Datasets:
Revankumar
/
news_room_large_dataset

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
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://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/story_of_an_undocumented_drug.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/story_of_an_undocumented_drug.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008030119
HIDALGO - At age 18, Hector Salinas's girlfriend became pregnant unexpectedly. The pair promptly married, she bore their son, and the new father found himself unable to buy diapers and milk for his baby boy on the US$200 per month he earned working for the local water authority of the state of . So Hector headed north to the United States, alone. Three years later, he was running drugs along the California coast, pocketing six thousand untaxed dollars per month, and sending his family at least US$800 per week. Hector says he fell deep into an underworld and ended up an unwitting witness to a murder. That’s when he decided to escape the snares of his drug boss. He stole home to Hidalgo and met his baby boy for the first time in three years, vowing to keep him from a similar fate. Over a long Friday afternoon, the affable Hector, now a spiky-haired office-worker in Mexico City, recounts his migration story systematically, in minute detail, as if chronicling its moments for his son’s generation. His speaks terse, matter-of-fact Spanish, his emotions always controlled. He refuses to pass judgment on any of the actors in his tale, including himself. He simply warns fellow Mexicans against rushing north, and urges them to temper their dreams of America. In the next two posts, I'll look at Hector's views of the United States during his migration north, once he arrived in San Francisco, as he fell into a brutal gang, and finally today as he advises his growing boy. Hector’s wife told him not to go. So did his parents. They all had heard the stories of deadly border crossings. His wife had also heard that Mexican men up north get lonely and betray their wives and don't return. The baby needed a dad, she said. But Hector was determined to earn for the family. “My wife protested in the beginning, but in this relationship when I say something, there’s no turning back; she respects what I say.” Ultimately, it was Hector’s wife’s family that paved his road to the U.S. Hector’s brother-in-law is an undocumented roofer in San Francisco. He put up the money so Hector could use the same Pollero (literally, “chicken herder”) that he had three years before. He says the pollero charges US$1500 to smuggle people north. “I only thought of money, my family, and the house I would buy. I was going to the U.S. just for money, and coming right back,” Hector says. The Pollero booked Hector’s airplane ticket, the first of his life, from Mexico City to Mexicali, from where migrants cross to Calexico, California. Hector hadn't met his pollero, and never found out his real name, but followed the man's careful instructions. Hector arrived at the McDonalds in the Mexico City airport at 9pm, two hours before his flight, ticket in hand, to meet the ten other Mexicans who’d be crossing with him. He didn’t need to see their tickets to recognize his companions. “You realize when someone is not from the city, how they dress, the trousers are different, the shoes are different. We stood together but did not talk,” Hector says, “just committed, focused, not anxious.” Once in Mexicali, Hector rested through the afternoon in a cheap hotel with six rickety bunk beds per room. At midnight, the group was awoken, guided to a wide river of sewage that stank and ate away at the fabric in his jeans, and told to wade through. Hector crossed gamely that night, through the quick running water, over the jagged stones. But on the other side, instead of the vans he expected to carry him to Los Angeles, U.S. border control trucks waited with what Hector calls “human cages” affixed to the back. The patrolmen picked up the member’s of Hector’s group one by one and stuck them behind bars, he says, but didn’t process them “because we smelled too bad.” "It was a small thing, just another experience,” Hector says of this failed attempt, “Actually, it was more like a triumph because they didn’t take my name or photo. I knew I’d try again tomorrow.” Back in Mexicali, the guide told him to shower, drink electrolytes, and sleep because the next attempt would be much more dangerous. In the morning, Hector and the others took an hour-and-a-half-long bus ride to La Rumorosa through barren hills. The guide bribed the bus driver, who had orders not to stop anywhere, so that he pulled over briefly allowing the group to jump out, rush into the mountains, and hide behind a huge rock until the road cleared. Then they walked in a single file line, led by the guide, from 2pm in the afternoon, when the sun was scorching hot, until 3am in the morning, when the temperature of the February night dropped below freezing. Hector carried only a bottle of water in a backpack, and a big puffy coat for the night. Some of his companions fell down exhausted. Others twisted their limbs or were stung by cacti. After six hours, night fell, and a third of the group couldn't go on. They gave up and turned back, waiting for the border patrol to find them, process them, and escort them back to Mexico. But Hector kept going, into the pure darkness. No flashlights, no cell phones, no glow-in-the-dark watches, just the guide ahead of him and the sound of footsteps. When they got to the U.S. side, the snaking Highway Five cut through the hills and intersected their route. The group had to dart across like deer, avoiding speeding cars, before waiting behind another rock for their escort Sebrings to arrive at 4:30am. This time, the right cars arrived, and the group darted in, crouched down in front of the seats, and waited for the drivers to weave them toward their destination, avoiding police cars through a network of strategically placed friends who reported their movements to one another via cell phones. Hector said little during this time; his mind was fixated on the mission at hand. Five hours later, mission accomplished. He was told to sit up and look outside at paradise. It was the mansion of the man in charge of many polleros, nicknamed The Cow. The Cow was a U.S. citizen, with “a huge lawn, a house with room after room after room, and carpets everywhere” says Hector. The newly arrived Mexicans stuffed together into one of the many rooms, as The Cow's workers sold “fake IDs (the blue one), a security number and the green ID so you can work," Hector says, for US$40 each. That afternoon, vans started transporting migrants to their final destinations across the West Coast. Hector went straight to San Francisco, calmer now, able to sit up in the car. "It was relaxed," he says, though "I was still basically kidnapped until The Cow got his money." At night Hector was driven further north to his brother-in-law, who came to meet The Cow's employee with the $1500, buying Hector's release into the United States. "I was tired," says Hector, "happy to have arrived...but feeling very alone." **** My next post will cover Hector's experience in the U.S., where his high expectations met a harsh reality as he was exploited by a fast food chain, bounced between jobs, and finally was lured into the world of drugs. Note: This post contains an abbreviated version of Hector's name, which he asked us to use in order to maintain Internet privacy. He subsequently agreed that we could use his full name, which is Hector Mera. The post also says he was "an unwitting witness to a murder," which overstates Hector's role in the alleged event as he described it to me. A more appropropriate description for his role would be, "an unintentional witness to a killing."
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
105.8
0.466667
0.466667
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/02/irs_investigates_church_for_le.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/02/irs_investigates_church_for_le.html
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
2008030119
The Internal Revenue Service has notified the United Church of Christ that the IRS has opened an investigation into Senator Barack Obama’s address at the UCC’s 2007 General Synod. The IRS is accusing the UCC of engaging in “political activities.” I believe the “political activities” are on the other foot. The UCC General Synod was in June of 2007, celebrating that denomination’s 50th Anniversary. It is only now fully nine months later, when Senator Obama has become the front-runner in the race for President, that this investigation is launched. Further, the IRS did not contact the UCC or communicate with them while coming to this decision. I was present when Senator Obama gave this speech at General Synod (along with 10,000 of my closest church friends and neighbors). There were no campaign buttons, signs, electioneering or other such politically related activities. Indeed, the UCC leadership took care to instruct the assembled about the fact that this was a faith event and we were welcoming a member of our church to talk to us about his personal faith in the public square. It was an extraordinary speech. Pundits and competing candidates have criticized Senator Obama for being more about words than deeds. This is, of course, just political noise, but it is true that some words are more effective than others. This speech was an insightful, even luminous glimpse into the fundamental human dilemma of the search for meaning and purpose in life. We may have to go back to Lincoln to find such a weaving of transcendent themes of meaning and purpose in the search for how we want to live as Americans. What is truly innovative in this speech by Obama and what makes it such an incredible model for how we engage the public square with our faith without violating the separation of church and state, is that he never collapses his faith in Jesus Christ into a narrow path to salvation; instead, he reaches out from the power of his faith in God to the universal human striving for meaning in a world where poverty and injustice threaten to drive us down and out into despair and nothingness. People want “a narrative arc to their lives” Obama said. The narrative structure of the speech was to take the audience with him as he went from his conversion to a personal faith in Jesus Christ to the broad theme of meaning and purpose in human life. He started talking about his work as a community organizer and his work with older church folk who confronted him about being more an observer of faith, than a believer. He decided he’d better find a community of faith. So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn't suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works. If anyone could think that’s engaging in “political activities” than I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Obama went on to say what I think is the truly innovative part of how he relates his faith to public service, not only in his own life, but also in the larger American journey. But my journey is part of a larger journey – one shared by all who've ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It's a journey that takes us back to our nation's founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party and helped bring an Empire to its knees. The temptation to empire is the temptation to persecute freedom, especially religious freedom, rather than respect and honor it. It is now another UCC church, the national United Church of Christ, that is standing up for individual freedom, especially the right to religious expression free of government persecution. Read the full text of the speech and all the relevant documents by going to the UCC website and judge for yourself. The “narrative arc” of this speech tracks the “narrative arc” of how we as Americans respect our Constitution and also passionately engage in public service as a higher calling. There is true irony in the IRS investigating the UCC for the presentation of a speech that may go down in history as one of the most profound articulations of how we as Americans live into transcendent meaning and purpose through our free, democratic institutions. Truly that is ironic. And sad.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/
116
0.222222
0.222222
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2008/02/kosovo_taiwan.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2008/02/kosovo_taiwan.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008030119
The Current Discussion: Are the U.S. and Europe right to recognize Kosovo and continue to poke Russia with a stick? I'm very glad the U.S. and Europe have regained some guts in international politics and recognized Kosovo. It's the right thing to do even though Russia may understandably feel being poked with a stick. I could only wish the U.S. and Europe would have the same courage to poke a stick to another big power in order to support another independence-seeking smaller nation. But I share with the sentiment in this editorial from Taiwan's Liberty Times that the island state won't be able to follow Kosovo's footsteps anytime soon. In fact, Taiwan has already extended it recognition towards Kosovo but Pristina has yet to reciprocate Taipei. Kosovo poses a dilemma for China. If Beijing is to recognize Pristina, the Chinese communists worry that it would set another precedent for Taipei's cause. If China is to make life more difficult for Kosovo, there's a chance for Pristina to establish ties with Beijing's enemy at the end of the day. Without the support from the U.S., Kosovo would not have been able to become independent. In the same vein, Taiwan won't be able to formalize its independence without the support from the U.S. Washington has just done a right thing in Europe. Washington should follow suit in Asia. Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question. More Posts About: China , Kosovo , Taiwan
Kin-ming Liu at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/
14.55
0.45
0.55
low
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/measuring_progress_by_the_kora.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/measuring_progress_by_the_kora.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008030119
We take for granted the idea of progress in America. It's rooted in the collective narrative, and comes with a healthy sense of entitlement, responsibility and pride. But Afghanistan's progress has been fleeting over the past 50 years, and in its absence, the country’s own history has become a more provisional affair. Whether it’s Karzai’s government presenting itself as a restoration of the benign period under the former monarchy, or the Taliban’s insistence that they are the heirs to the Soviet jihad, all sides dip selectively into the past, often giving the eerie impression that instead of progress, history is repeating itself. Amid this historical confusion, Islam offers a rare sense of continuity to Afghanistan’s faithful. As Mullah Saiqal, an Islamic history professor at Kabul University, put it bluntly to me: “The past is a mess, and we could do with forgetting several decades.” “If we want history, we should turn to the Koran. We don’t want to go back to the time of the prophet like the Taliban. We want to live with our faith in the present,” said Saiqal, who has a bushy white beard, rheumy eyes, and a habit of lacing his Dari with formal Arabic. He was imprisoned for two years under the Taliban for a failed uprising he had supported. For Saiqal, Islamic history is a powerful mix of historical reality and an ideal world, where the Prophet’s code of governance and personal behavior form a direct link between the past and the present. His views are not unusual among the many conservatives in Afghanistan, and reflect a deep skepticism about the role of government that’s common across the Middle East. Those with more liberal views sometimes argue that the pull of Islam to a glorified past is one reason why Middle Eastern governments have failed to develop modern national histories that positively re-enforce good governance and civic responsibility. It’s an argument that certainly resonates with Western beliefs in the need for separation of church from state. But on the other, the Middle East’s recent history of government corruption and ill-judged warfare has done little to endear it to theorists like Saiqal. “Islam is about progress, but it’s in a different sense than in the West. For Muslims, progress is about deeper connection with God and following his will. Of course, we also want the other type of progress like roads and schools,” he said, “but I believe we can have both.”
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
27.235294
0.411765
0.411765
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700967.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700967.html
Bernanke Signals Rate Cuts On Concern About Economy
2008030119
Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee about the risk that the housing market will get even worse than anticipated, that the labor market will soften more or that credit will become even less available than it is now. "The risks to this outlook remain to the downside," he said in a semiannual report to Congress on the state of the economy. He repeated language from previous public comments that Fed policymakers "will act in a timely manner as needed to support growth and to provide adequate insurance against downside risks." Translation: We are ready to continue cutting interest rates to try to prevent a dangerous downward spiral in the economy. "He held pretty close to his script," said Scott Anderson, a senior economist at Wells Fargo. "He didn't say the word recession, but if you read between the lines, all this talk about further downside risk is dealing with the risk we may already be in one." Bernanke's testimony was the clearest indication yet that a rush of bad news on the inflation front -- both consumer and wholesale prices rose more in January than expected -- has not deterred the Fed from the most aggressive campaign of interest rate cuts in decades. The central bank has cut the federal funds rate, which it controls directly, by 1.25 percentage points in 2008 and 2.25 percentage points since September. Futures markets are pricing in a high likelihood of a half-percentage point rate cut at the Fed's March 18 policymaking meeting. The expectation of further rate cuts drove down the value of the dollar, whose value against the euro hit a new low. A euro cost $1.51 yesterday. Underscoring the softening in the economy, the Commerce Department yesterday said that orders for big-ticket durable goods, a leading indicator of where the economy is heading, fell 5.3 percent in January, more than expected. New-home sales fell 2.8 percent in January, the department reported, also more than analysts had forecast. Bernanke expressed more explicit concern about inflation than he did in testimony to the Senate two weeks ago. He and his Fed colleagues project that the most likely scenario is that inflation will come down this year, as food and energy prices level off on world commodity markets. Bernanke acknowledged that there are rising risks that projection will prove wrong. He said that "the further increases in the prices of energy and other commodities in recent weeks, together with the latest data on consumer prices, suggest slightly greater upside risks to the projections of both overall and core inflation than we saw last month." The Fed puts considerable importance on inflation expectations; if consumers and businesses expect prices to keep rising rapidly, it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Recently, indicators from the bond market show that investors' expectations of inflation over the coming years have been creeping up. "Should high rates of overall inflation persist, the possibility also exists that inflation expectations could become less well anchored," Bernanke said, acknowledging this psychological dynamic. Bernanke resisted taking a position in a hot debate in Congress over whether to allow bankruptcy courts to redefine terms of mortgages on primary residences. Democratic proponents say it would make it possible for many Americans to avoid foreclosure by having a judge redefine mortgage terms. Republican opponents, including the Bush administration, say this would interfere with existing contracts and would make lenders less willing to offer mortgages, raising rates for everyone. "I think it would help some people," Bernanke said. "On the other hand, it would probably lead to concern about the value of existing mortgages and, probably, higher interest rates for mortgages in the future. And so it's a very difficult trade-off." While committee members tried to gain Bernanke's seal of approval for various pet policies, he generally avoided giving it. They took a largely deferential tone to Bernanke. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said this unconventional economic downturn -- rooted in the housing market, not in an overhang of business inventories -- makes Bernanke's job tougher. Frank went out of his way to avoid putting words in Bernanke's mouth, however. "I don't want to impute to you the view that we're in a recession because I'm not going to be responsible for the nervous people at the stock market who overreact when you twitch your nose," Frank said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke came to Capitol Hill yesterday during a swirl of new evidence that the economy is getting weaker and inflation is on the rise. But his message was the same as it has been since the beginning of the year: His foremost concern is the slumping economy, and more...
14.655172
0.689655
0.896552
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603351.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603351.html
Door Could Open To Class Actions
2008030119
The case is alarming Wall Street's biggest banks, which could bear the hefty cost of reimbursing all mortgage interest, closing costs and broker fees to groups of homeowners who uncover even minor mistakes in their loan documents. After a federal judge in Milwaukee ruled last year that the Wisconsin couple had been deceived and other borrowers could join their suit, Chevy Chase Bank appealed to the circuit court in Chicago. Kevin Demet, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said a decision by the appeals court is imminent, though others involved in the case said it could be a matter of weeks. "It's one of the most important cases for the mortgage industry right now," said Louis Pizante, chief executive of Mavent, which provides consumer protection law services to major lenders. "The case was somewhat interesting a couple years ago when it started, but its ramifications and impact have completely changed given the current environment." In recent years, home lending has boomed. But standards loosened at many mortgage firms and led to a rise of abuses, in particular predatory practices. Now, record numbers of people are finding themselves with loans that are more than they can afford and many want out. Estimates vary widely on the number of homeowners who could benefit from the case. Those who have refinanced or hold a home equity loan are already eligible for a refund, while others can get monetary damages. The court's ruling won't change this. But by allowing plaintiffs to file class-action suits, the ruling would make it much easier and more affordable for groups of homeowners to get that relief, several lawyers and mortgage analysts said. Dozens of class-action homeowner lawsuits have been filed in California and elsewhere against the nation's largest banks. The success of these claims could turn on the decision in the Chevy Chase case. In its court filings, Chevy Chase said it would be "irreparably harmed" if the class-action lawsuits are allowed. About 7,000 borrowers have received loans from the bank similar to that of the Wisconsin plaintiffs. "It's critical for the industry because if you allow class actions . . . in theory you could have thousands of people in a class and you could have enormous amounts of damages for the industry," said Thomas H. McCormick, vice president and general counsel for Chevy Chase. The law states that even a minuscule violation by a lender can lead to a mortgage cancellation, or rescission. For example, if the annual percentage rate calculation is off by one-eighth of a percent between preliminary and final loan documents or if a monthly payment schedule does not conform precisely to federal guidelines, some borrowers could get a refund for all they have paid to live in their homes for years. They would have to pay back the entire amount of the loan, but they could then seek a new mortgage on better terms. According to the inspector general for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 83 percent of federally supervised banks that issued loans at the height of the housing boom in 2005 have been cited for "significant compliance violations." Lending abuses were more frequent among the tens of thousands of state-regulated banks and thrifts, such as the now-bankrupt New Century Financial, industry analysts said. But few homeowners have been successful in getting their loans canceled. Most people are unaware they have this right, consumer advocates said. Others have found the process too arduous and expensive, often requiring long legal battles. Chevy Chase said it negotiated two mortgage cancellations all of last year.
A federal appeals court is nearing a decision on a battle between Chevy Chase Bank and a Wisconsin couple that could for the first time enable homeowners across the country to band together in class-action lawsuits against mortgage firms and get their loans canceled.
14.510638
0.808511
1.87234
low
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603056.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603056.html
Cuomo Near Deal On Home Appraisals
2008030119
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is in advanced negotiations with housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a deal designed to stamp out conflicts of interest that have produced inflated mortgage appraisals, according to officials involved in the talks. At its core, the deal would bar lending companies that sell loans to Fannie and Freddie from using preferred or internal appraisers who may be subject to pressure to overvalue properties. The deal would establish a "home valuation protection code" to set standards on compensation and independence issues, and it would create an institute with a separate board of directors to monitor complaints from consumers and appraisers, according to documents described to The Washington Post by a source not authorized to speak publicly about the issues. If the agreement takes hold, Fannie and Freddie would no longer purchase mortgages from lenders who fail to abide by the standards, a powerful economic force that could influence the entire housing landscape. A representative for Cuomo said yesterday that no agreement had been reached, raising the possibility that both sides could end up in court. Cuomo has clashed with federal authorities in recent months over the scope of his authority to investigate and prosecute malfeasance in the housing sector. "At the end of the process, we will either have agreements or we will take other appropriate action," spokesman Jeffrey Lerner said. "This office prefers to pursue cooperative resolutions before litigating, and that is what we are doing here." Cuomo has been investigating the causes of overvalued home appraisals for nearly a year, after issuing subpoenas to the Washington area home finance companies in an effort to discern how widespread the problem had become. An agreement with Fannie and Freddie could be viewed within the industry and among regulators as a gold standard that would drive other lenders to follow suit and clean up abuses in the sector. The talks came to a head Monday, when officials from the companies met on the 25th floor of Cuomo's office in Manhattan. The companies' regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, raised concerns yesterday afternoon about whether other federal banking overseers had been consulted about how the process would work, giving the parties pause and producing a delay, according to people briefed on the talks who have not been authorized to speak publicly. Cuomo, a former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, agreed to give the companies a short amount of time to consider their options before deciding whether to proceed with cases against Fannie, Freddie and at least one other mortgage lender that a source identified as Countrywide Financial. A spokeswoman for the Calabasas, Calif., company did not return calls yesterday. Last year Cuomo sued eAppraiseIT, a unit of real estate conglomerate First American, which is fighting charges that it affixed overvalued price tags on properties under pressure from one of its largest clients, Washington Mutual. WaMu said it has conducted an investigation and found "no systematic effort to inflate appraisals." At a news conference last year involving that case, Cuomo called appraisals the "foundation of the entire housing system." Inflating appraisal values can pollute the entire process, making it more difficult for buyers to resell their properties and causing investors to lose money when the mortgage loans based on shoddy appraisals prove riskier than anticipated. "It's very important to stress that accurate appraisals are crucial to Freddie Mac's effective credit risk management as well as to the long-term health and success of home buyers," said David Palombi, a spokesman for McLean-based Freddie Mac. "We continue to cooperate fully with the attorney general, and it's been a productive discussion." Amy Bonitatibus, a spokeswoman for District-based Fannie Mae, declined to comment on the negotiations or the presence of chief executive Daniel H. Mudd, who traveled to New York yesterday for the four-hour meeting. Stefanie Mullin, a spokeswoman for OFHEO, said the agency is involved in the discussions and is working to "reach a constructive approach." The proposed agreement, which could take hold as early as September, is "an attempt to restore stability to one piece of the market that isn't working," said Howard Glaser, a District-based housing consultant who has represented Fannie and Freddie and who worked alongside Cuomo at HUD. "Anything that encourages an independent appraisal process I think is a good thing for the public," said Terry Dunkin of the Appraisal Institute, the largest professional organization for home appraisers. "Continued diligence on this is the order of the day." Faulty appraisals have been the focus of legislative and administrative interest in recent months. The House of Representatives approved a subprime mortgage lending bill that includes proposals to prohibit coercion of appraisers. The entire Senate has not acted. The Federal Reserve Board, meanwhile, proposed new rules in December to protect consumers against inflated appraisals and improve mortgage lending practices.
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is in advanced negotiations with housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a deal designed to stamp out conflicts of interest that have produced inflated mortgage appraisals, according to officials involved in the talks.
20.711111
1
45
medium
high
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/winners_and_losers_the_democra.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/winners_and_losers_the_democra.html
Winners and Losers: The Democratic Debate
2008030119
Last night's set-to between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama was the liveliest of the three one-on-one debates between the two Democratic presidential candidates. While there were some fireworks, it was by no means the brawl that many people expected, given Clinton's need to knock Obama off his stride before the March 4 primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont. The Fix watched closely last night, and without further ado, here's our take on the debate's winners and losers: Barack Obama: The key for Obama last night was to make no news. While he veered dangerously close to doing so with his semi-tepid condemnation of Louis Farrakhan, he was able to clean up the potential mess by using Clinton's emphasis on the difference between "rejecting" and "denouncing" as a foil. He also managed to fudge it well enough on the Russia question -- although, as Chuck Todd of NBC noted, Obama appeared to purposely defer to Clinton when it came to naming the next president of the country. Overall, it was the weakest of Obama's three debate performances since the race narrowed to a contest between him and Clinton, but he did enough right to make it a draw. Tie goes to the frontrunner. Matt Drudge: Within the first ten minutes of the debate, Drudge's name was mentioned by moderator Brian Williams in a question about a photo of Obama in traditional Somali clothing. "Matt Drudge, on his Web site, said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign," said Williams. Talk about your free publicity. We know there are a lot of Drudge haters out there, but can you imagine another Web site -- with the possible exception of the Huffington Post -- meriting a mention in a nationally televised political debate? VIDEO | Health Care Hits a Boiling Point Health Care: If viewers were looking to understand where Clinton and Obama agreed and disagreed on this key issue, they got a full helping of information last night. The first 20 minutes (or so) of the debate was dominated by a spirited -- though not mean spirited -- discussion over the best ways to ensure universal coverage. According to The Post's recent surveys in Texas and Ohio, health care is the dominant issues on the minds of voters, and it's one where the two candidates have genuine differences. National Journal: The wonky Washington magazine for which the Fix cut his teeth as a reporter is going to get a A LOT of press over the next eight months or so after rating Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007. It's already become a talking point for Republicans against Obama, and the magazine came up in the debate last night. The NJ sales force must be thrilled! Clinton's One-Liners: We thought about putting Clinton the candidate into the losers category, but it didn't feel right. Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's. But if these debates are about moments, Clinton might have doomed herself in the early going with an out-of-place rant about the alleged unfairness in the debate process that concluded with this line: "If anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow." Yeesh. That line, much like Clinton's "change you can Xerox" zinger in the Austin debate last week, fell noticeably flat and drew the derision of the crowd. Clinton is at her best when she is drawing contrasts based on her deep knowledge on issues (health care being the most notable example). She is at her worst when she looks petty, and her most memorable one-liners from the last two debates have made her look just that. Gotcha questions: In a debate generally filled with tough-but-fair questions (tax returns, Farrakhan, NAFTA), the attempt to see whether Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place. (For the record, The Fix had NO idea it is Dmitri Medvedev.) Clinton managed to get out the name, although her "whatever" line afterward struck us as a bit strange. Did you wonder whether Obama knew the name? And would it have mattered? Should Russert have thrown a similar gotcha about a world leader at Obama? The Fix: Just to reiterate -- The Fix dinner was a half block of cheddar cheese and a a handful of chicken fingers. And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH! By Chris Cillizza | February 27, 2008; 12:27 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: For Clinton, What Defines a 'Win' on March 4? | Next: Begich Explores -- Another Senate Seat in Play? Add The Fix to Your Site ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm Posted by: pzke lacqw | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm Posted by: pzke lacqw | April 16, 2008 11:44 AM xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL] Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:42 AM xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL] Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:41 AM xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL] Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:40 AM fzik zoyg rxou ihvygomcj dnciptes hdqmyxnw rvguxq whudlf aqlyo Posted by: dstohq ahpqosgk | April 16, 2008 11:39 AM Posted by: uvmyoai odxskntj | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo Posted by: lfikzq jbdywu | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo Posted by: lfikzq jbdywu | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa Posted by: agevi fhtw | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa Posted by: agevi fhtw | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM qruzn adnl ycimq qdcjfil upmvzs xbgr hgeldip Posted by: ejzamr mfoygzae | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM Why would anyone listen to Drudge? He is an internet blog and he says whatever he feels like or thinks might be. In other words, he writes fiction. Posted by: katherine11 | February 29, 2008 1:29 PM JERUSALEM, Feb 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein, Middle East correspondent for WND.com. The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001. Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971. Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The AAAN in 2005 called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims." Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948. Posted by: brigittepj | February 28, 2008 2:14 PM Kansas 28 - you are incorrect. He did indeed make a POINT of bringing up part B when Hillary made the statement that all Medicare was a mandate. and svreader - this comment "I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House." Now, we all know you support Hillary and she is lucky to have such a loyal subject in you. I kind of don't know WHY you feel she would be the better candidate to beat John McCain. She supported the war, so did he. She goes into hystrionics - he is calm and cool. She has a sense of entitlement - McCain is as humble as they come. Every poll shows Obama beating McCain by more points than Hillary. McCain has had to answer one scandal a day since he became the frontrunner - his memory seems to be going and we are not all his "friends." He is old style politics at their most obvious, my friends. Personally, I can't WAIT to see McCain debate Obama. The big scary Republican "attack" machine was able to get at Kerry because Keery is a bit of a milqtoast. Obama is not even close to that. He thinks on his feet, he can remain cool under any given circumstance, he has inspired more than a million people to support his campaign with their hard earned dollars - do you really think this will suddenly change if he is the nominee? Suddenly the Republicans will unite, even though they are coming out to vote only 1/3 as often as Democrats are? If you really care about our country, let's not lift up John McCain. He would be a continuation of the crap we've been getting for 8 years...my friends. Support Hillary - but please stop bashing Senatior Obama. You are helping no one's cause. And the same goes for Obama supporters - time to think of the general election and turn your venom toward McCain! But with the respect he is due - if we lose respect for either candidate, we lose respect for ourselves. We can disagree - with respct. That's the tone President Obama will bring to our country. Posted by: sheridan1 | February 28, 2008 1:43 PM mahllville is wrong. Obama said "Medicare is not mandatory." He made no mention of part B. He probably does not know the difference since he will never have to rely on it. Posted by: Kansas28 | February 28, 2008 12:32 PM I'm still suprised The Fixx isn't CC's favorite group (thoguh before I met my wife, I really didn't think they were anyone's favorite group...) Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 28, 2008 11:10 AM chadibuins, On the Obama foreign policy, I think you are referring to vaidyatk and not me. However, I'll will be glad to put my two cents in. I think that Obama does try to have it both ways (pragmatic pacifist vs reluctant warrior). Your contention that "if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out" is something that is typically Obama and part of the problem that many, including myself, have with him. Bush pursued diplomacy (not as much as some would have liked), had a plan to get in, he had a plan to get out (admittedly a poor one), and the majority of Americans and politicians did not think it was "dumb" at the time. The problem is that most of this argument is based on hindsight. To his credit he brought forth concerns about the war at the beginning that turned out to have a lot merit. But guessing right does not a foreign policy make. I think that his answer was actually OK but I still have serious doubts on his foreign policy, and the Russia question only cast more doubts for me. Posted by: dave | February 28, 2008 10:02 AM Hillary's claims that she is the most qualified candidate for President, with 35 years of experience. I guess this is what one politely refers to as skirting the truth. Whether it is hidden behind skirts or pantsuits, Hillary offers embellished accounts of her experience when she was "co-president" in the W/H with Bill. Vague references to travel to foreign countries, secrecy, documents, escorts, all that intrigue sounds impressive. The bare truth, however, is that she has no validation to support her claims. Eight years as First Lady, visiting many countries, all expenses paid by taxpayers. No real objectives stated and met, no converts to democracy, no improvements in foreign policy, no real deals revealed. Well......then! No nothing, no vote, no belief, no way, no kidding. Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 28, 2008 1:48 AM woo hoo, chris cillizza like wilco!!!!!! Posted by: jakemartinco | February 28, 2008 12:54 AM I'm not sure what debate you were watching last night Chris. I watched it with both Obama and Hillary supporters and we all agreed (some reluctantly) it was Obama's hands down. You said it was Obama's worst of the one on one debates - BUT we didn't get that at all. The other two hardly count because they were both Dem love-fests. This was the sharpest and testiest of the one on ones, and Obama was on point. Obama scored on her on her strongest issue: healthcare (pointing out her style in the 90s and why she failed in the past on healthcare and pointing out that people buy medicare part B because it works not because its forced upon them), and he really looked solid on NAFTA, whereas she looked like a hypocrite (Russert read her numerous quotes of her's supporting NAFTA from 1996-2004). Obama has always trumped Clinton on the Iraq War, but this time he managed to get in his very sensible position that the USA should go after terrorists in Pakistan when their government is unwilling or unable to hit those targets (he had missed getting that point in the last 2 debates). So Obama beat her on issues of National Security. He was briefly on the ropes when trying to distance himself from Farrakahn (why cant that guy stay out of this crap - there's no place for his kind of bigoted political views), but Clinton over played that too and allowed Obama to recover and get the clear point of rejection across. And ofcourse Clinton lost big when whining about questions and debate formats. She keeps saying how tough she is, but looked very thin-skinned last night. I'm sometimes troubled that some 'insider' reporters cover this race far closer then it really is - and you're take, Chris, plays into that. Let's face it, if any other candidate, other then Hillary, had lost 11 straight contests by an average of a 33% margin - the media would be all over that person and already calling the race over. As for last nights debate: I think the majority of viewers concluded what my friends and I did: Obama won hands down. Posted by: the964kid | February 28, 2008 12:08 AM ...And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH! Stop complaining that you have to cover politics at night when it's your job to cover politics at night. Think of the reporter on the Omaha World Herald who would love to have that job. Posted by: jr3 | February 27, 2008 11:23 PM dave--I agree with you on the Russia thing--especially about Biden. However, I disagree with you about Obama having Bush's war strategy. Obama has said repeatedly he is against the strategy that got us into the war. He has a halthy desire for diplomacy over war--but as Commander In Chief and an intelligent, experienced man--he recognizes military action is not a blanket "no". As much as I may prefer pacifism and diplomacy--I also recognize that may not always be possible and Mr Obama does as well. What he is saying is that he cannot and will not say absolutely NO, we will never use military force to stop violence or protect american interests in Iraq--however, as he has said over and over--if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out. I don't see why Obama gets a bad wrap for being practical. Its like because he wants to inspire and bring back hope he gets blasted from one extreme and then when he gives an honest pragmatic and practical answer (and not a "political" one--he gets blasted from teh other. If Obama is always constantly viewed through these "extreme" lenses, he will always be seen as how they choose to see him. HOWEVER, if you actually read all of what he says and in context--you'll find that, while he may not convince you to agree with his arguments, that he is extremely common sense and not on an ideological swing. AND ALSO--The Obama's released Michelle's thesis to politico.com--it wasn't unearthed or dug up--they voluntarily sent it to be available to the public. Again, not a typical political thing to do--which is why I think people are having trouble with him. But I love that he encourages questioning, discourse and examination--it makes him more honest, our process more open and our country more stable. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 11:11 PM Senator Hillary Clinton is really the one with all speeches and no results. She claims that she has been fighting for poor people for 35 years. According to U.S. Census bureau, Arkansas state ranked 49th in people with college degree (almost deadlast) and 6th in people living below poverty level. The truth is: technology boom did far more for the good economy of the 90's than Bill Clinton. For example, Mark Cuban became a billonaire within 4 years! Billary have nothing to do with it. Bill and Hillary need to come up with a different line of attack apart from experience. Obama actually have more total legislative experiece (Illinois and Washington) than Hillary. Billary have talked about experience so much, you will think Senator Obama just graduated from college in 2007 instead of 20 years ago. Posted by: PeterinDallas | February 27, 2008 11:02 PM CC - "the attempt to see whether Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place." Explain to me how the Russian question was a gotcha one when Clinton sits on the following committees: Senate Armed Services Committee and the following subcommittees: Airland Emerging Threats and Capabilities Readiness and Management Support and Obama sits on: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs I would bet $100 Biden would have gotten it easily. So should those two given their responsibilities in the Senate. The National Journal ranking has already been "debunked". It turns out according to some gradings that Obama ranks as only the 10th most liberal senator. That said, I think he still has issues with the "one of the ten, if the the most liberal senators" line. You can bet you will hear this from now until election day. This will be one of the main prongs of the Republicans. And it will work to some extent chiefly because it is true. Posted by: dave | February 27, 2008 10:45 PM Obama made a huge blunder yesterday. He showed his macho instincts by saying that he will send the troops back to Iraq if Al Queda becomes a threat there. He has always been saying that we are spending billions and billions of dollars in the Iraq war, and it is time for our troops to return so we can invest the money to solve the problems right here at home. Al Queda is fighting the American troops there right now. So this is Obama's anti-war passion from 2002. He has his one foot in Iraq to protect, his other foot is withdrawing. This is the worst possible policy. It is now readily apparent that he can't defend his anti-war stand without a macho posture to fight Al Qeda. In other words his policy is a reactionary policy. If he is willing to defend American interests in Iraq by sending the troops back after a withdrawal, his policy is not very much different from that of George Bush and McCain. So Obama does not promise us that he will withdrw from Iraq if Al Qeda starts ascending in Iraq. He also proposes a surge of American troops in Afghanistan. If he withdraws from Iraq, and reinforces our troops in Afghanistan, Al Qeda will simply move over to Iraq. Then he will send the troops back to Iraq. And, he might even send our troops to Pakistan, as he says repeatedly. It seems to me that Obama may create a bigger mess than George Bush did if he follows through on what he said during the debates. If anybody had any illusion about a steadfast Obama against war, he has completely dispelled it. Hillary has a real opening here because of the mess he is proposing as his Iraq and its neighbourhood strategy. It is clear to me that he can't take the heat on his Iraq withdrawal plan without a promise to send them back if Al Qeda becomes a threat there. So Hillary's point about Obama's weak credentials on the national security front is already finding resonance in his highly reactionary and controversial strategies to solve the Iraq problem. I think that this issue needs a more serious debate, and Obama will come apart defending his posture. After criticizing Hillary all these weeks on her bad judgment on Iraq, I am realizing for the first time that Obama may create a bigger mess because he has no judgment at all. Posted by: vaidyatk | February 27, 2008 10:42 PM svreader: Please stop referring to "we." It's not just presumptuous, but wrong, and downright creepy, like McCain every time he says "my friends." You hate Obama; fine, that's your privilege; but if he is the nominee, no real Democrat will vote against him. Posted by: lydgate | February 27, 2008 10:39 PM JSnapper: any Clinton supporter who would even think of voting for McCain, given their dramatic disagreements on virtually every issue, would have to be either utterly incapable of understanding even the simplest issues, or so childish that they would, as the expression goes, cut off their nose to spite their face. If you are either that dim or that petty -- although I am guessing that you are actually a Republican troll -- go right ahead and vote for McCain. No one cares, and no one is going to silence themselves to please you. Posted by: lydgate | February 27, 2008 10:24 PM About that "pledge"? Obama is taking public money--from over one million contributors. Who are they if not the public? As for who won--I used to support Clinton, but Obama has won me over more and more since Iowa as Clinton has flailed to define herself and her campaign. Last night she sounded scattered, anxious, and contemptuous. He seemed calm, presidential, and relaxed. All of which will help him debate McCain who is hot-tempered and a blusterer. Today's exchange about Iraq in which Obama clearly bested McCain is a sign of things to come: he won't let a news cycle pass before striking back, and he won't let himself be lectured by the man whose experience has had him wrong on Iraq from beginning to end. Posted by: LevRaphael | February 27, 2008 10:00 PM Trace--I don't think that comment is accurate? Obama doesn't know how many countries are in the world and "would he ask Putin and Ahmadinajad (spelling grace)to play nice" I think he is very clear in his explanations--stating that America needs diplomacy and we need to consult with these leaders for the betterment of our country and the world--hardly makes him ignorant of reality--his opinions are being caricatured. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 9:39 PM Meanwhile, back in dreamland Obama will be cleaning Washington with the help of the Teamsters! LOL Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:36 PM MSNBC is make fox look like good journalism. Russert is a shadow of the man he was- he is very comfortable with his connections now and the gotcha' stuff was very smug. Matthews is literally out of his mind. The non-sequetors and randomness and general commentary from outer-space is very tired. They are all quite anti-Hillary and fairly mysogynst- calling out her change as a woman thing but not pointing out the several times Obama accused her of whining or used other female-stereotype oriented words. Whatever. I guess for now it's just c-span and the BBC. Posted by: nycLeon | February 27, 2008 9:30 PM Would Obama ask Putin and Ahmadinayed to be nice because he wants to build a better world? Please, don't full yourselves ... Obama doesn't even know how many countries are in the world or who and where are the bad guys! Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:30 PM Both looked pretty good in the debate, with the notable exception of an answer apiece. Obama is more than happy to tell us what he will do as the presumptive president, but refuses to tell us what he would do as the presumptive nominee (possibly reneging on his pledge regarding public financing.) Weak, and disappointing. Clinton tells us she'd love to show us her tax return, but doggone it, she's just so goldarn busy right now. My tax return is in my home office, bottom right drawer; I could fax it anywhere in the world in 10 minutes (and that's without a staff of hundreds at my disposal.) Beyond weak, Hillary--insulting. We all know why Obama is obfuscating...but we don't know Clinton's motive. The more she stonewalls, the less credibility she can command. Posted by: jd5024 | February 27, 2008 9:29 PM Obama is no World Class Leader ... he is just a simple guy doing OK in the emptiness of American politics. After George Bush, anybody could apply for the job and America would take him, and that is really scary! Can you picture Obama during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can: he would wet his pants! Obama is no John F. Kennedy ... the bad guys would have him for dessert along with the free World and I don't care if he likes to wear Halloween outfits or how he spells his name! Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:22 PM Wonderfully stated and intelligently delivered. And I am glad you actually posted what Michelle said about her "blackness". Earlier someone said she "discovered her blackness"; but MO actually says as you quoted, she became more aware of her blackness. That is a huge difference! HUGE! Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 9:17 PM Does the writer of this actually watch all of the debate or does he just parrot what is the cliche narrative of the press that Obama is articulate and Clinton 'dwarfs' him on policy issues? In what way did she do that this time? Specific examples, please. Posted by: fake1 | February 27, 2008 9:08 PM The odd thing about conservatives who bash Michelle Obama's thesis, then deride Barack Obama somehow as an affirmative action candidate, I wonder if they've actually read Michelle's thesis. It seems to me to be an inherently anti-liberal ivory tower, anti-affirmative action passage, the kind that conservatives normally cheer. Her point is that at a place so supposedly enlightened by liberalism as Princeton, she was never more aware of her 'blackness' there than anywhere else due to the treatment of her good, enlightened liberal peers. She sees the current status quo (circa 1985) leading to a white society, a black society, and a subgroup that has been integrated into white society that can never fully integrate, the same basic argument made by Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. I suppose their objection is she recommends more effective solutions to bridge the gaps, rather than ignore the problem and telling people to just deal with it as the heroes of the right do. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." Read it through links from the Politico Here: Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 27, 2008 8:58 PM I was halfway watching and listering to one of the Obama networks last night. I heard Olberman ask Russard about one of Obama's answer to a question. He showed Russard a paper with a pre-written answer and asked Russart why Obama didn,t use that answer. I was watching by then. Russard laughed and said that was the answer he expected. Something sounds wrong here. I surely misheard it. Did they asked pre-arranged question written answers. Some one clear this up for me , please. Thanks. Posted by: bnw173 | February 27, 2008 8:36 PM The problem with the debate about health care is that Mrs. Clinton thinks everyone should have "Universal Health Care" paid for by the government. Her solution is a top down, force fed to the people approach. As was pointed out last night, it didn't get approved because she and some others put it together, saying, in essence, "This is what you need; this is what it is. My way is the only way." Even today, not everybody wants Universal Health care by the government. Sure, many want it but want it to be free to them. They want the young to pay for it. They want the rich to pay for it. They want the working class to pay for it....Essentially, everybody pays but the person receiving the free hospital bed. Hillary wants this because she thinks it will give her votes. Hillary and Bill already have a superior health plan paid for by We, the People. To me, national defense is a much more important topic to discuss in a debate than "Universal Health care." If you don't have a country, you will be a slave to some other country without any freedoms. Health care is a foregone luxury in slave camps and prisons. Think about it. Mrs. Clinton's priorities are mis-directed, I think. Posted by: ArmyVet | February 27, 2008 8:25 PM When the "right" female candidate comes along, she will capture the imagination and votes of the people. I don't believe Hilary Clinton is the "right" female. Her grasp of the issues may impress, but her willingness to throw the kitchen sink at her opponent shows us more than she realizes. There are many things we want and expect of a president: a grasp of the issues, toughness, intelligence, absolute finesse, the ability to distinguish right from wrong and openess, to name a few. I don't see a balanced mix of these traits in Senator Clinton. Failing to congratulate or acknowledge her opponent's win on multiple occassions tells us she won't know how to act on the world stage--regardless of her claims of experience. Her actions as a candidate have defined her lack of presidential (even vice-presidential)qualities. She hasn't been discriminated against. She is down because of her own actions. The "right" female will exhibit many presidential qualities that Senator Clinton cannot. Posted by: jmccowan | February 27, 2008 8:10 PM Well, Hillary should not whine. She was the one who claimed and said she is ready on Day One. When she whined that she always got to answer the questions first what does it mean? Does it mean she is not ready to answer the questions? That's paradoxical. If she is ready on Day One she should not be afraid to answer any questions posed to her by anyone. This playing the victim card shows her weakness. By the way, the press didn't not give Obama a pass. Posted by: sbgamatt | February 27, 2008 8:04 PM I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House. ---------------------------------- If you think more Republicans would turn out to oppose Obama than to oppose Hillary, than you've just about lost all perspective. No other Dem. would fire up the Republican base than would Hillary. Posted by: smc91 | February 27, 2008 8:03 PM WOW! I feel sideswiped :) my only choices are FOZ or Moonbat? I thank the both of you for your respective comments. that being said: Zouk said:"I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man." I thought that too, I thought he was just misguided by his "mentors" and religious base. But no more--he has done more to erode the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the power of legislature, independent judiciary, seperation of powers, checks and balances than any other president. I do not believe he is evil, but I do believe he is responsible for his own actions and dribble. I agree with the poster that said we should not be worrying about what the other guy is doing--we should be concentrating on why Dems are best suited to lead America at this point. Obama is HARDLY an ineffective candidate; nor is he completely "media-made". He is speaking to Americans as Americans. And as far as Michelle Obama as First Lady--as the husband of a strong, smart, independent African-American woman--I think America could really use a dose of that! Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 7:43 PM I had actually sent an email to CNN during the previous debate noting that the questions were all going to Hillary first. It was a problem because when Barak would just reply that he agreed with Hillary or that Hillary pretty well covered the topic, you didn't know whether to take him at face value or whether he didn't have a clue about the subject. I was glad to see more questions going to him first. Posted by: llong51 | February 27, 2008 7:37 PM "there are more and more people like me out there." for sure, you're out there. Posted by: bhotchkin | February 27, 2008 7:34 PM Obamaites should be more worried about Michelle Obama's Princeton papers rather than Hillary's tax returns. They will come out sooner or later before general election. Just watch, they will be more controversial than Professor Lani Guinier's papers on race. Then, America has to decide - do we really want Michelle Obama as our First Lady in the White House! Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM I thought I had stumbled upon a Barbara Walters Special, then I realized it was "the debate." Way to turn out serious TV, and hard-hitting questions viewers want answers to. I wish Ralph Nader had been the moderator...oh yeah. No tip-toe-through-the-tulips for neither of them. Posted by: mellowyellow | February 27, 2008 7:08 PM I think that's right. Somehow, the hardcore Obamaites are seeing a substantial candidate instead of an exalted abstraction. Lucky for him. Not so lucky for the Democratic Party, however. The one thing that will pump life back into the deflated Republican Part is an ineffective Democratic president. Why do we always blow it? Posted by: BrawleyHall | February 27, 2008 6:59 PM I like your style. It is difficult to tell some people that drinking the "kool-aid" or following blindly because someone sounds great are not the best things to do. I agree with you, eyes will open only after we see President McCain elected. Posted by: jphoward18 | February 27, 2008 6:51 PM Rush Limbaugh is openly trying to help Hillary. He has deduced, correctly, that she would be a much easier opponent than Obama. Indeed, the GOP would not need to expend one ounce of energy shoring up the base! Posted by: gmundenat | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. He was busy, didn't you hear??? busy, busy, busy. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM I see Obama's "dodging" but for me, it's more important to see what they're dodging than whether they're dodging or not. Obama effectively dodges the ridiculous attacks on his background, and I think rightly so. The media and his opponents will never stop attacking him for his middle name, his drug use, his loose affiliation with Muslim leaders, etc. and to avoid those confrontations is in his best interest because the country has nothing to gain by him addressing them. But on the other hand, when he was asked in the debate to reveal a time he made a mistake, he voluntarily offered a point in a Congressional hearing where he should have made a different choice than what he actually did. Time and time again, Obama owns up to the things he should own. He never dodges his real responsibilities to Americans. And Clinton supporters routinely point out that Obama will not handle the evil/slimy/etc. GOP machine, but look at how efficiently he has overturned her lead in almost every single state in the country. Even in the states he lost, he was climbing closer and closer to her in all of the polls right up to the primary date. I honestly believe that if California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. were 2-3 weeks later, he would have overtaken her lead, just like in the other states he's won. He did this not by engaging in mudslinging but by largely ignoring it. This appeals immensely to moderates and nonpartisans who are tired of the hostile nature of politics lately. I am included in that bunch. I love that he doesn't demonize people, even after they demonize and mock him. Every time Clinton or McCain slings mud at him and mocks his abilities, he ignores it and his poll ratings go up. It's not a coincidence - the GOP machine is not going to take him down because he's not going to fight with it. He'll stay on message, just like he has for six months now, and he'll beat them with ease. Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:49 PM This article sounds like straight out of Sen. Hillary's spin-room. Every person I have spoken to so far that watched the debate acknowledges, that except for a couple of cases (Russia is one), Sen. Obama came on top fair and square. There is one piece, everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring - Tim Russert setting the record straight on NAFTA. Even with her record setting spin capabilities, Sen. Clinton got caught red-handed there. Not one mention anywhere. I would have liked someone to ask the question about Sen. Clinton's much vaunted health-care plan - If she could not get it done the first time, what makes her think she can get it done this time around? How can she claim to be so ready on day one and all prepared to take on challenges from day one when she has been outsmarted at every move of a primary election by someone who in her words - "is not ready"? Frankly, if her claim was true, she wouldn't be having this debate. If that is construed as a proof of management capabilities - I have to admit, Sen. Clinton is treading very thin ice. Finally yesterday's debate: I saw a calm, collected future president who understands the gravity of his position; behaves with due respect and does not indulge in senseless street-fighting which doesn't help anything anyways. I also saw a Senator, who does not know how to admit mistakes and move on. If she doesn't understand that she has a share in the war in Iraq with her vote; she has to accept her share of the burden of thousands of our troops lost in combat or disabled for life. She has to accept her share of responsibility for extremists taking over Iraq. How difficult is it to say I was wrong on NAFTA, I realize it and I am willing to do everything to reverse its devastating effect on American families? Instead, she keeps spinning - Russert did the right thing there; though I think no one dared to report anything on it - too scared of another volley of the unfair media Posted by: amitavar | February 27, 2008 6:44 PM I don't see how testing the future president's basic knowledge of a very important foreign leader, who they will have to deal with substantially in the future, is in any way out of place. At least Clinton answered the question, while Obama did his usual dance of confirming Hillary's answer. On top of that, he answered the question by criticizing Bush's relationship with Putin which was an obvious escape from the original question at hand. Posted by: wistambouli | February 27, 2008 6:43 PM The perceptions of "who won" the debate is really an exercise in futility. Hardcore Obamaites can't possibly see their candidate's skillful use of dodging. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton mastered the debate with ease. It was a slam dunk. As a supporter of Hillary, I would have not advised her to use the pillow one-liner because Obamites have no sense of humor. I liked the sarcasm, but comments like that only tend to boost her appearance as being haughty. Aside from that, it was clear that Obama is no better prepared to be president now than he was when he entered the race. He gives semi-credible answers to very serious questions, but he never really quite hammers the answer like Clinton. We're in a heap of trouble if he becomes the nominee. His charisma won't get him through the debates with McCain. The Grand Orator will be toast once the Republican Mean Slime Machine gets into gear. And we'll be stuck with an old hard right hawk that will make Bush look like the Dalai Lama. Posted by: robcmor | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM "Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius!" Pretty funny to hear a "small government conservative" praising a president for "managing the economy" LOL Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:26 PM Why does McCain run from debating Huckabee? Posted by: valskeet | February 27, 2008 6:22 PM Oh, and thanks for the lengthy explanation of why you support Bush. It answers a lot of questions, that's for sure. Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius! Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:20 PM thecrisis: Chad appears to be smart enough to figure out that he'll be much better off when he moves from the FOZ (friends of zouk) camp to the moonbat camp. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:19 PM I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water. Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:18 PM I am surprised that the debates did not bring up the subject that will be the centerpiece of the republican party,s platform! " The SURGE has won the war in Iraq!" Of course this view is a lot of crap! And I am wondering why the democrat candidates had not expounded on this false premise! Ethnic cleansing and the tribal war lords with their separatist militias have won the war in Iraq! The few thousand american troops that performed the surge accomplished very little in that vastly populated area of the world! It was like a mosquito biting a elephant The government forces of Iraq with american backing have no real power or much influence within Iraq, or the entire region of the middle east! Only in the minds of Bush and his neo-cons does the irrational thinking that we are winning the war in Iraq exists! The millions of moderates that lived in Iraq and fled to other parts of the world Know the truth! The reason there is a decline in violence in Iraq is because ethnic cleansing was so successful! Tribalism won! Nationalism lost! Iraq is not a nation! Posted by: mac1maniac | February 27, 2008 6:18 PM Let me amend that last paragraph. I voted Libertarian my whole life. but they have left me with their isolationsism in the new reality. I never voted for a Democrat in my life. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:17 PM I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water. Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:17 PM I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water. Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:16 PM "don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor." Sit. Roll over. Good zouk. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:15 PM crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest. Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN. I was actually referring to factual content, not stories. _____________ Zouk, just like a good little piggy you keep making up reality to suit your case. Sure, you just coincidentally picked the one recent poll that has McCain up by 2 points, while coincidentally ignoring a dozen others that have Obama ahead. That's what I thought. And I don't have to find polls to fit my "preconceived notions" (learn to spell, by the way). They're all over the news and more importantly, all over realclearpolitics.com, a conservative-leaning site with every statistically valid poll that has ever taken place. Besides, a preconceived notion would be one that is conceived BEFORE (hence the prefix "pre") evidence comes out to push you either direction. If there weren't a dozen polls putting Obama ahead of McCain, it wouldn't be my conceived notion. "Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN." You are a complete idiot. In fact I don't know if I've ever met anyone more ignorant than you. It's not an opinion, this is empirical fact. You have statistically proven via the amount of idiotic comments you've posted here that mathematically speaking, you are a total moron. I never read DailyKos. I've watched Olbermann probably three times in the past year. I didn't even mention Kos or MSNBC in the list of media I frequent. Yet you randomly make things up to suit your libelous comments. That's what I figured you'd do. I also find it amusing that you, just like a good Republican, are constantly acting as if you are some authoritative figure, assuming people should desire your praise. You reflect this in your removal of the "moonbat" label for Chad. I am glad you think I'm a moonbat because: 1. It doesn't make any sense, and further proves your idiocy, 2. Any approval from you would suggest I've either lost an immense quantity of brain cells or you were struck by lightning and realized how dull you truly are, only to yield to my supremacy. You are the dictionary definition of a half-wit and to-date, have not posted one useful, thoughtful or factual thing in any comment section on this site. Instead, you dodge/avoid any valid points and respond with things like "that sounds like something a lib moonbat would say," somehow thinking that is actually a response. Next time I shoot something your way that contradicts one of your inane points, try to address it or concede the point before you attempt to drool all over another topic. Thanks kiddo. I love having you around here because you give me both a punching bag and a daily source of amusement at which I can heartily laugh. Keep up your drooling nonsense, please, and I'll keep reading! Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:15 PM I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, illustrated that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water. Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM Vegas girl and others. Just to set the record straight, I was never really a strong supporter of GW Bush. I was tepid about his election in 2000 but considered him better than gore or Kerry. I supported his strong stance on terror and war and military issues and thought the tax cuts were appropriate. but little else did I admire or support. the pharmacy give away was wrong, the federal education interference was improper. the spending was abhorent. the signing of Mccain Feingold was criminally neglegent. but the voters seemed to want more big government intervention and spending at the time and he fulfilled those promises made during the campaign, despite my personal misgivings. I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man with none of the evil tendencies and biased accusations made by the left. He has a tough job and has done it admirably, trying to consider the nation and not himself in his actions. I know many Libs will disagree but their evidence is very thin indeed, mostly hollow accusations of some nefarious conspiracy which is pretty much laughable. He may not be the best President we ever had but he is certainly not the worst either. On the national defense, he stood strong, despite polls and pressure and handled the economy well. I think history will treat him favorably after a time. the iraq war seems to be winding down and other concerns will emerge soon to occupy the 24 hour talkers. I only started voting R when my personal business interests favored it. and they are directly linked to it by monthly pay and individual representatives so there is strong motivation to win elections on my part, although not at the executive branch. but the majority pays much better. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM svreader: "When people turn against Obama its going to be very strong, because nothing is worse than finding out that someone who you thought was "magical" is just human." Do you know what the Obama magic really is? It's a simple little thing that all true leaders master called EMPOWERMENT. He makes people believe in THEMSELVES. He doesn't say, "I will do this"; rather he says, "Together, we can do this" and "We need to work together to build a new America." People are buying into it because they are affirmed as part of the solution and start to believe in themselves. Yes, Ok, we get it will be "new" in the superficial sense of the first black US president. And after say 100 days or so, after the novelty of that wears off, is there anything Obama's loyal electorate, from liberal to moderate Democrats to Independents and some moderate conservatives, agrees on besides maybe getting out of Iraq ? In other words, please what vision SPECIFICALLY is he going to motivate us all to work in harmony to achieve ?? How many voters does Obama think are going to be willing to pay higher taxes or submit to legal amnesty for illegal immigrants because their guy is SO cool and can give a real good rehearsed speech ? These are fundamentally opposing agendas for the nation, not misunderstandings to be negotiated away around a big table. Maybe it's just the foil of Clinton that makes people either too desperate for unity or ignorant of political realities to see this charade for what it is right now. But when McCain presents himself as a very reasonable, respectable alternative the sand under Obama's feet is going to start caving. Posted by: elayman | February 27, 2008 6:04 PM don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:02 PM Posted by: PollM | February 27, 2008 5:58 PM Can you take your own advice, drooler? Of course you can't. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 5:55 PM (Mea culpa on the second post, people. Thought the first one didn't go through.) But I'll say it again: Russert is a disgrace! No more debates for him, please! Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:54 PM Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 05:40 PM As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric. Here is one example that I can readily cite concerning Excelon and mandated reports of leaks from the Nuclear Energy Industry. It was a compromise which has drawn a lot of criticism of him. It wasn't hard to find. Excelon? Senator Obama got it passed through the senate environment committee. It was the Republican dominated 109th Congress that put up one road block after another. Even the committee forced numerous revisions before passing it to the full senate. Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush's nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks. But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory. Considering the GOP stranglehold on that Senate, it was. You can see his cooperative style in his Campaign that he seeks consensus, not confrontation. Something else he continues to take criticism for. Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM "Obama was stronger, correcting Clinton's point about medicare (he noted Medicare Part B is not mandatory)" The only problem is that it is mandatory. I recall when they first instituted it because for the first time since I lost my leg in VN I complained bitterly about it. It comes directly out of the check every month even though I have catastrophic care through the VA. In many ways I didn't mind paying it because I thought it helped the SS problem a bit. But I did disagree with it being mandatory. I notice too that although Williams said HRC would be able to pick up where they left off "for the commercial breaks - ads from the coal industry" he didn't go back when they started airing again. I noticed too that BO deftly did not answer the question from Williams regarding Rev. Wright(sp) and LF instead going to another subject. I do not know why the comments section has me as Anonymous I am RetCombatVet Posted by: RetCombatVet | February 27, 2008 5:51 PM If there was any true loser at yesterday, it's that self-righteous windbag, Tim Russert. Memo to NBC: Please, for the love of democracy and God, find someone with some integrity to ask questions other than this partisan hack who is a disgrace to his profession. And to kingofzouk: You're actually whining about the GOP being mistreated by the Clintons? Don't make me laugh. The GOP is plenty capable of nastiness and vindictive behavior; the Bush administration has shown that in spades -- and its actions over the last 7 years make the Clintons look tame, in comparison. I will say this, though: You ask some good questions of Obama, but the same also apply to John "I Love Lobbyists and War" McCain. Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:51 PM You can't be serious, beltway Chris. Obama's WEAKEST of the three? What debate spin koolaid were you sipping. I am the first to say these contrived affairs have not been his strength, but last night he was calm, authoritative, self-assured, humane and very funny. Hillary seemed tense and/or furious most all of the night. She is outraged that the young usurper is going to take the crown that Bill promised her. As for substantive;y dwarfing Obama, are you serious. Again, last night Obama showed himself in command knowledgeable and thorough. Stop regurgitating the MSM spin, you sallow Beltway bottom-feeder, and have an original thought for a change. Posted by: mike38 | February 27, 2008 5:45 PM If there was any loser at yesterday's debate, it's that windbag Tim Russet. Please, NBC: Find something with some integrity to host these things. Russert is a hack, and a disgrace to his profession. And Matt Drudge is a loser, no matter what. He's a scumbag, hypocrite and vulture. He will never be a winner. And is kingofzouk actually criticizing Bush? Hell has truly frozen over. And zouk, you actually asked some good questions about Obama; those also apply to John McCain, as well. Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:45 PM I couldn't disagree with you more. Was it Clinton who shut down the government in 95? Was it Clinton who appointed Ken Starr to various fruitless investigations? It was the Republicans who hated Clinton, and the media to an extent, and were the mean spirited ones in the 1990s. Hillary is not Bill Clinton. To suggest that Hillary cannot reach across the aisle, and offer to work with Republicans is just plain wrong. She can and will reach across the aisle just like Obama. As to being so polarizing to certain Republicans that she can't work with them leads to these conclusions. First, it's the Republicans fault for being so hate filled as to not work with her, and she should not be held for their sins. If there are Republicans that absolutely won't work with Hillary, you can bet that they will find reasons not to work with Obama, because they are simply mean, nasty, partisans. But if they don't exist, there is no problem for Hllary to reach across the aisle, her and Obama are equals in that regard. Also, everyone forgets that the Dems control Congress now, and will likely extend their majorities in 08. Lot's of legislation will get passed by either Hillary or Obama on that alone. Posted by: camasca | February 27, 2008 5:44 PM I don't think these "debates" are really win or lose propositions. If there was a winner though, it was Obama, for being calm and level-headed. I thought when Clinton was asked about her freaking out on camera and she said that she was "just having fun", it pretty much made her the loser of the evening. As far as her "wonkery", I have always found Mr. Obama's answers more interesting. And yes, Clinton has made a huge mistake in these last few debates of trying to be humorous. Her jokes are really bad and I doubt she points with anyone but the most die hard supporters. Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 27, 2008 5:44 PM Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes how do you know this? he doesn't have a record of doing this ( or much of a record to go on in anything) and his views have a long way to come rightward to be acceptable to Repubs. this seems to be an empty promise. I would like to hear the first thing he will compromise on if elected? Or are all the rest of us expected to make all the compromises? GW Bush was supposed to be a uniter not a divider and he actually had a history of doing this in TX, but utterly failed at this in DC. what makes anyone realistically think Obama will be different? I really would like to see some actual evidence or arguments. As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:40 PM Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 05:30 PM Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation. I agree. Her campaign has been getting more and more desperate ever since her loss in Iowa. It wasn't supposed to be a real contest. After Super Tuesday, the nomination was to be hers. Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:37 PM "I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. " Mikeb - it takes guts to admit that, especially after your long term stance on this issue. but didn't you notice that big screeen TVS are now 600, down from 4000. everyone is happy and guess who is building them. We move up the food chain and export wage labor. It may be locally tough at times, but in aggregate, it benefits everyone. trade is always a good in capitalism, free trade that is, meaning unencumbered. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:32 PM I have to admit that I find the obsession with the "evil Republican attack/slime/whatever machine" to be quite amusing. Worrying so much about what the other side is going to do is the first step toward losing. The same has happened to Kerry against Bush. It has now been happening to Clinton against Obama. When you focus primarily on what the other guy is doing, you aren't focused on what you should be doing. And if the Dems keep running scared from what the GOP might do, they'll keep losing, no matter who the candidate is. For preemption, I will state that I am an Independent who would be okay with either Obama or McCain. Posted by: J | February 27, 2008 5:31 PM It amazes me how the Clinton supporters cannot accept the fact that the CHANGE American voters want is a president reaching across the aisle and bringing both Republicans and Democrats together to get needed legislation passed instead of the Clinton way which is demonizing the opposition, and being totally divisive and polarizing. Hating the Republicans is not going to get our nations business accomplished, and this whining about Russert and the moderators sounds like a sports fan's paranoia that the referees in a game were always penalizing their team. Poor losers make those kind of accusations. Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes and his message is uplifting and working together whereas Clinton's message is tearing your opponent apart. If what you want in a president is a mean, nasty and divisive person then vote for Clinton. However, our nation deserves better and progress never comes from mean spirited, nasty, divisive politics. Posted by: amitai | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM "I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan." I think it was a legitimate question. Not a high point, but not beyond bounds. The low point i think was when Hillary used it to take a cheap shot at Barack. When she began responding, for a moment I thought she was actually going to throw Barack a lifeline, using an example from her own experience... and my estimation of her began to lift...then, bam!, instead of throwing him a life line, she threw him under the bus....it was at that moment that I definitively knew that I could never vote for her as President. Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :) Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 05:13 PM you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 05:04 PM his only meaning in life, like his paramoor drindl, is found in insults and random accusations, seldom over two lines of hate and no susbstance whatsoever. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:27 PM Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 5:26 PM rosalala2000, that was an excellent and insightful post. I expect that someone will call you shrieking, hysterical, overly-emotional and desperate any moment now. Posted by: hitpoints | February 27, 2008 5:26 PM Posted by: kingofzouk | "I would be inclined to guess that the NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate." I am not quite sure where you get your facts from but you seem to be misinformed. The NYTimes strongly backs New York Senator Clinton they just do not care for her divisive tactics. quote: As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.) :end quote http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=2 I think the mistake some people make about press coverage of the two candidates is due to the fact that Hillary Clinton brings a lot of baggage with her that ensures she will get a lot of scrutiny. It is Bill and Hillary's legacy. I do not think that the press is holding Obama to some lower 'affirmative action' standard. As a matter of fact, Hillary got a lot of positive press coverage early in the Primary Cycle. Senators Biden and Dodd have *much* more experience than does Senator Clinton and the press practically ignored them. She draws attention to herself and she shouldn't complain when she gets it. IMO Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:24 PM rpy - I am not whining about the media, it is the clintons. I simply agree with them and feel their pain since the Rs have been treated this way for years. to deny it is an issue or a topic of conversation is to be ignorant of current affairs. I am weighing in with some analysis as to why this is happening and when did it start to occur to Dems. I am also asking questions about the results. If the voters are surprised by positions of the Obama administration after the election, what will you claim then? It is the duty of the voter and the press to flush out expectations, something they have not done with Obama and is now becoming a joke as a result. It isn't a funny joke unless it has a ring of truth to it. do you realy want another Carter administration through ignorance or subterfuge? Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:23 PM I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan. Farakhan endorsed Obama so what? He votes and he has a constituency. This could have been a signal to his constituency to vote for Obama. For Russet and other to try to imply that there is a link between Obama and Farakhan was disgusting. We have to end this race-bating. Then they are bringing in Rev. Wright a respected Minister who comes to the DC area at least once a year and speaks at Rankin Chapel at Howard University. Cant they see that Barrack is not going for it and its not working. Get used to it . He will take the White House. Posted by: Carprin | February 27, 2008 5:17 PM I don't get your point about Hillary Clinton's knowledge dwarfing Barack Obama's at all. At some point while Barack Obama was speaking, Hillary looked at him as if though "Wow, this guy really has a good point. I wish I said something like that." Barack Obama was far more statemanlike and succeeded in making Hillary look like a whining, spoiled brat. I'm being convinced more and more of Barack Obama's ability. Posted by: pelohoki | February 27, 2008 5:16 PM I am saying OBAMA is NOT the affirmative action candidate. He is not going to win by having a "hand-up"--he is going to win by his own superior campaigning skills and intelligence. But his success IS an advertisement that the program must have some merit. really have to run--back in a few. :) Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:16 PM It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 04:50 PM People who truly are honest don't have to assemble a press conference to apologize for their honesty. Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 5:15 PM "nor is it not about" should have been nor is it about in my post above Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :) Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:13 PM I am not sure I understand you. You are saying Affirmative Action is doing good, and we should have more of it, but at the same time, you seem to be saying how Affirmative Action actually works is not good. Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 5:13 PM freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady. It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them. I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is. I'm leaving work now--I look forward to reading more posts when I get home. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:10 PM freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady. It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them. I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is. I'm leaving work now--look forwrad to reading more posts when I get home. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:09 PM MSNBC should change their name to OBAMA NETWORK, they are as biased as FOX is. Both barack and michelle have said "her supporters will vote for us, but our supporters may not vote for her". Not exactly correct and kind of threatening too. So he won't run again if he loses, no loss. Obama should be called "Easy Rider" because he has had the easiest ride from the press of any candidate ever. If barack loses to McCain, guess who will come back to beat him in 2012? The same woman who would beat him in 2008! All you obamaites can sit back and continue to enjoy life in Fantasyland, before returning to the real world where everyone else lives. Posted by: adfxb | February 27, 2008 5:09 PM chad - all fine accomplishments and noble but Presidential - I hardly think so. and that is pretty much all there is to it. I look forward to him making another attempt in 8 or 12 years. If the Dems will have him. they normally don't offer second chances like the Rs do. and I remove you from the category of moonbat and congratulate you on shedding the jackel methods. I will probably never agree with you on much but I respect someone who can hold up their end in an empasioned way without going off the deep end like all the drindls and spectators. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:08 PM ********************** rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction. ********************** You know what happens when you assume, zouk? ********************** Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear? ********************** What you are saying is clear, and it is wrong. Voters, on the whole, vote based on who they want to be president. Winning the electoral college *is* the only standard there is. For the primaries, winning enough delegates *is* the only standard there is. Whining about the media is like whining about officiating in a game: it just makes you look small. Posted by: rpy1 | February 27, 2008 5:07 PM "Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?" What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States? Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 04:53 PM ___________________________________________ John Kennedy didn't have to answer for the positions of the Catholic Church. Mitt Romney didn't have to answer for the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ/Latter-Day Saints. Obama should not have to answer for the positions of his Church. He need only answer for what he has said, and what he has done. Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 5:06 PM Do you know for a fact yellowribbon is a white person? I mean you don't need to be white to not want to see Michelle "Omarosa" Obama in the White House. Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 5:06 PM you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 5:04 PM "What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?" What about all those pesky catholic churches that swear allegiance to the Pope in Rome? Or those Anglicans who still can't let go of mother England? Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 5:03 PM At my home, we thought Russert was brtilliant. Now, I'm well known for oppossing NAFTA and free trade, and Russert's question to the candidates would have had me screaming* "YES! Abandon NAFTA". I think Russert was actually trying to trap one or both candidates into saying just that. But... then, he had the opposing view that free teade has enriched certain parts of the economy. I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. Wehn Russert as boring in on Cltinon with regards to her earlier enthusiastic support of NAFTA she actually appeared to squirm. In the end, I liked the debate. One quick note, and you can believe me or not as you like, but we had two women as quests over last night. Both are independents and Christian's (Evalgelical's yet!) and have no idea as to whom they will vote for in November. Now, I purposefully didn't say one thing before or during the debate or analysis (because my wife said she would kill me). But, after the debate, both women said they found Cltinon to be mean and stated they didn't like her. Both were favorably impressed by Obama. Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 27, 2008 5:01 PM rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction. I clearly said that the press is treating him differently. It seems the voters are doing it too. It has nothing to do with white or male in my personal view although there may be some justification along those lines as to why the press or the voters treat him that way. I would be inclined to guess that the NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate. Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear? the question I asked was does he need to be treated differently because of some past injustice he is still suffering and is the result a less qualified potential nominee? My take is no and yes. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:00 PM KJBuie writes "You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first? " The question is whether that was a positive moment for Sen Clinton, or a negative one. It seems that the line did not work for her - particularly the part about asking if Sen Obama needs a pillow. Frankly, its comical that this is now a main theme in her campaign - what's the next step, to tour with Tina Fey & have an opening monologue about how Sen Clinton is a '[b]itch that gets things done!' Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 4:59 PM Zouk--thanks for the reasoned reply (somewhat) however he is not being treated differently or better by the press--after a year long campaign, he is just in the lead in teh last stretch--he has been a better campaigner and has made the argument he is the better candidate--at this point. As far as what he has accomplished he has a law degree, he had several offers, he waa successful lawyer and constitutional law professor; he was an ardent community activist who helped people and he was elected to the state legislature, addressed the DNC and is running for President--I think that is something to be proud of--definitely an accomplishment--I haven't done any of that. Freedom Fighter--when I said he should be a walking advertisement--I meant that if having Affirmative Action gives us more highly educated, successful minorities--then that is proof it is working to do what it is supposed to do--level the playing field. I do not mean he is the Affirmative Action candidate and that he is not succeeding on his own merits. I mean he is proof that AA is working--apart from his candidacy. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM lumi21us says: that internet video of her saying "I'm in it to win it". What the hell does that mean? "We are the people we've been waiting for!" What the heck does THAT mean? I'm one of her "base women" and my vote is not and has never been a "sympathy" vote. I support Senator Clinton because I think she is the best candidate for the job. I don't characterize Obama's supporters motivations, please don't mischaracterize mine. Posted by: citizenjane | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM "I'll try to work on it while I wait for that hateful, American-loathing, neo-Black Panther shrew to voice something other than her utter contempt for our country and the fellow citizens and proponents of affimative action who helped get her where she is today." good to hear you are working on it. i'm not thrilled with some of Michelle Obama's statements either, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, esp since I do not doubt her core patriotism. I do admire her honesty and resistance to be PC. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM Posted by: amyuw05 | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM the venom that spews out about hillary clinton is shameful and much like the narrow mindedness of militant islam and their despise for americans. it is based in ignorance and fear. for what? misogyny? personal grudges? did she do a bad job as a senator? because this is the way that strong women are treated? focus on who you want and why. it's beyond me how this hate is acceptable. is this who we are? is this the kind of change and unity you people think obama is talking about? are you the people that want to be leaders and upstanding americans? is this how he's going to sit down and talk with the palestinians or the pakistanis or the republicans? if he should get the nomination, the same machine will be at work to rip him apart too. she's a democrat and that makes her part of the team to make change from what we've had for the last 7 years. stop being so disrespectful and tasteless. enough. I bet the majority of you didn't go out into the streets to protest the invasion in 2003! Posted by: rosalala2000 | February 27, 2008 4:55 PM "Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?" What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States? Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM You acknowledge that Hillary can argue substantive issues because of her "deep knowledge", yet she still loses the debate to Obama, who you admit had the worst performance yet. I'm confused. You argue that the "moments" are what determine who wins and who loses the debate. If that's true, what was Obama's "moment"? Lying low? His lack of knowledge of the substantive issues? I simply do not understand why it was out of place for Hillary to bring up the fact that she is always asked questions first. That's a conclusory statement,and obviously it's your opinion, which you're entitled to. But I am someone who believes it was the perfect time for Hillary to ask why she is always asked questions first, which has given Obama every opportunity to rebut. If the tables were turned you better believe Obama would bring it up. It was also the perfect time to talk about the SNL skit. That skit has been the most popular video on youtube since Saturday night... millions and millions of people have seen the skit, and agree with her that Obama is getting preferential treatment during the debates. I understand that you are an Obama supporter, so of course you would criticize anything that Hillary said. If she said that she had the cure for cancer during the debate, you would most likely argue that her comments were "out of place." I content that if SNL had done a skit about Obama this weekend, and it was popular on youtube, and he then brought it up during the debate you would be heralding him for being in touch with the people, having a great sense of humor, and being charming and witty. So give me a break, and don't tell me she lost the debate because she had a flattering skit done about her on SNL, and she had the guts to bring it up to the American people. You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first? At the beginning of your article you state that all Obama had to do to win the debate was lie low. Later you say that the winner of a debate is determined by who had the "moment". Which is it? If it's the latter, then Hillary's reference to the skit/being asked questions first was THE moment, and that's why she won (not to mention her "deep knowledge" of the substantive issues.) Posted by: KJBuie | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest. Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN. I was actually referring to factual content, not stories. Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:51 PM ********************* It is the press which is allowing this, not me. they are clearly holding him to a differtent standard than the other candidates. this is generally referred to as affirmative action although traditionally used in race based cases, this time it may be based on liberalism or some other metric. ********************* zouk, I guess I wasn't aware that there was a different number of delegates that Obama was expected to win than Clinton. Oh, you were just spouting off about affirmative action because Senators Obama and Clinton aren't white men? Gotcha. Good luck with that in November. Posted by: rpy1 | February 27, 2008 4:51 PM yellowribbon--your retort is disgusting. you should be ashamed. I suggest you actually go out and find someone of a different color or ethnicity and ask them to honestly tell you what their experiences and feelings are. It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified. Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:50 PM "If Affirmative Action can help us have more Obama's then he sould be a walking advertisement for its success. I believe he worked hard for what he has, regardless of how he got in--the point is he delivered when he got there." I think when people are saying BHO is an Affirmative Action candidate, they are saying he is being put on the fast track not based on his merits, accomplishments or qualifications, but based on his race. I am not sure how that can be considered a success. Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 4:48 PM mhallville was the first to astutely point out the peculiar habit of some pundits to say HRC policy knowledge and speak dwarfs Obama. For the author of this article to say this was Obama's worst debate? He performed better than the last one in my eyes. HRC is more forceful about getting her points across especially pertaining to health care but Obama comes off as having a good grasp of the
Chris Cillizza is the author of The Fix, a blog on national politics. Cillizza provides daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
452.1
0.875
1.325
high
medium
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/24/DI2008022402332.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/24/DI2008022402332.html
Broder on Politics
2008030119
Broder has written extensively about primaries, elections, special interests and the business of politics. His books include "Democracy Derailed: The Initiative Movement & the Power of Money," "Behind the Front Page: A Candid Look at How the News Is Made" and "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point." washingtonpost.com: For a Neighbor, a Worrisome Drama in Pakistan (Post, Nov. 8) Archive: David Broder discussion transcripts Boston: Thank you for your recent column on the delegate rules. I'm troubled both by the exclusion of Michigan and Florida and by their potential inclusion. In 1992, one Clinton campaign theme that struck a chord with me was an appeal to people who work hard and "play by the rules." If Michigan and Florida now included, it will be to the benefit of one candidate who somehow ended up winning states where no one else campaigned. And now she wants the exclusion rules changed. I don't like it -- it's not acceptable to me. But still, is there any possibility of a caucus or primary in those states so they can be included, but not to the benefit of the candidate who didn't play by the rules? washingtonpost.com: Four Rules That Could Be Decisive (Post, Feb. 21) David S. Broder: My apologies to everyone for being late signing on -- I had a glitch in my computer. The answer to your question is that there are many ways to accommodate Michigan and Florida, provided their inclusion does not change the outcome of the voting in all the other jurisdictions. They could be seated and withhold their votes, or agree to apportion them as the other delegates are apportioned. That would give them representation but not violate the rules. Canton, Ohio: Last night, Hillary referred to her experience "at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue." Why has the media allowed her to get away with implying that being first lady is analogous to an elected office? David S. Broder: It is not an elected office, but she is literally correct in saying that she has had experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, so I see no problem. Ferguson, Mo.: David, I am pretty sure I recall you as a panelist on "Meet the Press" in the 1960s. I have to wonder, after so many years of service, do you still love politics? Does it take a fight like this year's to revive you, or are you always "pumped"? Thanks. David S. Broder: Yes, I still love politics, and this campaign has been the most stimulating since my first in 1960. Thanks for asking. The Cartoon...: from The Washington Post showing Obama walking on water is very interesting. History has shown that it is dangerous to perceive someone the way people perceive Obama. It is like love at first sight -- with exploding chemistry. But we all know that often leads to healthy long term relationships when the fireworks are over and the object of our affection stand there, with flaws and all. The media is having love-at-first-sight with Obama. It does not mean that he isn't great -- perhaps he is the best candidate -- but we'll see how far this love affair goes if and when he is in power and does not have to convince anyone to elect him. washingtonpost.com: Tom Toles Cartoon (washingtonpost.com, Feb. 27) David S. Broder: Experience teaches that campaigns can provide insights into candidates, but rarely expose all the facets of their minds and personalities that become important in the presidency. That was certainly the case for me with George W. Bush, and I expect it would be the case if and when Senator Obama reached the Oval Office. Long Island, N.Y.: Mr. Broder, thanks for taking time today for this chat. About a year ago you wrote a column where you stated: "It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case." I think it's safe to say that this comeback has yet to materialize. In your opinion, what has transpired over the last 12-plus months where Bush has failed to capitalize on any opportunity to garner any significant increase in support outside his high-20 percent core backers? David S. Broder: That was certainly one of my less astute observations. He has been less flexible in the past year than I expected after the 2006 election, and I think he continues to pay a price for his rigidity -- on the SCHIP program, for one example. Denver: Mr. Broder, do you think voters should be concerned at this point about details in the candidates' policy proposals (e.g., mandated insurance vs. non-mandate), or should we look for broader directions, and assume the details will work out after the election? David S. Broder: You make a good distinction. The debate about health insurance is not about details, however. Sen. Obama, by opposing a mandate, apparently has locked himself into a position that would have important implications for policy if he were to become president. The same thing is true about both senators' statements on NAFTA last night. But by and large, I think voters are wise to focus on the big questions of character and judgment and experience, rather than the policy fine points. Washington: While the possible presidency of Hillary Clinton would be groundbreaking in the U.S., women have led nations such as Canada, England, India, Argentina, Israel and even Pakistan. Has any other major nation had an ethnic minority serve as the head of state? I can only think of Peru. David S. Broder: I cannot think of another offhand. Portland, Ore.: The last really contentious primary I recall was the 1976 Reagan vs. Ford Republican contest. The Republican Party seemed pretty united to me in the general election, but Ford did dump Rockefeller in favor of Dole, which must have been a concession to the right. If Hillary pulls the rabbit out of the hat and wins, what will she have to do to unite the Democrats? Also, if Obama wins, what must he do to unite the party? It seems to me their positions on the issues are closer than Reagan's and Ford's were, but they'll need to reach out somehow. It also seems to me that Hillary will have the tougher task if she overcomes Obama's message of hope. David S. Broder: I think you are right in saying that the Democratic divisions have less to do with issue disagreements than with the differing constituencies the two candidates have attracted. Talking with Democratic governors last weekend when they were in town, they said Obama would have to revisit parts of the country where he had spent less time so far, and particularly cultivate women voters and Hispanics; Clinton would have work to do in the black community and with young people. But I don't see the Democrats as badly divided at this point. Princeton, N.J.: It is beyond me how you can say it is representation if the delegates are seated, but told how to vote. Do you realize that the Florida Democrats never wanted to move the date of their primary? That the Republican state legislature did it over the objections of the Democrats? That twice as many Democrats voted in the primary as ever before? That neither Obama nor Clinton campaigned in Florida, so the playing field was level? Why do you support letting the Republicans in Florida take votes away from the Democrats? Sound a bit familiar? David S. Broder: Excuse me, but no one put a gun to the head of the Florida Democratic Committee when it decided to accept the new primary date. They could have opted out, but did not. Atlanta: You wrote months ago that the specter of a co-presidency could potentially hurt Hillary Clinton. This seems to have been the case. Do you think the Clinton campaign really considered it, or were they convinced that Bill Clinton's popularity with Democrats ultimately made him a big plus? David S. Broder: Thank you for remembering that column. The Clinton campaign was convinced that he was a big asset; I think now perhaps they have second thoughts. Winnipeg, Canada: Do you recall a primary season in which the remaining field was so strong? By my assessment, three of the four left standing at this point have the ability to assume office and represent their constituency well without harming your nation in the process. And the fourth remaining candidate doesn't have a realistic chance at the nomination, majoring in miracles notwithstanding. When was the last time voters had this strong a matchup? David S. Broder: I don't know when the last such time was, but I agree with your assessment of the remaining candidates this year. And I would add that Mike Huckabee has been impressive in many ways. New York: David, is the intense lobbying for superdelegates still ongoing, despite Gore's suggestions that the uncommitted remain so until the convention? Or did that fall on deaf ears? Thanks. David S. Broder: There has been a bit of a lull in the wooing, pending Ohio and Texas, but I am sure it will resume in earnest if those states don't settle the contest. Well, thereisone sad example...:"Has any other major nation had an ethnic minority serve as the head of state?" South Africa. (I believe whites were an ethnic minority in terms of sheer numbers, no?) David S. Broder: Thank you for your good response. Cincinnati: I was astonished to hear former Republican Congressman Rob Portman speak affectionately of Bill Cunningham, the outrageous local radio talk show host, at yesterday's McCain rally in Cincinnati. This guy (Cunningham) is chronically out of control ... Cincinnati's answer to Ann Coulter. Did Portman hurt his chances for a possible vice presidential slot with McCain? P.S. We're not all crazies in Cincinnati! David S. Broder: I never had heard of Bill Cunningham until yesterday, but like you I was appalled to read about what Rob Portman had said of him. I am an admirer of Mr. Portman, and until now certainly considered him a potential vice presidential candidate. Bethesda, Md.: I realize this is waaaay hypothetical, but being too young to remember brokered conventions I am curious about the following scenario: Let's say Clinton bows out after Tuesday. In the five months between now and August, McCain and the GOP take on Obama full force, and with success (no matter whether it's a one-issue smoking gun or thousands of digs that expose weaknesses). Come early August, the national polls show a 20-point GOP lead. It is apparently a mathematical given that Obama cannot win the nomination solely via non-superdelegates. Do the superdelegates, sensing a landslide defeat if they go for Obama, resurrect the no-longer-in-the-game Clinton? Do they stick with Obama by virtue of him being the last man standing? Or do they find a third option? David S. Broder: You've laid out a lot of fascinating hypotheticals, but I have to confess, I'm not smart enough to know what the Democratic convention would do under those circumstances. My guess is that delegates would honor their candidate commitments and hope that the polls prove wrong, as they have done in the past. Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by about that margin at the time of the 1988 Democratic convention. Rochester, N.Y.: A little while ago you wrote a column (which I agreed with very much) where you criticized the moderators of the debates for focusing too much on superficial, gotcha type questions. Were you as disappointed as I was by Tim Russert dwelling on Louis Farrakhan so much last night? He has nothing to do with either campaign -- he's just a controversial figure that Russert tried to make hay of. Given the quality of the candidates and the importance of real issues, I found this unacceptable. What can be done to get this kind of thing out of the debate? Do we just need different moderators? David S. Broder: Overall I thought the questioning last night was very professional, but I agree with you on the Farrakhan question. Maybe, if we're lucky, we'll get Jim Lehrer again for the fall debates. Falls Church, Va.: How much foreign policy expertise did Bill Clinton have when he was elected in 1992? David S. Broder: Not a lot, but he had been a Rhodes Scholar and had traveled in Russia. Do you regard him as a role model or a cautionary example? Santa Fe, N.M.: Responding to the question about whether another ethnic minority served as head of state: Was not Egyptian President Sadat half-African? David S. Broder: I don't know the answer to that. Minneapolis: How many more times does McCain have to flip-flop or pander before the media decides he's no longer a "straight talker"? David S. Broder: Examples please; or was that just a rhetorical question to get it off your chest? Ashland, Mo.: You frequently interview voters. When you do, are they as informed as you expect? Do they have the same concerns as the media? To give this some context, Howard Kurtz notes the Ohio debate covered things people have heard a dozen times. Haven't most people not heard it at all at this stage? David S. Broder: Repetition is very useful in communicating information to voters, especially on complex policy like health care. I find voters very shrewd in sizing up candidates, but often more than a little vague on the fine points of policy. Ocala, Fla.: Your thoughts on the passing of William F. Buckley? David S. Broder: I had very few occasions for conversation with Mr. Buckley, but I loved his writing, and respected his role in launching the new era of conservatism. Straight Lobbyist Express?: Mr. Broder, most people could care less if Sen. McCain is or is not in bed with a comely young lobbyist. However, doesn't the "straight-talker" take a big hit from the news that the senator is so snuggled up with lobbyists in general? That he even allows one or more lobbyists to conduct his business from the campaign bus/plane? David S. Broder: Perhaps I have lived and worked too long in Washington, but in my book (and in my life and work), there is nothing remarkable or objectionable about having dealings with lobbyists. The key question is whether you are being influenced by then. I talk to lobbyists all the time, but I'd like to think I'm making independent judgments about the issues in which they are involved. Of course, I have never had to turn to them for campaign funds, and I think the scrutiny Sen. McCain and all other candidates receive on their dealings with lobbyists and contributors is vitally important. But "association" by itself does not determine the verdict on the propriety of their dealings. It is much more useful to look at the actions the candidate, or any other politician, has taken. Los Angeles: David, I just don't understand the hoopla about Obama wanting to meet with our enemies. Isn't that part of the president's job to resolve crises? Who causes crises ... isn't it your enemies most of the time? David S. Broder: I don't regard this as a top-line issue, but rather as a measure of the caution or boldness with which Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama would approach international affairs. It's a fair fight as to which quality you want to see in a president. Examples: Hey for a giant example lets go to the great moral question of our day (and one that as an American I ashamed we even are debating): McCain was against torture until he was for torture. He has played this song and dance a couple of times now, most recently two weeks ago when he voted against the CIA having to adopt the Army Field manual limits on torture. David S. Broder: You have to come up with a better example, in my opinion. As Sen. McCain has explained, he consistently has said that there are forms of interrogation allowable for the CIA beyond those in the Army manual, so long as they do not violate the Geneva Convention, which he and I both believe covers waterboarding. Washington: Last night it seemed weak that both Obama and Clinton spoke at length about renegotiating NAFTA and neither one thought to talk about assistance to the victims of NAFTA. People need retraining, job search assistance, health care for their families and education for their children. Why did both Democratic candidates not even think to remember the voters? David S. Broder: I was disturbed by the NAFTA discussion too, and agree with you that much more emphasis should be placed on effective help for displaced workers, rather than promising to renegotiate the agreement or withdraw from it. Burke, Va.: What do you think about today's vote on H.R. 5351, which proposes reallocating $18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies toward production-tax credits for renewable energy sources for a 10-year period? Oil companies are making record profits while we pay more than $3 a gallon, and they complain that the public should subsidize them instead of encouraging investment in renewable energy. David S. Broder: That makes sense to me. Farrakhan...: With all due respect, many American Jews are quite concerned with the association between Obama's church and Farrakhan and will not vote for him for that reason. Therefore I think it was a very important question that Tim Russert asked. I am not a huge fan of Russert, but I thought this and other questions he asked were good and important and reflected what was on people's minds. David S. Broder: If it offered comfort to hear Sen. Obama repeat his disdain for anti-Semitism, whatever the source, that is well and good -- but because his position was never in doubt, I am not sure it merited time on the last debate before the two big primaries. Washington: In 1964, Mississippi Democratic Party refused to follow the national party's rules on selecting delegates. Civil rights activists therefore formed the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and elected a slate of delegates in accordance with the National Committee's rules. This later created a great controversy at the 1964 Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, N.J. So I am wondering, when Florida and Michigan said they would not comply, why didn't others proclaim themselves the true Democratic Party of each respective state and hold primaries in accordance with the national committee's rules? David S. Broder: Your history is right; I remember well covering that fight at the Atlantic City convention. I can't tell you why the Michigan and Florida parties did not take that option, or whether it ever was considered. Ethnic minority as Head of state: The current Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh (he is a Sikh)! India also has had a Muslim as president (Abdul Kalam). David S. Broder: Thank you for those examples. This is an impressively informed group of people on today's chat. Re: McCain: You wrote: "Examples please (of McCain flip-flopping); or was that just a rhetorical question to get it off your chest?" Let me ask then: What do you think of him using possible public financing to secure a loan for his campaign and then backing out of public financing? Isn't that a bit of a flip-flop for someone who has made campaign finance reform his signature issue? I write as someone who voted for McCain in the 2000 primary because of his record on campaign finance reform. washingtonpost.com: Loans Could Paint McCain Into Corner (Post, Feb. 27) David S. Broder: As a nonlawyer, I have tried to understand the dispute between Sen. McCain and the FEC the best I can. He claims that he wanted to have the option of public financing for the primaries, but never signed up to use it. They say he cannot withdraw his request at this point. Because neither Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama ever considered accepting the limits that go with public financing, I can understand Sen. McCain's reluctance to be bound by them. I'm more concerned that both nominees take public financing and forego private money in the general election. Washington: It was encouraging to see McCain repudiate the "Barack Hussein Obama" silliness. Do you think that could portend a dignified general election? Can you imagine Hillary Clinton extending the same courtesy? David S. Broder: I think a McCain-Obama race would be on a high level, and yes, I can imagine Sen. Clinton doing the same thing. Williamsburg, Va.: Mr. Broder, do you and Thomas Boswell of the Post share a special kinship? Something struck me today that I should have long ago realized: You both have very similar, solid styles of analysis that often take advantage of insights gleaned from history. (It's no matter that one of you uses the history of baseball or golf and the other political history.) Thanks. David S. Broder: That is a wonderful compliment, in my book, because I am a huge fan of my colleague Tom Boswell. Thank you. New York: David, I've wondered why Clinton has taken the attack route during these critical days, instead of making a bold proposal -- like sending a universal health plan to Congress in her first 90 days, a "domestic surge" in the first 30 days to stimulate the economy, etc. I remember when Christie Todd Whitman, running behind incumbent New Jersey Gov. Jim Florio, promised a bold tax-cut plan at the 11th hour and won the governorship. Couldn't something like that have worked for Clinton? Thanks. David S. Broder: I don't fancy myself as a campaign strategist, but what you are saying makes sense to me. Minority heads of state: Many dictators are from the minority ethnic group (e.g., Saddam Hussein). So the question should be, has another state democratically elected a head of state from a minority ethnic group? (This still leaves Peru.) David S. Broder: Thank you for making that useful distinction. Northwest Washington: Question may be a little late, but who is running the Obama campaign? I see it's David Plouffe, who has an apparent background/history with Dick Gephardt? Is there more to him, or more folks in the mix? What is their background, prior campaign history, etc.? Maybe I need to give Obama more credit,because the history with Harkin and Gephardt do not bode well. Until these upcoming primaries it appears Obama's campaign has been free and clear of the traditional nitpicking and nasty innuendo that apparently is picking up. Whoever is running his campaign deserves some kudos! David S. Broder: I can't begin to answer your question fully in the time remaining, but I would note that the chief strategist has been David Axelrod, who played the same role in Sen. Obama's campaign for the Illinois Senate seat. Santa Fe, N.M.: Dave, the term "kitchen-sinking" has been used recently to describe the Clinton campaign's effort to come up with some criticism or other that will stick on Obama and help Sen. Clinton gain traction. What do you think of "kitchen-sinking" as a tactic at this point in the campaign? David S. Broder: I think the term is an exceptionally awkward one, and the tactic strikes me as unlikely to work. Brandywine, Md.: Egypt is an African country, and being African in an African country does not make him an ethnic minority. Sadat's Mother was from Nubia, which is a part of Egypt and also part Sudan. I am Egyptian, and Egyptians wouldn't call that being an ethnic minority! David S. Broder: I am learning a lot from all of you. Baltimore: Mr. Broder: Was the atmosphere really that tense at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast? From the reporting I have read, the Clinton folks did not really act like grownups with the members of the press, and even seemed to bicker among themselves. It does not bode well for her. David S. Broder: I sensed no tension at that breakfast, but the remarks of Sen. Clinton's press aide certainly did not go over well with the reporters at the table. Annandale, Va.: David -- Thanks for hosting this discussion. A couple of points that occurred to me during last night's debate. Firstly, since Harry Truman, there have been 14 presidential elections. Of those, the Democrats have have won five and the Republicans nine. Maybe this is evidence that the public hasn't wanted universal health care (at least in previous elections)? Maybe it's a loser issue for the Democrats? Secondly: In 1992, we had a choice between a candidate with an impressive and unmatched foreign affairs resume (a former U.N. Ambassador, CIA Administrator, vice president and incumbent) in George H.W. Bush, versus a governor from Arkansas with little or no foreign affairs experience in Bill Clinton. On Jan. 21, 1993, who was ready on "Day 1"? I don't remember it being a question in 1992, and, if it was, it certainly was not a deciding factor with the American electorate. Third point: Americans want a president who is presidential, and, I'm not sure that being sarcastic and playing the victim suits this role. And finally, while Sen. Clinton is extremely capable and qualified, I came away from this debate more convinced that if I had to hire one of them to work with, based on their resumes Sen. Clinton would be my first choice ... but that after interviewing both of them, I'd want to work with Sen. Obama. Sometimes personality and comfort outweigh the strength of one's resume. David S. Broder: Thanks for your good message. I would dissent on only one point -- the public appetite for health care coverage. I think that demand is real and is important to many people, and I don't think the electoral history of the past 14 contests in any way diminishes that palpable desire. This has to be my last response. Thank all of you for a very enjoyable session. 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.
126.804878
0.658537
1.097561
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701886.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701886.html
Congress Requests A Clemens Inquiry
2008030119
Several witnesses and other evidence contradicted Clemens's claims in a sworn deposition Feb. 5 and under oath Feb. 13 during a hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, committee chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and ranking member Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said in the letter, which was released yesterday. "We are not in a position to reach a definitive judgment as to whether Mr. Clemens lied to the committee," Waxman and Davis wrote. "Our only conclusion is that significant questions have been raised about Mr. Clemens's truthfulness and that further investigation by the Department of Justice is warranted." Clemens becomes the second professional baseball player referred this year by the committee to the Justice Department for an investigation into possible perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment if convicted. Houston Astros slugger Miguel Tejada also might have lied about his performance-enhancing drug use to the committee during sworn testimony in 2005, Waxman and Davis wrote to Mukasey in January. Mukasey received yesterday's letter and is reviewing it, Justice Department spokesman Paul Bresson said. The Tejada investigation, he said, was "ongoing." "Obviously, I am disappointed with this development, but Roger continues to stand tall," Lanny A. Breuer, one of Clemens's attorneys, said in a phone interview. "He has consistently said he has not used performance-enhancing drugs and he's going to continue, and we're going to continue, to fight to clear his name." Clemens, who is working with minor league pitchers at the Houston Astros' spring training complex in Kissimmee, Fla., declined to speak with reporters there. This month's hearing was the committee's third on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball since 2005. It was called after Clemens's former trainer, Brian McNamee, said he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone in a report on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball by former Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell that was released in December. After Clemens vehemently and repeatedly denied the charges in the report, Waxman invited Clemens and McNamee to testify. Mitchell's report also led to the referral of the Tejada case in mid-January as it contained copies of checks Tejada allegedly wrote for drug purchases. Though McNamee's credibility was called into question during the Feb. 13 hearing by several Republican members of the committee, he was not referred for an investigation, suggesting that the committee reached some level of comfort with his truthfulness. McNamee, a witness in a federal steroid investigation, told the committee he injected Clemens at least 38 times between 1998 and 2001 with human growth hormone and three different steroids: Winstrol, testosterone and nandrolone, according to an 18-page memorandum committee staff members prepared on Clemens's testimony that Waxman said "influenced" his decision to send yesterday's letter. The memorandum, which contains nine areas of inquiry that are analyzed in great detail, also was released yesterday. The memorandum said McNamee's claims were "bolstered" by testimony from ballplayers Chuck Knoblauch and Andy Pettitte, who verified McNamee's charges about their drug use.
The Justice Department should investigate whether pitching great Roger Clemens committed perjury when he told a congressional committee two weeks ago that he never used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs, two prominent lawmakers wrote yesterday in a letter to Attorney General Michael B....
12.914894
0.595745
1.021277
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603040.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603040.html
López Begins His Climb From Last Year's Depths
2008030119
VIERA, Fla., Feb. 26 -- It is, throughout Florida and Arizona this time of year, something of a rite of spring. A veteran ballplayer reports to his team's training site, considers his season from a year ago -- when, say, he hit .245 and reached base less than 31 percent of the time, well below what he and others consider his potential -- and pronounces himself a new man. Tales of renewed focus, new energy -- whatever is needed to make the past the past -- spew forth. Miraculously, all is solved. So it was Tuesday afternoon that, after a long workout that included staying late to run the bases alone, Felipe López sat at his locker and made his pledge. "I just want to put last year behind me, and I already did," said López, a former all-star who is now fighting for a starting job with the Washington Nationals. "The one thing that hurt last year: I wasn't focused. Obviously, if you watched me, you knew that. I wasn't into baseball like I should be, like I am now." This could be a simple story about a talented player shoving aside a poor season and moving on. With the Nationals' first spring training game set for Wednesday night in Jupiter against the Florida Marlins, López will board a bus with his teammates in the afternoon. Along for the ride will be Cristian Guzman, listed as the starting shortstop. Back at the Nationals' home base here, Ronnie Belliard -- listed as the starting second baseman -- will work out and wait to make his debut Friday. López will have to earn his way back into the starting lineup by beating out one of the two. But because of the depths López reached -- both last year and much earlier in his life -- this must be treated more carefully. It is, in fact, a story very few in the Nationals' clubhouse know or understand. "When I found out the difficult upbringing he had," said Barry Larkin, once a teammate in Cincinnati and now a member of the Nationals' front office, "I could understand why he went through some of the things that he did." The rough outline of López's upbringing goes something like this: Born in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, he came to the mainland when he was 11 or 12 because his stepmother had leukemia, the disease that would kill her soon thereafter. His real mother? He last saw her when he was 3. "My family, that stuff, they don't really talk about," he said. "You're curious, but no one really answered me." Thus, his father, Felipe Sr., pushed his son through Little League in suburban Orlando, seemingly indistinguishable from other eager fathers and sons. Manny Acta, then a coach in the Houston Astros organization and now the Nationals' manager, used to hit ground balls to young Felipe, used to play softball with his father. "It was all baseball," Acta said. Except behind the scenes. Felipe López Sr. was an abusive parent, both to his oldest son and his two younger siblings, a boy and a girl. Felipe had to move in with relatives. The problems persisted through high school, even as López developed into a star at Lake Brantley High in Altamonte Springs, Fla. There, he hit .521 as a senior and was named the state's player of the year. In June 1998, the Toronto Blue Jays made López the eighth overall pick in the amateur draft. On Aug. 11, he signed for a $2 million bonus. Three days later, Felipe López Sr. was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading no contest to two counts of child abuse -- coercing a child into a sexual act by an adult -- and one count of aggravated assault, according to state records. Felipe López Sr. remains in jail and is scheduled to be released in November 2009. Felipe López said he has not talked to his father since.
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!
18.372093
0.55814
0.883721
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603704.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603704.html
Nationals Park: Best of a Bad Lot
2008030119
With only 33 days left before the Nationals officially unveil their ballpark on the Anacostia waterfront, some of the project's most visible short-term problems may be on the verge of being solved or at least mitigated. However, other potential troubles make those who are on the park-building battle lines lose sleep. Wait 33 years for a team. Hold your breath for 33 more days. While the immediate future holds a mixed bag of possibilities, some of them quite encouraging, the next several years may be tougher sledding for a development project as brave but grandiose as the District's hopes for Southeast. As the national economy slows, the long-term future of the entire waterfront project becomes cloudier and more worrisome. Whenever a ballpark opens, worst-case scenarios dominate every sensible mind. It's like holding a dinner party for 41,000 people in a new house that you moved into the day before. What could go wrong? The right question is: What couldn't? For example, for the next month, the Nats' mantra to fans will be "Take Metro." Great. Except the Navy Yard Metro stop expansion isn't finished. Will it get done? Everybody claims so. Will platforms be big enough? Will fans all try to use the exit a mere 200 yards from the main entrance, or realize they have another exit, but with a longer walk? For every such problem that can be imagined in advance, there may be another that hasn't even crossed anybody's mind. In a situation filled with so much potential anxiety, "we have done the best with what we were given," said principal team owner Mark Lerner. "We focus on the areas we can control. We've had great cooperation from the District. The park is going to be ready on time. We've spent the last 18 months working on every detail inside the park to make it a more vivid, colorful, exciting place. Every day now you can see it all coming together so fast. I can see the finish line now. The fans' eyes are going to pop." The Nationals are perhaps proudest of how they have taken an abysmal parking situation -- "the whole neighborhood looks like it was hit by a nuclear bomb," one Nats executive said of the construction zone -- and, they hope, turned it into a bearable experience. Just in time, the Nats have scrounged enough parking spots, almost 5,500, so that every season ticket holder, including those with 20-game plans, has a space. For two years, managing principal owner Ted Lerner, who didn't get to be worth a couple of billion dollars by overlooking details or angering his customers, has obsessed over minimizing the distress of the fans whom he always assumed would have to park at RFK Stadium, then ride in shuttle buses to his new park. Someday, such second-class treatment would be eliminated. "But Ted has focused on it like a laser from the beginning," team official Gregory McCarthy said. The result is that an obscure back access road from RFK to the new ballpark area will be used exclusively by Nats buses, which, the team claims, now take only "five to seven minutes" to get from RFK to a drop-off spot on M Street, just another five- to seven-minute walk to the main entrance. Can Ted's Shuttle really get you from your car to his front door in 15 minutes? Or will we have to recall the shuttle bus nightmares at FedEx Field that blighted the Redskins' relations with fans for years? The Nats have also been acutely aware of what Mark Lerner calls "obviously two of the world's ugliest garages" that sit beyond left and center field. A few thousand fans in $10 to $17 seats in the upper deck will see spectacular city vistas that include the U.S. Capitol or the Washington Monument. For the fans in the high-priced seats in the lower bowl, those garages were in danger of being their monuments. Not anymore, says Lerner. "You won't think of them as garages anymore," Lerner vows, because he'll have them covered by Opening Day with league logos, replicas of the "Washington All-Stars" from the right field scoreboard in RFK as well as colorful baseball-themed ads. Even the exterior facades of the park, modeled on the Washington Convention Center, have, in recent weeks, gone from dreary to sleek as the glistening finishing materials have been put in place and burnished. The Lerner family and team president Stan Kasten, who love retro red brick, wince whenever they're reminded that they inhabit the only park in history with modern architecture. Who did I.M. Pei play for? Soon, even they may have to admit that the District gave them an iconic design. Okay, that's it for the semi-good news. Now, cover your eyes. Directly behind home plate, the cement trucks, the billowing clouds of dust on hot afternoons and all the industrial detritus of the Florida Rock and Gravel Company constitute an enormous and inexcusable 5.8-acre eyesore. It'll be sitting there all season, damaging the river views from all the ramps to the first base upper deck. If the land doesn't get rezoned so Florida Rock can develop it or, more likely, sell it, the monstrosity could stay for two or three seasons. Nothing in the vicinity of any other major league park is even one-tenth as ugly. "With 20/20 hindsight it's almost incredible that Florida Rock is still there. People have been trying to get it [re]zoned for at least 10 years," Mark Lerner said. "It really is sad. . . . We're just going to put up a red fence so you can't see it from ground level." As for the gruesome WASA site beyond right field, which could have been addressed long ago, it would be the Most Unsightly Thing Near Any Big League Park if Florida Rock and Gravel hadn't already retired the trophy. Over the next few years, patience and perhaps forgiveness may be required for those who venture outside the new park. A legal battle between two developers has delayed the development of one side of Half Street for at least 18 months. Half Street is supposed to be the glamorous main entrance to the park from the Navy Yard Metro. On the other side of Half Street is a huge block-long hole, several stories deep, where construction by Monument Realty has stopped. The District was lucky to sell bonds for its $611 million ballpark in boom times with interest rates unusually low. But you have to take the bust that follows the boom. And nobody knows how long that will last or if it will be deep or shallow. Michael Stevens, executive director of the Capital Riverfront Business Improvement District, said: "This area may develop in somewhat different ways and at a different pace in this economy. But that isn't necessarily bad." We've waited this long. Now, just 33 more days until a new park opens. Someday, the Anacostia riverfront will amaze us, just maybe not as soon as we hoped. When it comes to fulfilling huge civic dreams, what's a few years, more or less. In for a dime, in for a decade.
With only 33 days left before the Nationals officially unveil their ballpark on the Anacostia waterfront, the potential troubles make those who are on the park-building battle lines lose sleep.
41.941176
1
16.058824
high
high
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2008/02/will_stadium_overwhelm_transit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2008/02/will_stadium_overwhelm_transit.html
Will Stadium Overwhelm Transit?
2008030119
There's a major transportation challenge coming this spring in the District: Getting people to and from, or around, the new baseball stadium. This letter from a Navy Yard commuter explores one important aspect. Dear Dr. Gridlock: I wish to address the problem of baseball stadium traffic, and more pointly the problem of getting spectators to and from the Nationals games. Currently it is expected that all of the spectators would get to and from the games by taking the train and getting off at Navy Yard Station. This is a little rinky-dink station with a little rinky-dink platform that handles only one line. One solution is to utilize the buses to take the pressure off Navy Yard, and it has been suggested that everybody be encouraged to take the N22. The problem with this is that to find the stop you have to exit the other side of Navy Yard Station (the non-upgraded side), and Union Station is at the end of the N22 line, which means that the spectators have to endure a long ride through uncertain neighborhoods before they even get to Union Station. Instead, I propose that a special circulator shuttle be set up in a continuous loop from the stadium to L'Enfant Plaza and Judicuary Square Metro stations. This shuttle would run every 15 minutes at the beginning and end of each game and would quickly get the spectators to and from the larger stations where the excess number of passengers would easily be absorbed. These buses are new, large, and easy to board and they would easily handle many passengers with coolers and other sports watching equipment. Also, I just want to say that Navy Yard handles more that just baseball spectators, it handles the evening rush every day. On the days that the game ends during the evening rush, Navy Yard is going to be a madhouse. In addition, there is much construction in progress and eventually all of these buildings will be filled with potential commuters who will use Navy Yard. They are also building this vast complex called the Yards, which will contain condos, stores, etc., which will also serve to increase the passenger load on Navy Yard. So all in all, they must develop other means of transportation for the baseball spectators. It is vast stupidy to simply base the entire transportation expections on one small subway station. By instituting an additional Circulator shuttle, it would aid in reducing the passenger load on Navy Yard. Eleanor Lawson Springfield Extending the routes of the distinctive red Circulator buses down to the new Nationals Park on South Capitol Street is a good idea, but it won't happen this year. Instead, Metro and the District plan to enhance service on the N22 Metrobus line. That's not a bad idea either, though I hope they'll eventually add the Circulator, too. Right now, the N22 is a commuter bus, linking Union Station, Eastern Market Station, Navy Yard Station and the Navy Yard on M Street SE. The transit authority plans to enhance that service starting in March so it will serve as a baseball shuttle, providing fans with a direct link to the Blue, Orange and Red lines. That will be much needed, since planners are hoping that more than half the fans for the 41,000 seat stadium will arrive by transit, and the only nearby station is Navy Yard, on the Green Line. The station's west exit is being rebuilt to handle crowds, but this is still a lot of pressure on one line. The crowding is likely to back up to the main transfer stations at Metro Center, L'Enfant Plaza and Gallery Place. This is only one of the many travel issues facing planners, fans and commuters once the baseball season opens on Sunday, March 30. We'll really start learning the answers during the first weeknight game on Monday, April 7. What are your thoughts on getting to and from the games, or just avoiding the fans on your homeward commutes? By | February 27, 2008; 8:32 AM ET Congestion Previous: Kaine: Ice Storm Response "Abysmal" | Next: I-66 Ramp Closed Today My response: I'm not going to a game this year. There are a ton of bugs to work out of the flimsy plans to get people to and from the games. The Stadium/Armory stop gets swamped with a decent sized baseball or soccer crowd, I don't see how Navy Yard will be able to handle it, and you're right that 90% of the folks would then try to transfer at Gallery Place, L'Enfant Plaza, and Metro Center and create problems, there, too. Maybe they should start a ferry service to VA? Posted by: Kim | February 27, 2008 10:13 AM Posted by: IMGoph | February 27, 2008 10:17 AM Uncertain neighborhoods? Eastern Market/Capitol Hill is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in DC. Posted by: Jar | February 27, 2008 10:22 AM A bus through "uncertain neighborhoods"? That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. The fear folks from NoVA have about DC neighborhoods is laughable. I'll be riding my bike to the games. Ahhh, the beauty of living in ::gasp:: uncertain neighborhoods! Posted by: DCmarathoner | February 27, 2008 10:22 AM I'm not going to a game this year either, though in my case it's because baseball is just a mind-numbingly boring waste of time. I grew up with the sport, but have slowly realized over the last 5 or 6 years that it's a tedious game filled with overpaid people (who making millions to stand around in the grass and pick their noses), an untold number of whom cheat or are lying hypocrits. With that out of my system, I think the circulator idea in conjunction with the Navy Yard stop sounds very reasonable to handle the weekday crowds at the stadium. Posted by: iammrben | February 27, 2008 10:30 AM While I will be walking, may I suggest the Capitol South station for others. Can't be more than a 10 or 15 min walk and no transfers for those in NoVa. Posted by: Capitol Hill | February 27, 2008 10:50 AM The Navy Yard Metro Station is being enlarged however, construction will not be completed in time for opening day March 30. Metro will have to add trains to service the increased volume of traffic on gamedays. Metro being slow to respond to customer needs will probably not get this figured out until the 2009 season. The biggest problem for Metro will be the Gallery Place/Chinatown transfer station. It's significantly smaller than Metro Center which got extremely crowded on Nats gamenights during the work week as commuters heading home collided with Nats fans getting to RFK Stadium. How in the world will the Gallery Place/Chinatown Station handle that volume this year? People will be waiting for a very long time to transfer trains at GP/C-town. Posted by: Anonymous | February 27, 2008 10:51 AM How about going to the Eastern Market station and walking a bit? From what I see a lot of people could use the exercise. Posted by: Stick | February 27, 2008 10:54 AM I work at DOT, and one possible concern I have is that there is no down escalator to the platform at the NJ Ave entrance (the one serving federal employees at USDOT and the Navy Yard, on which none of the $20 million that the federal government kicked in to upgrade the station was spent. Not that I am bitter about this). At RFK, many people learned to use the entrance further away from the stadium as a way to beat the crowds, and I could see that happening here. With no down escalator, just a staircase, my concern is that people trying to get down to the platform may encounter masses of fans coming up the stairs, which could be a problem. Then again, the big crush of humanity is more of a post-game phenonomenon, since arrivals before the game tend to be more spread out, so this may not wind up being as bad in reality. We'll have to see. On a side note, the ballpark operations plan also plans/hopes that a few thousand fans will walk to and from Capital South on the Orange/Blue lines, about a mile away, reducing the strain at Navy Yard. Don't know if that will actually happen or not, but people should know that it is a pretty nice walk up New Jersey and 1st streets. Finally, you have the papal mass on a Thursday morning in April. Now that could be chaotic--might be a good day to telecommute. Posted by: JJ | February 27, 2008 10:54 AM I'm very concerned about this. Seems DC put all their eggs in one basket. And an unreliable basket at that. I honestly resent being forced to take transit anywhere. And I'm a huge supporter of mass transit too. I use it when I can. But there are sometimes when it is just not feasible or it is horribly inconvenient. I don't mind paying through the nose to park when I choose drive, but I would at least like to know that I can pay a lot of money to park if I needed to, as opposed to being told, "no, there is absolutely no place you can park, you HAVE to take the Metro." Arlington seems to have gotten it right. I have no problem parking in Ballston or Clarendon when I need to go there for something. But I've had people call me wondering where they could park for the day in my neighborhood because they were attending a major event at the Wardman Park Mariott or the Omni Shoreham, and I pretty much had to tell them they were out of luck. The best advice I could give was to park near DuPont and ride the Metro one stop. And to the woman who thinks Capitol Hill is an "uncertain neighborhood"...for the benefit of everyone, stay home. Posted by: Woodley Park | February 27, 2008 10:56 AM "Finally, you have the papal mass on a Thursday morning in April. Now that could be chaotic--might be a good day to telecommute." The worst traffic I have ever seen in my lifetime was when the Pope was in NYC in the 1990's. The amount of security was incredible, and people were confused because all parking within a certain radius of the Pope was blocked off. Agree, great day for telecommuting! Posted by: Woodley Park | February 27, 2008 10:59 AM No one should have a reasonable expectation that this process is going to be completely smooth on day one, few things in life are. Circulator will be running down there next year. Season ticket holders have parking spots in the garages. Eventually, there will be water taxi service from National Harbor/Old Town/Gtown. Some people will walk from Eastern Market/Cap South. Everyone will be able to find what works best for them. No need for people to be so dramatic! Let things play out, if there are problems and nothing is done, then maybe voice a complaint. To complain before we've even tried it once, seems premature. Posted by: G-town | February 27, 2008 11:03 AM Maybe the "uncertain" neighborhood comment was about Congress?? Posted by: Rocko | February 27, 2008 11:14 AM Why can't the Circulator be used this year? That sounds like a great help (if not quite a solution). Couldn't the Lerners just make this happen with a little bit of money, at least for week night games? Traffic/parking/Metro problems could easily wipe out the glories they expect from an exciting ball park and (hopefully) improved team. Posted by: NW-DC | February 27, 2008 11:15 AM I'm a season ticket holder with a parking permit. What is this "transit problem" of which you speak? Do you mean that people, including government workers going home, may actually be walking across the roads I need to drive down to get to my parking spot? I really hope this doesn't disrupt traffic flow. If it does it will be completely unacceptable. As a Virginia resident, I expect the DC Government to do something about this nonsense. Posted by: Deep Fried Screech | February 27, 2008 11:19 AM I too have to chuckle at the 'uncertain neighborhoods' comment. Has this guy even been to Capitol Hill? The Eastern Market to Union Station trek is directly through one of the most gentrified areas of the Hill. Granted, the route along M Street SE used to be very bad, but all that's been torn down and is being replaced with upscale condos and such. Posted by: Hillman | February 27, 2008 11:20 AM From Dr. Gridlock: One concern the letter writer has that I do not share is about the safety of taking the N22 bus to and from games. I see no problem with that. My own plan for getting to games would be to take a Blue or Orange Line train to Capitol South and then walk down New Jersey Avenue, avoiding Navy Yard Station. On the way back, I might take the N22 to Union Station, avoiding the uphill walk. That said, it's possible Navy Yard Station will turn out all right. The rebuilt west side entrance will be used exclusively for station exits starting three hours before game time and exclusively for station entrances after the game. My experience at Stadium-Armory: The platform was always crowded, but never dangerous. (I never felt in jeopardy of landing on the tracks, the way I did on the BART platform outside the Athletics' stadium in Oakland after a game.) Posted by: Robert Thomson | February 27, 2008 11:26 AM Wow, walking. We had to walk farther from the Stadium/Armoy stop to RFK than from Navy Yard to the new stadium. Traffic probably will be messy for the first month or two until they can figure out a better flow patteren for the area. That's part of having thre stadium in an urban area rather than in the middle of a field of asphalt bordered by 5 interstates or something. "Questionable neighborhoos". Indeed they are. Lots of questions about where to eat and which street to walk down. Posted by: EricS | February 27, 2008 11:36 AM What a poorly thought out letter my Eleanor Lawson... First of all, it is not expected "that all of the spectators would get to and from the games by taking the train and getting off at Navy Yard Station" - the Nationals have identified ~5500 parking spaces in the stadium district, if all of those spaces were utilized on any given games, that would accomodate at least 10K-15K fans. Secondly, the Nats scheduled zero (0) weekday afternoon games. And they did it for that very reason. The Nats weren't sure that the infrastructure in the stadium district would be able to handle an evening rush and the stadium letting out at the same time. Thirdly, I like the idea of a circulator bus. But how many passengers can you out on a bus at one time? 60? It'll take a long time to empty the stadium 60 people at a time. However, if a circulator bus is added, incrementally, every little but will help ease the egress of fans after a game. Finally, if you are concerned about a bus ride through "uncertain neighborhoods" - you are well on your way to agoraphobia. I wouldn't want to live in some neighborhoods, but really, are bands of armed thugs hijacking Metro buses? Posted by: Section 114, Row E | February 27, 2008 11:49 AM Posted by: G-town | February 27, 2008 12:11 PM I'm uncertain about the neighborhoods South of the SE Freeway, having not walked through them yet (having no reason to go that direction, yet), and am excited to try walking through them to the new stadium on a gamenight with lots of other people. It'll be neat to see this new neighborhood up close. Are there are any bars or restaurants near Navy Yard for pre-game? There are plenty along 8th St SE near E Market, and along PA Ave near Cap South, but I'll be interested to see if thre's a new bunch over by the new stadium. It's great that they put the stadium downtown where we have all of these transit options! Walk, bike, bus, metro, YES! Posted by: Near Eastern Market | February 27, 2008 12:20 PM If I was going to a game, my plan would be to metro to Eastern Market, walk down 8th St. and stop in one of the bars/restaurants there, then walk down to M and get to the stadium from there. Not a quick walk, to be sure, but it could be great on a nice night with some time to kill. Going home might be another story, but that's where a bus or Capitol South would be an option. I'd avoid the Navy Yard stop at all costs. Not much around the stadium yet in terms of food/entertainment, though there is a Five Guys. Better than nothing. Posted by: WNY | February 27, 2008 12:40 PM Section 114 is right on: "Secondly, the Nats scheduled zero (0) weekday afternoon games. And they did it for that very reason. The Nats weren't sure that the infrastructure in the stadium district would be able to handle an evening rush and the stadium letting out at the same time." Which is a real shame 'cause there's no greater joy then playing hooky from work on a sunny Thursday afternoon with a cold brew. Posted by: Blockski | February 27, 2008 12:50 PM Sorry had to add this! Get a job at the Navy Yard, then you will have free parking within a walkable distance. If the walk is too far, you can always catch the N22 that will drop you off right by the Navy Yard Metro. Also, 295 is an easy driving escape to southern Maryland or NOVA Posted by: Anonymous | February 27, 2008 12:50 PM The new stadium has been compared, at least architecturally, to the new Convention Center. Okay, let's compare a recent trip to the Convention Center for a big event to an everyday game at the stadium. My family tried to go to the Auto Show at the Convention Center a few weeks ago on a weekend. Driving there was a mistake because there is INADEQUATE parking. Then, we found a parking garage near the Verizon Center and took the Metro. It took fifteen minutes to get out of the Convention Center Metro stop with the overflow crowd going to the auto show because of the INADEQUATE number of turnstiles for so many people who obviously didn't know how to insert a simple farecard the correct way in order to exit the station. Based on everything I've read, the new stadium is going to be exactly the same. Posted by: Ike | February 27, 2008 12:59 PM I didn't even need to read the article to know the answer to the title question. Will Stadium Overwhelm Transit? OF COURSE IT WILL. Metro sucks at just about everything they do, with no forthought about anything. They (and other various leaders involved in this decision) just assume that putting the load on one station on a single line and adding a few busses will do the trick. Oh and let's not forget the beautification and upgrade of only one side of the station... Seriously, Ms. Lawson's concerns are valid (well, with the exception of riding a bus line through "uncertain neighborhoods"). It was bad enough when the games were at RFK, on two metro lines with multiple busses! Have you ever tried to take the D6 from RFK immediately after a ballgame? It comes once every 30 minutes and it's PACKED. Sometimes, you can't even get on and are stuck waiting for the next one. I can't imagine what it will be like on this N22. I love ballgames and I really enjoyed going to many Nationals games at RFK, but I will not be going to this new stadium. The transit "solutions" are not worth the hassle. Posted by: LV | February 27, 2008 1:41 PM I've contemplated the notion of parking at the Anacostia Metro stop's garage and either taking the Green Line one stop or just walking to the games, and then walking back via the Douglass Bridge after the games. It's not a long walk at all, but I'm concerned about whether it's a safe one. Howard Road is a bit of a deserted area late at night and I'm not convinced of the safety of being a lone white guy walking down there. I suppose I'll wait and see if other people start doing this. (For me, parking at Anacostia would allow for a considerably faster trip than riding the Metro all the way from home.) If that plan doesn't work out, I think I'll just park at my office garage near Metro Center and ride the trains, probably from Gallery Place since it's not a long walk over to there and it avoids the need for changing trains. After games, the idea of walking to Capitol South seems to make the most sense, although the neighborhood between along New Jersey Avenue still seemed fairly crummy when I drove through there this past summer. Posted by: Rich | February 27, 2008 1:41 PM Forgot to mention something. For the 2006 and 2007 openers at RFK, Metro ran free shuttle buses to Union Station after the games. There was not a set schedule; people boarded and the buses left as they became full. Worked out really well as an alternative to jamming into Stadium-Armory. I suppose this sort of thing is too expensive to do on a nightly basis. Posted by: Rich | February 27, 2008 1:51 PM Also, 295 is an easy driving escape to southern Maryland or NOVA Posted by: | February 27, 2008 12:50 PM So, can I leave my car on 295 during the game? Posted by: Kim | February 27, 2008 1:57 PM Ike - you parked at the verizon center, and took the metro to the convention center? Seriously, people, look at a map before you come in and visit our city. It's like three blocks away. Jebus... Like a previous poster said, I'm either going to ride my bicycle to the game, or walk over from the barracks row area. I don't anticipate having any problems. also, agree with the person that said there were some racist undertones in her letter. Stay in VA if the capitol hill / union station area scares you. Because it's probably one of the safest areas in the country... Posted by: Whhhaattt? | February 27, 2008 2:30 PM You took metro from the Verizon center to the Convention Center? Unless someone in your family is handicapped, it probably would have been a easier and faster to walk that distance. Even when there is no crowd, I rarely hop on the metro to go one stop in DC. And on topic, I have to agree with others about other available stations. Eastern Market and Capitol South have been mentioned. Waterfront is also available. I used to live in SW a couple of blocks north of the Waterfront Metro in a building that went condo and is using proximity to the baseball stadium as a selling point. There is no way I'd be trying hop on a train to go to Navy Yard if I still lived there. Americans tend to be fat, myself included (I have BMI that falls into the obese category and I'm 60 lbs overweight), but a 1/2-1 mile walk isn't going to hurt you. It might help. If I go to a game, and I don't ride my bike, and if Navy Yard station is crowded, I'd probably just walk to L'Enfant and catch a train. My guess is most of the fans will be from VA, so if the crowds haven't died down by the time I get to L'Enfant, I'll have the choice of waiting for a Yellow Line train going north or taking a spot of one of the people transferring off the Green Line. Posted by: FatGuy | February 27, 2008 2:34 PM Kim | February 27, 2008 01:57 PM The escape was in reference to parking at the Navy Yard, not 295. Posted by: DD | February 27, 2008 3:09 PM the capitol hill / union station area is probably one of the safest areas in the country? you need to get out more Posted by: Anonymous | February 27, 2008 4:20 PM I also work at DOT, and my experience since last May is the Navy Yard Metro station can't handle current crowds; if half a stadium tries to get on Metro after a game it's going to be a nightmare. The Navy Yard station can't handle morning rush for DOT employees. It took me roughly and hour to get from Arlington to Navy yard using Metro, so I drive now which isn't perfect but it's better than Metro. It won't be any better for the season ticket holder drivers. The closest access to 295 on 3rd Street has no left turn signal. Traffic routinely backs up 2 or 3 blocks when DOT employees are leaving work, and we don't all leave at the same time! And who was the poster that said get a job at Navy Yard and park free? I don't know anyone who parks for free. Monthly parking is cheaper than NW, but not cheap. Last comment; building a major stadium on the Green line was stupid mistake. One of the Post's political blogs or chats recently mentioned the stadium location did NOT take infrastructure into consideration... only in DC... Posted by: DC | February 27, 2008 8:39 PM Boy, you sure are a bunch of pessimists if you don't think Metro can handle the passengers. Obviously you're familiar with Metro, aren't you? So you miss the first two or three innings and then leave after the seventh inning stretch to beat the crowd. Don't worry, the real "downer" will be when the team abandons the District in a couple of years because attendance is down, and then DC United will have a practically new field to play on. Posted by: Hello | February 28, 2008 12:04 AM Boy, you sure are a bunch of pessimists if you don't think Metro can handle the passengers. Obviously you're familiar with Metro, aren't you? So you miss the first two or three innings and then leave after the seventh inning stretch to beat the crowd. Don't worry, the real "downer" will be when the team abandons the District in a couple of years because attendance is down, and then DC United will have a practically new field to play on. Posted by: Hello | February 28, 2008 12:11 AM Boy, you sure are a bunch of pessimists if you don't think Metro can handle the passengers. Obviously you're familiar with Metro, aren't you? So you miss the first two or three innings and then leave after the seventh inning stretch to beat the crowd. Don't worry, the real "downer" will be when the team abandons the District in a couple of years because attendance is down, and then DC United will have a practically new field to play on. Posted by: Hello | February 28, 2008 12:11 AM Boy, you sure are a bunch of pessimists if you don't think Metro can handle the passengers. Obviously you're familiar with Metro, aren't you? So you miss the first two or three innings and then leave after the seventh inning stretch to beat the crowd. Don't worry, the real "downer" will be when the team abandons the District in a couple of years because attendance is down, and then DC United will have a practically new field to play on. Posted by: Hello | February 28, 2008 12:11 AM Any one who works on the Navy Yard can obtain a free parking pass to park on the Navy Yard. Also vistors park free. Posted by: Anonymous | February 28, 2008 6:40 AM I guess "Hello" feels strongly about his point. Posted by: Rich | February 28, 2008 9:00 AM I'm rather discouraged by the lack of parking options in the vicinity of the new stadium. I like to attend games with my two young daughters, now 4 & 6, so dealing with crowded Metro cars and platforms is not something I look forward to. RFK, with its plentiful parking and easy access to 295, was very convenient for us. I'm hoping that either the shuttle bus from the RFK lots, which the Nats are now saying will only take 15 minutes, will work as advertised; my other choice is probably to park at the garage at Anacostia and take the Metro one stop to Navy Yard. The suggestion for a Circulator bus to L'Enfant also is a good one that should be adopted immediately. The Nats, the city and Metro had better get this working smoothly pretty quickly, or all of them will suffer as the fans stay away and keep their money in their pockets. Posted by: Fan from MD | February 28, 2008 11:59 AM "On the days that the game ends during the evening rush, Navy Yard is going to be a madhouse." There are NO DAY GAMES except on Government holidays. Posted by: JC | February 28, 2008 12:38 PM "I honestly resent being forced to take transit anywhere. And I'm a huge supporter of mass transit too. I use it when I can. But there are sometimes when it is just not feasible or it is horribly inconvenient. I don't mind paying through the nose to park when I choose drive, but I would at least like to know that I can pay a lot of money to park if I needed to, as opposed to being told, "no, there is absolutely no place you can park, you HAVE to take the Metro."" I'll stay home and watch the games on TV for the few years the Nats remain in town while DC pretends it's like New York. Posted by: ceefer66 | February 28, 2008 2:26 PM "the capitol hill / union station area is probably one of the safest areas in the country?" Don't know about safest, but it's certainly the most policed. And by the largest variety of police. FBI police? Check. Housing Authority police? Check. U.S. Capitol police? etc. They all love the Dunkin Donuts on Barracks Row, though. Bless 'em. Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 5:07 PM My husband mentioned to me this morning that he has seen new signs on the Beltway directing Nationals Traffic to take Colesville Rd (RT 29 S) to the Silver Spring Metro. Traveling south on RT 29 is already a congested commute. From 4pm -7pm the route is reduced to 2 lanes. - AND it is dangerous because unfamiliar drivers often do not "see" the X-ed out lanes. I think folks are in for a very long commute to the Silver Spring Metro and after they arrive they must take the red line train--and make additional transfers to get to the Green line and Nationals stadium. Does this make sense to you? Posted by: D Lautenberger | March 5, 2008 3:31 PM Hmm well obviously they are trying to point out alternatives, but I would think sending people to the Forest Glen metro may be better. Though I'm not that familar with the parking situation there. Is it on both sides of the Beltway or just on the inner loop? Posted by: Laura | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM The site’s very professional porsche gt3 2004 [url=http://jaguar-x-type.viagro.info/porsche-gt3-2004.html] porsche gt3 2004 [/url] Posted by: Prokopios | March 9, 2008 3:41 PM The comments to this entry are closed.
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
3,169
0.5
0.5
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603705.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603705.html
U.S. Steps Up Deportation Of Immigrant Criminals
2008030119
Immigration officials are increasingly scouring jails and courts nationwide and reviewing years-old criminal records to identify deportable immigrants, efforts that have contributed to a steep rise in deportations and strained the immigration court system. Long accused of failing to do enough to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, federal authorities have recently strengthened partnerships with local corrections systems and taken other steps to monitor immigrants facing charges, officials said. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that in the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, it placed 164,000 criminals in deportation proceedings, a sharp increase from the 64,000 the agency said it identified and placed in proceedings the year before. The agency estimates that the number will rise to 200,000 this year. The heightened scrutiny, fueled by post-9/11 national security concerns and the growing debate over illegal immigration, has introduced a major element to the practice of criminal law in the Washington region and other parts of the country with large immigrant populations. "It used to be two parties in the courtroom: the state and the defense," said Mariana C. Cordier, a Rockville defense lawyer. "Now you know immigration is waiting in the wings." Two groups of people are now more likely to be placed in deportation proceedings: illegal immigrants who might once have been criminally prosecuted without coming to the attention of immigration authorities, and legal immigrants whose visas and residency permits are being revoked because of criminal convictions. The number of deported immigrants with criminal convictions has increased steadily this decade, from about 73,000 in 2001 to more than 91,000 in 2007, according to ICE. Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary of homeland security who heads ICE, said in a recent interview that she has strived to use technology and improved relationships among local and federal law enforcement officials to multiply her agency's eyes and ears in all levels of the criminal justice system. "It's such a high priority of mine to make sure that people are not released from criminal institutions onto the street," said Myers, noting that when she took the helm of the agency in January 2006, ICE did not check all federal detention facilities for immigration violators. Since then, she said, the agency has studied the demographics of correctional facilities across the country and has assigned more agents to check facilities with higher numbers of foreign-born offenders. ICE's Criminal Alien Program created partnerships between immigration officials and jailers at nearly 4,500 detention facilities. Federal agents now frequently visit courthouses and jails to comb through court files. In 2006, the agency opened a division in Chicago that is responsible for screening federal inmates nationwide for deportation. Additionally, a growing number of police departments -- including those in Frederick and Prince William counties and the city of Manassas -- have enrolled in an ICE training program that deputizes officers to enforce immigration law. Probation and police officers are also tipping off federal authorities to cases involving suspected illegal immigrants, defense lawyers say.
Immigration officials are increasingly scouring jails and courts nationwide and reviewing years-old criminal records to identify deportable immigrants, efforts that have contributed to a steep rise in deportations and strained the immigration court system.
14.736842
1
38
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701409.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701409.html
Pact Would Give Global AIDS Fight Triple the Money
2008030119
House leaders from both parties and the White House yesterday reached agreement on a bill that would more than triple funding for the Bush administration's global AIDS program, already the largest foreign aid initiative aimed at fighting a single disease in U.S. history. In a compromise reached late Tuesday night, the bill loosens the requirement for abstinence messages in AIDS-prevention strategies, a source of criticism of the program since it was unveiled by President Bush in 2003. The bill authorizes $50 billion over five years to prevent infection, treat people already ill from the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and care for children orphaned by the epidemic. The program, known as the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), provided $15 billion over its first five years. "This historic agreement will save millions of lives," said Paul Zeitz, a physician who heads the Global AIDS Alliance, a vocal critic of some original PEPFAR provisions. "With bipartisan support, Congress is beginning to fix aspects of the AIDS program that were clearly not working." Many observers consider PEPFAR the Bush administration's most successful foreign policy initiative. Its acronym is now widely known in sub-Saharan Africa, where the targets of the program's assistance include national ministries of health and village-level church groups. The original PEPFAR law required that one-third of prevention dollars be used to promote abstinence, setting off a rhetorical war between the program's State Department leaders and much of the rest of the AIDS community. The new bill appears to signal a truce. The reauthorized bill requires PEPFAR's chief to provide "balanced funding" for prevention and to ensure that abstinence and faithfulness teachings "are implemented and funded in a meaningful and equitable way." If a country spends less than 50 percent of its funding for sexual-transmission prevention on the promotion of abstinence and faithfulness, the program must justify that decision to Congress. PEPFAR's overseers in the State Department said that in practice, they have been more lenient than the original law's language suggested. They say the requirement of one-third funding for abstinence promotion applies only to programs aimed at preventing sexual transmission of the virus, not all prevention efforts. Other prevention activities include treating pregnant women with antiviral drugs so they will not infect their newborns; efforts to make the blood supply safer; and providing clean syringes for medical use. Furthermore, they say, "abstinence" was broadened to include "be faithful" messages -- two-thirds of what is known as the ABC strategy. (The C stands for "condom use.") A requirement that every organization receiving PEPFAR money adopt a specific policy against "prostitution and human trafficking" -- which many activist groups also find rankling -- remains in the new bill. The renewed PEPFAR would be broader than the original. About $9 billion would go to fight tuberculosis and malaria, which often simultaneously infect AIDS patients in Africa. That sum would underwrite purchase of food supplements for AIDS patients, an underappreciated component of medical treatment of the disease. It would finance "microcredit" loans to women widowed by the disease or ostracized because of their infection.
House leaders from both parties and the White House yesterday reached agreement on a bill that would more than triple funding for the Bush administration's global AIDS program, already the largest foreign aid initiative aimed at fighting a single disease in U.S. history.
13.347826
1
46
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700646.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700646.html
E.U. Slaps Third Fine on Microsoft
2008030119
"Microsoft's behavior did not just harm a few individuals or a handful of big companies," said Neelie Kroes, the E.U.'s competition commissioner, announcing the decision in Brussels. "Directly and indirectly this had negative effects on millions of offices in companies and governments around the world." The fine was the third the E.U. has levied against Microsoft in the same dispute -- once after being found to have violated antitrust law, and twice, including this latest, for what officials called a refusal to comply with orders to change its practices. In a statement, Microsoft said that it was reviewing the decision but that "these fines are about past issues that have been resolved." The company pointed to its announcement last week that it would make technical data on its products more accessible to competitors, a key aspect of the European complaints. "We are focusing on steps that will improve things for the future," Microsoft said. Roger Kay, president of research and consultancy firm Endpoint Technologies Associates, said the ruling showed differing approaches to antitrust in the United States and Europe. "In the U.S., the electorate has decided to leave big business alone to figure out how things should be done best. In Europe, it's the other way around." European regulators have now fined Microsoft a total of about $2.5 billion (at current exchange rates). Kroes said it is the first company ever to refuse to comply with a European Commission antitrust ruling. "That the commission has been forced to levy these three fines reflects a clear disregard by Microsoft of its legal obligations," Kroes said. "The commission's fine is a reasonable response to a series of quite unreasonable actions." She said her message to Microsoft and other companies was: "Talk is cheap; flouting the rules is expensive. We don't want talk and promises -- we want compliance." Analysts said that even though the fine was exceptionally large, it was more of a warning to other companies than a financial burden on the world's leading computer software maker. "Financially it's not significant; it is much more of a scary number to everybody else than it is to Microsoft," said David B. Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. Yoffie said E.U. regulators were using Microsoft to send a strong warning to other companies to heed European regulations. He said E.U. regulators are currently probing U.S. technology companies such as Google, Qualcomm, Intel and Rambus. Microsoft itself is facing two new E.U. antitrust investigations that began in January. Iain Begg, a professor at the European Institute of the London School of Economics, said the fine may not hurt Microsoft, "but it's still enough to say to other companies, 'Don't mess with us, and if you do we'll hit you with fines that your shareholders will squeal about.' "
LONDON, Feb. 27 -- European Union antitrust regulators fined Microsoft $1.3 billion on Wednesday, the largest fine they have ever imposed on a company, in the latest round of a nearly decade-long dispute in which the U.S. software giant was accused of abusing its global market dominance.
10.314815
0.62963
0.814815
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701078.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022701078.html
Iraqi Leaders Veto Law on Elections
2008030119
BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Iraqi government leaders on Wednesday rejected a law requiring nationwide elections by the fall, sidetracking a measure that U.S. officials consider a key benchmark for political reconciliation in Iraq. Parliament passed the legislation two weeks ago. The veto by Iraq's presidency council was an unexpected setback. Lawmakers will now have to reconsider the measure, which they agreed to only as part of a three-law package reached after weeks of political wrangling. The dispute became so divisive that some called for the dissolution of parliament. The two other laws -- Iraq's 2008 budget and an amnesty that could apply to thousands of detainees in Iraqi prisons -- were approved by the presidency council. "This is a huge disappointment," said the Shiite deputy speaker of parliament, Khalid al-Attiyah, through an aide. "The political blocs all agreed on this law before. Now we will have to try to start all the deals and agreements from the beginning." The legislation was vetoed because of the opposition of Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shiite vice president who sits on the three-member presidency council, according to his aides and other lawmakers. The council must approve all laws unanimously. Abdul Mahdi's aides said he believed the law was unconstitutional and would put too much control in the hands of the central government instead of the provinces. "We need a law that will dismantle the centralization and make Iraq a federal government with power to the governors and provincial councils," said Hamid al-Saedi, a lawmaker who, like Abdul Mahdi, belongs to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the largest Shiite party in parliament. Passage of the law, which delineated the scope of provincial powers, was considered a crucial step not just because it fleshed out the constitution's definition of Iraq as a federal state, but because it would have required provincial elections to be held by Oct. 1. The last nationwide elections took place in 2005. The presidency council -- its two other members are President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and the country's other vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni -- remains firmly committed to holding the elections by Oct. 1, according to Naseer al-Ani, a spokesman for the panel. Aides to Abdul Mahdi said he expects planning for the elections to go on even as parliament reconsiders the bill. But Western diplomats said they worry that most of the political parties have no incentive to ensure elections are held, because many are likely to lose out to newly formed parties or those that boycotted the 2005 elections. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, for example, now controls much of the local government in southern Iraq. But if elections were held, it might lose many of those positions to the movement of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which did not take part in the last provincial contests. The Iraqi Islamic Party, the powerful Sunni party led by Hashimi, might lose power to new Sunni politicians affiliated with the U.S.-backed Awakening movement that began in the western province of Anbar. "Everyone says that they are all for provincial elections, but there is a lot of foot-dragging going on here," said one Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to damage relationships with his Iraqi counterparts. "I think a lot of these politicians would be happy if elections never took place." Abdul Mahdi was most concerned about two provisions in the law, his aides said. One would have allowed the national parliament to remove provincial governors in certain circumstances; the other would have given parliament control over aspects of individual provincial budgets. Also Wednesday, the head of the Iraqi national journalists union, Shihab al-Tamimi, died after he was shot by unknown gunmen over the weekend. More than 175 journalists and media support workers have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. Special correspondent Zaid Sabah contributed to this report.
BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- Iraqi government leaders on Wednesday rejected a law requiring nationwide elections by the fall, sidetracking a measure that U.S. officials consider a key benchmark for political reconciliation in Iraq.
21.583333
1
36
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700299.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700299.html
Justices Assess Financial Damages in Exxon Valdez Case
2008030119
The Supreme Court yesterday pondered one of those questions that seem designed for brilliant legal minds: How much money would be an adequate punishment for a company responsible for one of the nation's most horrific environmental disasters, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska? A jury in the state said $5 billion. An appeals court said $2.5 billion. And Exxon's answer yesterday was nothing at all, because the company has already paid plenty for the tragedy in Prince William Sound nearly 20 years ago. Justices explored just about every possible alternative through intense questioning during an hour and a half of arguments before a packed courtroom. By the end, it seemed that several held the view that the company could be found liable for punitive damages, but perhaps not for as much money as even the appeals court had found. There were several unusual aspects to yesterday's arguments in a case that has bounced through the legal system for 14 years. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is recused because of his Exxon stockholdings, so even a 4 to 4 tie on the court would affirm the lower court's decisions that punitive damages are owed to nearly 33,000 fishermen, native Alaskans, businessmen and others consolidated into the single suit against Exxon. And, as Justice David H. Souter noted, the court for a decade has struggled with determining whether punitive damages awarded by state courts were excessive. Now, he suggested, it is the Supreme Court's turn to "come up with a number." Exxon has acknowledged that the captain of the Exxon Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, was drunk at the time of the March 24, 1989, accident, and the corporation has paid about $3.4 billion in fines, compensation and cleanup costs. But in his opening arguments, Exxon's attorney before the court, Walter E. Dellinger, said punitive damages -- awarded to punish the company and deter future wrongdoing -- are unnecessary and improper under "maritime law rule that has been settled for 200 years." But he did not get far, coming under fire immediately from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "It's rather, I think, an exaggeration to call it a long line of settled decisions in maritime law," Ginsburg said, adding that the 1818 decision in The Amiable Nancy that Dellinger relied upon did not touch on punitive damages. Ginsburg was no more impressed with Dellinger's alternative argument, that it was wrong for the jury to conclude that because Hazelwood was reckless, so was Exxon and, thus, it is liable for punitive damages. Perhaps the jury was reacting to testimony that Exxon knew Hazelwood was a lapsed alcoholic but allowed him on "voyage after voyage," Ginsburg said. "The jury could have found: Never mind the captain. Exxon, itself, is a grave wrongdoer because it allowed the tanker to be operated by a captain who was certainly not fit."
The Supreme Court yesterday pondered one of those questions that seem designed for brilliant legal minds: How much money would be an adequate punishment for a company responsible for one of the nation's most horrific environmental disasters, the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska?
10.960784
1
51
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/27/DI2008022701866.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/27/DI2008022701866.html
William F. Buckley Jr. Dies
2008030119
John Miller, national political reporter for the National Review, the magazine Buckley founded, will be online Wednesday, Feb. 27, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the life and work of the conservative icon. Buckley's Final Column: Fowlerspeak-Goodspeak ( National Review, Feb. 2) Harrisburg, Pa.: When did you first meet William F. Buckley and what were your first impressions of him? What were some of the inspirations that you personally obtained from your association with Mr. Buckley? John Miller: I joined National Review as a writer ten years ago, and the first time I met him would have been a little while after that. I worked in the DC office and he was based mainly in New York, and when I saw him it was generally up there. The first time we met was at his home in Manhattan. He's a legend and I was nervous: my goal for the evening was to avoid saying anything dumb in his presence. I soon learned that he was the most gracious of men. He immediately put me at ease and asked what I was writing about with genuine curiosity. He listened to me more than I listened to him. On the National Review Web site, we've just published a short obituary--it notes that Bill had "a talent for friendship." That's exactly right. Saddened to hear of the death of Wm. Buckley. Can you tell me which of his political books he most liked and thought held up best through the years? John Miller: I have no idea. It's possible that his first book, God and Man at Yale, was his most important and influential--it certainly put him on the map as a young intellectual. He had great range, writing dozens of books of fiction and non-fiction. His great legacy as a writer probably isn't as a writer of books, though, but as a writer of newspaper columns. He died this morning in his study, and I'll bet there's a good chance he was working on his latest when death came. Albuquerque, N.M.: One can vehemently disagree with a man, and still learn precious things from him. I am surely among the least of many anti-conservatives who learned so much of the art of debate and language at this man's televised knee throughout the period of Firing Line's broadcast run. John Miller: WFB was impossible to dislike. He was full of good cheer and humor. He had a great smile. Some of his closest friends were liberals, such as Hugh Kenner. He understood that politics wasn't everything--he even resented that politics mattered as much as they do. Here's what he said on the occasion of NR's 10th anniversary: "Politics, it has been said, is the preoccupation of the quarter educated, and I do most solidly endorse this observation, and therefore curse this country above all things, for its having given sentient beings very little alternative but to occupy themselves with politics. It is all very well and good to ignore [the Johnson administration's] Great Society. But will the Great Society ignore us?" Sacramento, Calif.: Just a comment: William F. Buckley, Jr. was a true conservative. He knew deficit spending was a bad thing (something George W. Bush and today's Republicans too often ignore.) He was vehemently opposed to the so-called War on Drugs and other government intrusions into individual lives and freedoms. Equally important, he was a gentleman. Unlike the ideological zealots and haters of today (are you listening, Ann Coulter?), he could debate issues with his opponents honestly and fairly without branding them as traitors or worse. As the nation turns from ultra-partisanship toward reason and unity, he will be missed. John Miller: He was arguably the first modern public intellectual, for many of the reasons you mention. He was certainly one of the first to master television. The Firing Line was a far cry from the screaming-head shows that dominate political television today--they were forums of real debate, in which opposing viewpoints could state their cases and cross examine each other. It was a true marketplace of ideas. Los Angeles, Calif.: This is Tim Page writing in from California, where I am taking a leave from The Post. I knew Bill Buckley only slightly but was always astonished by his warmth and generosity toward people who were on different sides of the political spectrum, and thought I'd share a personal reflection. When I collected Glenn Gould's writings in a volume for Knopf, a couple years after GG died, I wrote to Buckley out of the blue to suggest a "Firing Line" program on the question of whether the live concert had indeed been superceded by the recording, as Gould had claimed. Buckley responded immediately and turned a whole hour of prime PBS time over to this rather recondite subject, with former Met director Schuyler Chapin and harpsichordist Rosalyn Tureck as the other guests. Remember that this was 1985, long before the days of C-Span and BookTalk. It was uncommonly gracious of him -- and it proves, once again, how deeply interested he was in many subjects far removed from the political arena. I think a lot of people who didn't necessarily agree with everything Buckley wrote are missing him today. He had a genius for friendship and I can't think of anybody quite like him. John Miller: This is a great remembrance. WFB was a real renaissance man who had genuine musical talent. He learned how to play the harpsichord at an advanced age and performed publicly. 23112: WFB's book "Airborne: A Sentimental Journey" is on my list as one of the most lyrical and engaging works of nonfiction of all time. As I was reading it for the first time, I kept thinking to myself "This is how I want to write." Bill's command of the language, extensive knowledge on the subject of sailing (and life), and obvious love for writing are a huge inspiration. RIP. John Miller: One of the things that amazed me about his writing--in addition to the vocab-test words and the incredible range--was how quickly he wrote. He has written about one book per year, in addition to his syndicated columns and other projects. As I professional writer myself, I've learned how important it is to write fast. He could famously pound out a column in the backseat of a car, in the space of 20 or 30 minutes--and do a better job with it than those of us who have an entire afternoon to accomplish the same thing. Arlington, Va.: Where did Buckley's accent come from? It sounds like the stereotypical accent you'd hear in a movie about a rich snob. Can you hear this accent in other parts of New England? Did the way he spoke have a negative effect on what he actually said, i.e. did people immediately sum him up as a snob and ignore what he was trying to say? John Miller: Beats me. It's been said that his first language was Spanish, because that's what his nanny spoke to him. I believe he spent some time in England growing up. Above all things, his accent was distinctive. Robin Williams does a hilarious parody of it in the Disney movie Aladdin. Laurel, Md.: To those of us who wish it hadn't, conservative Republicanism became the majority political philosophy by basically flipping white Southerners. What role did Buckley's eastern-establishment brand of Republicanism do to help effect this change? John Miller: WFB may have hailed from Connecticut, but he certainly didn't peddle an "eastern-establishment brand of Republicanism." For one thing, he was a conservative rather than a Republican--this distinction may be lost on a lot of people, but it isn't lost on members of the conservative movement. Also, he led a political revolt against establishment Republicanism. He famously rejected the slogan "I Like Ike" in favor of "I Prefer Ike." And he was closely tied to the Goldwater campaign in 1964, which is the moment when movement conservatives began to exercise their strength within the GOP. As for how conservatism (as opposed to "Republicanism") became a "majority political philosophy" -- to the extent that it actually happened, which is debatable -- it had a lot to do with the existential threat of Communism and the inability or refusal of mainstream liberalism to confront crime and welfare dependency. We could have a big discussion about this. My point here is merely that there's a lot more to the rise of conservatism than southern political realignment. washingtonpost.com: We're having some technical problems and hope to resume the chat soon. New York, N.Y.: William Buckley came to oppose the war in Iraq, but his successor at National Review, William Kristol, is a hearty supporter, reflected in the magazine's editorial policy. Was that a source of distress or consternation for Buckley? Thanks for the chat. John Miller: I believe it's fair to say that WFB supported the invasion of Iraq and began to have misgivings about the result that led him to reconsider the whole enterprise -- but that he also supported the troops surge. Last year, he made a personal contribution to the presidential campaign of John McCain. (Also, the editor of National Review is Richard Lowry; William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.) Austin, Tex.: So many conservative politicians today brag openly about their anti-intellectual credentials. It's a badge of pride for them. And a vote-getter, apparently. Did Buckley have anything to say about that? Do you? John Miller: I'm not sure which conservative politicians you're talking about. What's impressed me today is how many are issuing statements in which they acknowledge an intellectual debt to WFB--the very opposite of what you're suggesting. Also, the kind words are coming from liberals as well, including Joe Lieberman and Mario Cuomo. Plainview, N.Y.: Hi John. Do you think Bill Buckley rued the day he didn't support Martin Luther King in the '50s? I got the impression in watching him that his decision about the '50s and early civil rights movement was a great regret that he didn't come forcefully for it. John Miller: Yes. He said it was a mistake not to have supported civil-rights legislation in the 1960s. He came to support a national holiday for MLK, according to Sam Tanenhaus, who is writing a bio of WFB. Washington, D.C.: I am surprised I am so saddened by the passing of a man I never knew. I watched Firing Line, I read his column, and I was inspired to be more literate, dignified and reasoned. I tell everyone that his commencement speech at Coe College in Iowa (probably circa 1990) was the greatest commencement speech I ever heard. He showed me that conservative was not a synonym for racist, just like liberal does not necessarily imply tolerant, as HRC and her supporters have graciously shown to be the case. He had more of an effect on me than any public figure. John Miller: At National Review, our email in-boxes are jammed with messages such as this--condolences from all types of people. It just goes to show that WFB left a mark on a lot of lives. He was conservatism's great evangelist, performing his work through his magazine, his newspaper column, his books, his essays, and his speeches. washingtonpost.com: This concludes the discussion with John Miller. 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.
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.
56.560976
0.634146
0.829268
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022602993.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022602993.html
Hazardous to Your Privacy?
2008030119
"When doctors have all the information related to the patient, they make better decisions," said the clinic's chief information officer, C. Martin Harris. "There's also a cost benefit -- if doctors don't have the right information, they may [needlessly] repeat tests." To make that possible, and point the way for a nationwide system enabling patients to control their personal medical records, the clinic announced last week that it was participating in a pilot project with a company that's very used to moving and sharing data: Google. The Cleveland program is the unofficial kickoff for a long-awaited project called Google Health, which will be open to the public later this year. This is only one of many programs aimed at putting electronic personal health records in the hands of consumers. Alliances such as Wal-Mart and Intel are setting up systems, and start-ups such as AOL founder Steve Case's Revolution Health are staking out their niches the health-care infrastructure. And earlier this week came the announcement that AT&T would help create a network of health records in the state of Tennessee. But the most interesting new players are Google and its perpetual rival. Yes, Microsoft is already offering a beta version of a health-records service, boasting a relationship with the Mayo Clinic. Google's system allows outside doctors to send information through Google that the Cleveland Clinic can merge with existing files. And more significantly, with a special health section of Google, where it will become part of a consumer-controlled dossier -- perhaps existing alongside a user's Gmail account, blog postings and purchase history using Google Checkout. In one sense, an electronic personal health file, parceled out only with permission to necessary medical providers, seems like a no-brainer. But there are treacherous aspects -- namely, privacy concerns. Personal health records contain our most intimate details: information that could affect landing a job, obtaining insurance and even one's social life. Medical files in the care of health-care providers like doctors, pharmacies and hospitals enjoy legal protections specified by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Covered files are strictly controlled, can't easily be subpoenaed, can't be exploited for profit and have to be stored securely. But Microsoft and Google aren't health-care providers. "When you move records from a doctor to a personal health record, your protection evaporates," said Robert Gellman, author of a World Privacy Forum study on the subject released last week. He concluded that such systems "can have significant negative consequences for the privacy of consumers." Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said companies like Google and Microsoft should not start their services until Congress extends the HIPAA protections to cover such businesses. Obviously, Google and Microsoft think otherwise, and both companies are taking considerable pains to address privacy issues. Both have detailed privacy policies drafted after consultations with experts in the field. The name of Microsoft's service, Microsoft Vault, addresses the issue head-on. ("It wasn't an accident that we picked that," says product manager George Scriban.) In pitching its trustworthiness, Microsoft notes its history of protecting business-sensitive data. Google makes a similar point. "Google's whole business is based on privacy and trust," said Vice President Marissa Mayer, who heads the project. Will consumers have to worry that advertisers will be able to target them so vendors can sell treatments for ailments documented in their records? No, the companies say. Although beefed-up searching for medical issues is a big part of both services, personal files, at least as of now, won't be taken into account in search results. Both firms also vow that the customers will have total control over their records -- no releases without explicit permission. But the very existence of a detailed health dossier accessible in an instant can make control difficult. What if the government subpoenas the records? What if a potential insurer demands to see all the records, telling you that you can't get a policy if you don't provide them? What if your spouse -- or even someone you're dating -- demands to see all your records? While the tech companies entering the medical-record business spend a lot of effort addressing privacy and security concerns, they much prefer to dwell on the benefits of empowering consumers with their own health files. "If you only talk about the risk of these plans, and not the benefit, you're having the wrong conversation," said Peter Neupert, head of Microsoft's health solutions group. Fair enough, but underestimating the risk would be computational malpractice. Steven Levy, a senior editor at Newsweek, can be reached atsteven.levy@newsweek.com.
The Cleveland Clinic, the renowned nonprofit medical center, has kept electronic records of its patients for some time. But despite the easy transport of everything digital, by and large those records have been as immobile as scrawled doctor's notes stored in manila folders. And, in their traditi...
16.854545
0.636364
0.927273
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700700.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700700.html
From North Korea, Discordant Messages
2008030119
But will the first-of-its-kind performance of the New York Philharmonic here this week help unlock this hermit state? Signals are maddeningly mixed. North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, did not attend the concert Tuesday evening, but he did allow it to be broadcast live on state television and radio. Tuesday's evening news on state television did cover the visit of the U.S. orchestra, but only after six tedious reports on such events as an undated tour by Kim of a wire factory, children viewing Kim's drawings and fish swimming in an aquarium. North Korea's main daily newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, covered the concert that made front pages around the world. But it did so on Wednesday, with a brief article on Page 4. And so it goes, with North Korea taking a step or two toward engagement with the outside world and then taking a step or two toward inscrutability, fist-shaking at the West and repression of its own people. In 2006, Kim's government stunned the United States by detonating a small nuclear bomb. But since last fall, it has made what the Bush administration characterizes as genuine progress in backing away from a nuclear confrontation. It has partially disabled its nuclear facility at Yongbyon, allowing U.S. experts to observe and take part in the work. Last Friday, for the first time ever, it invited a Western television news team to shoot video showing the progress it has made in complying with a disarmament agreement with the United States and four other countries. Still, North Korea has failed to honor its promise to produce a comprehensive list of its nuclear programs, and it declines to discuss any past transfers of nuclear material or technology to other countries. The United States, in response, has delayed lifting diplomatic sanctions that isolate North Korea. As a result, the disarmament process that was a source of widespread optimism three months ago has become gummed up, infuriating the North Koreans and worrying the United States. In Japan on Wednesday, a day after the spirit-lifting orchestral performance in Pyongyang, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice detailed her concerns. "Whenever you have a nuclear program that is as advanced as the North Korean nuclear program in a country that is as opaque and has had very little contact with the outside world, you need to worry about proliferation as a near-term and a long-term concern," Rice said.
PYONGYANG, North Korea, Feb. 27 -- It felt historic inside the concert hall. American musicians got goose bumps and wept when North Koreans leapt to their feet to cheer.
14.272727
0.454545
0.69697
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022201025.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008030119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022201025.html
On Top of Mount Washington, N.H.
2008030119
The winds yell at you. Snow talks softly. But winter is always saying the same thing: Escape. Find some sun. Run as far from me as you can. I listen, just like anyone, but keep suspecting a trick. A February lie. Is there some frozen secret that the season doesn't want me to see? I've hunted for it in trips to Antarctica, to Greenland, to Norway's northernmost tip. But although those places are plenty cold, tour companies and expedition cruise ships protect you from extremes with creature comforts and by running trips at the mildest times of the year. Call me weird. But I've always been curious about winter at its whiteout worst. What can it do to me if I meet it on its turf, on its own unvarnished terms? I haven't had much luck at finding winter in the raw. I've stumbled on the ultimate cold-weather adventure. It isn't exotic. It's convenient: an overnight at the top of New Hampshire's Mount Washington, only a few hours' drive from my home. The 6,288-foot summit claims "the world's worst weather." Worse than Everest. Worse than the North and South Poles. There's an observatory up there that's attacked by ice and temperatures of 40 below. In April 1934 it clocked a 231-mph wind, the strongest ever recorded on Earth. Sign up for one of its winter excursions and you get to stagger around in gusts, spend a night in a bunkhouse and watch the weather instruments go wild. The real job of the nonprofit Mount Washington Observatory is to make hourly weather observations at the summit and to do environmental research. In a typical summer, the mountain has a quarter-million visitors, and it's easy to get up to the observatory from May to October. Tourists ride on the Mount Washington cog railway or motor up the auto road (you've seen the "This Car Climbed. . . . " bumper stickers). But once the snow hits, only a few hundred make it to the top. That's where the observatory's winter day trips and its overnight program come in: Overnights cost $459 plus a membership fee for joining the observatory, and each features an expert instructor with an environmental lecture theme. A snow tractor takes you up and back down, and you sack out in the observatory bunk room. The first overnight with space available is in mid-January. The Mount Washington car road and cog train are closed because of snow from October to May, so we'll be hauled to the top in the back of a snow cat. "Since we cannot count on 100% reliable transportation," reads the flier mailed to me in advance, "you must be in good physical condition so that you can hike to safety . . . in rugged weather conditions with energy-sapping cold, chilling and buffeting winds, and through deep drifted snow." I am ready. But then there's the detailed list of gear, a spreadsheet that falls out of the same envelope. What's an ice ax? Am I going to be chopping there? Sports Authority is out of the required anti-fog solution to apply to my ski goggles. I end up packing my flannel-lined jeans instead of the suggested wind pants, and I pick up a pair of gloves at a CVS because I don't have time to shop for "windproof mitten shells."
Find Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland travel information, including web fares, Washington DC tours, beach/ski guide, international and United States destinations. Featuring Mid-Atlantic travel, airport information, traffic/weather updates
15.697674
0.395349
0.44186
medium
low
abstractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/obama_fires_back_at_mccain_1.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022719id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/obama_fires_back_at_mccain_1.html
Obama Fires Back at McCain
2008022719
By Shailagh Murray COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back at Sen. John McCain this morning after the Arizona Republican suggested Obama was unaware that al-Qaeda had been causing trouble in Iraq. Speaking in Tyler, Texas, McCain cast Obama as dangerously clueless for suggesting during last night's debate with Sen. Hilllary Rodham Clinton that he would consider redeploying U.S. troops to Iraq under certain conditions, including if al-Qaeda returned to establish a base of operations there. Or, as moderator Tim Russert put it, if "al-Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell." "I have some news," McCain said a rally this morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called al-Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base...they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaeda." Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying , "Well let me give you some news Barack, al-Qaeda IS in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'well first of all I DO know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq , that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets." He was just getting warmed up. Obama's foreign policy bona fides, after all, would likely emerge as a prime Republican line of attack in the general election, should the Illinois senator become the Democratic nominee. "I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," Obama said, as the crowd roared. "I've got some news for John McCain! He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001." "I've been paying attention, John McCain," Obama continued, the cheers growing so loud that the audience could hardly make out the words. "That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars...I respect John McCain but he's tied to the politics of the past -- we are about the policies of the future! Hes the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow." Posted at 1:38 PM ET on Feb 27, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Previous: Sen. Dorgan to Endorse Obama | Next: Final Debate Changes Little, Though Earlier Ones Changed Obama Add The Trail to Your Site Posted by: effexor 725 mg daily | August 21, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse Posted by: wolfe effexor xr self magazine | August 18, 2008 4:39 AM | Report abuse Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse Posted by: cymbalta and pain management | August 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse Posted by: bupropion cymbalta | August 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse Posted by: rpyg sfxz | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse Posted by: rpyg sfxz | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse nudwrjgmo dqxhk stzu vcitduy xpqcmek zfcmuk yubprtlcq Posted by: wxcdar mouljzfq | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse AHA! OBAMA REFUSES ISLAM! HE PRETENDS TO BE A UCC CHRISTIAN? SINCE WHEN? AND WHAT KIND OF LIBERAL CHURCH IS THIS? BUT, BY THE WAY: IS OBAMA CIRCUMCIZED? AT WHAT AGE DID HE GET IT AND WHAT KIND OF CIRCUMCISION STYLE AND CEREMONY TOOK PLACE? LET HIM REPLY AND POST THE PICTURE. EVERYONE IS FREE TO JOIN ANY CULT THEY WANT, BUT NO ONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IS FREE TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH A CLOSET AFFILIATION, A SECRET ALLEGIANCE AND A HIDDEN AGENDA. FOR THE SHARIA PWERS THAT BE, OBAMA IS THEIR THING, THEIR OBJECT. OBAMA MAY CLAIM THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SHARIA, BUT HE IS POWERLESS AGAINST THEM, AND THEY HAVE ALL THE LEVERAGE AGAINST HIM. NOT FOR US. THANKS BUT NO THANKS OBAMA. THERE ARE OTHER MORE RELIABLE CANDIDATES. Ovadia Salama, Ph.D. Posted by: ovadia.salama | March 11, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse i went to obama's rally in ohio it felt like a church cermon. nothing was said to convince me. i need a doer not a talker. words are cheap. Ralph Nader will get many democratic votes in the general elections if obama will be the nominee and the republicans will win again Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse i trust hillary clinton at 3 am in he morning i don't trust obama he is too close to the muslims Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse Rat-the is a mere idiot. Why waste your time asking him anything? How many of you are willing to continue losing your sons and daughters in Iraq, or if you have no sons or daughters there, how many American lives do you want waste in a war that would not happened in the first place were it not for the likes of Bush, Clinton and McClain. I, like John McClain am a navy veteran and was myself deployed to Vietnam at the time he was shot down. At that time, his father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., was the Seventh Fleet Commander whom I saw many times. By calling Obama Barack Hussein shows the worst kind of stupidity and ignorance. I wonder how many of you so willing to waste American lives in Iraq have ever even been in the military and are dumb enough to see war as some type of grand adventure. Posted by: williamroberson180 | March 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse Out polishing his Ay-Kay, I suppose. Posted by: mplark | March 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse Sen. Obama said that he would bring all the troops home in 16 months. He has also said that he will, (1) secure the Iraqi borders (2)to stop the sectarian violence (3)continue to run combat Ops against al-Qaeda Posted by: sam51 | March 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse National Security? No attacks on Americans since 9/11? Hogwash. The only difference is that we have been sending our people to their neighborhood for them to attack there. Why would they attack Americans here and create unity when they can kill and maim Americans there while creating disunity and divisions here. And the cost to us in ways other than blood has been far more costly to us than anything they could cause by an attack here. How many Americans and their families have been destroyed since we invaded Iraq? They will attack here when we no longer send our people to their place for them to attack. In the meantime the latest report is that crime in America is increasing...since Bush prefers to put cops on every corner in Baghdad while decreasing the number of police in our own cities. Security? Ask the person who was just robbed, beaten or had a loved one killed because no money was spent to protect the population, individually and collectively. Posted by: Valjean1 | March 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse I want to make a very interesting point about how the Republicans and Bush are going after obama already, when he is NOT the Democrat candidate for President. Do people think that he will be able to withstand their attacks when we get closer to the election... that is, unless he has the Republicans under his belt (somthing to think about!). Why would President Bush of all people choose to address somthing that obama said, it is irrelevant! obama is noone and in a couple months we can stop hearing about him, its been old for a while now. obama says he did not support the Iraq war, and yet he voted to support the funding for the war, is that not the same thing? Unfortunately the media may believe that the American public is unintelligent and cant make their own deductions about the candidates. Doesnt it make you wonder why they are promoting obama as if he is the NEWEST CELEBRITY IN TOWN!". He is a fraud and I refuse to believe that this country is that corrupt, the only hope that I have left is in HILLARY CLINTON. People be aware of propaganda, it is very rooted in this country and any country with such power over the masses. I hope the Republicans rip him into pieces!!! Posted by: mary_smairat | March 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse In law - ignorance is no excuse. Nor is stupidity. Not ignorance of facts or history either. Saddam was more ruthless with al-Qaeda than with his political enemies. He butchered them. But even if they were there - in what way did they threaten the U.S.? Big lies and small lies - W.M.D. - Iraq as sponsors of 9/11. Lies knowingly told the American public and the world. Dubbya's Iraq catastrophe has been a recruiting agent for al-Qaeda beyond belief. If al-Qaeda is crushed in Iraq - how will that make America safer? Is it a co-incidence that Cheney's Halliburton has received over 100 $Billion of no-bid contracts? Oil, money, arrogance and lust of power for its own sake. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. And the world victimized as a result. Posted by: amigo1926 | March 1, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse Barak is a one-hit-wonder on the Iraq War. Somehow he knew better when our President told us in a State of the Union Address that intelligence was that Saddam was recently seeking nuclear material to build a bomb or give Bin Laden dirty bomb material. There was a story about 900+ misleading statements along with and supportive of the above Address. We know about the one-hit when he was a State Official not having to actually vote on it, but what about the other crisis he has faced? Oh that's right; he hasn't! Posted by: CliffinWA | February 29, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse The new word for Barak is Hillary Lite - minus the baggage, but light on substance and weak on National Security. Bush's contempt of his foreign policy is just the tip of the Republican iceberg about to hit Barak There are only two clear issues, UHC and National Security. Somehow debating these is negatively attacking poor Barak and bringing down the Democratic Party! The issue in Democratic domain is universal health care and despite Barak's attempts to suggest otherwise UHC is clearly dependent on Hillary. Hillary Lite won't do. The biggest issue is National Security and will be fiercely challenged by the other party. What? Do you think if Hillary does not bring it up the Republicans won't either? Barak did not flip-flop fast enough (in the debate) on reaching out to dictators as President. Bush hit him soundly as warm up practice before Obama could cover his naivety. Posted by: CliffinWA | February 29, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse Bush assured the nation that Saddam had WMD and was willing and able to use them on a moments notice. MCs (Members of Congress) assumed the president had concrete information not available to others and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Time and events revealed that that assumption and benefit of the doubt was obviously misplaced. McCain say he still supports the invasion even knowing what he knows today. I think it would be interesting to now poll all MCs whether they support the invasion knowing what they know today. Yes or no. Not how it was progressed. The decision to invade. Do they support McCain in his "knowing what I know today I would still invade" view? If so, then the follow up is Why? Posted by: Valjean1 | February 29, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse Beside the serious debates on the war and economy, I hope reporters are paying attention to underhanded tricks. The spectacle of girls fainting at Obama's rallies has a feel of tricks to slow the Senator down as he rallies the crowds. The first time I saw it happen--in New Hampshire--it was clear the fainting girl put him off his stride and the rally lost a lot of steam because everyone waited many long minutes for a medical response. This girl recovered and vanished. How many of such fainters are pro-Hillary tricksters put up to "pause" the Senator's rallies? Posted by: shirleylim | February 28, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse Nominating Obama would be the biggest favor the Democrats could do for McCain, second only to going into their convention without a nominee at all (Clinton vows to fight on) Obama claims to want to bring the parties together. How many times has he reached across to a republican senator to get legislation done? .... Zero How many times has he voted for a piece of republican sponsored legislation?.... Zero Dis he join with other Democratic and Republican leaders in the Gang of 14 to break the deadlock in the Senate? ... No How would he deal with Iraq in real terms, would he set a date and tell everybody we were leaving? How many 747s would it take to get every soldier and contractor out. 1000? 2000? Can the Baghdad airport handle that many? What do you with all of the equipment? Give to the insurgents? (Because you know the government would collapse) Would you put it all on ships and bring it home? (Do we have that many ships capable) Then what happens when Iraq devolves into chaos? Send them all home? This man is naive, MacCain is more bipartisan than Obama ever was. Posted by: brian68dee | February 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse Vote for McCain and send your kid to war, a preemptive war that has nothing to preempt, which is the kind he supports apparently. Given the choices I support President Gore. The Dems need to get real. Posted by: Valjean1 | February 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse May I suggest that the user rat-the be banned from this forum ? Thank You. Posted by: barakobahamas | February 28, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse Barack Insane Obasama-Congressional Lawyer specialized in Constitutional Law. John McCain-American Hero specialized in American Military. Both are running for the Job of Commander in Chief. Only one is remotely Qualified. Barack Obasama, I think I hear your Mother calling! Something about "It is time to stop playing, and come inside"! Posted by: rat-the | February 28, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse President Gore. Has kind of a nice ring to it. Time for the Dem convention to select a winner. Posted by: Valjean1 | February 28, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse Besides, in Iraq, they're mostly fighting with each other, and they don't have the capability to attack the U.S. We probably need to let them slug it out and resolve their own issues, and meanwhile provide humanitarian aid to any refugees. Humanitarian aid is a lot cheaper and more effective than military occupation. Also, our presence prolongs discord, because any side that works with Americans is then suspect as being American-influenced and not legitimate. Posted by: yihe94703 | February 28, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse You know, we withdrew from Vietnam with horrid fears about communists and "losing" (whatever that means). Well, Vietnam healed itself when left alone, and now it's a lovely country to visit. Posted by: yihe94703 | February 28, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse I have to put my two cent in, Mccain is a military man that voted for the war in Iraq, saying he will be a better President because of his war service, I come from a military family, we need to bring our troops home, what about the children, wives, mothers, fathers that haven't seen their kids, because of 2, 3, 4 tours to Iraq, and the many that have lost their lives, Mccain is all about wars, he said we would probaly be in Iraq 100 years, our military is at it's breaking point, a vote for Mccain is just an extention of a another war, my heart goes out to all the families that have suffered under the Bush administration, we need a new direction. Posted by: cuteshytown | February 28, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse Shrink2 - I certainly hope that everyone is on the same side to reduce human suffering, and I am honored to have anyone recognize that military efforts, and those who partake in them, are committed to do the enormous task of reducing human suffering. If you have been working with veterans, I am sure that much of their frustrations come from the conflict and difficult job that they have to do. The men and women that I had the honor of serving with more often than not chose to do the hard right rather than the easy wrong. My objection to Obama is that this is not the time learn on the job or to gamble on the hope that the next President will stand up and do the hard right. I don't want to make fun of Obama, but I do want a record of accomplishments and a demonstration that he is willing to the hard right, stand up against his base, and to be candid with the American people about the choices we face. Thus far, Obama has disappointed me on every front. In 2006, Democrats ran for congress because the Republican leadership refused to do its job and exercise its oversight responsibilities. That Senator Obama claims he can not hold oversight of NATO efforts in Afghanistan because he is to busy on the campaign trail, this is a sustenance failure and a demonstration that he places his political ambitions ahead of his responsibilities. He has missed important votes, like on Iran, and has consistently refused to stand up to the most liberal elements of his party like Moveon.org that insulted every person in a uniform by calling General Petreaus a traitor. He has never joined those moderates in both parties seeking to end the politics as usual such as the gang of 16 in judicial appointments, or even on the immigration bill. If he is unable to execute his job as a senator representing the people of IL, he should resign rather than use his campaign as an excuse for not doing his job. There is a long history of Obama not living up to his rhetoric here in Chicago and delivering or supporting much needed change in our governments. They are some of the most corrupt and incompetent in the nation, and he has consistently endorsed and benefited from his association with the likes of Rezko. The unethical, self-described 'boneheaded' association with Rezko in the purchase of his home, in which it appears he benefited by hundred of thousands of dollars, is not the kind of change America needs - it is the same kind of petty corruption that those of us who served in Iraq are all too familiar with. The torture issue is not a trivial issue. The Chicago Police Department for years used torture under commander Burge. The top law enforcement official in Cook County at that time was State Attorney Richard J. Daley, now the mayor of Chicago. Obama has never called for some accountability of Mayor Daley's turning a blind eye toward the torture that occurred within a US city police department, why would we believe he is going to call for change within the CIA? Senator McCain has consistently demonstrated that he puts his principles ahead of his political fortune. He clearly stands head and shoulders above Obama on being able to deliver on the much needed reforms and leadership this nation needs. Obama seems to me to the individual tied to the politics of the past, refusing to stand up to vested interest that have corrupted politics throughout IL, and seeking a position that he is clearly unqualified for. That some of McCain's supporters choose to concentrate on the trivial issue or perceptions, wrong perceptions, because of his last name is not the way to beat Obama at the poles. Focusing on the issues, and that this nation needs a leader with a record of fighting the vested interest that have corrupted our politics, a leader willing to take tough stands despite their political consequences, and a leader who will be candid about the situation we face on the war front is what this nation needs. Cheap shots, political grandstanding, and empty slogans are not what this nation needs. Do the right thing and support McCain. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse Oh this is fun to read - and I want to add an idiots rant to some idiot ranters comment. Our Great Nation, The United States of America, was founded because we threw off the tyranny of King George 3rd of England. Did you hear that-King GEORGE. All Georges MUST be crooks ! Damn .. am I glad I voted for an Al ... Now about that Hussein guy - it's a good thing a Hussein never ever attacked me. In fact he never helped, aided or abetted in anyway the guys who did attack my Great Nation!! Nope - My country was attacked by friends of - you GUESSED IT - Friends of GEORGE! The Saudi's and their Bin Laden's who've done business with George's family for years ! Well - We know Georges are bad, and since Hussein never attacked me and are enemies of George, I will Back the enemy of my Enemy - Go Barack Hussein Obama in '08 !!! Posted by: jdolza | February 27, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse Rat is a much lower form of rat. Posted by: dhhd4 | February 27, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse I cant wait to watch the GOP try to use their tired old attack machine on Barack Obama and watch it blow up in their faces. - Muhahahahahaaaa - this is gonna' be fun to watch. - All the uncontrollable Jethros running around spouting hate and cheezy backwards blather while McCain tries to distance his campaign from them... Muhahahahah! - I cant wait ! Posted by: PulSamsara | February 27, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse For the good of the country and party, Billary must put their self entitled narcissism aside now and stroll into the sunset. Obama, the Democrats and Independents do not need a two theater war. One against the ugly smears from Billary and another against Lieberman/McCain. Posted by: ben2 | February 27, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse Hillary is toast so just give up. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse ISLAM is a PATRILINEAL religion (passed down through the father). Furthermore, if any Moslem, such as Obama's father, marries a woman from a "Religion of the Book", the children, by Shari'ah (Islamic) law , are considered Moslem by nature. Therefore, Obama is Moslem, as are his father and his grandfather. Period. People like Obama, swiching from Islam to another religion are still forever recognized as Moslems. Those "kaafir" (renegades) are automatically condemned to a sure death by "Fatwa" (Shari'ah law decree), in this World and in the Next. Hussein Obama, who lived among Moslems from ages 6 to 10, cannot pretend ignoring these facts. So, please Obama, stop try fooling people for an unclear motive, stop the masquerade, spare the USA from being ruled by a living-dead President, and just QUIT this race immediately. Ovadia Salama, Ph.D Posted by: ovadia.salama | February 27, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse The side I was referencing had to do with human suffering. You know, I have been so sure that the Clintons are wrong. Not so sure Obama is right. I just started here by objecting to McCain making light of what is going on. Obama has the ability to think and move very fast. He is going to win. But the points you make are valid. People who have not lived in and around death and dying have no idea. McCain knows, but he should not make fun of Obama pretending. Clinton tried that. Obama will learn fast. Hillary and John McCain think they already know everything. Ignore his wife. Obama can learn. Watching him learn has been fascinating. I think he will figure out how to get our kids out of this faster than McCain. McCain needs to avoid all sarcasm in re war. All over the world we see generals put on bad suits and sunglasses and declare themselves President. In this country we don't want presidents who think they are generals, let alone war marshalls. Obama supporters think he has respect for what he does not know. We hope we are right. McCain needs to stop making wise cracks about war. It is scary. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse This Al Qaeda in Iraq argument thing me nuts. Al Qaeda is only one of the factions fighting in Iraq, and a minor one at that. Were we to leave, there would a battle for turf, but it would not be won by Al Qaeda! The Shiite and Sunni Iraquis will never allow a takeover by an organization from outside Iraq! The argument that Al Qaeda will own Iraq is specious and McCain knows it, or should. That's why it's so discouraging that he advances this argument, playing to peoples' ignorance. Barack Obama, a true student of world history and politics, knows better. Posted by: thrapp | February 27, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse Obama has said that he was going to bring the troops home within 16 months if he is elected. Now he says that he will "continue to strike al-Qaeda targets", how , with what troops? Posted by: sam51 | February 27, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse Sadly, I don't think we are on the same side. Senator Obama is nothing more than a fraud in my opinion, and he has done nothing of substance to live up to rhetoric. This man for 13 months has had a position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to influence and provide oversight of what we are doing in the war on terrorism - and Obama has been too busy campaign for his own political ambitions and is failing our troops. He has been in a position even longer on the Senate Veteran Affairs committee to influence our veteran services, and the best he can deliver is phone cards and a few free meals? I thank you for your extended respect, and I hope that people can have a civil debate, but they need to look objectively at Obama. This nation needs leadership, not inspiration. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse clawrence35, well now I have nothing but respect for you. If you are right, I sure hope you are, then fewer of you vets and your families and all the others who suffer as a result of poorly led foreign adventures will be created. I think Obama will generate more peace and you think McCain will. We have no way of knowing, but we are on the same side. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse If you think I am going to be moved by your working with veterans, I am not. I myself am a veteran of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. I returned from Iraq and joined the Kerry campaign because they were arguing for a different strategy, to not engage in war on the cheap, and to carry through on our commitments to our troops and to the Iraqi people. It takes time to create a safe and secure environment within a post-conflict environment. It did in Bosnia - and as we are seeing in Kosovo, the political decisions and reconciliation can take decades. The idea that we are going to abandon the Iraqi people to a fate of being ripped apart by factional and regional powers that are beyond their ability to control is completely un-principled from the Democratic Party that I belonged too. I have been called a traitor by liberals because I want to support our troops, a communist by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" because it they were liars who destroyed an honorable man, and I will stand up and do the right thing and support John McCain, regardless of how much the cultish following of Obama tries to belittle me. If Senator McCain does use his military experiences to influence his decisions, good. He won't be so reckless with their lives, because it isn't academic to him. He can speak with authority on why torture is a "tool" that should never be used because he was a victim of it. He can also use his years of reaching across party lines to find common ground to address the most divisive issues this nation has to confront - not talk about getting a few free meals and phone cards. I know in my heart Obama is not a change agent who is ready to be Commander in Chief. I don't care about party affiliation at this point. This nation is facing far too many critical choices, and Obama simply does not merit support for the highest office in the land. If standing up and doing the right thing makes me a fool in your eyes, so be it. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse No one will defeat this country. It is fantasy driven adventures that we are talking about. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse All vets (me included) - are proud of serving, and proud of anyone who did. However, most military personnel resent being pawns in ANY game. They are not in on the decision to go, but go they do. Fact is we are where we are, but just because you are at war - does not remove from the debate whether it was the right decision to go in or not. I disagree with a staunch argument that we cannot let anyone shout from the mountaintops that we defeated USA. That is pure baloney - we are playing nation building and world cop at this point. Everyone knows if the "war" ended three weeks after it started, these guys dd not stand a chance against the US Mil, and teh world knows it. Posted by: J_thinks | February 27, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse If you don't think John McCain views all of his thoughts about the war in Iraq through the prism of his experience in Vietnam then it is you, sir, who is a fool. Sanctimonious regard for veterans of wars that should never have happened does not show you are smart, or even caring. Oddly, I am now working with veterans of this war and of Vietnam. It is real for me, it is my job. I am a psychiatrist. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed; the party of the future will not keep fighting for nostalgic visions. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse Obama isn't going to be running against The Bush-Cheney team. Senator McCain was an outspoken critic of the failed strategy of The Bush-Cheney team (including Rumsfeld) and advocated for the change in strategy that led to Gen. Petreaus being given responsibilities to be our ground commander in Iraq. They have made tremendous strides in Iraq since that time. America needs to live up to its obligations toward the people of Iraq and our troops on the ground their to ensure they have future worthy of the enormous sacrifices so many have made. To make yet one more failed strategic mistake and abandoned that country to be ripped apart by forces beyond their control would have a lasting impact on America's image abroad. You don't quit when the going gets rough. You don't step in (no matter how wrong the decision was) destroy a country, and then walk away simply because it was a bad decision. Two wrongs don't make a right. Bush was wrong - so would be making Obama president and following his cut and run strategy. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse The above comments make me realize how ignorant most Republicans are. Someone says something smart and they're so dumbfounded all they can do is shout about 9/11, terrorists and think they're being insulting and politically tactful by capitalizing Obama middle name to make him seem like a terrorist. Man, I'm proud to be an independent. Posted by: hellremnant1220 | February 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse Posted by: dowelm | February 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse Hi folks !!!! I was 3 times in Iraq (USAF PILOT) . . . War sucks . Obama is right . Respect . Hillary voted for the war . I lost many friends over there cuz of her blunders . the GOP candidate gonna do the same stuff Bush did . I understand many peeps writing here are RACISTS ...but i do believe that Obama is the BEST so far . Leave aside your racist comments ... Sean Posted by: dowelm | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse The Bush-Cheney team cut and ran from the war on terror in Afghanistan and chose to enter the box canyon of Iraq, for reasons still not provided. He complains of others that want to get out of that box canyon mess he made and return to fighting the terrorists that he left to grow and expand. It's Bush-Cheney who surrendered to the terrorists hiding in the hills and they have gained strength since, worldwide. Iraq has been nothing but a world class training camp for terrorists of many stripes, when it was not before we made it so. Posted by: Valjean1 | February 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse Obama's response was positively hot. Posted by: Charlene-K | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse John, McCain, how exactly would you have won in Vietnam if you were President? The Obama cult members are idiots. They talk about being members of the party of the future, and they are stuck talking about a vote in 2002 and trying to make arguments about things that occured before many of were even born. They claim they honor the service of Sen. McCain, and then turn around and belittle the experiences of someone who spent over 5 years as a POW. They are as ungrateful, and as unwilling to share in the sacrifices to defend our nation and its constitution as Sen. Obama and his wife appear to be. You can not claim that "just words" are important only when you want them to be. Stating that our fallen hero's have wasted their lives, that for the first time in your adult life you are proud of country. That you are honoring our wounded veterans by getting them a few free meals and a couple of phone cards, while they are denied the adequate medical care we owe them, as a measure of commitment to honoring our troops and their service to our nation. You can vote against the funding of MRAP vehicles and the other supplies they need to successfully execute their mission, and then blame the President (and I am no fan of Bush - who's incompetence has harmed our military immeasurably). Obama lacks any demonstrated economic, diplomatic, or military experience to qualify him for President and Commander in Chief. I don't care how inspirational a speech is. Party of the future - get real. His supporters are still talking about Vietnam. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse Obama is getting taken out of context here. The debate question was about a resurgence of Al Qaeda following a withdrawal. To those who keep referring to Sen. Obama as Barack Hussein in their posts: you ought to be ashamed. But I suspect that you have no shame. Yes, that's his middle name. But there is nothing honorable or decent in the way that you reference it. Posted by: tom | February 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse But I voted for Nader last time and... well... You are correct, with Obama we can not know. But with all the others, we know for sure. So many of us who have wrestled with this have watched him intently. We care, we think. We study. It is creepy to be a caring, careful person and an Obama supporter. But it would be even creepier to be a McCain supporter and no one else matters. As far as I can tell, McCain or Obama and at least as important, the people they choose to be designated leaders, will determine the fate of millions. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse shrink2 said: No PhilTR. Lets simplify this another way. Obama needs to be President, not McCain. As noted elsewhere by me: Barack's camp has been spectacularly successful at manipulating critics painting them as racists. Now his supporters claim he's bullet proof. I see this as a fatal weakness that will be exploited by the Republicans and our nations enemies if he is elected. I'm anxious about voting for McCain as to me he represents fear, war and hate mongering. None of which is in our nation's interests. Hillary seems to be falling behind and is likely not to be able to get the party nod. So each day Nader looks more and more attractive. Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse LOL! Dimocrat Socialists are sooooooooo astute and thought provoking! Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse Check out this myspace page from an Iraq veteran: Those that we should be listening to are those that have a right to speak about this war. The men and women who have been there and have seen it first hand. Easy for generals, officials and McCain to tell us we should be in Iraq, we are succeeding in Iraq, we will never leave Iraq while sitting here in the states. Ask an Iraq veteran what they think. Go to the source. Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse No PhilTR. Lets simplify this another way. Obama needs to be President, not McCain. McCain glorifies another tragic disaster in the history of American foreign military adventures and today makes light (watch his face) of those who think this is dead serious. "That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars...I respect John McCain but he's tied to the politics of the past -- we are about the policies of the future! Hes the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow." McCain implied Obama will "surrender" to Al Q. John, McCain, how exactly would you have won in Vietnam if you were President? Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse eebortot erroneously claims: "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq because Osma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussin were sworn enemies. Hussin being the Suni and Laden being the Shi'ite. Get clue before you post! It is true!" Obviously not true. Just because Saddam hated al Qaeda does not mean they were not in Halabja. It's really quite simple. Hard to accept but, quite simple. And btw, I'm an Independent. Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse Almost correct: Saddam was SECULAR - alcohol, movies, music, etc. OBL is a Wahhabi fanatic who hated Saddam and vice-versa. Posted by: vmathis | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq because Osma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussin were sworn enemies. Hussin being the Suni and Laden being the Shi'ite. Get clue before you post! It is true! Posted by: eebortot | February 27, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse I am a registered Independent and voted Republican all my life. I agreed with George Bush in invading Afganistan, but not Iraq. All we did in Iraq was stir up a hornets nest. Come this election I will be casting my vote for Barrack Obama and in 2012 I will be casting my vote for Barrack Obama. He is the man of people and the people's champion. Posted by: eebortot | February 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse Lets simplify this. Barack said that there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Obviously this is not true. Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse mjames2 with his cart stuck in the ditch laments: Moreover, captured Ansar members failed to confirm any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. "None of the former Ansar members remembers ever seeing or even hearing that Jordan-born Abu Musab Zarqawi was in Sargat, or anywhere else in the small Ansar enclave. Washington accused Mr. Zarqawi - " So let me get this straight. al Qaeda did not exist with out Mr. Zarqawi? Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse Indlouis, it was Republicans with military experience - like Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld - who led the way in screwing up Iraq. Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse Guys, This is what you got to think if you continue to chat with rat-t. "Respond to rat-t one time, shame on him, debate with rat-t endlessly, shame on me" The guy lacks substance and one can NEVER win an argument with such people. Posted by: jj2000 | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse 'Al-Qaeda, arguably, has been in Iraq since '01.' Only if "arguably" means "not". Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse This guy has a lot more under the hood than the Clinton crowd had in mind. The Rs are all muttering "uhh ohh" this afternoon. "What are we going to do, hey lets start by making fun of him! That'll work...won't it?" Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse rat-t Mr Obama was not born in Kenya - his Father was. So whats your POINT??? If you were born in Russia but now live in the US and your daughter was born in America is she from Germany too???? Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse At a Republican dinner in 1998, McCain joked.."Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Maybe the reason McCain was never promoted to Admiral is because Navy superiors had already witnessed enough of this man's "judgement." This tailhook brute who picks on children should not be the leader of the free world. Posted by: soonipi6 | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse rat-t It is your opinion of Mr Obama but his experience at running a successful campaign is better that all of the candidates. I guess you were looking at Hillary's record becasue he has introduced bills and has had them pass Sufer Boy!!! Got water in your brains?? Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse I thought I was asking a rhetorical question but apparantly you would have voted for General Westmoreland had he run against Nixon. Right? A "war management" problem. Is that what we face here? Better get the focus groups going. What will the public think of as an "objective positive". Lets establish some Benchmarks (again). Go away lndlouis. Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse bourassa1 said: "First off, it wasn't Al Qaeda, so no, Obama is still right. Secondly, it had never posed a threat to Americans, so it's irrelevant. Thirdly, it was in the no-fly zone, out of Saddam's reach and jurisdiction. " First, that the group "wasn't Al Qaeda" really doesn't matter. For all practical purposes al Qaeda had a foot-hold in Iraq since 2001. Second, it does matter as the group continues to operate in Iraq. For Repub purposes your distinction is irrelevant. Third, how is thirdly relevant to this discussion? al Qaeda, arguably, has been in Iraq since '01. Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse This is why I voted for Obama. Clinton could not have responded to McCain the way Obama did. Get ready to rumble. I will turn it around. I don't think the Republicans know what's headed their way. You under estimate Obama at your own peril. Posted by: comingawakening | February 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse Keep an eye on Barack Obama, get to know him and the views (for and opposing him). I monitor this site: For better or worse, he very well may be the Democratic nominee, so we better know what he really stands for. Posted by: davidmwe | February 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse Yeah, I am quite aware of the Happa Haole's Racial Background. See, the phrase Happa Haole is designed to point out the weakness! Barack Hussein Obasama is Half White! But, even that is not entirely true. Nomadic Muslims from Africa mixed with Caucasians traditionally are referred to as "Arab"! They are what resides between Africa, and the Caucasus Mountains! ;~) Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse The question is no longer who voted to go to war. That is a dead horse. Beating it is useless. The question is, who is the best person to manage it now that we are there. Answer - Who ever can prove they can manage it the best. An inexprienced Senator A more experienced Senator A more more experienced Senator with a Military background Posted by: lndlouis | February 27, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse Folks, I think rat-the is right. I can't believe that I didn't notice (until rat so intelligently pointed it out to me) that Barack's last name sounds kinda like Bin Laden's first name. They must be of the same mindset and believe the same things. Ditto on the fact that Barack's middle name is the same as the last name of a dead guy that was evil. If their NAMES are the same, what ELSE about them is the same? I can't believe that Barack thought he could become president with such an obvious loyalty towards the terrorists. Now JOHN McCain must be a presidential assassin as Mr. Wilkes Booth was ALSO named John. And what about the white powdery drug, coCAINe. Rhymes with McCAIN. He must be a drug addict. And Hillary CLINTON has the same last name as that guy who was our prez in the 90's so they MUST be of the same... OK, bad example. -Eric J. Wexler, sarcastically (in case it went over your head) Posted by: ewexler1 | February 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse Iraq is so bad that the Iraqi's do not know how to fix it. The FBI agent on 60 minutes said that Saddam said he had WMD's so that his enemies would stay away - America has destroyed that - we are using humans instead of stages. I feel that no matter if the US stays in Iraq for 100 years or if the US leaves in 60 days the muslims never forget. George Bush has dealt the American people a horrible HAND!! Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse djwinfield-Bad News! First Google "Kenya", and you will find it is one of the most Ethnically Diverse Countries in the World. There is no such such thing as a "National" Ethnic Dress! Second, I support Barack Hussein Obasama right where he is, and possibly as a Supreme Court Justice(Eventually). He just has NO Qualifications to be running for President, one look at the scope of the Legislation he has ATTEMPTED to get RATIFIED-Not just Passed in the Senate, should be a serious "Wake-Up" Call to his supporters about what I am talking about! Third, I am a Surfer, in my Forties, who is appalled by NASCAR, What-a-Rush Limbaugh, and Most Cable News Stations(The Source of the Spin!). Sorry to say, I do not have a Gut, my Red Fur is well kept, and I have all my Teeth! ;~) Wanna hear about the Hawaiian Islands, Southern Cal., or the Third Coast? ;~) LOL! Katrina was FUN! Off the Flagship Pier in Galveston! ;~) Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse PhilTR said :- hmmmmm... guess you never heard of "might makes right" and "the winners write the history books"? mighty egytian tried to make it right by making jews slaves to work more. that never happened. mighty hitler tried to make it right by killing jews, that never happened. there is nobody as might in this world. there is only right or wrong. Posted by: skirubak | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse The "were they there first" discussion is irrelevant. The American strategy is to draw them, to attract them there by being there (our kids are the phermone), then we destroy them there. Same as Vietnam. We create a war in a place whose people we despise and draw the people whom we really want to bleed to that place. The idea is (1)our economy is so strong we "win" in the end and (2)the fight never comes to us so our innocents don't die. So the economy is once again heading off to stagflation, our kids are dying as bait and the enemy will never stop fighting us, never, ever stop, as long as we are there...being bait. Would you like to vote for this? Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse McCain's POW saga got old a very long time ago. Being POW does not automatically make you presidential material. Posted by: bobnsri | February 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse Hey PhilTR, thanks for your link to the Christian Science Monitor. What part of "possible" in "This group had possible ties to both Osama bin Ladeen and Saddam Hussein." do you not understand? Or as a true Bushie you are confused between 'what reality is' and 'possibly what reality is'. For that matter what is the difference between "Taliban - style" and Taliban. Are you the same person that told Bush there are WMD in Iraq? Do comprehand the term "subjective"? Do you have any reading comprehension capability? Posted by: Facilitator | February 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse Why doesn't anyone ask McCain how he plans to fill the ranks of the military for his 100 year war? At some point, there will be too few volunteers. Who would sign up to go fight a war that started 20, 30, 50 years ago by some long-forgotten president with Daddy issues? If the answer to his hundred year war is a draft, that's when voters go to the polls and tell McCain to GFH. Posted by: GreenRich | February 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse Is this George Bush intelligence reporting this??? Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse Rat-t Let me remind you and others that Mr Obama mother was white and his grand parents. Also at least some other countries have an attire too wear to suggest which tribe they belong to but here in America you probably have a big gutt belly, long hair and wear your pants underneath your belly. What a disgusting thought urhhhhh!!! Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse I have some news for Barack Obama, if your sole qualification for being Commander In Chief is based one speech given in 2002 on the most important foreign policy decision of our time, that is the voice of someone tied to the politics of the past. This nation committed itself, and our troops, to the Iraqi people. If Senator Obama has been reading the papers (the same press that was imbedded with our troops and the Democratic party criticized for their 'good news' stories that allowed the Bush/Cheney administration to see everything through rose colored glasses in 2004), he should not be denying the success that the change of strategy that Sen. McCain pushed for, and that General Petreus has been successfully implementing, is having in Iraq. If he has been paying attention, he would know that the American people are not interested in empty slogans of 'mission accomplished' or 'change we can believe in' - we want someone who has the courage and leadership skills to salvage the misguided execution of the war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars - that respects the sacrifices of those thousands who sacrificed their lives and not a policy that 'WASTED' their lives (just words). The politics of what could have been is not the politics of tomorrow, and constantly revisiting a vote that occurred when well over 70% of Americans supported our actions in Iraq and that an overwhelming number of Senators in both parties supported the resolution, is not addressing the problems of tomorrow. Obama has stated that 'well first of all I DO know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq , that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets." Is he going to accomplish that by withdrawing all combat forces? How about a whole lot of candor, and a lot less politics. People's lives are at stake - both Iraqi's and American soldiers - which is far more important than Senator Obama's political ambitions and silly political shots. Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse There seems to be a concensus that Al-CIAida is in Iraq and other places. Can someone tell how these people are identified? (badge, uniform, signs...something) The CIA created this bunch and used them to assist in the CRIME OF American History. WHen are you people gonna wake up? Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 02:31 PM "McCain will win this one as there was a Taliban-style group in Halabja, Iraq since Sept of 2001 as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 03/15/02. This group had possible ties to both Osama bin Ladeen and Saddam Hussein." Wow! I cannot believe how dumb some conservatives are. PhilTR fails to cite a later article from the Christian Science Monitor, the source he quotes, showing that the alleged links between Al Qaeda and Ansar were largely hyped up by Bush and co. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1016/p12s01-woiq.html "But the picture now emerging shows, too, how Washington exaggerated aspects of the threat from the 600 to 800 Ansar members." "Ansar was once part of a long-term Al Qaeda dream to spread Islamic rule from Afghanistan to Kurdistan and beyond. But that idea was embryonic at best, and when US forces attacked Afghanistan in October 2001, Al Qaeda support for Ansar dried up." Lo and behold, attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001, a just and noble military act, dried up support for Ansar. Attacking Iraq three years later had no effect on them, other than giving them American soldiers to target. See this from the same article: "And instead of just attacking secular Kurdish authorities - the root motivation of Ansar and its predecessor Islamist groups - these cells may be shifting to an anti-US mission, in tandem with Saddam Hussein loyalists." So the US invasion managed to unite Ansar (a Kurdish separatist group) with supporters of Saddam, who tried to eradicate the Kurds. Moreover, captured Ansar members failed to confirm any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. "None of the former Ansar members remembers ever seeing or even hearing that Jordan-born Abu Musab Zarqawi was in Sargat, or anywhere else in the small Ansar enclave. Washington accused Mr. Zarqawi - whose leg was amputated in a Baghdad clinic in 2002 - of being Iraq's prewar link with terrorism." So let's just put this and any other fake links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to rest, along with the fake claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Posted by: mjames2 | February 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse Last I checked, George Bush has only passed some 6 Bills since the 2006 Elections. Most of them were simply Spending Bills. Inquiring Minds do want to know?! ;~) He has gotten no further than the Senate with most of his Bills, and Most of those were all related to Battle Stress!(Fatigue). :-( Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse McCain equals Bush....and his tough talk about following Osama to the gates of hell and defeating Islama fascism will come at cost of more lives and money...McCain is a military guy, he's going to keep the money flowing to the crooks in our military industrial complex...which is really the reason Bush and Co. lied and fabricated evidence invaded Iraq in the first place Average Americans are suffering terribly, our economy is in toilet, and the future looks dark..all the while the rich are getting richer and our government is being run by big corporations and lobbyist. All McCain will do is to perpetuate this... arak offers hope and a new day.. Posted by: hebert | February 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse PhilTR: "McCain will win this one as there was a Taliban-style group in Halabja, Iraq since Sept of 2001 as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 03/15/02." First off, it wasn't Al Qaeda, so no, Obama is still right. Secondly, it had never posed a threat to Americans, so it's irrelevant. Thirdly, it was in the no-fly zone, out of Saddam's reach and jurisdicti
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back at Sen. John McCain this morning after the Arizona Republican suggested Obama was unaware that al-Qaeda had been causing trouble in Iraq. --Shailagh Murray
333.944444
0.972222
32.138889
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101555.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101555.html
Defining Victory Downward
2008022419
Why was President Bush's decision more than a year ago to send another 30,000 troops to Iraq called "the surge"? I don't know who invented this label, but the word "surge" evokes images of the sea: a wave that sweeps in, and then sweeps back out again. The second part was crucial. What made the surge different from your ordinary troop deployment was that it was temporary. In fact, the surge was presented as part of a larger plan for troop withdrawal. It was also, implicitly, part of a deal between Bush and the majority of Americans, who want out. The deal was: just let me have a few more soldiers to get Baghdad under control, and then everybody, or almost everybody, can pack up and come home. In other words: you have to increase the troops in order to reduce them. This is so perverse on its face that it begins to sound zen-like and brilliant, like something out of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." And in General David Petraeus, the administration conjured up its own Sun Tzu, a brilliant military strategist. It is now widely considered beyond dispute that Bush has won his gamble. The surge was a terrific success. Choose your metric: attacks on American soldiers, car bombs, civilian deaths, potholes. They're all down, down, down. Lattes sold by street vendors are up. Performances of Shakespeare by local repertory companies have tripled. Skepticism seems like sour grapes. If you opposed the surge, you have two choices. One is to admit that you were wrong, wrong wrong. The other is to sound as if you resent all the good news and remain eager for disaster. Too many opponents of the war have chosen option two. But we needn't quarrel about all this, or deny the reality of the good news, to say that at the very least, the surge has not worked yet. The test is simple, and built into the concept of a surge: Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started? And the answer is no. In fact, President Bush laid down the standard of success when he announced the surge more than a year ago: "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home." At the time, there were about 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Bush proposed to add up to 20,000 more troops. Although Bush never made any official promises about a timetable, the surge was generally described as lasting six to eight months. By last summer the surge had actually added closer to 30,000 troops, making the total American troop count about 160,000. Today, there are still more than 150,000 American troops in Iraq. The official plan has been to get that number back down to 130,000 by July, and then to keep on going so that there would be about 100,000 American troops in Iraq by the time Bush leaves office. Just lately, though, General Petraeus has come up with another zen-like idea: he calls it a "pause." And the administration has signed on, meaning that the total number of American troops in Iraq will remain at 130,000 for an undetermined period. So the best that we can hope for, in terms of American troops risking their lives in Iraq, is that there will be just as many in July -- and probably in January, when Bush leaves office -- as there were a year ago. The surge will have surged in and surged out, leaving us back where we started. Maybe the situation in Baghdad, or all of Iraq, will have improved. But apparently it won't have improved enough to risk an actual reduction in the American troop commitment. And consider how modest the administration's standard of success has become. Can there be any doubt that they would go for a reduction to 100,000 troops -- and claim victory -- if they had any confidence at all that the gains they brag about would hold at that level of support? The proper comparison isn't to the situation a year ago. It's to the situation before we got there. Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its "debaathification" campaign so that Saddam Hussein's former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and that "only" 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium. You might have several words to describe this situation, but "success" would not be one of them. Michael Kinsley is a columnist for washingtonpost.com and Time magazine.
No, the surge was
189.4
1
3.4
high
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002149.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002149.html
Take This Advice and Shelve It
2008022419
If you believe in luck, you're not alone, but I have to tell you: You're in the minority. If the billions of bucks the self-help industry makes is any indication, a substantial percentage of us believe that with the right manual and a can-do attitude, we can take charge and fix anything -- from our clutter problems to our marriages to our existential angst. Plug "self-help" into Amazon, and you'll come up with almost 150,000 books. Over the past couple of years, millions of us have plunked down money for "The Secret" (book or DVD) to master "the most powerful law in the universe." The universe! It's called the "law of attraction," and it's the very opposite of luck. On the face of it, $23.95 seems like a bargain for the wisdom "that has been passed throughout the ages." A few years ago, I jumped on the self-help bandwagon. I was vaguely dissatisfied with my life, and although I'd had little experience with self-help, I decided to give it a go. I'd take what was useful. Like you (and you! and you!), I thought I could become a better, happier person. My initiation was not gentle. "Life is totally fair. You get what you go for," financial planning expert David Bach lectured. "Your relationship is in trouble because you set it up that way," declared expert-of-all-trades "Dr. Phil" McGraw. "Your life is as difficult as you make it," proclaimed an e-mail from the decluttering expert known as the FlyLady. Flinch! Among today's crop of self-help experts, the name of the game is Claiming Personal Responsibility. It's a very American idea, this belief that with enough git-up-and-go, people can fix what ails them all by themselves. The country is, after all, founded on independence, the strapping individual who conquers all that stands in the way of success. Have a gander at our national heroes -- Abraham Lincoln? Bill Gates? Ms. Oprah herself? All self-made success stories, exemplars of Claiming Personal Responsibility. In other words, if you have any problems, it's all your fault. The reason we come to self-help, of course, is to rise above whatever problem is plaguing us -- and to do it without paid assistance from doctors, lawyers or other one-on-one professionals who would charge at least 10 times the price of a book. It's a good instinct, to try to find some sort of peace, whether from financial worry or the ever-present cloud of marital irritation. But why self-help? Why all the do-it-yourself gurus? Because this same spirit of independence has taken us to the extreme, both in terms of capitalism and social policy, where the market and personal responsibility rule. At this moment in American history, we've created the perfect tinderbox for a self-help industry to boom. Some of us leave home and go where the well-paying jobs are, even if it means relocating to places devoid of friends and family (who could otherwise offer a word of advice). For some of us, the safety net has fallen away and one misstep really could spell disaster (ask anyone who invested their retirement money in dot-coms), so we look for advice that's been vetted by people in the know. And some of us, strapping individuals that we are, are just too embarrassed to admit that we need some help and some perspective. (I went into a full-on cringe when I brought a relationship book and an issue of Cosmo to the bookstore clerk. What kind of sad creature did I look like, ignorant of both wifely wisdom and hot sex tips?) So I dove in. I signed on for dozens of programs. For the two years of my quest, this was me: racing through the house with a trash bag, a la the FlyLady, decluttering 27 items at a time; playing mind games with my child to teach him some emotional intelligence (a tip from parenting expert Lawrence E. Shapiro); applying a slash of lipstick to up my sex appeal before my husband got home (per "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger); taking many quizzes about my happiness (one of which revealed me to be "moderately hopeless"); journaling, filing, focusing, exercising, hoping, hoping, hoping that I would reach the point of official happiness. For happiness is something the experts all promise, no matter how long the leap of logic -- and it is a long leap from, say, the stilted dialogue Dr. Phil demands that his readers have with their mates to peace of mind. To be fair, I imagine that it may be the marketing folks who insist on that promise of happiness. But we readers would all be better served if the experts didn't blow their promises out of proportion. Based on financial advice, I set up a retirement account and got a will in order. Following the nutrition experts, I exercised and ate more vegetables than my G.I. tract had seen in years -- and I lost 10 pounds. All good things that most of us can attain. But happiness? Sometimes, it's enough to escape with your sanity.
The self-help industry is predicated on the idea that we can't, well, help ourselves.
53.3
0.85
2.05
high
medium
mixed
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/american_violence.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/american_violence.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008022419
Samuel Hart: The article fails to include one of the most prominent influences in the Caribbean; China. With increased assets within the Caribbean and more political and commercial ties being constantly forged, China will also be one of the main contenders including America and Venezuela. Close by Jamaica has ties with China, sending students and encouraging Chinese business men to spend in their country, especially its burgeoning coffee sector. Because of China's current influence in the Caribbean, America and Venezuela won't be the only large countries putting in a bid for influence in post-Castro Cuba. February 19, 2008 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 17:18 doctor t: Hi- The question is a typical imperialist fantasy. The Cubans have free medical care and are well educated. Why would they want to work for nothing and join the US? It is more likely that there will be an American push to compromise the sovereignty of the island, which Chavez has a good chance of heading off at the pass. At long as oil is so costly, Chavez will be able to tip[ the balance against the US disinformation effort. February 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 17:29 doctor t: Hi- The question is a typical imperialist fantasy. The Cubans have free medical care and are well educated. Why would they want to work for nothing and join the US? It is more likely that there will be an American push to compromise the sovereignty of the island, which Chavez has a good chance of heading off at the pass. At long as oil is so costly, Chavez will be able to tip[ the balance against the US disinformation effort. February 19, 2008 5:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 17:30 doctor t: Hi- The question is a typical imperialist fantasy. The Cubans have free medical care and are well educated. Why would they want to work for nothing and join the US? It is more likely that there will be an American push to compromise the sovereignty of the island, which Chavez has a good chance of heading off at the pass. At long as oil is so costly, Chavez will be able to tip[ the balance against the US disinformation effort. February 19, 2008 5:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 17:30 Jim: First of all, it's premature to declare Fidel "gone." He may be ill and he may have resigned, but he has not vanished. We on the outside have consistently underestimated his charisma and influence over the Cuban people. There are a good many Castro reforms and innovations that will not be done away with any time soon. The likelihood of Cuba becoming the 51st State is slim. Nostalgia for the good-old Batista days lives on mainly in Coral Gables and not in Havana. Chavez is already very large on the scene in Cuba along with a number of European interests who are invested in Cuba's tourism. The US's best strategy in the immediate future would be to eliminate the embargo and flight restrictions, normalize trade and diplomatic relations, and let things settle themselves, but the Miami lobby is like a mini-AIPAC, sure to push for a more militant response. February 19, 2008 6:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 18:19 February 19, 2008 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 18:30 Peter W: Chavez cannot even manage his own country, much less a 2nd one. Friends just returned, and there is _no_ chicken, eggs, milk, etc to even be found in Caracas our surrounding areas. His lust to micromanage even the prices of staples have caused producers to stop producing where they cannot do so while making a living. Many are simply exporting into Columbia. Oil is at the highest price in history, and a country whose principal export is petroleum is starving. So much for leadership February 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 19:17 J Puentes: Doctor T you're wrong Ask all the Cubans that have risked their lives to get to Florida on makeshift rafts.... they did that because they were desperate and found out that the truth ... that the socialist dream was a lie It is really a totalitarian nightmare.... Free medical care? Please go see what free medical care looks like for the average Cuban citizen at http://www .therealcuba.com/Page10.htmt February 19, 2008 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 21:06 J Puentes: Doctor T you're wrong Ask all the Cubans that have risked their lives to get to Florida on makeshift rafts.... they did that because they were desperate and found out that the truth ... that the socialist dream was a lie It is really a totalitarian nightmare.... Free medical care? Please go see what free medical care looks like for the average Cuban citizen at http://www .therealcuba.com/Page10.htmt February 19, 2008 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 21:06 alexandrovich: Chavez is a clown, which doesn´t measure up to Fidel or even his brother Raul. No way he can fill Fidel´s shoes. He is an Aristide with oil. If it wasn´t because of the oil he wouldn´t be there. February 19, 2008 9:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 21:09 B Evans: Chavez is a clown.... and Castro a murderer. Cubans will thrive in a free society and capitalism if given the chance. We need to flood that island with investments and once the see the outside world... They will never go back... look at Eastern Europe They are tired of the socialist lies February 19, 2008 9:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 21:29 Paul in NY: When change comes to Cuba, it will be swift and immediate. The slightest economic opening with the USA will break the flood-gates. Any allowance of private property, and real estate, tourism, agriculture will boom in Cuba. The US will become the main trade partner immediately. How many hundreds of thousands of college kids will be spending their money in Havana in 2013? How many millions of Cuban/Hispanic Americans will return to open businesses? Certainly this could happen soon after Fidel dies. More likely, Fidel's gay brother may be able to hold on for a while, but the regime absolutely won't outlast Raul. Meanwhile, even afterwards, few on the left will still cling to the fantasy about "universal health care" or the "gains of the revolution" (which are absolute fiction) just like a few old communists in Russia would like Stalin back, or a few Nazis still yearned for Hitler after WWII. February 19, 2008 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 21:49 charles malone: Castro's departure as ruler of Cuban is akin to the removal of the Berlin Wall for East Germany back in the 1990s. It will no longer make sense to have cultural, economic or trade barriers between America and Cuban. The future for American and Cuban relations is bright, no matter who takes over the White House in 2009. The window of opportunity is now. February 19, 2008 10:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 22:25 Anonymous: {}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{} Better a HILLARY than BORACK!!!!! [][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][] {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}} http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!! {}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{} Better a CLINTON than OBAMA!!!!!! [][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][] PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________ http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton vote APOCALYPTIC: http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton ACTION/EXPERiENCE: February 19, 2008 10:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 22:34 L. Mendez: I completely agree with the above statements, especifically as it relates to American Cubans and their efforts to reclaim Cuban real estate. But the important question that we should be asking is whether such an educated, knowledgeable and collective community is willing to allow the revolution to collapse. That is, there are many accomplishments and a great legacy that Castro's revolution will leave CUBAN's to contemplate. Among those victories are the following: free access to education; health care; and erradicating extreme poverty. There is no single country in the world that has been able to achieve this, even though Cuba does not have access to the great modern advances of the world. I think we underestimate CUBAN's. They don't have the same egocentric views that most industrial countries have. Cuban's actually value their culture; their struggles as a people; their revolution; and their immesuable accommplishments in spite of an inhumane, illegal and unprecedented embargo. February 19, 2008 11:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 19, 2008 23:23 Chris West : Cubans going back to the Island and Cuba not welcoming Americans....You mean we wont have meddling Cubanos down in the sunshine state. Sounds like a fine 'damn good idea to me.... February 20, 2008 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 00:01 Yoel: I think a great deal of this theorizing is grounded in anything other than an understanding of Cuban realities. The rest of the party needs Raul, like him or not, and not all dislike him. He remains a link to Fidel and none of them have anything like the claim to legitimacy that Raul has. The Cuban populace, for their part, are interested in improving their standard of living, but that does not mean opening their arms unconditionally to the US. or Chavez. Chavez, and more specifically, the Venezuelanos who have come to Cuba as a result of the influence of Chavez, are at best resented by the Cuban on the street. Don't forget that the Cuban public is as patriotic as they are interested in improvement. I doubt most would be willing to sign any "open contract," no matter whether it is with Uncle Sam or primo Hugo. What is more likely is that with Raul at the helm, and with at least temporary underwriting by Chavez, enough change will be made to relieve the internal pressures long enough to re-entrench. If significant change occurs, it will likely happen slowly. We should not count of outside influences to weigh overwhelmingly in the equation. After all, we are talking about a system that survived the collapse of the Soviet Union without opening to the west the way Eastern Europe did. Speak in haste, repent at leisure. February 20, 2008 12:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 00:10 Yoel: I think a great deal of this theorizing is grounded in anything other than an understanding of Cuban realities. The rest of the party needs Raul, like him or not, and not all dislike him. He remains a link to Fidel and none of them have anything like the claim to legitimacy that Raul has. The Cuban populace, for their part, are interested in improving their standard of living, but that does not mean opening their arms unconditionally to the US. or Chavez. Chavez, and more specifically, the Venezuelanos who have come to Cuba as a result of the influence of Chavez, are at best resented by the Cuban on the street. Don't forget that the Cuban public is as patriotic as they are interested in improvement. I doubt most would be willing to sign any "open contract," no matter whether it is with Uncle Sam or primo Hugo. What is more likely is that with Raul at the helm, and with at least temporary underwriting by Chavez, enough change will be made to relieve the internal pressures long enough to re-entrench. If significant change occurs, it will likely happen slowly. We should not count on outside influences to weigh overwhelmingly in the equation. After all, we are talking about a system that survived the collapse of the Soviet Union without opening to the west the way Eastern Europe did. Speak in haste, repent at leisure. February 20, 2008 12:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 00:11 Richard: There is no denying that Fidel Castro put an end to the American mobs front man Baptista and have prevented over the past 50 years the USA mafia from resurrecting the beautiful Cuban Island to once again becoming an offshore US Casino and Brothel. The giant steps taken by the Cuban people to erase illiteracy and improve general health care is something the American public will never experience and of course one of the reasons why the American administration hates the Cuban leadership. The American complaints that in Cuba some 70 people was arrested some time ago for anti-Cuban activities is a joke considering that USA illegally holds hundreds of people from all over the world incarcerated in Cuba for years abusing and torturing these people at the pleasure of the sexually perverted US military personnel. February 20, 2008 3:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 03:40 Dwight: the people of CUBA will decide CUBA'S fate. Chavez has enough problems and has less cash now to export his hate. February 20, 2008 5:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 05:26 CAM: The Venezuelan clown can't manage his own country much less any other country even if it was a tenth of the size of Cuba. Yoel said Cubans resent Venezuelans? Ok, wellcome to the resented people club. Here Venezuelans resent Cuban "experts". You should see your ambassador buying 1000 USD worth of grosseries in our best supermarkets while cubans can't find toothpaste in La Habana and Venezuelans have to jump from market to market looking for milk. And the cuban medics sent to Venezuela are using every opportunity to defect. The main power in Cuba will be the new maffia that will be formed by the post Castro communists. They will take over the best business and leave the common people to rot. They are used to rot thanks to Castro, so there would be not much difference. Until they realize why they are rotting!! February 20, 2008 7:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 07:54 Dwight: Once CUBA becomes free, the USA will help rebuild it. The UN should move there from New York. it removes agents of enemies off our shores and it's still close enough to overlook. the Cubans will also keep the ambassadors in line. February 20, 2008 8:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 08:01 jkoch: What could be worse than to have the stable Cuban system destabilized by a menacing Venezuelan populist. Cuba may even have large offshore oil deposits that the Chavistas might let Chinese or Russian firms develop, to the woe of Exxon-Mobil. Things are much more delicate than in 1962. Time to send U-2 planes over the island to spot any threatening oil derecks. Time to send Havana an ultimatum: let in US oil firms and Trump casinos, or risk its worst fear: repatriation of the exiles! February 20, 2008 8:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 08:43 james: For the Bush Adminstration Cuba will only become a democracy when it installs a government that takes White House orders. Remember, Yasser Arafat, winner of the Palestinian Presidental Election was named by the US Gov't Chairman of the PLO, but General Mustarraf, self-appointed was declared President of Pakistan by the White House and News Media. The general was willing to take orders; eventhough, his intellegence agency aids the Taleban. February 20, 2008 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 08:57 southern: As usual, many of you repeat the common place of considering Latin Americans stupid. ¿are we oblied to condemn the island to be a colony? Certainly not. So the point isn´t China, USA or Venezuela. The point is what the cubans really whant to do. ¿Why don´t we just listen what they have to say? I imagine some of you will answer: "okay, we try. But there is no freedom in Cuba"...discuss capitalism in America and see what happens. People in Cuba are not idiots, or at least they are not so negligent as to support a tirany that leads them to innecesary wars or economic bankrupt. So let´s see what they want to do before planning to invade. I am sure they will manage to find their own path. And sorry, but I found this discussion a little offensive to cubans. (Sorry for my english. When you invade Argentina I will have chances to learn better...) February 20, 2008 9:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 09:38 EMILIO ZUNIGA C.: The resignation of Castro, is an unexpected political change promoted by the communist party towards a stable transition to a post-castro Cuba. It is challenge taken by the communist party to make that happen and avoid traumatic changes. In this period, any change will be seen as approved by the Comandante and therefore minimize the view of internal political struggle within the party. It also leaves the US with little capacity of maneuver as long as US sticks to the embargo. On the other hand the scenario of abrupt changes in Cuba once Castro dies looks quite distant to materialize and to the extend that there is a smooth transition in Cuba, foreign investment may pick up and help to relax some political control by the communist party. Cuba may follow the Chinese model of government where the first stage of democratization is limited to the party itself, postponing for quite a time more civil liberties to its people. February 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 15:23 docspencer: We spent a day in Mexico with a very smart European university student, who was spending a year in Havana, Cuba at the university to learn Spanish. She told us about a sad situation. Much poverty. People are just trying to survive. Bad services. And people who lost hope for a change. A lot of depress people psychologically. These are the words of a smart outsider who actually spent a year there. And I believe it. At the same time I met many Cubans in all of Latin America. Very smart people. Well educated mostly outside of Cuba. Generally within the top management of companies. I am sorry but I saw this huge difference between Cubans and other Latin American locals. I agree with the comments about the US embargo not being smart. We are just letting the doors open to other nations, our competitors, when our product influence could help a positive change of a people without much hope today. We should take some positive steps that help the people. Allow medicines, some critical products, and some businesses to start negotiating contracts. The people are hoping that we, the USA will do something useful and helpful now. It is Cuba where the CIA should have big funding and produce successful results. Not like in the Middle East where our intel outcome was pretty weak. February 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 19:15 Michael Fay, College Station, Texas: A post Fidel Castro Cuba is an unknown quantity in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean communities. It is doubtful that The United States is ready to have a fifty-first state that has an alien culture and society. The Cubans in Miami have not been on the island for almost fifty years. The children and Grand Children of these Cuban exiles have only known the United States. It is best to allow the people on the Island without the influence of Americans to set their own political future in the Western Hemisphere. The diplomacy of China and Venezuela will have as little influence on Cuba as did the efforts of the Soviet Union and The United States during the "Cold War" to influence communal interests in the Americas and Africa. Cuba will be the home of Cubans steeped in the rich heritage of the Spanish Main. Michael Fay, College Station, Texas February 20, 2008 8:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 20:44 amilcar: It`s relly amazing, the way you are showing yo can not wait for eating the entire island...bad boys,...everyday confirming latinamericans what kind of pigs you are! February 20, 2008 11:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 20, 2008 23:51 Marino Fuentes: Not much of an analysis, Cuba is so deprssed because it has been run by a communist system that hates private enterprise. The fact that USA has an embargo is only partially responsible for the poverty. 99% of the problem is the communist system that will not allow Cubans to prosper by trading with Europe. Cuba has no production thus nothing to trade, The Economist is full of empty brains. February 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 21, 2008 14:07 Marino Fuentes: Not much of an analysis, Cuba is so deprssed because it has been run by a communist system that hates private enterprise. The fact that USA has an embargo is only partially responsible for the poverty. 99% of the problem is the communist system that will not allow Cubans to prosper by trading with Europe. Cuba has no production thus nothing to trade, The Economist is full of empty brains. February 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 21, 2008 14:07 TuxMex: Shame on you! Is not Puerto Rico the 51 state, then? Well, if USA want colonize Cuba, why dont you begin in Mexico, then Central America and so on? Hurry, do it before China! February 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 21, 2008 16:22 Garak: Cuba has no duty to return nationalized properties. The US hasn't returned land stolen from the Native Americans, land stolen in violation of treaties signed by the President and ratified by Congress. Why should Cuba be held to a higher standard than the US? February 21, 2008 4:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 21, 2008 16:46 giovani guerra castro: My comment: I) Do it explorations with Raul Castro Group and start relations. II) The economic embargo for all these decades shoul be finished, like discretion fire in the battle with Hugo Chavez,but the cuban people want goin to Miami not Caracas. III) The economy cuban need capital freesh to live.IV) The companys american shoul be in the land cuban not venezolan companys, the companys USA must be like a V8 car and economy cuban. February 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 21, 2008 18:37 Abraham Algazi: The USA has neglected the problems of south and central America, this goes back to the Kennedy presidency, when he stop the bay of pig invasion in Cuba, It was Che Guevara and Fidel Castro ideology, to spread thru the Americas communistic ideology. Now the USA has a bigger problem with Chavez, the Idea is to take over Colombia and Panama and have control of the canal, Cuba did not have oil but Venezuela has plenty and he is giving it away to persuade and influence the other countries in Latin America, he has bought offensive armaments in great quantities and these are new state of arts. I don't think by Castro resigning his post things will change that much, Raul Castro has the same Ideas, I has a Cuban would like to go back if Cuba becomes a democratic state, also Cuba has fought for it's Independence from Spain longer than any Latin America country, I don't think it will be part of the USA, Ironically Cuba and the USA are entwined, for example the USA became a world power after the Spanish American war, Teddy Roosevelt fought in San Juan Hills Cuba, and then became president, Bush became president because of the Cuban votes in Florida. On the issue of Real Estate in Miami, don't worry about that, there will plenty of south American coming to Miami once the wars that Chavez is going to start, Miami will be full of people, it already has a large population of Venezuelans and Columbians. I hope the new presidents will not Waite for missiles from Iran to be deployed in Venezuela; I live you with a thought.......... February 22, 2008 2:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments Posted on February 22, 2008 02:54 {}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{} Better a HILLARY than BORACK!!!!! [][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][] {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}} http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!! {}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{} Better a CLINTON than OBAMA!!!!!!! [][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][] PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton vote APOCALYPTIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton ACTION/EXPERiENCE: -- iMAGINE: Adding an additional 10 or 12 STATES to our current 50 STATES! Yes, ALL of MEXiCO & CUBA! 101 U.S.A. STATES all-the-way to PANAMA, where ironically John McCain was Born!??
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
369
0.533333
0.533333
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/02/the_youth_bulge_and_the_religi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/02/the_youth_bulge_and_the_religi.html
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
2008022419
The intersection of four trends is going to have a dramatic impact on the 21st Century: the youth bulge, a religious revival, the breakdown in traditional socio-economic structures and accelerated interaction between people from different backgrounds. The New York Times is launching a series on this issue called “Generation Faithful”. The first article, which ran last Sunday, focused on young people in Egypt. “I can’t get a job, I have no money, I can’t get married, what can I say?” said a 28-year old Egyptian man interviewed for the article. His engagement was broken off by the family of the bride-to-be because he couldn’t come up with the money for the couple to buy an apartment and start their own life. In Egypt, like other traditional societies, adulthood and independence begin when you get married. The live-on-your-own-and-explore culture of Western 18-30 year olds doesn’t exist in those countries. But the economies in Middle Eastern and North African countries are simply not producing enough living-wage or career-track jobs for young adults to start their lives. The young adult unemployment rate in Egypt is 27%, and in Algeria it’s nearly 50%. And that doesn’t count the number of people who are working but in horrible conditions and for low wages. As The New York Times reports: “In their frustration, the young are turning to religion for solace and purpose, pulling their parents and their governments along with them … More than ever, Islam has become the cornerstone of identity, replacing other, failed ideologies: Arabism, socialism, nationalism.” Identity questions – who am I deep down, what is my purpose, why am I here, what should I do with my life – are not only being asked by underemployed Egyptian youth, they are also being asked by overpaid Ivy League grads in New York City and London. Sociologists like Anthony Giddens point out that one of the hallmarks of our era is people from different backgrounds interacting more frequently and intensely than ever before, facilitated by air travel and communications technology. This interaction widens and deepens the identity questions these young adults are asking. It’s not just, “I am a young Egyptian who can’t get a good job and therefore still live with my parents, what is my purpose?” It is now, “I am a poor Arab Sunni Muslim in a world of increasingly powerful Iranian Shias, Indian Hindus, Israeli Jews and American Christians – what is my purpose?” The energy gathering at this intersection of youth, religiosity, changing socio-economic patterns and increased interaction can go multiple directions. It can be a generation of angry young people with a faith-based oppositional stance towards modernity, or it can be a generation of business and social entrepreneurs who reimagine and remake their region, their religion and the world. Which direction will it go? Whoever best understands and speaks to the identity issues that these young people are facing as (to borrow from David Bowie) “they try to change their worlds”, will be shaping the lives of a generation, a region, and maybe the world. There is a lot of hope here. These young people, I believe, will respond to a call to go beyond themselves, to live for a higher purpose, to connect their deepest selves to matters transcendent. That is the same energy that led to the founding of the Peace Corps and the Civil Rights movement. That’s what happens when it is a Kennedy or a King shaping the energy. Who is speaking to this volatile energy - this restless generation - in the Middle East? The answer … in my next post.
Eboo Patel on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/
88.5
0.125
0.125
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/nightline_to_world_some_religi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/nightline_to_world_some_religi.html
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
2008022419
Yep, going on five years, now, thanks very much. Believing your own propaganda, too much? Point is, often, certain folks seem to need to believe that only religious belief and repression can prevent them from being promiscuous in lots of ways if they see a nude body. (Nudity itself is just not a BFN deal to us, actually... get away from Christian thinking a few years, and the way you guys look at nudity looks like some kind of bizarre fetish to us, particularly when people get worked up against it.) Sex is holy and *good* in our religion, not sacrosanct and 'dirty,' ...Some of us like erotica, some of us don't, but the degrading stuff people furtively snap up is like someone put rotten food in front of you... it's not the idea of food that's the problem: it's that it's awful. ) I don't get all hot and bothered when something has sexual content, ...certainly it's nothing to get all obsessed about. I know certain Christians love to imagine and claim that Pagans, not having your particular tabooes and fears, run around in a daze of hedonistic excess: Actually, nothing of the sort, ...sexuality doesn't boil over if you don't put it in a pressure-cooker. Sex doesn't 'sell' unless someone cultivates a pent-up "demand." So, sure, I can be monogamous. It's not actually that hard, particularly when so many of the people around are just so *immature* about sex. It *is* a sacred communion to me, (not that it always has to be a Big Hairy Deal: it can be playful and affectionate, too,) and, frankly, I find how a lot of people around *treat* it to be off-putting, to say the least. That's not the experience I'd be looking for. So don't look at me. Look at what you're *buying.* Personally, I think so much of the porn out there is *degrading* precisely *because* that's what certain folks *believe sex is.* Kind of a tidy cycle, that way: sell the 'sin,' then sell the 'forgiveness' for the 'sin' to the same people you taught the unsatisfying and repressed-or-degrading view of it to in the first place. That pressure has a nasty way of coming out sideways, though. To me, that's just... not what sex is, nor is it what my faith group participates in. As a corrolary, I think sex-workers are so disrespected because ...well, that's how you treat the work they're doing, approve of it or not. Too often the scorn falls on those who are most degraded by a view of sex itself as 'degrading,' rather than those who are doing the degrading.
Under God on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/
34.176471
0.529412
0.647059
medium
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2008/02/assassination_is_a_twoedged_sw.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2008/02/assassination_is_a_twoedged_sw.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008022419
By Yossi Melman and Dan Raviv Last week’s funeral for the founder of Hezbollah’s military wing, Imad Mughniyah, was a grand ceremony of the kind usually reserved for heads of state, not master terrorists. The display reflects the importance and respect that Mughniyah enjoyed from senior delegates from Iran, Syria and Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Middle East conflicts are not a zero sum game, but the death of one of the most wanted terrorists on earth is a net gain for Israel. So it’s no wonder that no one is taking seriously the Israeli government’s denial of any involvement in Mughniyah’s assassination last Tuesday in Damascus, the Syrian capitol. The successful operation demonstrates the professional skills of the various branches of Israeli intelligence and above all the Mossad. The operation has rehabilitated Mossad's reputation and prestige, which has been in decline over the last decade. Mughniyah, who joined the Lebanese Shiite organization in 1983 as a seventeen-year-old operative, built Hezbollah's impressive military-terrorist wing, which flexed its muscles in summer 2006 by inflicting damage to the powerful Israeli army. He served not only as Hezbollah's Chief of Staff but also as a subcontractor of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al Qods Force, which is responsible for special operations. He was behind almost every Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack in the last two decades against American, German, Israeli and Argentinian targets. He is personally responsible for the deaths of at least 500 people who were killed in those attacks. Mughniyah was a master of disguise. Elusive and suspicious almost to the point of paranoia, he trusted no one and often changed passports and identities. To track and kill him, especially on Syria’s hostile soil, is a great achievement by the Israeli intelligence – on the same order of magnitude as if the CIA had killed Osama Bin Laden. It required precise information and a serious infiltration of his inner circle. After his death was announced, the U.S. State Department issued a statement saying that the news was welcome and that the world would be now a safer place. However, judging from the inflammatory speeches at his funeral by Iran's Foreign Minister Manachur Motaki and Hezbollah’s charismatic leader Hassan Nasrallah, that hope is doubtful. The two leaders promised retaliation, and we should believe them. It is unlikely that Hezbollah would now open fire and launch rocket attacks along the Israeli-Lebanese borders in a repeat of the 2006 clashes. But we believe that, with logistical support from Iran, Hezbollah will now awaken its dozen sleeping cells in South America, Asia and Africa to take revenge. They’re likely to do that by hitting Israeli and perhaps American targets, such as embassies and Jewish organizations. Over the last forty years, Israel has masterminded the craft of assassinating terrorists. Nowadays, after 9/11, Israel’s methods have been adopted and occasionally executed by U.S. intelligence and Special Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia in the war against global terror. But Israel’s experience shows that assassination – or what Israel terms "targeted killing" – is a double-edged sword. The policy only pays off in a few special cases. When a state deals with a terrorist group that is basically a "one-man show," chopping off the snake’s head by killing the leader can neutralize the group – so that can be justified in cost-effectiveness terms. But when a country encounters a highly motivated, solidified and structured terrorist group, killing its senior members proves to be counter-productive. The dead are soon replaced by members who are sometimes more skillful and more determined. Israel and the U.S., which put Mughniyah high on its most-wanted terrorists list, both believe that he deserved to die. But by assassinating him, Israel took a huge risk. The Middle East is already volatile, with Lebanon on the verge of a civil war and Iran's growing appetite for nuclear weapons. This development may sink the region into a new vicious and bloody circle of tit for tat. And when the Middle East sneezes, the rest of the world – especially America and Western Europe – may get the flu. Yossi Melman is a PostGlobal Panelist and columnist for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz based in Tel Aviv. Dan Raviv is a CBS News correspondent based in Washington. They are co-authors of Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israeli Intelligence.
Yossi Melman at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/
46.333333
0.555556
0.666667
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022001176.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022001176.html
Just What You Need
2008022419
Home shows on cable TV have created an avid following of fans hooked on the idea of before-and-after design. Within a mere half-hour, rooms go from bland and forgettable to bright and perfectly accessorized. Although the real-life process might not be quite so breezy, that same kind of help is available off-screen, too, offered by professionals who know there is a growing market for fast, affordable design help. Maybe all you really need is help picking paint colors for one or two rooms. Trained colorists specialize in doing just that. Maybe you realize the first step toward harmony at home is getting out from under clutter. Professional organizers stand ready to help you part with what you don't need and tidy up the rest. Maybe rather than investing in a whole new look you want someone to pull together the chairs, lamps and rugs you already own. In one day. We've identified four kinds of pros offering specific home improvement skills, with an emphasis on fast results with fees by the hour. We provide details on who they are, what they do and how to find them.
Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland home and garden news/headlines, including build/fix and furnishing/design, garden/patio tips. Resources and coupons for homes and gardens, DC, MD, VA contacts. Guides for organizing, cleaning, planting and caring.
4.092593
0.388889
0.388889
low
low
abstractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/mccain_story_what_it_means.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/mccain_story_what_it_means.html
McCain Story: What It Means
2008022419
The New York Times front-page story detailing an alleged relationship between Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and a female lobbyist has shaken up what had become a sedate Republican presidential nomination fight and forced the all-but-certain GOP nominee to directly rebut charges of marital infidelity and trading favors. The story has triggered a huge controversy over whether the revelations are a cause for alarm about McCain and his judgment or, as McCain's camp and a chorus of conservative talking heads assert, a shameless hatchet job by a prominent liberal newspaper. Despite the inevitable changeability of the story, let's assess -- from a purely political perspective -- what we know and what we don't. Let's start with what we know. The Times reported that early in McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, one of his top advisers -- concerned about the propriety of the relationship -- intervened by privately warning Iseman to stay away from the Arizona senator. When news organizations reported that McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement. McCain this morning delivered an unequivocal denial of the charges leveled against him in the story. He flatly denied that he and Iseman had had any sort of romantic relationship, or any relationship beyond what he would normally have with someone lobbying him as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He also said he was entirely unaware of a meeting between John Weaver, at the time a senior McCain political strategist, and Iseman at Union Station. Weaver has acknowledged that he asked Iseman at that meeting to steer clear of McCain. McCain's account is not entirely inconsistent with what Weaver has said publicly, although it does strain credulity a bit. "I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman," Weaver told The Fix today. "Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee [chairman] and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less." So Weaver, one of McCain's closest advisers at the time, met with Iseman, but says now that he never talked to McCain about his meeting with the lobbyist, either before or after the meeting. And McCain says he had no knowledge of the meeting. McCain was emphatic in saying he was totally in the dark about Weaver's meeting with Iseman, an essential assertion in attempting to knock down the Times story. But his unqualified denial leaves him no wiggle room if more information surfaces in the coming weeks about what McCain knew and when he first knew it. There is much that the public doesn't know about McCain's dealings with the telecommunications lobbyist and her clients years back, including considerable potentially exculpatory information that McClain complained was ignored by the Times in its lengthy article. So, at the moment, it's tough to draw hard and fast conclusions. But one immediate political impact of the story has been the rallying of prominent conservatives behind McCain, as detailed by Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin of the Politico. Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio show host, derided the story as "Page Six gossip" on his program today. Ironically, Limbaugh and many other conservative talk radio hosts have attacked McCain for weeks for being an unacceptable choice to head the GOP ticket this fall. It didn't help matters that the Times editorial page endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination. One Republican observer put it this way to The Fix: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That is, conservatives may not like or trust McCain but they like and trust the New York Times a lot less. McCain sought to play up that line of attack during his press conference this morning. "I was not trying to dissuade [New York Times executive editor Bill Keller] from -- in any way from doing the story," he said. "I know the New York Times." And, in a fundraising email just sent from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, the anti-Times argument is made even more explicit. "We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack," wrote Davis. It's no secret to anyone watching this Republican race closely that McCain is still struggling to bring conservatives into the fold. Time after time he lost the conservative vote in early primary and caucus states; of the 24 states that have voted to date, McCain received the most support from self-identified conservatives in just five (Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Wisconsin). Could this be the galvanizing force that unites this key voting bloc behind McCain? We've long believed that conservatives would eventually come home to McCain when faced with a choice between someone they largely agree with and someone they don't -- meaning either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton . While it is fashionable at the moment among conservatives to cast a vote against McCain, when November comes it is hard to see these rock-ribbed conservatives choosing a Democrat. What this incident may do -- again assuming that nothing more damaging emerges over the coming days -- is to energize conservatives behind McCain in a way that they might not have been otherwise. Most conservatives would likely have come home to McCain in the end but there was a segment of voters who would have stayed home. They may not now -- especially if McCain and his camp can cast this controversy as an example of the liberal media trying to destroy a conservative Republican. The story has the potential in the short term to turn McCain into a conservative cause celebre. The long-term impact is far harder to anticipate. At his press conference today, McCain sought to place his relationship with Iseman in the context of the contacts he regularly has with lobbyists in Washington. "I have many friends who represent various interests...particularly before my committee," McCain said. "And I had meetings with hundreds of them and various interests. And that was my job to do, to get their input." While that argument may be technically correct, it's a political loser -- especially in a change-oriented election like this one. Obama's political rise has been fueled, at least in part, by his denunciation of the pay-to-play culture in Washington and his promise to clean up Washington if elected president. McCain, too, has railed against special interests throughout his political life. But, by trying to defuse the Iseman questions, the Arizona senator may well have created a long-term problem for himself. This is a story that isn't going away any time soon. And we'll do our best to stay on top of it. By Chris Cillizza | February 21, 2008; 4:20 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: John Weaver Speaks | Next: Democrats Debate: The Austin Showdown Add The Fix to Your Site gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv Posted by: ghlxnjdqy guhvrms | April 16, 2008 9:26 AM gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv Posted by: ghlxnjdqy guhvrms | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM gsvn nrmbsul yquslvce hmvq gysldtpqn dqtg pgbyoseiv Posted by: ghlxnjdqy guhvrms | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM you say, "McCain, too, has railed against special interests throughout his political life." not exactly. he has done so only since being caught in the keating 5 scandal. just as jerry lewis, after having made a living making fun of spastics and retarded persons, went on to do jerry's kids in an inspired fit of reputation rehabilitation, so mccain reinvented himself as st john the maverick after carrying water for thieves during the S&L scandal. so that's a "partial throughout" you have there in real life. Posted by: natty-bumppo | February 22, 2008 11:38 AM Surprise, Rush Limbaugh stood up for McCain. Why not? McCain has been bending over for Rush and the rabid right wing of the Republican Party. Posted by: mnjam | February 22, 2008 10:45 AM NY Times Exec Ed Bill Keller should have written about his own improper relationship while married to his first wife rather than defend scurrilous slander by NYT reporters about Sen McCain. Keller's escapade in 2006 and second marriage makes for much more interesting reading. And it is a lot more current considering what the NYT thinks is timely and of interest to sell papers. The NYT endorsed Sen McCain 2 months ago - and yet has been waiting to use this sly innuendo and implication for years - since 2000. The only conclusion I can draw is that the NYT wished to play uberliberal politics and to attempt to damage Sen McCain's campaign beyond repair with a hatchet job. Posted by: mlemac | February 22, 2008 9:57 AM Cilizza, you are a scumbag to first post this story, and to announce that you will continue to follow it's muddy trail. Check my postings as far back as you can. I've been as anti-bush and anti-nutwing conservatives as a person can be, but I don't toss out reason to show my dislike of these entities. The Times article was w/o a shred of truth to back up its innuendo. The real story should be the sexism of the Times. No one, no one at all even suggested in their story that there was a romance, except for the Times by asking these people if they were romantically involved. If the woman looked like Rosie O'donnell would they have asked?!? No, a non-issue. As to the implied wrongdoings, nothing was shown to be wrong. McCain did nothing that falls under the title of lobbying ("Help this person/company to get this contract, etc."). This is the worse example of yellow journalism that I have ever seen. It is w/o a trace of news value, but it is with a major trace of smell from a journalistic point of view. Posted by: familynet | February 22, 2008 4:34 AM I wish all the incoherent little yappers about the NY Times would face reality for once in their stunted lives. The NY Times tells the truth -- a senior McCain staffer warned the lobbyist to stay away from McCain because their relationship -- whatever it was -- could hurt him politically. Now, hearing the truth may distress Rush Limbaugh and other knuckle-draggers, but it is still the truth. Attacking the Times for reporting something that happened is simply trying to change the subject. I am distressed that the country harbors people such as those posting inaccurate and hysterical attacks on the Times simply because we have all now learned something we didn't know before. By the way, McCain has made reference to his "friends" who are lobbyists, and says he takes their "counsel." McCain is doing nothing more than just about any senator does, but given today's political climate, it sure was a damaging thing to say. Posted by: chuckmcf | February 21, 2008 11:55 PM Sounds like this lobbyist was a power sniffer and went after she wanted. After all, she did go from secretary to partner in record time. McCain's aides probably recognized she had her claws out for the Senator and told her to back off, much to her chagrin. Posted by: waterfrontproperty | February 21, 2008 11:40 PM As someone with a basic knowledge of grammar I can say your story of being a journalist does not hold up. Posted by: kevrobb | February 21, 2008 10:43 PM As a journalist i can say i think this story did not measure up. The fact john mccain is not holier than thou is not exactly news. does the times have more because this is a fairly lackluster piece. Posted by: tsmart | February 21, 2008 10:11 PM SVREADER, your post of 4:38 pm is so smart and funny, I'm even more baffled at your dismissal of Obama. Have you read, "Dreams of My Father" which he wrote before entering politics and without a ghost writer? Posted by: jhbyer | February 21, 2008 10:08 PM 1. McCain cheated on his first wife multiple times before settling on his trophy wife. Is it unconceivable that she was going to be trophy wife number 3? 2. The more troubling part for me is that it highlights the cozy relationship that McCain has with lobbyists all the while he denounces their influence on others. It is all part and parcel of the "its OK if you are a Republican" rules. I hope it takes some of hte shine off of St. McCain. Posted by: jswallow | February 21, 2008 9:36 PM "The fact that Obama is running on the same platform Bush did, and using it to win so many primaries, proves it." This is such incredible crap I'm surprised you have the guts to post it. Now, get off Mommy's computer and go get a job. Posted by: 2229 | February 21, 2008 8:51 PM Good. Some bimbo eruptions for the hypocritical Republican party, that fun-loving bunch with all kinds of characters, like homophobic homosexuals pretending they're not gay. Clinton was impeached, tho not convicted, by the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" no one laughs about anymore, for lying about legal oral sex with a consenting adult - yet here we sit with President War Criminal and Vice President Goebbels, their multitude of crimes and failure to protect and defend the Consitution, the economy a shambles, our reputation as the democratic ideal on earth shattered. McCain never had a chance anyway, but this will be fun. And did his lover favors, are the rumors. Whoa. I don't think Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton any favors besides orgasms. Posted by: 2229 | February 21, 2008 8:49 PM McCain in bed with the lobbyist...literally boning her as he makes $$$...sweet. Posted by: playa_brotha | February 21, 2008 8:41 PM FYI to anyone who reads this: I don't care about the extracurricular activities of our nations leaders. Real or imagined. This is not news. Stop wasting print space. I care that my 21 year old chronically ill son is no longer eligible for my healthcare insurance at work. I care that I can't sell my home in Indiana when I was transferred to Ohio. I care that my neighbors are looking for work. I care that my bosses son is in Iraq. In short, tell me what the politicians are going to do when they are paying attention to business. Nothing else matters to me. Posted by: dsnyder222 | February 21, 2008 7:44 PM Hey, Mr. Limbaugh (and Gov. Huckabee, for that matter).. Where were you and your pompous blathering when a member of the media (Tucker Calson) was not only reporting on a ridiculous smear story about Ron Paul ("Brothel Owner Supports Paul"), but he (Carlson) had concocted and choreographed the entire story himself? I guess that as Leona Helmsley said, "only the 'little people' pay taxes," it's apparent that only the 'statistically significant' members of the broadcast industry (Limbaugh - oxycontin incident) and politics (McCain - lobbyist incident) are entitled to fair treatment from the media and law enforcement. Posted by: thirty3na3rd | February 21, 2008 7:21 PM How could anyone NOT believe McCain was doing that lobbyist? She's smokin! If they were really traveling together and hanging out all the time, and if his top aid is on the record saying he felt he needed to break it up for the sake of McCain's career, it seems like a no-brainer that they were romantically involved. All politicians fool around if given half a chance, the only difference is who gets caught. What male politician wouldn't have let slip an earmark or two, as quid pro quo for access into her pants... Posted by: fairbalanced | February 21, 2008 7:10 PM The Facts: 1. John McCain admitted to cheating on his 1st wife (the one who waited for him while he was a POW). That affair was with Cindy (his current wife). 2. Cindy McCain stole narcotic pain pills from the charity she founded. 3. Cindy McCain avoided criminal prosecution. Given that McCain is already an admitted adulterer, this story is with merit and not out of left field. Given the fact the affair was with a lobbyist; John McCain may have not only cheated on another wife (again), but most importantly he may have cheated on the American People! Talk about being in bed with the special interests! He then supported that lobbyists' interests in the Senate. Regardless of the alleged affairs authenticity; Yeah, I know the visualization is disturbing. Cindy McCain should stay in the background and don't talk, unless you want we want the media to reminded us of the baggage she carries; her theft and fraudulent obtainment of narcotic pain medication from her own charity and her own participation in adultery. Posted by: justinst.clair | February 21, 2008 7:01 PM "I've got to ask, after reading many of the posts: Did anyone actually read the NYT piece? It is by no means even agressively suggestive...." --------------------------- Nah. It was just salaciously suggestive. MUCH different! Uh-huh. Class act. Journalistic gold. Fit to Print. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 6:49 PM OK. I must be an idiot. I've been reading about this story all day now and I still have no idea what McCain is supposed to have done wrong. Nine years ago, someone on McCain's staff chased off a pushy lobbyist. And this is, somehow, a bad thing? Apparently, it's pretty much conceded that there was no "improper" relationship. Anyway, can anyone honestly imagine her being chased away if there was? I can see it now. "I've been banging your boss but, gosh, you're a staffer and if you tell me to go away, I guess I'd better not call him anymore!" Please. So, to sum up this story, McCain, without receiving any special favors, took some action that could have benefitted someone represented by a pushy lobbyist nine years ago. Come on, guys. This is driving me nuts. What am I missing? Why is this such a big story? Posted by: anon99 | February 21, 2008 6:44 PM All of the "personal relationship" stuff aside, McCain has a documented past of allowing lobbyists to influence him. This woman wrote the letter McCain submitted to support her telecom employer on official business. Regardless of whether the NYT's is liberal, the facts they brought out are damaging in and of themselves. McCain has a serious credibility problem and it is the press' responsibility to bring these things to the public. Posted by: fishingriver | February 21, 2008 6:31 PM Now, why would I take offense? Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 06:05 PM Posted by: JD | February 21, 2008 6:21 PM Thanks NY Times and WaPo. You've only benefited the McCain campaign and bolstered the conservative base. The next time you base a smear article on innuendo, make sure you can at least name sources. Posted by: Digitalman08 | February 21, 2008 6:16 PM That's what I'm saying dburck. This is a none story to me. And I want to bash them, believe me. Saying clinton's impeach was a show trial previous, would it make me a hypocrite to go after maccain now? YEs. Just like all the republcains are hypocrites now, when they are all of a sudden offened by gossip news? Since when did the gop shun gossip news? Well good. Looks like fox rush and hannity will all be off the air tomorrow. I'll keep holding my breath. :) Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 6:14 PM I've got to ask, after reading many of the posts: Did anyone actually read the NYT piece? It is by no means even agressively suggestive, at least in the slanderous FoxNews fashion. It lays out coincidences of time, circumstance and people that, given McCain's propensity to seek lobbyist counsel, even while proclaiming his virgin morality, give one pause. Is there anything here? Perhaps not, but count on the senator to milk his righteous ire for all it's worth. Ugh. Posted by: dburck | February 21, 2008 6:09 PM "No offense, but you're either insane, incredibly naive, or 14 yrs old on mommy's computer in the basement." -------------------- Now, why would I take offense? Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 6:05 PM I wouldn't shed any tears for John McCain or the GOP. If there's provable fire under the smoke, it will put an end to him while the party can still find an alternate. If there's not proof, then it will rally the base for him. In any case, the lingering sting will have 9 months to dissipate. If this had to come out, it couldn't have been better timed from McCain's perspective. On the other hand, there IS a really obvious loser in all of this. It's Hillary Clinton. This story is going to suck all the oxygen out of the political universe for at least the next couple of weeks...The very two weeks that were the make or break period for the Clinton camp. Are people going to watch the Clinton-Obama debates with the same interest? Doubtful. What will it do to the emerging frame of Obama recriminations that had set in since the beginning of the week? It probably derails them. This is really too bad. In the lead up to Texas and Ohio, an Obama candidacy was finally getting a much needed vetting by the media and a pounding from both the Clinton and McCain campaigns. There was the plagiarism flap over his stump speech. He was being challenged on campaign finance. Michelle Obama caused a stir with her comment about being proud of America only recently. These challenges were matched by a series of less flattering op-eds asking questions about his positions, whether he was really an agent of change, and about his close to 'cult-of-personality' following. They were all tiny cuts, but they bleed all the same. Whatever you think of Obama, this is a necessary step before anointing him as the democratic nominee. We need to see if he can take a tough news cycle and come out on top. If he can, then he may really be the democrat's guy. If not, then Clinton may deserve a second look. Thanks to the NY Times, this tough news cycle has been defused before it really set in. Clinton is losing her best, last chance to turn things around. It's probably fatal to her campaign. Posted by: cometboy | February 21, 2008 6:04 PM "Well Barack has his Larry Sinclair" LOL. Please. More fairytales from Hillaryland. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 6:04 PM It was only a matter of time. Well Barack has his Larry Sinclair and John has his female lobbyist. Yikes, what next? What about the issues? Does the NYTs have nothing better to do than spend months on a story and then print to show up another publication. Didn't the NYTs start laying off employees just the other day? At this rate, there will be more when nobody buys the paper. For the people that like dirt with their politics, this story feels like one of those movies that seemed to have a storyline and then opps - the movie ends abruptly leaving the viewer pretty darn disgusted. Posted by: jkachmar | February 21, 2008 6:00 PM "Drindl, please do not repeat the notion that hiring the best election lawyer in DC implies guilt. It only implies that the client has good money and good advice. " Enough said. He has neither. His resurance is his ANTI-rush fox persona. The republcains have turned on their propogandists, as evidence by only huck and maccain left. He has little money. He has horrible advice. HE is taking the roger clemens defense. :) Why not? the gop is the no credibility or accountability party anyway. When do they ever hold their own to account, provided their not gay or cheated on their wife? Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 5:59 PM Again, it's not about McCain losing votes to Obama. It's about Republican voters staying home instead of going to the polls. And while this might motivate the radical right, it won't motivate moderate Republicans to vote for him. It will just make them more skeptical, which will either drive them to the strong, passionate optimism of Obama or won't drive them anywhere but to the couch to watch the election results come in during commercial breaks in Law & Order. McCain has so far gotten fewer than half the votes of Obama in this primary season. Now that's dismal. Posted by: thecrisis | February 21, 2008 5:58 PM Drindl, please do not repeat the notion that hiring the best election lawyer in DC implies guilt. It only implies that the client has good money and good advice. It would be one more perversion of justice to decide that hiring a bad lawyer is evidence of actual innocence and hiring a good one is evidence of foul play. PLEASE don't write that again. Please? Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 21, 2008 5:55 PM Don't shoot nobody jd. We all are americans after all. the gop doesn't like gossip as news? Can I expect rush and fox to go off teh air tonight then? Hannity savage? You are making a strong stand agaisnt gossip as news are you not? Make the stand? Or does the street run one way? Mighty angry tody gop. Because of a gossip news stroy? I thought that was the gop's mo. gossip and heresay as news. Please xplain your doublethink and enlighten me? Show your fascist face if you pleaase by detailing your's and the gop's postion on how only they can have gossip as news. this is one story, irrelevant imo. Your people do this ALL DAY EVERYDAY. And your mad? WOW Frickin hypocrite gop these days. If you want any credibility from me or independant thinkers, please explain your doublethink. Or cowar and blame the messanger. That is what you people do right? Point the finger. NEver take accountability or care about you rcredibility Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 5:54 PM The NYT is neither liberal nor conservative, it's a business that wants to make money. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 05:24 PM No offense, but you're either insane, incredibly naive, or 14 yrs old on mommy's computer in the basement. Nobody who has not lived in a cave over the last few decades would ever claim that the NYTimes has not practively positioned the paper as house organ for liberal causes in general, and the Democratic party in particular. From Howell Raines (Mr Flood-the-zone) to their uber-lefty editorial positions, to claim the NY Times is anything but a propoganda machine is to deny reality. This is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. They can take their own editorial slant and enact their agenda; that's up to Pinch Sulzberger, it's his dime. And so can the WaTimes and Fox News, outlets that slant right. PS I'll agree with M in A from an earlier post, how sad that the old grey lady has become a virtual tabloid supermarket trash rag in such a short time, historically speaking. Posted by: JD | February 21, 2008 5:45 PM Either the NYT has hired Drudge and the TMZ as journalism ethics coaches, or it has gotten hold of something damning that needs to be corroborated and this story was rushed out to preserve firsties. I would say it's 80-20 in favor of the former. Posted by: bondjedi | February 21, 2008 5:44 PM Forgot the link for proud. Hope you have a lock in your storm celler proud. "the russians are coming. The russinas are coming". the only question is, is the gop really scared of everything, or do they just play the victim/scared role to enforce their fascist agenda. That's the question I want and answer to. Do they believe their own propoganda? If so they are either the most cowardly people on the planet, or the dumbests. How many centuries will you allow these gop terrorists to control you proud. Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 5:38 PM Hostility toward the NYT drew conservatives swiftly to McCain's side, but if the story pans out, the NYT will likely become the tip of an iceberg. It's unlikely then that all conservatives will stay aboard the Titanic of HIS candidacy should, say, the WSJ and Washington Times, corroborate the essential facts. McCain in November: glub, glub. Posted by: jhbyer | February 21, 2008 5:38 PM protecting the telecom corporations from lawsuits for illegally shaing our private information is simply protecting the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Has nothing to do with protecting ourselves from terrorists. There are legal ways to accomplish the same thing. no matter what fear-based propaganda is thrown at us. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 5:36 PM you feel off proud. Get help. Your living a gop fantasy. The gop has you in their palm. Read this for me and calm down. Take some of those happy pills you perscribe. you cannot live your life in fear. The gop are terrorists threatning america, that much is true. Welcome to the world us liberals have been living in for the last 30 years. Fearing gop terrorists. Your one of us now. But how will you vote? For the terrorists? Is this the gop party platform proud? ""Terrorism" is a word for which there is no universally-accepted definition (see "Definition of 'terrorism'"). Many putative definitions of terrorism define as "terrorism" only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal and by a member or members of a group (as opposed to being carried out in a lone attack), and which deliberately target, or else disregard the safety of, non-combatants (civilians). Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence as opposed to "lawful acts of war". " If the democrats are "in with the terrorists", it's only because they have failed to put the terrorists behind bars. You know bush cheaney ashcroft rumy Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 5:34 PM If there is ANY corroborating evidence, McCain is toast....and what? Miracle Mike. the Preacher vs the Messiah Evolution vs Harvard Law Review Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 5:30 PM The NYT is neither liberal nor conservative, it's a business that wants to make money. It supported lots of Bush's Iraq war. NYT really failed professional journalists everywhere. Sad day for free speech and democracy. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 5:24 PM drindl, As usual the dem Congress is proving it's ineptitude at matters of national security. Remember, it was Harry Reid who declared our defeat in Iraq a year ago, and now his counterparts in the House expect some watered-down version of the bipartisan-supported senate surveillance bill to pass muster? Ha! There's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection. How about we ask Hillary and Barack to comment on that tonight, and see if they can form a coherent argument in favor of protecting Al-Qaeda's freedom of speech. Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 21, 2008 5:23 PM "Limbaugh: Liberals -- can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em As expected, with the publication of the New York Times' story on John McCain and his possible relationship with and special treatment for lobbyist Vicki Iseman, radio star Rush Limbaugh has found someone he likes attacking more than McCain. That's right, evil, evil liberals. Also reporters. (Although Limbaugh would probably say we just repeated ourselves.) Whatever else you want to say about him, Limbaugh is at the very least smart enough to know there'd be quite a bit of attention paid to what he had to say about McCain and the Times today. So when it came to his opening monologue, Limbaugh was ready to put on a show. The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes... Now, here's an interesting aspect here. You talk about the details of the story and how thinly sourced and all that. Yeah, right, yada yada. It's the Drive-By Media, for crying out loud. It's the New York Times reporting about a Republican. You know damn well a story like this wouldn't run about Hillary or Obama, even Bill Clinton, a story like this wouldn't run. If it did, it would be fawning. "Oh, there's old randy Bill out there, still showing us he got some lead in the pencil here after the heart surgery. Oh, yeah!" I don't understand why it's so hard for the people on the Republican Party side to understand who the enemy is and who they're dealing with. Not that Limbaugh would actually care, but it's worth noting that, in fact, the Times ran an article on the Clintons' marriage that was in some ways similar to this latest story on McCain. The gop does not want gossip hersay as news. Quick somebody tell rush fox hanntiy o'liely savage coulter lingram malkin boortz and on and on, that nobody wants gossip as news anymore. The right-wing smear machine is going out of business today. They're sick of gossip in the media and false stories. WHoa. Reminds me of teh movemen (betreus) and the rush "phoney soldiers" comment. The gop is the party of no accountability and credibility. Point the finger and blame the messanger. I have an idea if you have an issue with gossip as news. Go for the big fish. Start at teh top. When rush hannity savage o'liely ingram beck and all those thousands of propogandists are off teh air, THEN and only then can the gop complain. The street must run both ways. This story is gossip and a non stroy. But that never stops the gop doing this all day every day, does it? Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 21, 2008 5:21 PM The Times didn't say he had an affair ... which means they know they'd get sued ... which means they know he didn't have an affair. When a public figure is involved, libel laws require a plaintiff to prove not just that a story was false, but also that publishing it was *malicious* (i.e., knowingly false). That is, if you're a politician or a celebrity, the newspaper is allowed to get a story wrong if accidental and in good faith. But the paper knows the story is a lie ... toast. So they know it's a lie. Yet they ran it, a *non-story*, full of innuendo and essentially not disprovable because the story doesn't allege McCain actually had an affair. Notably, they'd rather focus on this non-story than on Obama's finally admitting how chummy he was with his pal Rezko. And the NYT ran this story, with the sleaziest sourcing possible (i.e., anonymous), to avoid being scooped ... by Drudge. That's not journalism, it's pathetic. And, as a liberal (yep, really, a registered Democrat), I'm comfortable saying the NYT really is liberal. Sure, it did a terrible job vetting the evidence on Iraq. No question. But you'd have to be some sort of socialist or Bolshevik to think otherwise. Posted by: suasory | February 21, 2008 5:15 PM Then they'll love your posts! Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 5:14 PM I love it! The conservatives deserted McCain until he's suspected of being in bed (so to speak) with lobbyists! Posted by: dottieb | February 21, 2008 5:14 PM It means all you pundits and bloggers can make more easy bucks instead of getting out of your chairs and actually tracking down real stories with real sources about real issues. plus at least several month's worth supply of Oxycotin for Rush. Posted by: wpost4112 | February 21, 2008 5:09 PM 'What this incident may do -- again assuming that nothing more damaging emerges over the coming days -- is to energize conservatives behind McCain in a way that they might not have been otherwise. ' 'So a conservative cyber-rag starts a story against a candidate deemed too liberal, it get's picked up by the 'Liberal Press' and is then used to prove the candidates conservative credentials because he's being attacked by the "liberal press"?? What a world' It's the republican alternate universe bizarro world. And again I ask, if there's no 'there' there, why would he hired the biggest lawyer in DC? Posted by: claudialong | February 21, 2008 4:58 PM Don't believe a word svreader writes. There isn't an ounce of sincerity in anything she writes. When she criticizes Senator Obama on a whole range of issues, it's just a mirror of how she feels about herself. She is completely transparent and obviously upset that her candidate, Senator Clinton is on the verge of being out of the race which she will be after she loses Ohio and Texas on March 4th. Hasta la vista senora svreader. Posted by: jovitman | February 21, 2008 4:57 PM This story may well unite conservatives behind McCain, if no hard facts are found that this relationship exists and this turns into a New York Times vs. the Conservative GOP Presidential nominee. A battle against the New York Times may just be what the doctor ordered to line up rank and file conservatives behind McCain's candidacy. However, if facts of infidelity are found then Huckabee could use that as a rallying factor, assuming McCain doesn't snap the 1,192 delegates before the facts are released. I must now pose another question. Let's assume McCain wins the Republican nomination, which are very likely. How will this battle affect independents for a general election? Independents generally have a favorable impression of McCain. Obviously, if it's McCain vs. Clinton then McCain wins the general easily. If it's a McCain vs. Obama race, the independent vote is up in the air. If McCain beats these charges and no proof is found against him, will this excite independents back to his candidacy even more than they are now? I would guess so. Interesting question to ponder. Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | February 21, 2008 4:54 PM it's amazing how many people claim to have read the NYT story but actually either operated from hearsay or just did not grasp the meaning of the words they eyeballed. The Times never alleged that the Senator had a romantic relationship with the lobbyist. The Times DID say that McCain's senior advisors worried that it had become one and repeatedly warned him that it would destroy his candidacy if it got out. In other words, they strongly believed that was happening or that there were sufficient appearances of it being true that they sternly told him to knock it off (if true). Now you don't go to the boss, especially one who has cultivated a reputation for rectitude, to say that it looks like he's messin' around, cheatin' on his wife, without there being more than a little smoke. Do I accept the story as being truthful reporting of what those insiders told the Times? Yes, I do because I do not believe the senior staff at the Times nor their attorneys have a suicidal bent, a need to self-destruct. That may have been CBS' culture and Dan Rather's but not the Times, notwithstanding Judith. Did the sources say they had proof that McCain was philandering? You could not conclude that by what was published; you only have read that they worried about appearances and the need to explain this blonde's presence with the candidate so much, that the fact she was a lobbyist as well as more than a bit attractive, might suggest to minds willing to suspend disbelieve that McCain had fallen off his high horse and had gotten in bed with the lobbyist, the kind of people and situations he had thundered against. Clearly this is a story in progress and there will be more published, both by the Times and WAPO and perhaps others. Am I saying he had an affair and this is a bimbo eruption? Read the above again if you think that, and try to grasp the meaning of these plain and simple, straight-talkin' words. Posted by: can8tiv | February 21, 2008 4:52 PM svreader reminds me of the reported Japanese soldiers that holed up on Pacific islands during WWII and refused to recognize that the war was over. First Clinton loses. Then svreader vows to work for McCain. Now he gets hit with controversy. Maybe the best thing svreader could do for Hillary is endorse Obama. Posted by: steveboyington | February 21, 2008 4:48 PM Blarg writes "svreader: Please list the policies shared by Obama and Bush. They're "running on the same platform", so that should be easy." I think he's talking about the nepotsim/dynasty thing. Bush's dad was a former president, just like Obama's dad. Or am I thinking of someone else? Posted by: bsimon | February 21, 2008 4:46 PM Chris writes "McCain Story: What It Means" Apparently, it don't mean jack szhit. The conspiracy theories predicting that its a McCain move to rally the conservative troops is, thus far, more plausible than the allegations of hanky-panky or inappropriate favors. Posted by: bsimon | February 21, 2008 4:42 PM svreader: Please list the policies shared by Obama and Bush. They're "running on the same platform", so that should be easy. And note that platforms are not the same as rhetoric; something like "changing the tone in Washington" does not count as a platform. Posted by: Blarg | February 21, 2008 4:41 PM Funny how the McCain campaign had no problem with the NYT endorsing the old boy. Posted by: Spectator2 | February 21, 2008 4:40 PM I'd take issue with the line "McCain has railed against special interests throughout his political life." The Times story highlights his much earlier relationship with the real estate mogul Keating that almost brought his career to an early end. That chastized him to become a reformer. Posted by: donjaime37 | February 21, 2008 4:40 PM Maybe its all a clever ruse to make McCain look virle? I doubt it, but it certainly makes him look younger and more vibrant. Given the way most men think, he might even get a "high-five" or two, for doing it at his age. Nobody's even gone broke, or lost an election, underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The fact that Obama is running on the same platform Bush did, and using it to win so many primaries, proves it. Posted by: svreader | February 21, 2008 4:38 PM "Already! McCain Raising Money Off Times Story On Lobbyist Connection" Reminds me of the Clinton reaction to the Cleavage article. Posted by: bsimon | February 21, 2008 4:38 PM On February 14th, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he would remain in Washington to work on FISA issues after Republicans voted unanimously against an extension of the Protect America Act. President Bush then left on a trip to Africa after stating that he might cancel it, and House Republicans returned to their districts after pledging to stay through the recess to work on legislation. Today, Republicans prevented their staff from attending a bipartisan working meeting on FISA. From Majority Leader Hoyer: Hoyer Statement on Important FISA Meeting for you proud, why are republicans stalling/blocking the new surveillance bill? WASHINGTON, DC - House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today after Republicans did not join a bicameral meeting on modernizing the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act: "I am disappointed that House and Senate Republicans apparently instructed their staffs not to participate in today's bicameral meeting on modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The decision to not participate, coupled with their vote against an extension of their bill - the Protect America Act - only serves to reinforce the perception that Republicans prefer to have a political issue rather than a strong new FISA bill in place as quickly as possible. Certainly Republicans do not really believe that the role of the House is to simply rubberstamp whatever bills the Senate passes. "I am hopeful that Republicans will reconsider and join us in crafting a bipartisan FISA bill that protects our nation and our civil liberties. It is time to come together and work in the best interests of our nation's security." Posted by: claudialong | February 21, 2008 4:37 PM This must be a smoke-screen of some sort to benefit somebody- maybe McCain himself? Otherwise, I do not see the story, no smoking gun. What about the economy (weak USD, housing bubble bursting, high-oil), NAFTA, the wars and the general state of our nation- what is he going to do on these topics and more and why/how? Barack vs John- maybe a smokescreen is needed: http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48 Posted by: davidmwe | February 21, 2008 4:35 PM First of all the idea that the NYT is liberal is laughable. Secondly, didn't this story originate with the Drudge Report? The same right-wing bottom feeder who instigated numerous unfounded attacks against the Clintons years ago? The same unfounded attacks that were picked up the "liberal press" and played over and over on "liberal press" TV shows until the Republican-led Congress stopped all governing in order to Impeach a President. So a conservative cyber-rag starts a story against a candidate deemed too liberal, it get's picked up by the 'Liberal Press' and is then used to prove the candidates conservative credentials because he's being attacked by the "liberal press"?? What a world End the Drama, Vote for Obama! Posted by: thebobbob | February 21, 2008 4:35 PM oops shoulda made it clear this wasn't part of the email plea 'To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above. Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain.' 'Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand.' Posted by: claudialong | February 21, 2008 4:33 PM Already! McCain Raising Money Off Times Story On Lobbyist Connection By Greg Sargent - February 21, 2008, 2:29PM Well, that was pretty predictable. The McCain campaign is already raising money off the uproar over the Times piece, depicting it as nothing more than the work of a left wing cabal -- including the paper, the Democratic Party and of course MoveOn -- that is bent on destroying the GOP nominee. From a new McCain fundraising email: Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting -- an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand. To be clear, we think there's much in the story that's legit, particularly the stuff focused on the questions around McCain's professional relationship with the lobbyist and the broader pattern of influence peddling that's alluded to. The anonymous suggestions of a romantic affair, however, have only made it easier for the McCain camp to respond as they did above. Interestingly, the fundraising email makes no mention of the fact that the paper endorsed McCain. More on this story right here at The Horse's Mouth. Late Update: Now the Republican National Committee has a fundraising email out, too, saying: "The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House." Posted by: claudialong | February 21, 2008 4:30 PM She's too good looking for McCain's own good. Posted by: DonJasper | February 21, 2008 4:26 PM Did we really need a third post on this topic? Posted by: Blarg | February 21, 2008 4:25 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.
231.204545
0.818182
1.181818
high
medium
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102303.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102303.html
Kaine Wants To Ease Rules On Extending Polling Hours
2008022419
The proposal would allow the State Board of Elections or the chairmen of the state's political parties to ask a circuit court judge to extend the voting hours when emergency circumstances prevent voters from getting to the polls on time. "The bill was put in as a direct response to the problems in Northern Virginia during the primary," said Gordon Hickey, a spokesman for Kaine (D). "A number of legislators and citizens asked the governor to introduce legislation to deal with the issue." The law now allows only the campaigns involved in the election to ask a judge to extend the hours. The polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. "This year is the perfect example of why we need more flexibility in providing people the ability to vote and exercise their fundamental rights," said Brian J. Moran (Alexandria), chairman of the House Democratic caucus. "There was a combination of higher voter participation and then bad weather which caused long lines, and some people were unable to get to the polls on time." As icy weather struck the region Feb. 12, Maryland officials gave voters an extra 90 minutes to reach the polls. Virginia officials informed the campaigns that they could petition a judge to extend the hours, but none did. Voters said Thursday that they were pleased by Kaine's proposal. Gretchen Liechty-Lynch, 29, a teacher from Tysons Corner, said she thought she would have ample time to vote in the primary at Marshall High School, which is next door to her apartment, if she left work at 6:25 p.m. But her commute, which usually takes 10 minutes, dragged on for more than 45 minutes. "I actually sat in traffic and did not move for 30 minutes," she said. "I walked into the school at 7:15. I was so sure they would have extended the hours, I was shocked I couldn't vote." Ruth A. Simmons's commute to her home in Alexandria through the Springfield Mixing Bowl, usually 35 minutes long, took more than two hours. She got home at 7:04 p.m. and stayed there, knowing the polling place would be closed. "I was furious," said Simmons, 48, a licensed clinical social worker. "I admit that I don't vote in every single primary, but this one was important to me. I had opinions, and I wanted to be able to vote." To become law, the measure must be passed by the House and Senate by March 8, when the 60-day legislative session ends. In the past, legislators' efforts to extend voting hours in Northern Virginia because of traffic congestion have failed. Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R-Prince William) said he received about 10 e-mails from residents saying they were not able to get to the polls Feb. 12. "I think that people who want to vote should be able to vote," he said. "I think that's a good way to go." Scott Surovell, chairman of the Fairfax County Democratic Party, said that though voters knew a storm was coming, some were taken by surprise because it was mostly ice and came down heavily during the rush hours. He received complaints from several people who said they had thought they had given themselves ample time but couldn't vote. "I'm not surprised that the [state] code did not contemplate extending elections for a weather emergency, because we don't usually have to worry about bad weather during elections," he said. "You don't get many hurricanes or ice storms in November or June."
RICHMOND, Feb. 21 -- In response to weather problems that prevented many Northern Virginia residents from voting in last week's presidential primary, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine asked legislators Thursday to make it easier to extend polling hours.
17.146341
0.731707
0.97561
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022100641.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022100641.html
Spy Satellite's Downing Shows a New U.S. Weapon Capability
2008022419
The unprecedented downing of an errant spy satellite by a Navy missile makes it clear that the Pentagon has a new weapon in its arsenal -- an anti-satellite missile adapted from the nation's missile defense program. While the dramatic intercept took place well below the altitude where most satellites orbit, defense and space experts said Wednesday night's first-shot success strongly suggests that the military has the technology and know-how to knock out satellites at much higher orbits. The Pentagon officials said they were 90 percent certain the missile had struck its primary target, a tank containing toxic fuel, but they stressed that the shoot-down did not indicate that the United States is developing an anti-satellite program. Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the effort was not a test of the nation's missile defense system or a show of force to put other countries on notice that the United States can take down a satellite. "This was uncharted territory," he said. "We see this as a one-time event." Nonetheless, many space experts and arms-control advocates in the United States and abroad said the shot had opened the door to more anti-satellite tests by more nations. "Demonstrably, we do have an [anti-satellite] capability now," said David Mosher, a Rand Corp. defense and space expert. "Anyone who followed national missile defense issues knew we've had that inherent ability for some time. But now it's real, and we can expect there will be consequences." Clay Moltz, a professor of nuclear and space policy at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, said destruction of the satellite may have sent a signal to other countries that could set a bad precedent. "It solved a short-term problem, but it may cause us long-term headaches in terms of emerging test programs in other countries," Moltz said. Riki Ellison, president and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said it is "remarkable" -- and good news -- that the missile defense system is so easily adaptable. "We now have something that has the capability, anywhere around the world, to handle a falling satellite," Ellison said. "The world wasn't really watching it before. This is much more now known throughout the world that we have this capability." The Chinese Communist Party newspaper condemned what it called Washington's callous attitude toward the weaponizing of space. The Chinese government -- which conducted a full-scale anti-satellite test in January 2001 -- asked the United States to release data on the shoot-down and where the satellite's debris would fall. In Honolulu, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said some information would be shared to assure the Chinese and others that any pieces that reach the surface will not be hazardous. Many governments accepted the Bush administration's explanation that the satellite had to be knocked apart because it was carrying a 1,000-pound tank of potentially hazardous hydrazine rocket fuel. "Obviously, we regret the circumstances, but we understand that these were exceptional circumstances, and we support the decision," said Emmanuel Lenain, a French Embassy spokesman.
News about the U.S. military from The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. Full coverage of defense budgets,Army,Navy,Air Force,Marines and the Pentagon.
20.633333
0.7
0.833333
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/02/21/VI2008022101360.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/02/21/VI2008022101360.html
Defense Department Shows Missile Intercept
2008022419
» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk + { "movie":"http://media10.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf", "id":"oplayer-video-swf", "width":"100%", height:"100%", "vars":{ "title":"Defense Department Shows Missile Intercept", "stillURL":"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/21/PH2008022101362.jpg", "mediaQueryString":"http://static.washingtonpost.com/wp/swf/OmniPlayer.swf?id=02212008-6v&flvURL=/media/2008/02/21/02212008-6v&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
The U.S. Navy shot down a wayward spy satellite orbiting the Earth. Video courtesy U.S. Department of Defense
51.736842
0.631579
0.631579
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102687.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102687.html
Lenders Fighting Mortgage Rewrite
2008022419
The nation's largest lending institutions are lobbying hard to block a proposal in Congress that would give bankruptcy judges greater latitude to rewrite mortgages held by financially strapped homeowners. The proposal, which could come to a vote in the Senate as early as next week, is being pushed by Democratic congressional leaders and a large coalition of groups that includes labor unions, consumer advocates, civil rights organizations and AARP, the powerful senior citizens' lobby. The legislation would allow bankruptcy judges for the first time to alter the terms of mortgages for primary residences. Under the proposal, borrowers could declare bankruptcy, and a judge would be able to reduce the amount they owe as part of resolving their debts. Currently, bankruptcy judges cannot rewrite first mortgages for primary homes. This restriction was adopted in the 1970s to encourage banks to provide mortgages to new home buyers. The Democrats and their allies see the plan as an antidote to the recent mortgage crisis, especially among low-income borrowers with subprime loans. The legislation would prevent as many as 600,000 homeowners from being thrown into foreclosure, its advocates say. "We should be giving families every reasonable tool to ensure they can keep a roof over their heads," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate's second-ranking Democrat and author of a leading version of the legislation. But the banks argue that any help the proposal might provide to troubled homeowners in the short run would be offset by the higher costs that borrowers would have to pay to get mortgages in the future. The reason, banks say, is that they would pass along the added risk to borrowers in the form of higher interest rates, larger down payments or increased closing costs. If banks were unable to pass on the entire cost, they could be forced to trim their profits. "This provision is incredibly counterproductive," said Edward L. Yingling, president of the America Bankers Association. "We will lobby very, very strongly against it." The Durbin measure is part of a larger housing assistance bill being pushed by Democrats in the Senate. A separate version of the measure was approved late last year, mostly along party lines, by the House Judiciary Committee. The Bush administration has said that it opposes both provisions as overly coercive and potentially detrimental to the already strained mortgage market. Lobbyists for major banks have made the proposal's defeat a top priority. They have been meeting at least weekly to coordinate their efforts and have fanned out on Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and their staffs. At least a dozen industry associations have banded together to fight the proposed legislation. They include the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association and the Mortgage Bankers Association. These groups and others have signed joint letters to lawmakers on the issue. In one of their letters, sent to Senate leaders last week, the groups wrote that the legislation would "have a very negative impact in the financial markets, which are struggling in part because of difficulties in valuing the mortgages that underlay securities [and] would greatly increase the uncertainty that already exists." Bank lobbyists have also gone online to make their case. The mortgage bankers have set up a Web site, http://www.mortgagebankers.org/StopTheCramDown, that can calculate how much mortgage costs might increase by state and by county if the Durbin measure were to become law. "Cram down" is the industry term for a forced easing of mortgage terms. Supporters of the measure are also sending letters and meeting with lawmakers. A letter urging a quick vote on the proposal was delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) last week. It was signed by 19 organizations, including the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, the National Council of La Raza, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and AARP. The letter said, "The court-supervised modification provision is a commonsense solution that will help families save their homes without any cost to the U.S. Treasury, while ensuring that lenders recover at least what they would in a foreclosure." The Center for Responsible Lending, a pro-consumer watchdog group that backs Durbin's effort, is trying to instigate voter e-mails to lawmakers on the subject. The group's Web site includes a page that allows people to send electronic notes supporting the measure to their elected representatives with just a few clicks of a mouse. AARP spokesman Jim Dau said his group will also ramp up its efforts. It may soon ask its activists to urge lawmakers to back the mortgage-redrafting legislation. AARP, which is the nation's largest lobby group, has a list of 1.5 million volunteers whom it says it can call upon to contact lawmakers on legislative matters.
The nation's largest lending institutions are lobbying hard to block a proposal in Congress that would give bankruptcy judges greater latitude to rewrite mortgages held by financially strapped homeowners.
29.483871
1
31
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102664.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022102664.html
China Defends Olympics Food Safety
2008022419
BEIJING, Feb. 21 -- Stung by accusations that Beijing's food and water are contaminated, China on Thursday defended its standards and expressed disappointment that U.S. athletes will ship their own meat to China for the Olympic Games. "I feel it's a pity that they have decided to bring their own food," said Kang Yi, chief of the catering division for the Beijing Olympics organizing committee, adding that the organizers had made plans for the athletes to dine together. "If the American delegation is not at that gathering, it's a pity." A report in the New York Times this month said the U.S. Olympic Committee, in part worried about steroids in chicken, had made arrangements with sponsors to ship 25,000 pounds of lean protein to China two months before the opening ceremony. The 600-member U.S. delegation will eat at its own training center and avoid food at the athletes' village, which will house and feed 17,000 people during the Games, the paper said. Tang Yunhua, spokeswoman for the Beijing Municipal Office for Food Safety, said a high-tech supervision system would closely monitor food sources from production to the catering table. "We have established a sound food safety system, and food safety standards for the Olympic Games are much more strict than international standards," Tang said. A Web-based network of supervisory agents will closely monitor animals' breeding information and ingestion of medicines as well as the use of pesticides on vegetables. Electronic bar codes will allow officials to track the origins of produce. Tang also warned that food and drugs cannot be taken into the Olympic Village and that visitors to China would have to comply with all rules and regulations when trying to bring in their own food. "We can guarantee the drinking water is safe," Tang added, in part because sponsors will provide bottled water. Chinese citizens have been concerned about their food and water after state media reports about tainted or substandard pork and shellfish and dangerous chemical additives. Sometimes the contamination is caused by greed as companies cut corners or farmers use banned pesticides in order to increase profits. Often it is a result of lax enforcement of the law. For example, more than 40 percent of the drinking water in rural areas is unsafe because of excessive levels of coliform bacteria or improper sewage and refuse disposal, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health said this week, according to the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong daily. Last June, a report in the state-run Beijing Times said almost half the barreled water sold and used in coolers in the city could be less pure than advertised either because it was really tap water or a mislabeled and cheaper brand of purified water.
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.
11.347826
0.434783
0.478261
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/19/DI2008021901713.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/19/DI2008021901713.html
HD DVD/Blu-ray War
2008022419
Naples: Will there be in-home Blue-Ray DVD recorders on the market? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray companies are dubious about the potential for high-def DVD recorders in the U.S. They point to the disappointing sales for standard-def DVD players and wonder if it would be any different for HD. However, I think you'll see a Blu-ray recorder in the next year or so. (They are already available in Japan.) Manasas Park, Va.: Since the defeat of HD DVD, can you say, "Blu-Ray is the best." At least give some respects to the best. Phillip Swann: Blu was "best" at winning. Whether it's politics or consumer electronics, "best" doesn't always win. That said, the picture quality was roughly the same for both formats. HD DVD had a few more interactive features while Blu-ray has more storage. Kansas City, Mo.: With Microsoft's support of HD DVD. Any comments on what their position will be now that HD DVD is going away? Phillip Swann: I think they will continue to push digital downloads via the XBox 360. Some believe that Microsoft's intent from the beginning was to prolong the high-def format war so they could buy more time to develop the download business. Green Bay, Wis.: For the guy like me who's not a total movie buff or electronics geek, does it make much sense to go to BlueRay, or just simply get one of the up-leveling DVD players with the HDMI cable to make my DVD collection look more HD? Is there that much of a difference? For those of us who have spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars building a DVD collection, the thought of having to buy all new discs is a deterrent to upgrading... Phillip Swann: If I had to rate the picture quality, with Blu-ray being a 10, the upconverting DVD player is a 6 and a standard-def DVD player is a 4. In other words, if picture quality matters to you, the high-def DVD player is the way to go. New York City: I have a DVD player. I rent from Netflix. If I receive Blue Tooth DVDs from Netflix, will the new DVD play on my machine? Phillip Swann: No, you need a Blu-ray player to play Blu-ray discs. However, the standard-def DVD that you now use will play on a Blu-ray player -- and the Blu-ray's "upconverting" feature will improve its picture. Lorton, Va.: The HD DVD format and format war may have been an attempt to thwart the adoption of a new physical medium to replace DVD by Toshiba. As the major beneficiary of DVD royalties, Toshiba stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars if DVD is replaced with something they aren't intrinsically involved with. Do you think that this may be part of the reason for the format war... and do you think that they succeeded in allowing Blu-ray a chance at mass adoption? Phillip Swann: That conspiracy theory has been floated by some, but I think Toshiba was excited about the potential of being the king of the new high-def DVD industry. Alexandria, Va.: If Blu-Ray became the format of choice, would the owners of regular DVDs be eventually stuck with a movie collection that was of no use to them, or are the new types of players designed to also play the standard format as well as the new version? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray players can play standard-def DVDs -- and as I noted earlier, the picture will be better. So don't worry -- your DVD collection would still be valuable. Greetings from your friends at McNamara High School. We remember you as the clutch outfielder from the 70's baseball team coached by Jack Cheseldine. Congratulations on your success and Go Mustangs! Phillip Swann: I'm flabbergasted. If I only I hadn't ruined my elbow...:) Anonymous: hold it! I don't think my DVD player is high def, but it did/does have some type of function that enhances regular DVD play (it really makes for a good picture on my non-HD TV). For some reason I now recall a HD 1080 sticker and definite spot for a HD cord. I know for sure it is not blu-ray. I am starting to wonder if I lost out on this issue. do both of these system play non HD DVDs? Am I safe to assume base DVDs will continue to be produced? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray and HD DVD players can both play standard-def DVDs. Glen Burnie, Md.: What is Microsoft's loss in the death of hd-dvd? Phillip Swann: Microsoft invested considerable money -- and prestige -- on HD DVD. However, the company has money to burn and now will simply fall back on its strategy to promote digital downloads. Edgemoor, Md.: Hi, When do you think we'll see a DVD player offered that provides BluRay high definition to at least 1080i over component connections? What about a player that upgrades standard DVDs to at least 1080i through component connections? Is there any effect on this issue from the closing of competition for BluRay? Phillip Swann: Upconverter DVD players will improve the image of your standard DVDs, but companies that produce them tend to overestimate their value. The picture is better, but not real 1080i HD. Mooresville, N.C.: In December 2007 I purchased from BUY.DIG.COM what SEEMED to be a bargain Toshiba DR-550 DVD Recorder with Digital TV Tuner and DVD Upconversion. This was after much research and difficulty sorting out features of various models. NOW I find that the Toshiba will be useless insofar that it will not play Blu-Ray format! Can a case be made that deceptive advertising was at play, and I was sold obsolete technology? Phillip Swann: No, unfortunately not. Toshiba's answer is that people knew that HD DVD could go out of business at some point -- plus the player can still be used to play old HD DVD discs and standard-def DVDs. DC: Considering Moore's Law, what do you suspect the will be the life cycle of Blu Ray? Seems the gap between VHS and DVD, then DVD and Blu Ray has gotten shorter. Of the emerging technologies out there, what's next? Or will there ultimately be a more digital paradigm that foregos any physical media? Phillip Swann: I think the digital download industry will try to defeat Blu-ray -- and there will be a serious battle. But I believe that Blu-ray will emerge victorious and will remain a solid performer for the next several years. Fairfax, Va.: Sony lost the Betamax vs. VHS war. Sony's Beta technology was superior to JVC's VHS in everything but recording time. Sony has won the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD war. Toshiba's HD-DVD technology was superior to Blu-ray in everything but disk data size. I find this very ironic. Phillip Swann: I wouldn't say that HD DVD's technology was superior, but I would say that the individual merits of each player was not a major factor in who won the war. Blu won because the studios, including Blu's chief backer, Sony, decided to line up behind it. Without studio support, HD DVD was a long shot from the get-go. Vienna, Va.: Hello: this had nothing to do with the consumers as both formats are essentially the same performance wise. Therefore, how much of this format war was won because of Sony working the retailers and studios in convincing them that they could only make higher margins by selling a higher priced product and content? Phillip Swann: You got it -- Sony and Blu won because they secured the support of four major studios when this thing started. HD DVD had only one studio exclusively supporting it. That created a pretty good home field advantage for Blu. Baltimore, Md.: I've read some postings saying that right now is actually a better time to buy a HD DVD player than Blu-Ray. The logic goes that Blu-Ray is expensive, and all non-PS3 Blu-Ray players will be obsolete in a couple of years. HD DVD players, on the other hand, are really cheap, and if nothing else are still great upconverters. And there are something like 800 HD DVD titles that will soon be at fire sale prices. Do you agree with any of this? Phillip Swann: Amazon has been selling a HD DVD player for around $117 -- cheaper than most upconverting DVD players. If you want a cheap upconverter player, go for it. Ocala, Fla.: Does it really matter? Given the facts that upscaled DVDs are excellent, and downloads and streaming are becoming more practical make Blu-Ray increasingly irrelevant? Phillip Swann: I disagree that downloads are becoming more practical -- that's just propaganda from the tech world. The average American does not have the patience or technical skill to use a download service at home, such as Apple TV, Vudu or even XBox 360's service. Plus, download times are usually too long (sometimes hours for a high-def movie) and the picture quality is sub-par to what you see on a Blu-ray or HD DVD disc. Manassas, Va.: What do you think will happen with the prices of Blu-Ray DVD players? There is now no incentive to lower the prices now because HD DVD players are going away. I assume the prices will go down at some point, but when? Phillip Swann: Contrary to popular opinion, Blu-ray makers have a tremendous incentive now to lower prices this year, culminating in a $199 player this holiday season. Because of the format war, high-def disc players are in less than 2 million homes. Blu-ray has to make up for lost ground -- and fast. Lower prices is the way to do it. Glen Burnie, Md.: Why didn't Sony and Toshiba unify the disc format before they came to market, like reg dvd? Phillip Swann: They had several meetings to reach a single format compromise, but talks broken down. I'm sure both sides wish they hadn't. Mt. Airy, Md.: I remember the awe of seeing my first DVD and how much of an improvement it was over VHS. Is Blu-ray going to give me that same sensation, or will it be more of a yawn? Phillip Swann: If you have a high-def TV, think about the first time you saw your favorite show or movie in HD. Blu-ray will give you that same experience. Guadalajara, Mexico: If the quality of both formats look the same (I saw a comparison between both formats of the same picture) And the cost of Toshiba's format was cheaper. And inevitably Blu-ray will be substituted for the formats in wich some are working on now (may in no more than 5 years) Why Blu-ray is better? Why bother? Would not be a better bet to wait with our beloved DVDs and wait for the next format ? Phillip Swann: Again, if you love the HD picture, you'll love Blu-ray -- compared to a regular DVD. Mooresville, N.C.: Thanks for your answer, but re: "Toshiba's answer is that people knew that HD DVD could go out of business at some point." Many of us among the techno-proletariate DID NOT KNOW THAT - especially within 30 days after purchase. Phillip Swann: Like I said, that's Toshiba's answer. Washington, D.C.: How did the industry let this happen? Didn't anyone learn anything from Betamax versus VHS? The Consumer Electronics Association has an active standards division-- why didn't they force the industry to a single standard decision before these competing formats hit the marketplace and dragged the whole pre-recorded media industry down? Phillip Swann: The Consumer Electronics Association can't force companies to take action, nor can anyone else for that matter. But there was pressure from the industry to create a single format before the two formats were launched. But internal egos and financial pressures kept that from happening. Fairfax, Va.: How does this movie download system work? How long would it take to download a 2-hour film via DSL? And how much space would it take up on a hard drive? And what if the computer is not connected to a tv? Phillip Swann: Depending upon the speed of your DSL connection, it could take up to eight hours to download a high-def 2-hour movie. Herndon, Va.: I saw a fascinating story [ here] that agreed with you about the inevitability of Blu-Ray winning because of studio backing, but went further to state the studios didn't want to back HD-DVD because they didn't want to get stuck using Microsoft proprietary codecs. Do you concur? Phillip Swann: I think that was a factor, but not the most important one. arlington, va.: With the HD DVD competition gone, do you see Blu-ray prices stagnating if not rising slightly? HD DVD was already going at a fraction the cost of Blu-ray. If HD DVD had "won" I would have gone out and purchased a sub-$200 player the next day. Now that Blu-ray has "won" I'm probably months away (maybe winter holidays 2008) from getting a player because I don't see them going sub-$200 anytime soon. How long do I have to wait for that sub-$200 player? Phillip Swann: I think you'll see it this holiday season. Philips is introducing a $349 Blu-ray player in March. Edgemoor, Md.: This is a follow up to my earlier question. You really didn't address the use of component connections for BluRay and upgrade machines. My set is an older 1080i high definition set that has no HDMI connections. Phillip Swann: You can use Component cables to connect your Blu-ray or HD DVD player. Rockville, Md.: OK - I am still not sure what my situation is. I have a standard DVD player and a standard (notHD) TV. I rent movies from Netflix. As I understand it, Netflix is going to all BluRay DVDs. Do I need a new DVD player? Do I need a new TV? Phillip Swann: NetFlix is phasing out HD DVD -- but it will carry both standard-def DVDs and Blu-ray players. You don't need a new TV or DVD player for the standard-def DVDs you now rent from Netflix. If you want to rent Blu-ray discs, you'll need a Blu-ray player. Anonymous: I agree entirely with your point that downloads are a very long way off -- I don't see how it can happen until we have major penetration of high speed internet connections in this country, which doesn't seem likely to happen for some time! Nevertheless, its not clear that Blu-Ray is going to be successful in the mean time, because its more expensive (both disks and players) and so many people, I get the impression, seem happy enough with regular DVDs -- even people who purchased HDTVs? Phillip Swann: I agree that Blu-ray has a long road ahead before it replaces the regular DVD. However, keep in mind that the studios are in control here -- they can determine which films are released on which formats. Eventually, they will start releasing movies on Blu-ray only, which will encourage sales of new Blu-ray players. Washington, D.C.: While people think that this war was about consumers, in the end it was about the studios that make the movies. In other words, more studios joined the blu-ray camp in the beginning because of blu-ray's DRM and because it was harder to copy than HD-DVD. Also, wouldn't you say that the war was really won by the PS3 as the Trojan Horse for Blu-Ray? Phillip Swann: The Play Station 3 was an important factor in Blu-ray's success. Sony decided to put a Blu-ray player in each PS3 -- and the gamble paid off. Washington, D.C.: i find all of this really depressing. we have hundreds of dvds, the old-fashioned kind that replaced our video cassettes. must we buy and hoard dvd players to use when we are old. because i don't really feel like converting everything again, thank you Phillip Swann: I don't see regular DVDs going away anytime soon, but that day will come. Manassas, Va.: Along with the long download time, doesn't one have to watch a downloaded movie within 24 hours of the download being complete, or some term like that? From what you said, the picture of the Blu-ray DVD is better that the downloaded version, and you can watch all you want. Of course the DVD costs more. Phillip Swann: Yes, downloads also have restrictions for when you can watch the film after you order it. Vienna, Va.: Blu Ray supports higher bit rates (and hence higher resolution) than broadcast HDTV. Will Blu Ray discs of network shows like 24 and Lost look significantly better than the broadcast versions of the shows? Phillip Swann: That's a good question -- it depends on the show and how the Blu-ray disc was replicated. In some cases, it's definitely better. Columbia, Md.: I have a slightly older HDTV that has a maximum HD resolution of 720p or 1080i. Will Blu-ray improve picture over conventional DVD players? I know that the Blu-ray can achieve 1080p. Also, I do not have an HDMI input (has a DVI instead). It also has component inputs. What would be the best way to set it up? Thanks. Phillip Swann: As noted earlier, you can use Component cable to connect a Blu-ray player to your HDTV. Washington, D.C.: Will we see "affordable" (read under $200) BluRay players in the near future? Sony is notorious for overpricing its products, and the other companies that have the rights to produce players (Samsung and LG) are also on the high end of the electronics spectrum. I worry that while industry experts expect the prices to fall dramatically, the prices will remain stable because the low-end manufacturers will not be given the rights to produce players. Phillip Swann: Sony is not the only maker of Blu-ray player. There are several including, Philips, Samsung, Panasonic, etc. Prices will come down this year slow but sure -- and then hit the sweet spot (sub-$200) during the 2008 holidays. Rapid City, S.D.: Thanks for the info. So if I have a standard DVD player and a high-def TV, should I buy a (possibly discounted ) Hi def DVD, or wait for the BluRay prices to come down ? Phillip Swann: Depends on your budget and your viewing habits, If you love movies, you can buy a Blu-ray player now online for a little more than $300. That's not that much more than what you would pay for an upconverting DVD player. Bethesda, Md.: A background question: We all know that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will look their best at 1080p resolution. Agreed. However, the vast majority of HD TV's are 720p, 1080i resolution. A small percentage are actually 1080p. Do the question: will HD-DVD or Blu-Ray look better than a high-quality, upconverting standard DVD player on a 720p, 1080i HD set? Or, to see any difference at all between standard DVD and the ultra high quality formats, do you need to buy a 1080p HD set? Phillip Swann: Yes, a Blu-ray player will look better than an upconverter DVD player on a 720p or 1080i set -- much better, in fact, on a larger-screen (46 inches and above.) Washington, D.C.: It was commented, even more after Warner's announcement, that the longest the war would last the more the online movie rentals/purchasing would gain. Would the Toshiba announcement could have been rush more than some might have expected not just to save what they could but because in the long run (expecting them to be not so far in the future also manufacturers of blu-ray devices) would've meant less profit for them? Phillip Swann: Toshiba decided to end the HD DVD business because it could not see any way of succeeding at this point. The company had already spent hundreds of millions on HD DVD -- it wasn't about to throw any more down the rat hold. Glen Burnie, Md.: Just a comment. Thank god now i can soon buy a blu ray movie from Universal or Paramount. I'm glad the war is now over. It's about time. And sorry for all the people getting stuck with the HD-DVD players. I was stuck with the beta movies from before. and Laser disc. Phillip Swann: I do feel bad for the HD DVD owners (including me; I bought Blu and HD DVD players). I believe that Toshiba should reach out to them by offering discounts on other products, particularly if it decides to manufacture Blu-ray players in the future. It would be in the best interest of the company -- and the industry as a whole. You don't want consumers becoming even more hesitant to try a new product in the future. Baltimore, Md.: Maybe this is a question for another chat, but what do you know about DirecTV's new VOD service? Phillip Swann: It's still in Beta. They are rolling it out region by region. Very little HD at this point. Mostly standard-def TV shows and movies. Burke, Va.: How about the prices of discs? Will we see Blu-Ray disc prices get to the $15-$20 range for new releases any time soon? Also, will Blu-Ray be offering a combo format with movies in standard DVD like HD-DVD? I would start buying Blu-Ray/DVD combo discs right now even though I don't have a Blu-Ray player to stay ahead of the game, but I'm not going to buy a Blu-Ray player, and thus Blu-Ray only discs, until they reach a reasonable price point (under $200). Phillip Swann: I think disc prices will also fall, but more slowly than player prices. The big breakthrough in discs this year will be that your local video store will be more likely to carry Blu-ray movies. Consequently, you'll be able to rent them instead of having to buy them. Saint Albans, W.Va.: Now that HD/DVD has thrown in the towel how will this effect pricing for Blu-ray technology. No competition may mean prices will either stay or go higher for this technology. What is your opinion? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray makers say the technology is improving, which will soon enable them to manufacture the players at less cost. This will help drive down the cost of Blu players this year. Norfolk, Va.: Since both formats proved to deliver a great HD picture and I have both formats but like the HD format because more had feature like picture in picture commentary. What are the chances that anymore movies will go on the HD format and for how long since all have decided on using the Blu-Ray format? Has there been any dates set that no more movies will be put on the HD format? Phillip Swann: All the major studios have now endorsed Blu-ray. However, you will still see HD DVD releases, probably as late as May. The studios have already done considerable prep work on those so there's point now in not releasing them. Arlington, Va.: Blu-ray is the winner, and has always been the winner. For the market, it was beneficial to have two formats so we could get better prices on software, but i've always stood next to Blu-ray. It's the superior format with the superior studios. BLU-RAY'S TIME TO SHINE BABY!! Phillip Swann: I'm guessing that you bought a Blu-ray player. Bloomington, Ind.: Blu-Ray has three profiles, ver. 1, ver 1.1, and version 2.0 (which is soon to be released). Do you think 2.0 is the final standard, or will Blu-Ray's specifications continue to change? Phillip Swann: Never bet on a technology to stop changing. Baltimore, Md.: What Blu-Ray movie do you think has the best picture quality? Phillip Swann: I think the Blu-ray disc of Cars was incredible. The animated characters seemed more real than some humans in live action movies. Joe Whip, the movie reviewer at TVPredictions.com, says No Country for Old Men, which comes out on Blu-ray next month, is gorgeous-looking. Germantown, Md.: It still seems that a lot of folks think that their standard DVD collection will soon be obsolete and they'll need to replace them with Blu-rays. This is not correct. I have about 500 standard DVDs and 50 or so Blu-rays and HD-DVDs. I don't plan to replace any of my standard DVDs since they play fine on my Blu-ray player (even better than on my old DVD player). The only thing that has changed is that I now only purchase Blu-rays. Upgrading to Blu-ray is a no lose if you have an HDTV. Standard DVD's will look better and Blu-rays are incredible. Phillip Swann: You are correct. 1080i upconversion: What the previous poster had asked was if the upconverting of standard DVD 480p signals to 1080i be allowed through component output. Currently, all of the players allow upconversion only through HDMI interace. Phillip Swann: That is correct, as well. Columbia, Pa.: Which TV format should I buy, Plasma or LCD? Phillip Swann: It's the chicken or the egg question. Generally speaking, Plasma looks better in a darker room while LCD looks better in a well-lit room. Concord, N.C.: Do you think the HD-DVD format as we know it now in the Toshiba product, will go away entirely or will someone else pick it up and produce players/HD-DVDs for the market that is out there today? Phillip Swann: No, HD DVD is dead. Leesburg, Fla.: What does this mean to people who have home theatre systems with DVD players. Eg Sony DAV HDX 500. Phillip Swann: If you have a Home Theater, which includes a high-def set, you would be crazy not to get a Blu-ray player. Laurel: There used to be such a thing as HD DVD? Is this one of those cases where you should look at your savings account balance and feel proud of being a late adopter? Phillip Swann: Hard to say no -- if you were considering buying an HD DVD player. However, if you chose "correctly," and bought a Blu-ray player... Reston, Va.: What is a better home theatre experience (i.e better video/audio) - Blu-Ray or HDTV pay per view? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray has a better picture than most high-def on cable or satellite PPV. Stafford, Va.: Will Blu-Ray offer "combo" discs that include the a copy of the television show in standard DVD format also? I'm still not going to touch Blu-Ray-only discs until prices drop, but I might buy a combo disc to begin to transition my collection to the new technology. Phillip Swann: There were combo discs for HD DVD, but so far, not from Blu. M Street NW, Washington, D.C.: Wow, as someone who is very entrenched in this area of technology, this chat is really opening my eyes about how confused consumers are about the marketplace. Combined with the general confusion about the DTV transition, there is a real need for clear consumer education. Phillip Swann: That's an understatement, which is why I have said the upcoming digital TV transition could become the "Katrina of technology." Manassas, Va.: Depending on what version 2.0 includes, do you think that version will last a while? Do the versions just apply to the Blu-Ray players, or do the Blu-Ray DVDs have different versions? Phillip Swann: Blu-ray discs have different features -- some of which won't play on earlier player models. There's no difference in the picture, but you can't use some of the interactive features on the early player, such as online polls and Picture-in-Picture commentaries. Cape Coral, Fla.: What will be the immediate and or longer range impact on laptop owners with pre-installed DVD/RW optical drives, but also with multiple USB 2.0 ports? Phillip Swann: Like the players, if you have a laptop with a HD DVD drive, it will still play HD DVDs. You just won't have new HD DVD releases in the near future. Phillip Swann: I also want to remind everyone to come to TVPredictions.com every day for more news on everything HD -- including Blu-ray and even whether the Nats will be in high-def. :) Mt. Airy, Md.: Ok so we've concluded that HD DVD wasn't really "better" than Blu-ray. So it's a stalemate. But, can we not agree that Oasis is the greatest rock band ever? Phillip Swann: Zeppelin, not Oasis. Springfield, Va.: so what does this mean for Xbox 360? Isn't the system on an HD-DVD format? Will that force any changes to the newly sold models? Phillip Swann: The XBox 360 has an HD DVD player add-on, which can be attached to the game console. It's unclear if Microsoft will introduce a Blu-ray feature in the future. Phillip Swann: Just curious -- at what price would it take for you guys to buy a Blu-ray player? Glen Burnie, Md.: When can we now start seeing some big movies (Raiders, Godfather, Star Wars)in Blu ray? Phillip Swann: I think they will come shortly, probably a few big titles like that in late spring, in fact. Manassas, Va.: I am looking forward to getting a Blu_Ray player. It would be nice to see even my old DVDs looking better on my HD TV, and you said the Blu-Ray DVDs look better than HD TV on cable. Can't wait. Phillip Swann: You will be wowed. If you love movies, it's a great way to watch them at home. Washington, D.C.: Will my old copy of "Airplane" on video disc play in a Blu-Ray. Kidding. Just thought I'd throw some humor on the board. Phillip Swann: Yes, but Lloyd Bridges will look 20 years older...just kidding. Glen Burnie, Md.: I already have on in the ps3, But i think the $199.00 price point will start bringing in the people to buy them. Phillip Swann: I agree -- it's the magic price point to drive big sales. Washington, D.C.: Price point for Blu-Ray player purchase: $199-the same price point I had when I bought my first DVD player. However, I'm more and more inclined to purchase a PS3 if I want a Blu-Ray player, even at its current price. I just don't want to start thinking about Blu-Ray yet, because the discs are so expensive, and I already have an unconverting DVD player and a collection of over 1,000 DVDs. Maybe in another year or two. Phillip Swann: I think your sentiment is shared by many, which is why the Blu forces will have to work extra hard to generate mass sales. Thanks everyone for a great chat -- and don't forget to come by TVPredictions.com for daily coverage of the high-def industry! 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.
Phillip Swann, president and CEO of TVPredictions.com, discusses Toshiba's announcement that it will stop making HD DVD players and recorders.
268.625
0.833333
1.583333
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/21/DI2008022101528.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/21/DI2008022101528.html
Security Fix Live - washingtonpost.com
2008022419
Brian Krebs: Good morning and Happy Friday, dear Security Fix readers. Please remember to be as specific as possible about your computer setup before asking how-to or troubleshooting problems, etc. With that, I'll get started.... Chicago: Brian,Do you know of a utility to encrypt USB flash drives without installing the encryption software on the hosting computer, like a portable application? I'd like to encrypt a drive that I plug in to my work computer, but I do not have administrator privileges on that computer to install, say, True Crypt. I run portable apps (Firefox, Open Office) from my flash, but haven't found a corresponding encryption tool. Thanks! Brian Krebs: Hello Chicago. You could install TrueCrypt on your home PC and encrypt the USB drive there. Then when you pop it into another machine, it will prompt you to enter your encryption password before opening the file directory. If it doesn't automagically prompt you when you pop it in the PC, then you don't have autorun turned on (believe me, that's a good thing). Just browse to the device in Windows Explorer. The neat part about this approach is if you run something like Firefox ( or better yet, Portable Firefox) from the USB drive, your history, cache, etc. bookmarks, should all be saved on the drive, not on the PC you're using). Others swear by U3 technology that comes built in to many USB flash drives these days, and your mileage may vary but I've never been all that wowed by U3 drives: The two that I have used have acted a bit flakey. Louisville, Ky.: Would installation of proxy server software on my home PC running Vista Ultimate with or without a router increase my security? If so which proxy server software would you recommend? Thank you for your response! Brian Krebs: Hi. Please tell me why you believe installing a proxy server or using one will help you security-wise. Are you concerned about someone knowing your true IP address? That's all that a proxy-server will do for you: it will allow you to bounce your traffic to and from another server on the Web before reaching its destination. Can you vouch for the security and integrity of the proxy server you want to bounce through? If not, you're letting whoever controls that server watch all of your traffic go by. I wouldn't advise using any proxy server unless you have a good reason to do so, and you know what you're doing. Stormville, N.Y.: Hi Brian! Using Firefox on a Windows XP Home machine. I was reading a short article in the NY Times online. I wanted to print it so I clicked on the print button. A window opened with the following message: "The page you are trying to visit is using Cross-Site Scripting (CSS). This is a technique commonly used in phishing attacks. Now, I did not think the NYT would mount a phishing attack, but was concerned that the site might have been hijacked and did not proceed. Did I do the right thing, or was I overly cautious ? In any case, shouldn't the NYT programmers use another method in place of one that is often used maliciously? Brian Krebs: I wouldn't sweat it too much; it's probably harmless, but I would have probably reacted as you did. And you're right, assuming it's not some compromised banner ad trying to load malicious content, there may have been some third-party content the print view page was trying to pull from another server that caused the warning message. I've seen Firefox toss up this error before. It's probably complaining because the site is trying to use some creative Javascript to fetch or reconfigure the content in a certain way that the browser suspects some trickery is going on. Cross site scripting can occur when Web sites accept input from the user -- usually from something like a search box or e-mail form -- but do not properly filter that input (or doesn't strip out or disallow potentially malicious code). Phishers and online scammers exploit these types of flaws to make their scams appear more legitimate, because XSS vulnerabilities allow the attacker to force the target site to load content from somewhere else. Most of the time, this is in order to pop-up some kind of fake login screen over top of the legit login screen for a bank or other site that requires a username and password. But in theory cross site scripting attacks can be far more creative and malicious than most people assume. Firefox is in all likelyhood warning you that the NYT is displaying the content in the "print me" page by seamlessly loading it from another server. I'd be interested in knowing whether that page is still generating the error. If so, please send me a note at brian dot krebs at washingtonpost dot com with a link to it. You might also just ping the webmaster there at nytimes.com Chantilly, Va: Brian,Any good software to let me run my father's computer to fix it, due to a 4 hour distance? Brian Krebs: Yes, check out LogmeinFree, which I profiled in a blog post not too long ago. Some other folks chimed in with their favorite remote access tool as well. See: Security Fix: Simplifying Long-Distance Tech Support. A routine scan with the free A-Squared anti-adware program turned up 15 instances of "trace.registry.Ultimate Security Suite 2.0, medium risk." Can you tell me what this is? A trojan? It wasn't found by Nod Eset32 v.3, Zone Alarm Pro, Ad-Aware or Spy-Bot S&D. I deleted it, of course, but am just curious about it. I've never installed anything called "Ultimate Security Suite 2.0." Brian Krebs: Hi Melbourne. Thanks for joining us. It must be getting late in your neck of the woods down under, eh? I spent a little time on A-Squared's user forum, and there are several people posting about this over the past few days. I suspect it is a false positive, but it looks like Ultimate Security Suite is a product that is designed to erase traces of your surfing habits online etc. Now, keep in mind that I don't know anything really about this US2.0 product, so please don't take this as an evaluation of the worth or value of that product. But these types of software titles are very often advertised in ways that are awfully pushy, and sometimes try to scare you into installing them or use drive-by install techniques to download some stub installer that pops up alerts every once in a while to scare you into purchasing the product (these types of programs most heavily pushed on adult Web sites, for obvious reasons). I found a couple of threads on this from A-Squared, but neither of them seem terribly conclusive. I wouldn't worry too much about it, but maybe contribute a bit to some of the folks in that support forum to see if you can get a straight answer from A-Squared. Arlington: Hi - I'm using XP and Outlook Express. I have a comment and a small question. I was using the free version of AntiVir for several months but ultimately got tired of the constant pop-ups telling me that there was a non-free version available. A couple of weeks ago I switched to AVG and have found it much more willing to operate in the background. My question is this: AVG scans incoming e-mails while AntiVir only scanned attachments to e-mails when you opened them. Presumably, AVG will also scan the attachment when it is opened, but what is the purpose of scanning the e-mail itself? Don't the viruses come in the attachments? Thanks. Brian Krebs: Hi. The difference is an important one. Presumably, a good anti-virus product would detect a malicious attachment as such before allowing you to open it -- and potentially loosing the nasty on your machine. In theory, it shouldn't matter, because either an AV product will detect a file as malicious or it won't. But given the choice, wouldn't you choose to have your AV inspect the file before giving you a chance to double-clicky on it? I know I would. So, the difference is, one will let you open the file and react, while the other will try to react *before* you can even get your grubby little mitts on the file. Brian Krebs: My apologies for the runaway Web link in a couple of the posts above. We'll have it cleaned up in a jiffy. Thanks for your patience. Washington DC: Following up on Chicago, is there any reason (other than maybe it's easier) to encrypt the entire USB drive versus using software (like Crypto by Software by Design) to encrypt each file? True, if the drive is encrypted, you enter the password once and your have access to all where as if you encrypt each file, you might need to enter your password for each file (and then you have to re-encrypt when done). I think the benefit of file-level encryption is that when I sync it to my harddrive at home, it is encrypted there as well. Brian Krebs: Well, your approach would work as well, but as you say it would require a lot more entering of your password and such. I was responding to a specific question that was asked by someone who explicitly could *not* install programs on his work PC (and presumably may be limited in his "synching" abilities as well. Elkton, MD: Wanting to know if you've seen anything really dazzle you lately. I am a computer technician and I am so bored on the job, mainly because I am shying away from Vista and it's headaches and sticking with XP. This leaves me with little challenge as I've mastered securing it. So now I am looking for something to wow me... so what's wowed you? Brian Krebs: It's never a dull moment when you start focusing on how the bad guys are constantly adapting to stay a few steps ahead of the security industry. If you've grown bored with the regular PC maintenance stuff, maybe you'd find some inspiration contributing some time to the work of groups like CastleCops that work on the front lines of this war -- people whose investigation into new pieces of malware and phishing attacks often aid law enforcement and victims at the same time. Annandale, VA: Hi Brian,I took your advice about a year ago and installed Avira AntiVir on my Windows ME machine. Worked great and I loved it. However, about a month and a half ago, it stopped working (i.e. it would not auto-produce a new serial number like before). After many unsuccessful attempts to reinstall, and after an exhaustive internet search, I found out that Avira is no longer supporting that OS. Not too big a deal as I rarely use that machine. However, I just wanted to let you know as it's a software program you usually recommend for those of us with legacy Operating Systems. My question for you, however, is do you have any other recommendations for AV software that will operate on Windows ME? I'm having trouble finding one. Thanks. Brian Krebs: Hi there. Have you tried any of the other free AV tools listed at this link here? What works on Windows 98 *should* work also on ME. Washington DC: I just read an article about how encryption can be defeated with liquid nitrogen. I must admit it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Do you have any insights on this? Brian Krebs: I'm assuming you're talking about the research by the Princeton techies (see their research here and a NYT article discussing the method here. First off, do you use disk encryption on your system? If so, you are probably well ahead of most in your understanding of security and privacy and the tradeoffs involved in gaining one over the other. If you do use encryption, you're probably the sort who would be slightly frightened by stories like this, which seem to indicate that disk encryption can be broken trivially. My impression is this is more of a theoretical problem in the first place, and not a very easy problem to fix in the second. On the first point, do you know anyone with easy access to liquid nitrogen? I don't. If the data you are storing on your system and protecting with encryption is so sensitive that a law enforcement agency or criminal outfit would go to such lengths to get at it, then you'd be best advised to follow the advice that can help minimize the threat from something like this : namely, when you're done using an encrypted volume, unmount it. Or better yet, just shut down the machine as opposed to putting it into hibernate or just closing the lid. That's really where this becomes an issue. The problem stems from the fact that with encrypted hard drives, the decryption of the content on the disc generally happens at boot time. Simply placing the machine with the encrypted volume into hibernate or closing the lid doesn't restart that encryption process, so the data on disk -- including the credentials used to decrypt the volume -- may be stored in memory while the system is hibernating, b/c hibernating essentially dumps the contents stored in RAM (temporary) memory to the hard disc. This is not an easy problem to solve. Short of expiring the encryption keys, which would basically kill your login and defeat the point of hibernation -- you can't do much about it, except the two steps I mentioned earlier. But in the end it's not likely to be much of a threat to you personally, IMHO. Potsdam, NY: Good Morning Brian,Have you any strong feelings about recommending 'beta' security software?I've been using Comodo Anti-virus V 2.0 (beta) for about two years (as well as their V 2.4 of their firewall). Since it is a beta, none of the testing labs will touch it; anecdotally, I can report zero infections since adopting it (as verified by occasional on-demand scans using Trend Micro's 'Housecall' as well as Avira's Antivir).I look after several friends' computers and security is always a concern - especially as many of the leading apps are real system hogs, which Comodo seems not to be. I should like to recommend this product to others with clear conscience. Also, you mentioned Comodo's "BoClean' in passing the other week; any feelings about its overall worth?Thanks! Brian Krebs: My thoughts are this: All software is technically beta. Almost all software developers issue updates to fix problems discovered by users. In addition, pretty much all software these days requires you to approve a license agreement that holds the software maker free from liability should the program completely hose your machine or data. This is an agreement you make when you install the software. If you don't agree, you don't get to install the software. BoClean is just another layer of defense that users may want to adopt -- nothing more or less. Bear in mind that because BoClean works at a very low level in the operating system, it may not play nicely with other security software that lives there as well. On one of several systems I tried BoClean on, I got a blue screen of death a day after installing the software, which also already had NOD32 anti-virus installed (I've never had a BSOD on that machine before). The were two other installations (which didn't have NOD32) where BoClean got along swimmingly with other security software on the system. Your mileage may vary. Antwerp,Belgium: Hi.I just purchased a Western Digital Elements external 500giga HD.I transfered more than 100 movies and songs to it.The power supply gets very warm though.Can it be left in for a longer period of time or should I unplug it and plug back each time I use it? Thanks and have a nice weekend Brian Krebs: Yes, I've noticed the same thing with one of my 500 Gig external drives, except the heat comes from the drive enclosure itself, not the power supply. I sometimes like to keep it on because it's the default drive to record movies from my built-in DVR on this PC, but sometimes when the old office is getting a little too toasty I like to turn it off. Rather than unplugging it and plugging it in all the time, you might consider plugging it into a power strip that has a master on/off switch that you can toggle with your toe when you need to. You might also consider plugging all of your various chargers into that strip as well, as those chargers are notorious for using power even when they are not actively charging a device. Arlington VA: Brian, I don't know if you've seen this already, but there's a fascinating paper making the rounds about attacking disk encryption by slowing the rate of decay of memory circuits: http://citp.princeton.edu.nyud.net/pub/coldboot.pdf.I'd be interested in reading your comments on this. Brian Krebs: See my answer to the questioner above, please. Thanks! Edgewater, Maryland: Hi Brian,I am running a Windows XP SP2 machine which is fully updated as is the Norton Antivirus & AVG Antispyware. The problem seems to be that some programs that I tried to delete (Adobe Acrobat reader, iTunes, Java old version and a few others) via the Windows Add/Remove utility are corrupted. When I try to delete them I get a message that a certain file can't be found so it halts the removal process. If I try to download the more up to date versions of the software I get the same message that a file can't be found & the installation is halted. The only new version I have been able to download was the current version of Java, the rest are still listed in my Add/Remove list. I tried going to a restore point and that didn't seem to help. When I go to Seucunia.com and do a full scan for old versions everything comes up as current. I want to know if I am still vulnerable with those corrupted versions & if so if there is a program that will help me uninstall those older versions. Thanks! Brian Krebs: Go and grab a copy of Microsoft's free Windows Installer cleanup utility. Read the directions carefully before proceeding to use it. Then follow the directions. Mooresville NC: Morning. Transitioning from old Mac G4 to spiffy new 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon. Most but not all old files transferred via firewire but firewire no longer works and the G4 stopped recognizing any of my flash drives. I no longer even get the option of reformatting the flash drive, just a "invalid media" message with only option being to "ignore". Any ideas? Brian Krebs: Obvious question, but have you tried rebooting the Mac, leaving the external drive connected as you do? Does it still not recognize the drive? Another thought: If you can connect the two machines over a network, either via a crossover ethernet cable or by enabling file sharing on both machines, maybe you can transfer the remaining files that way? Washington DC: Hi. My computer has been very slow lately and I can't figure out if it's malware, DSL or just the computer's age. I hope you can help.When I first got DSL a few months back (Verizon), everything seemed speedy and great. But now it's almost as slow as dial-up. I have a Mac iBook G4 (model PowerBook6,3 with OSX 10.4) with Windows' MSOffice 2004. I dump cookies and history at the end of each session, and MacScan finds no malware. But I can't help thinking that things deteriorated sharply about 6 weeks ago, after I foolishly failed to recognize as fake an e-mail that appeared to be from someone I know asking me to help him post something on a particular website that I stupidly clicked to. Because I have Mac, I'd stopped worrying about viruses -- But again, daily runs of MacScan since then have found nothing. When I had a PC, it often was a large cache that slowed things down -- but I can't find a cache file to empty on this machine.Could it be that more of my neighbors are on-line when I am and that this is slowing down DSL service? I download very little except for system updates, software to watch TV shows and listen to radio on-lin, and an occasional document.The number of items on my desktop has grown and I could file most of them away if that might help.Or what's your guess about the problem, and what suggestions do you have, if any, for resolving them?Many thanks! Brian Krebs: Well, which is it? Is the network connection slow, or the PC? Or both? It may be that the hard disc on the system is just getting full. How much available free space do you have left? Since most operating systems swap some of the temporary paging files out to storage on the hard drive, having low hard drive space can sometimes interfere with that. Do you use wireless at home? Is it secure? If not, one or more of your neighbors may be sharing your connection (and thus diminishing your network speeds) may be correct. I've seen this happen in an apartment complex, where multiple people are leeching off of one unsuspecting tenant's connection. Downingtown, Pa.: What do you make of the BBC report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205059.stm that next month's Vista SP1 will obstruct operation of some 3rd party programs, including some familiar names among Internet Security software? Brian Krebs: What do I make of it? My understanding is this version interferes with the proper functioning of several different third part security programs. But last time I checked Microsoft hadn't released Vista SP1 to the masses yet. Rather, they released to certain members of the development community, and I suspect for this very reason: to iron out any major bugs in the update. It appears that Microsoft is working with affected third parties to fix the problem, and indeed a number of those companies have already shipped updates to adjust to the new service pack changes. That said, when Microsoft finally does release the public version of SP1 for Vista, it probably won't hurt to wait a few days or weeks to install it, just to make sure the update doesn't introduce widely-experienced problems. Anonymous: To Edgewater, MD :Try CCleaner to uninstall something that is reluctant to do so.Not too long ago I had problems with getting rid of a corrupted (aborted download) installation of Urge (piggybacked in with an update of Windows Media Player) and I was able to uninstall it using CCleaner . Brian Krebs: More advice for the person who had trouble uninstalling programs in Windows. I recommended this free CCleaner tool in the last Security Fix Live. Austintown, OH: Anymore info on the MBR RootKit virus...GMER seemed a bit complicated for the average person to understand...any other apps (easier to understand) that one could use? Thanx. Brian Krebs: Sure. Microsoft has since added detection for this to its Windows Defender suite, as have a large number of anti-virus companies. Chantilly, Va: Brian,Any relation to the news guy on WRC ? Brian Krebs: Yes, NBC 4 morning achor Joe Krebs is a 2nd cousin of mine. Kensington, Md.: Brian, If a house guest wants to connect to the internet at my home, then is it reasonably safe for me to allow them to use a wired connection to my password protected router? Are the other computers on my network reasonably safe from any malicious code on the guest's computer? Are there any extra precautions I should take if I allow guests to connect to my router? Thanks. Brian Krebs: It's reasonably safe, yes. The worst you would have to worry about would be if your friend's PC had a malicious bot program running on it, in which case it would probably automatically start trying to scan for new victims on the local network. If you run firewall software on the systems inside of your network (behind the router), then unless you have that software configured to explicitly trust connections from everyone who joins your network, it is unlikely that your friend's system will even be able to see yours on the same network (there are exceptions here, e.g., if you have poked holes in your software firewall to allow file sharing on the network). Flash Drive Question Follow-up: Yep, I've tried all kinds of rebooting sequences and can't get old Mac to read the drive. The drives all work with other machines. Brian Krebs: It may be that somehow the permissions set on the external drive have gotten fouled up. If you can get the thing to show up in the Disk Utility program (search for disk utility in finder), you may be able to repair the permissions settings on the drive. The "First Aid" tab should allow you to do this. Good luck. Brian Krebs: Sorry folks, but I'm out of time for today. A huge thanks to all who participated and stopped by. I'll conduct another one of these chats a couple of weeks from today. Until then, please drop by the Security Fix blog regularly to stay on top of the latest security news and advice. Be careful/safe out there, people! 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.
Security Fix blogger Brian Krebs answers your questions about the latest computer security threats and offers ways to protect your personal information.
221.652174
0.695652
0.956522
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502845.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502845.html
Real Wheels - washingtonpost.com
2008022419
Brown test drives all types of cars, from luxury sedans to the newest minivans and hybrids. His On Wheels auto reviews are lively, detailed accounts of cars' good and bad qualities. Brown's Car Culture column addresses the social, political and economic trends of the industry. Brown comes online Fridays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions on every aspect of the automotive industry -- from buying your dream car to the future of the internal combustion engine. Rockville, Md.: Warren, have you seen the 2009 Toyota Venza? What's your verdict? Warren Brown: Good morning, Rockville. The Venza was bound to happen. There was just no way that Toyota was not going to introduce a crossover utility to compete against the Nissan Murano, Buick Enclave, Mazda CX-9 and all of the rest. I have not driven the Venza. It looks good. But Toyota will not be a sure winner in this segment, where quality is comensurate across the board and competition is fierce. Washington, D.C.: Warren, I'm in the market for a new mid size Sedan. $20,000 to $30,000, but would prefer closer to $25,000. I've driven the Hyundai Sonata, Honda Accord, 08 Chevy Malibu, and the Acura TSX. Acura was sweet but I don't really want to go preminum fuel so I guess that's out. I like the Malibu and Sonata as far features for the money. Hyundai has the better warranty and Chevy has better looks. Anything else I should look at? I'll probably at least check out the Camry. Some requirements heated seats and sun roof. I also need to tote a bike and I would like a hitch rack versus a trunk rack, so do any of these cars allow a hitch to be installed? How do I find out which vehicles can have a hitch installed? Warren Brown: You should check out the Camry, which is a good, solid family sedan -- but is no longer the standard by which all other family sedans are measured. Again, everyone has upped the quality game, as amply demonstrated by the latest iterations of the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion and, as you pointed out, the Hyundai Sonata. All of the cars you are considering could be outfitted to carry bikes. Check with your dealer. Also, you'd be wise to check out the Nissan Altima, which is very much in the chase for the mid-size sedan dollar. Chicago, Ill.: Hi! Thanks for the great chat. My husband and I are having a tough time selecting a new car. Right now, it's just the two of us. We hope to add a few youngsters and a few big dogs in the next two to three years. We keep cars until they die, so it's important to get a car that will accommodate this transition. After our first Chicago winter, we'd also like AWD. We live in the city and care about gas mileage, so we don't want to get something huge. Plus, my husband will be giving up his quick and extremely fun Saab Viggen, so we need something with pep and attitude. We'd like to stay under $35k. We thought we wanted the Audi A4 Avant. It handles beautifully, but on a second test drive, we realized it doesn't have enough zoom for my husband (and the A6 is too pricey.) We like the ride, pep, and gas mileage of the Outback XT, but hate the look. We like the look of the Acura RDX, but found it wasn't super stable when we made quick lane changes. Also, the dashboard is a confusing mess and the fuel economy's pretty bleak. Thoughts on the Outback XT or the RDX? We also plan to drive the RAV4 V6 and the Mazda CX-7. Perhaps the Volvos and the Nissan Murano, too. Opinions on these or anything else we should be considering? Many thanks in advance for your help in steering us toward our next car! I'm sorry to hear that your husband is giving up the Saab Viggen. That's one of my favorite cars. Which is why i hope you'll take my suggestion to move into the Saab 9-3 SportCombi -- a wagon, but very nicely engineered and with a 210-hp, inline four-cylinder engine, reasonably powerful and fuel efficient (about 19 city, 24 hwy under 2008 EPA tests). Base is about $30k. I would have suggested the 9-5 version, which is larger, but starts at $37K+. Herndon, Va.: Warren, my wife's looking at a new Nissan Altima 2.5S. What else in that category/price range should she be considering? Also, what would be a good used car alternative, i.e. in the same price range but maybe a little more towards the luxury end? If she's shopping new, the quality list is long: It pains me to say this, but you might want to check out the vehicle repossession lots. We're looking at 1.6 million cars and trucks flowing to those lots this year, ostensibly because people have fallen behind on their car payments the same way they fell behind on their mortgage notes. The banks and finance companies don't want those cars and are willing to get rid of them at bargain prices to recoup at least some of their loan money. My fuzzy, cynical gray head tells me that something else is going on with that dramatic increase -- consecutive 10-percent increases year over year in the last two years--in repossessed cars and trucks. I suspect that some people deliberately are defaulting to get out of vehicles that are draining their wallets empty at gas pumps. So, if you are shopping the repo lots, use caution. Don't be the sucker who is buying the Hummer H2, or the bootylicious big sedan simply because it is being offered at a dirt-cheap price. You still have to buy gas, remember? Best plan if you're shopping used: Don't buy used what you wouldn't buy new. Period. New Market, Md.: Hi Warren. I have not seen the Venza, so my question may be a bit strange. What is the difference between the Venza and the Highlander? Can you clarify what constitutes a cross-over vehicle? I thought the Murano, Highlander, Santa Fe/Veracruz, Mazda CX9 were all the same type of vehicle. Where could I find a glossary of these new-fangled terms? Thanks for keeping us all on our toes in vehicle speak! Warren Brown: Hello, New Market: Welcome to Euphemisms 101, a brief course in which we will try to decipher what the car companies aren't telling you with their new-fangled vehicle names. Herndon, Va.: Hi Warren, I read your chats for information every week, good stuff. I will be graduating from a great Virginia college in May and entering the workforce. The first big purchase I plan is to get a new car to replace my '96 Saturn SL2. It has served me well the past few years but the repair costs are starting to be more than the car is worth. What would you recommend for a "drivers' car" (manual transmission, stiffer suspension)? I have been looking at various four cylinder midsized sedans such as the Subaru Legacy GT and VW Passat, both used of course, around the 2004 model year. Gas mileage is also a concern as gas prices are steadily on the rise. Are there any others I should consider? How much would it cost to keep your '96 Saturn roadworthy for say,two more years? How much would it cost you to finance a used car? How do you know the used car won't cost you more in repairs than the devil you're already driving. Is it easier to finance the repair of your current car, or the cost of another vehicle purchase? Then go out an buy a used Toyota Corolla with a manual transmission. Because the Passat could put you in bankruptcy court with repairs. Anonymous: Re: "Repos." Seems like a shortsided way to save on gas, doesn't it? Assuming you have to have a car, your new loan will be at a much higher rate, which will eat up your gas savings, right? Warren Brown: Well, of course, my famous unknown friend. As a steady reader of these missives, you know my thinking: It makes little sense to dump a car to buy another one in pursuit of lower gas prices--unless, perhaps, you've actually paid for the car you're dumping. Otherwise, you're just rolling one loan into another at a higher APR. But logic does not rule in auto retail. I've lost count of the number of people who have called or written trying to figure out how to get out of their gas guzzlers. Problem is, many of those people are upside-down in those models, owing more on them than they are worth. But they are so desperate to cut their gasoline bills, they aren't thinking straight. I'm willing to bet that cars that once belonged to some of those people are sitting on those repo lots--more because of gas prices than because of inability to pay the monthly note. Anonymous: Re: "...SUVs are not always welcome in the best neighborhoods." Really? In the magazines, they always park Range Rovers in front of such nice mansions! Warren Brown: Who in America uses Range Rovers for real work? Have you ever seen a dirty or dented Range Rover in McLean or Reston? Get real. Reston, Va.: In the market for used SUV. Jeep Cherokee or Chevy Equinox? Other suggestions? Do not want to spend over $20k. Warren Brown: Considering your target price, go ith the Equinox. I'm assuming you're thinking mild off-road, if any. Alexandria, Va.: What is the number one trap to avoid when buying a new car? Not thinking about repair costs, gas mileage, etc.? Keep it in check, under control. Failure to do so can cost you a lot of money. Seriously consider what you need and why you need it, how you are going to use it, where you are going to park it. What can you afford? Think total transaction price. How much would you have paid for the car at the end of the loan period? Does that amount make sense? Don't be fooled by resale value. It's bogus. Today's resale value will change with tomorrow's reality. Want proof? Look at the current mortgage crisis. Some dude takes a $800,000 mortgage and defaults. House goes to foreclosure. Same house. Now sold for a bit more than $500,000. Same thing is happening with cars and trucks. Crazy cat spends big bucks for monster SUV or sedan. Thing barely gets 14 mpg hwy in a world of $100/barrel oil. Defaults on car note. Repo man comes. You really want to buy that ride, even dirt cheap? You own an oil well? That ride has as much resale value as a Mitt Romney campaign banner. Zilch. Anonymous: Where do you find a vehicle repossession lot? Warren Brown: Check with your local bank or finance company. Those are the institutions taking back the cars and trucks and paying for their storage until future disposition. Also, check with auction companies. Best bet: Start with Manheim. Central Virginia: I am in the market to replace my 1997 Ford Explorer. We already have a Camry and would like to continue to have an SUV/crossover. I am leaning toward the Hyundai Santa Fe, but am mildly troubled that I am not increasing my gas mileage by that much (the Explorer gets only 17 mpg.) Is there an alternative I should consider? By the way, my husband gets the friends and family price on GM products through his work, if there is anything I should consider there. Thanks so much! Warren Brown: Hello, Central Virginia. Check out the Saturn Outlook Greenline. It's what's called a "mild hybrid." Bottom line is that it offers fairly decent mileage for a crossover vehicle. Clifton, Va.: We see used and dented Range Rovers here and out in Middleburg and Upperville. With restored, rebuilt and re-engined Defenders going for $120k we have to keep what we got! Warren Brown: You horse people! You've got to take me to lunch out there some time, Clifton. I'm trying to broaden my horizons, open my mind, so to speak. And here's hoping that you can do better than McDonald's. Washington, D.C. WB: "I have not driven the Venza. It looks good. But Toyota will not be a sure winner in this segment, where quality is commensurate across the board and competition is fierce." I disagree. I think their selling point is offering this thing with a 4cyl. I bit more space in a car that can still get 20mpg (or a little more) around town I think will be a big selling point to many. The only other reasonable sized 4cyl is the CRV. 170hp is just as useful as 240hp around town. Hopefully this will force other manufacturers to offer their vehicles with a little less HP and a little more MPG. I think the sales of mid sized sedans, where 4cyl engines dominate suggests this is where we should be headed. But if you think that the Venza will be the only 4-cyl crossover available, you're whistling Dixie. Ever hear of the Nissan Rogue? We're going to see a bunch of very decently performing four-cylinder cars and crossovers coming to market in future years. The days of horsepower for the sake of horsepower are coming to an end--unless somebody finds a cheaper way to pull more oil from the Earth. Silver Spring Md.: Hello Mr. Brown: I have always owned used Honda Civics and have had great success in terms of maintenance costs and reliability. My latest, the beloved "Zippy," is getting old... do you think a used Honda or Toyota hybrid would be a safe bet for Zippy's replacement? How do used hybrid cars compare with, say, the typical used Honda Civic or Toyota? Do hybrid cars age well? Warren Brown: I say replace Zippy with Zippy II or with Zippy Fitz (the latter being my preferred name for the Honda Fit I hope you buy.) It's a personal thing with me. On some issues, and hybrids are one of them, I am hopelessly mired in the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I have a tall order for hybrids: Until you can show me one with an electrical system that carries at least 50 percent of the city driving load up to 35 mph, and/or 50 percent of the highway load up to 60 mph, I'm not impressed. I'd rather deal with a more efficient, traditional ICE. Get the Honda Fit. "Zippy Fitz," I like that. Sounds like someone I'd vote for. Washington D.C.: Hi Warren. I have test-driven just about everything in the $20k range and have pretty much settled on a Subaru Impreza hatchback. It's cute, dependable, practical, and the all wheel drive, although probably excessive for me, is a comfort as husband's family lives in Cleveland. My question -- do you have any info on the Saturn Astra? It's really cute. For what its worth, I keep cars for a long time (current car is 13) Warren Brown: Frankly, Washington, I agree with your assessment of the Subaru Impreza. It's a great little car. I've driven the Opel Astra in Europe. I guess it's pretty much the same as the Saturn Astra that will be sold here. Hint: The Saturn Astra is coming to the U.S. because a whole bunch of U.S. automotive journalists, me included, strongly urged GM to introduce that car here. That's how much we liked it in the media. It will be interesting to see if you all agree. Anonymous: Re: "Repos." But aren't repossessed cars generally more likely to have been poorly maintained by the previous owners? (The same is often said of foreclosed houses.) If I were buying used and wanted to keep the car for years, I'd want to know it hadn't already been run into the ground before I got it. Warren Brown: Not at all true. Just because someone missed payments does not mean that he or she is a slob. A lot of those foreclosed houses and repossessed cars are in good shape. Baltimore: Warren, why do you constantly ignore Jeep vehicles in your recommendations? Warren Brown: I had no idea that I did that, having just given a Jeep a high rating in a recent On Wheels review, about month ago, I think. Ellicott City, Md.: So what's the difference between the Venza and the Rav4? (I love my Rav4, By the way -- I know it's really a station wagon that rides a bit high, but I don't tell it that I know.) Warren Brown: Not much. Shop for price. They are both nice little wagons. Washington D.C.: Can you recommend a station wagon that will make me happy? Right now I have a very old Subaru Outback wagon -- it's the right size, but sluggish and underpowered, which I hate -- and a fairly new 3-series BMW sedan -- it drives like a dream, but isn't useful for hauling stuff around. Is there a good compromise? Thanks! Warren Brown: The Saab 9-3 SportCombi. Seriously. Bowie, Md.: Baffled in Bowie: I was just reading on Autoweek that BMW will bring to market an X5 with a hybrid diesel that gets 36 mpg on the highway. Now why won't other automakers such as VW, which has put out successfull TDIs, bring out a similar vehicle? Imagine say a smaller 4 cyl hybrid on a Rabbit platform that gets maybe 80 mpg! That would go a long way to help saving fuel consumption. Warren Brown: VW will. So will everyone else. Sooner or later. It's all about sales. Leonardtown, Md.: Re: Chicago - How about the 2009 Subaru Forrester which should be out soon? Warren Brown: I have to check that one, Leonardtown. Looks like a significant remodel there. Hope to see sample in Geneva next month. Anonymous: Re: "Range Rovers/Mansions/Magazines Again." Um, it was a joke. Sorry, I'll draw a little smiley-face next time so it's more obvious. Warren Brown: Or, maybe, you should just keep working on your delivery. Smiley face attached. Minneapolis: Warren. In keeping with the "why do you ignore theme..." Why don't you recommend the Mazda6 to anyone looking at mid-size sedans. I own one so I'm admittedly biased. Zoom, Zoom. Warren Brown: Just slips my often small, but hopefully expanding mind. Anonymous: Re: "Reston, Va.: In the market for used SUV." Jeep Patriot. Better Gas Mileage then both. Better safety rating then both. It's the new Cherokee with a politically correct name. You can get a nicely equiped one for under $20k. McLean, Va.: Warren, I wanted to share with you a moment of success that I recently achieved in opening a co-worker's eyes to the realities of the automotive industry. This person recently bought a Toyota Prius and has been talking on and on about how Toyota is one of the only manufacturers concerned about efficiency, the environment, etc., as proven by the models it sells (disclosure - I've got nothing against hybrid owners, being the owner of an '04 Civic hybrid myself.) After this person shifted to attacking other manufacturers for selling SUVs, I asked him to join me in looking at Toyota's website. There I showed him the following: Then we went to the Ford website, where we saw: Escape (also available as a hybrid) To his great credit, my co-worker took the point and has since reconsidered his views. Elkridge, Md.: Warren, I'm five foot tall and need to sit 10 inches from the steering wheel's airbag to be safe. What do you think of pedal extenders to accomplish this? And where can I find them? I have a 2008 VW Beetle and VW doesn't stock pedal extenders. Thanks for your help. Warren Brown: Also in a variety of Ford and, I think, a few Toyota models( although I probably should check that Toyota reference). I'm not much taller. I like those pedal extenders. Washington, D.C.: Thanks for the Euphemisms 101 course, but what -is- the difference between the new Venza and a Highlander? What would cause you to consider one over the other? Can you even tell them apart on the street? Warren Brown: The Highlander leans more toward SUV-think. The Venza is unabashedly car-based crossover. Venza is more fuel-economical, has a lower ground-clearance. Frankly, I think they are about what-and-what in terms of utility. Although, as I said, I still have to drive and load the Venza to check that out. Warren Brown: Thanks for joining us today. Please come back 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.
104.682927
0.560976
0.658537
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022002437.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022002437.html
On TV - washingtonpost.com
2008022419
Lisa Watches So You Don't Have To: "American Idol" | TV columns | On TV discussion transcripts. De Moraes has written "The TV Column" for The Post since 1998. She served as the TV editor for the entertainment industry trade publication the "Hollywood Reporter" for almost a decade. Forest Glen, Md.: Last night my husband said I talked to the TV during "Lost" more than I talked at dinner. Am I the only one still watching this show? Lisa de Moraes: Hi. So are you saying that watching "Lost" is helping your marriage because it's helping you better communicate at home? I will add this to the many reasons why watching TV is good for you. And no, you are not the only person still watching "Lost" -- last night, for instance, it clocked nearly 14 million viewers, according to early stats, and handily won its time slot among 18-49-year-olds, who are the hot blonde chicks of Madison Avenue. Mesa, Ariz.: Why is David Cook channeling Mr. Collins in Colin Firth's "Pride & Prejudice"? Is a 19th century hairstyle really considered current today? Lisa de Moraes: I knew I'd seen that hairstyle somewhere before! Truth be told, I think David Cook is trying to mask a receding hairline, so we must try to be sensitive. Or not. Hopefully the Official "American Idol" Hairstylist will convince him to grow back his imperial (aka soul patch, but "imperial" is more in keeping with the whole Jane Austin/early 19th century thing) and shave the dome... Herndon, Va.: The Divine Ms. deM: How long is NBC going to continue with its back-to-back "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" and "Law & Order," with "Law & Order" new every week, and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" new every other week? I'd rather there just be a new "Criminal Intent" every week until it's straight reruns. Lisa de Moraes: I've tried twice to sort out this question, but my head is starting to hurt, so I'm going to stop thinking and just say that I think NBC is trying to draw out its original episodes as long as possible because it has so little scripted programming on its primetime lineup, owing to the strike and the fact it did not have a good season initially with scripted product... Reston, Va.: On the show "Life," the big mystery of who the real killer was got solved in the first 11 episodes. Did the story timeline get shortened because of the writers strike? It's a great show, but there doesn't seem to be much story left to tell. Killer found, conspiracy uncovered, the good guy can ride off into the sunset on his new white horse carrying big bags of settlement money. Lisa de Moraes: Shouldn't we thank them and shower them with peanuts or light bulbs or something for not turning it into a three-season mystery and throwing in a polar bear and a large hole? ... Meanwhile, the lead character is a detective, so presumably they will continue to kill people on the show so he has something to do -- trying to solve, um, new mysteries and all. And if not, I know I still will watch anyway because Damian Lewis is totally hot. There, I've said it. I feel better. Reston, Va.: I understand that eight episodes of this season's "Lost" were "in the can" before the writers' strike. Do you know when ABC plans to shoot/air the remaining eight? Lisa de Moraes: They are airing them now -- and they've rushed the show back into production, the network says, in hopes of making this more than an eight-episode season, though it's not going to be a full-season's worth of 24-ish... Washington: Did you watch the Knight Rider movie? I was bored and gave it a try. I even watched it until the very end despite several urges to turn it off. The acting was truly awful. To even call it acting is being generous. The transforming car was one of the more believable parts of the story. And yet I sat through all of it -- just to see how they worked in the Hoff. How sad is that? washingtonpost.com: Knight Rider TV Movie Lisa de Moraes: Pretty ... and yet, you were in the company of millions of other people, no doubt watching with the same good intentions. ... I say NBC can get about four seasons out of those good intentions... Anonymous: Hey Pookie -- do you have Oscar fever? Lisa de Moraes: You betcha! I have not seen a single nominated movie. I'm so gonna win the pool at the party I'm attending on Sunday. I find total ignorance has served me very well in previous Oscar pools. ... I have boiled my love of the Oscars down to its very essence: I love the dresses... Washington: Hey Pookie: What's your theory? All the Idols (almost without exception) are cute cute cute. The past few years it seems to be they were more and more malformed and misshapen. Has America suddenly gotten more attractive? Lisa de Moraes: Yeah, right, we're all on diets and got makeovers. I'm guessing it means the producers were far more involved in this year's Idolette selection than in year's past.... Athens, Ga.: Pookie, I hate that they make the Idolettes sing the song that got them whacked. Show another Paula video or something. Er, uh, maybe not... Lisa de Moraes: Wow, you must have found those performances really bad to suggest swapping out for another Paula video. ... Generally, when the booted Idolette sing The Song That Got Them Whacked on results night, they do a better job than they did during the competition, because they've got nothing to lose, they're not so nervous, blah, blah, blah. But last night, I think every one of the four gave an even worse performance. Arlington, Va.: Is "Journeyman" no longer? Lisa de Moraes: Bye bye. ... Sadly, it did not seem to catch on with viewers. Tthough a drama about a hot time-traveling journalist and his even hotter wife may be gone, it appears a talking-car drama has been brought back from the dead. The "Knight Rider" teleflick/backdoor pilot did a good number last week... Philadelphia: Pookster -- I could not look at Paula Wednesday night without seeing Steven Cojocaru. Same haircut, same facial structure. It was very scary. Was it me? Also, why do chubby middle-aged men think they can get away with wearing patchwork pants? Make it stop. Lisa de Moraes: They're not pants, they're trousers. I learned this from Randy this week on "Idol." Personally, I don't see the likeness, but I was too busy being morbidly fascinated by what they'd done to Paula's voice. It sounded artificial... Washington: Okay, Pookie, what is your problem with "Friday Night Lights"? Why must you hate it so? You're the only TV reporter I know of who doesn't love it and champion it. Lisa de Moraes: Football ... cheerleaders ... need I say more? Annandale, Va.: Is there a way to make Josiah Leming from "American Idol" go away? He is making TV appearances anywhere and everywhere. Ellen DeGeneres gave him $8,000 worth of electronics for crying out loud! (Which is exactly what he did afterward.) During his performance I realized something (helps when you fall asleep): with his quivering singing voice and current housing status, he is trying to be the lovechild of Tracy Chapman and Jewel. Can you make him stop, please? Lisa de Moraes: Don't worry, Pookie, his 15 minutes is nearly over. All the syndicated talkers -- and the network morning infotainment shows -- try to cash in on "Idol's" audience during the February sweep, which is wrapping up... Greensboro, N.C.: "Lost" never was going to be a 22/24 episode season. Their recent renewal agreement was for three seasons/16 episodes per season for a total of 48. I think "Lost" will end up having 13 episodes this season. Lisa de Moraes: Heck, you're right -- my bad. Anyway, it won't be the full-season order, ABC said. I think they'll be extremely lucky to get to 13, given the challenges of shooting that show... "Big Bang Theory": I'm happy the show has been renewed. I think the main character (the guy from Roseanne) and the "hot" neighbor were miscast, but the tall roommate (Sheldon) is a great comedic actor. I think I have the hots for him. Lisa de Moraes: I'm trying really hard not to be creeped out by your having the hots for Sheldon, but am failing miserably. The "hot" neighbor can't act, but isn't that kind of the point? She's the blonde bimbo next door. I think that would become more clear if the writers only would give her words of one syllable. Where they're slipping up is in giving her a few two-syllable words, which is totally out of character. Meanwhile I like Roseanne Guy in the lead role -- nice counter to Sheldon... "Friday Night Lights": The cheerleaders are almost nonexistent any more... you really need to love that show. Lisa de Moraes: When it's not about football I'll love it. Promise... The past few years it seems to be they were more and more malformed and misshapen. Has America suddenly gotten more attractive?: Maybe "Idol" is changing its contestant-choosing procedures; after all, whatever they've been doing hasn't resulted in a lot of contestants who can sing well. Lisa de Moraes: Ah, but it's not about winning any more -- just ask Simon. It's about getting a recording contract. You don't need to win. In fact, winning can hold you back. Just ask The Artist Who Wants to Be Known as Daughtry... Phoenix: Was "Knight Rider" good stupid or bad stupid? I can't tell, because (truth be told) I'm a little bit stupid myself. washingtonpost.com: 'Knight Rider,' Up to Speed in a Hurry (Post, Feb. 21) Lisa de Moraes: Well, given the whole car character thing, I'd say we'd have to go with "bad stupid" just on principle... Washington: Has Fox made a decision on "K-Ville"? The show really started to hit its stride in the past few episodes, but something tells me it will get canned. Lisa de Moraes: Bye bye. The lead has been cast in one of the Law & Order shows. I can't remember which one, but frankly, it really doesn't matter. They're interchangeable... Jesse L. Martin is leaving "Law & Order": Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Lisa de Moraes: ... and, he's replacing Jesse Martin, by the way... Herndon, Va.: The Divine Ms. deM: If "Knight Rider" does return as a series, can a new "My Mother the Car" be far behind? (But who would be the voice of the car with Ann Southern gone?) Lisa de Moraes: I'm praying for the return of the talking horse, Mr. Ed ... I love that show... "A horse is a horse, of course of course, and no one can talk to a horse of course that is of course unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed!" (Yes, I know all the lyrics to the show's theme song...) "Idol" down to 20: Usually those who get the boot sound better on their swan song than they did previously, but the four who got cut last night certainly proved they deserved it. Lisa de Moraes: You betcha ... good choices... Alexandria, Va.:"How I Met Your Mother" might be one of the greatest shows ever made, and yet when I talk to people about it, nobody has heard of it! And now there's a debate by CBS about whether to keep it or replace it with some game show or reality TV show that already has been done and won't have much staying power?! I mean, come on, Neil Patrick Harris convincing his cohorts to pretend that they're tourists from out of town to hit on New York girls, only get pissed when they find out the girls who declare themselves New Yorkers are actually from Jersey!? What's not to love? Lisa de Moraes: Actually, CBS is doing all it can to help this show. They just announced they were flipping its time slot with "The Big Bang Theory" in order to put "Mother" in the 8:30 p.m. "hammock." The 8:30 and 9:30 half hours on CBS's Monday are protected timeslots for trying to grow new sitcoms, between stronger sitcoms on the hour. CBS hopes "Big Bang Theory," which opened very well in the fall, will help drive more viewers to "How I Met Your Mother." Falls Church, Va.: I saw your column listing the dates that TV programs would be returning but you did not include "Women's Murder Club." Has the show been cut? It looked to me as though it was getting good numbers for a new series. Lisa de Moraes: Bye bye... And, he's replacing Jesse Martin, by the way...: 'Splain, Lucy! Lisa de Moraes: I think Martin's been on the show about nine years, or maybe 29. Anyway, like forever. Maybe Martin just wants to do something else. Maybe Dick Wolf is trying, once again, to keep down the costs on his "Law & Order" shows by whacking actors who've been around for a while, presumably getting raises every season... "Friday Night Lights": Pookie, was "Friends" about a coffee shop and a New York apartment? No, that was just the window dressing for the people-stories we watched. Same with "Friday Night Lights." Lisa de Moraes: You know how some people get freaked out by clowns? Show me a football uniform and I have run for cover... Washington: What's going on with "Dirty Sexy Money"? It wasn't that great, but I was kind of hooked to the trashiness of it. Lisa de Moraes: ABC has renewed the show, but won't bring it back until next season and will relaunch it, as though it were a freshman show. Ditto ABC's "Pushing Daisies" and "Private Practice." NBC is doing same with "Chuck" and "Life." "Idol": Did they really have a No-Sanjayas policy this year, as you implied? From the looks of the final 24, they had a No-Melinda-Doolittles policy instead. And if the were trying to avoid another Sanjaya, it seems they've failed already. (Josiah got $8,000 worth of electronics? Where's he supposed to plug it in?) Lisa de Moraes: Maybe the cigarette lighter in his car? I thought Garrett might wind up being this year's Sanjaya -- pettable hair, looked like he needed a good meal, not good but not hideous voice, etc. ... Not sure what you mean by "No-Melinda" policy -- no back-up singer, or no chicks missing their necks? ... Please explain... Hoboken, N.J.: I'm so disappointed Joanne was kicked off "American Idol." Now she'll return to the apartment next to mine and I'll be forced to listen to her sing. Maybe I'll be lucky and she'll leave to be on another reality show. Lisa de Moraes: This was her second, right? Didn't she win "Mo'Niques Fat Chance" reality series? She does seem to be a serial reality show chick. ... But same can be said for David A., who won CBS's "Star Search." Owings Mills, Md.: "Celebrity Rehab": I actually think it's a pretty good show, but sometimes I wish I was watching it on PBS where they'd just let the documentary unfold. I don't mind that they interrupt for commercials, but I can't stand all those "coming up next" promos. By the end of the hour I feel like I've watched the same show twice. Lisa de Moraes: You have -- clock how much time is eaten up by those "coming up next" bits before the gazillion ad breaks... Hair today gone tomorrow...: Paula's extensions on Wednesday night looked comical. You'd think her stylist could do better than that. Lisa de Moraes: She needs a new hair person, for sure. On the other hand, she looked much better the next night. Maybe the hair person had the night off Wednesday. Or was stricken with the flu, which mysteriously seems to have stricken only the chick Idolettes... The "Dancing With the Stars" new season: So what do you think of the lineup? I actually think the new season of "Dancing With the Stars" has more people I've heard of than previous seasons. To top the one-legged woman from last year they have a deaf woman, plus one NFL player, a world-class tennis player and an Olympic ice skater -- and giant, goofy Penn of Penn and Teller. Should be fun? Lisa de Moraes: This show does seem to have come up with "categories" of washed-up celebs and looks for someone to fit each category every season. Must make it a lot easier on the people who cast the show... Rohnert Park, Calif.: Who will be the be bigger train wreck on "Dancing with Stars," Priscilla, Penn (minus Teller) or the guy from "Police Academy"? Lisa de Moraes: I'm thinking for pure "what the heck were they thinking" I'd go with Presley. I don't know why I expect her to have more dignity -- what with her being the keeper of the Elvis Presley flame, and Elvis wore that craptastic white jumpsuit for the last eight years of his life. But, inexplicably, I do... They've rushed the show back into production, the network says, in hopes of making this more than an eight-episode season: Shouldn't make any difference in the quality of the episodes, given that they all seem made up on the fly anyway. Lisa de Moraes: I'm told it's part of its charm. Which is "Lost" on me -- hahahaha! (Sorry.) Garrett Haley Scarnato!: Why hasn't anybody mentioned how much this guy resembles Helen Hunt? Too bad Wild Card week is no more, because that could have been his comeback shtick. Lisa de Moraes: I know this will make me a laughingstock, but I sort of liked his voice. It was sweet, in a Neil Sedaka kinda way. Of course, now that you've noted his resemblance to Helen Hunt, you've totally ruined it... Celebs: Any clues as to who will be some of the mentors this year on "Idol"? Lisa de Moraes: Andrew Lloyd Weber, god help us... "No chicks missing their necks": Exactly! No big voices without much in the looks or personality department. They're all attractive this year, even if some of the prettier ones (Luke, Kristy) have forgettable voices. I'm surprised you don't see the Sanjaya potential in Danny. Lisa de Moraes: You're right, Danny Noriega could be this year's Sanjaya. He too has pettable hair ... and a potential fan base of weeping 10-year-old girls... Priscilla on "Dancing With the Stars": She claims she's not going to wear skimpy costumes, on account of her age. Is it that she has lots of plastic surgery scars all over? Maybe she should wear a bag over her head to conceal the ghastly "work" she's had done, too. Lisa de Moraes: That's hilarious. Did she really say that? Did one of her plastic surgery stitches pop as she tried to keep a straight face when she said it? Washington: Are you completely devastated that your boyfriends Colton Berry and Garret Haley have been booted off "American Idol"? Lisa de Moraes: I was not a Colton Berry fan. Nor a Garret Haley fan, now that I think of it. You must be thinking of some other "Idol" blogger... Hi Lisa!: I love your chats, but why do you use so many ellipses? Lisa de Moraes: I do it in lieu of having a writing style. So much simpler... Thank you: Thank you for providing a safe space for those of us who enjoy TV. It's nice to be able to relax my guard. My question is, how do the people who are so snooty about TV and don't watch it (and are therefore superior to me) know so much about the TV they don't watch? I mean, if you don't watch TV, shouldn't you be a little fuzzy about who stars in "Desperate Housewives"? And yet they all know -- including what character each plays. Do they pull this knowledge from the collective unconscious? Lisa de Moraes: Clearly they're closet watchers. When they're ready to come out, we will embrace them with open arms. ... A warning though, some of them do show up on this chat from time to time.... Four Corners, Md.: Pookie, what did you think of Paula Abdul's video? I thought she sounded like Peter Frampton in those Geico commercials. And while I found Randy rocking it on the guitar amusing, it was nowhere near as entertaining as dancing with the Cheetos guy. Lisa de Moraes: I loved it. It was so spectacularly fun/awful. I hope it's the first of many. What does relaunch mean?: Will they reshow episodes from Season 1 of those frosh series, or start over from scratch? I really, really want to love "Private Practice," but the thing was, I hated it. Great, great actors, could be good stories, and instead I just thought it was a big hot mess, with ludicrous storylines. Lisa de Moraes: I am guessing they will do a whole summer campaign, like networks do with their new series that are going to launch in the fall, and maybe right before their debut they'll marathon the repeats -- there aren't that many of them, what with the strike cutting off production. Anyway, that's what I'd do if I ruled television. Arlington, Va.: With this talk of "How I Met Your Mother" maybe not making it past this season and "Journeyman" getting the axe, I'm feeling my age and I'm only in my mid-30s. I remember way back when a couple of little sitcoms on NBC, "Cheers" and "Seinfeld," were doing terribly in the ratings their first year or so before becoming huge hits. The impatience of the networks is killing the creative beast. Next thing you know, "Chuck" and "Pushing Daisies" won't get past next season, and they're two of the best new shows out there. Lisa de Moraes: I take your point, but I have to say I think CBS has been wonderfully patient with "How I Met Your Mother." NBC gets credit too, for trying to find a way to hang on to "Friday Night Lights" by playing it on more than one network. ... .And when "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" were on the air, television was a very different beast -- those comparisons are kind of apples and oranges. Just look at the landscape and the competition now, compared to when "Cheers" debuted... Paula, Randy and Ryan: Why do these three team up against Simon when he is clearly the only one saying anything coherent and intelligent? Do the producers encourage this? Ryan seems particularly bad at doing this. Maybe "Idol's" declining ratings will lead them to give Paula the boot. Bring back guest judge Jewel! Lisa de Moraes: When Seacrest thanked judges Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul but did not thank Simon Cowell at the end of one of this week's gazillion "Idol" episodes, I thought it was funny. But when Seacrest did it again the next night, it came across as mean-spirited. Hopefully, the producers will nix that going forward. Jackson, Miss.: I want to see one of Priscilla Presley's facelifts pop a stitch. Lisa de Moraes: Me too... Fans vs. Favorites "Survivor": I wish they would stop bringing back contestants that I liked on their seasons. They always turn into monsters and make me hate them (Cirie, I'm talking to you!). This season is pretty dull so far. I miss Dexter! Lisa de Moraes: I'm not an "all-star" fan -- for any reality show. I like to see a show keep moving forward, not looking back... Chick Idolettes?: You mean they have male Idolettes? I guess I need to watch. Lisa de Moraes: They're all Idolettes until one is crowned Idol... Arlington, Va.: Lisa, gotta ask the question we all want to ask ... do we have an Idolette yet to fill the "best shoes" role? Lisa de Moraes: Yes, but sadly it was Amy, and now she's gone. Her shoes were incredible... What about "Moonlight"?: Didn't it get some award for happy viewers or something? Is that enough to bring it back? Lisa de Moraes: Honestly, I can't explain it. But it has survived. For now... "Idol" eliminees: I so disagreed with the elimination of Amy Whateverhernamewas - she sang "Where the Boys Are," and frankly I thought she did a very nice job. And the judges -- well, Simon -- criticized her because when one sings a Patsy Cline song one must sound country ... only that was a Connie Francis song and she was 180 degrees from country! But I loved Justin/Jason whatever, who sang "What a Day for a Daydream" -- he's great! Lisa de Moraes: Didn't Randy first bring up the whole country thing? Anyway, Amy slaughtered the song ... not that it's worth saving... "Idol" Dreadlock Boy: I am intrigued and fascinated by this guy. A good (not great) singer and immensely watchable. Really, really liked him. Is it the guitar? The dreads? The blue eyes? The fact that he seems to hate the producers for making him sit with the other guys in identical cheesy suits last night? I don't know ... but I just think he may quit the show when he starts having to do the group numbers at the beginning of the show. Is that why I like him? Lisa de Moraes: Jason Castro was great. Not the best singer, not the best looking, but he was a load of fun to watch. The whole '60s costume party thing last night was strange and did not work. Yes, some of the guys, including Castro, looked really uncomfortable in the guy-suits, but it could have been worse -- the chicks were made up like it was Halloween. I'm out of time. Bye. 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 TV columnist Lisa de Moraes tries to figure out who won and who lost in the writers' strike deal and critiques the final 24 for this season of "American Idol" (so you don't have to).
128.953488
0.883721
2.372093
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022001452.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022001452.html
The Washington Capitals
2008022419
Tarik El-Bashir: Whew! I just braved driving snow, sleet and freezing rain to make it home in time for this chat. Not. I mean really, folks. You ought to hear the jokes the Canadian Caps make about us and our fear of flurries. Anyway, let me move on to your questions. Lots of trade talk, I see. Chevy Chase, Md.: How are they going to split the goaltending duties for the big games this weekend? Tarik El-Bashir: I'm told that Olie Kolzig will be in net tomorrow in Carolina. So I would assume that means Brent Johnson will play Sunday. Rockville, Md.: Tarik, great job covering the Caps. You reported McPhee said the Caps won't be sellers, but do you think they will be buyers, or just stand put? McPhee told the media yesterday that he does not anticipate making a big move. But he might make a small one aimed at improving the team's depth. It makes sense to me that he doesn't want to give up any young players or prospects for a playoff push that might not result in the Caps actually making the playoffs. But I do think he ought to go for an inexpensive veteran defenseman. Maybe make a move sort of like the one the Flyers pulled off for Jaroslav Modry the other day. I think it cost the Flyers a third rounder (which the Caps don't have). Washington, D.C.: In his first two seasons, Ovechkin's offensive production faded after the All-Star break. It appears that it may be happening again. Do you have any idea what is causing the problems? Tarik El-Bashir: I don't think anything is wrong with Alex. He had the flu in Florida, still was a bit off against Tampa, then hit four goal posts against the Isles. Now, if he goes another two games without a point ... then it might be time to wonder what's up with him. Huntingtown, Md.: Tarik - your always insightful commentary on the Capitals is greatly appreciated. How has Bruce Boudreau taken to working with the two assistant coaches that were there prior to his arrival? Would you say it's been a seamless transition for all three? Tarik El-Bashir: That's a great question. At first, I didn't think it was going to work out. Every coach should be able to hire his own assistants, right? But you've got to remember that Bruce was already in the Caps' organization when he was promoted. So he was already familiar Jay Leach, Dean Evason, Blaine Forsythe and Dave Prior from summer camps, the draft and training camp. That made a big difference. Seems to me the coaches are all in tune now. It will, however, be interesting to see if they all return next season. Chantucky, Va.: Would you agree that tomorrow's game against Carolina could be the biggest game of the season? A loss puts them 6 points back. A win puts them 2 points back. Also, what is with the NHL scheduling the Caps a 5 p.m. game Saturday and then a 3 p.m. game on Sunday? Tarik El-Bashir: I just wrote those exact words on my blog. It is absolutely the biggest game of the season -- so far, that is. A loss, even factoring in the games in hand, would be a huge (but not a knockout) blow to the Caps. The boys better come ready to play, because the 'Canes are hot. Detroit: Hello Tarik, thanks for braving the weather out there! It looks like young Lepisto has climbed over Eminger on the depth chart. Where does this leave Steve? Tarik El-Bashir: I'm not even sure how to answer questions about Steve Eminger anymore. I've said over and again that I think he's a top six defenseman in the NHL. A few scouts have told me the same thing. The Caps -- whether it's Boudreau or McPhee or both -- apparently do not agree. Miami, Fla.: Let's talk about next year. What major changes do you see in the line up, if any? (ignore the goalie issues.) Tarik El-Bashir: It's tough to ignore the goalie question, but since you asked ... Assuming all the forwards are healthy next season, I think the Caps are in good shape up front. I still think the Caps need a rugged, angry, veteran defenseman that forces opposing forwards to keep their heads on a swivel, wondering, "Where is that guy?" The Caps had one in Brendan Witt. They need one again. Washington, D.C.: Has Ovechkin been Romo-fied? Should we start making our Katja masks? Tarik El-Bashir: Ha! I don't think it's gotten to that point. But if he jets off to a tropical paradise in the coming days, perhaps we should all get worried. Clearville, Pa.: Thanks Tarik for the fine job you do covering the Caps. With that said, do you think the Caps will re-sign Olie Kolzig or is this his swan song? Tarik El-Bashir: I don't think he knows the answer to that question. He has not been offered an extension, which is pretty telling. The last time the Caps re-signed him, they approached him the day after vets could begin negotiating. He told me the other day that he doesn't expect to talk to McPhee about his situation until after the season. One recurring theme is that we don't seem to get enough traffic in front of the net, either full strength or on PP. Living in Philly I have seen two Flyers (one current, one retired) who are among the best at this craft, Mike Knubble and John LeClaire. These guys are a rare commodity. How much do you think is physical (size and strength) versus attitude? Have you talked to GMGM or BB about bringing someone in to fill this role? Don't we have a guy now who can fill this role? What about Lainge, he seems like the kind of lunatic to take this on? Thanks! Tarik El-Bashir: Chris Clark fills that role just fine for the Caps. Unfortunately for them, no one knows when/if he's going to play again this season. He is, however, said to be making progress. So there's some hope that Clark will be back on the ice before the season is out. The Caps could really use him right now. But they are not going to rush him (or allow him to come back before he's ready). Bowie, Md.: Tarik - how much does Bruce Boudreau interact with Bob Woods and his former organization in Hershey? I can imagine he has just about no interaction with them in game strategy - but do you think it's hard for not to call coach Woods and offer suggestions - or does he have enough to worry about in Washington? As always, thanks for your great coverage! Tarik El-Bashir: He was telling me the other day that he does his best to keep up with Woods and what's going on in Hershey. But he's got his hands completely full up here. Baltimore: Hi Tarik, I asked last week about the quality of Comcast's high def broadcasts compared to NBC's hockey HD coverage and you said to ask back next week! Were you able to learn anything or is this just a figment of my imagination? Thanks. Tarik El-Bashir: I apologize. I got an answer, but I can't find the email now. But I recall the expert said it's not comcast's fault. It had something to do with other carriers/vendors. Herndon, VA: Semin is a brilliant - but lazy - player. My son, who plays AAA hockey, says that when players talk about coasting through a game or practice, they call it playing "Semin hockey." Semin seems to be stepping up some lately, but he's often a step behind the play defensively, and he takes the laziest, most selfish penalties! I can't believe Boudreau would let him get away with this, game after game. It seems that Semin has had more ice time than he deserves. What do you think? Tarik El-Bashir: Semin definitely has a lot to learn about playing responsibly in his own end. His lapses on D and bad penalties frustrate the coaches, too. But he scores goals and helps to set them up as well. And the Caps don't have many people that can do that. As much as Boudreau would probably like to send Semin a message, he can't afford to with his team in the midst of a playoff push. You've also got to remember that Semin is still young. He can (and the team hopes and expects, based on the contract extension) that he will mature into a great player. Melbourne, Fla.: Any updates on a contract extension for Green? Does $4-5 mil/year until he hits UFA sound about right? Tarik El-Bashir: The negotiations on extension for Green continue. I've gone digging for some details the past couple of days but haven't heard anything solid enough to report. But, yes, $4-5 mil were the numbers being thrown around when the talks started. Potomac: Do you think Olie would have interest in signing with Montreal after the season to be with his mentee, Carey Price? Also, as he's at the end stage of his career, perhaps Olie would want to be with a contender rather than a young, rebuilding team. Thanks for your great coverage! Tarik El-Bashir: I can't say for sure. But I can tell you that the last thing Montreal needs is another goalie. Sorry for repeating myself on this, but I truly believe that the Caps and Kolzig are going to have to make some really difficult decisions this summer. How Olie plays down the stretch will have a lot to do with it, as well. Friendship Heights: What is the deal with Semin falling down so much? Perhaps the Caps should send some tapes to all of the NHL refs so they stop blowing the whistle on him so often for diving - during the last home game I sneezed in section 408 and he went tumbling to the ice! Tarik El-Bashir: That's cold. But funny. Do you think even if the Caps miss the playoffs, GMGM will get a free pass and be given at least another season as general manager? Tarik El-Bashir: I don't see McPhee going anywhere, regardless of the outcome. As hard as the fans in Washington have been on McPhee and the job he's done the past 10 years, many respected people around the league praise the way McPhee has rebuilt the Caps. Wheaton, Md.: What would you say the odds are that Eminger gets shipped by the deadline? 50/50? Tarik El-Bashir: That sounds about right to me. The fair thing to do would be to deal him at this point. He's not helping the Caps, and not playing him isn't helping his career. The problem is that by not playing him, the Caps have likely killed his trade value. What GM is going to give up an asset or a worthwhile pick for a defenseman who's played a whopping 13 games? Chevy Chase, Md.: Alexander Semin, who is obviously an incredible talent, takes a lot of stick penalties. It is often said that he needs to "move his feet" more. It seems to me that this is a conditioning problem. Do you have any sense for whether this is the case? Is it a long-term effect of his high ankle sprain? Can the Caps make sure he gets on a conditioning program in the next off-season so he can improve his overall game? Tarik El-Bashir: Conditioning was certainly an issue for Semin early on because of his ankle injury. For almost a month he couldn't skate hard or run. Conditioning, though, should not be a problem now. Thanks for the great coverage. Do you think that the Caps' current roster has been overachieving, underachieving, or right on target? That is to say, with their current roster, should we expect them to make the playoffs or do you think they have been playing above their consistent abilities in these past few months? Tarik El-Bashir: I think they've been all three. The Caps underachieved for 20 games, then overachieved for about 30 games, and now they are about where they should be -- hanging around .500, fighting for one of the last playoff berths. Given the seemingly massive depth of our farm system and GMGM's propensity for "deals," do you think that Eminger and another borderline player (like Pettinger) will be moved along with a 2008 pick or two for a non-rental player... maybe a D or a RW? Also, is there any chance the Peter Forsberg would sign here given our recent rise and upward trend. Tarik El-Bashir: McPhee said yesterday that he doesn't envision picking up a rental. But if he could move an Eminger or Pettinge- type player (or a pick or both) for someone who fits in the team's longterm plans, I could see him doing that. I don't think it's likely, but McPhee might make that sort of a deal. As for Forsberg, no. He's not sure he's going to come back first of all. And if he does, he wants to go to a Cup contender. Downtown D.C.: It seems the Caps fit a pattern: best hockey in the middle of the season, but worst hockey on the book-ends, when teams are pushing the hardest to have a good start or make a final playoff push. Why do the Caps seem to only do well in the middle? Tarik El-Bashir: The Caps sure have picked inopportune times do go into slumps, huh?. One got their coach fired. And if this one goes much longer, it's going to snuff out their playoff hopes. Silver Spring, Md.: Tarik -- Is there anyone currently in the Capitals system who could reasonably fill the role of Nylander (playmaking center)? What current prospects may be able to help the team this year? Thanks Tarik El-Bashir: The most NHL-ready Caps prospects were recalled today -- defenseman Sami Lepisto and right wing Eric Fehr. As far as guys who could help the team this year, the list starts and ends with those two. Bethesda, Md.: Do teams with average (at best) goaltending ever win a Stanley Cup? Tarik El-Bashir: That's a rhetorical question, right? What do the Caps have to do to get back on a winning streak? They were so strong for two solids months, but seem to regressing as of late. Tarik El-Bashir: The offense has got to be more consistent and the power plays needs to be better, too. For a while, Boudreau kept saying he wanted someone other than Ovechkin to start scoring. Now, I think he might settle for just Ovechkin to start scoring again. The Caps have averaged just over two goals per game the past six contests. That's not going to get it done. Tarik El-Bashir: Thanks for spending some of your afternoon with me today. I got to most of your questions this time. But I'll try harder to get to all of 'em next time. Until then, take care. 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.
76.878049
0.439024
0.487805
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001706.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001706.html
Fed Reins in Growth Forecast
2008022419
The Federal Reserve yesterday slashed its forecast for the country's economic growth as fresh evidence showed that prices for a wide range of goods are soaring. The twin announcements crystallize the challenge facing the central bank as it tries to prevent a recession without letting inflation get out of hand. The Fed has been focused this year on the first concern, as the bank has rapidly cut interest rates to keep the economic downturn from becoming severe. But the elevated reading on consumer prices, coupled with oil prices that yesterday hit a new high of $101.32 per barrel, could leave the Fed with less flexibility to cut rates aggressively down the road, economists said. "You have growth expectations declining at the same time that inflation is pouring out of the spigots," said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research. "The Fed is painting itself into a corner here." The forecasts for economic growth in 2008 from 17 top Fed officials range from 1 to 2.2 percent. In October, that range was 1.6 to 2.6 percent. Even that lowered projection does not indicate a recession. They also increased their consensus forecast of the unemployment rate. Many of the Fed governors and regional bank presidents attributed the sub-par growth expectation to "a deepening of the housing correction, tighter credit conditions . . . and higher oil prices," according to narrative summary of the policymakers' predictions. Many of the products Americans buy are getting more expensive. Prices for consumer goods rose 0.4 percent in January, the Labor Department said yesterday, and are up 4.3 percent in the past year. Fed leaders aim to keep long-run inflation under 2 percent but acknowledged yesterday that prices are likely to rise faster than that in 2008. Their projections now range from 2 to 2.8 percent, higher than in October. The rise in food and energy prices was particularly steep, as it has been for many months. There were also price increases for products and services with little connection to those areas. Apparel prices rose sharply, as did medical care, education costs, and rent. It appears that higher fuel and food prices, both of which have soared in the past year, could be affecting other types of products. Meanwhile, aggressive interest rate cuts and a slowing U.S. economy have led the value of the dollar to fall against other currencies in the past six months, making imports more expensive. "It's probably some combination of energy prices and import prices percolating through to everything else in the economy," said Bill Cheney, chief economist of John Hancock Financial. As the economy slows, that combination creates a potentially toxic mix for American consumers of higher prices and slower growth in the number of jobs and wages. It could even be a milder version of the stagflation, or stagnant growth mixed with inflation, that crippled the nation's economy in the 1970s. That would be a central banker's worst nightmare. For the Fed, it would be a failure to maintain either part of its "dual mandate" ordered by Congress of maintaining low unemployment and price stability.
The Federal Reserve yesterday slashed its forecast for the country's economic growth as fresh evidence showed that prices for a wide range of goods are soaring. The twin announcements crystallize the challenge facing the central bank as it tries to prevent a recession without letting inflation ge...
11.92
0.96
46.08
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022002819.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022002819.html
U.S. Payments To Pakistan Face New Scrutiny
2008022419
Once a month, Pakistan's Defense Ministry delivers 15 to 20 pages of spreadsheets to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. They list costs for feeding, clothing, billeting and maintaining 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal area along the Afghan border, in support of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. In response, the Defense Department has disbursed about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year for the past six years, in one of the most generous U.S. military support programs worldwide. The U.S. aim has been to ensure that Pakistan remains the leading ally in combating extremism in South Asia. But vague accounting, disputed expenses and suspicions about overbilling have recently made these payments to Pakistan highly controversial -- even within the U.S. government. The poor showing in Monday's parliamentary election by the party of President Pervez Musharraf, whose government has overseen local disbursement of the money, may make Congress look closer at all U.S. financial assistance to the country. Questions have already been raised about where the money went and what the Bush administration got in return, given that pro-American sentiment in Pakistan is extremely low and al-Qaeda's presence is growing steadily stronger. In perhaps the most disputed series of payments, Pakistan received about $80 million a month in 2006 and 2007 for military operations during cease-fires with pro-Taliban tribal elders along the border, including a 10-month truce in which troops returned to their barracks. The Bush administration has acknowledged some problems, but still says that the program -- part of a costly military effort known as the Coalition Support Fund -- is worth every penny. "Yes, we may have overpaid, but it's still a good deal," said a senior administration official involved in Pakistan policy, noting that more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have been killed while assisting Operation Enduring Freedom. "Padding? Sure. Let's be honest, we're talking about Pakistan, which has a legacy of corruption," added another U.S. official familiar with past U.S. payments. "But if they're billing us $5 billion and it's worth only $4 billion, the question is whether it's worth nickel-and-diming it if it's such a top national security objective. If it's in the ballpark, does the bigger picture call for continuing on with a process that does generate significant progress on the war on terror? They do get their hands on people we can't." U.S. officials say the payments to Pakistan -- which over the past six years have totaled $5.7 billion -- were cheap compared with expenditures on Iraq, where the United States now spends at least $1 billion a week on military operations alone. "My sense is that the Pakistani military would not be out on the border if not for the Coalition Support Funds. That's the baseline cost of getting them out on a mission that is really our mission," said Craig Cohen, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of a recent study on U.S.-Pakistan relations. Yet the Bush administration has recently begun to scrutinize Pakistan's bills more closely. Washington delayed payment of about $78 million of $360 million for the March-June 2007 quarter now working its way through the reimbursement process. Pakistan will receive only $282 million later this month, U.S. officials said, with additional payment once it provides more detailed accounting. It recently rejected a Pakistani bill, officials say, for "roads and tracks" -- for its Navy operations, U.S. officials said.
Once a month, Pakistan's Defense Ministry delivers 15 to 20 pages of spreadsheets to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. They list costs for feeding, clothing, billeting and maintaining 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal area along the Afghan border, in support of U.S. counterte...
12.648148
0.962963
50.074074
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022100004.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022100004.html
Google to Test Medical-Record Service
2008022419
The pilot project announced yesterday will involve 1,500 to 10,000 patients at the Cleveland Clinic who agreed to an electronic transfer of their personal health records so they can be retrieved through Google's service, which will not be open to the general public. Each health profile, including information about prescriptions, allergies and medical histories, will be protected by a password. Google views its expansion into health-records management as a logical extension of its search engine business, which already processes millions of requests from people trying to find about more information about injuries, illnesses or treatments. The venture will be fodder for privacy watchdogs who think Google already knows too much about the interests and habits of its users as its computers log their search requests and store their e-mail discussions. The company has not said when it will begin the health service. Marissa Mayer, the Google executive overseeing the project, previously said the service would debut in 2008. The Cleveland Clinic already keeps the personal health records of more than 120,000 patients on its online service, MyChart. Patients who transfer their information to Google would be able to retrieve it quickly even if they were no longer being treated by the clinic. The Cleveland Clinic decided to work with Google "to create a more efficient and effective national health care system," said C. Martin Harris, the nonprofit medical center's chief information officer. Microsoft last year introduced a similar service, HealthVault, and AOL co-founder Steve Case founded Revolution Health, which also offers online tools for managing personal health histories. The third-party services are troublesome because they aren't covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum. Passed in 1996, HIPAA established standards that classify medical information as a privileged communication between doctors and patients. Among other things, the law requires that patients be notified when their records are being subpoenaed. That means a patient who agrees to transfer medical records to an external health service run by Google or Microsoft could make it easier for the government or some other legal adversary to obtain the information, Dixon said. It's not clear how Google intends to make money from its health service. The company sometimes introduces new products without ads just to give people more reason to visit its Web site, betting that the increased traffic will boost its profit in the long run.
Google will begin storing the medical records of a few thousand people in a test of a health service that is likely to raise more concerns about the volume of sensitive information entrusted to the Internet search leader.
11.948718
0.666667
0.923077
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021501444.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021501444.html
Tempted to Tame Wildcat Mountain
2008022419
For me, the New England ski scene has always transcended the skiing itself. Out West, all I need is a big mountain and place to crash, ideally with heat and indoor plumbing. The Northeast, though, is more about the whole experience -- the time-warp base lodges, gray-bearded mountain men, low-ceilinged inns with fires crackling in the bar, maybe even a little wicked weather. All of these were in play during an early February weekend I spent with my friend Bill in and around Wildcat Mountain, outside the tiny village of Jackson, N.H. I was drawn to Wildcat, a lesser-known New Hampshire resort, for its vertical drop (2,112 feet, the highest in the state), ample snowfall of about 200-plus inches per year and scenic location in White Mountain National Forest. It's a nonstop flight from BWI to Manchester, then a 2 1/2 -hour drive, part of which bisects the national forest. There are resorts closer to Manchester, but only Wildcat sits directly across the highway from Mount Washington. Yes, that Mount Washington, the highest mountain in the eastern United States at 6,288 feet and the site of the strongest surface wind gust ever recorded on planet Earth: 231 mph during an April 1934 storm. Armed with a stat like that, you'd think one would check the weather before heading out in the morning. I didn't, which is why, as I was getting out of the car, I was nearly cracked like a walnut when a furious gust blistered the open door, which in turn slammed me into the door frame. "You want severe weather? You came to the right place!" a Wildcat Mountain host named Wally offered with an enthusiastic cackle as we tottered toward the lodge, leaning into the wind. We wanted to ski, but loose snow was whipping sideways across the hill, there was only one lift running (out of four) and the upper half of the mountain was closed. The forecast? Sustained winds of 80 to 90 mph. (Wildcat would end up closing for the day by noon; the top wind gust registered 120 mph.) We stuck to the lodge for half an hour with a bunch of other non-weather-checkers before hatching our backup plan: Drive the 10 minutes back down to Jackson, rent cross-country ski gear and schuss into lower-lying areas of the national forest, where the dense tree cover affords shelter from the wind. The parking lot at Jackson XC Ski Touring Center is packed. Nordic ski enthusiasts bustle in and around the wood-and-stone center like bees at a hive. Neither the crowd nor the fervor is unusual here. Jackson is a serious cross-country skiing town -- rated tops for the sport in the eastern United States -- and the center, which serves almost 100 miles of trails, can handle busy days. Within 15 minutes we are set up, clicked in and following a groomed ski track across a vast field of white, through an oh-so-quaint covered bridge, across a country road and onto a forested trail. We set the pressing pace of people who had expected to go fast on skis today, and cover 11 miles of rolling, out-and-back trail in under three hours. The route parallels the Ellis River, which is frozen in all the right places and tufted with snow mounds, a burbling advertisement for New England winter beauty. I prefer alpine skiing, but I also love cross-country, in large part because it allows me to dispense with daily exercise in a couple of brisk hours, leaving time for the more serious exercise of salooning in socked feet. At 3 p.m., a light crowd is building in Tuckerman Ravine, the bar portion of the historic Wildcat Inn and Tavern (no relation to the ski hill). The powder blue inn, with bowed wood floors and a long, windowed dining room facing the sidewalk, sits on Jackson's main drag, which is dominated by historic lodging options. We book the last available room -- a dormered, remodeled attic right above the tavern -- then settle in at one of the bar's two crackling fireplaces, kick off our shoes and marvel at how damn good a cold beer tastes after a stint of exertion in the great outdoors.
Fly nonstop from BWI to New Hampshire to check out the ski scene.
59.857143
0.928571
1.642857
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902334.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902334.html
A Card to Play for Cuba's Freedom
2008022019
To encourage the broader transition to democracy, the United States should be more than a passive spectator. It can now use the leverage it has long held but been unable to use while Fidel was in charge. In exchange for Cuba's holding free and fair elections, monitored and certified over the entire electoral cycle by respected international election monitors, the Bush administration could offer to ease and eventually lift the economic embargo against Cuba and to restore full political, diplomatic and economic relations with the island nation. The lifting of the embargo could be undertaken in stages linked to the fulfillment by the Cuban government of key conditions necessary for holding elections. These would include allowing genuine independent opposition parties to function, freeing the press and other media and opening them up to the opposition, allowing international nongovernmental organizations to provide elections training and technical assistance to the Cuban people -- in short, taking all the steps necessary to hold a full election campaign in which opposition parties have an equal chance to participate and compete. With international monitors in place months in advance of any vote, the actions of the Cuban government could be watched and evaluated for compliance by members of the U.S. Congress and respected international figures. The Bush administration could determine at each stage whether conditions had been met that would allow the gradual lifting of specific aspects of the embargo. There is, of course, ample precedent for this kind of internationally supervised electoral process, especially in Latin America. The first Bush administration supported a similar process in Nicaragua in 1989 and 1990, which culminated in the election of Violeta Chamorro as president. But, some may ask, why not just wait and see what Castro's successor does before making such an offer? Because it's important for the Cuban people and the world to see that the United States seeks only their freedom and prosperity and is prepared to deal with any government legitimately chosen by a fair vote. It is perhaps even more important that Cuba's new ruler be confronted publicly by a clear choice: Continue a dictatorship and prolong the Cuban people's suffering, or hold free and fair elections and open the door to a new era of hope and prosperity for Cuba. If the Cuban leadership makes the wrong choice, it alone will be responsible for what follows. Some Americans who have long opposed the embargo may recommend lifting it immediately and unconditionally. Some European nations seem eager to seize on the changing of the guard in Cuba to normalize relations. But to do so without demanding irreversible reforms first would be a tragic error. At this stage in history, we ought to know that merely opening up trade and relations with Cuba will not guarantee that it will become democratic. On the contrary, Cuba's next dictator will try to control and manipulate the flow of foreign investment and the behavior of foreign visitors, just as China's, Russia's and Venezuela's leaders do. Increased tourism will not change Cuba any more than it has changed China. And anyone who counts on American corporations to favor democracy over profits in Cuba obviously has not been paying attention to American corporate practices in foreign lands over the past 30 years. To lift the embargo and normalize relations without a demand for internationally supervised democratic elections could well consign the Cuban people to another decade or more of tyranny and squander a rare chance to help them change their future. The United States will have only one chance to lift the embargo. Once lifted, it will be almost impossible to reimpose. It is important, therefore, that the United States play this card in exchange for the only meaningful prize: a Cuba that, after all these years, is both independent and democratic. Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.
The 'resignation' of Fidel Castro may give both Cuban and American policies a chance to evolve.
38.473684
0.684211
0.789474
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902338.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902338.html
Big Brother Steps Down
2008022019
By now it's a cliche that Mr. Castro outlasted nine American presidents, some of whom tried to oust him, some of whom tried to negotiate with him -- and all of whom were unlike him, in that they faced elections and term limits. Mr. Castro survived the plots of Cuban exiles; repeated waves of mass emigration; and near-catastrophic economic decay brought on by his Soviet-style policies. To be sure, the benefits of Mr. Castro's revolution, such as national health care and universal education, bought him the loyalty -- or the dependency -- of many Cubans. But the key to his success was systematic political policing. Though all Cubans feel its effects, Mr. Castro's repression often fell most harshly on his inner circle. Repeated purges have refined it to a hard core that Mr. Castro apparently trusts to perpetuate his regime. Mr. Castro has been lucky, too. The Soviet Union subsidized him until its collapse in 1991. Then, just when it appeared that the Cuban regime might crack because of its own incompetence and a U.S. trade embargo, a new ideological ally, President Hugo Chávez of oil-rich Venezuela, bailed it out. Thus, Mr. Castro retires without being held accountable for turning one of Latin America's most developed economies into a bankrupt sugar plantation. He escapes accountability, too, for killing hundreds of political opponents and imprisoning thousands more; for sending Cuban soldiers to kill and die in wars between African tyrants; and for arming and training violent Latin American guerrillas. Nor will he ever answer for the deaths of those who perished fleeing his rule by sea. Will Raúl Castro be any different? Nothing fundamental in Cuba has changed in the almost 19 months since Fidel, 81, temporarily handed the reins to his 76-year-old defense minister. Raúl Castro is thought to be more practical than his brother on economic issues, and less ruthless. He has called on university students to debate Cuba's problems "fearlessly." In 1989, when Fidel ordered the executions of allegedly disloyal senior officials, including Raúl's favorite army general, the younger Castro admitted weeping over the purge. Yet he backed it unequivocally. Still committed to one-party rule, Raúl may hope to use what's left of his life to build Chinese-style market communism. The changes in Cuba will set off renewed debate over U.S. policy toward Cuba. While the discussion is appropriate, it's important to remember that, by the measure of the most fundamental goal of U.S. policy -- that Cuba become a democracy that respects human rights -- nothing has changed with Mr. Castro's retirement. Any U.S. strategy for Cuba must be aimed at giving Cubans the leverage to demand that transformation, in spite of what Mr. Castro and his heirs might intend.
Fidel Castro's departure leaves Cuba unchanged, for now.
48.181818
0.727273
1.090909
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502900.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502900.html
As Fidel Fades From the Scene
2008022019
We were sitting on a wrought-iron bench downtown, Manolo and I, chatting about the December weather, nodding to pedestrians strolling by. I was in Cuba to do some research on José Martí, the national hero who had laid the foundation for the island's war of independence against Spain more than a century ago. Our conversation was politely interrupted by an officer from the Specialized Police, a force assigned to heavily tourist areas. He asked for identification, not uncommon when a light-skinned foreigner is chatting with a dark-skinned Cuban, then walked away after writing down our data. He returned a couple of minutes later. "Follow me," he said, motioning us to his squad car. This, I thought, was a miserable way to begin my trip -- but an excellent way to take Cuba's temperature. Ever since Fidel Castro took seriously ill more than 18 months ago and named his younger brother Raúl, then head of the armed forces, temporary president, the word "transition" has been on everyone's lips. They know where their country has been, but no one is sure where it's headed. The policeman turned us over to a higher-ranking officer who asked whether I had any papers with me besides a few loose sheets stuffed into a small notebook. I had none. Suddenly, several officers put Manolo up against the car, patted him down, handcuffed him and stuffed him in the back seat. I wasn't frisked or cuffed, but officers maneuvered me in on the other side, and off we drove to the police station. It was a "Dragnet"-era cop shop, with a high desk and officers milling about. I was bumped higher and higher in officialdom, each time asked whether I had any other papers with me. Finally I was ushered into a room where a uniformed immigration officer from the Interior Ministry looked up from his computer screen. He was husky, almost chubby, and his conversation was friendly, or at least not hostile. He, too, asked about papers. "Why is everyone asking about papers?" I asked. He replied with a shrug. Then a heavy-set plainclothesman from State Security came in. His hair resembled a small dark yarmulke, slightly askew. He thrust a piece of paper in my face. "Have you ever seen this?" he asked sternly. It was the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. "I've heard of it," -- I chose my words carefully -- "but this is the first time I've actually seen a copy." "Are you sure?" He paused. "We are not opposed to this document, I want you to understand." I thought of the "Seinfeld" line, "Not that there's anything wrong with that." "Someone fitting your description has been handing these out," my interrogator said, and repeated his Seinfeldian disclaimer. "Well, it wasn't me," I said. Fifteen minutes later, I was released. I never learned what happened to Manolo. My two hours in Cuban custody seemed to fit a new pattern. The human rights activist Elizardo Sánchez thinks that under Raúl Castro, there are fewer arrests and jailings and more brief detentions. "Our day-to-day observation leads us to think that the style of political repression has changed," Sánchez told the foreign media last month. Raúl Castro, who turns 77 in June, has surprised a lot of people. I'd last been in Cuba a year earlier, and I'd seen a dismal population going about the daily business of getting provisions for the following day. That's still what most people do, but this time there was more money in circulation, more low-end street commerce, somewhat less sense of perpetual anguish. Cubans spoke, if not well, then at least respectfully, of their acting president. In the privacy of his living room, a writer commented on the younger Castro's lifelong military career. "He knows how to delegate," he said. "Things are running more smoothly." Another acquaintance, a retired bureaucrat, speaking openly in a restaurant, said she thought that Raúl was more understanding of everyday hardships: "He lives in a real neighborhood and understands the street." Fidel fatigue underlies some of this new attitude. A change -- any change -- is welcome, as long as circumstances get no worse. My informal survey took me to La Víbora, a once-tidy Havana neighborhood that rarely sees a foreigner. A longtime acquaintance there had been a well-regarded scientist some time ago, but the contradictions between words and actions had compelled her to leave government work and find solace in the Catholic Church, through which she makes humanitarian visits to prisons. She described a devastating rainfall that had pounded the eastern end of the island weeks earlier. People had lost their homes, buildings collapsed, roads were destroyed, railroad lines uprooted. "If Fidel had been in charge, he'd have started a speech that would still be going, and he'd blame the imperialists for the storm," she said. "Raúl devoted three sentences to it in a speech and blamed climate change. He told us that the ruin came to $499 million, and he ordered repair crews to work on the damage." She also credits the new provisional president with a measure of expanded inmate rehabilitation programs. "I tell you," she said, "I've known two leaders in my life, Fidel and Raúl. I'm not a fan of Raúl's, but I believe what I see." I got another indication of Havana's mood when I joined a dozen artists, filmmakers and writers around a table of good cheer at a private residence, pouring glass after glass of Havana Club rum. One fellow laughed about the time years ago when culture authorities had tried to discourage him from painting a certain way because it was considered counterrevolutionary. Everyone lifted their copitas at the distant memory, and someone else talked about the difficulty the late gay poet Virgilio Piñera had experienced getting published. The table nodded, and someone piped up, "Clothes. Remember we were told we couldn't wear narrow straight pants?" "Yes, and we couldn't wear our hair in Afros! They said it was ideologically diverting." More laughter. I started to hum Dean Martin's "Memories Are Made of This." "I used to listen to the Beatles on a cassette player in the bushes down by the Almendares," one fellow said. On and on these intellectuals one-upped each other, chortling at memories of authoritarian rule under Fidel. They spoke of the era of cultural autocracy in the past tense, as if it had happened under a previous regime. I asked whether they could have had this conversation 20 years ago. "Are you kidding?" a woman replied. "It would have been suspect just to have a dozen people meeting like this." The liberating air of Fidel's absence gave them enough freedom to indulge in repression nostalgia. The music of the moment is reggaeton. Under Fidel it was salsa. Reggaeton -- a blend of reggae, Latin beats and hip-hop -- fills theaters with madly cheering fans. At Havana's Teatro América, I saw thousands of Cubans applauding wildly, singing along with the two-man Gente de Zona, whose songs they knew from radio play. The young performers, whose suspenders and gold chains drooped at their sides, poured beer on their bare chests to reflect the spotlight better. Raúl and Fidel were far away. Out in the provinces, though, life goes on much as it did in the past, regardless of which Castro heads the government. In Camaguey, long supportive of Fidel, the streets are filled with as many bicycles as cars. The bread man pulls his cart through residential neighborhoods, selling loaves of soft white bread with a crumbly crust for five pesos (about a quarter), while another street merchant buys empty rum bottles for a peso to sell at a modest profit at a recycling center. A local businessman named Luis, watching the passing scene with me, reflected on the hardships that, despite Raúl, remain glaringly apparent. "What we need," he finally said, "is a Cuban Gorbachev." Few of his compatriots would put it that way, but it was a note of budding hope for his country's future. Tom Miller, the author of "Trading With the Enemy: A Yankee Travels Through Castro's Cuba," has been visiting Cuba regularly since 1987.
What Cuba needs, as one local put it, is its own version of Mikhail Gorbachev.
93.722222
0.722222
1.055556
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/there_was_an_interesting_item.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/there_was_an_interesting_item.html
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
2008022019
"I think Scientology is misusing copyright law, non-profit organization law and first amendment law. " Said opinion would carry a lot more weight if you actually knew something about copyright law, non-profits and the First Amendment. But your argument shows that you don't: "Copyright law was not created to keep intellectual property “secret” and unused. In general property law bestows ownership rights to those who are willing to USE the property to generate more goods for the society (putting it in the marketplace to buy or rent). Intellectual property rights, and specifically copyright rights, were designed to reward those who put intellectual property to use in the marketplace or incorporate it in products that are put in the market place." It sounds like you're confusing copyright law with patent law, among other problems. Anyway, suffice it to say that copyright law is exactly that: the right to control who can make copies of your speech. Moreover, it's not an effective way of keeping things secret: it doesn't prevent people from quoting your material for purposes of review and criticism, and you have to disclose exactly what it is that you're copyrighting in order to get the copyright in the first place. All it does is prevent others from redistributing your work wholesale. "Because churches exists, there are places people can openly debate what is ethical and virtuous, " Doesn't sound like most churches I know. They usually tend to be less of a debate, and more of a... what's the word... sermon. "If Scientology is not allowing their ideas about ethics and virtue to reach the marketplace of ideas," Funny, I thought they sold Dianetics nationwide. I also seem to recall tv ad campaigns for it, and celebrities like Tom Cruise are out stumping for the Church all the time. It's strange that so many arguments against Scientology are premised on them being a totally closed society, while the rest complain about them being overly aggressive in trying to spread their ideas. "Commercial speech, speech designed to generate profit, is not protected from government censorship." Well, not AS protected as non-commerical speech anyway (which itself has limits as well). "Movie makers censor themselves (the rating system), but government reserves the right to create decency laws and step in if the industry doesn’t sufficiently self police." Laws limiting obscenity have nothing to do with the distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech. "If scientology is copyrighting its communications, isn’t it declaring that its communications are commercial speech rather than first amendment speech?" No. In fact, the only way to ensure that your speech isn't commercialized by someone else is to copyright it. To exclude copyrighted material from First Amendment protection would be tantamount to repealing the First Amendment. "Shouldn’t that make their speech subject to governmental censorship?" By the way, this is a non-sequitur. You just finished complaining about how they don't distribute their speech enough, and now you're proposing that the government prevent them from distributing it? Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear a reasoned, rational criticism of Scientology's status. I've heard plenty of decent criticisms of their tenets and practices (which is easy enough to do with any religion, let along this one), but all of the arguments for changing their status have struck me as profoundly dishonest and hypocritical. Hate Scientology all you want, but don't insult the rest of us by pretending your position is all logic and dispassion. This propensity to use the levers of state power to persecute rival faiths is abhorrent, and is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to prevent in the first place. Being too smart/skeptical to go in for Scientology's claptrap is a good thing. Using the government to persecute them so that you'll feel less insecure about the claptrap your religion peddles is a bad thing.
Under God on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/
45.235294
0.470588
0.588235
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2008/02/speaking_with_the_dead.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2008/02/speaking_with_the_dead.html
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
2008022019
"Some of these scholars thing that entire chapters of the bible were available for "download" from travelling minstrals. Perhaps idiot sauvents (sp) contain such capacities to date ?" As a point of interest, there are many indications that we all are born with astounding capacities to memorize, but in fact written *literacy* competes for the same resources in our brains: people in non-writing societies can often memorize vast amounts of information: feats that we would have difficulty with today in our very written-word-based society. The notion there is that savants are actually getting a refund of sorts in this area, cause they were unable to develop the competing written literacy. But the upshot of it is that in a less word-dependent society such as the Europe of the past, there were certainly bards and minstrels and seanachie who could recite tracts of great length verbatim: this is in fact where epic poetry came from: people *learned that by heart.* I've tried to duplicate a shade of the feats of memory of my ancestors, by memorizing poems of some length, ...and it's like, seriously, nothing doing. I have to practice pretty hard to recite my *own* poetry, (mostly by remembering writing it,) and sometimes even favorite popular songs I hear all the time can be hard to get fully right. And I'm considered pretty exceptional with the written word and understanding abstractions, and all the things that test out to a ridiculous IQ. I really do tend to buy the idea that this may come at the expense of memorization skills. Maybe our word-based technical society is just a bit overloaded in this regard. I think even in religion and politics, people really count on people *not remembering what they said last week.* They call it 'spin,' (Or 'straight talk,' ) but much of our society and media are built around people *not remembering ten years ago, or twenty.* We're used to everything being right there in front of us. And when someone changes the picture, we often fall for it, I think. Maybe that's why the idea of falling back on a written sacred book is so appealing, even if people forget what the same people were saying it told them to do, last year. As for ancestral memories, well, I'm a Pagan, and I always was, 'touched,' if you will. I tend to observe the 'Book religion' people are often inordinately disturbed by, as well as *attached to* notions of death and ghosts and the afterlife *because* their books don't really account for these experiences: their general reaction is to freak out while their brains work overtime trying to define things comfortably. Quite often, even, when confronted with the supernatural, so to speak, ...recite a bunch of words until the perception goes away, then wonder why the same places have had the same recurring manifestations for centuries. Kind of like your modern 'ghostbusters' are either trying to drive away something they don't understand with words, or to get scientifically-repeatable measurements, instead of dealing on the spirits' terms and human ones. (My opinion is, if this was repeatably-chartable, it wouldn't be considered supernatural, and if saying some words stopped distressing manifestations, the job'd have been done long since. :) ) Now, not to say further uncanniness doesn't occur, but a lot of people who propose to be 'channeling spirits,' are simply not bringing any information to the table they didn't already have in their brains to begin with. (People who channel 'alien ascended masters' and the like clearly have no idea of the lifespans of the prominently-named stars that tend to be way off the main sequence, for instance, ...some of them have an uncanny sense of what's going on in the world, and even some 'wisdom' they wouldn't otherwise voice, but the literal information is often just whatever was rattling around in their minds. ) Not to say information doesn't come, Mark, I've seen scads of things that give my, "Darn it, Mamma, I wanted to be a rationalist!" head lots of nights of entertainment, but you mustn't leap to the conclusion that because certain people could apparently do things we can't in the past, necessarily means anything like their memorization skills can only be explained by text-downloads from the Gods. We couldn't build a Great Pyramid now, just off the cuff. Doesn't mean aliens musta done it. :)
Finding Faith on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/
53.588235
0.470588
0.588235
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/mexico_wages_cartoon_wars_over.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/mexico_wages_cartoon_wars_over.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008022019
McNut,s reasons for Amnesty McCain's God,s Children Argument! Then there is they are all God,s children argument(Another McCain favor) well isn't everyone God,s children? If so then guess McCain is saying everyone and anyone has the right to Invade this Nation, waving their flags, demand their rights, while feasting at the trough of public welfare and Kill, Rape and Rob thousands of American citizens each year! McCain's Lettuce Argument! There's the "lettuce" argument -- we'll be paying $50/head (or starving)( McCain really likes this argument) if we don't have illegal aliens working in the fields. As Phil Martin, ag economist at UC Davis shows, the field labor cost in a $1 head of lettuce is about 6 cents. Triple those wages and Americans will do the jobs. (They're not career positions. They're seasonal jobs for young people, starting in the world of work. I have did similarly menial jobs.) And you'll be paying 10% more for lettuce and other produce. Do you spend $1,000/year on produce? OK, you'll pay $100 more. The lettuce argument also parallels that for the retention of slavery. Immigrant Argument! There's the "everyone's an immigrant except for the 'Native Americans'" argument. Well, the American Indians didn't sprout from the land, they came across the Bering land bridge from Asia. So if the criterion is "You're an immigrant if you had an ancestor who immigrated here," then American Indians are immigrants, too. In that case, "immigrant" is no longer a useful word, since Everyone's an immigrant. Stole Southwest Argument! There's the "the U.S. stole the southwest" argument. Well, the land in dispute was "owned" by Spain for a couple of centuries. Then by Mexico for about 25 years. During these periods, there weren't more than a few thousand Spaniards or Mexicans in the entire territory. It's been owned by the U.S. for about 160 years now, much longer than Mexico's reign. And the U.S. has actually done something with the land, made it habitable for tens of millions. As Robert Kaplan has described, the difference between American and Mexican "twin cities" straddling the border is like night and day, yet the land is obviously the same. It's not the dirt that's important, it's the people. Put another way, if culture didn't matter, Mexico and Central America would be paradise. There's the "illegal aliens pay tons of taxes" argument. Sure, they all pay real estate taxes (in rent) and sales taxes (most states). Those working on the books (typically using stolen Social Security numbers) pay FICA and, perhaps, income taxes. But they're mostly ill-educated and low-skilled and pay very low taxes connected to their working -- in fact, most claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, i.e. negative income tax! If a family with both parents working has two kids in school, that's at least $15k/year just for schooling, way more than the taxes on, say, $35k/year aggregate income. Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has done the systematic accounting on all this. A typical household headed by a low-skilled illegal alien is a net drain of about $20k/year for the rest of us, year after year. (Low-skilled Americans are a similar burden, but they're part of the national family, not gate crashers from other societies.) There's the "illegal immigration is bad, but make them citizens and problem solved" argument. Nope. If that were the case, legalizing (i.e. amnestying) the illegal aliens would solve the problem. But they'd still be (on average) low-skilled workers whose burden on the rest of us would continue. In fact, once legal they'd be able to access more public benefits programs, so their cost to the rest of us would actually rise substantially. In short, most of the problems of mass illegal immigration are shared by mass amnestying them. The flood of immigrants drives wages and living conditions in our central cities toward those of the Third World. - The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas. - Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities, and other public agencies. - Those requiring services don’t assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages. - American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences. - Communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (new, drug-resistant strains) return. - Shortages of water and other resources loom, especially in immigration-blitzed Southwest. Most that come across our open borders come from countries where, Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Misery, Anti-education, and hate for Americans has existed for centuries and is normal. Should anyone be surprised they bring those same family values across the border with them?
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
66.666667
0.4
0.4
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902593.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902593.html
Time for Wall Street to Pay
2008022019
As a responsible business columnist for a respected newspaper, I know how I'm supposed to respond when people say that government shouldn't try to stabilize the banking system or bail out the bond insurers or put a floor under the housing market. "Of course we don't want to protect investors or lenders or borrowers from the consequences of their own bad judgments," I'm supposed to say. "But it's probably not a good idea for government to let markets spin out of control in a way that triggers a nasty recession and causes lots of innocent people to lose their jobs, their savings or their companies." I'd be lying if I didn't admit there's part of me that takes some perverse satisfaction from the ever-widening crisis that has engulfed Wall Street, humbling its most powerful institutions and exposing its hypocrisy and corruption. I don't ask you to join in this schadenfreude, or even excuse it, so much as understand it. In a way, the feeling has been building since the days of Michael Milken and the junk bond craze. Looking back, few would doubt that high-yield bonds helped to democratize corporate finance and began to shift power from banks to capital markets as the primary intermediary between savers and borrowers. Through the magic of the leveraged buyout, these junk bonds helped to make companies more responsive to shareholders and laid the foundation for the growth of private equity. Over the ensuing two decades, Wall Street has been brilliant at dreaming up other financial innovations that picked up where junk bonds left off. These included complex futures and derivatives contracts; loan syndication; securitization; credit default swaps; off-balance-sheet vehicles; collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs; and blank-check initial public offerings. As the industry and its cheerleaders constantly remind us, these innovations have helped to lower the cost of capital and make the business sector more efficient and globally competitive. But what we are now discovering -- or perhaps rediscovering -- are all the ways in which all this glorious financial innovation has weakened the economy and the society it serves. For starters, these innovations have helped to create a cycle of financial booms and busts that have a tendency to spill over into the real economy, contributing to a heightened sense of insecurity. They have shortened the time horizons of investors and corporate executives, who have responded by under-investing in research and the development of human capital. They have contributed significantly to massive misallocation of capital to real estate, unproven technologies and unproductive financial manipulation. They have made it easy and seemingly painless for businesses, households and even countries to take on dangerous levels of debt. They have given traders a greater ability to secretly manipulate markets.
As a responsible business columnist for a respected newspaper, I know how I'm supposed to respond when people say that government shouldn't try to stabilize the banking system or bail out the bond insurers or put a floor under the housing market.
11.5
1
46
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/19/DI2008021901783.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/19/DI2008021901783.html
Pearlstein: Wall Street
2008022019
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. White Ciy, Ore.: All the talk of saving for citizens ignores the lack of interest banks pay for saving. The talk of "investing" ignores the cost of an account with a brokerage. Where should a working class citizen "save" in this predatory environment? Steven Pearlstein: Bank CD's might be a good place to start. Countrywide bank is offering very good rates, I hear. Government guaranteed, too. Bluffton, S.C.: Is there really a market crisis, or are we in a correction phase that resulted from years of easy credit and irresponsible lending - and borrowing? I think the media has overhyped this situation, and seem to jump from position to position based upon normal day to day events in the financial markets. Steven Pearlstein: This is a massive correction following a massive credit bubble that inflated the price of all sorts of assets and created a speculative frenzy in real estate and some commodities. Now we are in the midst of a widespread deleveraging of the financial system and, to a lesser extent, of the economy itself. Our focus on this is not irresponsible and we in the media have not caused it or even made it worse. If anything, we have undercovered it. I've got a comment & a question. I live & work in lower Manhattan, although I don't work on Wall Street. What bugs me is that because an industry has decided to pay its employees in what can best be described as a highly slanted manner, and Wall Streeters have money to toss around, everyone in N.Y. pays for it in terms of inflation on homes, schools, and even a coffee at Starbucks. My question is how can the boards of such companies rationalize such compensation schemes? I recall reading in the Post that bonuses this year were only down a miniscule amount from last year. Any business other than Wall Street that hemorrhages money wouldn't pay obscene bonuses. I can't imagine how this would stop unless big investors like Fidelity say we're not going to buy stock in Merrill, Bear, etc. until some sanity comes to the compensation scheme. Steven Pearlstein: The compensation issues are a bit complicated, but they fundamentally result from what is known as the "superstar" phenomenon, which we see in sports, finance, entertainment, etc. Those that appear to have the best performance are paid hugely more than the "next best," even though the difference in performance is not so huge. That's part of it. Then you have this ridiculous competition that the firms get into where they feel, even when someone has a bad year, they can't NOT pay a big bonus because the person may jump ship to another firm. Now you'd think that the bad performance might dampen the enthusiasm for the other employer, but for some strange reason it doesn't, because there is a macho factor in stealing a competitor's top maoney managers. So you get this silly arms race where if somebody does really well one year, they get a huge bonus and if they do lousy, they get a bonus big enough to make sure they don't jump ship. It's like Lake Woebegone, where everyone insists on being paid above average and no company wants to thinnk of itself as paying below average. So the average keeps going up and up, irrespective of performance. Rockville, Md.: Can the difference between Wall Street and Main Street be largely summarized that the former are traders and latter want investors? The former thrive on short-term changes while the latter want long-term stability. The 30-year mortgage is supposed to exist so people can make a lifetime commitment to put down roots in a community. Isn't there something inherently silly and destabilizing about turning it into a CDO whose daily fluctuations can be traded on a futures exchange? Every good personal finance book tells you to invest for the long term, and put your short-term money into something safe. Did Wall Street think it was too smart to do that? Steven Pearlstein: Short answer is yes, it was too clever by half. One of the big instabilities in the financial world now is that people borrow short for what are essentially long term investments, and this mismatch has now caught up with them for a variety of reasons. Banks, of course, have always borrowed short and lent long, but they have had to maintain reserves to protect themselves against a bank run. The "market-based" intermediation doesn't have those reserves, and so what you are having now is an old fashioned run on a "bank" with no reserves. And we know how that turns out. It seems most of the existing mechanisms, including capital markets, are oriented towards short-term and rewarding quick results, even at the expense of non-realized gains (and even losses) in the long term. As a result, few are interested in long-term projects, even is they promise big rewards years down the road. What do you think can force decision makers to start thinking more long-term rather than short-term? Steven Pearlstein: Changing compensation systems is one thing, as you point out. Better regulation is another. You might want to use the tax code to favor longer term capital gains over shorter. But fundamentally, we all have to celebrate more those who have gotten rich by long term investing and value-creation (Buffett) and sneer at the short-termers more, rather than celebrating them for their brillance, which is usually more about luck, leverage and inside clout and information. I see the problem and it is me...: I had to laugh ruefully reading your column today as a 40ish investment banker (not at Goldman). My father was the son of a school principal and grew up on a Kansas farm during the depression. He used the GI Bill to help fund an MIT engineering degree and worked on environmental issues. My maternal great-grandfather was an engineer and even my father-in-law was an engineer (both working in the defense industry). I had newspaper routes, caddying and summer factory jobs to make money growing up. I went to top schools on scholarships/loans but eschewed the engineering/science track as too arduous given other things I was doing at school and the business/finance path I saw other fathers at school follow successfully. I ended up going to one of the top MBA programs and then, you guessed it, into investment banking because it was the quickest way to repay my school loans going back to private school. It has been a live by the sword, die by the sword career but overall it has provided for my family (not anything like a NY/Goldman banker though). Could I and would I do something else that would benefit society and the economy greater? Absolutely. Meanwhile, the concept of kids having paper-routes as an early employment experience has gone the way of the afternoon Globe paper and my kid is an ace fighter pilot on Wii (future Predator UAV pilot?). We try to reinforce the critical importance of reading, writing and arithmetic and working hard in school but I wouldn't bet that any of my kids will grow up to be engineers or scientists even if that is what I wished or the country needed. Something tells me it is a different existence than those in India and China now but SUVs and Wii are coming there as well. That's a long preamble to this question: what does a post-innovation economy or imported-innovation economy look like? Steven Pearlstein: It looks like France or Italy, or Britain 25 years ago. Thanks for today's column! It's how I, without the economic knowledge, have been feeling for a long time. My question is a very "main street" one. I just started a new job and want to begin contributing the max to my 403(b) plan. My spouse and I also want to begin investing some of the excess cash we have lying around on a regular monthly basis. Is now a good time while the prices continue to go down? I KNOW that I cannot even begin to time the market. I guess I'm just wondering, percentage wise, how much further general stock mutual funds will be falling (your best guess, that is!). Steven Pearlstein: I'd say its too early. You can certainly wait until the summer,and it is possible you can wait until next summer. Market timing is hard, but its not that hard, in my opinion, to avoid the frothiest periods or the bottoms of bear markets. It is not clear we have hit the bottom of the market yet. And bear markets, unlike corrections, don't bounce back very fast. They stumble along for months and even years. So don't be too quick about it. Protect your principle, look for good, safe vehicles that pay decent interest rates or bluechip stocks that you can hold for a long time and pay good dividends, and be patient. Boston, Mass.: Citigroup, State Street, and myriad other US banks hid billions in contigent SIV liabilities off-balance sheet, often using off-shore tax havens. What does this say about the FED's competence as a regulator? Or do you think it's a matter that the FED is corrupt and turned a willful blind eye to all of these off-balance sheet transactions? Is it time to combine regulators so that there is one sole financial markets regulator? Thanks Steve! Steven Pearlstein: The Fed is not corrupt but they have been blinded by the mindless regulatory philosophy of the Greenspan era and they do look on the big bans and the holding companies as their charges -- institutions to be protected, part of a financial system that needs to be protected -- so they never utter a bad word about them and try to handle things quietly and without penalty. The result is that they give up the deterrant aspect of regulation, which is to have a ritual hanging every couple of years and scare the bejezzus out of people so they behave better in between the hangings. The Fed doesn't believe in that. They also don't believe they should substitute their judgment for the markets, which is crazy, because in financial regulation, that is exactly the purpose of regulation. Otherwise, you'd just leave things to markets. It is a form of modesty that they have taken to gross excess. And frankly it is not going to change until someone like Barney Frank finally makes such an example of a Fed chairman of the head of the Fed's banking regulation department that they get fired for being a bad regulator. Greenspan got out before he could be fired, but there are others who should be held accountable so that their unpleasant dismissal will be a lesson that will be remembered by their successors. Washington, D.C.: What is going on with the non-borrowed reserves going negative? I understand that the newly created Term Auction Facility caused the banks to borrow a lot from the Fed because interest rates were low and the collateral requirements are weak, but that is not giving me a warm fuzzy. Caroline Baum's column in Bloomberg basically says don't worry about it because the Fed will never go insolvent because they can always print more money. That answer doesn't make me feel better either. Steven Pearlstein: It may be true that the collateral being offered is not of top quality, but I don't think any major bank is going to get away with stiffing the Fed in the long run. Anyway, that all ought not to be our top priority concern right now. I'm more concerned is that the markets are going to push the Fed around too much and they will lower rates too much too fast. Reston, Va.: Do you think raising the ceiling on "jumbo loans" from $417K will indeed stimulate the housing industry? Steven Pearlstein: As a temporary measure in high cost areas, it's a no brainer. The market needs some pump priming right now. We can revisit the issue in a year or two, when the private market returns, about how and how far to wind down Fannie and Freddie's participation. Bowie, Md.: Thanks for today's column. (Aside to your producer: could the discussion pages include a link to your column archive, or even the current one? Thanks!) I've been conscious that I've been thinking that the current "crisis" is nothing more than an overdue correction -- the invisible hand and the free market at work, baby -- but I hadn't actually advanced to your level of schadenfreude, and your column is convincing me. Are there signs that the current administration is going to let the free market work, or step in to rescue its friends on Wall Street? Steven Pearlstein: They are at least principled enough as market adherents that they don't want to do a rescue. But you have to understand that the main reason the Fed is cutting rates now is not to stimulate the economy but to reflate the balance sheets of the banks and other financial insituttion. It is a form of rescue operation, which is why I think they need to be careful about it. They will claim otherwise, with all sorts of economic mumbo jumbo. But it is basically a rescue effort for big financial players and mortgage lenders. Could you talk a bit about the potential impact that the problems of bond insurers like AMBAC and MBIA could have on the bond market in general and tax-exempt bond funds in particular. Why doesn't the uncertainty of this situation have a more noticeable impact on tax exempt bond fund returns? Why haven't these funds tanked over the past few months? And what are the risks for a bond fund investor going forward? Steven Pearlstein: Because the creditworthiness of the borrowers is basically sound, the insurance is rarely used, and the muni part of the bond insurance companies will be carved out or bought and continue to be solid as ever. Gwinn, Mich. What I have never understood about the "mortgage meltdown" is why do banks foreclose on terms that could be re-negotiated with the consent of both parties? Why would they be willing take possession of properties that they know, in advance, will be declining in value? Also, when did this trend of agreeing to contracts that say one party (let's call them...credit card companies) can do whatever they want, whenever they want to and the other party has to suck it up, aka "terms and conditions". Doesn't contract law state that a contract is not enforceable if one party is incapable of understanding it? They can also change the terms of the agreement without the consent of the other party. Honestly, read the T & Cof the average credit card agreement, but be sure to take a couple of days off...you'll need the time. Steven Pearlstein: When they want to change the terms, they send these letters that nobody can understand that give them legal cover. When you get such a letter, you should always call the number on it, say you won't accept the change and demand that your account be closed immediately and that any money due to you be returned immediately, in cash, in small bills (since you no longer trust their checks) and if they don't, you'll be calling the state attorney general's office in the morning. They tape record all these calls, so you should get them to acknowledge that on the call and then ask for the name or number of the operator, who will be so scared about getting in trouble she/he will immediately call her supervisor and a report will be filed to the legal department. That should get you a call back from someone with enough authority and knowledge to deal with. There are enough people trying to peddle credit cards to people with good credit that there's no reason you should accept these unilateral changes. Madison, Wis.: Mr. Pearlstein, yet another excellent article. You are justifiably critical of the lack of regulation in the investment banking/securities "industry." Can you give a summary of the kinds of regulations you favor to bring integrity back to the system? This is an industry - fiercly protected by Republican politicians - that eschews accountability in any form. Steven Pearlstein: Its not a matter of setting down specific rules. It is a matter of having regulators who know and see what is going on, and can respond quickly and flexibily to it. The way the industry wins is when it says, you have to write down exactly what we can and can't do, and then they find a way around it, and it takes three years for the Feds to realize it and propose a new regulation, which they fight tooth and nail and argue over for so long that by the time some watered-down version takes effect, they are already on to the next scam. This is their time-honored MO in Washington, and we need regulators who have more plenary power and more backbone and willingness to use it. Fairfax, Va.: Thank you for putting my thoughts to paper, your article this morning is right on. But if this were to happen where could a "boomer" like myself put his nest egg? Steven Pearlstein: Right now, bank CD's. Falls Church, Va.: Steve, I love your column, but I have to bust your chops about some of your assertions in today's entry. First, it makes no sense to blame the tools for the mistakes of their users. Businesses have always made some bad decisions about misallocation of capital and short- vs. long-term goals; they were doing it long before the invention of any of the financial toools you mention were invented. Second, it's simply not true that these tools have caused greater spillover of financial-industry cycles into the real economy. On the contrary, by deepening credit and capital markets, the increasing sophistication of financial tools have insulated the real economy from the financial industry's ups and downs. Compare the collapse of the real economy following the stock market crash of 1929 to the relative indifference with which the real economy shrugged off the collapse of stock prices in 2000-01. The business cycle is the gentlest it's ever been in history; recessions have been light and infrequent. Your notion that markets used to be more transparent and less naipulable in the good old days strikes me as rose-colored nostalgia. Look, I don't work on Wall Street, and I'm as cynically pleased as you are to see the oscenely wealthy take it in the ear. But your ranting about the smart young whippersnappers is a short step away from wishing that we were still on the gold standard. Steven Pearlstein: I don't agree. The recent misallocations of capital (S&L crisis, Internet bubble, third-world debt crisis, current real estate and credit bubble) are much larger than we've seen since the Great Depression days. And while the normal business cycle has been tamed a bit, what recessions we have now tend to be caused by financial booms and busts, more like the 19th century than the post-war 20th century. I'm not saying the recessions are deep, but the slow growth hangover does last longer and they have generated a higher level of exonomic anxiety on the part of ordinary people. Washington, D.C.: Your column today identifies Wall Street executive and money manager compensation levels as the root cause of many economic distortions. Short of "burn baby burn," would the recent proposed (but filibustered) change to the way fund managers are taxed (taxing their % of the gains from their funds as ordinary income rather than capital gain) have been a reasonable smaller step towards lessening outsized compensation in this field? Steven Pearlstein: It might have helped. It would have raised some needed revenue for worthy government purposes. New York: Aside from gloating, what kind of policy prescriptions can you offer? A major step up in the margin tax rate for incomes over $1 mn? The problem with just waiting for markets to fall is that falling markets do create collateral damage (i'm sure that the junior clerical people who get laid off -- and they exist in the thousands -- of course don't have the severance packages the CEOs do). Aside from deferred comp, the boards could also look into metrics other than eps growth. Steven Pearlstein: Those would be a start. Changes in tax laws, as suggested, is another. Insuring that there is more price competition among fund managers through vigorous antitrust enforcement would be useful. Maybe paying public servants and government researchers and others a more competitive wage would help, even if it means raising taxes on Wall St. titans. Give me some time and I could give you a longer list. London, U.K.: In your view, what is the best solution for the monoline crisis? Surely a breakup would make matters worse for the credit industry, isn't that right? From what I understand, it's like owning a portfolio with some very risky assets and others less risky, which makes the portfolio balanced. So if they break up their two divisions, concentrate all the risky credit ones into one, and the municipals into another, do you reckon the credit market, still reeling from subprime CDOs, will suffer a complete meltdown? Steven Pearlstein: I think the idea behind the split-up is that you could raise new capital for the "good" business (munis) and use the current capital to back the bad business. But I have some of the same questions you do. NW D.C.: Couldn't agree more with your article, Wall Street needs a major overhall. Any chance the political revolution we are going through (yes I believe Obama will win and clean house) spills over from Capitol Hill to Wall Street? Steven Pearlstein: We can only hope. Melbourne, Fla.: I was doing some reading a couple of days ago after a niece asked some questions about the Great Depression. I was struck by the similarities between some of the things that have been happening in the financial world today and prior to the crash of 1929. I know that there are supposed to be safeties in place to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression, but I'm not so sure that these are the right measures. Greed seems to be able to find a way to overpower common sense. Steven Pearlstein: There are a lot of similarities, particularly in terms of causes. Potomac, Md.: Steven, thank you for your comment on the status of America's financial system today. As a 24 year-old finance professional looking to apply to business school in the coming years, I hope to shift into a line of work that generates "genuine long-term value." I remember at graduation the air of superiority surrounding my classmates who landed jobs as analysts on Wall Street. For many of us at "elite" Northeast schools, they seem to be the only jobs out there, because everyone is gunning for them. How can the other industries appeal to the talented kids who are so easily swayed by the glamour of I-banking salaries and bonuses? Steven Pearlstein: That's a simple question that probably doesn't have a simple answer. But one thing we could do is not to glamorize Wall Street so much in the press or in movies, and begin to show more appreciation for real enterpreneurs and public servants and scientists and engineers. I think a lot of this is as much cultural as economic. Danvers, Mass.: Reading the column I kept wondering, where's the "but"? When is Steve going to say, "Yeah, all this is bad, but we should still bail' em out." But it didn't come! I keep wondering given their arguments that we couldn't live without the benefits for our economy they provide, just how much improvement in productivity growth (the source of our future wealth) do these guys actually provide? Steven Pearlstein: We need them, John, we just need to take them down a couple of notches. Palmyra, Va.: Have you by chance seen the piece called "The Age of Decadence" by Rudolph-Riad Younes in the annual report of the Julius Baer mutual fund company? You would really like it. Steven Pearlstein: No, could you send it to me at pearlsteins@washpost.com. Thanks. Bernardsville, N.J.: As Wall Street continues to correct itself due to the loss of its speculative credit bubble, who will lose the biggest? Will it be the wealthy investors and financiers who bet the big money and lost it? Or will it be middle class American consumers who face increasing credit problems - generally in the form of rapidly rising mortgage rates on adjustable rate mortgages - AND may be forced to pay higher prices for certain goods such as oil? San Francisco,Ca.: How do you explain the extreme incompetence on Wall Street where professionals overlook the first principles of finance like balancing risk against return? Winchester, Va.: To the topic originally proposed: why does this trainwreck-in-progress give you a sense of satisfaction? I assume your reasons are more humane than voyeuristic. Steven Pearlstein: My reasons have to do with correcting imabalances in the economy and society that can't be accomplished without sharp declines the relative standing, pay and importance of Wall Street. Stafford, Va.: Excellent column. Don't feel guilty for wanting the full financial workout to take place. As a society we need to be open to considering big changes in our tax, fiscal, foreign exchange and other systems. Only a big crisis can create a consensus to make such change. The sooner it happens the smaller the shake out will be. Bob Steven Pearlstein: Thanks. In truth, I'm not feeling all that guilty. But you probably knew that. Main street: Is it just me or is there a regulatory climate created by Bushes that leads to a banking crisis of such proportions that a public bailout is in order, enriching the right people (who also got the tax cut) at the expense of the middle class? Steven Pearlstein: It's a regulatory climate that's been around for more than a decade and has as much to do with Greenspan as Bush. Arlington, Va.: That was an excellent column today. Is there any possibility that the subject of Wall Street excess will make its way responsibly into the national political debate this year? Steven Pearlstein: Curious that it hasn't. Do you think that may have something do with the campaign contributions to both parties? It would be nice if one of those TV commentators would put the question of Wall Street's culpability to the candidates at the next debate. But don't hold your breath. They are part of the national political press pack that likes to keep asking the same questions over and over and over again and focusing on campaign tactics and little political tempests in teapot rather than on real substance. Charlottesville, Va.: Could you give some specific illustrations of the points you made in your column about: 1. How financial innovations have "given corporations clever new tools to hide risks liabilities and losses from investors; 2. "...have given traders a greater ability to secretly manipulate markets". Steven Pearlstein:1. Off balance sheet entities. 2. See energy market manipulation by Enron and others, or the manipulation of gas futures by Amaranth trader. Washington, D.C.: Great column today. Would there ever be a situation where traders who racked up huge losses didn't get a bonus, at all? Reward them when they're good, but it seems that even in this turmoil banking traders will still get bonuses that are monstrous compared to the average American salary. Where is the risk for them? Where are the traders about to lose their houses? Steven Pearlstein: You won't find them. That's the problem. Not enough personal financial risk. They are always playing with other people's money, which is a pretty good working definition of Wall Street. Indeed, one of the dirty little secrets about Wall Street is the contempt the peoople there have for their customers. It's all a game for them, and their loyalty runs first and foremost to each other, not the customer. Fredericksburg, Va.: Love reading your columns immensely. Your factual and no gloss analysis of the current events is a rare commodity in the coverage of all things financial. I definitely miss the one that used to appear on Sunday's Business section. What happened? Why was this replaced last Sunday with something from Kiplinger's? I really don't care much for the replacement. Hope you are back on Sunday pages also. Steven Pearlstein: I'd done the Sunday thing for more than five years and it was very time consuming. Needed some relief. I hope to do something just as interesting for Outlook on a regular basis. Stay tuned. Washington, D.C.: You must be (gasp!) the Washington Post's house populist. The Post a couple of days ago, channeling the Wall Street Journal, accused Clinton and Obama of engaging in "class warfare" for trying to take up some of the point of view of John Edwards. This made me angrier than I've been in a long time. I don't need two subscriptions to WSJ, which I read daily. Unfortunately Samuelson today is correct that Obama's prescriptions fall short-- but so do Clinton's, Edwards', and Robert Reich's (couple of days ago in the NYT). The question is, how to turn some of the insights in your article into policy prescriptions - because our economy needs more fundamental fixes to enable a free and innovative future that does not depend on cheap foreign labor, immigration and more lawyers and MBA to evade higher corporate taxes. Steven Pearlstein: Normallyh, I'm not a very convincing or reliable populist, but this is one time when a fair amount of outrage is not only called for, but can have a beneficial effect. Let's scare the hell out of 'em for a few months so maybe next time they'll remember. Falls Church, Va.: Regarding your article today in The Washington Post: are you really hopeful that Wall Street will pay for its excesses? Some believe that nexus between Wall Street and Treasury Department will guarantee continuance of existing imbalance in our society in favor of Wall Street. Remember how Long Term Capital Management was rescued by the Feds? Steven Pearlstein: The market is extracting the penalty at the moment, not the government. That will come later, when the SEC and the Justice Department start putting some of these guys through the perp walk. Alexandria, Va.: So we need regulators that know what's going on, but we have a climate where regulation is more of an afterthought? How do we change that? Is this something that will take months, years? And why don't we take that first person we make an example out of, make a complete mockery of them, and then give them a job as a regulator. If these people are so ego-centric, surely they'll go after others doing the exact same thing they were caught up in because they can't stand that others have gotten away. Steven Pearlstein: We change the climate by changing the elected politicians who set that climate. Steven Pearlstein: That's all the time we have for today, folks. Good chat. Send the column around to your friends and neighbors. "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.
153.536585
0.731707
1.219512
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902510.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902510.html
Effort to Shoot Down Satellite Could Inform Military Strategy
2008022019
The Bush administration's attempt to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite as early as this evening will help the military advance its anti-missile and anti-satellite planning and technology, according to space weapons experts and analysts. Both fields are of high interest to the military and of high concern for many other nations. While U.S. officials have depicted the attempt solely as a precaution against the slim chance that the satellite's hazardous rocket fuel could harm people on Earth, the test will inherently have spillover military consequences, the experts said. To accomplish this week's task, for example, the Navy has modified its Aegis anti-missile radar system for satellite tracking, making clear that a system designed for missile defense can be transformed into an anti-satellite system in a short time. The attempted shoot-down will also enable the Pentagon to practice using, in an urgent scenario, key elements of its space defense apparatus, including the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and its sophisticated space identification, tracking and targeting system. The attempt will further provide an unscripted opportunity to see whether ship-based missiles can blow up the satellite just as it reenters Earth's atmosphere -- a key moment in any attempt to intercept an intercontinental missile that might someday be launched against the United States. "Whatever their motivation for shooting down the satellite, it's clear that this will be quite useful to the military," said Joan Johnson-Freese, an expert on military space issues and a department head of the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. The targeting of the satellite follows several decades of effort by the Defense Department to develop weaponry to shoot down enemy satellites or missiles. In 1985, the Air Force successfully tested an air-launched missile to shoot down a satellite, and in 2004, it called for ensuring American "space superiority" in an official policy statement, a phrase meant to cover the denial of enemy access to space when needed. The Pentagon now spends more than $12 billion annually to develop weapons capable of shooting down missiles entering or leaving space, but it has no dedicated U.S. anti-satellite weapons program in its latest unclassified budget. The military has also worked on a laser project in New Mexico that could have anti-satellite capabilities, and has launched two small satellites that independent experts speculate could be modified to attack, or defend, larger spacecraft. International treaties, opposition from Congress and concerns about future space debris from anti-satellite tests have all complicated these efforts. The incoming spy satellite, some believe, offers an opportunity to avoid some of those constraints and to test what amounts to an anti-satellite defense. The Navy has said that it may take as many as three shots at the satellite, and Johnson-Freese said "that will give them data they've never had before," adding: "They're taking a missile defense system and using it as an anti-satellite system, and now they'll be able to see how well it works." David Wright, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said "there's a real concern among people here and in other nations that the U.S. is trying to develop space weapons in the guise of other systems." The plan to shoot down the satellite, he says, "fuels the flames for those who think we want to build anti-satellite capabilities." Both China and Russia have criticized the planned satellite intercept. Paul B. Stares, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has written books about anti-satellite technology and space security, said the skills to be demonstrated in the attempt emphasize how important military activity in space has become. "It's hard to imagine how, as the use of space for military purposes increases, the interest in anti-satellite weaponry won't increase at a similar pace," he said. Stares said that the first American anti-satellite weapons in the early 1960s were nuclear-armed and designed to destroy or disable satellites across vast expanses of space. Nuclear tests in the atmosphere, however, made clear that these weapons were impractical, because the explosions knocked out useful satellites as well as the targets and severely disrupted ground communications. The United States and former Soviet Union signed a treaty banning nuclear tests in space in 1963. The United States and Russia have intermittently pursued anti-satellite programs since then, and also have occasionally respected informal moratoriums on testing. The Russian program involved launching smaller craft to follow a target and get close enough to blow it up. Early last year, China demonstrated its own capability by shooting a ground-based missile at an old satellite 600 miles in space. That test produced thousands of pieces of potentially damaging space debris and brought condemnation from much of the world. The potential vulnerability of U.S. satellites to foreign weaponry is well known to officials at home and abroad. When asked last week about Chinese and Russian capabilities to harm our satellites, Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, told the House Armed Services Committee, "It would not be that difficult to inflict significant, serious damage to our capabilities over [a] couple of days." Since the United States abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, both China and Russia have pushed for a new treaty that would ban weapons in space. The United States has opposed the proposal at the United Nations disarmament conference.
The Bush administration's attempt to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite as early as this evening will help the military advance its anti-missile and anti-satellite planning and technology, according to space weapons experts and analysts. Both fields are of high interest to the military an...
18.578947
0.982456
53.087719
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022001328.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/20/DI2008022001328.html
Spy Satellite Shootdown
2008022019
The attempted shootdown was approved by President Bush last week out of concern that toxic fuel on board the satellite could crash to earth and potentially harm humans, the Defense Department has said. Ivan Oelrich, vice president of Strategic Security Systems at the Federation of American Scientists, will be online Wednesday, Feb. 20, at 2 p.m. ET to take questions about the procedure, the launch window period and the danger, if any, to Earth. Full Story ( AP, Feb. 20) Ivan Oelrich: Hello. This is Ivan Oelrich. I am the Vice President for Strategic Security Programs at the Federation of American Scientists. It is a real honor to be here. I am here today to talk about the intercept of the dying satellite. Eastern Montana: Much has been made about the onboard hydrazine as being the What To Worry About ... making me wonder -- is there a radioisotope package on the satellite generating electricity? Such a generator would be heavily shielded and so would be much more likely to survive reentry. Hydrazine seems more like a red herring here ... your thoughts? Ivan Oelrich: We and the Russians used to put radioisotope generators on satellites in Earth orbit. In fact, many years ago one reentered the atmosphere over Canada and scattered radiatation. Now we only use radioisotope generators in deep space probes, for example, to other planets, not in orbit around Earth. There is no radioisotope generator on this satellite. Washington, D.C.: If the Navy is unable to shoot down the satellite, will its reentry pose any threat to airplanes? Ivan Oelrich: Of course, there is some tiny danger. But the Earth is a big place; any given spot has a tiny chance (I am estimating about one chance in a billion, but don't hold me to that exactly) of being hit, and an airplane would have about the same chance. Washington, D.C.: Why won't this administration tell us WHERE they expect the satellite to impact? We know that they know; why won't they tell us? Ivan Oelrich:"Why" requires I read minds and I am not good at that. In fact, it is hard to predict where. When a satellite is in high orbit, we can predict very accurately years in advance where it will be, but when it gets into the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere, it gets trickier. And remember, this thing is going 18,000 miles an hour. That is 300 miles a minute. If I am wrong about WHEN it reenters by only a minute, that translates into being wrong about WHERE it reenters by 300 miles. Philadelphia, Pa.: How many roundhouse kicks would it take Chuck Norris to destroy the satellite? Ivan Oelrich: Satellites are very delicate, so approximately 17 kicks. The problem is that in space, for ever action there is a reaction and after the first kick, Norris would fly off in the opposite direction. Harrisburg, Pa.: What are the approximate odds that this satellite will be shot down, and how embarrassing would it be if we shoot and miss? Ivan Oelrich: The odds that the satellite will be intecepted are high. Although it is traveling fast, the satellite is in a fairly predictable orbit even at this late stage. So the interceptor will know when it is coming. BUT, you can't "shoot down" a satellite. It is not like a hunter with a gun shooting down a duck. BANG! It falls to the ground. The satellite is in orbit and following a trajectory and when the 40 pound interceptor hits the 5000 pound satellite, it will break the satellite into pieces but those pieces will travel, on average in pretty much the same orbit. Some will come down sooner than the satellite would have and some later. The "shooting down" image is in all the news reports but this is nothing like shooting down an airplane. Alexandria, Va.: Wouldn't it be more practical to launch a satellite that would match orbits with the spy satellite and then destroy it at point blank range with little if any relative motion between them? Ivan Oelrich: This is precisely how the old Soviet anti-satellite systems worked. So the answer is yes. These are called co-orbital systems. There is some fear that hostile countries might put tiny satellites into near orbits and we would not even know. Then they could be used as anti-satellite weapons in some sort of surprise attack. Artlington, Va.: ABC says that the satellite is going 22,000 miles per hour (366 miles per minute). I think it is pretty impressive to hit something that is moving that fast. I'd like to be on the Navy ship west of Hawaii when that missile gets launched! Ivan Oelrich: I think this intercept is a mistake and unneeded but there is no question that the technology is cool. And if the debris reenters the atmosphere where it is night, it will make a spectacular light show, like a slow motion meteor shower. Reston, Va.: Doesn't the satellite have thrusters it could use to shoot itself out into space? Ivan Oelrich: Yes, normally. That is precisely the problem. Many similar satellites have been launched and a small amount of thruster fuel is saved for the end and then the thrusters are used to bring the satellite down in the Pacific. The satellite was launched in December 2006 and we lost radio contact almost immediately, so we have not been able to send the signals that would fire the thrusters. Hence the current pickle. Arlington, Va.: How big is the estimated debris field? Ivan Oelrich: For a satellite this large, piece might land over an area a hundred miles across and almost a thousand miles long. The debris will actually be spread over a larger area if the intercept is successful (but of course, there won't be any MORE debris, just the same stuff will be spread out more). Alexandria, Va.: NASA has given assurances previously that the satellite was not a danger. What changed? Were they wrong? Or is this simply a thinly veiled weapons test? Do you really believe that scattering space debris across a wide expanse of space in thousands of different directions into unknowable orbits that may present a threat to satellites and manned missions long into the future, is better than letting a lone satellite fall out of the sky? Sky lab was bigger, no? Ivan Oelrich: This is a question that not enough people are asking. We lost radio contact almost immediately. At that point the satellite was doomed. But we were told that the danger was minimal. Now, a few weeks ago, the government tells us that they are going to save us from this danger that we didn't even know existed. I believe the public safety argument is hollow. It does not stand up to any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Perhaps that is why the announcement of the intercept attempt was delayed to the last minute. SUPERFICIALLY this looks quite reasonable, a great idea, but it doesn't stand up to analysis. But analysis takes time. I can't read minds so I don't know motivations but I suspect that one motivation is that this is a great political boost to the missile defense system. People don't make much distinction between missile defense and anti-satellite intercepts. So here is this "grave" danger from space, we fire a rocket at it and, poof, the danger is gone. Aren't you glad we spent the billions of dollars on that missile defense system? Arlington, Va.: Who exactly owns the satellite? Ivan Oelrich: It is the property of the US Government. Hiding Under My Desk: But if the intercept is successful, won't the new smaller (in theory) debris mostly burn up in reentry leaving a smaller actual debris field? Ivan Oelrich: Depends on how you measure "small." More will burn up in the atmosphere (but not that much more, when the satellite hits the thicker air, it will break up anyway) but even if the smaller debris is spread over a larger area, then the debris field would be larger. It really isn't very important. The important point is the statistical probability that any one big piece will hit anything important on Earth and the size of the debris field doesn't much change that probability. NYC: Why can't the Shuttle crews go up to the satellite and try fixing it (have they done this)? Ivan Oelrich: They might have at first but now the satellite is in FAR to low an orbit for the Shuttle to safely operate. And the Shuttle has fixed satellites before, most famously the Hubble Space Telescope. Remember, each shuttle launch cost close to a billion dollars (as I recall) so it is probably cheaper just to launch another satellite. Hartford, Conn.: How big is the satellite? Ivan Oelrich: Everything about the satellite is highly classified and the government is giving few details. But they say it weighs 5000 pounds. I have heard it described as the size of a Chevy Suburban or a small school bus. Alexandria, Va.: Dear Mr. Oelrich, With all due respect, safety has nothing to do with why this event is occurring. The general consensus is that the real reason for this shoot-down stunt is to show the Russians and the Chinese that we can destroy their satellites whenever we choose to do so. It has been proven numerous times that the Bush administration will lie in order to achieve political advantage. Why should anyone believe that Bush is telling the truth this time? Ivan Oelrich: I believe that a reasonably skeptical person can be forgiven that there is more going on here than the administration claims. I too believe that there are primarily political and military motives at work and the claims of concern for public safety are just a cover. To put this in some perspective, the US produces 36,000,000 pounds of hydrazine every year. The world 130,000,000 pounds. This is transported around the country in trucks and on trains. At any given moment FAR more hydrazine is being shipped on the country's highways, through towns and cities and inhabited areas, than the amount on this satellite. (And far more dangerous materials, like chlorine.) So I do not buy the public safety argument. If the administration were concerned about public safety, they would take the millions of dollars spent on this intercept and spend it on traffic lights at a dangerous intersection or on vaccines for children. Bethesda, Md.: From the story, it seems that the plan to shoot down the satellite came about only weeks ago ("hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks"). If this satellite was non-functional and falling why did the decision to shoot it down happen so recently? Ivan Oelrich: I don't know. But my personal suspicion is that this is superficially a good idea that does not stand up to analysis so don't give people time to think too much about it. Fairfax, Va.: If I were on a beach in Maui looking up at the night sky (I wish!) would I be able to see the explosion/impact? Ivan Oelrich: During the day, I doubt it, but at night, you might be able to. If the pieces reentered the atmosphere over you at night, you would definitely be able to see the trail of debris. Washington, D.C.: So just how much has this whole satelite escapade cost the taxpayer - to build it, send it up, and now shoot it down since it isn't working? Ivan Oelrich: This is a good question but the biggest cost is the cost of the satellite and that is completely secret. We here at the Federation of American Scientists have a Government Secrecy Project, headed by Steve Aftergood, that has been trying for years to get the intelligence budget published. And recently the government has agreed to publish the entire budget but things like individual satellites are still classified. The interceptor costs $3M. Getting the ship there will cost millions more. Shoot down like a duck: The duck does not drop straight down. If follows a trajectory, albeit an interrupted and shorter trajectory. I know this from personal experience. Ivan Oelrich: Your right, but you get my point. In the air, the duck stops flying and falls down, although it does continue forward a bit. A satellite isn't "flying" so the debris will keep going, certainly further than a duck! Washington, D.C.: It seems to me that this mission is really about either making sure that no one gets their hands on our satellite technology, or testing our capability to do this offensively in the future, or both. Ivan Oelrich: That was an early theory. The Pentagon has specifically said that is NOT the reason. We have been launching these things for decades and certainly someone has thought that this might happen. Maybe the satellite is specifically designed burn up the super-secret parts. I don't know but maybe. The news that the shot may be delayed by weather seems strange to me. Looking at current wave height maps, it doesn't seem to be all that bad in the closure area. And the SM-3 missile is an operational military system that, presumably, isn't expected to wait for fair weather before the ship can launch it. Ivan Oelrich: I just heard this report this morning and it does seem strange. And a little worrying. Does it mean that this system, as an anti-missile system, can be relied on only if the North Koreans fire missiles during nice weather? Saginaw, Mich.: More on the "toxic fuel," please, commenting on its hazard, survivability, & changes made in powering satellites for both safety & reliability issues. Ivan Oelrich: The "fuel" or propellant is hydrazine. Chemically it is H2N2H2, somewhat similar to ammonia chemically. Definitely not good to breath but not extremely dangerous. We produce millions of pounds chemical that are more toxic, for example, cyanide, phosgene, chlorine, and others, that are shipped around the country on trucks and trains. Hydrazine does not provide electrical power to the satellite but powers the thrusters that control the satellite. Arlington, Va.: China was able to hit a satellite in space several months ago. Will the U.S. use a similar method to reach this satellite? Ivan Oelrich: The technology the Chinese and Americans use is basically similar. The American system is almost certainly more sophisticated and smaller. Hartford, Conn.: So what exactly is the "interceptor"? Ivan Oelrich: The interceptor is a small camera basically, with some jet thrusters. The launch rocket gets it into the right area but not with enough accuracy to actually hit the satellite. The interceptor picks up the satellite and on-board computers calculate the pushes need from the thrusters to put the interceptor right in the satellite's path. When it hits, the kinetic energy is enough to shatter the satellite. San Diego, Cal.: What are the security ramifications involved in anti-satellite weapons? Is there any way to prevent the loss of our satellites if a hostile country wishes to destroy them? Ivan Oelrich: It is extremely difficult to protect satellites from attack. That is why I believe that we and the Russians and Chinese and other space-faring nations should work on a ban on anti-satellite weapons. Blacksburg, S.C: If they miss this object, could it potentially kill anyone on Earth? Ivan Oelrich: The interceptor is small and they can launch it from a position such that, if it misses, it will fall back into the ocean. That is one advantage of firing the missile from a ship: the ship can move around and get into an optimal firing position. Annandale, Va.: If we can successfully shoot down this satellite, will we be able to destroy larger meteors (don't want to risk sending a shuttle to set explosives)? Why don't we ask the Russians or anyone else that has the technology to take a shot at it? Ivan Oelrich: here is an interesting thought experiment: If we were really only interested in the public safety issue, why don't we invite the Chinese to destroy the satellite for us? I bet if you suggested that to anyone in the government, they would just laugh. 23112: Individually, each reason doesn't seem like a big enough one to warrant a launch, but collectively, you've got a decent sized satellite with a toxic chemical and sensitive technology on board, in a low and decaying orbit that may or may not present a risk to a populated area, and you've got a missile system that the Navy wants to get a practical test launch out of and maybe flash a little techno-muscle. Put it all together, and there's the rationale for the launch. The Pentagon is just being a little obtuse about the why, but I bet FAS is just as curious as a lot of us about what'll happen if that SM-3 hits the bullseye. Ivan Oelrich: My suspicion is that the public safety is being used at the excuse to do something they want to do for military and political reasons. But I agree, I am a scientist by training and I love this stuff from a technical point of view. The technology is really impressive. I just wish the administration worried more about the international political implications. We should be working toward a treaty to ban anti-satellite tests, not looking for dodgy reasons to conduct them. Missoula, Mont.: Clarifying an earlier question from Arlington: will this "test" be expandable in to higher orbits? In other words, is the Navy ABM system able to shoot down low-earth orbiting satellites? And is this the same altitude it is expected to hit potential warheads? I gather this satellite is exceptionally low (about to re-enter) and therefore not a true anti-satellite test. Ivan Oelrich: I have to get going so this will be my last question. The SAM-3 is limited in how far it can loft the satellite. But intercepting the satellite will be pretty much the same in low orbit or slightly higher. We would need to put the interceptor on a slightly larger rocket but that would be easy. Ivan Oelrich: It turns out that I have an actual job so I have to get going. This has been fun. A lot of interesting questions. I wrote a piece on the FAS blog, you can see it by going to fas.org and clicking on Strategic Security Blog. I think I am still the first article you will see. It is a great blog!!! Thanks for all 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.
Ivan Oelrich, vice president of Strategic Security Systems at the Federation of American Scientists, to discuss the procedure of shooting down a broken U.S. spy satellite, the launch window period and the danger, if any, to Earth.
86.72093
0.953488
11.651163
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902962.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902962.html
Raúl Castro, Leader With a Freer Hand
2008022019
Rough-edged and uneasy in the spotlight, Castro, 76, appears to have been laying the groundwork for a larger reconfiguration of Cuba's economy since he took over from his ailing older brother, Fidel, in July 2006. He has publicly mocked Cuban farmers for failing to cultivate rich farmland, held public forums for citizens to criticize the government and set in motion reforms to streamline the country's famously inefficient bureaucracies, especially those involved in distributing food to Cubans who face constant shortages. If picked by Cuba's newly elected National Assembly in a presidential vote scheduled for Sunday, Raúl is almost certain to preside over a government based more on a collective style of leadership, and less on personality. A career military man, Raúl is known more for his organizational skills than his charisma. "He reminds me of an 82nd Airborne sergeant major," said retired U.S. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who met with Raúl in Havana in 2002. "He's gruff, sure of himself. He's a soldier." There is a slim chance the assembly could choose among two of Fidel's other favorites -- the young, ideological foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, or the more cerebral and technocratic vice president, Carlos Lage. The two have helped Raúl run the country since Fidel became ill. In the past 12 years, with varying degrees of success, Raúl has pushed reforms his brother had been reluctant to embrace until the fall of the country's biggest financial backer, the Soviet Union. The younger Castro started slowly, first allowing private ownership of small food markets. Then Raúl, who has been defense minister since 1959, shrank the military. He converted some of his top generals into businessmen so that they could run the tourism empire he built after persuading his brother to allow more foreign investment. The military now presides over a lucrative tourist trade, cutting partnership deals with European hoteliers. In another apparent break with his brother, Raúl offered a surprise in 1994 when Cubans were fleeing the island. He took to the podium to calm a population struggling to feed itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Beans," he told a crowd in Havana, "are more important than cannons." That concise slogan became his most memorable line. Suddenly, a country that had envisioned itself as a place under siege was admitting that feeding its residents meant more than building its military. As the new flow of tourism dollars eased the crisis, Raúl generally slipped out of the public spotlight again, remaining a mystery to outsiders and to the Cuban people he now leads -- the island's great enigma. He is known as a practical joker, a family man, a guy's guy who drinks whiskey with his generals and dotes on their kids; and he is, as he once described himself, "Raúl the Terrible," the Cuban revolution's executioner in chief, the feared enforcer of the all-powerful Cuban state.
MEXICO CITY, Feb. 19 -- Ra¿l Castro has long operated in the backstage of Cuban politics. But his public record, which has emerged over his 19 months as interim president, suggests he might pursue reforms to allow more political and economic latitude on the island.
11.42
0.56
0.84
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900147.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900147.html
Uncertainty in Cuba as Castro Steps Down
2008022019
His resignation brought a measure of uncertainty to a political system that has changed little since Castro, now 81 and ailing, swept into Cuba's capital at the head of a guerrilla army. But in Havana, Cuba's seaside capital, and across the Straits of Florida in Miami, the resignation stirred only slight reaction, underscoring a sense among many Cubans and embittered exiles that the political transition was unfolding precisely as Castro planned. Castro, who has not appeared in public for 19 months since undergoing multiple intestinal surgeries, cleared a path for his 76-year-old brother, Raúl, to be named president Sunday when Cuba's National Assembly meets. But that succession remained unclear because Castro did not mention it in his 1,076-word "Message from the Commander in Chief" -- his resignation announcement that filled the front page of Tuesday's Granma, the Communist Party newspaper. "It would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer," Castro wrote. "This I say devoid of all drama." The resignation closes a singular chapter in modern political history, ending the formal career of a man who toppled Cuba's government with a ragtag rebel army in 1959, turned back a U.S.-backed invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war a year later during the Cuban missile crisis. Castro outlasted nine U.S. presidents, some of whom based their Latin American policy on ousting him, and persevered after the collapse of his government's main financial sponsor, the Soviet Union. Along the way, the son of a wealthy sugar farmer from Cuba's windswept eastern province inspired a new generation of left-leaning Latin American leaders, backed Marxist revolutions from Central American to Africa, survived CIA-financed assassination attempts and stood defiant against a decades-long U.S. trade embargo. "He has prepared things -- he has prepared for this. He is an intelligent man," Fidel Lao, a 38-year-old taxi driver, said Tuesday in Havana. "They wanted to knock him down, knock him down. But he left on his own." Castro's failure to endorse a successor Tuesday was seen as a small, remote opening for someone other than his brother to lead the country of 11.4 million people. The National Assembly will gather Sunday in Havana to select the Council of State, which then names Cuba's new president. For decades, there was no suspense in the process. In addition to Raúl Castro, possible successors include Vice President Carlos Lage, 56, and Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque, 42. The younger men, who came of age in the years after Castro's revolution, might also be in line to succeed Raúl, Cuba experts say. "I think what we're going to see now is a handoff period," Philip Peters, a Cuba specialist at the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, said in a telephone interview. "We're going to see the 'historicos' -- the revolution's first generation -- handing off to the second generation. There will probably be a collective quality to leadership." President Bush, who was traveling Tuesday in Africa, said he hoped this would be "the beginning of a democratic transition for the people of Cuba."
MEXICO CITY, Feb. 19 -- Fidel Castro, the Marxist revolutionary and nemesis of 10 U.S. presidents, resigned as Cuba's paramount leader Tuesday after dominating the island's politics and society for nearly five decades.
16.512821
0.615385
0.871795
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902582.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902582.html
Change Toward Cuba Likely to Come Slowly
2008022019
Bush and his top advisers made it clear yesterday that they do not intend to relax the trade sanctions and other policies aimed at isolating the Cuban government. The president called on Cuba to begin a transition to democracy and seemed to belittle those advocating a new "stability" that would leave political prisoners behind bars. "This transition ought to lead to free and fair elections -- and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as being true democracy," Bush said at a news conference in Kigali, Rwanda, where he was traveling yesterday. Perhaps a bigger question, in the wake of Castro's announcement yesterday that he is retiring from government, is whether Bush's confrontational approach will outlast his presidency, which will end next January. Substantial doubts in Congress about the efficacy of the U.S. approach continue to collide with domestic politics that give a heavy influence to the fiercely anti-Castro émigrés in South Florida, New Jersey and elsewhere. In their comments yesterday, each of the top three remaining presidential contenders offered little sign that they will break with the pillars of existing policy, which conditions any substantial relaxing of sanctions and other carrots on steps toward political freedoms and democracy. Speaking to reporters during a campaign stop in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said there is no need to change U.S. policy toward Cuba unless Cuba takes dramatic steps toward establishing greater freedoms. Otherwise, he said, a shift in policy could merely keep the old guard in power. "I worry that we would extend aid assistance that would prop up Raúl [Castro] or any of his friends and comrades who repressed the people of Cuba for too long," McCain said. On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) both held out the possibility of the United States offering incentives, but only if Cuba adopts democratic changes, something most independent analysts deem unlikely in the short term. In a statement issued by her campaign, Clinton spoke to the new government of Cuba, which seemed likely to include Castro's brother Raúl in a major role: "I would say to the new leadership: The people of the United States are ready to meet you, if you move forward towards the path of democracy, with real, substantial reforms." Clinton would reverse the Bush administration's ban on travel to Cuba by those with family members there. Obama, however, offered the biggest potential break with the status quo. Even before the Castro news, he endorsed lifting restrictions on Cuban Americans traveling to the island or sending money to relatives, while also indicating that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of the country without preconditions. But his aides caution that there are limits to how far he would go in overhauling policy short of Cuba's release of political prisoners or some sign of democratic change. "When he said he would talk to adversaries, he didn't say he would normalize relations with all adversaries," said Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman. While he could not say whether Obama would meet with Cuban officials in the first year of his term, Burton added: "He would certainly be willing to use direct diplomacy to advance our interest in democratic change on the island." Brian Latell, a former top CIA expert on Cuba now at the University of Miami, said in an interview yesterday that while "all of the major candidates are unwilling to go out far on a limb with respect to policy on Cuba . . . that doesn't mean that in 2009, depending on who is in the White House, there might not be change" in the U.S. position. Yet even if change is not emerging from Washington, it may come from Cuba. Latell, who wrote "After Fidel," a recent biography of the Castro brothers, said Raúl Castro has indicated on at least three occasions since temporarily assuming power more than a year and half ago -- because of Fidel's illness -- that he would be open to engaging the United States. "There is a greater likelihood that a new Cuban leadership that is emerging may provide more inducements to officials in Washington," he said. Lawmakers who consider the long-standing U.S. trade restrictions as counterproductive seized on yesterday's news to press their case. "The U.S. embargo gave Fidel a tremendous advantage in terms of lengthening his tenure," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a leader in the drive to ease sanctions. "Let's not give his successor the same advantage by keeping the embargo in place." But powerful voices continue to press for no change. "The question is not so much 'When is the U.S. going to change its policy?' The question is when Cuba will change its policy," said Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, a co-chairman of a government commission on Cuba. "Fidel Castro is still running the show as long as he is alive." But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a leading Cuban American voice in Congress, expressed cautious optimism that the transition may be more than "a passing of the baton from one dictator to another." He noted stirrings of youth protest and the Roman Catholic Church's call for economic change in Cuba. "Right now, to act unilaterally would be an endorsement of Ra¿l," Menendez said, referring to the prospect of easing trade sanctions or allowing more travel. But he added: "We stand ready to work with a government pledged to transition to democracy. . . . There are opportunities to use calibrated responses to real changes." Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report from Columbus.
Those hoping for a new U.S. policy toward Cuba have waited nearly 50 years for Fidel Castro to step down. But they will have to wait at least one more year, after President Bush leaves office, to see any possibility of change in the hard-line U.S. position that has transcended nine administrations.
19.275862
0.689655
1.206897
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902617.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902617.html
Their Deepest, Darkest Discovery
2008022019
The material, made of hollow fibers, is a Roach Motel for photons -- light checks in, but it never checks out. By voraciously sucking up all surrounding illumination, it can give those who gaze on it a dizzying sensation of nothingness. "It's very deep, like in a forest on the darkest night," said Shawn-Yu Lin, a scientist who helped create the material at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. "Nothing comes back to you. It's very, very, very dark." But scientists are not satisfied. Using other new materials, some are trying to manufacture rudimentary Harry Potter-like cloaks that make objects inside of them literally invisible under the right conditions -- the pinnacle of stealthy technology. Both advances reflect researchers' growing ability to manipulate light, the fleetest and most evanescent of nature's offerings. The nascent invisibility cloak now being tested, for example, is made of a material that bends light rays "backward," a weird phenomenon thought to be impossible just a few years ago. Known as transformation optics, the phenomenon compels some wavelengths of light to flow around an object like water around a stone. As a result, things behind the object become visible while the object itself disappears from view. "Cloaking is just the tip of the iceberg," said Vladimir Shalaev, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University and an expert in the fledgling field. "With transformation optics you can do many other tricks," perhaps including making things appear to be located where they are not and focusing massive amounts of energy on microscopic spots. U.S. military and intelligence agencies have funded the cloaking research "for obvious reasons," said David Schurig, a physicist and electrical engineer at North Carolina State University who recently designed and helped test a cloaking device. In that experiment, a shielded object a little smaller than a hockey puck was made invisible to a detector that uses microwaves to "see." The first working cloaks will be limited that way, he said -- able to steer just a limited part of the light spectrum around objects -- and it could be years before scientists make cloaks that work for all wavelengths, including the visible spectrum used by the human eye. But even cloaks that work on just a few key wavelengths could offer huge benefits, making objects invisible to laser beams used for weapons targeting, for example, or rendering an enemy's night goggles useless because objects would be invisible to the infrared rays those devices use. The Defense Department did not fund development of the new blacker-than-black material, created by Lin and his colleagues. But military officials were among the first to call after a description of the work appeared in this month's issue of the journal Nano Letters, Lin said in an interview.
Black is getting blacker. Researchers in New York reported this month that they have created a paper-thin material that absorbs 99.955 percent of the light that hits it, making it by far the darkest substance ever made -- about 30 times as dark as the government's current standard for blackest bl...
9.561404
0.631579
0.877193
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001157.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001157.html
Supreme Court Rules Employees Can Sue Over 401(k) Misconduct
2008022019
The Supreme Court handed workers a major victory yesterday by allowing them to sue over mismanagement of their 401(k) retirement accounts, in which more than 50 million employees have invested nearly $3 trillion. The unanimous holding reverses a lower court decision that had barred individuals from suing over losses related to mistakes and misconduct, and thus had insulated employers from lawsuits even as more U.S. workers came to rely on the savings accounts to help fund their retirements. In the opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens recognized that the landscape of retirement investing had been reshaped since the high court's prior ruling on related issues more than two decades ago. Since then, individual plans known as 401(k) accounts have mushroomed as employers moved away from defined-benefit plans, or pensions. As a result, Stevens wrote, courts should interpret employee benefits law as giving individuals the green light to sue over administrative problems with their accounts, rather than limiting cases to those that affected an employer's "entire" retirement savings plan. Yesterday's decision will allow James LaRue to proceed with a case against his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, over $150,000 in losses he claims he suffered after the Texas management consultancy failed to act on instructions to shift his retirement savings when the stock market hit turbulence more than six years ago. In a telephone interview, LaRue, 47, criticized his former company for being "nonresponsive" when he asked to transfer his money from stocks into cash as the Internet bubble burst and the market plunged after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. LaRue, now a self-employed consultant to manufacturing and telecommunications companies, said his former colleagues at DeWolff Boberg were "hiding under the law." "There is a principle involved," LaRue said. "Somebody stepped on my toe, and it's wrong." The Labor Department and the solicitor general, who argues the Bush administration's position before the Supreme Court, threw their weight behind LaRue. Assistant Solicitor General Matthew D. Roberts argued in November that any recovery by the plaintiff would benefit the company's retirement plan as a whole in keeping with the law, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. "Today's decision supporting our position is a huge victory for workers and retirees," said Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao. Peter K. Stris, a professor at Whittier Law School in Los Angeles who represents LaRue, said the decision protected the savings of everyone with a 401(k). "If the lower court opinion had stood, it would have prevented the Department of Labor from pursuing claims when retirement funds had been stolen or mismanaged," he said. Business advocates predicted the ruling would unleash a raft of lawsuits by employees, particularly as stock market volatility once again is causing havoc with investment accounts. "Ultimately, employers aren't going to sponsor plans if they're going to be sued every time they make an innocent mistake," said Thomas Gies, a Washington lawyer who defended the consulting firm, which denies any wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court handed workers a major victory yesterday by allowing them to sue over mismanagement of their 401(k) retirement accounts, in which more than 50 million employees have invested nearly $3 trillion.
15.864865
1
37
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001140.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022001140.html
Supreme Court Shields Medical-Device Makers
2008022019
The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm. The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a New York man who was seriously injured when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst during an angioplasty in 1996. Charles Riegel, who died three years ago, and his wife sued under New York law, alleging that the device's design was faulty and its labeling deficient. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said federal law preempts the imposition of liability under state laws for devices that have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process, the most rigorous of the FDA's testing procedures. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. Congress did not intend the preemption clause, Ginsburg wrote, "to effect a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices." Courts are filled with lawsuits over preemption, which New York University law professor Catherine M. Sharkey called "the fiercest battle in products liability litigation today." The Supreme Court this year took several cases that invoke federal preemption. Cases still to be heard include lawsuits in state courts that seek to punish cigarette makers and drug manufacturers. The court ruled in 1996 that devices approved by the FDA under a less-rigorous process were not protected from state lawsuits. The agency agreed with that. In 2004 the government reversed its position, and when the case decided yesterday was argued in December, the government said such suits undermine the FDA's authority. Yesterday's decision seemed in step with the court's recent rulings favoring business and expressing skepticism about the role of civil lawsuits in disciplining corporations. But Sharkey said the fact that eight of the nine justices joined yesterday's decision in Riegel v. Medtronics underscored what she viewed as a "narrow, textual interpretation" of federal law specific to the preemption clause in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. That law, Scalia noted, was passed in response to the "thousands of tort claims" resulting from the problems caused by the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. It set up a detailed federal regime for the FDA to test medical devices and precluded states from imposing "any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter." The court has held a "requirement" to mean a state tort award.
The Supreme Court yesterday protected the makers of medical devices that have passed the most rigorous federal review standards from lawsuits by consumers who allege that the devices caused them harm.
15
1
32
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022000726.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022000726.html
Sadr's Militia Enforces Cease-Fire With a Deadly Purge
2008022019
The execution, carried out last month by Iraq's largest Shiite militia, would have been unexceptional but for one fact: The victim was one of its own. The man, a Mahdi Army commander whose nom de guerre was Hamza, had killed and kidnapped scores of people despite what was then a five-month-old order to militia members to lay down their weapons, group leaders said. So after Hamza confessed to his crimes during repeated interrogations, a three-page death sentence was issued by the office of the militia's leader, anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, they said. "We were ordered to eliminate him and we did," said Mohammed Ali, 24, a commander of the militia in the Sholeh neighborhood who took part in the operation and described how it took place. "This is how we have been cleaning the Mahdi Army." Hundreds of Mahdi Army members have been similarly executed, jailed or excommunicated by the militia since the freeze was ordered by Sadr in late August, part of a nationwide reorganization that has dramatically altered the group's public image in Iraq and has been a crucial reason for the recent downturn in violence, according to senior militia leaders and U.S. officials. The purge has boosted Sadr's reputation -- particularly among American commanders who once considered him an enemy but now refer to him respectfully -- while also helping Sadr exert more control over his sprawling irregular army. At the same time, members say, the freeze has made the Sadrist movement more vulnerable to attacks and repression by rival Shiite groups. Sadr is expected to announce by Saturday whether the freeze will be extended, his aides said. But interviews with more than a dozen leaders of the Sadrist movement suggest that whether or not it is continued, the freeze has already transformed the militia and its place in Iraqi society. "The freeze brought many secrets to the surface," said Ahmed Abdul Hussein, 33, a Mahdi Army leader from Sadr City, a vast Shiite district of Baghdad. "Now we know who is good and who is bad. Now everyone thinks of the Mahdi Army in a new light. I think everything will be different now." Last summer, Mahdi Army members were widely viewed as having carried out some of the most vicious violence against Sunnis, pushing the country to the brink of civil war. The militia clashed often with U.S. and British forces. The militia's public image reached its nadir when more than 50 people were killed in the holy city of Karbala because of fierce fighting between the Mahdi Army and forces loyal to its chief Shiite political rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The next day, on Aug. 29, Sadr declared a six-month suspension of the militia's operations. Sadr's office said at the time that the aim of the freeze was to push out elements not under the cleric's control. "The freeze has helped us to distinguish and push out the bad figures," said Salah al-Obaidi, a top Sadr aide, who added that the militia now has more than 100,000 followers.
BAGHDAD -- The Mahdi Army fighters recalled dragging the 25-year-old man into a dark house where, while verses were chanted from the Koran, he was hanged from a hook in the ceiling.
16.216216
0.594595
0.864865
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902398.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902398.html
Lights at Night Are Linked to Breast Cancer
2008022019
Women who live in neighborhoods with large amounts of nighttime illumination are more likely to get breast cancer than those who live in areas where nocturnal darkness prevails, according to an unusual study that overlaid satellite images of Earth onto cancer registries. The finding adds credence to the hypothesis that exposure to too much light at night can raise the risk of breast cancer by interfering with the brain's production of a tumor-suppressing hormone. "By no means are we saying that light at night is the only or the major risk factor for breast cancer," said Itai Kloog, of the University of Haifa in Israel, who led the new work. "But we found a clear and strong correlation that should be taken into consideration." Scientists have known for years that rats raised in cages where lights are left on for much of the night have higher cancer rates than those allowed to sleep in darkness. And epidemiological studies of nurses, flight attendants and others who work at night have found breast cancer rates 60 percent above normal, even when other factors such as differences in diet are accounted for. On the basis of such studies, an arm of the World Health Organization announced in December its decision to classify shift work as a "probable carcinogen." That put the night shift in the same health-risk category as exposure to such toxic chemicals as trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The mechanism of such a link, if real, remains mysterious, but many scientists suspect that melatonin is key. Secreted by the pineal gland in the brain, the hormone helps prevent tumor formation. The body produces melatonin primarily at night, and levels drop precipitously in the presence of light, especially light in the blue part of the spectrum produced in quantity by computer screens and fluorescent bulbs. In keeping with the melatonin hypothesis, mice in cages with night lighting have normal cancer rates if they get shots of the hormone. And blind women, whose eyes cannot detect light and so have robust production of melatonin, have lower-than-average breast cancer rates. Kloog and his colleagues took a previously untried approach to testing the link. They obtained satellite data from NASA that showed in great detail how much light was emitted spaceward from neighborhoods throughout Israel. Although the light levels that reached the satellite were about one-tenth their intensity on Earth, the approach provides an accurate measure of which areas are brighter or darker than others and by how much. The team then overlaid that map with local statistics on cases of breast cancer and, for comparison, lung cancer, which is caused mostly by smoking and so would not be expected to be linked to light. After using neighborhood data to correct for other factors that can affect cancer rates, including wealth, ethnicity and the average number of children in families living in those localities, the researchers found no link between night lighting and lung cancer, they report in this week's online issue of the journal Chronobiology International. But the researchers found the breast cancer rate in localities with average night lighting to be 37 percent higher than in communities with the lowest amount of light; and they noted that the rate was higher by an additional 27 percent in areas with the highest amount of light. Abraham Haim, a University of Haifa chronobiologist involved in the study, said the findings raise questions about the recent push to switch to energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, which suppress melatonin production more than conventional incandescent bulbs. "This may be a disaster in another 20 years," Haim said, "and you won't be able to reverse what we did by mistake." He called for more research before policies favoring fluorescent lights are implemented, and for more emphasis on using less light at night. Jim Burch, a University of South Carolina epidemiologist and biostatistician familiar with the study, called the approach and findings "fascinating." "The study has limitations," including not measuring levels of indoor lighting, "but it supports the overall idea," Burch said. "I think there is enough evidence to suggest we ought to be thinking about this more carefully."
Women who live in neighborhoods with large amounts of nighttime illumination are more likely to get breast cancer than those who live in areas where nocturnal darkness prevails, according to an unusual study that overlaid satellite images of Earth onto cancer registries.
18.204545
1
44
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/14/DI2008021402275.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/14/DI2008021402275.html
PBS Frontline: 'Rules of Engagement'
2008022019
"Rules of Engagement" airs Tuesday, Feb. 19, at 9 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings). Rath has worked in public broadcasting for nearly 15 years, including teaming up with Lowell Bergman and Raney Aronson to produce "Secrets, Sources and Spin," the first two parts of Frontline's "News War" series. He was the director of NPR's daily news show "Talk of the Nation" before moving to New York in 2000 to successfully relaunch NPR's "On the Media." mrdn: Where is the full timeline of events, the original video from the bot and head/sight cams, and map/graphics? Arun Rath: There's a link to a timeline on the readings and links page for the show on the Frontline Web site. You can view the clips from the Scan Eagle drone in the show if you go to the home page and go to "watch the full program"; most of the video from the drone is in part two. Anonymous: So what came of the air cam that did show threat or was it a threat? Arun Rath: The drone footage showed what appeared to be insurgents fleeing from behind the house that was stormed by Wuterich and his squad, and various other insurgent activities that day. There were also multiple other attacks and firefights across the town that can be seen in the footage Sacramento, Calif.: If possible, could you comment on what you believe might have happened differently in Haditha if the soldiers who had entered Haditha had been an international peacekeeping force, and not U.S. troops? If they had instead been Iraqi soldiers or police? If they had instead been unarmed U.N. or international peacekeepers? If they had instead been international aid or development workers? Would the potential or actual violence that could have occurred that day have probably been less, more or about the same? Of a different kind? Or is this impossible to speculate? Thank you for a very thought-provoking and soul-searching report! Arun Rath: It's an interesting question. I can't talk responsibly about the rules of engagement followed by U.N. or Iraqi forces, but I don't think an unarmed mission would have worked in Haditha at that time -- Haditha was run completely by insurgents, and those who had been seen as collaborating with Westerners routinely had been executed. So it's hard to imagine that such groups could have functioned effectively there at that time. Orange, Calif.: What are the odd that every Iraqi from infant to elder was considered less than human, and that the sentiment was conveyed from the commander-in-chief down to the men pulling the triggers? Arun Rath: The Bargewell report, mentioned in the hour, does claim there was a tendency in the Marines to not value Iraqi lives as much as the lives of the Marines. Many Marines of course take issue with that conclusion -- one of the defense lawyers I interviewed wrote this off to some extent as a cultural difference between the Army (Bargewell was an Army general) and the Marine Corps, saying that the Army generally considers the Marines to be more "aggressive." You can check out the report yourself and come to your own conclusions -- we link to the full report on our Web site. Anonymous: I am severely disappointed with the misrepresentation by PBS of the various combat images. Under no condition was there an aerial vehicle "dispatched after the explosion" that could have shown the side of a building blowing up prior to a commercial break. More so, PBS has severely mangled the integrity of the program by falsely mixing unrelated images, video, and photographs which are irrelevant to the situation supposedly being documented. Primarily, though, why was there no mention of the timeframe between when the explosion occurred, the white car's introduction, and the purported arrival of superior officers who commanded the houses be cleared as there was weapons fire from them? There must be some latency between when the initial blast, communications, travel, and arrival of a third party plus the time required to fly the aircraft, and given those factors, PBS has failed miserably to indicate if the entire series of events happened within a few minutes time or if the houses were targeted many hours after they were standing around waiting for the senior command, who appears to be the primary cause for concern and documentation irregularities. PBS should be held accountable for the disinformation they claim to denounce while fabricating false stories and glamorous media that is completely unrelated to the purported documentary. Facts and timelines and physical reality are easily documented and problems with documents are easily analyzed, but PBS's representation is littered with fallacy while attempting to present a factual documentary. I am severely disappointed with PBS. Arun Rath: I'm not sure I understand the "commercial break" reference, given that this is PBS. In any case, we took great pains to make sure we did not misrepresent anything in this documentary. The drone was already in the air at the time of the attack, and was redirected after the attack on Sgt. Wuterich's squad. The Quick Reaction Force, headed by the lieutenant who ordered Wuterich to "clear south" was on the scene pretty quickly. Buffalo, N.Y.: Why do you media people put our soldiers in danger when your decide to report on the War in Iraq? I personally know that you fly with our soldiers and they provide your personal protection. You never report on the good we do. It is a tough job and now because of this and other stories our soldiers are second-guessing themselves. I am a retired officer and completed a tour of duty in Tikrit, Iraq, in 2005 where we lost a 19-year-soldier at our front gate (IED) at FOB Speicher. This soldier had two or three months left on his tour of duty and was coming back from just completing the process of becoming U.S. citizen. Why don't you get that story out? Arun Rath: I don't think we did anything here to put anyone in danger -- we vet these programs thoroughly to make sure we don't. What happened in Haditha was horrible, but we hoped this documentary could help our audience understand somewhat better how it happened and what we might learn from it. Chicago: I fought in Vietnam in '67-'68 (2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division -- Da Nang Area) and I'm a retired Chicago Police Officer (31-plus years). I had to laugh when Rep. Murtha had the nerve to say that he knew exactly what happened in Haditha. (Did he ever fight in a war? Real combat, not paper cuts!) Well, Mr. Knowitall, let me tell you something we use to say in the CPD -- if you weren't there, you don't know that for a fact! Once again' a big-mouth, blowhard politician opening his mouth before engaging his peebrain. No wonder our country is in trouble. Let me just end by saying, Unless you walk in their shoes,you've got no room to criticize. I've walked in those shoes, and thank God for our Marines. Arun Rath: We requested an interview from Rep. Murtha, and he turned us down. Cambridge, Mass.: Whatever happened at Haditha (and we may never know), comparisons with My Lai are far off-base. There was no hostile action that precipitated the slaughter at My Lai. The slaughter continued for several hours. It was obvious (as it was not in Haditha) that the victims had no hostile intent. And while the initial press release may have been misleading (probably inadvertently), there was no coverup, and in fact a determined investigation once Time magazine publicized the day's events. The real question at Haditha is: who does one believe? Apart from Dela Cruz, whose story of slaughter at the white car is inconsistent with the forensic evidence, there is remarkable consistency among the accounts given by the Marines involved. As a former Marine, Marine lawyer and prosecutor, I would not be confident about the strength of this case, even considering the reduced charges. Arun Rath: I agree with you about the My Lai comparison -- it is hard to sustain. Both in terms of scale and what actually happened, the two events are very, very different. Ontario, Canada: Arun: Are you discouraged that response from some to your documentary seems to be anger about the story being told, as opposed to the story itself? Arun Rath: I actually was expecting it to be a little worse -- this incident has been kicked around as a political football by both sides, and people are very passionate about this topic on both sides of the divide. So far we've been attacked by folks who think we weren't hard enough on the Marines as well as those who think we weren't fair to them and have an inherent anti-military bias (we don't). Broomall, Pa.: Will there be a more detailed follow-up once all of the courts-martial are concluded? Is there any chance of a Frontline investigation into the actions of CID, NCIS, and the JAG offices for their prosecutorial excesses? Arun Rath: I think it's likely an update of some sort will run after the courts-martial have concluded. The accusations of prosecutorial excesses as you call them was another very interesting topic that we just couldn't fit in. Suffice to say that the supporters of the Marines are very unhappy with how the NCIS conducted their investigation. You can read more about these allegations on a Web site devoted to defending the Marines, linked to from our site. The NCIS told us that there was no misconduct, and that their investigators acted appropriately. San Clemente, Calif.: Mr Rath, I thought your documentary was very fair to the young Marines. As one who has followed this case closely for several years I wish I could say the same of NCIS. Their methodology of investigations seems archaic, problematic and sloppy. They seemed in this case to have worked from a presumption of guilt backward. You did not touch on any of this in your film. So far the cases have produced mostly dropped charges and acquittals. The charges against Tatum seem no stronger than the ones against Sharratt. In fact, the presiding officer at their article 32 hearings recommended dismissing the charges for both. I wonder on what basis Gen. Mattis came up with such different decisions, especially given that he exonerated Sharratt in no uncertain terms. Also, do you think that a desire to protect the reputation of Rep. Murtha may have played any role in having the Haditha investigation go off half-cocked? Where do you think Murtha was getting his information -- Gen. Hagee, Secretary Winter? Arun Rath: See my earlier note about the NCIS. In our interview, Justin Sharratt described his NCIS interrogation as a multi-hour ordeal in the dank depths of the Haditha dam, during which he was not allowed to go to the bathroom and had to relieve himself in bottles. The NCIS director, Thomas Betro, told me that this was not the case, and that the marines were allowed to take breaks etc. Anyway, there were a number of allegations of misconduct that came up, denied by the NCIS, that would have taken a lot of time, and a lot of back and forth. In the end, it made the most sense to focus on the evidence that held the most weight in the hearings. I can't speculate why Gen. Mattis did not follow the recommendation to dismiss charges in Tatum's case-- only that it was a big surprise to a lot of people. The commanding general almost always goes along with the recommendation of the investigating officer. Princeton, N.J.: What are the rules of engagement in a city like Kirkuk? When the U.S. army comes across Kurdish militia evicting an Arab family from their home to install a Kurdish one, what are they supposed to do? A similar question for Baghdad. Arun Rath: While the essential principles of the ROE remain the same in all situations (i.e. the right to self-defense), there are variations in degree from situation to situation. So while I couldn't tell you what the ROE are in Kirkuk, it's possible or even likely there is some variation. Also, certain parts of the ROE for a particular region or conflict can be classified, since it could be bad for the enemy to know the specific conditions under which our forces are permitted to fire. Austin, Texas: Thank you for your careful reporting of the reality of Iraq. I found the situation horrifying, but I couldn't find myself condemning our troops. They are in a nasty situation with their lives always on the line. Toward the end I listened to the soldiers talk about the different attitude about "hearts and minds" this time around. Unfortunately the counterinsurgency tactics taught Gen. Petraeus will force our troops to hesitate and will result in more American casualties and deaths. It may also allow us to win the military battle by winning over the local population. Did you see signs that the Iraqis were willing to change their attitudes about our troops and work for us instead of against us, in places like Haditha? Arun Rath: I can't reach any conclusions, since I'm speaking outside of my own reporting here, but it certainly seems like there are signs, the Anbar Awakening being the most obvious example. There was also a fascinating piece in the LA Times this weekend about the recent handover of Haditha from Marines to Iraqi troops, which seems like a positive sign as well. Los Angeles: It has been reported that pictures were taken of the Iraqis killed at Haditha, but 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, a battalion intelligence officer, ordered a subordinate to destroy the pictures, and that that subordinate recently came forward to testify accordingly. Why was the alleged destruction of the pictures not included in the documentary? Arun Rath: There were a lot of details we couldn't fit into the hour, which is why we chose to focus on the enlisted men who were accused of doing the actual killing, rather than the officers. Arun Rath: There were a lot of details we couldn't fit into the hour, which is why we chose to focus on the enlisted men who were accused of doing the actual killing, rather than the officers, like Lt. Grayson. Toronto: Up here in Canada the CBC's National News did a report on Gen. Petraeus's doctrine. It said one aspect of it was to try to retrain soldiers out of thinking that their first priority should be self-defense -- and retrain them that preserving civilian life should be their top priority. Did the CBC get that right? If so, I applaud him, and wonder why the U.S. news isn't picking this up. Arun Rath: I actually asked General Petraeus that very question. Because, as I mentioned in another post, we chose to focus on the enlisted men, we weren't able to include the interview in the show, the transcript is on the Web site, and the question you raise is actually right at the top. Ottawa, Canada: The testimony by the soldiers is "unsworn." Is this normal practice for a military hearing? I must say that it seems strange that the soldiers were not sworn in during this process. Arun Rath: I believe unsworn statements are delivered to the court in order to prevent the prosecution from cross-examining the defendant- that way, they can get out their version of the story but still retain their right not to be questioned by the prosecution. But I won't swear to that statement without my fact-checker present. Woodbridge, Va.: All of the urban warfare training I received in the National Guard infantry emphasized the need to shoot first, fast and without hesitation. The preferred method of entering a building was to throw in as many hand grenades as possible and then "spray" each room as you entered. When was this revised to require soldiers to risk their own lives (how many Marines died in Haditha?) in order to protect the enemy!? Bottom line, villagers who shelter enemy fighters are by extension part of the enemy combatant force and have no cause for complaint when they are treated as such. Arun Rath: There's a segment about changes to training in the Marine Corps on our site -- another interesting topic that couldn't fit in to the hour: See also my other post regarding my interview with General Petraeus- according to the counterinsurgency doctrine, more risk to our forces is required in order to protect the civilian population and win their support. Toronto: One aspect of your documentary that disturbed me was the intelligence officer and press officers amazing willingness to believe the worst of the Hammurabi human rights group. Just to be clear -- you found zero evidence this group had any ties to the resistance, correct? Arun Rath: It's a very difficult question. Marine intelligence officers have told us they have actual intercepts of communications between this group and insurgents. But of course we have no way to check out these assertions. Whether or not the group has insurgent ties however, the basic facts of the video -- that there are dead women and children, who were apparently not killed by insurgents -- are undeniable. The Marines had seen a lot of propaganda videos however, and the Bargewell investigators found that this was the context in which they tended to see the Hammurabi tape -- as just another Information Operation from the insurgents. 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.
84.317073
0.585366
0.829268
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/13/DI2008021302084.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/13/DI2008021302084.html
Ask Tom - washingtonpost.com
2008022019
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. Phoning ahead: It also helps many restaurants to let us know ahead of time about special needs, such as handicapped access and high chairs for children. And checking to see if we have storage space for for SUV sized strollers? (We don't) Tom Sietsema: The golden rule here: Never assume. Never assume you can bring birthday cake into a restaurant free of charge. Never assume the specials will cost about the same as the regular entrees. Never assume the chef can whip up a gluten-free meal on the spur of the moment. Happy Wednesday, everyone. Welcome to 60 minutes or so of food chat. Bring on your gripes, your questions, your praise and your tales o' dining. The Hill, D.C.: Hi Tom, Thanks so much for your review of Mio. We went on Wednesday and had one of the best meals I've had in a long time. We had burrata filled tortellini with roasted beets and the venison you talked about in the review and were not disappointed. I was surprised at the check, too, which was not exorbitant! We'll go back - thanks again for bringing it to our attention. One question, though. How is it that Mio was rated only slightly higher than Hudson? Maybe it's just us, but we had a rough experience at Hudson after reading the review, and the two restaurants seem like many worlds (and stars) apart. Just curious . . . Tom Sietsema: Two stars is "good," period. A rating of two-and-a-half stars falls between "good" and "excellent" -- which is what I found Mio to be most of the time. The restaurant still has room to improve, I think, but it's on a great trajectory. I'd like to know why there seems to be so much hostility toward even well-behaved children dining out in this area. I know you've discussed this before, but my recent experience has left me more than a bit puzzled. My wife and 3-year-old were dining at a very casual Mexican restaurant last week. My son had eaten his dinner and had read a few books and colored, but after an hour, we broke out his mini-DVD player (with headphones). No one around us seemed to notice or care. A guy sitting about 30 feet away from my table came over to our table after finishing his meal. He slammed the display screen shut and told me and my wife that we should "Get the h--- out of here, and don't come back until your little s--- can eat without disturbing me." I thought he may have been drunk, but his waiter later told me that he'd only ordered two beers. When I stood up he asked me if I wanted to step outside. The manager intervened and threatened to call the police before the guy stormed out. Can you or any of the other chatters here tell me how they could possibly get upset like this? Tom Sietsema: It appears that road rage has entered the dining room. Scary. His behavior was way out of bounds, which makes me wonder: Am I getting the full story here? Did something else transpire? Gaithersburg, Md.: Just wanted to offer some support for your comments/complaints about Valentine's Day shenanigans by our local eateries. We had reservations at Nicaro for V-Day (made before your review in the magazine) and were quite excited. We were seated about 20 minutes or so late, no big deal, but we were surprised to be handed a heart-shaped menu with a prix fixe, four-course menu. We had not been told this was the plan for the evening. In addition, there was no price for the menu (on either my heart or my husband's). We decided to roll with it, figuring the cost would be in line with the regular menu....$50 or so for the full menu. The food was yummy (a veal chop and peanut butter pie that were outstanding!), the service was good, and all went well, but we were quite surprised to get a bill for $165, dinner for two @ $75 each, one drink, and one (unrefilled) soda water. The lesson in all of this is to ask for a price, not that we would have left, but we felt that the restaurant should have alerted us in advance that they were doing a prix fixe menu. Tom Sietsema: A lot of restaurants offer special menus for major holidays, but obviously, not every diner is aware of that. It would behoove places to let diners know when they're making a reservation -- and CERTAINLY by the time they're seated, via the printed menu -- that such is the case. Ushered Out in D.C.: Since I work in hospitality, I am rarely appalled at a restaurant, but I was recently. I had some friends come in town who used to live here, so we gathered a group of 10 for dinner so they could see everyone. We chose Penang in D.C. since it is consistent food, affordable, and was a good location. We sat down at about 8:15 p.m. and proceeded to begin our dinner. Just as we received our entrees at about 9 p.m. (two sent back because they were wrong), they began setting up for a huge party -- moving every piece of furniture, at times, over our table, and started hanging things on the ceiling. They often leaned over us as we were eating trying to decorate for the party. Then, at about 9:20, out came two large speakers positioned near our table and on came loud, really loud, taste-specific music. We asked twice for them to turn it down but as soon as it was down it was up again. We were the only table left in the restaurant. Not the only table eating, but the only table left. They could not get us out of there fast enough. We were never offered dessert -- the check came right away (not that we would have wanted to stay) and they cleared plates faster than cars around an Indy 500 track. As we left, we realized there was a HUGE party. The bar was completely full and the line went out the door, down the stairs and down M Street. My question is -- shouldn't they have at least told me when I made the reservation that this big ole' fiesta was going on? A party of 10 eating at 8 p.m. would have never been finished dinner by the 9 p.m. time they started setting up. It ruined the night for my friends, who really wanted to catch up with the group. Tom Sietsema: That's happened to me before, too. I sympathize. I think a restaurant needs to let diners know, ahead of their being seated, that something that could drastically alter their experience is in the works. Did you complain to anyone? We dined at Restaurant Eve for the third time on Feb. 8. First two times were outstanding! Third time, not so much. We had the five course dinner in the tasting room and were there almost four hours. Also, the agnolotti were chewy and portions seemed really, really small. Was it an off night or is Restaurant Eve suffering from its 4-star rating? Did you say anything about the pasta? I've done the five-course tasting menu several times now, and I've never left the table hungry. "Five" isn't a really accurate count, since the deal includes pre-appetizers, pre-desserts and petit fours to close. Arlington, Va.: Hi Tom -- I'm going to the chef's table at Brasserie Beck with a group of friends next month. When making the reservation, my husband had to sign a form, and place a deposit. According to the person who does these reservations, this is "standard practice." It's not our first chef's table, and we have never had to do any of those things before. It seems a little excessive, especially since when we reviewed the menus they sent for the chef's table, it's nothing more than a re-hashing of their current menu paired with booze for an extra fee. I am starting to wonder if this is really even worth it. In previous chef's tables we've enjoyed, we had dishes created for us (in some cases, on the spot, to order). I feel like I could get the same thing without sitting in the kitchen, and maybe even paying a little less, if I just went to the restaurant. What do you think: is this going to be worth it? Are my expectations over the top? Tom Sietsema: Honestly, other than a better table, I don't see the advantage for you and your party. As you say, it's the same food and the same beer and the same service -- only there's a contract thrown in the deal. Regarding Your Finger: As one who has (nearly) lost a finger in a cooking incident, I can tell you the question should not have been Lauriol Plaza or your finger, but rather "What restaurant would you cut off your finger for X number of free meals?" In my limited experience with the Washington dining scene, my votes go for 2 Amys, Rasika, Harry's Essential Grill (alas no more!), and the Flying Biscuit in Atlanta (kind of cheating here) are all worth at least my finger. Tom Sietsema: Two Amy's and Rasika I can understand. Sort of. (I need my fingers for work!) But Harry's Essential Grill? I was not a fan. Nor was I surprised it closed so quickly. One in my menagerie of pet peeves: Tom, the Baltimore Sun restaurant critic Elizabeth Large gave voice to a complaint I've had since I first heard the term: why do restaurateurs think that the ghastly term "gastro pub" evokes gourmet instead of medical images? I don't think "gastronomical" when I see "gastro" -- I think "gastrointestinal." What do you think? Tom Sietsema: I think you're over-thinking! I'm fine with gastro-pub. I've never thought of the term in any other way than as relating to food -- in this case, elevated pub grub. Dupont Circle: Hi Tom - I love the number of quick and delicious ethnic "sandwiches" available in this town (Amsterdam Falafel in Adams Morgan and Quick Pita in Georgetown come to mind). But I've had a hard time finding a good, non-chain place to get a hearty deli hoagie/sandwich. I'm a fan of Dupont Market on 18th Street but wondering if there are any other toothsome subs lurking around out there. Thanks! Tom Sietsema: I haven't experienced any great subs of late. Chatters? Washington, D.C.: On assumptions, there is a box on Open Table for you to put a message to the restaurant. But if you have a specific issue, like an allergy, limited mobility, wanting a custom-made dessert, etc., please don't just rely on that box. It is far too easy to miss the message when a restaurant has a lot of reservations, or if the reservation is made late. Just pick up the phone and call the restaurant. Like we had to do before the prevalence of Open Table. Tom Sietsema: Good advice. Got that, diners? Washington, D.C.: Tom, great tip on Meridian! We tried it and had a great time; good food and wine, nice ambiance, and friendly staff. We'll definitely be regulars. And heaven knows we could use a good place to eat in that neighborhood. Tom Sietsema: Let's hope Meridian starts a trend in its neighborhood: More restaurants! Washington, D.C.: Tom: Big fan of your chats but first-time poster (I apologize for my first posting being a gripe). Lately my boyfriend and I, who often go out to fine restaurants and always order a nice bottle of wine with dinner, have noticed the following: the server pours our first glasses of wine and then (very) frequently stops by to refill the glasses, including when they are still basically full. As someone who enjoys and appreciates good wine, I sometimes find this annoying -- both because wine needs to breathe and because I feel it rushes us and sometimes results in finishing the wine before our meals. This does not bother me when we're somewhere casual (and where the wine is not quite the same quality), but I find this consistent refilling to be overly disruptive when it occurs in the nicest restaurants (even wine bars) in the city. (It reminds me of the constant refills of tea or soda at a chain restaurant). I'm sure you'll say I should just say "no thanks" and I will work on doing so, but I wanted to raise the issue because it seems more and more common -- Thanks! Tom Sietsema: There's sometimes a fine line between feeling pampered and feeling rushed, isn't there? The next time a server tries to refill a plenty-full glass, you might try waving your hand "no thanks" over it. (Just hope he's not quicker than you are.) What bothers me more than frequent pourers are servers who empty an entire bottle of wine for a small group and then ask them if they want another bottle. Smart servers know to leave a bit of wine in the bottle and return it to the table. Downtown/The Hill: Hey Tom! I need your expert guidance. My boyfriend and I need to tell my parents that we are (gulp!) moving in together. They will be in town in a few weeks and we thought we tell them over dinner. I sent the menu of Central to my Dad and he balked. Can you recommend the perfect, moderately priced, meat and potatoes or Italian restaurant we could go to? They will be staying near Galludet and I work downtown, so in the vicinity of either would be great. Tom Sietsema: Try the revamped Dish in Foggy Bottom, Sette Osteria in Dupont Circle, maybe the new Marvin on 14th St. NW, near V. Cleveland Park: Re: Sub: I still love the Vace deli in Cleveland Park. Their salami is the best, and the line is worth it. Tom Sietsema: That's a good start. I'm thinking the Italian Store in Arlington might be another option. well-behaved child : While clearly the other diner was in the wrong for trying to pick a fight, "well behaved" can mean different things to different people. To a father used to kid noise and mess, "well behaved" can mean the kid didn't knock over the table. That same "well behaved" kid can be loud and distracting to another person in the restaurant. Tom Sietsema: Right. Which is one reason I asked if there was anything the poster was leaving out. Our dinner at Circle Bistro on Saturday indicated all that can go wrong to spoil a restaurant meal. We arrived a little early for our 7:30 reservation, and after a 15 minute wait were escorted to a table in the back room, which was hosting a party of about 20, who were shouting at each other across the long table. I indicated to our host (by having to shout) that the noise level was intolerable, and he tried to make things right by offering us a drink at the bar while we waited for another table. We accepted, and thus didn't get seated until after 8. So our first question is, when there is a loud group, shouldn't the restaurant realize that they should have their own space? Then we experienced the slowest meal ever. The wait between courses was interminable, for which our waiter compensated by bringing new baskets of bread, which we ate. (So these delays must have been due to the kitchen, rather than the wait staff). By the time our main courses came, I wasn't hungry, and we had finished most of the bottle of wine we ordered. To top it off, two servers brought us the dessert we ordered. We did not get out until 11. I note that many blogs comment on the slow service, but this was beyond the pale. So what do you think is a reasonable length of time for a three -course meal? Tom Sietsema: I'm sorry to hear that. Brendan Cox is a talented chef who deserves a better backdrop for his cooking. I'd say 75-90 minutes is reasonable for eating three courses. After that, I get antsy if I can't move around. Pizza: Why would anyone want to lose a finger over soggy, limp, very underordinary pizza??? Tom Sietsema: Note to self: All the gripes about the pies at Two Amys must have some merit. Check it out again. Mini-DVD Player: That's where I would have gotten annoyed - seriously, can't the kid just color or draw? Why does he need a distracting flickery screen? It's possible to live without technology for an hour or two (though try and tell that to the people who spend every waking minute with iPod earbuds jammed in place). Tom Sietsema: I agree. Kids don't need to be entertained 24/7. A book or a piece of paper and some crayons should be enough distraction. "Gastro": Finally -- someone else that dislikes that term! I always think a "gastro-pub" should serve Pepto-Bismol. Just wondering where I can find the best cassoulet in the D.C. area. Merci! Tom Sietsema: The "best" cassoulet. Hmmm. I need help here. The last one I dug into was at Grapeseed in Bethesda. It was good-not-great. Washington, D.C.: My husband and I just dined at the Citronelle in Washington, D.C. We are very disappointed with the food and service. The French waiter was very arrogant and did not care if we liked the food. The waiter became nice after he learned we gave him a 25 percent tip. We've been to many expensive restaurants and we've always received 5-star food quality and service. We strongly believe that Citronelle is overrated. We think that the food must have been better if Michel Richard was in the kitchen and actually prepared the food. I guess we could never have the high level of service and food in D.C. after Jean Luis Palladin left the Watergate (He passed away). How do we find out when Michel Richard is in the kitchen? I assume that the manager would lie. Thanks, Tom Sietsema: Details, folks, I need details. You mention an arrogant waiter. What exactly did he do or so to you? And why would you leave such a generous gratuity for a poor performance? As for the food, what (specifically) was wrong with your meal? While it's nice to see the star of the show IN the show, Richard and other top chefs tend to train their staffs to cook in their style. I think he's there more often than he's not, and a manager would have no reason to lie to you if you called ahead to inquire about the maestro's schedule. 20036: Hi, Tom! Love your chats. I'm interested in trying out Spezie; is this a good place for a single diner to order/eat at the bar? Thanks a bunch. Tom Sietsema: Spezie is a GREAT place for a solo diner. The bar area is newly expanded, which means you can sit at the counter or at a communal table (or at a regular cafe table). Petworth: There are four great subs in D.C.: Tom Sietsema: Others are recommending So's Your Mom in Adams Morgan and Voltaco's in Ocean City, N.J. "Amazingly good subs, hot dishes, and cheese steaks. Unfortunately, they don't deliver." New York, NY: Dear Tom: Visiting D.C. last weekend, I was enjoying a fine meal at Hook on M St. in Georgetown with three friends -- we were the last four in the upstairs dining room, close to midnight -- enjoying dessert when over by the window, under a table, I spied a large white rat. I called over a staff member and told him what I had seen; he went over and confirmed that there was indeed a rat there. His explanation was "construction"' next door. No apology. No offer to buy us a drink or dessert or to even send over a more senior staff or manager. I live in New York and do not spook easily -- this is just an unacceptable situation. Tom Sietsema: Yep, a manager should have been called in to address the issue. Even a "I'm so sorry, let me look into the problem" from someone senior would have been nice. A question for lurking restaurateurs: What kind of compensation, if any, does such an incident merit? Herndon, VA: And then there was the family who was allowing their kids to use their "heelies" (the sneakers with the wheel in the heel) on the lovely polished wooden floors of a very busy restaurant. Dangerous and disturbing other diners, all rolled into one! Tom Sietsema: Yikes. Heelies have no place in a restaurant, busy or otherwise. I've also seen the nasty looks and heard the complaints that I dare to bring my child out to eat. In our family, "well-behaved" means speaking at a normal tone of voice, minimal (one) complaints about the vegetables, no running around, no crazy body movements. I'll grant you, my son's conversation relies heavily on Hot Wheels and Bionicles, and if I was a stranger listening to the talk, I might get irritated. But the answer to that is to mind your own business, not demand that children be kept out of restaurants. Is the problem that people can hear children at all? Are they offended by the higher pitch of their voices? It's true that it is too easy to hear little kids, but that doesn't mean they are being bad. Especially in casual restaurants, I wish people would relax a little. If you really don't want to see or hear other people's children, no matter how well-behaved, then stop coming to cheap restaurants before 8 p.m.. Sorry. Child at dinner: That poster mentioned that it was a casual Mexican restaurant--not somewhere that required a coat and tie. Families have rights to eat out as well. Tom Sietsema: Indeed they do. What are your favorite food/restaurant movies? In the past couple months my chef husband and I have watched "Waiting" (hilarious, though sort of inappropriate), "Ratatouille" (cute) and "The Big Night," which is my husband's old favorite from culinary school. The first scene in particular is so true and reminded me of your chat. (in an Italian restaurant, a woman orders risotto. When it is served she demands the side of spaghetti that she is sure is supposed to accompany it.) Have you seen these, and are there any others that have reminded you of your job? Tom Sietsema: I saw "Ratatouille" for the first time, just a month or so ago. LOVED it -- even though I thought the critic was a caricature. (Films tend to portray chefs more accurately than they do reviewers. Remember the Julia Roberts movie, where she played a critic and told her friend during one dinner she thought the meal was "perfection" or whatever? And what she was going to say in her review? No critic would talk aloud about that kind of stuff, certainly not in the company of eavesdropping waiters.) Other favorite food flicks: "Tampopo," "Babette's Feast," "Like Water for Chocolate," "Sideways," "The Wizard of Oz" (I always wanted to try Aunt Em's crullers, which she doles out to the farm hands in an early scene). My sister leaves for 27 months in the Peace Corps on Saturday. My family wants to meet her out for dinner on Friday night to have a nice meal together and wish her luck. She will be staying at a Holiday Inn in Arlington. Where would you recommend to eat around there? Here are the details: six people, reasonable prices (parents are treating), parents are not into "exotic" food like sushi, Thai, etc. Any held would be great. I would like to make 6:30 reservations. Thanks. Tom Sietsema: Not sure of the Holiday Inn address, but you couldn't go wrong with the cozy Layalina (Middle Eastern), Boulevard Woodgrill, Tallula or Italian-American-style Tutto Bene. DC: To the diner looking for cassoulet: Tom, I think Les Halles has a decent cassoulet. Or they did several years ago, which is the last time I was there! Note to self: must swing by Les Halle again. Tom Sietsema: Others are chiming in with Brasserie Beck as a recommendation. Free dessert for spying a rat?: Okay, Tom. I understand that the restaurant should have sent someone over to apologize or at least appear concerned. But why, why, why do people expect free food all the time? Talk about pet peeves, the ridiculous expectations of people in this world are far more annoying than any words describing food or restaurants could be. Phew, vent over. I feel better. Tom Sietsema: Would you get a free cleaning if you saw a rat at your dentist's office? A gratis manicure at a salon? Restaurants, because they're part of the hospitality trade, are expected to cough up a lot sometimes. Washington, D.C.: I ate at Circa a while back in Dupont and while the food was good, I have one huge complaint that seems to be happening all over. ENORMOUS plates (for tapas no less?) on a small table. The tables for two are tiny and my friend and I each ordered two tapas each and all four plates could not fit on the table at once. Why do restaurants do this? Are they trying to full us into thinking the portions are big? At least make the tables bigger. Tom Sietsema: Or the plates smaller. This happens to me all the time, too. Cassoulet!: My husband and I shared a fantastic one at Brasserie Beck a couple of weeks ago. Though come to think of it, I believe it was a special, so not sure if they offer it regularly... Tom Sietsema: I don't recall seeing any beehives, but I DO remember having a laidback good time at the Vienna Inn and Quarry House in Silver Spring in seasons past. Capitol Hill, D.C.: Would you really want free food from a restaurant that had a rat in it? Tom Sietsema: I'd vote for a cocktail myself. Something strong. Maryland: Do you have any favorite dives? Perhaps where the waitresses have beehives and the food is greasy? Sometimes, a dive is really soothes the troubled soul. Tom Sietsema: Oops! I just got my posts mixed up. This is where I should respond with the Vienna Inn and Quarry House tavern. Arlington, Va.: Tom, I enjoy the chats and appreciate your opinion. Sorry, about this being really long... Last Saturday my boyfriend and I went to Blacksalt and ate in their new tasting room for a belated Valentine's Day dinner. At 7 p.m., we walked into a very quiet room: there was only another couple and the soft hum of the air conditioner to keep us company. We were promptly poured water, but the time it took to meet our waiter and see a copy of the menu was long enough that I contemplated getting them myself. But, soon enough, our waiter came over and gave us menus. Shortly after that we choose our fourth and fifth courses (six course meal, first three set) and ordered a half bottle of sauvignon blanc. We sat and drank the wine and some delicious D.C. tap water. We had our water glasses filled three times and drank about 2/3 of the wine before the bread basket finally came. The bread basket was quite tasty with thin cheesy bread sticks, small biscuits, and butter rolls with delicious truffle butter. After downing a complimentary oyster topped with caviar, we waited some more. The first course finally came out after a long wait. This course was two nice sized pieces of hamachi and homemade kimchi, very tasty but very strong favors for a first course. Now we started waiting again. At this moment the wine was completely finished and we were still waiting for the second course. The second course comes out after about a 15 minute wait. This course was the highlight of the meal and worth the wait: Scallop tartare with avocado and fried onion straws on top. So far the food has been great but the waiting has been pretty awful. Shorty after the second course two very large parties came in (10 and 12) ... so the deadly quiet room turned into dinner at the Hard Rock Cafe. We waited for our third course and wondered why a small salad with beet vinaigrette could be taking so long but we thought that it was because of the focus on trying to get the large parties settled. It got to the point where every time I heard the kitchen door open I said a silent prayer that that was our food. We were about to complain since it had been about 20 minutes but trying to get our waiter was very difficult on account of the large parties. Finally, our salads came. The salad was good, consisting of a 1/4 of a cup of lightly packed mixed greens with beet vinaigrette and three small beet cubes. It was nice and light but it just seemed like a throw away course, as if the chef wasn't sure what to do and wanted a 3rd course for its own sake. I dug out my cell phone and saw it was 8:35 p.m. It took us 95 minutes to finish three small courses. At this point I asked to see the wine list to pick out another half bottle. The fourth course came out promptly (hooray!), a dish titled "Maine Lobster Cassoulet." Talk about a misnomer! Two penny sized pieces of lobster, a bunch of beans and none of the pickled cauliflower the description promised. I flagged who appeared to be the dining room manager and told him about my disappointment with the dish. He asked how the meal was going otherwise and I gave him an unenthusiastic "good." Right after the exchange I knew I should have said more but I never had a good opportunity to speak with him again. My boyfriend's dish of bronzino with pepper was nowhere near as disappointing. After this course the long-ago requested wine list was brought. A planned complimentary course comes out, shrimp bisque. The bisque was cool and had a film on top, suggesting it had been sitting out. The fifth course came out on time and had the distinction of being the largest and most disappointing. It was seared tuna with broccoli, parmigiana breadcrumbs, a sliver of pork belly, and a smear of roasted red pepper sauce. The favors just did not work together at all. Besides, the tuna was cold and seemed like it had been sitting on the pass too long. I would have told someone, but no one came over and I was hungry. I should have sent it back for another dish, but I didn't want to wait and I'm not one for sending dishes back to the kitchen if they are just mediocre. Before desert we had a tasty apple cider with a candied orange rind and a very small pumpkin madeline. Dessert finally arrived, and the chocolate mousse and caramel pudding we shared was excellent. We left at 9:50pm and at $277 dollars. My boyfriend talked with a few people before we left the tasting room and I expressed some disappointment with the dinner at the hostess table. We understand that the tasting room concept is still very new to Blacksalt and leaving the restaurant I thought that it has a tremendous amount of potential but if Blacksalt wants to really have a tasting room they need to make it the "place to be" and not leave their departing dinners wishing that they had dispensed with all the fuss and just ate in the main room. To me, the concept of a tasting room is to let the chef have free range in the kitchen; to allow him/her to do what they do best and also give them the ability to be extremely adventurous. In short, to dazzle the diners. We weren't dazzled; the dinner was slightly better than our average Saturday meal. The tasting room at Blacksalt seems like an afterthought to the main dining room, an idea concocted to make the restaurant more money. Surprisingly the dinner was not yet over Sunday morning I woke up with a very upset stomach. By about 2 p.m. I was very ill. My boyfriend ate the exact same things I did Saturday except for dinner. I suspect it was something I ate at Blacksalt, but I know that it is hard to confirm such an incident. Sunday at 5 p.m. I placed a courtesy call to the restaurant. The manager said they were sorry and that they would record the incident. I look back on the event and feel that there were many things that I should have done differently. I was too nice and should have been much firmer with the restaurant. I'm in my early twenties and have little experience in dealing with situations like this one. Having sometime to think about the dinner and typing this out, I'm able to see all of the issues I should have brought up while at the restaurant. I have sent a copy of this post to Blacksalt before I submitted this for your forum. For $277 and pretty much ruining the rest of my long weekend, I would say it was a pretty disappointing meal. Tom Sietsema: This is so deserving of a long response, but let's consider it grist for next week's chat, should anyone care to comment. The post couldn't be more timely. I just finished a story for the Food section on tasting menus. Re: Dining Rage: In response to others who think I might be used to a noisy kid, he was completely occupied during the first hour with eating, reading his books and coloring. There was no loud noise -- he barely even talked. It was only after an hour that we pulled out the DVD player, for the last 20 minutes of our meal. Anyone who expects a 3-year old to sit quietly at a table for more than an hour is living in a fantasy world. Tom Sietsema: Thanks for following up. (I'm in your camp, btw.) College Park, Md.: A close friend of mine found a WORN band-aid in his chowder at a Georgetown pub; he had a good sense of humor about it and the bartender brought him three shots of his choice! He STILL eats there!! Tom Sietsema: That's what I call a forgiving customer. Let's hope he has all his shots. kids in restaurants: Families do have a right to eat out, but there are people who tune their kids out when they're in public. Cheap restaurant or not, I'm not paying to hear "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy" for 5 minutes straight, or to have your kid join us at our table, or kick the back of the booth I'm in. When I waited tables at a casual Italian pizza place the kids generally were awful, because the parents let them be. Don't let your kids unscrew the tops of the condiment shakers,the next people who have your table won't be amused. Don't change your kids diaper and leave it in the booth. Yes,that really happened. Don't let Junior throw Cheerios all over. And for the love of all that's holy, keep an eye on where your kids are. In the restaurant where I worked the cook making the pizza was right by the door to the dish room. Imagine carrying a load of heavy, dirty dishes through a crowd of kids because the parents sent them over to watch the pizzas being made so they could talk among themselves. EVERYONE needs to be considerate and use common sense. Logan Circle: Tom, love the chats. I am a southern transplant who is in desperate need of a "meat 'n 3" fix! Any recommendations on soul food? Atmosphere is decidedly NOT important, but excellent fried chicken and collards is! Thanks! Tom Sietsema: Near you, Hank's Oyster Bar does "meat 'n' three" (or is it just two? I forget.) And for good chicken and trimmings, I head to the venerable Hitching Post. Lunch time. Gotta run. Have a great rest of the week, chowsters. 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.
329.521739
0.869565
3.565217
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/17/DI2008021701645.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/17/DI2008021701645.html
Federal Diary Live
2008022019
What are the procedures used for closing and reopening the government because of bad weather, such as snowstorms and ice storms? How do officials at the Office of Personnel Management make the decision? Susan Bryant of the Office of Personnel Management joined The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary column, to take your questions and comments Wednesday, Feb. 20, at noon ET on Federal Diary Live. Archive: Federal Diary Live transcripts Bryant was named director of communications and public liaison at OPM in August 2005, after having served as deputy director of communications for the agency since June 2002. Before joining OPM, Bryant owned a research and communications company for nearly 20 years. Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining in this discussion today, especially Susan Bryant, who heads up the communications team at the Office of Personnel Management. Susan, this is a timely appearance, because we have a chance for some snow later today in the Washington region. To start this discussion, please walk us through the decision process at OPM when evaluating weather conditions and whether to adjust the federal workday. Thank you for taking the time to respond to Federal Diary readers! Susan Bryant: OPM has a process honed over many years to assist in the decision-making process for the operating status in the Washington area. I won't go through the details, but suffice it to say we get input from every source available, including local governments, law enforcement officials, weather experts -- and yes, even our back porches. This is a serious decision and foremost, we consider the safety of federal employees and their families. We are, however, the federal government, and we have a responsibility as well to all taxpayers to ensure we are on the jobs we are paid to do. Washington: The federal government is usually pretty good about opening two hours late, but why is it so reluctant to close early during afternoon weather? As lots of people discovered last week, an evening commute is much harder than a morning one, because in the morning people have the option of staying home or turning around when they see what a mess traffic is. Unless you want to sleep in the office, that luxury doesn't exist for the commute home. Susan Bryant: Closing early is not as easy as it might seem. We need to notify buses, Metro transit as well as federal employees. Obviously this requires as much lead time as possible. Last week we really didn't get information regarding the seriousness of the weather until close to 3 p.m. That meant we had no lead time, and Metro would have been overwhelmed. We did close on fairly short notice one time last winter because of the seriousness of a quick storm. Local officials had asked us to get federal employees off the road as quickly as possible. We did an early release, and Metro had their hands full. All of our decisions have consequences, and we recognize that. Oftentimes there is no "perfect world" in the government closing business. Arlington, Va.: Ms. Bryant, why can't OPM do a better job of coordinating the closure of government offices with county decisions to close schools? I think OPM needs to be more family friendly. Susan Bryant: OPM coordinates through all the local governments. We learn of school closures just minutes before you do, and we think we are quite family friendly ... you often have the option of "unscheduled leave" and sometimes get a "delayed opening" as well. We have the entire Washington area to consider, and that's quite an area. It's a long way from the Charles County, Md., border to the Allegany County, Md. border, from the Eastern Shore of Maryland to West Virginia on the west. Unfortunately, weather doesn't happen equally. Washington: One day in early 2000, the federal government did not declare itself closed for the day until nearly 8 a.m. My official hours were 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and I and several of my colleagues were already at work at the time the government closed. Most of us stuck around for awhile before heading home, but because our agency requires comp time to be approved in advance, we were in effect working for free on that day. Needless to say, we were not too happy about that! So please don't do it ever again! Susan Bryant: I often am up most of the night when there is a morning decision to be made. We generally make our decisions in the 3:30 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. time frame. The Director of The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Linda Springer, is very anxious to get you information on the status of government as early as possible. If conditions are such we can make an announcement the night before (even in time for the 10 p.m. news) she will make that decision, but often we cannot make that decision until the very last minute. Our first notification of that decision is the OPM.gov Web site. The very first announcement goes up on that Web site. We then begin a multiorganization coordinated process that includes changing the phone message on 202-606-1900. Viewers should be aware this phone message sometimes can be difficult to get changed because the phone lines are being used by folks checking the phone message. Expect the phone message to be changed ASAP, but surely within 30 minutes of the decision. We are at the same time calling all the media in the Washington area -- TV stations, radio stations and newspapers. That includes Baltimore, Annapolis and Fredericksburg among other cities. I've only been at this job since 2002, so I can say "wasn't on my beat," but truthfully, weather is tricky. I do remember storms that surprised even the weather bureau. One other thing ... viewers can sign up for status of government e-mails, which are sent whenever there is a change in status. That's pretty reliable. I get my notice within a short time of the Web site being changed. The place to sign up for the status in government e-mails is this Web site. Northwest Washington: Given the size of the Washington region, which really goes to West Virginia to Southern Pennsylvania and Delaware for commuters to federal jobs, how do you focus your weather decision for the entirety when only certain regions are impacted? I live in Maryland, which was fine but wet last week when we had the two-hour delay. Prior times when we had no delay, I had 2 inches of ice to remove. It seems OPM is biased toward the Virginia weather situation. Susan Bryant: Given that I live near Annapolis, Md., I don't agree ... you have a loud, strong voice for Eastern Maryland. Silver Spring, Md.: It was great to learn of the "liberal leave" policy of last week after I got to work. Perhaps you could send messages to our BlackBerrys or other mobile device so we can learn of your decision in case we miss it on the Web? Susan Bryant: It is "unscheduled leave," and you can sign up for an e-mail at the link I just gave you. Washington: I would love it if you could use your influence to pressure the news channels to somehow permanently leave on the screen the federal schedule in terms of delays, etc. It is maddening to flip from channel to channel to try to catch the announcement in the morning. Because so many private businesses follow the federal schedule, your decision impacts thousands. I know the radio and Internet announces this, but when I'm in my toasty bed flipping channels there is nothing worse than not knowing right away! Susan Bryant: We are grateful the local media do such a great job in covering all the closing announcements. I'm sure folks in Loudoun County wish their announcement was up full-time too. You can do what I used to do before I had this job ... turn on the radio as well and keep your TV tuned to one channel. Soon enough, you'll see or hear what the operating status of the Federal Government is for the day! Silver Spring, Md.: I ask this with a smile. As a National Weather Service employee, how reliable have you found the forecast information for our region? What challenges have you found with that info and your decision making? Susan Bryant: We really appreciate the responsiveness of the National Weather Service. At 1 a.m. they are still pleasant, serious and helpful. We often have been informed when conditions were rapidly changing, and we are most grateful for all of your assistance! Arlington, Va.: Here's my beef with the snow day policies for the Federal Government: I work in a federal building that is not in downtown Washington, but in the suburbs. Now, I live within walking distance of a Metro, and when I am working downtown I have no trouble getting to my office. But why do I have to risk my life or take my leave to try to get to work in a place because Fairfax (or Montgomery) County still cannot figure out how to plow a road or put down salt? It's dangerous for everyone. I'm perfectly willing to go to work, but there isn't enough consideration of how poorly the local municipalities handle clearing the roads and making arrangements to move people around safely. Also, with delayed openings "two hours" isn't really the right way to do this -- so many people are heading in at 5 a.m. anyway that it still means people are out clogging the roads when the plows should be out clearing them. The proper way to do it is to say "the federal government will be opening at 11 a.m." (or some other appropriate time) -- encouraging people to all be off the roads while the weather is usually still the worst. If people want to complain about "it's unfair for the people who come into work earlier to get more time off," they can get over it. This is about safety, not free time. There should be fewer days off, but many more delayed openings in this area. We're just not equipped to handle bad weather with these roads, and because the government has messed around with not expanding Metro for all these years, I don't see why they can't be expected to pay for it in terms of more delayed openings. Susan Bryant: I can assure you that assembling all the federal workers to show up at the same time is the metropolitan governments' worst nightmare. One of the real advantages we have in this area is the flexibility in arrival and departure times of federal employees. We do not want to overwhelm the transit systems. I grew up in central Illinois, and in spite of all the "snowbirds' " stories about how they knew how to handle bad weather, that flatland faced many weather days with closures. We may not be perfect as we work with such decisions, but I am fairly confident that everyone out there is trying to make the best decision for the most people. And oh, by the way, there have been very few "days off" during my tenure. I am impressed with the stamina of the feds. Greenbelt, Md.: I'd like to point out that in cases when the government does shut down, sending government employees and contractors back to work before the roads and rails are fully passable is not wise. We're taxpayers too, and shouldn't have to risk ourselves so OPM can score political points with the rest of the country. Susan Bryant: If a particular area is still not safe to travel for you, that's why we often promote "unscheduled leave." You know better than we do what your personal and family needs are, and there is no "one system fits all." Washington: My agency officially endorses but subtly discourages teleworking, yet it seems to me that more people working from home has great benefit every rush hour and even more so when there is a weather-related (or other) emergency. Although I do some work on my own time (and equipment) from home on evenings and weekends, the official policy here is that I can't have an impromptu telework day during a blizzard unless it happens to coincide with a previously scheduled telework day. Should the federal government, as the region's largest employer, be more flexible with teleworking? Susan Bryant: We are most encouraging about telework, and recognize its value particularly during bad weather conditions. At the same time, we are working to ensure computer security and Personal Identifiable Information (PII) in this high tech world. There have been several incidents recently in both the private and public world that are worrisome. I know our agency and the General Services Administration (GSA) are looking at more options for telework. Your supervisors and managers can be helpful in this arena too. Waldorf, Md.: I have to agree with Northwest Washington's comment. I live in Southern Maryland and take a commuter bus to the District. Since I have worked for the federal government, I have been forced to use my own annual leave because the commuter bus that I take is not running. However, on those same days, the federal government is open and the weather is better in Virginia. I do not believe that OPM takes the totality of the metro area and commuting options into account. I for one never have seen commuter buses considered. There appears to be a bias towards how Metrorail is running. Susan Bryant: I know it may seem we are not considering local commuter services in our decision-making, but they are part of our information-gathering process. We consider them an important part of our decision because they are used by a number of feds. Kudos to OPM: HI Susan. Let me be the first to say OPM does a great job on notifying the authorities about delayed openings, unscheduled leave, etc. Years ago you all took beating after beating about how to handle weather closings, and I believe a policy was implemented that simply stated "federal government open on time; unscheduled leave allowed..." (or something to that effect). Employees of the federal government should not expect OPM to offer them a "free day off" because of an impending snowstorm. That's not to say that there aren't times when a Nor'easter is approaching and appropriate action should be taken, but hello fellow employees, save and use your leave for these days. I don't even know why OPM has to make a decision for the government on delayed openings, early closures, etc. Every federal agency should have the right to do as they please in allowing their employees to use their earned leave. Coordinating transit schedules (commuter bus, metro, etc) is a nightmare I'm sure. Without fail, someone will be left behind, and when NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX find that lone person standing on 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, they have a field day with it. So chatters out there, plan your day according to what you think you need to/should do to best suit you/your family -- do not expect OPM to make the decision for you, because no doubt whatever decision they make, you would not be happy with. Susan Bryant: Thanks for your kind words. We take our responsibility seriously, but also know we're not going to be 100 percent successful in making everyone happy ... we wish we could! Over here at USDA: Hey chatters, I see a flake outside my office window, time to organize your afternoon transporation needs. Sorry, don't mean to sound so ... hmmm, mean ... but come on folks, "commuting in the D.C. area" has been a nightmare for years, and it's not OPM's fault. It's a combined effort of the tri-state area, transportation venues, and most importantly, safe drivers on the roads. Here's some advice from Bob Marburg (WTOP's traffic guy) -- slow down, turn your headlights on, use your blinkers and breathe. Spring is right around the corner. Susan Bryant: Just a side comment: I saw where Brooke Stevens recently died. She used to do the traffic reporting on a local radio station, and she always made me smile with her "There's a snowflake! Abandon your cars now and get every roll of toilet paper you can find!" We'll miss her ability to make us laugh and put things into perspective. Washington: So, um, why is it "unscheduled leave"? People do have to take unscheduled leave for a variety of reasons -- sick child, emergency at home, well, you name it. "Liberal leave," on the other hand, is in a special category. A special, well-defined category. What's the point of making a confusing situation even more confusing by using a different name? Susan Bryant: We think we made "unscheduled leave" more flexible for the users by not tying it to any one scheduled event. "Liberal leave" is not a current category; it no longer is used as a term in federal leave. Arlington, Va.: I would just like to commend you and urge the continued use of unscheduled leave whenever possible instead of delayed openings or closings. Why should the federal government close when many of its employees can get to work by Metro or mass transit? Why shouldn't all of the telecommuters work on those days? It seems that many people just want a day off at the government's expense, and not out of their own leave. Somehow many of those people can make it to the mall or the movies by late morning on snow days. Here's a vote for individual responsibility and choice. Susan Bryant: Thanks for your commendation. This is a job I have enjoyed and take very seriously ... so when you hear the next announcement from us, please know you're talking to a real veteran of the weather woes. I won't go into the details, but I once spent a night in the Dwight, Ill., high school gym because of a blinding snowstorm and below zero temperatures. I wasn't very happy then, but I was most grateful to those who were taking care of me. Director Springer puts the safety of the federal employee as her highest priority, and our goal is to give you the operating status of government as quickly as possible. If you're not familiar with the site, go here. And thanks to Steve Barr, who puts up with all of us and our weather anxieties! Stephen Barr: We've run out of time today. Thanks to all who sent in questions and comments. We will be back here at noon next Wednesday. Please join us then! 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.
90.487805
0.756098
0.853659
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902514.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902514.html
Proxy Fight for Yahoo Is Predicted
2008022019
Entering a proxy battle is a less-expensive alternative to raising its $44.6 billion offer, which Yahoo's board rejected last week. Microsoft, saying it would "pursue all necessary steps" to close a deal with Yahoo, would be likely to pay between $20 million and $30 million to pursue a proxy fight, financial analysts said. By comparison, they said, raising its $31-per-share offer could cost Microsoft nearly $1.5 billion for every dollar per share that it adds to the bid. In this case, a proxy fight would mean that Microsoft would attempt to persuade Yahoo shareholders to vote for new board members who supported a takeover. Microsoft acknowledged a proxy fight as one of its options to acquire Yahoo, but declined further comment. Yahoo declined to comment on the takeover effort. Although a proxy fight could be cheaper for Microsoft, it could also "elongate the uncertainty relating to the deal," said Laura A. Martin, senior Internet analyst with Soleil Securities. That could accelerate an exodus of Yahoo engineers and employees who are key to Microsoft's goal of catching up to Google in online advertising, where it has a huge lead, she said. Microsoft has until March 13 to nominate directors to replace Yahoo's existing 10 board members, all of whom are up for re-election this summer. The vulnerability of Yahoo's board, coupled with a 12.8 percent dip in Microsoft's stock price since announcing its offer two weeks ago, leads many analysts to believe Microsoft is likely to start appealing to shareholders soon. But Microsoft will also want to avoid a protracted battle. "They don't want to see a scenario arise where Google is benefiting from distractions and delays" in both companies' business initiatives, said Scott Kessler, senior equity analyst for Standard & Poor's. "The longer this goes on, the more you're going to see attrition in Yahoo's employee ranks, making Yahoo less appealing." Separately, Yahoo, which announced last month that it would lay off as many as 1,000 workers, said yesterday that it would offer severance packages to employees affected by any change of control. The plans include severance pay, accelerated vesting of options and reimbursement for outplacement, Yahoo said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yahoo is not defenseless against a hostile takeover. It has a shareholders rights plan, also known as a "poison pill," which allows its board to issue more stock, which would dilute the value of existing shares and make a takeover more expensive for Microsoft. If Microsoft acquires more than a 15 percent stake in Yahoo without the board's approval, according to Yahoo's poison pill provision, Yahoo could issue up to 15 times the company's existing 1.4 billion outstanding shares. To acquire the resulting 19.7 billion shares, Microsoft could have to pay a massive premium that could top $300 billion. "It's a scare tactic; it's meant to bring people to the negotiating table and prevents companies from being surprised by unwelcome bidders," said Jeffrey Block at Thomson Financial. He added that many large corporations are ditching their poison-pill provisions, partly because shareholders believe it could obstruct a reasonable offer from another firm. If Yahoo's board continues to resist Microsoft's offer, a proxy fight is Microsoft's primary option, Kessler said. Gaining control of the board could also nullify the poison-pill provision. "This has the potential to get ugly," Kessler said. "But at the end of the day, Microsoft's is the only offer on the table, and we think it's a pretty compelling one."
Yahoo said yesterday that it would offer severance packages to employees affected by any change in control of the company as analysts predicted that Microsoft would wage a proxy battle rather than increase the value of its takeover bid.
17.7
0.9
5.5
medium
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900212.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900212.html
Pakistan Remakes Its Political Landscape
2008022019
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, who heads the pro-government Pakistan Muslim League-Q, said his party would "accept the results with an open heart" and "sit on the opposition benches" in the new Parliament. By Tuesday evening, with most of the vote counted, the two major opposition parties had won 154 of the 272 elected seats in the National Assembly, compared with 38 for the PML-Q. In all, the assembly has 342 seats. The vote for the lower house was seen as a stinging rebuke of Musharraf. Aitzaz Ahsan, a lawyer and opposition party leader who has been under house arrest for three months, cast the result as a symbol of democracy. "General Musharraf represents the rule of man over law, and the resounding verdict of the people is that they yearn to be ruled by laws, not men," Ahsan said. The fallout from Monday's elections could have a major impact on relations between Pakistan and the United States, which has strongly backed Musharraf as a partner in counterterrorism efforts, despite growing frustration over his failure to stop Islamic extremists creating havens in Pakistan and fueling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Pakistan was quiet Tuesday except for bursts of drumming, dancing and celebratory gunfire outside rural opposition party offices and fireworks after dark in some urban neighborhoods. People appeared mostly relieved that the elections had concluded with only limited violence and irregularities, while winning and losing candidates both spoke of the need for cooperation and peace. Despite widespread predictions that the government would try to rig the vote, monitors said the polling process went surprisingly smoothly, and the PML-Q's concession came quickly. Nevertheless, the emerging political landscape was far from clear. Neither of the two main opposition groups -- the Pakistan People's Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N -- gained a majority, and neither has a dominant candidate for prime minister, thus opening the door to complicated coalitions and deals. The Pakistan People's Party swept its bastion of Sindh province and won the highest number of seats in the National Assembly, benefiting from sympathy over the December assassination of its leader, Benazir Bhutto, as well as disenchantment with Musharraf's rule. Official but not final results showed the Pakistan People's Party with 88 seats, the Pakistan Muslim League-N with 66, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q with 38 and three smaller parties or groupings with 34. Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower and interim successor as party head, told reporters in Islamabad that the Pakistan People's Party would form a government "in the center and all the four provinces with the help of our allies." He said the party had yet to decide who would become the "leader of Parliament," presumably a reference to the prime minister's post. Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N and a two-time prime minister, reached out Tuesday to the Pakistan People's Party, his organization's longtime arch rival, and to politicians from the PML-Q who had excoriated him during the parliamentary campaign. Sharif also called for Musharraf to step down in light of the public judgment against his rule. A former army general, Musharraf agreed under pressure to remove his uniform in November, becoming a civilian president, but many Pakistanis want him to bow out of politics completely.
LAHORE, Pakistan, Feb. 19 -- A new political era dawned in Pakistan on Tuesday as partial results from Monday's parliamentary elections showed the opposition scoring a landslide win, the party allied with President Pervez Musharraf conceded defeat, and secular candidates ousted religious parties in...
12.82
0.66
0.94
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901529.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901529.html
New Md. Rules Aim To Aid Those Facing A Risk of Foreclosure
2008022019
O'Malley (D) said the mortgage industry has failed to help troubled homeowners, pointing to poor customer service at major loan service companies, which collect mortgage payments and are authorized to negotiate and modify loan terms. The governor has summoned industry officials to meet with him in Annapolis next week. He said the state has opened a wide-ranging examination of one firm, Ocwen Financial, and Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez said he would consider revoking operating licenses of companies that fail to meet their obligations to consumers. The rate of foreclosure actions has soared across the state, with the Washington suburbs hit hardest. The number of foreclosures in Montgomery and Prince George's counties doubled between the third and fourth quarters of 2007, and O'Malley said he anticipates that the statewide total will continue climbing. "The greatest threat to the strength and the growth of our middle class is the growing number of foreclosures in the state of Maryland," O'Malley said. "It is an escalating national crisis that threatens our way of life." With the new regulations, Maryland became the second state after California to mandate that loan service companies provide detailed information about homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages that are about to reset to higher interest rates. This allows the state to identify residents facing foreclosure and offer them assistance before they lose their homes. "We spent a couple of decades becoming very responsive to the urging and the hope that people have to own their own home," O'Malley said. "Now we have to become, overnight, responsive to the threat of people losing their home." O'Malley's administration has several bills pending in the General Assembly to address troubles in the housing market, including proposals to lengthen the time before a home can be foreclosed on and to strengthen penalties for mortgage fraud. The governor, joined at the State House news conference by Perez, Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown (D), Housing Secretary Raymond A. Skinner and two nonprofit housing leaders, had particularly sharp criticism for loan service companies. O'Malley and Perez accused the industry of failing to respond to homeowners trying to renegotiate their mortgages, citing complaints from residents who said they placed calls only to find busy signals, long waits on hold and a lack of assistance. "We need the loan servicers to join with us, and not from Topeka, Kansas, from some 1-800 number, but here in Maryland so that we can reach out and do a better job," O'Malley said. Perez said Maryland is one of only a few states in which the state government awards licenses to loan service companies, and he said the state would consider revoking some companies' operating licenses.
Citing an "alarming" rate of mortgage foreclosures in Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley announced emergency regulations yesterday requiring loan service companies to tell the state when residents are in danger of losing their homes so the government can offer preemptive help.
11.727273
0.772727
1.136364
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902465.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902465.html
W.Va. Yoga: Turns Out It Wasn't Such a Stretch
2008022019
They tried to make me go to yoga, I said no, no, no. It's not that I doubt its effectiveness. I'm sure it really does provide mental and physical benefits, and profound insight into the human condition yada yada chakra blah blah namaste. But something about all that earnest, positive energy brings out the contrarian in me. The couple of times I've gone to classes, I kept fantasizing about whipping out an air horn. Still, when a bunch of friends pitched the idea of a women's adventure weekend combining cross-country skiing, hiking and yoga in the West Virginia mountains a couple of weeks ago, I heard myself saying yes, yes, yes. Here was a chance to hang out in a glass-walled lodge overlooking the Appalachians. Owners Kent and Paula Baake promised cross-country and downhill ski excursions, hiking, a hot tub, homemade dinners and brunches, even a zipwire. I pictured us sitting around a crackling fire after dinner, drinking wine and sharing stories. Still, there was the little matter of the yoga -- excuse me, the "power vinyasa." The heck with finding inner peace. I'd be happy if I could just hold my own. "Socks off! I want to see your toes," Paula commanded as we unrolled our mats in her gorgeous mountain studio. "Feel your feet, ground yourself. K.C.! Put the notebook away! I need you to be present." Busted. It was our first yoga class at Rocky Mountain Ranch, and Paula, a petite Brazilian dynamo whose approach is half drill instructor, half revivalist preacher, had caught me taking notes in the middle of child's pose. I put my pen aside and tried to focus. "Lift, lift, squeeze, right in here, yes, yes, breathe, yes, breathe, yes, presence," Paula continued. "Press your feet down. Fingers are wide open. Yes, breathe. K.C.! K.C.! K.C.! Why don't you try to really feel it, because it's an experience. K.C.! Your breathing! Thank you!" Maddening yoga-speak aside, we were having fun. Five of us had driven up from Washington that afternoon, on mountain roads slick with rain. Three and a half hours later, after a desperate charge up the Baakes' mile-long, ice-coated driveway, we settled into the lodge and admired the wraparound views in the waning light. The artfully designed building is perched on the top of South Fork Mountain at about 3,000 feet, outside the little town of Franklin. To the west loom North Fork Mountain, Spruce Knob and Dolly Sods; to the east, Virginia's Shenandoahs. As the resident mutts, Rocky and Apollo, arranged themselves in front of the wood-burning stove, Kent showed off the vistas. "Tomorrow we'll go up to the ridge," he promised. "You'll see what I'm talking about. The views are incredible." What wasn't so incredible was the weather forecast -- freakishly warm for February, with the snow melting fast. So much for skiing. But no matter -- the eternally upbeat Paula and Kent couldn't wait to get us out on the hiking trails. You had to love the zeal of this couple, whose collective energy, if harnessed, could light up the entire Eastern Seaboard for a week. With their lean bodies, identical close-cropped hair and wide Chiclet smiles, they're a walking, talking ad for the good yoga life. That night, sitting around the fire, Paula talked about her journey from Brazil 19 years ago, as a 19-year-old who spoke no English. She worked odd jobs, put herself through college, became a citizen, met Kent, got married, discovered yoga. Now they escape the city a dozen times a year to run various adventure retreats: cross-country skiing, rock-climbing, mountain biking, fear workshops. Rock climbing and yoga "are great for fear," Paula explained. "You're going to get to stages where you get stuck and not want to move. But it's not the equipment or environment that matters -- it's what's in your head."
When friends pitch a women's adventure weekend combining cross-country skiing, hiking and yoga in the W. Virginia mountains, one writer opens her mind.
28.724138
0.793103
9.137931
medium
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902776.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008022019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902776.html
God And The City
2008022019
Saturday night in midtown Manhattan, and 25 college students are packed into the living room of a small apartment. The festivities are about to get underway, and in this demographic, in this town, that typically means mind-altering substances, which segue to deafening music, which ultimately leads to nudity. That's not happening here. There isn't a bong in sight, or a drop of liquor. Just 7Up and Edy's ice cream. And when the student in charge of this shindig says it's time for the evening to begin, he doesn't bust out a cooler of Smirnoff Ice. He asks everyone to bow their heads and pray. "Dear Lord God, we thank You so much for this evening. God, I just say that we who believe in You, we trust You, Lord; we trust that You are working for good. I ask that You be glorified with the rest of us here. In Jesus's name, I pray." The main event, it turns out, is a thoroughly earnest, often witty and occasionally mind-pretzeling debate over John Calvin, the 16th-century French Protestant. A young man named Anthony Randazza will argue in favor of Calvin's concept of predestination and "irresistible grace," and his friend David Lapp will argue against. A moderator -- no kidding, there's a moderator -- will keep each side to a five-minute opening statement, then a half-hour of mutual interrogation, followed by questions from the audience. If there is such a thing as the opposite of a drug-crazed rave, this is what it looks like. You may wonder who moves to Manhattan as an undergraduate and spends Saturday night parsing the words of a theologian. Here's a guess: no one except the students of the King's College, an evangelical college located in the Empire State Building. That's right, there's an evangelical college in the Empire State Building -- 45,000 square feet of space on three floors, with classrooms, a student rec center, administrative offices, the works. The symbolism of the address did not escape the overseers of the King's, who moved the institution here from a village in Westchester County, N.Y., in 1999, after financial woes closed the school in the mid-'90s. (An evangelical organization, the Campus Crusade for Christ, helped revive it.) Moving to the iconic heart of the bluest city in the country was precisely the point. "What the King's College is doing is a beautiful illustration of what Christ did," says Lapp. "He came into the muck and mire of this world, and He lived among men, and lived in a real place, Nazareth. So that's fundamentally what we as Christ's followers are to do as well: go into those places where there is real hurt, real sin, and live among them and strive to live the way of Christ." Manhattan's unsavoriness, it seems, is part of the King's pitch to prospective students. The goal isn't exactly to rescue the place. But if casual conversations with the legions of godless residents veer to matters of faith, the wholesome-looking, Book-of-Matthew-quoting undergrads of the King's -- 220 of them, from 11 countries and 37 states -- will share the Good News, albeit gingerly. On some level, this is a massive student-abroad program, except the kids are from, say, Iowa instead of Norway, and meeting them sheds light on a literal reading of the Bible instead of the national appetite for smoked lamb's head. But hang around these polite, untattooed lads and lasses and you get the sense that New York is leaving a far deeper impression on them than they are on the city. Many take a passive approach to spreading the Word, one that involves smiling and radiating contentedness and being ready if someone asks what makes them so happy. The problem is that when a 20-year-old coed grins at a stranger in this town, the stranger often gets the wrong idea. Everyone, it seems, has a story like this:
NEW YORK Saturday night in midtown Manhattan, and 25 college students are packed into the living room of a small apartment. The festivities are about to get underway, and in this demographic, in this town, that typically means mind-altering substances, which segue to deafening music, which...
14.375
0.982143
50.232143
low
high
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/19/a_morning_at_the_dakota_1.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/19/a_morning_at_the_dakota_1.html
A Morning at the Dakota
2008021919
By Matthew Mosk Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will file campaign finance reports tomorrow that will show in stark terms the power of Internet fundraising -- as evidenced by Obama's massive January haul that included $28 million from online donors. But before anyone declares fundraising from wealthy patrons to be outmoded, they should spend Wednesday morning at the Dakota, the gabled Central Park West high-rise made famous as the scene of John Lennon's assassination in 1980. Clinton will hold back-to-back fundraisers in the iconic building, the first of which will be hosted by a power quartet of the New York entertainment and philanthropic scenes. The hostesses are Jessica Seinfeld, wife of New York television comedy icon Jerry Seinfeld; "Saturday Night Live" producer Marci Klein, daughter of Calvin Klein; philanthropist Brooke Neidich; and the hostess, Jane Rosenthal. Rosenthal is a film producer with numerous hit movies under her belt, many of them involving business partner Robert De Niro (an Obama supporter). One of their joint projects was the film "Wag the Dog," the 1997 hit about a president who tries to distract the public from a sex scandal by hiring a Hollywood producer to stage a fake war in Albania. The second event, 90 minutes later, will be hosted by New York power couple Ruth Porat and Anthony Paduano. Porat made her name as a top executive at Morgan Stanley, while Paduano is a lawyer. Paduano was supporting Mitt Romney, but he said he has recently maxed out to Clinton. Porat has also given $4,600 to Clinton's campaign. the maximum allowed. The Clinton campaign has not provided predictions for how much the tandem morning events will raise. But her fundraisers have predicted that these events, along with a steady diet of fundraisers -- and $15 million raised online so far -- should make February the campaign's most productive month. Posted at 6:40 PM ET on Feb 19, 2008 | Category: Hillary Rodham Clinton Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Previous: From Bilingual Education to the War, Obama Plans Big | Next: McCain Wins, Says He's the One Add The Trail to Your Site I wouldn't call "Wag the Dog" a hit (and I saw it in the theaters. It cost $15MM (according to imdb.com) and grossed $43MM (which means it made roughly $7MM, since 50% of the receipts go to the exhibitor). It opened in second in B.O receipts behind "Good Will Hunting" (if you have heard of any of the other eight, you;re a bigger movie nerd than me). GWH grossed over $138MM on a $10MM budget; GWH was a hit, WTD merely made money. Posted by: gbooksdc | February 19, 2008 11:03 PM Posted by: glclark4750 | February 19, 2008 9:16 PM Are all her donors women now? I can understand Jane Rosenthal supporting her out of guilt of course. I remember "Wag the Dog" - with its Monica look-alike, supposedly cast before anyone knew about her. Posted by: TomJx | February 19, 2008 8:35 PM I wonder if Sen Obama holds comparable events and who attends them. I look forward to Mr Mosk's similarly detailed report on the matter. Posted by: zukermand | February 19, 2008 8:29 PM Gee, Hillary, this approach to fundraising sure doesn't sound much to me like you're the "candidate of, from and for the middle class." But I guess you blew that imagery back when you loaned your campaign a cool $5mil out of your "own money." Yeah, that's what I call the "middle class" alright. ~grimace~ Posted by: drama_king | February 19, 2008 8:14 PM If Hillary's butt gets any redder, she'll soon be leading the sleigh and Rudolph will be out of a job. Posted by: gmundenat | February 19, 2008 7:51 PM Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 7:25 PM Posted by: campaigndiaries | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM The comments to this entry are closed.
Before anyone declares fundraising from wealthy patrons to be outmoded, they should spend Wednesday morning at the Dakota, the gabled Central Park West high-rise made famous as the scene of John Lennon's assassination in 1980, where Hillary Clinton will have back-to-back fundraisers. --Matthew Mosk
14.636364
0.963636
29.909091
low
high
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/19/mccain_promises_to_be_a_uniter_1.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/19/mccain_promises_to_be_a_uniter_1.html
McCain Promises to Be a Uniter ... for the GOP
2008021919
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., talks with reporters on his campaign plane this month. (AP) Updated 6:09 p.m. By Glenn Kessler COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. John McCain may be closing on the magic number of delegates to claim the GOP presidential nomination, but he's not taking anything for granted. Even before the polls closed in Wisconsin, he arrived here to kick off his campaign for Ohio's delegates. McCain will spend much of the next three days in Ohio, though with a leisurely schedule that alternates campaign events with fundraising activities here and in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. Speaking to reporters after he flew to Ohio's capital this afternoon, McCain acknowledged that he still needed to energize a Republican electorate that was dismayed by GOP missteps in recent years. "Our base was dispirited by the spending and corruption," McCain said, arguing that scandals largely explained the loss of GOP control in Congress. "We have a lot of work to do with our base. We have to unite it and we have to energize it. I am working as hard as I possibly can to unite and energize." McCain once again also sought to explain what has become one of the Democrats' favorite attack lines -- that he said U.S. troops might need to stay in Iraq for as long as 100 years. He said that he was referring to what he called "an American presence" after Iraqis take over the military responsibilities from U.S. troops, much like the presence of thousands of U.S. troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea more than 60 years after the end of World War II. McCain made much the same point when, during a January campaign event in New Hampshire, he said that having U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years "would be fine with me." "The surge is succeeding," he said today. "We can bring our troops home with honor. And we can bring them all home or we can have security arrangements much along the lines we have had with other countries." His earlier comment on 100 years "was taken out context -- wildly," McCain said. "But I understand that. We are not playing beanbag here." Asked about the big international news of the day -- Fidel Castro's resignation and the big defeat of the political party associated with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf -- McCain played it safe, saying U.S. policy did not need any changes toward either country. McCain said Cuba must first take dramatic steps toward greater freedoms -- "free elections, political prisoners are free and human right organizations are functioning in Cuba" -- before the United States ends its diplomatic isolation. Otherwise, he said, a shift in U.S. policy could merely keep the old guard in power. "I worry that we would extend aid assistance that would prop up Raúl [Castro] or any of his friends and comrades who repressed the people of Cuba for too long," he said. On Pakistan, McCain called Musharraf "a good ally" but said he had made "mistakes," particularly in firing Supreme Court justices. He suggested the election results were largely because of the "tragedy of Benazir Bhutto," rather than a reaction against Musharraf, and expressed the hope that the United States can work with the new government cooperatively. "We have to understand that Afghanistan is an enormous challenge right now and we need Pakistan to help us," he said. Posted at 5:45 PM ET on Feb 19, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Add The Trail to Your Site Posted by: ultram online | May 11, 2008 12:35 AM Posted by: ultram online | May 11, 2008 12:35 AM Posted by: ultram withdrawal | May 10, 2008 7:51 PM Posted by: ultram withdrawal | May 10, 2008 7:50 PM Posted by: er medication recall ultram | May 10, 2008 3:49 PM Posted by: cheap ultram online | May 10, 2008 3:14 PM glztfm btuwomx lkzvyfgd oizn geajysn dutjikvab udnstj ejkfcnd oryjk Posted by: xser tnbshd | April 16, 2008 9:29 AM glztfm btuwomx lkzvyfgd oizn geajysn dutjikvab udnstj ejkfcnd oryjk Posted by: xser tnbshd | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM Posted by: gseaib gbxnt | April 16, 2008 9:27 AM Posted by: gseaib gbxnt | April 16, 2008 9:26 AM iopd ahqvz yfweh yvilohcm wrmk ovalnsw sjwipvrt Posted by: ubvheal qtvila | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM iopd ahqvz yfweh yvilohcm wrmk ovalnsw sjwipvrt Posted by: ubvheal qtvila | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM iopd ahqvz yfweh yvilohcm wrmk ovalnsw sjwipvrt Posted by: ubvheal qtvila | April 16, 2008 9:20 AM Gas going to $4/gal soon thanks to Big Oil Idiot in Chief wasting trillions fighting illegal wars. Indict the War Criminal. Get that Moron out of there. Posted by: mawt | February 20, 2008 11:48 AM So, was this article meant to be satire? You're kidding us right? A uniter, not a divider! Is that a joke? Posted by: Arjuna9 | February 20, 2008 11:38 AM Sorry, McLame, we already have the Uniter and the Decider and the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture. You are too late, Warmonger. Anyone who supports the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture should never be in the WH. Anyone who supports wasting a couple of trillion dollars of taxpayers funds in Illegal Invasions of Sovereign States should never be our leader. If one had any courage, one would call for the Axis of Evil to be indicted for War Crimes. People who support Mission Accomplished is equally Guilty in the thousands of Murders. The Decider and his Murderous Gang need to face Justice at the International Criminal Court. There is no Statue of Limitations on War Crimes. Only a Coward would send others to do his dirty work. Why have these Born Again Killers not made any sacrifices with their huge public salaries to finance their Illegal Invasions. WHAT WOULD JESUS KILL? The Anti-Science Guns Owned Party of the National Right to Annihilate are all Cowards with Guns. They can only Kill Defenseless Creatures. They have Zero courage without their Guns. All of these Religious Extremist Psycho Cons are Frauds. Only Deluded Ignorant Idiots would believe any of them and their Delusional Religious Fairy Tales. Before any Coward Cons claim torturing people is okay, (1) it is illegal and immoral, and (2) have it done to you and your family before be so quick to approve. You have given the green light to the other Religious Extremists to do the same and worse to every American they capture in the future. Why hasn't the Big Oil Decider and the sharpshooting VP of Torture Cowards undergone waterboarding on National TV to demonstrate to the country that this is a fine way to treat people? INDICT the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Coward Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture and their Gang of Born Again Hypocrite Coward Killers! http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm War Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary if McCain is nominated. OLD McLame is done, he is too old and way too boring to go anywhere but to a senior home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc Ann Coulter will campaign for Hillary if McCain is nominated. McCain, the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ("There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran"). Posted by: mawt | February 20, 2008 11:15 AM Same exact words Bush used, you would think he would use something new. Posted by: southernrican | February 20, 2008 11:07 AM Let's hope McCain works overtime "uniting" his base. By doing so he will completely alienate the Left and Center. And he'll lose the election. Posted by: jp1954 | February 20, 2008 10:44 AM To cralm | February 20, 2008 09:26 AM: You may be correct about Powell's financial donation, but that's not what he reportedly said in the New York Times Jeff Zeleny Feb 12 report:"While each of the three candidates, (McCain, Obama and Clinton) would almost certainly welcome Mr. Powell's endorsement, he told Mr. Blitzer that it was not forthcoming. Instead, he said, he was absorbing the 'historic moment.'Mr. Powell, a Republican who has served in two Bush administrations, is letting it be known that he is sizing up the entire field of White House candidates -- Democrats included.' '''Every American has an obligation right now at this moment in our history,' Mr. Powell told Wolf Blitzer of CNN on Sunday, 'to look at all the candidates and to make a judgment not simply on the basis of ideology or simply on the basis of political affiliation, but on the basis of who is the best person for all of America.' Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years,' Mr. Powell told Mr. Blitzer. 'I'm going to be looking for the candidate that seems to me to be leading a party that is fully in sync with the candidate and a party that will also reflect America's goodness and America's vision.''' http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/the-powell-factor/ I rest my case! Posted by: thedefendant | February 20, 2008 10:42 AM With McCain being about as exciting as watching the paint dry on a wall, I'm sure he'll have the ability and charisma to get the people inspired to unite. In reality, all McCain will do if he becomes president is continue the Bush doctrines. He will not unite anyone. Posted by: BigB1 | February 20, 2008 10:08 AM Is this deja vu all over again? Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. I don't know if it was Roger Daltrey that said that or the Chimpanzee in Chief that infests the White House. McCain wants to unite the ChristoFascists and right wing nut jobs? What about the 70% of Americans that are sick and tired of these idiot fascists and their failed policies? McCain? No thanks. Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 20, 2008 10:04 AM A uniter, not a divider. Let's see ... Where have we heard that before? Posted by: jlelijah | February 20, 2008 9:55 AM Sadly, John "Wayne" McCain is the REAL War President, and heaven help us ALL if this old dog somehow manages to steal the election and occupy the oval office. He will attack Iran! He is very weak on economics and admidts it! Strange for a politican to admidt they don't know everything about all things! His ideas are very stale and out of touch with the current crisis in the world! A new leader like Obama without all the baggage is what America needs at this dangerous time in our history of a once great nation. The current regime with their misfits and fools have set America back 25 years! Posted by: bill | February 20, 2008 9:50 AM ceflynline: Big ups for the reference to The Last Emperor, one of my favorite movies. I _did_ feel sorry for Pu Yi, but your likening him to McCain is more dead on that I wish were true. Posted by: gbooksdc | February 20, 2008 9:38 AM To thedefendent: Colin Powell has thus far contributed to one campaign: John McCain's. Posted by: cralm | February 20, 2008 9:26 AM Posted by: davidmwe | February 20, 2008 7:07 AM Just like pouring gasoline on a fire, More Wars and Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran and whatever other hateful thing he has to do to secure the wingnut vote is not going to unite anyone. Posted by: SarahBB | February 20, 2008 6:53 AM Republican deja vu: "I'll be a uniter, not a divider." Yea, fool me once . . . Posted by: gasmonkey | February 20, 2008 6:50 AM Let's get those US troops out of Germany, Japan, and Korea too! Since the day I saw John McCain locked in a pathetic-looking bear hug with George W. Bush at a campaign event in 2004, I would never dream again of voting for him, and I darned sure won't this year. And I'm sick of being told he should be elected president now based on what he did in Vietnam 35+ years ago. What's he done for us common folk lately, except complain about (and only sometimes) but then eventually go along with everything Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and Bush 43 wanted to happen? Answer: nothing. He says he's called "sheriff" by other Republicans who want to spend more. Some sorry excuse for a sheriff: our national debt has gone from 5 1/2 trillion to $9 trillion in the last seven years, and big-talking "fiscal conservative McCain seems to have absolutely failed in any attempt he made to halt the process." Vote for change, vote for Obama, try to overturn the failed system that has grown up in Washington. Posted by: PrussianBlue1 | February 20, 2008 6:19 AM "McCain Promises to be a Uniter...for the GOP" However, the rest us--according to the contemptuous, arrogant McCain--can go blow. Posted by: nicekid | February 20, 2008 6:16 AM Here's betting that McCain will be tempted to let others play the race card for him if he faces Senator Obama, and that he will get the Bush family to attempt to pressure Colin Powell not to come out publicly in support of Senator Obama. Powell may well recall one of his favorite sayings and tell the Bush family: "Fool me once, shame on you;fool me twice, shame on me." He could redeem his public humiliation by George W. Bush, Jr., when he was deceived into giving his United Nations case for the Iraq War, and return to his Democratic roots. His support for Senator Obama would pull the rug out from under John McCain, unmasking his national security program as the same flawed Bush program that has done nothing but tie us down in a needless military quagmire, with no end in sight. McCain was right the first time: McCain's continuation of Bush's policy in Iraq would require a hundred year military occupation of Iraq, perhaps a two, three hundred or indefinite years of occupation, given the long memories of the Iraqis and a culture that enshrines martyrdom, vengeance, resistance to foreign domination, and Wars of Vengeance designed only to inflict losses on an enemy through suicidal tactics, rather than tactics aimed to defeat the enemy. Our hasty departure from Iraq may be the last thing the next generations of Iraqi guerrillas wish for our occupation forces. And that is why a military solution, surge or no, is not a policy that can end the conflict. Posted by: thedefendant | February 20, 2008 2:41 AM McCain is headed towards a pathetic denoument of what was otherwise an admirable career in the Senate: despised and reviled by everyone (except Joe Lieberman and some Blue State Republicans, half of whom will vote for Obama). Posted by: mnjam | February 20, 2008 2:19 AM Everyone has their opinion and no one can really see into the future with absolute certainty but I will venture this:I think that the world has changed so much,in such a short period of time,so quickly that the American strategic position,economically and politically is in a serious state of decline.I don't believe that any of the Presidential Administrations being offered as choice to the People,will be able to reverse the decline.I don't think that it will matter much who is elected as the next President. Posted by: Ricardo1 | February 20, 2008 1:40 AM Smart money says he can't pull it off. Posted by: slim2 | February 19, 2008 8:15 PM Remember, if you can, the movie "The Last Emperor" and the scene in which Henry Pu Yi was forced to write his name and then deface it. Fondly go ever that scene in your memory. Then remember Pu Yi's eventual confession to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Do the True Blue Conservatives (which should be true red conservatives, but either color has such delicious connotations when used on Conservatives) remember, when they come up with yet another way to get John McCain to debase himself in order to get their endorsement? Is there a Party Elder out there even now thinking about making McCain write his name in chalk oh the side walk so others can tread upon it? Torture? Well, OK, since they insist. Tax Cuts? Well, OK, since they insist. Waste money on good Repubican money wasters, while blaming the Democrats for deficits? I can do that. Worship at the altar of Bush's Military acumen? That's OK with me. Turn my back on the Constitution? Hey, what has the Constitution ever done for me? John sold his soul to the devil when he stood by George and defended Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. John wants the Presidency with a fervor that Pu Yi never had for the Mandate of Heaven. Henry I can almost feel sorry for. Posted by: ceflynline | February 19, 2008 7:43 PM I'm a conservative, and I'm afraid that McCain will never be able to unite me. He turned his back on us for 8 years, and now he needs us. He needs a better platform than to stroke us for a coronation, or talk about war. I'm voting for Huckabee, he mirrors my convictions on pro-life,guns and immigration and he has more experience in the "trenches" of government. He ran a successful state and was re-elected 4 times. Posted by: JBfromFL | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM Surprise, a candidate who is only interested in representing their party's minority causes. I'm glad to know I'm not the only person out there who's voting to change this system. Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 7:02 PM The comments to this entry are closed.
Speaking to reporters after he flew to Ohio's capital this afternoon, McCain acknowledged that he still needed to energize a Republican electorate that was dismayed by GOP missteps in recent years. --Glenn Kessler
99.5
0.972222
32.138889
high
high
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/wisconsin_primary_predictions.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/wisconsin_primary_predictions.html
Wisconsin Primary Prediction Time
2008021919
Another day, another chance to win an official Fix t-shirt. (For a sneak peak at the design, click here.) The highlight of today's action is in Wisconsin where Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are facing off in what looks to be one of the closer contests since Feb. 5. Wisconsin for the Republicans should be an easy win for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) although former governor Mike Huckabee has campaigned in the state and seems committed to remaining in the nomination race through March 4. So, for today's prediction contest we want the correct order of finish (with percentages) for the two Wisconsin races as well as the storyline that emerges from today's voting. Polls close in Wisconsin at 9 p.m. ET so any predictions made after that will not be accepted. Register your prediction in the comments section below; any e-mailed entries will further jam the Fix inbox and not be counted as official entries. The winners will have the opportunity of a lifetime -- to proudly wear an official Fix t-shirt. Prepare to awe your friends and vanquish your enemies. Need guidance? Check out pollster.com's survey of the latest data for the Democratic and Republican races. And, in early returns, there appears to be a clear frontrunner in our "Name March 4" contest. With nearly 850 votes cast, "Ohio-Texas Two-Step" is lapping the field with 54 percent in a four way primary. There's still time to vote. By Chris Cillizza | February 19, 2008; 5:00 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: Obama Camp: Clinton Tactics 'Damaging to the Party' | Next: One Hour Left! Add The Fix to Your Site Posted by: cost of lexapro versus celexa | August 18, 2008 4:51 AM Posted by: does lexapro make you feel good | August 17, 2008 8:23 PM Posted by: elavil medication type | August 17, 2008 9:16 AM Posted by: atarax tablets | August 17, 2008 1:21 AM Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:18 AM Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:18 AM Posted by: emsam how much is cost | August 16, 2008 9:24 PM Posted by: remeron mirtazapine side effects | August 16, 2008 3:28 PM Posted by: effexor medication chat | August 16, 2008 2:53 AM Posted by: effexor medication chat | August 16, 2008 2:52 AM Posted by: elavil side effets | August 16, 2008 1:31 AM Posted by: elavil side effets | August 16, 2008 1:31 AM Posted by: adverse side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 2:46 PM Posted by: does buspar work for panic attacks | August 15, 2008 9:02 AM Posted by: is prozac associated with weight gain | August 15, 2008 6:49 AM Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:10 AM Posted by: propecia hair loss medication | May 12, 2008 10:09 AM Posted by: low price propecia | May 12, 2008 3:40 AM Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:20 AM Posted by: buy cheap ultram wall | May 11, 2008 7:23 AM Posted by: buy cheap ultram wall | May 11, 2008 7:23 AM Posted by: 50 mg ultram | May 11, 2008 5:59 AM Posted by: cheap online ultram | May 10, 2008 10:37 PM Posted by: cheap online ultram | May 10, 2008 10:37 PM Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM Posted by: buy dir ultram | May 10, 2008 6:44 PM Posted by: ultram abuse | May 10, 2008 5:52 PM Posted by: ultram abuse | May 10, 2008 5:52 PM Posted by: cheap generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:46 PM Posted by: overdose ultram | May 10, 2008 3:47 PM Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:13 PM Posted by: drug effects more side ultram | May 10, 2008 3:13 PM Posted by: qjrgztx cupbai | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM weoibyuz mazfw dhqjnl tbviy wrjgbxcmh ivqurwnt rpiuywem Posted by: akrhd ixbdckm | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM Headline: In desperate attempt to win Fix t-shirt, Nevada entrant past posts the race. Posted by: abramfran | February 20, 2008 2:16 AM Dems: Obama by at least 8 points, Hillary loses bigtime -- again. Storyline: Wisconsin voters reject Clinton's same old, same old negative attacks. Oops! Guess I'm too late. That's not a prediction, Chris. Now that the votes are being counted, it's fact. (Just thought I'd rub it in a little. Hope Howard Wolfson's reading this.) Posted by: rippermccord | February 19, 2008 9:39 PM McCain 65% Huckabee 25% Paul 8% Posted by: lucyisadog2000 | February 19, 2008 9:17 PM Obama 59.3 Clinton 40 Other .7 Voters reject negative Clinton tactics; Obama prepared to torch Clinton firewall in Texas McCain 59 Huckabee 35 Paul 6 Big Mac can't shake the Huck Posted by: wfunderburk | February 19, 2008 9:16 PM Wisconsin Obama 58% Clinton 35% Hawaii Obama 78% Clinton 19% Headline: Clinton Attacks Don't Work! Reps: McCain 55% Huckabe 35% Paul 5% Washington McCain 51% Huckabe 37% Paul 7 McCain Tops 50%; End of Huckabee? Posted by: weiant | February 19, 2008 9:12 PM McCain 63 Huckabee 35 Paul 2 Storyline: Clinton & Huckabee fail to stop momentum. Posted by: johnmccormack1 | February 19, 2008 9:10 PM McCain 53 Huckabee 36 Paul 11 Front-runners eke out wins. Posted by: quipson | February 19, 2008 9:05 PM Posted by: quipson | February 19, 2008 9:01 PM Clinton: 51 Obama: 49 What do you know? Going negative works for Hillary. McCain: 59 Huckabee: 38 Huckabee soldiers on. It's not like there's anything for him to go home to. Posted by: am9489 | February 19, 2008 9:00 PM "Huckabee's days appear numbered, Obama picks up another victory in a key swing state" Posted by: clarktaylor9 | February 19, 2008 9:00 PM Posted by: klheard | February 19, 2008 8:59 PM Storyline: Obama claims steamroller momentum; Clinton "happy with result." Media sides with Obama! (And all eyes turn to Texas...) McCain 59% Huckabee 32% Storyline: Huck suffers from establishment backlash but is determined to make himself a historical footnote. Posted by: larry.handerhan | February 19, 2008 8:59 PM Storyline: Big Mo Reverses Field Posted by: richard.nagel | February 19, 2008 8:57 PM Smack Down to the Negative Clintons Obama 56 Clinton 42 Other 2 McPain 56 Huck 39 Paul 5 Posted by: IwillkickyourrightwingA | February 19, 2008 8:57 PM Obama - 50 Clinton - 49 Obama wins a close one and then attacks Clinton in his victory speech for her allegations of that he plagiarized in recent speeches. Posted by: 06csg | February 19, 2008 8:57 PM Obama maintains streak with narrow win in WI; Clinton faces her Alamo on March 4. McCain wins big in WI and WA; Huckabee manages to declare victory anyway. Posted by: ramifakhouri | February 19, 2008 8:52 PM Dems: Obama 58 Clinton 42 Obama trounces Clinton in WI, continues to build momentum. Pollsters miss the mark again. This is getting redundant. GOP McCain 51 Huckabee 43 Paul 6 McCain still on track to take the GOP nomination, voters cite electablility as key quality. Posted by: jgep | February 19, 2008 8:51 PM Storyline: People hate me, they really, really hate me. Posted by: liberalboxxi | February 19, 2008 8:49 PM Headline: Obama 10-0; Clinton campaign faces final chance McCain 57 Huckabee 36 Paul 5 GOP to Huckabee: Get a Life! Posted by: rohnjay | February 19, 2008 8:49 PM whoops, forgot the GOP Headline Obama - 55 Clinton - 45 Wisconsin voters can smell bad cheese a mile away. Clinton's divisive attacks on Obama cause voters to send her Packing. McCain - 60 Huck - 40 Posted by: kberg02 | February 19, 2008 8:47 PM D's WI: Obama 62% Clinton 35% HI: (gotta represent the home turf) Obama 70% Clinton 28% Storyline: Obama expands base of support, runs streak to 10 in a row. The Battle of Little Bighorn or the Ides of March, Custer, Caesar, or Clinton, it's her last stand. If the Lone Star State is even close, she's done. R's WI: McCain 58% Huckabee 36% Paul 5% Warm up the squirrel fryer and stick a fork in Huckabee, he's done. McCain becomes the unwilling standard bearer of the right. Posted by: trmasonic | February 19, 2008 8:47 PM Storyline: wisconsin finds sleazy attack ads sooo 1990! McCain 65% Huckabee 28% Paul 6% Storyline: all good republicans do as they are told, sooner or later. Posted by: jmackesey | February 19, 2008 8:46 PM I probably gave myself bad luck by picking two 13-point margins. Oh well, it's just a t-shirt right? :-) (D) Ohio & Texas will be Hillary's "Battle of the Little Bighorn" (R) Chuck Norris knocks some sense into Huckabee with a round-house kick to the face, and Huckabee finally drops out of the race. Posted by: braveheartdc | February 19, 2008 8:46 PM Obama 56 Clinton 41 Obama's continued wins means the race doesn't change much, can Clinton keep taking hits like this and keep her numbers high enough in OH and TX. McCain will be 63 Huckabee will be 38 McCain can't lose the nomination, which leaves us with really only one question, What the huck is Mike up to? THE REAL STORY LINE Everyone wants to know if The Fix shaving his primary beard is changing the votes on the ground. Posted by: thescuspeaks | February 19, 2008 8:44 PM Obama 55% Clinton 40% Other 5% Headline: Hillary Clinton gets run over by a train (I mean a real train, and not the Obama express), making Barack Obama the democratic nominee Posted by: vmunikoti | February 19, 2008 8:43 PM Obama 55% Clinton 40% Other 5% Headline: 'bama express runs over Hillary Posted by: vmunikoti | February 19, 2008 8:42 PM McCain: 55% Huckabee: 40% Paul: 5% Posted by: edison | February 19, 2008 8:38 PM here we go with the predictions! Dems/wisconsin Obama-56% Hillary-40% Gravel(good lord he's still in this?)4% plagarism charge backfires as hillary moves campagin headquarters to the alamo.Obamania runs wild, edwards endorses thursday and the superdelegates begins to close ranks around obama. Dems/hawaii Obama-80% Hillary-20% headline:local boy obama does good. chelsea clinton works on tan, not moms election. GOP/Wisconsin McCain-60% Huckabust-35% Paul-5% McCain to Huckabust-Get the out! rank and file conservatives still wary of McCain being a closet dem. Posted by: jaymills1124 | February 19, 2008 8:36 PM All of these asinine wild guesses based on people's individual emotions are . . . boring. Posted by: Seth27 | February 19, 2008 8:34 PM Revised line of the day - Hillary jettisons key staffers midflight in an effort to get now-lighter plane to Texas/Ohio (and away from Wi and Hi) even faster. Posted by: fourhourelection | February 19, 2008 8:33 PM Additional storyline: Hillary expands her domination of the crucial 60 plus demo. Grannies in their strollers, chant "double-A-R-P, yeah, you know me!", while McCain runs scared. HRC memo is released that shows the campaign's secret Texas strategy: encourage the old folks homes to serve meatloaf on election day in the shape of HRC's face. Posted by: muaddib_7 | February 19, 2008 8:28 PM Obama - 65 Clinton - 34 The O-Train keeps on rolling, and Clinton's team cites Obama kindergarten essay as an example of plagiarism. McCain 58 Huck - 36 Posted by: benjamingeballe | February 19, 2008 8:28 PM DEMS: CLINTON 51% OBAMA 47% REP: McCAIN 64% HUCKABEE 31% CLINTON WINS WITH LATE SURGE IN POLLS FROM WORKING WOMEN....O-MENTUM BECOMES NO-MENTUM! CALLS INCREASE FROM REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT FOR HUCKABEE TO STAND ASIDE AFTER ANOTHER MCCAIN ROUT. Posted by: yank1082 | February 19, 2008 8:24 PM Obama: 57 Clinton (44): 42 Storyline: "Do anything, say anything" is a failed comeback strategy. McCain: 53 Huckster: 42 Paulie: 5 Storyline: McCain seals the deal. Huckster only wishes he was the one on third base. Posted by: muaddib_7 | February 19, 2008 8:20 PM Wisconson Obama 70 Clinton 28 story... Hillary is the titanic folks! Posted by: pvogel88 | February 19, 2008 8:17 PM storyline: "do anything, say anything" is a failed comeback strategy. McCain: 53 Huckster: 42 Paulie: 5 Posted by: muaddib_7 | February 19, 2008 8:17 PM Headlines: Hillary In It To Win It; Obama insists rules must be applied to Florida/Michigan delegates, but not to super-delegates. They must vote proportionally for him. Anonymous Insider Reports Huckabee Off McCain VP Short List Posted by: Mudrock63 | February 19, 2008 8:16 PM Democrats: Obama: 63% Clinton: 37% Republicans: McCain: 73% Huckabee: 24%% Paul: 3% Clinton and Huckabee both need a miracle March 4th Posted by: chris.downes | February 19, 2008 8:13 PM Obama - 49.8% Clinton - 48.6% Storyline: last minute endorsement by Free Hot Lunch keeps Obama under 50%. [Oh come on! You haven't heard of them. Help me out Cap City!] McCain - 55% Huckabee - 39% Paul - 6% Story line: Vacationing in the Cayman Islands doesn't set well in Lambeau field. [Don't know what hurts worse. The hideous prediction for the Potomac primary or the 2 1/2 hour commute I had to endure.] Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 19, 2008 8:09 PM McCain 59% Huckabee 44% Paul 4% Obama wins war of "word" ten losses in a row no matter what the contest ain't goood. McCain steam rolls Gomer Pyle and the Keebler Elf Steals some cookies from both. Posted by: t_heaberlin | February 19, 2008 8:08 PM Democrats: Clinton- 52% Obama- 48% Republicans: McCain: 60% Huckabee 38% Clinton on the comeback trail, McCain's march to the nomination remains on track Posted by: kmis139t | February 19, 2008 8:07 PM Wisconsin: Obama: 53% Clinton: 45: Other: 2% Hawaii: Obama: 72% Clinton: 25% Other: 3% Storyline: Obama hurt by missteps; Clinton close enough to be in the race. On to Texas! Posted by: joewmaine | February 19, 2008 8:06 PM The media led us astray once again. McCain 56 Huckabee 38 Ron Paul 5 Huckabee in tow for another couple of weeks. Posted by: shannons1 | February 19, 2008 8:04 PM McCain- 53% The Huckabee 44% Ron Paul 3% Headline:White guy wins Posted by: mul | February 19, 2008 8:03 PM Obama 55 Clinton 42 Other 3 McCain 53 Huckabee 38 Other 9 Storyline: Going negative doesn't help Clinton; McCain continues to roll. Posted by: hackett | February 19, 2008 8:02 PM Obama: 59 % Clinton: 41 % McCain: 58% Huckabee: 37% Paul: 5% Posted by: pooler | February 19, 2008 8:01 PM Wiconsin: Obama: 53% Clinton: 45% Posted by: joewmaine | February 19, 2008 8:00 PM Wiconsin: Obama: 53% Clinton: 45% Posted by: joewmaine | February 19, 2008 8:00 PM Obama 50.5% Clinton 49.5% Headline-still a dog fight.. McCain- 51% The Huckabee 44% Ron Paul 5% Headline:It's almost over Posted by: neale0407 | February 19, 2008 7:57 PM Posted by: krnewman | February 19, 2008 7:55 PM Storyline: Cheesed-off HRC begs Carville to join campaign. He declines on grounds he will not participate in negative campaign vs. Obama. Storyline: Cindy McCain questions Huckabee's patriotism for visiting the Cayman Islands during WI primary. Size small please, and long-sleeved if possible. Posted by: jbutterfield1 | February 19, 2008 7:55 PM Obama continues to build momentum as the campaign heads to Texas and Ohio. McCain 52% Huckabee 42% Paul 5% McCain closes in on the nomination--starting to win conservatives. Posted by: PastorGene | February 19, 2008 7:55 PM Posted by: leftofcenter | February 19, 2008 7:54 PM Wisconsin-Dem. Obama 56% Clinton 42% Wisconsin-Rep. McCain 64% Huckabee 30% Paul 6% Hawaii Obama 72% Clinton 27% Headline: "Clinton Claims Victory, Everyone Else Claims She's Getting Desperate" Weekly Headline: "Edwards Endorses Obama!" Posted by: murawski | February 19, 2008 7:52 PM McCain 46 Huck 45 Paul 8 Dem Headline - "K.O.-Bama! Clinton Campaign on Life Support After Dairyland Drubbing, Donors and Supporters Ready to Pull the Plug" GOP Headline - "Huckabee is History: McCain Puts Field Away and Readies for November Date with Destiny" Posted by: bondjedi | February 19, 2008 7:51 PM Percent of Wisconsin Voters wishing for an early Spring 97%. Percent of Wisconsin voters who state that they hope to be wintering in Florida during the 2012 Presiderntal Primary 79% Posted by: dennis20d | February 19, 2008 7:49 PM "Clinton Negative Ads Propel Her to Upset in Wisconsin" McCain 60 Huckabee 34 Paul 6 "McCain Moves Closer to Nomination; Huckabee Losing Relevance" Posted by: justmanj | February 19, 2008 7:49 PM McCain 55% Huckabee 43% Paul 2% Storyline: Clintons Scores Upset In State She Was Bound To Win "Clinton won a state everyone knew she would, given all known information on how Democrats have voted in the primaries. Obama's winning 8 states in a row rose expectations improbably high, allowing the media to project a state he never would won in the first place. "The high turnout of women, working-class voters and older voters made Wisconsin a virtual shoe-in for Clinton, but she managed to lower expectations by seeming to write off the state, campaigning in Texas for most of the week." Posted by: atomculture | February 19, 2008 7:47 PM The Disreputable REPS: Huckabee - 51 McCain - 48 HEADLINE: Midwest Hails Southern Charm, (offers Mike support... and money for new teeth) The young and the "rested" DEMS: Obama - 58 Clinton - 41 HEADLINE: Words take flight, Independents catch a ride (leaving JMac in the dust to chuckle with old Bushes "honoring" "conservative" "patriotic" fear-mongering) Posted by: surenza | February 19, 2008 7:44 PM storyline: after another defeat the gloves are off, clinton conceding nothing goes after obama in speech Posted by: smmalonso | February 19, 2008 7:44 PM Storyline Republicans- McCain wins. Wow. Democrats- Obama wins tenth in a row, but Clinton keeps it close enough to stay viable. Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 19, 2008 7:43 PM Storylines: McCain nabs Wisconsin win, but Huckabee hangs on, denying McCain full bragging rights. Obama surges in Wisconsin. Combined with his Hawaii victory, Obama makes TX and OH must wins for Clinton. Posted by: sofiamj | February 19, 2008 7:41 PM The future of the party depends on a clear winner in Texas, Ohio McCain 57 Huckabee 35 Ron Paul 5 Posted by: Xerxes501 | February 19, 2008 7:40 PM 50% Obama 49% Clinton 1% Other 52% McCain 42% Huckabee 6% Paul "Clinton is the Comeback Kid again! Facing elimination, she's back to challenge Obama in Texas and Ohio. With Obama's star fading a little after "borrowing" lines from Deval's speech, can he hang on?" Posted by: mustafa.hirji | February 19, 2008 7:37 PM Obama 54 Clinton 44 Edwards 1.5 HILLARY GIVES IT UP AND ENDORSES OBAMA Posted by: SMARTINSEN | February 19, 2008 7:37 PM Storyline: Big win for Obama; is it over for Hillary? Posted by: novamatt | February 19, 2008 7:37 PM Obama 55% Clinton 42% Headline: Obama train rolls on McCain 49% Huckabee 42% Headline: McCain Winning, Still Not Reaching Conservative Base Posted by: jimmydur | February 19, 2008 7:37 PM Obama - 50 % Clinton - 47% McCain - 58% Huckabee - 37% Posted by: whatthefruckisgoingon | February 19, 2008 7:36 PM Obama 54 Clinton 44 Others 2 HEADLINE: 10-0 FOR THE O, CLINTON SEES THE ALAMO! Posted by: meldupree | February 19, 2008 7:35 PM Wis.-D Clinton: 49% Obama: 48% Others: 3% Storyline: Clinton Slows Obama's Surge Wis.-R McCain: 60% Huckabee: 38% Others: 2% Storyline: Huckabee Drops Out of Race Wash.-R McCain: 57% Huckabee: 31% Others: 11% Hawaii.-D Obama: 67% Clinton: 32% Others: 1% Posted by: juliancasal | February 19, 2008 7:35 PM Obama - 50 % Clinton - 47% McCain - 58% Huckabee - 37% Posted by: whatthefruckisgoingon | February 19, 2008 7:35 PM Is it over for Clinton and did the negative campaigning back fire? Posted by: flwilliams87 | February 19, 2008 7:35 PM "Cheeseheads board the O-train. Next stop Texas and Ohio. ALL ABOARD!" "McCain just scrapes by the hair of his chinny-chin chin." Posted by: chopperoni | February 19, 2008 7:34 PM Dang it, I meant to say 2012, not 2021 !! Posted by: cferry3124 | February 19, 2008 7:34 PM Obama - 59.5 Clinton - 39.5 Huckabee - 50 McCain - 49 McCain embarrased as Huckabee takes giant stride towards 2021 GOP Nomination Obama's now 10 in-a-row but still playing whac-a-mole with Hillary. Chris C wins 32nd annual T-shirt design contest Posted by: cferry3124 | February 19, 2008 7:33 PM Storyline: Obama Prevails! Is Texas Next? Storyline: McCain One Step Closer Posted by: bleon2000 | February 19, 2008 7:32 PM Wisconsin freezes the race. Ohio the next big contest. McCain 52 Huckabee 38 McCain storms through Wisconsin. Huckabee is left out in the cold. Posted by: goldersgreen | February 19, 2008 7:31 PM McCain 51 Huckabee 45 Paul 4 Posted by: blueinva | February 19, 2008 7:29 PM The double-guessing begins: should Hillary have run negative ads? Should she have competed in Wisconsin sooner? Is she losing her grip on her demographic bases? McCain 50 Huckabee 46 Paul 4 Comparably high turnout among Huckabee supporters keeps this race tight; like Virginia, the race takes longer than expected to call. Posted by: gezi | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM Storyline: "When you go 10-0, you're either really winning or really losing" Storyline: "While Huckabee's continued search for the miracle is too cute, it's not fooling anybody - he wants to stay on TV so he can get a paying job after the primaries and lay claim to front-runner status next time." Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM Obama has huge momentum boost with larger than expected victory. More stories about Clinton's demise and backlash from negative ads. McCain wins again but still loses among very conservative voters. He still has a lot of reaching out to do as the presumptive nominee. Lots of questions heading into Texas. Posted by: jthemann | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM McCain 57 Huckabee 38 Paul 5 It's now clear to Dem superdelegates that Obama is stronger than Clinton against Rep opponent. Likewise, it's clear to Republicans that McCain is strongest against Dem opponent. Barring any dramatic unexpected tragedy, the races are settled: it's Obama vs. McCain Posted by: patrican | February 19, 2008 7:28 PM Storyline: "When you go 10-0, you're either really winning or really losing" Storyline: "While Huckabee's continued search for the miracle is too cute, it's not fooling anybody - he wants to stay on TV so he can get a paying job after the primaries and lay claim to front-runner status next time." Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 7:27 PM Story: Clinton's back, Huckabee's gone. Posted by: morr2630 | February 19, 2008 7:27 PM Posted by: BENDIKC | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Storyline: "When you go 10-0, you're either really winning or really losing" Storyline: "While Huckabee's continued search for the miracle is still cute, it's not fooling anybody - he wants to stay on TV so he can get a good paying job after the primaries and have a decent argument that he is the front-runner next time." Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Storyline: "When you go 10-0, you're either really winning or really losing" Storyline: "While Huckabee's continued search for the miracle is still cute, it's not fooling anybody - he wants to stay on TV so he can get a good paying job after the primaries and have a decent argument that he is the front-runner next time." Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Storyline: "When you go 10-0, you're either really winning or really losing" Storyline: "While Huckabee's continued search for the miracle is still cute, it's not fooling anybody - he wants to stay on TV so he can get a good paying job after the primaries and have a decent argument that he is the front-runner next time." Posted by: shepherc | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM McCain 62% Huckabee 33% Paul 5% Twice as many people will vote democratic as republican Posted by: jjjparks | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Obama momentum carries the day larger than anyone thought... Obama - 62% Clinton - 38% McCain - 61 Huckabee - 37 Paul - 2% Posted by: greenphd | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Obama momentum carries the day larger than anyone thought... Obama - 62% Clinton - 38% McCain - 61 Huckabee - 37 Paul - 2% Posted by: greenphd | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Obama momentum carries the day larger than anyone thought... Obama - 62% Clinton - 38% McCain - 61 Huckabee - 37 Paul - 2% Posted by: greenphd | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Story: Clinton's back, Huckabee's gone. Posted by: morr2630 | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Story: Clinton's back, Huckabee's gone. Posted by: morr2630 | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Story: Clinton's back, Huckabee's gone. Posted by: morr2630 | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM "Cheeseheads board the O-train. Next stop Texas and Ohio. ALL ABOARD!" "McCain just scrapes by the hair of his chinny-chin chin." Posted by: chopperoni | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Democrats Obama 49% Clinton 47% GOP McCain 59% Huckabee 35% Paul 4% Means absolutly nothing for the upcoming ones :) Posted by: rabja | February 19, 2008 7:26 PM Wow - looks like Hillary is really going to be cream cheese in WI today - women are even breaking for Obama: Exit Polls Fox News, CBS News and the Associated Press have released preliminary exit poll information from the Wisconsin Democratic primary. * Women: Obama 51%, Clinton 49% * Change vs. experience, 52% to 24%. * Just 17% are first time voters * Families with income under 50,000: Obama 51%, Clinton 49% * Independents: Obama 63%, Clinton 34% * Seniors: Clinton 60%, Obama 39% * Top quality - experience: Clinton 95%, Obama 5% * Union households: Clinton 50%, Obama 49% Update: Mike Allen has more: "Democratic officials with access to exit polls say Sen. Obama looks like he's headed for a huge win in today's Wisconsin primary. The polls could turn out to be off, as they have in the past. But the officials' revelation reflects the chatter in the campaigns in advance of the 9 p.m. Eastern poll closing... Obama encroached deeply into three of Clinton's core groups of voters -- women, those with no college degree and those with lower incomes -- while giving up none of his own." Posted by: joemetro | February 19, 2008 7:19 PM Storyline- Texas and Ohio absolute must wins for the Clinton camp. Storyline- McCain virtually ensures the nomination, campaign turns toward the general. Posted by: whitty | February 19, 2008 7:18 PM Obama 57% , Clinton 42% McCain 55% , Huckabee 44% Storylines: Obama nets another solid win, McCain very close to magic number.. Posted by: aestern | February 19, 2008 7:17 PM McCain 52 Huckabee 43 Paul 5 Obama wins with women, McCain makes lousy victory speech Posted by: dciandy | February 19, 2008 7:15 PM McCain 58% Huck 25% Paul 17% Posted by: spears404 | February 19, 2008 7:15 PM Wisconsin Predictions: Obama 54 Clinton 46 Storyline: Obama Wins Wisconsin-Eyes Of Texas And America Turn To Texas And Ohio. McCain: 58 Huckabee: 42 Storyline: In Wisconsin, Straight Talk Express Is Not Derailed. Posted by: vicsilver | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM DEM: Wis: Obama: 55.7% Clinton: 43.4% Edwards: 0.9% Hawaii: Obama: 68% Clinton: 32% GOP: Wis: McCain: 56% Huckabee: 38% Story: McCain Really Proud of Wisconsin, Cilizza Wondering Why Votes Don't Add to 100% Posted by: regand | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM Democrats Obama 49% Clinton 47% GOP McCain 59% Huckabee 35% Paul 4% Means absolutly nothing for the upcoming ones :) Posted by: rabja | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM Clinton 49 Obama 49 Other 2 Storyline: Clinton revives campaign with a razor thin victory winning a plurality in the cheese state. McCain 56 Huckabee 42 McCain consolidates his base Posted by: richardlab2 | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM Democrats: WI Obama 54.7% Clinton 45.3% HI Obama 71% Clinton 29% Obama continues to be buoyed by youth vote. Clinton unveils sharp new attacks against Obama. Republicans: WI McCain 49.6% Huckabee 42.2% Paul 8.2% McCain virtually inevitable despite reservations within party. Posted by: sonjunk | February 19, 2008 7:14 PM Storyline: Clinton wins among Demos; independents give Obama the win Storyline: Huckabee wins hearts with Green Bay Packer story Posted by: jdana | February 19, 2008 7:07 PM Dems: Obama Inevitable? Obama 55 Clinton 45 Reps: God Continues To Ignore Huckabee's Prayers. McCain 66.6 Huckabee: 29.3 Others: 4.1 Posted by: BrawleyHall | February 19, 2008 7:07 PM Obama - 55 Clinton - 45 McCain - 60 Huck - 40 Wisconsin voters can smell bad cheese a mile away. Clinton's divisive attacks on Obama cause voters to send her Packing. Posted by: BentKerg | February 19, 2008 7:04 PM Dems: Obama 55 Clinton 44 GOP: McCain 64 Huckabee 31 Paul 5 Storylines: Obama rides working class whites to victory, Clinton fears chances in Ohio GOP nomination all but sealed up Posted by: gabemeister | February 19, 2008 7:04 PM ****** PRIMARY PREDICTION: THE CLINTONS WILL HAVE LOAN THE CAMPAIGN $10 MILLION DOLLARS TO STAY LIVE OR ****** FOR TEXAS & OHIO Posted by: FutureJumps | February 19, 2008 7:02 PM Wisconsin results: Obama 54% Clinton 43% McCain 50% Huckabee 42% Paul 6% Clinton Loses Again, Continues to Tout Victory Strategy Posted by: jchaney | February 19, 2008 6:57 PM He ain't the bomb no more. Time for Huck to float home. Posted by: earlmorriss | February 19, 2008 6:56 PM McCain comments on the national rase. Posted by: lovell.bill | February 19, 2008 6:55 PM Clinton: 0% Obama: 0% Gravel: 100% McCain: 0% Huckabee: 0% Gravel: 100% Headline: A bizzare software failure in Wisconsin primary causes every vote cast to be for Mike Gravel Gravel calls a recount "Unconstitutional' Posted by: ewrules | February 19, 2008 6:54 PM Obama - 60% Clinton - 39% Other - 1% Will Clinton survive until March 4th?. McCain - 64% Huckabee - 35% Other - 1% How much longer will Huckabee stay in the race? Posted by: 17platt | February 19, 2008 6:54 PM Obama 57 Clinton 42 Others 1 Clinton Super Delegates Grow Uneasy as "do or die" March 4th looms. McCain 62 Huckabe 34 Others 4 Conservatives Still Not onboard straight talk express Posted by: bobnsri | February 19, 2008 6:51 PM WI: Obama 69% Clinton 29% Headline: Hillary drops out after huge losses in WI & HI HEadline: High independent support for Obama and low Republican turnout hurt McCain Posted by: joemetro | February 19, 2008 6:51 PM Obama 56% Clinton 43% McCain 47% Huckabee 42% Paul 7% Obama seals the deal, only straws left for Clinton. Time for Huckabee to quit Posted by: mttrevan | February 19, 2008 6:50 PM Clinton 49% Obama 48% Edwards 2% McCain 61% Huchabee 30% Paul 9% Clinton in Wisconsin surprise, stalls Obama momentum. Posted by: kitbritton | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM McCain 64% Huckabee 28% Paul 6% Posted by: jforauer | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM McCain 60% Second Coming 40% I do like the Huckleberry Hound reference. Posted by: mikedooley | February 19, 2008 6:48 PM McCain: 54 Huckabee: 43 Paul: 3 Headlines: Clinton spins 6 point loss as a "win". Tony spins around to model his Fix T-Shirt. Posted by: Boutan | February 19, 2008 6:48 PM story: Silk out of a sow's ear for the Clinton campaign, a state they should have won is somehow seen as an accomplishment in a loss. McCain: 55% Huckabee: 40% Paul: 4% story: Noone really cares anymore, Huckabee seals a show on Fox News. Posted by: arlee1 | February 19, 2008 6:45 PM Obama 57 Clinton 42 Others 1 McCain 62 Huckabe 34 Others 4 Posted by: bobnsri | February 19, 2008 6:44 PM Posted by: jburke | February 19, 2008 6:44 PM Race too close to call for several hours, another Comeback Kid day for Clinton as Obama fails to seal the deal! Superdelegates getting very nervous. McCain 52 Huckabee 37 Paul 7 Oh, and McCain won again. Now, back to more analysis of the Democratic slugfest... Posted by: billmcg | February 19, 2008 6:43 PM McCain 49%, Huckabee 41%, Others 10% Headline: Independents push Obama to big win Posted by: kitaylor | February 19, 2008 6:41 PM McCain 54% Huckabee 42% Paul 3% Posted by: mutanttoasterfiend | February 19, 2008 6:40 PM McCain 56 Huckabee 40 Another surge of women voting Posted by: donaldmatson1 | February 19, 2008 6:39 PM Obama 63% Clinton 37% Dam breaks and smothers Clinton. McCain 89% Huckabee 8% Paul 3% McCain Wins, kooky Huckabee brakes own record with "Huckabee!" book sales. Posted by: johng1 | February 19, 2008 6:39 PM Storyline: Obama stronger going into Texas Ohio. Obama surprises with blue-collar voters. Storyline: Huckabee still attracting hard-line conservatives and evangelicals. Posted by: jh1062 | February 19, 2008 6:39 PM McCain 55 Huckabee 38 Paul 6 Status Quo Reigns: Obama still chugging along, McCain still struggling to close the deal Posted by: comtrevor | February 19, 2008 6:39 PM Hillary got her groove back! McCain crushes Huckabee but the Huckster pledges to keep rolling on. Posted by: LadyEagle | February 19, 2008 6:38 PM Sorry, my sarcasm doesn't work as well in print. I'm predicting that the all-hype, oversensationalized MSM will explode with "Obama is Finished"-type blather stories if he fails to win WI today. Naturally, that is completely ridiculous, but still I predict we'll be reading a lot of those storis in the next 48 hours. Posted by: ablackstormy | February 19, 2008 6:37 PM Cheeseheads love Obama! Obama cuts into Hillary's base, turns out independents and Obamacans. Hillary will make her last stand at the Alamo. Huck comes close in Badger State, heads deep into the heart of Texas. Conservatives still lukewarm about McCain, will they ever come around to him? P.S. The Fix shirt is the stuff, I'm hoping for brokered conventions so I can keep guessing all the way to Puerto Rico. Posted by: EricLopez1067 | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM Obama still has the mo', but fails to knock out Hillary. He was going to be veep, but now he's just being annoying. Posted by: fxsj | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM Posted by: MikeReynard | February 19, 2008 6:35 PM Big turnout in Madison, same-day registrations by young voters statewide, heavy voting by independents and Republicans in Dem primary carry Obama to decisive victory, but Clinton maintains narrow edge among working class and older white voters, especially women. Another win for Obama, but no knockout punch. McCain 52% Huckabee 41% Paul 6% McCain vote held down by Republicans crossing over to vote in Dem primary, pesky Huckabee can't win but won't go away. Posted by: bclintonk | February 19, 2008 6:34 PM Obama 57% Clinton 42% Ten in row! Hillary downplays WI loss, too many Obama-crazed students. McCain 49% Huckabee 47% Paul 4% McCain squeaks out a winner but Huckabee vows to fight on! Posted by: zb95 | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM Spin: Strong showing for Obama because it was (1) a primary, (2) he cut into her demo groups. McCain: 49% Huckster: 40% Paul: 9% Spin: McCain can't win a majority even though he's annointed? Why is Huckabee still in it (ignoring the fact that he's winning huge shares of the votes)? No substantial comment on Ron Paul. Posted by: shc | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM McCain 54% Huckabee 39% Paul 7% Story line: Huckabee stands firm on staying in, but campaign insiders predict a coming bow out and endorsement of McCain. Obama eeks out a big win as Clinton prepares for a last stand in Texas and Ohio. Posted by: cubgac | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM cheeseheads 55% hula girls 45% Posted by: octavio | February 19, 2008 6:32 PM McCain 56% Huckleberry Hound 36% Paul 6% Posted by: collins | February 19, 2008 6:32 PM Democrats Obama: 51% Clinton: 44% Storyline: Same again - Obama keeps the momentum; Clinton still in contention. Republicans McCain: 50% Huckabee: 40% Paul: 2% Storyline: McCain almost over the line; Huckabee firms as potential VP candidate. Posted by: aegisal | February 19, 2008 6:32 PM Huge youth vote BUT the approx 30% of WI college/uni students, who are out-of-state, can't vote. Also, HRC swamps Obama in the Fox Valley industrial corridor from Green Bay to Kenosha. Posted by: garth | February 19, 2008 6:30 PM Dems: Clinton's negative attacks and her campaign reshuffle back-fire, Obama wins on strength of young and indpendents, the elderly vote is almost evenly split. Ohio and TX are the Last Stand for Clinton. GOP: Huckabee hails the evening as a victory and looks to TX as his greatest chance to swing the fate of the primary. McCain, unfazed by the narrow margin, keeps plodding through trying to rally conservatives. Posted by: joseph.urso | February 19, 2008 6:30 PM Posted by: sethmarc | February 19, 2008 6:30 PM Dems: Obama 51 Clinton 39 GOP: McCain 52 Huckabee 40 Clinton camp's going negative fails to pay off, Straight-talk express continues straight toward the nomination. Posted by: MrWallace | February 19, 2008 6:29 PM Clinton - 52 Obama - 48 Storyline: It's the Economy, Stupid! McCain - 64% Huckabee - 31% Paul - 5% Storyline - Huck Fans Fade. McCain Moves On. Posted by: jeffreyraymond | February 19, 2008 6:29 PM DEMS Clinton 53% Obama 46% Storyline: Clinton's new populist tone pays off. REPS McCain 56% Huck 40% Storyline: McCain begins to win over conservatives. Posted by: dmoralestx | February 19, 2008 6:28 PM I hope I'm wrong but I'll guess: Obama - Clinton are to all intents and purposes tied in Wisconsin (both 49.x%). Obama only hundreds ahead and Clinton saying this is a huge victory for her (whilst querying the result with lawyers). The storyline (with the result less than clear the following morning) being, "Whoever out of Obama and Clinton clinches the state, the real victor is the nagative campaigning tactic as the Democrats brace themselves for a messy and long fight." Posted by: dballagher | February 19, 2008 6:27 PM Obama 56% Hillary 43% 1% Other McCain 45% Huckalberry 39% Ron Paul 12% Posted by: janswan | February 19, 2008 6:26 PM Obama and Hillary are spending a lot of time and money just for the honor of being the answer in a triva game in 20 years, when the question is, "Who ran against President McCain in '08?". Posted by: aolondon | February 19, 2008 6:26 PM If you think a 2% loss in Wisconsin would mean it's over for Obama, you clearly haven't been paying attention. Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 6:24 PM Obama 99% Peter Griffin .09% Chris Cillizaa .01% Clinton -100% Storyline: Are you an Obama mama? Huckabee 100% McCain turns out to be Hillary Clinton in disguise trying to rig an election! Just curious what happens if Obama wins pledged delegates but Clinton wins super delegates. Seems pretty non-democratic to me! Posted by: ThoughtfulMonk | February 19, 2008 6:23 PM McCain: 48% Huckabee: 39% Paul: 5% Storyline: Obama scores another win, adding more momentum to campaign. Clinton slams brakes on negative ads. McCain still on his merry way to the GOP nomination. Renewed calls for Huckabee to exit. Posted by: gordie_foote | February 19, 2008 6:22 PM Wisconsin: Obama: 55% Clinton: 43% Other: 2% Headline: Clinton Retreats to Texas Alamo for Last Stand McCain: 58% Huchabee: 36% Other: 6% Headline: McCain Readies Swiftboats Posted by: NewEra | February 19, 2008 6:21 PM *DEM* Obama: 55% Clinton: 44% Storyline: "Obama's Words Are More Than Cheese: Wins Wisconsin." *GOP* McCain: 51% Huckabee: 39% Storyline: "Badgers? Conservatives Don't Need No Stinkin' Badgers: McCain Wins Again." Posted by: wwkayaker | February 19, 2008 6:20 PM Obama 51%, Clinton 48% (although this race may still be too close to call based on the weather, with a projected 35% registered voter turnout and the lingering sting of the "style" versus "substance" criticism). McCain 67%, Huckabee 20%, Paul 12% (is it time for Huckabee to step aside for the presumptive Republican nominee already?) Posted by: dparkdon07 | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM Clinton 56 Obama 43 Edwards 1 Headline: The Comeback Kid Reality: Negative campaigning works... particularly with stupid people Huck 46 McCain 44 Paul 10 Headline: Huck delays McCain for only a few weeks Reality: Evolution loses to religion. Posted by: dcraven925 | February 19, 2008 6:19 PM Democrats: - Obama - 54% - Clinton - 45% - McCain - 57% - Huckabee - 42% Posted by: nic.roxylife | February 19, 2008 6:17 PM Clinton:53% Obama: 47% McCain 60% Huckabee 35% Paul 5% Reasons: Clinton is a blue collar candidate,economy is the key, not the Obama fervor. Also there are far more whites Wisconsinettes than blacks. Obama can not play the racial game.There will be a big surprise for the Obama camp. Clinton will eventually win the momimee in the conference fight. Posted by: johnycheng1 | February 19, 2008 6:17 PM Dem Clinton 49 Obama 47 Headline - Clinton start to inspires again. Rep McCain 62 Huckabee 30 Headline - conservative Republican vote for Clinton instead of McCain. Posted by: j2yueh | February 19, 2008 6:17 PM Clinton campaign spins close result as a 'victory' McCain 65 Huckabee 28 Paul 4 Pressure increases from party elders for Huckabee to withdraw Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 19, 2008 6:17 PM Dems- Obama 51 Clinton 46 Reps- McCain 57 Huckabee 38 Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 19, 2008 6:16 PM Against all odds - it's a tie! Obama wins by 150 votes, Clinton claims victory. Posted by: diabloquick.wa | February 19, 2008 6:16 PM Dems- Obama 51 Clinton 46 Reps- McCain 57 Huckabee 38 Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 19, 2008 6:16 PM McCain 39% Huck 33% Ron Paul 28% Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 19, 2008 6:15 PM Storyline---Going negative blows up in Hillary's face as Obama wins 9th and 10th in a row Posted by: samerickson | February 19, 2008 6:15 PM Story: Negativity Pays Off for Clinton Posted by: cdavis1381 | February 19, 2008 6:14 PM Obama 55 Clinton 43 Headline: ObamaMo! McCain 63 Huckabee 32 Paul 5 Headline: Time for Huck to give it up? Posted by: psfiske | February 19, 2008 6:14 PM Obama gets a mere 51% in Hawaii?! No way ... he'll clear 70%. It's a caucus state, remember? OK, for the WI stakes: Obama 56, Clinton 43, other 1 McCain 52, Huckabee 42, Paul et al 6 Obama: Electability electability electability. Graciously thanks WI for key win, but the real story is in head-to-head national polls showing big leads over McCain (who beats HRC in swing states). McCain: Wisconsin voters would rather have a beer with McCain, especially since the Huckster doesn't drink (at least I'm guessing that he doesn't ...). Posted by: julie | February 19, 2008 6:13 PM Democrats; Obama: 57% Clinton: 43% storyline: When will Hilary concede? Republicans: McCain: 61% Huckabee: 39% Posted by: thebobbob | February 19, 2008 6:10 PM Storyline: 10 in a row causes worry in Clinton. She looks towards Texas to save her campaign. Rep: Mac: 45 Huck: 40 Paul: 15 Storyline: Establishment continues lining up behind McCain but conservatives dont care. They know a wolf in sheep's clothing when they see one. Posted by: Normscoffee | February 19, 2008 6:10 PM Obama cuts into key Clinton demographics: whites, women. In the next few days, public signs of exasperation at the Clintons from party big-wigs who want a clean shot at McCain. When is Huckabee outta here? In other news: Chuck Norris attacks fellow Texan George H.W. Bush, not because of the latest endorsement, but to steal the former president's new Fix t-shirt. Posted by: wtomasko09 | February 19, 2008 6:10 PM Obama 54.2% Clinton 43.8% Other 2% McCain 55% The Huckster 30% Williard Romney 10% Paul 2% Other 3% Posted by: ataridem | February 19, 2008 6:09 PM Obama: 53% Clinton: 43% Other: 4% Storyline: "Going negative doesn't kill hope." (I was pretty certain Clinton was going to do well, but after checking the blog @ Wispolitics.com, it looks like the huge metro student turn-out, lower-than-expected rural turn-out and related blog posts probably put Obama in better shape than I thought). Republicans: McCain: 69% Huckabee: 30% Paul: 1% Storyline: (Do we really need one? McCain's the nominee. Game over.) Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | February 19, 2008 6:08 PM McCain 58 Huckabee 32 Paul 6 Clinton Camp: Election Results "Just Words" McCain Camp: For Whom is the Bell Tolling, Mike? Posted by: judgeccrater | February 19, 2008 6:07 PM Huckabee 47 McCain 44 Paul 7% Posted by: grassboots | February 19, 2008 6:07 PM Obama: 56 Clinton: 43 Other: 1 McCain: 59 Huckabee: 35 Paul: 4 Other: 2 Headline: Barack's streak continues, but Texas and Ohio stand in his way of the nomination; McCain in complete control, but Republican's apathy reflected in turnout. Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 19, 2008 6:07 PM McCain's locking of his nomination and an open primary give Obama added support from independents. Posted by: BABucher | February 19, 2008 6:06 PM McC 50 MDH 43 RP 7 Clinton: "I beat expectations!" Huckabee: "This is fun!" Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 19, 2008 6:06 PM Wisconsin: Clinton- 49 Obama- 47 Headline: 'WI Wants More Than Words: Clinton Surprises Pollsters, Mounts Comeback #2' Hawaii: Obama- 51 Clinton- 45 Headline: 'First Daughter Helps Clinton, but Hawaii Chooses Native Son' Posted by: AC19 | February 19, 2008 6:05 PM Democrate: Hilary 54 Obama 45 Republican: McCain 51 Huckabee 39 Paul 10 Posted by: fzheng501 | February 19, 2008 6:04 PM p.s. that fix shirt design is the BOMB, as the youngsters would say. can I just buy one? Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 6:04 PM WI - Obama - 64% - Hillary 35% Within a week, Edwards endorses Obama. Posted by: fourhourelection | February 19, 2008 6:03 PM Wisconsin is an open primary with lots of independents and - with sameday registration - the young people are going to turn out in droves. Yeah NH had independents too, but that was before South Carolina when the campaigning started to go downhill and dirty for Clinton. McCain 49% Huckabee 42% Paul 9% Posted by: grimmix | February 19, 2008 6:03 PM What the huck is wrong with Huckabee? Just cant let go of all the media attention? What a joke! Posted by: amitavar | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM Sen. Barrack Obama- 48% Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton- 47% Sen. John mcCain- 54% Former Gov. mike Huckabee- 29% "Clitnon not dead yet; Mccain seals the deal...again" Posted by: AM91091 | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM Sen. Barrack Obama- 48% Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton- 47% Sen. John mcCain- 54% Former Gov. mike Huckabee- 29% "Clitnon not dead yet; Mccain seals the deal...again" Posted by: AM91091 | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM Clinton 53% Obama 45% Other 2% McCain 64 Huckabee 28 Romney 4 Ron Paul 4 Posted by: john_hull2004 | February 19, 2008 6:02 PM Storyline: American Eagle Outfitters, Abercrombie and Fitch simultaneously sue Chris Cillizza for design infringement over Fix logo. Also, Clinton negative campaigning has negligible effect on voter preferences - Obama still wins fairly comfortably. Posted by: ManUnitdFan | February 19, 2008 6:01 PM More Clinton Staff fired. Carville and Begala brought into the fold in last gasp. McCain asks Huckabee "WTF". Huckabee uses last of frequent flyer points to get home. Drops out Thursday. Posted by: kim | February 19, 2008 6:01 PM Obama - 59 Clinton - 41 Huckabee - 49% McCain - 47% Paul - 4% Headline 1: Huckabee Stuns McCain, Activists call for McCain to drop out (and I win the shirt as being the only reader to pick huckabee!) Headline 2: Maggie Williams out as Clinton campaign manager afetr only one contest... Ragin Cajun calls for Clinton to drop out. Posted by: bob | February 19, 2008 6:01 PM Obama: 50 Clinton: 48 Other: 2 Storyline (Regardless of who wins): Ohio/Texas is now most important election since the guys with the togas in the coliseum, so be sure to tune in to our 36 hour Ohio-Texas Two-Step non-stop coverage extravaganza (and watch Wolf's beard grow on air as a bonus). McCain: 53 Huckapower: 39 Paul: 7 Other: 1 Story: Can't McCain just challenge Laura Ingraham to a boxing match or something and get this "true conservative" storyline over with? Posted by: pinkopatriot | February 19, 2008 6:00 PM Obama 55 Clinton 44 Other 1 McCain 68 Huckabee 31 Other 1 Obama's In Tall Cotton Now! Posted by: llarsen | February 19, 2008 5:59 PM McCain 50 Huckabee 47 Paul 2 10th time not a charm for Clinton. McCain growing more perturbed by Huckabee's prescence, behind doors push for him to drop out and endorse McCain Posted by: davehomuth | February 19, 2008 5:59 PM Headline - Clinton Camp, "Wisconsin Doesn't Count". Posted by: derrick | February 19, 2008 5:58 PM Obama 52 Clinton 46 Other 2 McCain 64 Huckabee 33 Other 3 Posted by: jaclyn.dilauro | February 19, 2008 5:56 PM Obama 56% Clinton 41% Other 3% McCain 55% Huckabee 39% Paul 4% Other 2% Posted by: phoenixresearch | February 19, 2008 5:55 PM Independents largely vote in the Democratic column, 66% to 34% in the GOP race. The big story is that Independents are favoring the Democrats and Obama by a much larger percentage than either Hillary or the GOP. Secondly, women are now trending more towards Obama than before and this trend is going to rattle the Clinton campaign a great deal even while Hillary still gets a majority of the female vote but by a lessening margin. Lastly, white males are continuing to trend toward Obama,. GOP turnout is only marginally higher than in prior primaries, the ones already held (this excludes caucuses). This shows a continuing lack of enthusiasm, either for the candidates or in anticipation of a lost cause in November. This is a direct effect of the GWB regime's "accomplishments" for America and for the GOP. Posted by: can8tiv | February 19, 2008 5:55 PM Storyline: Obama clinches a good margin by making inroads to Clinton's core areas of support (women, working-class) and, because of independents. Storyline: McCain fails to draw independents and thus Huckabee loses, but by a smaller margin than expected, emphasizing McCain's dilemma of uniting Republican voters. Posted by: darkestcloud | February 19, 2008 5:55 PM clinton 52% obama 48% story: clinton manages to break obama momentum going to the march 4 McCain 58% Huckabee 32% others 10% story: Huckabee are u going to wrap up yet? Posted by: agrawal_roopa | February 19, 2008 5:54 PM Dems: Obama 59% Clinton 39% Other 2% White men won't vote for Obama? Reps: McCain 46% Huck 45% Paul 7% Other 2% McCain thanks god that the Republicans are not using the Dems primary system otherwise he would have to admit he is the one in the closer race. Posted by: Southeasterner | February 19, 2008 5:54 PM McCain 61 Huckabee 33 Paul 6 Obama keeps riding his momentum and Huckabee becomes even less relevent. Posted by: bigrusslds | February 19, 2008 5:54 PM Storyline: Obama picks up two more states, but Clinton closes back in. Race will get more negative as we move to Ohio and Texas... McCain: 50 Huckabee: 40 Paul: 6 Storyline: Huckabee hanging in the race, while McCain continues to go after the possible Democratic nominees... Posted by: rpy1 | February 19, 2008 5:54 PM Obama is 10-0. Clinton do or die on March 4. Posted by: lmeert | February 19, 2008 5:53 PM D: Clinton: 51% Obama: 47% Others (Gravel, Edwards, etc): 2% Story: The soft negative works for Clinton, the "facts over rhetoric" line starts to stick, makes a dent in the Obama momentum movement. R: McCain: 52% Huckabee: 38% Paul: 10% Story: Not much of one, the Straight Talk Express is chugging along. Posted by: mtconnelly | February 19, 2008 5:51 PM Oh yeah, the republicans vote, too: McCain 54 Huck 40 Paul 6 Weather from North Pole delivers gift to Obama Posted by: optimyst | February 19, 2008 5:48 PM Clinton = 52% Obama = 46% Other = 2% McCain = 65% Huckabee= 30% Other = 5% Clinton bounces back tonight. McCain steals Obama voters. Race for both nominations continues. Posted by: brendanneal | February 19, 2008 5:46 PM Headline--Wisconsin too close to call on Democratic side; McCain sures up conservative voters. Posted by: brianspak | February 19, 2008 5:46 PM Guys/Christ?!?! Who won last week's prediction contest for the Potomac Primary? Wisconsin --------------------------------- Democrats Obama - 56 Clinton - 44 Obama Roll Continues; Hillary's Negatives Prove Fail to Stunt Momentum Republicans McCain - 49 Huckabee - 44 Paul - 5 McCain Continues to Underperform as the Frontrunner Posted by: jpsherer | February 19, 2008 5:45 PM Obama 54 Clinton 45 Other 1 'With key demographics deserting her, will Clinton make it to Ohio/Texas?' McCain 53 Huckabee 43 Paul 3 Other 1 'McCain continues to face problems uniting the GOP' Posted by: JiffyMoo | February 19, 2008 5:44 PM Just one question, if I get pulled over while wearing that shirt, will the police ask to search my car for drugs? :-) Posted by: optimyst | February 19, 2008 5:44 PM Either way, you can bet Hillary will find something to moan about! Snow is so unconstitutional! For the good of the party Hillary stand down. Posted by: pr8mrh | February 19, 2008 5:43 PM Clinton strategists remember that going negative can work and will ramp up the negativity. The question is, will Obama follow suit? McCain: 63% Huckabee: 30% McCain declares victory as conservatives cry and yweissm1 laughs all the way to his fix tshirt Posted by: yweissm1 | February 19, 2008 5:42 PM McCain: 52% Huckabee: 41% Paul: 7% Obama notes his victory comes in spite of Clinton's apparent demographic advantage; Clinton yet again fails to acknowledge Obama in concession. Huckabee admits he is remaining in race because McCain "is really really old." Posted by: jallenba | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM Democrats: Obama: 55% Clinton: 44% Storyline: Obama's Winning Streak Unbroken Republicans: McCain: 57% Huckabee: 34%, Paul: 5% Posted by: prantha | February 19, 2008 5:41 PM Obama 58 Clinton 40 Obama maintains momentum into March 4th Junior Tuesday (aka Ohio-Texas Two-Step) McCain 49 Huckabee 42 Paul 7 McCain continues to march to GOP nomination, but unable to unify party Posted by: asacks | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM Storyline: Dems still struggling to select a nominee through Nov 5. McCain 64 Huckabee 26 Paul 10 Storyline: Why can't you just get it through your head, it's over ... Posted by: pjd56 | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM McCain 48% Huckabee 44% Paul 8% Headline: "Obamamentum" continues, Obama picks off key Clinton demographic groups, looks strong going into March 4; Huckabee continues to be a thorn in McCain's side, McCain still looks inevitable in spite of it all Posted by: jumpin_bob | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM McCain 56 Huckabee 36 Paul 7 Storyline: Obama has work to do with women. Clinton wins women by 24 points. Posted by: steveboyington | February 1
Chris Cillizza is the author of The Fix, a blog on national politics. Cillizza provides daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
310.525
0.725
1.075
high
low
abstractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/02/will_mccain_quit_the_senate.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/02/will_mccain_quit_the_senate.html
Will McCain Quit the Senate?
2008021919
On May 15, 1996, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole announced he was resigning from the chamber in order to focus on a presidential campaign that seemed to be slipping away from him. "My time to leave this office has come," he said, "and I will seek the presidency with nothing to fall back on but the judgment of the people and nowhere to go but the White House or home." The move didn't do the trick for the Kansas Republican, who lost decisively to President Bill Clinton that November. But while it may not have worked for Dole, that precedent has prompted reporters and other observers to ask whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- who praised Dole's decision at the time -- will follow the same playbook. Answers to that question from McCain and his staff have been mixed. "I can confidently say he is not planning to resign," Melissa Shuffield, McCain's Senate spokeswoman, told Capitol Briefing today. Of course, "planning" is in the present tense, and there is no reason why Shuffield can or should be more definitive on the subject. Dole wasn't planning to resign in February 1996, either. Asked the same question in a conference call with political bloggers on Feb. 13, McCain said: "Look, if I have the nomination, then we will decide whether I would remain in the Senate until after I'm elected president, if I'm elected president, or not. And the time to begin that process of thinking is after I have the nomination of the party. But right now, I have no inclination to leave the United States Senate early. So that's my position at this time. But ... if and when I win the nomination, I will then make that decision. But, right now, it is my intention to remain in the United States Senate." The current round of speculation on this subject got started back on Feb. 11, when Arizona Rep. John Shadegg (R) made the surprising announcement that he would not run for re-election to his House seat. Shadegg -- a McCain ally -- made clear in the ensuing days that he did not believe his political career was over, and his desire to run for higher office is well-known. If McCain wins the presidency in November, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) will appoint someone to fill McCain's seat until the 2010 election. Under state law, the appointee must be of the same party as the seat's previous occupant. But while Napolitano -- who is said to be interested in running for the Senate herself in 2010 -- must appoint a Republican, there's no reason to think she would appoint Shadegg just because he may want the job. So Shadegg could be hoping McCain wins and he (Shadegg) gets the appointment to fill the vacancy. Or Shadegg could be planning to run in 2010 even if he doesn't get the appointment. Or Shadegg could be hoping to run for Senate anyway in 2010 if McCain loses this year, since the seat will be up then and it's hard to imagine that McCain would run for another Senate term at that point. But if McCain resigns this year, several months before Election Day, the person appointed to fill the vacancy would only serve until the "next general election," which would be Nov. 4, 2008, when a contest to succeed McCain could be on the regular ballot. Shadegg could jump immediately into that race, and as of Dec. 31 he had $864,000 sitting in his House campaign account that he could use to jump-start a Senate bid. Making the story more complicated, 145 of Shadegg's fellow House Republicans signed a letter to him last week asking him to reconsider his decision to retire from the chamber. Shadegg spokewoman Abby Winter said Monday that her boss "spent the weekend with his family" discussing his future plans, as "he felt it was his obligation" to the signatories of the letter to take their request seriously. Of course, McCain won't make a decision about whether to quit the Senate just to fit Shadegg's hopes or plans. When Dole resigned in 1996, he was Senate Majority Leader, so his frequent absence from the chamber was a bigger story than McCain's numerous missed votes have been so far. And Senate Democrats at the time made clear that they would tie up the chamber in order to prevent Dole from scoring any legislative victories that might help his campaign. Dole was also behind in the polls and needed a boost; McCain seems to be doing just fine right now as he waits for a Democratic nominee to emerge. And while Dole decided to quit, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) didn't resign during his 2004 campaign, nor did Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) when he was on the Democratic ticket in 2000. Whichever Democrat wins this year's nomination -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- will likely face the same question about resigning. But they're both younger than the 71-year-old McCain -- Obama is 46, Clinton is 60 - so they could both spend several more years in the Senate and possibly even run for president again down the line, whereas this election appears likely to be McCain's last hurrah (unless he wins the White House and runs for re-election in 2012). The bottom line for McCain is that being in the Senate isn't hurting his campaign right now, and quitting wouldn't necessarily help him. If that equation changes between now and November, then he may decide, like Dole, to give himself "nowhere to go but the White House or home." By Ben Pershing | February 19, 2008; 1:48 PM ET 2008 Campaign , Senate Previous: The Other FISA Debate | Next: FISA Fight Focuses on Trial Lawyers Interesting speculation for a Primary Tuesday. My guess is that he stays in and if not elected, completes his last term in the Senate. Posted by: Fairlington Blade | February 19, 2008 2:32 PM McCain ought not to worry about that. When I talk to other Clinton supporters, otherwise faithful Democrats, I find ourselves determined to get him into the White House. It is the only way we can protest against the cowardly betrayal of Hillary by the Media and some in the Democratic Party. We were prepared to see Hillary lose when the race started. But to see her so blatantly victimized by one and every one - no, it's unbearable. To see her publicly raped and humiliated by the Media and her compatriots in the Democratic establishment has been totally disillusioning. The Democrats joined hands with Republicans to tear down Hillary. They ought to understand when us Hillary supporters join hands with Republicans to tear down Obama. I remember staying up until early morning to joyfully watch McCaskill, Tester, and Webb pull of dramatic victories to win the Senate. One of the outstanding events of 2007. I realize today how naive and foolish I was. No, Obama supporters, we are the naive ones here. Oh, boy, now, Democrats in Senate/Congress are unbearable to me. They must be defeated! Eventually they will be. Posted by: AM | February 19, 2008 2:51 PM I'm sorry all us free thinking non monarchy types tore down Hillary's chances with our evil growing of the Dem party's base. It used to be such a clear distinction: Republicans do dirty tricks, look out for corporate interests, and the Dems protect labor. Labor supports Obama, business supports Clinton. People support Obama. It must be the media, not anyone's HUGE reluctance to extend the Bush Clinton run on principal alone! Posted by: DROSEN | February 19, 2008 3:06 PM Calm down AM, it looks like you're about to pop a vein or something. Posted by: o. v. wong | February 19, 2008 3:16 PM DROSEN - Actually, labor support has been split in the Dem. primary. Appropriate given how evenly divided the votes have been. [Yes, Obama's on a roll. Some of that is simply a favorable calendar between Super Tuesday and March 4.] Posted by: Fairlington Blade | February 19, 2008 3:42 PM Dole's resignation was unproductive for him; stepping down as Majority Leader would have been enough. McCain should keep his position in the Senate. Reading one of the posts upthread, I'm reminded that Roosevelt was called a traitor to his class, Truman a Communist dupe, Johnson a baby-killer, Nixon a warmonger, Ford a dunce. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Ford, and Reagan had actual attempts made on their lives. I think some fans of Mrs. Clinton, who very frankly has had her life handed to her on a plate by comparison, would do well to reflect on this -- and to take some toughen-up pills. Posted by: Zathras | February 19, 2008 3:45 PM Is it me, or does John McCain look increasingly more like the old guy that married Anna Nicole Smith every day? My friends, I am not aging well. Posted by: steve boyington | February 19, 2008 3:46 PM I fully support AM comments above. The media is biased against Hillary and have given Obama a free ride. I am a loyal democrat and have never voted Republican before, but if Obama is the nominee, I'll be voting for McCain. Posted by: MM | February 19, 2008 4:09 PM Wow MM, your perception of the media bias against Clinton would cause you to vote for at least four more years of Bush/Republican-style rule? Your loyalties sure do seem misplaced. Posted by: elmerg | February 19, 2008 4:21 PM It really sounds like there are people getting paid by the campaigns to post here, I can only wonder how many votes anyone is going to change in this manner. Lotta people going to hold their breath until they turn blue and vote for X if Y doesn't get nicer treatment. Ann Coulter says (s)he's voting for Hillary. But I agree with steveboyington ... McCain looks and sounds OLD. Not mature and experienced, but fuzzy and elderly. And in his megalomania to be The Commander he is pushing himself so hard he probably won't even make it to the election. Posted by: Chris Fox | February 19, 2008 4:24 PM You call yourself loyal Dems, yet you suggest you will vote for McCain? I find this hard to believe. It suggests to me that either you are so partisan for your candidate that you're blind to the party or that you just dislike everyone who disagrees with your position enough to poison the process. Either way, I feel sad for you both. You may be turned off by the way that Clinton's been portrayed. I've been dismayed by some of the Obama coverage as well. But in the end, we need a Democrat, regardless of who it is, in the WH. If you don't understand that, you really aren't loyal Dems. Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 4:26 PM Why would McCain resign? He's missed 55% of Senate votes as it is, so it's not like anything would change through the election season. Actually, McCain could still remain Senator and President if he were elected and I'm sure that wouldn't give a scheduling conflict. If he takes vacation as President as much as he does in the Senate and misses 55% of work while in the White House while still missing 55% of his Senate votes, only 90% of his actual time will be occupied between the White House and the Senate. He'll still have 10% of his time to sit and do absolutely nothing! Sounds like a great candidate for the White House to me... Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:28 PM I don't believe any right-thinking Democrat would vote Republican just to spite a primary victor. That's just ridiculous. I think you people are Republican trolls pretending to be Democrats, especially given the confused grammar in AM's message (referring to her/himself and Obama supporters under the pronoun "we" while simultaneously claiming to be a Hillary supporter in the rest of his/her message). Disturbing. Posted by: Al | February 19, 2008 4:28 PM Interesting. I agree that the media is biased against Hillary and has given Obama a free ride, but that's not Obama's fault. I voted for Hillary but the argument against her that gives me pause is that she is too much like a Republican -- that there are too few differences between her and John McCain. Well, I've resisted that argument, but this discussion makes me believe that it must really be true. If "loyal Democrats" are as comfortable voting for McCain as they are Clinton, there can't be too many compelling differences. Posted by: trt2539 | February 19, 2008 4:29 PM MM, you're just like all of the Democrats that said they'll move to Canada if Bush is elected for a second term, back in 2004. Guess what? None of them really moved. I should know, I'm one of them, and I still live in Idaho. The difference is that I learn from my naivety, whereas you continue to blabber about how extreme of an action you'll take if your precious smear-mongerer isn't nominated. Do us a favor and zip it. Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:31 PM Do any of you Clinton supporters understand that if elected, the dynamic in this country will simply be flipped? Now 60 % of the citizens of this country dislike our current president. When she's elected, a like number of people will automatically dislike her. I, for one, am tired of this political dynamic. At least 40 % of the people in this country will NEVER give Hillary Clinton a chance to be an effective president, for good or ill. It's a sad, unfortunate fact. But it's why I can't bring myself to support her. It's not her fault, but as president, she has little opportunity to unify this country. Posted by: JohnD in Houston | February 19, 2008 4:35 PM Nice sock-puppetry AM (or MM, or whoever you are), but your fraudulent handles can't hide your poor logic: :The media "raped" Hillary, therefore i must vote for McCain. And if you think that a hard-scrabble primary is "victimizing" Hillary, then she doesn't have the ovaries to finish the job. Don't sell your candidate short, but don't complain when more Democrats find Barack more appealing. But this way, at least, Hillary can go back to the Senate and sponsor another amendment to ban flag burning. (Oooh, raped!) Posted by: ape dersen | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM You call yourself loyal Dems, yet you suggest you will vote for McCain? I find this hard to believe. It suggests to me that either you are so partisan for your candidate that you're blind to the party or that you just dislike everyone who disagrees with your position enough to poison the process. Either way, I feel sad for you both. You may be turned off by the way that Clinton's been portrayed. I've been dismayed by some of the Obama coverage as well. But in the end, we need a Democrat, regardless of who it is, in the WH. If you don't understand that, you really aren't loyal Dems. Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 04:26 PM ***************************** I agree. I think that these so-called democrats are not democrats at all, just republican partisan hacks who come here to stir up trouble. I have not met one Democratic voter who would support McCain over Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.I think that is all that is left to these hacks - God knows that the GOP has run out of substantive ideas that do not have Bush's prints all over them. MM and AM, I hope McCain and the GOP appreciates your efforts on their behalf and saves you some good appetizers at the next exciting campaign rally. Cheer loudly so we can hear you. Posted by: LABC | February 19, 2008 4:38 PM Obama has NOT been given a free ride. All that has been in the news over the past few days has been "Clinton says Obama did this..." and "Clinton says Obama did that..." with Obama's defense buried somewhere in the fifth paragraph of the story. Clinton has screwed up her campaign royally, firing her managers, loaning herself money, sicking slick Willie on Obama like a junkyard attack dog, changing her message every few days, referring to Obama's wins as "expected," overlooking all of the Democrats who vote for anyone but her, lying in her campaign ads and strategically crying at key points in the campaign cycle to manipulate her female voters into feeling bad for her when they go to the polls. Obama has run a flawless campaign, short of a few slips here and there, and continues to take responsibility for his words and not try to continually deflect everything as if he's never done anything wrong in his life. Clinton refuses to take responsibility for her mistakes, always blaming polls, the media, blacks, rich people, the caucus format, his endorsements and demographics for all of her cataclysmic losses. When are you going to run out of things to blame, Ms. Clinton? You have no one to blame but yourself for all of your sloppy campaign mistakes and you're going to feel the pinch when voters continue to pummel you at the polls. Posted by: thecrisis | February 19, 2008 4:39 PM Posted by: MM | February 19, 2008 4:46 PM Hopefully he will resign from the Senate and get defeated in the Election and move to Mexico. This Nation will be better rid of that ill tempered old senile man that has been trading on his bad luck in getting captured for 35 years. The men is a Moron on the scale of Jr. Bush. It tough being a Republican these days Nay it tough being an American when all our we have to chose from are Bad and Worse! Posted by: Bl | February 19, 2008 4:47 PM I rather not vote at all than vote for Obama, I cant bring myself to vote for someone who has no experience. he has barely been in the senate for a year, two years and this qualifies him to being president. And the crap he said about his foriegn policy experience, that living in indonesia qualifies him in that area. Hell that means my traveling to 30 countries in the 22 years that ive been alive makes me more qualified than he is. Posted by: ml | February 19, 2008 4:56 PM Most democrats will vote for Obama except white males and older women. McCain will get their vote. I didn't think the Democrats could lose this election but nominating a very liberal black man with no experience just might do it. The last known democrat to become President was a moderate and ran as such. Obama looks very good to liberals but it is hard to see him attracting many independents away from McCain. The attacks on Obama will paint him a liberal and his only defense is to defend liberalism. That's not an easy sell to a moderate electorate. But that is why he is the Democratic nominee and he is by far the best political orator I have ever heard. He beat the Clinton's because he was able to galvanize the Clinton haters. He is also a brilliant political strategist and that counts for a lot. At the end of all this someone has to win and Obama has a shot. That's pretty good for a country that when I was growing up had separate restrooms for blacks and whites, and not just in the South. Posted by: Pat Greene | February 19, 2008 4:56 PM There are three Senators running this season, why is this article only slanted towards McCain? In fact, Hillbillary has missed more votes than McCain and it's likely Obama has also. Oh right - it's the media spin. Posted by: bandmom22 | February 19, 2008 5:09 PM Umm actually if you did your research you would notice that hillary missed the least amount of votes of all three of them, but i guess your too busy using moronic terms like "hillbillary". Posted by: ml | February 19, 2008 5:15 PM McCain should quit the Senate. While his Senate duties may not be affecting his presidential campaign, it IS affecting the supposed representation that Arizona citizens should be receiving. It's very unfair for ANY Senator to continue receiving pay as a Senator when they are not there to do their duty. Yet another problem with our system. Posted by: BP | February 19, 2008 5:19 PM Why exactly is McCain described as more of the same as Bush when it is Clinton and Obama that say they will continue to make signing statements and McCain is the one that thinks he is running for President instead of dictator? I'm not trying to say that I see some clear distinction between these three candidates, because I don't, but why exactly doesn't everyone act as if the party affiliation of the candidates even matters a whit. It's the positions the candidates take that matters. And the positions of all three front runners seem quite similar indeed. Running mates sound like the biggest factor at this point, and you don't get to vote on running mates in a primary. Posted by: blah blah blah | February 19, 2008 5:22 PM experience, what does that mean? there is an expression, that there is no fool like an old fool. so, i ask, what was the experience that the current president had in foreign relations? what was the experience ronald regan had in foreign relations? on the other hand, george the first, had lots of foreign experience, and look at the disaster that was. i am sure that alexander the great had lots of experience before he conquered the world at 33. experience seems code for "he's not one of us." how pathetic that we want more of the same: loss of american jobs, declining value of the dollar, inflation, endless war, no universal health care, tax breaks for the megamillionaires with crushing tax burdens for the middle class, national education system in disorder, national military undersupplied, national hope swamped in a sea of anti-depressant drugs. wow, i think i want more that experience. no matter who the president is, the nation will survive (look at us now!). but, the issue remains what do we want our future to look like? where is the aspiration for better? mccain sells fear. clinton sells "experience." obama sells "hope." imagine the each of them in colonial america: mccai--stick with the king, the french and indians will get us if we don't; clinton--time for a new dialogue with england, i've been talking to england for years; obama--we have to believe in ourselves and in something better. maybe it is words and maybe the words are borrowed, but nevertheless, we have to articulate our dreams before we can achieve them. and if they are the same dreams that others share, it is not for lack of originality but because those dreams are still to be achieved. Posted by: potrero pundit | February 19, 2008 5:24 PM First off... to the so called Dems claiming they would vote for McCain... you need to take a long look in the mirror and decide wether or not you are TRUE DEMOCRATS, you're not if you would vote republican. Next, tearing down Hillary, thats uncalled for. I believe Hillary would make a wonderful president. The Clintons were here for us once before cleaning up the mess a Bush made and I strongly believe we need a Clinton in office to do the job again. Now I am not going to talk down Obama, I think he has wonderful ideas and I think he would make a GREAT President, in 8 years. Give him some time to get more experience and when the next Democratic elections come along I would be more than willing to vote Obama, but for right now I am for Clinton all the way. Let her fix our country get the US back on track once again and then let Obama in to keep the ball rolling. Posted by: Reality Check | February 19, 2008 5:24 PM The way that the HC and BO supporters go after each other you might imagine that something important was at stake like being picked to play in the college football championship. Yes, there appear to be a lot of tender souls in our electronic neighborhood. Posted by: David Fahey | February 19, 2008 5:26 PM I don't see the media hitting on McCain. He is starting to look more like Bush every day.Any Democrat would look better than a tired old man who has ridden his POW experience into the ground. Before the uproar begins. I am also an EX POW. Posted by: William Reulbach | February 19, 2008 5:29 PM The person hysterically ranting about Hillary might be pulling our collective legs. No real Democrat, including Hillary herself, would advocate voting for McCain over Obama. Hillary destroyed herself with her lies, libels, and refusal to apologize for her vote to kill our kids in Iraq. People just flat out realized that she is not a very good or nice human being. Blaming the media sounds more like the usual Republican cop-out. Posted by: royhobbs | February 19, 2008 5:33 PM Pat Greene - your analysis about the general election is off, I think. Obama stands the best chance to get elected against McCain, precisely becuase he will pull independents who might otherwise go for McCain. If you look at the statistics of the primaries that Obama has won, he does best in those where the primary is open, like in Virginia. What happens in those states is that the independents all come out and vote for him. His victory in MD was by a smaller margin only because they have a closed primary, so not as many independents were able to vote. Clinton has a serious handicap here. Let me preface by saying I like her, but the reality is that against McCain, she loses. There are too many irrational anti-Clinton people out there, and most of them are the GOPer's who would otherwise stay at home than vote for McCain, becuase he's a traitor to the GOP cause. However, if Clinton's on the ticket, all those evangelicals come out in droves to vote against Clinton (and for McCain), and the independents vote for McCain because they like him. Worse, there are a lot of Democrats who are in the anti-Clinton camp, and will stay home if she's the candidate. By my calculus, then, Clinton loses in a general against McCain while Obama wins. This analysis, by the way, is borne out by numerous polls. Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 5:34 PM So maybe I'm not a "true democrat" since I prefer positions on issues over what moniker someone gives themselves. If Obama or Clinton wants my vote, all either has to do is appeal to me through positions. And a desire to write all over bills makes me worry about what else they will do, and wonder what power they think they are running. McCain seems to want to be President, and I'm sure I don't agree with him on much, but I wonder if I really agree with Clinton or Obama on much either. I'm not going to say who I'd vote for in November, because that would strongly depend on the running mate. I don't see why I can't desire a law abiding President over a President that claims to belong to the same party as me. My first preference is for a candidate that will stand up and ask that every vote be counted. Bush, Gore, and Kerry all failed on that count, and I don't want to vote for someone that doesn't want votes to be counted. Since Kerry lied about it last time, I have to look for evidence to support promises this time, for instance, how much does the candidate support the rule of laws and the constitution over just getting along. I want a President that will defend the country, not one that will give it away to someone other than the governed. But go ahead and trash me rather than convincing me. I'm sure you'll be happy to blame me rather than having an impact on the election. Just because someone acts like calling themselves a democrat will get them power doesn't mean that I should pander to their request for power. I want to see principles. McCain seems to show some, even if I don't agree with them. Posted by: blah blah blah | February 19, 2008 5:37 PM John McCain suffers from PTSD. He still feels incredibly betrayed because we gave up on that disaster. Iraq and the Middle East are his chance to resolve his trauma, or so he thinks. Is this who you want to be president? Someone who wants us to stay 100 years there if necessary. Meanwhile our education system,ourinfrastructure,our reputation around the world, and our economy turn to crap.Oh and the effect on the Iraqis. Posted by: JC | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM Not sure how I ended up on this page, but the comments have been interesting. I have to say that I consider myself to be a loyal Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican (which is difficult in Texas - if they are running unopposed, then I just skip that selection). However, I do not believe that I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. He speaks well, but lacks substance. I only hear hope and change. I can hear plenty about hope at church, or change at work. Pat is correct, I am a white male. I am also gay, which the last time I checked was another part of the Democrat base. I like Hillary because I think she is the only one that clean up W's mess. Obama would be another Carter (nice guy that will accomplish more after his one and only term). If it's McCain....I sure hope he picks a good VP, just in case. He is quite up there in years. I am sure if Obama and McCain are the choices, then I will just have to skip that selection as well. Posted by: ScottinTX | February 19, 2008 5:44 PM OK, blah, blah, blah, here goes. You want someone who understands the constitution and will protect it? That's Obama. He taught constitutional law - equal protection (14th amendment) at a top 10 law school. He obviously knows the document. McCain doesn't seem to get even the most basic concept of the Constitution - only Congress has the power to declare war. I'm not sure where you get your signing statement material, but I'm not sure that McCain would repudiate it after the precedent Bush has set. Why would he? He wants more executive power so he can bomb Iran and invade it. Less executive power would make that infinitely more difficult. What positions are you interested in learning about? I highly recommend you inform yourself, rather than let others do it for you. Check out everyone's websites - hillaryclinton.com, barackobama.com, and johnmccain.com for more information on each candidates' positions. I would imagine that after you look at their positions, you won't find much difference between Barack and Hillary, but a world of difference in McCain and either Democrat. McCain has caved in to the religious right on social issues lately in an attempt to pander to them for their votes. If you want less government interference in the bedroom, among other places, McCain isn't your man. Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 5:46 PM I'm an independent, and if Obama is the nominee, I'll vote for McCain. I honestly don't know what I'll do if Clinton is the nominee. It'll probably depend on who the VP choices are, given McCain's age. It may also depend on the probability that Clinton dumps Mr. Clinton around Jan. 19, 2009 if she's elected. Posted by: Edmund | February 19, 2008 5:46 PM Did you ever notice that usually in a blog like this, the most provocative comment, the one that draws the most response (like that of AM here), is the first comment posted. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've often thought that that first provocative comment is posted by the blogger him or herself, just to get some controversy going and draw some responses. After all, it would be pretty embarrassing if you post a blog and NOBODY responds. As for the experience argument about Obama, it's somewhat specious. John Adams, his son, Herbert Hoover, Nixon and Bush 41 all had had loads of experience and very impressive resumes and turned out to be mediocre Presidents at best. On the other hand, Lincoln had one undistinguished term in the house and a losing senate campaign on his resume and he turned out to be a pretty good President, don't you think? And the punditry opinion of FDR when he ran in '32 was that he was a "lightweight," with one 15 year old stint as Undersecretary of the Navy and one undistinguished term as NY Governor. So I'm not convinced that experience is all that good a guide as to possible or probable Oval Office performance. After all, there is no other job quite like the Presidency of the US, not even the Vice Presidency, and so no way to be really prepared. Some like Truman rise up to it, some (actually, most, looking at our history) like W. fall under it and nobody can tell in advance. Posted by: Fred | February 19, 2008 5:55 PM I voted for Obama in VA's open primary because I know McCain can take him. Hillary would give McCain a run for the money. If Obama is the Dem nominee, McCain wins. Its that simple. Posted by: WmJLePetomane | February 19, 2008 6:05 PM I can vote for either Clinton or Obama and be happy as a clam, however only Hillary can annoy and irritate the people I want to annoy and irritate. I've suffered for seven long years, now it's their turn. Posted by: Bert Chadick | February 19, 2008 6:25 PM no loyal democrat will vote for mc cain babies who spew utlimatums will vote for mc cain but loyal democrats will vote for the democratic nominee do you really think that anyone here is ging to change their vote because you have a hissy if your candidate doesn't win i personally do not like obama but will vote for him to support my party after this election, no matter who wins i am changing to independent because i really don't like the way either campaign is being run i just like the republicans less at least we clinton supporters know that the dems need to take back the white house and we are willing to put our egos aside to accomplish a common goal obama posters here just spew hate and don't accomplish anything except to make obama look bad, and i might had your doing a heck of a job so please obamamintes - leave the party - your like trailer park trash and you are embarassing the republicans are not acting like this on their posts this was about mc cain - not obama Posted by: lndlouis | February 19, 2008 6:27 PM I have an Idea! Why not require these people to resign BEFORE they run for another office. Are Hillery and Obama representing themselves or the people who elected them. Are John McCain or Ron Paul taking a salary to campain or to represent a state and a district? And could you be out of your job for nine tenths of the day due to the fact that your looking for another job? Change the system. Vote non-incumbent for everything! Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 6:31 PM Posted by: Troy | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM I am a registered Dem and see absolutely no difference between Hillary and John McCain. Hillary's refusal to accept responsibility for her Iraq war vote and her ambiguous position on it are unforgivable. If Obama doesn't get the nomination I will not vote for President. Posted by: Robert | February 19, 2008 6:33 PM Will McCain quit the Senate? Will Hilary supporters vote for McCain? Is McCain just too old? Will 40% of America give Hillary no chance to be effective because she is a Clinton? Will that same 40% give Obama a chance to be effective? My answer to all these questions is no, no, no, no, and no. I like Obama, but if he is elected our President, he is going to have the toughest time getting anything done since John F. Kennedy, and the Congress will make him eat every word from every speech he has made. The last one Congress is going to embrace is the new kid on the block that embarrased his peers on his quick ride to the top. Posted by: Tony | February 19, 2008 6:36 PM Is it just me, or does McCain remind anyone else of Mr. Burns on The Simpsons? McCain seems to encompass the smug, contemptuous and ill-at-ease attitude that had prevailed within the U.S. this past seven years. Want a fresh start? Don't elect old geezers! Posted by: Sapa | February 19, 2008 6:48 PM This is the first time that I have responded to the Capital Briefing. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that if you are a "True Democrat", you will support whoever is the Party's nominee. This sounds very much like the argument of an earlier generation "My country-love it or leave it" vs "My country-change it or lose it." Needless to say, I am of the second opinion. I live in California, am a registered Democrat, and have highly divergent feelings of our two Senators, have voted for the incumbent Governor, against the current President....and have felt that I was voting for the better person each time. I have also voted for third party candidates for major offices in the past, and still consider myself more of the Democratic principles than anything else. But there are times when I feel that one must follow his/her personal beliefs as to what is best for the country. Each of the three likely remaining candidates has some strengths and some weaknesses. In my estimation, two of the three have visions, and only one of the three have what I would deem appropriate experience. All have histories, not entirely clean. The amount of vitriol shown by one of the candidates is more than a little off-putting to me. In the end, whom I vote for in November will depend upon who the candidates are, who is the choice of running mate, what are his/her visions for the future, and what the current political, social and economic environment is. And political party label be damned. Posted by: ricroc | February 19, 2008 6:49 PM Posted by: Matt | February 19, 2008 6:55 PM So many people claim Obama has a lack of experience, especially those who think Bill Clinton was a great president. How much foreign experience did Bill have? National experience? Do we really want more of the same? How about accepting that inspiring Americans is where we need to go... Unless you think it is better that only people who think like you are in charge... United we stand...Divided we fall...and this is not a party slogan...this is a reality the United States needs to embrace. I look forward to working with ALL people to create solutions to the issues we face. Posted by: GC | February 19, 2008 7:03 PM Boo Hoo, Hilary has been treated so badly by the media boo hoo. Get a freakin grip on reality, you want to talk about bad treatment by media check out Ron Paul and his complete blackout. As a registered Republican I feel the same as AM and MM and will be casting my vote to Obama. Geez, McCain was broke and polled very low and with the medias help soared to the top. Now keep this in mind, his largest contributor base is from media employees. Ron Paul's largest contributor base you may ask? The answer is our armed forces. So you have Hilary people voting for McCain and RP people voting for Obama. How whacked is our system? Posted by: Josh | February 19, 2008 7:05 PM A year ago this past November, Sen Clinton was re-elected to serve the citizens of NY State. She told them straight out on many occasions that she wasn't even thinking about running for president. Raise your hands: how many think she was telling the truth? Who can answer this question: how much time does she spend meeting with her constituents? Clinton lied to get re-elected to the senate. She's lied to get nominated and if she is nominated, she will lie to get elected. So why is McCain being asked to resign the senate to run for president? Posted by: thuff7 | February 19, 2008 7:08 PM Tough choice not only for McCain but for Hillary and Obama. Right now, I'd be pleased if the first two resigned. Posted by: Sturkely H. Randsfogel IV | February 19, 2008 10:08 PM Interesting topic. Actually, it should be mandatory for these hacks to resign when they take on the campaign. They are not representing their constituents while they pander for votes. If it were mandatory, it would be the Obamas from having to have their campaigns predicated on a lie. Seems to me he pledged to serve out his senate term. That didn't take long to drop - did it? Lets fac facts. Clinton abused her position to get free trips to NY to run fro senator. Her whole game plan was not to represent the people of NY - but to abuse the privileges given to her to further her own ambitions. Posted by: anon | February 19, 2008 10:24 PM *I* had that first post (and it was pretty neutral). Sorry for the snit, but hey, it was my first first post. And it was even on topic! That much having been said, the purity tests are idiotic. My presidential votes have been Mondale (the few, the proud), Dukakis, Perot (youthful indiscretion--well, I am a deficit hawk), Clinton (my one and only time I ever actually voted for the winner), Gore, and Kerry. For those of you who think I'm not a loyal Democrat for voting for Perot, tough. I'm not a loyal Democrat, even if I am a card carrying one. I have occasionally voted against a Democratic candidate. Susan Engeleiter would have made a far better senator than Herb Kohl. So, I will vote for a moderate Republican. Wish I lived in Maine so that I could help Susan Collins get another term. I'd have voted for Lieberman over Lamont. If some consider me a Democrat-leaning independent, my feelings aren't hurt. Without us, it's Mondale all over again (that blinking blue DC still hurts). Posted by: Fairlington Blade | February 19, 2008 10:32 PM Tell you what. I'll take your comment about pols quitting positions when they run for another one seriously as soon as you agree to quit your job when you start looking for another one. That position didn't seem to do Edwards or Dole any favors, so don't expect it to happen with any regularity. Posted by: Fairlington Blade | February 19, 2008 10:38 PM Voting history: Dukakis (Only guy in the Army in new of with a Dukakis for Prez pin displayed in public), Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush. I have always been a Dem until Nov when I switched to vote for McCain in the Ca Primary. Basically I cant vote for anyone who wants pull the troops out of Iraq within six months of taking office, so Obama is out. I think Clinton would probably find some way to recant her pledge to pull the troops out "I have some new information, etc". But her total abandonment of good judgment (or honesty) to save her campaign mean I can't vote for her either. I would actually like to see someone succeed at tackling some of the big tough problems facing our country: Healthcare, Social Security, Border Security/Immigration, Shady Polotics/Earmarks (pork), Terrorism, China, Iran. Even though I disagree with McCain on a few of his positions, I think he has more of a chance than Obama or Clinton to successfully deal with the issues I stated above. He is the only one running who can get 55% of the republicans and 50% of the democrats to vote for a solution. Posted by: LA Mike | February 20, 2008 1:37 AM The Cult of Her Own Personality To my fellow Democratic Party American's; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations. "Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge. --Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008. Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way? Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition's presidential candidate's campaign. By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970's, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing. The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate. What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign's last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain. Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about. What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future. I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life. Posted by: CitizenXX | February 20, 2008 11:28 AM Obama did say he would accept federal matching funds in a general campaign if the republican nominee were to do the same. Did he make that statement based on principal (The influance of money in polotics has a corrosive effect on peoples faith in our government) or was it just polically expediant to make that pledge. This question goes to the heart of what concerns folks about Senator Obama. He seems to be making his case based on his own greatness rather than on the principals by which he would govern. 'I don't have to tell you how I would solve the great problems of America, because Washington is full of great solutions' he says 'After I am elected I will tell you what I will do'. 'I am a great leader. You should follow me wherever I chose to lead you. It is unpatriotic to question me about were and how we proceed'. Indeed, Obama can raise more money than McCain. But if breaks his word regarding one of the few issues he has actually commented, we will have learned a lot about him. Posted by: LA Mike | February 20, 2008 12:09 PM If it is between McCain and Obama, I will vote for McCain. I really can't stand Obama. I really don't understand what do people see in him...... another No-Op Posted by: eyc | February 20, 2008 1:26 PM Why should McCain retire when Clinton and Obama wont? Clinton and Obama couldn't even trot over to the Senate a few days ago to vote on the Protect America Act even though they were both in D.C. campaigning? As a New Yorker, I can't say that I'm too happy about Clinton starting her campaign as soon as the 2006 elections were over instead of doing her job representing NY. Posted by: Rhudd Draigiau | February 21, 2008 10:48 AM Who bloody cares. Ask the same question of Hillary and Obama. Hillary ran and won her second term in the senate a little over a year ago, while knowing she was going to run for President. If anyone has been dishonest it is her. Posted by: candyzky | February 22, 2008 9:33 AM Thanks for not ignoring me Joe You said that Obama understands and will protect the constitution. However, the Boston Globe says "Among the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said they would issue signing statements if elected. John McCain said he would not" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/?page=full You say "McCain doesn't seem to get even the most basic concept of the Constitution - only Congress has the power to declare war." but I have zero idea why you say that Mccain doesn't understand that. For all I know we haven't fought a war since WWII, because that's the last time I recall Congress actually declaring war. But the President is commander in chief even when congress doesn't declare war. You say "I'm not sure where you get your signing statement material, but I'm not sure that McCain would repudiate it after the precedent Bush has set. Why would he?" Maybe because he doesn't think it's the President's job, unlike Obama and Clinton. "What positions are you interested in learning about?" Ideally I'd want to know who plans on picking whom for running mates. But I doubt any candidate would even think of telling me something I'd truly want to know. And as for checking out websites, how can I tell who is lying? Kerry claimed that he'd makes sure every vote was counted, and I voted for him. Then when some precincts in Ohio reported more votes for Bush than there were registered voters he just wimped out and went back on his promise. Honesty and respect for the rule of law are prerequisites to me being able to believe someone's campaign marketing. And when Obama and Clinton say they will doodle on top of bills instead of putting on their John Hancock, then it makes me wonder why. And if they want to court my vote they should explain themselves. The candidates I agree with already dropped out, the ones that are left have to court me. But you seem to be in the land of believing whatever you want to believe. I think signing statements is one of the worst things Bush has done in his occupancy. And if Obama and Clinton disagree with me that's a big issue if they claim to be change. And since Obama and Clinton want to make it illegal for people to be poor and have children, then I do think they want to legislate what happens in the bedroom so that money can flow to corporations instead of me making my own decisions about whether sending my money to someone that will never give it back will actually benefit my family. Posted by: blah blah blah | February 24, 2008 1:12 PM ecnfy hxprmalwb ohapqbd vdfx ucgbqsrtd eujzcq gacr Posted by: svfdy xgzv | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM Posted by: ando fjckav | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:33 AM Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:33 AM Posted by: pravachol actos plavix ritalin seroquel | August 16, 2008 1:30 AM Posted by: lexapro manufacturer | August 16, 2008 8:30 AM Posted by: kamagra sildenafil citrate | August 16, 2008 9:55 PM Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:28 PM Posted by: drug addiction treatment | August 17, 2008 7:29 PM Posted by: beta blocker and tremors and effexor | August 17, 2008 9:12 PM Posted by: cymbalta lawsuite | August 17, 2008 10:22 PM Posted by: buspar prescribing information | August 17, 2008 10:49 PM Posted by: does effexor cause elevated glucose levels | August 18, 2008 6:24 AM Posted by: does effexor cause elevated glucose levels | August 18, 2008 6:24 AM The comments to this entry are closed.
Read the latest news and scuttlebut about Congress.
1,233.444444
0.666667
0.666667
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502491.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502491.html
Opinion Focus
2008021919
Discussion Group: Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts Eugene Robinson: Hi, everybody. Sorry to be a little late getting started today. Wisconsin, Hawaii, Fidel Castro -- lots to talk about. I'll try to use only my own words and not borrow from Deval Patrick... Blacksburg, Va.: Will Castro's resignation open U.S.-Cuba relations in the next five years, or will there continue to be political opposition, so as to appease the Cuban defectors in Miami? washingtonpost.com: Fidel Castro Stepping Down as Cuba's President (Post, Feb. 19) Eugene Robinson: I see no change in relations in the short term, nor do I anticipate a lot of straight-talk rhetoric from the presidential candidates (any of them) on how stupid the embargo and travel ban are -- at least not as long as a firm line on Cuba is seen as necessary in order to win Florida. Longer-term, there might be a limited opening in the next several years. Real change is unlikely as long as Fidel is alive, I think. Houston: I've observed that in those primaries/caucuses where independents were allowed to participate, they seemed to be voting for Obama on the liberal side and for McCain on the conservative side. There are a quite a few states that don't allow independents to vote in primaries/caucuses where no independent is on the ballot, but allow them to vote in the general election. In your opinion, how decisive will the independent vote be for this election? I've watched the campaigns of the past seven presidents and never have seen independents voting in the numbers they are this time around. Are there statistics for this? Thank you for your consideration. Eugene Robinson: Independents always are decisive, at least in recent elections. Both parties need to attract independents to win. The Republicans need more of them than the Democrats, but neither party can win without them. Silver Spring, Md.: Perhaps I have missed it, but I have yet to hear Sen. McCain expand on just what he would do to address issues -- with the economy, health care, terror, Iraq, the world's perception of the U.S., immigration and other subjects -- that is actually different from the Bush administration's actions. I find this especially troubling considering that he has joined Sen. Clinton in a near-constant stream of denunciations of Sen. Obama about his alleged lack of substance. (And, of course, I am obviously less than objective.) Eugene Robinson: John McCain has been crystal-clear on the issues he obviously cares most about -- the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In my opinion he has offered very few new ideas on domestic issues. I don't think that will work this year. Northville, N.Y.: Mr. Robinson, lets say that McCain pulls off the near impossible, and manages to win in November. What does a McCain GOP stand for? More Bush? Even if he wanted to stay in the Middle East for 100 years, McCain totally would destroy our military without some sort of pullback. As far as the economy is concerned, major reforms are needed to avoid catastrophe. And what is the McCain GOP, anyway? It's a conglomeration of conflicted interests, a forced marriage of people who hate each other. Has anyone gone back to see what the crash and disintegration of a political party, say the Whigs, actually looks like? It looks like the GOP in 2008. What Bush and Cheney have done to their party might be their only gift to America. I think the media is so in love with the Obama-Clinton thing that they're missing the biggest political story of the past 50 years. washingtonpost.com: McCain's Losing Message (Post, Feb. 19) Eugene Robinson: I think it's clear that the Republican Party is having to redefine itself. I don't think it's out of the question that the party will be able to settle into its new identity in time to elect John McCain this fall -- but I think it will be really, really hard. Washington: You already said real change was unlikely as long as Fidel lives, so what would it take to experience actual changes in Cuba? Eugene Robinson: The obvious thing would be for the Cuban government to give Cubans a real voice in their government through multiparty elections, and to lift the repressive restrictions that govern Cubans' lives. Allowing freedom of the press would be a start. I don't see Fidel countenancing any of this, and I don't think his brother Raul or anyone else would try to take such steps (even if they wanted) as long as Fidel lives. Chicago: Hi Eugene. I read recently that there's a younger generation in the Miami-Cuban community that are now leaning towards normalizing relations with Cuba. Is this true, and does the community as a whole need to signal their "approval" before any U.S.-Cuba normalization can occur? Eugene Robinson: It's true that younger Cuban-Americans and recent arrivals from the island are much less hard-line about the embargo and the travel ban, according to surveys. But there's not yet a new consensus, so I certainly wouldn't expect any change in U.S. policy in an election year. Silver Spring, Md.: Why has The Post decided to declare war on McCain? Hasn't it ever heard of journalistic integrity or ensuring lack of bias? Will there be equivalent attacks on Obama or Clinton? I somehow doubt it. Eugene Robinson: I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and I know that neither the Clinton nor the Obama camp believes it's getting a free ride. If you're referring to anything I might have written, please keep in mind that I write an opinion column. Opinion. Meaning, here's what I think. An opinion columnist who had no opinions about the candidates wouldn't be very interesting to read. Baltimore: Re McCain's campaign promises: Whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee, either campaign will latch onto that clip of McCain saying that the U.S. will have to be in Iraq for 100 years, and make it the linchpin of an ad blitz. How can McCain think he can win by essentially promising endless war in the Middle East? As a liberal Democrat, I would love to see him offer the veep role to Mike Huckabee so they could run on a platform of endless war on an Earth only 9,000 years old. Eugene Robinson: Given what I do for a living, I'd love to see that too. I might even steal your line, although I'll be sure to give you credit. New York: As someone who had a rare opportunity as an American to study in Cuba, I've been convinced that Cuba has been a society in the midst of great transitions for the past decade. Few there have the delusion that Fidel stepping down would have an immediate shift in day-to-day reality, but do you feel that Castro's resignation could serve as the catalyst needed for the U.S. government to recognize Cuba in its present state and finally transition U.S. policies towards Cuba? Or will the U.S. government continue to hold on to a 48-year grudge? Eugene Robinson: I too think Cuba has undergone major changes that most outside observers don't understand, but I have to say that I felt more of a sense of possibility about Cuba's future when I made my first trip in 2000 than when I made my last in 2004. The place seemed grayer, sadder and more repressive the more times I visited. Since my last trip, though, I know that Hugo Chavez's oil wealth has made a real difference in the Cuban economy, and I hear that life is somewhat easier. It's sad, though, that so many great musicians I met while doing my book in Cuba have felt since that they had to depart for the United States. Kingston, Ontario: Mr Robinson, I feel you're whistling to keep up the troops' courage. The GOP's chances by no means are so desperate. McCain's campaign surely will revolve around the following familiar claims: One, that the Democrats are untrustworthy on national defense and security, and will forfeit a possible victory in Iraq. Two, that the Democrats will raise taxes. Three, in a reprise of the "Harry and Louise" strategy of the '90s, they'll say that the Democrats will place the people's fate in the hands of government bureaucrats. Yes, these themes are well-worn, but they have worked superbly in the past. Where do you find the confidence that they won't work again? Eugene Robinson: They might, but it's clear from every survey I've seen that Americans want an end to the Iraq war, and believe there is a crisis in health care. I'm not sure that playing the fear card and the big gub'ment card will work this time. Arlington, Va.: Baltimore asks "how can McCain think he can win by essentially promising endless war in the Middle East?" Answer -- by making the connection to your continued enjoyment of your consumerist, suburban lifestyle and the need to secure ever greater proportions of the world's energy supply. That's how. Eugene Robinson: It certainly would be interesting if someone ran on a platform of: "War in the Middle East: We need to grab the oil, stupid!" Odenton, Md.: McCain never said we would be making war in Iraq for 100 years. Yes, he was too loose in making his historical point about occupying troops, but I'm troubled you would pass along a comment from a poster who is flat wrong without noting it. Eugene Robinson: I wouldn't call that flat wrong. He was saying that the occupation of Iraq might last for many years. And he did mention the number 100. Arlington, Va.: I hate to even ask this, but what effect do you think a major terrorist event in the U.S. would have on this race? If patterns stay the same, it seems that it would favor McCain (i.e. the candidate with the most aggressive, militaristic approach to dealing with the world). Eugene Robinson: I tend to agree (heaven forbid). Atlanta: On Cuba, I agree the embargo and travel ban have outlived their usefulness. But putting those aside, do you know what if any position the U.S. has taken on the rights of Cubans who had property taken by the Castro government? You don't want to beggar people who are already poor, but surely something is owed to people who lost so much. Eugene Robinson: This question is more complicated for me than it seems on the surface. Decades ago, Cuba settled such claims lodged by European and other governments on behalf of Cuban exiles. The United States chose not to negotiate at the time. The threat that exiles from Miami will arrive and try to take back their old houses, farms and factories is one of the things that genuinely binds ordinary Cubans to the Castro government. Amherst, Mass.: How do you see the governments of Chavez, Lula and Morales responding to Fidel's demise? Will it reinvigorate their leftist platforms, or will they respond to the narrative of inevitable defeat of the left that the U.S. will spin, celebrating Fidel's death as if it were a second fall of communism? Eugene Robinson: Remember that Fidel isn't dead yet. Lula has defined his own 21st-century Latin leftism and is comfortable being an ally of the United States. Morales doesn't have much push or pull internationally. Chavez is the interesting one: He'd like to be the new Fidel -- the thorn in America's side -- but at the moment he has to shore up his popularity at home, which has taken a real hit. Silver Spring, Md.: Mr. Robinson, the animosity levels between Clinton and Obama are rising so fast -- I am fearful the rift won't be repaired, and McCain will waltz into office in November. What can be done to prevent that? Eugene Robinson: I don't see anybody waltzing anywhere this fall. But yes, whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have some real fence-mending to do if the party is to present a united front in the fall -- against a Republican Party that already is trying to get its act together. Washington: Mr. Robinson, I frequently read your opinion column. I must say that you have been incorrect thus far in your discussion of Sen. McCain. I think there is a strong case to be made that "experience" will likely trump "change" in this year's election. Once the press objectively evaluates the substance of Obama's policy positions, it is likely they will unearth some serious flaws. At least the press and the American people know where McCain stands and the substance of his campaign. Your thoughts? Eugene Robinson: Keep in mind that Obama hasn't been nominated yet. If he is, that will be the election -- change vs. experience. It also will be youth vs. age, pro-choice vs. pro-life, out of Iraq vs. stay in Iraq. ... Right now, people are on Obama's side of those issues. Atlanta: I've always felt that because U.S. citizens aren't allowed, Cuba has the mystique of the forbidden (Cuban cigars for example). In other corners of the world you've visited, does Cuba have the same mystique? Is it just another bad place with a dictator? Eugene Robinson: Cuba has similar mystique elsewhere, but perhaps less than it does here. As for Cuban cigars, they're just objectively better. Poplar Bluff, Mo.: Mr. Robinson, do you believe Castro is dead and the party leadership is afraid of the aftermath? Eugene Robinson: No, I think he's still alive but incapacitated. Kansas City, Mo.: Do you see any scenario under which Clinton or Obama would gracefully concede following the Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries if one was up by 100 or more pledged delegates? Or do you think this will be a fight to the convention and the superdelegates no matter what? Eugene Robinson: It's possible. Because Obama has a significant delegate lead at this point, if Clinton were to run the table it would still be hard for her to catch up. I don't see anyone with a lead in delegates conceding. If Obama were to run the table -- and it would have to be a series of blowouts -- the superdelegates might rush over to his side, Clinton would be in a position where she couldn't hope to catch up, in which case I suppose there could be a concession. But we're a long way from either of these scenarios. That's all the time we have today, folks. Thanks for participating, and see you again 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.
72.04878
0.658537
0.804878
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021801248.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021801248.html
We're Smarter Than You Think
2008021919
Like so many nervous academics of our age, Jacoby provides a view compounded by urgent pollster data, alarming statistics and factoids heralding in the age of ignorance at the hands of the digital revolution. I prefer to point to the statistics of projects like Wikipedia, a volunteer-driven, non-profit endeavor whose unique article count, in over 150 active language projects, will soon eclipse 10 million. Millions of people use Wikipedia every day, maintaining its ranking as one of the 10 most popular websites in the world. Furthermore, when WIND Research Institute made a comparison of German language Wikipedia to the traditionally leading German-language encyclopedia, Brockhaus, for Stern Magazine, it found that Wikipedia was of higher quality. On a scale where 1 is the best and 6 is the worst, Wikipedia's average rating was 1.7, while Brockhaus average rating was 2.7. Jacoby's essay offers a number of interesting insights. But it also overlooks some real gems on the contemporary intellectual scene. A concern about whether young people are wasting their minds has been intermittently fashionable throughout history. We are now living in an era where something remarkable and transformative is taking place. I speak from personal experience. Over the last year I've had the opportunity to speak to young people in Asia, South Africa, India, and Europe. Imagine someone from an alien civilization reading Jacoby's essay and forming an opinion of young people. And then imagine that alien peeking in on one of my public lectures at a high school or university. Who is this person getting the reception of a rock star? Is he a musician? Perhaps some crude comic? No, he's ... the founder of an ... encyclopedia? High school and college students all over the world are absolutely fanatical about Wikipedia. On Facebook, Wikipedia-related fan groups number in the thousands; one boasts close to 150,000 members. There are dozens of Wikipedia-related applications. On YouTube, you can find thousands of student videos singing the praises of Wikipedia. Students write to me in volumes I can only hope to respond to, reporting on their own personal experiences and breakthroughs. These are not people whose use of the Internet has resulted in an "inability to concentrate for long periods of time;" as Jacoby says. I hear from students who have spent hours reading and learning from Wikipedia entries just for the sake of general knowledge. Better still, I hear about collaborative campus parties devoted to making thousands of quality improvements to young articles in one night -- or uploading gigabytes of public domain source material. What stereotype do these teenagers and 20-somethings fit into? What can we expect of this generation, devoted to sharing and improving the world's knowledge, decades from now? If Jacoby contends that "video" is eroding our intellect, I encourage her to immerse herself in the story of Wikipedia. This is a place where today's youth, in phenomenal numbers, are helping professors and graduate students to build a repository of living knowledge from all corners of this planet. This is not a project for the next decade or the century. It is a project for all time. I encourage Jacoby to consider the power of the global, knowledge-based digital enterprises of the 21st century. These are the forces that are redefining intellect, knowledge and literature. Instead of fearing the power, complexity and extraordinary potential of these new platforms, we should be asking how we can gain from their success. Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia.
In her essay for Outlook, Susan Jacoby presents a compelling, though perhaps naïve and myopic, view of intellectualism and the persistence of literature in the 21st century. It's unfortunate she didn't take the time to include in her argument the peculiar phenomenon of Wikipedia and its rapidly...
12.071429
0.625
0.803571
low
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
2008021919
Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you???? Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her "record," which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or "co-president" - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: 1. As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over healthcare reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would "demonize" anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate. 2. Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two recommendations (Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood) were forced to withdraw their names from consideration, and then she chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as "my worst mistake." 3. Hillary recommended Lani Guanier to head the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, she had to withdraw her name. 4. Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned; Foster "committed suicide," and Kennedy was forced to resign. 5. Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by the White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. (FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee in 1996 both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over 30 years.) 6. In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends, the Harry Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for "gross mismanagement" and their reputations ruined. After a 30-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. 7. Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the "bimbo eruption squad" and scandal defense; urging her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit; refusing to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor after $80 million of taxpayer money was spent. Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury. ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" 56 times under oath). 8. Hillary accepted the traditional First Lady's role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, the First Lady's Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists' depictions of the theme, "The Twelve Days of Christmas." - Hillary wrote "It Takes a Village," demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the "woman card" by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote, supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume, isn't it? Sounds more like an organized crime family. Hillary hopes you have forgotten. Have you????
Under God on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/
63.117647
0.529412
0.647059
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bill_emmott/2008/02/fighting_chavez_for_cuba.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bill_emmott/2008/02/fighting_chavez_for_cuba.html
Fighting Chavez for Cuba
2008021919
The Current Discussion: With Castro gone, will Cuba become America's 51st state? The real question after Castro is whether Miami will now empty out, with all the Cubans there returning home. Time to sell Miami real estate? But seriously, what is likelier to happen is threefold: first, a battle to control power, or rather to seize it from Raul Castro, whether by democratic or undemocratic means; second, a battle by commercial interests inside and outside Cuba to try to get the economy opened up in order to be able to realize huge potential gains in real estate and other assets; third, a battle for influence in post-Castro Cuba between Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and everyone else, most notably America. Given the absurd and counter-productive economic embargo that America has imposed on Cuba for all these decades, this battle with Hugo Chavez is not one which America is in a great position to win. Perhaps it will, if Chavez overplays his hand and looks just like another imperialist from across the sea. But America needs to understand that it does not start with many advantages in this new game. 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.
7.545455
0.393939
0.454545
low
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/daoud_kuttab/2008/02/cuba_still_hostage_to_its_exil.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/daoud_kuttab/2008/02/cuba_still_hostage_to_its_exil.html
Cuba Still Hostage To Its Exiles
2008021919
The Current Discussion: With Castro gone, will Cuba become America's 51st state? It is a shame that Cuban-U.S. relations have taken such a partisan direction, but the future of Cuban-American relations are certainly going to be better than the past. We are sure of one thing this year: whoever wins the White House will certainly not be a radically anti-Cuba conservative. While U.S. policy against Cuba might have had some logic to it years back, there is no logic to it now. While change is certain to take place in 2009 due to the new president and the absence of Castro, it is unlikely that that change will be major. Cubans will not change their policies quickly and neither will the American establishment. A lot of what will happen after the inauguration in 2009 will depend on the attitudes of the small group of radical American-Cuban Republicans who have been holding Washington hostage to their extremely radical anti-Castro policies. . Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question. Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Daoud Kuttab at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/daoud_kuttab/
12.055556
0.444444
0.444444
low
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/hossein_derakhshan/2008/02/ahmadinejads_oldschool_appeal.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/hossein_derakhshan/2008/02/ahmadinejads_oldschool_appeal.html
Ahmadinejad's Old-School Appeal
2008021919
At the height of the Iranian revolution in the winter of 1979, French Philosopher, Michel Foucault, described what he was seeing in Tehran as "perhaps the first great insurrection against global systems, the form of revolt that is the most novel and the most insane." "Islam," he wrote, "which is not simply a religion, but an entire way of life, an adherence to a history and a civilization, has a good chance to become a gigantic powder keg, at the level of hundreds of millions of men." Such praising words about the Iranian uprising are probably the very reason few have even heard of Foucault's dispatches from Tehran for the Italian newspaper, Corriere Dela Sera, in 1978-79. Twenty-nine winters later, the Islamic Republic of Iran is more independent, stable, confident and technologically advanced than ever, while it has remained as the most serious and continuous challenge to the U.S. hegemony in the world. But what can explain the survival of the outcome of such revolt? What will the future look like for Iran, where most of its young population now have no first-hand experience of that revolt? The rise of the first non-cleric president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, can point to some answers. For sixteen years, Iranian government was in the hands of the Euro-American educated bureaucrats who were gradually departing from the specific subjectivity (rejection of the universals, in Foucult's term) which brought about the Iranian uprising of the 1979. The specter of modernity slowly started to dominate everything, from the economy to the politics, and the two consecutive administrations picked up a similar project of modernization which the shah had previously failed to continue, and with it, the gloomy consequences started to wane in too: corruption, incompetence, and socio-economic inequality. The elite's vision of economic and political "reform" was transforming Iran into a very similar country under the shah, only with an Islamic posture. At the same time, the Europe and the U.S. were not only happily watching as Iran was practically undoing its revolt, but even assisting and accelerating the process. Then came the shock. Ahmadinejad, an outsider to the Iranian establishment who was never taken seriously by journalists and politicians alike, won the election. Compared to his main rivals, he had lower religious credentials, less support from the elite, less money for campaigning, and gave zero promises to normalize relations with the U.S. Instead, he traveled much more around the country and met face-to-face with the forgotten majority of Iranians, talked more about economic equality, and promised more of a serious war on corruption. He simply pledged a return to the abandoned values of the 1979 uprising, with independence, freedom and justice at the center. (His promises about a more relaxed attitude toward religious code are reflected in its talks with the British rocker Morrissey to have one of the first non-Iranian rock acts after 1979.) If Western journalist leave the Northern part of Tehran more often, they will be able to observe how much Ahmadinejad represents a passionate revival of the core values of the uprising. They will also discover how Islam is functioning as the best, but not the only, carrier of those values. Like many Iranians who have lived in the West for the past 7-8 years, the rise of Ahmadinejad (and also traveling to other parts of the Middle East) has incited a radical change in the way I see myself, relate to Iran, and view the world. I have finally realized what it was that the entire Iranian nation revolted in order to achieve and how valuable this subjectivity is to empower the world of the marginalized, the poor and the oppressed. This doesn't mean I don't see the unfortunate intolerance the Iranian government sometimes shows toward dissent and difference. But I argue that such intolerance is a direct consequent of the existential threat that the big powers have posed toward Iran since the day it succeeded in its revolt. As a post-revolutionary Iranian, who is not religious a single bit, I am proud of what my parents' generation did in 1979 and I do whatever I can to protect and improve the Islamic Republic of Iran in its promises of independence, freedom and justice. This has predictably labeled me as an "agent of the regime" by many exiled Iranians who always do that to anyone with whom they disagree. But you will see millions like me if you ever visit Iran.
Hossein Derakhshan at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/hossein_derakhshan/
48.666667
0.444444
0.444444
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901421.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901421.html
Tepid Response From Cubans in U.S.
2008021919
In the parking lot, which has long served as the informal hub for this city's Cuban protest and chatter, a handful of demonstrators waved signs and flags and urged passersby to honk their horns. Television crews took it all in and set up for live shots. Dozens of other people stood by sipping cafecitos. But there were none of the massive street demonstrations that have erupted here over other events in Cuba, or during the custody battles over Elián Gonzalez, the Cuban boy who was found floating on an inner tube off the Florida coast. While Castro's official exit after nearly 50 years in power held the aura of history, many here viewed it as having few, if any, immediate consequences. So with control over the island already shifted to Castro's brother Raúl, the reaction to the long-anticipated end of Castro's reign was muted. Osvaldo Perez, 72, spent a few minutes shouting "Libertad! Libertad!" at passing traffic, but wasn't convinced himself. "Where are the people?" he asked. "The Cuban people are out of limbo," said Raúl Rodriguez, an architect who came to the United States when he was 10 and visits his family on the island annually. "But whether they go to heaven or hell now -- it all depends on Raúl." "I was expecting more people here," said Richard Valdes, 23, a construction worker whose father came from Cuba. Valdes recalled the reaction to rumors two years ago that Castro had died: "When they said he was dead, it was really big here. But I don't think this news will really change anything." While there was little jubilation, however, Castro's move seemed destined to set off yet another wave of speculation about what will happen next. The sense that a new era is opening on the island has been ever-present here for decades. Repeated polling done by Florida International University has shown that at least since 1991, many Cuban Americans in South Florida have believed that "major political change" is likely within five years. In the most recent poll, last year, the figure was 62 percent. In 1991, it was as high as 88 percent. So far, they have been disappointed. But radio stations and newspapers have long focused attention on reports about what was happening on the island, and the news of Castro's move Tuesday morning set in motion another round of inquiries.
MIAMI, Feb. 19 -- As the news spread Tuesday morning that Fidel Castro was ceding power, the Versailles Restaurant was the scene of a predictable ruckus.
16.551724
0.62069
0.827586
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901111.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901111.html
ACLU's Suit Against Wiretapping Is Declined
2008021919
The Supreme Court yesterday declined without comment to hear the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge of the Bush administration's domestic spying program. "We're disappointed," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Allowing the executive branch to police itself" is at odds with the Constitution's system of checks and balances. The ACLU brought suit on behalf of journalists, lawyers and others in charging that the administration's warrantless wiretapping that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was unconstitutional. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said that because none of those in the suit could prove they had been monitored, they had no standing to bring the suit. Congress and the White House are at odds over the law that governs the administration's surveillance program. The Bush administration wants to make permanent the Protect America Act, which expanded the powers of the government to monitor without warrants the communications of foreign suspects, including international phone calls and e-mails passing through or into the United States. But the House has balked because of civil liberties concerns. The administration's program is being challenged in other courts, Jaffer said, but "for now we will concentrate on Congress.'' The justices yesterday also declined to intervene in a lawsuit by Xavier University and other organizations and individuals affected by Hurricane Katrina. They were appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that said their insurance policies did not cover damage from floods. The court accepted four new cases, including one to determine whether fees of nonunion employees can be used by the union to pay for activities in other states. The case from Maine concerns nonmembers who are required to pay a service fee to the union for collective bargaining efforts and other activities that benefit them.
The Supreme Court yesterday declined without comment to hear the American Civil Liberties Union's challenge of the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
13.96
1
25
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900306.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021900306.html
Oil Closes Over $100 for 1st Time
2008021919
The high oil price, which rivals the inflation-adjusted peak set during the early days of the Iran-Iraq war nearly three decades ago, has drained cash from the pockets of consumers just when the slowing economy could use a spending boost. And it reinforced fears that oil prices, which have long fluctuated with political and economic cycles, may never again drop to past levels. The price hit a new high of $100.10 a barrel before settling at $100.01 a barrel, up $4.51, when the market closed at 2:30 p.m. The price in late electronic trading dropped only slightly, to $99.99 a barrel. The oil price increase erased a 157-point rally in the Dow Jones industrial average, hurting the shares of retailers and technology firms as investors worried that consumer spending could be diverted to gasoline pumps from stores. The rapid 4.7 percent price increase yesterday was spurred in part by concern about crude oil supplies. The president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, said last week that there was no need to boost production to dampen high prices. Instead, he and other oil ministers have suggested that OPEC might even cut output at its March 5 meeting to make sure that an economic slowdown in the United States doesn't lower prices. In addition, traders fretted that political violence in Nigeria and Iraq could disrupt exports from those nations. But with U.S. stocks of crude oil and refined products comfortably within historical ranges, and with signs that U.S. gasoline consumption has stopped growing, analysts said yesterday's jump in prices was caused by financial factors as much as supply. As the price on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or Nymex, neared $100, financial institutions scrambled to buy oil supplies to cover options they had sold. Those options gave other investors or refiners the right to buy crude oil at $100 a barrel. "The bank has to buy to cover itself. That only accentuates prices going higher," said Adam Robinson, an oil analyst at Lehman Brothers. He added that patterns in the prices and volumes of options suggested that oil producers who might normally sell at these high prices were waiting in hope the prices would go even higher. "Producers are sitting on the sidelines," Robinson said. An explosion and fire at a small Texas refinery on Monday had no effect on crude prices, but it helped drive up gasoline prices on futures markets. The price of gasoline for March delivery jumped 10.93 cents a gallon, to $2.60 a gallon. The spike in oil prices boosted the share prices for big oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, which has a lot of oil production of its own. But it hurt airlines, which need to buy jet fuel, and refiners, which need to buy crude oil. "We're not pleased about $100 a barrel oil," said Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero Energy, the nation's biggest independent refiner. Valero has no crude oil production of its own and needs to buy crude for its refineries, which have 3.1 million barrels a day of capacity. "We've seen oil prices increase dramatically since last spring," Day said. "Back then, oil was $65 a barrel. Today it's $100, and gasoline is less expensive. What that means is that . . . refiners get squeezed." Yesterday was the third time the price of crude oil had poked through the $100 barrier, but it was the biggest move over that line. On Jan. 2, there was one trade for 1,000 barrels of crude oil, the standard-size lot traded on the Nymex. The trade was dismissed by many as a novelty or prank. On Jan. 3, however, 4,000 lots were traded above $100 a barrel, though the price eventually ended up below that mark. There were 400 separate trades yesterday above $100 a barrel, according to Kyle Decker, spokesman for Nymex. He did not say how many lots were involved. Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said the new price milestone was "another sign that energy prices are going to continue to be a big factor in people's lives." She said that "while consumers can't control the prices they pay for energy, they can certainly control their monthly bills by using less."
The price of crude oil closed over $100 for the first time yesterday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, rattling stock markets and marking a milestone in the relentless rise in petroleum prices over the past five years.
20.463415
0.804878
2.414634
medium
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502935.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502935.html
Pakistan Elections
2008021919
Woodrow Center is known for its anti-Pakistan spin: The Woodrow Center is known for its anti-Pakistan white papers and predictions of eminent doom. Why repeat your predictions of gloom and doom? Dennis Kux: You are misinformed. The Wilson Center is neither pro- nor anti-Pakistan, and our sessions on Pakistan and the reports reflect our very best effort to get at the facts, to present the ground realities. Indeed, we are -- as far as I know -- the only research center in Washington that has a program dedicated to Pakistan. We have a Pakistan scholar here every year and we have a substantive conference each year for which detailed reports are published. So far these reports have dealt with Islamic banking, education, energy and trade. The report on trade will appear shortly; the others are already available. Washington: Although there is the looming threat of more instability in Pakistan, it is refreshing to see images of Pakistanis celebrating in the streets after the opposition's victory in the parliamentary elections. Can you see the PPP and Sharif's party (PLM-N) emerging with a unified stance on how to counter extremism and the degree of future military cooperation with the U.S.? If so, what will their position be? Dennis Kux: Yes, it is refreshing to see Pakistanis celebrating what appears to have been a largely free and fair election, maybe the first since 1970. We will see shortly if the PMLN and the PPP can work together. For the good of Pakistan, I hope they can. They do agree essentially on opposing terrorism and on cooperating with the U.S., but whether they can cooperate with each other to form a Grand Coalition remains to be seen. I hope they can, so that Pakistan can enjoy a period of political stability and can work on firming up its democratic institutions. Lahore, Pakistan: It is a welcome change that, given the high voter turnout, the PPP and PMLN have come out victorious. But is a coalition of the two parties sustainable in the long run, considering their long and intense history of enmity and conflicting priorities? Dennis Kux: As I just wrote, I hope the PPP and the PMLN can work together and form a national consensus on key issues. Perhaps they should agree to share power as the Congress and PDP have done in Indian Kashmir by having one group lead for half the term and the other party for the second half. The largest party should start. There is also the experience of successful Grand Coalitions in Germany and above in Austria for many years after World War II -- so why not Pakistan? Personalities more than policies differentiate the PMLN and the PPP. Fairfax, Va.: With the victories of moderate parties, shouldn't it prove to the West that Pakistan is not an extremist country, that the people are moderate? Dennis Kux: Yes, the results certainly show that Pakistan not only has rejected the supporters of the pro-Musharraf PMLQ, but even more so the religious extremists of the MMA. In 2002, the MMA won 59 seats; yesterday it won 3. That is a resounding victory for "moderate Islam." San Antonio: My question is about U.S. policy. Given this electoral outcome and American commitment to democracy, will the U.S. administration withdraw its support for Musharraf? Dennis Kux: U.S. ties with Pakistan are with the country, not the president. Washington will deal with the new government when it is formed. Clearly, the people of Pakistan have repudiated Musharraf's supporters, the PMLQ, and implicitly him. U.S. policy will not change, in my view. If the new National Assembly decides to impeach Musharraf (its constitutional right), the U.S. will accept this. If it leaves Musharraf in office, Washington will accept this. This is a decision for the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan. That is what democracy is all about. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Given that the U.S. now has to adjust to its ally dictator Musharraf's greatly weakened position, will it now jettison the dictator to forge a strong relationship with the parties like PPP and PMLN that will be calling the shots along with the new Army chief, or will Washington prefer a lame-duck dictator to keep the newly victorious opposition parties in check so as to keep the war on terror going? Dennis Kux: As I just said, I think the U.S. government will accept the will of the people of Pakistan now that they have spoken in what seem to have been free and fair elections. Personally, I think the democratically elected government will do as good and probably a better job of dealing with terrorists. This is particularly true in the Northwest Frontier Province. where the pro-Taliban MMA government has been defeated badly by the ANP and the PPP. Boston: Is there any scenario under which Musharraf would have to leave Pakistan as an exiled former leader? Dennis Kux: Yes, it is possible (but not clear) that he may be impeached by the National Assembly if there is a two-thirds vote against him. If so, he may or may not decide the leave Pakistan. Lahore, Pakistan: Hi. The common perception here in Pakistan is that the government will rig the elections. Can Pakistan survive such a jolt? Dennis Kux: Apparently, they did not rig the actual voting or the vote count -- otherwise, the results would have been different. True dictatorships are not known to lose elections. Now that the "moderate" parties have won, the challenge is for them is to do a better job than they did in 1988-1999. For the sake of the people of Pakistan, I hope and pray that they have learned from their past poor performance. Above all, I hope that the PMLN and the PPP work together as a united front for tackling the many problems that Pakistan faces. Bethesda, Md.: How will the new government affect the hunt for bin Laden? Dennis Kux: I hope they will do a better job than the previous government. Islamabad, Pakistan: How much do you agree that the failure to settle Pakistan's boundary disputes with the neighboring countries is the main cause of its volatile instability? There doesn't exist any de-facto boundary line between Pakistan and Afghanistan after the expiry of of the Durand Line. The Kashmir dispute is also a question of the settlement of boundaries with India. Even the provincial boundaries inside Pakistan are a cause of friction among the people of this country. Doesn't Pakistan need a fresh settlement of its boundaries to avoid further martial law in the future as well as to quell its condition of instability forever? Dennis Kux: For the stability of Pakistan and so that it can focus on dealing with its many domestic problems, it would be very helpful if the frontier problems with India and Afghanistan were resolved. In the case of India, this concerns the Kashmir dispute, and I hope that Islamabad and Delhi can continue to make progress toward a resolution of this long-standing dispute. In the case of Afghanistan, Pakistan already accepts the Durand Line as the frontier. It is in the interest of Afghanistan that it also accept this border. Irvine, Calif.: Democracy never has solved Pakistan's problems before and it never will, as Dennis Kux has to know. It was the democratic government of Pakistan that facilitated relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan. It was the democratic government of Pakistan that created and nurtured Taliban movement and installed the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Zardari, Bhutto's husband, is known as Mr. 10 Percent for demanding 10 percent of any industry to start a business when he was in Benazir Bhutto's government. And Nawaz Sharif -- he is as fundamentalist as they come. Sharif personally has met Osama bin Laden at least three times and got 500 million Pakistani Rupees in campaign contribution from Osama in 1990s, which helped him win the elections. The realpolitik of Pakistan would not allow either Mr. 10 Percent or Nawaz Sharif to destroy Islamic fundamentalists, even if they continue Musharraf's half-hearted efforts to do so, just to assure that gravy train of U.S. aid continues. Despite knowing full well the past sixty years of Pakistani history, the American government and news media continue to be under the delusion that democracy is the solution for fundamentalist state of Pakistan! Even if Zardari-Sharif coalition is to win next week's elections, form a government and throw out Musharraf, it will not change the fundamentalist character of Pakistan, and Pakistan will continue to be the "terror center" of the world, milking Uncle Sam just, as it has until now. Dennis Kux: It is true that in the past democratic governments have not solved Pakistan's problems, but then neither have the military governments. Pakistan's curse is that both have performed poorly. In the 2008 elections, Pakistan has turned the page and has spoken again for the democratic parties. To its credit, the military does not seem to have rigged this election and seems to be eager to stay out of politics. Let us hope it does so and let us hope that the PMLN and the PPP have learned from the past and do a better job than when they were last in power. Lyme, Conn.: What is the reaction of the Indian government to these elections? Does this signal any possible change or new avenues of discussion between these two countries? Dennis Kux: The Indian government will be pleased with the conduct and result of these elections. It will hope that the new government will continue the composite dialogue that President Musharraf began in 2004. Princeton, N.J.: I have heard many reports that because of our slavish support of Musharraf and other policies (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.), the U.S. government is hated and feared by the Pakistani people. Is this true? Dennis Kux: Public opinion polls indicate that the U.S. is very unpopular in Pakistan. There are many reasons or this. A number deal with past U.S.-Pakistan relations and the perception (with which I do not agree) that the U.S. has used Pakistan when it needed the Pakistanis and then dumped them when they became less useful. The facts are much more complicated, and both the Americans and Pakistanis are to blame for the rollercoaster character of our relationship. Other reasons relate to U.S. policies elsewhere (Palestine-Israel and Iraq, most especially). These have created the impression that the U.S. is anti-Muslim -- not a selling point in a country with a 98 percent Muslim population. Finally, some Pakistanis are unhappy with U.S. role in Afghanistan. Also, George Bush's outspoken support for Musharraf has hurt the U.S. image by tying us to an unpopular leader as a person rather than to Pakistan as a country. Dallas: How can the U.S. secure the long term safety of their nuclear arsenal? And what will India's response be? Dennis Kux: Recent statements by senior U.S. military and intelligence officials indicate their full satisfaction with the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal. I would imagine that is also reassuring to the Indians. It is important for people to realize that the Indians and Pakistanis are intelligent and rational people and do not want "loose nukes" any more than we do. Tel Aviv, Israel: According to Pakistan's constitution, what is the power balance between president Musharraf and the national parliament? Can the two Houses of parliament impeach Musharraf, or can he dissolve them? What are the legal procedures for these acts? Dennis Kux: Under the current constitution, the president and the parliament share power. Ultimately, the president has the upper hand and can dismiss parliament if he wishes. But parliament also has the right to impeach him by a two-thirds vote. Musharraf made a number of changes to the constitution by what amount to executive orders. The new national assembly may challenge these and can override them if it has sufficient votes. Also, Musharraf fired the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a number of his colleagues. They may well be reinstated, and the constitutional situation may change to reduce the president's powers. We will have to see. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Mr. Zardari has said the new government will not work with anyone from the previous regime and will change the definition of war on terror. "The whole war on terror has been defined wrongly. It is a war of terror against Pakistan and we have to fight it as our own war. We have lost our leader, Benazir. We know there are agents within the government who have been plotting against us," he said today. What does this mean for U.S. and the rest of the world? Dennis Kux: Many statements are made in the heat of a hot election campaign. We will have to see what happens. The late Benazir Bhutto, whose husband is her political heir, was for a stronger and more sustained effort to rid Pakistan of the terrorists. I would think Zardari will follow this approach also. Wokingham, U.K.: If moderate Islam is now in power, what will it expect of the West? Is the recognition of Muslim Kosovo a good start? Will progress be expected in the Middle East? Dennis Kux: "Moderate Islam," i.e. the PPP, PMLN and ANP (and maybe MQM), will expect the West to support democratic institutions in Pakistan, to work with the civilian leadership to strengthen these institutions and to assist Pakistan in addressing its education, health and other problems. This means more assistance in these areas and relatively less military help. External Forces destabilizing Pakistan: There is the widespread belief among Pakistanis that the British were training "British Taliban" in Helmand to send the mercenaries into Pakistan. The CIA also is destabilizing Pakistan. The U.S. established an anti-Pakistan regime in Kabul. Don't you think these actions will exacerbate Anti-Americanism in Pakistan? Dennis Kux: Quite frankly and with due respect, I do not believe your comments are based on fact. It is unfortunate (but true) that many Pakistanis feel the CIA, the British MI-5, etc. are trying to destabilize Pakistan. In fact, I believe the U.S., the U.K. and other democratic countries want to see a Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors and not a haven for terrorists -- in other words, that Muhammad Ali Jinnah's dream be finally realized. 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.
69
0.609756
0.756098
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html
Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan
2008021919
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center. The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan. Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand. It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident. Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials. U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests. Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike. "In the past, it required getting approval from the highest levels," said one former intelligence official involved in planning for previous strikes. "You may have information that is valid for only 30 minutes. If you wait, the information is no longer valid." But when the autonomous U.S. military operations in Pakistan succeed, support for them grows in Washington in probably the same proportion as Pakistani resentments increase. Even as U.S. officials ramp up the pressure on Musharraf to do more, Pakistan's embattled president has taken a harder line in public against cooperation in recent months, the sources said. "The posture that was evident two years ago is not evident," said a senior U.S. official who frequently visits the region. A U.S. military official familiar with operations in the tribal areas, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the operations, said: "We'll get these one-off flukes once every eight months or so, but that's still not a strategy -- it's not a plan. Every now and then something will come together. What that serves to do [is] it tamps down discussion about whether there is a better way to do it." During seven years of searching for Osama bin Laden and his followers, the U.S. government has deployed billions of dollars' worth of surveillance hardware to South Asia, from top-secret spy satellites to sophisticated eavesdropping gear for intercepting text messages and cellphone conversations.
In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster...
14
0.983051
57.016949
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901612.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021901612.html
China Defends Relocation Policy
2008021919
More than 6,000 households have voluntarily relocated from the venue sites over the past several years and all have been fairly compensated, Zhang Jiaming, vice chair of the Beijing Municipal Construction Committee, told reporters, outlining a policy that has been the focus of petition campaigns and protests, which the Communist Party has tried to suppress. "The relocation project went very smoothly, so no one was forced out of their homes at any of the venues," Zhang said. Families who could prove ownership were compensated, on average, about $87,500, enough to allow some displaced residents to pass up government-provided affordable housing, purchase an apartment and buy a new car, Zhang said. Zhang's remarks were disputed by some residents and by advocates for the displaced, highlighting yet another controversy confronting authorities in the run-up to this summer's Games. "The key issue remains the lack of transparency for all this massive relocation," said Nicholas Bequelin, China researcher for Human Rights Watch. "People did get money and were resettled, but what is important is what happened to the people who protested. Many people were taken to police stations or threatened with job dismissal." Unresolved grievances include accusations that much of the compensation money was embezzled by corrupt local officials, that many relocations were in fact forced, that heavy-handed police tactics were used to evict residents, and that there was no opportunity to object when compensation didn't match the value of people's homes, Bequelin said. Guo Tiehui, 38, said residents in his neighborhood received a notice in May 2006 from district officials informing them that the area had to be improved for the Olympics, even though it was not a venue site. Guo's 2,153-square-foot courtyard home was torn down Jan. 20, but he said the compensation he received was based on an area of only 725.4 square feet. "Before, my family lived in several rooms and rented out other rooms," he said. "Right now, we have to rent an apartment. We not only lost our shelter but we also lost a stable income. How can we buy a new apartment with the same area with such a small amount of compensation?" "Chinese people do support the Olympics, but we also need reasonable compensation," Guo said. "The government should not use the Olympics as a big hat to put on our heads. The government always blames outsiders for politicizing the Olympics, but domestically they make the Olympics a political issue. We don't believe that our houses were torn down for the Olympics. The real purpose is moneymaking." Renters were not compensated after being forced from their homes, said Han Xiuying, head of housing demolition for the city's Construction Committee. "They don't have a house at all," she said in a telephone interview. "Where did their houses come from that are supposedly torn down by us? How can we compensate them? We have already compensated the house owner." Also Tuesday, a land rights activist was tried for inciting subversion after he gathered signatures from disaffected farmers and protested the Olympics in an Internet posting in which he said, "We want human rights, not the Olympics." Yang Chunlin, an unemployed factory worker, was helping farmers who believed their land had been seized illegally. State prosecutors said the petition had harmed China's international image. News researcher Zhang Jie contributed to this report.
BEIJING, Feb. 19 -- Beijing officials on Tuesday defended their relocation of nearly 15,000 people as part of the massive construction projects that have transformed the capital into a 31-venue showcase for this summer's Olympic Games.
17.128205
0.641026
0.897436
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021702537.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021702537.html
Doing Well By Doing Good
2008021919
Chris Tucker's high-pitched humor closed the annual NBA Legends brunch Sunday morning, the comedic actor drawing a sharp contrast between last year's All-Star Weekend in Sin City and the toned-down tenor here the past few days. "Vegas was crazy, man," Tucker said as thousands in a ballroom at the New Orleans Convention Center doubled over in laughter. "I was scared, man. I looked out my hotel room, I told my son, 'Close the curtains. Get on the floor.' " Even David Stern cracked up, because he knew: Tucker spoke for himself as much as a league in real need of self-esteem for the past 12 months. The Big Easy became the antidote to the bacchanalia, bawdiness and overall bad vibe felt in Las Vegas. The mean-mugging crowds, Adam "Pacman" Jones charged in a strip-club melee, all the criminal accoutrements -- some of which had nothing to do with the NBA -- were gone. In its place emerged a civil, authentic gathering of the world's best athletes, their worshipping public and enough crawfish pie to feed everyone. Instead of the gaudiness and glitz in Nevada and a dud of a contest, the 57th All-Star Game was a pulsating thriller that made the New Orleans Arena squeal and stand in the final minutes. The East's LeBron James and the West's Chris Paul, the weekend's unofficial host, waged a mano a mano duel that finally ended with a thunderous LeBron dunk -- and an eventual MVP award -- in the final seconds of a 134-128 East victory. The game, which actually seemed to matter for a change, was played amid the backdrop of genuine charitable efforts to continue the restoration of Katrina-battered Louisiana. The selflessness of Paul, the Hornets point guard, and his all-star peers razing homes in the Lower Ninth Ward on Friday was not merely the NBA showing it cares. Let's be clear: There is self-interest in most charitable efforts, and this one served the NBA's image well. But if the league used a still-hurting New Orleans to portray itself as a roll-up-the-sleeves-and-haul- lumber entity -- as opposed to the Vegas prima donna label of a year ago -- this part of the bayou used the NBA for good, too. Beyond the projected $90 million economic impact, the awestruck looks on many of America's richest athletes reminded others there are still people in this country who don't have potable water and could use a canned good so they can eat tonight. "It's so heartwarming what the league has done," began Louisiana native Karl Malone, "but it's also kind of bittersweet. "The day of service was one day. There is still so much more to do. With all the money Louisiana has made with major events the last few years -- over a billion dollars -- at what point can we keep some of that money here? That's my crusade now. This is America. We spend trillions of dollars elsewhere, but we can't fix something like this in our own borders?" New Orleans also showcased more than a cause. The game got a needed jolt of personality infusion. Shaquille O'Neal was here to live up to his corporate obligations, but it was the first year since his 1992-93 rookie season that Shaq was neither named nor voted on to an all-star team. As the almost-36-year-old Diesel putt-putted around on fossil fuel -- the self-proclaimed Daddy was clearly closer to being revered as The Granddaddy -- never has the NBA needed a behemoth goofball to step in and become Stern's next comical ambassador in the pivot. Enter Dwight Howard, who stripped off his jersey during the dunk contest on Saturday night to reveal a Superman suit. Jameer Nelson fastened his cape and away Howard went, flying through the air, the basketball in his hands and the rim in sight. Howard had always had the physical tools and the desire to be considered among the game's elite. But a playful side to the Orlando Magic center came through to the public this weekend, enough to offset the aging O'Neal. Howard winning the dunk contest in such theatrical fashion -- and Minnesota's Gerald Green blowing out a candle on a cupcake strategically placed on the back of the rim -- brought new life and verve to an All-Star Saturday that seemed to be running on fumes the past few years. The days of Spud Webb winning the event at 5 feet 7, Dee Brown's blind dunk, or Brent Barry invalidating the tired "White Men Can't Jump" claim appeared to prove the contest's best days were behind it. But New Orleans Arena gasped and roared like the old days on Saturday and Sunday night. Howard's Clark Kent impression -- and the sublime performances of James, Paul, Ray Allen and Amare Stoudemire -- basically became a metaphor for the soaring nature of the weekend. Remember, Stern's league was facing a crisis of confidence just last summer, when we learned that referee Tim Donaghy passed information to gamblers -- a moment that called every controversial call in the NBA into question. The fear was that other officials were involved, that every conspiracy theorist who ever accused the league of being in on a fix would suddenly have their paranoia validated in what could have been one of sports' biggest betting scandals. Instead, less than a year later, the lone gunman theory looks more and more like reality. You couldn't help but notice Bob Delaney, the longtime referee who once infiltrated the mob in his former life as a state trooper, hocking his tell-all book about his Donnie Brasco days of yore. He was saluted for his forthrightness and honesty just as Donaghy was castigated for his greed and dishonesty. Everywhere one could look this weekend, Stern's league was beginning a metamorphosis it had needed for a good, long while. Yes, the playoffs are still up for debate. If one of the Western Conference semifinals or finals essentially ends up being the best series in the postseason, well, the idea of contraction might be up for debate one day -- instead of grandiose plans of European expansion. But New Orleans was a start, a genuine new beginning for a league and its once-maligned players, who helped fix the Lower Ninth Ward with hammers and nails last Friday the way they very much fixed themselves.
The NBA All-Star game benefited both the city of New Orleans and the NBA as the league helped its image and a limping city got an economic boost.
40.645161
0.870968
1.580645
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802009.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802009.html
Suicide Attack at Afghan Market Raises Two-Day Toll to About 140
2008021919
The marketplace blast, which targeted a Canadian army convoy, came a day after the deadliest insurgent attack in Afghanistan since a U.S.-led invasion defeated the Taliban rulers in late 2001. The toll from Sunday's bombing, in a crowd watching dogfights, rose to more than 100. The back-to-back blasts in the southern province of Kandahar could be a sign that insurgents are now willing to risk high civilian casualties while attacking security forces. Although their attacks occasionally have killed dozens, religious extremists in Afghanistan have generally avoided targeting civilians, unlike insurgents in Iraq's war. "The attacks show that the enemies of Afghanistan are changing their tactics. Now they are not thinking about civilians at all," said Nasrullah Stanikzai, a professor of political science at Kabul University. "They wanted to cause such big casualties in these attacks to weaken the morale of the government and the international community, to show the world the Afghan government is too weak to prevent them," he said. The Taliban denied it carried out Sunday's attack, but immediately asserted responsibility for the market bombing in the town of Spin Boldak about 100 yards from the border with Pakistan. There are fears that Afghanistan could experience more violence this year than in 2007, when a record 6,500 people -- most of them militant fighters -- were killed. The United States, with a record 28,000 troops in the country, is sending 3,200 more Marines in April. Hours before the marketplace bombing, Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid raised the toll from Sunday's attack from about 80 to more than 100, saying some of the dozens of wounded had died. Khalid said 38 people died in Monday's bombing and 28 were wounded. Three Canadian soldiers also were injured, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said. Khalid said Canadian troops had failed to heed government warnings to stay away from the border with Pakistan. "We informed the Canadian forces to avoid patrolling the border areas because our intelligence units had information that suicide attackers were in the areas and wanted to target Canadian or government forces," he said. "Despite informing the Canadians, they went to those areas anyway." A spokesman for the Canadian military could not be reached, and a NATO spokesman said he had no details on the matter. Although the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was closed Monday because of national elections in Pakistan, some of the wounded were taken to a hospital in Chaman, Pakistan, just across the border. One of them, Abdul Hakim, lay in a hospital bed, his clothes caked with dust and splattered with blood. "A white Toyota Corolla car rammed the second vehicle in the convoy as it passed through the bazaar," said Hakim, who saw the attack from his grocery store. "Then there was a huge explosion. It was dust. I do not know what happened to me."
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.
12.195652
0.434783
0.478261
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802389.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802389.html
A 'Klan Room' Filled With Relics, but Empty of Import
2008021919
Faceless hooded figures. The iconic noose. Rifles stacked one atop the other, forming the shape of a pointed hood, from which peer out eyes wide with fear -- or is it defiance? Hooded dolls stabbed with sewing pins, voodoo-style. I take in the images, register the rage behind the artist's work, his need as a white Southerner to expel the madness, to push it away and refuse to claim it. I just can't get riled up by men playing dress-up. I take it all in, and I am struck, not by the banality of evil, but by the silliness of it. To me, post-civil rights, pre-hip-hop, the Klan is so old school. Ineffectual, impotent, past tense. Checking out William Christenberry's "Klan Room Tableau," showing now through May 11 at American University's Katzen Arts Center, triggers memories. You could say that the Klan and I go back, way back. It's hard not to be black in the South -- hell, to be black anywhere in America -- without being acquainted with the KKK on some visceral level, no matter how abstract. My acquaintance with the KKK extends beyond the abstract. When Klansmen marched through my grandparents' Atlanta neighborhood back in the '40s, my grandfather grabbed his shotgun and stood on his front lawn, staring them down in his best don't-even-try-it way. They didn't. In the '80s, my mother, then an NAACP lobbyist, helped to get anti-Klan legislation passed in the Georgia Senate. She can't remember if she got death threats at the time. I seem to remember her getting them, but memory can be a tricky thing. My take-away from my family: The Klan is to be fought, not feared. I'm not likely to forget my own encounter with them. I was a cub reporter for the Chicago Tribune, assigned to cover a Klan rally at a park in Janesville, Wis., in 1992. The day before, I called to arrange a meeting with the rally's organizer, Kenneth Petersen, who identified himself as the "Exalted Cyclops" of the Klan's Knights sect. I have an Aryan last name, the legacy of my German slave-owning great-great-grandfather, and, I am told, I sound like a "white girl" -- whatever that means. Which is to say, I'm sure Petersen was expecting someone other than brown-skinned me. I've got to hand it to him, though. He kept his game face on (his hood had the face cut out) as he shook my proffered hand and answered my questions ("Are you guys still planning to burn a cross tonight?") in a pleasant-enough manner. And Petersen and his crew clearly needed it: They were outnumbered by protesters and press by something like 20 to 1. When a riot broke out between the protesters and the police, the Klan put their rally on pause, waiting patiently for the cameras to turn back on them. Only then did they resume their rally, with their left-handed salutes and cries of "White power!" And no, they didn't burn a cross. It was against park rules. Christenberry's Klan figures strike me as similarly irrelevant, relics of a bygone era. This is not to devalue the past terror. It's just that in these days of war and rampant panic about the economy, people of color have a lot of things to be scared about, hooded men being the least of those worries. At 71, Christenberry, a photographer-painter-sculptor, is of a different generation. I came of age in the late '70s, early '80s -- at the same time as Barack Obama, our "post-racial" presidential candidate. Christenberry came of age in Tuscaloosa, Ala., at a time when the impact of the Ku Klux Klan, this country's largest terrorist organization, was writ large. Out of curiosity, he attended a Klan rally, only to flee in terror after he was confronted by the terrifying visage of a masked and hooded man. His "Klan Room Tableau," a mixed-media collection of sketches, photos and dioramas, is an exorcism of that experience, a repudiation of hate. In it, he turns the violence back on the ones pulling the trigger, the ones rigging the noose. Crude dolls with pointed hoods, constructed of burlap and stuffed with what looks like BBs, hang from the wall, splattered with drippings of melted red wax. They are faceless, and in their anonymity, they are denied their humanity, reduced to blobs. Klan dolls are shoved into miniature wooden coffins. A cluster of hooded G.I. Joes stand under a roof, backs to each other, looking as if they're poised to flee -- or to attack. A series of charcoal portraits marches across the expanse of a wall, frame after frame of masked, hooded men. Their eyes peer out: spooked, angry, wary. Over one masked man a skull is superimposed; in others the mouth is cut away to reveal bared teeth . . . or fangs. Again, their facelessness renders them inhuman. Looking at them, with their elongated heads, I'm reminded of aliens in sci-fi flicks. Christenberry's use of dolls conjures images of voodoo. The hooded figures poked with sewing pins. A white satin cloth festooned with red sequins spelling out "KKK" looks a lot like a Haitian voudoun flag. Is Christenberry comparing the Klan to the religious tradition? Or is he using voodoo symbolism to excise their evil? If so, it's ironic that he uses the tools of a practice rooted in West African traditions to punish bad white folks. Wandering through Christenberry's exhibit, I expected to feel some kind of rage. Instead, I felt indifference. Even with the "Slow Death Zone" sign in one drawing, it's hard not to feel like Christenberry's art is an exercise in abstraction. What's missing are the images of their victims: Civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner; Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, Addie Mae Collins, the four little girls killed in the Birmingham church bombing. Not to mention all the other anonymous souls who met their end at the hands of the Klan, strange fruit swinging in the night. Without their presence, Christenberry's hooded dolls just feel like a twisted game of make-believe. William Christenberry's "Site/Possession," featuring 50 rarely exhibited drawings and "Klan Room Tableau," continues through May 11 at American University Museum at the Katzen Arts Center, located on Ward Circle at Massachusetts and Nebraska avenues NW. Call 202-885-1300 or visit http://www.american.edu/katzen.
Search Washington, DC area museums and art exhibitions from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for museums, galleries, studios and monuments. Visit http://eg.washingtonpost.com/section/museums today.
38.171429
0.457143
0.514286
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802230.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802230.html
Paranoid? Don't Worry; It's All Under Control
2008021919
No? Well, that's not surprising, is it? There's a very good reason why you haven't seen it: They don't want you to see it. They know that Paranoia exposes them and their secret conspiracies to control every aspect of human life. Who are they? Good question. That's exactly what they don't want you to know. And it's exactly what Paranoia reveals in every issue. They are the secret government. They are the Freemasons, the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the New World Order, the Secret Council of Ten. They are the people who killed JFK, who covered up the truth about UFOs, who plotted the attacks of 9/11. They control the world and everything in it, including your mind unless you've got a tinfoil hat like the one I'm wearing right now to prevent them from bombarding my brain with secret mind-control rays. Wait a minute . . . where was I? Oh, right, Paranoia magazine. It's an incredible magazine, founded in 1992, circulation 15,000, published three times a year and packed with the kind of information that the mainstream media won't tell you because they are part of them. The latest issue reveals a secret Pentagon plot to control the weather with radio signals. It also reveals the secret connection between the JFK assassination and "the contamination of the polio vaccine with cancer-causing monkey viruses." This issue of Paranoia also reveals that David Icke, the British conspiracy theorist who disclosed in a previous issue of Paranoia that the queen of England is really a shape-shifting Satanic reptile, is himself funded by money that comes from the Rockefellers, who Icke had previously identified as "reptilian full-bloods." It kinda makes you wonder about Icke, doesn't it? And that's not all. The new issue of Paranoia also has a story about Lt. Col. Tom Bearden a "microphysics wizard" who has revealed that "1) Nothing contains everything" and "2) we can get something for nothing." Bearden is a genius who knows how to get unlimited free energy but his knowledge is suppressed by what he calls "an agency with a three letter acronym." Now, I know you're thinking "that sounds crazy," but the article on Bearden wasn't written by some nut. It was written by Iona Miller, who is a "hypnotherapist" and "multimedia artist" who describes her work as a combination of "new physics, biophysics, paramedia, philosophy, cosmology, healing, creativity, qabalah, magick, metaphysics and society." So obviously she knows her stuff. But one thing bothers me: Why do the editors call their publication Paranoia? Doesn't that sort of suggest that you'd have to be, you know, crazy to believe the stuff they print? I decided to ask the co-editors, Joan D'Arc and Al Hidell. I called and Joan D'Arc answered. Well, I wasn't born yesterday so I knew that name was fake -- a subtle reference to Joan of Arc. So I asked her: "What's your real name?" She refused to tell me. "You must surely realize that there are people out there who hate us and would want to harm us." She told me that editing Paranoia was not a full-time job so I asked her what she did for a living.
Have you seen the latest issue of Paranoia magazine?
67.5
1
1.8
high
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
The Dumbing Of America
2008021719
"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations. This is the last subject that any candidate would dare raise on the long and winding road to the White House. It is almost impossible to talk about the manner in which public ignorance contributes to grave national problems without being labeled an "elitist," one of the most powerful pejoratives that can be applied to anyone aspiring to high office. Instead, our politicians repeatedly assure Americans that they are just "folks," a patronizing term that you will search for in vain in important presidential speeches before 1980. (Just imagine: "We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain . . . and that government of the folks, by the folks, for the folks, shall not perish from the earth.") Such exaltations of ordinariness are among the distinguishing traits of anti-intellectualism in any era. The classic work on this subject by Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," was published in early 1963, between the anti-communist crusades of the McCarthy era and the social convulsions of the late 1960s. Hofstadter saw American anti-intellectualism as a basically cyclical phenomenon that often manifested itself as the dark side of the country's democratic impulses in religion and education. But today's brand of anti-intellectualism is less a cycle than a flood. If Hofstadter (who died of leukemia in 1970 at age 54) had lived long enough to write a modern-day sequel, he would have found that our era of 24/7 infotainment has outstripped his most apocalyptic predictions about the future of American culture. Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism. First and foremost among the vectors of the new anti-intellectualism is video. The decline of book, newspaper and magazine reading is by now an old story. The drop-off is most pronounced among the young, but it continues to accelerate and afflict Americans of all ages and education levels. Reading has declined not only among the poorly educated, according to a report last year by the National Endowment for the Arts. In 1982, 82 percent of college graduates read novels or poems for pleasure; two decades later, only 67 percent did. And more than 40 percent of Americans under 44 did not read a single book -- fiction or nonfiction -- over the course of a year. The proportion of 17-year-olds who read nothing (unless required to do so for school) more than doubled between 1984 and 2004. This time period, of course, encompasses the rise of personal computers, Web surfing and video games. Does all this matter? Technophiles pooh-pooh jeremiads about the end of print culture as the navel-gazing of (what else?) elitists. In his book "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter," the science writer Steven Johnson assures us that we have nothing to worry about. Sure, parents may see their "vibrant and active children gazing silently, mouths agape, at the screen." But these zombie-like characteristics "are not signs of mental atrophy. They're signs of focus." Balderdash. The real question is what toddlers are screening out, not what they are focusing on, while they sit mesmerized by videos they have seen dozens of times. Despite an aggressive marketing campaign aimed at encouraging babies as young as 6 months to watch videos, there is no evidence that focusing on a screen is anything but bad for infants and toddlers. In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos. I cannot prove that reading for hours in a treehouse (which is what I was doing when I was 13) creates more informed citizens than hammering away at a Microsoft Xbox or obsessing about Facebook profiles. But the inability to concentrate for long periods of time -- as distinct from brief reading hits for information on the Web -- seems to me intimately related to the inability of the public to remember even recent news events. It is not surprising, for example, that less has been heard from the presidential candidates about the Iraq war in the later stages of the primary campaign than in the earlier ones, simply because there have been fewer video reports of violence in Iraq. Candidates, like voters, emphasize the latest news, not necessarily the most important news. No wonder negative political ads work. "With text, it is even easy to keep track of differing levels of authority behind different pieces of information," the cultural critic Caleb Crain noted recently in the New Yorker. "A comparison of two video reports, on the other hand, is cumbersome. Forced to choose between conflicting stories on television, the viewer falls back on hunches, or on what he believed before he started watching." As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be. Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds. The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.
There is no quick cure for the epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism that has infected America.
56.136364
0.727273
1.909091
high
low
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502904.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502904.html
Outlook: We Don't Care What We Don't Know
2008021719
"Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture (and by video, I mean every form of digital media, as well as older electronic ones); a disjunction between Americans' rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-intellectualism with anti-rationalism ... not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge." Susan Jacoby, author of "The Age of American Unreason," was online Tuesday, Feb. 19 at noon ET to take questions on her Outlook article about the negative consequences of Americans' increasing distaste for reading, diminishing attention spans and general anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors Bethesda, Md.: I'm not sure I see convincing data to support your argument, just anecdotes that easily are countered. Are we not in an age in American where getting into college is increasingly competitive, Ph.Ds can't find teaching jobs at universities because the market is glutted, and business and law schools have become impossible to get into? The intellectual curiosity of the bottom 10 percent, or even 80 percent, of Americans is not all that relevant. As long as the decision-makers and those who set policy are prepared adequately for the challenges ahead, does it matter if the average Joe reads novels? When I look at the academic resumes of those holding high public office, I see a lot of Ivy League schools, etc. Same with those who run Wall Street. I don't really care if my mechanic can find Iran on a map; I care that he can replace the timing belt on my car. Susan Jacoby: I'm Susan Jacoby. Hello everyone. This question is a dismaying example of how lack of respect for knowledge affects citizenship. So the intellectual curiosity of the "bottom 80 percent" of Americans isn't relevant? The country should be run by a top 20 percent and it doesn't matter how little the rest of Americans know? There is also a huge confusion here between knowledge and "Ivy League resumes" and "credentials." There are all sorts of people with Ivy League resumes who have no respect for knowledge and all sorts of mechanics who can find Iraq and Iran on a map. You ought to care whether everyone knows the location of countries where we're at war, because ignorance about such matters is what gets us involved in wars in the first place. Bowie, Md.: Your article seems to imply that information and ideas cannot be transferred by the new media. I loved the president Roosevelt example: If we did that today in a speech, all anyone would have to do is click on Google maps and the Pacific would be before them. Please explain to us all why that would be worse than what happened in 1942? Susan Jacoby: If everyone did click on Google maps and listen to the president talk, that would be fine. But, as I mentioned, no president can count on the attention of 75 percent of Americans when he makes a speech about anything. So they're not clicking on Google maps either. It's the desire to know about the world, not the medium, that makes the difference. Cleveland: As someone who tries to convince more of his friends to read, and in an age of quick sound bites and short answers, what is the best retort for "elitists" when friends want to know why it's better to read something like Melville as opposed to Entertainment Weekly? Something that may work in a restaurant conversation? Susan Jacoby: Well, both "Entertainment Weekly" and Melville have their place. The problem is that when people are saturated with infotainment from an early age, they're used to getting everything in the easiest and most passive form. I can't imagine how you'd convince someone who doesn't think that reading is fun that it is fun. (Especially in a restaurant, where you generally can't hear anyone talk because the music is so loud.) I'd work on the little kids in your life. Honolulu: I get what you're saying and I basically agree with it. However, there is also a strain of American thinking that says "be innovative, be different, go your own path." Taken to an extreme, this can means rejecting past traditions and values, including striving to be well-educated. I once worked with a girl who pointed out that "Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard" as her excuse for slacking off (of course she didn't realize that Gates went to a prestigious private school and came from a really well-connected family). How would you jibe this point of view with yours? Susan Jacoby: There actually is no conflict between respect for intellectual endeavor and taking your own path. I don't have any particular respect for a college degree as an indicator of knowledge, and Bill Gates dropped out because he had something better to do. The problem is that a lot of people don't continue with general self-education, as opposed to the sort of information that makes you a good test performer, after their formal education is complete. The value of a good education, whether obtained conventionally or unconventionally, is that it leads you to do more. Rockville, Md.: Nothing new here. Mark Twain could have written about the same "problem." Basically I see it as a class difference and a lack of appreciation of different points of view. I was not convinced. Susan Jacoby: Ah, I see. Education is for the upper classes. The old "elitist" argument. So much for Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, et al. If only they'd understood that reading is for "the elites," and that all that time they spent reading books was a matter of pure snobbery. Rochester, N.Y.: To what extent is the media partly responsible for the dumbing-down that we see? I always am stunned when I watch political discussions by how much the commentators seem to celebrate the stupidity of voters. I also am stunned by how much Chris Matthews, David Brooks, David Broder et al openly mock intellectuals. Do things like this go on in other countries? Do media elites make fun of those who attempt to be thoughtful there as well? Susan Jacoby: This is a big problem. No, the media elites in other developed countries don't make regular sport of intellectuals as a group. Of course, there's nothing wrong with making fun of stupid intellectuals, and there are plenty of them -- but what's wrong with them (say, the right-wing intellectuals who brought us the Iraq war) is not that they're intellectuals but that their blinded by ideology to evidence. The media elite also tries to pretend that it is not an elite. Hence, the constant references to "folks" by national television anchors as well as politicians trying to show that they're just one of the boys or just one of the girls. Vienna, Va.: I would like to know what Ms. Jacoby thinks about the response in today's Washington Post by Jim Wales of Wikipedia? I think he misses the point entirely and is confusing real reading with digestion of factoids. As a mother of two boys, 11 and 13 years old, I am facing an uphill battle getting them to read not only for school but for pleasure. It's a battle that I am going to fight till the end. I am grateful that my children's teachers do not accept Wikipedia as source for any research, even though I admit it does have its merits in a limited way. washingtonpost.com: We're Smarter Than You Think (Post, Feb. 19) Susan Jacoby: I would expect Jim Wales to confuse the digestion (or ingestion) of factoids with real knowledge, because what Wikipedia is all about factoids, unedited by people who actually know what they're talking about. Not that I have anything against Wikipedia, any more than I have anything against traditional encyclopedias. These reference works are a useful way to begin finding out about the world, a jumping-off point. But the reading we all do on the Internet, as I pointed out, is not really reading. It's a shortcut in the search for facts or factoids. It has nothing to do with the integration of information into a larger body of knowledge. Falls Church, Va.: I find it odd that you would use anti-Communism as a bugbear in your article when history has proven the "anti-intellectual" anti-Communists so thoroughly right. McCarthy's foolish excesses rightly can be condemned, but the fact remains that the anti-Communists were right that Communism was oppressive, Eastern Europe did want to be free, the Soviet Union did have spies in the U.S. government, and Alger Hiss was guilty. If this is anti-intellectualism, then we need more of it. Susan Jacoby: There were plenty of anti-communist intellectuals (including anti-communist liberal intellectuals) as well as communist intellectuals. The attempt to tar all liberals and intellectuals as communists or lefties is part of the right-wing intellectual strategy of character assassination of liberals. Ever hear of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Mary McCarthy, Irving Howe -- anti-communist liberal intellectuals all? Falls Church, Va.: I was stunned at the muted reaction when a number of Republican candidates for president proclaimed that they didn't believe in evolution. It seems to me that part of this willful ignorance is tied up with the current religiosity of right-wing American culture. As a believer I find that insulting, because belief and rigorous intellectual discourse are not mutually exclusive. Still, we seem to be falling victim to an almost Taliban-like attack on rationality in this country. Susan Jacoby: One of my major points is that American anti-intellectualism today is particularly virulent because it is joined to anti-rationalist contempt for science and evidence. Religious fundamentalism -- belief in the literal truth of every word in the Bible -- is part of that. You obviously can't approach evolution with an open mind if your faith tells you that you must believe the Earth was created in six days. But I think it's a great mistake to blame the dumbing-down of America entirely on fundamentalist religion. There are many Americans of faith for whom religion and science are compatible, and their voices are, I think finally beginning to be heard. Chicago: You said above, "It's the desire to know about the world, not the medium, that makes the difference." But in your article it seems as though you do put blame on the medium ... the digital age, where tons of information can be thrown at you in little snippets and attention spans are short. Susan Jacoby: I guess I'm enough of an Enlightenment rationalist to believe that we still can control our use of the media (a plural, by the way, not a singular noun). I think the state of much of the media is execrable, but isn't it the responsibility of the individual to restrain his or her dependence on passive infotainment and to question what's said on TV and spread across the Web? Re: Convincing adults to read: For the person who wanted an argument to use on friends as to why to read books rather than Entertainment Weekly: don't try to convince them to read in general, try to convince them to read in specific. Try to get someone to read a book you read and enjoyed, or a book that matches interests you already know that that friend has. Once they're used to reading books for pleasure, they will be more likely to be open to reading the literary giants. Susan Jacoby: Right. Absolutely. If you've got a friend who's a passionate baseball fan, give him or her a great baseball book for a present. Maryland: When you were forming your thesis, did you take into account "information fatigue," that the level of information available to people is so vast and that there are so many issues and concerns and groups fighting for attention that people just start to feel overwhelmed? I know I so often am bombarded by things I should care about (and I can find Iraq on map and read regularly) that I've started tuning things out. I'm only one person, and the world is so big and noisy, and has so much wrong with it. Susan Jacoby: This is, I think a fundamental question. We all have to tune some things out in order to stay sane. No one can read everything or encompass the whole of human knowledge. (In fact, the Enlightenment founders of the United States belonged to the last generation for whom that was possible.) We all have to make choices every day. Do I watch people humiliating one another on "The Biggest Loser," or do I maybe give a new book a try during that time period? Do I have the TV or the computer on 24 hours a day, or do I spend some down time just thinking or talking to friends? Chantilly, Va.: I had to laugh today when The Post's article about a new style of teaching math mentioned that children were having trouble with problems like: "There are 28 desks in the classroom. The teacher puts them in groups of four. How many groups of desks are in the classroom?" The article then felt the need to point out that 7 was the correct answer. I find geographical ignorance rather amazing (how can you not know some of these things?) and foreign language ignorance unfortunate but understandable (many Americans learn a language in school but soon lose it through lack of use -- Europeans don't need to travel very far before encountering people who don't speak their language), but I think mathematical ignorance is a far more worrying problem. washingtonpost.com: Parents Rise Up Against A New Approach to Math (Post, Feb. 19) Susan Jacoby: It all matters. Mathematical ignorance, for example, makes it hard for people to understand medical articles. If you don't understand basic fractions and percentages, you can't understand how much a particular alarming story matters. For example, there was a front-page story in The New York Times today about a seemingly scary rise in thethe suicide rate of the middle-aged, but when you looked at the overall numbers they were extremely small. If you're talking about a doubling of deaths, it matters a lot whether the base number is one or a million. Fredericksburg, Va.: I am sure you'll be inundated with smug pronouncements from self-proclaimed intellectuals lamenting how they are surrounded by idiots; I'd like to present another view: the curse of the over-educated. I've worked in few companies and organizations headed by power-school graduates (MIT, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins). My observation is these types are too educated and over-informed. Arrogance, hubris and stubbornness are the prevailing traits of this tribe. Their iron-clad superior view precluded the possibility that a new idea or a better path existed that was not their own. Wallowing in infinite analysis, they could not make a decision. They never were wrong. Convinced of their position, they'd continue in a straight line and drive right off the cliff. (What I see in these individuals is, to a disturbing degree, mirrored in American foreign policy!) Please, provide your insights on the phenomena of hyper-intellectualism and hyper-rationalism in American society. Susan Jacoby: This isn't "hyper-intellectualism" or "hyper-rationalism." On the contrary, it's anti-rationalism. People who are so convinced of the rightness of a position that they simply ignore countervailing evidence can be found among Harvard business school graduates (George W. Bush) and among fourth-graders. The fourth-graders have an excuse. The greatest failure of our schools at all levels is inability to teach children how to think critically and evaluate evidence. I forget who said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's also a definition of stupidity. Boston: I don't think this gilded age of enlightenment with fireside chats and books overflowing out of every shelf actually existed. People listened because they were involved in a war and radio was new, and they read more because there was nothing else to do. Stating that they did these things because the culture was fundamentally more curious about knowledge and the world is pure conjecture. Susan Jacoby: They read because they had nothing else to do? Talk about conjecture. In many ways, people in the 1930s had a lot more to do -- physical labor, for example, was much more a part of their lives. But you're right, what they didn't have was continuous access to low-level infotainment. Their ears weren't filled all day with noises from electronic devices, and they didn't spend time in chat rooms. Yup, they actually talked to people they knew and read themselves to sleep. Wait a minute...: You said: "Do I watch people humiliating one another on 'The Biggest Loser'?" I say: This is part of the smugness of intellectualism that I find rather despicable. Have you seen that show? Do you think it's all about humiliating one another? Or are you just making assumptions? The "intellectual community" has a really bad habit of letting its imagination run away when it comes to popular culture. Susan Jacoby: I have watched "The Biggest Loser." Check back with these people a few years from now to see where their weight is without the stimulus of being on national TV. Washington: Great article. How informed were Americans in 1776? I seem to recall reading that the Founding Fathers believed an educated populace was essential to the type of government they were creating. It seems like political discussions today are dumbed down to emotional arguments rather than being based on rational thinking. Susan Jacoby: Of course, many fewer people were able to read in 1776 (slaves, among others). But the influence of print and the literacy level in colonial America were quite astonishing; that's why Thomas Paine's arguments were circulated so widely. More to the point, the founders longed for a society in which more people would be able to read, and where free inquiry thereby would be promoted. "But the reading we all do on the Internet, as I pointed out, is not really reading.": You certainly have made this assertion, but you've offered little in the way of evidence or reason to support it. If I read a newspaper or magazine article online, as opposed to in print, what is lost? It really seems to me -- and to other people who have commented on this chat -- that your beef is with technology. Susan Jacoby: No, my beef is not with technology, it's with the way people use technology. In fact, studies from the past ten years have shown that online newspaper readers spend much less time reading articles than readers of print editions do. Most discouraging is the fact that the proportion of online newspaper readers under 25 -- an audience that print newspapers hoped to capture with online editions -- is no larger than the proportion of print newspaper readers under 25. If my beef were with technology, I wouldn't be here in this chat room right now. On the other hand, I think that people who spend the whole day in chat rooms are absolutely wasting their time. Balance, moderation -- ah, what archaic ideas! Tuning in late ..: and appalled by the first commenter. There are a lot of mechanics out there who have been to Iraq. My plumber is a Vietnam vet with all kinds of opinions and knowledge that have nothing to do with plumbing, although he does a first-class job at that. Carrboro, N.C.: Serious question: What kind and what level of discourse would you consider this chat? Susan Jacoby: Honestly, the nature of an online chat doesn't allow for much real discourse, even though many of the questions are extremely thoughtful. But I don't have the time, in this format, to answer as thoughtfully as if I were communicating by a traditional letter. This is actually a higher-level online chat than occurs in most venues. Washington: It seems that one major stumbling block to critical thought is the belief that serious evaluation of positions is unimportant from a critical standpoint (assessing truth as opposed to interest or practicality) given that every position is a mere opinion. If everything is and can be only an opinion, and if no opinion is any more worthy than another (egalitarianism), then critical evaluation is not only pointless, it is impossible. My question is, if the above is true, is this primarily a modern cultural problem? And what might be its causes? Susan Jacoby: Ah, the question. This is a problem, particularly, of postmodern culture, and is greatly exacerbated by the media, which frequently takes the position that truth -- if it exists -- is always equidistant from two points. Not everything is a matter of opinion. Some things are true and some are false. Knowing the distinction between opinion and evidence-based knowledge is essential. Wokingham, U.K.: You often refer to the Enlightenment and often refer negatively to certain forms of religion. Would you agree with Rousseau that any church that says "outside us there is no salvation" is politically intolerable and that society cannot be secure until it is removed? Susan Jacoby: Obviously, no one who reveres the U.S. Constitution can agree that churches claiming "outside us, there is no salvation" can be removed, but the absolute liberty of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution -- including the freedom not to believe as well as the freedom to believe -- has weakened the force of the "outside us, there is no salvation" argument in America. That would mean that most of your neighbors are doomed, and who would wish to say such things to his neighbor? Doesn't mean that a great many right-wing fundamentalists don't think that I am headed for the fiery pit, but so what? Richmond, Va.: A good friend of mine who attended at prestigious liberal arts college related disgust with academics in regards to their removal from the realities that most of us have to contend with (financial responsibilities, environments that are economically, politically and socially diverse etc.). It does often seem like there is a divide between practical knowledge and traditional "academic" or "intellectual" knowledge. Do you think that perception fuels anti-intellectualism? Susan Jacoby: I think that perception does fuel anti-intellectualism, but it is a misperception. I don't know why so many people are hung up on the "elites" in the teaching professions. I don't know, but I'd say that CEOs who make more than $100 million a year are far more removed from "practical realities" than a tenured college professor who might make about $80,000 a year. Washington: Wow! When I first read your column, I thought you were being rather snobbish. Now, as I read the comments, I see that you have definite point. A lot of people seem to be confusing education with knowledge and really seem to have no idea what you mean. Susan Jacoby: Thank you. One man cited the fact that law schools and business schools are oversubscribed as evidence that we don't need any more intellectuals. Those schools are oversubscribed because students see law and business as a way to make the most money. This has nothing to do with knowledge, real education, or any of the intellectual pleasures that (among other things) make life worth living. I speak as someone who probably would have dropped out of college 40 years ago had I not attended a school (Michigan State University) that allowed honors students to take a lot of extra courses and graduate early. I wanted so badly to be a newspaper reporter (which I became, at The Washington Post) that all I could think of was how fast I could get through school. Then, of course, I had to spend a lot of time educating myself because I'd been in such a tearing hurry. North Little Rock, Ark.: If you were to stipulate three books students should read -- say, one during primary education, one in secondary and one in college -- that would help enlighten the next generation on the importance of critical thinking and broad-based knowledge, what would they be? Susan Jacoby: I wish I could answer this wonderful question from a teacher, but I can't, because I think the answer has to be individual. I think the books that most influenced me in childhood, for example, were historical novels -- ranging from Howard Fast's "Spartacus" to James Michener's "Hawaii" -- that were important not so much for their content but because they got me interested in history. Anything that piques a child's interest in a wider world can get them reading. Reston, Va.: Susan, what are your credentials? Where did you go to school? What was your major? Where and what have you published? Susan Jacoby: This is my signoff question. What are my credentials? I went to St. Thomas Aquinas Elementary School, Okemos High School, and Michigan State University. My parents read to me, and my dad recited poetry to me. I spent a lot of time watching baseball in my grandfather's bar. I spent two years in Russia, where I learned to speak Russian, developed a belated appreciation of all of the great poetry I missed while I was hell-bent on finishing college fast, and wrote my first book, "Moscow Conversations." "The Age of American Unreason" is my eight book. My previous book, in 2004, was "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism." My credentials are that I spend a lot of time in libraries, and when I'm not doing that I spend a lot of time listening to music and watching baseball. My credentials, as you put it, are that I'm interested in almost everything. I'm a generalist in an era of specialization, and I like it that way. 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.
127.682927
0.658537
0.804878
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502899.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502899.html
The State of the Jihad, As He Might See It
2008021719
In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate -- Brothers, I write to give my view of how far we have, with God's help, traveled since declaring war on the United States in 1996. Al-Qaeda has today become all that we hoped for when we formed it in 1988: a vanguard organization whose main mission is not fighting, but rather inciting and inspiring young Muslims to arm themselves and defend Islam from the American crusaders, their Zionist offspring and their agent regimes in the Muslim world, especially the House of Saud. We must thank God for the steady flow of young Muslims to our ranks, men who now make the forces of al-Qaeda and its allies larger, more intelligent and more pious than ever. By God's grace, al-Qaeda's incitement has met with wondrous success; Western polls show that hundreds of millions of Muslims now believe that U.S. foreign policy aims to undermine or destroy Islam. Ironically, Washington itself has become a major inciter of Muslim hatred for the United States, simply by maintaining policies -- slaughtering the innocent in Iraq, propping up the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak's tyranny in Egypt, blindly backing the pretender state of the Jews -- that drive Muslims into our ranks. Not all these Muslims are ready to take up arms, but even the limited number who are now fighting have proved more than enough to stymie U.S. plans in Afghanistan and Iraq and to support the jihad in Algeria, Lebanon, Thailand, Somalia, Gaza and Europe. And so, even with limited numbers, al-Qaeda appears to Muslims as a huge, rising and conquering army. Just as important, Americans have been taught by their leaders to see al-Qaeda behind every rock and tree, ready to pounce. American leaders, in effect, now terrorize ordinary Americans, making Washington appear to be the enemy of its own people's civil liberties. This all gives us confidence in our plan to defeat America -- by bleeding it into bankruptcy and tempting it to spread out its forces. Brothers, the amount of money that Washington spends on wars to murder Muslims and on pointless "homeland security" measures is staggering, with no end in sight. The war in Iraq alone is costing $12 billion per month. Bush is also burning money to deploy troops to Africa, under a new Pentagon command created to steal the continent's oil. And after America's Iraq "surge," U.S. generals cannot scrape up the few thousand troops they would need to fight our Taliban brothers in Afghanistan because Washington's NATO allies refuse to send reinforcements. Thanks be to God, brothers, America is hemorrhaging money and ruining its military by trying to fight al-Qaeda's mujaheddin wherever they appear -- or, more accurately, wherever U.S. officials imagine they appear. Our military and media operations have advanced the ultimate goal of our grand strategy -- restoring Islamic rule to the Muslim world. We have a winning formula: -- Driving the United States from the Middle East; -- Destroying Israel and the region's Arab tyrannies; and -- Settling scores with the heretical Shiites.
What might Osama Bin Laden be saying to his followers?
55.181818
0.181818
0.181818
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503098.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503098.html
Iraq's Jihad Myths
2008021719
Among Democrats and even many Republicans, it is by now accepted wisdom that the war in Iraq brought huge numbers of holy warriors to the anti-American cause. But is it true? I don't think so. Muslim holy warriors are a diverse lot, reacting with differing intensity to the hot-button issues that define contemporary Islamic militancy. For many fundamentalists, what is seen as an unrelenting Western assault on Muslim male honor and female virtue is the core infuriating offense. For others it may be the alienation that second-generation young Muslim men encounter in an immigrant-unfriendly Europe. And for still others, Iraq, Afghanistan, the tyranny of U.S.-backed Muslim rulers and the Palestinian resistance can all come together to convert individual indignities into a holy-warrior faith. These complexities may help explain, at least in part, why so many secular Westerners seek relief in more easily understood explanations for jihadism (the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the usual favorites) -- explanations that don't probe too deeply into Islamic history and the militant Muslim imagination. Regarding the Iraq war and jihadism, two facts stand out. First, if we make a comparison with the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-89, which was the baptismal font for al-Qaeda, what's most striking is how few foreign holy warriors have gone to Mesopotamia since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Admittedly, we don't have a perfect grasp of the numbers involved in either conflict. But the figure of 25,000 Arab mujaheddin is probably a decent figure for those who went to Pakistan to fight the Red Army. Most probably did so in the last four years of the war, when the recruitment organizations and logistics became well developed. In Iraq, we see nothing of this magnitude, even though Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is in the Arab heartland and at the center of Islamic history. Moreover, for Arabs, getting to Iraq isn't difficult, and once there they speak the language and know the culture. And of course the United States, the bete noire of Islamists, is the enemy in Iraq. But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller). In the 1980s the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most well-organized Islamist movement, was at the center of the anti-Soviet jihadist recruitment effort. But in the case of Iraq, the Brotherhood has largely sat out the war. Even in Saudi Arabia, the mother ship of virulently anti-American, anti-Shiite, anti-moderate Muslim Wahhabism, the lack of commitment has been striking. We should have seen thousands, not hundreds, of Saudi true believers descending on Iraq. Throughout the Arab world, fundamentalism today is much stronger on the ground than it was in the 1980s. Yet the fundamentalist commitment to the Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgency pales in comparison with that made to Sunni Afghans. A second striking fact about Islamism and the Iraq war is that the arrival of foreign holy warriors is deradicalizing the local population -- the exact opposite of what happened in Afghanistan. In the Soviet war, the "Arab Afghans" arrived white-hot -- their radicalization had occurred at home in the 1960s and 1970s, when Islamic fundamentalism replaced secular Arab nationalism as the driving intellectual force. On the subcontinent, Arab holy warriors accelerated extreme Islamism among both Afghans and Pakistanis. We are still living with the results. In Iraq, as we have seen with the anti-al-Qaeda, Sunni Arab "Awakenings," Sunni extremism is now in retreat. More important, the gruesome anti-Shiite tactics of extremist groups, combined with the much-quoted statements made by former Sunni insurgents about the positive actions of the United States in Iraq, have caused a great deal of intellectual turbulence in the Arab world. It's way too soon to call Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda spiritual outcasts among Arab Muslims, but they have in fact sustained enormous damage throughout the region because of Iraq. The lack of holy-warrior manpower coming from the Muslim Brotherhood is surely, in part, a reflection of this discomfort with al-Qaeda's violence, the complexity of Iraqi politics and America's not entirely negative role inside the country. If bin Ladenism is now on the decline -- and it may well be among Arabs -- then Iraq has played an essential part in battering the movement's spiritual appeal. Iraq could still fall apart (and if an American president starts withdrawing troops haphazardly, it probably will). The country's descent into chaos and renewed sectarian strife would likely reenergize Islamic extremism. But it is certainly not too soon to suggest that Iraq could well become America's decisive victory over Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all those Muslims who believe that God has sanctified violence against the United States. Reuel Marc Gerecht is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former case officer for the CIA.
Among Democrats and even many Republicans, it is by now accepted wisdom that the war in Iraq brought huge numbers of holy warriors to the anti-American cause. But is it true? I don't think so.
23.761905
1
42
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502947.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502947.html
Candidates on Message
2008021719
MUNICH -- Karl Wendl, an Austrian journalist and author and my neighbor at this Bavarian capital's annual conference on global security, gets a lot of fun out of the American election campaign for a mere $30 plus online charges. Wendl is cranking up his BlackBerry as dinner speakers bid up the need for NATO solidarity on the Hindu Kush and deplore instability in the Balkans. He is absorbed instead by a personalized Barack Obama "blast" e-mail to him that he has saved and which is still soaked in Super Tuesday giddiness. "Karl, today we won states and won delegates in every part of the country," Wendl's new best friend writes in a "yes, we can" exhortation that includes a link for this Austrian citizen to make another MasterCard donation to Obama. Hillary Clinton's e-mail is more polite and is tenaciously focused on a different pronoun: "Dear Karl, the good news just keeps coming in . . . this great start would not have been possible without you. I thank you for your contribution." And then, on to a credit card link. John McCain's "Must Read Message" thanks Karl, who gave $10 to each campaign, for joining a real conservative movement. It encourages new donations and regurgitates a lengthy -- no, endless -- newspaper article alluding to McCain's many virtues. In E-Mail Land as elsewhere, Obama obsesses on "we," Hillary is all about "you," McCain is all "I." "Answer the McCain folks 'TLDR.' Too Long, Didn't Read," I suggest to Karl. Such e-mailese comes in handy at this year's Munich security conference and other international strategy gatherings that long ago earned the acronym BOGSATT -- Bunch of Guys Sitting Around a Table Talking. The 2008 U.S. primaries have captured the world's interest, imagination and even direct involvement. The ease with which foreigners can now slip repeated donations to candidates guarantees them a growing bit part in the globe's most important election -- even though U.S. law prohibits foreign nationals from making such contributions. Funds raised on the Internet flow into the other part of the air war that could determine this election: the organizing and broadcasting of images containing subliminal or unstated messages for a national television audience. But neither the mechanics of Internet fundraising nor the selling of the candidates, 2008, have received the media scrutiny they deserve. This began to register with me when I tuned in to Obama's soaring, magnificent victory speech in South Carolina on Jan. 26. His mastery was impressive. And so was that of his image managers, I gradually concluded. I marveled at the sea of white faces nodding approvingly or cheering wildly behind Obama. Then I realized that only a sprinkling of the black voters and volunteers who helped power the candidate's victory in my home state had made it onto the platform seats behind Obama, in range of the national eye. Was it possible these voters had not come to celebrate their victory? Hardly. Reporters in the hall saw Obama campaign workers usher photogenic white families toward the platform as they entered. The scene they composed was an effective, calculated rebuttal of the Clintons' effort to portray Obama as a black candidate whose victory depended on race -- a way of killing "this possible racial narrative before it could be born," as Gal Beckerman wrote in a perceptive dispatch on the Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Desk blog ( http://www.cjr.org). Such manipulation has become so commonplace that few other journalists bothered to mention the Carolina campaign tableau in their coverage, even though Beckerman estimated that 85 percent of the crowd was African American. Team Clinton is just as ruthless, if not as adept, in arranging on-message human backdrops. Clinton's stage managers in Iowa flanked her with the experience-heavy faces of her husband; his former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; and retired Gen. Wesley Clark. But defeat in Iowa got them cut out of the picture in New Hampshire in favor of teenage girls. Now Clinton appears most often alone on stage. For his part, John McCain is customarily surrounded on stage by members of the Republican establishment, which shot down his 2000 campaign. Other photo mates tend to be veterans and national security figures, put there to recall McCain's status as an authentic war hero and his promises to keep America safe. Hustling contributions along the dollar-lined international avenues of the Internet and carefully orchestrating campaign scenes to speak to the subconscious seem to be accepted as business as usual today by journalists and campaign tacticians alike. It's enough to make Richard Nixon green with envy.
Image manipulation in this race is everywhere you look.
89.9
0.8
0.8
high
medium
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/2008/02/death_threats_for_truth.html%20
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/2008/02/death_threats_for_truth.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008021719
Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from David Ignatius's full February 14th column in the Washington Post. A death threat arrived last week in the e-mail of James Njoroge Wachai, a Kenyan journalist who has written about the tribal conflict there for PostGlobal, a Web discussion I host with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. The authors of the threatening note claimed they were part of the "gang of odm," meaning that they were supporters of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) that is challenging President Mwai Kibaki. "You are writing bad articles about ODM in American newspapers," the note said. "We are watching you and you are a marked man. . . . You will die like a cow." Wachai exemplifies the kind of open global discussion we sought when we created PostGlobal two years ago. His first post for us, "Don't Balkanize Kenya," denounced politicians in his country who were exploiting tribal divisions to settle political scores. A second post, "Peacemakers Unfit for Peace," chided African leaders who were offering Kenya advice while ignoring human rights abuses in their own back yards. He just proposed a new piece asking why the State Department is so wary of using the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the slaughter in Kenya. Good journalism is about people writing the truth as they see it. James Wachai is our colleague in that effort. When someone threatens him, they threaten our common endeavor.
David Ignatius at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/
15.722222
0.388889
0.5
medium
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_tallit_of_ones_own.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_tallit_of_ones_own.html
A Tallit of One's Own
2008021719
I did something in synagogue on Saturday that I have never done before in all my years of attending services. I put on a tallit. My tallit. A tallit is a rectangular prayer shawl with fringes, called tzitzit, at each corner. It stems from God’s injunction to the Israelites “to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout the ages,” that they might “look at it and recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them…” When I was growing up, my father’s tallit was my antidote to synagogue boredom. I spent hours playing with its fringes—-braiding and rebraiding, running my fingers through them, using them to make designs on the top of my prayerbook. I never imagined that I would have a tallit of my own. The tallit is—at least, it has been—a male garment. Jewish boys get their first tallit when they become bar mitzvah, at age 13. Women have traditionally been excused from the obligation to wear tallit for prayer because it is among the commandments that can only be performed at specific times. Women, who might be distracted by child-bearing or child-rearing responsibilities, were deemed exempt. The medieval rabbis, apparently, didn’t understand that we are the ultimate multitaskers. Times have changed, in synagogues as elsewhere. In many synagogues, women are given the honor of an aliyah, being called up to say the blessings before the Torah reading. Women are permitted to chant from the Torah itself. Women are counted in a minyan, the ten worshippers required for a service. And it has become more common that girls who become bat mitzvah receive a tallit, just like boys. Which is how, in a roundabout way, I got mine. My parents’ synagogue has a tallit-making class, and my mother decided she would be making tallitot (this is the plural, which makes it, interestingly, a feminine noun) for each of her five grandchildren (four girls and a boy.) These are not your father’s tallit. They are decorated with multicolored silk stripes sewn in an intricate patchwork. My daughter Emma’s tallit, which she will receive at her Bat Mitzvah in May, shimmers with vibrant jewel tones, violet and green and blue. Her sister Julia’s Bat Mitzvah will not take place until March 2010, but hers, a Lily Pulitzer tallit of interwoven pinks and greens, is already finished. No one has ever accused my mother of procrastinating. At some point in this burst of maternal productivity, I allowed as how I might like my own tallit. I was more than a little conflicted about this. When my daughters receive their tallitot, they will be doing what come naturally. When a woman my age puts on a tallit, it is a statement, tinged with ostentation: “I am Woman, Watch me Pray.” But my mother makes a tallit too beautiful to refuse. It’s been finished for more than a year now, except for tying the tzitzit, the corner fringes, which was a two-person job that required my involvement. Much to my mother’s annoyance, I had a hard time carving out an hour for this—which had, I think, more to do with my ambivalence about actually wearing the tallit than with my overpacked schedule. Finally, with Emma’s Bat Mitzvah looming, we tied the tzitzit during the Super Bowl. This ritual turns out to be Jewish macrame. Each fringe contains eight strands, which must be tied with five knots, and between each know one long strand is wrapped around the others, first seven times, then eight, then 11, then 13. There is a convoluted interpretation in which this all adds up to 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. (If you thought there were just 10, you’ve underestimated us Jews.) The timing turned out to be perfect. On Saturday, Leni, Emma’s close friend since kindergarten, became Bat Mitzvah; Leni’s family attends my parents’ synagogue, and my mother helped Leni make her tallit. So there was Leni up on the bimah, wearing her tallit for the first time; there I was, sitting with my parents, wearing mine for the first time as well. It felt strange to recite the unfamiliar blessing before putting on the tallit, a prayer I only learned with Emma, as she prepares for her Bat Mitzvah: Baruch atah adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam asher kid'shanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu l'hitatef batzitzit. Blessed Art Thou, Lord Our God Ruler of the Universe, Who Has Sanctified Us with Thy Commandments, and Commanded Us to Wrap Ourselves in Fringes.” Because you hold the tallit in front of you to say the blessing and then swing it around your shoulders, I didn’t quite get it on right on the first try. I looked like a preschooler struggling to put on her coat. I felt self-conscious, but also unusually spiritual, with the tallit wrapped around me. When the Torah scroll was carried through the congregation, instead of reaching out with my prayerbook to touch the scroll, as the women do, I could use my tzitzit. At the conclusion of the service, members of the congregation, men and women, made a canopy with their tallitot for Leni and her family to walk under. In a few months, at Emma’s Bat Mitzvah, my husband and I will stand in front of our daughter, wrapping her in her tallit for the first time. I will be wearing my tallit. And my mother, who is getting around, uncharacteristically, to making one for herself, will be wearing hers. And I will be praying for a generation to come, imagining a day when my daughter’s child amuses herself by running her fingers through the fringes on Mommy’s tallit, the one her great-grandma made.
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
79.285714
0.357143
0.357143
high
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/mr_afghanistan.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/mr_afghanistan.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008021719
A Cyber Friend & Volunteer For "HILLARY FOR PREZ" VOTE: Abolish ALL PRE-APOCALYPTIC old-time "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" and competing religilous's in U.S. of A., not non-religio Industry's, NOW!! Deport ALL of the VATICAN 'PRE-APOCALYPTIC POLY-THEO Catholic Roman Empire "PEDAPHILE/HOMOSEXUAL-PRIESTS/BISHOPS/CARDINALS" & their SuperStupidStitious Man-Made (not genuine HOLY-COSMIC ECLATi made SYSTEM ) back overseas from whence they illegally Imported their 'CURSE & SIN(s)' into older U.S.A., but no longer into the "New APOCALYPTIC-AMERICA-NATiON" U.S.A of 100 States!!!! Note: This is the E*C*L*A*T*i-ON Prophecy! Please do not be in denial to self nor others! Tonks! VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, PRE-APOCALYPTIC old-time iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS! INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place! "Imagine" (john Lennon; pbuh) 100 U.S. States? Then We can Say Good bye Middle East & Good Ridence!!! Important: The Chinese Zionist {MAO's et al} are in Mexico too & populated Mexico 10-fold in last 10 Years! Remember, the Chinese want to POISON Americano's Minds via their Dangerous/un-Healthy Products!!! So They [Chinese Atheistic/Zionists] must be kicked-out of there ASAP! Ya Ya! Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA? PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!????? Please see these linko's on Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980. Shame Shame John & Cindy McCAIN!! Kennedy's And SHWARZENEGER & Shrivers too! All GONDOO! So: Vote: Deport John McCain all the way back to Panama YEA! http://www .astronomy2009.org///// USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!! Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN! STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !! Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN! VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !! PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平: HELLO APOCALYPTIC-NATION, Sweet sweet U.S. of A.'s! .. --
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
34.529412
0.411765
0.411765
medium
low
abstractive
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/2008/02/death_threats_for_truth.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021719id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/2008/02/death_threats_for_truth.html
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
2008021719
Editor's Note: This is an excerpt from David Ignatius's full February 14th column in the Washington Post. A death threat arrived last week in the e-mail of James Njoroge Wachai, a Kenyan journalist who has written about the tribal conflict there for PostGlobal, a Web discussion I host with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. The authors of the threatening note claimed they were part of the "gang of odm," meaning that they were supporters of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) that is challenging President Mwai Kibaki. "You are writing bad articles about ODM in American newspapers," the note said. "We are watching you and you are a marked man. . . . You will die like a cow." Wachai exemplifies the kind of open global discussion we sought when we created PostGlobal two years ago. His first post for us, "Don't Balkanize Kenya," denounced politicians in his country who were exploiting tribal divisions to settle political scores. A second post, "Peacemakers Unfit for Peace," chided African leaders who were offering Kenya advice while ignoring human rights abuses in their own back yards. He just proposed a new piece asking why the State Department is so wary of using the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the slaughter in Kenya. Good journalism is about people writing the truth as they see it. James Wachai is our colleague in that effort. When someone threatens him, they threaten our common endeavor.
David Ignatius at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/david_ignatius/
15.722222
0.388889
0.5
medium
low
abstractive