stick to the playbook: -Attack anyone who disagrees. -Refuse to give argument or answer questions. -Repeat until you're believable.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Considering that Clinton has poisoned the well in Florida by vowing to seat its delegates, forcing Obama to take a muted stand against doing so, Obama will have a very difficult time there if he is the nominee. Clinton, I think, could beat McCain in Florida. Thanks to Clinton, however, Obama probably cannot.
Posted by: blert | March 14, 2008 11:34 AM
You hit the nail on the head. Here's how a grandmother responded when asked a question about what the coward should do when he left office.
Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, in the wind and snow of winter and the heat and humidity of summer, let him tend to the graves of the almost 4,000 men and women who have given their lives in the debacle of Iraq. They honored their oaths, obeyed their commander-in-chief and sacrificed their lives of promise to a lying, unprincipled warmonger. He can begin at the grave of my grandson, Lcpl Jonathan W. Collins, killed in action on 8/8/2004.
Posted by: austinbigboy2000 | March 14, 2008 11:36 AM
"the global nature of the 'threat' is mostly coming frm Saudi Arabia"
global adj 1: involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope;
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:37 AM
no more silly than using barack's name. he had nothing to do with it-- you see he was very young at the time. now here's rod parsley, whom Mccain courted heavily for his support:
'I just love to talk about your money. Let me be very clear -- I want your money. I deserve it. This church deserves it."
Rod Parsley (An Empire of Souls, pg. 35)
The power of the prayer cloth
"I believe this is your time to receive the tangible transfer of God's miracle-working power, and I want to encourage every one of my Breakthrough Partners and friends to send a prayer cloth along with your prayer needs to be prayed over. When I return your prayer cloth to you, I believe the tangible transfer of God's creative power will flow into your life and birth your miracle! I believe God, Himself, will anoint you to reap a mighty harvest of your physical, spiritual and financial needs..."
Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church Website: Birthing Your Miracle 7/14/99)
"Every year we receive testimony after testimony of glorious healings, deliverances and salvations as a result of these super-saturated scraps of cloth we receive from around the world. Don't miss this opportunity to receive the tangible transfer of God's anointing into your life."
Rod Parsley (World Harvest Church Website: Birthing Your Miracle 7/14/99)
"People have said that it's selfish to ask God to give a hundredfold return on the seeds sown in the financial realm. No it's selfish not to expect the hundredfold return.
Rod Parsley (God's Answer to Insufficient Funds, 1992 pps 56-57)
"I'm talkin about your money you know one of the greatest things that is going to happen in the year 2,000 we're about to see the church rise up with a revelation that only this generation has ever been given of God's word concerning high finances in the kingdom of God and we are just about to see the greatest transfer of wealth out of the hand of the wicked into the hand of the just."
'high finances in the kingdom of god' -- if that isn't the most blatant christian heresy i've ever read, i don't know what is.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:37 AM
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 09:38 AM
The key to Colorado is the Independents.
Chris says that the GOP has a registration edge over the Dems, and that the Independent registration is growing. He somehow missed that Independents already outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.
The Dems have had the edge recently among Indies at the state level, but Kerry couldn't make the sale with this group.
And Colorado Springs is not just religious conservatives (Dobson), but also a military town. Support for McCain there is likely to be enthusiastic.
Posted by: J | March 14, 2008 11:38 AM
"If Hillary is the nominee - the red to blue flip comes down to how many of conservative, white, working class Democrats she can hang onto in the general election. To assume that just because they voted for her in the primary they will vote for her in the general election is dangerous and the Democrats would be foolish to count on these voters."
CKalish you are right -- some of them may have voted for her because they just don't like black people. Sad but true. Those people are still a factor. They can't be counted on to vote Dem in the general election if Obama is the nominee either.
Posted by: amy_e | March 14, 2008 11:38 AM
Colorado may have just taken a step closer to blue. Headline in this morning's Denver paper: BLM rejects Roan Safegards.
Colorado Democrats blast the decision on oil and gas drilling on the plateau. The Bush admistration rejected environmental safeguards proposed by Gov. Bill Ritter...sparking outcry from environmental and political leaders...
Coloradans of all political leanings do love their environment. If the local pols exploit this, it could become a major talking point in CO in the GE.
Posted by: KDale2640 | March 14, 2008 11:39 AM
A theologist deconstructs Parsley and his dominionism. Scalia is also a dominist, btw:
'Albert James Dager, of the apologetic ministry Media Spotlight, says Dominion teaching is predicated on three basic beliefs:
"1) Satan usurped man's dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God's instrument to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth's governmental and social institutions."31
Michael Moriarty further explains Dominionism and Parsley's connection:
"In any event, the new charismatics continue to stress the need for the church to exercise dominion over society. Power-packed conferences like Dominion '90 (July 29-Aug. 3, 1990), hosted by Pastor Rod Parsley and World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, serve to raise the consciousness of the church to the responsibility to take dominion over society. Some charismatics claim that 'God told them' that Jesus will return in our generation 'if' the church becomes more responsible in its dominion pursuit."32
Since it will take the power and the mighty coming of Jesus to establish the Kingdom, dominionism is a figment of man's imagination though a lucrative one. It's a tired old hat that is preached ad infinitum by the likes of other Pentecostal superstars as well, including Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin and Rodney Howard-Browne. The "day of creative miracles" or "the day of dominion" is always just on the horizon, but it never seems to arrive. It is, in part, the bait which keeps the devotees of these Charismatic leaders perpetually nipping at their hooks."
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 11:40 AM
As long as you're "educating" us on Macko's domestic history, GOP, how about the story of McCain's first wife, crippled in an auto accident and faithful while he was in 'Nam, and how he ran around on her as soon as he got back, then dumped her?
As cynical a move as it was, even Hillary stood by her man. As the GOP wonders if Hillary's domestic life translates to a presidency, the nation should ask how quick Macko will dump the electorate after he is finished screwing them?
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 11:41 AM
austinbigboy2000 -- I'm sorry for your loss.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 11:41 AM
Welcome to Ohio--Archie Bunker Land! Put Ohio in the McCain column. The Primary showed Clinton winning by 10 points. In 2006 the voters opted for a White Dem over a Black Republican.
BO might have lost Ohio to Clinton by only 10 points but look at this: He only won 5 OUT OF 88 COUNTIES--and he lost the largest, Cuyahoga.
He will definitely get all the Black vote but the White and Hispainc votes outside of the large cities will go to McCain.
Posted by: darredon | March 14, 2008 11:49 AM
blert: an obama supporter posted here yesterday that Sen obama needs to be spending time in fla repairing his image there; if he is the nominee he will need to either win or at least be competitive in fla. If your post is viewed by superdelegates as being correct that Hillary can win in Fla in Nov. and has already proven her strength and across the bd political support in Ohio, then that in itself is the best argument for her to be the nominee. How can we reject a candidate as our nominee the candidate who looks strong in the general election deciding states of either Fla or Ohio in place of a nominee who may win more red problematic red states. I fully agree with Chuck Todd who has said that Sen Obama is starting to look more and more like either a 55% or 45% candidate in the fall and I don't particulary care for another potential Dukakas type fiasco.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:50 AM
drindl - Pastor Wright given a top committee position in Obama's presidential campaign, Rev parlsey was not. That's the difference between a supporter and an advisor. How does one account for that judgement call, knowing how divisive this man's ongoing rhetoric is.
Now it is becoming very clear why Michelle Obama has never been proud of America; she's been listening to that hate-America screed for 20 years! It is mind-boggling how one could go back to hear more of that year after year, and yet claim to be against divisive rhetoric.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:50 AM
I agree with your choices, with two exceptions: Minnesota will stay Democratic.
And - ready for this - the District of Columbia may go to the GOP column if Obama is seen as being denied the nomination if he has the delegate lead and the popular vote going into the convention.
If that's the case, the dominoes will start to topple and McCan't will become the next president. And we may lose the Senate in the process.
Follow the rules folks...or it's just going to get uglier.
Posted by: CaptainJohn2525 | March 14, 2008 11:53 AM
Obama will have a tough time dis-associating himself with the racist Pastor Wright. If he didn't believe the things this guy was preaching then why did he stay in the congregation for 20 years and listen to it?
Posted by: Atlanta1 | March 14, 2008 11:54 AM
darredon: Cuyahoga Cty comprises a large part of inner city Cleveland along with Eastern European influences. I presumed that Sen Obama did well there. Are you reporting otherwise from Ohio, if so that is troubling. If he can't carry cuyahoga cty he can kiss Ohio good by in the general.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 11:54 AM
I am generally an Obama supporter but I think Chris has left out Pennsylvania. I think that based on Hillary's expected margin in the upcoming primary, I am concerned that McCain would beat Obama in Pennsylvania. Obama currently beats him in national polls, but those are just polls.
Posted by: jctk | March 14, 2008 11:55 AM
austinbigboy2000, I echo USMC's condolences, and offer a tremendous THANK YOU for your family's service to our country. We will not forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice, now or ever.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 11:55 AM
leightman, the Clinton campaign has seemed to forget this, but there are important states besides FL, OH, and PA. Important *swing* states.
I like Obama's chances better than Clinton's in: WI, MN, IA, MO, NC, VA and CO.
So there's more here than just FL, OH, and PA.
Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:01 PM
"drindl - Pastor Wright given a top committee position in Obama's presidential campaign, Rev parlsey was not. That's the difference between a supporter and an advisor. How does one account for that judgement call, knowing how divisive this man's ongoing rhetoric is."
Don't bother - general drindl won't answer.
She'll likely fling an insult or two, then get back to her hate sites (or soap operas).
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:01 PM
Another preacher who McCain actively courted -- John Hagee:
"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing."
Hagee also said, in the same interview, "Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."
And the pastor suggested in a book called "Jerusalem Countdown" that, as Sarah Posner puts it, "military confrontation with Iran is foretold in the Bible as a necessary precondition for the Second Coming."
You see, God wants us to bomb Iran. Not it all makes sense.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 12:04 PM
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:06 PM
Posted by: ecotopian | March 14, 2008 12:07 PM
Let's all get real here. Any Democrat has a high probability of winning California, New York, and New Jersey. Unfortunately, the more negative the Democrats become towards one another the better McCain will look in the primary season. The problem with the Democratic primary going on too long is that the attacks against Obama become more negative. McCain is already the nominee of the Republican Party and has all the past major Republican presidential nominees (Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson) supporting him in one form or another.
If Obama is the nominee in July or August, it will be harder for Hillary to come out and support Obama and still have her supporters believe her. Hillary can't spend 9 months trying to tear Obama down, then spend 2 to 3 months saying, 'yeah I like him and he would make a great president'.
In order to put more states into play, the Democratic Party (i.e. superdelegates) needs to end the nomination process as June 7th (the last Democratic voting contest) approaches.
Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 14, 2008 12:12 PM
In a poll released March 6, Survey USA polled 600 voters in each of the fifty states to determine how the two Democratic potential candidates Obama and Clinton would match up against the known Republican candidate McCain.
Here are CC's ten states re-ordered in the likelihood that the Obama would carry them and that Clinton would carry them, based on the poll results
If Obama is nominated: 1. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent) Obama leads by 10. 2. Iowa (Bush 50 percent) Obama leads by 9. 3. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent): Obama leads by 9. 4. Minnesota (Kerry 51 percent) Obama leads by 7. 5. New Mexico (Bush 50 percent) Obama leads by 7. 6. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent) Obama leads by 5. 7. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent): Obama leads by 5. 8. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): Obama leads by less than 1. 9. Florida (Bush 52) Obama trails by 2. 10. Missouri (Bush 53) Obama trails by 6
If Clinton is nominated: 1. Ohio (Bush, 51 percent) Clinton leads by 10. 2. Florida (Bush, 52 percent): Clinton leads by 9. 3. Minnesota (Kerry 51 percent) Clinton leads by 4 4. New Mexico (Bush 50 percent) Clinton leads by less than 1. 5. Missouri (Bush 53) Clinton trails by 4. 6. Iowa (Bush 50%) Clinton trails by 5. 7. Colorado (Bush, 52 percent) Clinton trails by 6. 8. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent) Clinton tails by 8. 9. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent) Clinton trails by 8. 10. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent) Clinton trails by 10.
Here are states where both Clinton and Obama appear to safely lead: California, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Here are states where both Obama and Clinton lead, but Obama leads by more: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Wisconsin.
Here are states where both Obama and Clinton lead, but Clinton leads by more: Massachusetts.
Here are states where Obama leads, but Clinton trails: Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia.
Here are states where Clinton leads, but Obama trails: Arkansas, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.
Here are states where both Obama and Clinton trail, but Obama is within 5: Alaska, Nebraska (Obama leads for 2 of the 5 electoral votes), North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas.
Here are states where both Obama and Clinton trail, but Clinton is within 5: Missouri, Tennessee.
Here are longshots for the Democrats where Obama trails by less: Indiana, Montana. Kansas is even, but Obama may have a campaign advantage with his Kansas roots and a slightly larger percentage of undecided.
Here are longshots for the Democrats where Clinton trails by less: Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma.
Here are states that appear to be safely Republican: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, Wyoming.
Posted by: john | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM
ecotopian - I saw your polls. Btw - if Washington went for McCain, that would be a flip. It's a big state with lots of rural voters, but Seattle/Tacoma keep it a reliable blue state. I'm skeptical about McCain winning, especially since he had primary/caucus (yes, we are like Texas somewhat) trouble.
The poll maps in your links do show Nebraska on the bubble. Sen. Nelson from Nebraska is reported as saying that he would prefer Obama, because he is the candidate most likely to tip the state Blue.
And GOP and USMC, are you ready for another day of pastings? While you half-heartedly skewer drindl for ad hominem attacks and non-arguments, you still haven't responded to the true story about McCain's domestic woes. I know there are a lot of commercials during Rush, so it's hard to get your opinions when you need them.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 12:16 PM
rp1 I especially know Colorado b/c I worked in the communications and legal team in Denver in '04 and have many activists friends still in Denver who I have spoken with recently.obama won colorado by carrying the very blue city of denver. Denver is very progressive and voted 71% for JK. My Obama friends which may disappoint you have told me that they have no problem with Hillary as many of their friends have told them they just feel that Sen Obama is more progressive and like him better. the key to Colorado I can fully assure you will be with the culturally conservative Hispanic voters in Pueblo and the rural parts of the state where salazar did well. I have no doubt Hillary will do just as well in Denver its the northern part of the state that is more rural that is more problematic; Colorado Springs being a total waste of time. Hillary lead in Mo. until the inner city Kansas City votes came in after midnight and gave Obama an extremly slim 10,000 vote margin out of several million, not exactly the landslide you alude to. Are you suggesting that Claire Macaskle wouldn't support Hillary in Nov, I truly doubt that she is a true blue Dem
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:22 PM
Chris Cilizza suffers from a problem common to experts everywhere - his detailed knowledge took so long to amass that some of it is always out of date. So he's like a general who's finally completely mastered the tactical problems of the last war, just in time for a new and completely different one.
CC was sure, like most people, that Hillary Clinton would be the next Dem nominee. I'm not criticising him - I've almost certainly lost $200 betting on Hillary myself. But it looks like he (and I) were wrong.
I now believe that ALL of the states on this list, except possibly Fla, will be blue. None of these rustbelt states are going to trust McCain with their jobs. We are heading for the mother of all recessions, and McCain has practically admitted he has no answers.
Some people are touting Michigan as a possible GOP win. McCain couldn't even win the GOP primary in Michigan.
The key for me is the astonishing Democratic turnout in the primaries. Take South Carolina:
Last Democratic SC primary (2004), total number of votes cast: 292,383 Last Republican SC primary (2000), total number of votes cast: 565,704
Democratic SC primary of 2008, total number of votes cast: 532,227 (up 82% since last primary) Republican SC primary of 2008, total number of votes cast: 431,196 (down 24% since last primary)
On Super Tuesday, 14.6 million people voted in Democratic primaries, and just 8.3 million in Republican primaries.
What's more, every previous election in modern history has been fought with a giant GOP financial advantage. Now, the boot is on the other foot.
The times are changing. Frankly, I could even imagine Obama winning both Carolinas and Louisiana.
Posted by: bourassa1 | March 14, 2008 12:23 PM
I would like to send a message to those posting on this site who give us this refrain (paraphrased):
"If (Obama/Clinton) is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain."
This is, inarguably, one of the most short-sighted and naive comments I've heard in quite some time. How can you claim to be someone who is looking for a changing of the guard in the White House and offer support for John McCain if your candidate isn't the nominee?
I happily and proudly support Barack Obama for President. I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she comes out with the nomination. 95% of the positions that Clinton and Obama have on the issues are so close to each other as to be identical. I understand the difference between campaign politics and reality. I ask you to do the same.
Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:28 PM
Barack Obama chose this man to conduct his marriage ceremony, to baptise his daughters into the faith, and to advise his in his presidential campaign:
He sat and listened to it for 20 years. He counseled with this man and sought his opinion. and maybe the worst... he took his children for their whole lives and exposed them to this man's preaching and thinking. So how do you think his kids feel about America?
Was that his best judgement as a parent? Was that his best judgement as a potential president of the United States?
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Quote: "What about Arkansas? I would think it would be a, if not the, top candidate if HRC is the Democratic nominee."
That's a laugh. Most can't stand HRC in Arkansas.
Posted by: wly34 | March 14, 2008 12:33 PM
A report from Iowa suggested that at their state convention next week that they may be reapportioning the Edwards delegates which may be 14. Edwards has about 56 delegates and seems to have no desire to endorse or release his delegates at this time. Anyone have any real info how these 56 crucial delegates will be apportioned other than rank speculation. I was an edwards supporter but have no idea when or if he will release his delgates and whether his delegates are then free to support anyone they want which may just end up being a 28/28 split.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:34 PM
leichtman, looking at John's data, I'll back off the Missouri angle. I lived in St Louis for three years, and thought that low African-American turnout in St Louis could hurt Clinton. I still think that's possible, but there are probably a bunch of HRC supporters who would switch over to McCain if Obama wins.
I'm still not convinced about CO, though. I don't think youth turnout will be as high there with HRC as it would with Obama. Plus, I think she'll follow the same strategy used by Gore and Kerry - ignore the vast majority of the country and focus all your money on Ohio and Florida (although PA will probably get in there, too). I think that's a bad plan this time.
Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:36 PM
Pay attention to the voter turnout in all states through about Feb. 12, when both the Dem and Rep contests were still competitive.
The turnout numbers in these primaries was gigantic for the Dems. If you look at the big EV states that are typically blue (CA, NY, NJ, MA), the D vote was about double the turnout of the R's.
Obama or Clinton will carry these states. He garnered more votes in most of these primaries than the R winner and runner-up combined.
Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:36 PM
A few people asked earlier about electoral vote numbers. I've added those to the rollovers on the map above.
Posted by: AlysonHurt | March 14, 2008 12:37 PM
cam8 thank you for that mature post. many of us don't want McCain to be selecting a replacement for Supreme Ct justice Stevens are conflicted and hope we can reach your same conclusion by election day. let me just say we all understand and appreciate what you posted and are working on it.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:37 PM
"Barack Obama chose this man to conduct his marriage ceremony, to baptise his daughters into the faith, and to advise his in his presidential campaign:"
I'm sure that if he had any advice for John McCain, it would be to stop cheating on your faithful, crippled wife and to stop lying to the country about campaign finance and lobbying reform. Can you find any YouTube sermons of his that address adultery and hypocrisy? If you do, I'll forward those to Macko's attention.
And stop ripping off Faux News or I'll report you for copyright infringement.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 12:40 PM
Guilt by association. Just because he is the pastor doesn't mean you follow everything he says. I am catholic and I don't follow everything my priest or my bible says. Problem with these big mouth pastors and supporters of Obama they couldn't keep their traps sealed. I am still an Obama supporter no matter what.
Posted by: bigben1986 | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM
The problem with the analysis is the negatives.
Mac and Obama have low negatives. They will go up as people focus in on the election.
Hillary has High negatives and they are not going higher.
Any way 52 percent of people said they would feel comfertable with a black candidate. Some people lied and some might go for Obama anyway but with his preacher man talking about 9/11 I doubt that. It is all over the TV but the WP will not cover it.
Hillary can not get more than 53 percent Max. She runs better among hispanics and the "Reagen Dems", Jews that makes the south west, FL, and Ohio Penn good states for her. Obama will do better in Iowa, Minn and Wis.
Va is a pipe dream. Anything is the south does not look good. GOP had higher turnout in GA than the Dems. White dems are more racist than sexist in the south so think what all the whites will do in the GE.
Both can lose - Hillary will not lose big and Obama can't win big - too much baggage plus not seen as a Commander and Chief IMO. I have been wrong before.
Posted by: mul | March 14, 2008 12:42 PM
rp1 you are probably correct she will concentrate on Ohio and fla but the plan is to also win 1-2 states like W Virginia and Arkansas and the dnc selected Denver for their convention b/c analyst say the Rockie Mtn area is the best area for Dems. I don't see McCain connecting with pa bluecollar voters. With McCain at the top of the ticket I still see a lot of local guy sentiment carrying Az, nevada and unfortunately colorado for him regardless of it being Obama or hillary. and that would not make me happy b/c I have a lot of time invested in Colorado I just think the Mtn state strategy won't work against Mccain, I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM
This is, inarguably, one of the most short-sighted and naive comments I've heard in quite some time. How can you claim to be someone who is looking for a changing of the guard in the White House and offer support for John McCain if your candidate isn't the nominee? Posted by: cam8 | March 14, 2008 12:28 PM
One thing to start, as you should see from this blog, nothing is inarguable.
But beyond that, I am hoping Obama is the nominee come November for the Dems. However, I will not vote for Hillary. If she is the nominee I will vote for McCain. Two main reasons bring me to my conclusion: 1. I don't see Hillary as any kind of change. She is politics as usual, and in my opinion, politics at there worst. 2. The most important issue for me this election is getting our leaders to work together. Our next president needs to do a better job of promoting compromise and bipartisanship amongst congress. I do not see Hillary as having this capability. I believe she alienates and divides. I think she would be a terrible leader for America.
Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM
Guilt by association. Just because he is the pastor doesn't mean you follow everything he says. I am catholic and I don't follow everything my priest or my bible says. Problem with these big mouth pastors and supporters of Obama they couldn't keep their traps sealed. I am still an Obama supporter no matter what.
Posted by: bigben1986 | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM ----------------------- Yea but you are not running for president. His staying in this Church for 20 years and having him celebrate his wedding is just obscene. I see this as a lack of judgement. I was going to vote for him but switched to Hillary when he picked three homophobic pastors to do fundraising in SC. I was going to look the other way if he got the nomination but looks like I may not have to, if this keeps up he will not get it.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:48 PM
*************************** Hillary has High negatives and they are not going higher. ***************************
mul, I agreed with this idea at the beginning of this campaign, but I'm less and less certain about it every day. That may be accurate, or it may be a sign of the fact that I spend too much time reading about this stuff.
Posted by: rpy1 | March 14, 2008 12:49 PM
I do not see Hillary as having this capability. I believe she alienates and divides. I think she would be a terrible leader for America.
Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 12:45 PM --------------------------- When Hillary first ran here for the Senate that was the case, but over the years she won over many people in upstate, who are very conservative.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:53 PM
bigben1986 - I assume the "not following everything your priest or [B]ible tell you to" is your willingness to support the execution of inconvenient, innocent children. Because Hussein Obama was quite liberal in the IL state legislature. He might as well have supported post-birth abortions, age 0-18 months.
I know your 21-22 year old mind may not comprehend how repugnant that is, and perhaps there are other things you don't like as well. Just hard to get past the one, to vote for this hope-peddling nutcase.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 12:54 PM
Chris, All states are NOT created equal.
The Line should include the electoral college votes of each state.
Florida is the biggest purple state.
Florida going blue is worth more than New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada combined.
Posted by: DRKetch | March 14, 2008 12:57 PM
I think 2008 will resemble 2006 in that local effects will be overwhelmed by the national character of events on the minds of voters. That could lead to some very surprising results.
Second, I think it is a mistake to look at November results with a March perspective. Once the conventions happen, there will be a modicum of party unity on both sides. Certainly one can question whether the democrats coalesce after the nature of the battles between Clinton and Obama; or whether the republicans can all fit back under the Reagan coalition tent under the leadership of McCain. But the perspective needs to be a post-convention perspective. Conventions will have a unifying effect.
I think there are a couple of durable factors that will apply no matter how the issues in the previous paragraph are addressed.
First, this election will be about George Bush. The voters will be voting for change. McCain is vulnerable on this account no matter his adversary or his running mate. Historically, voters reject a party's third term in the presidency.
Second, it will be about the worsening economy. Again, McCain will be playing outside of his national security strengths. Tactically, supporting Bush's tax cuts is a blunder with the independents he'll need in bulk to win.
All of the other issues will absorb the media and blogs, but these two factors will be a gale in the face of McCain and republican candidates for office in general.
Most of the red states on Chris's list will flip. And I expect there will be a couple of surprises if Obama is the nominee. I don't think any blue states will flip, not because of any particulars strengths of the democratic candidates, but because of the favorable national atmospherics facing democrats in 2008. It will be a long year for republicans.
Posted by: optimyst | March 14, 2008 12:58 PM
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 01:00 PM
'In an interview with a Pittsburgh newspaper, Obama personally addresses the revelations that Obama's pastor said "God damn America":
Q: I don't know if you've seen it, but it's all over the wire today (from an ABC News story), a statement that your pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side) made in a sermon in 2003 that instead of singing "God Bless America," black people should sing a song essentially saying "God Damn America." A: I haven't seen the line. This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.
Q: What about this particular statement?
A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe.'
Wright's involvement with Obama's campaign is honorary -- along with 130 other black ministers. Now, will John McCain denounce ANYTHING Hagee or Parsley have said? Anything?
'Renowned Faith Leaders Come Together to Support Obama'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 01:03 PM
When Hillary first ran here for the Senate that was the case, but over the years she won over many people in upstate, who are very conservative. Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 12:53 PM
That depends on your definition of "very conservative".
And doesn't that fly in the face of her ready on day one thesis? If it is going to take her years to win over people--how much can she really change? She would continue a divide in the country I believe Obama can heal. Too many, whether rightly or wrongly, have made up their mind and think of Hillary in terms of either really liking or really disliking. She doesn't have much middle ground.
Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 01:04 PM
"The most important issue for me this election is getting our leaders to work together. Our next president needs to do a better job of promoting compromise and bipartisanship amongst congress. I do not see Hillary as having this capability'
call me naive but my most impt issues are universal healthcare and the collapsing economy and ending the war. Actually Hillary has worked with Republicans in the Senate to help craft a stimulus bill, foreclosure protection caps, and with Lindsy Gramm to expand tricare and death benefits to our reserves. Quite a few independent senators have praised her bipartisan approach including the esteemed Robert Byrd, but if you wish to just repeat media caricaterizations of her that is certainly your right. Personally while I don't believe Sen Obama is qualified to be Pres I shutter to think of the right wing telling McCain who to pick to replace Justice Stevens probably someone like Ted Olson. Can you imagine that team, Olson/Alito/Saclia/Thomas/Roberts making constitutional decisions over the next 30 years?
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:06 PM
Since they are undeniably smart people who must realize they can't win the Democratic nomination this year it's becoming clear what Hillary and Bill Clintons strategy is. They intend to bash Obama to the point where he will be unelectable in the general thus giving the election and the White House to their friend, John McCain. McCain has already stated that he most likely won't run for re-election in 2012 because of his age setting the stage for a 2nd Hillary run. She will enter the Democratic primary that year saying "see, I told you so, I tried to warn you that Obama was unelectable." The Clintons understand that the typical voter has a poor memory so they are banking on the hope that everyone in the party will have forgotten her campaigns antics this year and the unfortunate consequence for Obama in the general election. It's a sad day when a person, or in this case a couple, is so driven by cynicism and a thirst for power that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the Country for their own ambitions and glory. If McCain is elected and we face another four years of Bush style leadership from the White House, both in foreign relations and the economy, the results will be disastrous. The Clintons undoubtedly understand this and see it as an opportunity for Hillary to ride to the Country's rescue on a white horse in 2012.
Posted by: dwarren | March 14, 2008 01:09 PM
Since they are undeniably smart people who must realize they can't win the Democratic nomination this year it's becoming clear what Hillary and Bill Clintons strategy is. They intend to bash Obama to the point where he will be unelectable in the general thus giving the election and the White House to their friend, John McCain. McCain has already stated that he most likely won't run for re-election in 2012 because of his age setting the stage for a 2nd Hillary run. She will enter the Democratic primary that year saying "see, I told you so, I tried to warn you that Obama was unelectable." The Clintons understand that the typical voter has a poor memory so they are banking on the hope that everyone in the party will have forgotten her campaigns antics this year and the unfortunate consequence for Obama in the general election. It's a sad day when a person, or in this case a couple, is so driven by cynicism and a thirst for power that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the Country for their own ambitions and glory. If McCain is elected and we face another four years of Bush style leadership from the White House, both in foreign relations and the economy, the results will be disastrous. The Clintons undoubtedly understand this and see it as an opportunity for Hillary to ride to the Country's rescue on a white horse in 2012.
Posted by: dwarren | March 14, 2008 01:10 PM
from the Jewish weekly, the Forward:
'In March, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee departed from past policy and gave Hagee a prime slot at its national convention in Washington, his new status in the Jewish community was confirmed. I am an admirer and supporter of Aipac, but this decision was a mistake for two reasons.
The first is the way that Hagee's appearance would be perceived on Capitol Hill. The central principle of Israel advocacy for half a century has been that support of Israel must be broad and bipartisan, and this means appealing to the Republican and Democratic mainstream and avoiding identification with controversial minorities in either party.
Second, and even more worrisome, was the question of how Hagee's Aipac speech would be interpreted by the Jewish community. My fear was that it would confer legitimacy on him and that local communities would be tempted to embrace him as Aipac had, in the process alienating many Jews, including most young Jews -- and this is precisely what has happened.
We know a great deal about Jewish young adults. We have learned from extensive research that these young people are often more socially liberal than their baby-boomer parents. They are pluralistic in their thinking, and they are tolerant of difference, especially differences in gender and sexual orientation.
They respond negatively to those who disparage other religious traditions and who make exclusivist religious claims. They are insistently centrist in their political views on the Middle East. And they are suspicious of a Jewish establishment that they see as too focused on money and insufficiently focused on values.
And so whom do we offer to these young people as a spokesman for Israel? John Hagee, who is contemptuous of Muslims, dismissive of gays, possesses a triumphalist theology and opposes a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If our intention was to distance our young adults from the Jewish state, we could not have made a better choice.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 01:10 PM
There aren't "Reagan Democrats" in West Virginia. The state barely voted for him in 1984 and voted for Carter in 1980. Bush only won the state because Democrats have blown it off in the last 2 elections.
Posted by: spike1518 | March 14, 2008 01:13 PM
Just curious: In the 2004 presidential campaign, did John Kerry and other Catholics denounce and reject Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict ) when he advised American Catholic bishops to refuse to give sacraments to Pro-Choice Catholic politicians?
Posted by: joy2 | March 14, 2008 01:14 PM
Perched atop a red-carpet altar, seated on a wide white and blue throne, Pastor John Hagee waits until the jazz band has quieted, the 125-member choir has left the stage and the soloist has moved the congregation almost to tears.
An emotional, energetic half-hour of song praising the glory of God passes. Then Hagee tells ushers at his 5,000-seat Cornerstone Church to take their positions.
With the dozens of men bearing glinting platters in the aisles, and six cameramen capturing the moment, Hagee instructs church members to hold their money toward the heavens. The thousands repeat after him: "Give and it shall be given."
"When you give, it qualifies you to receive God's abundance," he tells his listeners. "If God gives to you before you give to him, God himself will become a liar. ... If you're not prospering, it's because you're not giving."
"If you're not prospering, it's because you're not giving," he repeats.
For four decades, Hagee's message has motivated his members to give millions to his ministry.
And it is a message that has helped his nonprofit television arm, Global Evangelism Television, become a prosperous, global, moneymaking family enterprise that has netted millions year after year peddling prayer, inspirational books, tapes and the promise of prosperity.
Because he worked "80 hours a week" writing books, singing songs, meeting international dignitaries and answering the call to preach the word of God, John Hagee said: "I deserve every dime I'm getting."
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 01:19 PM
Chris, a large part of the "upset" victory in 2006 for Jim Webb in Virginia is easily attributed to George Allen's "macaca" comment. He was far ahead in the polls until then. The race was Allen's to lose and he managed to do just that by attempting an ad lib comment that got recorded and used rather well by campaign strategists.
Posted by: kiltedknight | March 14, 2008 01:20 PM
Democrats blew off West Virginia in 2004? And where is that coming from? I saw Edwards and Kerry making stop after stop there and what I saw as wasting tons of valuable time and resources in west va(rather than spending more time at Ohio State), with a poor economy, and getting heckled by antiabortion zealots who would rather stop an abortion by an unwed teeanager than put food on their table.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:21 PM
call me naive but my most impt issues are universal healthcare and the collapsing economy and ending the war. Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:06 PM
Those might be important issues to you... However, not everyone thinks the same. Apparently I should just void my own thoughts and replace them with yours? Sorry that you don't believe working together is an important issue: but I don't see how any of your important issues will be solved (and solved effectively) unless our leaders work together. But again just my opinion. It is going to take more than simply working with "independent" senators to get the job done right. You might be wise to look at a few polls about how Americans feel about Hillary. Or talk to some non-democrats for a change; see how they feel about Hillary.
Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 01:23 PM
You are not analyzing this properly. THis is not a normal election - Obama is changing this. IF he is the Dem candidate, he will either do very well, or totally crash and burn. I believe he will crash and burn - the excitement over the phoney slogans is over, and the fact his wife and minister both seem to hate America may play well with WaPo, but I assure you it won't play well among average Americans.
Posted by: pgr88 | March 14, 2008 01:24 PM
kilt: Sen Webb could not have taken advantage of the macaca moment without a terrific campaign team staff and hordes of dedicated volunteers. He ran a textbook well run insurgent campaign with the help of Mark Warner/Tim Kaine and a new dynamic in Va.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:25 PM
'macaca' summed up allen in a nutshell -- a racist coward. only reason he was ever popular was because he never said what he really thought except to friendly cracker crowds. that era is over with camera phones and utube. and jim webb is a soldier and a true patriot.
here's some footage of Hagee -- man, he's even crazier than I thought. and McCain refuses to distance himself--seriously, watch this nut. he hates catholics hugely:
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 01:29 PM
Chris - Where's the story about Obama's minister in today's WaPo. I can't find it. Go figure.
Posted by: waterfrontproperty | March 14, 2008 01:34 PM
Macaca was the catalyst for Allen's downfall but it still had to be taken advantage of and the electorate still had to think it was important. In other states Allen would have survived.
Allen could have been our first Jewish president too. Poor Macacawitz. LOL
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 01:34 PM
obviously jnoel you missed my other comment where prominent US Senators have including Byrd and Leheay have said she has done exactly what you claimed she can't do. Work across party lines and actually get things done. read last sunday's NY Times where they interviewed US Senators who claim that Sen Obama has accomplished aand has very little to show for his time in the Senate.
I doubt I am alone in saying I am worried sick about my family's income, $4 gas prices, paying for healthcare, and a collapsing stock market. the last pres we had that said he was a unifer didn't have the knolwdge or expertise to run our nation. call me selfish but I prefer a known quantity who knows how to save our economy over a wish and a hope for unity, but again you did not explain how you would feel with Ted Olson replacing Justice Steven under McCainRepblicans will despise and turn on any Dem once they got into office. the reveared JFK was demeaned here in Texas by Repubs, I remember that distinctly so i suggest that you don't count on their changing their stripes if Sen Obama should become the Pres. That will probably last a few weeks before they turn on him for not immediately fixing all of W's screwups.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 01:36 PM
"working together is an important issue:"
Working together is NOT an issue in and of itself -- it's one way of addressing issues.
What if Congress decided to work together, but only on issues like "Resolved: Puppies are cute." Would that satisfy you.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 01:41 PM
How about just looking at these posts? You wouldn't be thinking about "jkrish," "zouk," or "svreader," would you?
Back on PA, do you agree with me that BHO will close the gap there, based on past patterns, but probably still lose by 5-10?"
Jac13: sorry I didn't get back to you. Yes, we have examples right here on this page although He Who's Name Will Not Be Spoken has yet to make his usual blathering appearance.
I think BHO's PA support might even level off in the next week or two. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that HRC agreed to debate him in Philly. It helps him a lot more than it does her.
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 01:51 PM
"I can't see a single reason why any blue state should turn red, when 80% of the country thinks we're 'moving in the wrong direction...'" _____________________________________
I can think of one big one: Barack Obama.
Posted by: VegetablesPlease | March 14, 2008 01:56 PM
Chris, you need a better copy editor.
"likely to switch from Democrat to Republican" is incorrect. If you're using Republican as an adjective than the correct matching adjective is "Democratic."
Make this mistake again, and you'll be accused of echoing the GOP's linguistic strategy.
Posted by: LevRaphael | March 14, 2008 02:02 PM
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:02 PM
Leichtman I didn't miss your comment. A handful of examples do not show that you are willing to work with others. I could cut and paste numerous instances where Obama has worked with other across the aisle. Just yesterday Obama, Clinton and McCain all co-sponsored a bill. It doesn't mean you are proactively reaching out to others...Hillary comes off as someone who will do anything for a vote-and she has demonstrated it this entire primary.
call me selfish but I prefer a known quantity who knows how to save our economy over a wish and a hope for unity.
What kind of known quantity is Hillary? She is a one and a half term senator. That is the entirety of her elected resume. Don't go touting 35 years of experience by osmosis.
You show the exact kind of thinking that I believe needs to change: your opinion/beliefs don't matter you should only care about mine. Hillary's divide and conquer politics doesn't accomplish much. You worry about healthcare, what ever happened to Social Security? Just another issue pushed to the side because it wasn't politically relevant. She brings about more partisanship and it appears she embraces the division. With Hillary there's nothing new under the sun. Perception matters; Hillary brings more angst to the table, no hope and no change.
Furthermore, you can sit here and speculate about Justice's all day...I am not electing a President soley on who they might appoint to the Supreme Court. Especially because they don't follow marching orders from those who appoint them. With Supreme Court Justices you don't necessarily know what you are gong to get.
Posted by: jnoel002 | March 14, 2008 02:02 PM
Hagee is not an advisor to anyone's campaign, only a rogue supporter. Pastor Jeremiah Wright has been hand-picked by Obama to be in his campaign as an advisor. The difference is clear, even if you refuse to see it drindl.
Obama's longtime relationship with Wright is continuing to spark controversy, as voters try to have a better look at the D frontrunner and what he stands for.
"This is not just someone that Barack Obama has a casual relationship with," said Tom Bevan, executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com. He noted that Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, and Wright's words were the inspiration for the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."
"Barack Obama has not out and out distanced himself from all of these comments ... ," said Patricia Murphy, editor of CitizenJanePolitics.com. "It's unclear if he rejects all of these statements. I would assume that he does, but I think he is going to be pushed where he needs to come out and fully explain his relationship with his pastor."
Some of Wright's statements have raised eyebrows at a time the Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing tax-exempt religious organizations for alleged violations of rules barring them from participating in political campaigns.
Prior to his retirement last month, Wright delivered commentary from the pulpit in which he praised Obama, as well as remarks focusing on the racial divide between Obama and Clinton.
"There is a man here who can take this country in a new direction," Wright said during his Jan. 13 sermon.
During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama's upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright said. "Hillary would never know that.
"Hillary ain't never been called a [n-word]. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person."
In a Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:
"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 02:03 PM
Vegetable: you mean because he's black?
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 02:03 PM
"I submit Hussein wins, with the gushing, fawning, fainting "fans" of this political "rock-star" who stands for "hope"." - USMC_Mike
Why do you have to refer to Barack by his middle name Mike? Are you that much of a coward and a bigot? I sure as hell hope that you are not really a Marine, as your sn suggests, b/c that would surely diminish my very high opinion of them if a bigot such as yourself is one. Why can't GOP cowards like yourself argue against someone based on their positions on the issues? Is it b/c you know there is no way you can win that way?
How often do you refer to John McCain as Sidney? Exactly.
Posted by: buckidean | March 14, 2008 02:10 PM
'Hagee is not an advisor to anyone's campaign, only a rogue supporter'
'Rogue?' what a joke. mccain practically begged the man to support him and has appeared with him several times. Wright is one of 130 black pastors who are supporting Obama as a group. He has no more influence than any of the othrs.
'Some of Wright's statements have raised eyebrows at a time the Internal Revenue Service is scrutinizing tax-exempt religious organizations for alleged violations of rules barring them from participating in political campaigns.'
and this is hilarious too when the religious right has been proseltying for republicans for 7 ears, without 'raising any eyebrows' with the IRS.
just more pot calling the kettle black. Hagee and Parsley have been breaking the tax laws for years.
Obama has no control over what wright says about him. But he has denounced some of the things Wright has said. McCain has never renounced a single word that either hateful lunatic charlatan Parsley or Hagee has uttered.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 02:10 PM
Have to imagine that a lot of the Red States will go to Obama if he;s the nominee. Moderates and indies are a tipping point.
Posted by: parkerfl | March 14, 2008 02:11 PM
No, because his pacifistic tendencies and socialist, victim rhetoric are extremely left-wing and will not appeal to moderate Democrats.
Posted by: VegetablesPlease | March 14, 2008 02:12 PM
One issue a new president will be faced with are the openings that are likely to occur on the Supreme Court. If elected, McCain will ensure the high court remains conservative for the next three decades, placing many of our civil rights laws in jeopardy and returning us to the good ole boys days. Right now many of their decisions are 5-4 with the Conversatives banning together.
This can be the deciding factor on whether someone votes Republican or Democrat in the general election. I like Obama, but would vote for Hillary to ensure the supreme court isn't all conservative.
Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 14, 2008 02:13 PM
Pat robertson and Jerry faldwell?
the other hate and vioence inciting religous right?
Should we print their sermons word for word and sink any hope their candidates have? Like mccain?
Tsst tsst tsst, proud. Nobody's buying it. If all you got is third and fourth person garbage, your worse off than I thought. Can't you lie spin or discredit obama himself? If not he must be pretty darn good. If all you got is thrid person gripes.
Keep it up zouk, I mean proud. We'll see who buys it. Is that all you hannity rush clones got? WOW. Yoru party is done for a very long time if all you got is preacher sermons.
I'm going to dig up falwell and robertson's worst just for you. Nah, why waste my time on a propogandists who doesn't believe half of what she says anyway.
Our resident drug dealer proud. Trying to make sure she gets mazimum profits for her drugs. Very sad, what you traitors do for money. Not going to work proud. Your fascist cult is done. no one's buying it.
Medicine is not a profession to make a fortune off of anymore. soon it will go back to helping people as the goal. Poor drug dealers for profit like proud.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:13 PM
leichtman, the comments that I make about Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina are based, not on partisanship and support for Obama, but because I have LIVED on all of those states and I know the people who LIVE there. Please advise as to why you consider yourself an expert.
Posted by: Lilly1 | March 14, 2008 02:14 PM
"Why can't GOP cowards like yourself argue against someone based on their positions on the issues?"
I'd be happy to talk about the issues.
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't want to talk about issues.
His extreme liberalism won't appeal to many people.
Issues are a handicap for Obama. So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:17 PM
I once heard Hagee ranting and raving against the evils of adultery, hypocrisy, and barrotry. He has specifically stated that taking rides from lobbyists and later sleeping with them is against God's word. He also cautions against losing your temper and behaving like a crybaby.
GOP, you're right. Hagee holds absolutely no sway over Johnny Mack.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 02:19 PM
drindl, "He has no more influence than any of the othrs."
Yeah right. He was selected to be the campaign advisor for Obama, by Obama. Wright was also selected to give a keynote speech at Obama's announcement, but the campaign pulled the rug out at the last minute to keep their close relationship hush-hush.
His influence on the Obamas is very evident, and it was his words "Audacity of Hope" on the cover of Obama's best-selling book. That is quite a bit more influence than your'e giving him credit for.
A 20 year relationship has a profound effect on a young man's ideas and worldview.
Just as Mitt Romney explained his faith and how it shapes his decisions and judgement, Obama's got some 'splainin to do about his close ties with this America-hating pastor and church for 20 years.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 02:22 PM
"So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing."
I bet you wouldn't say that to her face, you gutless punk.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 02:22 PM
hillary's supporters are just as bad as bush's. In most cases the same people. We beat bush's propogandists and fascists. If clitnon supporters want to take up the battle WITH the gop against the democratic movement, by all means. If your not a democrat, are you now republcains clinton supporters?
Clitnon and her di fi moderates have done zero to fight the gop the last decade. ZERO, other than be a punching bag and the blame of all ills. Do the clinton's need us, the democratic movement, more than we need then? Yes they do. think about the future. Clinton's only future, after what she has done, is mccains vp hopeful. Then to be defeated by obama.
STabbed in the back. First you moderates sell-out to the gop and refuse to hold them to account. then you appologize and make money with them. Now you fight with them. you lay down with dogs you get fleas. You side and enable fascists you are fascists. Not because I say so. But by the definition of the word fascist. you are propogandists and terrorists for the same reason gop. Forget goodwins law. If you fit the definition of said word, that is what you are. Not because anyone calls you it.
you don;t want to be called fascist sabotuers, I have an Idea. Stop being that then. you don't want to be labeled as enabling the gop fascists? DON'T.
Hillay is not going to win the nomination. Not going to happen. Crawl back in your holes for a generation rush limbaughs sabotuers. no on's buying it. Your playing mind games amounst yoruselves. The american people are laughing at you propogandists for power of profit. You had your chance gop (clinton includeD). You wasted it. The game is up. We see you sabotuers and traitors now. Move forward or move back? Enable of fight the fascists. Choose.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:22 PM
bondjedi - I'd say it to yours
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:23 PM
"George Bush really believes -- and is outright telling us -- that when he orders private citizens to do something, and they obey, then it means that -- even if what they're doing is illegal -- they are acting "patriotically" and should be protected from all consequences. Are there any monarchs left anywhere in the Western World who even claim such a power -- to be able to order citizens to break the law? That's been a discredited "principle" since at least the Nuremberg Trials, yet this warped assertion of monarchical powers really is the central premise of the case for telecom amnesty. "
Are you fighting the red coat confederates or enabling them clinton supporters. Please enlighten me as to ho wyou AR ENOT enabling and strengthening the gop. Explain your actions, please.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:25 PM
Nobody mentions Wisconsin? It was one of the closest states in 2000 and 2004.
Posted by: SilentCal | March 14, 2008 02:27 PM
Allen could have been our first Jewish president too. Poor Macacawitz. LOL
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 01:34 PM ------------------- Another good one Spec2
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 02:29 PM
I just heard some of those sound clips from Obama's "pastor".
You're right -- someone needs to ask Obama about this.
Too bad no one will.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:29 PM
I'm from MN and I highly doubt if MN will be anywhere near to going red....Pawlenty is a fairly suave politician, but don't see many people voting Republican this fall....Over 200,000 voters turned out for the democratic caucus, while only 50,000 went for the republican caucus.
Someone mentioned that Obama would mean that CA would be a toss up...also disagree on that since Republicans only had half the voters in the primary in CA than democrats (Obama's votes alone almost equaled all republican candidates combined)
I agree with that Iowa will likely go blue especially if Obama is the nominee.
Posted by: garrett.melchior | March 14, 2008 02:30 PM
"You show the exact kind of thinking that I believe needs to change: your opinion/beliefs don't matter you should only care about mine."
once again these types of discussions are a complete waste of your time and mine. I post examples of specific bipartisan legislation she has sponsored and esteemed Senators who feel she is bipartisan and you turn it into a personal attack. No one here has ever told you that your beliefs and opinions don't matter, no one. We just happen to disagree.
My thinking and beliefs don't need to change to accomodate you and vice versa. I happen to believe that policy differences do matter. I happen to believe that experience be it 1 year or 35 years matters. You think a few years in the Illinois Senate and minimal time in the Senate is enough for uou. that is fine I can just tell you that I am not alone in this concern that there is an experience gap that all of the spinning won't change.
We come here to express our opinion, period. Not of them are only better or worthwhile than any other's. You have your reasons for supporting Sen Obama that is fine. but as a lawyer and someone with experience in the corp world i can tell you that it matters quite a bit to your life and your community's not only who sits in the oval office but who sits on the US Supreme Ct and makes economic decisions which may effect your ability to pay your bills or have a job next year. Do i expect to change your opinion or to open your eyes and realize that Hillary is not evil or a monster. Probably not since that has been pounded into you and you are obviously unwilling to even objectively consider otherwise. While I am a staunch Hillary supporter, I listen to his speeches, read his web site and try as hard as it sometimes is to listen to his supporters views. Since this is such a close an emotional race I think the process deserves that attention. And yea I worry about healthcare as do millions of Americans. SS is solvent for another 30 years it will be resolved and requires very minor cost of living adjustment to make it solvent til 2100.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 02:34 PM
And rather than turning away from this race-bating, hate-mongerer, Obama was MARRIED by him, had his children BAPTIZED by him, and DONATED $22,000, for 22 YEARS.
Obama *KNEW* (the same way lylepink KNOWS things) what this guy was all about.
He liked it, supported it, and wants more of it.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:35 PM
IA & NM were blue states flipped by Bush. They will both return to blue this year.
MO is a tough one. How can it turn blue without a huge black turnout in St Louis and to a lesser extent in Kansas City? Clinton cannot flip this state. But could Obama make the margin close enough in the rest of the state?
MN Pawlenty is not unpopular, but he is not exactly popular either. As an incumbent governor the voters need a reason to vote him out. But they also need a reason to vote for McCain and Pawlenty isn't it. MN will not flip.
WI should replace MN on the line. In 2000 & 2004 it was decided by a couple thousand votes. Clinton would need to make up the loss of black votes in Milwaukee (and to a lesser extent Madison & Racine-Kenosha) with votes from Regan Democrats in the Fox river valley or a general anti-Bush Republican vote. The problem is Wisconsin loves Mavericks (left or right) and McCain fits the bill.
FL should only be on the line if Crist is not VP. Even if he is not VP FL and VA would need a big anti-Bush/Republican vote for a Clinton candidacy if blacks stay home to protest her campaign's primary tactics.
I don't think you can make a flip-state line until you know the Democratic nominee and how much damage their primary battle has done to certain voter groups. On the flip side this line will be pointless if the electorate reaches a tipping point. If voters (except the rabid fringes) decide the economy is too bad and foreign policy is a mess and it is all the fault of the Republicans, every state but UT, ID & NE could be a blue state. I don't think we'll get there. I think voters will be sympathetic to a Democratic candidate, but won't vote blue automatically. However, I do think there is a chance of it.
Posted by: caribis | March 14, 2008 02:35 PM
Hillay is not going to win the nomination. Not going to happen. Crawl back in your holes for a generation rush limbaughs sabotuers. no on's buying it. Your playing mind games amounst yoruselves. The american people are laughing at you propogandists for power of profit. You had your chance gop (clinton includeD). You wasted it. The game is up. We see you sabotuers and traitors now. Move forward or move back? Enable of fight the fascists. Choose.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:22 PM
Our resident drug dealer proud. Trying to make sure she gets mazimum profits for her drugs. Very sad, what you traitors do for money. Not going to work proud. Your fascist cult is done. no one's buying it.
Medicine is not a profession to make a fortune off of anymore. soon it will go back to helping people as the goal. Poor drug dealers for profit like proud.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:13 PM
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:02 PM ------------------------------ Small minds talk about people? Do you ever read the dribble you write? What a tool.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 02:35 PM
USMC, I was blown away after hearing this guy. I cannot imagine going back to hear that for 20 years.
I've been to many churches, and have been one of the only white people in the pews at times, but it was never like that. This is so far outside the mainstream, it's ridiculous.
Some of it sounds just like the Westboro baptist haters. Absolutely disgusting.
Can you imagine putting money in the plate year after year to hear that?
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 02:36 PM
Posted by: judgeccrater | March 14, 2008 02:38 PM
Have you seen the film, "Uncounted - The New Math of American Elections?" Information on it is available at http://uncountedthemovie.com/.
I viewed it on Wednesday night. It was damning of touch screen no paper voting machines, the huge numbers of undercounted and uncounted votes in the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections. It drew stark comparsions between statistical indicators and counted votes in many states. It illustrated the frustrations prevalent in minority and Democratic leaning voting districts with their being not enough and broken voting machines, missing voter registrations between the primaries and general elections in a given year, and the incredibly long and frustrating waits imposed upon voters in selected districts, harassment of certain types of voters and voter in select districts, and much more.
It offered personal testimony from Republicans, Greens, Dems, and non-aligned individuals about voting machine code, locks, suspicious machines, and a lot of really scary information about how unreliable and easily tampered with and invisible touch screen machines can be and how they cannot be independently checked or audited to determine real voting behavior versus fraudulent and flipped votes. It covered Diebold's efforts to defraud the california government as to the safety and reliability of the Diebold equipment that California purchased.
The film made a strong case that laid out how different the votes should have been in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and other states in Presidential Election years 2000 and 2004. And showed that 2006 was just about as bad for lost votes. All the lost votes, always factored to Republican advantage.
It went on to discuss better ways and better equipment to be used in elections.
If any half of what is portrayed in the film is true, it is terrifying. The film pointed out that mainstream media ignored or glossed over many of the concerns and specifics raised about uncounted votes which would have changed the outcomes of the last 2 Presidential Elections and would have made a much greater Dem victory in 2006.
With this years 2008 elections in progress and leading to the General Election in November, will you factor these concerns into your reporting or are they just nonsense that should be flushed down a sewer? How credible is this film in your estimation? If it is credible, how can we lay men predict anything, when outcomes can be made by man and machine and by vote depression and loss?
I worked on an independent write-in campaign, against an incumbent, this past fall. We lost by 13 votes, but should have won on so many levels, if that election had been fairly run. It was the first campaign that I had worked upon in over 20 years, but I recall how elections were regularly rigged in various ways in nearby cities back in the 60's and 70's. Will America ever have fair elections? We have no real democracy, when so many elections have been tampered with.
Please help me understand how real the "Uncounted" film is or not? This is dire. Should everyone view this film or not? Thank you.
Posted by: kstokem | March 14, 2008 02:39 PM
"Q: What about this particular statement?
A: Obviously, I disagree with that."
How about asking, "What DO you agree with? Obviously something, as you donated $22,000 at a time."
"Why did you invite him to give the prayer at your announcement to run, then cancel the night before?"
"Why would you stay for 20 YEARS?"
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:42 PM
Obama and his supporters have overplayed their hand.
Obama's real record is dismal.
Clinton should demand Obama release detailed records of his hard drug use, including a list of all the people Obama bought hard drugs from, used them with, and sold them too.
America will never knowingly elect a President with a history of abusing hard drugs like cocaine or heroin.
While she's at it, Clinton should demand Obama release a full list of his prior sex partners of both sexes.
Since Obama supporters are always accusing Hillary of being a Lesbian, which she is not, Clinton supporters should return fire and force Obama to tell American know just how "exotic" his own sexual history is.
Obama is a fake and a fraud.
The sooner the American people find out the truth about Obama, the sooner his campaign of hype and guilt-tripping everyone will blissfully end.
Lets start with full disclosure of his relationship with Rezko.
The one he lied about on national TV during the debates.
Video of Obama's LIE be re-played over and over if Democrats make the mistake of nominating Obama for anything.
The truth will be the end of Obama!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 02:43 PM
Long time denizens of The Fix know me to be a strong supporter of Barack. And I think he has to repudiate the views his pastor. Strongly. The connection is too intimate. Not like Hagee at all. No way can he be connected to his campaign in any way.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 02:44 PM
'No, because his pacifistic tendencies and socialist, victim rhetoric are extremely left-wing and will not appeal to moderate Democrats.'
you apparently have never met one. nor do you know the meaning of the world 'socialist'
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
--nobody is advocating this. nobody.
'His extreme liberalism won't appeal to many people.'
LOL. you are a clueless tool. guess you don't read the newspapers about all the gigantic crowds of thousands he brings out, while mccian manages to barely bring in crowds of tens -- all of them old white men.
I realize that Wright is the particular radical right talking point this week, but it isn't going to stick any more than the phony 'islamic upbringing' did. Not as long as mccain continues to suck up to nutcases like one:
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 02:45 PM
I live in Virginia. It is definitely in play, more so for Obama than for Clinton. Kaine won the governorship handily; the same year the Dem candidate for A.G. came within 200 votes of beating the GOP candidate. (The Repubs won Lt Gov because we ran a weak candidate.) The George Allen defeat was definitely made possible by the macaca moment and other screw-ups, but make no mistake: as recently as two years earlier he might have been re-elected anyway. The state is definitely trending blue.
I'm for Obama, but I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. For you disaffected Dems who say if your candidate isn't the nominee you'll vote for McCain, as I've said in this space many, many times, I have three words for you:
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 02:46 PM
"Sjkarpov19:There is a hidden "anti" vote in polls. If the two candidates are WASP's, then the polls are usually on the mark. But there will be a hidden anti-black vote and ant-women vote and for McCain an anti-elderly vote."
The problem with that theory is that to apply it you have to count the same votes twice.
There IS a strong anti non WASP-male contingent in the public, it makes up a big portion of the Republican base. It already votes, and posts on blogs saying "IF Hillary", or "If Obama" it will vote for McCain. You may assume it will vote McCain or stay home regardless.
As for how the Obama and Hillary factions will split, Hillary drawing old line Democrats as she does, the Dems who voted for her (as opposed to the Repubs who voted Against Obama) will still turn out. Obama's support is more problematical, but as long as Obama campaigns for somebody in the fall, they should mostly break for Hillary, excepting again the anti Hillary people.
The remarkable thing about this election is the huge turn out ratios in favor of Democrats in so many states that voted for Bush in 04. Quite obviously the splits won't be near as big in November, but in no blue state is there a swing towards Republicans, and in all but the smallest red states the swing to the Democrats in the Primaries looks awful large for John McCain to make up. Those of you who are finding polls saying McCain wins should be looking at polls that have an actual Democratic leaning to find hope in a poll that says JM is ahead. With the rise in Cell Phone only telecommunications ALL phone based polls, which means, essentially, all polls have a sample bias that pollsters haven't yet learned how to account for.
The real interesting analysis of the demographic shift will be to compare EQ's and EQ ratios for 2000 and 2004. Probably works for lesser offices as well.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 02:46 PM
"I haven't seen the line."
"This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement..."
"I profoundly disagree with some of these statements."
"Obviously, I disagree with that."
"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements..."
"There are times when people say things that are just wrong."
This is called SPIN. (HRC style.)
"I profoundly disagree with some of these statements."
I PROFOUNDLY disagree with slavery. If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:48 PM
Subconsciously or otherwise, SCUM_Mike and ProudToBeAMeatPuppet realize that this country will not lose a great leader due to SwiftBoating. The other day they applauded Larry Craig's actions in the mens room, today they stand up in support of adultery, thinking their craven attacks on a great man like Barack (learn how to spell that name, boys, because you'll be screaming it later). What's next, fellas - foot fetishes and spanking will determine our next President?
Bring it, though. I will not disappoint a sock puppet so eager to receive a lashing. This is the paper that brought down Nixon - do you think we'll have any trouble with a couple of deadenders like you?
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 02:48 PM
There are no Red States anymore.
Not when the price of milk has doubled in a year and the price of gas has doubled in a year, and the CEOs get richer and the middle class gets smaller.
The Blue Tidal Wave is going to wash America clean - and it will not stop for ANYTHING!
Posted by: WillSeattle | March 14, 2008 02:49 PM
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your done McCain we the American people are sick of this scare tatic B U L L S H I T.. First your own party trashed you during the last 2 elections and now you try this crap. YOU CRAZY OLD COOT!!! We are scared, we are scared of REPUBLICANS that continue to KILL Americans for HUGH profits for the republican party the TRUE cut and run party.
NO REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA!!! Now that would be a GREAT country.
Posted by: 1-20-09 | March 14, 2008 02:49 PM
The truth will be the end of Obama!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 02:43 PM ------------------- While I thought you were nuts when you started ranting about this I think this is going to hurt him, maybe even cost him the election. I also think you do yourself a great disservice by cutting and pasting all these long rants over and over on several pages. Most probably do what I do when they discover it's you, scroll on by.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 02:49 PM
Obama has a long and well known history of telling one thing to one person or group and the opposite to another.
He talks big and delivers nothing.
H's a "master manipulator" that thinks he can "get over" on anyone and everyone.
People are starting to see the kind of Person Obama really is, and he's not a very nice one.
What he did in Chicago proves that he doesn't care about anyone but himself.
He is a classical narcissist.
His arrogance, ego, incompetence and history will be his downfall.
The real Obama is a really bad guy.
The floodgates of truth are opening and will drown his chances in a sea of nasty facts.
The Truth will be the end of Obama!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 02:52 PM
bondjedi -- those who disagree with you are "scum".
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:53 PM
"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 02:48 PM "
so is obama his pastors slave or vice versa?
I can never keep up with the gop's mentality of lie spin and discredit. I never come to what really matters in you physco's minds because it changes every week.
Rush: Any militray man who does not support the war is a "phoney soldier"
Foot tapping and prositution is fine in the bathroom and should be appluded.
Prostitu in a pro house is illegal and the man should be fired.
Perjury with the president over a bj bad. Should get impeached.
Perjury leaking of a cia agent is good and should be covered up.
I give up with the propogating fascists. you don't believe half the garbage that leaves your mouths. So why waste our time with people who lie know their lying and have no intintion of building any credbility..
I'm not sure how to deal with fascists who don't have or want credibility. What is a blogger with zero cred? A propogandist?
WOW. I say we quit caring about dragging these old style propogandist fascists along. We move on towards the future without them and their double think. Without gop sabotage.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:55 PM
John MCain is so paranoid and so obbessed by himself he thinks 'terrorists' wil attack just to stop his righteous self from being elected? Yes, will all know the world revolves around mccain.
and as he himself says, he knows nothing about the economy.and we really need someone who's a bit sharper than himm to deal with this:
The United States has entered a recession that could be "substantially more severe" than recent ones, former National Bureau of Economic Research President Martin Feldstein said
"The situation is very bad, the situation is getting worse, and the risks are that it could get very bad," Feldstein said in a speech at the Futures Industry Association meeting in Boca Raton, Florida.
NBER is a private sector group that is considered the arbiter of U.S. business cycles.'
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 02:56 PM
I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something? Let's not jump to conclusions or throw all kinds of accusations against the wall quite yet - no one knows their relationship at all - every one has a different relationship with their church and the head of their church..boy, Chris' chat has just become the repository of mudslinging.
Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 02:56 PM
You posted that post five times yesterday svreader.
we got it. your a rush limbuagh sabotuer. We got it. We don't need 5 of the same posts to prove whoa nd what you are. We got it clinton gop propogandists. No one here is buying it. Everyone else other than you left so you can play games amoungst yourselves. Lie to each other and pat yourselves on the back. No NON-gop propogandists is buying it. Your game is moot.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 02:57 PM
If the real Obama was anything like his public image, he'd be a great guy and he'd have my vote.
The problem is that he's nothing like that.
The real Obama is a master manipulator, He has the extreme kind of skill in that area seen in cult leaders like Jim Jones and in serial killers like Jeffrey Dhamer.
Have you watched the video?
If you haven't please do and then come back to this note.
Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.
Obama didn't care one bit about the poor people who elected him and lived in the slums he funneled $100M of taxpayer money to his friend and chief campaign contributor Tony Rezko for repairs, and the buildings were never touched.
Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.
He's a big talker. That's all.
He's also incredibly good at manipulating people by telling them what htey want to hear.
I checked him out in detail and the references I got back said don't touch him with a ten foot poll.
The guy is bad news.
Please look at the video and do your own research on the net, starting by googling "Obama lies"
He's a super-salesman master manipulator.
He doesn't deserve anyone's support.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 02:59 PM
Patrick: Since I don't think you're in VA, you might not be quite as familiar with some of us about Allen's reaction to the public disclosure of his Jewish roots. Talk about uncomfortable. Unlike Kerry and Wes Clark, for example, Allen bragged about the great pork chops his mother (still alive) makes. He acted like he was being outed for being gay. Finally he came around and talked about how proud he was of his mother, blah blah blah, but the damage was done.
If this had played out on the national stage, just imagine how ugly it would have gotten.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:00 PM
He's on his campaign staff.
He's had a 20 year friendship.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:01 PM
Where else in america do you get rewarded the worse you do? Where else do you get raises if you are unable to do yoru job and are criminals? No place I've ever worked out.
They still will win some. Old people and habit and all. But why would they improve if afer all they;'ve done they still get elected? If only pepsi existed why woudl they ever improve their product?
The gop doesn't do accountabililty or credibility. Amounst themselves that is. That is why they are done. I'm sure they will have plenty of people to blame and poitn the finger at for their impending irrelevance (clinton's sabotage not withstanding).
We'll see who buys it. From voting so far it looks like the gop, their moderate sell-outs and their propogandists are finallty going to get that irrelevacne they've earned.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:02 PM
what's the difference between drindl and a snarling hyena?
Posted by: kingofzouk | March 14, 2008 03:02 PM
The more Obama-nuts attack anyone who dares post the truth about cult-leader Barry Obama, the more we will post.
Our voices will not be silenced.
This isn't Soviet Russia or Mao's China.
Obama's supporters are still in denial about Obama's slums.
There's no sane reason to elect a man who let the poorest of the poor, the people who elected him, freeze to death.
It's not going to happen.
Hillary will win the next primaries by a landslide, or Obama will drop out of the race before that.
People know about Chicago. People know about Obama's slums.
The real Obama's a really bad guy, and now people know it.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:03 PM
johninmpls:"Minnesota is the North Star State, not the Gopher State.
Well then, just who are the Golden Gophers?
Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 03:03 PM
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:04 PM
Come November, the financial markets will be in such a bad state that there is ZERO chance of McCain winning.
The only question is which democrat can lead the nation out of some pretty depressing times.
Hillary is smart, she is well informed. But
*** she is a pitbull and at a time the nation has to heal relations in Europe, Russia and yes, Muslim countries (we need the oil), Hillary's style is absolutely the wrong one. *** she is more secretive than even Bush, and the country is hungry for transparency. We need a president that treats us like adults instead of cutting deals behind closed doors.
*** Hillary is too indebted to special interest groups, she can't make the foreign policy decisions that will restore our credibility around the world. Her advisers are the same old, same old neocon crowd.
*** she believes in 'divide and conquer' instead of bringing the nation together. She has proven this in the way her campaign is trying to set hispanics against blacks, whites against blacks etc. This isn't what we need when we are possibly facing a DEPRESSION. The economic boom of the late 90s were purely a function of the web becoming commercial, so Bill can't take credit for it.
Obama attracts independents because he is smart, he hasn't sold out to special interest groups and he has the right approach with his foreign policy. He should bring Samantha Powers back and take us into a new direction.
Posted by: dogsbestfriend | March 14, 2008 03:04 PM
svreader wrote: He is a classical narcissist.
LOL. What, does he speak Latin to himself?
Obama a narcissist? Well, we are all narcissistic to different degrees. I think you meant to say that he was a classic malignant narcissist.
And that would be unsupported by any facts. There aren't even any symptoms. Tendency towards arrogance, I'd buy. One glaring sign of narcissism is the inability to endure criticism. And Barack has handled criticism flawlessly.
Now if you want to discuss the provable narcissistic pathologies of George W or Bil Clinton, have at it!
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 03:04 PM
"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.'
I must have missed something.. Obama's pastor, a black man, owns slaves? Even in the era of hyperbolic excess, that's quite a statement. That's equaing the pastor's words to owning slaves. Or Obama to owning slaves.
The twisted way rightwinger's 'brains' work is always fascinting to watch.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 03:04 PM
"Not when the price of milk has doubled in a year and the price of gas has doubled in a year"
coincidentally the year right after the Dems got their hands on the congress. the Pelosi recession. want more? vote D!
Posted by: kingofzouk | March 14, 2008 03:05 PM
"I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something? Let's not jump to conclusions or throw all kinds of accusations against the wall quite yet - no one knows their relationship at all - every one has a different relationship with their church and the head of their church..boy, Chris' chat has just become the repository of mudslinging.
Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 02:56 PM "
Of course not. It's all these sad pathetic sabotuers have.
Of course obama is the only politicain who must deal with this. Like every other bogus "issue" these right wing propgoandists bring up.
Look at the bright side. If these sad atempts going through thrid and fourth parties are all they got, he must be pretty good.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:05 PM
"I'm sorry? Did Senator Obama say that his pastor was going to be Vice President or something?'
No but not exactly the greatest image of a spiritual advisor to a Presidential candidate or Billy Graham.
seems like the right thing for sen Obama do have done was to get up and walk out when he heard such inflamatory language what I believe most Americans would have. Does he share such attitudes? Absolutely not but as a unifier he should be willing to walk out of such sermons and not wait for 6 years to condemn them.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 03:06 PM
"If my pastor/priest owns slaves, I don't care what his spiritual guidance is.'
I must have missed something.. Obama's pastor, a black man, owns slaves? Even in the era of hyperbolic excess, that's quite a statement. That's equaing the pastor's words to owning slaves. Or Obama to owning slaves.
The twisted way rightwinger's 'brains' work is always fascinting, albeit, repellent, to watch.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 03:07 PM
The Obama you talk about your message doesn't exist.
Its fromChannel 5 news, Chicago's most highly respected TV news program.
The real Obama is a real jerk.
Obama let the poorest of the poor people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing after he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.
It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.
He didn't do his job.
He didn't care what happened to them.
He only cared about himself.
Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's groupies that they abandon all principle?
How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???
Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy
Obama has a very carefully crafted image.
Its about as far from reality as can be imagined.
The real Obama is cold, calculating, and manipulative.
He only cares about himself.
The real Obama is crooked as a horse-shoe.
The real Obama let the people who elected him state senator suffer and die in Slums that he funneled $100M of Government money to his friend Rezko to repair, but were never even touched.
He's arrogant, incompetent, and only cares about himself.
His carefully crafted image is as fake as Bush's was.
Will America make the same mistake again?
For all our sakes, I hope not.
Its astounding that anyone, especially any person of color, would support Obama knowing what he did to the last bunch of people stupid enough to buy his pitch.
The guy totally shafted his own people.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:08 PM
"Hillary will win the next primaries by a landslide, or Obama will drop out of the race before that."
you show yoru face. Continue with other stories or fairies and other events that will happen.
you have nothing svreader. Nothing. You post the same post ove rand over. you won't be silenced? By all emans. Not trying to silence you. I don't blog for right-wing propgoandists who come to lie spin and disccredit. I come for everyone else. Post your lies and garbage. Not like I haven't fought the gop and their sabotuer propogandists for years now. clinton's are the same as bush's.
But continue. I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just trying to point you out and marginalize you for the propgoandist you are. Do your thing. Show yoru face. Ignore me if you must while I destroy your weak propoganda and half truths.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:10 PM
Now their obama's slum. Rezko, and clinton backer, had nothin gto do with it now, huh?
Now obama owns and runs slums in chicago?
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:12 PM
If this had played out on the national stage, just imagine how ugly it would have gotten.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:00 PM ---------------- Not from VA, live in NYC, but the Allen story got great coverage up here and all over the net. It was so much fun watching him implode. To think he was the front runner and had it not been for the smart man with the camera and the net he could be where McShame is.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 03:12 PM
USMC_Mike - really? Do you know their relationship? Do you live in Chicago? Did you go to the Senator's wedding? Are you on his campaign plane, seeing who he gets advice from? Do you know how his finance committee is structured and what kind of input his pastor has in it?
No, you don't. That's my point.
Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 03:12 PM
example (Äg-zÄm'pÉl) n. A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.
Learn that one after you've learned "global".
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:14 PM
Everything I Post is True.
You push Obama without a clue of who he really is.
You've never even bothered to watch the news report about "Obama's slums" have you?
I post against Obama just like I would against any dangerous cult leader.
The fact that Obama's supporters are so rabbid about him without knowing anything about the actual history of the man they push on everyone else proves they're a cult, and a dangerous one.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:14 PM
Why am I talking here? You people couldn't have reasonable discussion under penalty of good government.
Posted by: johndinhouston | March 14, 2008 03:15 PM
What will you people say when obama is your president? Will you continue to rip him up with lies and this garbage gop?
If so who are you not traitors? Treason is choosing money party or outside influnce over nation. for all your big talk gop.
this is all you have left.
"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known as a traitor.
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
"Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.
Violence - According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence." However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.
Psychological impact and fear - The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a "performance," devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[10]
Perpetrated for a Political Goal - Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, not unlike letter writing or protesting, that is used by activists when they believe no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the interrelationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[11] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.
Deliberate targeting of non-combatants - It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers, and the elderly are murdered, or injured, and put in harms way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorist possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting a message out to an audience, or otherwise accomplishing their often radical religious and political ends.[12]
Disguise - Terrorists almost invariably pretend to be non-combatants, hide among non-combatants, fight from in the midst of non-combatants, and when they can, strive to mislead and provoke the government soldiers into attacking the wrong people, that the government may be blamed for it. When an enemy is identifiable as a combatant, the word terrorism is rarely used. Mass executions of hostages, as by the Nazi military forces in the Second World War, certainly constituted crimes against humanity but are not commonly called terrorism.
Unlawfulness or illegitimacy - Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[13] to distinguish between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a "legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[14][15][16][17] For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.
"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."
That is all you gop'ers have left. Your treason and your irrelevance. Enjoy it. no one's buying yoru garbage anymore.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:16 PM
leichtman: The fact that barak couldn't carry Cayuhoga County in a Democratic Primary bears no relation to whether he could carry it in a General Election. There isn't anybody on the lake plain who has any particular reason to like JM, except Republicans who like GB. Enough Dems will vote for either candidate, and enough others will vote for one or the other to carry Ohio. The question for us Buckeyes is who swings the most Republican Districts Democratic, and can either one give us a democratic House in the state? Prognosticate THAT correctly and your a true cognoscenti.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 14, 2008 03:19 PM
I don't know if any of you all actually read the Bible, but you might want to try it and see what Isaiah and Jeremiah say about an Israel that had lost touch with God.
Here, take a look at Jeremiah 5: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%205;&version=31;
Wright was speaking from a prophetic tradition that is and always has been a big part of the black church and of the evangelical church. The idea that the church is supposed to be some rah-rah-USA!-USA! place is sort of funny when you think about the Judeo-Christian tradition and about the church militant in the US specifically.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 03:21 PM
-you've admitted this nut was at Obama's wedding, on his campaign plane, giving advice, and on his committee.
Obviously, Obama likes this man.
Obviously, he agrees with SOMETHING he has to say.
The voters need to know - WHAT, does he agree with?
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:21 PM
USMC_Mike - really? Do you know their relationship? Do you live in Chicago? Did you go to the Senator's wedding? Are you on his campaign plane, seeing who he gets advice from? Do you know how his finance committee is structured and what kind of input his pastor has in it?
No, you don't. That's my point.
Com'on John, They do have a point here (amid the usual dirty hysteria). Barack has a close relationship with this church leader who preaches in the style of Jeremiah...a condemnatory prophet.
You just cannot appoint to your campaign a condemnatory prophet who is calling down damnation on this country if you expect to be elected to its highest office.
Prophets, both true and false, have their place, but not in a Presidential campaign.
This is Barack's Achille's heel and he must fix it asap.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 03:22 PM
The slums were in Obama's district.
Obama got Rezko the funding to do the slum repairs that were never done.
It was Obama's responsibility to follow up on the contracts.
Above all else, it was Obama's responsibility to take care of the people living in those slums.
They're the people he who supposed to represent.
Rezko was Obama's largest campaign contributor, and was Obama's close friend and advisor.
I guess if you want Obama so much that you're willing to forgive him for using hard drugs and commiting multiple felonies, the fact that poor people who voted for Obama fro ze to death in his slums doesn't bother you at all.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:22 PM
novamatt - that's not even 1% of what this guy has said.
Instead of telling us to read the Bible,
Perhaps you should do YOUR research on this nut.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:23 PM
We can post the same post all day svreader. You post your propoganda today.
I'll label it as this all day:
""Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."
A fun game you republcains can play with yourselves all day. Cool. Will that amuse you more than ripping your country apart? Is that more fun than divide and conquer? I'm not a gop cultist so I don't know your doublethink and newspeak to the appropriate level. I'm based in reality and live in the real world.
I don't think through rush's twisted prism and fox's bobble heads. I think for myself. you gop dittohead cultists make no sense to me.
If you want to play a game today we can. I'll do that fo ryou. Then you can whine and cry and blame me for everything. Maybe someone here would pity you and shed a tear. Maybe you get a vote for clinton out of pity. You will get no pity from me, gop.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:24 PM
Obama supporters don't care how many poor people suffered and died in Obama's slums.
They only want to win.
They never even bothered to check out the guy they're pushing.
Its just a big game to them.
Thanks to Obama, innocent poor people suffered and died by freezing to death in Obama's slums.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:25 PM
Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 03:25 PM
People who support Obama have no idea of what kind of person he actually is.
Obama Supporters -- Please, Watch the Video.
The real Obama is a real jerk.
Obama let the people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing after he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.
It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.
He didn't do his job.
He didn't care what happened to them.
He only cared about himself.
Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's cult followers that they abandon all principle?
How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???
Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:27 PM
wpost4112 -- glad you can see this as highly inappropriate, and a flaw.
I probably think it a bigger deal than you, but at least you can acknowledge it ain't a "good" thing.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:27 PM
The video is much more specific and graphic.
The one thing it doesn't show is the bodies of the people who froze to death.
You'll see those on TV and in your local bookstore very soon.
Look for the book "Obama's Slums"
You might want to reserve a copy.
Most stores will probably run out very quickly.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:29 PM
USMC_Mike, thanks for the hyperbole. I can always count on you.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 03:29 PM
That's not why she's here mnteng.
but thanks for trying. these propgoandists don't coem to change their ways and get facts. They don't come to be proved wrong. And to do so will only waste your time.
concentrate your efforts and idalogue on someone who's worth it. Someone who wants real convseration and political growth.
don't waste your time on gop propoganidsts who's only concern is lie spin and discreit, divide and conquer. he doesn't want facts or truth. He wants verbal battle.
Do you, of course. But these gop propogandists sent to sabotage by rush and the other fascist cultists, do nto care about credibility or reality. they come to break the post, not participate in it.
Leave the verbal battle to me. I fight these fascsits, so you don;t have to. It's not worth your time trying to bring them into reality. If they don't knwo what time it is now, they'll never know.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:30 PM
novamatt - keep with the playbook.
You should have been a Marine. At least your "keep attacking" attitude could be put to productive use.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:32 PM
"To think he was the front runner and had it not been for the smart man with the camera and the net he could be where McShame is."
He was the frontrunner like Rudy was the frontrunner. People just didn't really know him -- and that was especially so in this case.
He'd be there until his Jewish roots were exposed. The whole story of how his father, coach Allen, convinced his mother to hide her religion from his family and everyone else "to help his career."
Then there were the stories of him dragging his sister down the stairs by her hair, etc. The man would never have become president.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:32 PM
ceflyn; I spent 2 months workin in the Strickland Shaker Hts office and felt the newrvousness in 2006 to defeat a weak Blackwell campaign. Ohio has been precarious for 20 years and you guys need to hold on to all of the progress you made in 2006, there should be no turning back. While there I also experienced the stern catholic antiabortion element that could turn on dems and undermine everything that you have accomplished. For Obama to succed in Cleveland he will have to expand his base to your blue collar, eastern european and irish community which I just don't see a natural connection. Pa and Ohio just don't seem to be Obama type states but you live there and presumably know more about your constituents but I think Obama in Ohio would be problematic but Mccain saying NAFTA is alright with him certainly won't play there either, Sherrod brown certainly understood that.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 03:34 PM
You're such an Obama-moonie you think I'm a Republican.
I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you'll find anywhere.
The only exception I'll make is that if Obama's on the ticket, in any capacity, I'll vote for McCain and so will everyone else I know.
I used to post in favor of a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Now that I know the kind of guy Obama really is, and what he did in Chicago, I wouldn't vote for him for dog-catcher.
Obama belongs in Jail, not the whitehouse or the senate.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:35 PM
You complain about my posts but have clearly never read any of them.
If you did, you'd know I'm a man, not a woman.
What are you, a "eunuch?"
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:38 PM
Kudos to The Fix for a great new line.
Big trick here is to figure out which Dem gets the nomination. My calculations show Obama picks up 4 states (CO,FL,IA,NM) and loses 1 (NH) -- net +44 Electoral Votes; Clinton picks up 6 states (AR,CO,FL,IA,NM,NV) and loses 3 (MI, NH, WI) -- net +28 Electoral Votes. Probability of change: 1. New Mexico. 2. Iowa, 3. New Hampshire (McCain's all day!) 4. Colorado 5. Florida 6-9. (Only if Clinton is nominee) Arkansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada 10. My favorite longshot -- regardless of the question -- is Louisiana. Anything can happen in Louisiana.
Posted by: cybridge | March 14, 2008 03:40 PM
USMC_Mike, hope you're a little cooler-headed with a rifle than you are with a keyboard. I'd like to think we're all ultimately on the same team.
Happy weekend, all, I'm off to Florida for a few days to watch a little baseball, a sport where the grass is always green and the phenoms are always golden and the scoreboard never lies.
Posted by: novamatt | March 14, 2008 03:44 PM
"I'm as hard-core a Democrat as you'll find anywhere.
The only exception I'll make is that if Obama's on the ticket, in any capacity, I'll vote for McCain and so will everyone else I know "
Work out the voices in your head first. Them come take to others. :)
Are you sure your not leachman? Miss "I comment every politicain, regardless if I agree or not."
"I want to impeach bush and fought to impeach nixon."
OKKKKAAAYYY, double think gop. Get your head right first. Then blog to others, when you know where you stand. You look like a fool when you make conflicting statemnets like this. not that you care about credibility.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:45 PM
I thgouht they had no differance in the issues?
you show yoru face rush mibaugh sabotuer, clinton backers. Have fun. Play games amoungst yourselves. No one's buying it.
Enjoy your treason and irrelevance with your master rush. I don't hate you dittoheads. It's not your fault your dittoehads. You have to be. You cannot think for yourselves. I don't hate you clones. I just want to help you re-join reality and get out of conservative la-la land.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 03:47 PM
As an interesting addendum to this great new Line, will you include the electoral math?
Posted by: montypython00 | March 14, 2008 03:47 PM
The only voice in my head is the voice of reason.
The fact that you shamelessly shill for a man that let the poorest of the poor freeze to death because he was too busy potting his run for the presidency to do his job speaks volumes about your total lack of humanity.
You and Obama deserve each other.
Maybe you can share a cell in prison someday!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:49 PM
svreader: I agree that the video is more graphic. Short TV segments have to be sensational to keep their ratings up so they can sell ads, etc. But I prefer to get as much information as I can so I can make an informed decision. Of course, the Sun-Times links provide more information than I'm willing to dig into -- Rod Blagojevich going to jail won't directly affect me.
Since you're a Clinton-backer, I'd like to ask you about the experience question. HRC claims 35 years of experience -- basically the entire time she's been out of law school. If that is the case, are you willing to grant BHO 17 years of experience, the amount of time since he graduated law school?
Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 03:49 PM
Let's get a grip here posters. Obama is certainly undergoing a "high-tech lynching" at the moment.... condemnation by innuendo and association.
If you want scandal McCain and Hillary both have dirty laundry. Why do you think Hillary is dragging her feet on her tax returns? And, not releasing her White House documents so we can't see she actually had no decision-making position, not even a security clearance.
Why does McCain, the anti-lobbyist crusader, have lobbyists in senior positions in his campaign and Senate office?
If you want someone who is trying to bring the country together, who is trying to stay on the high road while others play their race or fear cards and bulldoze the facts, then Obama is your man.
If you're looking for an excuse to not back Obama.... he's not the old guard, he wants to do things a new way, you don't agree with his policies.... please, don't drag him, the Party, and all of us through the mud on the way to the exit. Just don't vote for him.
Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 03:51 PM
The man would never have become president.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 03:32 PM ----------------------------- Funny that's what many said about both Reagan and W.At least Mayor 9/11 is toast.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 03:52 PM
In a piece on Newsweek's web site entitled, "Why McCain May Win," Michael Hirsh says,
"Both the Clinton and Obama camps do worry about the consequences in the fall, and Obama's advisers hope, wishfully, that the Clintonites will stop the bloodletting that they began. The likelihood, however, is that the Hillary camp will only step things up. She knows that while he leads in pledged delegates, by winning most of the big Blue states she has racked up a big lead in the potential electoral votes any Democrat will need to win in November. As Marie Cocco of the Washington Post Writers Group wrote the other day, 'In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.'
And so let us return to our St. Paddy's Day sermon. Children who are familiar with this nursery rhyme already understand more, perhaps, than the two leading Democratic candidates for president. To wit: 'There once were two cats of Kilkenny/Each thought there was one cat too many/So they fought and they fit, and they scratched and they bit/Till excepting their nails and the tips of their tails/Instead of two cats there weren't any.'"
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 03:53 PM
If the real Obama was anything like his public image, he'd be a great guy and he'd have my vote.
The problem is that he's nothing like that.
The real Obama is a master manipulator, He has the extreme kind of skill in that area seen in cult leaders like Jim Jones and in serial killers like Jeffrey Dhamer.
Obama didn't care one bit about the poor people who elected him and lived in the slums he funneled $100M of taxpayer money to his friend and chief campaign contributor Tony Rezko for repairs, and the buildings were never touched.
Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.
He's a big talker. That's all.
He's also incredibly good at manipulating people by telling them what htey want to hear.
I checked him out in detail and the references I got back said don't touch him with a ten foot poll.
The guy is bad news.
Please d do your own research on the net, starting by googling "Obama lies"
He's a super-salesman master manipulator.
Obama doesn't deserve your or anyone's else's support.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:53 PM
Let's get a grip here posters. Obama is certainly undergoing a "high-tech lynching" at the moment.... condemnation by innuendo and association. ----------------------- Isn't that the excuse Clarence Thomas used? ----------- If you're looking for an excuse to not back Obama.... he's not the old guard, he wants to do things a new way, you don't agree with his policies.... please, don't drag him, the Party, and all of us through the mud on the way to the exit. Just don't vote for him.
Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 03:51 PM ----------------------- I don't think we are dragging him, it's his preacher that is.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 03:54 PM
'novamatt - keep with the playbook.
You should have been a Marine. At least your "keep attacking" attitude could be put to productive use.'
and you are a Marine. and you follow the playbook. funny thing is, i didn't know that my taxpayer dollars were being used to pay a Marine to play on blogs all day.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 03:54 PM
"condemnation by innuendo and association."
It's no innuendo. The guy worships with this nut. He was married by him. His children were baptized by him. He has donated TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to him.
He supports him. There's no way around it.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:55 PM
Obama can never apologize enough for the people who froze to death in his Chicago slums.
Unlike most previous political scandals, Obama's scandal lead to the suffering and death of voters that had put Obama into office.
Obama doesn't deserve anyone's vote.
Obama is unravelling and it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
Its amazing that Obama supporters have never reference checked their guy.
The first time I checked him out in Washington I found out that he's bad news.
What he did in Chicago is much worse than I would have ever dreamed.
If we had made the mistake of nominating him it would have been a disaster.
We were lucky he turned down the VP slot or he would have been a stone around Hillary's neck.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:56 PM
drindl - they're not. I'm on some well-deserved leave.
If you were so concerned with your taxpayer dollars, you wouldn't be so enamored with tax-and-spend Obama.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:56 PM
wpost4112 -- glad you can see this as highly inappropriate, and a flaw.
I probably think it a bigger deal than you, but at least you can acknowledge it ain't a "good" thing.
It's a major problem and he's got to fix it. I don't at all believe that Barack shares his opinions, but he can't keep him anywhere in his campaign and be taken seriously.
It's a deal breaker for me and you know how strongly I support Barack.
I hope he sees the light soon.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 03:56 PM
BTW, I disagree with the assertion that Hillary has racked up a big "Blue-State electoral vote lead" for November. As several posters have been saying all day, this is false logic, because, among other reasons, it gives her credit for states McCain won't carry anyway.
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 03:58 PM
I'm not working hard enough for you.
I'll try not to take any more vacations.
Don't worry. I'll try to make sure no fanatic blows up your car tonight.
You keep on the hate blogs, general drindl.
(Not a sexist remark, as she has called Fix posters "Sad little man", "Jealous little man", etc.)
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 03:59 PM
Dude, I've seen that post before too. Googling "Obama lies" will only slant the content of the links that come up. Why would I want to do that if I want to get a clear idea of Obama's relationship with Rezko? Granted, slogging through stories like this (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/805715,CST-NWS-rezko21.stng) isn't really productive.
You still haven't answered the experience question though.
Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 04:00 PM
'If you were so concerned with your taxpayer dollars, you wouldn't be so enamored with tax-and-spend Obama.'
the republican borrow and spend like a drunken sailor mode has got us into the hole we are now. i want someone with a brain who can get us out of it -- not more of the same with a bush retread.
Posted by: drindl | March 14, 2008 04:00 PM
If BHO is such a horrible person, how come you and your fellow HRC trollers -- oh, and the supermarket tabloids -- are the only people who seem to know it?
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 04:00 PM
TruthHunter writes "If you want someone who is trying to bring the country together, ... then Obama is your man."
See, that's the confusing part. Obama says he is against divisive rhetoric. He say he is a uniter. But for the last 20 years, Obama has contributed money to, voluntarily listened to, and publicly defended a cleric who routinely peddles racial warfare.
Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
This man , with a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric" was judged by Obama to be worthy of an important postion on a committee in his campaign for the presidency.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 04:01 PM
"It's a deal breaker for me and you know how strongly I support Barack."
I repeat what I said some days ago,
I'm glad to have met an Obama supporter who doesn't gush.
It seems you and I are reluctant voters for our (presumed) candidates. How sad.
I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 04:02 PM
You seem like a reasonable guy.
How can you support Obama at all, knowning how he shafted the poorest of the poor who voted for him, elected him, and that he was supposed to represent and look out for?
Racist comments by Obama's pastor are bad, but they pale compared to Obama's total lack of concern for the people who elected him.
What Obama did is the coldest thing I've ever seen.
Callng people names is nothing in comparison to arrogance, incompetence, and criminal negligence that leads to their death!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:02 PM
"I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.
Better than Giuliani v Clinton would have been!
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 04:05 PM
Watch the Video. Its well known in Chicago. If it was anyone but Obama he'd be in jail by now.
I suspect he'll be indicted after the book comes out.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:05 PM
"Maybe you can share a cell in prison someday!!!
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 03:49 "
Now my posts have earned me a spot in prison. Which is it you hate and think I should be jailed for. My support of obama. Or the free speah I exercise in supporting him and fighting for my country?
Someone got to fight for the country. clinton di fi and the moderate sellout dems sure did nothing. While you closet republcains we're doing nothing, many were fighting the gop and for america.
Jail me AND obama? you show your face gop. No one here is buying it. The bloggers here, other than the few new clinton bobble heads like spector and leachman, are smarter than you old folk. Nobody's buying your a democrat. No one's buying your garbage. Sell it elsewhere.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:05 PM
I would have prefered a Huckabee v. Clinton.
We've got what we've got, though.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 04:06 PM
Either you've never watched the video or you have no heart, no soul, and no humanity.
I sure hope you're not.
We need people who can both think and feel.
You don't seem to have any capacity to do either.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:08 PM
We're still waiting to hear from SCUM_Mike and GOPSockPuppet why they are so in tune with a preacher tangentially linked to Mr. Obama, but do not acknowledge Macko's preacher and his admonitions against adultery and hypocrisy. Maybe you guys are listening to the wrong preacher.
If you two want to have sex with Macko so badly, why not register as lobbyists?
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 04:09 PM
USMC Mike, The "guy" is his pastor, so of course he performed Obama's marriage and baptized his children. Of course Obama gave money to his church. It's where Obama worships God....
I do think that Obama needs to make a speech about this whole matter, one much like Romney did about his Mormon faith. But then, perhaps you are already predisposed to not believe him.
PatrickNYC1... I realize "high tech lynching" is the phrase that Clarence Thomas used.... whether or not it applied to him, I certainly think it applies to Obama.
Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 04:10 PM
The right led by fox rush hannity and o'reilly already tried to jail patriotic non violent americans for fighting for this nation. how will clinton's republcain propogandists succed where her freinds failed?
this battle has been fought gop. you lost. NOT ONLY YOU HAS FREE SPEECH GOP. Tough it may feel that way. As much as you would love it, we're not in nazi germany, or africa. you can't jail those who disagree. If so what would keep rush and o'liely and fox on the air. If truth, liek I spread, get's you jail time. What happens to fox and rush and other slying for profit daily and inciting violence and hate agaisnt peaceful americans? That WAS A crime.
I know gop. up is down. white is black. war is peace. Truth should be silenced and the bringers of it should be jailed. Lies should be trumpted, along with hate and intolerance. the bringer sof the lies should make millions.
We'll see who buys your newspeack and doublethink gop. Not on this site you won't win
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:10 PM
I remember over the summer, when there were a dozen candidates, bsimon (and others) posted that a McCain v. Obama candidacy would be "Good" for America, and for politics.
Well, I think "truth" is always good. I think either McCain or Barack will get us closer to it. I know that Hillary will not. I know that Bush has not.
The country is seriously sick. Economically sick, morally sick, physically sick, spiritually sick, politically sick.
I don't think any President will heal us...but a good President will facilitate our own self-healing. We are lazy and intolerant citizens. That needs to change.
Sending out $1000 checks is not change. Legislating morality is not change.
I think Barack has a sense of the change we need. I just wonder if we are up to the challenges we face.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 04:13 PM
"I do think that Obama needs to make a speech about this whole matter"
As do I. And, that's all I've been saying in my posts.
We (citizens, voters) deserve to know. What about this guy does Obama like? What does he agree with?
Obviously, something, as you have pointed out (he CHOSE him for 20 years).
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 04:13 PM
I'm beginning to think you are.
You still haven't watched the video, have you?
People died in those slums.
They died by FREEZING TO DEATH.
You just don't care, do you???
Please don't address any more comments to me.
Your total lack of concern for other human beings makes me want to vomit.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:13 PM
Better than Giuliani v Clinton would have been!
Posted by: bsimon | March 14, 2008 04:05 PM ----------------------------- Thank God the country woke up to see what we in NYC know, he was a fake and a mess in a bad dress. One ugly drag queen. I wonder if he wears Judy's clothes?
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 04:14 PM
HRC: Following a distinguished Yale law school career, a year or two at a children's advocacy clinic, 17 years of corporate law at the Rose Law Firm (including sitting mute on the board of, Walmart while they were union-busting) while she was first lady of Arkansas, 8 years as First Lady, including her botched health-care reform effort, 100 scandals, and a skimpy unofficial, non-substantive foreign policy involvement (which she is hopelessly exaggerating, and which Nobel Prize winner David Trimble called, referring to her claims of being involved in the Ireland peace accords, "a wee bit silly"), election to the Senate from a state she never lived in, based purely on her husband's being president, and a modest record in the Senate, most of which has been spent warming a seat so she could run for president. Total time in elective office: 7 years. Vote on the Iraq war resolution: Aye. Vote on the Levin amendment: Nay. Grade on management of her campaign (from me): C-
BHO: 2 years as a community organizer, a distinguished Harvard law school career, work at a public-interest law firm and teaching constitutional law at a Chicago law school, 8 years in the Illinois Senate, characterized by significant bipartisan achievements. Election to the US Senate on his own merits, with a prescient speech during the campaign outlining in advance exactly what actually happened after we invaded Iraq. Modest 3-year career in the Senate. Grade on management of his campaign: A-
All in all, pretty even, I'd say. Certainly no huge advantage to Hillary.
Posted by: jac13 | March 14, 2008 04:15 PM
"""Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."
Beware of clitnon and her gop-like propogandists. How are what they do any differant than what rush or fox does? If fact they are the same people. Fear teh yale plan
"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.
Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. "
where would bush be without clinton to point the finger to? Would he have been impeached? Would the law applied to him a little more with the previous "leadership"? I don't think so. Lucky for bush that clinton came before him. How would he have justified his actions without clitnon to point the finger at? He would have been able to, is the answer.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:17 PM
How can you support Obama knowing what he did in Chicago?
Isn't letting people freeze to death worse than calling people names?
Why do you give Obama a pass on what he did in Chicago, but are offened by what his pastor said?
To me that seems backwards.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:17 PM
Uh... Pennsylvania??? McCain is beating both Obama and Clinton. Do ya think that's maybe in the Top 10?
Thanks Jane and others for pointing this out.
Posted by: chris.jeter | March 14, 2008 04:18 PM
TruthHuntr, It's just like when an Obama economic adviser told the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or when Samantha Power told the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.
Obama says he's vehemently opposed to divisive rhetoric, yet his ranking committee-member and mentor, Pastor Wright, says that he is vehemently opposed to supporting our allies like Israel.
It seems that Obama says one thing and means another.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 04:18 PM
TruthHuntr, It's just like when an Obama economic adviser told the Canadians not to pay too much attention to Obama's anti-NAFTA populism or when Samantha Power told the BBC not to pay too much attention to Obama's current withdrawal plans for Iraq.
Obama says he's vehemently opposed to divisive rhetoric, yet his ranking committee-member and mentor, Pastor Wright, says that he is vehemently opposed to supporting our allies like Israel.
It seems that Obama says one thing and means another. What kind of judgement is that?
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 04:21 PM
I realize "high tech lynching" is the phrase that Clarence Thomas used.... whether or not it applied to him, I certainly think it applies to Obama.
Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 14, 2008 04:10 PM --------------------------- So are these the same people who were doing nothing but glowing pieces on Obama all year? Whe even today are going on about Spitzer and Ferraro but not the Wright story? If they praise him they are OK, if they question his associates they are racist murderers.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 04:23 PM
The facts are there, in full color, in the clip from Channel 5 news.
That the ugly truth about the real Obama.
Obama can't run away from the truth, and neither can you.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:23 PM
"Your total lack of concern for other human beings makes me want to vomit.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:13 "
1. I have not and will not watch your lies and propgoanda
2. to blame obama for all the ailes of chicago is a touch much. I know of the rezko issue. It's nothing. If that's all you got, along with his preacher, I think yoru in deeper water than you know.
By your rational, the mayor is responsible. congressmen are always to blame. BUSH and his econmic policies are to blame.
OBAMA is not the sole cause of poverty in america. so your issue is poverty. Not obama. If you want to fight poverty we can talk. But obama is not the cuase of poverty.
I laugh at your acusation. I hesitiate to gie your posts ANY credibility. I know hillary's fix for poverty. I saw it and I don't like it. Affirmative action, is racism and slavery.
You want to fight for poor people svreader? So do I. Should we bring up the slums of arkansas and new york? I'm sure they have poor people their that I can exploit fo rpolitical gain, as you do. i wouldn't do that. I, and the bloggers here, are not as naive to believe any one person is the cause of poverty in chicago new york or america.
should we put up pictures of new york? Why isn't clinton making them all not poor? She's super-woman right? She can eliminate poverty in a single bound. :)
blame obama for everything. Link him to anyone. we'll see who buys it. You have your tricks and I have mine.
to me your a sad patehtic old woman. you and your propogandists do not differ in any way from bushs.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:23 PM
Let me just say that if all of Hillary's "first lady" experience is relevant, then sign me up for the Michelle Obama campaign in 2016 or 2020. If nothing else, at least she doesn't appear to be schizophrenic.
Posted by: hypo | March 14, 2008 04:25 PM
You cover your ears and eyes when presented with any information on the real Obama.
You've fallen into a cult.
You need professional help to get yourself out of it.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:26 PM
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 04:28 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right.
They never have, and never will.
The rest of us learned that long ago.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:29 PM
I don't say that to run you down, I really don't. Either you are what you say you are -- a highly educated, very wealthy CEO who devotes so much free time to posting Clinton propaganda -- or you're not. If you are not, I feel sorry for anyone who has so little self esteem that they feel compelled to make up a fake background.
Whichever one, doesn't really matter. I just finished reading "http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080312". It's about a black kid murdered by latino gangsters in LA. As I read it, I thought to myself "those are the people that support Hillary". I've gotten THAT caught up in this. And I noted that Mayor Villaraigosa, a strong Clinton supporter "gave a heartfelt speech about peace and unity, then ... snuck out halfway through the service."
But it isn't a black/brown thing. The black kid who died had Latino teammates, and they mourned his death, too. And as I read this, I was reminded that there really are bigger issues at stake that mean life and death to people who lack our advantages in life. Those are the people who Obama tried to help as a community organizer, but let's leave that aside for now.
If you _have_ all the power and contacts and money you say you have, and you really want a better world, why don't you stop wasting time posting to WaPo.com -- trust me, you're persuading no one -- and work with some of these organizations that could USE what you have at your disposal to give kids a better chance of escaping the ghettoes. Last I looked, there are a few right around your way.
Or you can go on bleating "Hillary Clinton would be a GREAT president!!!" and downing Obama. Your choice.
PS I'd recommend the article to anyone. And if someone can explain to me how electing Hillary Clinton would change things, honestly, I'd love to hear it. Let's talk issues, not someone's middle name or what their father may or may not have done.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 04:29 PM
Rush: Ok boys, here's the deal: black is white, up is down, the sun sets in the east. Got that?
GOP: Whatever you say, sir.
Rush: Now, the Hillary deadenders have cawing like a crow as their sound. What would you boys like to do?
USMC: We could cluck like chickens! Or chickenhawks! What sound does a chickenhawk make?
GOP: How about braying like donkeys?
Rush: No, no. Those are both good, but chickenhawk hints too much at the typical GOP military service record, and some guy named svreader has the braying thing down, on multiple message boards, too. Hmmmm, let me think ... I know! Sheep! Can you two bleat like sheep?
Rush: Perfect! Now hit those message boards. And stop by the pharmacy to pick up my "medicine" when you return for more orders.
USMC: Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full!
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 04:29 PM
Hillary doesn't have much time left. Then all these rush limbaugh sabotuers will have to reveal their true colors, like sv reader here.
She may drop out before pa. If nto after. She cannot win. She is realizing that soon her only hope is mccain's vp. The longer she goes on the more likely that is. Regardless she not representing the democratic party of the democratic movement. Which isn't a shock. She never has. so both go hand and hand.
She could have supported the movement and her party. She choos enot to. She chose the liebramn route. It was "safer" at teh time. Canculated risk. Risk/reward.
She has no one to blame but herself, for her lack of support. I don;t pity her at all. I hope she see's what her and her sabotuer followers are doing to the party/country. If they cared about anyone but themselves mybe they would drop out. We'll find out what she's doing after pa. If she stays in she's going for mccain's vp. Which willmake sv reader here happy, I'm sure.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:30 PM
"The pillars of American liberalism -- the Democratic party, the universities, and the mass media -- are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender.
They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting "privileging" that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations.
They have gotten their wish. This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It's not a pretty picture.
Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is only where he is because he's black. Professor Orlando Patterson says the 3 A.M. phone call ad is not about a foreign policy crisis but a subliminal Klan-like appeal to the fear of "black men lurking in the bushes around white society."
Good grief. The optimist will say that when this is over, we will look back on the Clinton-Obama contest, and its looming ugly endgame, as the low point of identity politics, and the beginning of a turning away. The pessimist will just vote Republican."
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 14, 2008 04:34 PM
Its obvious that you don't read what I post so I'm wasting my time, but here goes.
1. Obama got Rezko the funding for the slum repairs. He and Rezko were close friends and Rezko bankrolled Obama's campaigns.
2. 11 of the worst slums were in Obama's district.
3. Obama was supposed to follow up on the contract and never did.
4. When Obama became a US Senator he stilll did nothing about any of the 40 slums.
5. People died by FREEZING TO DEATH in Obama''s slums.
6. You probably won't read this.
7. If you do, it probably won't make any difference to you, JK, or the other Obama dead-enders.
8. I feel like throwing up just thinking that there are people like you.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:34 PM
No conflict of interest there sv reader. I'm sure readers will trust you and your diagnosis, doctor.
dive and conquer. Only works if you have credibility, which you and yours do not have. Nor do you want or crave it. No credibility, for you, makes you a propogandist. Yet your fine with that lot in life? WOW..
that is why I call you republcains. If you are propogating and you know it, well nevermind.
why waste my time on a dittohead. You don't want it. Enjoy you rcoming irrelevance gop. you sure have earned it. Don;t hurt any peaceful americans tough guys. You made yoru beds, you ahd your chance. No sleep in that bed for a generation. Stop the sabotage. stop the divide and conquer., gop.
you are only digging yourselves deeper and prolonging your irrelevacnce. You want relevance? accountability and credibility. without that you are done. Enjoy the cave. i hear it's nice in the fall.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:35 PM
Do you really think that everyone who doesn't worship Obama is a Republican plant.
You really need to get some help.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:36 PM
Posted by: mnteng | March 14, 2008 04:37 PM
You're in for a rude awakeing fella.
It clearly a total waste of my time to try to have an intelligent conversation with you.
Have fun shilling for Barry Obama.
You two deserve each other.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:37 PM
he reads it so it's true. you got a source? "Channnel 5 news at 11."
You should write a book about obama. you got all the "facts".
The msm media is the most trusted forum ever, right svreader. They never lie. Fox is strigoht from god, right sv.
the problem with your facts, is their not facts. They are gossip, they are heresay. They are hit pieces. You got nothing. If you did the media would be on it. And I'm not talking about your favorite staion here, fox. I'm talking real media. I'll wait for REAL facts and real issues and REAL concereate EVIDENCE.
your gossip and heresay belongs in us weekly and national enquier with the bat boy. not involved in politics where humans lives are at stake.
I hear us weekly is hiring reader. Call them up. do ufo and flying goat stories. If your going to lie and spina nd gossip and least make it entertaining
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:41 PM
bondjedi -- judging from the time difference between your posts, it either took you hours to come up with that, or you were busy watching "The View". Either way, keep it coming. I'd rather you spend your days doing nothing on this blog than actually affecting the real world.
Proud -- nice post. Very true. Ha!
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 04:42 PM
one more for sv. Then she can divide and conquer. Lie spin and discredit all day.
Gossip on sv. Us weekly is wating for your call.
"Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about things and small minds talk about people. "
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:48 PM
(all regardless of the Dem nominee)
Safe R: South Carolina Georgia Alabama Tennessee Mississippi Louisiana Texas Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Indiana Kentucky Wyoming Montana Utah Idaho Arizona Alaska
Safe D: Hawaii California Oregon Illinois Michigan Maine Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Maryland Delaware Washington, DC
Likely R: North Carolina Arkansas West Virginia
Likely D: Washington Wisconsin Minnesota Pennsylvania Iowa
Pure Toss-up: Florida Virginia Ohio New Hampshire Missouri Colorado New Mexico Nevada
That's how I see it...
Posted by: llowe | March 14, 2008 04:50 PM
Your own words discredit you, and your candidate, more than any other person's response ever could.
I wish what you will already receive.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 04:52 PM
Which states are we flipping? All of them mentioned and more. Much to the clinton's and their true parties dismay. They will do anything to stop this. Likek the rest of the gop they like they habits nad are slaves to the past. When voting this time there will be no one for the gop to hide, this time. 06 was the tip of the ice berg. Majority rule remember. if you don't like that conecpt gop (as well as american freedom) you are living in the wrong country. you will remember what america and was come nov. Your gop sabtage and treason is coming to an end. Try as they and their moderate sell-outs, might
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:54 PM
"bondjedi -- judging from the time difference between your posts, it either took you hours to come up with that, or you were busy watching "The View". Either way, keep it coming. I'd rather you spend your days doing nothing on this blog than actually affecting the real world."
Because comparing the times messages are posted is a great way to spend the day. Now that you have admitted your rapt attention to my genius, let's have some answers: - Why isn't McCain listening to his preacher when it comes to ethics? - What is it with McCain's thing for lobbyists? - How low can I set the price on my fund-raising dinner and still have Macko show up? I know his fee has gone up since he captured the nomination in the weakest GOP field since Harding, but will he come for a hundred bucks a plate? Fifty bucks? Ten bucks, plus the use of my jet? - Will he throw a tantrum at Osama bin Laden? - When he bombs Iran, will he at least get the price of gas down? - Is it safe to walk the streets of Baghdad without a Marine division, fifty HumVees, and a flotilla of Apaches overhead?
Let's hear your answers to those pressing questions.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 04:58 PM
these comments about Walmart and Hillary represent Walmart in 2008 not Walmart in 1978 when you make reference to. Sam Walton was a decent businessman and treated his employees fairly. His company began abuses practices in the 1990s when he develope melanoma and his children took over. I won't shop at Walmart, but to equate Walmart of 1978 with their abusive union bashing practices of 2008 is patently ridiculous.
"(including sitting mute on the board of, Walmart while they were union-busting) while she was first lady of Arkansas"
Unless the Clintons could have been prescient 30 years earlier and known how Walmart would be run in 2008 and willing to confront Arkansas's largest employer in 1978, your position fails to be in real time.
Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 04:59 PM
You still don't get it reader. I do good work here. I am a christian man. I fight for my religon (that has been hijack by politicans) and my country (that has been hijacked by $ and treason)
I hope GOOD KARMA DOES COME BACK TO ME.
Somebody's got to fight for america and her ideals. Somebody's go to fight to remove the fascists and false prophets from chrsitianity. you moderates are to eager to sell-out than to fight. someone's got to do it. Someone who's not scared like you are of the gop.
My movemnt fought the gop. Still do. While you people were nodding yoru heads and allowing nazi's to take over like late 30's germany. If you had your way we would have took over the entire middle east and have our brothers and sisters dying to line your freinds and your pockets.
Someone's got to fight for america. I hope karma does come back
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 04:59 PM
You're new to this blog.
I am luke-warm, at best, to John McCain.
I almost considered voting for Hillary.
Keating Five Gang of 14 His Personal Life
And that's why I'll vote for him.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 05:04 PM
Pennsylvania may flip to the Republicans while Ohio flips to the Democrats. Most people aren't making that prediction (as it would be the reverse of the past), but I think it's a likely outcome.
Posted by: bwerbeloff | March 14, 2008 05:11 PM
That's how I see it...
Posted by: llowe | March 14, 2008 04:50 PM
Hillary will win AK for sure.
Posted by: mul | March 14, 2008 05:12 PM
Chris, I have no idea as to the overall effect in the gernal election but the Latino vote will overwhelmingly go to McCain. If the Democratic nominee is Obama, and I hope it is, Latino's will vote Republican purely and simply becasuye he is black and they are, as a group, black hating racists. Take a look at some of the comments made by Latino leaders before they get edited out by the news casts. This may be troubling, but it is all too obvious.
If the Democratic nominee is Clintn, she might carry as much as half of the Latino vote based on her comment in Nevada to the effect that "no woman is illegal". THAT has play on the Spanish radio stations out here every day. Most Hispanics have really close family ties, are very religious, and are socially and fiscally conservative. (Except for the fact that they are illegal and do tend to have that strong anti-black racist streak, most are incredibly wonderful people. If we could work out a deal, swapping them for "Clintonistas", I'd take Mexico up on it in a heartbeat.) Clinton, the public face of "liberals" in general, are an anathema to everything these people believe so any Democrat is simply being delussional if they think they can count on general election support from Hispanic voters. My gut level guess is that Democrats get between 30 and 40% of Hispanic vote. McCain, as the Republican leader, is viewed as something of a hero and can be expected to pick up the majority of that vote for both himself and all Republican's (at least those that don't breath fire about deporting all illegals) this cycle. My guess is that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, Colorado, are all Republican locks. Once all is said and done, expect even California and Southern Illinois to be in play because of their large Hispanic populations.
Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 14, 2008 05:12 PM
To all our political pundits,be quiet. A phenomenon , BARAK OBAMA will win every state. Just get to look at the results on TUE, NOV- 2008
Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 05:14 PM
"AT LEAST, he won't retreat. And that's why I'll vote for him."
Dude, there was this guy named Saddam Hussein, and he was a bad man, so the US invaded his country, and knocked the snot out of his army, and they found this guy Saddam hiding in a hole, then they took him to the basement and executed him. You might have read this in the papers, BUT WE WON THE FLIPPIN' WAR!!! There is no war, and no one to retreat from. Declare victory and get the hell out.
Forget me: Do you think McCain understands what's going on over there? He was on national TV in a Baghdad bazaar, wearing a flak jacket, with a division of Marines behind him on foot and in HumVees, armed to the teeth. He had a couple Apaches overhead, and in front of dozens of members of the world press ... SAID WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY SAFE TO WALK THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD!
You may disagree that victory has been achieved (although Bush said it was), you may disagree with Obama's plans, but if you think that McCain has any clue of the dynamic in the Middle East, you're mistaken. There could not be a worse candidate to vote for if you wanted someone with credibility on Iraq. McCain is an absolute dope on the subject.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 05:16 PM
Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis.
Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings.
Your karma is not what you think it is.
I'm very glad I don't have your karma.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:18 PM
What good has Republicans done in the past 8 years. MASSIVE WAR. HOUSING CLLAPSE, BANKING COLLAPSE. OIL $ 111.,JOBS OVERSEAS.......
The other party is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY of USA.
OBAMA has those sevetle & steller qualities to be in the WHITE HOUSE 2009.
BARAK OBAMA PRESIDENT ELECT 2008.
Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 05:21 PM
Did no one else see the news report that the military situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating?
Now why would that be happening? It couldn't be because we had to commit massive resources in Iraq before fully defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, could it?
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 05:24 PM
"Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis."
Um ... did the stork bring you then, or what? Think about it.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 05:25 PM
The fact that people still shill for Obama after knowing what he did to the poor who supported him in Chicago speaks volumes about Obama's supporters.
They remind me of the "Hitler Youth" and Mao's "Red Guard"
The are madly in love with their leader, even though they have no idea of what iind of person their leader actually is, or what he has done.
Maybe that's why the armed forces says "get-em while they're young"
The young have too little life experience, and too little judgement, to make reasoned decisions about what to do, to think deeply about the effects of what they do, or to have any remorse for their actions.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:29 PM
In Arkansas, a new University of Central Arkansas poll has Hillary up by 15 over Sen. McCain in a general election match up (51-36). Sen. Obama would lose that same contest by 16 points (43-27). Nationally, new Gallup and NBC/Wall Street Journal polls have Hillary up over Sen. McCain (47-45).
Posted by: brigittepj | March 14, 2008 05:32 PM
The first blogger is proof that Clinton/McCain supporters tend (statistically) to have less education than Obama supporters.
In no uncertain terms will McCain beat ANY democrat in California. It's not going to happen. (PERIOD). The war is a bigger issue out here than you think. With the president admitting we are hitting 'tough times' the GOP is dead here.
Just as no democrat is going to win Florida. Ever since Elian Gonzales the right wing fringe has taken over the state. And no democrat is going to win Texas until hispanics are a majority.
Obama will take: CA, NY, NJ,MI,MS,NM,CO,Conn., MA,MD, WA,Iowa,Connecticut,PA,VT,OR,HI,OH.
He doesn't need much else to get there. These are locks. Bet the farm.
Obama is going to be the 44th POTUS.
Posted by: imright | March 14, 2008 05:33 PM
No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped.
What kind of monster are you to even ask a question like that?
I almost didn't post about my family members that were killed by the Nazi's, but JK's comment was deeply offensive.
You are a real creep.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:34 PM
it seems to me that PA and Michigan should be considered top 10 battleground states
Posted by: lucciihs | March 14, 2008 05:34 PM
I don't think MN will flip, even if Pawlenty is McCain's running mate. Caucus turnout statewide Feb 5 was more than twice higher on the Democratic side than Republican. Attendance at our county DFL convention was record-setting, with many first-time delegates, myself included. The left is pretty energized here. Pawlenty is a local boy, but it is still McCain at the top of the ticket.
As an aside, Chris, regarding the Senate race there was a lot of enthusiasm for Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, especially from the farther left sorts of folks, and very little enthusiasm for Mike Ciresi at our county convention. If that was true at other county conventions I'm not surprised Mike Ciresi dropped out when he did. The writing may have already been on the wall. Delegates were picked for congressional district conventions at our meeting, and none from our county were committed to him.
Posted by: pdech1 | March 14, 2008 05:35 PM
Minnesota will go for the dem and the new senator will be Al Franken. The state is angry at Gov. Pawlenty - he's been away campaigning for McCain so much that the local paper announced, "The governor made a surprise visit to Minnesota yesterday..." He has also vetoed a popular transportation bill that was overridden by the legislature. Plus, just wait to get a load of his personal beliefs....really frightening considering McCain's age and bad health.
Posted by: SteveBurns1947 | March 14, 2008 05:36 PM
mibrooks27 -- I don't think I would go so far as to say the latinos are racists (against blacks).
My extended (and I mean, huge) in-law family, mostly in San Antonio, Laredo, and some in Dallas, are life-long Dems, and not ONE of them will be voting for Obama (that I know of).
It doesn't have much to do with his race, as far as I can tell.
Although, the tension between the two communities is certainly unreported, in my opinion. Unfortunately, you can't academically study any broad generalities about blacks without being called a racist (meanwhile, Obama and his preacher can rant about rich white men all day long).
But you are right -- McCain wins the hispanic vote big, wins Florida, and wins the election against Obama.
I think the media love affair with Messiah Hussein Obama is coming to an end.
There is a [growing] list of scandals now.
Rezko His Church NAFTA His "finally proud" wife
I can't wait for the hordes in the press corps to devour him.
There is a Clinton in the race, so it will assuredly happen.
Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 14, 2008 05:38 PM
wow bondjedi, what a nasty comment.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 05:38 PM
There is a way to replace Hillary and Obama and still get the magic formula to beat the Republicans: nominate Condoleezza Rice for the D ticket!
A black woman with lots of experience! Beat that!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 05:39 PM
But DAFUR, PALESTINE are the present not the past, holocausst.
How long will the JEWS cry NAZIS. NAZIS party included JEWS. Why not those Jews protest then.If the JEWS were "wiped" out then how come they are in the Palestine??
Jews are extorting past losses from the present generation. This in not right.
Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 05:40 PM
Don't get mad, I'm just joking!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 05:41 PM
"Did no one else see the news report that the military situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating?
Now why would that be happening? It couldn't be because we had to commit massive resources in Iraq before fully defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, could it?"
Thank You Spectator2... I have been cautioning about this for nearly 5 years now.
Iraq is the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
While we pour needed resources and men into an erroneous occupation the Real Enemy gets stronger.
Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 14, 2008 05:42 PM
mmm ... but I've heard these elements are the real thing, so why don't we think about it before discarding the idea?
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 05:43 PM
But DAFUR, PALESTINE are the present not the past, holocausst.
How long will the JEWS cry NAZIS. NAZIS party included JEWS. Why not those Jews protest then.If the JEWS were "wiped" out then how come they are in the Palestine??
Jews are extorting past losses from the present generation. This in not right."
You are another ignorant scumbag.
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 05:44 PM
... after all, winning is everything, isn't it?
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 05:45 PM
OBAMA will be loved and voted in ALL US STATES, for THE PRESIDENT in 2008.
Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 05:45 PM
"Issues are a handicap for Obama. So all we're left with are his pastor, his anti-American wife, and his Islamic upbringing." - USMC_Mike
Ah....now you start with the lies. The true sign of a coward afraid to debate on the issues. He was not rasied as a muslim and you know it, which makes you liar no better than Rush Limbaugh.
Which issue is a handicap for Obama?
His stance on the war and his stance to withdraw all troops within 1-2 years, a position 60% of Americans hold?
His support for universal healthcare?
His support for repealing Bush's tax cuts for the top 1%?
His support for ending overseas tax havens for corporations?
His support for increasing federal Pell Grants to combat the rising cost of college?
His support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows any workers who want to unionize to hold a vote and do so, which a vast majority of Americans support?
His opposition to giving phone companies who helped Bush illegally spy on Americans' phone calls retro immunity, which a vast amjority of Americans agree with him on?
His support for alternative energy expansion, and his paln to combat global warming?
You seem to be deluded into believing that the majority of Americans share your far, far right-wing crazy positions on issues like the war. You shouldn't kid yourself. Barack Obama is happy to talk about the issues and it is your guy McCain who is scared to debate the real issues.
Posted by: buckidean | March 14, 2008 05:49 PM
Wow. On one minute you lament the Holocaust ____________________________
Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis.
Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings.
Your karma is not what you think it is.
I'm very glad I don't have your karma.
Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 05:18 PM ____________________________
and the next you _ignore_ the moving story of a young kid shot down.
Its obvious that you don't read what I post so I'm wasting my time, but here goes.
1. Obama got Rezko ... (blah blah blah) ____________________________
Two of the events that had the greatest effect on me was reading "Maus" and watching "The Sorrow and the Pity". "Maus" made personal the plight of individual Jews trying to escape the Holocaust, and "TSATP" brought home the fact that Nazism prospered not only because good people did nothing, but good people actively collaborated. And then, to add insult to injury, they wouldn't even admit it after the war, making up some nonsensical garbage about being in the resistance.
I don't doubt those people faced hard choices that are easy to second-guess from an armchair. But I would hope that I would have had enough humanity in me to have _tried_ do something, to have _tried_ to resist evil. If there isn't something in your life worth dying for, what have you to live for?
When you wrote "Your posts present a vivid reminder to everyone on these boards of how fanatics think about things, how shallow their thinking is, and just how little they care about the welfare of their fellow human beings", you indicted yourself. That's you, to a T.
The eternal optimist in me -- the part that hopes Obama can lerad us to a more civil place -- hoped I could connect with you, hoped that you would see the common human thread in that kid's story even as I see the common human thread in the Holocaust. But the grownup part of me -- the part that fears the effect of eight years of Clinton after 16 years of Clinton/Bush -- was pretty sure you are the soulless Clinton drone that you are, blogging and posting away in your little hovel, wasting your time and wasting what passes for your life.
Your conduct indicts yourself. That Hillary is supported, fervently, by people like you, people with no concern for the truth or for other human beings, generally motivated by hate of "the other", is the biggest endorsement for Barack Obama I can imagine.
Your hatred is so consuming, it has destroyed your sense of reality. You ARE pathetic. And I do pity you.
PS FWIW, I don't believe you about your family. There's no reference to any individual family member, like your grammy or your uncle, that someone who'd been personally affected by the Holocaust would have posted. Just like no real Ph.D. gets the details of his discipline wrong. You're a fake, and a liar. I can console myself with the knowledge that the pointlessness of your existence will reveal itself even to you when this campaign is finally over.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 05:53 PM
After browsing some WP's blogs I came to the conclusion that this country is on the verge of getting paralysis by analysis!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 05:55 PM
PPS "Every member of my family in europe -- every single man, woman and child, were coldly murdered and wiped off the face of the earth by the Nazis" is inconsistent with "only my grandfather escaped." No one who'd had only their grandfather escape yould have said EVERYONE was killed.
Also, if your grandfather escaped -- say at 40 in 1945, that puts your birth year around 1965 (20 yr old dad). Which means you were 3 when Dr. King was shot. Kind of hard for him to have been your hero, eh?
Tell the truth, sv. it's the easiest story to remember.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 05:57 PM
OBAMA speaks what he will do 2009. NO foolish wars.College Tuition help. World's esteem for USA and its Products. New Homeownerships, jobs, no LOBBYs.....
Posted by: tariqahmed | March 14, 2008 06:03 PM
paralysis by analysis ... of personal problems!
Since I am not a shrink I hope to see you some other time!
Posted by: trace-sc | March 14, 2008 06:05 PM
Good article. I'll keep following it. This election is exciting.
Posted by: wanboredlatino | March 14, 2008 06:05 PM
Posted by: Spectator2 | March 14, 2008 06:07 PM
Comparing Obama and his supporters to Adolph Hitler and his followers is not only patently ridiculous but is deeply insulting to those who died under his regime...Jews, Catholics, gays, gypsies, the malformed, the mentally-challenged... and is one of many reasons why I have no respect for svreader and his posts.
Hitlers are only possible in societies where information is suppressed and controlled. that's how propaganda can succeed...we need look only to the Arab countries where this is happening.
The hysterical tone and content of svreader's posts demands no respect whatsoever.
Posted by: wpost4112 | March 14, 2008 06:25 PM
"No. My grandfather was the only one who escaped."
You said everyone was killed, but now your grandfather escaped. Get your story straight. You're a fraud and a liar who has crossed the line by supporting your BS with make-believe Holocaust victims.
Take your BS back to the Columbus dailies. All: svreader was outed here yesterday as writing the same sort of drivel, only in support of Obama and against HRC, contrary to what it spews here.
Posted by: bondjedi | March 14, 2008 06:27 PM
bondjedi, do you have a link? I actually have a life, so I really don't hit all the WaPo blogs every day. I'd like to see it.
Posted by: gbooksdc | March 14, 2008 06:35 PM
If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, MI, WI, MN, PA, and OH are all in contention. He will do well in CO, IA, and VA - but McCain will put OR, NM, and CA, and NY (Jewish voters concerns and upstate can tilt this state with Long Island voters as in many Gov. races) into play and force them to defend turf. MO will be a bellwether, and probably leans Dem this year. My guess is that McCain easily defeats Obama and would carry FL, PA, OH, and MI. The bloom is coming off the rose of Obama and if anything happens in Pakistan during the summer, he is toast.
If Clinton is the nominee, the states that Kerry was contesting and the blue-red divide continue. Clinton would have the edge in that NY, PA, MI, OH, and FL would be receptive to her economic appeal, and she has never completely given in to the left wing nuts on military concerns. It would be close, but I would give the edge to Clinton over McCain.
Posted by: clawrence35 | March 14, 2008 06:37 PM
SORRY FOR ALL the posts earlier. Also, if I insulted anyone other than the clones here.
They think this is a fun game. Dividing america. turning neighbor against neighbor and grand fathers angainst grandsons.
this is not a game. Beware of anyone who says it is. We are a self-government. In a self-government we need all the real news we can get. With as little propoganda as possible. how can we make decisions when these fascist propogandists own all mediums? Radio, newspapers, cable news, websites. They ban who they choose and set the table and battle feild for us to rip each other apart. All for money. It's sick.
It used to be called treason , what these people do, at one time. to choose party or money over the will of the country (benidict arnold). Now it's "I know you are but what am I". Up is down. war is peace.
Reality exits. Even if insane people who do not acknowldege reality group together and say the sky is red. Reality persists. Propoganda does not create reality. Propoganda does not change the past (but can the future).
think about the future. Look at the big picture.
sorry for all the posts. These sabotuers for profit and fun are lost. do not hate them. Hold the mirror up. Help them re-join reality. They are scared. Change scares them. Understand that. But also remember what america is and was. our ancestors were not cowards, like they.
Obama had a speech once. his yes we can speach. He mentioned the fact that when this great nation was founded, no one would have bet on us. No one was thinking we can do it. How far we came from that point. How? Fear? Changing teh constitution out of fear? When, if THEY are the patriot's?
How many of these tough guys will be signing up to fight in president obama's army? Who are the patrioits now.
PAt TIllman (san jose, ca). Remember his life and his sacrafice. He is a true patriot. Fighting in a battle for his nation he did not approve of. Sacraficed all for his country. The gop (clinton included)? What do they ever sacrafice? they rape and pilalge. they divide and conquer. they reap huge rewards off this great nation. What do they ever sacrafice? Who do you hurt people who only care about money and power? You take it from them. Think about the future and presednece. Help the lost sheep. don;t hate them. They are lost. Their ignorance can only go to a point, before it's willful. At some point people must be cut loose if they don't love america and it's freedoms. Sent the gop to greenland i say. :) Just kidding (before someone snaps.)
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 06:44 PM
Obama doesn't have to worry about Missouri. I live here, and I've got his back.
Posted by: rippermccord | March 14, 2008 07:03 PM
"The Purpose of War is Peace"
Unintended? you be the judge. Fascists? you be the judge.
do not fear the fascists. Somebody's got to fight for america, while these people are destroying it.
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 14, 2008 07:27 PM
NO REPUBLICAN WILL TAKE CALIFORNIA.
(NOT FOR PRES. ANYWAY - & ARNOLD DOESN'T COUNT)
PLUS EVERYONE IS DISCOUNTING THE ECONOMY'S EFFECT ON THE GOP.
IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH FALL FOR REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE BOARD.
UNLESS HRC IS NOMINATED. SHE'S THE WILD CARD.
Posted by: imright | March 14, 2008 07:44 PM
NO REPUBLICAN WILL TAKE CALIFORNIA.
(NOT FOR PRES. ANYWAY - & ARNOLD DOESN'T COUNT)
I KNOW. -------------- You live there so you know how millions of people feel, wow, why aren't you running for president?
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 14, 2008 07:53 PM
The big battleground state is Ohio for the presidency. In a close election, Ohio always matters immensley. In a McCain vs. Obama race, Obama may be able to put into play Ohio, Iowa & Colorodo. However, the negative campaigning hasn't really started yet. When people really find out about Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, voters in Iowa, Colorodo nor Ohio will take another view. Wright believes the Bible is written from an "afro-centric" point of view. Wright also says black American's shouldn't sing "God bless America" but "God damn America". A pastor spewing this type of venom from the pulpit of a church that Obama attends and is a member of, and Obama claims to be a uniter? Wright also claims the US is to blame for 9/11, not foreign terrorists. Obama looks at this man as a spiritual advisor. Don't think this won't be part of the campaign, b/c it is an issue. How a candidate believes is a real issue, so does Obama believe these things? He sits in a church under a man who claims these things. We will see, closer to the general, how Obama really does. Besides that, he talks about sitting down with enemy leaders of the USA...but draws the line on sitting down and talking to reporters from Fox news. He's a fake and will be exposed as a fake. McCain, on the other hand, has scars from the left & right for centric positions he's taken on immigration, campaign finance reform & the "Gang of 14" judicial nominee group. He's the centrist, Obama is a shady liberal attempting to hide who he really is until after he is elected.
Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 14, 2008 08:15 PM
The big battleground state is Ohio for the presidency. In a close election, Ohio always matters immensley. In a McCain vs. Obama race, Obama may be able to put into play Ohio, Iowa & Colorodo. However, the negative campaigning hasn't really started yet. When people really find out about Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, voters in Iowa, Colorodo nor Ohio will take another view. Wright believes the Bible is written from an "afro-centric" point of view. Wright also says black American's shouldn't sing "God bless America" but "God damn America". A pastor spewing this type of venom from the pulpit of a church that Obama attends and is a member of, and Obama claims to be a uniter? Wright also claims the US is to blame for 9/11, not foreign terrorists. Obama looks at this man as a spiritual advisor. Don't think this won't be part of the campaign, b/c it is an issue. How a candidate believes is a real issue, so does Obama believe these things? He sits in a church under a man who claims these things. We will see, closer to the general, how Obama really does. Besides that, he talks about sitting down with enemy leaders of the USA...but draws the line on sitting down and talking to reporters from Fox news. He's a fake and will be exposed as a fake. McCain, on the other hand, has scars from the left & right for centric positions he's taken on immigration, campaign finance reform & the "Gang of 14" judicial nominee group. He's the centrist, Obama is a shady liberal attempting to hide who he really is until after he is elected. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 14, 2008 08:15 PM
Let's get something straight right now, there is ZERO!! chance that McCain will carry California or New York...McCain is WAY too socially conservative for either of those 2 states, & he will lose both states to either Clinton or Obama by at least 10%....You would have a better chance of finding a 3-bedroom/3-bath 4,500 sq. ft. house in Beverly Hills for $650,000 than McCain winning CA or NY.....(that size house in BH typically is $3,500,000+).....
Obama has good chance to win CO, NM, IO, NV, & VA....I doubt he wins Florida, but he could win Ohio....He should keep all the Kerry states...
Clinton i think is better in line to win OH & FL....ALOT of former New Yorkers now call Florida home & will certainly vote for her..In addition, all the snowbirds who have homes in both NY & FL, those people will fly down to FL Nov. 1 to vote for HRC there, as there votes aren't needed in NY, she'd win NY w/65% of the vote....
As far as the Obama/Wright controversy, most conservatives have short term memory....John McCain gave a commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, & Falwell's statements after 9/11 were so replusive, that making the association of McCain/Falwell will be far worse than Obama/Wright....
Posted by: AirNZ | March 14, 2008 10:46 PM
If Obama is the nominee, Democrats can kiss the mid-west goodbye. For a foreshadowing of this, keep an eye on the upcoming Indiana primary. My guess is Obama gets creamed in IN, and maybe in the slightly later KY primary, too.
Posted by: heartlandmoderategal | March 15, 2008 12:02 AM
Hey man, your "Top Ten" is bogus. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are far more likely to flip than Minnesota or Virginia.
My lists assuming an Obama-McCain contest...
Obama most likely pick-ups: 1. Iowa 2. Ohio 3. Missouri
McCain most likely pick-ups: 1. New Hampshire 2. Pennsylvania 3. Wisconsin
I really think Obama will have a tough time picking up western states, such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (given McCain's immigration position, the fact that his social views are more in line with the majority of Hispanics, and the brown-black divide). An open question is whether McCain will be able to hold Ohio and/or pick-up Pennsylvania given his position on NAFTA, which is at odds with many Reagan Democrats in the region.
Obama will have to fight hard to hold Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Jersey too.
Posted by: braveheartdc | March 15, 2008 03:21 AM
Vammap....you might want to ask President Kerry how well John Edwards helped him carry the South in 2004. If memory serves me right, they lost every southern state, including North Carolina(Edwards home state)
Someone above mentioned South Carolina possibly being good for Obama, while the state has a large black population and a very large percentage of the Democrat vote is black, this won't help Obama or any Democrat because the Republican vote is much, much larger than the Democrat and even if Obama took 100% of the Independents(which won't happen against McCain) he still couldn't overcome the Republican vote. The fact that South Carolina is so solidly Republican is the biggest reason why Sanford most likely won't be McCain's V.P.. Same in Florida, Clinton keeps citing some poll or another showing her beating McCain there, but it's just not going to happen. This state will be a solid McCain state no matter which of the Democrats win the nomination. That fact is one of the top reasons Gov. Christ won't be McCains V.P. either, along with his being single(no party has nominated a single man for V.P. or President since Clevelend in the 1880's) and those little rumors that keep popping up about him being Bisexual or Gay.
Colorado is a definate flip state I think. And thanks to Gov. Richardson and no really strong Republican Senate candidate New Mexico will probably go back to blue. Wisconson will go Democrat if Obama is the guy, otherwise it could go McCain. Minnisota stays blue. Michigan I think is a McCain catch and possibly Pa.. Ohio may be a lost cause, but since Obama lost to Clinton there, with the very heavy black vote in Franklin county and Cuyuhoga county, McCain could hold it red, if Obama is the nominee. In primary day interviews, voters in Ohio weren't bashful about flat out saying that they weren't ready for a black President, I didn't see that in any other state. Plus, part of my family is from Ohio, and when I go there to visit, the people are very nice, but a lot of them aren't in favor of blacks.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 15, 2008 05:18 AM
I thought I was done commnting, but I just read a comment by someone who knows so little about politics I had to answer.
AIRNZ.....First....I agree McCain will probably not win California or New York. But he will be very competitive in both states, causing either Democrat to spend money in what should be solid blue states. You might want to ask Mayor Guiliani the Republican nominee....oh wait, he ISN'T the Republican nominee, I guess that big New York vote in Florida he was so sure of didn't pan out. McCain is solid in Florida, against either of the Democrats. And your very, very wrong about Rev. Wright....nothing Falwell ever said comes close to the bile that Rev. Wright has been spewing for the last 5 years at least. Obama may have a really big time problem because of this guy. McCain wasn't attached at the hip to Falwell, but Obama is on record many times over the last 3 years as to how close he is to Rev. Wright, and for Obama to stand up as he did today and deny that he ever heard Wright give or that he even knew that Wright gave seermons like what is being shown on the news, just isn't credible. To many big shots in the media are already questioning his veracity. The biggest thing Obama had going for him was his so called **politics of hope** and a repudiation of the **politics of the past**....if he's disembling(and it looks a lot like he is) then he has just shot his main campaign theme in the butt.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 15, 2008 05:32 AM
Sorry joshua, I DO know more about politics than you, guaranteed - period, done, end of story.....
McCain will NEVER be competitive in CA/NY...As soon as he starts preaching the social conservative non-sense, he'll lose both states by 15-20%...You can sell social conservatism crap in middle earth America, but that stuff doesn't fly in CA/NY...Why do you think Republicans TRIED to split CA's electoral votes last summer (thankfully it failed), cuz they know they have no chance in CA....Forget about the fact the governor is Schwartzengger, he governs like a Democrat, works well w/Democrats, & is a social liberal...If he tried to preach social conservatism, Phil Angelides would be the governor now..
Uhhh, as far as Rudy not doing well in FL, I'll let you in on little secret, Hillary Clinton is FAR more popular w/New Yorkers than he EVER was...THUS, she'll get the alot of votes from the snowbirds & the former NY'ers who are permanent residents of FL now...
Disagee 500% about Wright....Falwell's statements after 9/11 (gays, ACLU were to blame for 9/11) were the most vile comments I've ever heard in my life, 1000x worse than what Wright said....And you still don't get it: John McCain gave the commencement address at his university AFTER he called him an "agent of intolerance" in 2000 (flip-flopper) & after Falwell's despicable comments....If Republicans make a big deal out of Wright, there is plenty of material to after McCain on w/his association to Falwell...
You simply are clueless in politics if you think Democrats will have to spend alot of money in CA/NY to win...Lindsay Lohan would carry CA. & Howard Stern could carry NY against someone as far right as John McCain....So I'll just assume your first paragraph was an early April fools joke..
Posted by: AirNZ | March 15, 2008 10:11 AM
I'm skeptical of Hillary's ability to win key states. A few of the "outrageous" conservatives like Rush and Coulter argue for Hillary, but I wonder how much of this is meant to ward off Barack Obama and his extreme liberal viewpoints. Will they consolidate around McCain after the Democratic Party finally nominates somebody, whether its Hillary or Obama?
Another thing to bear in mind is, Hillary was barely able to carry Texas even with the aid of Rush Limbaugh; in fact, it's debatable whether she even got the upper hand in Texas, when all was said and done. The average conservative American doesn't take Rush and Coulter seriously when they attempt to build up Hillary.
Hillary has a very polarizing personality. If she gets the Democratic nomination, you can count on a stronger McCain campaign bent on defeating her. The conservative principles of John McCain will become much more accentuated when he's debating a Democrat rather than a Republican. In the end, the reality of a liberal feminist in the white house will sink in and the conservative base will unite around McCain.
One last note. The scandal involving Obama's preacher is a big, big issue. It's the scandal the Clinton campaign was praying for and it could end up costing Obama the Democratic nomination. But even if Obama goes on to the general election, this is something McCain can use against him to score big. Barack Obama was the Democratic Party's greatest hope for a landslide victory in November - this scandal could change that. I think this year's election is going to be a lot closer than most people think.
Posted by: mahmud010 | March 15, 2008 03:14 PM
mahmud010: "Another thing to bear in mind is, Hillary was barely able to carry Texas"
Barely carried Texas? against whom. Hillary more than doubled McCain's total. She out polled the entire Republican party by more votes than McCain got. Her close contest was with Obama and that wasn't particularly close. The Democratic turnout was apparently greater in this years primary than in the 2004 General election. Either all the Democrats in Texas turned out to vote, or there are a lot of new voters for the Dems available in the fall.
Still, all you good Republicans have to look at this election only in small bits and pieces because anyone who tries to look at the totals has to understand one thing.
Voters don't like Republicans all that well.
And the economy has seven months to continue tanking. Republicans can spin all they want, when the economy tanks before an election, the Party in the white House doesn't do well.
Note that JM is just a foot note in most press coverage of politics right now. Hillary and Barack have the Media's attention and will keep it to August and Denver. Every time John gets his face in the papers it won't be flattering and it will be him trying harder and harder to get conservatives to like him. Come Labor Day, John has to begin his run to the center with the testimony of every Fundamentalist Republican Mega Church preacher to show that he has sold what is left of his soul to the Radical Christian Right.
There won't be any morals legislation on Ohio's ballot to help him, either.
As of today, if the general election votes were to divide Republican/Democratic the way the completed primaries split, the Democrats would get 330 electoral votes and the Republicans 82. There are 43 electoral votes uncontested so far that are usually considered blue states.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 15, 2008 04:19 PM
heartlandmoderategal: As Indianna goes so goes the Midwest? H Man, as Indiana goes it isn't even sure that so goes Indiana. And who cares about Kentucky. When Hillary or Barack carries Kentucky it just adds 8 electoral votes to the likely 400+ votes the Dems will already have. The rest of the Midwest has already voted, and Barack did very well Northwest ordinance states wise. McCain won't do at all well in Michigan. I doubt he will end up carrying Indiana. I doubt that he will carry a single state that did not succeed in 1861 that existed in 1865, and he may not have much lick in the Confederacy. But my numbers come from the voting totals reported in the Washington Post so maybe they are trying to hide something from the people.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 15, 2008 04:30 PM
Maryland Tennessee Kansas North Carolina
MD may flip from lack of turnout if Clinton gets the nomination.
The TN GOP is acting spooked we should take them at their "word."
Obama is going to run with Warner or Sebelius and Sebelius could flip Kansas.
NC's research triangle hasn't been heard from electorally, and Obama will turn it out.
Posted by: arsonplus | March 15, 2008 06:17 PM
No way that McCain will win California. The Terminator Gov's wife is backing Obama, so don't expect much real Republican support from Arnold. Can't see him going to the mat with the Kennedy's. Plus, Obama portends to be a better friend to California as President than McCain. Hillary won the Dem Establishment vote and Hispanics in the primary which will go for Obama in the General; Independents and many Arnold Republicans will continue to support Obama as well. McCain scares the Hell out of many people in the Sunshine state, with his "Bomb Iran/100 Years in Iraq" rhetoric, his admitted ignorance about the economy, and his flaming temper. None of this is cool in California. Obama will beat McCain by several points in California, maybe more depending on his VP.
North Carolina is another state that could swing Democrat if Obama heads the ticket, especially if the Dems there pick a strong candidate to run against the waning Elizabeth Dole. Obama's demos--well educated, youth plus blacks--could do for him in NC what they did in Virginia, and tilt the Tar Heel state back to the Democrats in 2008. The May primary will tell more, but polls there consistently show Obama leading Clinton.
Posted by: morphnmomma | March 16, 2008 12:29 AM
AirNZ....McCain is 8 points down from Clinton in California and 11 points down from Obama in the latest Rassmussun polls yesterday. He most likely can't win, but for a Republican to be this close this far into an election year in California is unheard of. You my friend need to bone up on the daily tracking polls and then bone up on the candidates positions(oh wait, you can't for Obama because he dosen't have any). McCain has a good enviromental record, better than many so called Democratis enviromentalists, he is agianst pork barrel projects, has taken $0 of earmarks as a Senator(compared to Obama 789 million in only 3 years, and Clinto 2.6 million in 6 years), passed campaign finance reform, co wrote with Kennedy the most comprehensive immigration bill ever, and I could go on all night. You have the problem all dillitantte political pundits have, you have preconcieved notions of politicians without a clue as to who they really are. McCain is a conservative, but he has a very good moderate record, thats why Independents support him. You need to spend some time going over the polls my friend. McCain is now ahead of both Democrats nationally and in Ohio(beats Obama badly), Pa., Michigan, Florida(beats Obama by 14 % there and Clinton by 8%), Mo.. In New Jersey he beats Obama, in Wisc. he beats both, in Colorado he beats both. This just shouldn't be. But it is and it's only going to get worse for the Democrats.
Arsonplus....I don't think Kansas is takable by the Democrats. And I am getting the distinct impression that Senator Claire McCaskell is going to be Obama's running mate if he wins. I just read a column last night giving out a unconfirmed hint at that. She would maybe bring him Mo. and she has bona fides among women, and white blue collar, groups he needs. Plus, she has been point person with the media for him a lot the last 2 weeks, so keep an eye on her.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 02:47 AM
CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.
McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.
Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 03:06 AM
CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.
McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.
Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 03:06 AM
CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.
McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.
Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 03:06 AM
CEFLYENLINE....where do you get your info??? Daily Kos??? Because it's obvious your not based in a real world anywhere.
McCain has been front page almost everyday since cinching the nomination. He is getting so much positive coverage it's scary. Compare that to the headlines your two wonder kids are getting....totally negative, nut job Rev.'s and nut job former V.P. candidates, former slum lord, soon to be con friends and on and on.
Once again, there is no comparison or anything to see in a McCain Falwell connection. They agreed to speak nice to eachother, McCain gave his speech and hasn't seen Falwell since. But Obama the Messiah has been bosum buddies with Wright for over 20 years. He was married in his church by the Rev., the Rev. btized his kids, is his **spirtual** mentor, his inspiration(all Obama's words). Then to go on t.v. and say....**I have never heard him say those things in church or privately** ....I have never been in the church when he made those kinds of sermons**.....sorry, but almost no one, except the Obamabot's are believeing that. He made a statement last week basically saying he hardly talked to the Rev., but last year he told a different story in regards to a Rolling Stone interview....which time was he lying?? One of those 2 statements is a lie....which one?? This Wright thing is big and it will only get bigger once the w/e is over and the media realizes how far Obama dropped in the Rassmussion and Zogby daily tracking polls from Friday to Saturday. I think Clinton is behind this push about Wright and after trying to get the besotted media to pay attention for 3 months it's finally taking off. When you add this Wright stuff to what his wife has said about finally being proud of her country because people are voting for Obama and telling poor women on Ohio not to go to college because then you have to worry about repaying student loans on a paltry 961 thousand dollar a year income, then people start wondering just what Obama really does stand for. This is what comes of trying to run a race on platitudes and not solid positions
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 16, 2008 03:09 AM
Well....this thread started off well enough, and then...????
svreader, we get the point. You don't like Obama. Now shut up.
Posted by: jimoneill50 | March 16, 2008 06:26 AM
Obama is not qualified to be president.
As a lifelong Democrat, I will vote for McCain before I vote for that man.
Of course, no one can say anything about him without being called racist.
But never mind that his 20-year pastor is ranting lunatic.
But he never heard any of that.
And he's a Harvard Law grad. Huh.
Face it people, you've been had by Barry Obama.
Just wait for the meltdown once he's the nominee.
Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 16, 2008 04:50 PM
Well, actually, I set up a data base in access, states, electoral votes, totals from 2004, that sort of thing, and put in the numbers from the Washington Post Reporting on each Primary. Since most are either Primary/Primary or Caucus/Caucus states, most are an easy comparison. Montana is hard because what got reported is (apparently) delegates earned, state, or something, because only some sixteen hundred votes show. Iowa is hard to call because the Dems Caucused but the Reps had a straw poll.
one or two others have anomalous reports, but on the whole, based on participation in the Democratic contests compared to participation in the Republican contests, the Republicans are getting a shellacking to make AUH2O's rout look respectable by comparison. And remember, for republicans to crossover vote they have to ignore any Congressional, State, or local Republican contests they might have a stake in.
And John's "good press", like going to Iraq with Lieberman, is window dressing when it isn't out right farce. When he needs another major military escort to check out some local Potemkin village, it will blow up just like the last time.
Meanwhile after the U. S. Treasury propped up Bear Stearns, Morgan bought it at fire sale prices. Which Bizarre Securities firm will be next to go belly up, get Federal welfare, and end up owned by Morgan, Citigroup, or BancAmerica? Billions for Wall Street but not one cent for Health Care?
That isn't even going to play in Peoria. Good old Republican Peoria. Dirksen country.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 16, 2008 10:18 PM
I think the Barack--Hillary back and forth on this thread should be summarily deleted. Don't you people have better places to go with that?
Cilizza has good points about Virginia, but as an Obama Democrat in Virginia sadly I have to disagree a bit. Northern Virginia is going to go crazy for Obama, but he's not going to get any more African-Americans than another Democrat would. They all get 90% anyway. The problem is whites. I love my fellow Virginians, and I know that they did elect Wilder once, but flipping from red to blue AND voting for a black man is a tall order for the Old Dominion. Remember that Webb--a perfect Democrat for Virginia--only beat a real knucklehead like Allen very narrowly in a horrible year for the GOP.
Posted by: jjohn | March 16, 2008 11:29 PM
Posted by: sbgamatt | March 16, 2008 11:32 PM
Ceflynline, just to make it abundantly clear, I'm not a conservative. That much should be evident by my comments on CC's other posts. I do, however, appreciate the importance of questioning one's own pet assumptions and beliefs.
It seems clear to me that people who are into partisan politics don't really care a whole lot about looking deep into their biases and questioning their basic assumptions. When people on either side of the fence - liberal or conservative - resist looking at the weaknesses in their favorite candidate's campaign, it betrays this sort of ambivalence or even hostility towards examining their own principles and beliefs. This is the kind of thing that really makes me feel contempt for people like you in the political sphere and people like Obama's pastor in the religious sphere. Why should anyone listen to either of you if you can't even get past your own bs? While some of us, like myself, are more than busy trying to dissect the lunacy spewing from the mouths of our leaders, you're busy stumping for them. Again, why should anyone take you seriously?
Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 03:18 AM
Actually, my BIASES are obviously Democratic Party. My numbers are just numbers, and my conclusions are just from reading the numbers. When there is such a large discrepancy in voter turn out it mens something, and the only reasonable guess you can make is that it means Dems are voting about twice as often as republicans. How will that play in November? The usual guess is that people DO vote the same Primary to General election, unless they get disgusted and go away. That leaves guessing how the voters who aren't motivated enough to vote in the primaries vote.
Either large numbers of Republicans just don't care who their Party nominates, while almost all Democrats want their say, or the proportions ov voters in November will reflect the numbers in the Primaries.
Which brings us back to the conclusion that UNLESS the Republicans change an awful lot of minds, November will be a Democratic landslide.
So, just how will McCain change those minds. This morning it looks like the bear Stearns mess is driving a bear market. There isn't any countervailing good economic news. Iraq is still a mess. George's Foreign Policy is still apparently to aggravate the entire world. His domestic policy is still to do what the right most fifteen percent of the country wants. John wants change as long as none of the above changes.
You tell me what my unreasonable assumptions are.
Posted by: ceflynline | March 17, 2008 11:40 AM
Kansas will be an interesting case this year. Yes, it's unlikely to turn blue. But there are a series of factors that might make it a little purpler, and one of them is the lost Boeing tanker deal. It has made national news for a couple of days but has stayed on the front page of Kansas papers since the story broke. The Air Force changed the criteria for the bid at the insistence of John McCain, and if it turns out this was due to unethical dealings on his part--and even if it isn't--a handful of counties in south-central and southeast Kansas might lean blue. Of course Sebelius would help, though I doubt she'll be the nominee. And Obama was greeted here as a native son--Kansans are proud of their connection to him.
But it's the tanker deal that might make things interesting.
Posted by: bookishemily | March 17, 2008 01:27 PM
virginia is only in play if obama is the nominee. I think mccain will be able to turn blue states to red more than any of obama or clinton turning red to blue.
Posted by: walken101 | March 17, 2008 06:21 PM
Why would anyone on the GOP side turn up at the voting booths in places like Texas, as you mentioned above, when McCain already had the whole contest wrapped up? It's silly to bring up anything past Florida - when McCain gained the momentum that carried him to where he's at now. Huckabee was never a threat.
That said, there's no denying the general dissatisfaction among the conservative base with all the candidates, even back in Iowa. I think we need to look at George W. Bush and ask ourselves how he was elected for a second term. Many conservatives didn't care for him. They thought he was a mediocre president who wasn't very bright. Still, they voted for him over a real war hero, and I think that shows their willingness to look past their distaste for whoever's running and vote for them - if for no other reason than to stop the Democrats. Do you really think this won't happen in November? I've seen this happen before and, to be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in the American people to learn from their mistake.
Lastly, I have to say, I rarely pay attention to anyone pushing partisan politics. Is this really any different from the bs being pushed on us by organized religion? Are you advocating independent thought? It doesn't appear so.
Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 07:02 PM
CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President. It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 03:27 AM
CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President. It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 03:27 AM
CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President. It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 03:27 AM
CEFLYNLINE....look, get over your obcession with primary/caucus turnout. If you look at the last 24 years of primary history you see that the Democrats have almost always had a much larger turnout for their primaries, because except under Clinton in 1996 they have never had a popular incumbant running. There is no correlation between primary turnout and General election turnout, if their was, Gore, Kerryand Mondale would all have been President. It means nothing. Yes the Democrats are excited this year(or were)and the Republicans have been down. But in November, the Rpublicans and all of the Independents will be out in force and it might be a very close election or since the Wright tapes came out and Obama talked about race but didn't explain why he has refused to disavow Wright himself and finally admitted that he had been present in church when Wright was giving a lot of these sermons(he has denied it at least 4 times prior) this could be a blowout for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Thats the facts. Go to Realpolitics.com and check the daily tracking polls, Obama has dropped in all areas and McCain now beats him soundly in several states that are usually Blue.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 03:27 AM
BOOKISHEMILY....McCain stopped the original deal because as head of the Armed Services Committee he had to hold hearings on ok'ing the deal. His staffer's did the figures and realized the deal was a rip off of 6 Billion dollars of the goverment. The Air Force and Boeing came up with the lease idea to avoid having to go through the bidding process. The AF agreed to lease the tankers for 6 or 8 years at a set price then buy them outright. When the numers were crunched, it would have cost us 6 Billion more to do that than to just buy them outright to start with. The Gao(I think) started an investigation and found secret money under the table and bribes by Boeing of AF officals. The procurment officer, a woman was to get a big paying job with Boeing as soon as the deal was signed. She went to jail along with a Boeing offical. The head of Boeing had to resign and 2 high ranking AF officers were demoted and 1 was kicked out. So McCain did, as he claims, save the goverment 6 Billion dollars on that deal.
Thats when McCain told the AF they had to do the contract as a *bid* contract as was the norm. He did allow Boeing to bid on the project even though they had used bribery and other illegal tactics in the first deal. Mainly because Boeing is our only large military grade manufacturer of airplanes. They lost the bidding to Airbus. Airbus will assemble the planes in Mississippi and another state, creating thousands of direct jobs and thousands more at businesses that will supply the new Airbus plants. Airbus agreed to 60% of the work being done in the US.
Boeing claims Airbus will *outsource* a lot of the work. What Boeing is failing to mention is that even less of the work would have been done here in the US if they had won because they outsource far more than Airbus will.
Posted by: joshuahaught | March 21, 2008 03:44 AM
Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Nadhmi Auchi pose some serious questions about his judgement. Unless he gives the go ahead to Michigan and Florida to hold new primaries,and of course he won't do that, he will be our nominee. If you don't agree with disenfranchising voters, please go to www.ipetitions.com/petition/votersunite and sign the petition. It only takes one minute to let the DNC know that we demand that our votes count.
Posted by: nchapman | March 22, 2008 07:20 PM
Barack Obama's church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas.!! Rev. Wright gave it a new title, "A Fresh View of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Struggle." There is no doubt that by reprinting this Hamas manifesto on the church bulletin, Wright supports this terror group. The article 1.defended terrorism as LEGITIMATE resistance, 2.refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist 3.compared the terror group's official charter - which calls for the murder of Jews - to America's Declaration of Independence!! The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Google Obama's church, pastor's page, July 22, 2007) Marzook, the author of this article, is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States
Hamas is responsible for multiple acts of terrorist including suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian populations. It is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S.
Esraeli security officials have expressed concern about Robert Malley, AN ADVISER TO OBAMA, who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
Barack Obama cannot just say "I didn't" know on this. And a "great speech" won't do either. Obama is compromised on so many different levels that he simply cannot be trusted. His middle name should no longer be ignored. (well, didn't he say "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"? If you don't believe this, Google the statement. Didn't he say in Audacity of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims?")
Barack Hussein Abdul al-Majid al-Obama for President of The United States! LOL Un-freakin'-believable!!!
Go to: http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf Scroll down to page 10 __________________ As a culture, we lose our way when we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation.
Posted by: cyberella | March 23, 2008 11:12 PM
Barack Obama's church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas.!! Rev. Wright gave it a new title, "A Fresh View of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Struggle." There is no doubt that by reprinting this Hamas manifesto on the church bulletin, Wright supports this terror group. The article 1.defended terrorism as LEGITIMATE resistance, 2.refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist 3.compared the terror group's official charter - which calls for the murder of Jews - to America's Declaration of Independence!! The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Google Obama's church, pastor's page, July 22, 2007) Marzook, the author of this article, is a known terrorist and created an extensive Hamas network in the United States
Hamas is responsible for multiple acts of terrorist including suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian populations. It is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S.
Esraeli security officials have expressed concern about Robert Malley, AN ADVISER TO OBAMA, who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
Barack Obama cannot just say "I didn't" know on this. And a "great speech" won't do either. Obama is compromised on so many different levels that he simply cannot be trusted. His middle name should no longer be ignored. (well, didn't he say "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"? If you don't believe this, Google the statement. Didn't he say in Audacity of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims?")
Barack Hussein Abdul al-Majid al-Obama for President of The United States! LOL Un-freakin'-believable!!!
Go to: http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_july22.pdf Scroll down to page 10 __________________ As a culture, we lose our way when we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation.
Posted by: cyberella | March 23, 2008 11:12 PM
|
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 1,527.431818 | 0.886364 | 1.477273 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/10/DI2008031001085.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/10/DI2008031001085.html
|
College Basketball
|
2008031519
|
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Eric Prisbell: Hello everyone. Live from courtside getting ready for FSU and UNC. We can rehash Maryland's latest meltdown and look at the crazy bubble picture. Does anyone want to get into this tournament?
And please join me Sunday night for a special Selection Sunday live online chat during or right after the picks are made. There is bound to be plenty of controversy. Let's start.
Adam Kilgore: You're looking ... LIVE! courtside at Bobcats Arena in Charlotte. Sneaky Florida State might just crash the tournament with an upset. Leonard Hamilton is still coaching the Seminoles, so don't look for that to happen. Shouldn't be a problem to come up with topics for today. How bad is Maryland going to tank the NIT? Can Virginia Tech get in with one win after all the carnage yesterday? When's the last time Patrick Stevens slept? Onward.
Crompond, N.Y.: Thanks for all the terrific coverage of men's basketball. My question: what are VCU's chances of an at-large bid now that UMass, Baylor, Oregon, Villanova have lost in the first round of their conference tournaments?
Eric Prisbell: It was a very good night for VCU, South Alabama and Illinois State. I have those three among my final four in as of this minute, but it is fluid and the separation among all the teams on the bubble is very small.
VCU still has no top 50 wins.
I have Nova in, Baylor still in, UMass out. I like Arizona State the best among the middling Pac-10 teams of Oregon, ASU and Zona. ASU has quality wins to offset a poor non-conference schedule.
Also, when you ask yourself who you don't want to play, among bubble teams, I think ASU would be on the short list.
Ohio State can get in with a win over Michigan State this afternoon.
Watch the Temple-Charlotte game tonight. Sleepers.
Adam Kilgore: That Mississippi loss really helped, too. VCU right now is kind of like Ohio State in football this year in the BCS. They lost first, it seemed bleak as bleak can be, and then a bunch of carnage shot them back into the picture. With a few bubble teams -- Virginia Tech, Florida State, etc. -- going down today, VCU will be looking pretty good. Which you wouldn't have said 24 hours ago. Someone's gotta get in, right?
Bethesda, Md.: Obviously, it's time to fire Gary Williams, and work is being done to make that happen. Since when does Al Skinner outcoach, well, anyone? That was a joke team, losers of their last twelve, and Maryland choked away a double-digit second-half lead. Against a team that wears down and quits against everyone (else). Williams has been living the "I got tenure" life since the NCAA championship, but there's no tenure in college basketball. It's time to fire him and bring in someone like Keno Davis. Someone who actually, you know, COACHES.
Adam Kilgore: Finally, someone with a little perspective around here!
I don't agree with any of this. There's no other word for the way Maryland's season ended than pathetic. Wanting to fire Gary Williams, however, is insane, as is suggesting he doesn't COACH. There are plenty of things you can fault Williams for, but not having passion is not one of them.
Eric Prisbell: I think it's easier to attack Gary's recruiting than his coaching. There are fans who feel strongly both ways.
Washington, D.C.: Where do you think Georgetown would be seeded if they won the Big East Tournament? Most current projections have them the 2 in the East, against the highest overall seed. Is there room to move up the S-curve?
Eric Prisbell: I think a No. 1 is a long shot because there are several teams still with strong hopes of a No. 1, like Memphis, Tenn., UCLA, Kansas, UNC, etc. Also, G-town won't get a chance to beat Louisville in the Big East final. A No. 2 seed playing in Birmingham or Tampa is not so bad. Sure, they could be in the East, with a date perhaps against UNC in the Elite Eight. Committee looks to avoid rematches in the first two rounds. After that, all bets are off, pretty much.
Adam Kilgore: If the Hoyas win it all, a two for sure. In either Tampa or Birmingham. Also, I've been saying this all week -- I like Pittsburgh to win that tournament. Now that the Panthers are healthy, they are very dangerous.
Also, FSU-UNC just tipped. 2-0 Heels. If you wagered on the 'Noles, I've got some bad news: Leonard Hamilton is still their coach.
Silver Spring, Md.: so, if Villanova fans are going to claim that the Hoyas were merely 'lucky' by sinking all those threes on their way to the rout, can they then be made to admit that their championship in '85 was only luck because of their shooting percentage? Some consistency would be nice.
Adam Kilgore: Ladies and gentlemen, today's we have a winner in the "Longest Grudge Held By a Chatter" contest. I'm not sure the shooting percentage was total luck, either. They weren't exactly playing H-O-R-S-E.
Eric Prisbell: That's a great post. I love watching replays of that 1985 game, the closest performance that resembled perfection in a national title setting.
Thought maybe we had something this year.
Eric Prisbell: Still might. I wouldn't read too much into conference tournaments. The committee only puts so much weight into it.
Adam Kilgore: And Calhoun has never been a coach who puts much emphasis on the tournament, if I recall. I think he's said a few times he'd rather be fresh for the NCAAs. There's still a lot of talent there. Preparing for Thabeet on short rest is very difficult, which makes UConn a really tough out on the first weekend.
Great Falls, Va.: Question about NCAA seedings and placement -- I understand that the committee gives preference to top seeds for locations as close to home as possible. Is that only for the number ones, or do the twos get consideration? Asking as a Hoya graduate and fan. I understand that they are also a host school for the first round, so does that play into it as well? The bracket projections I see that have them as a two seed also have them travelling at least a thousand miles for the first games. At least Raleigh is only a few hundred miles. What am I missing?
Adam Kilgore: Here's the thing: Georgetown can't play at Verizon, because that's its home court. Raleigh is out because the Pods will be 1-16 8-9 and 2-15 7-10. The 1 will be Carolina, and the 2 will be Duke. So Georgetwon has no spot there. The Hoyas will probably be Birmingham or Tampa. If you're planning on going to the game, you probably want to root for Tampa.
Eric Prisbell: Since UNC and Duke likely will be in Raleigh, the Hoyas will not. The committee really tries -- and i mean really tries -- to place the top four seeds in each region close to home. I would be very surprised if G-town does not wind up in Birmingham or Tampa. G-town could wind up in Birmingham along with a top-seed like Tennessee, perhaps in different bracket regions, if that makes any sense.
Fort Belvoir, Va.: Where will you be going for the Tournament? Will you be covering specific teams or locations?
Eric Prisbell: I have no idea where I will be next week. I could be anywhere, but I would prefer to stay in DC next week because of a variety of factors. Then, I prefer to head out to Phoenix to cover the UCLA Invitational. Then, San Antonio. Then, sleep.
Adam Kilgore: I will be with Virginia Tech if the Hokies sneak in. If not, I might be in D.C. I might be with American. Our fearless leader, Matt Rennie, has been sick this week, making our plans are slightly more fluid than typical. (So stop faking it already, boss.)
I know I'll be in Detroit for the regionals, unless Virginia Tech goes crazy. I think I like Detroit more than any writer on staff.
7-6 FSU at the first media timeout.
Washington, D.C.: What will it take for St. Joe's to get in? Do they have to win the A10 title? Is beating Xavier enough? Would a "good loss" to Xavier do it?
Eric Prisbell: Beating Xavier would be enough. I think, because the bubble teams went belly up last night, a good game against Xavier probably should be enough. I have the Hawks in right now, but it is debatable. Basically, don't do what Illinois State did against Drake in the Valley final.
Adam Kilgore: I agree, I think St. Joe's is in for right now. A blowout to Xavier would be bad, but the Hawks ought to be safe. They were pretty much the only bubble to win yesterday, unless you count outsiders like Florida State, Charlotte and Temple.
Oakton, Va.: Can we start off with a comment from you on the future of Gary Williams so we don't have to be pestered with any more questions from the Terps fans?
Eric Prisbell: Fans can look at it from two ways:
First, here is a guy who consistently fails to sign top-notch recruits locally, has failed to graduate players, and has missed the NCAAs three of the past four seasons. That's not good.
On the other hand, Maryland is the fifth-most successful program this decade --- Adam and I figured it out --- with a national title and another Final Four appearance. There has not been a suggestion about an NCAA violation or allegation. I travel the AAU circuit and here plenty about many coaches and programs. I have not heard anything about Gary. Gary has failed in recent years to cultivate strong relationships with many of the AAU power brokers, in my view, and I think that has hurt him in recruiting. Losing Dickerson and especially Patsos hurt.
All that said, if there is a better guy out there to coach Maryland next year, name him. He's under contract until at least 2012, and I think if anyone has earned the right to remain, so long as he remains clean of violations, it would be Gary.
Adam Kilgore: This is a great take from someone who knows the better than anybody, so I'll cede to my man Prisbell. We're sitting right next to each other, by the way. This is a chat first.
11-6 FSU five minutes in. Hansbrough on the bench with one foul. Wait, Ellington just hit a three. 11-9.
Arlington, Va.: What do you think the Terps were missing this year? A point guard? Consistent outside shooting? Commitment to a defense strategy?
Eric Prisbell: I thought Maryland played solid defense for most of the season. I would say consistent performances from Gist and Vasquez. I was really surprised that Gist relied so much on the outside shot after he made a couple early in the second half last night. The guy can and should be effective down low. Vasquez's erratic season has been well chronicled. Turnovers were a big problem all year. And if they had gotten more production off the bench, the team would have been okay. All that said, the situation was there for Maryland to make the NCAAs, even with the Clemson loss. Bubble teams have been losing left and right. Had Maryland beaten Virginia and BC and gotten to 20 wins, i think they would have been okay.
Adam Kilgore: I was asking a couple players about this in the locker room last night, and they had trouble coming up with an answer. The way their season fell apart, at the moment, is probably as baffling to them as it is to you. The best answer probably came from Bambale Osby: "When the game gets on the line,. I think people's minds just speed up. We're still just a young team. This is a high level of basketball. It's a high pressure situation. I just don't think we did a good job of handling it."
Here's what Greivis Vasquez said: "When you lose like that, it's toughness and being focused. We just couldn't get it done. Again. It's not nobody's fault. It's our fault. We just didn't play hard."
FSU now down 16-14 after anm Alex Stepheson three-point play. Hansbrough back in. Prisbell says the Noles "came to play." Strong words.
Great Falls, Va.:"And the 2 will be Duke." Is that because of the higher ranking? Raleigh might as well be home court, it's closer than Tysons to D.C. And I wish I could go to Tampa, but no. Just watching from home.
Adam Kilgore: Partly because of the higher ranking, partly because Duke is closer to Raleigh, of course, than Georgetown is.
Eric Prisbell: The more i think about this, let me say that if G-town is ahead of Duke on the S-curve, and we will have to wait and see on that, then there is a chance they will send the Hoyas to Raleigh and Duke would go to Birmingham. It may depend on what Duke does in this tournament here.
Arlington, Va.: After following exactly no basketball for the entire season, what one piece of advice do you have if I want to be successful in a pool?
Eric Prisbell: Great question. It really does not matter how much basketball you follow. I have put hours upon hours of thought into bracket picking throughout the year. Usually, I do very well, but it frustrates me to no end when I miss on a couple teams. The bottom line is this: The most talented teams usually win the national title. The team with the most future pros. The exception was UConn in 2006, a team that did not seem to be having much fun on the court.
Go with the pros: That's why I like UCLA, Kansas, UNC. USC could be a real sleeper. K-State is a wild card. Louisville a trendy pick.
St. Mary's, Drake, Butler, Davidson potential sleepers to reach the Sweet 16.
Careful on picking Big Ten teams.
Think about the G-town pick long and hard.
When in doubt, go with Pac-10 teams.
Don't pick Memphis to win it. Free throws.
Adam Kilgore: For upsets, watch the super-trendy teams. I love Davidson, but so does everyone else. Old Dominion was a popular choice last year, for example. For whatever reason, that's usually bad news.
Also, don't try to be hero. You feel great when you pick a five seed to go to the Final Four, but it rarely happens. Save the upsets for early in the tournament, go chalk late.
And I'm not jumping off the Memphis bandwagon yet. I've been driving that sucker all season, can't bail when we get to the party.
Triangle, Va.: I think Gary Williams is still a pretty solid coach, but his recruiting philosophy is now outdated. In some ways, he's become Bud Millikan (Gary's college coach) in his final years, unable to adapt. I like Keno Davis (whose father, Dr. Tom Davis, gave Gary his first college coaching job at Lafayette), but I want to see a few more years of what he can do at Drake before I'm 100 percent sold on him. Also, what kind of seed will George Mason get, and is there a good chance it could stay close to home? Will the NCAA be reluctant to put the Patriots at Verizon for fear of them knocking off the big boys with a home court advantage again?
Eric Prisbell:13 or 14 for Mason.
I can't see Mason in DC because it would give Mason an advantage over a higher seeded team. Mason could go anywhere.
Adam Kilgore: Thanks for the thoughts on Gary. I'm not sure it's time to start weighing possible coaching replacements for Gary Williams.
I think Mason is a pretty solid 13.
Arlington, Va.: Can I put in a request for you to not answer any of the dozens of "Fire Gary Williams" posts you're likely to get. Get real people. He won a national championship and has managed to get Maryland into the NCAA almost every year since. Where was the hoops program before Gary arrived? I think they were playing a lot of NIT games. Maryland is not Duke or UNC. They are not going to win a championship every 4 or 5 years. There are more than 300 NCAA D-1 teams and Maryland has been among the best. Be happy with what you have.
Eric Prisbell: Maryland is the fifth-most successful program this decade. maryland is not the fifth-best college basketball program right now.
Adam Kilgore: Here's another (more realistic, in our opinion) perspective.
20-18 UNC 10 minutes in.
Seattle: Random observation but what do you call a 'bubble team' who is so far on the bubble that they have to win their conference to get into the tournament (and earn an automatic bid anyway)? Is there a name for them, besides Alabama?
One think you can't call a team like that is good.
Adam Kilgore: This year, you call them garbage, because it sure doesn't take too much to make the discussion this year.
20-20 now. Noles just made a Len-tastic turnover with a full court pass. 8:37 left in the first.
Cape Neddick, Maine: Several of the teams I follow have been knocked out of the NCAA Tourney so I'm wondering if they automatically get asked to the NIT or do you have to have certain credentials for that too?
Eric Prisbell: You can't have a losing record to be invited to the NIT. There are people doing NIT bracketology as we write.
Adam Kilgore: I'm pretty sure this chatter is my mother. (I grew up in Cape Neddick, Maine.) Either way, she's recovering from an appendicitis, so get well soon, Mom! I love you!
You have to have at least a .500 record to make the NIT, so Virginia, at 15-15, is eligible. The NIT has gone away from just taking name teams/players to bump attendence and more toward seeding like the NCAA tournament, so Sean Singletary's star power won't help their. AD Craig Littlepage was unsure last night about UVA's chances of making it.
Falls Church, Va.: I can't go on with this chat anymore. As a UVa fan, this season has just been one long, ugly disaster, and I know that next they're going to squeak into the NIT and get blown out in the first round by Kalamazoo Nurse's College or some such. It kills me to come here and see fans of other teams chirping about how far their teams are going to go in the NCAA tournament. Just hearing your names depresses me. My only consolation is Maryland's collapse -- no couches burning in the streets of College Park tonight!
Eric Prisbell: And UVA beat Maryland. And you got to watch Sean Singletary all season. Not bad.
Adam Kilgore: One happy fan!
I can understand his disappointment. It's still hard to believe how their season dissolved so thoroughly so quickly. You've got to feel bad for the Great Sean Singletary coming back to have THAT season. I tried to cover some of the reasons for the surprising year in a story last week.
Winston-Salem, NC: Any word on whether that highly touted recruit class that Skip Prosser had amassed is still committed to Wake given this disaster of a season?
Eric Prisbell: I believe it will show and be as good as advertised. Wake should rise considerably next season.
Adam Kilgore: The last I read, everyone is still coming. I've been hearing that James Johnson will leave, but those are just unconfirmed rumors. If he comes back, Wake Forest will be one of the top ACC teams, righ there with Duke and UNC. Ishmael Smith really impressed me this season, and I can't believe I'm writing that. Jeff Teague is the real x-factor. He was the best player on the court for some stretches when Wake played Virginia Tech a couple weeks ago.
Waldorf, Md.: How much does the committee consider "close losses"? Blowouts? I know there is talk of a team like Kentucky having a close loss at Tennessee a few weeks ago but is a loss a loss?
Adam Kilgore: They do consider things like that as part of the "eye-ball test." They don't act like number-crunching computers. For example, the committee will take into account Villanova's dubious close calls at the end of games. And they may even take into account VCU's solid showing last season -- the Rams have proven they can win in the tournament with these same players. It's only human nature to consider that, which I think is a good thing. You want the most dangerous teams in the tounrament.
UNC 30, FSU 22. Heels going on a run. Wait, three by Ralph Mims. 30-25. We're finally getting a little energy here at Bobcats Arena. Wait, a short J by Jason Rich. 30-27. Hansbrough answers from the top of the key, 32-27. Pyscho T has eight, Rich has 11.
Eric Prisbell: Sure, it's who you played, where you played, and how you did. As humans, they take into account all of those factors that numbers cannot measure. They also ask, Who would you not want to play? They pick the 34 "best" at-large teams, not necessarily the most deserving at-large teams.
Falls Church, Va.: Is a Virginia Tech win over Miami today enough to get them into the NCAAs with other bubble teams losing? Or will they need to beat Miami and then presumably UNC?
Adam Kilgore: This is an interesting question. I e-mailed Jerry Palm his thoughts, still waiting for a reply. All the carnage yesterday definitely made it more likely. It could still go either way. I counted 12 possible competitors for the last few spots that lost. As Daily Press columnist and noted Bard of the ACC David Teel said yesterday, "DUDE, does ANYone want to make the NCAA tournaMENT?!?"
If I had to give a definitive answer, I would say Tech still needs to beat UNC. But there's a chance beating Miami will be enough. That wasn't the case 24 hours ago.
Eric Prisbell: I think you could make a good case for VT with a win over Miami. Hokies need it because they don't have a top 50 win. Two wins and they are definitely in.
New York, N.Y.: Can I post a criticism? I'll say at the outset that I am a Hoya and root unabashedly for them. My question is, why such an ACC perspective? This chat has two hosts and yet both seem to be blogging live from the ACC championship, while the best team in team in town (The Hoyas) are in the Big East championship. That is not to mention the other conferences (CAA, A-10) represented by the other local teams (Mason, GW). Why not let one of their beat writers into this chat? (I rarely see Camille Powell in here) Heck the only local team in the ACC is already bounced from the tournament. No offense, but if I wanted to talk general hoops questions I'd go to ESPN they have broader national coverage after all. I come to washingtonpost.com in the hopes of seeing a local perspective for the team I love. Theoretically, the reporters from the Post should have more insight into the local teams because they cover them every day. I would think that would be true of any of the local teams, Hoyas, Terps, colonials, etc. Yet this chat is always national. It's frustrating that the local paper gives short shrift to so many of the local teams on its online discussions when there is likely a huge audience for people who would want to chat about their alma maters
Eric Prisbell: That's a fair point. But I would hold my knowledge of the national scene up against most. And many of the questions we get are about a large number of teams from across the country for some reason. I'll answer whatever questions people offer. Thanks for the comment, that's a fair point.
Adam Kilgore: Appreciate your thoughts. We only answer the questions we get and, for the reasons you pointed out, we tend to prefer the local questions. I'm no Eric Prisbell, but I also hope I can provide an insightful perspective on national issues and maybe some ideas and opinions you don't get from ESPN.com.
Also, it's only chance we're both at the ACC. Camille Powell was on the chat last week; we have a rotation, and Prisbell does it every week. If you're looking for more up-to-date Hoyas coverage online, check out Dan Steinberg's D.C. Sports Blog. He's been covering Georgetown all week with his usual flair.
Arlington, Va.: Speaking of Sean Singletary, is he still on NBA scouts' radar? Has UVA's poor season hurt his draft stock?
Eric Prisbell: I would not be shocked if he made a roster as a reserve point guard. He handled himself well while being on a bad team.
Adam Kilgore: He'll be picked. My guess would be in the 45-50 range. There's a lot of good point guards for him to compete with -- Eric Gordon, Derrick Rose, O.J. Mayo, Ty Lawson. His defense hurts his cause, but he improved in that area this year. His history of injuries will hurt. His character and desire will help him. He may be the fastest player in the country aside form Lawson and Rose. That helps.
Chicago: Can AU beat Colgate with Bryce Simon hurt?
I just wanted to see at least one Patriot League question in this forum. Go Eagles.
Eric Prisbell: I think Simon's absence will be a factor. Colgate has won six in a row, but American swept the season series.
Adam Kilgore: Excellent question, about time. If Garrison Carr gets loose playing the Bender crowd, the Eagles can overcome Simon's injury. Let's hope so, it would be a great story.
Falls Church, Va.: American University? In the NCAA Tournament? Uh, no. You'll be traveling with the Hokies next week, or staying home at the Verizon Center.
Eric Prisbell: The American game today is the place to be. Wish i were there. great story unfolding. The game could go either way.
Adam Kilgore: Bender is definitely the place to be. Keep the American questions coming.
It's 35-28 FSU at the half.
Anchorage, Alaska: The ex-CUSA teams haven't shined at the Big East tournament since entering the BE. How come?
Adam Kilgore: I would say the programs pretty much remained what they were. South Florida has never been on the same level as Georgetown, Syracus, Pittsburhg, etc, regardless of conference. And it won't any time soon. Marquette and Louisville have been near the top, but they're historically good programs. I would say the Big East hasn't had much of an effect on the teams. But those teams have had an effect on the league, giving the Big East teams bloated conference records. We'll see the impact of that Sunday.
Washington, D.C.: Have they awarded National Player of the Year yet? When will they do that?
Eric Prisbell: The hand out those awards over the next few weeks, if not sooner. Debate is Beasley or Tyler. I would go with Beasley to be player of the year because, well, he is the best player in the country.
Adam Kilgore: The Sporting News gave its award to Hansbrough. The others will start trickling out soon. Unlike football and the Heisman, there's no definitve POY award. Usually, like last year with Durant, there's something of a consensus.
Baltimore: The Committee is going to shaft Maryland on Sunday, if you believe the leaks. What more are the Terps supposed to do? They beat Carolina. They swept Wake. As for the Florida teams, they beat North Florida and FSU, and only lost to Miami. Their losses were to NCAA teams like American and College Basketball Invitational teams like Ohio. What more were the Terps supposed to do?
Eric Prisbell: You're right. I think Maryland has a very solid NIT resume and should not get overlooked. If the Terps wind up in the dreaded CBI, the whole thing is a sham!!!
Adam Kilgore:"What more were the Terps to do?"
-Not blow an 11-point lead at home against Virginia Tech.
-Not blow a 20-point lead at home against Clemson.
-Not lose to Virginia by 15 points.
-Not blow a 15-point lead to a Boston College team that had lost 12 of 13.
-Finish better than .500 in the ACC.
Fairfax, Va.: So now I'm supposed to believe someone like Drake or Gonzaga could reach the Final Four, and that teams like South Alabama and Davidson will be a tough out. Or that American has a real chance against fill-in-the-blank. Wrong, wrong and wrong. When these kind of joke teams win, it's because the real teams were trying to make a buck (since the NCAA won't pay what's fair), and the game got away from them.
That's how Mason made it to the Final Four two years ago. Sorry, to burst your bubble, but really, GEORGE MASON? In the FINAL FOUR? Uh, no. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Eric Prisbell: I have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever.
I don't think Drake, Zags, South Alabama -- even with Ronnie Arrow -- will make the Final Four. Usually, the most talented teams reach the Final Four.
If anyone should be upset about 2006, it is Washington, which got screwed by officials against UConn more than I have ever seen in that regional semifinal. I found that stunning.
Adam Kilgore: Are you suggesting the games are fixed? I'm also very confused.
Iowa: Drake is the true Cinderella team this year -- playing with actual student-athletes no less. Any thoughts on whether they will be successful in the NCAA tournament (after a 37-year drought)?
Eric Prisbell: Drake could be, but not too much of an underdog if you consider seeding. I love the way Drake plays because I'm a huge fan of the three-point line. Butler also has a chance to reach the Sweet 16. And I REALLY like Davidson, which I hope gets a 9 or 10, if lucky.
Adam Kilgore: Drake ought to win a game or two, but its awfully reliant on three-pointers. It might be tricky when a team like that, used to shooting in small gyms, goes to a larger arena. It can be a problem adjusting to the depth perception and such for some shooters. Something to consider.
Eric Prisbell: Take care everyone. See ya next week, live from a site.
Adam Kilgore: Thanks for all the great questoions. Enjoy the rest of the conference tournaments, good luck in your bracket pools and make sure you minimize collegerpi.com when the boss walks by today.
Adam Kilgore: Oh, and the second half just tipped. Deon Thompson misses a turnaround jumper on UNC's first possession, FSU responds with an Uche Echefu illegal screen. 35-28.
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.
| 158.097561 | 0.707317 | 0.853659 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302771.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/13/DI2008031302771.html
|
Behind the Screen - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031519
|
"I just saw a trailer for a movie called 'Made of Honor,' which stars Patrick Dempsey as a single man who's platonically close with a girlfriend, played by Michelle Monaghan. But as soon as she announces her engagement to another man, he realizes he's in love with her.
"Why do we keep seeing these types of movies in which we know the plot so well, the two good looking people who are destined to come together, even though they are attached to the wrong suitors? We know how these things are going to turn out. We've seen them ad nauseum for years, most of them starring Julia Roberts. So what keeps bringing us back to these types of movies? Romantic comedies. Do we still need them? Are we sick or them or are they valid?"
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.
Desson Thomson: Ah spring! The buds, the bees, the pleasing breeze. It's the kind of time of the year when a young man's thoughts turn to ... video games. But seriously, folks. What DO we think of this romantic subgenre? And what do we think of anything else? This is your time. Talk to me.
Bethesda, Md.:"So what keeps bringing us back to these types of movies..?"
We each believe that we are "destined" to be with someone like Patrick Dempsey or Julia Roberts, and that he/she will realize this and deliver us from the schmo or schmoess we have unfortunately wound up with instead, just like in the movie. Also known as living vicariously
Desson Thomson: Yes, we do have these thoughts. (Of course we is a big collective. Not sure we all think this). But do we think this because the movies condition us to do so?
DC 20016: Desson, there are Chick Flics and Chick Flics, but Caramel is the first movie I've ever seen that no man should attend. I saw it with three women friends, and we pretty much enjoyed it, but there is far too much "female problem" content that made even us cringe a little (or, occasionally a lot). We were all very happy the men in our lives were elsewhere!
Desson Thomson: I understand that, yes. But tell me what some of those moments were - and how you all laughed and thought: "Only in the locker room of women does this belong?" I am curious yellow. Let me know now or in e mail for that article I am still working on.... thomsond@washpost.com
Ocala, Fla.: Your recommendation of the original "Alfie" with Michael Caine's inimitable Cockney was much appreciated. I wonder, however, that in the context of reviewing "The Bank Job," you did not mention the other superior Caine vehicle, "The Italian Job."
Desson Thomson: Well, good point. But I had to choose one which would hopefully launch people into a full on Michael Caine themed binge! And yes,another great Caine flick.
Another great weekend for movies, but another weekend with NO captioned movies for those of us who need them -- DeafDC.com
Desson Thomson: I hear you - no pun intended at all. And others have brought this to my attention. It's a shame. I suppose theaters are loath to build this into their systems? But as I understand it, it can be done without expense, which of course would bring in those who don't come otherwise. A very good point for all theater owners to consider.
In Bruges: So, have you finally seen this? Opinion has been so mixed, I am still on the fence. Yours may be the deciding vote! Do tell!
Desson Thomson: Yes, I caught up with it. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is my kind of movie. (Well, I have all kinds..) But it went too over the top in its latter stages. It is a great character movie. But it seems the filmmakers feel compelled to have too many twists and turns, which took away from the overall impact for me. But I enjoyed it a great deal up until then.
I know this is a simplistic question. If a good movie, what percentage, of the quality, would you say is generally because of the director?
Desson Thomson: I was reading an interview with a screenwriter who said something like, whatever script you write, no matter how great, ultimately, the director becomes the storyteller. I think a director ends up having to shoulder a lot of the blame or the glory because they put adjectives in the movie that a screenwriter can only allude to. By this, I mean, they can - with shot angles, music, editing, casting, etc - undercut a scene that could have been played another way. I mean, look at the difference between Christopher Columbus's direction of the first Harry Potter film. He made it very (in my opinion) heavy handed and infantile, compared to the later versions which got better and better because the other directors imbued the story - pretty much the same kind of material (even though Potter the character progresses to other things, grows older, etc.)- with more compelling, memorable textures.
Fairfax, Va.: Forgive me for being a cynical male, but I believe that romantic movies are popular because the men hope they will make their dates feel, you know, romantic.
Desson Thomson: Well, there is that. Everyone - wittingly or not - is involved in some kind of means to an end.
Bethesda, again:"But do we think this because the movies condition us to do so? "
No, it waaaaay pre-dates movies. Think Jane Austen novels, Anna Karenina, Vanity Fair (the novel, not the mag!), etc.
Desson Thomson: Yes, but weren't those novels the movies of their time? Creating false expectations, etc. ?
Washington, D.C.: Don't know if you've seen it but I really liked In Bruges, which doesn't really do Ralph Fiennes justice as a villain but as an antihero, Colin Farrell really shines. Something about the way he looks in that black Irish way makes you know he's a star.
Desson Thomson: Agreed, WDC. Apart from the other things I mentioned. And yes, I was very very pleasantly surprised by Farrell's performance. Helped wash away memories of that awful Alexander the Not So Great fiasco.
For the deaf:: As much as I despise the Georgetown theaters, I once noticed a representative provide a group of deaf kids with devices that show captions in real time during the movie. I'm not sure if that was normal practice for Georgetown, but I was plenty impressed. I think the rep was signing back too.
Desson Thomson: Cool. The difference between captions for the deaf and subtitles, someone enlightened me in previous chattage, is that they add the other elements - they mention the music and the sound effects that a subtitled movie wouldn't. And of course to the hearing impaired - and if that is a bad label and worse than 'deaf' please forgive me and enlighten me! - that is essential to fully receiving the movie.
Miss Pettigrew: Saw this over the weekend and wanted to say it was great, adorable and really well paced. I do have to say, what put it over the top was Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies) who is crazy adorable as Ned in his TV show, but was equally cool in this movie.
Desson Thomson: This is good information. I like McDormand a great deal. Encourages me to go see.
Falls Church, Va.: I am late-deafened with a cochlear implant and an avid moviegoer. Before I had the device implanted I would vainly try to go to the movies and invariably end up falling asleep before the end of the 2nd act. Movies are 50 percent sound, after all. But the constant whining from the deaf community about captioned movies irritates me. They have 2 modes: rear view captions and open captions. Open captions have to be imprinted onto the film -- this is done. However most movies can be viewed anywhere (in D.C.) with the rear captioned viewing window, which most deaf people refuse to use because -- ready for this -- it alerts the other moviegoers to the fact they are deaf. You can't have it both ways. How can someone say they are not deaf and then press for full enforcement of the ADA?
Desson Thomson: Fascinating, fascinating. Thanks for posting.
Rockville, Md.: I worked at the Uniformed Services University in the past and my wife works there now. Are you going to see the film about their mission: "Fighting for Life?"
Desson Thomson: I definitely want to.
Romantic Comedies: make me sick. The whole notion about the Man in romantic comedies trying everything possible to get the Woman is quite despicable. I say to he-- with them.
Not that every movie should be like "Leaving Las Vegas" or "Funny Games"!
Desson Thomson: Yes, and yes. Although there have been many movies where the woman is the chaser.
How does this new version of 'Horton' measure up to the old Chuck Jones short?
Desson Thomson: Too different eras. Hard to compare. I pretty much always like the older versions of anything because there is more respect for the original source, most of the time.
St. Mary's City, Md.: From what I could tell from the trailer, the movie version of "Horton Hears a Who" is not even close to the book. Would that be your assessment as well? Apparently Seuss hasn't fared too well in the visual medium, except for his work with Chuck Jones.
washingtonpost.com: Trailer: Horton Hears A Who
Desson Thomson: As my review in today's Style, hopefully, made clear, it does depart from the book. But in today's age of hyperbolic entertainment, I thought it, at least, fulfilled the spirit of the book.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows : So happy that DH is going to be split into two movies and released six months apart a la Lord of the Rings. Many of us were trying to figure out how they were going to tell the final books story in two hours...hooray!
Desson Thomson: Yes, apart from the obvious let's make as much money out of the final round as possible aspect of it, it does allow for more nuances of the book to be brought out.
washingtonpost.com: 'Horton's' Joyful Noise ( Post, March 14)
Elkridge, Md.: Desson, My 85-year-old mother and I want to go see The Other Boleyn Girl (I've read the historical novel which was throughly researched by the author). What do you and this audience think of it? Thanks!
Desson Thomson: I liked it for a little while, but it got a little too over the top (today's phrase it seems) for me. I am posting the review I wrote.
For example, a woman and a man enter a room and the caption says, "Omninous music plays," you know they are in danger. But if the caption says, "Romantic music plays," then you know they are about to have a love scene. It 'does' make a difference...
Desson Thomson: Yes. I understand that completely.
Rockville, Md.: I really enjoyed In Bruges. The preview made the movie look like "Lethal Weapon 5: Those Crazy Irishmen," but it was actually a rather dark and deep tragicomedy. Colin Farrell -- much to my amazement, as someone who suffered through The Recruit on an airplane -- was awesome. Highly recommended.
I liked "In Bruges" and I agree with you on how the latter part of the movie seemed over the top.
Martin McDonagh both wrote and directed the movie. When you evaluate a film, do you consider how the director interptets the story if the script is based on a book, a play or another movie?
Desson Thomson: Well, I do if I've read the book. But I also considered that a movie is an analog not a digital version of the book. An orange version of an apple. So I try to adjust accordingly.
Sacramento, Calif.: (I grew up and lived in London, as well.)
Why do people keep making STUPID comedies that insult the intelligence, that aren't funny at all, starring Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell, etc.? The best movies of the past five years -- for me -- have been intelligent movies, most based on true stories (i.e., Titanic, The Queen -- not that I'm biased or anything. Yes, they are the box office leaders but they have absolutely no longevity. Five years from now no one is going to say, "Ah, Elf, one of the top movies, ever!" And, I realize it's just entertainment but one of the reasons "House" is so extremely popular is because it is intelligent, with excellent acting and strong (not stupid) characters.
Your insight is most appreciated!
Desson Thomson: Hey Sacra. Thanks. And good on you for growing up in a fab town and all. Yes, intelligence is my ultimate basic ingredient. It's what I love most in films, music and people. And intelligence is measured in so many ways. To me it's about mental or spiritual brightness. Which means I can love Singin' in the Rain and the darkest Michael Haneke film for exactly the same reason.
Alexandria, Va.:"Open captioned" movies -- the ones where you can see the captions on the screen -- do include references to sound effects -- "scary music" "door closes." Open captioned movies are waay better for those of us who are hearing-impaired/deaf. It's like watching closed captioned TV.
In the past week, I gave There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men each another viewing, and was surprised to find my original opinions of each movie strengthened.
There Will Be Blood, on second viewing, left me even more wonderstruck than on first viewing, convincing me that Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis both created a marvelous and epic character study of greed, hate, isolation, manipulation, ambition and self-destruction. This was the film I was hoping would win Best Picture and Best Director, and while I'm disappointed they didn't win, I'm certainly not outraged by their loss. Because it also won in key and equally deserving categories: Cinematography and Actor (though I'm still a bit soured that it didn't receive a Musical Score nomination).
No Country For Old Men, on the other hand, left me equally as perplexed as it did on first viewing. I wanted very badly to like this film, but in the final analysis, found myself feeling unfulfilled, regardless of how close it stayed to the original novel. Granted, I've always found the Coens to be an acquired taste, and for what it's worth, there's only two of their films that I like: their very first film, Blood Simple, and The Big Lebowski.
Having said that, though, I can also see how similar both films are: they leave the audience to decide for themselves the purpose of the film, they both feature lush and unforgiving landscapes that challenge their characters to the fullest, they feature characters that aren't always the most likable or even the most honorable...so how is it one can leave me in awe and the other feeling unfulfilled?
Desson Thomson: To answer your last question, it's a matter of how much or how little the filmmakers leave for the viewer to work out on their own. For many viewers, No Country left too much of a poetic conundrum hovering in the air, a sort of unresolved chord. And it can annoy viewers who have built a sort of bond with the omniscient creator of the film. The more you like a movie the more you are disappointed. A little like a great romance turned horribly sour. It's the disconnect that gut punches you as much as the actual problem. I too share your love of the DD Lewis movie. (There was a technicality involved in the score Oscar category - I don't recall the specifics but the composer brought in pieces from a previously created work, or something like that, so that it wasn't - in the minds of the Oscar folks - 100 per cent original. Of course this seems absurd. You can bring back something from a previous work and have it work in a different context.)
Hold over from last week: Last week the group was tasked with suggesting "old" films for a teenager who became rapt watching 12 Angry Men. This led to conversation with colleagues over lunch about great old films. One colleague is well, young, and so had never seen or seemingly heard of Lawrence of Arabia, Bringing Up Baby, Dr. Zhivago. The others at the table nearly wept. To her credit though she asked us to give her a list that she could use with Netflix to deepen her cinematic experience. Do you have any suggestions for the, "you gotta see this" from days gone by? We've already told her about High Noon, To Kill a Mockingbird, Witness for the Prosecution. And don't worry, we explained that Lawrence is best, and perhaps only ever suitably viewed on the big screen.
Desson Thomson: This is a great question which this session isn't long enough to resolve. I mean, there are THOUSANDS of movies this woman should watch. But here's what's so exciting: her willingness to discover these films. That's so heartening. And the beginning of -- as Casablanca concludes - of a beautiful friendship between old and young! You could tell her to check the Internet and look up the American Film Institute's poll of the 100 greatest movies. That would be a great starting point. The Searchers, Red River Valley, How Green Was My Valley, oh, don't get me started.
washingtonpost.com: Review: The Other Boleyn Girl
Herndon, Va.: Mr. T: I don't think I'm a prude, but after watching (and very much enjoying) "The Bank Job," I thought why spoil a good picture with gratuitous nudity -- particularly at the start? I just didn't see the point. For me, the nudity was not at all necessary to the plot.
Desson Thomson: I think this may be a European versus American culture thing. (I am assuming you are American.) In Europe people have the same reaction about casual violence "spoiling" the movie. But here it seems to be about sex. Over here, people get more distracted by casual sex that seems pointless. I am not casting aspersions on you or this culture. Just observing a sort of continental divide.
Re: stupid comedies: But Elf is actually funny, and sweet too. I always cry at the end when Zoey Deschanel starts singing "Santa Claus is Coming to Town."
Desson Thomson: Everyone deserves their pleasures obtained individually at the movies.
Washington, D.C.: My wife hates it when I do this, but (for once) I am going to ignore her. We both enjoyed Bonneville, which seems to have come and gone in a week. It deserved more! However: It's the story of a widow who is left penniless because her husband did not revise his will after he married her. However, as a family law practitioner, I can tell you that every state in the country permits a spouse to "elect against the will" under these circumstances. The amount the spouse receives depends on the number of other dependents, but it is always at least 1/3, is usually 1/2 and can even be up to 2/3, depending on the jurisdiction. This means the entire premise behind the movie was flawed. I found this to be a major downer.
As I've already noted, this sort of reasoning drives my wife nuts. However, she did point out that, unless you spray your hair with super glue, there is no way you can arrive anywhere following even a low-speed ride in a convertible with your hair anything but a tangled mess.
Desson Thomson: Your wife is funny. And it sounds like your marriage has a sort of screwball charm to it too.
Annapolis, Md.: Regarding your opening question:
Movies, or any story really, require a combination of the expected and the unexpected. When we go to a romantic comedy we expect that two people who are right for each other will spend the movie trying to get together and will achieve it only in the end. When we go to an adventure we expect origins, heroic struggles, epic battles, and victory in the end. That's as true of "Lawrence of Arabia" as it is of, say, "Transformers." (And yes, I know that there are films that deliberately try to subvert these conventions, but we're not talking about those.) What makes a great movie is not the degree to which it subverts those conventions but the effectiveness of the obstacles and their surprising but not random conclusion. "Say Anything" ends with boy and girl together over the objections of the parental figures; what makes it great is what happens to the relationship between Diane and her father. A bad romantic comedy fails to rise above the cliches, and isn't surprising enough. It's not the resolution but the telling that makes the difference.
Desson Thomson: That is beautifully said. In other words, play the standard blues with originality.
Fairfield, Conn. : Have you seen Jodhaa Akbar?
After reading a favorable review in the N.Y. Times, I took my 9-year-old son to see it last weekend and we had a blast! It is a true Bollywood spectacle and highly entertaining, if an hour too long. I'm curious why it is playing in one theater in Connecticut and almost nowhere else.
Desson Thomson: I haven't seen it alas. But I love the spirit of Bollywood.
What to see?: My husband and I are taking our kid to daycare and having an afternoon date. We just can't stomach the thought of No Country for Old Men because of the violence, but want to see something edgy and interesting. What do we go see?
Desson Thomson: I'd say In Bruges but also with the warning there is some violence there. Less (I think) than No Country. But violence nonetheless. It is a story about hit men after all. How about The Bank Job? I think that's your ticket.
Once: Finally saw it. What a sweet, even-paced little movie. Everyone should see it. Now.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Desson --
Just saw No Country for Old Men and the wife and I really liked it (but we've been big Coen Bros fans for a while). So, removing any Coen films (like Blood Simple), and No Simple Plan, can you recommend something else a little off the beaten path that we might enjoy renting that is similar (3 small children, hard to get out to the movies)? Thanks in advance!
Desson Thomson: Lars and The Real Girl. Waitress. Once.
Arlington, Va.: So Desson, I took your advice and went to see The Bank Job, and enjoyed it very much. I went to a matinee and the theater was much more crowded than I expected, so I thought it would have a good opening weekend. But no, that BC movie with all the CGI and the Martin Lawrence thing came out on top for the weekend, even though they were pretty much universally panned.
Does it ever get to you, knowing that it's almost guaranteed that some movies will make gobs of cash even though everyone agrees they stink, while better films often go ignored?
Desson Thomson: To answer your last question: Yes.
Jodhaa Ackbar: My parents saw it at Loehmann's in Falls Church, they came out loving it because it wasn't the typical Bollywood fluff (we're Indian and my dad hates it). To some extent it shows that the Indian cinema industry is trying to expand and broaden out in scope.
Desson Thomson: I would like to. Falls Church is a little far off for a casual trip to the movies. But maybe it's coming out in dvd or closer in.
Re: Younger friend you try to get into old movies: My wife and I (mid twenties) love old movies -- everything from pre-code comedies to 70s stuff. Recently a friend of ours told us her favorite movies is Wizard of Oz. Okay, good, great movie, sounds like she is a winner ... when we told her it was from 1939 she told us we were crazy -- she was convinced it was the 70s. After going to IMDb and verifying that she was not talking about "The Wiz" I think we convinced her that yes they did have color back then...
The shame of these youngsters!
D.C. -- romantic comedies: There are some crappy romantic comedies and some great ones that hold up over time. Classic: The Philadelphia Story; soon-to-be-classic: When Harry Met Sally. I am unashamed to say I have seen all or part of the latter probably dozens of times. This movie is a great example because you have tension built it -- opposites who don't like each other, then discover each other as real people, then realize, hey, this person's looking pretty good. You get a roller coaster of emotions with a positive payoff at the end.
Desson Thomson: I agree with you big time.
So what keeps bringing us back? : The same reason people read British cozy mysteries -- the good guys win in the end, and they do it with bloodless fuss. As long as the real world is unjust and true love goes unrequited there will be an audience.
Chicago Ill.: Rockville's comment about "In Bruges" being much better than the preview made it look, really illustrates something I'm always harping on to my friends -- Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to make good trailers. Previews have become oh so formulaic (scene, fade to black, repeat ten times, build to crescendo), and they never make the movie look as good as it is. I always enjoy renting a good movie on DVD then watching the abysmal trailer for it afterwards, to see how they messed it up. Maybe people would go to more movies if they looked like something worth watching.
Desson Thomson: You are so right.
In Brugge: I thought 'In Bruges' was great (though over the top) -- there were some clever meditations on the folly of man suggested by all the art references to Bosch and Brueghel, when they're in the art museum and in the final scene of the movie set with the weird costumed characters. The movie made much more sense to me when thinking of Colin Farrell's character et al as characters who could have come from just such a painting.
Desson Thomson: Yes, agreed. And nice perspective.
Re: Rear-view captions: That's not it (previous poster). It's that if anybody steps behind you (goes for popcorn, etc.) it interrupts the captions, and you have to keep looking from the screen to the captions -- can't see both at the same time. And you can't move from one specific position while seated AND some seats don't catch the captioning from the rear...Just sayin'
Desson Thomson: Cool and very interesting.
Rockville, Md.: I've been exploring the fantastic foreign language section on Netflix and wonder what your top 5 foreign language films are.
Desson Thomson: Wow, how much time do I have? Let's see: technically about 2 minutes to the end of the chat. Impossible to say. I love British, French, Japanese, German, Italian, Brazilian even. Gosh. And then it depends if you want recent or way old.
Japan: Seven Samurai, High and Low, Ugetsu Monogatari.
UK: Lawrence, Alfie, Ryan's Daughter, An Affair to Remember, Peeping Tom, Black Narcisssus.
Russia: The Sacrifice, Andrei Rublev.
Italy: La Strada, 8 1/2. Bicycle Thieves
France: The 400 Blows. Lacombe Lucien. Masculin-Feminine. Weekend.
Germany" Kaspar Hauser, Aguirre the Wrath of God, all the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
Like I said, how much time do we have?
Captions: Are you finding it surprising that lots of deaf movie viewers apparently read your chat?
D.C. Indian Movies: Loehmann, Va. Twin Cinemas
The two biggest theatrts in the area that play Indian movies. A lot more are starting to show up in regular theaters on limited release, but I think that's because they are partnering up with big U.S. movie studios.
Desson Thomson: Good to know! Thanks.,
Indian Movies at the Theater: I'm sure its playing all over New York, and it was playing here in D.C. for the last Month. To some extent Indian movies have a short time span in the states. There are limited theaters, and they show up for about 2-3 weeks before ducking out again. The DVD releases are pretty fast though -- expect it within the next two months.
Caine: I had fond memories of Caine's "Italian Job" from seeing it when I was growing up. When it finally came out on DVD I got it again and it was something of a letdown. Had it's moments, but there are too many "silly" scenes to take seriously as a caper film with wit. Try another underappreciated Caine film: "The Whistleblower". Terrific.
Desson Thomson: Ah yes, liked that one.
McLean, Va.: People like romantic movies for the same reason they like adventure movies -- to protect ourselves into a kind of heroic journey, a dress rehearsal for emotions and choices that seem a bit scary in real life.
To the guy who takes women to romantic movies in hopes of inspiring some affection: sounds like a good premise for a romantic comedy. In which you get dumped for the cute guy behind the popcorn stand.
Desson Thomson: I like this. To you and all who've opined on romantic movies or have more to tell me, please e mail!
Romance in movies: Romantic comedies have been around for a long time -- look how many chick flicks and chick lit books hopefully try to sell themselves as modern-day Jane Austen stories. From "It Happened One Night," "Bringing Up Baby" to "Moonstruck" and "Notting Hill," we love to see pretty people struggle with the agony and ecstasy of falling in love, preferably with some witty banter, and fade out on the expectation of living happily ever after. The problem with the new Dempsey movie and so many of today's attempts is that in modern times it is harder and harder to find a good reason to keep the couple apart, so the situations are more and more contrived. What are some of your all-time favorite romantic comedies? What makes them the standard everyone aspires to?
Desson Thomson: I have a list. Some of it includes Harry/Sally, Philadelphia Story, Pride and Prejudice (the old), Wuthering Heights, Ninotchka, Annie Hall and Stardust Memories.
Washington, D.C.: Re: Funny Games. I'm not sure what to think about this film, having only read a few reviews so far. The premise seems valid given recent films like Hostel and Saw, etc., but also hackneyed (do we really need someone shaking their finger at us and telling us that violence is very, very naughty?). I'm interested in your take on movies that I'd classify as "emotional torture porn" such as Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark (Lars is always torturing his leading ladies) or Happiness. I find them difficult to watch but ultimately rewarding in the kinds of emotions they elicit from the audience. Do you think these types of films are valid or unnecessary in the way that "Saw IV" seems to be?
Desson Thomson: As you point out, they elicit emotions from the audience, but in a more cotemplative thought provoking way than the Saws. They challenge the audience out of its complacency. I think they have more value than Saw IV that's for sure. I think the worst root canal ever invented has more value than Saw IV.
Chick Flicks: I think there are good ones and bad ones, just like in any other genre. For example, When Harry Met Sally... is a really good blend of being true to life, honestly funny, and even though the end is sappy and expected, it's not totally over the top and it's very sweet. On the other hand, the end of "27 Dresses", while sappy and expected, is just one horrible cliche. When someone asks Katherine H-whatever's character if her wedding was everything she expected, I said right along with her "And more" and then snorted loudly in the theater, sending giggles around me. The first time you watch When Harry Met Sally, you don't know exactly word for word what Billy Chrystal's speech is going to be at the end, and it's actually incredibly touching.
Similarly, I just watched the Kiera Knightly version of Pride and Predjudice. It's terrible compared to the book and the BBC 6 hour version. Everything is done to move the story along and make the characters seem more modern and the whole movie seems overly stylaized. But in the BBC version, you get the long glances, the best worst proposal ever, and you get character development so that you actually root for and feel the tension build. Yes, you know the outcome, but the journey builds tension and is a fun ride.
So do we really need chick flicks? I say yes. I mean it's not like we don't know that Bruce Willis/Will Smith/Tom Cruise/etc., are going to save the world in thier movies. If we cut out forumlaic chick flicks, then we should cut out formulaic action flicks too.
Desson Thomson: Very good points. Actually Harry/Sally is even deeper than that in my opinion. It is about the differences between men and women, which is the playful underlying soul of the great romances.
Columbia Heights, Washington, D.C.: Had a double-header the other week. Saw Penelope AND Semi-Pro in the same night!
Have you seen Penelope? What are your thoughts? The general consensus from the theater-goers was that it sucked, with mock clapping from the boyfriends who got dragged there when the movie finished (including MY boyfriend!). I am in love with James McAvoy and was disappointed that he had an "American" accent. But afterwards I concluded that it was "cute." Semi-pro I thought was hilarious!! But it could have been 'cause I was delirious by the time we got to that showing!
Desson Thomson: I didn't see Penelope so I am no use to you. Sorry! I saw and did not enjoy Semi Pro. So again I am no use to you. Sorry!
Desson Thomson: Thanks everyone for a spirited and enjoyable chat. I look forward to chatting again in a couple of weeks!
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 film critic Desson Thomson discusses his reviews of "Blindsight," "Funny Games" and "Horton Hears a Who" and the art of film.
| 237.166667 | 0.933333 | 2.333333 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031101466.html/
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031101466.html/
|
The 'Lost' Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031519
|
Has "Lost" got you a mite confused and ready to hurl at the next mention of smoke monsters? Or do you have the fate of the Oceanic 6 and the Jack-Kate-Sawyer-Juliet love square all figured out? Who got Scooby Doo'd this week? Are you a new viewer, adrift on an unfamiliar isle or an old hand ready to bare knuckle some quantum physics? In either case, we're here for you and armed with more mediocre puns and pop culture references than a hunky con man than you can shake a stick at and ready to explain exactly what it is that Cheech Marin and Bai Ling have to do with any of the above.
Post.com "Lost" bloggers Liz Kelly and Jen Chaney will attempt to get to the bottom of these matters every Friday. Liz and Jen, both obsessive "Lost" fans, have been writing their weekly dueling analysis of the show since 2006.
When not debating the merits of Sawyer's hotness, Liz Kelly writes the Celebritology blog and Jen Chaney acts as movies editrix and DVD columnist for washingtonpost.com.
Visit washingtonpost.com's new Lost hub.
Liz Kelly: We'll be getting started in just a minute. We're just crafting our initial thoughts.
Jen Chaney: Before we get started, Liz and I need to apologize for neglecting to mention something important that many of you raised in the comments of today's dueling analysis: The date of death on Jin's gravestone. It was indeed Sept. 22, 2004, something I meant to touch on in kicking off the post and completely forgot to do. (Mea culpa). Some of you think this means that Jin may not actually be dead, but that he "died in the crash," part of the lie surrounding the Oceanic Six. In fact, he may still be on the island.
I had developed a slightly different theory late last night, which I pieced together using the Tacky Glue inside my brain. Here it is: Jin attempts to leave the island, but dies in the process. So his body comes back with Sun, and gets buried in Korea. As part of the lie, the public believes Jin died in the crash and was brought back with his wife.
There's also the possibility that he dies on the island before they even leave.
Liz Kelly: I think Jin is actually dead and not alive on the island as some have supposed. Why? Because Sun is so incredibly upset and talks of missing him in a way that transcends knowing that he's alive somewhere on an island and has a chance of coming back into her life. Jin is gone and I'll wager that he died helping Sun (and her unborn child) to survive. He's gone with her, yet again, this time in spirit.
I thought last night's episode was the worst of what has been an excellent season so far.
The Jin/Sun split flashback/forward seemed like a contrived trick with no purpose other than fooling the audience. I don't mind being fooled, but there was nothing about it that was organic to the overall story. Jin's purchase of a toy panda four years ago didn't give us insight into the main story or the characters, it was just used to make us think he was alive in the present (future?).
Oh well, I guess they can't all be great.
P.S.: Am I the only one who thinks that Jin's gravestone doesn't necessarily mean that he left the island or died? Presumably if he stayed behind, they would have to say he died in the plane crash.
Jen Chaney: I definitely want to address some important things you mention here.
First, I obviously disagree about the quality of the episode and the use of the flashback. As I tried to convey in this morning's post, I thought the bisecting flashback/flashforward approach did serve a narrative purpose -- it was letting us know all along that these two would be split apart. Jeff Jensen over at EW also makes an argument for the relevancy of Jin's flashback, noting that seeing him as a minion for Mr. Paik reinforced the notion that, as Jin pointed out, he was no longer the man he used to be.
And see our intro above re: the gravestone. You're right, we don't know the circumstances of his death, so anything is possible. I feel like he is dead (see theory above), but I like the idea that he is still alive somewhere. And I actually hope that turns out to be true.
Liz Kelly: I liked last night's episode, too, and thought it was an important bridge to keep the show moving forward. We find out the final composition of the Oceanic 6 -- yes, Aaron counts. We find out that Michael is alive and on the freighter. We find out definitively that Charles Widmore is funding the operation. All good stuff.
That said, there were a few ham-fisted moments. Like Kate's Scooby Doo rundown to Sun about the power station/gas plant kerfuffle of last week and, sorry Jen, the whole Bernard opining on marriage to Jin. I was waiting for Paolo to turn out to be the fish hooked at the end of Jin's line at that point. Thankfully, the show swung back into action after that touching scene.
1. The "Oceanic 6" are Jack, Kate, Baby Aaron, Hurley, Sayid and Sun, right?
2. Who reads Korean? What did Jin's epitaph read on his grave (or memorial) stone?
Jen Chaney: 1. That appears to be the case. I say this because Doc Jensen said so in his piece today. And I believe everything he says. Well, almost.
2. Anybody know Korean? Liz?
Liz Kelly: I believe everything he (Doc) says, too. And since he says it eloquently, why try to recreate his reasoning. Here's the pertinent graf from his recap:
Sun's flash-forward fake-out seemed to close out the first act of Lost's future-time story line: identifying the members of the Oceanic 6, the celebrity miracle survivors of Oceanic 815. To recap, they are Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, and Sun. Now, I know what some of you are saying: Aaron can't be a member of the Oceanic 6 because he wasn't born prior to the crash and therefore was not technically an Oceanic 815 passenger. To which I say, Please. Don't be so literal. In the Lost world, the Oceanic 6 is clearly a media-coined term, pinned on these six souls by some clever headline writer or newscaster. And being in the business, I can tell you that tiny little facts like Aaron's non-passenger status would never, ever get in the way of a easy, catchy piece of phrasing. We journalists are exactly that lazy. So let's call it: The Oceanic 6 is settled. Now, let's move on to the next act of their story, which I'm betting will cover two big points: the backstory behind Jack's downward spiral into boozy, grizzly-bearded, we-gotta-go-back-to-the-Island mania, and more context for Ben and Sayid's secret war with their list of mysterious off-Island foes.
And, no, I don't speak Korean. If it were Pig Latin, I'd be your girl.
Something I Need To Get Off My Chest:: I love Jeremy Davies!
He actually reminds me of a friend of mine, which makes me like him all the more.
Washington, D.C.: Are we sure that Michael is Ben's spy? The woman who jumped overboard -- have we seen her before? She wasn't one of the others? Thanks for all your blogging!
Jen Chaney: Well, we still need to see what happens in next week's episode. But certainly all signs point to Michael being the spy.
Remember, Ben gave him coordinates and sent Michael and Walt off in that boat at the end of season two. He may have steered Michael directly to the freighter, then taking Walt away again as leverage. So Taller Ghost Walt -- who could be suffering from time shifting problems -- might turn out to be Taller Real Walt.
As for the woman, that was Regina, played by Zoe Bell of "Death Proof" and stuntwoman for Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill" fame. She was one of the freighter people. We had only heard her voice over the sat phone until last night when we finally met her for 30 seconds ... then promptly watched her plummet to her death.
Sun and Jin: The biggest revelation to me is how young they are! I would have put them solidly in their early to-mid 30's. Sun is my age!
Liz Kelly: Ya, I was surprised to see that Sun was only 24 (in 2004).
Please remind me...: Is Jae (Sun's paramour) dead? How did he die? And Sun is really the most beautiful woman on the island. So can we kill off Kate?
Jen Chaney: Jae died. He fell out of a building; Sun went to his funeral even. If memory serves, we witnessed this in season three.
As far as killing off Kate, get in line behind Liz. Although, I should point out, she is beating Sawyer as we speak in "Lost" Madness.
Jae "fell out of a building": That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that he jumped out. And yet another way to put it is that he jumped out because of Sun.
Jen Chaney: And yet another way to put it is that Tony "Rocky" Hara was pushed out because of Uma Thurman.
Nice "Pulp Fiction" pull. This weekend, Martin and Lewis milkshakes at Jack Rabbit Slim's are on me.
Clemson, S.C.: I read a theory on DarkUFO that Kevin Johnson may actually be Walt all grown up, basically that actor Harold Perinneau is now playing a grown-up Walt and not Michael. What do you think?
Liz Kelly: Well, I did think that the handwriting of the note was penned in a particularly childish hand and that had me thinking the spy might be Walt. But, hmmm, Walt would've had to do an awful lot of growing to be the guy we saw last night.
Jen Chaney: I read this theory, too. It's intriguing but leans a little too hard on the far-fetched. I still think Walt is being used as leverage for Michael/Kevin Johnson to do Ben's bidding.
Silver Spring, Md.: Can I just say that I loved that episode? Typically I have found Sun and Jin episodes a little on the filler side of the "Lost" spectrum, but last night, while not necessarily answering questions and vaulting the plot forward, had so many moments where I sat with my jaw just hanging open, using the plot devices of flash forward/back beautifully. Anyway, my real question, did you cry when Sun went to the cemetery? I balled, and my boyfriend got teary, so therefore I am convinced everyone out there had to cry!!
Jen Chaney: I totally did. I cried when she gave birth, too. I leaked a little when Hurley said, "She's awesome." Liz said in the blog that she was moved but did not cry. She's got a heart of stone, that one.
Liz Kelly: Jen, when you say you "leaked" -- I think you may want to choose a different word.
And my heart is hardly made of stone. I welled up during the Desmond/Penny phone call two weeks ago. Twice.
Gainesville, Va.: When asked (by Yunjun Kim) in this week's TV Guide about whether Aaron was one of the Oceanic 6, Lindelof said, "Who the actual six are is very much in play through the end of the March 13 episode. We'll confirm or deny after that." Given last night's episode (and simple math), this has to mean that Aaron counts as one of the six.
Jen Chaney: That seems to be correct. I really was not sure this a.m., but -- I know I am a broken record -- that's what EW says today. And LindeCuse confirms everything with them.
Four-toed statue: Submitting really early, here's why: I really want to read your chats and analysis, but I'm trying to stay spoiler-free. Would it be possible to keep all spoilers out of the chats and analysis and stick to only what's been aired by ABC and spoken by the producers in public?
Liz Kelly: Oh sure, no problem. Which part of Matthew Fox being a big star do you want to cover first?
Jen Chaney: Oh, Liz. You're such a quipper. To be fair, I don't think we get all that spoilery. We talk about each episode and sometimes cite things that LindeCuse has said in interviews. But we don't share stuff on spoiler sites. I made one reference to a spoiler I had read -- without actually sharing the spoiler -- and I got a smackdown for that. So since you all butter our bread (or boil our lima beans, to borrow last night's canned food of choice) we try to be very careful about that.
Charlotte, N.C.: Okay, clearly the reference to Mr. Paik was supposed to function as the slap to the forehead realization that although we're seeing Sun's flashforward we're seeing Jin's flashback. It was after that, of course, that I started to put together others things, like the fact that no one knew who Jin was when the Oceanic Six were world famous, as we saw when Sun was admitted. So, who IS Mr. Paik?
Liz Kelly: The first indication came (at least for me) when the toy store clerk nailed down the time frame by saying they were in the year of the dragon -- the last one was in the year 2000. The next won't be until 2013. That's when I started to think that maybe Jin wasn't in the same place as Sun.
He Knew: Hi Jen and Liz (Thank you for this chat!),
Submitting early - I'm watching the replay of "The Other Woman" and noticed something Juliet said to Ben that I think supports the theory that Ben knows the future. When she saw Godwin's dead body, she said, "You knew this would happen!" I think Juliet knows Ben can see the future in someway. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up in the chat or board last week. Whaddya think?
Jen Chaney: Ben's powers may indeed be more far-reaching than we think. I feel like someone did allude to this idea last week. Personally, I don't think he necessarily knew Goodwin would die (and I think Liz said this last week, too). I think he sent him to hang with the Tailies to get him away from Juliet (more evidence of this: ridiculous lie he told Juliet about Goodwin feeling passionately about Ana Lucia). But when he thought Goodwin might be in danger, he did nothing to help him.
St. Paul, Minn.: What's going on behind the scenes on the freighter? Did you notice Lapidus was bandaged? And the doctor is sporting a nasty -- and very fresh-looking -- welt on his face?
Liz Kelly: Yes, there seems to be some kind of mania slowly eating its way through the freighter crew -- first with the death of Minkowsky, then last night's death leap from Regina and, as you say, the ripe looking doctor. I think we may find out a wee bit more next week when we get an idea of how Michael became part of the crew and what he's been overhearing while on the boat.
Jen Chaney: Yes, I noticed in the credits for next week's episode that Minkowski makes a reappearance. So hopefully that means some more gaps will be filled in.
Leesburg, Va: Could it be that the black box that Widmore "procured" is the -actual- box from Flight 815? That would lend an enormous amount of credibility to the discovery of the wreckage, and Ben would certainly have the means to make it happen.
Jen Chaney: That thought flittered through my mind, too. I don't think anyone recovered that before.
And it makes a lot more sense for them to hang on to the real black box, doesn't it?
Liz Kelly: I think that's within the realm of possibility, for sure.
Silver Spring: Did anyone happen to catch the name of the freighter? During one scene, they zoom out a bit and it looks like the name is on the side.
Liz Kelly: Yep: The Kahana. Here's the full scoop from Lostpedia.
Jen Chaney: I thought it was interesting that we saw the freighter and its name right after the Bernard/Jin scene. Yes, the name is Kahana. But for a second, it almost appeared to read "Kharma."
Charleston, SC: I think y'all may be a little off-base on assuming that Ben staged the wreckage or is cahoots with Widmore. My gut tells me that's too easy a connection to make.
But, the splinter in my thumb from last night is Hurley's reaction when visiting Sun... He asks if anybody else is coming, she says no, and he replies, "Good."
I find it interesting and speaks to the possible relationships after their return to the real world, even though one would assume that flash-forward pre-dates his commitment/meeting with Jack.
Liz Kelly: Well, Hurley's "good" isn't all that surprising. We'd already seen -- from his prior flashback -- that Hurley was not at all comfortable in the role of an Oceanic 6 "celebrity" and that he wasn't exactly on the best of terms with Jack. I can see that extending to Kate. That leaves Sayid, who we have to assume is working for Ben.
Jen Chaney: Good observation, Charleston. It's not surprising, but it's important to remember that things get really messed up for all six of the real-world survivors.
I feel like I need to plot a timeline for the fast-forwards. Obviously Hurley visited Sun before he went to the mental hospital. Or, is it possible that he eventually gets out?
Liz Kelly: I think Hurley's visit to Sun was before the hospital, too. But I'm sure he was already feeling the pressure (guilt?) of being a survivor. Remember, he -- and the rest of the six -- know something. Something that riddles them with doubt about their actions in leaving the island. So, though he may be happy to see Sun, he might not have been up for a full on reunion.
Jen Chaney: He also may have serious issues with baby Aaron. And, like Jack, although for different reasons, might not want to see him either.
If he felt guilty about Charlie's death before, he would feel even worse knowing that they tore the child -- almost a son to Charlie -- from his mother and are lying about it.
Seattle: Haven't watched last night's episode (thanks to a business dinner) but wanted to get something about last week's episode with Juliette. When the shrink appeared just after the whispers, her face was spooky; it was like Ethan's in Season 1, face and eyes emotionless, voice was flat, etc. It was like they weren't in control of their bodies beyond their basic functions.
Am I right or am I just over-thinking (always a possibility)?
Liz Kelly: I would argue that Juliet often looks flat and emotionless. She's got some serious Stepford demeanor going on.
Jen Chaney: Liz, I think Seattle is talking about Harper looking flat and emotionless. And she did.
It was reminiscent of Ethan, but I am not sure if it speaks to a larger trend or theme.
Liz Kelly: Well, there's enough "flat and emotionless" to go around for both Juliet and Harper.
Down South: I'm curious about the Flight 815 connection's to Charles Widmore. We know he's connected to Desmond, but why is he looking for 815? Do you think he knows anyone on the plane?
Are there any connections other than Desmond that I'm missing? (besides Libby giving him the boat?)
Jen Chaney: I think it's more that he's looking for the island. He's clearly fixated on the Black Rock and has an interest in the island's properties.
But as I said last week, I am not sure he want to turn it into a Tropical Disney World, as Ben suggests. I think it may be more complicated than that.
Liz Kelly: Right. Widmore is after the island and Ben. Oceanic 815 is just a circumstance around which he has to work.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: I have to disagree with Doc Jenson's determination on who is included in the Oceanic 6. What about the body in the casket at the funeral home when Jack visits? At Kate's trial, Jack says that 8 people survived the crash, and 2 died. Aaron wasn't one of those people (he was born after the crash). I think the 6th person is in that casket. And I think it was Michael.
Liz Kelly: I kind of suspect it's Michael in that casket, too. The newspaper clipping said something about him having a son, so that would fit. It also fits that no one would be at his funeral considering his actions on and off the island.
But here's the thing -- we're assuming that the only people who make it off the island are the official, media-approved "Oceanic 6." Who's to say others don't also make it back, through back channels and, quite possibly, under the radar of the media or anyone else who is watching? In fact, we know that to be the case since we've seen Ben in a flash forward.
Jen Chaney: That is such a good point, Liz. Ever since the Oceanic Six was uttered for the first time by Hurley in this season's first episode -- and doesn't that seem like a lifetime ago? -- we have all been so fixated on who the six are that we haven't considered the notion that maybe there are other survivors living underground.
That dang casket. It keeps coming back to haunt us. If it weren't for the big about him having a son, I would say Sayid is a possibility. Michael sounds more and more plausible since, as Kevin Johnson, it's very possible he goes back and forth from the island like Ben the vest-wearer.
Springfield, Va.: Just so I'm clear, after next week's episode we've got 4 weeks off, then 5 in a row through the end of May. Correct?
Jen Chaney: You are correct, Springfield.
Got big plans for the hiatus? Maybe take some time off, what with all the hard work we all do analyzing the show? It really is a full-time job.
Liz Kelly: Jen, I think we should spring for a South Pacific vacation. Cocktails and lima beans at sunset. That kind of thing.
Jen Chaney: Man, that is a GOOD idea. See you in Fiji!
Clemson, S.C.: Seems to me that the freighter crew is experiencing the same "sickness" that Rousseau's crew went through. An effect of being too close to the time bubble perhaps?
Liz Kelly: Right. And the captain seems to be eager to move the freighter to "safer" waters. But is being confounded by "Kevin Johnson's" sabotage.
Jen Chaney: Certainly seems that way. Agreed.
John Galt: There's a John Galt in the book "The Fountainhead." I don't know if there is a connection.
Jen Chaney: Yes, this has been noted elsewhere, too. We also mentioned in the blog the series of stories about a captain named Galt. Personally, I think this is all part of a conspiracy spearheaded by the "Lost" writers, the Dharma Initiative and Reading is Fundamental. They're going to turn everyone in America into a lover of literature. And there's nothing you can do to stop it!
Liz Kelly: Hey, if so, good for them. Though that new "Lost" videogame has the potential to suck up a lot of time that could be spent reading.
Jen Chaney: Why didn't they make that for the Wii? That's just mean.
Anonymous: Now wait a minute -- Jin was thought dead because the grave they were at was in the past and the surprise was Hurley's knowing them before the island -- right ?
Jen Chaney: Um ... no. Jin's flashback was a flashback. But the parts with Sun -- her giving birth, etc. -- were all a flashforward.
So Jin is either dead or on the island and publicly presumed dead.
Tulsa, Okla.: Do you think the writers will make any reference to the tsunami that happened on Dec. 25, 2004 which is the time now on the island?
If we are to believe that the freighter and/or island are somewhere in reach of being affected by that storm -- well, then, I think it would be an odd omission if it was ignored. We've already had refs to the Red Sox, so if the timeline is to be believed, I'm sure the writers have this on their minds.
Jen Chaney: Seems like it would have to happen soon since Christmas Eve just passed. When Sayid said good morning to Desmond, shouldn't that have been Christmas Day?
On issues of time, though, traditional concepts may not apply.
Centreville, Va.: Was I the only one who thought ominous things when Sun's doctor said he was covering for Dr. Park? I kept waiting for Matthew Abbadon to make an appearance.
Liz Kelly: Right. I think that was a red herring designed to throw us off of paying attention to the timeline. At that point, I thought perhaps Abaddon or Ben or some other ill-meaning concern meant to spirit baby Ji Yeon away from Sun, a la "Rosemary's Baby."
Behind: Who or what is LindeCuse? Not having luck with google. Thanks.
Jen Chaney: Sorry. This is me abbreviating.
Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are executive producers, writers and official mouthpieces for the show. To save time, I call them LindeCuse.
Not in the South Pacific: We all knew it was Michael. But as one named Kevin Johnson, I can tell you why he choose that particular nome de guerre. Kevin Johnson is the name of a brilliant philosopher and theologian, who can bring answers to all your questions. (At least that's what I tell my wife.)
Liz Kelly: I suspect we're addressing Kevin Johnson now?
Jen Chaney: If you have answers to all our questions, Mr. Johnson, then tell us what the monster is. Go ahead. Tell us.
Washington, DC: Why is it that the Island has miraculous healing powers for some people (Locke, for example), while doing nothing for others -- all the pregnant women who have died, all the Islanders that Ben gassed, for examples?
Jen Chaney: I have struggled with this one for a while and I still am not sure. Except that the electromagnetic forces -- or whatever you want to call them -- seem to "treat" the illnesses of people who show up already suffering from disease or disability. If you're ailed, it cures you.
But that doesn't mean you can't be killed on the island. I also would note that if you live on the island, then leave it, instead of being cured you get cursed. Witness the Oceanic Six (or however many there are), all of whom are suffering from psychological crises or other bad circumstances.
Liz Kelly: Too bad the island can't cure Kate of being so annoying.
Where is John Galt?: He's actually in "Atlas Shrugged" but I don't think it matters. I don't think Ayn Rand lit is part of the island mythology.
Liz Kelly: Then Liz shrugged.
Hurleygood: Hurley was channeling Hagrid in that suit. He probably has a crush on Sun. New baby and no husband sounds like a good time to show up, you know?
Liz Kelly: Okay, I'm sorry. I say this though I know I risk being labeled a Hurley Hater. I am not. It's just that although Hurley was wearing a suit, he looked as if he hadn't bothered to shower since leaving the island. One would think he'd take the time to get his hair trimmed, have a nice facial -- something. I mean, my god, future flash Sayid was impeccable.
Jen Chaney: Future-flash Sayid is a stallion. But then, he's got money not only from his settlement, but from Mr. $3.2 million-plus, Mr. Ben Linus. Hurley's walking on a thin line mental health-wise. Dude's not equipped to shave.
Liz Kelly: Oh please. If he can get himself to Korea, he can shave.
I read Korean!: It is read top to bottom, from left to right.
First column says: Spouse, Paik Sun Hwa.
Second Column: 1980 Year 3 Month 20 Day Date of Birth
Third Column(CENTER): Grave of Kwon Jin Soo (male??)
Fourth Column: 1974 Year 11 Month 27 Day Date of Birth
Fifth Column: 2004 Year 9 Month 22 Day Date of Death.
Did anyone think Jin and Sun were actually a little bit older? This makes Sun 24(!!!) I thought she was at least 30 years old.
Liz Kelly: Thank you! Thank you! So no clues beyond the dates there.
Chattanooga, TN: Okay, which side are you all on? Was Juliet justified in ridiculously betraying her patient's confidence, or was she a smug, self-satisfied monster who simply HAD to blab because she is convinced that she is never wrong, and she was too stupid to consider alternative measures, such as walking along with Sun and Jin (the Locke camp is several days away, as I recall) and continuing to whine to Sun in the hopes of changing her mind? (Guess which side I'm on!)
Second, is Juliet EVER going to just lose it and start screaming at someone? She seems to be so very calm and controlled that I just want slug her. (And I was yelling at Sun to slug her several times last night.)
Thirdly, does it seem to you that Juliet's actions were so out of character that it was really the writers' fault--i.e., they needed to have Jin learn of the affair and respond nobly (at least in the end) and they chose a sloppy way to do it?
Fourthly, even if he's also evil, don't you like Captain Gault? I mean, actually answering questions!
God, I love this show. And you two, for having these chats.
Liz Kelly: We love you, too. Hugs.
Well written. I'm with you on Juliet. As I typed earlier, she's a control freak. Don't let that placid facade fool you.
I hadn't thought about the sloppy-ness, but now that you mention it. Umm, umm... no. Not sloppy. Actually, it is really a big time window into Juliet's psyche and values. She herself had been one half of a torrid love affair with the doomed Goodwin and, one would think, would want to protect Sun's secret as a fellow traveler on the same infidelitous road. (Is "infidelitous" a word? Enh. Who cares?).
But she's also a doctor and wanted to protect her patient. That side of her won. So she used every tool in her arsenal to prevent Sun from leaving.
Unless she had some other, hidden reason for wanting to keep Sun away from Locke's camp.
Jen Chaney: It was so, so none of Juliet's biz to tell Jin about the affair, especially since she knew that the baby was conceived on the island. The affair was irrelevant.
But as Liz said, Juliet used the only tool in her arsenal that she knew would make one of them stay behind. You're right she could have walked with them and tried to keep convincing Sun. But we only have 42 minutes an episode and this way was much more dramatic. The other way would have been Worst Episode Ever. ("Sun, you're going to die. Let's turn around. Seriously, you're going to die, let's turn around.")
Sun did at least slap her. That must have been a little satisfying for you. Last person Sun slapped? Sawyer.
Capt. Gault I don't trust. But I do like his forthcomingness, assuming what he says is true.
Vacati, ON: My sister is going to Costa Rica and staying at a hotel called the Black Rock. (not a joke.)
Liz Kelly: If she finds dynamite or John Locke's dad in her room, tell her to make haste to the nearest HoJo.
Jen Chaney: And if some ninth grade science teacher tells her he knows how to safely handle dynamite, make sure she knows to run for cover.
Bristow, Va.: The tsunami actually occurred on December 26, not 25. So there's still a chance for it to show up in the show.
Jen Chaney: Thanks for the reminder, Bristow. Good point.
Seattle, WA: Observation on last week's episode. Am I spitballing or are Jack and Juilette both meant for each other and together for the wrong reasons because each, I think, is a co-dependent personality? Jack needs someone to fix and feel responsible for, and Juilette was the same way with her sister and, I think, ex-husband.
Liz Kelly: That's a shrewd observation -- both Jack and Juliette share the same close-to-the-vest/ need-to-know-basis personalities. They seem to think they are the only ones (separately) capable of holding it together. The difference, I'd say, is that Jack seems to be more of a "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of guy, while Juliet is a bit more calculated.
Anonymous: The last time we saw Michael, wasn't he sailing off in a boat with Walt. I mean did we see Walt or did we just take Ben's word for it. Because after watching last night's show, all I can think about is if Michael is on the ship, then where is Walt?
Jen Chaney: We did see Walt in the boat with Michael, yes.
I think Walt is being held on the island somewhere. Or he exists in some temporal no man's land with Ben's mom and Jack's dad.
Liz Kelly: I think Walt is master of his own destiny. He was able to somehow communicate with Locke in last season's finale -- whether physically or by literally being "taller ghost Walt," we don't know. I think he may be one factor that Ben -- who assumes himself to be master of the island -- can't control. Walt is the island's Turk 182.
(Jen is going to knife me for that reference.)
Jen Chaney: You know, I never saw "Turk 182," which is shocking since it was released in the '80s and all.
Ben may not be able to control Walt. But he can use him as leverage and make Michael think he can control Walt.
Silver Spring, Md.: Kevin Johnson is also a retired NBA point guard running for mayor of Sacremento.
washingtonpost.com: Ha, that's the first person I thought of too.
Liz Kelly: Gee, I wonder why I didn't think of him first, too?
Jen Chaney: That's the real shocker. Michael also used to play for the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Rockville, Md.: My question is about the Others. Where are they? I can't remember if they're still following Ben or if there was some sort of uprising.
They haven't returned to the barracks, so will they fight the boat people and help Ben? Help the boat people get Ben?
Jen Chaney: The other Others were told to go to the Temple. We have not seen or heard from them all season, but I suspect they will turn up again in volume two of season four.
I am not sure they want to help Ben. They don't seem 100-percent confident in his leadership.
Liz Kelly: There weren't, perchance, 324 of them?
The Emerald City, WA: ABC teaser for next week: "Sayid confronts Ben's spy on the freighter, and Ben urges daughter Alex to flee Locke's camp in order to survive an impending attack."
I'm guessing that Ben has Alex flee and while hiding in the jungle, Alex runs into... Rousseau! Then we get our mother-daughter bonding episode and it will be sappy and sentimental and will advance the plot nowhere. Though maybe we'd finally get a Rousseau flasback/forward. Is she the only semi-main character who hasn't had one? Even Paulo and Nikki got a flashback!
Liz Kelly: Now that you have re-pasted the ABC promo for next week's episode again, it strikes me... why wouldn't they just say "Saying confronts MICHAEL on the freighter"? Further fodder for the grown-up Walt theory?
Jen Chaney: Because they write those teasers way in advance and they wouldn't want to reveal Michael even though we already knew.
I don't that proves the Walt theory. But A for effort there, Liz.
Vienna, Va.: Is it me, or was Locke treating Ben pretty well while in captivity? I mean, pretty outgoing to prepare meals, skin rabbits, etc. for a guy who shot you and left you in a ditch.
Liz Kelly: Maybe Locke just likes cooking and skinning rabbits. He would. He's kind of a weirdo and he has that whole hunting fascination. (Remember the wild boars of season 1?)
Tsunami: The survivors on the island wouldn't even notice the tsunami. to a tiny volcanic island sitting in the middle of the very deep Pacific Ocean, a tsunami is just a couple inches high (because the wave energy is dispersed through the very deep water column and the island is basically a pillar rising from the ocean floor). There's not continental shelf to cause the rapid change in depth and concentration of energy, and therefore no catastrophic 100-ft waves.
Liz Kelly: I'd like to take your word for it, but we don't know the precise location of the island, so I'm not ready and willing to discount its being affected by the tsunami -- even if it is only in the form of some particularly rough seas.
Jen Chaney: Yeah, I don't think the island will be washed out or anything. But I can see there being reverberations, or at least a reference to it at some point.
Speaking of real-time 2004, no one seems to be concerned about the election.
Liz Kelly: Well, there was a lot of voter apathy during that election cycle.
Tore Aaron from Claire: Wait, you mean that you don't think Claire is going to bite it? I think it is CLEAR that Claire is toast. Maybe even next week. She is kinda superfluous.
Jen Chaney: I think that's a definite possibility.
I hope not, though, because then I really feel bad for Aaron. At least if Claire remains on the island, there is a chance they will be reunited.
Other than serving as Aaron's mother, she is a bit superfluous, though, I would agree.
Fairfax, Va.: So, If Sun is out of the island on time for delivery, how come two weeks ago, when we say Aaron, he looked almost 3?
Jen Chaney: This is why I said I needed a timeline.
Liz Kelly: Jen. You know what this means, right? We need to do a timeline.
Jen Chaney: I just built a huge bracket. Now we have to build a timeline? It's only a matter of time until we have to build a time machine.
Liz Kelly: Okay, how bout I handle the timeline and you get to work on the machine?
Jen Chaney: Too late. I already went into the future, built the timeline and time machine and am now relaxing in Fiji.
Liz Kelly: Okay, that's it for this week. Thanks for all the questions and comments. This chat is now a bona fide hit. See you all back here next week.
Jen Chaney: My head is spinning, which is how I know the discussion has been a success.
We'll see you next week to discuss the last episode of volume one of this season. Thanks, everybody!
|
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.
| 201.341463 | 0.536585 | 0.634146 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/07/DI2008030702431.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/07/DI2008030702431.html
|
Carolyn Hax Live: Religion and Dating, Engagement Rings, and Spitzer Reactions
|
2008031519
|
Appearing every day in The Washington Post Style section, Carolyn Hax offers readers advice based on the experiences of someone who's been there. Hax is an ex-repatriated New Englander with a liberal arts degree and a lot of opinions and that's about it, really, when you get right down to it. Oh, and the shoes. A lot of shoes.
Carolyn Hax: Hiya. As promised, my favorite arguments for wedding parties, even the ones dressed to match:
Army of Turkeys (er, bridesmaids): I think a lot of it is cultural tradition. You could look at that as just another way of saying that it's just because everyone else does it and brides/grooms are lemmings.
On the other hand, you could also look at like eating turkey on Thanksgiving: there's no really great, meaningful -reason- to eat turkey instead of fish, but everyone else eats turkey and some people like to be "traditional." On the other hand, some people prefer turducken (Bridesmen! Groomsmaids! All 18 second cousins wearing outfits that are identical down to the toenail polish!) or tofurkey (non-matchy attendants) or even fish (courthouse steps, witnesses only), and that doesn't stop them from have a Thanksgiving dinner that is just as beautiful and full of gratitude. And some people don't even celebrate Thanksgiving and they still have good, happy lives.
The point is that the baseline is turkey, just because the collective "we" (including the Turkey-industrial-complex, Thanksgiving advertising, etc) have decided that it is the stereotype. Someday the baseline may change to turducken or tofurkey or fish, but right now turkey is what people expect when you talk about Thanksgiving dinner.
So if you are hosting Thanksgiving and want turkey, serve turkey (and be prepared for some of the fish people to object that turkey is a stupid, selfish, expensive, outdated embarrassment), and if you want fish, have fish (and be prepared for some of the turkey people to object that fish is a whacko, selfish, cheapskate, disrespectful travesty).
Wedding party: I have been in exactly one wedding party and I'm really glad I was included, despite the dress. (Which, to be fair, wasn't all that bad.) It was my brother's wedding and my sister-in-law had her two sisters and me and my sister as her bride's maids. It was a wonderfully inclusive gesture that has helped bring the family together. It was especially important because I was sixteen at the time, an age of awkwardness and wondering where you fit in.
My sister-in-law is a wonderful, warm person, who I sure would have gotten the message across some other way, but it did make a difference.
Wedding Party: Having a wedding party to me is a way of honoring your friends for being there for you. Both as a former bride, and as a former bridesmaid 4x over, the dress allows the other wedding guests to recognize that you are significant to the couple throughout the day (because they're not going to remember your face hours later at the reception), and also someone that they can be immediately identify if they need anything. I personally enjoy the camaraderie of being part of a wedding party and feeling like I stand out from the crowd because for whatever reason, the marrying couple wanted to honor me. That said, I may be biased because I've only had to buy one dress I considered ugly, and the brides have never abused the role. I don't find anything wrong with celebrating my friends' happiness by indulging in what I consider a nice tradition.
Carolyn Hax: Thank you for playing, everyone.
For the record, the argument that matching is for the sake of the pictures? I still don't get it. I think it makes things easier on the guests but weird for pictures. IMHO.
I have really fallen for this wonderful man and we have been dating for 3 years and seriously looking at marriage. Here is the problem: He goes to church. I really don't mind the Christmas and Easter visits, but he insists on going every Sunday. It is so hard to plan weekends with his over-commitment to his church. On top of that he insists on "tithing" which means 10 percent of his income to this church. This drives me crazy! That is like a car payment! I love this man so much, but I don't know how to approach the subject of his crazed over-commitment to his faith or church. I mean, people don't do church like they used to, right? How can I drag this man out of his cave and get him to live in the real, modern world.
Carolyn Hax: Um. In my version of the modern world, each of us is entitled to live in whatever cave we damn please. Earth currently hosts about 6 billion people. Surely you can find one to love whose choices you respect.
In the bedroom: So for the first 15 years of marriage with my wife, with children, jobs, and a new home, our bedroom politics were what I assumed was the standard for most couples: I wanted to make love every night, and she was happy with once a week. But over the last year, it seems we have a role reversal. It's not that I find her less desirable -- I'm just tired . . . not in the mood. But now she's asking questions directly or indirectly: "Why don't you find me sexy?" "Are you having an affair?"
How do I explain this to her? Because, I love her as much as ever. And is this unprecedented? Am I the first male to not want sex every night? Is something wrong with me, or with my relationship?
Carolyn Hax: I think you're entitled to ask--and being encouraged to ask, by the change in her behavior--if there's anything behind this? Because you do love her and do find her sexy, but are tired/content/whatever. It may just be that she has noticed your waning interest. It could also be that she feels self-conscious about the way she's aging.
Just to be clear--you're not asking what's wrong with her. Nothing has to be wrong with anyone here. You're just asking for the bigger picture.
No Name, No State: Hi Carolyn,
This fall I will marry a wonderful man with two children from a previous marriage. For many many reasons, we have already made the decision we will not be having children of our own. I have never been a woman who is gaga over babies like many of my own friends---I have never really felt a strong desire to have babies of my own. I know that providing a happy home, loving unconditionally, and caring for these two children as though they were my own (with none of the perks of being "real mom") will be a big enough job. I know we are making the right decision.
Sometimes however I find myself envious of his previous wife for getting to experience all of the wonders of pregnancy, childbirth, their early years with him and with them, things I know I will never experience. That envy is not enough to make me change my mind about our decision being right, but I hate it when that little green monster pops up in my thoughts. How do I banish it forever?
Carolyn Hax: The way you "banish" anything else--by facing it. What you're upset about is real, legitimate, intimate. She saw a side of him you never will. Of course, you'll see sides of him she never will, too, but in the milestone business, not all things are created equal. You're smart to admit that to yourself.
If you're sincere when you say it isn't enough to make you change your mind, then you have that to comfort you when the envy wells up. There's no magic to this. In fact, there's no banishing of unpleasant thoughts, which is why I used the quotation marks. You will have them again, you may have them forever. All you can do is put your choices to the brutal-honesty test now, before it's too late to change them, to make sure you're ready to handle the envy rationally when it comes.
Test every one of those many many reasons, out loud if you must. That's your shield against envy..
There is so much amusing and slightly off about that post, but I do feel the need to point out - does the guy know that his girlfriend doesn't seem to -like- him all that much?
Carolyn Hax: Dunno, but I hope this will help persuade her.
I have a slightly odd question, made slightly awkward by asking it of an advice columnist: Where can I get advice? I have some things I'd really like to be able to discuss with someone, but none of my friends are interested, and most of them have claimed to have nothing to add. These aren't issues I can discuss freely with family. Therapists, as I understand it, aren't really there to provide advice. I'm not religious, so seeking out holy folk isn't an answer either.
Is there a source I've overlooked?
Carolyn Hax: I'm going to vote for a therapist. Yes, technically they're there to guide, not advise. But from your description of your friends' lack of interest/depletion of options, I'm deducing that you've been floating the same issue by them for a very, very long time. If so, it would make sense to bring the knot to a reputable pro and say, "I give up. Please help me untie this."
At what point do you tell someone the specifics of why you broke up with them? I broke up a few months ago with someone I'd been with for over a year. Truth is, he started to appear to be not that nice a person and did things over a period of months (to others, not me) that were unkind, deceptive or selfish. I concluded I didn't want to be with someone who treated people like this. Although while these things were happening I told him I didn't think he was right to act as he did, when I did break up, he appeared blindsided. I gave him the "my feelings have changed and I've come to realize we are too different" talks in different versions over these past few months, but he keeps hounding me for specifics. I just want him to leave me alone but am not comfortable giving him a laundry list of all the lousy things he has done because that doesn't seem very nice either. What to do?
Carolyn Hax: First, his pressure strikes me as inappropriate. If the past unkind behavior plus his current inappropriate behavior add up to feeling uncomfortable in any other way (i.e., if you feel at all threatened), trust it. He could well just be clueless about dealing with people, but since I'm not in a position to judge that, I have to throw out the worst case just so you know it's there.
Second, while I agree that a laundry list isn't a good idea, I don't believe it's your only alternative to "my feelings changed." You can also tell him succinctly that you found his treatment of others upsetting, and cite one or two of the situations where you had been moved to speak up. Remind him.
Then I think you need to say explicitly that you have nothing more to add and ask that he not contact you any more. It's not "nice," but it's time.
It is also, by the way, an argument for speaking the truth the first time someone makes it clear he wants to hear it.
I recently separated from my wife of 10 years. It's a completely amicable separation which has made this whole experience, while unfortunate, better. We are proceeding to divorce so we will not be getting back together. My question is about moving on. As much as I do love my ex as a friend, I am very much focused on moving on and looking forward with cautious optimism with my new life ahead of me.
My dilemma is with dating. I am torn about what to do there. What I am worried about is whether or not I am ready as well as being fair to any woman I may date. I can pretty much say I do not want to leap right into a serious relationship right out of the gate. However, I really would like to start dating and have some fun and female companionship. I guess what I am getting at is I do not want a "rebound" relationship as I feel that would be unfair to her and me. So, when is the right time to start dating, either for fun or socially after a separation?
Carolyn Hax: When you meet someone whose company you think you'd enjoy. Knowing you're both susceptible to and not interested in a rebound thing is better protection against one than not dating. That's because a -decision- not to date is not the same thing as not being receptive to someone. You're either receptive, or you're not. So, go with that you're feeling, but go consciously.
Re: Weddings: Yay! Now let's talk about why it is not necessary to have a huge expensive engagement ring. I just got engaged and I have no interest in a diamond ring. (I'd rather my fiance pay off some bills so we can save for a house.) But whenever I mention having a fiance, all eyes immediately go to my hand...which is fine, I realize it is a reflex. But people always ask me "Where's the ring?" as if that is the only thing that makes it a valid engagement. What gives?
And I won't even broach the subject of engagement watches....lol!
Carolyn Hax: Scream, drop to your hands and knees, and start "looking" frantically for your "ring." When the doink who asked about it is distracted by helping you search, get up and walk away.
Baltimore Md.: Carolyn, am I the only who doesn't get all this hysteria and ridicule surrounding the Eliot Spitzer case? So a man slept with a prostitute, what's the big deal? According to surveys, more than half of all males have an experience with prostitutes at least once in their lives, and in most industrialized countries it's perfectly legal. It amazes me how naive many people are. But also, what's with this judgmental attitude, why are Americans so quick to pass judgment? I would never judge the sexual preferences or lifestyles of others, what makes all these people (both reporters and readers) act so self-righteous and start cracking jokes? We have yet to find out what -they- like to do in bed -- and with whom.
Carolyn Hax: The whole things bugs me, too. If he was a good governor, then I don't much care that he wasn't a good husband--and, frankly, I'm not even ready to call him a bad husband because I don't know the first thing about these two people and their marriage. I've said it so many times before--people make their deals. I'm not going to assume anything about what their deal was. The rush to pick a side and stick to it really bugs me--"men are pigs," or, "politicians are all hypocrites," or, "women need to stop freezing out their husbands." Maybe all these apply here, maybe none. Generalizations are sellouts.
To answer your specific question, I think the root of hysteria here is that Spitzer sold himself as Mr. Law and Order. A self-professed Mr. Human Frailty would have weathered this better.
At least, I hope. If we're just ravaging people like a pack of wild dogs because it amuses us, then no one in his or her right mind will want to risk prominence of any sort, and we're going to get the political, intellectual, artistic and cultural leaders we deserve.
Can't say, Not sure: At what point do I turn to therapy when I can't shake suicidal thoughts? Is there a frequency or ferocity that is a guideline?
Carolyn Hax: It's just that you're having these thoughts. That's the guideline. Disclaimer, this is well above my credential grade, so you really do need to get thyself to a professional regardless, to a hotline if you do think you're a danger to yourself, and to 911 if that danger is imminent.
But even if you don't believe you are a danger to yourself, it's still possible that the dwelling on these thoughts itself--i.e., the obsessiveness and/or compulsion--is something you can treat. So, this amateur urges, please call a pro.
advice advice: A life coach may be a better idea than a therapist for someone looking for advice. It's a dumb-sounding name (I always imagine they wear whistles and headsets) but some of these people (think Martha Beck) are very good. They're like very practical therapists who don't focus on your past but help you think through the options that are in front of you right now very constructively and are good at helping you develop good skills of your own.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks. As always, awareness of self and vetting of pro are the keys to it all.
For North Brunswick: And be prepared for him to challenge your dislike of his mistreatment of others: i.e., he might claims that you are too uptight, you are over reacting, whatever. Don't get into that argument. Simply say his treatment of others was not acceptable to you, and you wish no further contact with him. Say it once, hang up, walk away, and don't respond to any further attempts by him to engage you about it. the worst trap women fall into, and then end up in bad relationships, is the feeling that they must be nice, and that they have to defend their reasons to end the relationship. The best way to end it, is to END it. Meaning, again, you say you want no further contact, and your actions back that up: you don't take his calls, you don't respond to emails, you don't open the door and you call the cops if he's outside ringing the bell.
Carolyn Hax: Excellent. (Except that men fall into this trap, too.) Words to underscore: "Your treatment of others was not acceptable TO ME." It is not open to debate that way, which someone can then point out when the other tries to debate. "I said it wasn't acceptable TO ME, so there's nothing more to discuss." Followed by your point about no further contact. Thanks.
New England: Love your chats.
I am very concerned about my marriage. I was wondering what you think about a recent scenario that occurred. Basically, my husband refuses to sit up front in the car with me. We have a toddler, and when he was little, my husband would sit in the back with him in case the little one got fussy. Now he is a toddler, sitting face-forward, and I feel very uncomfortable shuttling the family around like a chauffeur (I do all of the driving). I approached my husband last night, asking in the kindest language possible if he could start sitting in the front with me. He replied a firm "no." I'm very upset by this. We've had our communication issues for sure, but I feel his inability to follow a basic request nervewracking.
Any thoughts? Is this a major red flag?
Carolyn Hax: Did you present your basic request with any explanation for why it mattered to you? Did you ask him to explain his, "No," or did you stop your reasoning process at the point of recognition of, "I did not get what I want"?
Both of you care about this. Neither of you, apparently, knows why the other cares about this. I'm concerned about your marriage, too, but not because one of you rides in the back seat. Talk to him. Dukes down. Share thoughts and feelings.
To Bedroom: I've heard that women's sexual "peak" (sorry, can't think of a better word) is later in life than men's. Sometime in their 40s is common, which 15 years of marriage might put this couple right at. Of course, communication with your spouse is always good, but Bedroom should know that biology could also be in play here.
Brother is getting ready to marry a woman, with whom he has (and has expressed to me often) deep personality conflicts. Brother is not even sure he wants to marry the girl, they have been in serious couples counseling, broken up a thousand times, but yet, they are limping towards planning the wedding.
Brother expresses his unhappiness often to me. I finally said, nicely and roundaboutly, either put up or shut up: either marry her and shut it, or move on. Instead, more angst. Should I be more explicit re: put up or shuddup? should I give my opinion (have not yet) concerning their ability to make it as a couple? Or should I tell him I don't want to hear it anymore? (only I think I am the only one he talks to, very buttoned down guy).
Side note, I like future SIL. I think she is very sweet with a very nice sense of humor.
Carolyn Hax: Well, at least that's something--the bride is at least a nice person.
There's not much you can do to stop someone from making a mistake he's determined to make. You can, though, shift your take on why he's sharing your unhappiness. You see it as a chance to fix things. Maybe he doesn't want it fixed, maybe he just wants to talk. Let him talk (and of course drive you nuts). Ask questions instead of offering ideas--example, "What do you think you should do?"; "What would be your perfect outcome?" or even, "Is there something you want me to do or say?" and "WHAT DO YOU WANT?" Leading questions.
Suffering in Seattle: hi Carolyn -
I am a happily married man, but for one fact: my wife and I can't have kids. We've been struggling with this for the past 3 years. Somewhat surprisingly, it has brought us closer together as a married couple.
Here's the thing: I don't know how to help us get past this, or even IF we can get past it. My wife still cries herself to sleep every night. I hold her and console her the best I can - I have even cried with her (not ashamed to admit it). Seeing her like this is just torturous.
We're financially strapped from trying everything we could try. We're considering adoption, but it's too much to think about at this point. I have convinced my wife to seek out therapy, and she is. It doesn't seem to help, but it's not hurting either.
Meanwhile, everyone around us is pregnant. Friends, family, co-workers... you name it. And everything we see/hear/do gets filtered through the fact that we can't get pregnant.
I know life isn't always supposed to be fair, but this is just a punch in the nuts. I'm having a hard time sleeping, and just have lost all my zest for life. I keep the brave face on for my wife as best as possible, but I'm just a husked out shell. A strong breeze can blow me over.
Any "outside the box" advice for me? for us?
fyi: We've taken a vacation. We've sought couples therapy. We've switched doctors. We've grieved for the loss (still are). We may adopt, we may foster parent. Don't know yet. We've done a lot of the things that are supposed to make it better.
Carolyn Hax: That is a punch in the nuts. I'm sorry.
Since you say you've gone through the trying and self-nurturing and grieving, it looks like you're at the point where the best thing for both of you would be to get outside yourselves. Get out there. Give. Care. Find need, need even greater than your own, and bust yourselves to help. Your lives have let you down, and you can't fix that (or at least aren't ready to), so get out there and fix -something.- Take the free time you feel you've been cursed with, and make it someone else's blessing. Make up a whole new riff on the word "family" that is yours and your wife's alone.
Wish I had something better. But it's still on you--you can see this as easy for me to say, or better than crying yourselves to sleep.
Not just Mr. Law and Order: Mr. Spitzer specifically prosecuted and sent to jail people who did what he allegedly did. He also may have used public funds to make it happen (big state governors travel with staff, security details, etc.)
Having said that -- I think what fascinates a lot of people about this is not the adultery or even the prostitution but the danger factor -- what motivates a guy to do something that risky when he has so much to lose and, presumably, many safer options for scratching that particular itch.
What I can't get over is the blogosphere trashing his wife, suggesting either that she is to blame for not giving it up at home or has betrayed all of womanhood by standing with him at the press conferences. What's up with that?
Carolyn Hax: Thanks for sharpening the specifics. I knew he had been hot to prosecute Wall Street types, but didn't have at fingertips that he had personally gone after prostitution as will, even though that would certainly be part of the office.
I don't want to turn this into a splinter pack of wild dogs, I just wanted to post the clarification of outrages. Thanks.
My mother has made friends with my ex. She invites him round for family dinners, emails him, etc. I have told her this makes me uncomfortable and informed her that if I ever come round for dinner and he is there, I will leave immediately, but she continues. One could argue that this was her own business, but she also is constantly reproaching me for breaking up with the 'poor dear sweet boy' and wondering aloud why I am 'so fussy' or 'what on earth could he have done to make you think you want to break up with him' (erm, the poor sweet boy has an ego the size of a small continent, and I got sick of it).
I'm really not sure whether the ex is trying to get me back via my mother or whether these comments are all her own, as it were, but any suggestions as to how to get it through my mother's head that this is NOT her future son-in-law and that really, she should mind her own business?
Carolyn Hax: While it's tempting to list the fictions that would get your mom to back off--"He's impotent," "He's gay," "I dumped him because he said he was afraid I'd age to look like you, Mom"--none of these would fix the problem, which is that your mom wouldn't know a boundary if it invited her to dinner with her ex's mother.
So, you're just going to have to draw those boundaries, and enforce them. You won't stay for dinner if the ex is there. You won't respond to efforts to talk about the ex. If she muses aloud about your bad judgment in dumping the ex, you talk about your new curtains. Etc. Sorry you got the short straw on mothers who grasp respect.
If the ex does approach you, by the way, feel free to point out that while he's free to date your mother, you won't be joining them for dinner.
New York, N.Y.: I've heard that people shouldn't consider having kids unless they're 100% for it. I'm not. I'm about 49%. Is the answer as simple as that?
Carolyn Hax: That's madness. How can anyone be 100 percent for something they've never experienced firsthand?
Unless it's vague, like, 100 percent for the -right- to do something. But I digress.
I would say instead that people shouldn't consider having kids until they're ready to back their own decision 100 percent, no matter where it takes you. Parenthood is no place for part-timers.
I am a LONGtime follower of the chats and columns (like 8-9 years or so), and I diligently read the chats every Friday.
I used to write you about dating woes - now I am 10 weeks pregnant with my first baby with my loving husband of more than 2 years. Things are going great, and I'm starting to hear more and more about various birth options.
The problem is that I can't seem to find an UNbiased opinion anywhere. One camp is "natural childbirth at home or you're evil," another is "supervised childbirth in a hospital or you're stupid," or you get "c-sections are the bomb, and I don't know why anyone would even attempt a vaginal birth."
And don't even get me started on the breastfeeding "literature." (Anyone who is physically able should breastfeed exclusively for 12 months or they're evil and selfish.)
I certainly will discuss it in detail with my OB, but even OBs vary widely in their takes on the matter.
What's an expectant mother to do?
Carolyn Hax: Tune it out, trust your body. Your build, the baby's size, the baby's health and your health are four variables that affect the kind of birth you will have, and none of them is under the control of any true believers. So, let your OB know you want to get your childbirth education (month 6 or 7, I think) from an unbiased, nonjudgmental source, and develop your plan accordingly. And get used to saying, "Thanks, I'll consider that," as a means of deflecting all but the pushiest unsolicited advisers. Congratulations!
Downtown D.C.: Good morning Carolyn! When I was 23 I moved to California, where I joined a local soccer club and met Peter, a 46 year old man. Peter and I were friends for nearly a year before a romantic relationship began (because even though there was initially some chemistry, I was super hesitant about dating someone so much older). Months later, I am totally over the age thing and in a very happy and healthy relationship. The problem is my family and friends back on the East Coast (which is where I am living now). They are convinced that Peter must have ulterior motives and that he must have issues if he can't find a woman his own age and is resorting to dating a 25 year old. They also raise other issues including having to take care of an old man in twenty years, the possibility of future kids having a very old dad, etc. My family's opinion is very important to me - and yes, there are some complications with dating older men, but how can I convince them that Peter is the right man for me?
Carolyn Hax: When you stop feeling the need to try, that's when you'll be most convincing. You're right to weigh complications like the possibility of becoming a caregiver, and certainly make it clear you're open to other possibilities you haven't thought about.
However, for the rest, be steady in your request to people that they trust you not to be naive or rash, and to make the best decision for you, should you even get to that point.
Boston, Mass.: Hi Carolyn, thanks for answering my question. So lately (past year or two), I've noticed that I become very worked up about stupid little things. People standing too close in public, or behind me in line, when I drive, I become irritated and inexplicably frustrated. I never show it, I just sort of walk around with it.
Outwardly I'm very upbeat and positive most of the time.
I tried to figure out what it might be. I'm 30 and I feel like life isn't going how I wanted it to. I feel like by now I should've met someone, I should be settled into SOME sort of concrete something. I find myself feeling like the slow kid in school when outwardly I KNOW it's stupid to worry about things like this.
Most stuff I get mad about are completely out of my control. I work out, which helps but how do I stop getting worked up about the little things?
Carolyn Hax: You answered it yourself. You included this: "I'm 30 and I feel like life isn't going how I wanted it to. I feel like by now I should've met someone, I should be settled into SOME sort of concrete something. I find myself feeling like the slow kid in school when outwardly I KNOW it's stupid to worry about things like this."
So, you know that feeling dissatisfied with your place in life is coming out as irritability with little stuff over which you have no control.
All you need to do is connect the last two dots: You're frustrated at your lack of control over the main elements of your life, and, through the filter of this already out-of-control sensation, minor irritants are having an outsize effect on you.
You work out, which shows you've already connected this last dot at least subconsciously--you're taking control in an area you can and that has a direct effect where you need it (blowing off some of the steam). Now, finish it. Look at the big pieces that are making you so unhappy, and start breaking them down into things you are and aren't in a position to change. Then start with the easier things to change and get moving.
Pleasantville, USA: Hi Carolyn - love the chats! I had an interesting conversation with my mom this weekend re: "my generation" and relationships (I'm 30). My mom doesn't understand why it seems to take us so long to commit to a partner. I have lots of girlfriends who have been with the same guy for three, four, and five years, but still aren't sure he's the right person, avoid the topic of marriage, and get flat-out panicked when it does come up. They do all want to end up married with children, and they are starting to stress the biological clock thing a bit, but can't seem to pull the trigger either on making a commitment or looking for someone else they want to commit to.
My mom thinks that when you're with the right person, "you just know." She doesn't understand how one can still be confused after 5 years, or why one would stick around if serious doubts lingered after that much time together. She thinks things are "much more complicated" for our generation. For the record, she met my dad at 14 and married him at 19. Many of her friends did the same, and are all still married happily (yes, I grew up in Pleasantville). So...why are things more complicated for my friends and me? Are we making it harder than it needs to be? Or were things just simpler 35 years ago?
Carolyn Hax: Well, people are the same, so I think it's problematic to dismiss things as "simpler then." People were just as likely to be strong or needy, optimistic or depressed or moody, reliable or flaky, content or chronically not, perfect for their roles or hopelessly miscast in them.
At the same time, the range of choices was narrower, and so expectations reflected that. Certainly that's a point in the Mom-had-it-easy column. But if pressure to conform doesn't create complications, I don't know what does.
I think the more productive way to look at it is to ask your mom to think what she might have done had she be given a modern set of options. Would she still have married at 19 the man she met at 14? Or would her projected worldliness (and of course her longer-drawn-out adolescence, which I haven't even factored in yet) made her see her life as a creature too expansive and dynamic to fence in so tightly and soon?
It could be that judging a three-to-five-year waiting period on a potential mate by the standards of two generations ago is just flawed. With people asking more of their lives, they have more they need to know (and, often, see for themselves) about the person who might share it with them.
Carolyn Hax: Now, having said that, I think it's essential to make the distinction between waiting to see how something plays out, and being stalled by indecision. Certainly both happen.
And, certainly, the two are getting confused for each other in almost epidemic proportions--I think anyone who spends time in this forum regularly has exhausted all patience for people who have rationalized themselves into such a corner that they're in long-term relationships with people they neither like, trust nor respect. (See opening post.)
I also think life (or the perception of, at least) has gotten so long and changeable that people are growing more comfortable with serial monogamy, either as research for--or an outright substitute for--full-on, married-at-19-and-celebrating-our-60th-anniversary monogamy. Maybe we're all just creating something in response to changing times and haven't yet adapted the fairy tale to help us explain it to our kids. Certainly the old one wasn't doing it for many, if not most of the people who tried it.
Re dating older soccer players: Just tell em soccer players go longer than normal people. Oh, by the way thanks for the chat and are you heading over to Lewis Black's chat?
Carolyn Hax: You're telling me to go away, aren't you.
Cool. Bye, thanks, and type to you next week, preferably about something other than prostitution, which may not be humanity's pride and joy but which clearly isn't going anywhere any time soon, is it?
Because (I can't leave without posting this):
Charlotte, N.C.: If nothing else, what happened with Eliot Spitzer has exploded the myth of the high price call girl. No, the guy isn't paying the big bucks to get a woman with the body of a Hooters waitress (nothing against Hooters waitresses, it's just a convenient icon) and a master's degree in particle physics who is also multilingual, spent summers in Paris, and spends weekends volunteering at a soup kitchen. No, the infamous object of Spitzer's attention was a girl from New Jersey with a high school degree, a myspace page, admitted drug use, and a vocabulary that includes the phrase, "like, dude, do you want the sex"? In other words, neither good nor bad, just normal. A normal girl. So what makes someone risk it all on normal, when at home sits a woman who is, by all accounts, rather special? As a 40-something woman myself, I'm genuinely curious and I bet I speak for many women like me. Our competition isn't a fantasy girl, it's the kid next door. Does it truly come down to age and looks? I'm not sure if I should be relieved or worried.
Carolyn Hax: Maybe the competition is competition precisely for her lack of ability to compete. But that almost seems too pat.
So, on that note. Seeya. Thanks again for your endurance.
yikes!: you said, "And, certainly, the two are getting confused for each other in almost epidemic proportions--I think anyone who spends time in this forum regularly has exhausted all patience for people who have rationalized themselves into such a corner that they're in long-term relationships with people they neither like, trust nor respect. (See opening post.)"
So wait? If I read your forum, then I must not like, trust or respect my partner? Or would you make a distinction between those of us who are asking and those of us who simply enjoy the reading and occasionally the reflection on that that may/may not apply to our situation.
Carolyn Hax: Yikes, I hope you misread, and I didn't mis-write--I can't really see where, on the fly. I meant we collectively as chat-dwellers have lost our patience with the people who do this, because we keep seeing it several times a session. I hope that clears it up.
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.
| 201.95122 | 0.609756 | 0.756098 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031101466.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/11/DI2008031101466.html
|
The 'Lost' Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008031519
|
Has "Lost" got you a mite confused and ready to hurl at the next mention of smoke monsters? Or do you have the fate of the Oceanic 6 and the Jack-Kate-Sawyer-Juliet love square all figured out? Who got Scooby Doo'd this week? Are you a new viewer, adrift on an unfamiliar isle or an old hand ready to bare knuckle some quantum physics? In either case, we're here for you and armed with more mediocre puns and pop culture references than a hunky con man than you can shake a stick at and ready to explain exactly what it is that Cheech Marin and Bai Ling have to do with any of the above.
Post.com "Lost" bloggers Liz Kelly and Jen Chaney will attempt to get to the bottom of these matters every Friday. Liz and Jen, both obsessive "Lost" fans, have been writing their weekly dueling analysis of the show since 2006.
When not debating the merits of Sawyer's hotness, Liz Kelly writes the Celebritology blog and Jen Chaney acts as movies editrix and DVD columnist for washingtonpost.com.
Visit washingtonpost.com's new Lost hub.
Liz Kelly: We'll be getting started in just a minute. We're just crafting our initial thoughts.
Jen Chaney: Before we get started, Liz and I need to apologize for neglecting to mention something important that many of you raised in the comments of today's dueling analysis: The date of death on Jin's gravestone. It was indeed Sept. 22, 2004, something I meant to touch on in kicking off the post and completely forgot to do. (Mea culpa). Some of you think this means that Jin may not actually be dead, but that he "died in the crash," part of the lie surrounding the Oceanic Six. In fact, he may still be on the island.
I had developed a slightly different theory late last night, which I pieced together using the Tacky Glue inside my brain. Here it is: Jin attempts to leave the island, but dies in the process. So his body comes back with Sun, and gets buried in Korea. As part of the lie, the public believes Jin died in the crash and was brought back with his wife.
There's also the possibility that he dies on the island before they even leave.
Liz Kelly: I think Jin is actually dead and not alive on the island as some have supposed. Why? Because Sun is so incredibly upset and talks of missing him in a way that transcends knowing that he's alive somewhere on an island and has a chance of coming back into her life. Jin is gone and I'll wager that he died helping Sun (and her unborn child) to survive. He's gone with her, yet again, this time in spirit.
I thought last night's episode was the worst of what has been an excellent season so far.
The Jin/Sun split flashback/forward seemed like a contrived trick with no purpose other than fooling the audience. I don't mind being fooled, but there was nothing about it that was organic to the overall story. Jin's purchase of a toy panda four years ago didn't give us insight into the main story or the characters, it was just used to make us think he was alive in the present (future?).
Oh well, I guess they can't all be great.
P.S.: Am I the only one who thinks that Jin's gravestone doesn't necessarily mean that he left the island or died? Presumably if he stayed behind, they would have to say he died in the plane crash.
Jen Chaney: I definitely want to address some important things you mention here.
First, I obviously disagree about the quality of the episode and the use of the flashback. As I tried to convey in this morning's post, I thought the bisecting flashback/flashforward approach did serve a narrative purpose -- it was letting us know all along that these two would be split apart. Jeff Jensen over at EW also makes an argument for the relevancy of Jin's flashback, noting that seeing him as a minion for Mr. Paik reinforced the notion that, as Jin pointed out, he was no longer the man he used to be.
And see our intro above re: the gravestone. You're right, we don't know the circumstances of his death, so anything is possible. I feel like he is dead (see theory above), but I like the idea that he is still alive somewhere. And I actually hope that turns out to be true.
Liz Kelly: I liked last night's episode, too, and thought it was an important bridge to keep the show moving forward. We find out the final composition of the Oceanic 6 -- yes, Aaron counts. We find out that Michael is alive and on the freighter. We find out definitively that Charles Widmore is funding the operation. All good stuff.
That said, there were a few ham-fisted moments. Like Kate's Scooby Doo rundown to Sun about the power station/gas plant kerfuffle of last week and, sorry Jen, the whole Bernard opining on marriage to Jin. I was waiting for Paolo to turn out to be the fish hooked at the end of Jin's line at that point. Thankfully, the show swung back into action after that touching scene.
1. The "Oceanic 6" are Jack, Kate, Baby Aaron, Hurley, Sayid and Sun, right?
2. Who reads Korean? What did Jin's epitaph read on his grave (or memorial) stone?
Jen Chaney: 1. That appears to be the case. I say this because Doc Jensen said so in his piece today. And I believe everything he says. Well, almost.
2. Anybody know Korean? Liz?
Liz Kelly: I believe everything he (Doc) says, too. And since he says it eloquently, why try to recreate his reasoning. Here's the pertinent graf from his recap:
Sun's flash-forward fake-out seemed to close out the first act of Lost's future-time story line: identifying the members of the Oceanic 6, the celebrity miracle survivors of Oceanic 815. To recap, they are Jack, Kate, Hurley, Sayid, Aaron, and Sun. Now, I know what some of you are saying: Aaron can't be a member of the Oceanic 6 because he wasn't born prior to the crash and therefore was not technically an Oceanic 815 passenger. To which I say, Please. Don't be so literal. In the Lost world, the Oceanic 6 is clearly a media-coined term, pinned on these six souls by some clever headline writer or newscaster. And being in the business, I can tell you that tiny little facts like Aaron's non-passenger status would never, ever get in the way of a easy, catchy piece of phrasing. We journalists are exactly that lazy. So let's call it: The Oceanic 6 is settled. Now, let's move on to the next act of their story, which I'm betting will cover two big points: the backstory behind Jack's downward spiral into boozy, grizzly-bearded, we-gotta-go-back-to-the-Island mania, and more context for Ben and Sayid's secret war with their list of mysterious off-Island foes.
And, no, I don't speak Korean. If it were Pig Latin, I'd be your girl.
Something I Need To Get Off My Chest:: I love Jeremy Davies!
He actually reminds me of a friend of mine, which makes me like him all the more.
Washington, D.C.: Are we sure that Michael is Ben's spy? The woman who jumped overboard -- have we seen her before? She wasn't one of the others? Thanks for all your blogging!
Jen Chaney: Well, we still need to see what happens in next week's episode. But certainly all signs point to Michael being the spy.
Remember, Ben gave him coordinates and sent Michael and Walt off in that boat at the end of season two. He may have steered Michael directly to the freighter, then taking Walt away again as leverage. So Taller Ghost Walt -- who could be suffering from time shifting problems -- might turn out to be Taller Real Walt.
As for the woman, that was Regina, played by Zoe Bell of "Death Proof" and stuntwoman for Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill" fame. She was one of the freighter people. We had only heard her voice over the sat phone until last night when we finally met her for 30 seconds ... then promptly watched her plummet to her death.
Sun and Jin: The biggest revelation to me is how young they are! I would have put them solidly in their early to-mid 30's. Sun is my age!
Liz Kelly: Ya, I was surprised to see that Sun was only 24 (in 2004).
Please remind me...: Is Jae (Sun's paramour) dead? How did he die? And Sun is really the most beautiful woman on the island. So can we kill off Kate?
Jen Chaney: Jae died. He fell out of a building; Sun went to his funeral even. If memory serves, we witnessed this in season three.
As far as killing off Kate, get in line behind Liz. Although, I should point out, she is beating Sawyer as we speak in "Lost" Madness.
Jae "fell out of a building": That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that he jumped out. And yet another way to put it is that he jumped out because of Sun.
Jen Chaney: And yet another way to put it is that Tony "Rocky" Hara was pushed out because of Uma Thurman.
Nice "Pulp Fiction" pull. This weekend, Martin and Lewis milkshakes at Jack Rabbit Slim's are on me.
Clemson, S.C.: I read a theory on DarkUFO that Kevin Johnson may actually be Walt all grown up, basically that actor Harold Perinneau is now playing a grown-up Walt and not Michael. What do you think?
Liz Kelly: Well, I did think that the handwriting of the note was penned in a particularly childish hand and that had me thinking the spy might be Walt. But, hmmm, Walt would've had to do an awful lot of growing to be the guy we saw last night.
Jen Chaney: I read this theory, too. It's intriguing but leans a little too hard on the far-fetched. I still think Walt is being used as leverage for Michael/Kevin Johnson to do Ben's bidding.
Silver Spring, Md.: Can I just say that I loved that episode? Typically I have found Sun and Jin episodes a little on the filler side of the "Lost" spectrum, but last night, while not necessarily answering questions and vaulting the plot forward, had so many moments where I sat with my jaw just hanging open, using the plot devices of flash forward/back beautifully. Anyway, my real question, did you cry when Sun went to the cemetery? I balled, and my boyfriend got teary, so therefore I am convinced everyone out there had to cry!!
Jen Chaney: I totally did. I cried when she gave birth, too. I leaked a little when Hurley said, "She's awesome." Liz said in the blog that she was moved but did not cry. She's got a heart of stone, that one.
Liz Kelly: Jen, when you say you "leaked" -- I think you may want to choose a different word.
And my heart is hardly made of stone. I welled up during the Desmond/Penny phone call two weeks ago. Twice.
Gainesville, Va.: When asked (by Yunjun Kim) in this week's TV Guide about whether Aaron was one of the Oceanic 6, Lindelof said, "Who the actual six are is very much in play through the end of the March 13 episode. We'll confirm or deny after that." Given last night's episode (and simple math), this has to mean that Aaron counts as one of the six.
Jen Chaney: That seems to be correct. I really was not sure this a.m., but -- I know I am a broken record -- that's what EW says today. And LindeCuse confirms everything with them.
Four-toed statue: Submitting really early, here's why: I really want to read your chats and analysis, but I'm trying to stay spoiler-free. Would it be possible to keep all spoilers out of the chats and analysis and stick to only what's been aired by ABC and spoken by the producers in public?
Liz Kelly: Oh sure, no problem. Which part of Matthew Fox being a big star do you want to cover first?
Jen Chaney: Oh, Liz. You're such a quipper. To be fair, I don't think we get all that spoilery. We talk about each episode and sometimes cite things that LindeCuse has said in interviews. But we don't share stuff on spoiler sites. I made one reference to a spoiler I had read -- without actually sharing the spoiler -- and I got a smackdown for that. So since you all butter our bread (or boil our lima beans, to borrow last night's canned food of choice) we try to be very careful about that.
Charlotte, N.C.: Okay, clearly the reference to Mr. Paik was supposed to function as the slap to the forehead realization that although we're seeing Sun's flashforward we're seeing Jin's flashback. It was after that, of course, that I started to put together others things, like the fact that no one knew who Jin was when the Oceanic Six were world famous, as we saw when Sun was admitted. So, who IS Mr. Paik?
Liz Kelly: The first indication came (at least for me) when the toy store clerk nailed down the time frame by saying they were in the year of the dragon -- the last one was in the year 2000. The next won't be until 2013. That's when I started to think that maybe Jin wasn't in the same place as Sun.
He Knew: Hi Jen and Liz (Thank you for this chat!),
Submitting early - I'm watching the replay of "The Other Woman" and noticed something Juliet said to Ben that I think supports the theory that Ben knows the future. When she saw Godwin's dead body, she said, "You knew this would happen!" I think Juliet knows Ben can see the future in someway. I'm not sure if anyone brought this up in the chat or board last week. Whaddya think?
Jen Chaney: Ben's powers may indeed be more far-reaching than we think. I feel like someone did allude to this idea last week. Personally, I don't think he necessarily knew Goodwin would die (and I think Liz said this last week, too). I think he sent him to hang with the Tailies to get him away from Juliet (more evidence of this: ridiculous lie he told Juliet about Goodwin feeling passionately about Ana Lucia). But when he thought Goodwin might be in danger, he did nothing to help him.
St. Paul, Minn.: What's going on behind the scenes on the freighter? Did you notice Lapidus was bandaged? And the doctor is sporting a nasty -- and very fresh-looking -- welt on his face?
Liz Kelly: Yes, there seems to be some kind of mania slowly eating its way through the freighter crew -- first with the death of Minkowsky, then last night's death leap from Regina and, as you say, the ripe looking doctor. I think we may find out a wee bit more next week when we get an idea of how Michael became part of the crew and what he's been overhearing while on the boat.
Jen Chaney: Yes, I noticed in the credits for next week's episode that Minkowski makes a reappearance. So hopefully that means some more gaps will be filled in.
Leesburg, Va: Could it be that the black box that Widmore "procured" is the -actual- box from Flight 815? That would lend an enormous amount of credibility to the discovery of the wreckage, and Ben would certainly have the means to make it happen.
Jen Chaney: That thought flittered through my mind, too. I don't think anyone recovered that before.
And it makes a lot more sense for them to hang on to the real black box, doesn't it?
Liz Kelly: I think that's within the realm of possibility, for sure.
Silver Spring: Did anyone happen to catch the name of the freighter? During one scene, they zoom out a bit and it looks like the name is on the side.
Liz Kelly: Yep: The Kahana. Here's the full scoop from Lostpedia.
Jen Chaney: I thought it was interesting that we saw the freighter and its name right after the Bernard/Jin scene. Yes, the name is Kahana. But for a second, it almost appeared to read "Kharma."
Charleston, SC: I think y'all may be a little off-base on assuming that Ben staged the wreckage or is cahoots with Widmore. My gut tells me that's too easy a connection to make.
But, the splinter in my thumb from last night is Hurley's reaction when visiting Sun... He asks if anybody else is coming, she says no, and he replies, "Good."
I find it interesting and speaks to the possible relationships after their return to the real world, even though one would assume that flash-forward pre-dates his commitment/meeting with Jack.
Liz Kelly: Well, Hurley's "good" isn't all that surprising. We'd already seen -- from his prior flashback -- that Hurley was not at all comfortable in the role of an Oceanic 6 "celebrity" and that he wasn't exactly on the best of terms with Jack. I can see that extending to Kate. That leaves Sayid, who we have to assume is working for Ben.
Jen Chaney: Good observation, Charleston. It's not surprising, but it's important to remember that things get really messed up for all six of the real-world survivors.
I feel like I need to plot a timeline for the fast-forwards. Obviously Hurley visited Sun before he went to the mental hospital. Or, is it possible that he eventually gets out?
Liz Kelly: I think Hurley's visit to Sun was before the hospital, too. But I'm sure he was already feeling the pressure (guilt?) of being a survivor. Remember, he -- and the rest of the six -- know something. Something that riddles them with doubt about their actions in leaving the island. So, though he may be happy to see Sun, he might not have been up for a full on reunion.
Jen Chaney: He also may have serious issues with baby Aaron. And, like Jack, although for different reasons, might not want to see him either.
If he felt guilty about Charlie's death before, he would feel even worse knowing that they tore the child -- almost a son to Charlie -- from his mother and are lying about it.
Seattle: Haven't watched last night's episode (thanks to a business dinner) but wanted to get something about last week's episode with Juliette. When the shrink appeared just after the whispers, her face was spooky; it was like Ethan's in Season 1, face and eyes emotionless, voice was flat, etc. It was like they weren't in control of their bodies beyond their basic functions.
Am I right or am I just over-thinking (always a possibility)?
Liz Kelly: I would argue that Juliet often looks flat and emotionless. She's got some serious Stepford demeanor going on.
Jen Chaney: Liz, I think Seattle is talking about Harper looking flat and emotionless. And she did.
It was reminiscent of Ethan, but I am not sure if it speaks to a larger trend or theme.
Liz Kelly: Well, there's enough "flat and emotionless" to go around for both Juliet and Harper.
Down South: I'm curious about the Flight 815 connection's to Charles Widmore. We know he's connected to Desmond, but why is he looking for 815? Do you think he knows anyone on the plane?
Are there any connections other than Desmond that I'm missing? (besides Libby giving him the boat?)
Jen Chaney: I think it's more that he's looking for the island. He's clearly fixated on the Black Rock and has an interest in the island's properties.
But as I said last week, I am not sure he want to turn it into a Tropical Disney World, as Ben suggests. I think it may be more complicated than that.
Liz Kelly: Right. Widmore is after the island and Ben. Oceanic 815 is just a circumstance around which he has to work.
Brooklyn, N.Y.: I have to disagree with Doc Jenson's determination on who is included in the Oceanic 6. What about the body in the casket at the funeral home when Jack visits? At Kate's trial, Jack says that 8 people survived the crash, and 2 died. Aaron wasn't one of those people (he was born after the crash). I think the 6th person is in that casket. And I think it was Michael.
Liz Kelly: I kind of suspect it's Michael in that casket, too. The newspaper clipping said something about him having a son, so that would fit. It also fits that no one would be at his funeral considering his actions on and off the island.
But here's the thing -- we're assuming that the only people who make it off the island are the official, media-approved "Oceanic 6." Who's to say others don't also make it back, through back channels and, quite possibly, under the radar of the media or anyone else who is watching? In fact, we know that to be the case since we've seen Ben in a flash forward.
Jen Chaney: That is such a good point, Liz. Ever since the Oceanic Six was uttered for the first time by Hurley in this season's first episode -- and doesn't that seem like a lifetime ago? -- we have all been so fixated on who the six are that we haven't considered the notion that maybe there are other survivors living underground.
That dang casket. It keeps coming back to haunt us. If it weren't for the big about him having a son, I would say Sayid is a possibility. Michael sounds more and more plausible since, as Kevin Johnson, it's very possible he goes back and forth from the island like Ben the vest-wearer.
Springfield, Va.: Just so I'm clear, after next week's episode we've got 4 weeks off, then 5 in a row through the end of May. Correct?
Jen Chaney: You are correct, Springfield.
Got big plans for the hiatus? Maybe take some time off, what with all the hard work we all do analyzing the show? It really is a full-time job.
Liz Kelly: Jen, I think we should spring for a South Pacific vacation. Cocktails and lima beans at sunset. That kind of thing.
Jen Chaney: Man, that is a GOOD idea. See you in Fiji!
Clemson, S.C.: Seems to me that the freighter crew is experiencing the same "sickness" that Rousseau's crew went through. An effect of being too close to the time bubble perhaps?
Liz Kelly: Right. And the captain seems to be eager to move the freighter to "safer" waters. But is being confounded by "Kevin Johnson's" sabotage.
Jen Chaney: Certainly seems that way. Agreed.
John Galt: There's a John Galt in the book "The Fountainhead." I don't know if there is a connection.
Jen Chaney: Yes, this has been noted elsewhere, too. We also mentioned in the blog the series of stories about a captain named Galt. Personally, I think this is all part of a conspiracy spearheaded by the "Lost" writers, the Dharma Initiative and Reading is Fundamental. They're going to turn everyone in America into a lover of literature. And there's nothing you can do to stop it!
Liz Kelly: Hey, if so, good for them. Though that new "Lost" videogame has the potential to suck up a lot of time that could be spent reading.
Jen Chaney: Why didn't they make that for the Wii? That's just mean.
Anonymous: Now wait a minute -- Jin was thought dead because the grave they were at was in the past and the surprise was Hurley's knowing them before the island -- right ?
Jen Chaney: Um ... no. Jin's flashback was a flashback. But the parts with Sun -- her giving birth, etc. -- were all a flashforward.
So Jin is either dead or on the island and publicly presumed dead.
Tulsa, Okla.: Do you think the writers will make any reference to the tsunami that happened on Dec. 25, 2004 which is the time now on the island?
If we are to believe that the freighter and/or island are somewhere in reach of being affected by that storm -- well, then, I think it would be an odd omission if it was ignored. We've already had refs to the Red Sox, so if the timeline is to be believed, I'm sure the writers have this on their minds.
Jen Chaney: Seems like it would have to happen soon since Christmas Eve just passed. When Sayid said good morning to Desmond, shouldn't that have been Christmas Day?
On issues of time, though, traditional concepts may not apply.
Centreville, Va.: Was I the only one who thought ominous things when Sun's doctor said he was covering for Dr. Park? I kept waiting for Matthew Abbadon to make an appearance.
Liz Kelly: Right. I think that was a red herring designed to throw us off of paying attention to the timeline. At that point, I thought perhaps Abaddon or Ben or some other ill-meaning concern meant to spirit baby Ji Yeon away from Sun, a la "Rosemary's Baby."
Behind: Who or what is LindeCuse? Not having luck with google. Thanks.
Jen Chaney: Sorry. This is me abbreviating.
Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are executive producers, writers and official mouthpieces for the show. To save time, I call them LindeCuse.
Not in the South Pacific: We all knew it was Michael. But as one named Kevin Johnson, I can tell you why he choose that particular nome de guerre. Kevin Johnson is the name of a brilliant philosopher and theologian, who can bring answers to all your questions. (At least that's what I tell my wife.)
Liz Kelly: I suspect we're addressing Kevin Johnson now?
Jen Chaney: If you have answers to all our questions, Mr. Johnson, then tell us what the monster is. Go ahead. Tell us.
Washington, DC: Why is it that the Island has miraculous healing powers for some people (Locke, for example), while doing nothing for others -- all the pregnant women who have died, all the Islanders that Ben gassed, for examples?
Jen Chaney: I have struggled with this one for a while and I still am not sure. Except that the electromagnetic forces -- or whatever you want to call them -- seem to "treat" the illnesses of people who show up already suffering from disease or disability. If you're ailed, it cures you.
But that doesn't mean you can't be killed on the island. I also would note that if you live on the island, then leave it, instead of being cured you get cursed. Witness the Oceanic Six (or however many there are), all of whom are suffering from psychological crises or other bad circumstances.
Liz Kelly: Too bad the island can't cure Kate of being so annoying.
Where is John Galt?: He's actually in "Atlas Shrugged" but I don't think it matters. I don't think Ayn Rand lit is part of the island mythology.
Liz Kelly: Then Liz shrugged.
Hurleygood: Hurley was channeling Hagrid in that suit. He probably has a crush on Sun. New baby and no husband sounds like a good time to show up, you know?
Liz Kelly: Okay, I'm sorry. I say this though I know I risk being labeled a Hurley Hater. I am not. It's just that although Hurley was wearing a suit, he looked as if he hadn't bothered to shower since leaving the island. One would think he'd take the time to get his hair trimmed, have a nice facial -- something. I mean, my god, future flash Sayid was impeccable.
Jen Chaney: Future-flash Sayid is a stallion. But then, he's got money not only from his settlement, but from Mr. $3.2 million-plus, Mr. Ben Linus. Hurley's walking on a thin line mental health-wise. Dude's not equipped to shave.
Liz Kelly: Oh please. If he can get himself to Korea, he can shave.
I read Korean!: It is read top to bottom, from left to right.
First column says: Spouse, Paik Sun Hwa.
Second Column: 1980 Year 3 Month 20 Day Date of Birth
Third Column(CENTER): Grave of Kwon Jin Soo (male??)
Fourth Column: 1974 Year 11 Month 27 Day Date of Birth
Fifth Column: 2004 Year 9 Month 22 Day Date of Death.
Did anyone think Jin and Sun were actually a little bit older? This makes Sun 24(!!!) I thought she was at least 30 years old.
Liz Kelly: Thank you! Thank you! So no clues beyond the dates there.
Chattanooga, TN: Okay, which side are you all on? Was Juliet justified in ridiculously betraying her patient's confidence, or was she a smug, self-satisfied monster who simply HAD to blab because she is convinced that she is never wrong, and she was too stupid to consider alternative measures, such as walking along with Sun and Jin (the Locke camp is several days away, as I recall) and continuing to whine to Sun in the hopes of changing her mind? (Guess which side I'm on!)
Second, is Juliet EVER going to just lose it and start screaming at someone? She seems to be so very calm and controlled that I just want slug her. (And I was yelling at Sun to slug her several times last night.)
Thirdly, does it seem to you that Juliet's actions were so out of character that it was really the writers' fault--i.e., they needed to have Jin learn of the affair and respond nobly (at least in the end) and they chose a sloppy way to do it?
Fourthly, even if he's also evil, don't you like Captain Gault? I mean, actually answering questions!
God, I love this show. And you two, for having these chats.
Liz Kelly: We love you, too. Hugs.
Well written. I'm with you on Juliet. As I typed earlier, she's a control freak. Don't let that placid facade fool you.
I hadn't thought about the sloppy-ness, but now that you mention it. Umm, umm... no. Not sloppy. Actually, it is really a big time window into Juliet's psyche and values. She herself had been one half of a torrid love affair with the doomed Goodwin and, one would think, would want to protect Sun's secret as a fellow traveler on the same infidelitous road. (Is "infidelitous" a word? Enh. Who cares?).
But she's also a doctor and wanted to protect her patient. That side of her won. So she used every tool in her arsenal to prevent Sun from leaving.
Unless she had some other, hidden reason for wanting to keep Sun away from Locke's camp.
Jen Chaney: It was so, so none of Juliet's biz to tell Jin about the affair, especially since she knew that the baby was conceived on the island. The affair was irrelevant.
But as Liz said, Juliet used the only tool in her arsenal that she knew would make one of them stay behind. You're right she could have walked with them and tried to keep convincing Sun. But we only have 42 minutes an episode and this way was much more dramatic. The other way would have been Worst Episode Ever. ("Sun, you're going to die. Let's turn around. Seriously, you're going to die, let's turn around.")
Sun did at least slap her. That must have been a little satisfying for you. Last person Sun slapped? Sawyer.
Capt. Gault I don't trust. But I do like his forthcomingness, assuming what he says is true.
Vacati, ON: My sister is going to Costa Rica and staying at a hotel called the Black Rock. (not a joke.)
Liz Kelly: If she finds dynamite or John Locke's dad in her room, tell her to make haste to the nearest HoJo.
Jen Chaney: And if some ninth grade science teacher tells her he knows how to safely handle dynamite, make sure she knows to run for cover.
Bristow, Va.: The tsunami actually occurred on December 26, not 25. So there's still a chance for it to show up in the show.
Jen Chaney: Thanks for the reminder, Bristow. Good point.
Seattle, WA: Observation on last week's episode. Am I spitballing or are Jack and Juilette both meant for each other and together for the wrong reasons because each, I think, is a co-dependent personality? Jack needs someone to fix and feel responsible for, and Juilette was the same way with her sister and, I think, ex-husband.
Liz Kelly: That's a shrewd observation -- both Jack and Juliette share the same close-to-the-vest/ need-to-know-basis personalities. They seem to think they are the only ones (separately) capable of holding it together. The difference, I'd say, is that Jack seems to be more of a "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of guy, while Juliet is a bit more calculated.
Anonymous: The last time we saw Michael, wasn't he sailing off in a boat with Walt. I mean did we see Walt or did we just take Ben's word for it. Because after watching last night's show, all I can think about is if Michael is on the ship, then where is Walt?
Jen Chaney: We did see Walt in the boat with Michael, yes.
I think Walt is being held on the island somewhere. Or he exists in some temporal no man's land with Ben's mom and Jack's dad.
Liz Kelly: I think Walt is master of his own destiny. He was able to somehow communicate with Locke in last season's finale -- whether physically or by literally being "taller ghost Walt," we don't know. I think he may be one factor that Ben -- who assumes himself to be master of the island -- can't control. Walt is the island's Turk 182.
(Jen is going to knife me for that reference.)
Jen Chaney: You know, I never saw "Turk 182," which is shocking since it was released in the '80s and all.
Ben may not be able to control Walt. But he can use him as leverage and make Michael think he can control Walt.
Silver Spring, Md.: Kevin Johnson is also a retired NBA point guard running for mayor of Sacremento.
washingtonpost.com: Ha, that's the first person I thought of too.
Liz Kelly: Gee, I wonder why I didn't think of him first, too?
Jen Chaney: That's the real shocker. Michael also used to play for the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Rockville, Md.: My question is about the Others. Where are they? I can't remember if they're still following Ben or if there was some sort of uprising.
They haven't returned to the barracks, so will they fight the boat people and help Ben? Help the boat people get Ben?
Jen Chaney: The other Others were told to go to the Temple. We have not seen or heard from them all season, but I suspect they will turn up again in volume two of season four.
I am not sure they want to help Ben. They don't seem 100-percent confident in his leadership.
Liz Kelly: There weren't, perchance, 324 of them?
The Emerald City, WA: ABC teaser for next week: "Sayid confronts Ben's spy on the freighter, and Ben urges daughter Alex to flee Locke's camp in order to survive an impending attack."
I'm guessing that Ben has Alex flee and while hiding in the jungle, Alex runs into... Rousseau! Then we get our mother-daughter bonding episode and it will be sappy and sentimental and will advance the plot nowhere. Though maybe we'd finally get a Rousseau flasback/forward. Is she the only semi-main character who hasn't had one? Even Paulo and Nikki got a flashback!
Liz Kelly: Now that you have re-pasted the ABC promo for next week's episode again, it strikes me... why wouldn't they just say "Saying confronts MICHAEL on the freighter"? Further fodder for the grown-up Walt theory?
Jen Chaney: Because they write those teasers way in advance and they wouldn't want to reveal Michael even though we already knew.
I don't that proves the Walt theory. But A for effort there, Liz.
Vienna, Va.: Is it me, or was Locke treating Ben pretty well while in captivity? I mean, pretty outgoing to prepare meals, skin rabbits, etc. for a guy who shot you and left you in a ditch.
Liz Kelly: Maybe Locke just likes cooking and skinning rabbits. He would. He's kind of a weirdo and he has that whole hunting fascination. (Remember the wild boars of season 1?)
Tsunami: The survivors on the island wouldn't even notice the tsunami. to a tiny volcanic island sitting in the middle of the very deep Pacific Ocean, a tsunami is just a couple inches high (because the wave energy is dispersed through the very deep water column and the island is basically a pillar rising from the ocean floor). There's not continental shelf to cause the rapid change in depth and concentration of energy, and therefore no catastrophic 100-ft waves.
Liz Kelly: I'd like to take your word for it, but we don't know the precise location of the island, so I'm not ready and willing to discount its being affected by the tsunami -- even if it is only in the form of some particularly rough seas.
Jen Chaney: Yeah, I don't think the island will be washed out or anything. But I can see there being reverberations, or at least a reference to it at some point.
Speaking of real-time 2004, no one seems to be concerned about the election.
Liz Kelly: Well, there was a lot of voter apathy during that election cycle.
Tore Aaron from Claire: Wait, you mean that you don't think Claire is going to bite it? I think it is CLEAR that Claire is toast. Maybe even next week. She is kinda superfluous.
Jen Chaney: I think that's a definite possibility.
I hope not, though, because then I really feel bad for Aaron. At least if Claire remains on the island, there is a chance they will be reunited.
Other than serving as Aaron's mother, she is a bit superfluous, though, I would agree.
Fairfax, Va.: So, If Sun is out of the island on time for delivery, how come two weeks ago, when we say Aaron, he looked almost 3?
Jen Chaney: This is why I said I needed a timeline.
Liz Kelly: Jen. You know what this means, right? We need to do a timeline.
Jen Chaney: I just built a huge bracket. Now we have to build a timeline? It's only a matter of time until we have to build a time machine.
Liz Kelly: Okay, how bout I handle the timeline and you get to work on the machine?
Jen Chaney: Too late. I already went into the future, built the timeline and time machine and am now relaxing in Fiji.
Liz Kelly: Okay, that's it for this week. Thanks for all the questions and comments. This chat is now a bona fide hit. See you all back here next week.
Jen Chaney: My head is spinning, which is how I know the discussion has been a success.
We'll see you next week to discuss the last episode of volume one of this season. Thanks, everybody!
|
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.
| 201.341463 | 0.536585 | 0.634146 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303901.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008031519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303901.html
|
FBR's Awful Truth
|
2008031519
|
There was a time when lots of us were rooting for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, the homegrown investment bank. With its strong bench of analysts, its focus on financial services and technology, its scrappy trading desk and a loyal network of institutional investors eager to buy up whatever it was selling, FBR was the Washington upstart determined to beat Wall Street at its own game.
But in the decade since it began selling its shares to the public, FBR seems to have careened from one disaster to another, losing billions of dollars for its customers and investors and constantly restructuring itself to give the illusion of reinvention. One of the founders was forced to resign from the firm after a federal investigation into whether the company had given inside information about one of its customers to another. Its own stock is so beaten down -- from a high $28 four years ago to yesterday's close of $1.93 -- that investors are pricing it at less than the company's book value.
Sad as it is to say, I'm coming to the conclusion that FBR has come to represent everything that's bad about Wall Street, quick to jump on every fad, substitute hype for solid research and earn big fees for peddling junk.
Let us recall, for example, that FBR was an active financier and cheerleader for the tech and telecom boom of the late '90s, putting its customers' money and prestige behind dozens of flameouts that included LifeMinders, WebMethods and Varsity Books.
In between bubbles, it took the lead in funding a Bermuda reinsurance company that entered the market just in time to get buried under two of the worst hurricanes in history.
FBR became an underwriter for the residential real estate bubble, helping to finance New Century Financial, Luminent Mortgage Capital, Thornburg Mortgage and American Home Mortgage.
In 2005, FBR decided to jump into the subprime pool with both feet, paying more than $100 million to acquire originator First NLC and losing hundreds of millions of dollars more before taking the firm into bankruptcy earlier this year.
A financial whiz I know compiled for me a list of all the stock offerings FBR underwrote between 2001 and 2007, both public IPOs as well as the private placements in which FBR specialized. He found that if you'd invested in all of them on the day they started trading, you'd be down now by about 20 percent. That compares with a gain of 20 percent on the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index, or a loss of 9 percent on the S&P Financial index.
Of course, investment banking is only part of FBR's business -- and at this point, the only profitable part, although even that is now questionable, given the market turmoil and the dramatic slowdown in new issues. But it's worth noting that in the past two years, when other financial firms were posting record profits from proprietary trading (buying and selling securities with the firm's own money) and asset management (collecting fees for running hedge funds and mutual funds), FBR managed to lose money in both areas.
Not that it would have been easy for an investor -- or a business journalist -- to come up with a clear picture of what was going on at FBR. No sooner would something go wrong than a press release would appear announcing some new strategy or structure or the shift of assets from one pocket to another. One day FBR is an investment bank, the next a tax-free real estate investment trust with a taxable investment bank subsidiary. Then, when the REIT starts to crash, it spins off the investment bank as a separate entity, selling part to a private-equity firm and then, a few months later, another part to the public.
This is the kind of hocus-pocus that financial sharpies engage in when they can't succeed by delivering good value to customers and investors. With FBR, it's a case of being too clever by half.
What's most galling, however, is how well FBR's top executives have done for themselves despite all the misjudgments and setbacks. One founder, Russ Ramsey, was clever enough to cash out and leave shortly after the initial public offering. And before the recent troubles, Manny Friedman and Eric Billings made themselves two of the highest-paid executives in the region, with annual compensation packages approaching $10 million each.
|
There was a time when lots of us were rooting for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, the homegrown investment bank. With its strong bench of analysts, its focus on financial services and technology, its scrappy trading desk and a loyal network of institutional investors eager to buy up whatever it was...
| 14.982143 | 0.982143 | 54.017857 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.