url
stringlengths 36
564
| archive
stringlengths 78
537
| title
stringlengths 0
1.04k
| date
stringlengths 10
14
| text
stringlengths 0
629k
| summary
stringlengths 1
35.4k
| compression
float64 0
106k
| coverage
float64 0
1
| density
float64 0
1.14k
| compression_bin
stringclasses 3
values | coverage_bin
stringclasses 3
values | density_bin
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002698.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002698.html
|
Iran's Clerical Old Guard Being Pushed Aside
|
2008021119
|
The newcomers are former military commanders, filmmakers and mayors, many younger than 50 and only a few of them clerics. They are vowing to carry out the promises of the revolution and to place Iran among the world's leading nations. This rising generation has the support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader in Iran's political system, who backs the government's assertive foreign and nuclear policies.
Last month, local election councils disqualified scores of clerics and their allies -- including Khomeini's grandson, Ali Eshragi -- from seeking election to parliament March 14. Such candidates have been disqualified before, but analysts said the absence of members of the clerical old guard from other institutions of power in Iran means they will find it difficult to mount an electoral comeback.
"These newcomers are pushing the followers of the imam out of power," said cleric and political veteran Rasoul Montajabnia, using an honorific to refer to Khomeini. "We are being dealt with disloyally."
Analysts say the purging of those clerics strengthens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most prominent leader of the new generation, and will result in a smaller political class that is more beholden to the supreme leader and less tolerant of even internal dissent.
"The newcomers don't have the same power base as the old guard," said Mehrdad Serjooie, a political analyst and former journalist. "They have no reputation dating from the time of the revolution, no direct access to oil money and no important supporters.
"The old factions often could operate more independently because they were powerful" in their own right, Serjooie added. "The new generation depends more on the leader."
Khamenei two weeks ago publicly vetoed a decision by Ahmadinejad to ignore certain laws passed by parliament. "This was a signal to show who is in charge," Serjooie said.
The newcomers say their emergence is part of a generational change. "For the last 30 years we have seen the same names in Iranian politics. It was natural that clerics took control of the country's affairs after they led the revolution, but as time goes by it's natural that younger non-clerics take over," said Saeed Aboutaleb, 37, a member of parliament since 2004.
He said clerics would remain important. "We need them for guidance, just as the late Imam Khomeini wanted. In the end, this is just a change in clothes," he added, referring to the overcoat and turban worn by clerics and the suits worn by younger politicians. "The newcomers are just as religious."
If the clerics have a chance at regaining the political prominence they enjoyed in the years following the 1979 revolution, analysts say, it will be under the leadership of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an ayatollah and former close aide to Khomeini who lost the presidential election to Ahmadinejad in 2005.
During Rafsanjani's two terms in the 1990s, his faction controlled several important executive and economic institutions in Iran, among them the Oil Ministry. He helped bring cleric Mohammad Khatami to power as his successor in 1997.
|
TEHRAN -- After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers toppled a U.S.-backed autocracy in Iran, he brought to power a coterie of politically engaged clerics who sought to create the world's first Islamic republic. Nearly 30 years later, a new generation of politicians is sweeping aside those...
| 11.188679 | 0.603774 | 1.018868 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002726.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002726.html
|
Police Go Live Monitoring D.C. Crime Cameras
|
2008021119
|
D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.
Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence.
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said she thought the department wasn't making the most of the technology and was missing opportunities to more quickly solve crimes -- or even stop them in progress. "I thought, 'Why the heck aren't we watching them?' " Lanier said.
And so, for about 40 hours a week, a small team of officers in the department's Joint Operations Command Center watches the live feeds from 10 to 15 of the cameras. They choose locations based on the latest crime trends -- focusing, for example, on areas in Southeast Washington beset by gun violence.
The District is following cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, where police have actively monitored live camera scenes for years. London is often credited with having the most extensive network -- 500,000 cameras that make up the "Ring of Steel," dating to the early 1990s. "I'd love to have the whole city wired like London," said Lanier, adding that she didn't anticipate that becoming a reality.
The District's cameras have quite a range, officials said. Officers can rotate angles for different views. They can zoom in on faces of potential suspects and pick up license plate numbers from cars several blocks away. Officers monitor 911 calls while watching the cameras, and they can switch feeds if they learn of a crime being reported at one of the sites under surveillance.
Police have directed one arrest from the command center, a drug deal they spotted at a Northwest Washington gas station a few weeks ago. Officers called in vice units that surprised the suspect.
Lanier said the initiative is a pilot project that began without any fanfare in mid-November. The D.C. Council is expected to learn details of the new use of the cameras in a report due Friday. Members will probably assess the effectiveness of the live monitoring and weigh concerns about balancing public safety and privacy.
The city first turned to cameras nearly a decade ago, creating a downtown network to aid police in monitoring large demonstrations, inaugurations and other big events. At the time, civil liberties groups and some council members raised concerns about privacy rights.
Over the years, residents in many parts of the city pushed to get cameras for crime-fighting purposes, and that led to the program's expansion into neighborhoods in 2006. Police hope to add about 50 cameras in the next two years and make other upgrades, at an estimated cost of $4.5 million. Of the 73 cameras in neighborhoods, police can get live feeds from 54, officials said. Eventually, they plan to have the capability to get live images from all of the cameras.
The cameras are in public places, clearly marked with the D.C. police logo. But Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he remains concerned about privacy. Spitzer said police will be observing more average, law-abiding people who are unaware they are being watched.
Spitzer said there is also a danger of officers "zooming in on attractive women or engaging in idle curiosity."
|
D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.
| 17.04878 | 1 | 41 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002215.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002215.html
|
Elk Herds Upsetting Ecosystems In Parks
|
2008021119
|
CHICAGO -- Elk like to eat. Elk like to eat a lot.
This is a problem for creatures fond of the same greenery coveted by the weighty elk. It is not so good for the ecosystem, either, according to the stewards of three national parks in Colorado and the Dakotas that are faced with growing herds of the herbivorous mammals.
Scientists at Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota are preparing to do an elk count, sending an airplane aloft after a fresh snow, when it is easier to spot the quarry in rugged terrain.
"Based on last year's survey, we expect to see a thousand or so elk," said Bill Whitworth, the park's chief of resource management. "We'd like to have somewhere between 100 and 400. We're balancing our elk population with bison, feral horses, other deer and animals that use the forage out here."
Reducing elk herds is not a gentle business. The National Park Service mostly figures on shooting elk, either on parkland using staff members and designated deputies, or on private land where hunters can load up.
Nature in the form of drought or severe snow sometimes helps. It used to be that elk could be shipped elsewhere, but the surfeit of elk and the rise of chronic wasting disease made that option less attractive. In Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, 60 female elk, called cows, were injected with a contraceptive designed to be effective for several years.
Spokeswoman Kyle Patterson said proposals to curb the elk population at Rocky Mountain have inspired "strong feelings across the board." Recommendations ranged from shooting and fencing to contraception and the introduction of wolves, one of elk's few natural predators.
Park managers settled on "lethal reduction," as shooting is called, as the preferred way to control the herd. Sharpshooters with night-vision goggles and silencers would target elk after dark. A formal decision is expected to be released soon, Patterson said, with the program likely to begin next winter and continue for two decades.
"This is a 20-year plan that we've been working on," Patterson said, explaining that the elk population will be monitored through fat times and thin. "Willow and aspen stands are declining. That's what we're concerned about, because that deprives other species of habitat they need.
"We have to manage for the others . . . beaver, butterfly, a variety of birds, insects," Patterson continued. "It's a whole ecosystem concept, and it can get out of whack."
The 415-square-mile park has a winter elk population between 1,700 and 2,200. The park's goal is 1,600 to 2,100 elk, down nearly half from highs reached as recently as 2001.
Since then, unusually deep snow in March 2003 and December 2006 motivated the elk to migrate to more hospitable climes at lower elevations outside the park, Patterson said. Last year, she noted, hunts supervised by the Colorado Division of Wildlife culled 750 elk outside the park.
|
CHICAGO -- Elk like to eat. Elk like to eat a lot.
| 41.928571 | 1 | 14 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002572.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002572.html
|
Roy Scheider; Star of 'Jaws,' 'All That Jazz'
|
2008021119
|
Mr. Scheider died at a hospital in Little Rock, hospital spokesman David Robinson said. The hospital did not release a cause of death, but hospital spokeswoman Leslie Taylor said Mr. Scheider had been treated for multiple myeloma for the past two years.
He was nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar in 1971's "The French Connection," in which he played the police partner of Oscar winner Gene Hackman, and for best actor for 1979's "All That Jazz," the autobiographical Bob Fosse film.
He played a police chief in Steven Spielberg's 1975 film "Jaws," the classic with Richard Dreyfuss about a killer shark terrorizing beachgoers. Hailed as the film that launched the blockbuster, it was the first movie to earn $100 million at the box office.
"He was a wonderful guy," said Dreyfuss, calling Mr. Scheider the kind of actor who "does his job and does it as well as he can."
|
Roy Scheider, 75, a two-time Oscar nominee best known for his role in the blockbuster movie "Jaws," died Feb. 10.
| 6.535714 | 0.678571 | 1.178571 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021100393.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021100393.html
|
Paintings by Four Masters Stolen in Zurich
|
2008021119
|
PARIS, Feb. 11 -- Three masked men pulled off one of the largest art heists in decades Sunday, forcing workers at a Swiss museum to lie on the floor while they stole four paintings by impressionist and post-impressionist masters worth an estimated $163 million.
Police and museum officials said the theft of paintings by Paul Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Claude Monet and Vincent van Gogh occurred at about 4:30 p.m. at the E.G. Buehrle Collection in the Swiss financial capital, Zurich.
"We're talking about the biggest ever robbery carried out in Switzerland, even Europe," Zurich police spokesman Mario Cortesi told reporters.
Police said the robbery occurred about 30 minutes before closing time Sunday, when three men wearing dark clothes and ski masks, one of them carrying a handgun, entered the museum's main entrance and ordered people to lie down. As the armed man watched the door and the frightened staff, the two others went into a nearby exhibit hall and removed the paintings.
Museum director Lukas Gloor said at a news conference that the paintings were displayed behind glass panels and that an alarm was triggered as soon as they were touched.
The paintings -- "Poppies near Vétheuil" by Monet, "Count Lepic and His Daughters" by Degas, "Blossoming Chestnut Branches" by van Gogh and "The Boy in the Red Vest" by Cézanne -- were among the most prized in the museum's 200-piece collection, he said.
By his account, the stolen paintings were so well-known that "on the open market, these pictures are unsellable."
"I am devastated," he said. "We had done everything we could to protect the paintings to the best of our knowledge and capability."
Police said the three men lugged the canvases to a white vehicle parked outside and sped away.
They said one of the robbers spoke German with a Slavic accent. A $90,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the recovery of the paintings, they said.
It was the second major art heist in the Zurich area in five days. On Feb. 6, two paintings by Pablo Picasso worth an estimated $4.5 million -- "Tete de Cheval" (Horse's Head) and "Verre et Pichet" (Glass and Pitcher) -- were stolen from a nearby cultural center, where they were on loan from a museum in Germany. Police said they were investigating whether the robberies were related.
The E.G. Buehrle Collection, according to its Web site, is considered one of the most important private collections of 20th-century European art, focusing primarily on French impressionist and post-impressionist masterpieces.
It was amassed in the 1950s by Buehrle, a German-born industrialist who made his fortune selling weapons to the Third Reich during World War II. Today it is housed in an 1886 villa that adjoins Buehrle's former home.
Sunday's robbery ranks among the top art thefts of the past three decades, alongside the 1991 heist of 20 works by van Gogh from a museum in Amsterdam and the 2004 theft of two paintings by Edvard Munch, "The Scream" and "Madonna," from the Munch Museum in Oslo. The paintings stolen in both of those robberies were later recovered.
|
PARIS, Feb. 11 -- Three masked men pulled off one of the largest art heists in decades Sunday, forcing workers at a Swiss museum to lie on the floor while they stole four paintings by impressionist and post-impressionist masters worth an estimated $163 million.
| 12.52 | 1 | 50 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021001197.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021001197.html
|
The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss
|
2008021119
|
A kiss, it turns out, is definitely not always just a kiss.
As Valentine's Day approaches, research has begun shedding light on that most basic of all human expressions of love -- the smooch -- which has received surprisingly little scientific scrutiny.
"You'd think there would be a lot of research on kissing behavior. It's so common," said Susan M. Hughes, an assistant professor of psychology at Albright College in Pennsylvania, whose recent study is one of the first to probe snogging in depth. "But there isn't. It's really been ignored."
In fact, much about love and attraction remains mysterious.
"This is a seminal paper," said Helen Fisher, a Rutgers University anthropologist who studies love. "It's remarkable that we don't know more about these things. But love has not really been well studied until recently."
In people, kissing to express affection is almost universal. About 90 percent of human cultures do it.
One traditional view is that kissing, known scientifically as osculation, evolved from women chewing food for their children and giving it to them mouth-to-mouth, Fisher said.
But, she said, "I've never believed that," adding that similar behavior is found in many species. Birds tap beaks. Elephants shove their trunks in each other's mouths. Primates called bonobos practice their own version of French kissing.
Fisher believes kissing is all about choosing the right mate.
"There's so much information exchanged when you kiss someone that I just thought it must play a vital role in mate choice, and this paper is elegantly showing that," Fisher said.
A disproportionate amount of the brain, she noted, is geared toward interpreting signals from the mouth.
"When you look at the brain regions associated with picking up data from the body, a huge amount of the brain is devoted to picking up information from the lips and tongue," she said. "Very little of the brain is built to pick up what happens to, say, your back. There have been case reports of people being stabbed in the back without even knowing it. But even the lightest brush of a feather on your lips and you feel it intensely."
|
A kiss, it turns out, is definitely not always just a kiss.
| 29.533333 | 1 | 15 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020803291.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020803291.html
|
Science: Kissing
|
2008021119
|
As Valentine's Day approaches, research has begun shedding light on that most basic of all human expressions of love -- the smooch -- which has received surprisingly little scientific scrutiny.
Join Washington Post staff writer Rob Stein, who will be online to discuss the science of kissing on Monday, Feb. 11 at Noon ET.
Read more about the new research in: The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss (Post, Feb. 11).
Rob Stein: Thanks for joining our discussion today about kissing. With Valentine's Day just a few days away, this is a subject that may be on a lot of people's minds. Science, surprisingly, hasn't spent a lot of time studying kissing. But some recent research has produced some provocative findings about smooching. I see we already have some questions. So let's get right to it.
Washington, D.C.: Is there any research about same-sex couples and kissing? I'm a gay woman, and I swear that objectively, girls are just better kissers than boys. It's not entirely emotional, it's just technique. Same way, if I see two boys kissing at a gay club, I am horrified by the way they go at it. Yick!
This story seems to suggest that gender partially determines preferred kissing style, no?
Rob Stein: This study only involved heterosexual couples. It did find gender differences, with men being more likely than women to prefer wetter, open-mouth kissing. But that was only in the context of a kissing a woman.
Omaha, Neb.:"the experiment took place in the decidedly unromantic setting of a college health center."
Could you explain the context of the study? Were random students just roped into the health center and "paired up"? Also, did the study examine kissing between established partners, or did it just ask the students for their opinion about the importance of kissing?
Rob Stein: That study involved 15 heterosexual couples at Layfayette College whose levels of cortisol and oxytocin were measured before and after they were asked to kiss.
The main study that was discussed in the story involved students at the University at Albany who completed a series of questionaires about their attitudes about kissing.
Sterling, Va.: What was the age group in the study? I imagine males in the early twenties would identify sexual cues differently than men in their 30's and 40's.
Rob Stein: That's a good point. The research involved college students. So most of those interviewed were between the ages of 18 and 24. It could be that attitudes towards kissing change as people age. Researchers would have to do similar research on older people to know for sure.
Ages: Ah, good, I'm glad to hear the age range this study was done on. Because I read it and thought, "Gack! If I kiss a guy, he thinks I'm going to sleep with him?" But I'm not kissing any boys in the 18-24 range.
Rob Stein: That said, researchers say the findings could hold for older men as well...
Philadelphia.: How are levels of various chemicals within a body actually measured during kissing?
Rob Stein: To measure levels of the hormone oxytocin, which is associated with bonding, the researchers took blood samples before and after the subjects kissed. To measure levels of the stress hormone cortisol, they tested saliva samples before and after the kissing sessions.
Rob Stein: Thanks very much for your interesting questions. Hope you all have a great Valentine's Day.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post staff writer Rob Stein was online to discuss the science of kissing.
| 49.4 | 1 | 5.8 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021000327.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021000327.html
|
Writers Guild Bigwigs See a Happy Ending
|
2008021119
|
Striking writers will return to work Wednesday!
ABC's broadcast of the Academy Awards has been saved!
New episodes of your favorite TV shows will rise like a flock of phoenixes in early spring!
Next fall's new TV season has been resuscitated!
Writers Guild biggies announced all this -- and more -- at a hastily called crack-of-dawn (a.k.a. noon) news conference Sunday in Los Angeles.
Groggy WGA big cheeses who'd been up late the previous night unveiling the new contract to writers at the Shrine Auditorium, and bleary-eyed reporters who'd spent the previous evening camped out at the Shrine to speak with exiting writers, convened at Writers Guild of America-West headquarters, across the street from the ne plus ultra shopping mall the Grove (where thespians like Paris Hilton like to hang out and study the little people to hone their acting skills), to officially unveil what the reporters had gleaned during their late-night vigil.
Meetings will be held Tuesday in New York and Los Angeles with the guild's 10,500 striking members to vote on whether to immediately call off the strike, which has dragged on for more than three months. During that time the work stoppage brought production of original scripted TV series to a halt, impeded movie production, made a guild pariah out of NBC late-night host Jay Leno (though not of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who also crossed picket lines to return to work without their writers), killed the Golden Globes ceremony and strapped the Academy Awards to the tracks with the Pacific Surfliner to San Diego bearing down.
In response to the union negotiating committee's recommendation that the new contract be approved, Sunday the Writers Guild's West Coast board and its East Coast council voted separately, and unanimously, to hold a membership ratification vote on the new contract, a process that will take about 12 days to complete, they said.
Show runners -- that is, the writer/producers who actually run production of a show -- can go back to work Monday (so long as they don't write anything) to prepare for the expected thumbs-up vote to end the strike.
All the other writers will be able to go back to work "Tuesday, very very late," or Wednesday, WGA-W President Patric Verrone joked.
|
LOS ANGELES, Feb. 10 Striking writers will return to work Wednesday!
| 34.615385 | 0.846154 | 5.307692 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020802591.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020802591.html
|
Critiquing the Press - washingtonpost.com
|
2008021119
|
Maryland: Howard, I really feel for the MSNBC reporter, David Shuster. Did he make a "gaff" at the expense of Chelsea Clinton? Yes. He also apologized. Now "mommy Clinton" has made a federal case out of nothing, resulting in David's suspension for who-knows-how-long. So much for free speech. By the way, Chelsea is 27 years old and should be mature enough to speak up for herself.
Howard Kurtz: I certainly don't suggest that Chelsea Clinton, as a young professional playing a visible role in her mother's campaign, should be immune from criticism -- but "pimped out" is just not a phrase that should be aimed at anyone, let alone a candidate's daughter. Clearly, as I wrote this morning, the Hillary campaign has decided to keep this alive as a political issue, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad mistake on David Shuster's part.
Atlanta: I have a real beef with the media! I'm in Georgia, and I voted for Huckabee, just because he's for the FairTax. That's why he won this state. Not because of the conservative thing that the media keeps telling us, not because of anything else (do you really think anyone here really thinks he'll win the nomination?). It seems to be a combination of the media for whatever reason not wanting to talk about the FairTax and their bias against the South. I'm so tired of it...
Howard Kurtz: As I wrote this morning, the media twice have made the mistake of marginalizing Huckabee, both before Iowa and again before Super Tuesday. The guy has won seven states in the last week against the GOP's presumptive nominee. The national sales tax is clearly one of Huckabee's top issues, but no one can say that's the only reason he's winning these states. He's also a Baptist minister who has campaigned on a number of social issues, and he's a funny and talented candidate to boot.
Anchorage, Alaska: If there is one, what is the organization chart at NBC news? Does Brian Williams have any oversight authority over MSNBC people like David Shuster and Chris Matthews? If so, should he be held responsible for setting standards and disciplining them for poor reporting practices or demeanor, or are guys like Matthews and Shuster stars and are only subject to the authority of off-the-air news executives?
Howard Kurtz: Brian Williams does not, but MSNBC is ultimately part of NBC. The man who now runs the cable network, Phil Griffin, is an NBC News executive, and his boss, NBC News President Steve Capus (who received that letter of complaint from Hillary), is the man ultimately responsible -- though obviously he doesn't manage things on a day-to-day basis.
Rockville, Md.: In your opinion, when the mainstream media covers elections, how often do reporters and analysts fall prey to the artificial "expectations game" of primary/debate results that the campaigns have set beforehand (as opposed to seeing them for the political ruses that they are)?
Howard Kurtz: We're all about the expectations game, to an absurd degree. It's like the stock market -- it's not how much money a company makes, it's whether it does a penny better than Wall Street has been betting. If Obama had not been expected to do well on Super Tuesday, his showing would have been hailed in the media as a triumph, rather than a draw. If Hillary had not been expected to lose New Hampshire, her three-point victory would not have been the huge deal it was. In fairness, the campaigns also play this game -- I got an e-mail from the Clinton camp at 6 p.m. Saturday, saying, well, the Obama camp had long been predicting victory in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington state. So what? He won all three (not to mention Maine yesterday), and that's what counts.
Ridgefield, Conn.: Last week you quoted Rush Limbaugh on the topic of his favored candidate dropping out of the presidential race and whether it was a defeat for Limbaugh as well. He complained: "The media never applies this template to anyone else in media. Not to anyone in cable news, not to any of the endorsements of the major newspapers. Why are the New York Times and Washington Post not asked about the setback they both suffered when George Bush beat both their endorsed candidates in 2000 and 2004?"
I'm shocked you let that quote stand unchallenged. You know that The Post and the Times don't endlessly campaign for a candidate like Limbaugh and other talk-radio hosts do, and the average newspaper reader doesn't really understand the separation between editorial boards and reporters, and that a paper's endorsement -- especially at The Post or the Times -- does not influence the daily coverage. You needed someone in there explaining that Rush's point, while his perspective, was based on an inaccurate premise.
washingtonpost.com: Limbaugh on McCain: It's Better to Be Right All the Time (Post, Feb. 5)
Howard Kurtz: I think it's a fair point -- no one says the New York Times or The Washington Post "lost" if their endorsed candidates get beat. My readers know that editorial endorsements are separate from news coverage and that newspapers don't pound away for or against candidates the way a radio talk show host does. And I think readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether Rush's point is valid or not. By the way, the interview was published on the morning of Super Tuesday, so it was before Mitt Romney dropped out.
MSNBC: How many times now has Tom Brokaw chided his MSNBC colleagues on-air about their bad behavior? I think at least twice. Maybe these kids should pay attention to their elders!
Howard Kurtz: I think Brokaw was including all of the media, not just MSNBC, in his indictment of the rush to embrace conventional wisdom. But good for him for pointing it out.
New York: In the past two weeks, you have claimed in your own voice that Giuliani wasn't treated fairly by the press, McCain wasn't treated fairly, and now Romney wasn't treated fairly. Aren't these crocodile tears?
Howard Kurtz: First of all, I don't root for or against any candidate. Second, you've mischaracterized me on all three. I don't say Rudy was treated unfairly; I did quote him on what he sees as the liberal media challenging his conservative positions, and the handling of the Judi/security story. On McCain, I've written the opposite -- that he gets pretty good press, largely because he gives reporters unfettered access. I do think there's a very heavy focus on the conservative hosts and activists who oppose him, but that's certainly a legitimate story. On Romney, I've questioned whether too many stories were written about him being a Mormon and how many journalists concluded when he dropped out that he was not "authentic" -- suggesting to me that reporters didn't like him very much. But I don't say his coverage overall was unfair.
Washington: Howard, would you agree that the big losers this campaign season have been political reporters? It seems as if nearly every storyline that they have spun -- from McCain being done during the summer to Clinton being finished after Iowa -- has been wrong. Now, I know that reporters aren't psychic, but you would think that they would learn from these mistakes and start exercising some caution in their stories. But I really don't see that.
Howard Kurtz: Short answer: yes.
I listed a number of the blunders in this morning's column: burying McCain last summer, blowing off Huckabee for most of the last year, being dead certain that Obama would win New Hampshire, being even more dead certain that most races would be over by Feb. 5. No one expects journalists to be able to predict the twists and turns of a campaign season; the question is why they have to predict at all, based on polls that sometimes are flawed and the amount of money raised, which sometimes means little. The last two men standing on the Republican side, McCain and Huckabee, both have spent relatively little especially compared to Romney, who of course poured in about $50 million of his own cash.
The New York Times on Obama's drug use: Howard: I read the story on Saturday regarding their investigation of Obama's past drug use, which best can be summarized by this paragraph: "Mr. Obama's account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic."
How does any legitimate reporter or news organization get away with that many assumptions in a major story regarding a person who might be the next president of the United States? How do their editors justify this?
washingtonpost.com: Friends Say Drugs Played Only Bit Part for Obama (New York Times, Feb. 9)
Howard Kurtz: I see that as a series of caveats. It says: We interviewed all these people from Obama's youth, they don't remember him being much into the drug scene at all -- contrary to Barack's autobiography -- but here are some alternate explanations as to why that might be the case.
Washington: Loved your column this morning. I too get so fed up with the prevailing media narratives that develop when many news organizations are covering the same thing. A sort of media echo chamber ensues, in which everyone asks the same things of the same people. I fully expect at the next Democratic debate a question about whether the two candidates would consider running as a team, even though it is not the time to ask such question. I thought Tim Russert was like a dog with a bone trying to get Huckabee to talk about his vice-presidential considerations. It all reminds me of when JFK Jr. was alive, how every interview seemed to require a question along the lines of "will you run for president?" Are reporters taught to never consider a question to have been asked and answered? Is everyone hoping for a gaffe or a scoop?
Howard Kurtz: Gaffes are good, scoops are better, but I've never understood asking the same question that a candidate has answered dozens of times (such as, "Gov. Huckabee, will you agree to be John McCain's running mate?") and expecting a different answer. Wolf Blitzer already asked Clinton and Obama, at the last debate, if they'd be willing to run together. Of course no candidate still battling for the top prize can answer that. Time then did a poll on it and ran a composite photo of Hillary and Barack, arms raised, as if at the Democratic convention. "Why Not Both?" the headline said. Talk about pushing a story line.
New York: I'm surprised you don't take MSNBC's repeated misogynistic slurs seriously -- maybe it's because Shuster (and Matthews before him) "apologized" ... albeit at a speed so manic that the words barely were understood, or in Shuster's case so obliquely referenced that no one knew what he was apologizing for until Clinton responded.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Olbermann's reaction, which was the only one that seemed in the least apologetic and mortified. As for Ms. Althouse and her urban dictionary excuse, what would her response have been if Obama had been accused of pimping Michelle or their little daughters? I'm beginning to hate this campaign more every day.
Howard Kurtz: Not taking it seriously? I wrote a story about what Matthews said, I wrote three online updates Friday on what Shuster said -- a story for Saturday's paper and an item in today's column. That isn't serious enough for you?
St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Howard -- I'm a regular MSNBC watcher and always have liked David Shuster, but I agree, it was a very poor choice of words that showed bad judgment. That said, what do you think will be the long-term impact on his career, given that he widely was seen as up-and-comer there (there were rumors that he even was going to get his own show)? Can he pretty much count on sitting out the election for the foreseeable future, just as it's getting really interesting?
Howard Kurtz: It depends on how long MSNBC keeps him on the sidelines. I agree that he's a very good reporter who happened to say a dumb thing. Perhaps a year from now this will just seem like a blip. But the Clinton campaign is working overtime to make this a continuing issue, as with Hillary's letter over the weekend to the president of NBC News.
Anonymous: Howard, are you actually supporting the Clinton critique of MSNBC? This is a blatant and baseless ploy by the Clintons -- why give substance to political games by campaigns when they harm fellow journalists?
Howard Kurtz: My job is to report both sides -- what Shuster and MSNBC say, and what the Clinton campaign says. My role isn't to protect "fellow journalists."
Fairfax, Va.: Huckabee almost literally would require a miracle to get the nomination, so do you see the press pushing for him to get more confrontational with McCain, or will they devote more coverage to the Democrats?
Howard Kurtz: I don't believe the press is "pushing" for Huckabee to get more confrontational, but it's getting hard to ignore a guy who won seven states this week against the party's overwhelming front-runner. The Democrats have gotten much more coverage than the Republicans in this campaign, according to a series of studies, so it's a safe bet that Hillary and Barack will dominate in the coming weeks now that McCain is regarded as the presumptive nominee.
Maryland: When Romney lost conservative states in the South, reporters asked the question of whether this was because he was a Mormon and the conservatives in the South somehow were opposed to electing a Mormon -- but when Romney cleaned up in Utah, no one asked if it was because Mormons were prejudiced against Baptists. I am not sure if that is because the media thought Romney the better candidate and therefore only a prejudice would cause someone to vote for Huckabee, or that somehow a Baptist voting for one of their own is a prejudice whereas a Mormon voting for their own is perfectly reasonable. I won't be voting for either of these men, but wonder what your take is on this.
Howard Kurtz: I think the media just wrote off Utah as a home state for Romney. But on your larger point: The journalistic take, backed up by polls, is that some people -- especially among evangelical Christians -- won't vote for a Mormon, while there is not widespread anti-Baptist sentiment in this country. Again, I think the Mormon angle was overplayed, but Romney did give a major speech about his religion, and Huckabee felt no reason to do so.
Richmond, Va.: How many questions did you get on the David Shuster dustup? May I add this: From the comments from the blogworld that I read, it appears the "like Clinton/do not like Clinton" divide drives the reaction. Objectively, though, was that a remark that should have solicited "outrage" from the Clintons and a suspension of Shuster? I really felt the Clintons and MSNBC overreacted.
washingtonpost.com: Chelsea Remark Earns MSNBC Correspondent A Suspension (Post, Feb. 9)
Howard Kurtz: I've found journalists and bloggers split on this question. It's worth noting that the suspension was not announced until after the Clinton camp threatened to pull out of an MSNBC debate on Feb. 26. But public interest is high; when I first wrote about this online on Friday, within hours there were 350 comments about the story, with people arguing vociferously about whether it was a big insult or not.
Rockville, Md.: What is your take on the media including "superdelegates" in their delegate counts? Given that every organization has their own estimate, it seems to make things more confusing. Also, because these superdelegates can change their mind (imagine a politician doing that!), including them in the counts seems to be incorrect. Why not just keep track of pledged delegates at this point?
Howard Kurtz: My take is that I almost failed trigonometry, so we're outside my area of expertise.
You can't not count the 796 superdelegates, because in a race this close, they could well decide the outcome. The problem is, how do you determine who these party insiders are for (except for Bill Clinton -- I think he's a safe bet), and how do you know they won't change their minds down the road if the political winds shift? It's a real dilemma.
Laurel, Md.: The expectations game, though, is a lot like how results are projected on general election night. If a candidate gets 70 percent of the vote in a certain county, that might be great or terrible, depending on how "red" or "blue" that county is relative to whole state. Is there any measure of how pro-Obama Louisiana, Washington or Maine are relative to the rest of the country's Democratic Party, which would provide some context about the significance of the weekend's results?
Howard Kurtz: I don't know how you measure that, given that no one outside Illinois ever has had the chance to vote for Obama before. You can measure the red and blue hue of a state by looking at past presidential elections, but that doesn't tell you anything about the divide between Obama and Clinton supporters.
Washington: It seems to me that the difference in recollection between Obama and his friends is reasonable. As someone the same age as Obama, my rather light drug use experience -- compared to what apparently was the norm -- had a rather profound effect on my life. I'm sure if I were to write an autobiography that the amount of space on my drug experiences would seem disproportionate to many of my friends of the time.
Howard Kurtz: I think that's the point the Times was trying to make. It's also possible that Obama embellished a bit for dramatic effect. But the story is far less damaging than one that says his friends remember Obama using more drugs than he has acknowledged.
Fairfax, Va.: A lot of media pundits are now claiming Obama is the more electable based on the latest head-to-head polls, his wins in some of the red states and endorsements by red/purple state elected officials. But how much of a concern is there about the so-called Bradley Effect? Does the media want to ignore this possibility for fear of being seen as having racial motivations?
Howard Kurtz: In my view the Bradley Effect (named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who fared worse in a 1982 gubernatorial race than polls had predicted) has been put to rest by Obama's performance in the past several states. In those contests, he won by more than he had been polling in the final surveys.
Winnipeg, Canada: Interesting column today. I was surprised, though, that your discussion of overly optimistic press coverage did not include the Giuliani campaign, surely one of the biggest busts of this or any election campaign. It's interesting that Ron Paul, who found himself excluded from some debates and interview panels, is still in the race (although just barely) while Giuliani kept a high profile despite abundant evidence that the public was not joining the parade.
washingtonpost.com: Missing the Boat (Post, Feb. 11)
Howard Kurtz: You can't get everything into a single column, and I already had written a piece about Giuliani's coverage after traveling with him in New Hampshire, and blogged about him when he dropped out. The bottom line there, though, is that the media were right: you can't essentially skip the first four or five primaries and target Florida and hope to remain competitive. Rudy had other problems, though, one of which was that he wasn't a very passionate candidate and didn't particularly like pressing the flesh.
Re: Superdelegates: How about having two counts -- one where it is only the pledged delegates, and another where superdelegates are included?
Howard Kurtz: Works for me.
"Pimped out": See, here is another example of the past vs. the present. I'm 24, and "pimped out" isn't the horrible term that many older people think it is. To me, it means that she's being used, not being forced into prostitution. Hillary is showing her age and why older people are supporting her by getting all upset over it.
Howard Kurtz: We know what it means. No one believes that David Shuster literally was calling her a whore. But the language was totally inappropriate, and there are 25 ways he could have made the same point without using the P-word.
Washington: What's funny to me about the whole Shuster/Chelsea thing is that Shuster has like a mini-cult following on the liberal blogs. He's viewed as one of the "good" reporters. I think he was critical of his former employer Fox News in the past.
Howard Kurtz: Shuster, who did work for Fox before joining MSNBC, is a very good reporter. Saying a dumb thing on the air doesn't change that. But it has made him a high-profile target in the heat of a presidential campaign.
Thanks for the chat, folks.
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 media columnist Howard Kurtz discusses the press.
| 481.333333 | 0.777778 | 1.222222 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020803021.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020803021.html
|
The Chat House
|
2008021119
|
Blacksburg, Va.: Mike -- get healthy! Watch that diet! Eat right, exercise. We need you! You're obviously an insider. You speak to "Mr. Snyder." You've seen the team stumble and bumble since he bought it. Give me a reason to believe this time will be different!? Please?
Michael Wilbon: Hi everybody ... I'm back ... back in D.C. anyway. Back at all my work, and happy and feeling damn lucky to be able to do so. I just left a nutritionist ... oh my God! It's like I'm burying me me own life of 49 years and two months. ... No Big Macs, no more donuts, no French fries, no Leon's barbeque on the South Side of Chicago (well once a year, probably in July) ... no double-carbs, no more Frosted Flakes, no more vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup (Bosco is the No. 1 choice for those of you from the Midwest of a certain age). ... So, this is quite an adjustment. It's one thing to get rid of all this for two weeks, and another to realize it's going to be my new life ... but, my hand was forced and this is what I'm all about from, I guess, now on. ... Now, we've addressed that.
I'm no insider anymore with the Redskins. I haven't talked to Dan Snyder in months, though I need to thank him and Mrs. Snyder for the incredible flower arrangement they sent me when I got out of the hospital last week. ... I don't know that this time will be different. I'm not going to promise you that -- anybody who does is a fraud. ... I like Jim Zorn. He played when I was covering the NFL and I liked him. ... He's smart, as prepared as a really good quarterback has to be (and he was that) ... he's said by other coaches to be a terrific teacher, especially at the quarterback position which should help Jason Campbell. ... Anyway, who knows. Snyder has hired people everybody thought would lead the Redskins to the Promised Land and didn't. So, the best anybody with any credibility can say is, "we'll see." I'm not going to rip the hiring of Zorn, and I'm not going to praise it to the High Heavens either ... let's see.
Chicago: Be well, Michael. Should/can the Bulls trade Ben Wallace for Kirilenko?
Michael Wilbon: It doesn't matter what the Bulls do this season. They're done. Getting rid of Wallace's contract might be a good thing, but the Bulls are done. They have no chance this year even if they do make the playoffs, because they'd only finish seventh or eighth and get smeared by the Celtics or Pistons...
Alexandria, Va.: Why the almost furtive announcement of Jim Zorn as the new Redskins coach? While it's clear he wasn't their first or second or third or fourth or whatever choice, if you sound confident about your pick, he gets off to a much better start.
Michael Wilbon: Not necessarily. Snyder was really, really, really confident about his choice of Steve Spurrier as head coach. What did that matter in the beginning or in the end? It didn't.
Washington: The Pro Bowl did a 6.9 rating, which is higher than any of last years NBA finals games. Are we on our way to becoming a one-sport country?
Michael Wilbon: We already have become that if you look at ESPN, which has become absolutely a barometer of the nation's sports interest, and which prioritizes pro football above all else. I think the interest came first, then the news/sports media reacted, and now it overcovers the NFL to a preposterous level in my opinion. And that's all of us, networks and newspapers and Web sites ... it's a feeding frenzy. Is there interest? No doubt there is. The NFL is the smartest league out there and understands what it has and sells it accordingly.
Boston: As someone who got nicked in the thigh with a skate and now has two kids playing hockey, I was horrified by Zednik's carotid artery being severed last night in a freak accident. I am not sure it could completely stop what happened last night, but both my kids wear neck guards. The Buffalo emergency response teams have performed amazingly well this year given they have faced two life-threatening injuries (spine injury for the Bills' Everett, and this).
Michael Wilbon: All I can say about this is I'm glad Zednik is said today to be not only stable but improving. ... It was ghastly, what happened, and totally a fluke. ... My God, the trail of blood from the corner boards to the bench ... I'm just glad, and I'm sure I speak for everybody, that the trainers and physicians acted so decisively...
Belleville, Ill.: What are your thoughts on the hype surrounding this year's signing day? Is it just me, or is this really getting out of hand? What kind of pressure is it putting on these kids? How do you effectively evaluate talent at this level anyway? It's hard enough for the NFL to evaluate talent on a couple of hundred teams.
Michael Wilbon: It's always out of hand. It's always over the top. And this is a media issue. Television, primarily ESPN, and newspapers -- and USA Today is more guilty than anybody else because it's a national newspaper -- are in my opinion creating an unhealthy atmosphere where these kids believe their self-worth is tied up in who recruits them and how heavily they're recruited. I hate it. I can't say it loudly enough. I find it disturbing. I won't talk about high school kids in those terms and I just ... my blood pressure will go through the roof if I continue on this subject. What's the point of it? Where's the news value? I despise it.
Nokesville, Va.: A lot of people were questioning whether or not Gary Williams still had "it" after losing to American and Ohio. In the past few weeks the Terps have been playing extremely well. For a guy who rarely recruits the blue chips and instead builds players, where do you rank him among the current coaches in the college ranks?
Michael Wilbon: I don't know that anything is served by ranking coaches ... but Gary Williams is one of the few active coaches to have won an NCAA Championship. He's the only one at Maryland, last I checked, to win it all. ... He's had a couple of down seasons ... show me a coach, including Coach K., who hasn't. ... The Terrapins aren't in the tournament just yet ... they've got eight losses. They need more than a good stretch. They need a good finish, and I think they're capable
What I don't ever want to hear is Gary Williams being ripped by short-sighted Maryland fans, as happened a few years ago, because he saved the school's basketball program. ... He answered the call of his alma mater when it was down and desperate, and lifted it all the way to a place it had never been before: The Final Four and then a national championship. ... Nobody's going to make the case that Maryland's program is better than Duke's or North Carolina's, but it would seem to me Maryland has a pretty darned good coach for its specific situation.
Washington: Hey Mike, hope you are well and stay that way. Do you think this year's playoffs will a big litmus test for where the NBA really is in terms of popularity? The Lakers and Celtics are extremely relevant again. The West is so loaded with good teams that every series should be good. And the East has Boston, Detroit and Lebron's Cavs for starters. If this year's playoff ratings don't go up, or if they somehow decline again, how much panic should there be in David Stern's office?
Michael Wilbon: Great, great question. I tend to believe in your premise. The NBA needs a bounce this year in the TV playoff ratings, and one would suspect people will tune in to watch the Lakers/Suns/Celtics more than they did certain series last post-season. But ...suppose it's Pistons vs. Spurs again? I'll watch. I love watching the Spurs and admire the way the Pistons play at a championship level without a true superstar ... but the average sports fan who might like basketball ain't tuning in to watch that ... even the players on the Spurs and Pistons know that
So, what would get the best TV number? A Suns-Lakers Western Conference Final (Shaq vs. Kobe with Steve Nash co-starring) followed by a Lakers-Celtics final would ... and Suns vs. Celtics would be a very, very, very close runner-up. But none of those matchups are a given, especially with the Western Conference being 10-deep in quality playoff teams. Think about this: The Houston Rockets are tied for the eighth and final playoff spot in the west with a record of 30-20 ... the Bulls, in the East, are one-game out of the No. 8 spot with a record of 20-30...
NCAA Baby: Mike -- glad you are back! Can you give us for Final Four prediction? Thanks.
Michael Wilbon: Goodness, it's too early for Final Four predictions ... I'm interested in seeing the conference races, the bubble teams that will play desperately for the next few weeks. ... This is really the time when college hoops grabs me ... mid-February. ... We've gotten rid of pro football (well, I have) and the NBA is going to take this little slumber (except the Suns, who will put Shaq on the floor either Wednesday or Thursday). ... I love the jockeying, not the predicting, so I'll leave that early predictions to people who bracket and choose mock tournament fields ... I'm just going to spin around the dial every night, starting tonight with Big Monday, and enjoy every game I can between now and the Final Four...
We've got a bulletin that's going to cause me to have to depart our chat a little early. Rick Pitino is willing to be the "PTI" guest today, but has to do it at 2:20 p.m. before he begins practice, so I've got to run into makeup and up to the studio to accommodate Rick, who's always a great guest for us. ... Thanks everybody ... back Monday at the usual time ... have a great week, and thanks for all the well-wishes...
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.
| 52.707317 | 0.512195 | 0.609756 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/06/DI2008020602862.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/06/DI2008020602862.html
|
Post Magazine: Valentine's Fiction Issue
|
2008021119
|
Do bullies ever grow out of bullying? Show like "The Real Housewives" may contribute to the idea that a generation of mean girls has evolved into mean women, but new research suggests "queen bee" behavior doesn't fly after high school.
Laura Sessions Stepp wrote about the topic in The Washington Post Magazine and took questions on Feb. 18. The transcript is below.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Hi, I'm Laura Sessions Stepp, and happy to chat with you about my Washington Post article on mean girls/women. Please begin.
washingtonpost.com: Have you made peace with a mean girl? Were you one in a former life? Tell us your story by using #meangirls on Twitter or sharing in the comments.
Potomac Falls, Virginia : Bullying, exclusion, and Queen Bee behavior seem to be out of control in Northern Virginia where I live. I have coworkers whose young daughters in middle school are bullied and taunted. My own incredibly bright, beautiful 16 year old daughter who should be a enjoying her High school years, is opting to graduate a year early this year as she really hates the exclusion and cliques at school. "Everyone has known everyone forever she says, and noone wants to let anyone new into their group". "People talk to me in class, but no one is wlling to invite me out afterwards". Girls have even started a rumor that she is graduating early because she is pregnant. My question is why do Middle School and High school administrators (especially in the Northern Virginia area where this is so prevalent) ignore the girl bullying issue even when it has been brought to their attention? Even more puzzling is that the parents of these girls condone their behavior when they know about it. It is sickening that some parents are raising the next generation of girls to be less compassionate and well "MEAN". Do you think that starting in Middle school through high school that their should be focus groups of girls empowering girls so that girls learn empathy since they are not learning it at home?
Laura Sessions Stepp: What a fabulous idea of girls teaching girls. I assume you mean older girls working with younger girls and an adult facilitator. That would be a good project for high school student council members.... I would not say that all middle and high school administrators are ignoring the problem; I know several who are actively working on this issue. Meanness is a popular topic at administrator conferences. But administrators also need support and encouragement from parents.
wealthy suburb, New England: I'm 39, and I question the premise that women in college and their 20s are fully "grown up" enough to compare high-school behaviors.
As a single mom scraping by to give my daughter the best public education in our state, I can tell you that PLENTY of mean girls stay that way into adulthood and parenthood. And surprise, they raise Mean Girls (and boys too).
Laura Sessions Stepp: Certainly there are women, young and old, who can be mean. It has always been thus, and the same can be said of men. There is no real evidence, however, that there are more mean women or men now than when you were in school. Meanness is more public, certainly, and there are more ways to be mean. These things may give us the impression that there are more.
Hollywood, Fl: Don't know if I believe that "The Mean Girl Syndrome" goes away after high school. I have seen it in the workplace a couple of times. The "mean girls" pick another employee to harass, until the that person ends up quitting. Or the "mean girls" convince the boss that the person who is the object of their bullying is "the weakest link in their team", resulting in the person getting fired. Both times it was younger employees singling out older employees that they considered to be not as "cool" as the bullies feel they themselves are. It is very sad to watch these people lose their self confidence while the bullying progresses.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Several of you have addressed the issue of mean women at work picking on other women. I personally have known a mean woman or two in my professional career, so I know what you're saying.
Laura Sessions Stepp: We don't expect it from other women. But we've got to remind ourselves that bullies are masking their own sense of being inferior, and that in most, tho not all cases, the best strategy is to ignore the bully and do your job the best you know how.
Washington D.C.: Hi Laura great article. I was bullied in junior high and high school. My Mother in particular was not helpful since she had an almost Darwinian opinion about the whole thing. her attitude was "Well they see someone weak, lose weight don't let them have a chance to say anything bad about you". It took me after college to really see the whole thing for what it was bullying.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thanks for you comment. Good point that as we grow up, we see bullies for what they are.
Maybe it's my age . . .: ... or maybe it's because I went to a different high school than most of the girls in my white working-class Catholic neighborhood (I graduated in 1974). But I didn't encounter those Mean Girl antics after eighth grade. Before that point, I was definitely a target of Mean Boys as well as Mean Girls; once I got to high school, though, the meanest behavior I remember encountering was gossip. Have things really gotten that much worse since my adolescence? Or are researchers like Ms. Stepp drawing overly-broad conclusions from the experience of a narrow demographic group?
Laura Sessions Stepp: Judging from the comments I'm getting, bullying in middle and high school is a real problem. But as I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure it's worse than it used to be, just more visible due to facebook and other digital properties.
Washington, DC: Sixth & I is hosting an event on this same topic on March 29. Rosalind Wiseman, author of "Queen Bees and Wannabes," will lead an interactive program called "Mean Girls All Grown Up: Getting Beyond the Drama and Finding Empowering Friendships with Women" for women in their 20s and 30s.
washingtonpost.com: Event: Mean girls all grown up -- Getting beyond the drama and finding empowering friendships with women
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thank you for the alert. Wiseman is a very good speaker. I love the title: empowering friendships with women. Those friendships get us past the occasional bully and remind us of the strengths women share with each other.
Berkeley, CA: While research may show that mean girls post high school do not stay that way, certainly the urge for women to organize themselves around a queen bee at all ages does not change. The players may change but not the pattern.
Laura Sessions Stepp: There's merit in what you say. But can we not say the same thing about male lead dogs? One real danger of the mean girl story line is that it plays to the stereotype of the female "b...."
Mean Women: Perhaps the drive to egg someone's house or to post mean things on facebook goes away as women grow up, but as a 20-something I've seen friends mature into the confidence to stick to their cliques (where as high schoolers they were more open to others) and become more exclusive, if not necessarily mean. Perhaps it is just my social circle, but I'd say the meanness simply refines itself and changes rather than going away. Human nature is human nature at 5, 15, and 55.
Laura Sessions Stepp: But brain development is not the same at 5 and 55. Human's ability to differ between right and wrong, and other aspects of moral development, aren't fully in place until the mid-20s.
Upstate, NY: I've noticed in my office, where about 75% of the employees are women, there are a lot of "mean girls." While not quite as bad as high schoolers, people receive mean nicknames, are ostracized from the common areas, and call HR over hurt feelings. I work in an industry one can enter without a college degree and wonder if it's actually something about going off to college and being more independent at 18 or 19 that starts to quell the meaness and if one continues living in essentially the same neighborhood and socializing with the same high school friends, the attitudes don't change.
Laura Sessions Stepp: That's a good point about staying in the same neighborhood. I went to a high school reunion a few years back and noticed the same thing. Travel is broadening, as they say.
DC: Maybe we all just become less sensitive. When I went to my high school reunion, 10 years ago, a girl who I barely remembered confronted me and said that I had said something mean to her all those years ago, and she asked for my apology. Of course I offered it and congratulated her for all of her successes. I don't feel like I was a mean girl in high school (more like a big dork) but maybe I just said the wrong thing to the wrong girl, at the wrong time. I know things are different now with facebook, etc. but I hope that my daughter will grow up confident in herself and not worry too much about what others say or think of her. We grow up, we change, we move on.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Good for her for talking to you and to you for apologizing. One of the reasons the mean girl topic hangs on, I think, is that we've probably all been mean to someone either knowingly or unknowingly and carry a little part of that around with us.
Reston, Va.: As someone working in a school, I can tell you administrators are doing much less than you think and it's appalling. There are lots of guidance lessons and parent meetings about how wrong bullying is, but ask one of those mean girls and they will tell you they aren't bullying. That's what's so hard about girls. The schools hands are tied because it's so difficult to single the actions out and find something to punish. Telling secrets and whispering? Excluding from an activity/group? Parents would cause an uproar if we punished anyone, anyway, so the school ignores it.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Have you thought of having a school community discussion with students and parents about what constitutes mean behavior? Perhaps recruiting students and parents to tell their own stories? Have a counselor or expert on hand to facilitate?
Alexandria VA: To my surprise, I recently received a message from one of my Facebook friends, a former h.s. acquaintance, who apologized for being mean to me back in high school. I was not entirely sure what incident she had in mind, although I think I know. Anyway, I wrote back and said don't worry about, probably no one would want to be judged forever by some foolish thing they did as a teenager.
We are 60 years old. Just shows there is hope; the incident clearly had weighed on her mind and she wanted to make amends. It was a nice gesture.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Absolutely right.
A Seinfeld comparison: As a comedic aside, I'm suddenly reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George talk about how teenage boys would give each other wedgies in high school. Elaine sneers at the very notion of this, and when asked how girls picked on each other, she responded very casually with, "They just tease each other until someone develops an eating disorder."
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thank you for that.
Mean girls: This isn't just a problem in the U.S. I attended an international school in Brussels, Belgium in the 1980s and came in for a lot of bulling from a couple of Irish girls in my class. I've reconnected with many of my classmates on Facebook, but not those two (although one has a quote up on her page about treating people the way you want to be treated, so she may have learned a lesson or two since our schooldays). But it took me years to think about what was possibly happening to these girls at home to make them this way in public. Everyone can stand to have a little empathy.
Baltimore, MD: I have a somewhat unique situation because in middle school (and a little bit in high school), my own personal mean girl was my cousin. So, I've had a front row seat as to what happens when someone like this grows up, and the answer seems to be... nothing interesting.
I still see flashes of her mean girl ness (often on Facebook)- her personal specialty seems to be relentless bragging and friend poaching, which she still does, but she's gotten better. I've learned to deal with it. But mostly my cousin is perfectly nice and fine, she's married and has plenty of friends and is expecting a baby. However, while I've traveled, gone to grad school, lived in different cities, married lateish, moved away from home, etc, she went home from college every weekend, married her high school boyfriend 5 minutes after she graduated college, built a house 10 minutes from her mom, and took a boring but stable job that she's probably going to quit to stay at home once the baby comes.
I'm not saying either of our life paths is better than the other. But I do get the sense, anecdotally, that mean girls "peak" in high school, and their lives sort of level off from there, while those of us who went through high school thinking "God I hope this isn't the best time of my life" make more use of our independence once we get it.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thanks for sharing this.
Boston, MA: As a former Mean Girl, I can say that I've successfully channeled that Alpha personality type into a successful career as a magazine editor. I graduated high school in 2005, the same year as Cady Heron, and looking back, not only do I regret my actions toward other girls, but I've sought them out to apologize. Now, I can be a mean boss, but I'm no longer a mean girl. We do mature and become successful, independent young women with happy lives, friendships and relationships.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thanks for sharing this. Curious what you mean by mean boss? I've had bosses I thought were mean but who really were just super demanding and I learned a lot from them. Is that what you mean?
Seattle WA: Even if the mean girls (and boys) grow up and become nicer, I don't think their previous cruelty should be taken lightly or easily forgiven.
Laura Sessions Stepp: I completely agree about taken lightly. What we're hearing from other people in this chat is talking to them, at the time or years later, may be one strategy.
Takoma Park: Is Hollywood helping or hurting with the whole Mean Girl thing? Doesn't it seem like there are so few role models in popular culture when it comes to nice girls?
Laura Sessions Stepp: ABSOLUTELY! Hollywood is obsessed with mean girls and mean women and give us all the impression that that's just how life is. And some of the producers of those shows are women, which I don't understand. Maybe it's a ratings thing. Maybe someone in Hollywood needs to figure out how to make nice girls compelling to watch.
Dupont Circle: I was bullied terribly in middle school for being dorky and untrendy (I really was). First day of high school, suddenly the "cool" kids wanted to be my friend-- because they felt out of place finally in a new environment. Some do grow out of the antics. But I think they remain, particularly in industries where being competitive and extroverted are an advantage. Politics, sales, law, you find "mean" antics everywhere. But as you grow up, you start to realize that the awful behavior originates with insecurities, or emotional instability, or a near total disregard for the needs of others. "Me First" syndrome. Rampant in DC! I think it belittles the problem to say that kids will just "grow up." No child should have to endure torture; perpetrators should be held responsible for their actions, and victims should know that they have support.
Laura Sessions Stepp: I agree that we shouldn't stop with "mean kids grow up." And your last sentence is absolutly right. That said, it is also important to not just dwell on the problems - that can easily lead to an "oh there's nothing I can do" attitude. There are strategies we can put into place early in children's lives, several good books on the subject. Most importantly, we need to give kids/young people the sense that things will get better and there are other, successful ways of relating to people.
Building empathy: I work in public schools too and I agree that one of the most effective means of addressing bullying for both boys and girls is to get kids to know one another as people and thus emphathize with them. I observed one mentoring program where students (boys int this case) were put into a group together for a semester, one period a day. The counselor facilitated it and it involved discussions, team building exercises, etc. A huge emphasis on communication and interpersonal problem solving.
All the boys were from different walks of life, some were bullies, and some were the bullied. One thing that all the boys said was that by the end of the class, even if they weren't best friends, at the very least they understood and respected one another. If they saw each other in the hall they would greet each other. Things like that.
I think it's true that many times kids don't know what they're doing, the effect of their words, the ramifications of their actions. By teaching them early to relate to one another and personalize one another, it causes them to think more clearly about how to treat others. That's true for everyone, not just boys or girls.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thank you for sharing this.
Raleigh, NC: Is there a strong link between disruption at home (e.g., divorce) and aggression at school? My niece was suspended for three days for making threats to other girls (cut off your hair if you don't join our clique) not to long after her parents went through a divorce. How linked is parent's dysfunction to pre-teen's nasty behavior? Can parents' retain moral standing to rebuke when they themselves have been involved in infidelity leading to breakup? Seems to me that the victims of school aggression are often innocent bystander caught in the crossfire of others' family turbulance.
Laura Sessions Stepp: There absolutely is a link there - research literature has shown it over and over.
Arnold, MD: I was bullied consistently from about 4th grade on in a small town, and got to enjoy high school because somewhere in 8th grade, I realized the problem wasn't me, it was them, and I just ignored their behavior from then on.
However, I find myself 34 and very unwilling to friend-back those girls from high school who have found me on facebook. They had nothing good to say to me then, why on earth do I need or want their friendship or approval now?
I think the best lesson I can pass on to my children is to take the high road, that anyone who doesn't isn't smart or brave enough.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Great lesson for your children - I would also say that it's important to teach them to understand that bullies are acting out of insecurity and perhaps, as one reader just said, problems at home. We don't have to be friends with them, but we can try to understand their behavior.
Speaking of schools: I've witnessed some "mean girl" behavior from the moms in PTA, committees, and playground cliques. Queen bees, indeed, some of them. While others are inclusive and supportive. There seems to be much less of that behavior in the workplace, IMHO.
Laura Sessions Stepp: While some of the readers might disagree with your workplace comment, I happen to agree. As I stated in the article, companies are discovering that one upmanship isn't, in the long term, a productive or profitable way to run a business.
USA: The mean girl in my life was my sister. Passive agressiveness, control issues, bullying, you name it. I grew up genuinely believing I was "uncool", "dull", "nice, but only in a stupid sort of way".
This actually worked out to my advantage as I've grown up. Being uncool means I don't have to keep up with what's trendy if I don't want to. Being "dull" is what made me an engineer. Being "nice and stupid" helps me be a better mentor to kids with learning difficulties.
When I look back at her and see how she's so trapped within herself with all her anger and selfishness, I realize that in the long run, I ended up being more stable and can tackle stress and challenges much better than her.
Strange how life works itself out. I feel sorry for her and yet, I can't spend more than a day in her company, because she still feels the need to snipe and be negative rather than have the courage to take on a challenge.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thanks for sharing this.
Laurel, MD: I went to a number of schools in middle and high school. Sometimes I was the mean girl and sometimes I was the one being bullied- it all depended on the school dynamic.
Even though it sucked at the time, I still chalk it up to what it was- CHARACTER BUILDING. If we are all coddled and love each other through our developemental years, we are going to grow up unable to deal with those people when we encounter them.
Mean girls aren't any different today than they were thirty years ago. They just have more tools at their disposal. Mean girls are just as essential to growing up as nice girls.
Laura Sessions Stepp: That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it.
Developmental stage: Often bullying behavior can be attributed to insecurity and a lack of empathy. Adolescence is a time during which kids typically are both much more insecure and more self absorbed than they are at younger and older ages. Is this bullying that is getting such recognition right now more rightfully considered a temporary phase in most (not all) people than a sign of either permanent bad character or a whole generation gone wrong? Bullying has always been worse during these ages, and while so much focus has been on the male bully, it's not really a suprise that girls do it too, if in more subtle ways.
I'm not dismissing bullying at all, and I think it's great it's getting more attention. I just don't really think it's unique to this generation or a surprise that most people grow out of it.
Laura Sessions Stepp: Thanks for sharing this. It makes common sense that most people grow out of bullying, I agree. But as you can see from some of these comments, many people don't think that. And little wonder. Popular culture right now glamorizes meanness among so-called adults. And digital media allow us to be mean and anonymous and global.
Laura Sessions Stepp: I've got to sign off now. Sorry I couldn't get to all of your questions. The sheer number suggests this is a good conversation to keep going with other people. Thanks for chatting! Laura Sessions Stepp
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.
| 116.170732 | 0.634146 | 0.829268 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020802901.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/08/DI2008020802901.html
|
Freedom Rock - washingtonpost.com
|
2008021119
|
washingtonpost.com: Party Girl's Night In: Even From Afar, Winehouse Dominates With Five Awards; Kanye West Wins Four
J. Freedom du Lac: Herbie Hancock: We all saw that one coming, right?
My pal Jeff Leeds from the New York Times actually predicted a big upset win for Herbie roughly an hour before the pre-telecast ceremony. I'm going to have to ask Jeff for some Lotto numbers before I leave town.
Arlington, Va.: I actually enjoyed a lot of the performances last night - something I haven't thought for the past few Grammy telecasts. But after reading some reviews, it seems all music people are bitter or something? Do you all see too many performances so nothing special stands out? Just curious... I loved the Rhapsody in Blue performance. Incredibly difficult song for any instrument and dueled out by one of the greatest pianists of our time! How can music people not appreciate that?
J. Freedom du Lac: And here's what really amazing: Herbie said backstage that he'd never played "Rhapsody" before! I didn't hear the entire performance (was crashing something on deadline), but when I did listen, I was really struck by some of the voicings. A definite highlight.
I think the issue really is that as a 3.5-hour TV program that is supposed to be music's biggest night, the Grammys are quite often a mess. Last night's show hit some high notes, including a great no-frills performance by Brad Paisley, the orchestral-rock piece by the Foo Fighters, John Fogerty's portion of the icons program, the gospel number, etc. But there were too many duds, from Carrie Underwood and Fergie to Sinatra's "duet" with Alicia Keys, Kid Rock's Louis Prima moment with Keely Smith and will.i.am's hack job on the past record of the year winners with that ridiculously childish "Grammy-jammy" rhyme scheme.
If you're asking for 3.5 hours of somebody's time, your batting average needs to be much higher.
Herndon, Va.: J Free - I thought there was supposed to be a tribute to Thriller? And where was Mary J?
J. Freedom du Lac: The "Thriller" tribute was widely rumored but never actually confirmed. There were reports that Michael was even rehearsing in the LA area last week, but in the end, it was not to be. And you know what? I didn't miss him whatsoever.
I do, however, think that next year's ceremony should include a "Purple Rain" segment. Anything to get more Prince onto the program. He was hilarious last night.
Washington, D.C.: Seriously, what is the Grammys fixation with Alicia Keys? Is she their official mascot or something?
J. Freedom du Lac: Funny: Was talking with a friend at a post-game dinner last night (Dan Tana's in the house!) and we were wondering the same thing. Seems like Alicia gets two or three slots every year. I think it basically boils down to this: Clive Davis owns this town.
Ashburn, Va.: I really loved Kanye's performance. The design especially. Was Daft Punk actually doing something with the screens/buttons? It was hard to know if that was 'show' or if they were actually back there guiding the sample!
J. Freedom du Lac: Tough to say what, exactly, Daft Punk was doing up there in those exotic, robotic outfits. Were they playing air-samples as everything was tracked, or were they actually triggering the samples? Who really knows. They sure looked cool, though. When I crashed rehearsal on Thursday with Taylor Swift, it actually took me about five minutes to realize that there were people inside that pyramid. I just thought those were light strips -- until I saw one of them lean over. So funny that it was Daft Punk's first-ever television performance given that they could have sent their sisters to fill in for them and nobody would have noticed, given the lighting, costumes and camera angles.
St. Leonard, Md.: What has happened to the Grammy Awards? I'm in my mid 30s and I can remember my siblings & I sitting in front of the TV for all the excitement of the show. Those days are long gone. What do you think it is?
J. Freedom du Lac: Part of it is that these things just aren't special anymore. There are so many televised awards shows that the Grammys have become something like a face in the, um, very crowded crowd. Also, we have access to so many performances now - via YouTube, etc - that we can put together our own Grammys. Add the fact that the Grammy producers apparently think Kid Rock is the epitome of cool and you can see why they've got problems.
Washington, D.C. - Help Me Out Here!: Please settle a bet: About half the people with whom I watched the Grammys last night said that Amy Winehouse was visibly impaired ("really flying," so said one), right while she was on the air.
Was she or wasn't she?
J. Freedom du Lac: I couldn't pretend to know. Any drug experts in the house who care to opine? All I know is that she done good.
Charlotte, N.C.: Help me to understand why Amy Winehouse cleaned up? She is talented, but her sound is right out of the 60s. If it was the 1965 Grammys last night and she was competing with Aretha and Dusty how would she have came out?
What is old is new again?
J. Freedom du Lac: Plain and simple: The music is great and it's struck a chord with people. Retro? Yeah. But that's not a bad thing, is it? A lot of great music reaches into the past.
Album of the Year?: Just remember, folks--1984: was the Album of the Year going to be (a) Born in the USA, or (b) Purple Rain? Answer: Can't Slow Down (Lionel Richie).
Nothing against Lionel, but that's when I stopped watching the Grammys.
J. Freedom du Lac: There are lots and lots of examples of the Recording Academy making ridiculous picks. Just a few years ago, it was that Ray Charles collabofest "Genius Loves Company" over Green Day's epochal "American Idiot."
Now, as much as we were surprised by Herbie's win (you should have heard the gasping and hooting in the interview room!), it's very much worth noting that his album is actually quite good. So on artistic merit alone, it's not a bad pick. It's just that I think the album of the year winner should somehow reflect a MOMENT, as well. It should say something about popular music in a given year. Never got the sense that there was a huge groundswell of support for what Herbie was doing on this album - a longtime jazz publicist who has worked with Herbie in the past even told me she was shocked he got a nomination in the general category. Didn't see it coming, she said, as the project just didn't seem to have much traction. Guess we were all wrong.
Baltimore, Md.: I wondered if you all were aware of a local who was nominated for a Grammy this year? David Sager is a jazz musician who now works in DC and was nominated for Best Album Notes. It was for Off The Record: The Complete 1923 Jazz Band Recordings/David Sager, album notes writer. I would be interested in hearing about local musicians' experience with the awards. Are there plans for an article about locals at the awards who this year?
J. Freedom du Lac: Leonard Slatkin won two classical awards and the Foo Fighters picked up some more hardware, too. Otherwise, I don't think it was a particularly big night for folks with DC ties at the awards. Most of the nominated artists - Seldom Scene, Raheem Devaughn, etc - left empty-handed.
Fairfax, Va.: What's the pre-televised ceremony like?
J. Freedom du Lac: It's like a 2.5-hours sprint. They handed out 100 awards (acutally, 101 since there was a tie in one of the gospel categories, where the Clark Sisters shared an award with Aretha and Mary J. Blige). That's a whole lot of presenting. A whole lot of quick speeches. A whole lot of "Bruce Springsteen couldn't be here today, so I will accept this award on his behalf" as most of the A-listers skip the pre-tel. The exceptions yesterday: Herbie Hancock, Brad Paisley, the Foo Fighters and Carrie Underwood, who
won best female country vocal (for "Before He Cheats") and raced to the podium after Michael W. Smith was about to take the award for her. "You couldn't keep me from actually getting this myself!" she squeaked. "It's not the same when somebody gets it on your behalf."
There were some musical performances, too, including a blues jam featuring Pinetop Perkins, Honeyboy Edwards and Koko Taylor. Ledisi also performed. And, errr....somebody else.
Eastern Market, Washington, D.C.: Re: Keely Smith and Kid Rock -- I'll grant that it was a strange duet, and she seemed a bit confused by it. The big upside of it, which deserves mention, is that Smith still has a fantastic voice -- hers was as accomplished a vocal performance as we heard last night, and not even Kid Rock could diminish that.
J. Freedom du Lac: She sounded very fine indeed. But she really appeared to be lost in front of the cameras -- and I'm sure having Kid Rock as her duet partner didn't help. You just *know* she was wondering what parallel universe she'd landed on.
Washington, D.C.: OK, so you hung out with Taylor Swift ... who else?
J. Freedom du Lac: You'll find out soon enough! Two stories in the next week out of Grammyland, with more to come.
Fairfax, Va.: Do you think the Boss was ticked about being ignored in the big name award categories?
J. Freedom du Lac: I'm not sure he cares, really. He's won something like 18 career Grammys now (including his three from last night), but only one in a major category: Song of the year, for "Streets of Philadelphia." How has he never won album of the year, record of the year or another song of the year award?
Washington, D.C.: Clearly, Vince Gill got robbed last night...
J. Freedom du Lac: As good as "These Days" is, there was just no way that Vince was going to win album of the year. Of course, I said the same thing about Herbie Hancock. And actually, if the Recording Academy zigged, I thought Vince would get the win since he's a big-time Recording Academy fave. I think his best country album win last night was the 19th Grammy of his career.
Anonymous: Isn't Taylor Swift a little on the young side for you, J Free?
J. Freedom du Lac: Easy there. I'm simply writing about JonBenet Swift. Not trying to get her to put me in her MySpace Top 8 and write a song about me.
New Haven, Conn.: Mad props to Joni! HH's tribute album was much better than Joni's own last year. Don't even get me started about Amy W.; decent band backing a trainwreck -- straight or high. Did Janis Joplin ever win a Grammy? Either alive or posthumously?
J. Freedom du Lac: Amy is, indeed, a train wreck, but she's an enormously talented train wreck. Just about everybody I talked to this past week had high praise for her. Wait, maybe high praise isn't the best way to put it. But you know what I'm saying. There's a there there. Absolutely. Just hope she gets her personal problems sorted out.
Janis won as many Grammys as Bob Marley: Zero. (Unless you count their posthumous lifetime achievement awards. Which I don't.)
Minneapolis, Minn.: Feist "never really took off?" I thought the subdued performance was an elegant departure from the rest of the evening's spectacles, myself. Could have been better with strippers and a trapeze, sure, but what isn't?
washingtonpost.com: Producer David here, the "never really took off comment" was mine, so I guess I'll explain. It was definitely subdued but I didn't think that worked in her favor. That song works (y'know, if you think it works) because it's bouncy and cheery and encourages putting $299 into our struggling economy. She tried to class it up and it just was kind of boring. And she seemed very nervous, but not quite enough for it to be endearing, in that Elliott Smith at the Oscars right before Celine Dion way.
Politics, Grammys and Music: You really have to feel for those GOP dudes. Dems win Grammys, and musicians keep sending them messages to quit using their material (from Bruce and Reagan to Mellencamp and McCain).
I mean, there's only so many Lee Greenwood songs.
J. Freedom du Lac: One of my favorite moments yesterday came when I got an RNC reax email. They were actually compelled to issue a derisive statement about Obama's Grammy win. Ah, politics....
Re: "...write a song about me.": There are a lot of words that rhyme with "du Lac".
J. Freedom du Lac: Yes, and many of them can and would be used against me.
Had good fun at dinner last night coming up with alternate rhymes that will.i.am *should* have used during his record of the year mash-up. The guy just isn't very good as a rapper. But I think his production and songwriting skills are very, very strong. (Though I don't really dig that Obama video he did.)
Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C.: Taylor Swift?!? You were hanging out with an American Idol winner?
J. Freedom du Lac: Taylor wasn't on Idol, but I was hanging out, so to speak, with an Idol loser who went on to become a big winner. Chris Daughtry was at the BMI songwriting panel on Saturday, and we happened to be in the bathroom at the same time and -- wait, that sounds weird. What I'm trying to say is, he went to the bathroom and didn't wash his hands afterwards. So think about that if you ever meet him and feel compelled to shake his hand.
Washington, D.C.: Better acceptance speech--Vince Gill or Amy Winehouse? Must admit I laughed out loud at both and can't decide.
J. Freedom du Lac: Vince Gill - hands-down. The guy is great. His Kanye-Beatles line was the second-best zinger of the night, behind Prince's observation about Sinatra looking good for a 150-year-old.
Boston, Mass.: I enjoyed the Grammys, I never expect them to capture everything, but they give my a good enough sampling of music I don't usually listen to. (Thanks to the Internet, it is much easier to examine this music.) Maybe that's the problem, too many people want to hear only what they listen to. Just as an aside, I watched the Grammy fluff piece awhile back about the The 50 Greatest Grammy Moments, I've never heard of Green Day, but they were ranked #1. I wondered about the demographics of people surveyed. No one called me.
J. Freedom du Lac: They actually tried to text-message you, but your analog phone doesn't do texting.
Amy Winehouse, Mo.: I know I'm going get a lot of backlash, but I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Amy Winehouse, in fact when Frank was released I ran out to the nearest CoinStar to cash in my change for iTunes credit. Winehouse is a phenomenal talent when you consider what else is out there. So why do people either love, love, love her or hate, hate, hate her? A lot of the animosity came before her drug use became front page news, when the only thing people could make fun of was her hair.
J. Freedom du Lac: I think it's a shame that her personal problems have come to overshadow the great music, but it is what it is.
Washington, D.C.: That Rhapsody in Blue performance was a disgrace to Gershwin's name. While I agree that the song is difficult to arrange into a short segment and to split the parts between a small orchestra and two pianos, the orchestrator did a TERRIBLE job of preserving the original piece, particularly the second half piano parts that omitted key piano solos. The clarinetist had more true solo time than the two pianists combined. I was truly disgusted by the performance, and wonder why they felt they needed to do it. TOTAL HACK JOB!
J. Freedom du Lac: Interesting. I'll have to YouTube the complete performance later.
Let's take a quick poll: What late, great artist was most disgraced by last night's Grammys?
Washington, D.C.: Was it wrong that I was hoping for a Britney-esque perfromance from Amy W.? I mean, I'm glad she sounded well (even if she was a little behind the beat up until the 1st drum break....). Yeah, I know, I'm the kind of sucker that CBS was banking on having tune in. Question is: do you think there were a lot of viewers like me?
J. Freedom du Lac: Ladies and gentlemen, you're in for a real treat tonight. Live and direct from London ... give it up for The Schadenfreude!
Arlington, Va.: Is is just me, or was it weird for Tom Hanks to announce a "lifetime achievement" award for The Band and then just start gushing about the Beatles? I'm no huge fan of The Band, but what was the point of Grammy giving them an award if it's just going to pass over them in the ceremony?
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, that was one of the most disturbing moments of the night. And he would have spent even less time talking about the Band if the audience hadn't interrupted him with a loud cheer when he mentioned Canada.
Levon, by the way, won an award on the pre-tel but wasn't there to accept.
Washington, D.C.: Am I the only person who liked the Kid Rock-Keely Smith duet? A little unpolished (they kind of stepped all over each other), but it sounded melodic, and they appeared to be having some good fun up there. And kudos to Kid R. for stepping outside the comfort zone to pay tribute to an something that is a foundation of the pop/rock music we're all listening to today.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yes. Yes, you are.
"Record" of the year?: I confess to being hopelessly out of touch with the Grammys, but after perusing the list of winners in the paper this morning and online just now, I find myself confused by the category "Record of the Year", which is stated to have been won by Amy Winehouse. I undertand "Album of the Year" (won by Herbie Hancock) and "Song of the Year (won by Winehouse), but exactly what category of "records" exist that are neither albums or songs? Am I missing something, or was this a typo? (I note that the list in the print edition was missing mention of Hancock's album altogether, while the on-line version of the list has "Album of the Year" now listed at the top, followed by "Record of the Year")
J. Freedom du Lac: It's the great Recording Academy nomenclature - and, some might say, the truest sign of all that they're out of touch. What they call Record of the Year, the rest of us would probably call Single of the Year. Who calls singles "records" anymore, besides old music-biz people?
So: Album of the Year awards the top album. Record of the Year rewards the top single. Song of the Year rewards the songwriters of a particular single.
Alexandria, Va.: Typical Grammy show---Perform and get a statue.
I know they want to try to get performances from the best artists but it always seems a bit staged when just about every artist who performs gets a Grammy shortly after. Amy Winehouse, Kanye West, Herbie Hancock, Foo Fighters, etc... Why not just give the statues when the performance lineup is announced?
J. Freedom du Lac: If that always held true, then Brad Paisley should have won best rap album, given that he'd performed "Ticks" just prior to that award.
Baltimore, Md.: Re your question on "late, great artists": Jerry Lee Lewis, for reasons known only to God, is still alive, unlike the other three you listed. I saw him years ago at the old Stardust Inn in Charles Couny and it was the most incendiary performance I have ever seen.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, sorry - that was a joke based on Jerry Lee's wretched showing last night. Shame on me (for assuming that people in the Grammy chat might have actually watched the Grammys!).
Silver Spring, Md.: I don't know whether Amy Winehouse's drug issues overshadow her musical talent, but they definitely affect her performance. I was watching a recent concert on an HD music channel and had to turn it off because her drug of choice was really impairing her performance. It was sad to watch her belt out a few bars that were wonderful only to follow with some incomprehensible bars. Not a Dylanesque mumble but butchering lyrics and melody. I felt dirty watching her stumble through the set.
J. Freedom du Lac: I'll agree with you on this. She's definitely not a great live performer - or hasn't been for at least the past year, anyway. But those songs - and what came out of the "Back to Black" recording sessions ... seriously good stuff. If you didn't know anything about her - how she looks, how she lives - and you just listened to the music, as I did a year ago when that album landed on my desk, you'd have to say her talent was kinda undeniable.
Great Artist Poll: Louis Prima was the hands-down winner of the "most disgraced" great artist poll, with Sam Butera a close second (I'm surprised Kid Rock even got his name right). Dave-freakin'-Koz in his place? Puh-leeeze.
After that, clearly, was Sinatra.
J. Freedom du Lac: I didn't even notice Dave Koz on stage until they introduced him post-performance. Was too busy gawking at Kid Rock and Keely.
Hack Job, NO: Gershwin wasn't a hack job at all... it was great! The clarinet of course had a great solo because it is in there and that's how it sounds and was written. Duh! The piano parts were arranged a bit differently than the original, and in some cases, much harder. People are so crazy!
J. Freedom du Lac: One no-vote for Gershwin in the most-disgraced poll.
Anonymous: Classic Larry David death comparison for Kanye West by David Malitz. The only good taste that Kanye West has ever shown was his use of the Daft Punk sample. He made Diddy sound like Caruso during that horrible Oh Mama performance. I wouldn't wish anyone's mother death while undergoing plastic surgery, but, please. That performance was the aural equivalent of one of those cheesy RIP silk screen t-shirts. My mother would have been embarrassed. The recent death of a loved one was also used to garner great sympathy from the American Idol judges during the recent tryout episodes. I'm really concerned that reality show contestants and rap/pop stars will start offing loved ones to qualify for the finals and industry awards.
J. Freedom du Lac: The weird part about the tribute to me was that it came just after "Stronger," which, as I noted in my recap this morning, seemed like a tribute to "Tron" - though, as with most Kanye songs, it was also a tribute to Kanye. "Bow in the presence of greatness," etc. That's a weird thing to do before giving love to your mother. I mean, I get that he has to perform one of the Grammy-nominated songs. But the pairing was very strange to me.
Country/Gospel, Va.: Loved yours and Editor Rich's live blog of last night's telecast! Now then, why no discussion of the gospel-performance montage? You were probably watching the Wizards, but I thought that was an energetic high point of the portion of the telecast I saw. Then again, I really enjoyed the Beyonce/Tina Turner thing. Tina's Silver Surfer outfit was noticeable, but her singing, looks, and performance upstaged Beyonce, although B. didn't do half bad. What might have been a debacle was actually pretty cool. And I don't even like Tina Turner!
So, Vince Gill. I long ago wrote in about "These Days," and you said you'd have to get a copy, that you hadn't heard it. I don't suppose you've gotten around to it yet, but now that it's BATHED IN GRAMMY GLORY, how can you not? Great collection.
washingtonpost.com: Thank you very much, on behalf of Editor Rich, too. As for the gospel performance, yeah, sorry, I was checking in on the Wizards at that moment. Sounds like it wasn't a very wise decision. And as for Beyonce/Tina, of COURSE Tina upstaged Beyonce. I noted in the blog that while I will never complain if Beyonce is on my TV, and she has released some very catchy songs, she's strictly an entertainer. A very fine one, but she'll never have a fraction of the fire in her performances as Tina did last night, even at 68. That's my take, at least.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yes, I agree: "These Days" is quality entertainment product. Pretty daring, too, especially in the current music-biz climate.
Washington, D.C: Last night, I fell asleep during the show. I woke up with a start to see Little Richard howling right at me. Honestly, one of the scariest moments of my life.
J. Freedom du Lac: Classic.
Little Richard actually did pretty well. But nobody should ever have to wake up to that.
Falls Church, Va.: Dead or alive, I bet Jerry Lee Lewis could still kick your a** (and mine)...
J. Freedom du Lac: I'll take that bet.
Maybe we can wager lunch at El Taurino in downtown LA. I went there yesterday to pick up a bunch of tacos before heading over to Staples, where the media-room food is always lousy. Ordered a bunch of stuff (al pastor, asada con todo, etc) para llevar ... and then waited for 30 minutes. And then had to leave because they were locking down Staples Center at noon.
Maybe I'll go back today and pick up the order.
Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.: I thought Carrie Underwood's performance was dreadful, but it seems that we are not going to get any reprieve from the "prom queen" any time soon. What, on earth, is the appeal of her? She's so mediocre, so bland as a performer.
J. Freedom du Lac: I don't really get it. She has a perfectly fine, if unremarkable voice. But people just adore her. Maybe it's because she's purty like a prom queen. Or seems "nice." Or ... I dunno. I'm at a loss....
Washington, D.C.: Re: La Winehouse. Not sure if she was on anything, but she sure did look nervous and stiff. Maybe there's a stagefright issue that everyone's overlooking.
J. Freedom du Lac: I sorta think she came out of the womb looking nervous, but that's just a guess.
Eastern Market, Washington, D.C.: Ohmigod, you don't think that Kid Rock was just warming us up for his forthcoming album of standards, do you? I mean, his sales or publicity haven't been great lately, but he doesn't need to pull a Linda Ronstadt/Rod Stewart/Carly Simon move yet to revive his career, does he?
J. Freedom du Lac: That is a most frightening thought. One thing working in our favor (I think): He's not on a Clive Davis label.
disgrace poll: Jerry Lee, by a mile. Did no one think to check whether he could still play before they signed him up for this? We were wondering if he'd had a stroke - it looked like he'd lost a lot of mobility in his right hand, although his voice sounded okay.
J. Freedom du Lac: It was sort of tragic, really. Especially since he was wedged between Fogerty, who was on fire, and Little Richard, who, too, was en fuego, in that flaming sort of way of his. Really striking to see Richard, who is three years older, just kick the Killer's backside all over the stage.
Rockville, Md.: A bunch of us just have to say, critically, that the Grammys show, and the awards, were completely awful this year. We've actually listened to that Winehouse record, and -- it's not worthy of any "best of" Grammys. It's grating, actually, and her voice is irritating throughout. The performances were lame on the show, and someone please lower the glitz and flashy lights thing in future years. It just looked tacky. However, on the positive side, somehow Grammy voters got two things right: recognizing The Foo Fighters for one of the best albums of 2007, and recognizing Herbie Hancock. But the show and the other awards? Yech.
J. Freedom du Lac: You had me until "grating ... and irritating."
Washington, D.C.: Beyonce should wear a dress, or pants, at all times!
J. Freedom du Lac: That's the minority opinion, I think. I was surprised that Tina didn't want to engage in a leg-off, though. Even though she's a multiple of Beyonce's age, I think she just might win.
Upper Marlboro, Md.: I enjoyed the Alicia Keys, John Mayer collaboration, although she did seem a bit screechy at times...after googling it, it seems that they have worked together often... what's your take on the performance?
J. Freedom du Lac: Didn't love it, but that's largely because I don't really care for the song and Alicia's voice on it. I actually kind of like Mayer when he's playing guitar with other people. Definitely more than his own solo stuff.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: About Kanye West & Daft Punk's performance of "Stronger" : I haven't watched it again online, but the touches to the keypad seemed incredibly in sync with music. So while a fair bit of the was most likely pre-programmed, they were mixing on the fly as well. Or, that was the best lip-...err, button-synced performance I've every seen.
J. Freedom du Lac: It's quite possible, maybe even probable, that they were firing the samples in real time. Had to be a reason they put the camera over the keypads during that sequence, no?
Des Moines Drycleaning: As someone who worships Joni Mitchell's late 70's-early 80's bands (Jaco Pastorius, Brecker brothers, Peter Erskine, Don Alias, and Herbie Hancock among others) I am tickled to see how pissed off everybody seems to be at HH winning the big one. What's the big deal? It's not like NARAS members are tweens after all. Steely Dan won big a few years ago. Didn't the Brecker brothers play with them too?
J. Freedom du Lac: I don't think people were peeved. Just surprised, is all, for the reasons I mentioned above. On artistic merit, it's a worthy pick. If you're looking for an album that captures a moment in popular music, then a jazz interpretation of a bunch of old Joni Mitchell songs probably isn't the pick.
To St. Leonard, Md....: I'm 30 and I like you can remember getting to the television at break neck speed to watch the Grammys. A couple of things have changed since then.
1. Cable TV-Remember not everyone had MTV so seeing your fav stars like Madonna and Michael and Prince was an EVENT!
2. You Tube-Now you can see anything on this web site which kind of takes the fun outta seeing award show performances.
3. The artists themselves-Back in the the holy trinity-Prince Madonna Michael were what people wanted to watch. There are plenty of good artists out there don't get me wrong but how many do you REALLY get excited about now and days to pay and see them in concert much less watch them on tv?
J. Freedom du Lac: I think your third point is huge. There aren't really mass-appeal stars anymore. Everything is niche. How many people were hearing "Umbrella" for the first time last night? And that was one of the biggest singles of 2007!
One thing that made me happy about the telecast, by the way: No live performance of "Hey There Delilah."
Philadelphia, Pa.: Was I the only one completely appalled by Kanye West's acceptance speech? He insulted two fellow nominees (Common and Nas) and then was angry that his time run out before he could talk about his mom. It was his fault he went over the alloted time. Maybe he should have thanked his mother first, instead of bashing other artists.
Every time I hear him speak, he gets more and more self-indulgent. Kudos to Vince Gill and Usher for making subtle, and funny, digs at him. He needs to be brought down to size.
J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, that was a bad look for him.
Vince Gill said backstage that he thought it was sorta funny (in an annoying way, I'm guessing) that Kanye thought there were only two entrants in the field worthy of winning album of the year.
Herbie said he and Kanye were "cool," but that he'd wished Kanye luck earlier in the day, and that Kanye said something like: "I'd wish you luck, too, but I don't want you to win."
That's Kanye's schtick, I guess. But it sort of gets old. I wonder if (hope?) he'll go away for a while after the summer tour. We could all use a break.
Baltimore, Md.: Does anyone actually perform live, or are they all pre-sung so they can "perform" during the actual song? I remember long, long ago when Sinead O'Connor sounded absolutely awful on some awards show, but at least she was actually singing. Now everyone sounds great, but I have a hard time believing they are actually singing live, which kind of defeats the purpose of the show...
J. Freedom du Lac: I think there's some amount of trickery in place, but a lot of the performances seemed live to me. Brad Paisley's was absolutely, 100 percent real, for instance.
Washington, D.C.: Jerry Lee looked like the animatronic version of himself that is probably at some alternative universe Dizknee Land. I expected his head to fall off and a stream of sparks to come out.
J. Freedom du Lac: Or, as Producer David noted on the blog: Jerry Lee looked kinda like Maryland football coach Ralph Friedgen.
J. Freedom du Lac: Should Norah Jones be insulted that nobody thinks she's a jazz artist?
BMore: Is it wrong for me to want Kanye to lose so I can see how P-O'd he'll get?
J. Freedom du Lac: I don't think you're the only one, really. He's the crybaby everybody loves to hate. Or hates to love. Or something like that.
Bittersville, KS: Let's give the Grammy awards some credit. They've NEVER been relevant. The show's always been a good showcase for live performances, but the awards themselves (the major ones anyway) are a bit of a joke. Remember the year Celine Dion's album beat The Fugees, Beck and The Smashing Pumpkins? Or that, the next year, it took a special Grammy committee to get OK Computer on the Best Album nominations list.
Or that "Hey Ya" lost record of the year to Coldplay. Bruce Springsteen losing to Norah Jones. Christopher Cross beating Pink Floyd's The Wall.
When the Grammys do get it right, it's a happy accident.
J. Freedom du Lac: In 1969, a little band called the Beatles won album of the year for a little album "Sgt Pepper." So, that's one example of getting it right. But, yeah...
Chicago, Ill.: Vince Gill seems like an alright dude.
J. Freedom du Lac: I could absolutely spend a couple of weeks on a tour bus with him. Paisley, too. Not sure I can say that about many other people in popular music.
Annapolis, Md.: Not sure what the right forum for this question is, but here it goes: During the Grammys there was an ad for a Dyson public restroom hand-drying device. Now I appreciate a good British vacuum cleaner, but this ad left me a bit confused. A hand dryer????
J. Freedom du Lac: It was a not-so-subtle message to Chris Daughtry, I think.
And on that non-sanitized note, I'm outta here. Must go outside and take in some of the nasty Hollywood air. Thanks for stopping by, as always. Back in the regular slot next week, assuming I can get myself to leave California.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post music critic J. Freedom du Lac talks about the the winners, losers, best performances, biggest letdowns and everything else relating to Sunday's Grammy Awards.
| 246.903226 | 0.806452 | 1.580645 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002131.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002131.html
|
D.C. Hosts Rivals for Convention Business
|
2008021119
|
First, primp the palms. Then bring in a jazz trio, crank up the chocolate fountain and throw a swanky dinner for your guests with an icon of their industry. This is cutthroat competition, Washington style.
Or at least it was at the end of last week, when the Walter E. Washington Convention Center demonstrated the saying, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer," hosting meeting planners from dozens of other U.S. and international cities that would love to lure away its business.
With the largest concentration of associations in the country, Washington represents the mother lode of meeting planners. To convention and tourism bureaus, the Destination Marketing Association International's Destination Showcase is an opportunity to get them thinking about holding their next event in Reno or Grand Rapids, Kansas City or maybe even Maui. Which is why the guests, planners of everything from meetings of 10 people meetings to 1,500, arrived with empty wheeled suitcases to load up with trinkets.
"Ooh, where did you get that?" asked one planner, pointing to a combination of woven straw cubes, shells and tropical nuts that adorned another woman's neck.
"Hawaii is giving them away," the woman responded, holding up her new lei for inspection.
This is, of course, a gimmick that everyone seems happy to play along with. But the event is not a game. When the economy tanks, companies tighten their belts. Many of the event planners who attended Thursday's show had meetings to book for clients, so they wove through aisles lined with colorful booths, dropping off requests for proposals at cities that seemed enticing.
Food seems to be a big part of selling a city. There were close-ups of Corpus Christi's Whataburger and what appeared to be giant sparkly gumdrops at Knoxville's booth. Albuquerque flew in pastry chef Chris Morales to whip up some "magic cookies" and give away loaves of his green chili bread in burlap bags.
"Especially during slow economic times, associations can save us," said Monica Thomas, director of special events and sponsorships for Lancaster County's Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau. "The number one thing we'll have to see is if they'll be willing to leave D.C. [for meetings], and that's 50-50."
Washington is not likely to give up good business willingly. And it used its home-court advantage to woo customers. With the largest booth, prominently positioned at entrance of the exhibit hall, D.C. convention officials put their center's best foot forward, giving a behind-the-scenes tour to select planners and showcasing its catering at a dinner featuring Arthur Frommer, founder of the eponymous travel guidebook publisher.
"The best position is to actually get potential customers to sample your product," said Victoria Isley, vice president of marketing for the convention center. "It allows them to imagine hosting their future events [here]."
|
First, primp the palms. Then bring in a jazz trio, crank up the chocolate fountain and throw a swanky dinner for your guests with an icon of their industry. This is cutthroat competition, Washington style.
| 13.902439 | 1 | 41 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002437.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002437.html
|
Conflicting Assessments of War in Afghanistan
|
2008021119
|
If Bush read that far into the report, he evidently disagrees. During his speech Friday to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the president offered a far rosier view of the situation in Afghanistan than even his own top military and civilian advisers hold. "The Taliban, al-Qaeda and their allies are on the run," Bush declared to the audience of supporters.
Lest he be accused of making a "last throes" type of statement, much as Vice President Cheney once declared of the insurgents in Iraq, Bush went on to note that "Afghanistan has a long road ahead." But that was the end of the pessimism for him. The rest of his assessment was upbeat. Democracy is on the march, he reported. Roads and bridges are being built. Girls are going to school. No mention of his decision to send 3,200 more Marines because of spiking violence.
Military officials reported that 2007 saw more U.S. casualties than any year since the 2001 operation to push the Taliban out of power. Today, according to most assessments, the Taliban and its allies do not control territory but operate with impunity from bases in Pakistan. U.S. forces beat the Taliban in any direct engagement but have been unable to defeat them strategically. Reconstruction remains spotty and opium production a growing problem.
"We are seeing only mixed progress," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates agreed. "I would say that while we have been successful militarily, that the other aspects of development in Afghanistan have not proceeded as well," he told the same hearing.
Jones, the former NATO commander, does not couch his judgment. In a pair of reports that he oversaw, he made clear he views the situation in dire terms. One of them described "a stalemate of sorts" in which the Taliban cannot beat U.S. and NATO forces but "neither can our forces eliminate the Taliban by military means as long as they have sanctuary in Pakistan."
The report goes on to say that "urgent changes are required now to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failing or failed state."
A senior administration official briefing reporters just hours after Bush's speech said the president was right in the sense that the Taliban is not winning. "Tactically, on the security front, I'd say we're winning," the official said. "The challenge with Afghanistan is, that's not good enough. It's on some of the other elements of the mission that we're not doing well."
Bush hates it when people try to figure out his complex relationship with his father and how it influences the decisions he makes as president. "Shallow psychobabble," he scoffed to Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday. "A bunch of people obviously got too much time on their hands."
And yet the president can't help providing more to babble about. Last week during his CPAC speech, he made a joking reference to his father that could be read as pretty cutting. "I appreciate the fact you invited Vice President Cheney here," the president told the activists. "He is the best vice president in history." After the applause died down, he added slyly, "Mother may have a different opinion. But don't tell her I said this, but my opinion is the one that counts."
George H.W. Bush, of course, served as vice president for eight years. This is hardly the first time the current president has seemed to slight his father's presidency. In private, he has made clear he wanted to do things differently than his father, whether it came to foreign affairs or winning reelection. Publicly, he identified himself politically more readily with Ronald Reagan than his father. At one point, asked by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward if he turned to his father for advice on Iraq, he answered, "There is a higher father that I appeal to."
The president thinks too much is read into such remarks. When the subject comes up, Bush always expresses great love for his father. "I wouldn't be sitting here . . . as president, without the unconditional love of my father," he told Wallace.
Whether he was the best vice president or not.
Bush has always nursed a deep admiration for Abraham Lincoln. He keeps a portrait of the 16th president in the Oval Office, and one of the first books he read after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was Jay Winik's volume about the end of the Civil War. So it should come as little surprise that he would want to celebrate Lincoln's 200th birthday. The only trick? It won't come until next year, when Bush will be out of office.
Never let a little thing like the calendar get in the way, though. Bush hosted a celebration of Lincoln's 199th birthday last night at the White House, complete with experts and actors. Bush presented Ford's Theatre Lincoln Medals to former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor and pioneering neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
The event was intended to kick off a year of events leading to the actual bicentennial celebration, but Bush was having fun. "I'm often asked, 'Do you ever see Lincoln 's ghost?' " he said. "And I tell people, 'I quit drinking 22 years ago.' "
"I used to think that leading a group of strong-willed senators was one of the toughest jobs in the country. I may have found one even tougher one -- father of the bride. You know, I told Laura I was going to say that and she said, 'Well, you might add another one -- son-in-law to the president.' "
-- President Bush, in his CPAC speech
|
President Bush famously doesn't like long memos. So if retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones hoped to get Bush's attention with the report he produced on Afghanistan, he was clever enough to be blunt from the start. "Make no mistake," the report says in its first line. "NATO is not winning in Afghan...
| 17.796875 | 0.703125 | 1.109375 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002440.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002440.html
|
For India's 'Brand Freaks,' Gucci Trumps Gandhi
|
2008021119
|
"This week, it's all about Tommy," Shah, 26, cooed as she petted hooded sweaters inside a glitzy Tommy Hilfiger boutique. "In India today, we love to be branded. I'll spend my whole salary for a really swank brand and eat idli [steamed rice cakes] for the rest of the month."
This country's growing middle and upper-middle classes have recently given rise to self-described "brand freaks," who crave the latest luxury goods. In this city -- where the father of the nation, Mohandas Gandhi, once located his austere ashram and rejected foreign textiles -- it's Chanel, not homespun cloth, that generates excitement these days.
India's elite have long enjoyed luxury goods imported from the West. In recent months, though, Indians who can't afford $600 sunglasses -- but who still have some disposable income -- have been splurging. Designers including Prada, Jimmy Choo, Gucci and Louis Vuitton, as well as brands such as Rolls-Royce and Mont Blanc, have either set up shop or beefed up operations here.
Last month marked the opening of two of the country's highest-end malls. At New Delhi's Select City Walk, women nearly caused a stampede as they crowded into a MAC cosmetics store, many of them in search of a popular brand of eye shadow. Women said they were thrilled that their husbands didn't have to go abroad to shop for them anymore.
"This year, India really unleashed the brand beast," said Saloni Nangia, associate vice president of Technopak, an India-based marketing research firm that estimates the middle and upper-middle classes at 8 million to 9 million people and growing, albeit in a country whose population is 1.1 billion.
"It used to be just five-star hotels that had the high-end shops," Nangia said. "But now India is actually getting upgraded with both premium brands and very high-end luxury. The right real estate is here now and the brand-freaks market is only going to get bigger."
In the fall, Vogue magazine, the bible of high-end fashion, launched its thick Indian edition, the most glamorous in a long line of magazines from Elle to Marie Claire that now have editions here. A recent article in Vogue headlined "The rise of ME culture" chronicled how much the Indian paradigm has changed, with women finding more disposable income and freedom to spend on their own needs rather than on the traditional extended family.
"This is the year of the Indian woman as a confident brand-buyer not abroad, but finally at home," said Bandana Tewari, fashion features editor at Vogue's Indian edition. "I find it refreshing that we have choices and a better lifestyle riding the optimism of the economy."
In a country with a rich tradition of textiles, Indian haute couture is flourishing, too.
"India still loves its colorful silk saris. We haven't gone to wearing black and white like the rest of Asia," Tewari said. "We refuse to change our intrinsic personality. We are remembering that India has always had superbly expensive jewelry, and insanely luxurious hand-woven seven-yard saris that are 800 years old. It's a good reminder to us that it shouldn't just be about importing. We were sprinkling very expensive saffron on our dessert before we got caviar."
Such enthusiasm is not shared by everyone. For many, the rising popularity of Western brands has served only to highlight the stark gulf between the rich and poor in a country where the majority of people still live in abject poverty. Along a main highway here, Tag Heuer billboards jockey for space with towering posters of Mont Blanc pens; below, barefoot children in ragged clothes tap on car windows, begging bowls in hand.
|
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.
| 16.282609 | 0.434783 | 0.521739 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002394.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002394.html
|
Tackling Gun Violence And the Scars It Leaves
|
2008021119
|
When activist Kenneth Barnes gives speeches decrying gun violence, he typically asks audience members to raise their hands if a family member or friend has been a victim. The response is usually about 5 percent of his adult crowds. But when he speaks to Prince George's County and District students, most raise their hands.
In recent months, Barnes's nonprofit organization completed a more formal three-year survey of youths that not only backs up his observations with hard data but paints a portrait of such pervasive exposure to gun crime that it startled even Barnes, as well others who deal with violence. The survey depicts an urban D.C. environment where 80 percent of youths are "highly exposed" to gun violence and, more importantly to Barnes, few are offered help coping.
"We're trying to coin the phrase 'current traumatic stress disorder,' " Barnes said, referring to many youths' ongoing exposure. The lack of grief counseling or therapy, Barnes said, predisposes survivors to anti-social and violent activity.
Faced with such an environment, Barnes believes that only a broad solution that addresses that environment can reduce gun violence. So for months, he has used preliminary data from the survey to push for a national campaign that would take a more comprehensive approach to preventing gun violence and treat the response to survivors as a public health issue. His efforts have resulted in a bill being introduced in Congress that would establish five pilot projects in violent areas of such places as the District and Prince George's.
Barnes formed his anti-violence group, Reaching Out to Others Together, after the September 2001 slaying of his son, Kenneth Barnes Jr., in a robbery on U Street NW.
The one-page survey was completed by 1,512 students ages 9 to 19 from at least 18 predominantly black middle and high schools in the District, as well as youths at Boys and Girls Clubs and other venues.
According to preliminary results, 80 percent of the respondents were "highly exposed" to gun violence, meaning a loved one had been shot or the sound of gunshots is common in their community, and of that 80 percent, 67 percent reported that they received no form of counseling or therapy. The survey also included Prince George's youths; numbers for them had not been finalized, but Barnes said they were similar to those for D.C. respondents.
The number of students exposed to violence is astonishing, even for Ann Brogioli, a social worker at Hart Middle School in Southeast Washington, where students who repeatedly witness such losses -- and sometimes see shootings or bodies -- can act up in class, become withdrawn or, worse, grow numb to violence, she said.
"I could do full-time grief counseling at my school. It's probably a full-time job at every school across the city," Brogioli said. "It's the layers of trauma and constant trauma."
Brogioli believes many children receive some help but might not recognize it.
Exposure to violence is a part of Washington life for Wanda Hill, 17, of Ledroit Park, whose cousin was fatally shot in the head a month ago while sitting in a car in Southeast. She often hears gunfire near her house. She said she has received no counseling.
"People die every day," Hill said. "I'm used to it. I live in D.C."
|
When activist Kenneth Barnes gives speeches decrying gun violence, he typically asks audience members to raise their hands if a family member or friend has been a victim. The response is usually about 5 percent of his adult crowds. But when he speaks to Prince George's County and District students,...
| 11.678571 | 0.982143 | 54.017857 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002214.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008021119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002214.html
|
Military Hospitals Meet New Realities
|
2008021119
|
When Pentagon planners first proposed consolidating military hospitals in the Washington region, it was aging infrastructure, not casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan, that drove the decision.
But the outcry last year over conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has forced the Pentagon to rethink how it will care for troops in the Washington region, the hub for wounded service members returning to the United States.
As the Defense Department moves forward with a $2 billion undertaking that includes a massive expansion of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda and the construction of an Army hospital at Fort Belvoir, the scale and the cost of the projects have grown in direct response to the fallout from Walter Reed.
"Certainly, the amount going into building infrastructure wouldn't be as high without it," said Rear Adm. John M. Mateczun, commander of a joint task force set up to oversee the hospitals.
Overall costs for closing Walter Reed and moving its services to Bethesda and Fort Belvoir have risen 71 percent since the initial 2005 projection, making this "the largest infrastructure investment that has ever been made in military medicine," Mateczun said.
Advanced neurological equipment for troops with brain injuries, a rehabilitation center for amputees, more space for visiting families, even renovated hospital rooms will come with Bethesda's expansion. In addition, a nonprofit group plans to build a state-of-the-art center for troops suffering from traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.
At Fort Belvoir, a 120-bed hospital will be built faster and will accommodate some wounded troops with orthopedic and mental health concerns. The Army will begin pouring the foundation this month for a facility three times the size of DeWitt Army Community Hospital.
The decision to close Walter Reed was approved by the Pentagon's base realignment and closure commission in 2005. The focus was on replacing the aging Walter Reed with a premier medical center at Bethesda, saving money in the long term and streamlining Army, Navy and Air Force medical care in the region, said Charles Battaglia, executive director of the 2005 BRAC Commission.
But even as the proposal was approved by Congress and President Bush in 2005, wounded soldiers were pouring into Walter Reed at the rate of about 1,000 a month.
A year ago, a series in The Washington Post documented poor living conditions for veterans recovering from wounds there, as well as red tape that left many of the soldiers trapped in bureaucracy.
"The BRAC world didn't really think about the war in Iraq or the patient load," said David K. Oliveria, BRAC program manager for the Navy hospital. "It's kind of like driving a race car while it's racing down the track, and saying, by the way, I need two new tires."
The need to rethink the new hospital's design led the Navy to delay completion of its draft environmental impact study from July, then October, before finally releasing it in December.
|
When Pentagon planners first proposed consolidating military hospitals in the Washington region, it was aging infrastructure, not casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan, that drove the decision.
| 18.866667 | 1 | 30 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/david_lynch_talks_about_the_de.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/david_lynch_talks_about_the_de.html
|
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020819
|
JOZEVZ.us On: From American Prison Eclat Cometh:
Good Morning "Mixied-Multiples" of Sweet Sweet SPACE-SHIP Earth me Mavorite's, me Sporade's.
1) The Anonymous blogger has their TIME & Facts wrong. That post is as stale (old-Song) as your cracking Leather shoes! Please Post some NEW Dates of the Eclatarian Movement, if any, not out of Context via old sources like above.
Note Your's cited or Someones Stupid "Sources: [Harry W. Theriault]. Grass Roots of the New Song. Millington, TN: Book University of the New Song, 1979.
Lightbringer Shiloh [Harry W. Theriault]. Holy Mizan, Supreme Paratestament of the New Song. Bend, OR: Sacred Text Press, 1982."
2) [Pre-Apocalyptic thinking] "Religious Jealousy Psychosis" and [Pre-Apocalyptic] Syndrome" are real sicknesses & thus is now again comming out on this WAPO Blogg, or Vamping out of their 'Closet's' somewhere, so to speaketh, in Jealous-Hood! Wow, such Lieing, ommitting, WORD MERCHANTS & Bollixing Conspirators!
Hint:; The Answer is in the 'Right/Seeing-self not thinking, via World(s), as Cure Stupid!
Note: Please try not to Plagerize O.U.R. Philosophy & NEW-SONG comming from ALL The Oldy's Songs that still contain some Oldy's therein & therefrom.... "i" Jacob Jozevz have "ALL RIGHTS" to any Movie, Book & other intellectual Property to ALL of Brethren(s) Mr. HARRY ["Shiloh"] W. THERiAULT's works & Agreements!! Except, Samizdat Editions are Neutral & thus Free!
i.e., The "ECLATi-ON-BiBLE", aka the "HOLY-COSMIC-BALANCE" (HoCoBa-Mizan, 1998. Only 144-pamphlets-inprint). And Soon, in 2008/9 a totally new & 'REVISED' Edition is Cometh for All HUMATE-KIND(s) to Live forever more Happy, unto End , hence pointing-out the Real Apocalypse, aka REVELATION (opposite of Secrets or Hidden like MANNA/UMMAH/KARMA) and is the Holy Cosmic TRUTH (opposite Of MYTH) and more Beauty Philosophy that Humates (not longer HUMANS) will walk in THE LiGHT OF "IT" (Eponymous-ECLATi) etc.. ENJOY.
Note: You said; According to the Church, " Eclat" is the " new name" of the divinity referred to in Revelation 3:2, thus the church is also termed the Eclatarian Movement. Eclatarianity is the highest fulfillment of Christian prophecy.
The end of the Christian era, the era of grace, is the beginning of the Eclat era. The church considers the American governmental and bureaucratic system to be so corrupt that there is no more time for grace.
The message of the Church of the New Song is the word of life. The Law of Nature is to act and have power. " Eclat is the Light and the deed is love; if you seek the Light, do the deed."
On Eclati-ON's TETRA-NEEDS: Man' s basic needs are said to be food, Shelter, Clothes & and someone to love. When these have been attained, men should busy themselves helping others attain their basic needs.
The teachings of the church are summarized in Holy Mizan, termed a " para-testament." The paratestament is a third testament coming after the first, or Old, Testament and the second, or New, Testament.
Hello World; Please know that the ANONYMOUS person who 'Pasted'd' the C.O.N.-job, is an extremely Pre-Apocalyptic Jealous Psychopath & wrongly expresses a PRE-Apocalyptic Psychosis, thus mirroring thier Apathetic False-EGO.
Under ECLATi-ON- Gridarian-Democracy and TRANSFiNITE-CIVILIZATION of GOVERNMENT or their RULE of LAW, that,
The Sin of "Ommission of the TRUTH" (opposite of MYTH telling or singing) or distorting such , of the Old-Mizan (PARA-TESTAMENT) is a PHOTON-ESSENCE Orthogonol Disturbance that will delay ones Photon-Mist Form (re-Appearing in a Biofinite-immortal Frontal Lobe Again....)
NOTE: The 'HOLY MIZAN' is been over ruled, by the "DELIVEROR" and is been replaced (1989) with "THE BOOK OF T*R*A*N*S*F*i*N*i*T*Y" & What TO-DO-NEXT (1,022 Pages total) for World-Peace, Healing Of Nations, International & National Government Leadership Guides, etc...
Note again: Lately It has come to my attention, that there has been a sudden DEMAND or Request or Surge , on Line, for Any of the 4 Writings of Dr. "SHiLOH" Harry W. Theriault" Work/Books that are ALL SAMIZDAT. So
"i" @ JOZEVZ.US, have & will release to All the World, Them books "ON-LINE", Free of Charge!
IMPORTANT: The 'ANONYMOUS" Blogger [@ 8:39PM, either a PAGAN, a Gay Person or a BUddhist or a Pre-Apocalyptarian Religious Nut case] that Therein lies
only OLD-INFO (nothing Post 1994) on-line , about Dr. Harry W. Theriault. There are NO Write-ups of the 'BARD' or the 'Bishop Of Tellus' since 1980's!
PS: The American Born "SHiLOH", aka the "MAETREYA" aka "MAHDi" aka "DELiVEROR" and by 100-names (not 99). [pbuh et al]!!!
--- --- Excerpt; On The Very Last Page, from the Holy-Truth of 'The Book of Transfinity.." It states: "ZYGOMANTRA"
"NO one Shall Ever withhold The BOOK OF TRANSFINITY From AnyOne Who seeks IT" (BOT)54:14)
"If ye ever FLOUT TRANSFiNiTY here is the BAD-NEWS:
"'IT' will finally WIN And Ye will Finally Loose" (BOT) 48:46, 53:6, 54:1. et seq.
Note: The 'ANONYMOUS' Blogger Post above, on the "Church of The NEW Song", has re-cycled their Prejudices & skeward the Truth (opposite of MYTH) in their postings.
FACT: The "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion Book Of TRANSFiNITY" [OUR-BOT] is replaced the "CONS" via "SHOLOH" Transfinity, in later 1990's because , while 'Shiloh' was in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT (late 70's early 80's) that Mr. Jerry Dorrough, coadjutor of Tellus, had attempted a COUP or Hijack (out of classic Religious Jealousy) the true teachings of the ECLATARiAN-FAiTH in Progress!!!
Note: Black African MUSLOMS/MOSLEMS/MUSLEM had wanted "Harry" Dead! That is how jealous they were.
Note: Even Back-Then WE 'ECLATi-ON(s), not OFF(s) saw the, near future, Handwriting's on the walls about ISLAM's UGLY Jealous HEAD & what they wanted to do to AMERICA.
Hence 911 tragedy, of which, ironically, "i" too lost my Lively Hood there on 911!!!!!!("i" used to post Lawyers on the Internet) ......
So SHILOH had to take certain Precaution therein & therefrom, and IT was Decided (among-US, secretly leaving out INSTIGATOR, Jerry Dorrough & his Breakaway Jail-House-Army, like Lier's not Jail-House Lawyers of which WE are professionally) that
He [The BISHOP] will tell a Federal Judge That It was all along a 'GAME"....! And so
The Musloms retreated from their self Serving Islamic Contract (FITWAH) (after his statement was recorded in Law Books) that's when the Black-Islam-Brother-Hood 'Stoped Their "Gang-Up" sprees, , Jail-House Death squads from assassinating "SHILOH", Harry W. Theriault et al!
Note:'SHILOH' a/ka/a THE-BARD had opened-up the 'TRANSFiNITE-UNIVERSITY in Enola, Pennsylvania of Which "i" am an "O.R.M" [Ordained Relationship/Revelator Minister] and graduate of the Philosophy & works of Transfinity via His Honorable SHILOH, The Photon/Bringer Of The Apocalypse On Space-Ship Earth, for a TiME....!
Yes! "For out of Prison or Poverty they will cometh [to save World]..."
STOP PAGANS, STOP YOGi's, STOP BUDDHISTS, STOP HINDU's, Stop ye Jealousy 'ECLATi-OFF' S.H.I.T!
< ?: +)/ Eeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
""Nothing real can be threatened, Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the Peace of God"
"Let the breath of this timeless voice of resurrected mind rekindle in you the ancient memory of your own perfect reality."
Please See O.U.R. Sistar (PROPHET of many) and Revelator of New York City, Ms. Helen Schucman [pbuh et al]. Note: She (Sistar HELEN) Is The APOCALYPTARIAN(s) 1st, First-SPORADE (1O.U.R. st-Eclatarian/ECLATi-On/HUMATE Woman PROPHET via the MELCHIZEDEK Peace Blessing...)!
Please See this Anti-ECLATi-ON's [or Mormon or ACourseInMiracle] article by some Imported "YOGi' Lovers , here in AMERiCA & their imported Buddhist Lovers Too.
Note: These ,Oprah Winfrey loving "SECRET" folks, above, are also into that RUSSiAN lady BLAVATSKY (a coloborator Theosophist of HITLER) which is unjustly another mindboggling 'Imported' Religion System Not Made nor Bred Nor Born genuinely in America.
Note: American Northerner, Mary Baker EDDY formed the "Christian-Science-Monitor believing in Jesus via 'Spirit Recognition' through thinking Man is G-d's image or likeness, which can heal ones health. Please know that Eddy Plagerized work in progress back then, of her Master & teacher the great 1st Amrican TRANSIDENTAL MENTALIST Mr. Phiness QUIMBY.
Note: On URANTIA & SCIENTOLOGY systems , eventhough they are 'Made-in-America that, They are both reliant on PSychiatry/Psychology type of Ego Control & also Technology dependent.
iMPORTANT: E*C*L*A*T*i-ON(s) Do-Not rely on Either Psychology or Technology! Only TEMPERATURE Awareness. aka Eclati-On "TiME" where we are between the two Points of Universal Palindrome via the Holy No-Man's Eternity Avoiding Loneliness ,In & Of Us-All (Animates & inanimates) , Justly for a time (clock) , via Eponymous-E*C*L*A*T's HOLY COSMIC Miraculous ,Absolute Hot & Absolute Cold MIZAN (balancing Act) Job! aka G-d Doing IT's Work through Us-All! Hence
We Humates posses a HEURISTIC/a/o, an "Immortal-THING", that was never created Nor Can Ever be Destroyed (only flse EGO) and that,
We arise from the ECLATi's Holy Cosmic Stuff & 'IT's' (the Creator of OUR FIAT-LUX) Things, again, for justly another Eschatological breath-taking moment via the Holy Cosmic MAGMAPERCOLATION-EFFECT (not biblio Mosaic becomings) DUE-TO-BE Moment and
concieved, [BORN RAW] PRE-BAPTISED & FUTURE-BOUND READY already , long long ago out of the OCEANiC MEGAPLUME-WOMB of which ,Space-Ship Momma Poppa Earth was begot via O.U.R. Momma Poppa NEBULAE Phenomenon right at the Holy Cosmic-Shipyard so to speaketh. And Soo
Papa Momma Nebula is concieved via the DARK (invisible) & Black Matter & Energies that have Coalesced 'ITSELF' (another name of Eponymous Eclat, is never a HE nor a SHE) or 'IT' (Eclati) Condensed 'ITSELF' for US via the Holy Cosmic non-gravity buil-in ENTROPY mechanism of IT's own "TiME" (not time) expression, thus being what one is becoming. Yes, WE Eclati-On's are All the Same Gondoo (hitSay in Pig Latin).
Today, Miraculously (zero Sin/Cursed), we HUMATES (not Humans) appear, in a Photon-Mist by-product, but locked-into a temporary Frontal-Lobe Biocarbon Base & IT's jacket(Body) of Many planet Hopings, for a time, between Positive Pressure & Negative Pressure Phenomena & then Goeth via the PLASMATRICULATION Effect & away from this world/Realm between O.U.R. Photon Spectrum that Eternally has Each HUMATE , the Holy-Cosmic- Channel(s).
iNCAMERA (Secret): That O.U.R. "HOLY-COSMIC-CHANNEL" via IT's FREQUENCY" is Unique to Each HUMATES (not humans anymore) eternally & can only be seen only by the receipient of their 'Always-On' immortal HEURISTIC/a/o.
Example: One can Acsualy levitate (Unseeing to Biofinite Forms) away from ones DEAD or Close to Dead Body in ALL-CASES! Another
Example is if a Group of Folks Die Simultaneously that they (selfish-Heuristic/a/o) see themselves & never their Loved-Ones!!!!! Another is
if one is aborted in a Fetus or gets Blown-up in a Million Peices, One is always Holsum & Holistically inclined!
Last But Not Least: Each unique HEURISTIC/a/o Gender never Changes. A Man Here is a Man There. Note: Being trapped as a Woman in a Mans Body does Happen!!! Or a Mans Body in a Womans Body!!! So in the Other Planet Hopings Realms, that these Heuristic/a/o imbalances get Corrected via the 5th fifth Dimentional Place, of which there are Nine (9) in All!
Happy G-D ("I") + Self ("i") Hunting = LiFE/Photons Philosophy.
HAPPY DUE-TO-BE TRANSFINITE (Reality) moments. Soo
H.appy E.very .Day! Use HED 1st, then Heart 2nd, then Guts3rd & buts Last!
Remember: Bio-Finite Death is never TRANSFiNiTE-DEATH. Hence We was Pre-Baptised so we was never created nor Can ever be destroyed. Justly & Like-Wise do onself et al a favor, just try try to be Nice or very Nice but not Too too nice!
Yes! There is such a Thing as Being 'Too Too Nice. Ya Ya! Hence the expression, "NO More Mr. & Mrs. Nice Guy (Mavorite) or Gal (Sporade)!
May XTRA-PHOTONS shine upon OUR Immortal brave BOY's & GIRL's whom Died, yet never Have, and those defending this HOLY COSMIC Space-Ship, of Many Many Many... and the Great REPUBLIC for which IT stands!!!!!
Say: "HOoooooLllyyy Noooooo Mmmennnnnn"! HOLY-NO-MEN! Say IT! say being ITSELF! never a He! Nevera She!
BEHOLD: O.U.R. G-D or Eponymous ECLAT + "i" [I+i] = LiFE/Photons "EW-SONG" (AQUARIus-AGE) coming from All O.U.R. Oldy's (PISCES-AGE) but some goody's!
HALLALEjA! Praise the NOT-Jealous & thus Not-Fearing Holy No-Mon Lord EPONYMOUS-ECLAT (and by 100 names no longer 99) the creator of O.U.R. immortal Holy Cosmic Heartbeats, avoiding Loneliness in and of Us-All, animates & inanimates of the Creators STUFFS/THINGS, hence, We are Together Forever With Source-One!
We HUMATE Frontal-Lobe Kinds are Students Together Of O.ne U,niversal R.eligion lord Eponymous ECLATi & We Never Graduate! How about You HuMAN, not HUMATE yet????
- Jacob JOZEVZ (O.rdained Relationship/Revelator M.inister (ORM) of The "HOLY COSMIC FEELERS FAiTH" and defender of the "O,ne U.niversal R.eligion Book Of TRANSFiNiTY" (OUR-BOT) and a BIOMENTALIST & CRUXOLOGIST).
< ?: +)/ Umm Ummm Ya Ya Monna Poppa Monsa Mono's!
|
Under God on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/
| 180.647059 | 0.764706 | 0.882353 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/02/religious_youth_bridges_or_bom.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/02/religious_youth_bridges_or_bom.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020819
|
America is the most religiously diverse nation in human history and the most religiously devout country in the West. This combination of diversity and devotion has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of locally-based interfaith groups all over the country.
Diana Eck has been following this phenomenon for two decades from her perch at Harvard. In her 2006 Presidential Address to the American Academy of Religion, she calls the burgeoning interfaith movement in America the new convivencia â a term generally applied to Muslim Spain in the Middle Ages, a time when Christians, Muslims and Jews worked together to build a society based on pluralism.
Most of these interfaith groups are based on sacred text study, visiting one anotherâs houses of worship, discussing the meaning of religious holidays, and occasionally arguing about the politics of religious conflicts around the world.
When I travel to speak to these groups, they all ask, âWe keep trying to get young people involved, and it always fails. What can we do?â
I used to say, âStop doing things that bore them.â But it turned out that didnât help anybody. So now I tell them the story of Janet Penn and Interfaith Action in Sharon, Mass., a wonderful example of how young people are taking the lead in interfaith work, and inspiring adults to follow.
Sharon - a professional suburb of Boston with a large Jewish population and growing communities of Muslims and Hindus - was playing host to a group of diverse young people from the Middle East. The community couldnât figure out what activities to plan for these youth, and Janet, a member of the Jewish community, said in exasperation that if they couldnât agree on what do with the international visitors, maybe the young people should take the lead.
To everyoneâs surprise, they did â and planned a wildly successful program (also, to peopleâs surprise).
It turned out all the young people needed was an opportunity to plan and lead a program of significance themselves.
And that became the spark for growth for Interfaith Actionâs Youth Leadership Program â a group of over fifty young people from the Sharonâs many faith and ethnic communities who come together twice a month to plan interfaith programs for the whole community. The trick is providing young people with the tools to run a sophisticated enterprise â skill-building seminars in how to run meetings, facilitate difficult dialogues, plan large events, etc â and then turning the keys over to them.
Community-wide Iftars â the meal that breaks the fast during the month of Ramadan â are becoming increasingly common across the country. In Sharon, young people of Interfaith Action organized an Iftar at a local synagogue to celebrate the confluence of the sacred seasons of Ramadan, the Jewish High Holy Days, and the Hindu festival of Navaratri. Last year 400 people from many faith traditions joined together for a large meal and interfaith conversation. (Check out a great video on the Interfaith Action youth program.)
Sharon has its share of visiting foreign dignitaries, and it is often this youth leadership group who organizes the community conversations with, for example, senior Imams from the Middle East and Uzbekistan.
They have facilitated more than one difficult dialogue about religion between adults in Sharon who might not otherwise talk, and go into local middle and high schools to teach classes on building respect across religious boundaries. Last year, they worked with Harvard and Diana Eck to run a regional high school conference on religious differences, and politely told the adults that only young people were invited in the room.
âIt was great,â Janet told me. âAt least thatâs what the kids told me.â
And if you think that leafy suburbs like Sharon donât have problems with ethnic and religious discrimination, you should go see one of Sharonâs high school sports teams compete. Fans from other schools have thrown pennies at them and shouted slurs like âtowel headsâ. The truth is that programs that bring people from different backgrounds together are required everywhere from inner cities to rural areas to professional suburbs. Every community should have interfaith youth projects.
Wendy Kopp of Teach for America often says that one of the most important results of her program is the long-term impact it has on the participants â they are life-long agents of educational change. The current Chancellor of the DC public schools, Michelle Rhee, is a Teach for America graduate.
Same with Interfaith Action in Sharon, MA. Beyond the immediate and profound impact that these young people are having in their own community, they are gaining invaluable experience and skills as interfaith bridge builders - experience and skills they will take wherever they go.
Iâve gotten to know one of the graduates of the program well, Mike Garber, who is now a student at George Washington University. As a high schooler in Sharon, Mike facilitated dialogue between Orthodox Jews and traditional Muslims in his home. As a college student, he is building interfaith programs on his campus, and is taking leadership in broader Washington DC and national interfaith youth efforts.
In ten or twenty years, Mike Garber may well be a diplomat defusing a faith-based conflict in India, Sri Lanka or the Middle East.
You would think that Janet Penn, Mike Garber and Interfaith Action in Sharon have all the money they need to hire a staff, pay for events, send their youth leaders to conferences and perhaps fund a few college scholarships. After all, whatâs more important than training young people to be interfaith bridge-builders in their own communities, and inspiring them towards a vocation of building religious pluralism.
Alas, thatâs not the case. Janet and her colleagues are largely volunteers. Interfaith Action in Sharon, while it has grown dramatically over the past few years and continues to have impressive achievements, continues to run on a shoestring budget.
Too often, people expect the folks who train interfaith bridge-builders, especially in youth programs, to make do on bake sales.
Just remember, as people like Janet Penn make do on Scooby snacks, there is a religious extremist out there who is doubling his youth program. He is identifying likely kids for the work of religious bigotry and violence. His recruiters are talking to them right now. They are sending them to training camps where they are being brainwashed in religious hatred, preparing to be deployed to wreak havoc who knows where.
And every time that religious extremist entrepreneur asks for money for his youth program, he gets it â to the tune of millions of dollars.
There is an interfaith youth movement out there to be built â a movement that can compete for the imagination and energy of the emerging generation. But unless we invest in people like Janet Penn and in programs like Interfaith Action, we will continue to see our headlines dominated by young people killing each other to the soundtrack of prayer instead of young people pointing to a new world of peace and pluralism and leading us there.
|
Eboo Patel on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/
| 165.5 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kayhan_barzegar1/2008/02/iran_eyes_the_china_card.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kayhan_barzegar1/2008/02/iran_eyes_the_china_card.html
|
Kayhan Barzegar: PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020819
|
The Current Discussion: China's on a resource-buying spree, most recently paying US$13 billion for a stake in an Australian mining company. Is this a threat to your nation and its economy? To the world's?
Chinaâs presence in Iran and the Middle East might be a potential threat for the United States given its current regional policies â but it is an opportunity for emerging nations like Iran.
For rising nations, like Iran, that tend to follow their own independent route to advancement, the best situation is a multi-polar world in which potential global powers like China can offer investments and technology to protect rising nations from the U.S. and Europeâs pressing strength. From an Iranian perspective, therefore, Chinaâs increased presence in Iran, the region, and even global economy is not at all a threat; rather, it is an opportunity to outweigh other powers.
In recent years, China has played a quiet, carefully planned economic game in Iran, which has advanced its political-strategic interests here and helped advance its presence in the Persian Gulf countries, which are the regionâs closest allies of the West. Undoubtedly, Chinaâs presence in the region satisfies those countries.
Iranâs âLook Eastâ policy has roots in its cultural-societal, geographic and political-economic connections with Asia. For many years, the Iranian perception of international relations has compelled the country to balance its political, economic and cultural affinities between West and East. In recent years, Chinaâs fast-growing economy and its extensive demand for Iranâs energy sources have reinforced Iranâs inclination to advance further economic and political-strategic cooperation with China. Today, one of Iranâs strategic goals is to bind its energy-rich resources to the South-Asia region via the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline (IPI), extending the pipeline to Chinaâs markets in future years.
Chinese presence in Iran mainly started in the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, when Western countries imposed the first round of sanctions on Iran, turning the country toward China (and Russia). Although the relations were first limited to military purchases by Iran, this soon extended to vast economic exchanges. Iranâs traditional economy is controlled by the Bazaar, a source of both economic and political power which contributes significantly to regulation of Iranâs foreign trade. State-oriented economies, cultural similarities, cheap Chinese commodities, and easy economic and banking systems and exchanges were among the factors that gradually enhanced the two sidesâ economic relations. This expansion of the relationship soon led to Chinaâs further involvement with Iranâs infrastructure economic activities, such as roads, railways and urban construction as well as oil and gas infrastructure. Those plans require a long-term Chinese presence in the country. Over the last decade, Chinaâs involvement has slowly won Iranâs confidence both in economic and political-strategic activities. As a result, today the governing elites of Iran believe that China is a reliable partner that can and will offer everything that Iran demands in crucial times.
It is expected that todayâs $14 billion Iran-China economic exchanges will reach to $20 billion in the coming year. China can also meet some of Iranâs military demands, such as rocket and satellite technology. Politically, there is some reluctance inside Iran about Chinese political support of Iran on the UN Security Council, yet given the fact that playing with the Iran card will give China some bargaining power in dealing with the United States on global strategic issues, it gives a great deal to Iran in benefiting from the China card as well.
Lastly, some pundits argue that one of the top strategic goals for the United States in starting the Iraq war was to dominate the Middle East regionâs energy resources and control China, its potential 21st-century global rival. After Iraq, the Bush administration wanted to head toward Iran, which holds the worldâs second largest oil and natural gas reserves. But imposing pressure, sanctions, or isolation on Iran will only push the country further toward China. Thatâs another failure for the Bush administrationâs foreign policy, which will lose further strategic influence in the Middle East.
|
Kayhan Barzegar on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kayhan_barzegar1/
| 48.9375 | 0.4375 | 0.4375 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/chinas_resource_thirst_here_to.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/anwer_sher/2008/02/chinas_resource_thirst_here_to.html
|
Chinaâs Resource Thirst Here to Stay
|
2008020819
|
The Current Discussion: China's on a resource-buying spree, most recently paying US$13 billion for a stake in an Australian mining company. Is this a threat to your nation and its economy? To the world's?
Acquiring resources for economic wealth has been the hallmark of modern civilization. Whether in the context of colonial expansion, imperialist conquest or modern wars, economic gain has been one of the motivating factors for each of these actions. In the world of commerce, itâs considered perfectly normal to secure resources via acquisitions and mining rights, subject to a certain acceptable decorum on such acquisitions and conduct of mining. China's case is all the more touchy as it is not a democracy and its standing on human rights is dismal; yet the exigencies of commerce force countries that would in other cases talk of human rights and sanctions to ignore China's conduct.
China remains a resource-hungry country and it will be buying many more resources, especially oil and other vital commodities. Thankfully, it will be using money as a means of acquisition rather than tanks and guns. Thus, acquiring these resources is perhaps not a terrible act, nor indeed a threatening one. Itâs even less threatening as part of an economic rather than a political strategy. Both India and China will soon become the two most resource-hungry countries in the world, and in the decades ahead will consolidate themselves as the most demanding consumer markets. This will mean both India and China will acquire more resources through financial means, and in some cases perhaps adjust their foreign policies to meet those ends. A case in point is both China and India's reaction to the Burmese military crackdown on the Buddhist monks. Both countries were at best muted in their criticism of the military junta given their economic ties to the Burmese government. In a sense, this political acceptance of gross violations of human rights reflects the U.S. tolerance of China's own behavior with respect to human rights and the issue of Tibet.
In short, our societyâs reaction to economic resource acquisition is really dependent on our political outlooks, which should be consistent, or at least fair, in their assessment. Sadly this has not always been the case, and human history is full of the hypocrisy of our assessments. If an Arab country acquires the company that manages U.S. ports, it is considered a threat. But if China acquires mining assets, perhaps thatâs more acceptable â indeed, if a U.S. company acquires assets in Europe or elsewhere, itâs called progress. In so far as this Chinese acquisition is concerned, it would seem an economic motive and perhaps as benign as buying a U.K. port management company, but then the perception of threat remains quite subdued.
In terms of the future, we have to get used to the effects of this globalization where more resource assets will be targeted for acquisition, and we will have to fair and consistent in our approach.
|
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.
| 16.939394 | 0.393939 | 0.454545 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/2008/02/chinas_rise_to_disaster.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/2008/02/chinas_rise_to_disaster.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020819
|
The Current Discussion: China's on a resource-buying spree, most recently paying US$13 billion for a stake in an Australian mining company. Is this a threat to your nation and its economy? To the world's?
I could say yes, China is a threat, because the obvious target of this particular movement is to counter the global aspirations of Brazilâs largest mining company, Vale. China is right now challenging Vale on a bid to buy part of the U.K.-Swiss company Xstrata, another global and diversified mining company. The Brazilian Vale has already made an offer to buy Xstrata, and now China is announcing its interest in buying a 34-percent share of the company.
I really think, however, that this is the least of Chinaâs threats to the world. China is clearly stressing the planet by taking from earth more than it can give. Its target is not competition with any company in particular, or to control the market of ore in itself. It is competing for the worldâs natural resources so it can use them beyond all limits of sustainability.
China has an authoritarian regime and has been spreading its power all over the world. Global corporations such as Yahoo and Google are accepting unacceptable restraints on freedom of information in order to do business there. The Chinese presence in Africa has reproduced the colonialist pattern and is empowering dictators in the region. There are many reasons to fear Chinaâs increasing power, but equity acquisitions is not one of them. China is on a hegemonic gamble for resources, imposing its own views for the market economy and democracy.
China is becoming a superpower with an outdated political system and predatory practices, with no system of checks and balances and no accountability or transparency. The Partyâs bureaucrats face no limit to their decisions, most of which have a significant global impact. It can be the source of an environmental, economic and political disaster for the world, because there is no doubt that it is becoming one of the most powerful countries on earth.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
More Posts About: Brazil , China
|
Miriam Leitao at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/miriam_leitao/
| 23.111111 | 0.444444 | 0.444444 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/hyphenated_american.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/02/hyphenated_american.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020819
|
"And he didn't get into the issue of government forms. They don't ask you race."
Most government forms in the United States do not ask for race, and the few that do always include the option of not specifying. It is explicitly illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, national origin, gender, etc., and there is a federal agency charged with jumping down the throat of anyone who does so. Data on race is gathered only for statistical purposes, so the government (and society at large) has some idea of who's being left behind.
Running through this discussion is the idea that if the government doesn't ask your race on forms, it can't be discriminating. However, most people know this to be false. There are any number of more subtle race indicators. Looking at what happens in, for example, France provides evidence that not asking for race on government forms simply makes it easier to get away with discrimination (since offenders can facilely claim that they weren't aware of race), and ignore the overall effects of racism (which cannot be measured).
"I agree with Nelson that the hyphen is a tag, like a star of david on your arm. Jews were OBLIGATED to wear it. Same goes with your hyphened status in the US."
Wow, what an incredibly ignorant and offensive thing to say. First of all, the hyphenated labels are almost universally self-applied. There is no Gestapo running around forcing people to use hyphenated terms. Indeed, the most-used hyphenated term (African-American) has recently gone out of fashion, exactly because black people decided they'd rather be called "black." It's all about respecting peoples' feelings on how they'd like to be identified. Also, unlike the case of Jews in Europe, it's typically very easy to determine an American's race simply by looking at him, so it makes no difference what you call him. Everyone is going to be just as aware of race regardless.
"Racism in homes I understand (it happens here), but having it institutionalized? I think it's wrong."
So do Americans. That's why we did away with every vestige of institutionalized racism 40 years ago. What you guys seem to be missing is that having the institutions pretend to ignore race is actually an insidious form of institutionalized racism. The fact is that races, and racism, exist whether the government aknowledges it or not, and having the government ignore it makes things worse, not better. It makes the oppressed people invisible.
To put it another way: while a genuinely post-racial society would indeed not bother to aknowledge race, it's a fallacy to imagine that ignoring race is a productive way of creating a post-racial society.
Also, are we to understand that you don't think racism is wrong "in homes?"
"But I feel Venezuela, because of the TRUE melting pot that it is, is more evolved in this matter. The US will be social-racially like Venezuela in around 100 years. "
"More evolved," eh? It's pretty ignorant to think that the United States and Venezuela are on the same path in this regard, and extremely chauvinistic to imagine that Venezuela is 100 years ahead of the United States... The social and demographic dynamics of the United States are vastly different than in Venezuela (ongoing immigration, religious pluralism, etc). The two countries are simply on very different courses when it comes to these kinds of demographic issues, and have been for quite some time.
"It will be a true melting pot and not just a fondue of different white cheeses with multicolored vegetables as a side order."
Good metaphor. But, as I said a few posts ago, it's far from clear that a "true melting pot" is a desirable goal, at least for the United States. It sounds nice and all, but you quickly find out that most people aren't all that excited about having their ethnic identity subsumed and eliminated. Which makes it problematic for a country committed to large-scale immigration, among other things. A better approach is to learn to respect and embrace diversity, and so create a place where all races and welcomed and valued. That's what the hyphenated-American thing is about: creating a way for people to take pride in their background (African-, or Italian-, or whatever-) while emphasizing their common membership in our nation and society (-American). Yes, we still have a long way to go towards creating a utopia where all ehtnicities can live in peace, but it still beats ignoring racism in the naive hope that it will somehow disappear.
|
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
| 61.933333 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702674.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702674.html
|
GOP Plaudits for McCain -- and a Few Olive Branches
|
2008020819
|
Just weeks ago, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), who has fought bitterly with McCain over earmark spending items, called him "erratic" and unfit for the White House. But yesterday, Cochran lined up behind his colleague. "Oh, yes, I'll support John," he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) was famously sworn at by McCain, repeatedly, in front of other senators last spring when he questioned McCain's knowledge of an immigration bill. Having stayed neutral in the presidential race, Cornyn endorsed McCain just hours after former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney withdrew, vowing to do "whatever I can to support his candidacy."
Cornyn, Cochran and other Republicans lined the aisles of the Senate chamber yesterday to congratulate McCain, who returned for the first time since Dec. 18 to vote on an economic stimulus plan.
"The Republican nomination is essentially over, and I think there is widespread pride among Republican [senators] that one of our members is going to be the nominee for president of the United States," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters minutes before McCain arrived.
McConnell, one of the Republicans who have jousted with McCain, said that his colleague's campaign was left for dead last summer when it essentially went bankrupt, making his comeback an inspirational tale. "He certainly rallied from what was apparent defeat, and it was a very, very impressive performance that, I think, all of the Republican senators are proud of," McConnell said.
Romney met earlier in the day with congressional supporters at the Republican National Committee to inform them of his decision, which he announced at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He did not endorse McCain, but most of the former governor's supporters said they would.
Sens. Robert Bennett (Utah) and Jim DeMint (S.C.), both Romney supporters who had questioned McCain's conservative credentials, were among the senators who queued up to shake McCain's hand.
McCain, 71, and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who will turn 81 in 10 days, engaged in what appeared to be celebratory shadowboxing. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who crossed the aisle to support McCain's candidacy and has stumped with him across the country, stayed glued to McCain's side for at least 10 minutes.
Still there were signs of trouble for McCain, whose greatest support in the primaries came from independents and moderate Republicans. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who had supported former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, said conservative voters still want McCain to explain ideological transgressions on immigration, campaign finance reform and opposition to President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
"John doesn't need advice from me, but clearly, conservatives want to hear him speak in detail about those issues . . . what he would in those areas as president," Vitter said.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) suggested party unity will come not from McCain's efforts but from the potential of a White House run by either of the Democratic front-runners. "He marches to his own drum; I think people appreciate that," said Gregg, who backed Romney. "He's not going to have to rally [conservatives]. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to do that."
McCain, who rarely votes because of campaign duties, returned a day after Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Obama (D-Ill.) showed up for votes, also creating a post-Super Tuesday stir.
Senators in both parties were ecstatic that, barring a calamity, one of their own will be sworn in as president Jan. 20, 2009. It would be just the third ascension of a sitting senator to the White House, though several former senators became president after leaving the chamber.
"I can't wait to read the stories about how it is possible for a senator to be elected president," McConnell said.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 98.5 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701542.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701542.html
|
Justice Dept. 'Cannot' Probe Waterboarding, Mukasey Says
|
2008020819
|
The attorney general yesterday rejected growing congressional calls for a criminal investigation of the CIA's use of simulated drownings to extract information from its detainees, as Vice President Cheney called it a "good thing" that the CIA was able to learn what it did from those subjected to the practice.
The remarks reflected a renewed effort by the Bush administration to defend its past approval of the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding, which some lawmakers, human rights experts and international lawyers have described as illegal torture.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Justice Department lawyers concluded that the CIA's use of waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 was legal, and therefore the department cannot investigate whether a crime had occurred.
"That would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice," he said.
New controversy about waterboarding has swirled in Washington since CIA Director Michael V. Hayden confirmed Tuesday that the CIA used the tactic on al-Qaeda prisoners Khalid Sheik Mohammed; Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, commonly known as Abu Zubaida; and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at a secret detention site. In congressional testimony, he defended the treatment as necessary to obtain information about potential terrorist attacks.
The next day, White House spokesman Tony Fratto provoked criticism from lawmakers and others when he said that even though the CIA no longer uses waterboarding, it could do so again with Bush's approval, which would "depend on the circumstances," including whether "an attack might be imminent."
Independent legal experts have said the use of a tactic meant to coerce detainees to talk by making them fear death through drowning is barred by U.S. laws and treaties under all circumstances, a viewpoint the administration has made clear it rejects. At the same time, Fratto and Hayden yesterday played down the idea that the administration could freely order more simulated drownings.
"In my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden told the House intelligence committee.
In 2006, Hayden said, he officially prohibited CIA operatives from using waterboarding after a Supreme Court decision forcing the administration to respect a Geneva Conventions article barring "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" of U.S. detainees. He said he doubts the practice would be considered legal now.
Fratto said the tactic could not be used again unless the president obtained new advice about its legality, personally approved it and notified Congress. "I'm not aware that anyone has plans to use it in this program," Fratto said.
He said that although lawyers had determined that waterboarding was legal when it was used in 2002 and 2003, new laws passed since then would have to be considered. "We have made clear that the law has changed. That has given greater clarity to these questions," he said. But he declined to rule it out, saying, "We are not going to speculate on the future."
Cheney added to the cacophony yesterday when he said of those subjected to special CIA's interrogation methods, "It's a good thing we had them in custody, and it's a good thing we found out what they knew." Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington about multiple counterterrorism policies Bush has approved, he added: "Would I support those same decisions again today? You're damn right I would."
The Bush administration's sudden willingness to discuss waterboarding -- after five years of official silence about it -- follows the launch of a special U.S. attorney's investigation into the CIA's destruction in 2005 of interrogation videotapes that included footage of waterboarding and other harsh techniques.
Many Democrats this week have called on Mukasey to open a separate criminal investigation to focus on the CIA's use of waterboarding and whether it violates U.S. anti-torture laws. Although Mukasey suggested in testimony last week that the tapes investigation could include that subject, his position has since appeared to have hardened.
Waterboarding, he told the House committee, "cannot possibly be the subject of . . . a Justice Department investigation" because its use was approved by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mukasey made a parallel argument about the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, saying the Justice Department could not investigate that program because it was approved at the outset by the department's lawyers.
Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, called for an outside investigator. "Everyone in the world knows that waterboarding is torture and illegal," Cox said. "The U.S. government admits having done it. Yet the highest law enforcement official in the land refuses to investigate this scandal."
In waterboarding, a prisoner generally is strapped to an inclined board with his head lower than his feet. Water is poured over his mouth and nose, which are covered with cellophane or cloth, producing a sensation of drowning. The tactic, which dates to at least the Spanish Inquisition, has been prosecuted as torture by the U.S. military and condemned by the State Department when used by despotic governments.
Waterboarding has become a signature controversy for Mukasey, a former federal judge whom the Senate nearly rejected as attorney general last fall over his refusal to say whether the tactic constituted illegal torture.
In his appearance last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey said waterboarding would be torture if it were done to him. But he declined to say whether it was legal, saying that was irrelevant because the practice is no longer used.
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who had threatened this week to hold up the appointment of a deputy attorney general over the controversy, said yesterday he would allow the vote to proceed, but he decried the administration's policy.
Durbin said "CIA agents have been put in jeopardy by misguided counsel from the Justice Department" on interrogation practices, and Mukasey's "refusal to repudiate waterboarding does tremendous damage to America's values and image in the world and places Americans at risk of being subjected to waterboarding by enemy forces."
Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this report.
|
The attorney general yesterday rejected growing congressional calls for a criminal investigation of the CIA's use of simulated drownings to extract information from its detainees, as Vice President Cheney called it a "good thing" that the CIA was able to learn what it did from those subjected to the...
| 22.314815 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702112.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020702112.html
|
'Human Activity' Blamed for Fish Ills
|
2008020819
|
That finding, announced today, does not pinpoint the pollutant that is causing the "intersex" condition. It also does not answer questions about whether the abnormal fish indicate a threat to human health, as the Potomac is a major source of drinking water for the area.
But it does seem to confirm what scientists have suspected since the fish were first found in 2003. The cause, they said, is probably some pollutant created by humans -- perhaps a farm chemical, or treated sewage, which can contain human hormones or residue from birth-control pills.
Any of these might have fooled the fishes' natural hormone systems, causing male fish to take on female characteristics.
"I feel comfortable saying human activity" is the cause, said Vicki S. Blazer, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and the primary author of the study. "The question is, which human activity? And is it something we can do anything about?"
Scientists first found the abnormal fish in the South Branch of the Potomac, a shallow tributary in West Virginia. Since then, they have found gender-bending properties in several fish species and in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District. The District site was near the outfall of the Blue Plains sewage plant, close to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Even after these discoveries, Blazer said, scientists were nagged by one question: Was it possible that this condition was somehow natural, and not caused by pollution? If so, the condition would show up everywhere, not just in streams heavily affected by runoff from towns or farms.
They then examined a control group of smallmouth bass, caught in relatively pristine rivers outside the Potomac watershed in West Virginia. Blazer said they did find some intersex characteristics in these fish -- 22 percent of the male fish at the headwaters of the Greenbrier River, for instance, seemed to be growing eggs.
But Blazer said that conditions were much worse in the Shenadoah River, which runs through an area of Virginia thick with poultry farms and steadily gaining in population. In two of the three Shenandoah sites, she said, every fish they dissected had eggs.
She said this data seemed to confirm the theory that the more humans live or farm nearby, the more likely fish are to be abnormal.
Blazer said that the next step is to try to determine whether intersex fish are in worse overall health than others. She said that, even if the eggs do not harm the fish, the pollutants that cause them might also degrade the fishes' immune systems or their organs.
|
Federal scientists seeking to learn why male fish in the Potomac River are growing eggs said yesterday that they've made an important determination: New research shows that the fish symptoms are worse in streams near towns or near heavily farmed areas.
| 11.318182 | 0.659091 | 0.931818 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701772.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701772.html
|
Aid Groups Work to Avert Disaster Among Chadians in Cameroon
|
2008020819
|
The first two truckloads of food from the World Food Program arrived in the town of Kousseri in northern Cameroon, and an airlift of 37 tons of high-energy biscuits was due soon, spokeswoman Stephanie Savariaud said. U.N. agencies also prepared to reopen a refugee center, about 20 miles away in Maltam, that was used in previous conflicts.
Humanitarian officials are struggling to assess the scale and likely duration of the refugee crisis. It was not clear how many Chadians intended to return home immediately to their country's capital, N'Djamena, as a rebel attack there faltered.
Some refugees have found hotel rooms or been taken in by friends and relatives in Kousseri, Savariaud said, but she added that many women and children are living on the streets or in ill-equipped public buildings. Several thousand refugees could be seen in the Madana neighborhood of Kousseri, near a bridge that leads over the Chari River to N'Djamena.
"People are scattered all over town," Savariaud said, speaking from Kousseri. "The most vulnerable are sleeping outside or in schools or in mosques."
The rebels remained in full retreat Thursday, heading east to the Sudanese border, where they have bases in the troubled Darfur region of neighboring Sudan.
Overall, aid groups estimated the number of Chadian refugees at 30,000 to 70,000. The refugee camp in Maltam has a capacity of 100,000, though no one has been moved there yet.
"The situation is difficult and not yet under control, so we are concerned about the most vulnerable," said Maurizio Giuliano, a U.N. humanitarian official in Cameroon.
Relief supplies en route to Kousseri include sleeping mats, blankets, tents, soap and medical supplies, including 25,000 doses of vaccines against meningitis and measles, officials said.
"We are worried about the risk of epidemic," Giuliano said. "We are worried about getting food. We are worried about shelter."
The concerns were similar in eastern Chad, where hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced by the Darfur conflict live in camps. The fighting in the Chadian capital interrupted aid deliveries to the camps, and some humanitarian groups evacuated workers from the country.
Conditions continued to improve in N'Djamena as bodies of those killed during the fighting were collected and people moved about more freely. The conflict led to looting of shops and medical clinics but did not cause extensive damage to the city.
"It has been quiet for three days now, so people are increasingly coming out," said Inah Kaloga, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, speaking from N'Djamena.
Also Thursday, Chadian President Idriss D¿by called on the European Union to accelerate its plans to deploy 3,700 peacekeepers to eastern Chad to protect refugees there. The deployment was stalled by the rebel attacks last weekend.
"We want to launch a solemn appeal to the European Union and France . . . to make sure that this force is put in place as quickly as possible to lighten the load we are carrying," D¿by said in an interview broadcast on France's Europe 1 radio, according to the Associated Press.
D¿by also said he was "ready to pardon" six employees of the French charity Zoe's Ark who were convicted of kidnapping in a highly publicized case last year. It was an apparent gesture of gratitude to Chad's former colonial ruler, France, which vigorously opposed the rebel assault.
The charges resulted from an attempt to relocate to France more than 100 supposed orphans from the Darfur conflict. But most of the children had close relatives, and in some cases parents, still living.
"The Chadian children did not leave. They are with their parents. We were able to avoid the worst," D¿by said in the radio interview. "What does it bring me to have five, six French people in prison?"
|
JOHANNESBURG, Feb. 7 -- The United Nations and aid groups raced Thursday to head off mass hunger and an outbreak of disease among tens of thousands of refugees from Chad who have pushed west across the border into Cameroon.
| 18.073171 | 0.536585 | 0.97561 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701162.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701162.html
|
Post Co. Names Weymouth Media Chief and Publisher
|
2008020819
|
Weymouth, 41, will also serve as the newspaper's publisher, the fifth member of the Graham newspaper dynasty to hold that title since her great-grandfather, Eugene Meyer, bought The Post at a bankruptcy sale in 1933. She is the niece of Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham and the daughter of Newsweek Senior Editor Lally Weymouth and architect Yann Weymouth.
The newspaper and Web site operate separately and only Graham oversaw both; he also oversees the entire Post Co., which has several business units. In her new job, Weymouth will take responsibility for the paper and Web site from Graham and closely examine the business and advertising departments of the newspaper and Web site, a process that may lead to merging some operations.
"We hope to get under the sheets, look at each other more closely, exchange information more freely and figure out what areas we can be more effective in working closely together and what areas should remain separate," Weymouth said.
The announcement came at the annual state of The Post meeting, which also produced other news: In March, the company will offer an undetermined number of early-retirement packages, or buyouts, to Post newsroom staffers and other employees. Also, the company will close its College Park printing plant over the next two years, moving two of the four multi-story Mitsubishi presses to its larger Springfield plant, which will handle the paper's entire press run with six presses.
The Post offered buyouts in 2003 and 2006, which culled about 120 employees. Buyouts are designed to reduce payroll by offering exit packages to older employees, who tend to have higher salaries. The March buyout offer will be extended to union-covered and management employees, the company said. No details of the plan were released yesterday, but some general information may be available later in the month, the company said, with details to come in March.
Declining print circulation, as well as a number of other circumstances, has led to the closure of the College Park printing site, which opened in 1999. The Post spent $250 million on new presses for its two suburban sites. Post daily circulation peaked at 832,232 in 1993; it now sells an average of 638,000 papers Monday through Saturday. The Post has not decided what it will do with the College Park plant, nor has it determined the status of the plant's approximately 250 full- and part-time employees.
As publisher, Weymouth succeeds Boisfeuillet Jones Jr., 61, who has had the position since 2000. He will become vice chairman of The Post Co., working with Graham on company-wide issues. In addition to the newspaper, The Post Co. owns the Kaplan education company, Cable One cable company, six television stations and several other publications, including Newsweek, Express and Slate.
At yesterday's meeting, Graham pointed out that Weymouth is the only Post Co. executive who has held senior positions at the paper and the Web site, a key qualification as the two media outlets continue to converge.
Graham also noted that "our rate of success with publishers named Katharine has been outstanding."
Weymouth said: "While it is humbling to follow in the footsteps of my ancestors, it is also very exciting. I will do my best to honor their legacy and uphold the tradition they built of journalistic excellence supported by a first-rate business operation."
Weymouth joined The Post in 1996 and has been vice president of Post advertising since 2005. She has served as counsel for both The Post and its Web site in addition to holding other advertising jobs at the paper. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School and practiced law at Williams & Connolly in Washington prior to coming to The Post.
|
Katharine Weymouth, a granddaughter of the late Washington Post Co. chairman Katharine Graham, has been named chief executive of Washington Post Media, a new division that will oversee The Washington Post newspaper and its online component, washingtonpost.com, the company said yesterday.
| 15.361702 | 0.829787 | 1.425532 |
low
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/07/DI2008020702665.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/07/DI2008020702665.html
|
Election 2008: The Road Ahead
|
2008020819
|
Sabato is the founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1978. He has written more than 20 books, including " A More Perfect Constitution," and co-anchored the BBC's coverage of the 2006 election.
Larry J. Sabato: Hello everyone. What an incredibly exciting political season. I am going to have to change my class slogan from "politics is a good thing" to "politics is a great thing." Hope everyone is enjoying it, whatever your choice of candidates.
Winchester, Va.: How do you rate Virginia? It looks like clear Obama territory to me. Reasonably large black population, and lots of high-income voters in Northern Virginia. I'm told repeatedly that Clinton probably will win here. How do you see it?
Larry J. Sabato: The only recent survey I've seen is a Survey USA poll that has Obama up in Virginia very substantially -- but the Clinton campaign has targeted Virginia, and that may make some difference. Right now Obama is winning the lion's share of African Americans (who will be from 25 percent to 35 percent of the Election Day turnout), and he's about splitting white voters with Clinton. If that holds, it's an easy Obama win. But Clinton may be able to pump up the women's vote, especially in Northern Virginia, and the vote of those aged 60-plus. She's also making a play for younger voters, an Obama strength. I know that because she is coming to my 450-person University of Virginia Intro to American Politics class on election eve (Monday). Just for the record, we simultaneously invited (by e-mail) all candidates of both parties on a first-come, first-served basis. The Clinton people were fast on the draw, and they got the class.
Richardson, Texas: Do you think that the right wing of the Republican Party is really going to stay home and not vote in the general election? I say this because I believe that during the general election, Sen. McCain is going to have move closer to the middle on some issues in order to win and by doing so probably will enrage the right wing.
Larry J. Sabato: I've learned in the four decades in which politics has been my obsession not to believe what people say in February, or even September, about a November election. Most Republicans will come home to McCain, and most Democrats will come home to the eventual Democratic nominee -- whatever they are claiming now. The tug of party loyalty is stronger than we think. If nothing else, people will cast a vote against the other party. Also, we don't measure torque in the voting booth. You can punch the card lightly or with enthusiasm -- and the vote counts the same.
New York: Prof. Sabato: I enjoyed reading your book, though I'm not sure I agreed with all your proposals. I'm interested in how you feel your proposal for rearranging the primaries into regional primaries would have affected this years election? Would we have seen a different outcome? As best as I can see it, It would have made it less likely that Mayor Giuliani would have flamed out so spectacularly.
Larry J. Sabato: Thanks much. Hey, here's a surprise for you: I'm not sure I agree with all the proposals in my new book, "A More Perfect Constitution." I decided to take a stand on some close calls and make the best possible case for them, in part because my main goal for the book was to get Americans -- and especially young people -- to think more deeply and carefully about the Constitution. Sometimes to educate you must provoke. My University of Virginia students will be writing their semester essays on why I was wrong on any half-dozen reforms of their choice! As for your point on primaries, I would argue that the main effect of my suggested reforms would have been to make the process more rational and orderly, and that it would have reduced the length of the campaign (by means of the Jan. 1 lottery and the April start-date for the first regional primary). It was not designed to help or hurt any candidate; in fact, I believe my system would have been more fair to all the major (and even minor) candidates.
Cambridge, Mass.: Why is it that Obama has been doing better in caucuses? Organizing by his campaign? The nature of the caucus process? Demographics of the participants? Is there reason to believe that he will do well again in Saturday's Maine caucuses?
Larry J. Sabato: Obama is where most (not all) the excitement is in this campaign. He's a rock star, and he tends to motivate voters -- especially the young ones -- to walk through fire for him. By their very nature caucuses mainly involve people willing to devote a substantial amount of time to politics. In many cases, they must witness publicly for their candidate. This requires intensity and dedication. That's why Obama wins most caucuses. Primaries only require perhaps a half hour or an hour to drive to the polls, wait in line and vote -- or even easier, the absentee process. You can argue forever about which method of voting is better. I think it's good to have a mixture -- which is what we have, on the whole.
Not quite: "You can punch the card lightly or with enthusiasm -- and the vote counts the same." Unless "lightly" produces only a hanging chad...
Larry J. Sabato: Only competent voters come to washingtonpost.com chats, so I'm not worried!
Harrisburg, Pa.: Do you think Tom Tancredo will run as an independent? Even if he does, or if Ron Paul or Lou Dobbs or some of the other candidates being mentioned run, do you think they have the potential of denying the Republican Party any electoral votes even if such a candidate only gets a small percentage of the votes?
Larry J. Sabato: We're all waiting to see whether McCain's nomination generates one or more conservative independents. Will there be a Nader 2000 of the right in 2008? They don't need high name identification or tons of money -- they simply have to be a parking place for a few million votes that could deny McCain the presidency in a close vote. There's lots of talk, but so far little action. But it's early.
Washington: There was talk of Romney possibly running again in 2012. Obviously he has the money to do so, but how feasible would that actually be?
Larry J. Sabato: Romney mentioned Reagan 1976 in his "suspension" speech -- no accident there. Who knows this early whether such a race would be feasible? Go back to the newspapers of August 1976, after Reagan lost to Ford. Just about everyone wrote Reagan off -- too old for 1980, Carter would be running and winning his second term, etc. We all know how that turned out. Let's not pretend we can forecast tomorrow, much less four years from now.
Fairfax, Va: Where are all of these political donations come from? Last time I checked we were in a recession, yet people are giving in record amounts.
Larry J. Sabato: There are more than 200 million adult Americans, and easily 50 million are in a position to give something, even if it's $25 or $50. Then there are several million who can max out to multiple candidates and never miss it.
Stockholm, Sweden: Mr. Sabato, you just said, "I've learned over the four decades ... not to believe what people say in February, or even September..." So how many Democrats who say they wouldn't do it will vote for Hillary in the general if she wins the primary? My thought is that if W can win when he is hated by a large portion of the population, anybody can.
Larry J. Sabato: Many, many -- by November, the political campaign and the fall debates will have reminded millions of Democrats and Republicans why they identify with their party. It almost always happens that way. Exceptions: Goldwater in 1964 (Republicans), McGovern in 1972 (Democrats).
Denver: If Obama sweep Nebraska, Louisiana, Washington, Maine and the mid-Atlantic caucuses and primaries, do you think momentum gives him a chance to win less voter-friendly Ohio and Texas?
Larry J. Sabato: Momentum this year has been measured in hours, instead of the usual days or weeks. Too much happens in a day for the public's memory to dwell too long on any win. Having said that, if Obama does indeed win most all the February contests -- uh oh, that nasty expectations game again -- then it might help him in Texas and Ohio. Because of the size of the Latino vote in Texas, Obama will have a better chance in Ohio, clearly.
Bowie, Md.: Is the front-loading of the primary system because the conventions have turned to week-long lovefests with no importance? The last real drama (other naming a veep) at any convention was the Democrats in 1980, who looked divided and unfocused compared to the Republican photo-op, so now you can't have any controversy there.
Larry J. Sabato: Well, the '84 Democratic convention was pretty exciting, both because the Mondale-Hart race was close, and Mondale chose the first woman vice presidential nominee. Maybe 2008 will be an exception, the way things are going, but these "lovefests" still serve a vital civic educational role. If you're on here chatting with me, you follow politics all the time, but we forget that tens of millions of Americans don't follow politics much. They get a big dose of it from the conventions -- the conventions allow them to catch up. To put it in student terms, the conventions are "cram sessions" for those who haven't studied!
Norfolk, Va.: I actually think that Mike Huckabee could have a brighter political future than Mitt Romney does. Romney underachieved as a candidate, as did Giuliani and Thompson; Huckabee overachieved. He should get a TV show on Fox News to keep his name in the headlines, suck up to big Republican donors, talk with top policy intellectuals so he can actually know something about issues, and develop a less-sectarian message without losing his authenticity ... and -- boom! -- he's a strong candidate for 2012.
Larry J. Sabato: You've come up with a good plan for Huckabee! That assumes he doesn't get the vice presidential slot or a cabinet post, if there's a McCain administration. One thing we all can compliment Huckabee on is his delightful sense of humor. Too many candidates take themselves entirely too seriously.
Annandale, Va.: I had planned to vote for John Edwards before he dropped out. He still will be on the ballot in Virginia. Will voting for him anyway benefit him or give him any sort of leverage or power later on? Or should I just give up and decided between the other two?
Larry J. Sabato: I never tell people how to vote. If you think Edwards can cross the 15 percent threshold, then your vote might help to get him a delegate that he can use as a bargaining chip. But I have to be honest with you: The chance of Edwards' crossing the 15 percent threshold in Virginia at this point is about the same as you winning a write-in campaign for president.
Lexington, Va.: Larry -- thanks for your books. Keep 'em coming. Now that John Edwards has left the race, do you think Mudcat Saunders will take an active role in shaping the rural and Appalachia political strategies for Clinton or Obama? How about Mark Warner? I was disappointed that John Kerry didn't seem to have much of a strategy for those regions/voters in 2004. Thanks.
Larry J. Sabato: You are most kind. Thanks. I believe Mudcat endorsed Obama after Edwards dropped out. Warner hasn't endorsed, but his wife is campaigning for Obama -- read that any way you like. The rural strategy is important for Democrats because they need to cut GOP margins in that demographic sector to win statewide more often. Similarly, the GOP needs to focus more on upscale suburbs, where they have lost their old edge.
Boston: Does it worry you that Obama (and probably Hillary as well) have spent far less time in Washington than any of our presidents in the past fifty years?
Larry J. Sabato: I'm at the age where I leave the worrying to younger people! But there is an enduring truth in American politics: Often the voters prefer candidates who can't navigate the streets in Washington. If it takes the president a few years to find the bathrooms, then maybe -- the voters say to themselves -- he or she isn't already corrupt, and it will take some time before the big bad District leads the president astray. This is naive but powerful.
Sun Prairie, Wis.: Good morning, Mr. Sabato. Since 1952 there have been four Presidential elections run in years when the incumbent president was unpopular. In none of them did the candidate of the incumbent president's party even come close to getting 50 percent of the vote. Given that history, how unpopular president Bush has been lately and how closely Sen. McCain has tied himself to the administration, is there any reason to think McCain could win this November, no matter whom the Democrats nominate? Could any Republican?
Larry J. Sabato: I hope you will take a look at my Crystal Ball essay released this morning.
That's precisely what I suggested -- a president who has been in the polling 30s for about two years is a terrible burden on his party's nominee. Obviously, McCain will use his 2000 race with Bush to put distance between himself and the president, but that only goes so far. McCain had better hope that somehow, Bush gets well above 40 percent by November's election.
Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Sabato, here in the D.C. area we are starting to see campaign commercials. In Obama's ad he says (paraphrasing) that he will end the Iraq war and bring the troops home. My question is ... why does he call it a "war"? Would it be better to term it an "occupation?" If the Democrats started saying "we need to end the occupation in Iraq and bring the troops home," would that help deflate the "surrender" rhetoric from the right?
Larry J. Sabato: Send that suggestion in to your friendly neighborhood Democratic political consultant. Remember to charge a big fat fee like all of them do for similar ideas.
Alexandria, Va.: What do you think the impact of robocalls are on elections? Do they work? We have thousands of members who are sick and tired of having their privacy invaded, called in the middle of the night, called without disclosure of who made the call, and blocking the caller id.
Larry J. Sabato: Like all good campaign technologies, robocalls started out like gangbusters. The newest thing on the block worked. Now they are so overused that I am convinced they have become counterproductive. Next up: Overused e-mail and text messaging. Count on it.
Summit, N.J.: What's your analysis of which Democrat would be stronger against McCain? In the primaries so far, Obama has drawn more independents than Hillary, which would counter a McCain strength, but he hasn't done as well among working-class voters -- the kind of people who became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s and might be willing to cross over to McCain.
Larry J. Sabato: I'm not smart enough to know. You can make a good argument either way. The polls today say Obama runs better against McCain than Clinton does. Will that still be true in November? Who the heck could possibly game that out? I'll let the partisans fight that one.
Gaithersburg, Md.: Would you expect either nominee to resign from the Senate to run, like Dole did in '96?
Larry J. Sabato: No. It didn't work for Dole, and it won't have much of a positive effect for any of these current senators either. With all due respect to senators, isn't it interesting that they are gone for weeks at a time and no one misses them? You can't say that about governors or mayors. Our expectations are higher and so is the accountability.
Laurel, Md.: Has there ever been a presidential election between two current Senators? How well will that body function for the next year?
Larry J. Sabato: No, never.
Does the Senate function? I haven't noticed that.
Maryland: Hello. Both McCain and Obama talk about their ability to reach across the aisle and work with those in the other party to get things done. Although the possibility of this happening is probably less than zero, would a shocking McCain/Obama ticket be electable? Of course, party loyalists in both parties probably never would forgive McCain or Obama for doing it, but I think it would be an incredible act of trying to bring the country together.
Larry J. Sabato: It will take more Bourbon than the whole state of Kentucky produces to arrange that ticket.
Re: Crystal Ball: But wouldn't you agree that -- among the choices Republicans could have put up against a Democrat in 2008 -- McCain has probably the best shot at winning? I agree that Bush's unpopularity creates headwinds for Republicans; perhaps the primary choice of McCain was more enlightened than many give it credit for. It seems to me that among the candidates for the nomination, he alone has the capacity to draw distinctions between himself and Bush, and be as tarred as the other candidates would have been.
Larry J. Sabato: Sure. Whatever you think of McCain personally -- and he can be obstreperous and even mean -- he is probably the only Republican who has a shot in November. The underlying trends of 2008 are firmly Democratic. That doesn't mean the Democrats can't blow the election -- they have lots of practice.
Bethesda, Md.: Do you know if the conventions will be covered on "real TV" this year (like they used to be, back in the '60s), or just on places like C-SPAN, with the rest of the media joining in only for key speeches, etc.? I would love to see the daily brouhahas on the Democratic side, what with the banished delegation issues, the platform-building, etc.
Larry J. Sabato: The days of the big networks covering gavel-to-gavel are long gone. I grew up on those in the 1950s and 1960s, so naturally I bemoan it, but the networks will give a handful of primetime hours each to the two conventions, and leave the full coverage to C-SPAN and the 24-hour news cables. That's the best we can hope for. Still, if the parties are disunited and make real news, then we will get more network coverage. Bad news is news, good news isn't.
Larry J. Sabato: Well, my allotted time is up, and I only got to a third of the questions. Apologies -- especially to my Wahoo friends and former students who wrote in, but I've got to get moving to other events this afternoon. More on another occasion, and thanks for participating. I enjoyed it.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
The University of Virginia's Larry J. Sabato, who directs analysis of politics at the Crystal Ball Web site of the school's Center for Politics, takes your questions on the primaries this weekend and the Potomac Primary on Tuesday and provides his outlook for the rest of the race.
| 72.698113 | 0.830189 | 1.773585 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/06/DI2008020601716.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/06/DI2008020601716.html
|
Security Fix Live
|
2008020819
|
Brian Krebs: Hello everyone, and Happy Friday. Welcome to Security Fix Live, where I try to answer as many of your tech/security questions as well as I can in the hour or so that we have. Please remember to give me as much information about your system setup and install security software and hardware wherever possible.
New York, N.Y.: Hi Brian, I've had really bad experiences running Symantec/Norton and McAfee products. They tend to take over and reduce my overall system performance tremendously. Right now, only the Windows XP SP2 firewall, SpyBot's TeaTimer and the built in firewall that came with my 5-year-old router stand between me and certain infection. Would you recommend using a specific firewall program, free or otherwise, on my home PC to keep the bad guys at bay that won't completely take over every program I use and slow my initial login or internet launches to a crawl?
Brian Krebs: Aside from running your browser of choice under a drop-my-rights type setup, I'd say you're fine. I hear your pain about Norton and other firewall products in every single online chat. You should be reasonably okay with a hardware router and the Windows Firewall.
Just spend a little time getting familiar with the items listed in the "exceptions" list for the WF. Make sure to uncheck anything you don't need (e.g. Remote Desktop, Remote Assistance, or any other programs that you'd prefer asked you before connecting to the Web). You can also set it up to log all incoming/outgoing requests in the "Advanced" options tab.
Arlington, Va.: A few days ago, my spysweeper (Webroot) detected a keylogger on my home computer during its daily sweep. It quarantined and deleted the program, and after two further sweeps by Webroot, as well as a full system scan by Norton Antivirus, my computer is seemingly clean.
Since then, I've gone through my various online accounts, like my e-mail, Amazon.com, anything that has my credit card information on file, and changed passwords. The only online banking that I do is for my retirement funds. I don't check my banking or credit card statements online. And for the record, my computer doesn't contain any personal information about myself, like Social Security numbers or credit card numbers.
In your opinion, is there anything else I can be doing in the wake of this spyware discovery? Even though my sweeps have said my computer is clean, I'm nevertheless dubious about using it for certain things in future, like checking my retirement accounts, or for doing my taxes (through TurboTax).
Brian Krebs: I assume you changed the password tied to your retirement fund account? That's the one I'd be most worried about. And I'm assuming you changed them after you got a clean bill of health from your anti-virus?
If it were me, I would run one or two different online anti-virus scanners to feel better that the keylogger was completely gone and that there wasn't anything else hanging around. F-Secure and Bitdefender both offer free online scanning, as do others.
You may also be able to call your retirement account holder and place a special PIN on the account or password that must be uttered in order to make any changes to the account.
If you haven't already, you should be regularly backing up your data to a removable medium, such as a external hard drive or to a DVD -- in case something goes wrong where the hard drive fails or you need to reformat the drive.
I would use this as an opportunity to do things right. If you can't be bothered to set up a limited user account on your system, try the drop my rights approach with the browsers you use. In addition, there are free anti-keylogger programs available, such as SnoopFree and BoClean that are designed specifically to spot malware that tries to hook your keyboard.
Also, just for giggles, you might search your system to see whether the keylogger left behind a record of what it was stealing. Typically, a keylogger will store whatever it steals in a text file somewhere on the system (a file that is periodically uploaded to a server the attacker controls) and sometimes an anti-virus program will destroy the keylogger itself but leave the data behind. I'd probably run a search in Windows (Start, Search, All Files and Folders, and search for any text files created in the last month: e.g., in the file name search box, type "*.txt" and in the "when was it modified" section choose the "last month" radio button. Shoot me an e-mail if you find anything that looks suspicious (oh, I don't know....like "keylog.txt").
Kingstowne, Va.: I often wonder what kind of computer setups all these malware writers have, and what they do to keep their own computers virus free? Just what is the OS of choice for todays hackers?
Brian Krebs: Hehe. Well, it depends. I've spoken with plenty of online miscreants who don't use any anti-virus software at all. Most virus-writers probably are proficient in both Windows and Linux systems, and probably use both interchangeably. As for anti-virus, the main thing virus writers care about is making sure their creations are *not* detected by them. Time was, the virus writing groups would have many different types of anti-virus installed on many separate systems, to test their creations. Nowadays, there are so many different free services you can use online to scan a file against 20-30 different popular AV scanners that it would be silly for the bad guys to use anything else (although only a couple of the aggregate free anti-virus scanning services allow the submitter the option of *not* sending a copy of the malware to all participating AV companies).
I've had really bad experiences running Symantec/Norton and McAfee products. : Brian,
I couldn't agree more with the poster. I went through a lot of pain and agony when I had those products installed.
Life has been a lot easier with AVG free installed. Also, I don't use IE or Netscape for a browser either. That's also a big part of avoiding misery.
Brian Krebs: More heartfelt opinions/advice for our New York reader above:
Auburn, N.H.: In response to your New York writer, I've been a happy user of Sophos Antivirus on a PC with Windows XP for five years. It works quietly behind the scenes and I've never seen any degradation of performance. Good luck with your security!
Boston, Mass.: Hi Brian. I'm looking for suggestions for a good password manager. I was overseas for a while and had to manage my bank account information on computers that were clearly malware infested. I was able to change my account info afterwards and nothing bad come of it but I'd like a way to start using completely random passwords. Thanks!
Brian Krebs: Hello Boston. You're in luck. A few weeks ago, I wrote a column on a few options for password manager programs.
Moline, Ill.: Hi Brian. I'm a senior citizen with a "donated" computer who isn't very confident of his tech savvy. My computer runs windows xp with SP1. I ordered a cd to install SP2 but I have been reluctant to run it because I'm afraid that something might screw up and I will have no computer at all. I have a version of a firewall from Zone Alarm which I know isn't compatible with SP2 and I run microsoft money which has a lot of useful financial history that I would hate to lose if something goes wrong with the changeover. Am I worried about nothing or should I just leave well enough alone?
Brian Krebs: Hi Moline. Thanks for the question. I'm glad to hear you're taking this seriously. And you're right to be a little cautious here, but not overly so.
First off, Microsoft no longer supports Service Pack 1 on Windows XP. What that means is you can't receive the latest security and bug fixes while you're running SP1. Which means in order to run the system securely, you're going to need to upgrade to SP2.
Before you do that, however, I would back up any and all important data on that system. If you have a CD or DVD burner, using that should suffice, unless you have a tons and tons of data. In that case, go get yourself an inexpensive external USB hard drive and copy your data over there.
When you've done that, go ahead and upgrade (it shouldn't affect your install of Microsoft Money, but you might want to make sure you know where the install discs are and have your license key handy in case for some reason the worst comes to pass). After you've upgraded to SP2, you will need to visit Windows Update to make sure you have the rest of the patches released since your copy of SP2. Depending on how recent that copy is, this could range from a few to a few dozen updates. Also, set Windows to automatically download and install updates when they become available.
When you've finished with that, make sure the Windows firewall is turned on, and that you're using some kind of anti-virus program (AVG, Anti-Vir, Bitdefender Free, are just a few free AV programs available). If you can on top download and use Firefox as your browser, and run it under a drop my rights setup, you will have gone a long way toward building yourself a much more secure system. This may sound like a lot of work, but it will only take a couple of hours and will save you a ton of headache and pain in the months and years ahead. Good luck!
Burke, Va.: Yikes. You wouldn't reinstall the OS after finding a keystroke logger on your system? How can you possibly trust the system after that?
Brian Krebs: I completely expected this question. If it were me, I *would* indeed re-install Windows (or a known, safe backup image of it). And I've recommended as much before in no uncertain terms.
The reality, however, is that while this is undoubtedly the safest and wisest approach, I've found that very few Windows users are willing to go that far. Heck, most people don't even know where their Windows install discs are, let alone have a copy of their Windows license key sitting around.
Winnipeg: XP is going out of production soon.
As I understand it MS updates, security and otherwise, happen until the release is two behind the current one.
Given how for most people who just want a tool to write documents, run spread sheets and such, and the fact that Vista requires a hardware update - even the 'lite' version is not for older machines - are we in for a lot of extra high tech landfill, or will there be ways of securely maintaining machines taken over by third party vendors if Microsoft completely abandons XP? (note: I like XP quite a bit, have found it stable and can't see any functionality that Vista would add, but see lots of downsides to an upgrade)
Brian Krebs: Yes, so Microsoft has said it plans to release its final service pack (#3) for XP sometime before the second half of this year, and that it plans to stop issuing new licenses for XP at the end of January 2009. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw XP3 pushed back yet again, along with Microsoft's plans to phase out support for XP. The reason being of course that hardly anyone wants Vista, and the public is clearly clamoring for the familiar OS they've come to know (if not love) -- as evidenced by the number of PC makers who have gone back and started offering both XP and Vista on new machines that once only shipped with Vista.
I suspect that if people were forced to make a choice, a great deal more people would switch over to using a Mac. Keep in mind though that a number of factors cause people to buy newer, faster machines -- the desire to play games that require more robust systems, failing components, etc.
In answer to your question, I'm of a mind that if Microsoft phased out support for XP within the next two years, that there would be such a large community of users still around that at least when it comes to the vitally important stuff -- third parties would come up with fixes to help users maintain their systems securely -- probably for free, but who knows.
Los Angeles, Calif.: thanks for reminding me about Foxit Reader, starting to use it again and it really is faster. now, what to do with all the mostly microsoft updates just hanging around in the control panel?
Brian Krebs: You're welcome. What do you mean what to do with the Microsoft updates? If they're installed, it's for a good reason. Leave them alone.
Antwerp, Belgium: Hi, Antwerp, Belgium, again. Last time you told me about having to type in my password each time I go on the WP website. I followed your tip allowing sites in IE options but to no avail. Still doesn't work. Even if I check to remember my password, i still gotta retype it. Becoming annoying. I delete my cookies manually so that's not it. Any better advice? Have nice weekend
Brian Krebs: I suspect you have some third-party program running that blocks the placement of cookies on your system? If you do, try turning it off or allowing an exception for wp.com and seeing if that works.
Baltimore, Md.: Doing something wrong downloading Firefox: I have tried on two occasions to download the Firefox browsers to my home computer (HP PC running XP and SP2) , but each time I come up with a blank screen. The top of the screen indicates that I am in Firefox yet nothing appears. Incidentally, when I downloaded it to my work computer (IBM running XP Professional) there was no problem. Can't figure it out.
Brian Krebs: You most likely have a corrupt Firefox profile there. Either that or a previous update didn't take.
I would back up my bookmarks file (if not backup the entire profile, then uninstall and then re-install Firefox. Hopefully that will fix your problem.
Loveland, Colo.: Hi, I would like to run OS X 4.0 along side Windows XP, how can I do this?
Brian Krebs: If you have a Mac, you can run Bootcamp, which allows you to choose between booting up in OS X or Windows when you start the machine.
A couple of other options include the use of virtual machines on a Mac. VMWare Fusion has earned nice comments from users. I use Parallels on my Macbook Pro, and run a licensed copy of Windows on top of that. Works great, but then I have 3 gigs of RAM on that system (your mileage may vary). Parallels even comes with a program called Parallels Transporter, which you download to your Windows system and it makes a copy of your entire C drive (and/or whatever other image you want to bring over). Move that over to a removable drive or a DVD and you can effectively port your install of Windows onto your Mac and run OS X and Windows at the same time. Both Parallels and VMWare Fusion are free to try, but you must pay for a license to use them after the trial period.
Washington, D.C.: The other day I noticed Internet Explorer (version 7) began to take an exceedingly long time to load a web page (but only the first web page). About two minutes.
Similarly, any time I open a new Explorer window or new tab it takes about the same amount of time.
Once the first web page is open however, I appear to be able to surf within that window with no further problems. Could this be caused by a virus or something else that was inadvertently installed on my computer. Security settings changed? I've run a virus scan, cleaned up the temporary internet files and tried a few other things, but nothing seems to work. And nothing appears to be amiss. Any thoughts?
Brian Krebs: Hrm. This could be a toughie to diagnose. Random obvious question, but when was the last time you simply rebooted the system? I know, I know, but you'd be surprised how many times this fixes weird stuff.
I assume your home page hasn't changed at all? I ask b/c some people I know set their home pages to sites that are very graphics intensive, load all kinds of charts and flash videos, etc, which can take quite a while to load. Does it make a difference if you set, say, Google.com, as your home page?
It's certainly possible some kind of malware has munged your system, but without more information I can't really speculate further on that.
I'd recommend checking out a free program called CCleaner which spends a bit of time going through and cleaning up worthless crap from your system and generally tidying up the place. You can choose which areas it should clean before you run the sweep. But it can take a while, so it might be best to set it to clean before you go to bed at night. When it's through, reboot and see if that's changed anything.
McLean, Va.: I am about to get a new Dell. Dell offers three security choices: Norton, McAffee, and one other that I can't recall. What is the best choice. The price is roughly the same.
Brian Krebs: Er...neither. If the cost is the same, and you're willing to pay for anti-virus, wait until you get the machine, and then once you're online head over to ESET.com and get yourself a copy of NOD32. It's far quieter than Norton or McAfee and a lot lighter on resources. You won't hear from it unless something goes wrong, and that's the way anti-virus software should work, IMHO.
Alexandria, Va.: Do you have any tips when buying an external hard drive? My iTunes has taken up almost all my hard drive space and I would like to use an external hard drive for all my iTunes storage. I found a 500GB unit for $130 which looks good to me, but I don't want to buy it, then learn that it doesn't have some magic flux capacitor gizmo required for easy operation. Thanks.
Brian Krebs: If you stick with a USB-based external drive, you should be fine. If you have a Firewire connection and can use that, go for it. I bought this Fantom 500 GB hard drive from NewEgg.com a few months back and have been extremely happy with it. It's very fast, and of course huge. For a little more than twice the price I paid ($120), you can get a one terabyte! external drive. Hooked up to my digital video recorder in my PC, I can now record up to like 200 hours of TV shows, or about 40 hours in digital TV transmissions. Of course, I also use it to store my hard drive backups.
Arlington, Va.: Hi Brian, My Norton Symantec AV has quarantined the "bloodhound exploit 65" virus and two trojan horses, but is unable to delete them. Efforts to find an application to delete them has proven unsuccessful. It's becoming annoying to be prompted by Norton AV about these issues over and over every day. Do you have any solutions? Thank you for taking our questions!
Brian Krebs: Yep. Find your Windows install disc and license key, and re-install Windows (see above discussion about this).
Alternatively, you could try to manually locate the buggers by examining the AV log files to see where they are stored (probably at least one copy in system restore, which won't be removable by the AV program). But this is a hugely unreliable way of cleaning your system, as a Trojan's job is to get a foot in the door of infected systems so that more malware can be downloaded.
The trouble is that once a system is compromised, by definition you can no longer trust the system or programs installed on the compromised system to tell you the truth or make sure you're protected. A couple of suggestions to try before you re-install: I mentioned a few free online virus scanners; they may be able to help. Alternatively, you could burn/use something like the Trinity Rescue Kit, but unless you're good at following complex directions and are somewhat familiar wtih command prompt commands, this is likely to waste your time.
Those "annoying" warnings are telling you that you most likely have a very serious security problem on your machine. Back up your important pictures, music, movies, documents, etc to some removeable media, and re-install windows and any needed patches.
Once you've got it back in shape, do yourself a favor and set up and then run the system under a limited user account for every day use.
Brian Krebs: Well, I'm out of time, here, folks. A big shout of THANKS to everyone who stopped by and to those who contributed to this discussion in one form or another. We'll do another Security Fix Live again in a couple of weeks. Meantime, please drop by the Security Fix blog to stay up to date on security news, tips, patches, etc. Have a great weekend, and Be Safe Out There!
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.
| 105.804878 | 0.536585 | 0.634146 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/02/DI2008020200804.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/02/DI2008020200804.html
|
Carolyn Hax Live: Naming Help; Starting Over
|
2008020819
|
Appearing every day in The Washington Post Style section and in the Sunday Source, Carolyn Hax offers readers advice based on the experiences of someone who's been there. Hax is an ex-repatriated New Englander with a liberal arts degree and a lot of opinions and that's about it, really, when you get right down to it. Oh, and the shoes. A lot of shoes.
Carolyn Hax: Hey everybody. I'm going to be starting a discussion group soon, and I need to tap into your creativity again because I can't seem to find a name for it that doesn't make me cringe. To give you an idea, some of the other groups on the site are E.J.'s Precinct and Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood. Carolyn's Corner I think is the current front-runner but it's a bit precious for my taste, "hangout" is in the name of another group, and alliteration isn't necessary (in fact, it might be the problem). Enjoy.
Carolyn Hax: Yikes. I was chattering with my cubemates and lost track of the time. I'll have something in a second.
re: discussion group...: Might help us to know what you'll be discussing.
Carolyn Hax: The usual angst.
Lonely, ME: How soon is too soon to start over? I left my marriage last summer, and last month ended my first "rebound" relationship. I'm getting offers for dates, and I'm happy to have the attention, but I'm afraid of getting too involved before I'm emotionally ready to take another hit. Even worse, I'm afraid things will go well and won't know what to do.
Carolyn Hax: I could say your whole question says you shouldn't be dating anyone, but that leaves open the question of what would indicate that you are ready.
So I'll try it this way instead: When you find a person interesting, vs. a person's attention interesting, then please feel free to date that person. I think that covers everything.
Texas: How do you deal with being considered the "strong one" when everyone around you is cratering and you don't feel strong anymore? My best friend is having a severe family crisis involving false accusations which may result in criminal charges against her. My beau is battling an unreasonable ex in a bitter custody dispute that continues to get worse. I will be subpoenaed and deposed in both of these matters. Having never dealt with serious legal proceedings before, all of this is out of the norm for me and the people I am surrounded by, and it scares me. My mom is having major health problems, and it is the busiest and most stressful time of the year at my job. None of this drama is really MY drama, but it affects me just the same in terms of time and energy drains, lost sleep, stress...I'm tired and scared and not feeling strong. But all these people are depending on me to be so.
Carolyn Hax: It's what I'd recommend if you were in the position of one of the troubled people you're helping: Strip your daily life of everything but the essentials, and use whatever tiem you save toward taking meticulous care of yourself. Eat healthfully, get some fresh air and/or exercise, get plenty of sleep, set aside time for non-harmful pleasures, confide in someone you can trust to be comforting. It can be a very effective way of marching yourself to the other side of a very difficult time.
Exasperated on the East Coast: Carolyn,
I'm too old (early 30s) to be having this problem, but here goes. I have a less than stellar track record when it comes to men -- not only romantically, but I've never truly had male friends. It is so incredibly pathetic that anytime a man is friendly to me, some stupid little voice in my head say, "OMG! He likes me!" My imagination gets carried away, and invariably I end up acting like an idiot (babbling away, and the like). How can I shut up that little voice in my head?
Carolyn Hax: It may not be true for you, but in general it seems like a conscious effort to silence the nervous voice only makes it worse--like trying not to blush.
That doesn't mean it's hopeless, it just means you might be better off if you just accept that it's going to happen and try to minimize its effects. For example, trying to meet people cold in a looking-for-a-date-type situation will probbaly never bring out your best. Once you know that and accept it, you can 1. go into them knowing you're going to say something goofy, and hoping the conversation goes on long enough for you to get past it, or 2. not go to these things, and instead do your searching in lower-key environments. Concentrate your attention on people you see daily, cultivating not necessarily romances, since the vast majority of people around you probably aren't even remotely candidates, but simply contacts, acquaintances, coffee-break partners. The more practice you get at being yourself on purpose, the less conscious you'll become of just being yourself.
Philly: How does the discussion group differ from this?
Carolyn Hax: This is live; the discussion group would be more of a bulletin board. I'd post a topic for everyone to discuss, and you would all weigh in over the necxt day or so. Akin to the way the column now has a comment area, except the starter wouldn't be a column but a question or opinion for all of you to address.
Finding a Doctor: How do you know when it's time to find a new OB/GYN doctor? Mine is very good and has an excellent reputation, but he rushes me through appointments and doesn't seem to have time to address my issues. I'm going through a few different medical issues right now and feel very alone in navigating proper treatment. Then again, finding a new doctor seems like a daunting task that I'm just not up for right now.
Carolyn Hax: What you describe suggests it is time to find someone new. If you feel rushed, then you're not getting good care. You can of course say this to your doctor, but, then, I tend to believe that idf you felt comfortable speaking up, you wouldn't be feeling rushed.
It might not be as daunting as it seems to find someone new, since for an OB-GYN recommendation you know exactly whom to ask--any female friend or colleague whom you wouldn't feel uncomfortable asking. I have asked and been asked, and it's just one of those things where people seem to get it--it's not like going to the grocery store and having a clerk hold up your [embarrassing personal product here] and yelling to someone five registers away, "What's the price on [embarrassing personal product here]?"
If you really can't think of a friend, try asking another doctor, starting with your primary care phys. You can also ask your current OB-GYN to suggest some names, though that might really be more than you're up for.
And finally: Now is as good a time as any to make an effort to find your voice in these situations. As the patient, -you- are the one in charge of your care. It's a role each of us needs to find the strength to accept, for our own good.
For the Strong One: First, try on the idea that not everyone is counting on you to be the strong one, that it's -your- expectation.
Second, sounds like you are being handed one, great big lesson in not being so overly involved in other people's stuff. Yes, you can sympathize, lend an ear, offer words of encouragement, but losing sleep over someone else's crisis? You are too involved.
You need to learn to care but with some healthy detachment. Look at it this way, it's like saving someone from drowning - you are much more effective to you both if you stay on the sidelines and throw them what they need than if you try to jump in and join the struggle with them.
All except your mom's health problems, because facing losing your mom, -is- your issue. Even if it's not a rational fear, I go through it every time my dad has a health blip, so I can understand that freak out.
Carolyn Hax: Excellent, thank you.
Anywhere: Any suggestions on how to extract myself from a very long relationship I no longer want to be in. We live together (I own the house) and I am struggling with finding a way to separate. She currently is not working (and frankly I'm not sure she's looking). That aside, us not being together anymore is going to require a major lifestyle adjustment for her, which I know is going to make her unwilling to leave. I'm not opposed to measures to help her move out (read: paying her) but that seems like a slippery slope.
Carolyn Hax: The problem seems to be that your feelings have died because she has ceased to be an independent being--and yet you're hesitating to break up because she has ceased to be an independent being.
You do realize you are going to have to do something. That something is break up, give her time to find her own place, and provide whatever assistance of a closed-ended variety that accomplishes the extraction humanely. Since I don't knwo the details, I can't be much more specific, but I do wonder if she isn't depressed, in which case connecting her with some kind of treatment can be part of the plan.
As far as offering her money to move out, I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments in general. You have control over your actions, you do have the power to say "yes" up to a point and "no" beyond it. Think through what you're willing to do beforehand, then have the this-isn't-working conversation, then listen well to her response, and see what measures the situation dictates. It's all you can do.
Washington, D.C.: I feel like I've been trying so hard for so long to change the two things in my life that are causing the most unhappiness - my job and my lack of a romantic relationship. And I feel like no matter what I do, I keep getting rejected over and over again. In relationships, I've been told a number of time that I'm great, so easy to get along with, we have so much in common and we get along really well, but...I just don't want a relationship with you. On the job front I get second interviews, told how much they enjoyed talking to me, my qualifications are great, checking in to see if I'm still interested, then... sorry, you didn't get the job.
I feel like this constant rejection is really taking its toll. Especially since I'm actively trying to improve both of these areas of my life (we're talking going on five years here), and I feel like these are the two things that are responsible for my unhappiness. I feel like I'm at the end of my rope. If neither of these things can change despite me actively trying to change them, what chance do I have to be happy?
Carolyn Hax: Both of the things you describe involve direct input from other people. As such, you will have only up to 50 percent control over your own level of satisfaction. As you;ve discovered the hard way, that's not good enough.
So now I would suggest concentrating on changes that have a higher percentage chance of rewarding you. You can't walk a block nowadays without hearing something about good choices, exercise, healthy eating, saving money, giving back, i.e., clean living to the point of gagworthiness, but each of these things has a common denominator: 100 percent of the benefits go to you. They are sure deals, every one of them.
Each of us has an individualized set of sure deals, too. Artists create, butterflies socialize, families keep in touch, neighbors help neighbors, worshipers gather--whatever works for you. Even if yours don't have 100 percent returns, even 90 or 80 percent will push your life in a more satisfying direction.
"Job" and "mate" are big elements, I'm not going to blow smoke at you, but they're also the result of pretty linear thinking. If this thinking had paid off for you, that would be great, but since it hasn't, push your thinking a little harder toward higher-percentage life choices. are you in the right career, is there one where you'd be more in control of your job satisfaction, would working toward that make sense for you, woudl it put you in the company of more like-minded people ... this is cut one direction you can take this, of an infinite number of choices.
Cubemates?: I thought you worked from home?
Carolyn Hax: Sometimes. Sometimes I need cubemates. Hard to talk about relationships when your primary relationship is with a screen.
Washington, D.C.: Wait a minute. She said she was going to be deposed in two nasty court cases affecting people she loves. How is that not her crisis? How could she be less involved? Refusing to testify isn't an option even if she didn't feel a responsibility to the parties. Her stress is absolutely hers and absolutely legitimate.
Carolyn Hax: You're both right, I think. It's not less involved that she needs to be, it's less -invested.- And while it may seem cold even to suggest that when someone's freedom is at stake--in that one case, at least, these are clearly higher than day-to-day stakes--there nevertheless is a limit to how much anyone can do to help someone.
That limit may be very high, and leave room for testifying, hand-holding, attorney-hiring, lobbying, whatever--but there's still a limit. Thinking one's way to the limit, and figuring exactly where your involvement leaves off (whether you like it or not), can be a constructive way to keep from getting sucked in. And, not gettign sucked in can be the most helpful thing you can do for someone; it often also goes by the name of "staying strong."
Not Wanting Baby #2 from the other week: Are you out there? Doing ok?
Carolyn Hax: Putting it out there, thanks.
We've been together more than four years. We're best friends, the sex is fantastic, we share common values, when we're together everything is wonderful.
But her -grown] children think I'm 'not good enough', that 'she could do better'. She raised them by herself so they're quite close; until now my solution has been for her to see them on her own and that's been OK with me. Now the oldest is getting married and doesn't want me at the wedding. Since it's 'her day' my gf isn't pushing the point. she comes home from seeing her daughter full of excitement and plans for a big day that I won't be part of.
Any hope that we can overcome this?
Carolyn Hax: It depends. Can you accept these terms indefinitely, or do you need her to stand up for you? And if you do need her to stand up for you, and she comes back by saying she's unwilling to strain her relationship with her kids, then what will you need? Can you live with that answer, or is that too high a price for ... "best friends, the sex is fantastic, we share common values, when we're together everything is wonderful"?
If instead she does stand up to her kids, and strains the relationship, and suffers mightily from the estrangement but sticks to her right to insist her kids treat her mate with respect, can you live with that?
The first step of any answer is yours. You need to figure out what you need, what you don't, and how much you're willing to give up to satisfy those needs.
The Answer Clearly is...: Carolyn's Cubicle
Carolyn Hax: Well duh! Even the alliteration isn't cloying somehow. What do the Nuterati say? (I would have proposed Nuterati, but I figured no one would know what it meant.)
Or do you want me to post other candidates? I've been inundated, but I didn't want to turn the discussion over to it.
For Exasperated: Yeah, totally been there. What happened to enable change? I lived for a while with a guy who saw what my true worth was (even if the relationship was a disaster) and treated me as a partner rather than a "girl" (we would build things and visit the junkyard together, that kind of thing - and yes, I found that fun). And then, after that relationship ended on a nice note, got a job where I was constantly dealing with men. Between the two experiences, I kind of got desensitized to my own awkwardness. Now most of my platonic friends are guys. Go figure.
I'm not saying shack up with the first overtly manly guy you meet, but put yourself in situations where you meet and deal with men. A part-time retail job at anyplace but a woman's clothing store for example. A hardware store might be ideal, although I worked at a bookstore. It might help your romantic relationships too, because then you start dealing with them as if they were the same species rather than visitors from Mars.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks--I've been flogging the proximity point for years, but I always struggle to come up with new, practical examples of it. Retail and rooming are two really good ones.
Chicago, Ill.: My sister died suddenly and tragically a little over a year ago. When my mom called to tell me what had happened, I had just gotten home from the grocery and was getting ready to make dinner -- in other words, an ordinary day. Ever since then, I get a little flutter of panic every time the phone rings. I imagine that it's my mom calling to tell me that my other sister is dead, or the hospital calling to say my boyfriend has been hit by a bus. My mom called a few months ago to tell me that her dog had died and when I answered she had the same tone in her voice, of someone who'd been crying a lot, and I immediately assumed the worst about my younger sister. Of course it was a relief that it was just the dog (but man, I loved that dog, I cried for hours), but my panic at phone calls seems to be even worse since then. I know rationally that everyone has to deal with the reality that your life can be completely turned upside down at any moment, when you are least expecting it. But I don't think that other people dread it quite like I do. It's not like it consumes my every waking moment, but still, I don't like it and don't know how to stop it. Any advice?
Carolyn Hax: Did you get any grief counseling at the time? not that it's an answer to everything, and not that everyone needs it, but consider the fact of PTSD for a moment. There can be clear physical fallout from emotional stress, right? It's something everyone knows at least a little bit about, and yet I think people commonly think they're supposed to be "okay" (whatever that means) at a certain point after a major loss.
Well, you suffered a major loss, and your little flutter of panic is your body telling you that you suffered some damage from it--especially since the dog call reinforced your worst fears, possibly at a time you were starting to trust the phone again not to upset you.
Is it serious damage? Probably not, but it's still something you suspect hasn't healed quite right, so why not check it out. Obviously you can;'t expect to return to a pre-bad-news state of consciousness, where the possibility of bad things never even crosses your mind (and in many ways you probably don't want to; you may be more open with your affection, for example, in the year since the loss of your sister). But there is some room to treat the panic, rebuild your sense of, I don't know, cosmic trust, so you can get a little more joy again from a normal day.
I'm so sorry about your sister.
Bridezilla: It is really, really rude not to invite the long term partner of any guest to a wedding. Trying a power play on your own mother is even more despicable. Rather than sticking up for her daughter, that mother should be embarassed at her behavior. What neither mother nor daughter seems to have thought of are the number of times other guests will ask where the Mom's boyfriend is. It's not like he's a secret, right?
Does that bride also plan to berate people for the quality of their gifts?
For Lawrence, Kansas: I dunno, I feel like maybe you should have been more explicit. Unless this guy is actively abusing his girlfriend, has a substance abuse problem that is affecting others, or has a more sordid than average history (y'know, prison record for violent crime or registered sex offender status), his girlfriend is telling her nearest and dearest that it is all right to treat someone she supposedly cares about with less than the basic standards of courtesy. He's excluded from the wedding because she can do better? Ummm, the above exceptions mentioned, it sounds like this woman raised some Class A self-entitled brats. And she's not putting her foot down. I've dated people my family didn't like, and they always treated them with respect out of respect for me.
Sounds like her family doesn't respect her, and she's asking the poster to accept similar status. Who needs that?
Carolyn Hax: It's an easy question to ask rhetorically, but people make their own deals, a lot of them mystifying to others, and this guy has to make his own calculations. You both make great points--all this can be useful in determining how much he's willing to pay, emotionally, to be with this woman, which is still the decision he has to make.
Group Name Vote: Can you compile a short list of your favorites and then we can vote on them?
Carolyn Hax: Compiling is too labor intensive. I'll throw a bunch out toward the end.
Group: Gene W. has been talking about a group discussion too. Will you and Gene's regular discussion still go on? I'd rather talk to you then the whole world.
Carolyn Hax: Can't speak for Gene, but I'll still be live as usual; this would merely be expansion of the site presence.
Peanuts: I'm pretty sure it should be Nutterati, because Nuterati sounds like a bunch of eunuchs.
Carolyn Hax: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But I don't think that other people dread it quite like I do.: I don't know. I don't think it's that unusual. My friend died unexpectedly a few years ago. Ever since then, whenever someone is late showing up for something I assume the worst. It's a horrible feeling.
Carolyn Hax: I don't think it's unusual, either, -among people who've lived through the premature death of someone close.- I think you have to add that condition, though, because it really is a matter of being on the other side--there's the "before" side, where the percentages apply to your life and bad things don't happen to people close to you. But then a bad thing happens to someone close to you, and you're on the "after" side, where the "this almost never happens" argument is a no-sale. You've seen it, you've felt it, you never want to feel it again, you never shake that it's possible.
The question is often where the line is, between having a normal realism about death and having an emotional condition that needs treatment. I think all you can do is look at your ability to live your day-to-day life, and if you see something impeding your ability to return to the mundane, then you consider treatment.
Washington, D.C.: I have a friend who has always been a tad dramatic. A few months ago she experienced a truly awful medical crisis -- serious, legitimate, tragic drama. I'm trying to be as supportive as I can and to let her talk it out, feel what she needs to feel, etc. But sometimes she does seem to be over the top about even this. I know that she's dealing with this in her way, and she's not at all a stiff upper lip kind of person. And I feel really bad, but sometimes I almost think she's getting overdramatic about her loss. Thoughts on how I can keep being supportive without getting exasperated?
Carolyn Hax: One way is to recognize that someone overdramatic can still get overdramatic even when the situation is legitimately serious. This is similar to a thread we had years ago, about someone despicable who was diagnosed with cancer. Well, cancer is a terrible thing and it's terrible even when it strikes someone despicable, but it doesn't magically make the person likable, or good, or even sympathetic.
In your case, all you can do is handle this situation, and this friend, by doing what you believe your friend needs while also remaining true to yourself. You wouldn't be the first genuinely loving and supportive person to roll your eyes at a genuinely ailing friend.
For the rejected person: I'm wondering if this person has contacted any of the job prospects to ask for feedback. If she/he has progressed to 2nd interviews, something is good about the application and person. In any case where some small rapport was established with the HR dept or other interviewers, I would write or call and ask for feedback to improve my application package or presentation. I'm sure not all will reply, but perhaps enough will to help move forward.
Carolyn Hax: Great suggestion, thanks.
Alexandria: Carolyn: I finally realized why I have trouble making career and financial decisions for myself, but I don't where to go from here. I grew up very poor and what mattered most was doing whatever you had to to make ends meet. Well, I worked all through high school and out myself through college and now make ends meet very well. However, I always let people treat me badly in the workplace because I feel like I should be thankful that I even have a paycheck, but I am in a different place professionally and financially now and could find a job, even friends, that respect me. Instead I keep my mouth shut and feel guilty for trying to make my life like I want it. I'm not even sure this makes sense to anyone, but FWIW my family now thinks because I have an education and a professional career that I am "too good" and need to learn my place. What's going on here? I feel half city mouse and half country mouse.
Carolyn Hax: You've just laid out an argument--and nearly a job description--for a mentor. Is there anyone ahead of you in your professional life who might be able to identify with your experience? And if no one comes to mind, do any of your schools offer professional networking resources? Does your profession have an association or affiliated interest groups through whcih you can get to know others in your field? It might be a slow process but it will have the incidental benefit of pushing you to expand your knowledge of your field and of the people in it, which in turn will help you build confidence even before you find someone willing to mentor you. Do stick it out, though, and try to find someone who can give you guidance, ideas and an ear while you try to figure out where you belong professionally.
I've never seen this issue discussed. My problem is that when I go on family trips with my children, they literally make me sick. It's not that they infect me with some germ that they've caught at school (they're 6, 9 and 11); they're completely healthy. Instead, it appears that they somehow stress me out to the point where I literally can't get out of bed. They're great kids, and I love them completely, but I can't continue to sacrifice my health on the alter of family vacation happiness.
We have traveled as a family all over the world ever since my first child was born, but I feel that I just can't do it anymore. We returned Tuesday from San Juan, where I was so sick that I cried the entire way home. My husband told the kids that he can't take them on our planned trip to Costa Rica this March by himself, so they are angry that I'm going to ruin their trip. Is there a solution for me other than boycotting family vacations? I don't get sick like this when just my husband and I travel, and the kids don't make me sick when we're at home.
Carolyn Hax: Who is pushing for the ambitious travel? There's a reason the yellowed and beloved family vacation lore of our society includes cranky kids in the back of a station wagon asking every 5 minutes if we're there yet. The short hop in the car allows for unscheduled stops, early returns home, a home base for dumping stuff that doesn't have to be cleaned and packed up--and yet it still offers a change of scenery for people who need it.
And not to get too Gen-X on you, but if I had pouted to my mom about a lost trip to Costa Rica to which I had felt entitled, I would have had nightmares for months about the look she would have given me in response. (I doubt she would have wasted the syllables on an actual answer, unless HA HA HA count as syllables.)
And we didn't have booster seats! And our playgrounds were paved! And we rode on the hatch of the car with our bare feet hanging toward the road! And we were fine! Okay, had to get the rest of it out of my system.
If your husband isn't backing you up here, along the lines of, "Show your mother a little gratitude," then I think we're on to a significant element of the problem. I also think stress so serious as to leave you bedridden demands at least a call to your doctor. IN addition to the downsizing of your vacaton ambitions, not in lieu of it.
Northern Virginia: Is it normal during wedding planning to fantasize about something happening to force my fiance and I to elope? I'm not going to get pregnant on purpose or anything, I think I'm just stressed from the planning.
I'm trying to do the most simple wedding possible, but it's still driving me crazy (my "special day" and "visions for your wedding")
How can I stay sane?
P.S. I love my fiance more than anything and I can't wait to start our married life together.
Carolyn Hax: Then get radical and change the wedding plans. Don't necessarily exclude close friends and family--eloping is great for some people but it's not for everyone, and being impulsive is more likely to create hard feelings and regrets--but if you're this miserable with the process then it's time to revisit the process. You really can plan something in one week, and spend a few thousand dollars, and still have that be your "vision" of your "special day." Don't buy into any of it.
Abused in Philly: Hi Carolyn,
The guy in today's column could have been me. I was in an abusive relationship, got out, cocooned for a while, and definitely used to wonder when I would be ready. I agree with your advice to him to get out of the relationship, and the way I see it, practically speaking, it kind of doesn't matter which reason (his not being ready or his feeling blah toward her specifically) is the real reason. I guess what I wonder is which reason to give her.
You have said soo many times that one is ready to date when one finds someone he or she wants to date. Today's guy asks "whether I'm not into her, or it's just my emotional state right now." Pick either one, result is the same.
However, in telling her he needs to bail, you said be honest, that she's great and he's not ready, which may be mostly true and partly to spare her feelings. My question is what to do when you lean toward the "not into THAT person" side. In my case (which admittedly may have a aspects that today's guy didn't have) although he was great in many ways, including being physically attractive, in addition to my not feeling much chemistry, the guy I started seeing had some personality traits that raised some flags for me. More complicatedly, I believe I would not have been bothered by these qualities before my abusive relationship but, being a different person now, they bothered me from him (e.g. certain kinds of teasing). Although he always would say he didn't mean it "that way" or was "just kidding," I do believe that these personality traits/his kind of humor is not ok (and several of my friends agree). Still, in looking inside myself AND explaining it to him, it was difficult to separate what I know for sure to be increased sensitivity on my end from qualities in a partner that I think are hurtful/damaging.
Again, in the end, it kinda didn't matter--the situation/relationship was a no-go for me. I ended up splitting the difference in explaining why it wasn't right for me, saying I need some space from him, that it may be because of my being abused, but that certain aspects of his personality and behavior made me uncomfortable , etc.
My question (finally) is this: Although I know he cares about me very much, hates that I was hurt and very much wants me to heal and be happy, he definitely walked away with the idea that it was all my issues that stood in the way, that I am a basket case for not being able to take a "joke" etc. This makes me a little uneasy, kind of like I am not being true to myself. Part of truly healing from my abusive relationship needs to be remembering what is ok and not ok in how I let people treat me, and somehow letting him think that I am the one with problems for not liking to be "jokingly" put down feels bad.
It's a moot point in the case of this particular guy, there would be no point in revisiting the issue with him, but if I were to go back, how do you think I could have handled it to feel better about myself? Or was the path of least resistance ("it's not you, it's me") the best in this case?
Carolyn Hax: I think one point on the arc from being someone else's person (childhood) to being your own( adulthood) is a letting go of the need to explain your decisions in detail.
And I think that is what, down the road, will serve you best when you realize a relationship isn't working--that instead of choosing this fact or that shading when you break up with someone, you just break up with someone. "This isnt' working out." And when you're asked to explain, stick to the fact or facts that stand out most prominently in your mind. "I don't appreciate your way of teasing, and while it may be fine it isn't fine for me, and I don't see that changing." It's about reaching the point where legitimacy -to you- suffices as legitimacy, period.
It is after all your life that you're steering here. You may not be able to say yes unless you have the consent of others, but full veto power is yours.
About two montsh ago I met a guy through a good mutual friend. I was/am attracted to him he is not attracted to me. I'm therefore ok with the fact that we are just friends. However, every once in a while he jokes about the fact that I hit on him when we first met and that I am ttracted to him. I'm not sure why he does this but it hurts my feelings and I've asked him to stop. Most of the time when he is doing this he has had a few beers first.(friday night happy hours ect) So how do I get him to stop hitting on me when he is drunk if he is going to reject me sober and I still want to be friends with the sober version of this guy?
Carolyn Hax: I can already here people typing the accusations that I'm overracting, but tough. When someone uses the cover of a few beers to humiliate you on a regular basis (two months?and you can already describe the typical conditions when it happens?), after your having asked him to stop, then that's not someone worth your friendship. Back away. The attraction will pass.
Either that or he'll finally get that it isn't funny, but I wouldn't bet anything bigger than a quarter.
Cary, N.C.: A friend of mine recently found flirtatious emails sent between her husband and a woman. She then found out he has gone out with this woman numerous times and lied to her about where he was going. She believes he's having an affair, but he denies it. I have two questions for you. Should she seriously consider the possibility he was seeing this woman but not sleeping with her? (I mean, is that something guys do?) And what characteristics in a man and a marriage are necessary for a relationship to be saved after infidelity? (He keeps telling her she's overreacting and actually offered to take her shopping to make it up to her.)
Carolyn Hax: At this point, I don't see any difference between his sleeping with the other woman or just dating her. He's married! And dating!
If there's such a thing as cosmic justice, your friend will take the new wardrobe, sign the divorce papers and meet someone who treats her with a little respect.
To answer your specific question, the necessary elements for reconciliation are: truth, remorse, respect, effort. I don't see even one of these here.
Carolyn Hax: Okay, I'll post a few of your name suggestions before I go. This is about volume, not an endorsement of any of them.
Or...: The Carolyn Hax Experience.
Hi Carolyn; some chat names to consider:
"Oh my god, what is wrong with you people?"
Name game: Message: "I Carolyn.":
Carolyn Hax: under a full-screen mock-Warhol of me!
Chew the Fat with Carolyn
Discussion group: Hangin' With Hax
What the Hey With Carolyn Hax
Wake Up and Smell the Coffee
Carolyn Hax: Ann Landers, call for you on the red phone ...
RE: Discussion Group: Why not just the Peanut Gallery?
Discussion : Group Therapy with Carolyn
Carolyn Hax: is there anything bigger than a universe? I want that.
Chew the Fat with Carolyn
Carolyn Hax: I'm changing my name to Butch.
Carolyn's Cubicle: I like it.
Carolyn Hax: Some for this, some for The Usual Angst, some for Peanut Gallery.
Discussion group:"Less Chat, More Hax"
(a take-off of Homer's line "Less chat, more splat" in the Simpsons)
Carolyn Hax: Any Homer Simpson is good.
C'mon, don't rub it in.: Can we have a pact where you don't publish letters from people who say "the sex is great." I've been married 20 years, and I've almost forgotten what sex is. How did I get here?
Carolyn Hax: And this person doesn't care about the group at all. Not a bit.
Carolyn Hax: Thank you for playing. I'll let you know when it's about to launch.
Or, "about to lunch," which is how it looks when you're as hungry as I am. Bye bye, thanks, type to you OH WAIT: Next Thursday is Valentine's Day, so in deference to all things artificial, I'm moving the chat up a day. I'll type to you Thursday the 14th at noon. Have a great weekend.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 201 | 0.634146 | 0.829268 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/01/DI2008020101901.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/01/DI2008020101901.html
|
At the Movies With John Anderson
|
2008020819
|
Wondering what to see at the movies this weekend? Join critic John Anderson for a discussion of cinema on Friday, Feb. 8 at 12:30 p.m. ET. He'll recommend what to hit, and tell you what's best to miss.
Anderson, who is writing reviews regularly for the Post during Stephen Hunter's book leave, is a member of the New York Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. He has contributed to numerous publications, including Newsday, Variety, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
Submit questions before or during the discussion.
John Anderson: Happy Friday everyone. It's really nice to be here -- I've never done this Web chat thing before, so please bear with my lack of fluency. Just want to say, it's nice of the Post to have me do it during Stephen Hunter's book break, although, given some of the movies I've been seeing, I think Hunter picked a good time to take time off.
Knoxville, Tenn.: I don't know who you are. Are you the country singer? "Swingin'" was a terrible, terrible song.
John Anderson: Yes I am, and though I have many Grammys, I agree. Terrible song. I will be recording "Let the Eagle Soar" very soon, with the Tijuana Brass. Let me know what you think.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Is anyone anywhere making comedies that are funny? I define "funny" as a movie where people laugh at jokes, as opposed to listening to the same sex jokes over and over or, on the other end, watching a children's cartoon movie (which ironically often contains the same sex jokes).
John Anderson: I think the kind of sex jokes you hear in most mall movies are largely infantile, because they presume the audience is going to be shocked into laughter. Who's schocked by anything anymore? Recently, "Charlie Wilson's War" had me laughing out loud. "In Bruges" as well.
By the way everybody, pleeez excuse all my typoes and mispelings....
Los Angeles, Calif.: About "The Hottie & The Nottie," I take this movie is not what it could have been in the send-up, inside-joke, social-critique department, but one dispatch from Sundance had the trailer deemed unlinkable, due to its offensiveness to the blogger, who happened to be female. How does a movie like this get to Sundance?
John Anderson: The estimable Ms. Hilton's appearance in Park City is an unfortunate symptom of the sundance festival's success. The film wasn't in the festival -- the "Hottie/Nottie" folks came, held an event, siphoned off Sundance cred and pulled a scam of sorts --just as so many hair products have done over the years, and continue to do. It's a parasitic situation, although I don't hear the festival complaining all that loudly about all the press they get from celebutante/jailbird sightings
Boston, Mass.: Hi John. Your reviews are undeniably entertaining, and it seems like our taste in movies intersects quite a bit. However, you come across as extremely contemptuous of the flicks that you don't like. Is this your intention, or is it circumstantial? In your recent review of "Fool's Gold," it seemed to me that most of the reasons you cited for disliking it had more to do with how the movie was made than what actually appeared on the screen. Which I can relate to, but... aren't you supposed to be reviewing the movie itself?
John Anderson: I'm not sure how you separate the two, or for that matter what exactly you mean. I thought I WAS critiqueing what was on screen: the structure of a film, for instance, is on screen, although it doesn't wear a bathing suit. As for being contemptuous, I guess I get irritated at movies that treat the audience as if it were a gaggle of idiots. "Fool's Gold" is a prime example.
Which raises a point: the job of the critic isn't to put a stamp of approval on something that may in fact be escapist fun -- I like a brainless movie as much as the next guy. But it would be irresponsible to say the same movie had any value as cinema. If that sounds highfalutin' well, critics are elitists, what can I say?
In the good old days when I was a kid they had a thing called a sneak preview. This was when you paid for a ticket to see one movie (normally something that had been out for a while) and then could stay and see a movie that was due to come out next weekend for free. Sometimes the new movie came on first and then you could stay for the old one. As I look at the dearth of decent films this week and the abundance of them next week, I'm wondering if there's any chance of a sneak preview these days? If there is, how would I know about it? Fandango seems clueless.
John Anderson: I have to plead ignorance on this, although what I think you're asking for -- a free movie! -- seems antithetical to every law of God, man and Hollywood. I haven't heard of this happening in a long time, and not sure whether it's something they would advertise, or, for that matter, just spring on an audience that was, let's say, paying for babysitters. There are so many outlets for as-yet-unreleased movies to generate word of mouth -- I know, because I host one at UCLA -- that the studios wouldn't need to do it, really.
Anonymous: "Juno" seems to get a lot of favorable buzz in the Oscar race as an outsider. It was not my favorite film of the year (a little too much of a Hey, We Are Making An Endearingly Quirky Film, and the music, that sounded like kids songs from the 60s, almost drove me out of the theater in the first few minutes), but it was different. I enjoyed "Michael Clayton" more, especially the acting (Tilda Swinton my favorite), but doubt it will win anything.
John Anderson: If "No Country" and "There Will be Blood" somehow cancel each other out (which is possible, I guess, given their particular appeal) "Juno" could be the pregnant Cinderella story of 2008. However, I, like you, found the first half hour excrutiatingly cute. It seemed to find a groove after that.
Seattle, Wash.: So what do you think: is "I...drink...your...MILKSHAKE!" going to become the "Say 'ello to my leetle friend!" of the new millennium? A radio talk show host here in Seattle, Luke Burbank, has been playing that sound clip constantly ever since the movie came out.
John Anderson: You certainly heard it a lot during the Super Bowl.
Los Angeles, Calif.: "In Bruges," wow, is this the movie to see this weekend? The reviews are great.
John Anderson: I loved it. It's smart, witty, different. It'll probably die an ignoble death....
Arlington, Va: Does being a film critic require you be really good at the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Falls Church, Va.: Who are you, and what are you doing here?
John Anderson: I'm filling in for Stephen Hunter, while he writes another best-seller. I review for Variety, write the occasional feature for the NYTimes and was/am a longtime critic for Newsday. What am I doing here? In L.A.?
Anonymous: Thus far this year's crop of movie haven't been that great. I know that this is the time that studio release movies that may not do too well, but when does this end? I'm dying for a decent reason to head to the movie. BTW, any word on "Jumper" opening next week?
John Anderson: I saw the "Jumper" trailer, but don't ask me what the movie's about. Some trailers tell you too much, others leave you in the dark. As for good movies at this time of year, that's like looking for a decent tomato in, uh, February
Northampton, Mass.: Dear Mr. Anderson,
You raise an interesting point in your review of "Over Her Dead Body" about the role that a willing suspension of disbelief plays in the success (or failure) of a romantic movie. In the course of doing so, however, I'm afraid you commit something of a howler. The "letters of transit" that propel the plot of "Casablanca" were not signed, as you state, by General De Gaulle. Indeed, as you say, it would have made no sense for the Nazis to have honored such letters. Rather, they were supposedly signed by "General Weygand" -- that is, General Maxime Weygand -- a high ranking member of the collaborationist Petain regime, who in 1941 held military authority over French Northwest Africa. I'm surprised that no one at the "Post" caught this gaffe.
Perhaps more to the point, the whole idea of "letters of transit" was a gimmick dreamed up by the "Casablanca" script writers, which in itself requires some credulity on the part of the audience. The idea that any pass or "letter of transit," once signed, "cannot be rescinded, cannot even be questioned," even if they are known to be stolen, is pretty dubious, but, as you say, the issue is moot once Bergman, Bogart, and the rest of this fine cast work their magic.
John Anderson: Dear Mr. Pelka: Having watched "Casablanca" at least 1,417,568 times, I was shocked -- shocked!-- at your message. So I went back and wacthed it again ("Casablanca" being in my DVD player at all times, just in case of emergencies). I listened. Peter Lorre says "Letters of transit signed by General De Gaulle... cannot be rescinded, not even questioned." Granted, Lorre's got a Hungarian accent, but I can't for the life of me hear anything else. Historically, I'm sure you're correct about who would have signed fictitious, unrescindable letters of transit, but I couldn't hear hear "Weygand" as much as I tried.
Harrisburg, Pa.: So, does it turn out that Paris Hilton is more than just a photogenic personality and she really can act in "The Hottie and the Nottie," or is the reality that she should leave anything requiring talent to her cute dog?
John Anderson: As they used to say about bad actors, "She's good to her mother." Paris is good to her dog.
Washington, DC: Are you the same John Anderson who ran for President in 1980? Love the white hair!
John Anderson: Yes! Did you vote for me?
Washington, D.C.: I really liked "Atonement," but it seemed like of the two twenty-somethings, McAvoy is a real actor and Knightley is a stick.
John Anderson: "Atonement" is one of those movies that seems custom-made for a Best Picture Oscar, doesn't it? While i find Keira Knightley distractingly beautiful, I agree. McAvoy I think I would prefer as a villain.
Washington, D.C.: Yes, you are in L.A., which is why I chuckled at a reference to Dulles in your amusing review of "Fool's Gold." You don't know from Dulles right? I assume you wrote it LAX.
John Anderson: Not at all. I wrote Dulles, and I know Washington. I'm originally (and spiritually still ) from NYC.
Washington, D.C.: We don't know who Stephen Hunter is either. Where's that Desson Howe? He's cuter.
Washington, D.C.: While I would agree that "Fool's Gold" is not a great movie, I think you sell short the chemistry between Mathew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. All of the accessory characters make a mess of the movie, especially the dimwitted Gemma and the gay chefs, but there's something to the relationship between the two leads and the two at least make the film watchable. Without those two, the film would have been a complete disaster.
John Anderson: I'm immune to the charms of Hudson/McConaughey, but you're right about the supporting players. If they had thrown the stars overboard early on, it might have worked
I find your reviews to be incredibly entertaining and your computer ineptitude quite endearing ... reminds me of dear old Dad.
Something about sneak peeks: I think you have to luck into them. When I lived in NYC, I would occasionally run into people handing out tickets for sneak peeks at the movie theater near Columbus Circle. I once had the opportunity to see "Smokin' Aces" a couple weeks early. I passed on that one, of course.
John Anderson: Good tip. And thank for your understanding about my computer skills. If I could type, I could get a real job...
Washington, D.C.: While I'm sure many will consider "Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins" to be too low-brow or too ethnically colorful for their tastes, I'm looking forward to it. That said, why are ethnic comedies always overlooked by critics and mainstream audiences, save for maybe one of Tyler Perry's movies and the Eddie Murphy comedies of the '80s that featured a white supporting cast?
John Anderson: You think they're ignored? Not by audiences, they're not. Remember when Chris Rock hosted the Oscars and did that bit where he went to the Magic Johnson theater and asked people if they'd ever heard of any of the nominees? It was hilarious. And considering Rock's nonreturn, probably a bit too real for the Academy
Washington: I submitted an early question about how you gave away everything in your review of "In Bruges." Would that you would post it and answer it.
John Anderson: I did. Did it not show up? I apologized, actually. Maybe I'm malfunctioning ...help...
Washington, D.C.: It seems that "Cloverfield" was a film that was targeted very specifically to 13 to 30 year olds in its attempt to be hip. Your review and a number of others discard the movie as a "Blair Witch Project" retread, but fail to realize that a number of 13 to 30 year olds probably have never seen the "Blair Witch Project." I thought the film was completely immersive (I'm over 30 BTW), and succeeded on a number of levels to bring the audience into the action. Do you have a hard time appreciating "hip" movies, or are you an old fuddy-duddy movie reviewer?
John Anderson: Do you work for Paramount Pictures?
Falls Church, Va.: Can I buy you lunch? You are so dang funny. I hope your stint at the Post goes on and on.
John Anderson: Yes, I agree, and it won't.
Washington, D.C.: About "In Bruges." I saw this film at an advance screening and was very entertained. I had already liked McDonagh as a playwright and had seen his debut short film, "Six Shooter," and he didn't disappoint in his first feature.
But I have to say I was horrified when I read your positive review of "In Bruges" in which you decided to give away the entire plot, start to finish, down to pivotal bits of information. Your writing is fun and lively in general, even if I think in some other reviews you have turned the snark quotient way too high and seem a bit enamored of your own cleverness. But revealing the total plot of a movie, especially a really good one, is disrespectful to the filmmaker and any potential filmgoer. It is no less a sin just because so many of your fellow critics commit it. Why did you do it? Did you have a word quota to fill and were padding with plot points? Ask the Style editors for a smaller space! Please read the piece before you file and stop yourself. Even a few minor tweaks would have made your sin less egregious.
John Anderson: Mea culpa. I didn't think I gave away that much; having already seen the film, it's possible you're bringing something to the review, but I apologize. i usually try NOT to give away too much, and apparently failed here.
Baltimore, Md.: Aren't you the lead singer for Yes?
John Anderson: He spells it Jon, but if it gets me anywhere, sure.
Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi John, seen you speak in L.A. and couldn't pass up this chance to "chat" with you about films opening this weekend. First is, can you talk a little about Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" and, if he shoots and interviews in/around D.C. for this film, tell us what those scenes are like, both content-wise and visually?
John Anderson: "Taxi" is a terrific film, but whether Gibney shoots in DC is sort of irrelevant -- the movie is about Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib prison, Gitmo, and the torture policies of the current administration. It's possible Alex interviewed some of the MPs here, but those locales really don't matter. I have to say, go see it.
Kentwood, La.: Your chat is great, can I have your baby? Jamie Lynn
John Anderson: There are three, and they do nothing i say
Falls Church, Va.: Regarding "Fool's Gold," I can't get past the rumors that McConaughey didn't ever bathe, to the point where Kate Hudson had to take him aside and explain to him that he stunk too badly for her to perform with him. When I see the previews, his long, lank hair makes him look unwashed. Yuck. Stinky man.
John Anderson: I'd love to confirm this. Anyone?
Washington, D.C.: People in DC have endless opportunities for free advance screenings. Join the DC Film Society for example, the very modest annual fee is more than paid for after a couple of events. Or for totally free, go to ytic.com and enter dead easy to win contests for passes. Also read the City Paper and look for ads offering free passes. But DCFS is the best bet by far. It has spots in film screenings almost every week (often more than one film per week) and even does the occasional theater freebie for plays at Studio or Woolly Mammoth. No I don't work for them, just glad to see tons of free movies each year.
John Anderson: And there's our PSA for this session! Seriously, I think the questioner was asking about something different, but that's all great to know.
Washington, D.C.: My two recent favorites are "No Country for Old Men" and "4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days." Yes, I'm a laugh a minute. Comments on the two films? The Romanian one in particular is astonishing. I can't believe the cinematic flowering there. Two other favorites, "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu" and "12:08: East of Bucharest" are also Romanian and by two other directors. Both on DVD now I would guess.
John Anderson: Romania is happening. I think the last two are indeed on DVD and give the unforgivable neglect of the Academy, "4 Months," which is probably the best movie of the year, will be heading there soon. You have to wonder (maybe it's Stevie Wonder?) who is making the picks for the foreign film Oscar
Washington, D.C.: Your reply regarding "In Bruges" did not show up, no. Sounds suspicious! Especially from a profligate plot revealer.
John Anderson: What I said earlier, before memorizing and burning my answer, was that I apologize if I gave too much away. i usually try not to. You already saw the movie though, so maybe you're projecting? Either way, mea culpa
Lincoln Park: When you go to review a movie, do you go in disguise like a restaurant critic, lest you be recognized and get a better movie experience than your average moviegoer?
John Anderson: I wear a dress. It doesn't get me better movies, or service, but it usually gets me an empty seat on all sides
Montreal, Canada: Well, we do have "sneak previews" here in Montreal, at least occasionally at our local AMC.
They generally are Saturday evening showings (sometimes on Saturday mornings or afternoons), a few weeks before the film is released here. You have to pay for them, though, at the going rate.
Sometimes, if you attend one, you're asked to fill out a brief questionnaire to rate the film and to say how likely you'd be to recommend it to others, though that doesn't always happen.
There's usually only one "sneak preview" per film, though recently "27 Dresses" had sneak previews three Saturdays in a row before hitting the cinema fulltime.
By the way, a "sneak preview" isn't to be confused with those showings, usually a couple of days before a film hits the cinemas, for which radio stations and the "alternate" weekly newspapers give out free passes.
John Anderson: Being a critic, I pay for movies about as often as ...never, actually. They used to advertise "sneak preview this friday" or some such, now and then. "27 Dresses"? they could give away all the tickets they want and I don't think anyone would go.
Washington, D.C.: Will the writers settle? Will we get a ceremony to watch? What would you like to see for Best Picture?
John Anderson: A settlement in the strike is imminent, there will be an Oscar ceremony and Whoopi Goldberg will not descend from the heavens. I like "There Will be Blood" for Best Picture. it's fantastic, Daniel Day-Lewis is the best screen actor alive and it's def. a film that should be seen in theaters
Falls Church, Va.: Here's a story indicating that McConaughey does not wear deodorant, and Hudson called him on it. Perhaps it's an exaggeration to say that he does not bathe. But only perhaps.
John Anderson: We're definitely going to crack this fragrant McConaughey story...
Have you heard/seen anything in advance of th eopening of "Vantage Point"? I saw the trailer in the theater recently and it looks interesting.
John Anderson: It does look cool -- reminded me of "Parallax View" or something like that. A political thriller! Aren't we in the middle of one already...?
Washington, D.C.: Belaboring "In Bruges," no, I'm not projecting. But if I mention the two greatest details you revealed, I will just be making it worse. If you have an email address for ordinary folks to contact you, I will be more specific.
John Anderson: How about extraordinary folks? I may be flattering myself, but putting my personal e-mail out there will probably attract more mail than I can handle -- to say nothing of unspeakably filthy spam about cheerleaders and time-shares. This has really been fun -- i hope you all enjoyed it. I did. xxxjohn
Washington, D.C.: Come on people, ask the new critic a question! At least he isn't a movie-hating curmudgeon like Stephen Hunter, who was so fixated quibbling about firearms on "No Country" he damned one of the best films of the year.
Mr. Anderson, it appears you have been deserted for the lovely Ms. de Moraes who has just begun her chat.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Hi John,
PLEASE explain why the groaner "Alvin and the Chipmunks" is still in first run? That movie was god-awful bad (much as "27 Dresses").
John Anderson: it's going to have to remain one of life's great mysteries
Los Angeles, Calif.: Just read the "In Bruges" review, and I don't agree at all there are spoilers... I haven't seen the film, and I'm lost, but intrigued.
John Anderson: That's a wonderful thing to hear. Thanks a lot. Talk to you next time....J
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.
|
Film critic John Anderson discusses the latest movie releases, Friday, Feb. 8 at 12:30 p.m. ET .
| 257.631579 | 0.842105 | 4.842105 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html
|
Clarity Sought on Electronics Searches
|
2008020819
|
Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried repeatedly to call her during the hour and a half she was questioned. But after her phone was returned, Mango saw that records of her daughter's calls had been erased.
A few months earlier in the same airport, a tech engineer returning from a business trip to London objected when a federal agent asked him to type his password into his laptop computer. "This laptop doesn't belong to me," he remembers protesting. "It belongs to my company." Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself.
Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had "a security concern" with her. "I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight," she said.
The seizure of electronics at U.S. borders has prompted protests from travelers who say they now weigh the risk of traveling with sensitive or personal information on their laptops, cameras or cellphones. In some cases, companies have altered their policies to require employees to safeguard corporate secrets by clearing laptop hard drives before international travel.
Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Asian Law Caucus, two civil liberties groups in San Francisco, plan to file a lawsuit to force the government to disclose its policies on border searches, including which rules govern the seizing and copying of the contents of electronic devices. They also want to know the boundaries for asking travelers about their political views, religious practices and other activities potentially protected by the First Amendment. The question of whether border agents have a right to search electronic devices at all without suspicion of a crime is already under review in the federal courts.
The lawsuit was inspired by two dozen cases, 15 of which involved searches of cellphones, laptops, MP3 players and other electronics. Almost all involved travelers of Muslim, Middle Eastern or South Asian background, many of whom, including Mango and the tech engineer, said they are concerned they were singled out because of racial or religious profiling.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman, Lynn Hollinger, said officers do not engage in racial profiling "in any way, shape or form." She said that "it is not CBP's intent to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny" and that a laptop may be seized if it contains information possibly tied to terrorism, narcotics smuggling, child pornography or other criminal activity.
The reason for a search is not always made clear. The Association of Corporate Travel Executives, which represents 2,500 business executives in the United States and abroad, said it has tracked complaints from several members, including Udy, whose laptops have been seized and their contents copied before usually being returned days later, said Susan Gurley, executive director of ACTE. Gurley said none of the travelers who have complained to the ACTE raised concerns about racial or ethnic profiling. Gurley said none of the travelers were charged with a crime.
"I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days," said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. With ACTE's help, she pressed for relief. More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation.
ACTE last year filed a Freedom of Information Act request to press the government for information on what happens to data seized from laptops and other electronic devices. "Is it destroyed right then and there if the person is in fact just a regular business traveler?" Gurley asked. "People are quite concerned. They don't want proprietary business information floating, not knowing where it has landed or where it is going. It increases the anxiety level."
Udy has changed all her work passwords and no longer banks online. Her company, Radius, has tightened its data policies so that traveling employees must access company information remotely via an encrypted channel, and their laptops must contain no company information.
At least two major global corporations, one American and one Dutch, have told their executives not to carry confidential business material on laptops on overseas trips, Gurley said. In Canada, one law firm has instructed its lawyers to travel to the United States with "blank laptops" whose hard drives contain no data. "We just access our information through the Internet," said Lou Brzezinski, a partner at Blaney McMurtry, a major Toronto law firm. That approach also holds risks, but "those are hacking risks as opposed to search risks," he said.
|
Nabila Mango, a therapist and a U.S. citizen who has lived in the country since 1965, had just flown in from Jordan last December when, she said, she was detained at customs and her cellphone was taken from her purse. Her daughter, waiting outside San Francisco International Airport, tried...
| 18.245614 | 0.982456 | 55.017544 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604690.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604690.html
|
Gates Hits NATO Allies' Role in Afghanistan
|
2008020819
|
"I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security, and others who are not," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps get even worse."
American and other NATO officials are sparring over force levels, missions and strategy as violence in Afghanistan has reached its highest levels since the U.S.-led invasion and overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Although coalition forces have defeated the Taliban in many tactical engagements, analysts say NATO remains in a "strategic stalemate" because of lagging reconstruction and governance efforts. The disputes have pitted Washington against its European partners in a manner rarely seen since the end of the Cold War, casting doubts on the credibility and purpose of the alliance.
Gates, who departs today for a two-day meeting with NATO defense ministers in Lithuania, said he will urge European countries to loosen the "caveats" they place on their troops -- rules limiting where they can be deployed or whether they can engage in battle -- and to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.
Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration.
"I think it should enter into the dialogue" with NATO, McNeill said. The roughly 27,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are concentrated near the eastern border with Pakistan and make up the bulk of the approximately 55,000 foreign troops in the country. McNeill attributed much of the increased violence to the stepped-up military operations.
NATO forces took charge of the Afghan mission in 2006, and the following year saw the worst violence in the country since the war began, with unprecedented military and civilian casualties and a nearly 30 percent rise in attacks, including 60 percent in the southern province of Helmand, according to U.S. military data. As he prepared to take command of NATO forces in Afghanistan in 2006, McNeill recalled, then-NATO Supreme Allied Commander Marine Gen. James Jones gave him simple instructions: "Don't fracture the alliance."
McNeill now finds himself struggling to hold that alliance together. "It doesn't look as though it's fractured," he said on a visit from Kabul, noting that over the past year foreign troops in Afghanistan have expanded by more than 8,000, with reinforcements expected soon from the United States and possibly Britain and Germany. But "there is a hell of a lot of debate back in various countries about what their role should be," he acknowledged.
The growing divide over NATO roles led to a tense encounter in Kabul last year between McNeill and a senior German official. McNeill, who had learned that only about 6,000 of Germany's 250,000-strong military force is deployed abroad, asked if Germany could devote one alpine battalion of about 500 troops to Afghanistan.
"You must understand the political context in our country," the official responded, wagging a finger. "General, that will not happen."
|
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the top U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan yesterday issued a blunt assessment of the alliance's shortcomings in that country, arguing that the unwillingness of some member states to risk combat casualties is threatening NATO's future and underminin...
| 14.653061 | 0.673469 | 1.285714 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604592.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604592.html
|
Challenging History
|
2008020819
|
There are a number of things that make Drew Gilpin Faust different from those who've come before her as head honcho of America's flagship university.
Faust is, for example, the only president of Harvard known to have produced an academic paper titled "Equine Relics of the Civil War," the research for which included attending a solemn burial ceremony for the cremated bones of Stonewall Jackson's horse.
She is, it seems almost certain, the only one among the anointed to talk about what inspires her by calling herself "an archive rat."
More seriously: None of Faust's predecessors ever stood up at a conference of her fellow historians and suggested -- as Faust did in Washington in 2004 -- that the war narratives they so lovingly create may endow chaotic slaughter with a coherence and purposefulness it does not deserve. Now she has backed up that suggestion by publishing a Civil War book that focuses on a deceptively simple question: How did bloody carnage on a scale unprecedented in this country change the society that had to cope with it?
"This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War" is the culmination of a scholarly career that Faust's historian peers laud as unusually productive and original. If you're looking for what separates her from the Harvard pack, that career is an essential starting point.
Oh, and there's that other little difference, the one Harvard's student newspaper has called "the two X-chromosome thing." In the course of an hour-long conversation, Faust will have a few words to say on that subject as well.
But let's not go there yet.
She has a new book to talk about, and it feels like an archive rat's last hurrah.
A tall, calm woman of 60 who wears a thick, dark pantsuit on this cold winter day, Faust perches on a small couch in the president's recently refurbished Massachusetts Hall office. (Gone: the computer desk used by controversial predecessor Larry Summers.) She is an attentive listener, the kind of interview subject who often starts to smile halfway through a question -- presumably because she's caught your drift and knows how she'll respond.
|
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. There are a number of things that make Drew Gilpin Faust different from those who've come before her as head honcho of America's flagship university. Faust is, for example, the only president of Harvard known to have produced an academic paper titled "Equine Relics of the Civil W...
| 7.293103 | 0.931034 | 24.310345 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101596.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101596.html
|
How to Deal: A Dozen Tips for Bargain Hunters
|
2008020819
|
Important: When considering a package deal -- whether it's from a travel agent, a third-party booking site or a vacation discounter -- always price out the individual components at the source to make sure it is an actual deal.
1. Check the aggregator sites. Reputable sites that compile travel deals weekly include Smarter Travel ( http://www.smartertravel.com), Travelzoo ( http://www.travelzoo.com), Independent Traveler ( http://www.independenttraveler.com), BookingBuddy.com ( http://www.bookingbuddy.com) and ShermansTravel ( http://www.shermanstravel.com). You can sign up to be notified about new offerings by e-mail every week.
2. Check with the so-called big three travel booking sites -- Expedia, Orbitz and Travelocity -- for deals and special offers that they broker with travel providers, and register with the sites to receive e-mails tailored to destinations that you designate.
3. Sign up for airline and hotel loyalty programs. As soon as you do, even if you haven't earned any miles or points, the companies will send you e-mails notifying you about their special offers.
4. Check discount tour operators. They frequently offer deals on air-and-hotel packages. These include Go-today.com ( http://www.go-today.com), Vacation Outlet ( http://www.vacationoutlet.com), Fare Deals Ltd. ( http://www.faredeals.com), Apple Vacations ( http://www.applevacations.com), Vacation Express ( http://www.vacationexpress.com), TourCrafters ( http://www.tourcrafters.com), Funjet Vacations ( http://www.funjet.com), CheapCaribbean.com ( http://www.cheapcarribean.com), Ritz Tours ( http://www.ritztours.com), Foreign Independent Tours ( http://www.fittours.com) and General Tours ( http://www.generaltours.com).
5. Check cruise discounters and cruise specialists. Cruise lines have taken strong control of their inventories, which means there are fewer deep discounts from third-party brokers. But many discounters are fighting back by throwing in extras, such as free shore excursions, shipboard credits and bottles of wine. Icruise.com ( http://www.icruise.com) and Ecruises.com ( http://www.ecruises.com) are two of the more aggressive specialists. Try http://www.smallshipcruises.com for lesser-known lines.
6. Consult a travel agent, especially if you're interested in an air-and-hotel package or if you're considering a popular resort during peak season. Companies such as Liberty Travel ( http://www.libertytravel.com), American Express Travel ( http://www.americanexpress.com/travel) and Carlson Wagonlit ( http://www.carlsontravel.com) frequently have deals and availability.
7. Download software onto your computer that notifies you about sales to specific destinations. These include Southwest Airlines' Ding ( http://www.southwest.com), Expedia's Fare Alert ( http://www.expedia.com) and Orbitz's Insider Deals ( http://www.orbitz.com).
8. Check individual airline sites. Many airlines offer special deals to the destinations they fly to, especially in the offseason. Cathay Pacific, for example, offers a Deal of the Month available only through its Web site ( http://www.cathaypacific.com). British Airways ( http://www.baholidays.com) and Austrian Airlines ( http://www.austrianair-vacations.com) often offer good package deals.
9. Check publications, in print and online, that specialize in discount travel, such as Budget Travel magazine (on newsstands and at http://www.budgettravel.com) and Sherman's Travel ( http://www.shermanstravel.com).
10. Consider renting vacation lodging directly from owners. Rates are frequently much better than at hotels, and since the properties usually have kitchens, you can save money on meals. Sites include CyberRentals ( http://www.cyberrentals.com) and Vacation Rentals by Owner ( http://www.vrbo.com). Make sure you quiz the owner beforehand, ask for pictures and check references.
11. Work backward. Instead of trying to find sale fares to your destination of choice, consider places not on your radar screen that pop up on airline sales. A Southwest Airlines sale fare to Cleveland may be just the incentive you need to visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Sites such as http://www.airfarewatchdog.com and http://www.kayak.com (click on the buzz icon) allow you to plug in an originating city, and then a list of current deals is displayed.
12. Be flexible. Be willing to travel in the offseason, to fly out of all three Washington area airports or to change the dates of your trip to catch a sale. If you insist on flying out of Reagan National on a Friday afternoon, you're going to be spending a lot more money on your trip. Best days to travel are generally Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday.
|
Ever wonder how we come up with the goods, week after week? Here's an updated tipsheet.
| 40.2 | 0.45 | 0.55 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101350.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101350.html
|
20 Great Escapes: You Don't Have to Go Far to Have a Good Time
|
2008020819
|
On the Escapes page each week in Wednesday's Style section, we provide ideas on ways for folks to unwind in spots less than four hours away by car. Here are 20 of our favorites, geared toward the kid/sportsman/couch potato in all of us. We've indicated on the map where our picks are within a 50-, 100-, 150- and 200-mile radius of D.C.
For more options, go to www.washingtonpost.com/escapes for an index of regional getaways.
Also, check with the tourism sites for Maryland (http://www.mdisfun.org), Virginia (http://www.virginia.org, West Virginia (http://www.wvtourism.com, Delaware (http://www.visitdelaware.com" target='new'>http://www.visitdelaware.com), New Jersey (http://www.nj.gov/travel) and Pennsylvania (http://www.visitpa.com).
1. Tour the Naval Academy. Ship off -- without conscripting -- to the U.S. Naval Academy, which offers 75-minute tours of its seaworthy facility in Annapolis. Info: 410-293-8687, http://www.navyonline.com.
2. Take a dive. For $295, Gaithersburg's Atlantic Edge scuba school will help you swim with the fishes at the National Aquarium in Baltimore. Info: 301-519-9283, http://www.atlanticedge.com.
3. Bike through the "French" countryside. Stick a baguette in your basket and do your best Lance Armstrong-on-holiday impression along the 120-mile bike route from Leesburg to Paris, Va. Info: 800-820-1021, http://www.fauquiertourism.com.
4. Eat, eat and eat. Save your calories for Easton, Md., a virtual Restaurant Row on the Eastern Shore. Info: 410-770-8000, http://www.tourtalbot.org.
5. Detour off the interstate. You've driven past the Interstate 95 exit for Newark, Del., but pull off and you'll find the lovely Colonial red-brick campus of the University of Delaware and a thriving nightlife. Info: 866-284-7483, http://www.visitdelaware.com.
6. Visit the other Vienna. Vienna, Md. -- nope, it's not a Freudian slip. The Eastern Shore destination has a Continental streak, with remnants of the Brit invasion and a market selling, yes, Vienna sausages. Info: 410-376-3442, http://www.viennamd.org.
7. Chop down a Christmas tree. You can pine for the holidays at the Sleepy Creek Tree Farm Bed and Breakfast (37 Shades Lane, 866-275-8303, http://www.maggiedot.com/sleepycreektree) in Berkeley Springs, W.Va., then head to one of the town's spas to unwind a bit. Info: 800-447-8797, http://www.berkeleysprings.com.
8. See a capitol improvement. In Richmond, tour the new and improved statehouse, which received a $104.5 million facelift worthy of a starlet. Info: 800-370-9004, http://www.visit.richmond.com.
9. Find an outlet for your wallet. Shop and drop your credit card at 140 tax-free outlet stores in Rehoboth, Del., a beachy town with a mean retail habit. Info: 302-227-2233 , http://www.beach-fun.com.
10. Luxe out. After a seven-year, $120 million renovation, the Bedford Springs Resort in Bedford, Pa., recently reopened, giving the Greenbrier and Homestead resorts a run for your money. Info: 866-623-8176, http://www.bedfordspringsresort.com.
11 Do some train-spotting. In Altoona, there's no wrong side of the tracks: The train viewing is great throughout this railroad-crazed Pennsylvania town. Info: 800-842-5866, http://www.alleghenymountains.com.
12. Drink a brew. When you're hankering for a Yuengling or want to see how it's made, Pottsville, Pa. -- also the home of author John O'Hara -- awaits. Info: Schuylkill County Visitors Bureau, 800-765-7282, http://www.schuylkill.org.
13. Go for a walk. The campus of Sweet Briar College in Sweet Briar, Va., encompasses more than 3,000 acres replete with lakes and nature sanctuaries. And don't forget the museums, the galleries, the haunted house . . . Info: 434-381-6100, http://www.sbc.edu.
14. Hang 10. New Jersey's Long Beach Island is surfers' turf. Rent a board from one of the shops along the main route or take a lesson and learn to ride the swells like a pro. Info: 609-494-7211, http://www.discoversouthernocean.com.
15. Party with the Mountaineers. Morgantown, W.Va., is home to West Virginia University, named the country's biggest party school in 2007. Stay up till midnight and you can hear "Country Roads" in every bar. Info: 800-458-7373, http://www.tourmorgantown.com.
16. Get smart. At the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, N.J., kids can pick a giant nose, put on hardhats and walk a steel beam or catch a flick on the Martian land probes. Info: 201-200-1000, http://www.lsc.org.
17. Paddle the day away. Dip and sip on SouthEast Expeditions' wine and kayak adventure off the southern tip of Virginia's Eastern Shore. Take landfall on Cape Charles, a very chill town. Info: 877-22-KAYAK, http://www.sekayak.com.
18. Sleep with the dinos. The American Museum of Natural History in New York hosts the T.rex of sleepovers, transforming its galleries into an adventure-park-cum-dorm-room. Info: 212-769-5200, http://www.amnh.org.
19. Pay your respects. Venture to Bedford, Va., and you can take a tour of the National D-Day Memorial, set on 88 acres and featuring a 44-foot arch. Info: 877-447-3257, http://www.visitbedford.com.
20. Have an "Office" break. NBC's "The Office" is set in Scranton, Pa., and it doesn't take too much work to uncover some of the sites featured on the show. Info: 800-229-3526, http://www.visitnepa.org.
|
Here are 20 of our favorites, geared toward the kid/sportsman/couch potato in all of us.
| 53.47619 | 1 | 21 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020601306.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020601306.html
|
Clinton Lent Her Campaign $5 Million
|
2008020619
|
Clinton aides pointed to her victories in big states such as California and New Jersey as signs that she had carried the day, while Obama's camp highlighted his wins in 13 of the 22 states that voted.
The results left Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) roughly even in the number of pledged delegates accumulated during the first month of the Democratic presidential primary and caucus season. Through the first four party-sanctioned contests before Super Tuesday, Obama had won 63 delegates to Clinton's 48.
A total of 1,681 delegates were at stake Tuesday, and the Associated Press reported yesterday that Clinton won 737, compared with 699 for Obama, with almost 300 still to be awarded.
Obama advisers said that he would emerge from Tuesday's voting with 847 delegates to Clinton's 834, giving him a lead of 910 to 882 among pledged delegates. The Clinton campaign said it did not have final projections but estimated that the margin between the two would be in the single digits.
Beyond the delegates awarded on the basis of the primary and caucus results, Clinton has a lead among the 796 superdelegates -- party officials, members of Congress, governors and others -- who automatically have voting status at the Democratic National Convention and are not bound by the results of contests in their states in deciding whom to support.
There is no official count of these delegates, but various news organizations are reporting that Clinton leads Obama by about 90 superdelegates, with about 450 not publicly committed. Clinton got an early jump on Obama in the competition for superdelegates, but the senator from Illinois has begun to catch up as he has amassed endorsements from mainstream party figures.
Given how competitive the race is, many superdelegates may remain neutral to see whether one of the two candidates gains a clear advantage. That, Democratic strategists said, would require Clinton or Obama to go on a lengthy winning streak that would include victories in the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries. Obama is making a big play for Texas, with plans to open 10 offices there in the days ahead.
"If you notice, we have been closing the gap steadily," Obama said. "I think we will continue to close the gap."
There is another delegate wild card looming: what to do with the delegations from Michigan and Florida. Both states were sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee for moving their primaries into January in violation of party rules and were stripped of their delegates. Clinton won both states and has said she wants their delegations -- representing a potential three-figure swing in delegates -- seated at the national convention in Denver. Democrats want to avoid an ugly credentials fight at the August convention and are calling on DNC Chairman Howard Dean to defuse the issue well beforehand.
The Super Tuesday outcome offered a vivid illustration of how the Democratic Party's rules for proportional distribution of delegates prevents a winning candidate from gaining a decisive advantage over a strong challenger in the race for delegates and explains why neither candidate is likely to gain enough delegates to secure the nomination before the last primary in early June.
But even as they sorted through the results, both Clinton and Obama quickly pivoted to the next races on the calendar. Obama headed to Louisiana, where 67 delegates are at stake on Saturday, while Clinton turned her focus to the "Potomac Primary," in which Maryland, Virginia and the District will vote Tuesday.
|
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced yesterday that she had lent her campaign $5 million, a remarkable twist for a candidate who raised more than $100 million last year that came as she and Sen. Barack Obama continued to spar over which of them was the Democratic winner in coast-to-coast Super...
| 11.275862 | 0.517241 | 0.62069 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502368.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502368.html
|
Clinton and Obama Trade Victories
|
2008020619
|
The results ensured that the fierce contest for delegates will continue into critical primaries in Texas and Ohio on March 4, and possibly beyond, in what has become the party's most competitive race in at least a quarter of a century.
Clinton claimed four of the five biggest prizes in Super Tuesday's 22-state Democratic competition. She also captured Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Those victories helped stem what appeared to be gathering momentum around Obama's candidacy since he won in South Carolina on Jan. 26.
But Obama won in more places than his New York rival, racking up victories in his home state of Illinois, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota and Utah. His narrow victory in Missouri came after Clinton appeared on the brink of winning there. Only the outcome in New Mexico remained unresolved early this morning.
In many of the states Clinton won, Obama had surged from far behind to narrow the gap in the days before Super Tuesday. Her ability to hold off his charge brought a sense of relief to her campaign advisers, but the likelihood that neither would emerge with a significant advantage in delegates was a sign that their roller-coaster competition would continue.
Clinton appeared before supporters in New York shortly before the polls closed in California, thanking her supporters for voting "not just to make history, but to remake America." Saying that Republicans want "eight more years of the same," she added, "They've got until January 20th, 2009, and not one day more." She also presented herself as a candidate who "won't let anyone Swift-boat this country's future."
Obama, who was in Chicago, came out later and, while congratulating Clinton on her successes, drew a contrast with his rival, saying voters in November deserve a clear choice between the Republican and Democratic nominees.
"It's a choice between going into this election with Republicans and independents already united against us, or going against their nominee with a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, from all backgrounds, from all races, from all religions, around a common purpose," he said. "It's a choice between having a debate with the other party about who has the most experience in Washington, or having one about who is most likely to change Washington, because that's a debate that we can win."
Clinton and Obama were fighting not just for state-by-state victories but also for an advantage in the nearly 1,700 delegates up for grabs yesterday. Aides to both candidates said that, regardless of how the two carved up the states, neither would emerge with enough of an edge to claim a substantial advantage.
Delegate tallies lagged well behind the state-by-state results, given the complex formulas the Democrats use to determine the allocation.
Clinton's victory in Massachusetts was especially sweet for her campaign, coming despite endorsements of Obama by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry and Gov. Deval L. Patrick that gave him hope for substantial momentum heading into yesterday's primaries.
Her advisers called it "the biggest surprise of the night." Obama advisers had warned that Clinton's lead may be too large to overcome, but the loss was nonetheless a disappointment to his campaign.
|
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won victories over Sen. Barack Obama in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York last night, giving her presidential campaign a crucial boost. But Obama countered by winning of a string of states, including the general election battleground of Missouri, in th...
| 12.226415 | 0.641509 | 0.981132 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503397.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503397.html
|
For Clinton, A Lively Dead Heat
|
2008020619
|
"Holy [expletive]!" shouted Doug Hattaway, a Clinton aide, as the big screen in the room flashed the news on CNN that the candidate had won the Massachusetts primary. "Look at that!" The returns showed a 59 percent to 38 percent Clinton lead. The crowd roared, and the speakers blasted Big Head Todd and the Monsters' "Blue Sky" ("Yes, you can change the world").
Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had lent the family name to Barack Obama, and John Kerry had campaigned vigorously for Clinton's opponent. Polls showed that Clinton's lead in the state had vanished -- emblematic of a national Democratic primary race in which Obama had rapidly closed the gap with Clinton and threatened to overtake her. Instead, "she beat John Kerry and Ted Kennedy in their back yard," exulted Rep. Anthony Wiener (N.Y.) as he worked the rows of cameras and microphones.
It was as good a reason to celebrate as any. The arcane rules of the Democratic Party, in which the candidates win delegates based on their proportion of the vote, mean that the exact results of the 22 state contests wouldn't be known immediately and would probably reflect a close contest between Clinton and Obama. But perhaps as important as the delegate count are the intangibles: bragging rights and momentum. And after both campaigns forecast a draw, Clinton was well positioned to claim that she beat expectations.
"Tonight we are hearing the voices of people across America," she declared on the stage here just before 11 p.m. She bopped her head and clapped with the music. A whir was heard overhead and red, white and blue confetti rained on the crowd.
On paper, it wasn't as tremendous a victory as the confetti and dancing implied. Obama racked up victories in Georgia, Illinois, Alabama, Delaware, North Dakota, Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, Idaho, Kansas, Alaska, Utah and Missouri. And, even in many states where he lost, he stayed close enough to keep close to parity in the race for delegates. But in the race to spin the Super Tuesday results, Clinton's campaign had the edge.
With mechanized precision, celebrity surrogates fanned out in the ballroom to deliver a victory message. "Who do you want? I've got Governor Spitzer; I've got Rob Reiner," offered a young Clinton aide, as if vending hot dogs.
We'll take one of each.
"It's a big, big night for Hillary," announced director cum pundit Reiner. "The people of America are recognizing that experience matters."
"She's going to be demonstrating a national base that's very hard to overcome," offered New York governor-pundit Eliot Spitzer. "The momentum is clearly in Senator Clinton's favor."
By comparison, Obama's spin was mild. An e-mail from campaign spokesman Bill Burton noted that Obama's Georgia win was his "strongest showing among female voters of any contest so far." A later e-mail from another Obama official sent out a list of polls showing that Clinton had been expected to win most of the Super Tuesday states all along.
In fact, the Obama and Clinton campaigns agreed earlier in the day that they were looking at what Obama called a "split decision." With the possibility of a "knockout punch" essentially absent, Super Tuesday turned into Spin Tuesday, as both campaigns sought to define victory down.
|
NEW YORK A presidential campaign is a series of turning points, and for Hillary Rodham Clinton, a crucial one came at 9:46 p.m. here last night in a ballroom seven stories above Midtown Manhattan.
| 18.27027 | 0.621622 | 0.837838 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502977.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502977.html
|
ILLINOIS | A Favorite Son vs. a Long-Lost Daughter
|
2008020619
|
CHICAGO, Feb. 5 -- Voting on Chicago's solidly Democratic Far North Side, Rickey Purnell saw no cause to agonize.
"The war's really what made me come out and vote. It is really a travesty," said Purnell, 49, who chose Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "It's the fact that Obama didn't vote for the war that makes me stand in his corner. He was against the war, and I was."
Following Purnell into the Paschen Park polling place was Michael Land, 44, who said that "this asinine war" distinguished Obama from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
"The other thing is he has the it factor," Land said. "When all is said and done, he has the charisma and the qualities that Hillary lacks, and that's what tips the scales."
Clinton voters were also casting ballots, but they were looking well outnumbered.
"I am happily voting for Hillary. I think she is absolutely the most qualified," said Linda Tannen, 65. "She's going to break my heart, probably. Most people I know, they're going to vote for Obama."
In any other year, Chicago might have gone solidly for Clinton. She grew up in suburban Park Ridge, and it was here that she had some of her formative political moments. She campaigned in the city, and friends from her youth led an election-eve rally.
But Clinton moved on, and Obama moved in, setting up shop on the South Side, first as a community organizer and later as a lawyer, state legislator and U.S. senator. In Obama's 2004 primary, he nearly swept Chicago's multi-hued wards. His headquarters are here, and he won the backing of Mayor Richard M. Daley (D).
Clinton sent staff members to Chicago to try to peel delegates from Obama's total, and she worked particularly hard for Latino votes. In urban Pilsen, a largely immigrant neighborhood, a number of Latino voters said they preferred Clinton because of her forcefulness and resolve and their high regard for her husband.
Bricklayer David Guerra said he voted for one Clinton because he liked the other Clinton: former president Bill Clinton.
"Bill was a good president; he did a lot for the economy," said Guerra, 33. "He created so many jobs, until Bush ruined it."
Others noted that Clinton and Obama voted to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and that Obama seemed more likely to bring about immigration reform.
"I'm hoping he's more willing to compromise," said Veronica Castro, 26, an immigration worker. Colleague Lisa Thakkar, 33, said, "I'd like to vote for a woman, but not the woman we have running."
That is not how truck driver John Lezo saw it. He said he voted for Clinton because "women should be in charge. Men should be the ones mopping the floor."
Among several voters who consider health care the most important issue, Obama's approach of achieving greater coverage through lower costs seemed more popular than Clinton's determination to create a mandate requiring universal coverage.
"Clinton's mandate doesn't give people choice," said Christina Bronsing, 24, an employee of a nonprofit community health clinic.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 82.5 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503092.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503092.html
|
NEW YORK | Loyalty vs. Pride
|
2008020619
|
Pride appeared to be trumping loyalty, according to a small sampling of voters in two of the targeted areas.
In the Manhattan congressional district that includes Harlem, where former president Bill Clinton maintains his office, the dilemma was so acute that many voters interviewed at polling places said they did not want their full names used. They said they were voting for Obama (D-Ill.) in the privacy of the voting booth, despite intense pressure from local officials, clergy members and neighbors, to support Clinton (D-N.Y.). "I think Clinton's going to win the nomination, but he'll win this area," said Donald Goodman, who is 68 and retired. "If it wasn't for Obama, she might get 90 percent."
"I'll tell you the truth: I voted for Obama," said 66-year-old Carrie Douglas, who was speaking in a half-whisper as if revealing a closely held secret. Walking unsteadily with the aid of an umbrella, she was having trouble navigating the wheelchair ramp because of a recent hip replacement. She thought Clinton would ultimately win, she said, but, "At least I can sleep good tonight knowing I voted for him."
Not everyone said he voted for Obama. "I'm going with Hillary because of experience," Allen Jackson said. "I'd give Obama another five or six years."
Obama has also targeted a heavily black neighborhood of central Brooklyn, which analysts said could be one of the most contested in the state for Democrats. There, voters waited in the fog and rain all morning for the polls to open, and they streamed in to vote.
Almost all surveyed informally said they voted for Obama, and they were not reluctant to talk about why.
"I've been black all my life and voting for other people who don't look like me. I haven't had the satisfaction of voting for someone who looks like me for president," said George Murden, 74, a retired housing inspector.
"I don't want to see any more double talk and lies, like excuses for Iraq," said Fredericka Fisher, an Obama supporter who is unemployed. "He's not a professor of double talk as other candidates are.
"If Barack wasn't around, Hillary would have gotten my vote," Fisher said, adding that she has become disillusioned with the Clintons' campaign methods. "The way they have been acting shows me something just beneath the surface that was always there. And that's their disdain for minorities, blacks in particular. They wouldn't get my vote to run a candy store."
"I've been with Hillary since before she was a senator," said Jennifer Marik, 36, a stage manager. "But I see the need for change. My fear of her is that she's polarizing, and it would be an ugly election."
"The overwhelming majority of the African American and Caribbean American communities in New York City are located in central Brooklyn, southeast Queens, and the northeast Bronx," said Hakeem Jeffries (D), a state assemblyman from Brooklyn who has endorsed Obama. "And these communities in recent years have elected a newer generation of black elected officials who are not bound to the traditional political establishment."
|
NEW YORK, Feb. 5 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has long been heavily favored here in her home state, where she cruised to a comfortable reelection to the Senate in 2006. But in several districts targeted by Barack Obama, voters -- particularly African Americans -- seemed torn Tuesday between hometown...
| 12 | 0.518519 | 0.703704 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600036.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600036.html
|
Voters Don't Share Kennedys' Ardor for Obama
|
2008020619
|
But in the end, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won Massachusetts. It was arguably the most surprising twist in the Super Tuesday returns on the Democratic side -- one that seemed to reflect her earlier upset in New Hampshire, and underscored the core of support from women that is becoming her firewall in the nominating contest.
For Clinton, winning in Massachusetts meant significant bragging rights. Obama had earned endorsements from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the larger-than-life senior senator, and Sen. John F. Kerry, the junior senator who was the party's last presidential nominee. Obama had organizational help from Deval L. Patrick, the governor, who is also a personal friend, and from allies from his days as a Harvard Law student.
But Clinton won comfortably in a race that was, in some ways, always hers to lose. It was, after all, Martha's Vineyard where the Clintons vacationed during the 1990s. Although the Clinton campaign declared Massachusetts the "upset of the night," Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, one of the most prominent elected officials who stayed with Clinton as others broke for Obama, said: "I'm not surprised at all."
"This is Clinton country up here," Menino said.
It "was about real people," Menino said, who saw in Clinton a fighter on their behalf.
By tilting toward Clinton largely on the strength of female support, Massachusetts was on the leading edge of a national trend in the Democratic race, as women continued to break for the N.Y. senator in some, though not all, races. Exit polls showed Clinton ahead among women in the Bay State with a double-digit lead, while Obama had a significant lead among men.
Michael Goldman, a Democratic political operative, said Clinton's advantage among women was decisive. "A lot of women simply came to her rescue," he said.
Obama officials echoed the sentiment, noting that Clinton had always been ahead in the polls. But it was a disappointment nonetheless -- perhaps a reflection of dissatisfaction in the state with Patrick, who ran for governor on a change-over-experience platform similar to Obama's. Or perhaps it was a spillover from the New Hampshire primary almost a month ago, when voters rejected the conventional wisdom, that Obama was on a roll, and voted for Clinton. It was maybe even a daring statement by voters in a state that has not typically gone for women candidates at the statewide level, despite its liberal undercurrents.
Or maybe, in the end, it was about the basics: building a political infrastructure, which Clinton did.
"John Kerry really doesn't have an infrastructure; and Ted Kennedy is a fierce political leader, but you needed the boots on the ground," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
|
Sen. Barack Obama won the Kennedys, key members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and support from the charismatic African American governor of the state.
| 21.115385 | 0.653846 | 0.884615 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503043.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503043.html
|
And Now an Attempt to Connect Real People With the Shifting Public Mood
|
2008020619
|
Suddenly, it's all about my money, not your war.
According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than twice as many people now say their financial future is more important than what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than five years of concern for the loss of American life and treasure abroad has suddenly given way to worry about our personal bank accounts.
"For many Americans, the war has become kind of stale news," Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, told me recently. "People think it's hopeless. Now they want to blame it on the Iraqis. They concluded that the Iraqis don't want to live in peace, so they threw the switch."
Lights out on Iraq. Spotlight on our pocketbooks.
According to the poll, this dramatic change of priorities has occurred within the past three weeks. Did our economic insecurities get stirred up that fast? Are we that easily spooked by the prospect of losing what we have or not getting what we want?
Such fears have been exploited before. So what happens this time if the Bush administration declares a preelection Orange Alert? Does the "war on terrorism" suddenly become the hot new issue, a reason to vote Republican, again? On one hand, we express hope that our next president will unify the country; on the other hand, it seems to take little more than fear of a shrinking wallet for us to forget about others and start asking: What about me?
Starting today, I'll hit the streets with Washington Post videographer Liz Heron to ask voters to take five minutes and explain what's important to them and why. This afternoon, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/take5 to watch the first of three videos featuring highlights of our conversations. You can also post your thoughts.
As we head into next Tuesday's Potomac Primary, our region is poised to have an impact on the selection of the major-party presidential nominees. But what do we base our choices on?
"Most economists aren't sure how the economy is doing," Cowen told me. "It seems that many people are just overreacting to temporary fluctuations. People who used to be optimistic about rising home prices and rising stocks are now saying, 'I'm not gaining anymore, and I don't like it.' Unless you have to sell your house right now, however, the effects will be short-term."
Nevertheless, 39 percent of Americans consider the economy and jobs the No. 1 issue in the presidential campaign, up 10 percentage points in three weeks, according to the Post-ABC poll. No other issue comes close, not even the war in Iraq, which has cost thousands of American lives, perhaps as many as a million Iraqi lives and, speaking of the economy, could cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $2 trillion by 2015.
"There have been social experiments where if one beggar comes up to you and asks for change, you may give it to him," Cowen said. "But if 200 beggars come up, none of them are likely to get anything. When a problem becomes too large or overwhelming, we tend to shut it out."
|
Suddenly, it's all about my money, not your war. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than twice as many people now say their financial future is more important than what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than five years of concern for the loss of American life and tr...
| 10.112903 | 0.967742 | 38.354839 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600763.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600763.html
|
Next Phase of GOP Race: A Marathon or a Sprint?
|
2008020619
|
The race for the Republican presidential nomination shifted into a new phase yesterday, with a now dominant Sen. John McCain still facing at least a month-long trek through 11 states unless he or the party's leaders can ratchet up the pressure on his rivals to bow out of the increasingly lopsided contest.
McCain emerged from Super Tuesday with more than 700 delegates to the party's national convention. That was three times the total for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney or former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee -- and fewer than 500 short of what he needs to secure the GOP presidential nomination.
"Hopefully, we can wrap this thing up, unite the party and be able to take on the Democratic nominee in November," McCain told reporters gathered in an airport hangar yesterday as he prepared to leave Phoenix and head to Washington. "I think we've got to wrap this thing up as quickly as possible."
But Romney and Huckabee showed little interest in backing out of the contentious race after each captured a swath of the country in Tuesday's voting. Romney, who won low-delegate states in the West without any major breakthroughs, hunkered down in Boston with top aides as he prepared to speak to conservative activists in Washington. Huckabee, who showed surprising strength in the South, appeared on eight morning news-talk programs yesterday, vowing to go on.
Following the one-day 21-state GOP voting blitz that taxed the candidates' financial and strategic resources, the next primary is, in effect, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where the three will appear separately. Romney and McCain are to address the group this morning; Huckabee will speak on Saturday. All three will seek the blessing of an anxious and dissatisfied wing of their party that has been especially hostile to McCain.
After that, the GOP race becomes a weekly handful of small to mid-size primaries and caucuses, beginning Saturday in Kansas, Louisiana and Washington state, and continuing with "Potomac Primary" contests in Maryland, Virginia and the District on Tuesday.
McCain is seeking to establish the inevitability of his candidacy by continuing to win contests and accumulate delegates. At the same time, his advisers are pushing the idea that Romney and Huckabee have no chance.
McCain won nine of the 21 states that held GOP contests Tuesday, including California and New York, to seven for Romney and five for Huckabee, while gaining a huge lead in delegates. As of last night, McCain had 703 out of the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. Romney had 310, Huckabee had 190 and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) had 14.
In a public memo from his top strategist, McCain began to make the case that it is almost impossible for Romney to become the nominee. "Mitt will have to win by big margins in many states to garner every last delegate," adviser Charlie Black wrote. "The math is nearly impossible for Mitt Romney."
McCain advisers said the campaign is planning a series of what they called high-profile endorsements next week that would help build consensus among well-known Republicans.
The Rev. Jonathan Falwell, son of the late televangelist Jerry Falwell, said yesterday that he has been talking with McCain to make sure the senator remembers important conservative issues. "It looks as if Senator McCain is going to be the nominee," Falwell said.
While he has not backed a candidate, Falwell said, "At some point, we may make something a little more formal in terms of an endorsement." He praised McCain's record on conservative issues, saying: "He has been listening. We'd like for him to maybe voice these thoughts and voice these issues more on the campaign trail."
|
The race for the Republican presidential nomination shifted into a new phase yesterday, with a now dominant Sen. John McCain still facing at least a month-long trek through 11 states unless he or the party's leaders can ratchet up the pressure on his rivals to bow out of the increasingly lopsided...
| 12.857143 | 0.982143 | 54.017857 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/05/romney_camp_gears_up_for_long.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/05/romney_camp_gears_up_for_long.html
|
Romney Camp Gears Up for Long Haul
|
2008020619
|
Updated: 11:03 By Glenn Kessler BOSTON --"The one thing that is clear is this campaign is going on," Mitt Romney told a crowd gathered at a Boston rally.
As Romney was speaking, networks flashed word that he had won the North Dakota caucuses, his third win of the night and his only victory so far in a state where he had never lived. The crowd waved red thunder sticks and red mitts as he spoke. His speech was his usual collection of talking points, except when he mentioned great Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and Teddy Roosevelt. The current president went unmentioned.
Earlier in the evening, while still waiting for the candidate, the crowd awoke from its slumber when Utah was called for Romney with cheers of "We want Mitt: We want Mitt!"
Despite victories so far in only two states where he had a clear advantage -- Massachusetts and Utah -- the Romney folks are gamely insisting that they are in this for the long haul.
Romney spokesman Kevin Madden sat with small groups of reporters to pass the message that this is still a two-person race between John McCain and Romney. "This is going to be a long night," he said. "What we have seen in these early contests is that we have done very well with conservatives." He argued that only Romney could unite what he called economic, social and national security conservatives. "On the issue of electability, this is still a two-person race," he said.
Madden said that the campaign has had "robust fundraising" in the past week. He also argued that after today's blitz of primary and caucus votes, the race would go back to a more traditional primary calendar that would favor Romney. The campaign will meet tomorrow to map out its strategy for the Potomac primaries next week, he said.
It is worth noting that Romney's staff suggested many of his victories would come later in the night. But he did not win Georgia or West Virginia, where the staff said he would be competitive; he only thus far has won Massachusetts, Utah and North Dakota. The other states on the list of the competitive Romney states are California, Colorado, Alaska and Montana, so it might be worth keeping track through the night how he does in those states.
Posted at 11:05 PM ET on Feb 5, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
A letter from my aunt:
"Read, Get Mad and Pass On.
If an immigrant is over 65 they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than my mom gets for Social Security, and she worked from 1944 till 2004. She only gets $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there is a "catch 22". It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each child can also obtain an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00/month.
Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
Consider sending this to all your friends in this great country, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.
Please forward to expose what our elected politicians have been doing over the past 11 years to the over-taxed American"
I say not to Amnesty and no to McCain. Yes to change and yes to Romney.
Posted by: johnandsonia | February 7, 2008 12:50 AM
Let's see... McCain: 1) McCain/Feingold - first amendment be damned, 2) Voted to give illegals citizenship, borders be damned, so what if they sneak into the country ahead of everyone waiting in line 3) Voted to give illegals social security benefits, sure - we're a rich country we can afford it - NOT. 4) 71 years old with an open contempt for Christian Conservative Republicans and fights with a majority of his own party, 5) Talked to Daschle and other dems about switching parties 6 years ago but Jeffords beat him to it; 6) Thinks Alito is too conservative for Supreme Court and would appoint more "open minded" judges..... and I could go on. No, sorry, McCain is not for me; however, he apparently is what liberals and independents want; looks like conservatives will have to go elsewhere. I'll be sitting out my first election since Ronald - I just can't vote for him and be true to myself. Let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: joycricket | February 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Romney misplayed it. He thought just hard right was going to work. He should have challenged McCain as a centrist and he would have got the northeast and California. Huckabee was going to take the South anyway, because Southerners like Southerners. A little less 'Islamofacism' (AIPAC isn't backing you man) and more trusty management and compassionate, populist conservatism. Mitt would have made some headway with a little more right wing populism and playing up his religion, quoting the Bible like his Dad (the reason they attacked him on being a Mormon isn't because people think Mormons aren't Christian but because people thing they're goody-goody Bible thumpers.) Roll up the shirt sleeves, talk economy, quote the Bible. Oh well.
Posted by: myland | February 6, 2008 12:49 PM
Why does everyone think Huckster had a great night yesterday and Romney should drop out? Mitt won more states and, more importantly, still has more delegates. Huck consistently finished a distant third outside of the evangelical south, while Romney and McCain made it competitive in virtually every southern state.
After WV, I smell a backroom deal between McCain and Huck, who must think there's some upside to being VP to a 72-year-old president.
Posted by: giantsfan | February 6, 2008 12:33 PM
I am unhappy that none of the southern states went to Romney. I will still vote for him in Virginia. I was very encouraged by the exit polls in CA. They show that Romney is well ahead with the conservative vote. I was also happy that Romney won MN, ND, AK, and CO very handily.
All last night really proves is that the southern republicans aren't full-fledged conservatives, they are social conservatives that follow a swift talking baptist preacher wherever he wants to lead them (do you really want to abolish the IRS?). Open up your eyes and actually research the issues. Look at Huckabee's record when compared to Romney's record combined with his history of bringing change. Please. Huckabee will not get above third place again (except Louisiana) based on the states that remain but he will certainly take the votes aways from Romney. Please, reconsider and vote for Romney--he is wounded but could still do it if the conservatives rally behind him.
Posted by: ectfour | February 6, 2008 12:28 PM
Those who comment that Senator McCain has "low character" are despicable people. I would say "shame!" but you obviously have none. Try "quando scopri qui es tuo padre, saluto melo"- Italian, for you monolinguals.
Those who sit out the election will no doubt enjoy four or eight years of Hilary Clinton. I won't, but you're probably stupid enough to sulk in this way. What a bunch of spoiled brats!- Oh, and by the way, so is Romney- the "Change" candidate indeed, based on his flip-flop on issues.
Posted by: monellion | February 6, 2008 12:27 PM
if Romney wins I am voting democrat if McCain wins it will be hard to decide but could go republican. I am an independent and personally Romney talks about the same old people who put us in the worst deficit in history as hero's. I mean we are still in debt from Ronald and Bush. I mean Bush Jr is now putting us in 400 billion more in debt. We have never fought a war with a tax cut in history. 1 Trillion to go fight some country that has done nothing to us. We should spend that one trillion re-building our own country and developed alternatives to oil so we no longer have to buy any oil from the middle east. I thought the republican party stood for less government less debt and less taxes. Do you really thing we can have less taxes for every while the debt balloons to 9 trillion. Who is going to pay this money back the tooth fairy? I hope McCain can stop the spending if not maybe Clinton or someone else can. They at least dropped it some in the late 90's.
Posted by: heardcom2002 | February 6, 2008 11:52 AM
If McCain gets in, it's the same as Clinton or Obama, there's no difference, he's as far left as you can get. (Big Gov.), open boarders, etc:, I'll sit this one out if he gets it. P.S. He,s also anti-family
Posted by: sanity8 | February 6, 2008 11:43 AM
As for "how much better Huckabee did than Romney", CNN has Romney at 265 delegates and Huckabee at 169 delegates -- obviously both are far behind McCain -- as between Romney and Huckabee, though, please define "better"?
Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 11:42 AM
I am a conservative as well -- are you REALLY that sure the lesson is worth four (or eight) years of Clintons back in the White House -- kiss the Supreme Court goodbye too.
Posted by: JakeD | February 6, 2008 11:37 AM
All of you people who say that you will not vote if John McCain is the Republican nominee had better wake up! I disagree with aspects of every one of the Republican candidates' platforms, however, I'm not stupid enough to sit out the election and not cast my vote for whoever the Republican nominee is...McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. Who do you people want in the White House...a Democrat!?! Wake up!!
You asked the question, so I will answer it...Yes, I would rather see a Democrat in the White House!!! There is a reason I am a *CONSERVATIVE* Republican, and not a Republican conservative. At least with a Democrat everyone knows what they are getting...a liberal.
Besides the fact that McCain is too old, there is his name on that campaign finance "reform" law that remains one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment ever (and McCain is going to change colors and protect and defend the Bill of Rights as President when he failed to do so as a US Senator???). I could go on, but if he is the GOP nominee the Democrats will tear him to shreds, starting with his involvement with the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal. There were 4 Democrats and 1 Republican that were involved...the single Republican being John McCain.
McCain, his family and baby-sitter made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. After learning Keating was in trouble over Lincoln, McCain paid for the air trips totaling $13,433.
The Republican Party will be taught an important lesson by the defeat of a John McCain candidacy: conservatives will not be ignored, and if they are, conservatives will not support the party.
Posted by: oryssman | February 6, 2008 11:28 AM
All of you people who say that you will not vote if John McCain is the Republican nominee had better wake up! I disagree with aspects of every one of the Republican candidates' platforms, however, I'm not stupid enough to sit out the election and not cast my vote for whoever the Republican nominee is...McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. Who do you people want in the White House...a Democrat!?! Wake up!!
Posted by: JoeDon | February 6, 2008 10:50 AM
"look how much better Huckabee did than Romney" Wow, who would have guessed that right-wing evangelicals would vote for a Southern Baptist? Who would guess that barely-republicans in New York and Cali would vote for McCain. Amazing. But look at normal Americans in the middle of the country - Romney supporters. Minnesota, Colorado, Montana, Utah, etc. Rational, real, Republicans for Romney.
McCain is clearly part of the problem with Washington politics, and Huckleberry is clearly electable only with people who think lynching is cool and cars belong on blocks in your front yard. Romney has Hucklberry beat in pledged delegates, and the calendar going forward favors Mitt. He may not win, but he's the only GOP candidate that doesn't make me want to shower after I hear him speak.
Posted by: newpopmedia | February 6, 2008 10:19 AM
If McCain gets the nomination, I will not vote.
John McCain doesn't "reach across party lines" he switches sides and bullies people around. He is arrogant, angry and lies frequently.
He may have been a war hero 40 years ago, however, he has been a self-serving politician for the last 25 years and his major legislative efforts have all been horrible upon implementation. Don't even get me started on the damage this country would have endured if McCain-Kennedy's S.1348 Amnesty for Illegals bill passed.
John McCain is a war-mongering, illegal aliens loving, open borders-supporting, egotistical politician who has been in washington for over 20 years. If you think he will change anything for the positive, then I have waterfront property in the everglades to sell you.
Posted by: fighterDC | February 6, 2008 9:58 AM
This situation is difficult for Romney. I was certainly suprised this morning that Huckabee is saying that a vote for him is for him only, and not McCain. This gives the hint that he's trying to ward off media that's posting otherwise. In the middle of all this, Romney has gone out of a lot of mainstream publicity, which would explain why no one is paying attention to him. I still think that he has the electibility. The people only need to see it.
Posted by: sunnystrings | February 6, 2008 8:21 AM
"Spoilers"--You're kidding. This is the United States of American and the candidates have the right to run for president. Romney said that Huckabee should drop out of the race prior to yesterday and look how much better Huckabee did than Romney. Huck should suggest that Romney drop out of the race. It is important that there be competition and discussion of ideas. If one person has it sewn up early, its not as interesting and informative.
And let the republicans fight it out anyway. I think its funny that the pundits can't stand the candidates. That's what they get for supporting the most incompetent president in US history.
Posted by: commentator3 | February 6, 2008 6:22 AM
"I would never vote for John McCain. He is a person of poor character and low morals."
Amazing. I wonder what standards you have for ethics and conduct. Putting your fellow soldiers ahead of yourself, in the face of years of torture? I guess not. Drafting and enacting legislation to remove the lopsided influence of money in elections? Nope. Resisting the "group think" of the party and standing on your own feet? Pass.
If that's what you consider poor character and low morals, then I agree. McCain shouldn't be your choice.
Posted by: gmc177 | February 6, 2008 2:32 AM
Hey conservatives! Frustrated with the "vote splitting" and spoilers? Maybe NOW you will learn about Instant Runoff Voting. Check it out. Way superior method of voting. The more developed democracies use it. Maybe it's time we became one?
Posted by: B2O2 | February 6, 2008 1:01 AM
My support stays with Mitt Romney. If he is not the nominee I will sit out this election. I would never vote for John McCain. He is a person of poor character and low morals. If this is what the GOP wants to stand behind then they can do it without my vote. I have no doubt that there are a large number of voters who will do the same. McCain already is fracturing the party and it will get worse with him as president. So very sad to sell this happening to our country.
Posted by: darnellfletcher | February 6, 2008 12:24 AM
Survey's going in out voting everybody's concern is economy and amnesty yet they are voting opposit their concerns. I am wondering if they know how to read. or if they know one candidate from another.
Posted by: xantiphi | February 5, 2008 11:18 PM
I only wish it was just a two person Race. Huckleberry and Dr.NO are just sinking the real agent for Change with their Wrong-Headed and stubborn Persistance.
By the time it finally dawns on the fools they are not going to stop the RINO Amnesty McPain, they will have given him the Victory!
So much for their empty rhetoric about wanting "Change"!
Unless they mean towards Socialism!
Posted by: rat-the | February 5, 2008 11:07 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.
|
Despite victories so far in only two states where he had a clear advantage -- Massachusetts and Utah -- the Mitt Romney campaign remains optimistic. --Glenn Kessler
| 125.464286 | 0.928571 | 14.571429 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502976.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502976.html
|
GEORGIA | Low GOP Enthusiasm
|
2008020619
|
As voters filed out of the polling place at Johnson Ferry Road Baptist Church, however, few seemed to exhibit much passion for the remaining crop of presidential contenders. Up to the last moments, polls showed that, on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas remained in a close race in Georgia, with McCain possibly holding a small advantage.
"There's not one perfect candidate for me this year -- it's very frustrating," said Kim Tatman, 50, a teacher. She said she ended up voting for Huckabee, though she had preferred former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Chris Ensley, 35, a banker, voted for Romney despite uneasiness about the changes in his stance on abortion. "I don't think a Republican is going to win, anyway," Ensley said, acknowledging that he has considered voting for a Democrat in the general election. "A lot of people think it's time for a change."
Phillip Kittell, 48, a financial planner and a Republican voter for more than 20 years, went a step further: He crossed party lines to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). "I've just lost a lot of faith in the Republican Party," he said. "I just don't like the deceptions."
Political analysts have said that many of the South's voters think that each of the GOP candidates has serious liabilities, and that none has emerged as the dominant favorite.
Some voters in Georgia said that they find Romney, a former corporate executive, too slick, too well-dressed. "If there was an emergency like 9/11, I don't know that he could get his hands dirty," said Linda Taylor, 65, a homemaker here. "His pants fit too well. I go by gut, and I don't have a good feeling about him."
Other voters said McCain is too liberal, particularly on immigration and campaign finance. Radio personalities Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have repeatedly bashed him for allegedly compromising too easily with Democrats, and several voters said those broadcasts made lasting impressions.
Huckabee, meanwhile, is viewed as too far behind in the national polls to win the election, though many here said they feel comfortable with his folksy ways.
"Many people in exurbia are rejecting Romney and McCain and looking at Huckabee as the lesser of three evils," said Matthew A. Towery, former chairman of Gingrich's political organization. "What Hannity and Rush are doing is forcing people to rethink McCain -- and go to Huckabee."
Towery added that, though Huckabee has special appeal to evangelical voters, religion may figure less than in previous elections. "Just being evangelical will no longer do the trick in the South," he said. "That being said, Huckabee is sort of a default candidate."
|
MARIETTA, Ga., Feb. 5 -- The fast-growing suburbs of Cobb County have long been home to political passions, mostly conservative. They were the base for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, and over the years, residents have quarreled loudly over a Ten Commandments display at the county courthouse,...
| 10.017544 | 0.45614 | 0.526316 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503907.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503907.html
|
A Nod to the Hometown Crowd
|
2008020619
|
For a while the atmosphere remained a bit tense, as guests waited to learn whether their candidate would prevail in his home state as well as other Western states. But at the very moment the band struck up "Twist and Shout," Fox News called Arizona for the senator, and a cheer rose up from the crowd.
McCain came onto the stage a short time later and made a point of thanking Arizona for awarding him a win. And putting a new twist on an old joke about how the failed presidential bids of Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrats Morris K. Udall and Bruce Babbitt make Arizona "the only state where mothers don't tell their children that someday they could grow up to be president," McCain offered a new assessment of his state's political fortunes.
"I think it's fair to say tonight we might have come a little bit closer to the day when mothers in Arizona could tell their children that someday they could grow up to be president of the United States," he declared.
"I think at the end of the day, it will be McCain," said Cindy Baker, who drove with her daughter Emily, 17, from Yuma, three hours away. "He will get the delegates and the nomination."
|
PHOENIX, Feb. 5 -- Sen. John McCain's operation has finally taken on the trappings of a successful GOP campaign: The more than 1,000 supporters gathered here at the swank Arizona Biltmore can sip mineral water and soda free of charge at bars at his Super Tuesday party, as they take in the sounds ...
| 4.224138 | 0.362069 | 0.431034 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503091.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503091.html
|
Dirty Tricks, Version 2.0: E-Mail Sent to Friends
|
2008020619
|
The last-minute chain e-mails arrived with unsolicited primary voting advice. One alerted recipients to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's "alarming" views about Israel, another challenged Republican Sen. John McCain's account of his Vietnam War service. Another alleged that Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton opposed the Civil Rights Act as a teenager, even though she did not.
Campaign dirty tricks found a new outlet before the Super Tuesday voting, as several misleading attacks on presidential candidates were spread via cautionary last-minute mass e-mails among friends. On Monday night, those messages started arriving in many inboxes with subject lines such as "FW: Something to consider before voting tomorrow."
In e-mails forwarded to The Washington Post, senders attacked Republican Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, and offered a misleading account of Obama's voting record in the Illinois Senate. Some were unsigned and impossible to trace.
"Clearly, the speed of delivery has enabled these last-minute attacks to become much more potent," said Peter Pasi, an executive of Emotive LLC, a firm specializing in online communication strategies.
Zephyr Teachout, a former director of Internet organizing for Howard Dean who now teaches law at Duke University, said: "What's different, even from four years ago, is that across-the-board people are using e-mail to talk about the election. . . . Because you're getting them from friends, they take on an air of authenticity."
Some of those sharing the e-mails did so innocently. Sherry M. Saffer, a Los Angeles lawyer, said that she sent a group of Jewish friends an e-mail about Obama that she received from her aunt in New York. The message, from the Republican Jewish Coalition, criticized an interview Obama gave in the French publication Paris Match in which he proposed organizing a summit of heads of state in the Muslim world.
The coalition's executive director then noted: "Nowhere in the Paris Match article does Senator Obama affirm Israel's right to exist. Nor does he condemn the repeated terrorist strikes against Israel -- the only stable democracy in the region."
The executive director, Matt Brooks, said last night that he stands by the e-mail.
But the Middle East was touched on only briefly in the interview. Denis McDonough, a top foreign policy adviser to Obama, said yesterday that the suggestion that Obama does not support Israel is "baseless, groundless and without merit."
McDonough added: "Barack has strongly condemned terrorist attacks against Israel, has strongly affirmed Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and just last week was firmly on the record urging our U.N. ambassador to veto any resolution out of the Security Council that did not condemn missile attacks on Israel from Gaza."
Saffer, who is not affiliated with any campaign and said she is leaning toward supporting Clinton, explained that she "assumed anyone who gets an e-mail would make their own independent investigation into the accuracy or inaccuracy of it."
As recently as two weeks ago, Obama was also the target of a widely distributed, unsigned and false e-mail message about his religion: "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim." He is, in fact, a Christian. But the message circulated with advice that it was "something that should be considered in your choice."
Teachout, an Obama supporter, said the e-mail presented him with the difficult task of trying to "battle a ghost." "They're very difficult to respond to, because you don't want to engage the idea," she said.
Teachout said that such transactions are vexing to campaigns because they cannot track or combat a misleading message as it jumps around the country. "If you see a falsehood on television, at least you can go back to that same channel and try and correct it," she said. "Here, the channel disappears. The waves wash up the minute the ideas have been written in the sand."
Staff writer Michael Dobbs contributed to this report.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 100.125 | 0.375 | 0.375 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/winners_and_losers_super_tuesd.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/winners_and_losers_super_tuesd.html
|
Super Tuesday Winners and Losers
|
2008020619
|
Twenty-four states and the largest primary day ever -- now that's a SUPER Tuesday.
For Republicans, the clear winner was John McCain, claiming a number of big states -- New York, New Jersey, California -- to emerge with a strong delegate lead and a seeming stranglehold on the nomination.
The Democratic result was far more muddled, with a spirited debate already underway on The Fix over whether Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton won the better roster of states. No matter where you come down on that conversation, it's hard to see the Democratic race ending any time soon. (We'll have more on what's next in both races later this afternoon.)
Regular Fix readers know we like to find the story behind the story, however, and below you'll find our winners and losers from last night's action. This list is designed to start a conversation, not end one, so post your own winners/losers in the comments section below.
Mike Huckabee: We all expected a former Republican governor would win a series of states last night. But few people thought that former governor would be Huckabee. Huckabee's wins in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Arkansas hobbled Mitt Romney's attempt to coalesce conservatives behind his candidacy and made Huckabee the leading alternative to McCain. It's hard to see how Huckabee can build a coalition to take out McCain or, frankly, if he really wants to do that given the congeniality between the two men. But Huckabee proved last night that his win in Iowa was not a fluke. Imagine what he could have done if he had raised significant cash and put together even a semblance of the organizations his rivals built in the early states.
Hispanics: As they did in Nevada's caucuses, Hispanics gave Clinton her margin of victory in several must-win states yesterday. In California, which was an emerging battleground between the two candidates, Clinton won Hispanics by 40 points -- a massive boost for the New York senator considering that Hispanics accounted for roughly 30 percent of the Democratic vote in the Golden State. The results were similar in other states that Clinton had to have -- in New Jersey she won the Hispanic vote by 35 points, in Massachusetts by 20 points.
The Gender Gap: For nine states covered by exit polling data purchased by The Post, the gender gap on the Democratic side showed up in full force. Taking out the two candidates' home states, the exit polls reveal a vote split clearly down gender lines. Obama won the male vote in six of the seven non-native son/daughter states (he crushed Clinton by 39 points among men in Georgia) while she won men in Tennessee by three points. Among women, Clinton rolled to double-digit victories in five of the seven states; Obama won women in Georgia by a whopping 28 points thanks to his strength among black voters and beat Clinton by a single point among women in Missouri. The numbers in individual states were eye-popping -- Clinton did 27 points better among women than men in Massachusetts, 26 points better in California and 20 points better in New Jersey.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: The Governator's credibility was on the line after he decided to reverse course and endorse McCain in the lead-up to California's primary. As polling showed Romney closing the gap, questions about Schwarzenegger's reach within his own party were raised. But McCain pulled it out in the end. Outside of the presidential race, Schwarzenegger won another victory: He opposed Proposition 92, which would have changed the way community college funds in the state are doled out; the measure failed.
Obama's Caucus Organization: After Iowa, it became clear that caucuses -- smaller, more intimate affairs -- were Obama's strong suit. (Nevada was a slight hiccup, although Obama did end up with more delegates thanks to his strength in the rural parts of the state.) Knowing that, his campaign organized aggressively in the six states holding caucuses on Feb. 5, and in five of them he won convincingly. Those wins helped Obama pile up delegates as the two candidates prepare for an extended period of trench warfare in the fight for the nomination.
Tim Kaine: The Virginia Democratic governor was among the earliest endorsers of Obama and now has a week to prove the mettle of his political organization in a state that looks to be the most hotly contested among the Feb. 12 states. Vice presidential tryout, anyone?
Homebody Reporters: The next major fight on the Democratic side is next Tuesday, when voters in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia cast ballots. The so-called Potomac Primary means that Washington-based reporters will get to sleep in their own beds even while covering the vote. And yes, The Fix is selfishly talking about himself.
Superdelegates: This select group of elected officials and party regulars ia going to be the new battleground between Obama and Clinton. Unlike delegates selected in caucuses and primaries, the supers are not bound to support any candidate, meaning that they can extract promises from the two candidates in exchange for their support. For the next few months, these superdelegates are going to the most popular kids in school.
President Bush: In the nine states for which The Post purchased exit polling data (Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Tennessee), the president's disapproval rating was above 40 percent in five. That includes a 52 percent disapproval score in New York, a 49 percent disapproval rating in New Jersey and a 42 percent disapproval in California. Did we mention these include Republican primary voters? The other bit of bad news for Bush is that among those who disapproved of the job he has done, McCain won overwhelmingly -- meaning that the likely 2008 nominee will, in the minds of many GOP-leaning voters, be a repudiation of the current president.
Janet Napolitano: The Arizona governor went out on a limb to back Obama and was featured in the Illinois senator's closing ads in the state. In the end, however, Napolitano wasn't able to deliver her state for Obama, a high-profile setback for a politician with clear aspirations for a spot on the national ticket.
Conservative Talk Radio: Rush Limbaugh went all out to rally support for Romney -- or at the very least suppress votes for McCain. It didn't work. While McCain won among self-identified conservatives in only three of the nine states covered by exit polls bought by The Post, he won the raw vote in six of the nine. (McCain won Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and New York; Huckabee took Tennessee and Georgia while Romney won Massachusetts.) McCain won huge margins among moderates.
Mark Warner: The former Virginia governor -- and odds-on favorite to be the next senator from the commonwealth -- has stayed out of the endorsement game ever since he dropped his own presidential aspirations in late 2006. But considerable pressure will be brought to bear on Warner over the next week to make his preference known. And at least one member of Clinton's inner circle has VERY close ties to Warner. What's a popular politician to do?
The Fix's Vacation Plans: The Democratic race ain't ending any time soon. In fact, it's hard to see a clear path to the nomination for either Obama or Clinton. When their campaigns said the fight could extend into April, we thought they were kidding. They weren't.
By Chris Cillizza | February 6, 2008; 12:05 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: Who Won? | Next: Spinning Super Tuesday
Add The Fix to Your Site
If Clinton is the nominee, she will energize and motivate the party base - and I mean the REPUBLICAN party base. She will do what McCain alone doesn't seem to be able to do: she will motivate the Republican base to turn out at the polls in droves, so they can vote against her.
Posted by: dkiley | February 7, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse
I have benn volunteering for Obama and I can tell you this; these young voters and first time voters will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I urge them to consider the Party, but they just want Obama - as do I. I beleive he will win the upcoming states and for good reason - HE IS THE REAL THING. If Rezco is all they have to swiftboat him, he's in pretty good shape. HE IS THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL BEAT JOHN McCAIN! Republicans I know are unhappy with their choices now. The only thing that will unite them is a Clinton to vote against.
I wrote my Senators and congressman today to ask them to use their Super Delegate status in favor of our party and our country. I urge thsoe of you who support Obama to do the same because they can change their support at any time. Make sure we have an honest leader, someone who will make government transparent again, someone we can trust to do the right thing! Do you REALLY trust the Clintons?? I sure did - in 1992 and 1996. But not now; their time has passed. The 'wink wink nod nod' nature of their politicism is, to say the least, discouraging. I am pasting below what I sent in e-mail - you guys should do the same!
I am writing you today to beg you, as a Super Delegate, to support or change your support to Barack Obama. In any other election, I would have supported Hillary Clinton, and certainly would be proud to see a woman as President of the United States. But after what Bill Clinton pulled in South Carolina and all that has followed, I cannot help but think that a Clinton candidacy will give us President McCain.
How can we stand in the way of this inspiring leader? Have you heard a crowd at ANYONE elses "victory" speech chant "U.S.A., U.S.A." along with Yes We Can and now, "We're the ones we've been waiting for." You know as well as I do that these are not empty words.
I am on Obama volunteer in California and have seen people coming to the polls who have never voted before because they felt disinfranchised by the "establishment." And obviously, young voters are coming out in droves.
I fear these new Democrats will not vote if Hillary is the nominee - I know my own children have said as much as well as many young volunteers. This is not good for our Party and not good for our country.
It is my understanding that Super Delegates can change their vote at the convention. Please consider this, Sentaor _________. And do take a look at the "match-ups" on line - Obama beats McCain every time, Hillary does not.
Please, for the sake of the party and our country, support Barack Obama!
Posted by: sheridan1 | February 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse
Clinton has raised over 5 million in less than 24 hours eclipsing Obama and more importantly Obama is refusing to have any further debates! What a coward! Hillary has already accepted five invites for debates while obama hides behind Oprah's skirt! America wants substance not a blowhard coward like Obama who is afraid to debate a woman who is clearly smarter and more experienced, hence more prepared to lead. Obama is a loser and a coward! No wonder Obama has so much Republican support! The love battling cowards!
Posted by: rayacop | February 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse
Obama can beat the likely ticket of McCain-Huckabee in the South. Obama won more votes in Georgia and South Carolina than McCain and Huckabee combined won in those states.
Obama won 295,091 votes in South Carolina, to 272,132 for McCain and Huckabee combined.
Obama won 700,366 votes in Georgia, to 629,708 for McCain and Huckabee combined.
Although Clinton won narrow victories in the Tennessee and Oklahoma primaries, she did not win more votes than McCain/Huckabee in those states, and won't beat the McCain-Huckabee ticket in those states in November.
Posted by: dkiley | February 7, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse
"Hispanics have shown themselves to be very racist in their votes and that to me has been the real eye opener in these elections."
Yeah, I'm sure that knowing this is why Bill Richardson left the race before Nevada and Florida...and why Hillary and Obama both support a path to citizenship. And of course 80-90% of Southern Blacks voting for Obama isn't racist, it's just the Hispanics for Hillary and McCain.
Posted by: mshimazu | February 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse
It's not true that the early state primaries and caucuses had no relevance (as written in one of the comments). The early primaries weeded out most of the candidates - which means that voters in states like mine don't have the same choice as those in the early states. It would be nice if we did.
I vote in Kentucky. Our primary is in May. Even though the Democratic primary is down to two candidates and the Republicans' to three, I hope the races are still competitive then. It would be the first time in at least a generation that our primary votes mean anything.
Meanwhile I'd like to also disagree with a recent New York Times editorial ("Divided They Run" 6 Feb 08). The NYT op-ed board believes there is a huge rift between Clinton and Obama supporters and that it will be extremely difficult for the winning candidate to unite the party. The NYT editors believe too much of the political hype.
There are plenty of Democrats who like both candidates. There are few Democratic voters this season who believe they are voting for the lesser of two evils or even that only one of the candidates on the ballot is good.
Barring some unforeseen event -- when the general election arrives -- most Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans will be happy to vote for any candidate who repudiates the administration of the past 8 years. The Democrats' main worry then (other than an internal implosion or a successful Swiftboat attack) will be that the Republican candidate manages to position himself as a Candidate of Change too.
Posted by: switow | February 7, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse
Until a week ago, Obama's campaign refused to pledge that, if elected, he will work toward breaking the glass ceiling for Asians Americans. His refusal may have contributed to the large, 3:1 margin (73% to 25%) of AsAm vote for Clinton in California.
In California, AsAm slightly outnumbers African Americans. Yet the 3:1 AsAm vote for Clinton is nowhere to be seen in the mainstream media, a very low glass ceiling indeed. If Obama wants Change and Hope for all Americans, he should have addressed the concerns and needs of AsAm long time ago (as Clinton, Edwards etc did) and not sounds hypocritical to them. He might have won California. A lot AsAm do like him.
Posted by: jj_oohay | February 7, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse
The BBC's North America editor Justin Webb points out that Mrs Clinton won in states such as New York, New Jersey and California that will be major Democratic targets in the presidential election in November.
In contrast, he says, Mr Obama's wins were in states such as Georgia and North Dakota, which are not such key prizes, raising legitimate questions about the long-term viability of his campaign.
Posted by: RainDodger | February 7, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse
Sorry, but I missed your response. I try to keep up on the threads, but so much is coming so fast that the old stuff gets quickly lost. I'll take a look for it. I always enjoy your posts as they tend to be responsive to the thread rather than copied and pasted rants.
I stand by my previous comment that twisting someone's name is schoolyard name calling. If Frank Rich did that, he lowered himself to do so. All 6 remaining candidates (sorry, Sen. Gravel) have put everything on the line for something they believe in. I do respect that, even when I don't respect their views.
Zouk - glad to have gotten on your radar. Technically, it wasn't a stain. Those don't come out when you wash clothes. She just kept the dress. A weird keepsake, you must admit.
Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 6, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse
Your interpretation of history is amusing, so I'll take a stab at what happens every friggin' time a Democrat gets into office:
The economy tanks, or else they artificially balloon it with a dotcom boom or something similar that lasts just until they are about to leave office, at which point the economy tanks. They send troops overseas into a bunch of countries where America has no business sticking its nose (Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo), but it's not like these are really American troops anymore because they have usually ceded them over to the UN anyway. Then they wring their hands after a few deaths and want to bring everyone home, all the while blaming Republicans for warmongering. Democrats pass a bunch of free trade agreements and hand out most favored nation trading status as presents (returning the favor for illegal campaign contributions), which they claim will reduce prices for American consumers and build a stronger, more equitable global economy, but which actually just send American jobs overseas while impoverishing the people in most of those other countries as well.
At least Ford got us out of Vietnam, and at least Reagan brought an end to the Cold War.
History is so annoying when you aren't allowed to pick and choose, isn't it?
Posted by: blert | February 6, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse
The 'conservative wing' of te Republican Party is just a little to the right of Adolph Hitler... LOL.
Posted by: frankdiscussion1 | February 6, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse
Based on vote totals on her convincing wins in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, it looks clear that Clinton would deliver these three "red states" to the Democrats if she is the nominee in November. Add to that her strength in Florida and the possibility that she could make Texas at least competitive in November (due to her strength with Hispanic voters) and Clinton would be difficult for the GOP to beat in the general election.
She is also well-positioned in Missouri. While Obama very narrowly carried the state on 2/5, Clinton swept all of the rural areas of the state where the nominee needs to be strong if they are going to carry Missouri.
Posted by: octopod | February 6, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse
The person who said Bush was a 'winner' may have been right. It is the American people who lose when we elect Republicans in office. The present one is a traitor, a a compulsive lier, spies on the American people, kidnaps, tortures and is utterly corrupt. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a republican has been elected president three things have happened.
1) Massive deregulation followed by widescale fraud. This is accompanied by 'voodoo economics' (as they later referred to Reagan's use of tax breaks for Big Companies and the rich). 2) The economy tanks amid huge scandals as the actions of the scumbags allowed to go wild through deregulation and a blind eye. 3) The government bails out these scumbags at taxpayer expense.
Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II...
It happens EVERY FRIGGIN TIME. yet some utter and complete morons keep thinking history won't be repeated 'this time'.
Posted by: frankdiscussion1 | February 6, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse
JKaatz, I tend to agree with you. As a big McCain supporter, I am hoping that Obama can overtake Hillary and win the Democratic nomination for two reasons:
1) Hillary would never consent to be Obama's VP. On the other hand, I could see where Obama might consent to be Hillary's VP if asked, and THAT could be a very formidable ticket to beat.
2) Obama-mania, the "cult of personality" that has sprug up around him, has forestalled any real examination so far of his actual positions on the issues. This won't last. At some point, the dirty little secret is going to come out: Obama is WAAAAY to the left of the majority of the American electorate. John McCain, on the other hand is perceived as slightly right of center, which is where the most votes are in America today.
Putting these two things together, I think that I'd rather see McCain run against Obama in the Fall than Hillary. One other thing ... and I hate to bring it up, but it's the truth ... is that a significant number of white Democrats, especially in the south, simply aren't ready for a black president yet. They'll tell the pollsters one thing, but when they're actually in the voting booth behind that curtain, they'll do another.
All in all, I don't thinks could possibly have broken any better for John McCain over the past two months. He really has caught every break imaginable along the way. As long as he doesn't do or say anything REALLY stupid, he now has the Republican nomination locked up while the Dems seem set for a real knock-down, drag-out fight that won't be resolved until their convention. And whoever they nominate, McCain will have a very good chance at beating. But my one big concern is a Clinton/Obama ticket. That's why I'm hoping Obama can pull it out.
Posted by: danram | February 6, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse
Senate Republicans Blocks Dems' Bid To Add $44B In Aid To Elderly, Disabled To Stimulus Plan:
I see no newspapers in the US are revealing the actual roll call vote; I got it from the Guardian (UK).
Basically, 5 out of the 8 Republicans who voted for it are up for reelection this time: Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Domenici (NM), Dole (NC) and Smith (OR). They know they have to face voters in 9 months. But to their credit, Grassley (IA), Snow (ME) and Specter (PA) voted for it and are NOT up for reelection.
GOP Senators who are up for reelection and voted NO are: Alexander (TN), Allard (CO), Chambliss (GA), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), "bathroom boy" Larry Craig (ID), Enzy (WY), Graham (SC), Hagel (NE), Inhofe (OK), McConnell (KY), Roberts (KS), Session (AL) and Sununu (NH). REMEMBER THESE GUYS AT ELECTION TIME IF YOU'RE SUFFERING!
Posted by: gce1356 | February 6, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse
I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.
Posted by: jkaatz | February 6, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse
I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.
Posted by: jkaatz | February 6, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse
I don't see Obama winning a general election. His appeal in the Democratic party is generally to the left. Moderate Republicans I talk to just don't see the appeal of Obama's "flash", and grudgingly admit that Hillary has demonstrated strength, determination and a command of the issues. I suspect that if Obama is nominated, the Republican partisan machine will successfully limit his voting base to the left wing of the spectrum, giving McCain the election.
Posted by: jkaatz | February 6, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse
I think its important for Obama supporters to really understand how Clinton supporters feel.
We want our candidate on the ticket just as much as you do yours.
The only question is which one goes first.
There is no question that both have to be on the ticket or you lose 1/2 of the party or the other.
The Democratic Party is split 50/50 down the middle and neither side will accept a ticket that doesn't include its nominee.
The only question left is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.
I think that Clinton/Obama is better, but I'll accept Obama/Clinton.
We need to quickly decide which one it is and then win this election!!!!
Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse
Everyone has got to face facts. The Democratic Party is split 50/50 down the middle and neither side will accept a ticket that doesn't include its nominee.
The only question left is Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.
I think that Clinton/Obama is better, but I'll accept Obama/Clinton.
We need to quickly decide which one it is and then win this election!!!!
Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse
SPECTACULARLY. Obama has won some primaries and will win more. Now if you're talking about Mitt Romney, the Caucus King, then your observation has the ring of truth...
Posted by: Ford1998 | February 6, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse
"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."
Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!
In terms of predicting VOTER BEHAVIOR, caucuses ARE NOT as significant.
Typically caucuses are NOT statistically representative of the voter demographics.
Dem candidates since 1960 who have become the general election candidate largely through support in caucuses have all done one thing consistently - LOSE SPECTACTULARLY in the general.
Posted by: eabpmn | February 6, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse
"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."
Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!
In terms of predicting the patterns of voter behavior, caucuses ARE NOT as significant. The are not representative of all potential voters.
Every time the Dems have had a general election candidate who achieved that status laregly through caucuses (since 1960), they have all been consistent in one thing - LOSING SPECTACTURALLY.
Posted by: eabpmn | February 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse
I'm surprised he didn't list Claire McCaskill among the winners: she did a tremendous job helping Obama over the line in Missouri, despite the absurd efforts of Politco.com, AP and others - who couldn't wait to get their "Clinton gets the upper hand" spin on - to call the Mo. race early for her. I think McCaskill is clearly now on any Obama VP short list. She deserved more mention as a "winner" that Czilla's silly self-indulgent item listing "Homebody Reporters" among the winners.
Posted by: roje | February 6, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse
Clinton won in blue states like CA, NY, MA, and NJ because of the massive Hispanic vote. Hispanics have shown themselves to be very racist in their votes and that to me has been the real eye opener in these elections.
God forbid McCain legalizes these bigots.
Posted by: obee1 | February 6, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse
Ho;;ary has always acted in the past with a Presedential bid in mind and that is why people are right when they see her as a cold calculating woman.
She ignored and forgave hubby over the Monica cheating affair, just kept her marriage together for her shot at the white house.
Yes, I did support Hillary in the past, but with Barack in the race, there is no comparison. Barack was right on Iraq from day one, unlike Hillary who is responsible for the Iraq mess and the eventual death and destruction on an innocent nation ending up in the deaths of 600,000 civilians, if thats ok for you, you will be fine voting for HRC.
Obama is way more articulate than the fake Hillary, who has nothing new to offer, she uses the same rehersed lines from many a past political rally.
Ibama is witty and sharp, not allowing HRC b1tchiness during the SC debate to bog him down and thats when he really gained the respect of millions of people.
Posted by: obee1 | February 6, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse
Jews are one of the strongest Hillary supporters, and every time I hear the HRC posters claim sexism for white men not voting for HRC, it makes me think if the Jews are pulling the same race/gender/religion bait they use when one opposes a jewish candidate by calling the opponents anti-semites.....
Just because we dont vote for HRC does not mean we hate women.
Are you not voting Barack because you are racist?
Posted by: obee1 | February 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse
I found my "Envy/Jealous" Factor was rite on concerning the white male vote against Hillary. My "Fear" Factor was rite on concerning the Repub vote for Obama. This is no excuse, I missed the intense passion of the Obama supporters. Now if this support will go to Hillary when she is the nominee, I think we may have a shot at the magic 60 in The Senate.
Posted by: lylepink | February 6, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse
I like Obama quite a bit. If Hillary wasn't running he'd have my vote in a heart beat. I just think Hillary is so much better its like they're not even from the same planet.
When you see them debate, its almost embarassing for him.
Obama doesn't know what to do without a teleprompter.
He's a good actor, but not Presidential material, at least not yet.
We should have had an African-American in the Whitehouse years ago.
Its too bad Colin Powell didn't pan out.
But if you look at things in a color-blind and gender blind standpoint, there's absolutely no comparison between Obama and Hillary.
Hillary wins by a country mile.
She's the much better candidate.
Even if she is a Girl!!!
Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse
The fact that 40% disapprove Bush does not make him a "loser". His support among Republicans is still up near 80%.
And he, unlike any of the other winners was elected....twice.
"Sen. John McCain defended President Bush's Iraq plan on Friday as a difficult but necessary move, parting company with lawmakers questioning the wisdom of the military build up."
Posted by: jabailo | February 6, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse
Clinton won in blue states like CA, NY, MA, and NJ. Big deal - whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will win those states in November. Obama has shown he can win votes in red states, which makes him a stronger general election candidate. His victories in the South are especially impressive - in both South Carolina and Georgia, he won more votes than the top two Republican candidates combined. Recent history shows that the Democrats win the WH if they win at least some states in the South, and that the Democrats lose if the Solid South goes Republican. If Obama puts the South in play in November, it's all over: he can start writing his Inaugural Address.
Posted by: dkiley | February 6, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse
Whereever Zouk is, I wish the king of it would go back....and take his jackels and moonbats with him.....wadda freak....
Posted by: seakeys | February 6, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse
Could Obama be any more out of touch?
I heard him say today that he has been "tested" in this campaign. What is he talking about? Bill Clinton called his campaign "a fairy tale" and Johnson made a veiled reference to his admitted drug use. Obama then went to party elders whining about racism and they put pressure on the Clintons to stop. That was it. The whole thing lasted less than a week.
My dear Mr. Obama, if you think THAT is being tested in modern American politics, it just shows how green and naive you are.
Posted by: lpeter59 | February 6, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse
I read these blogs so seldom. Why? Because they are always inhabited by delusionals like kingofzouk spewing copious amounts of drivel. They come from both sides of the aisle. They are so sure they are smarter than anyone around them. They consider insults and name calling acceptable forms of behaviour. Intelligent discouse? I think not. Sure, some are trying to have a good, solid debate, but it is always ruined by the delusionals. So anyway, the last time I read this blog was just before the 2006 elections. For some reason, I decided to read today. Sure enough ... same old drivel from the same old delusionals. The funny part? The last time I read, Kingofzouk was spouting about the upcoming landslide win for the Republicans, a win that would prove all the pundits wrong. So how did Nov. 7, 2006, go for your party again, Mr. Zouk? And here the Zoukster is, predicting another landslide in 2008. Excellent. I can't wait for the sequel to 2006. That will be a wonderful day indeed.
Posted by: lee.bachlet | February 6, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse
To svreader: I would love to see a woman president...but let it be someone who achieved it ON HER OWN, not gaining name recognition on whom she was married to. Hillary Clinton is too divisive, too much a relic of the past. She's Lurleen Wallace with a Yale Law degree.
I preferred Edwards, but now I'm in the Obama camp, thank you.
Posted by: VPaterno | February 6, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse
You left out a few winners, Chris. (I bet you're tired.)
BIG WINNER: Barack Obama for doing what seemed impossible just a scant few weeks ago, i.e., going head-to-head with the Clinton juggernaut and bringing it to a halt.
BIG WINNER: The Democratic voters and Independents and cross-over Republicans, who had a VERY clear choice of candidates with incredibly different perspectives and problem-solving modalities.
BIGGEST WINNER OF SUPER TUESDAY: American Democracy, as "We, The People," took control of the political process again and taking it away from the ones who've so long "owned" it!
Posted by: miraclestudies | February 6, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse
I would say SurveyUSA is a winner for polling Clinton 10% ahead in California and Reuters/Zogby a loser for having Obama lead by 13%.
Posted by: anthonyjbrady | February 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse
You mentioned Arkansas twice for Huckabee.
Posted by: andrewgerst | February 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse
NBC News is undercounting (mainly Clinton) delegates in large states. In popular vote and likely final delegate count from Super Tuesday, Clinton remains in the lead (before counting superdelegates).
Posted by: lartfromabove | February 6, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse
John, the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets', and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs.
The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so the farmer could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells. The farmer's favorite rooster was one he called "Butch", a very fine specimen he was, too. But on this particular morning the farmer noticed that Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! The farmer went to investigate. The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
But to farmer John's amazement, Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. The farmer was so proud of Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result...The judges not only awarded Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pullet surprise as well.
Clearly Butch was a politician in the making: Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Just remember when you do go to vote........... the bells are not always audible
Posted by: faray | February 6, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: diplomat111 | February 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse
I again enjoyed your recap of Super Tuesday. I wonder if you or some would comment on Mitt Romney running as the logical heir to the Bush dynasty and yet running against a broken Washington at the same time? If its broke, guess who broke it, Mitt!
Posted by: dave_sheehan64 | February 6, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse
The smart thing to do is unify Democrats around Clinton/Obama as soon as possible.
Its the only way to unify the party.
Otherwise we lost one half or the other.
Clinton/Obama '08 - The unbeatable ticket!!!
Anything else is suicide for the Democratic party.
Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse
Add Republican Mormons to the list of losers. They feel rejected in their own party, but they can't in good concscience support pro-abortion, pro-"gay marriage" candidates.
Posted by: 1person | February 6, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse
If the McCain-Huckabee ticket comes up, the democrats have to think real hard: do they want to win or lose in a landslide?
If they go for Obama, it will be the second option, if they go for Hillary, it will be the first one.
Just look beyond Obama's rhetoric, or just take away his visions and dreams and change and hope and see what is left. To my mind, there is no substance left.
This guy has flip-flop written all over him: "I'm the underdog, but I break records when it comes to collecting donations." I was quite P@#$ off when I received a begging email from him on the day he announced his $32m record. He is a liberal, but fails to vote on abortion other than "present". He talks about gun control, but promises voters in Idaho that he "will not take their guns away from them". He calls himself a liberal, but can't stand to have his picture taken with the mayor of San Francisco, who held fundraisers for him. Why? Because the mayor allows same-sex marriages in his city... This guy is a hypocrit!
People call Clinton greedy, they claim that she would do anything to get elected and that nobody likes her. Well, on closer inspection, Mr. Obama does not look very modest or humble about his wads of cash, coming from individuals and big business alike, slum lords, nuclear companies, he does not care at all, unless he gets criticized. Right now, he is fighting for every delegate available and since he feels that this might not be enough, that the Superdelegates might tip the scales, he is currently appealing to them to forget about the rules and to just vote for him in a tight race. How poor is that?
The only change he is interested in is the change of rules in his favour, the change of his status from senator to president.
He is a great showman, a good orator, a likable person, but look beyond the sweet-talkin' and all you will find is a lot of hot air.
Look at his results, look at Clinton's. She won most of the important states, except Illinois and Georgia to a lesser extend. She has most of the female vote, the hispanic vote, older people, lower income groups, lower education groups. Just look at Florida (btw, if Obama had won Florida, he would fight like crazy to get the every single vote counted). Nobody campaigned there, so what you get is how people vote without local influences and candidates going from door to door. Clinton beat the hell out of Obama there. And btw, if the Democrats had the usual winner-takes-all, Obama would be history right now.
If the republicans send out McCain-Huckabee, Obama will lose spectacularly. Independents will go to McCain, the Hispanic vote in the Southwest will go to McCain, even California will go to him, Huckabee will bring in the South and the religious votes, both will bring the whites, the gun-owners, the conservatives of both parties. Obama will have the liberal vote in Boston and Minessota, Illinois, the black vote in the South which will give him nice, respectable, but useless second places and the high income groups. It'll be a desaster.
Clinton on the other hand is even seen by Ann Coulter as a conservative alternative to McCain ("She is our girl"), she would bring in the female vote, will battle McCain for the hispanics, will win California, New York, New Jersey, New England, the swing states, Arkansas, the black vote will return to her, old, lower income and lower education and she will steal lots of republicans from McCain. She will do extremely good. So look closer at Obama and see beyond his smokescreen.
Posted by: flosstoss | February 6, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse
from the master projectionist himself: "come to waste another day posting nothing?"
Who can make this stuff up?
Posted by: Spectator2 | February 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse
If Huckabee is the VP millions of disaffected Mormons will not vote the Republican ticket.
Posted by: 1person | February 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse
Another loser, and a big fat one at that is Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse
Another loser, and a big fat one at that is Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse
How about VP Huckleberry? See the WVA caucus, where in precinct after precinct the non-viable McCain vote went straight to Huckabee just to stick a fork in Flip Romney. That, along with Huck's recent congeniality toward McCain, plus Huckleberry sticking around for a few more weeks is what McCain gets for the deal.
Posted by: abbatrey | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse
just curious, does king of zouk have a job (or a life outside of his blog). his posts and iq suggest not. sad
Posted by: wydette29 | February 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse
Ron Paul has been my candidate throughout the primary process. Is it really true that he has been unfairly treated by the media? For whatever reason, he has been unable to put to good use his huge support on the internet. Even Fox News put up his supporters' overwhelming text message approval after he debated his GOP rivals. Congressman Paul was interviewed and questioned many times by major network news organizations.
More than media neglect, Ron Paul's candidacy has been thwarted by the many closed primaries of the Republicans. The party elite is openly contemptuous of him, because his is true to his beliefs and to the principles the Republican Party was founded on. The sad truth is that the GOP of today is quite happy with crony capitalism, big government and imperialism.
Posted by: txpenguin | February 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse
Wow - what a night, exciting for everyone. No clear winner, but alot of people fired up, ain't it great. I don't like the ripping and shredding and comments posted only to spew hate, they do not help the candidate one is hoping to convince others to vote for, actually - they are a turn off. In the end, you are either a loyal party member or not, if you choose to go off and vote for the other party, go ahead - baby wa wa i'm not gonna vote for.... is baby crap and shows you are too young to vote mentally. And if you do, don't blame the Clintons for your decision, are they so much an influence in your life you can't make a decision on your own? My dream for me is a democrat in the white house, we have two amazing candidates. The dream ticket is a good idea, if they can work together than so can we. My choice is for Hillary based on the economy and experience. What do I think of Obama? a great man who has a great future in politics. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton for all she has done for women and children over the years, for her endurance and grace under incredible pressure, and her ability to represent the best attributes of women with her professionalism. Her sponsoring of legislation while campaining just proves her work ethic is formidable. Nasty names belong on the playground, not in political arguments, besides - your veins are popping and you won't change anything. I quess I am just amazed at how many women are still bound up with male conditioning and just can't accept that a woman can do the same job as a man, just as well - maybe better. At least now we have a chance. May the best person win.
Posted by: lndlouis | February 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse
Anyone care to comment on the signficance of these numbers? Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, and NH are all swing states. Missouri (by 6% in 04), Ark and Colo (by 5% in 04) went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Minnesota awent for Kerry in 2000 and 2004. NH went for Bush in 2000, but Kerry in 2004. The ones at the bottom (S Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma) are solid red states. Of all of these, the only one where there have been more voters in the Repub primary is in Alabama.
Missouri primary Total Democrat votes: 800,000 Total Republican votes: 550,000
Arkansas primary Total Democrat votes: 283,000 Total Republican votes: 208,000
Colorado caucus Total Democrat votes: 118,000 Total Republican votes: 56,000
Minnesota caucus Total Democrat votes: 200,000 Total Republican votes: 63,000
New Hampshire primary Total Democrat votes: 283,000 Total Republican votes: 231,000
South Carolina primary Total Democrat votes: 530,000 Total Republican votes: 441,000
Alabama primary Total Democrat votes: 538,000 Total Republican votes: 561,000
Georgia primary Total Democrat votes: 1,045,000 Total Republican votes: 955,000
Oklahoma primary Total Democrat votes: 401,000 Total Republican votes: 329,000
Posted by: joelindley | February 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse
How about Mitt on the loser list? He and the MSM kept trying to say it was a two-way race between him and McCain. Even with all his millions, he can't escape the fact that people just don't want him. Exit polls for Huckabee showed that many of their second choices were McCain, not the flip-flopper and panderer from Massachusetts - so much for the idea that Huckabee was taking votes away from Romney.
If Huckabee had Romney's pocketbook available, there wouldn't be any question of taking him seriously. How many times does the guy have to "surprise" the MSM to be taken seriously? They didn't see him coming in Iowa and they didn't see him coming this time around. Beware MSM on counting him out again.
And finally, if he were able to get the nomination, Huckabee is a much tougher opponent for Democrats to take on than the MSM gives him credit for. He is not a right-wing wacko - he is actually a rather moderate governor who can speak on the main street economy, health care, poverty, education, etc., that I and my fellow Democrats care about. He won't get my vote, but I don't buy into the MSM labeling him a right-wing fringe guy who can't win the general election. He can, because he won't have to secure the right-wing base because they trust him.... thus he won't have to say a word on far-right issues unless prompted, and can speak well on all the social justics issues Republicans usually fail at - enough to get some cross-over votes.
(Note the MSM did the same to Dean in 2004, making him out to be some crazy lefty because of his opposition to the war and his support from the anti-war members of the party - but the truth was, Dean was rather moderate, more so than Kerry and others in my party).
Posted by: tjs_dc | February 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse
If McCain chooses Huckabee as his running mate I am certain many offended Mormons will not vote for him, not even while holding their noses.
Posted by: 1person | February 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse
Drindl: I did a quick count from the CNN results page. They say that McCain has received about 4.78 million votes. But that counts states that voted before Super Tuesday. If you want the Super Tuesday number, I get more like 3.6 million. As Bsimon said, it's not quite a fair comparison. I'd also like to see total turnout numbers for each party.
Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse
PROUDTOBEGOP: If I could trust McCain to appoint Justices like Alito & Roberts I might reconsider, (he thought Alito was too conservative)but having observed him and read his book "Faith of my Fathers", I believe I know what he will do. He will never jeapordize his true base(Liberal MSM) by appointing conservative judges.
If Obama wins the dem nomination, I will be more than happy to vote for him. Why? He does not hate me like McCain does. And if HRC is the nominee, I believe her to be more conservative than McCain and would appoint more conservative judges from her than we would ever ger from McCain.
Posted by: vbhoomes | February 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse
Someone said to me yesterday that the Press was controlling the elections. I gave that idea some thought and found relevance in the claim. But this morning I got conclusive proof. All the lists of winners and losers I have seen in quite a few publications, most if not all, have left Ron Pauls name off the list. His message isn't reaching the general public because the media will not give him any print. I think it a shame we are so quick to back whomever the press throws at us rather than do our homework on a candidate. We also need to demand all contenders get fair coverage, whether the media likes them or not. Ron Paul is a bit squirrely but his message needs to be heard.
Posted by: dmr0834 | February 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse
hillary clintion's SOTU speech circa 2010
My fellow americans. As you know my health care intitative spent all the money for the next few years. we already have raised the tax level to 100% on the rich. bill's speeches in china and dubai are not selling that well anymore so I am really at a loss as to what to do for money over the next three years of my term. I will be going on a listening tour to consider some options.
Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse
Hey youba. Good points on who won where.
My answer would be that the coastal bastions of liberal elites are predominantly states with urban populations. Those voters tend to recognize the government as active in their lives, and tend to vote for the party insiders.
The upper midwest, etc., while white and maybe less educated are also largely rural. Those folks tend to give the government the stinkeye... and vote for insurgents.
This might be why "ultraliberal" Obama is doing so well in "red states" and bland, white Hillary is kicking butt in urban centers.
Posted by: steveboyington | February 6, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: julie: "The guy next to me in line was a Republican; so was the woman next to me inside at the rally. But they liked what they were hearing from Obama."
What I have noticed in my 60 years on earth is that Republicans, for all their conservatism, are really less racist than Democrats, who proclaim their liberalism. The vitriolic hatred the spew against Obama--"empty suit," closet Muslim, kid, not his time, etc.--is the remnant of when the Democratic party was Southern based and included George Wallace and Strom Thurmond. I think black people have had enough of the two-faced, slimy patronage of people like the Clintons, who now have their pet Latinos to bolster them, even though it was black people who marched and bled so Asians and Latinos could have civil rights in this country. In the photo of LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, no Latinos or Asians are in the picture, just MLK and his black colleagues. Where were they then, and where are they now? Not that they should vote for Obama because he's black--but how ungrateful and lowlife to vote against him because he's black.
Posted by: edwcorey | February 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse
"i find it amazing that it could be this evenly split. does anyone know how many votes were cast for McCain, in total?"
I haven't seen such a number. Its not an apples-to-apples comparison anyway, because McCain is in a three-person race, whereas the Dems are down to 2. Comparing total votes by party would be more interesting. I understand the GOP is suffering miserably, in that regard. Here in MN, it was 3 or 4 to 1. (200K DFL, v 50 or 60K GOP).
Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse
Obama supporters should focus on their candidate's strengths. The more they make trashinh Hillary their primary campaign technique the more they hurt Democrats and the more they help Republicans.
The focus should be on Clinton/Obama '08 -- The unbeatable Ticket!!!
Posted by: svreader | February 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse
moonbats in jackal's packs -- what a colorful imaginary children's world you inhabit, zouk.
Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse
Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent)
conclusion - even half the Democrats despise hillary so much they are willing to vote for a pre-pubescent high school kid as their nominee.
so hillary clinton - the "frontrunner" is broke and all her doners are maxed out already, only halfway through the contest.
this is the person who is going to balance our budget and run the economy?
this is pretty fitting for a Lib candidate. time to hit the chinese bank account and get those dishwashers, monks and all the other "no controlling legal authority" donors in line.
Unfortunatly, in this case the donors gave willingly, not like the taxpayers will have to when she needs to be bailed out.
bill, you better gaet over to china and make some more speeches for your joint account. Oh wait, that violates campaign finance rules, as if you care.
Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse
blert is right way back in the second post:
The obvious winners are the voters in the states that have primaries and/or caucuses scheduled in the next couple weeks.
Posted by: steveboyington | February 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse
'There is a condition out there "talking to themselves" - it is when a group of people spend a great deal of time "talking to themselves" - and they become quite oblivious to the fact that they are not talking to anyone else, nor is anyone else listening to them.'
we in the reality-based community call it movement conservatism.
Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse
I agree with those who say that the Kennedys should count amongst the losers of last night. But actually, I think it's even broader than that. I think that endorsements, on the whole, aren't doing very well this year. And I think this has to do with the national mood.
Part of what's driving the 'change' narrative is that most people have some things that they're really just utterly sick of from the past seven (or more) years. And one of those things is arrogance. Bush/Cheney have acted with tremendous arrogance. (To be honest, Bill Clinton did too, though he hid it a lot better, at least from Democrats.)
The difficulty is that it's hard for endorsements not to sound arrogant. It's hard for a politician to say, "I endorse Alan Snapplebeak," without sounding like he/she is saying, "I know you voted for me, and I know better than you, so I'm telling you to vote for Alan Snapplebeak, and that oughta be all you need to hear." It sounds arrogant. I think this is one reason (amongst others) why Bill Clinton's pre-SC antics hurt Hillary. Even for people who liked Bill Clinton a lot, it still sounded arrogant of him to be telling them whom to vote for. Similarly, though I'm a strong Obama supporter, I was a bit irritated at the Kennedy endorsement. I wanted to say, "Thank you, Ted, but I don't need you to tell me how to vote."
I think the same dynamic also affected the IA and NH votes. Before IA, Hillary was painted, in many quarters, as inevitable. There's a kind of off-putting arrogance about that, and I think it hurt her in IA. Then, after Obama won in IA, the media narrative did a 180, and we were told that Obama was inevitable. That, too, was irritating, and I think it hurt him in NH.
This election is drawing much higher levels of interest than normal. And the more interested people are, the more attention they pay. The more attention people pay, the more they want to make up their own minds, and the more they resent being told, either by a politician giving an endorsement, or by the media, whom they should vote for. After seven years of an administration that couldn't care less what the public thought, we finally get to help pick a new administration. And we'd very much like to make up our own minds. I think endorsements in general will be less effective (and maybe even counterproductive at times) this year. The one exception may be if it comes down to superdelegates. There, I can see endorsements from high-profile figures having a powerful effect. But in terms of pledged delegates, I think endorsements are one of the losers, not just of last night, but of this year.
Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse
several moonbats in drindl's pack of jackels make feeble insults due to the inability to offer anything of substance.
Posted by: kingofzouk | February 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse
"A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole."
Really? Somebody had better tell the DNC! They've been counting delegates awarded in caucuses just as much as they count delegates from primaries!
Posted by: Blarg | February 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse
'NEW YORK (CNN) -- Just how sharply are Democrats divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
Of all the votes cast on Super Tuesday for the two candidates nationwide, they are only separated by 0.4 of a percentage point.
By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).'
i find it amazing that it could be this evenly split. does anyone know how many votes were cast for McCain, in total?
Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse
Obama was more than 30 points behind in MA and CA before the Kennedy endorsement. He was behind double-digits in national polls. He closed to within 10 points in each of the states and is in a virtual tie with Clinton nationally. He gained even more visibility with Kennedy's endorsement and it got people thinking about the past vs. the future.
Some endorsements don't matter but Sen. Kennedy's endorsement did make a huge difference in the media coverage of Obama and it defintely got him some votes in places that he was trailing.
Posted by: zzishate | February 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse
' I was just pointing out how generally moronic you are.'
as you can see, several people a day point this out to zouk. but he no other life but it sit on this blog all day long and be insulted by his betters for his absurd, braindead parrotings of rush limbaugh. i guess it's masochism.
Posted by: drindl | February 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by LonewackoDotCom: "1. The MSM - including the WaPo - will find some way to spin the results as an indicator of support for illegal immigration. The fact that Obama's pandering and racial demagoguery didn't help him will make that a bit more difficult."
One can tell you're a Hillary supporter because you lie so easily. The New York Times endorsed Hill-Billy, but this is what the Times editorialized today: "Mrs. Clinton fired the first divisive shots of this campaign..."
Your post here is why most independents won't vote for your candidate during the election, if she wins. You emulate her in that she is low down, dirty, shameless, a liar, a panderer, a war monger, a hypocrite, and a Republican in Democratic clothing. Her husband introduced separate sentencing for felons based on race, intervened on genocide based on race, promoted NAFTA, and was convicted as a liar. He's not running for president, but if he gets back into the White House, I would, were I HRC, make sure the cigars are locked up.
Posted by: edwcorey | February 6, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse
************ So far it looks like Obama is the darling solely of (1) males who in the top 85-95% of income with post-grad degrees who are white and under 44, and who have no real concerns about the economy or healthcare or (2) blacks. That's it. One minority group and an economically and educationally elite group of younger white voters who are primarily male. Why do I hear echoes from the '70s of the taunts about wealthy white armchair liberals in the profile of his supporters who are not black? *******************
Wow - it makes sense in that case that Clinton is winning by so much.
Posted by: rpy1 | February 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse
As a detail-oriented person, I'm sure you care about researching the details, and not just using broad generalizations. If so, please read:
This narrative that Obama ignores policy specifics is, well, just plain wrong. He's done lots of good work on nuts and bolts stuff that doesn't win media attention. He's been a very substantive, thoughtful legislator. People hear his soaring rhetoric first, and then assume (MSM, I'm talking to you here) that because he gives such good speeches it must mean that he pays no attention to specifics.
In case you don't want to follow the link, I'll quote one paragraph out of many:
"I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote..."
Really, before we say Obama ignores policy specifics, maybe we should pay more attention ourselves.
Posted by: Beren | February 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse
There is a condition out there "talking to themselves" - it is when a group of people spend a great deal of time "talking to themselves" - and they become quite oblivious to the fact that they are not talking to anyone else, nor is anyone else listening to them.
This is where the democratic party is now - they are talking to themselves. The Democratic party has no idea at all, in fact, they are so caught up with the "ideas" of their candidates that they do know what the center is thinking, nor do they care.
The center will decide this election.
Just because one or other of these candidates is able to capture voters in a democratic primary, that doesn't mean that the center is ready.
Posted by: Miata7 | February 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse
Obama supporters need to chill the crowing about 'red state' wins - they were caucuses or had a a primary where the Dem voters were heavily black. In fact, Obama is having trouble with core voters.
Caucuses in small states can easily be 'flooded' by partisans of a candidate as they are not widely attended by potential voters. It did happen in those states - lot of college students who were not residents of the state changing their residency and registering to show up at the caucus. Obama won in these states:
Iowa - caucus Alaska - caucus Colorado - caucus Idaho - caucus Kansas - caucus Minnesota - caucus North Dakota - caucus New Mexico - caucus (by .04 or something ridiculous)
A 'win' in a caucus is NO WHERE near as significant as a win in a voting primary where the demographics of the voters reflect the US population as a whole.
That means in an open voting primary you have to look at the voter demographics and see how closely they parallel the entire country.
South Carolina - Dem primary dominated by balck voters and not representative
Georgia - see South Carolina
Alabama - see South Carolina
(In a general, those state have gone neo-con Republican for years - he'll get slaughtered.)
Utah - Mormons who would see hell freeze over before voting to give a woman power
Missouri (>1 or 1% margin.)
Connecticut and Delaware are NOT typical of the U.S. Connecticut is incomes that are 30% than the rest of the US, with 24.8% more college and post-grad degrees than the rest of the US, and with slightly more men than women than the rest of the US. Delaware is incomes that are 10% than the rest of the US, and has close to 2 times the gap between the number of men versus the number of women than the rest of the US.
Why are those differences with the rest of the US important? Because of the exit polls of the voters in CA which is representive of the US population.
Here is how the voter profiles develop as to who supports which of the candidates:
Obama - (a) Whites: males (25% of voters) under 44 years old (40.5% of voters) with post-grad degrees (19% of voters) whose households have income of $100,000 -200,000 per year (22% of voters) for whom neither the economy or healthcare are important issues (b) Blacks (6% of voters in CA)
Clinton - (a) Whites: women (28% of voters) over 44 years old (59.5% of voters) with less than a post-grad degree (81% of voters) whose households have an income below $100000 (72% of voters) or over $200000 (6% of voters) and for whom the economy or healthcare are important issues (b) Latinos (30% of voters in CA) (c) Other races not Black, Caucasian or Latino (11% in CA)
So far it looks like Obama is the darling solely of (1) males who in the top 85-95% of income with post-grad degrees who are white and under 44, and who have no real concerns about the economy or healthcare or (2) blacks. That's it. One minority group and an economically and educationally elite group of younger white voters who are primarily male. Why do I hear echoes from the '70s of the taunts about wealthy white armchair liberals in the profile of his supporters who are not black?
The fact that nearly 80% of all voters consider the economy a major or 'the' major issue in the election does not bode well for Obama. He comes in very poorly among those who are concerned about the economy and/or healthcare.
Posted by: eabpmn | February 6, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse
The real losers are the American people, who have to endure these a-holes running for office. God help us. No matter who gets elected, they'll make a mess of it.
Posted by: adrienne_najjar | February 6, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse
ghokee writes "[Obama] matches up very poorly with McCain."
On the contrary, Obama matches up very clearly as an alternative to McCain, in terms of policy. In terms of integrity and strength of conviction, McCain and Obama are well-matched; we would be blessed to have them running as opponents in the general election.
Posted by: bsimon | February 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse
The biggest losers will be The American People if Bill Clinton is upstairs with some bimbo while his wife is doing official business in the Oval office. That possibility alone is enough for me to vote for anyone but Hillary.
Posted by: ArmyVet | February 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse
According to preliminary results from exit polls of Democrats leaving New Mexico caucus voting sites, Clinton ran strongly among Hispanics -- men as well as women. White, non-Hispanic voters, regardless of gender, favored Obama.
Exit polling also showed that Obama was the clear favorite of liberal Democrats; Clinton led slightly among self-described moderates, who often are swing voters in general elections in New Mexico.
Whoops. Paste job didn't work. Here ya go.
Posted by: ghokee | February 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse
This blurb from today's AP sums up Obama's chances of getting elected:
Clinton also led moderates in Arizona and had a larger lead among moderates in Missouri.
Obama is the most liberal of all US Senators and attracts members of the party to his campaign who aren't going to vote republican anyway.
He matches up very poorly with McCain.
Posted by: ghokee | February 6, 2008 3:35 PM |
|
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.
| 365.25 | 0.85 | 1.25 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600098.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600098.html
|
Party Rules Help McCain, Roil Race for Democrats
|
2008020619
|
This same pattern played out in states all across the nation in yesterday's Super Tuesday primary for Democrats, who awarded their delegates based on a complex formula of apportioned votes. Despite Clinton's triumphs in the states with the largest batch of delegates, Obama still secured enough votes to get a sizable chunk of delegates. He also won large victories in some smaller states.
The complex rules meant that the Democratic race for the presidential nomination remained muddled yesterday, allowing the battle to persist until late spring and possibly until the August convention.
The confusion was epitomized by dueling conference calls the two camps held last night. According to the Obama campaign's preliminary analysis of early-voting states, the senator from Illinois held a 70-delegate edge. Although Clinton won some large states such as New York and New Jersey, the campaign aides said, Obama won by large margins in mid-size states such as Minnesota and Kansas.
However, Clinton aides projected that once all the delegates are calculated from Western states, the New York senator will be ahead.
If the battle persists through the summer, the only path to victory will be winning the majority of nearly 800 party officials known as superdelegates -- each of whom can back the candidate of his liking at the Democratic convention.
On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attained a solid lead over his rivals yesterday, but experts said he must continue to accumulate victories this month and in March to secure the Republican presidential nomination. He emerged with a solid lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee by winning a series of delegate-rich states such as New York, Missouri and New Jersey, where party rules gave him all of the delegates.
McCain needs 1,191 delegates to secure the nomination. Precise tallies were still being calculated last night, but early results made clear that McCain had collected more than 500 delegates in the past five weeks.
McCain's strong showing meant that he could have twice as many delegates as Romney and Huckabee, who scored victories only in smaller states.
His supporters began the day hoping for a knockout punch so that McCain -- who is viewed warily by GOP conservatives -- could begin trying to unify Republicans while Democrats dig in for a protracted fight. "It gives you a chance to go out and immediately consolidate people behind you," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), an early McCain backer. "I think that's advantage us, if [Democrats] are fighting this out."
But the early tallies suggested that McCain's nomination is still not certain, and Huckabee's wins in Southern states could create a three-way fight.
On the Republican side, next week's "Potomac primary" in Maryland, the District and Virginia will be the most critical because all three votes are winner-take-all. If McCain -- who has prominent backers in Virginia and Maryland -- takes all three, he would gain another 119 delegates.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 72.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502877.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502877.html
|
One Surge That Led to Another
|
2008020619
|
The largest political story of the past year has not been the struggle for conservative self-definition, or the racially charged fight between Clintonistas and other Democrats, or the infinitely varied failures of the Democratic Congress. It has been the turnaround in Iraq.
President Bush's announcement of the surge in January 2007 pleased almost no one -- neither Democrats who embraced retreat at any cost, nor Republicans who suspected the shift in approach was too little, too late. To quote three Republican senators, Lamar Alexander argued that it was "not by itself . . . a strategy for success"; Sam Brownback said adding troops to Iraq was "not . . . the answer"; Susan Collins called it a "mistake." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a trip to the Middle East to hold the hands of skittish congressional Republicans, whose defections on war funding could have meant the effective end of the Bush presidency.
By the summer of 2007, the Republican presidential candidate most closely identified with the war, John McCain, was in serious trouble. Moderates and independents no longer seemed impressed by the fierce, lonely advocate of what many called "escalation." Political observers argued that McCain's money troubles and staff resignations and firings -- he went from 120 campaign workers to 50 -- were "another nail in Mr. McCain's campaign coffin," showing that "the wheels came off," and leading to "a death spiral that is almost never survived."
If cliches could kill, McCain would have been embalmed and buried.
Yet the Republican candidate most closely identified with the war and the surge performs well in head-to-head polls against the Democrats. The revival of McCain's campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq. Most categories of violence in Iraq are now down by more than 60 percent, and sectarian attacks in Baghdad have fallen by 90 percent. Sunni tribal leaders are conducting the first large-scale revolt of Arabs against al-Qaeda thuggery -- which includes, we learned last week, strapping explosives to a mentally disabled woman and setting off a blast in a market.
McCain seems well suited to deal with this kind of evil -- precisely because he would diagnose it as evil.
This is a moment of rich political paradox. McCain's stubbornness on Iraq is transformed by the calendar into courage. The issue that was supposed to dominate the campaign and destroy the Republicans has helped to elevate a strong Republican candidate. And in spite of past bad blood between President Bush and McCain, it was Bush's decision on the surge that allowed McCain's remarkable comeback. If we ever see a President McCain, he will have President Bush to thank.
For all the talk about the influence of money and organization on politics, the McCain revival demonstrates that issues and political character still matter. McCain argued year after year, with Churchillian bullheadedness, that America needed a more aggressive and sophisticated counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. Occasionally, there are political rewards for simply being right.
McCain has other advantages as a candidate. The narrative arc of his "No Surrender" presidential campaign -- early challenge overcome by tenacity and confidence -- perfectly fits his own story. He is the Naval Academy rebel, the defiant prisoner, the wounded patriot, the stubborn legislator, the restless reformer. He cannot assume that Americans know any of this. One of his main tasks will be to inform them.
In the general election, his ideological heresies will suddenly transform into strengths. Because of his immigration views, he is the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters. His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independents.
But McCain has at least one serious political drawback -- and it is not the "temperament issue." I have yet to hear a serious argument for the proposition that a short fuse should be disqualifying for high office. The peaceful are not always polite -- theologian Stanley Hauerwas says, "I'm a pacifist because I'm a violent son of a bitch" -- any more than the tightly coiled are always warlike.
But those who know McCain report a general lack of interest in domestic policy compared with his engagement in foreign affairs. "It's sometimes unfairly argued that Bush is intellectually uncurious," says one former member of Congress, "but on domestic issues that is really true of McCain."
McCain's foresight on Iraq has carried him far. But eventually he will need to engage Democrats on issues from health care to education to poverty. And being right on the war will not be enough.
|
If we ever see a President McCain, he will have President Bush to thank.
| 55.8125 | 1 | 16 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503666.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503666.html
|
The Race After Tuesday
|
2008020619
|
NOT SO long ago, it seemed all but certain that Feb. 5 would mark the end of the presidential primary campaigns in both parties. Not so fast, it turns out. Even after the final delegates are allocated, the Democratic race seems certain to outlast yesterday's tsunami of votes. Indeed, the slugfest between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama could go on for weeks, if not months. The Republican contest is closer to a decision, mostly because the GOP's delegate selection rules tend to award more to the winner than the Democrats' proportional arrangement. Sen. John McCain appears poised to secure the nomination with a win in California and at least eight other states. The surprising resilience of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in winning five states only served to highlight the weakness of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Mr. McCain's emergence as the dominant candidate in the Republican field has generated an outcry from some of the party's conservative stalwarts; Rush Limbaugh says a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party. We think Mr. McCain, with his moderate views on immigration, his realism about global warming and his willingness to speak out on issues such as torture, would save the party from some of its worst and most self-destructive instincts. Still, Mr. Huckabee's unexpected string of victories underscored the degree to which self-described conservatives remain wary of the Arizona senator. In contrast, independents and self-styled moderates broke heavily in Mr. McCain's direction, a trend that would work in his favor in November should he secure the nomination. As for Mr. Romney, the evening's harvest proved disappointing and possibly lethal. Exit polls showed that Mr. McCain actually bested Mr. Romney among voters who put the economy, Mr. Romney's supposed strength, at the forefront.
The Democratic contests were a Rubik's Cube of results whose final meaning will become clear only when the delegates are tallied. With California cementing a series of wins across the country, Ms. Clinton can claim a slight advantage. One striking feature of the voting was Ms. Clinton's support among Hispanics, a key voting bloc; in California, where Latinos accounted for nearly one-third of voters, exit polls indicated that Ms. Clinton received two-thirds of the Hispanic vote. Ms. Clinton enjoyed an important advantage among female voters, who account for well over half of the Democratic electorate. Mr. Obama posted huge leads among African Americans and improved showings among white men, winning more than 4 in 10 white male voters in Georgia, the largest Southern state voting yesterday, and more than half of white male voters in Massachusetts, despite Ms. Clinton's victory there.
The continuation of the contests in both parties is good news for voters, especially those in the Washington area, where all three jurisdictions will hold primaries next Tuesday. As it turns out, the states that rushed, lemming-like, to schedule their voting on Feb. 5, the earliest permissible day, weren't as smart as they thought. So many states held contests -- 22 on the Democratic side, 21 for Republicans -- that voters scarcely had the chance to see the contenders as they whizzed by. It turns out the post-Feb. 5 states will be anything but the irrelevant afterthought once feared.
|
While John McCain pulls ahead, the Democratic contest remains close.
| 51.75 | 0.583333 | 1.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502878.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502878.html
|
The Repudiation of Rove
|
2008020619
|
McCain's victories have been chiefly a triumph of biography over ideology.
Blessed, in Romney, with an opponent who approaches the Platonic Ideal of Inauthenticity, McCain has racked up primary-season successes more because of the personal contrasts between the two candidates than because of differences of program. But his personal merits have yet to sway those Republicans who classify themselves in the polls as very conservative.
A more direct affront to the Republican strategy devised by Karl Rove -- to build support within the party's right-wing base and then try to win over just enough moderates to carry elections -- cannot be imagined.
McCain's whole campaign is anti-Rovian. His core supporters are Republican moderates and Republican-inclined independents, and then he picks off enough conservatives to prevail. Even if he didn't have a history of rocky relations with various right-wing leaders, the very trajectory of his campaign would pose a threat to the conservative movement, notwithstanding that McCain is philosophically an heir to Barry Goldwater.
Moreover, McCain's successes have not been accompanied by an ideological reorientation within Republican ranks. The polls do not show any diminution of self-described conservatives within the party or any notable growth of the moderate faction.
So how have Republican conservatives managed to be on the losing end of so many primaries?
It's not just that the conservative vote has been split between Romney and Huckabee. It's also that conservatives have run out of agenda.
With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq, and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go -- pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. And with that, American conservatism shuddered to a halt. In the 2005-06 congressional session, Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, yet they introduced no major legislation.
This exhaustion of conservatism has been apparent all along in the Republican presidential contest, where the chief point of agreement among the leading candidates has been to make permanent both the Bush tax cuts for the rich and our occupation of Iraq. The conservative agenda has been winnowed down to supporting what remains of Bushism. That's not only a losing formula for November, it also means that intellectually, conservatism is running on empty.
Huckabee's legions have their own cause -- a pious populism that doesn't have much sway in urban areas. But consider what animates conservatives' support for Mitt Romney. It's not that they have warmed to his shifting agenda or his elusive charisma. They simply hate John McCain, who threatens their cosmology by waging a campaign that does not put them at the center of the political universe. That, certainly, is what animates Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing talkocracy, who feel their power ebbing with each McCain success.
Indeed, Romney's ability to continue in this race is almost entirely a function of the breadth of the animus toward McCain on the Republican right -- and his ability to fund his own campaign.
In California particularly, conservatives' fear and loathing of moderates have been raised to new heights by McCain's most prominent endorser, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Governator's proposals these days are far more likely to win the endorsement of Democrats in the state Legislature, while Republicans -- furious at his policies and furious that he bypasses them to deal with the majority Democrats -- scarcely consider them. In McCain, California's insular conservatives, an embattled and shrinking minority in their own state, see a version of Arnold writ large.
For them, as for movement conservatives across the land, a vote for Romney is simply a vote for their own relevance.
|
How have Republican conservatives managed to be on the losing end of so many primaries?
| 44.875 | 1 | 16 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/06/BL2008020602244.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/06/BL2008020602244.html
|
We Tortured and We'd Do It Again
|
2008020619
|
President Bush would authorize waterboarding future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said this morning, one day after the director of the CIA for the first time publicly acknowledged his agency's use of the tactic, which generally involves strapping a prisoner to a board, covering his face or mouth with a cloth, and pouring water over his face to create the sensation of drowning.
Olivier Knox writes for AFP: "The United States may use waterboarding to question terrorism suspects in the future, the White House said Wednesday, rejecting the widely held belief that the practice amounts to torture.
"'It will depend upon circumstances,' spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding 'the belief that an attack might be imminent, that could be a circumstance that you would definitely want to consider.'
"'The president will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique,' he said.
"His comments came one day after CIA director Michael Hayden for the first time admitted publicly that the agency had used 'waterboarding,' a practice that amounts to controlled drowning, to question three top al-Qaeda detainees nearly five years ago.
"After years of insisting that disclosing any specific interrogation techniques would harm US national security, US President George W. Bush 'authorized General Hayden to say what he said,' Fratto told reporters.
"'The cumulative impact of public discussion about that technique led to a consensus that an exception was warranted in this case,' the spokesman said."
Knox writes that Fratto "rejected charges that the tactics the Central Intelligence Agency calls 'enhanced interrogation techniques' amount to torture.
"'Torture is illegal. Every enhanced technique that has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency through this program was brought to the Department of Justice and they made a determination that its use under specific circumstances and with safeguards was lawful,' he said."
And here's the kicker: "Asked whether the White House's reasoning was that torture is illegal, the attorney general has certified that the interrogation practices are legal, therefore those practices are not torture, Fratto replied: 'Sure.'"
Hayden yesterday told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Let me make it very clear and to state so officially in front of this committee that waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on [Abd al-Rahim al-]Nashiri."
|
The Bush administration today boldly embraced an interrogation tactic that's been an iconic and almost universally condemned form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition.
| 19.346154 | 0.538462 | 0.538462 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502852.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502852.html
|
5 Myths About Those Nefarious Neocons
|
2008020619
|
So "neocon" has become a handy term of condemnation, routinely deployed to try to silence liberal hawks such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut or right-wing interventionists such as former deputy secretary of defense Paul D. Wolfowitz and the former Pentagon official Richard N. Perle, who's been nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness." That moniker aside, the neocons insist that there's nothing sinister about them; they simply believed that after 9/11, the United States should use its power to spread democracy throughout the Arab world, just as it had done in Eastern Europe and Central America during the Cold War. Their critics aren't so sure -- and the misconceptions grow.
1 The neocons are chastened liberals who turned right.
This is the self-mythologizing version that the neocons themselves like to spread. Don't believe a word of it. They weren't ever really liberals.
The one thing the movement's founders carried away from the sectarian ideological wars of the 1930s in New York was a prophetic temperament. Back then, Irving Kristol and a host of other future neocons were Trotskyist intellectuals who loathed their rivals, the vulgar Stalinists. Kristol and his comrades believed in creating a worker's paradise that would reject the totalitarianism of Stalin's Soviet Union in favor of a true Marxist utopia. After World War II convinced them that the United States wasn't an imperialist power but one fighting for freedom, Kristol and his fellow travelers briefly embraced liberalism in the late 1940s. But as the convulsions of the 1960s reenergized the radical left, the future neocons kept moving right. All along, they retained the penchant for abusive invective and zest for combat that they had first honed as Trotskyists, wielding magazine articles and op-eds as weapons to discredit their foes and champion their ideas.
2 The neocons are Israeli lackeys.
Bunk. The neocon saga couldn't be more American. It's a tempestuous drama of Jewish assimilation, from immigrant obscurity on the Lower East Side to the rise of a new foreign policy establishment that sees the United States as the avatar of democracy and foe of genocide. What truly animates the neocons is what they see as the lesson of the Holocaust: that it could have been avoided if the Western democracies had found the courage to stop Hitler in the late 1930s. This helps explain Perle's and former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith's antipathy toward the State Department, which tried to stymie U.S. recognition of Israel at its founding in 1948. Neocons such as Norman Podhoretz scorn the State Department as filled with WASPs who seek to cozy up to the Arab states instead of recognizing Israel's strategic value and moral importance as a bastion of democracy in a sea of tyranny.
What's more, the neocons are often to the right of Israel's government. Feith and National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams scoffed at the idea of land-for-peace talks with the Palestinians, for instance, and Wolfowitz pushed for an invasion of Iraq for which even Ariel Sharon demonstrated no particular enthusiasm. The neocons aren't Israel's best advocates, either: The Iraq war has emboldened Iran, fanned the flames of jihadism and made Israel less, not more, secure. Contrary to Wolfowitz's arguments, the road to peace in Israel turned out not to run through Baghdad.
3 The neocons had too much power and took over Bush's brain.
In fact, President Bush used the neocons for his own purposes and then dumped many of them overboard. (Of course, many liberals think Bush doesn't have a brain to take over in the first place, but leave that aside.) On the campaign trail in 2000, Bush was a realist in the mold of his father. But under the appalling pressure of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush became the leading neocon in his own administration -- which is why he didn't need them around anymore once they had done their job as lightning rods. What's more, he never gave any of them Cabinet-level positions.
Neither Vice President Cheney nor former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- the men who made the real decisions with Bush in the Oval Office -- has ever been a neocon. They are Republican unilateralists who believe in deploying U.S. power whenever and wherever the executive branch sees fit, regardless of what U.S. allies want. Cheney and Rumsfeld used Wolfowitz and other neocons to provide an intellectual patina of justification for war against Iraq, much as Cheney has been trying to do with Iran today. (One reason there was no serious postwar plan for Iraq was that no one in Cheney's office could ever decide whether the administration should have one.)
Lacking a real base in the Republican Party, the neocons got picked off as soon as Bush's handling of the war seemed to falter. They didn't have too much power; ultimately, they had too little to implement their schemes. The result has been finger-pointing and self-exculpatory memoirs from the likes of Feith. Meanwhile, the CIA (which the neocons loathe) has outflanked them on Iran by declaring that it isn't building nuclear weapons. And one of the most prominent surviving neocons, the NSC's Abrams, has proved unable to stop Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
4 The neocons are bloodthirsty ideologues, trying to impose a militant Wilsonianism on the United States that is alien to our foreign policy traditions.
Militant? Sure. But alien? Baloney. In fact, the neocons' worldview melds both of the major strands of traditional U.S. foreign policy thinking -- realism and idealism -- in a highly opportunistic fashion. This is why liberal hawks such as author Paul Berman, Washington Post columnist Peter Beinart and the editors of the New Republic signed on to the neocon crusade at the outset of the Iraq war, while the true realists, such as former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, blanched in horror.
5 The Iraq debacle has discredited the neocons.
This could be the biggest whopper of them all. Now that the "surge" in Iraq has brought levels of violence down somewhat, the neocons are already claiming vindication. As Iraq fades from the front pages, the neocons' hero, Arizona Sen. John McCain, is poised to become the Republican standard-bearer in 2008. (The neocons also would have happily flocked around Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recruited Norman "World War IV" Podhoretz as a senior adviser.)
The truth is that the neocons have been repeatedly declared dead before -- and, to the chagrin of their enemies on the left and the right, bounced back. At the end of the Cold War, the arch-realist George H.W. Bush relegated them to the sidelines; then the triangulating Bill Clinton seemed to deprive them of their biggest foreign and domestic policy issues. If they came back from that, they can come back from anything. Now that Robert Kagan, William Kristol (who seems not to be discredited in the eyes of the New York Times, which just made him a columnist) and a host of other neocons have hitched their fortunes to McCain, the neocons are poised for a fresh comeback. If they make a hash of foreign policy by 2011, perhaps the familiar cycle of public scorn and rebirth might even start all over again.
Jacob Heilbrunn, a senior editor at the National Interest, is the author of "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons."
|
It's the most feared and reviled intellectual movement in American history. And the misconceptions abound.
| 79.888889 | 0.777778 | 1.222222 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/post_11.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/post_11.html
|
Jesus of Siberia
|
2008020619
|
This past July, Kevin Sullivan, the Washington Post London correspondent, went to Siberia, 2,000 miles from Moscow, to interview a man who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Sergei Torop, now called Vissarion, "he who gives new life", lives in a tiny new town built up around him which is named "Abode of Dawn" and is the spiritual leader of a new religion, Church of the Last Testament. He now has over 5,000 followers.
We thought it might be interesting to talk to this man. There were those who disagreed, arguing that it would be offensive to publicize someone who claims to be Jesus. How could he possibly be? Most Christians believe that Christ will return someday. How will we know if it is the real Christ? How do we know this man is not? We thought you might like to read Kevin's story, see Kevin's video, and then read Kevin's interview with Vissarion that follows.
Q: Are you Jesus of Nazareth, and if so, is your presence here on earth proof of the second coming, which, in traditional understanding, is supposed to signal the end of times? If not, that is, if you are not here to initiate the coming of the kingdom, then what are you here for?
A: My dear friends, youâve touched upon a very complicated question to which, of course, Iâm ready to answer. But every answer will inevitably arouse deeper and deeper questions. Because peopleâs traditional understanding has very little to do with the Truth and is very primitive and awkward. People could have such understanding in medieval times but now we must have a much more exact understanding. During such a significant period for all mankind it is important for many people to have a clear view on everything, which concerns the Truth of God.
I actually once came to the land of Jerusalem to fulfill God Fatherâs will. But my Fulfillment was different from the expectations, which the people of Israel had from the prophecy. It caused many difficulties, and as we all know ended tragically. What I needed to fulfill then concerned not only the people of Old Testament but all mankind. It was important to start my Fulfillment there because of favorable religious environment.
People were doomed the moment they took it into their heads to shape on their own the way of their development. God Father put all possible effort to save his children despite the fact that they were ignorant and hindering from salvation. Fulfillment was to become the first stage in achieving this saving goal. At this stage it was important only to lay the Evangel of God, who loves everyone with no exception both the just and the sinners and who never judges. It is his Living Word that should help his children to form a United Family on Earth, through which the Kingdom Come establishes. All people on Earth are the children of one Father. Never there existed any Peculiar or most loved people and never they can be. Explanation of the Evangel did not presume forming any Doctrine within his first followers. Serious Gospel required much longer time, which I lacked for natural reasons. That is why my followers did not have to write down every word of mine, though all the fundamentals already existed. The Evangel was meant only to forestall the appearance of the Gospel (maybe Teaching would be a better word), which had to be laid down at a turning point in the history of mankind when conditions were ripe for different peoples to get initiated into the Teaching.
This epoch-making period has come!
The essence of the Teaching is to reveal exact understanding of the laws of spiritual development and provide all necessary explanations about why the believers of earth have parted. All of us will have to learn our Destination, because everyone is born with certain predestination in the Material World.
Q: Do you remember, in the way of an ordinary person would remember something that happened last week, the Passion and your Resurrection?
A: First of all it is necessary to understand that a humanâs body does not make his personality, neither it makes up my nature. Most important is in his soul, which accumulates constructive experience of all the Children of God, like my own soul. The body is only an instrument, which helps to realize the intention of God. When it is necessary, a soul can leave the body and reincarnate again. Such a necessity still exists for many vitally important reasons. One of the reasons is to help to relieve a man of the burden of hard emotions and negative information, which he accumulates in the process of his primitive life. Such information, which he accumulates, dangerously overburdens the mind of a newborn body. Also the information may become obsolete, because sometimes the soul returns to the body after a long time. This can be applied to me as well. And donât need these emotional and tragic memories of the past to do what I must do now. These recollections would only intervene and be an unreasonable burden. I no longer need my knowledge about the ancient people, which was important at that time. This time I need up-to-date mind and knowledge in order to convey vitally important things to people. It will be possible only if my soul lives in a new body, which is not overburdened with the knowledge of the past. Up to a certain moment I must be tuned to the minds of contemporary people. The better I understand this harmful illogical structure of a modern manâs mind, the better I can transmit important knowledge to him. That is why I need the new body and the new name. But at some point my God Father let me remember a flash of my previous life. After that I could feel how good it is to be free from full memories of the past.
Q: The Jesus of the New Testament was quoted as saying "no one comes to the father but by me". Is that true?
A: This is true. No one knows the Father but his Son. If the Son is the Living Word of God, it is natural, that nobody else but the Living Word can to convey the Truth about the way of spiritual development, which God Father had predetermined for his children. One should understand that there is no need to come to God the way one comes to his friends. One actually never left God just because it is impossible. God Father is able to be near every man every moment, no matter where the man is. A manâs task is to learn to understand the Way of spiritual development and live most accurately according to this Way. And only the Living Word can convey this exact understanding. any other statement coming from someone else People should take creatively because such statements have nothing to do with the True way.
Q: If people do not believe in you, are they denied entry into heaven?
A: Such thoughts easily generate all kinds of fears but have nothing to do with the reality. In all times representatives of Christian confessions out of ignorance and egoism tried to use such fears for their own sake. By making such frightening and unwise statements different religious organizations tried to keep people within their own church. God Father is everywhere on earth all the time. It means that if even two or three people get together, the true Church of God can naturally appear, even if they know nothing of the Living Word. No matter in what circumstances a man was born or in what situation he found himself in, it is happening only with Godâs consent and because of His outline. It means that all the difficulties that a man has to suffer are contributing to his development. I assure you, wherever a man goes or whatever he does is not accidental, and he will certainly find whatever he needs for understanding God. It is not necessary for all people to believe in him, when Living Word comes to earth in a humanâs body. But in the end, everyone will have to fulfill what he conveyed to people.
Q: What must people do to follow you?
A: People should try and trust me with their hearts and put all their effort to fulfill my preaching, which is going to be very exact. This time I will open so much about the Way of God that a man could not even imagine. I will do it considering contemporary level of peopleâs mentality.
Q: How do we know you are real?
A: Only those who knew that Jesus could tell whether Iâm real or not. But for natural reasons there are no people among the living who can remember it. A personâs nature allows him to remember things of the material world. The laws of the spiritual world are different.
Thatâs why a man should rely on his sensory perception and, depending on how mature he is, will be able to find the wisdom he lacks, which will help him to move forward on the way of spiritual perfection, from a lower stage to a higher stage. Only those of the living, who are mature enough to take the highest and weighty responsibility, will be able to trust the Living Word, when they come across with him. And the teacher needs followers, who can actually see and feel the true value of his teaching. If a person starts to feel the true value of the teaching, he wonât need any additional proofs that the Teacher is real. If a person is not able to see the true value of the teaching, do not try to prove him that the teacher is real. Do not rely on useless fears when searching for Truth! Your question is based on fear to miss the Truth and at the same time the fear to be caught by pseudo-Truth. Fear makes you search proofs in the spheres where there canât be proofs. You must learn to trust God and be thankful for what you have. Because everything you have is not accidental, and it is to enrich you with the wisdom that you lack.
Q: Did you see Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ?" If so, did you think it accurately reflected the story?
A: No, I did not watch it on purpose. I do not want to arouse most serious and painful memories artificially. Someone told me that in the film strong accent is made on the saddest event.
Q: Why do you think there is so much anti-Semitism among Christians, especially since Christ was Jewish? Why are the Jews blamed for Christ's death by so many?
A: It is a very serious question and requires a lecture to explain it. Iâll try to be short. First of all, this strong hostility to the people of Israel appeared because of the Old Testament. In order to realize the goal of the Old Testament, people of Israel had to disperse and settle all over the earth, keeping Holy ideas of the Testament. Their ubiquitous presence and way of life naturally aroused certain hostility within primitively thinking people. The hostility established and grew bigger with time. Appearance and development of this hostility was planned and not accidental â it was to make Israeli people keep and secure their self-identity as allegedly Peculiar People though there canât be any peculiar among the equal. God Father does not have human characteristics, and he has always loved all his children equally without exception.
The fact that there is so much anti-Semitism among so-called Christians, and that the Jews blamed for Christ's death by so many is the result of their primitive way of thinking and lack of education.
Q: Do you believe that the stories in the Bible are literally true or are they metaphors and parables?
A: They include everything you just mentioned. We should realize that usually when somebody describes certain events, he is not only inaccurate in providing details, but he may also add something that never happened in reality. This is a peculiarity of a human nature. This is normal. But it is not good when one man tries to show another manâs actions as infallible. This is why there appear untrue dogmas that can strongly slow down the pace of spiritual development. The blind, standing in the doorway, cannot walk in, and he does not let the others enter.
Q: Do you believe you are the Son of God? Where does that leave other religions?
A: In my nature Iâm the Son of God just like all of us. Except for one peculiarity, which allows me to come to earth as his Living Word of God. Such peculiarity of mine does not allow me to live and explore the life like you do. I can appear among you only in extraordinary cases, when there is a strong necessity to interfere in the natural pace of peopleâs spiritual development. As for other religions, it will be too difficult to give a short answer. To cut it short I can say that different dogmas are based on different important truths, which are the sides of one phenomenon. The dogmas can be more or less exact, depending in what period they appeared and how mature people were to realize and accept the dogmas. Even though some of the dogmas actually had no relation to the God Fatherâs will, they helped many people to unite. And it helped to form a more mature culture on the bases of these segments. Imagine there is a magic Key that can open the door into eternity to all mankind. Different peoples have different parts of this Key. These parts are different dogmas. And only when people understand that these are parts of one whole, when they manage to put them all together and accept this new dogma â only at that point we will be able to start talking about Salvation and normal development of the Godâs children. This will mean the appearance of one Common Family on earth.
Q: How do you feel the Christian religion over the ages has reflected your teachings? How do you feel about the Christian religion today?
A: I teach the children of God to be true believers, not just to pretend that they are believers. Christianity over the ages has taught things, which actually have no relation to the essence of the New Testament. Otherwise they would have never split into the arguing branches. They broke up only because, following their own inclination, they added their own interpretations to what already existed in the New Testament. The Christians broke up not because of the New Testament, but because of their primitive interpretations of the New Testament. And they were trying to pass these primitive interpretations to everyone they could reach. Besides, they tried to intimidate those, who had other interpretations, different from the official stands. And this is a gross violation of the God Fatherâs predestination for people. You know it from the New Testament that the kingdom is doomed if it starts to break up from inside. The kingdom divides only if there appear two or more rulers. There is no one and indivisible Christianity today. Instead of one common kingdom we can see a few separate princedoms, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant princedoms etc. But they have no relation to the True Way of God.
Q: Would you consider that you were a revolutionary the first time around? Do you think you are now? A: Iâve never thought about it this way. What I am to pass to people is opposite to the life that they are living now. Peopleâs existence today is based on animal principles. They live with each other not because they love each other and want to support each other, but because it is easier to survive in the âpackâ. At the same time each âpackâ tries to live in accordance with its own interest and doesnât take other âpacksâ into their account. But a human is more complicated than an animal, and the ways of achieving his interests are much more perverted. No one on earth does as much harm as a man. It should not be like this.
Q: What is your goal here on earth this time?
A: Mankind is facing serious natural and man-caused calamities, which may present a global danger. Salvation, mentioned on numerous occasions in religious writings, and which you had a wrong idea of, is, in fact, a necessity to create favorable conditions to preserve man as a species. At the same time, we need to preserve spiritual and intellectual values, necessary to establish vitally important conditions for the development of the Single nation of God's children on the Earth. They will have a common, correct idea of the Law of spiritual development, true for all. Salvation may take two ways. One is through significantly smaller number of human tragedies, which is yet unlikely to happen due to man's psychological peculiarities. The other will involve a bigger number of tragic consequences. My goal this time is not only to put in words all the knowledge you need about the Law of spiritual development, which will make it possible to satisfy all your search for truth and settle disputes, but also help you create conditions of a guaranteed Salvation of man, since we have to take into account the second above mentioned variant of development. That's what has been happening for 15 years in the south of central Siberia. Q: How can you achieve it? A: You can only achieve this with the help of a certain number of the right people who must make an independent and conscious choice to do this heroic deed.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 240.857143 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/china_threatens_afghanistans_b.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/02/china_threatens_afghanistans_b.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020619
|
The bright blue veil of the burqa is one of the most iconic and widely worn pieces of womenâs clothing in Afghanistan. Since the fall of the Taliban, fewer women wear the burqa in Kabul, but elsewhere, in the provinces, the burqa is as ubiquitous as ever.
While they evoke a reaction of horror and disdain from many Western women, the burqa in Afghanistan is a complex cultural signifier. Young married women wear light blue burqas; older women and widows wear a darker blue. White burqas signify new brides, or women from the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. The particular pattern of flowers around the cap and face cover showcase the work of different designers, allowing women to be told apart.
The Zamarai family, shown in the video, have been tailors and burqa-makers for three generations. But recently thereâs a new player in the Kabul burqa market: China, which mass-produces a style of burqa that many women here find more fashionable than the Zamaraisâ traditional hand-assembled garments.
The Chinese-made burqasâ tightly-crimped folds and machine-produced embroidery have become something of a fashion craze in the last few months in Kabul. As one burqa seller named Hassan explained to me in a crowded Kabul market, âWomen love the new, modern style of the Chinese burqas.â
Hassan said he was selling more burqas than ever in recent years, as the trickle down of reconstruction money from foreign aid organizations empowers women to buy several veils, in different styles. âMore and more women are choosing to veil,â said Hassan. Of course, he clearly has a vested interest in projecting a good image for burqas. To my mind, the slowly escalating war and the resurrection of the Taliban probably have more to do with increased burqa consumption.
But although itâs a good time to be a burqa retailer â or a Chinese burqa manufacturer â the Afghan tailors who produce the veils are facing a tighter market. As you will see in this video, burqa production is very much a cottage industry in Afghanistan. Whole families are dedicated to stitching flowers on caps, or crimping the folds in the long flowing cloak, for which they are paid only a few dollars per piece. The Zamarai family, featured in this video, sews together the various different parts of the burqa. The finished piece sells in Hassanâs market for US$20, of which the Zamarais make about 20 cents.
Winter is traditionally a difficult time for manual workers in Afghanistan: little gets done, meaning that workers have to borrow heavily from those who control the markets. Relatively few burqas are sold in Kabul, as women from the outlying district find it difficult to travel into the snow-bound city. Ali Ahmad, the 48-year-old Zamarai patriarch, has already had to borrow 25,000 Afghanis from Hassan, the burqa seller. Thatâs $500 dollars, or almost half of what he can expect to make during the summer season, when the family will produce 50 burqas a day for a daily profit of about US$10.
Heavily debt-laden, the family recently had to move out of their house in a nice Kabul suburb to rent in a cheap neighborhood. Ali Ahmad, a skilled tailor who had to give up his shop because of poor eyesight, will probably have to take day laboring jobs to pay the rent.
Since Chinaâs entrance into the burqa market, Ali Ahmad speculates that 300 families have lost their jobs. âThe Chinese have special machines that produce the entire burqa in a few minutes,â said Ali Ahmad, âWe canât compete with that.â The sewing machines his family uses are all hand-operated, although theyâre cheap to buy at $100 dollars per machine. The Chinese sewing machines cost $4000. âNo one can afford to buy that sort of machine in Afghanistan,â said Ali Ahmad. âSoon all our burqas will be made in China,â he says.
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 44.235294 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020500929.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020500929.html
|
Plastic Bags, Headed for A Meltdown
|
2008020619
|
"Here, let me get you a bag," the cashier suggested.
"No. No," the woman answered harriedly. "I brought my own!"
The cashier glanced at the growing line of impatient patrons. And the young woman turned around, too, a pained look spreading across her face.
"Okay. But then take them out. I can put them in here."
"Really, I really don't want one."
It was, perhaps, a sign of the times. The plastic bag, that staple of modern life, is about to become radioactive.
The whole thing seemed a little silly -- even to me, one of those vaguely preachy farmers market types who brings along her canvas bag only to guiltily head home with it full of plastic bags of produce. But it's not happening just at the farmers market. In 2002, Ireland instituted a 15-cent tax on plastic bags to end the "litter menace," and Bangladesh banned them outright. This year, China and Australia will outlaw them. Here at home, San Francisco has begun requiring shops to use only bags made of at least 40 percent recycled paper. And on Jan. 22, trendsetter Whole Foods announced that as of Earth Day (April 22) it no longer will offer plastic bags to customers at the checkout counters. The move, the company estimates, will take 100 million new bags out of circulation by the end of 2008.
Get that 98 percent recycled tote ready. You're going to need it.
Sound crazy? Remember, it was less than a year ago that bottled water was the sophisticated choice in restaurants and at home. Now if you drink the stuff you're an environmental cretin, personally responsible for some of the 1.5 million barrels of oil used each year to make the plastic containers. Upon hearing that news, a guilt-stricken colleague rushed out to buy a filter for his faucet and is considering buying a gadget to make sparkling water at home. His friends who haven't made the change? "Bottle-buying, Earth-polluting pigs."
I don't miss bottled water. I regard its fall from grace as an opportunity to cloak cheapness in environmental virtue.
|
On a recent Sunday, I stood in a long line at the Dupont Circle farmers market. At the front was a young woman, juggling nearly a dozen apples as she tried to hand them to the cashier to be weighed.
| 9.886364 | 0.636364 | 1 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502950.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502950.html
|
Dust Storms Overseas Carry Contaminants to U.S.
|
2008020619
|
Now, with NASA satellites and sampling by researchers around the world, scientists know that great billowing clouds of dust waft over the oceans in the upper atmosphere, arriving in North America from deserts in Africa and Asia.
Researchers have also found that the dust clouds contain not only harmful minerals and industrial pollutants, but also living organisms: bacteria, fungus and viruses that may transmit diseases to humans. Some say an alarming increase in asthma in children in the Caribbean is the consequence of dust blown from Africa, and predict they will find similar connections in the Southeast and Northwest United States.
Scientists are beginning to look at these dust clouds as possible suspects in transcontinental movement of diseases such as influenza and SARS in humans, or foot-and-mouth disease in livestock. Until recently, epidemiologists had looked at people, animals and products as carriers of the diseases.
"We are just beginning to accumulate the evidence of airborne dust implications on human health," said William A. Sprigg, a climate expert at the University of Arizona. "Until now, it's been like the tree falling in the forest. Nobody heard, so nobody knew it was there."
The World Meteorological Organization, a science arm of the United Nations, is alarmed enough to set up a global warning system to track the moving clouds of dust and to alert those in the path. Sprigg is heading the project.
He foresees a system soon in which forecasters can predict "down to the Zip code" the arrival of dust clouds. That forecast could prompt schools and nursing homes to keep their wards inside, and help public health doctors predict a surge of respiratory complaints.
Analysis of soil samples has long shown that minerals picked up from barren deserts reach distant shores, for good or bad. The Amazon rain forest in South America, for example, gets phosphate nutrients from dust blown in from northern Africa's Sahara Desert.
Industrial development has added heavy metals and toxic chemicals to that airborne mix. Korea and Japan periodically chafe as storms of "Yellow Dust" wash over from China, bringing a caustic mix of sand and industrial pollutants.
Even natural minerals can be harmful to humans, and dust-borne particles have been linked to annual meningitis outbreaks in Africa and silicosis lung disease in Kazakhstan and North Africa. The Dust Bowl storms of the 1930s in the United States brought graphic descriptions of choking sediment getting into the lungs of people and felling livestock.
But the advent of satellite images gave scientists a sobering look at how even faraway storms can reach us.
|
Seventy-five years ago, aviator Charles Lindbergh turned the controls of his pontoon plane over to his co-pilot, wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh, while flying above Iceland. He thrust a makeshift metal arm holding a sticky glass plate from the cockpit. He wanted to see if the winds high aloft the Earth...
| 8.216667 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503743.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503743.html
|
Hard Times, For Fall
|
2008020619
|
NEW YORK, Feb. 5 -- Fans of "Project Runway" might recognize Victorya Hong's name: Until about two weeks ago, she was a contender on the Bravo reality show. Hong was voted out of the design competition because of an uninspired use of denim. But in what must be a speed record for taking advantage of one's 15 minutes of fame, Hong mounted her own runway show here Friday night.
Her collection was inspired by the classic tuxedo and included sleeveless jackets cinched at the waist with a cummerbund-style belt. There was plenty to commend: a nice fit, wearable silhouettes and a tasteful aesthetic. But as one of more than two dozen collections presented on that day alone, there was nothing that stood out. The clothing wasn't even a match for the amusement of D-list voyeurism. Hey, isn't that the elfin Christian Siriano, "Project Runway" co-star, sitting along the runway and getting a big thank-you in the show notes?
There's rarely a good time to get into the fashion business. But as Seventh Avenue unveils its fall 2008 collections this week, these are particularly challenging times. The combined impediments of stiff competition, market saturation, a devalued dollar and a bleak economy mean not only that it's difficult to entice shoppers into opening up their wallets, but that it's also significantly harder for designers even to get their merchandise into stores. Retailers have become more discerning about what they will hang on their racks.
They are looking to be moved, to be excited. Luxury continues to sell. Uniqueness is an advantage. But ultimately, when the economy turns sour, "emotion" -- that wholly illogical, inexplicable motivator -- makes the sale.
"It's got to be emotion," says Saks Fifth Avenue's Michael Fink, who oversees the specialty store's women's collections. "A lot of that luxury product leaves me cold. It's not 'anti-style.' That's not the right word, but it becomes eternally classic and that appeals to a very small percentage of the population."
For designers, emotion can be defined in a multitude of ways. Hong tried to make hay of the strange sense of intimacy that comes from reality show fame. At Herv¿ L¿ger and Halston, designers are exploiting nostalgia for a lost moment in popular culture. And others are simply trying to create clothes that are so exquisite, so beautiful, they can't be ignored.
"If it costs a zillion dollars, I have to passionately, deeply love it. But I'll buy it if I'm passionate about it," says Nancy Pearlstein, owner of Relish in Georgetown. "Will I buy as much? Probably not."
Proenza Schouler, Band of Outsiders, Rag & Bone
Designers Lazaro Hernandez and Jack McCollough of Proenza Schouler entice their customers with short dresses with extravagant collars in lush jewel tones. They create the trompe l'oeil effect of double sleeves on dresses and jackets. They even offer sequined trousers that wrap around the hips like a sari.
Not everything dazzles the eyes in the Proenza Schouler collection, which was shown Monday night, but the effort is both evident and admirable. The designers practically tap dance, juggle and somersault in hopes of catching the customers' attention.
They are among fashion's hardest-working entertainers. And they correctly believe clothes that fail to make a woman smile are a hard sell. Most of the clothes that have come down the runways in New York barely keep a person awake. The vast majority of collections are the equivalent of small talk, pleasant but not especially interesting. There has been so much numbing mediocrity on the runway over the past few days that it all blurs into a pile of wide-leg trousers, tweed jackets, skinny gray pants with matching little blazers and full skirts -- many of them with crinolines. One is left with the sad, existential question: Why bother?
The designers from Band of Outsiders and Rag & Bone have made a name for themselves by blurring the line between menswear and women's. At Band of Outsiders, the look has its roots in an Ivy League aesthetic with toggle coats, rumpled button-down shirts, corduroys and tweedy tradition. At Rag & Bone, the aesthetic has more rock-and-roll undertones with skinny trousers, lots of black and hints of androgyny. But for a customer who wants to buy a single pair of pants, not much distinguishes the two brands.
Oscar de la Renta, Carolina Herrera
The blahs are not limited to newer labels. Oscar de la Renta's collection is weighed down by too many awkward jackets and heavy tweeds that give it a matronly sensibility. One of the most striking pieces is a red and black tweed skirt suit splashed with paillettes to make it twinkle. It's easy to imagine dozens of the cautious ladies of federal Washington turning up at holiday parties in that boxy little suit. And that's fine. But there is something terribly wrong with a collection when the most flattering observation is: That'll be really popular on Capitol Hill!
Carolina Herrera's collection spoke of hunting lodges with models wearing a great deal of tweed and gowns festooned with four-foot feathers that floated off the derriere. The entire collection was devoid of the refined femininity for which Herrera is known. And watching the designer take her bows wearing her customary pencil skirt and crisp white blouse, it was hard to imagine that she would ever subject herself to a russet-colored dress trailing a wagging feather, making its wearer look like an excited golden retriever.
None of the women's collections presented so far have succeeded in overwhelming the senses, in leaving an observer breathless with desire. There have been only a few tantalizing moments. Tracy Reese's prints make the eyes light up, particularly her coat in an impressionistic mix of lapis blue and violet. Sari Gueron serves up sweetness with gently gathered party dresses draped over crinolines. Thakoon Panichgul's plaid shirt dress that looks as though it was stitched out of fine tulle is a enticing surprise. Doori Chung captures your attention with her architectural dresses in shades of charcoal gray and deep green adorned with jet crystals. There's something inherently rich and intoxicating about a garment that is splashed judiciously with beads or crystals. It gets noticed, and on a sales floor, that is half the battle.
Two brands are betting on the pull of nostalgia to win customers. Entrepreneur Max Azria of the BCBG contemporary brand purchased the French fashion house Hervé Léger in 1998. The label popularized bandage dresses, which are made from strips of elastic fabric and hold the body in a girdle-like grip, thus emphasizing the wearer's womanly assets. In the 1980s, the dresses were the uniform of sexpot actresses and Amazonian supermodels. They were ushered out by a wave of minimalism, soft femininity and a more languid expression of sex appeal.
But with the interest in vintage fashion, no trend is safe from a resurgence. The bandage dresses are back on the red carpet and worn by tabloid favorites such as Victoria Beckham. Azria is looking to take advantage of the moment. In front of an audience filled with starlets in their designer bandages -- their bosoms trussed up in crisscrossing strips of elastic -- Azria presented his new vision for Hervé Léger, which looks an awful lot like the old vision but with applique and embroidery. Freeze-dried fashion reconstituted with money and chutzpah.
A similar problem plagues Halston, where another in a long line of designers -- Randolph Duke, Kevan Hall, Craig Natiello, Bradley Bayou, etc. -- is attempting to revive the house known for easy jersey dresses and its connection to Studio 54, drugs and famous clients such as Liza Minnelli. This time, Marco Zanini is the designer and film mogul Harvey Weinstein is the financier.
The show on Monday had all the right ingredients except one. Jersey dresses, check. Cashmere turtlenecks and pants, check. Minnelli in the audience, check. But no excitement. The Halston legacy no longer is defined by a design sensibility but rather a moment in popular culture. The easy style of dressing has been commercialized by everyone from Calvin Klein to Eileen Fisher. And Studio 54 has become a punch line on "Ugly Betty."
Patrik Ervell, Thom Browne, Z Zegna
So far, menswear designers have delivered the most powerful emotional wallops. At Patrik Ervell, it was hard not to be drawn to the designer's gold metallic jackets and, in particular, a cardigan studded with gold paillettes, which he matched with a pair of beat-up Levi's. Some of the models at Ervell's show looked to be 12 years old, and one wondered whether the designer scheduled his show for Saturday afternoon so his models wouldn't be arrested for truancy. For a long time, women have had to endure designers who used adolescents as stand-ins for women; now men are getting the same treatment.
The more boyish the clothes -- skinny pants, cropped jackets, wrinkled button-down shirts that look as though they've been pulled from under a bunk bed -- the greater the tendency to show them on models with the physique of a child. If designers are going for an emotional response, this practice might soon start to elicit disgust.
The practice of using stickpin boys started in collections such as those from Italian designer Miuccia Prada, where all the troubling model trends seem to begin now. But designer Thom Browne, with his shrunken suit silhouette, has also been an influence.
Browne's collection for fall, which he showed Monday, was inspired by the circus and he used that theme to underscore the eccentric playfulness and naughtiness of his work. Browne doesn't believe creativity in menswear has to be relegated to novelty buttons, purple pimp suits or such an overload of effeminate flourishes that a man might as well be dressed in drag. Drag is fine if that's what a man is striving for, but no man should be played the fool and wind up as an accidental drag queen.
Browne takes Old World traditions -- knickers, capes, bowler hats, high-waist trousers -- and mixes them with his own quirky sensibility. It's FDR and JFK conjoined with P.T. Barnum. The result is a charcoal gray overcoat that buttons up the back from the hem to the shoulders -- a traditional back vent taken to extremes. A standard navy blazer with gold buttons gets red, white and blue corset lacing down the back. Short capes lined in fur are cropped just below the shoulders. The subtle argyle pattern of a pair of socks finds its way onto whole suits.
Browne's work is flamboyant, yet deeply conservative. It also exudes passion. It boils over with his unflappable belief that men -- at least a critical mass of them -- will come around to his way of thinking. Most will surely respond with vehement dislike, but at least Browne is articulating a coherent argument. He is not merely engaging in fashion minstrelsy of the sort practiced by Z Zegna, where men were put in purple satin shirts and big mountain-goat overcoats that made them look like pimps in Alaska. Emotional response to Z Zegna? Dismay.
|
NEW YORK, Feb. 5 F ans of "Project Runway" might recognize Victorya Hong's name: Until about two weeks ago, she was a contender on the Bravo reality show. Hong was voted out of the design competition because of an uninspired use of denim. But in what must be a speed record for taking advantage of...
| 33.875 | 0.953125 | 49.390625 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503672.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503672.html
|
This Recruit Is Unreal
|
2008020619
|
It was quite a scene in the Fernley (Nev.) High gym on Friday. A 6-foot-5, 290-pound football player, seated at a table with his coach beside him, was making his college selection before a cheering crowd. On the table before him were a pair of baseball caps -- one from the University of California and one from the University of Oregon.
The player reached for the blue Cal hat, bent the visor, and placed it on his head, signifying that he was accepting a scholarship to play at the school and would officially sign his letter-of-intent today, the first day senior high school football players can do so. Television crews and a newspaper reporter were present for what was believed to be the first Division I college athlete from the town of Fernley (pop. 19,700).
Hours later, the feel-good story began to fall apart.
Neither California, Oregon -- nor any of the handful of other college football programs mentioned by Kevin Hart -- had offered him a scholarship. In fact, some of the schools he mentioned had never put his name into their databases to send players recruiting literature.
The cause of the confusion remained unclear yesterday. But the incident called attention to the growing fanfare surrounding the national signing period in which highly sought-after high school athletes are appearing at staged events on television or before large crowds in gymnasiums to announce the school of their choice.
The financial stakes are huge -- a four-year scholarship for an out-of-state athlete to Cal, for instance, is worth approximately $100,000 -- and the demands on teenage athletes are expanding in an arena in which recruiting sites are among the most visited sports sites on the Web and cable networks vie for the right to televise announcements of top prospects. Today, several universities will charge admission to events during which their coaches will talk about their latest haul of players.
Yet what happened last week in Fernley, about 30 miles east of Reno down Interstate 80, appears to be unprecedented.
"Strangest thing I've ever heard," said Dave Williford, an Oregon athletic spokesman.
"When you're a high school kid, you so badly want to be recruited and sign so you can go play, and if you're a parent you feel the same way," said Fernley Mayor Todd Cutler, who played tight end at New Mexico State University and previously was a high school football coach and assistant principal. "To have this high school, which has never had a Division I athlete and now it's not real? It's too bad. It's disappointing."
Hart, his family, Fernley Coach Mark Hodges and Fernley school officials have refused to comment this week as media attention surrounding the case has grown. Recruiting Web sites first raised questions about Hart's commitment hours after Friday's signing ceremony.
George Hart, Kevin's grandfather, yesterday said only that the family is "in a sequestered-type position" as it awaits the outcome of the multiple investigations.
In addition to Cal and Oregon, athletic representatives from Oklahoma State and Illinois -- teams that Hart told the Reno Gazette-Journal he also considered -- said their coaches had no knowledge of Hart.
|
In a bizarre twist on the eve of National Signing Day, a Nevada high school senior named Kevin Hart accepts a scholarship to California, yet neither California or Oregon offered him a spot.
| 17.361111 | 0.805556 | 1.527778 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502887.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502887.html
|
Odierno Is Tapped For Army Promotion
|
2008020619
|
President Bush has nominated Odierno for a fourth star, and Congress must approve the promotion before Odierno moves to the Pentagon. Army officials said yesterday that Odierno probably will take over for Gen. Richard A. Cody sometime this summer.
The move would put two recent Iraq veterans at the top of Army leadership, rewarding long tours in the war zone with responsibility for running an Army strained by the lengthy fight. Odierno, who led the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003 and returned to lead ground forces over the past year, would serve under Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who was the top U.S. commander in Iraq for nearly three years until he took the top Army job in April 2007.
Between his assignment as the infantry commander and his current tour in Iraq, Odierno served as assistant to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Odierno has been praised for his supervision of the buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq over the past year, which was part of a new counterinsurgency strategy. He was criticized for his leadership of the infantry in Iraq, when his unit was accused of being heavy-handed in its efforts to defeat the early stages of the insurgency. Odierno is scheduled to end his latest Iraq tour this month and will return to Fort Hood in Texas before his move to Washington.
In his new position, Odierno will supervise the Army's budget, which could be nearly $141 billion if Congress approves the president's request for the 2009 fiscal year. He also would be in charge of staffing and equipment as the Army works to grow by 65,000 soldiers over the next five years and struggles to recover after the strain of six years of continuous war.
Cody, who has served as the vice chief since June 2004, will leave after a customary four-year tenure. Army officials said yesterday that he probably will retire from the Army but that he is still determining his plans.
"He'll be serving one day at a time, one soldier at a time until then," said Alison Bettencourt, an Army spokeswoman.
Cody has focused his time in office on dealing with the effects of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the Army. He was instrumental in spearheading the Improvised Explosive Device Task Force to study how to better protect U.S. soldiers. IEDs are the single largest cause of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Cody also has worked on retaining Army soldiers and officers during wartime, a critical element of growing the force in a difficult recruiting environment.
After revelations of inadequate treatment for injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and within the Army Medical Command, Cody led Army assessments of medical treatment for U.S. soldiers around the world.
|
Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is finishing a tour as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, has been nominated to take over as the Army's vice chief of staff, a position that would have Odierno running the service's day-to-day operations.
| 9.563636 | 0.836364 | 1.490909 |
low
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503504.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503504.html
|
Getting Past Nowhere On Budget
|
2008020619
|
Who could blame you? It has become such a con game. The president sends Congress a budget that is immediately declared dead-on-arrival because of its rosy political and economic assumptions.
Democrats blame it all on tax cuts, Republicans on the fact that tax cuts are not permanent, and for 11 months they bicker until they finally rush through a continuing resolution that keeps everything the same as it was last year, except for lots of new money for Iraq, Afghanistan, homeland security and major weapons systems and the occasional bridge to nowhere.
No wonder, you've stopped paying attention. Why wouldn't you if you can't question spending on defense and homeland security, you can't touch entitlements, you can't even think of raising a tax, and all that's left is arguing over the crumbs left for education, housing, the environment and all the other things people really care about. And even with that, government will be running deficits in excess of $400 billion for as far as the eye can see.
But, fellow Americans, I have good news. It's not hopeless. Bear with me and I'll show you how it's possible to maintain spending on valued domestic programs, preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Bush tax cuts and whittle the federal operating deficit to more reasonable levels. All it takes is a modest amount of shared sacrifice and a willingness to ignore the scare tactics of special-interest groups.
Let's begin on the spending side, using round annual numbers:
After 9/11, it was natural that we'd respond by throwing money at every threat that ever crossed the mind of a federal security official or consultant. But now that we've had a chance to try a few things and reassess the risks, does anyone really think that we can't shave $5 billion from a $60 billion homeland security budget that is out of control?
We all love manned space flight, but at this point, we're not learning much from it. There's another $5 billion.
Agricultural subsidies distort the global economy, enrich wealthy farmers and drive up the cost of food and land. Replace them with a comprehensive, well-run federal crop insurance program and you can protect more farmers from the vagaries of weather while saving taxpayers a cool $5 billion a year.
The Pentagon is our next stop, where the generals and the defense contractors have used the war on terror to justify an orgy of spending on weapons systems that have little or nothing to do with that war. My cancellation list includes the Joint Strike Fighter jet that is having as much trouble finding an credible enemy as a creditable budget estimate; a Star Wars missile defense system that will never work; the gold-plated DD(X) destroyer; and the Army's overly-designed Future Combat Systems. And while we're at it, let's admit we have enough of the very cool F-22 stealth fighters and very dicey V-22 tilt-rotor helicopters.
On the operational side, the Pentagon could easily save $2 billion a year by requiring military families and retirees to make modest co-payments on their health insurance and Medigap policies. And given that our current enemies don't do dogfights, we could probably cut a couple of fighter wings from the Air Force without much risk. The difficulty in recruiting new soldiers and Marines without lowering standards is probably also a good indication that we shouldn't try to increase troop strength once the Iraq war winds down.
In all, the Pentagon savings is about $20 billion a year in current dollars, in addition to the $120 billion savings once the troops return from Iraq.
|
I know what you're thinking: "Please, not another federal budget story."
| 41.705882 | 0.588235 | 0.588235 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/05/DI2008020502330.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/05/DI2008020502330.html
|
Maryland 4th District Congressional Race
|
2008020619
|
The Post's latest poll of D.C. residents finds an increasingly positive attitude toward city services contrasted with falling approval numbers for the Fenty administration. Post staff writers Bill Turque and Nikita Stewart discuss their stories about the findings.
Brookland, DC: Isn't this sort of a disconnect, approval of services up, approval of mayor down? But Marion Barry remains popular in certain quarters today, and services under him were absolutely abyssmal.
Bill Turque: It is a disconnect, to be sure, but probably not that uncommon. I've seen a lot of polling that shows people hating the federal government, for example, but still valuing the services they get close to home..
DC 20009: While I'm generally pleased with Mayor Fenty's performance, I must admit his high-handedness, and at times what seems to be disregard for the law, can be irritating. For example, has Peter Nickles (who drives me nuts) ever moved to DC? I must say, based on his campaign, I expected him to be more approachable. But overall I think he has done a good job.
Nikita Stewart: Fenty campaigned on an inclusiveness that many residents say they cannot feel as mayor. They had high expectations after his unprecedented win in 2006. Nickles says he has an apartment in Penn Quarter.
Adams Morgan: Hello! I assume this chat also encompasses Michelle Rhee, since the two are so closely related. I had misgivings about bringing her in, and those have been borne out. On the other hand, she has made some progress, but at what seems to me a very high price.
I work for the Federal Government, where it is almost impossible to fire anyone, even for cause. This is not good. But, other than the 9 (out of 266) teachers who were fired for cause, she seems to have selected the others let go almost at random. She has admitted they include a number of caring, competent teachers. I took my kids out of DC public schools because of numerous bad experiences; and 2 teachers I consider to be completely incompetent, one of whom has a serious drinking problem, are still employed. This is not good, either; and I no longer have confidence in her ability to solve these problems.
Bill Turque: I think one thing the Chancellor is trying to do in negotiating a new contract with the teachers union is to get more latitude in dismissing teachers deemed to be ineffective. So far, though, she hasn't been able to close the deal.
Washington DC: Why has the Post ignored the actions of Fenty and Rhee especially the deliberate character assassination and humiliation of the RIF'd teachers first as being ineffective, then months later sexual deviants and child abusers?
Bill Turque: I think the record will show that we've hardly ignored it. We've written and blogged about it in detail.
Bethesda, MD: Wow -- the silly baseball tickets tiff (which I agree made Fenty look petty) had that big an impact on the poll? Let that be a lesson to politicians everywhere: you had better sweat the small stuff, or people will notice!
Nikita Stewart: The baseball ticket saga annoyed so many people. When I interviewed people who participated in our poll, everyone of them mentioned the ticket drama without prompting. Folks saw it as petty.
Washington, D.C.: How do you see these numbers affecting the 2010 election?
Nikita Stewart: There must be an opponent. Right now, Fenty is fighting himself: the fresh-faced populist of 2006 versus the honeymoon-is-over politician of 2010. But remember Fenty has money in the bank, and according to his supporters and critics, no one else is going to get out there and knock on doors like Fenty. I looked closer at our numbers, however, and compared them to his 2006 primary win. He has lost so much ground, in terms of approval, in wards 1, 4, 7 and 8. Ward 1 really surprised me since he received 61 percent of the vote in the primary there.
Washington, DC: Did your poll address the issue of Natwar Gandhi and his tenure in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer? Has his failed leadership and repeated instances of financial mismanagement had any effect on the Mayor's approval rating? Did any of the persons polled question why he still remained the CFO?
Nikita Stewart: The poll did not address Gandhi's performance. Our 2008 poll included him because the tax scandal was still a huge issue. Maybe we'll include him in the future.
Washington, D.C.: How will Fenty respond to these numbers? Should we expect a charm offensive, or is he in denial?
Nikita Stewart: No response to the poll from the Fenty camp yet. Co-chair Jim Hudson once told me that Fenty has the ability to adjust. There is a disconnect between Fenty and the success of the city. Many people appear happy with city services, etc., during these difficult economic times, but they don't give credit to Fenty. He has rubbed the public the wrong way. He often says, "I'm not perfect. I'm going to make mistakes. I learn from my mistakes." We'll see.
Michelle Rhee: Do you think there's a been a backlash against her in part because she's become such a high-profile national figure?
Bill Turque: I think there's clearly been a backlash, but not simply because she's bacome a national figure. I think it's how she's presented herself to national audiences that has caused a backlash: ie. the broomstick, comments about the quality of teachers,etc.
How did they get here?: Fenty seemed like such a talented politician who really understood the value of constituent services. How did he become so tone-deaf once he took office?
Nikita Stewart: Constituent services remains a priority. Look at the new parks in your neighborhood. Your trash is probably getting picked up. New roads are being built. The problem is how he's delivering. Those polled appeared upset about the recreation construction contracts that were routed through the D.C. Housing Authority and awarded to firms with ties to the mayor. They were upset about his secrecy from not explaining how his twin sons were allowed to enter the out-of-boundary Lafayette Elementary to letting the public know he took an expense-paid trip to Dubai after he returned. They also felt that Fenty does not understand their problems.
Arlington, VA: I wonder if you intend to poll in other jursidictions in the area such as Montgomery, PG County, Fairfax and even tiny Arlington to get a sense of whether the anti-Fentyism is a manifestation of general distrust of government in sour economic times.
Nikita Stewart: That's an interesting point. But we found that the public's satisfactory view of the council is holding steady. In 2008, those polled blamed the council for the poor relations with the mayor. That has turned around. It appears that the anti-Fentyism is anti-Fenty.
Georgetown, DC: I agree that the baseball ticket dispute was petty, but in my neck of the woods, at least, there has been much improved public space upkeep, school repairs, even improvements at the DMV. I don't have school age children, but I know people who are returning to public schools in the wake of Ms. Rhee's efforts. And Ghandi is actually a good manager; the City's rating has improved. The RE Tax office scam started before his watch. Saturday as I drove home from Bethesda after slipping and sliding on the untouched-by-plow Maryland side of Wisconsin Avenue, the DC section was being plowed.
Bill Turque: I guess what we're seeing here is that good governance and good politics are not always the same things. If people feel left behind,then making the trains run on time is not enough.
Capitol Hill: I can't help but observe that snow removal this year has been dramatically better than in the past. Yet Fenty's arrogance makes me reluctant to give him credit. By and large, I think he is doing a good job. But these arrogant missteps may result in D.C. replacing him with someone who will not run things as well.
Nikita Stewart: That's exactly what we found in the poll. Why do you think the public is so turned off by his "arrogance?" What difference does it make if he's getting things done?
Peter Nickles: Yes, but dollars to donuts it's not his primary residence, as that term is legally defined. That's the sort of legal hairsplitting that drives some of us crazy.
Nikita Stewart: Many of the disputes between the mayor and the council have actually gone back to Nickles's interpretation of the city's laws. But he noted in an interview with me a few months ago that his car is registered in D.C. and he's registered to vote in D.C. This kind of dual residency isn't uncommon in District government. Remember that Nickles was initially reluctant to "move" to the District because he thought it would be disingenuous.
Capitol Hill: As a long time resident of DC, I am accustomed to young people rolling into town with each new administration with idea that they will fix everything because they know everything. Therefore, Rhee's 'my way or the highway' approach coupled with her arrogance was not new. However, even if you really are a savior, it helps to be nice and not tell everyone how smart you are and how stupid they are. The truly great leaders make people want to follow them.
I have no idea if Rhee really is the savior of DC's public schools. I hope she gets the message that her act is one we've all seen before and maybe she could try toning it a little. Any chance this is sinking in?
Bill Turque: She has always worked steadily at meeting with people in the community. But I think her view is that of she's going to get anything done,she's going to make some people unhappy.
washingtonpost.com: Nikita and Bill had to sign off. Thanks for all your questions.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
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.
| 49.707317 | 0.609756 | 0.707317 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/03/DI2008020302915.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/03/DI2008020302915.html
|
Post Politics Hour
|
2008020619
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Washington Post national political reporter Michael Shear was online Wednesday, Feb. 6 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Crestwood, N.Y.: Mr. Shear, be honest -- you guys absolutely are having the times of your lives with this electoral process. For drama and sheer craziness, this political system that we have now is pure Disney World for the political junkies, and you can't believe your luck. It's March Madness, but it goes on for a whole year!
Michael Shear: Good morning, everyone. It seems like just yesterday that we had an election.
This comment is a good place to start, and I have to agree with it completely. Those of us who flip on C-SPAN before we brush our teeth in the morning are in heaven -- two wide-open presidential contests playing out at the same time. For a political reporter, there's nothing better.
But let's hear what you think? Did the results from Super Tuesday surprise anyone? Do folks have a prediction? What questions can I field? Let's have at it.
Alexandria, Va.: Well, John McCain is the Republican front-runner now, no question, but the question is, how much is the nomination going to be worth to him? The enthusiasm level for him among his own base seems to be very low. What does it say when a presidential candidate cannot win the majority of the vote in his party's primary in the state that he has represented in the U.S. Senate for almost twenty years? In fact, the only states where McCain has won primary majorities (New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, etc.) went strongly for the Democrats in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. In states that are closely divided or lean Republican, he barely has managed to exceed 40 percent of the vote, even when he has been the "winner." This does not bode well for a McCain November victory unless he somehow can manage to unite his party and inspire some enthusiasm.
Michael Shear: This is one of the central questions that we are going to confront in the next days and weeks. McCain had an undeniably good night, especially winning California. But his challenge remains: How does he energize the conservative base of his party, which has been suspicious of him for years? His first test may be at the Conservative Political Action Committee, which meets in Washington tomorrow.
Fairfax, Va.: When will Romney drop out of the race? His continued presence continues to take votes from Huckabee.
Michael Shear: Another good question. (And perhaps from a Huckabee supporter? That's the very way the former Arkansas governor has been trying to frame the situation.)
The answer, of course, is that we don't know if or when, Romney might drop out. He said last night that he's in it to win and that the campaign will continue. His aides have said they see no compelling reason to drop out as long as the conservative angst about McCain is as strong as it seems to be.
Having said that, there is sure to be pressure on Romney, and Huckabee as well, to clear the decks for McCain now. In some ways the Democrats have given the Republicans a gift by engaging in a race that looks like it will go for weeks more, if not months. If the Republicans quickly can decide on a nominee, it will give that person -- McCain? -- extra time to raise money and begin drawing contrasts with the eventual Democratic nominee.
Washington: This has got to be a question you'll see a lot -- any idea how things are shaping up in Maryland, Virginia, and the District for next week's primaries? Who has got the lead for the Democrats and Republicans in these states? There don't seem to be many numbers available online that tell where these races are!
Michael Shear: Ah, a question I love. (I covered Virginia politics for 14 years, including five in Richmond.)
On the Democratic side, Maryland and the District appear to be shaping up in Obama's column. The Clinton campaign seems to think they have a better chance in Virginia, where she will campaign tomorrow. (Several of her senior staff -- including Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry and Deputy Communications Director Mo Elleithee -- are longtime Virginia strategists). But Gov. Tim Kaine, Richmond mayor Doug Wilder and several of the key Democratic members of Congress are Obama backers, who say they feel optimistic.
On the Republican side, Virginia would seem like a good target for John McCain, who I would think could do well in Northern Virginia among moderate Republicans there. (He likely would have the support of the immensely popular Sen. John Warner.) He also might do well in the Tidewater area, where there are plenty of military families.
Bristow, Va.: You and Tim Craig were both very busy on the "macaca" beat in 2006. Today, his story has this sentence: "There are also questions about whether Allen could have withstood the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, given the allegations that swirled around him in the closing months of his Senate campaign." Would you know what undescribed allegations he's referring to here? Is it something The Post reported on? Or something they didn't have enough evidence to report? If it's the second, why are the rumors being "swirled" here?
washingtonpost.com: The 'What If' of Allen Haunts the GOP Race (Post, Feb. 6)
Michael Shear: I believe all Tim is referring to is the very public allegations about racial insensitivities that The Post and other news organizations reported about.
Washington: As a die-hard conservative, it will pain me to vote for McCain ... but you can bet that on Election Day, I will push the button for him. Most conservatives I know, although not fond of him, will still vote for him because of the alternative -- a Democrat. I think if the Democrats nominate Clinton, it will motivate the conservatives to go out and vote for whoever the GOP nominates. If the Democrats nominate Obama, you will see more GOP crossover ... even though he is more liberal.
Michael Shear: Interesting. If many in the Republican Party reach this conclusion, I suspect McCain will have an easier time wrapping up the nomination than some suspect.
Northern Virginia: Since when is the Republican contest "wide open" now? I think Howard Kurtz's column today is right -- there is a wish to keep it that way, but how can it be?
washingtonpost.com: Searching for Winners (Post, Feb. 6)
Michael Shear: Good point. I don't think I'd call the GOP race wide open after last night. I was referring to the past year, in which reporters like myself have been covering what was easily a wide-open race.
Roseland, N.J.: Yeah, say it loud, I'm a poligeek and I'm proud. Last night was candy-store time. I pored through the numbers this morning, and I'm drawn to comparing aggregate vote totals between the parties -- and there are some striking numbers. In Missouri, a crucial swing state, very hotly contested in both parties: 800,000 Democratic votes, just 550,000 Republicans. In Georgia, about as red a state as you'll find these days: Obama and Clinton combined for more than 1 million votes, while the Republican field barely got more than 900,000. In Oklahoma, a state that hasn't voted Democratic since LBJ: Clinton doubled up McCain, garnering 228,000 votes to McCain's 112,000. Across the board, in almost every state, voters on the Democratic side outnumbered voters on the Republican side -- even in red states. The only exception? Romney's Utah. But does it mean anything for the general?
Michael Shear: There is no question that there is an "enthusiasm gap" right now on the campaign trail.
For the past several months, I've seen crowds of thousands, even tens of thousands, at Democratic rallies. I've been to scores of Republican rallies and I've only seen one that exceeded 1,000 (a Huckabee rally the night before the Iowa caucus). Most of them are several hundred, and often they barely get 100.
What does that mean for November? It could indicate that Republicans are not going to turn out with the intensity of the Democrats. But it's also possible that a GOP nominee could turn that around by inspiring his party during the course of the year.
But most GOP strategists I talk to believe that they will have to work hard to compete with the obvious enthusiasm on the Democratic side for either Clinton or Obama.
Chantilly, Va.: Mike -- miss your Virginia coverage. With that grovel out of the way -- the media is saying the delegates are roughly split from the Super Tuesday contests. But as I read CNN, most of the California delegates have not been allocated yet, because it's a complex process with statewide and congressional district allocations. So might Hillary come out ahead by a bit?
Michael Shear: Thanks. I miss Virginia, too.
I think we will not have clarity on the delegate count for a while. But I'm the wrong person to ask, having done -- ahem -- poorly in math and statistics in school. Keep watching our Web site, though. I'm sure we'll keep updating the numbers.
New York: When McCain embarrasses himself pandering to CPAC tomorrow, will McCain's shills in the mainstream media finally drop the "Straight Talk Express" nonsense?
Michael Shear: John McCain's success in presidential politics largely has been based on this idea that he tells people the truth, not what they want to hear. Many independents and even Democrats flocked to him in 2000 after he called televangelists Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell the "agents of intolerance."
But he managed to lose that "straight-talk" feel, at least for a while, after he reconciled with Falwell and campaigned for George Bush in 2004 -- acts that some saw as pandering.
It's true that he risks the same accusation if he simply tells the conservatives what they want to hear. I suspect, though, that he will try to retain some of the "straight talk" image by telling them that he doesn't agree with them on some things.
McLean, Va.: In states like Tennessee and Georgia, Mitt Romney ran much worse in rural areas than in the cities or suburbs. Signs of a "Mormon effect"?
Michael Shear: A bunch of questions like this one. I think it's hard to know for sure, just as it's hard to know how much anti-black vote there is against Obama.
Romney's campaign was worried enough about the Mormon issue that they had him give that very well-covered speech about religion down in Texas.
Arlington, Va.: Good morning, thanks for doing the discussion. You mentioned in an earlier post that Clinton is campaigning in Northern Virginia tomorrow. Any idea on the venue yet?
Michael Shear: Not clear yet. I believe that in addition to campaigning in the state tomorrow, she is scheduled to attend the Democratic Party's annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday night in Richmond.
Washington:"Rumors" about George Allen: There was much more to it than racial insensitivity -- Allen's sister wrote a memoir of what it was like growing up with him as an older brother. It was very ugly -- he was depicted as a physically abusive bully who once threw one of her boyfriends through a closed sliding glass door. The stuff went way beyond the usual sibling arguments, and Allen never refuted them.
Michael Shear: Allen's sister did write that book, but later -- during the campaign -- recanted most of it, describing it as a work of fiction.
Washington: Any evidence the storms suppressed turn out in any area? I thought I heard that West Tennessee was impacted, and I thought that was an area where African Americans made up a bigger percentage of the Democrats than elsewhere in the state.
Michael Shear: I don't know the answer to this question. Clearly, they were intense and tragic storms that took several lives; how it might have impacted the voting is not as clear.
Republican Rally Attendance: The GOP candidate's rallies are more sparsely attended because Republicans are at work, not being paid by their unions to go to a rally. And don't read too much into those vote totals. A lot of us are voting with our noses held, but we'll be there in November to stop Hillary.
Michael Shear: This may well be part of the answer. Thanks for the comment.
Boston: Can McCain tap Huckabee as his vice president after Huckabee stays in for a few more primaries to bleed conservative votes away from Romney, and then figuratively tell Rush Limbaugh to go pound sand? Sure, he will pretend to make nice with Rush, but since when does the president of the U.S. have to bow down to a radio personality, especially when you have an evangelical minister on your ticket who carried the South without Rush's blessing? That's not a good ticket in a supposed Democratic cycle from my perspective -- the equivalent of the Giants pass rush beating my favored Pats in the Super Bowl.
Michael Shear: Lots of questions about Huckabee as a vice presidential pick for McCain. It's an interesting idea, especially because both men have spoken so glowingly about each other for weeks now.
The conventional wisdom is that Huckabee might provide McCain the outreach he needs to soothe social conservatives, especially in the South (where he did very well).
But there are problems, too. Huckabee is loathed by some economic conservatives, so picking him as vice president would not earn McCain any points with them. And as my colleague Peter Baker points out, there are examples of past presidential candidates who have decided to pick VP nominees who complement, rather than contrast, their own strengths. Think, for example, of Bill Clinton, a Southern centrist, picking Al Gore, also a Southern centrist.
Newark, N.J.: I don't have a question, but I just wanted to compliment washingtonpost.com and Newsweek for the live broadcast/analysis with Jon Meacham last night. At first I thought I would just tune in for a few minutes and then go watch returns on TV, but I wound up sticking with the online broadcast for the rest of the night.
Michael Shear: I'll pass this on to my colleagues at the Web site.
Kettering, Ohio: Hi Mike! I think all of the hand-wringing of the anchors and pundits last night about McCain is misplaced at best. Actually, I think McCain is being quite smart about holding the conservatives at arm's length during the primaries; he won't have to run from primary statements and positions during the election to move back to the middle. Hillary is following the same strategy in fits and spurts, although her Iowa Christmas gift ad was clear evidence of her very liberal core. That ad will be used by the Republicans if she manages to win her party's nomination.
Michael Shear: Interesting analysis. It's certainly true that if McCain wins the nomination, he will want to find ways to appeal to the independent and moderate Democratic voters. Perhaps by keeping the conservatives "at arms length" as you suggest, it makes that task easier.
His advisers, however, would argue that McCain doesn't "triangulate" his positions like that, but rather "is who he is" and lets the chips fall where they may.
Shockoe Bottom: If last night was "California, California, California," will next week be "Virginia, Virginia, Virginia"?
Michael Shear: Shockoe Bottom -- a gem of an area in downtown Richmond where one can find a bunch of really good restaurants. I can hardly wait to get back to Millie's.
And yes, I think Tim Russert (who once famously held up a piece of paper with "Florida, Florida, Florida" scrawled on it) might well do the same with Virginia on Tuesday.
Annandale, Va.: When is this going to be over? Don't you have a family that you'd like to go home to?
Michael Shear: Hmmm. I live in Annandale. I think this might be my wife. I'll be home soon, hon (I hope). Say hi to the kids!
New York: Mike -- please help! I am totally baffled by the delegate count on the Democrat side - Can you tell me what the exact numbers are? The Post home page says: Hillary: 540, Obama: 539. The New York Times home page says: Hillary: 845, Obama: 765.
washingtonpost.com: The Post numbers are for Super Tuesday only. The Times numbers include earlier primaries (and are on The Post's homepage too, if you click the "Overall" tabs).
Michael Shear: As I said, I'm math challenged. But see the answer from our Web site folks above.
Potomac primaries: Does Obama have any local events scheduled yet?
Michael Shear: Keep checking back with our Web site, and particularly The Trail, our politics journal online. I'm sure we'll post that information when we get it.
Loudoun County, Va.: Russert called it the Chesapeake Primary. The Post calls it the Potomac Primary. CNN calls it the Beltway Primary. Your favorite?
Michael Shear: My favorite: The last primary.
New York: With John McCain the likely nominee and the fact that many on the far-right detest him, is there any chance of a significant third-party run to his right?
Michael Shear: There is some talk about that, though it's unclear who that might be. Huckabee seems unlikely to do it, given his nice comments about McCain throughout.
What does seem clear is that a McCain candidacy probably means that New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is not likely to run as a third-party candidate.
Michael Shear: That's about all the time we have for today; thanks for all the good questions. Keep your Web browsers tuned to this same bat-channel for continuous updates on this remarkable political story.
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.
| 90.878049 | 0.682927 | 0.829268 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502920.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502920.html
|
Business Community Gets Onboard to Revive Dulles Rail Plan
|
2008020619
|
At a networking breakfast in Chantilly the same morning last week, Dulles Regional Chamber of Commerce President Eileen Curtis called on executives to endorse the expansion, which has been in the works since the 1960s and which many consider vital to the region's future.
"Can I have your attention? Take out your cellphone for a group exercise," she told the crowd. "I'm going to give you the number for the White House comment line, and we need to weigh in."
All 55 attendees dialed in, but they were too late. The Federal Transit Administration told Kaine the extension was ineligible for $900 million in federal money needed to move development forward, in effect killing the project. The business community discovered it would need much more than a phone call to revive the endeavor.
Last Friday, several of the region's chambers of commerce began to mobilize. They organized a news conference and brought in local employers, such as bottled water firm Elements H2O of Chantilly and Reston Hospital Center, to discuss how the proposed rail would improve the quality of life for workers in the Dulles corridor. More than 1,300 businesses, organizations and individuals have signed an online petition in support of a reevaluation of the project and beginning rail construction this year. Executives are writing letters to the FTA, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and lawmakers, raising awareness of traffic gridlock's strain on Northern Virginia's economy.
"Before, only people with a special axe to grind were engaged," said William D. Lecos, president of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce. "Now it's a much broader voice."
Local chambers are calling members asking them to step up, and employers are asking their congressmen to push for the project. The nonprofit Dulles Corridor Rail Association and the Washington Airports Task Force have placed three ads in Washington newspapers advocating the rail extension and listing its business supporters.
The 23-mile Metrorail extension from Falls Church to Dulles International Airport was expected to carry 60,000 passengers a day. Business leaders hoped a rail line through Virginia's busiest job corridor would improve the region's paralyzing traffic -- and with it employee retention, morale and opportunities for company growth.
The project is especially important to Loudoun County, said Tony Howard, president of its Chamber of Commerce.
"We're kind of an island," he said. "We're the only county in the Washington region that's not connected to a rail line or interstate."
The rising price of gas combined with frequent traffic jams are taking a toll on construction workers traveling between job sites, said Tanya Matthews, president of TMG Construction in Purcellville.
"They are always unhappy," she said.
|
When Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine met with federal transit officials in Richmond to discuss the fate of the proposed Metro extension to Dulles International Airport, Northern Virginia business leaders were already worried.
| 14.828571 | 0.685714 | 1.314286 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503104.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503104.html
|
Redskins Pay Tribute To Green and Monk
|
2008020619
|
The Washington Redskins honored new Hall of Famers Darrell Green and Art Monk with a reception yesterday at Redskins Park.
Monk, a longtime standout wide receiver for Washington, and Green, a former star cornerback who played his entire 20-year career with the Redskins, were among six players elected to the Hall of Fame last week. Before the reception, Monk and Green thanked the Redskins, former teammates, family and friends for their support during a news conference for invited guests in the complex's auditorium.
"This organization has been a great blessing to me and my family," said Green, a four-time winner of the NFL's fastest man competition. "I would never in a million years moved up here to Washington, D.C. I'm from Texas. But I sure thank God that . . . he put me in the right place."
Green, 47, was elected in his first year of eligibility. A seven-time Pro Bowler and four-time all-pro selection, Green was Washington's first-round pick in the 1983 draft. He had 54 interceptions and scored six touchdowns.
"It's been a real, real great ride. We are blessed beyond . . . we don't deserve this," Green said. "C'mon. Get real. What have we really done that people would love us the way they do and care for us? We are definitely overpaid with love, kindness, respect and all that God has given to us. It doesn't even make sense. But I'm grateful for that."
Monk was the first player to have more than 900 receptions, finishing his career as the NFL's all-time leader with 940. Jerry Rice broke Monk's mark during the 1995 season.
"This whole induction thing has just taken me by surprise," said Monk, 50, an eight-time Hall of Fame finalist. "I really was not expecting it although there was a lot of expectation from the community. I had just written it off like I had done the past few years, hoping that it would happen but it didn't happen. So when my wife handed me the phone [Saturday] and it was the NFL on the other end, it completely took me off guard."
Monk, the Redskins' first-round pick in the 1980 draft, had 12,721 receiving yards and scored 68 touchdowns. He was a three-time all-pro selection (1984, '85, '86) and was voted to the Hall of Fame's NFL 1980s all-decade team.
"It's been a little bit overwhelming, even though I'm kind of used to all of this," Monk said. "It's been a whirlwind for the last couple of days. But despite all the hype and distractions and the buildup that's taken place because of all of this, the last couple of days I've had time to just kind of sit and reflect on what the Hall of Fame really means. It's about . . . making a commitment to the game, not just playing the game."
|
New Hall of Famers Darrell Green, 47, and Art Monk, 50, were honored by the franchise for which they played a combined 34 years Tuesday at Redskins Park.
| 18.363636 | 0.848485 | 2.666667 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020400493.html
|
Bush's Budget Projects Deficits
|
2008020619
|
President Bush yesterday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that will leave deficits of more than $400 billion this year and next, forcing his successor to grapple with a range of unpalatable choices to close the gap, according to lawmakers and budget experts.
Under the budget sent to Congress yesterday, Bush would freeze most domestic spending and limit payments to hospitals and other providers as part of an effort to slow the growth of Medicare. Because of plans to send tax rebates to most Americans under an economic stimulus program, the deficit would grow in the short term but would fall to zero by 2012 if Congress adopts the spending restraints Bush is calling for, according to projections in the new budget.
Lawmakers said they are unlikely to go along with much of the president's final-year agenda, and Bush's plan omits several costly features, including tens of billions of dollars of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that could drive the deficit even higher than the president's estimates. That would effectively delay until 2009 decisions on how to cope with short- and long-term financial problems, lawmakers and others said.
The new deficit projections "clearly make a problem not only for the next Congress but also the next couple of Congresses, and the next president, too," said G. William Hoagland, a longtime GOP Senate aide and budget expert who is now a health-care lobbyist.
"A whole bunch of things they were putting off and hiding under the rug all these years are starting to pop back up," said Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago and chief economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "It's clear they're trying to shove as much of this as possible on to the next guy."
White House officials reject such criticism, saying they have tried to put forward ideas for confronting the long-term costs of Medicare and Social Security but repeatedly have been stymied by Democrats in Congress. White House budget director Jim Nussle told reporters yesterday that he remains hopeful there can be bipartisan progress on budget issues this year, noting that Democrats and Republicans have cooperated recently on the economic stimulus plan.
"You might be surprised," he said. "I think that there are many in Congress that believe rather than waiting until the last minute in 2008, maybe we ought to have some of those conversations a little bit earlier."
The budget deficit has not figured recently as a major issue in Washington or on the campaign trail, as it did in the 1980s and '90s. Bush inherited a surplus in 2001, but his tax cuts, the slowing economy early in his administration and a massive defense buildup turned the surplus into red ink, with the deficit hitting a record $413 billion in 2004. In recent years, the deficit has fallen as tax revenues jumped with the improving economy.
Nussle acknowledged that the deficit will grow to $410 billion in the current fiscal year. But he cast that largely as a result of the stimulus plan, which is expected to cost about $146 billion, and he noted that the deficit is low in historical terms, as a proportion of the economy.
"We believe that this uptick is temporary and is also a manageable budget deficit if we keep taxes low, if we can keep the economy growing and if we can keep spending in check," he said.
But while the deficit measured against the size of the economy will be far from a record, it will come after six straight years of red ink. The federal debt will have climbed to $9.7 trillion by the time Bush leaves office, a rise of $4 trillion during his administration, according to the budget.
Interest on the debt next year will total $260 billion, about what will be spent by the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Justice combined.
|
President Bush yesterday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that will leave deficits of more than $400 billion this year and next, forcing his successor to grapple with a range of unpalatable choices to close the gap, according to lawmakers and budget experts.
| 15.117647 | 1 | 51 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402689.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402689.html
|
More School Vouchers, Fewer Programs
|
2008020619
|
The budget would add $300 million for Pell Grants for Kids, a new voucher program aimed at giving low-income students in struggling schools aid to help them switch to private schools. It also would provide $1 billion for Reading First, up from the $393 million that Congress appropriated for the current fiscal year. The reading program has been beset by allegations of conflicts of interest.
Some Democrats and education groups contended that the budget would shortchange schools of money needed to carry out the six-year-old No Child Left Behind law and such other priorities as career and technical education. Democrats also attacked the voucher proposal.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said the budget would cut "ineffective" and duplicative programs to allow a nearly 3 percent increase in funding for poor schools. The budget would nearly double, to $200 million, funding to help states and localities develop teacher merit-pay plans. It also would add $2.6 billion to Pell Grants for low-income college students, raising the maximum award to $4,800.
|
President Bush would freeze the Education Department's discretionary spending at $59.2 billion, cutting or consolidating dozens of programs while expanding school vouchers and restoring funding for a No Child Left Behind reading initiative that Democratic lawmakers slashed.
| 4.878049 | 0.487805 | 0.829268 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503482.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503482.html
|
Attaboy! The Fetching Doggedness Of John McCain
|
2008020619
|
PHOENIX, Feb. 5 -- The king of doggedness, who excels at biting his lip and biding his time, waits out the last hours guardedly. Onstage, he projects victory. Offstage, he knocks on wood, or more precisely, the woodlike table of his campaign bus. On a plane in Newark, just before taking off for San Diego yesterday, John McCain says he's nervous, in his McCainian way:
"I'm always nervous and I'm always superstitious and I'm always a pain in a certain part of the anatomy to most of my friends and associates."
The king of doggedness, who knows something about patience, and something about being a pain, and whose charm and gall derive from that combination, seems to be enjoying himself. He's used to waiting, sometimes for years, to get out of prison camp, to fix immigration and campaign finance and Iraq, to get into the White House.
He teases a reporter (for being late) and supporter Sen. Lindsay Graham (for being "not so smart"). He watches the Super Bowl in a hotel lobby bar. He sprints from Boston to New Jersey to New York to San Diego (for just a second) to Phoenix over the course of two days. During conversations with reporters, he banters and laughs -- laughs so hard at one point he snorts. At rallies, he tells this joke about a lawyer and a catfish, and introduces his spry 95-year-old mother, telling the story of how she went to France but they told her she was too old to rent a car.
"So she bought a car and drove around France!" McCain says. "Atta girl, Mother!"
Atta girl (and boy) to everyone everywhere who is underestimated. There is a freedom in low expectations, and a burden in the word "front-runner." Even after the polls close on Super Tuesday, and McCain has blown through the Northeast and piled up the most delegates, he is not yet a sure thing, and maybe he's used to dealing with that. The fighting and sticking to it and waiting, rather than the prize.
The king of doggedness also does not want to indulge in speculation in the last days before the polls open. He's a voluble guy, but not about this particular part of his future.
What if he were to beat out his main opponent, Mitt Romney, for the Republican nomination -- where, then, would he campaign? (Not gonna speculate on that.) Would he consider Mike Bloomberg as a running mate? (That's premature.) Does he ever want to pinch himself, when he considers how far he's come since last July, when his campaign was falling apart and leaking money and leaking staff and more than one pundit pronounced him dead, deader 'n dead? (Nah, doesn't want to rehash all that.)
How would he deal with campaigning in a general election against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, either of whom would be a historic candidate?
"Haven't thought about it," he says, talking with a few reporters while traveling Monday from New Jersey to New York on his Straight Talk Express bus. "Start thinking about it when we get the nomination. I am superstitious. I have seen this movie before."
The movie was 2000, of course, when McCain was a charming and irascible underdog the first time around, when he and his bus took New Hampshire by storm, and McCain looked like he had the mo' -- and then got crushed by George W. Bush in South Carolina. McCain was superstitious back then, too. It is part of his public persona, like the lawyer joke, and his tendency to use the phrase "my friends" like a mantra in campaign speeches. He frequently announces he carries a lucky penny in his pocket.
Here is what he speaks about with certainty. He tells how he will follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of Hell." He says the surge in Iraq is working. He says the Democrats "want to wave the white flag." He says, "I have the judgment, the experience and the knowledge to lead this nation in the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, my friends, and that's the struggle againist radical Islamic extremism."
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 16.666667 | 0.352941 | 0.352941 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003012.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003012.html
|
Pakistan Kicked Me Out. Others Were Less Lucky.
|
2008020219
|
T he police came for me on a cold, rainy Tuesday night last month. They stood in front of my home in Islamabad, four men with hoods pulled over their heads in the driving rain. The senior officer, a tall, clean-shaven man, and I recognized one another from recent protests and demonstrations. Awkwardly, almost apologetically, he handed me a notice ordering my immediate expulsion from Pakistan. Rain spilled off a nearby awning and fell loudly into puddles.
I asked, somewhat obtusely, what this meant. "I am here to take you to the airport," the officer shrugged. "Tonight."
The document he'd given me provided no explanation for my expulsion, but I immediately felt that there was some connection to the travels and reporting I had done for a story published two days earlier in the New York Times Magazine, about a dangerous new generation of Taliban in Pakistan. I had spent several months traveling throughout the troubled areas along the border with Afghanistan, including Quetta (in Baluchistan province) and Dera Ismail Khan, Peshawar and Swat (all in the North-West Frontier Province). My visa listed no travel restrictions, and less than a week earlier, President Pervez Musharraf had sat before a roomful of foreign journalists in Islamabad and told them that they could go anywhere they wanted in Pakistan.
The truth, however, is that foreign journalists are barred from almost half the country; in most cases, their visas are restricted to three cities -- Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. In Baluchistan province, which covers 44 percent of Pakistan and where ethnic nationalists are fighting a low-level insurgency, the government requires prior notification and approval if you want to travel anywhere outside the capital of Quetta. Such permission is rarely given. And the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where the pro-Taliban militants are strong, are completely off-limits. Musharraf's government says that journalists are kept out for their own security. But meanwhile, two conflicts go unreported in one of the world's most vital -- and misunderstood -- countries.
There's no doubt that journalists in Pakistan, and throughout Central and South Asia, face great risks. Nine Central and South Asian journalists were among the 65 newsmen and women worldwide -- more than in any other year in the past decade, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists -- who lost their lives while doing their jobs last year. Five were Pakistanis. One died in FATA and one in the North-West Frontier Province, areas where the Taliban operate with increasing openness. Two others died in Taliban- or al-Qaeda-related violence, one during the Red Mosque siege last July and one in the terrorist attack on Benazir Bhutto's motorcade as she returned to Pakistan last Oct. 18, which left more than 140 dead.
Also in October, in the Kyrgyz city of Osh, a gunman using a silencer murdered Voice of America reporter Alisher Saipov, a good friend of mine and a fearless opponent of the regime in neighboring Uzbekistan. More recently, Taliban militants raided the exclusive and high-security Serena Hotel in Kabul, Afghanistan, one detonating himself in a suicide blast while the others combed the hallways, seeking and firing at targets; one Norwegian journalist died.
And yet throughout the region, journalism is considered perhaps the noblest profession around. In many of these countries, information is hoarded by corrupt, authoritarian leaders. Trying to expose it can be a liberating and empowering experience. That's why the state of the media there -- and the ability of foreign journalists to report what's going on -- should concern the West.
It's no secret that stifled societies often produce frustrated, angry youth. Pakistan, for example, is an amazing and fascinating country, filled with amazing and fascinating people, but every day, small numbers of young men and women there are brainwashed into thinking that the only answer to Musharraf's U.S.-backed regime is terrorism.
I moved to Pakistan in February 2006 on a research and writing fellowship. My wife left her job and joined me soon after. We had been married just three months; I convinced her that two years in Pakistan would be like a honeymoon that just wouldn't stop. We both learned to speak Urdu and embraced local customs and clothes. She enrolled at the International Islamic University (the only non-Muslim American ever to do so), and I traveled extensively throughout the country. Pakistan became our home. Unhindered by deadlines and with a grasp of the language, I uncovered a side of Pakistan that few other foreign writers have been fortunate enough to experience.
My desire to explore regions and themes rarely addressed in mainstream media coverage took me to a number of areas often considered dangerous or hostile to Westerners. And yet I found the people there overwhelmingly hospitable -- and not at all scary. I soon learned how to assess -- and, to some extent, manage -- any potential hazards. I almost always traveled with a local journalist or two who knew the people, languages and customs far better than I ever could. Besides understanding which roads were safe to travel at night, they would also be aware that interviewing particular people might attract the unwanted attention of Pakistan's intelligence services, including the notorious ISI. When they advised, I listened.
Foreign writers in Baluchistan have always attracted the nervous attention of the intelligence services. A year ago, agents burst into the hotel room of a female New York Times correspondent and physically assaulted her. (She was reporting on the presence of top Taliban leaders in Quetta.) Another foreign journalist staying at the same hotel received a phone call threatening that unless he left Quetta immediately, he would face the "consequences" like Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal correspondent whom Islamic militants kidnapped and beheaded in January 2002.
Following my last visit to Baluchistan, in October 2006, intelligence goons stopped by my house on a regular basis for weeks, demanding to speak with me and asking my guard probing questions about my wife and me. The guard quietly shared these conversations with me out of earshot of my wife. I laughed about it with fellow writers and reporters, figuring that such visits were just the price of researching and reporting in Baluchistan.
|
If journalism is the 'first rough draft of history,' then Pakistan's history is suffering.
| 63.368421 | 0.526316 | 0.736842 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/01/ashura.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/2008/01/ashura.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020219
|
I read my posting and I got some info wrong. It didnât look right. Old age, I guess. Or too many complicated Arabic names.
So I checked my facts and let me correct myself. There were two Aliâs. In this case the first Ali was the husband of Fatima. The other Ali was Hussain Ali, usually known as Hussain, not Ali (as I wrote) who died at Karbala.. I tried to condense the story too much, but it didn't work.
Here is the story, corrected:
As Islam's dear prophet was dying (poisoned?), he lay with his head on Aisha's (his child bride) lap. Next to him was a young man named Ali, who later married Mohammad daughter Fatima.
Within 50 years of Mohammad's death Muslim armies would conquer west to Africa and Spain, east to India and north to the gates of the Byzantines. This is called jihad. It gave Muslims unimaginable riches, power, and captives. They soon split into two hostile fractions fighting for the riches and power. Aisha (Mohammadâs wife) and her family on one side and the family of Ali and Mohammadâ s daughter, Fatima, on the other.
This was the time of the "Four Glorious Caliphs" that Muslims like to talk about. They call it "Islam's Golden years." They forget to mention the violence, conquest and death that was a central part of it. They do not mention that 3 out of the 4 so-called Righteous Caliphs were murdered by Muslims in this fifty year orgy of greed and rivalry.
The first caliph was Abu Bakr, Aishaâs father. He ruled two years and died of natural causes in 634AD. The next Caliph was Umar (Omar), a father-in-law of Mohammad. He was killed by an unhappy slave in 644. The next Caliph was Uthman, who married two of Mohammadâs daughters. He slowly loses control because (a) he was kind and generous and only cared about spiritual things, according to the sunnisâ, or (b) he was a decadent coward that lived a life of decadent luxury, according to the shia. Anyway, he was killed by a mob as his blood covered the first copy of the Quran. His body is thrown into a Jewish cemetery in 656. These wonderful folks are usually known as the Ummayad family and dynasty.
Meanwhile, Ali and Fatima and family were unhappy that they didnât get their share of the riches and power. In 656, after the death of Uthman, they make their move and defeat the Ummayads at the battle of the Camel. Aisha, now old, watches the battle. Her side loses. Ali becomes the 4th Righteous caliph. Aliâs family is often referred to as the Hashimites (?).
The Ummayadâs are still around and they grow stronger. Ali loses his power because he ⦠(a) and (b) again, reversed. Anyway, Muawiya, Uthmanâs cousin, an Ummayad, challenges Ali and Ali is murdered in 661. Muawiya becomes Caliph.
Ali has a son, Hassan, that decides that life is really dangerous, so he takes a pay-off and lives a life of debauchery for 2 years until he mysteriously dies. Ali had another son, Hassanâs brother, Hussein Ali, that thinks that it is his turn to be Caliph -- when Muawiya dies, of course. He even says he has an agreement for this with old Muawiya.
Muawiya dies in 680 but Yazid, his son, says he knows nothing about that so-called agreement. The two sides prepare for battle and meet at a place called Karbala. Ali's Muslim army was much smaller than Yazid's Muslim army and as happens so often when a weaker group attacks a bigger and stronger group, he lost. He lost everything, including his head.
At the battle of Karbala - called the Ashura - Muslim fought Muslim on the battlefield. The great feud between Shiite and Sunni was on.
And so the heads of Mohammad's grandson (Hussain) and even infant great-grandson (Asghan) and 70 others here carried home in bags as trophies by the victorious Muslim army.
That is it. Both Sunni and Shia agree on the basic facts -- who ruled and who died and when. It is very complicated and not a pretty story. They do not agree on who were the good guys and who were the bad ones.
That is the story of the Ashura.
|
Islam's Advance on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/islamsadvance/
| 51.588235 | 0.411765 | 0.529412 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner/2008/01/looking_for_change_in_all_the.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner/2008/01/looking_for_change_in_all_the.html
|
Carlos Alberto Montaner
|
2008020219
|
The Current Discussion: With the U.S. presidential primary season in full swing, there's a lot of talk here about "change" vs. "competence" in leadership. Which does your country have more of? Is that a good thing?
Young Senator Barack Obama has become the great revelation in the U.S. elections. Not only because he is the first African-American candidate with a serious chance to become president, but also because he says he embodies the change that American society presumably needs. Among the Republicans, Mitt Romney, a successful Mormon businessman, former governor of Massachusetts, the quintessence of the country's economic and political establishment, is running for president making the selfsame argument: he asserts that he represents change. It seems the word is very much welcome by voters.
The two men may be wrong. The function of American politicians is not to generate changes but to regulate them.
Economic changes are produced by the internal dynamics of civilian society. They are carried out by the decisions freely made by millions of entrepreneurial and hard-working citizens who spontaneously determine the speed and direction in which the country should move. They do so in laboratories, factories, companies and universities. The true creators of change are the researchers, scientists, great engineers, creative managers, and shrewd entrepreneurs â the thinkers who in every educational center daily remodel our knowledge. The social changes are propelled (or held back) by the communications media, churches, non-government organizations, labor unions, student organizations and the various interest groups.
In the face of those uncontrollable, absolutely unpredictable dynamics, politicians can only manage and set rules. If the rules are correct, they benefit the whole of society, impede abuses, prevent flagrant injustice, and facilitate the introduction of changes. If they are wrong, the consequences can be totally negative and in effect become ballast. But it is not up to the politicians to change the destiny of their people because, among other reasons, in free societies no one knows in which direction the population must move. That monstrous certainty can be found only in socialist dictatorships endowed with a single head, where the great artificers of social engineering -- using as a transmission belt certain groups of obscure functionaries, generally preceded by some enlightened fanatics -- think they know the route society must take and herd the people in that direction by dint of whip and calaboose, stifling on the way the entrepreneurial spirit, while they root out all vestiges of genuine creativity.
The mere existence of a phenomenon like Obama proves that assertion. It was the tenacious struggle of the Quakers and the abolitionists in the 19th Century, taken up by Martin Luther King Jr. in the mid-20th Century, that later generated Lyndon Johnson's integrationist legislation, which today happily permits Obama to be a viable option for American voters. What changes the United States is the train, the telephone, aviation, the contraceptive pill, the computers and cloning -- among hundreds of other innovations -- and all those technological milestones rise in the bosom of civilian society and push the country in a theretofore unsuspected direction, provoking tremendous consequences at all levels of coexistence, a situation to which the politicians must react. That is the virtue of the so-called open societies, where the State neither directs nor plans but restricts itself to regulate in an equitable manner. From this spontaneous order is born the immense fortitude and incredible capacity to generate wealth of a nation like the United States.
But there is another paradox. Sometimes, the great changes -- even though beneficial -- create serious problems that the politicians must confront. A typical instance is the development of pharmacology and the extremely expensive diagnostic devices. Thanks to them, people today live longer -- the true change is an increase in longevity -- but those final years are terribly onerous and nobody knows how to deal with them, because almost every sick person wishes to prolong his or her life at any cost. The function of the politician, therefore, is to find a way to regulate this change in the most reasonable and efficient way possible, within the limitations that a budget always imposes. And the job of the voter, of course, is to try to identify which politician can better accomplish that and similar other tasks. It's not easy.
|
Carlos Alberto Montaner at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner/
| 43.105263 | 0.368421 | 0.368421 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mona_eltahawy/2008/01/change_competence_egypt_has_ne.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mona_eltahawy/2008/01/change_competence_egypt_has_ne.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020219
|
The Current Discussion: With the U.S. presidential primary season in full swing, there's a lot of talk here about "change" vs. "competence" in leadership. Which does your country have more of? Is that a good thing?
I am writing this on the plane taking me back to New York from Cairo, my hometown. Almost every conversation I had during the three weeks I spent in Egypt revolved around the decay and increasing poverty that continues to tighten its grip on my country. So my heart aches just to consider âchangeâ vs. âcompetenceâ.
They are words that have been erased from modern Egyptâs political lexicon by a succession of military dictators who have ruled since a coup in 1952. The latest one, President Hosni Mubarak, has been in power since his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated at the end of 1981. For the past 26 years, Mubarak has ruled Egypt with little regard for competence or change and he is said to be grooming his son Gamal, a former banker, to inherit his regime. So much for any competence or change on the horizon.
It is a wonder how the regime runs the country when it is so out of touch with its people. While those in power boast the Egyptian economy is growing at a healthy rate, they forget to tell you that they are its only benefactors. Prices continue to soar. A sandwich of fava beans, a staple in the diet of all Egyptians but especially the poor, has doubled in price and many cannot even afford to eat meat.
You need only see how the regime reacted to criticism from the European Union to understand how allergic it is to any suggestions of change. Unlike the Bush administration, which seems to have forgotten it had ever emphasized democracy and reform â i.e. change â in Egypt, the EU recently, and rightfully, blasted Egyptâs human and civil rights record.
But to hear the regimeâs response, you would think such criticism was the product of evil forces conspiring against Egypt. At least thatâs how the head of the Egyptian parliament put it when he was interviewed by a television talk show. Never mind that jails are full of political prisoners or that the regime is suffocating all life out of Egypt. The official, Fathi Sorour, suggested the Europeans would regret calling for change once they understood that they needed Egypt more than it needed them. No change, no competence and plenty of delusion.
Change needs new blood and to understand the fate of anyone who believes Egypt needs it, consider the fate of Ayman Nour, a parliamentarian who was Mubarakâs main opponent in Egyptâs first contested presidential elections in September 2005. Nour has been in prison since the end of 2005 after a politically motivated trial aimed at removing him from politics as Mubarak grooms Gamal to take over.
There are plenty of competent people in Egypt who could carry out the changes that my country needs so much, but they are pushed out of the way, bullied into silence or sent to jail. Some even self-impose exile, as was the fate of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a Mubarak critic who dared to urge the Bush administration to make its aid conditional on the Cairo regimeâs respect of human rights.
No matter who wins the U.S. elections in November, I remain highly skeptical that they will encourage either competence or change in Egypt. Successive inhabitants of the White House have always preferred stability there.
President Bush said so at the end of 2004. He seemed to support reform and democracy in 2005, but his recent visit to Egypt, which took place while I was there, suggested we were back to regular programming. He stayed for just three hours in Egypt, an afterthought compared to the two days he had just spent in Saudi Arabia where he delivered a major arms sale and sword-danced with relatives of Saudi King Abdullah.
Bush thanked and appreciated Mubarak several times and praised him for Egyptâs âvibrant civil society.â Less than 24 hours after Bush left, Egyptian police ended a peaceful demonstration in Cairo and dumped the protestors, including a 70-year-old opposition leader, out in the desert.
Egypt used to pride itself for being the de facto leader of the Middle East, but it has turned into a vacation backdrop for visiting dignitaries whose attention and business deals have increasingly shifted to the booming economies of newly influential Arab Gulf kingdoms and emirates.
Egyptâs diminished role is no surprise considering that Mubarak has been in power for 26 years. His regime is tired and lacking in new ideas.
Bush is the fourth U.S. president to hold office since the start of Mubarakâs reign. Whether Americans choose âcompetenceâ or âchangeâ later this year, it seems one Mubarak or another will be waiting to receive them.
|
Mona Eltahawy at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/mona_eltahawy/
| 50.277778 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/01/bolivarian_university_venezuela_america.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/01/bolivarian_university_venezuela_america.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008020219
|
Of course, I lack the ability to think critically about my government, nor does any American...
HAVE THESE PEOPLE NEVER READ OUR NEWS?!
There is a level of ignorance most Americans sit at that is embarassing, apalling, and unnecessary at this point in social evolution. But there are some real problems in a system where Americans are seen as Bush's loyal lackeys when a good portion of us are calling for his head on a plate.
In a way, I understand the Venezuelans who are becoming annoyed and repulsed by Chavez. They are the same as we who are annoyed and repulsed by Bush. And if these two presidents did not reign coincidentally, we would likely not have all of these issues.
But for the virgins, you are about to receive the cold, heartless touch of hard international politics.
America very rarely attempts a full on coup anymore. It is a very large, very powerful, very philanthropic (if only sarcasm could drip in writing) nation. We tend to affect world policy by using buffer nations and proxy wars. A good case in point is the situation in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Bush's assertations that, "we're fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here" are both incredibly sociopathic and also entirely correct. There it is, politics in black and white. Our foreign occupations are based in oil, or we would not be there. Their main goal is to divert attention in the Middle East back into the Middle East and away from America, making our own border easier to defend since it is easier to attack our military abroad. This is a proxy war, just like South Korea is a proxy nation, just like Israel is a proxy nation...
And just like Colombia is a proxy nation. Your coup probably had little to no provocation from the United States. If you have a problem, it is that America will sell Colombia enough military technology to slag the entirety of Venezuela if it feels that will help its political cause. And Colombia is learning that the support Chavez builds as America's opposition is politically much less powerful than the clout it may receive from America (and NATO). Chavez is not stupid and knows exactly what he is doing. He knows America is circling the wagons and waiting Chavez out. The problem Chavez is having (hence his subsequent tirades now) is that he is literally powerless to stop America. He could nationalize his oil stream, but America already has other suppliers and its public is already wary of the places we import oil from. All Chavez would need is to stop that pipeline that fuels the majority of his economy.
Any talk about America's involvement in the coup is simply ignoring the simple facts of reality. America honestly could care less who knows it is plying its power in the Carribean and rarely anymore is couching its political rhetoric if you pay enough attention. Bush gives out previously damning political evidence simply because everyone knows our nation throws its weight around and hardly bothers to hide the fact from a critical observer. So the evidence of America trying to overthrow Chavez is simply overblown and wrong, because there are a few ground facts that make it completely stupid in the face of political logic (and though Bush is not very smart, Cheney is maliciously cunning). Chavez has not nationalized the oil and it actually runs more consistently (and cheaply) into America than from the Middle East. Chavez's nation is a lot like Cuba in that, after the fear of Communism became a passing joke, it simply did not matter if our Leftist neighbors don't like us. And really, it's a lot like our situation with Russia. There are all kinds of doublespeak, threats, and stirring the public, but nothing seems to ever come to blows. Chavez simply does not sit high enough on the food chain to really think about deposing but does America quite a bit of good as an object lesson of radical leftism to point at.
Trust me, if there was some sort of good reason America would want to depose Chavez, I would consider the sentiment. But there truly is no ground for it. Americans don't trust Chavez or like him any more than they trust or like Bush, so it is hardly politically convenient to destabalize Venezuela further and risk losing the pipeline.
So if you really do think critically, you find the attempted coup of Chavez really does not make sense for the United States. Chavez may be red with fury at the Evil Empire, but America gets what it wants from his country and therefore it would not make sense to cause instability to the region. Now if Chavez shuts off the pipeline and nationalizes the oil industry in his country, THEN you look for a coup from the United States.
Now that that's cleared up, there's the issue of the article, and Amar obviously went for guts first. Obviously, these are some pretty leftist statements here in a university that frowns on the production of a "depoliticized professional" from its social communications majors. Sort of like going to one of the heavily conservative Christian Universities in America to get a degree in early-human anthropology. You cannot assume all Venezuelans to be so audaciously misinformed (which is certainly a generous word to use for anyone who thinks our media isn't trying to rip the rectum out of Bush). But Amar is trying to show us the point of view of someone grown on the idea that America is waiting for the right moment to invade Venezuela.
If Iraq taught the government anything, it is that we are good at blowing things up but building and controlling a nation is simply out of our control. There are too many factors. So as long as that oil pipe is full, there is no reason to risk crashing Venezuela into the ground, what would be the point exactly?
And if America can learn anything from the Leftist situation in Latin America, it is that the people there, though plagued by corrupt officials, really do want democracy and social equality. Those are certainly noble goals. Why we try so hard abroad in the Middle East when our own neighbors could use money for bridges, roads, und so weider is certainly questionable, especially considering that we have a very clear need to cut our oil use down to the barest minimum. Our own neighbors in the Americas are almost left by the wayside even though they tend to be much less virulent than our Islamic opposition. I certainly think they are more important to us, simply because they are the ones who are close. They are the ones who emigrate into our country so regularly (and sometimes illegaly, but that's a subject for another time, I suppose). They are the ones we certainly should be paying attention to.
Venezuela, though, would likely not even be on the radar if Chavez did not tell us how terrible we are every now and then. That's politics for you. The one nation we pay the most attention to and it is to hear some Castro wannabe rant about our nefarious plot to control his country.
Certainly, if we want that, we can always look to Cuba. They seem so much more laid back about it.
|
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
| 93.066667 | 0.466667 | 0.466667 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/30/DI2008013002410.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/30/DI2008013002410.html
|
Color of Money Book Club
|
2008020219
|
In her column from Jan. 6, Michelle writes that the authors provide tips for diffusing the uncomfortable and potentially hostile situations that occur when you mix money and personal relationships.
Read Michelle's past Color of Money columns.
Michelle Singletary: Welcome. This should be an interesting chat. So let's get started.
New York, N.Y.: Hi! My ex-friend and I agreed to meet regularly for lunch and take turns picking up the check, but then she started bringing her mother along, so when it was my turn to pay, I had to pay for three people, not one. But when it was my friend's turn to pay, she paid for just two people, because her mother always paid for her own meal. It was never her mother's turn to pay. Don't say that I should have brought my mother along, too, because I couldn't, because she had died.
I tried unsuccessfully to get my friend to see that this wasn't fair to me, but she just couldn't see it. And she was a Phi Beta Kappa and Dean's List and had a Ph.D.. But she wouldn't agree that I wound up paying more than she did. That's why she's my ex-friend. How would you have convinced a friend that this situation wasn't equitable?
Leonard Schwarz: Where did she get all those honors and degrees, the Univeristy of Self-Indulgence & Ethical Bankruptcy? You are never going to convince this woman that the arrangement is unfair, because she doesn't want to be convinced. We suggest you make her not only an ex-girl friend but an ex-lunch date.
I have a quick question. I just bought a second house and now I am thinking about moving in with my boyfriend who I have dated for the past 8 years. I have no immediate plans of marriage and neither does he although we are planning to get married at some point in our lives. He wants me to add his name to my mortgage and I insisted that this is not a good idea. He feels uncomfortable paying rent/mortgage for a place that is not legally in his name. Is this really a good idea? I know what the implications could possibly be if I add his name to my mortgage but how do I protect my assets and my relationship at the same time?
Leonard Schwarz: Does he want his name to go on the mortgage (which would make most of his payments tax deductable) or does he want his name to go on the title (which would make the property half his)? ... We suggest you see a lawyer about this. Sounds to us as if he wants half of what's your -- half of what you paid for. How can that be fair?
Rockville, Md.: My boyfriend and I have been together for 2 years and we've gone on several vactions together. I always take care of the travel arrangements because he moves slow and things would be sky high when he got around to doing it. I generally also take care of the financial aspect whether I pay or use my frequent flier miles. Our last vacation was supposed to be "his" vacation that he planned by himself and paid for but of course he moved slow so I did it. The trip cost about $3,000.00. Right after the trip, we both started new jobs and he is now making considerably more than I am with less expenses. When I've asked him for the money back he started arguments and said it was all about the money with me. I hinted to the fact that I was broke but that started another argument. I took a second job but I still haven't been paid back despite telling him about it. He's taken trips of his own and done other things but I still don't have my money. How can I prevent this from occuring again in the future? What do you suggest?
Leonard Schwarz: There's an old saying, you can't get blood from a stone. Hate to say it, but your boyfriend sounds like both a cheapskate and a deadbeat. So to answer your first question, the best way to prevent this from happening again in the future is to NEVER advance him any money. And to answer your second question: perhaps you need to find a more honorable boy friend.
My brother has a live-in girlfriend, and he pays all the bills - living expenses, groceries, ultilities, activities, etc.. She pays for nothing, and then routinely gets upset when he refuses to buy six $90 tickets to a show she wants to see. Her parents also seem to be very interested in the amount of money he makes, and go so far as to suggest he pay for bills for which he is not responsible for.
To his girlfriend's credit, she does make about a sixth of what he earns, but I find it astounding that she will buy $4 cups of coffee from Starbucks, gym memberships and clothing, but then turn around and insist she has no money for bills. I don't understand how she (and, really, her family) can expect him to constantly pick up their tabs, while she spends money as she pleases!! Furthermore, I don't understand why he lets her get away with it!
Leonard Schwarz: Love and economic illiteracy are the answer. Love seems to have blinnded your brother to the fact that his girl friend is exploiting him. And economic illiteracy has led everyone but you not to notice that the money she should be spending on necessities are going to self-indulgences. ... It's not wrong for your brother to treat his girl friend to some nice things since he makes much more than she does, but it's very wrong for her to look to him for her general support.
Michelle Singletary: Ok, I know I'm going to get in trouble but here goes.
First, I understand your concern about your brother being taken advantage of BUT:
-- He's a grown man.
-- He's shacking up. No concern about that?
-- He's acting like a husband without all the commitment of a husband so if the little gold digger is taking advantage of him he should take it like a man (not a husband)
-- Grown people in their right mind will only let something like this happen to them because they want it to happen. If he were upset enough that it really bothered him he would kick her to the curb.
Washington, D.C.: I'm a senior level staffer on the Hill. I recently started seeing someone who I really believe is just the type of person I want to be in my life long term, we both seem to agree. Because of a divorce and coming from a non-wealthy family, I don't have an abundance of money to throw around. She on the other hand, comes from a great background and has inherited a great deal of wealth. She never makes a big deal of it, and has not in any way said or did anything to make me feel inadequate, but I do personally. I feel like she deserves the best, I just don't always have the resources to give it to her. How do I work through this with her without drawing even more attention to what I don't have? How do I beat the personal feeling of inadequacy associated with it?
Jeanne Fleming: The first thing to remember is that the situation you're in is really common. The second is that she's already figured out that you don't have as much money as she does she, and she is interested in you ... so stop feeling inadequate. When you've known each other for a while -- say, close to a year -- start talking directly about what your financial resources are. When you're an established couple, you do need to figure out who's going to pay for what.
General money question...: First of all, I love your amazing advice!
I have a question for you that I've been rolling around in my head for a while, wondering if I can get your opinion 1. I am 23, earning $47K a year. 2. I have $13K in a MMSA (currently earning 3.5%), and am contributing (after the company match) 12% in my 403(b). 3. My only debt is $13K in student loans, and 13 years left to pay them. $10K of this is at 2.6% and the other $3K is at 4.5%. I have been paying just the minimum on the student loans, but am considering taking $3K to pay off the higher-interest one in one lump sum
Aside from $5K as my emergency fund, all of my savings is there for a "someday" house and/or a "someday" wedding. The soonest either of these would happen is in 2 years, but I am aiming for that ideal 20% down payment, which in my area, takes a LONG time to save for. What do you think? Pay off the smaller loan, or keep the cash in savings? Either way, I will continue to save about 35% of my take-home pay in the MMSA.Thanks!
Michelle Singletary: If it were me and I had $13,000 in savings of which $5,000 is earmarked for emergency I would take the remaining $8,000 and get rid of as much of that student loan debt as possible. Then finish up the $5,000.
Then you are debt free and FREE to start your home, married life off in much better shape then many others in this country.
As I've said before don't hang onto student loan debt like it's a pet. The difference in what you are earning on the savings vs. the interest rate doesn't impress me enough to keep that debt. And even if it did I would still get rid of the debt.
Then take the payments you were paying on the debt and add it to your saving for a home or wedding fund.
Eating Out: The worst is eating out with people that have different values than you. We enjoy spending time with another couple but they always want to order many drinks and appetizers when we go out to eat. It drives us nuts. Then they want to split the check and that should not even happen since there should be separate checks. I don't want to pay for someone's fried spinach!!
Michelle Singletary: Just take control of the outtings. Be the adult that you are.
At the beginning of the meal without any discussion let the wait staff person know there will be two checks. Don't argue. Don't discuss. Don't judge. Don't say anything more.
Just, "Would you please run two tabs. Thanks very much." Then say to the couple, "So what looks good to you."
Anonymous: Thank you so much for your commonsense guidance. My husband is a professional athlete with a much higher income than we ever envisioned. We come from upper middle class backgrounds, but still make substantially more than our families and friends. We still live fairly frugally (4 BR house in the 'burbs), and we tithe and then contribute some to charities and intend to help with college for our nieces and nephews. However, we have been so overrun with dubious requests ("if your kids have a grand piano, ours should have one, too") we have now hired a financial adviser solely to determine how the money we have earmarked for family and friends can be used. Of course, we still have the final say, and there's no question we would help out with medical expenses for our parents and the like. The questions you've listed have already made an impact on some of our financial decisions. Thank you so much for your help.
Michelle Singletary: You are so welcome. And I LOVE your idea of a family fund.
When I was doing financial workshops for rookies for the NFL Players assocication I created just such a fund. I called it the Family/Friend Fund Account"
The idea was the NFL rookies would set aside a set amount of money to help family and friends. Then they decide what type of requests would be funded given how much money was in the fund. So for example, I suggested they help out with college, perhaps a downpayment of someone to buy a home they could "afford," medical expenses, etc.
And ALWAYS the check or cash would be given to the vendor.
If requests came in outside what thy wanted to fund they could or should say without guilt I don't pay for that. I do believe that to whom much is given much is required. But you don't have to be a sucker for triflin relatives who want you to buy their kid a grand piano.
Learning Lunch Lessons Early: In my early twenties, I initially went out to lunch at work with large groups for special occasions. There were two ladies who always took the check with their calculator and told everyone what they owed by what they ordered. No problem. One lunch I attended NEITHER one of these ladies attended. This lunch was running late so I gave a co-worker my fair share & tip for the bill and left. Later on she caught up with me and told me that the bill was split with equally non-beer drinkers (she and I) and the big beer drinkers. This poor women was stuck with paying a much higher bill. I mentioned this to another coworker and she said "I only go to luncheons when I know that Alice or Betty will be there to split the bill!!"
From that moment I only went to luncheons that Alice or Betty attended.
Leonard Schwarz: In situations like yours, many people -- when Alice & Betty aren't around -- ask for a bar tab separate from the food tab. Then the drinkers split that, while the eaters split the food check.
Charlottesville, Va.: For my aunt's birthday my uncle offered to pay for me and my parents to fly down from D.C. to Florida. My mother feels awkward about accepting the invitation since it is her brother in law who offered to pay. I say he would not have offered if he could not afford it. My aunt and uncle, I should add, make significantly more money than my parents so I feel it really is no problem financially for them.
Round trip airfare for the three of us is about $2,000. Again, we know they can afford it without any problems.
Should we accept or kindly pass up the offer? We cannot afford to go otherwise.
Jeanne Fleming: Your uncle is treating you and your family to something nice, and it sounds like there's no reason why you shouldn't accept (he can afford to treat you). Two things, though: Be sure to reciprocate (say, with a particularly thoughtful gift for your aunt and a festive meal out for the family) and think twice about accepting the next very expensive treat from him (unless you want him to become your family's patron, that is).
Thanks for the great chats! I love your advice. I had a question regarding high interest checking accounts at online banks like ING direct or HSBC. How safe are these? Are they like any other checking account?
Michelle Singletary: You are so sweet. As for the online banks if they are FDIC insured they are safe. ING is.
Not sure of their fee structure but of course you want to make sure what you get in a great interest rate for your checking and savings isn't eaten up in monthly fees. But the online banks because they don't have the cost of running a brick establishment can offer better rates. But also check your bank, credit union, etc. Go to www.bankrate.com to check on rates.
Seperate tabs at dinner: After going out with a a couple of friends and spouses for dinner to a prix fixe @ $30 each, that wounded up costing my husband and me $160 after tax and tip, we started asking for separate checks at the beginning of meals too.
The first time you're nervous, you don't want to offend anyone, but after that it's easy. It's also hilarious to watch their faces when they get their specific bill and they realize that yes, the were drinking $20 glasses of wine, and no, we were not going to pay for it anymore.
People be bold. Stand up for yourself.
Just wanted to say to wife of pro athlete...:...that was a refreshing post. Nice that you are living fairly modestly, tithing and helping family and friends. What a nice post to read.
Alexandria, Va.: The crux of your book is that parents and others can pretty much spend and leave money as they desire. But can't you at least agree that fair is, or should be, fair? Sis went to UVA undergrad nd law school, and had a $30,000 wedding, all paid for by my parents; she has no student debt and is a 3rd year associate on Wall Street making something like $200,000 a year, and her husband is in-house counsel for a large corporation. I am not academically inclined, married out of high school at the county courthouse, and my husband and I are struggling to raise 2 children on around $50,000/year. I know things could be worse but hate it when parents say this is my own fault for wasting my life and not living up to my potential. Sister and husband take my parents on Mediterranean cruises and give us generous checks ($1,000+) at Christmas and birthdays, which makes me feel alternately deprived and beholden. Can you give me some perspective on this? Thank you very much.
Leonard Schwarz: Your parents are wrong -- very wrong -- to denegrate the choices you've made. Your life is yours to live as you choose, assuming you are not imposing on others or expecting them to help support you. However, you too must recognize that the wealth gap that exists between you and your sister is a result of choices each of you made. But there is no need to feel beholden to her. Presumably her generosity toward your family comes from her love for you.
I did my taxes! YAY! I was spot on with my state withholding, which has never happened before, and the feds are giving me something like $300. I just wanted to give credit where credit is due -- I adjusted my withholdings last year around this time as a result of what I read in one of your chats. Not having to stress about paying is really nice.
Michelle Singletary: Oh how nice. Thanks for letting me know.
But really the credit goes to you. You it's easy for me to give the advice, much harder for people to take it.
Now what are you going to do with that $300 (smile).
Washington, D.C.: I never have the check splitting problem when I go out with my friends. The biggest problem is usually ending up with too much money after the check has gone around and we've put our portion in. We always split according to our order.
It is crazy to me that anyone would do otherwise!
Maryland: I was reading through the transcript of the last chat, and I wanted to say something to the person who was recovering from depression.I was in their shoes 6 years ago. I nearly got evicted from my apartment, had over $15,000 in credit card debt, and was behind on all of it.
Your advice was spot on. I got treatment, went to credit counseling and paid off all of my credit cards. (And refuse to ever use one again!) I went back to school and got a degree and got a better job. And last year I was able to buy my first house. So yes, it's possible to come back from it! Just keep paying payments for everything on time, and things will naturally improve.
Michelle Singletary: Thank you so much for sharing your story and hope.
Caldwell, TX : I am widowed, on a fixed income, and have 2 daughers, 33 and 28. The older is a lawyer who married well. They live in a mansion in a gated community. Their house has a swimming pool and a 3 car garage. They drive a Jaguar and a Range Rover. The younger is a single mother of 3 small children who has never caught a break. Of course I give all I can to her, and will leave her whatever I can. My older daughter disapproves, and says I am enabling her dependent lifestyle. But with 3 small children and no skills or training, what else is possible? She's a talented artist but can't afford training. My older daughter takes me on trips but won't give me money because she doesn't want it to go to her sister. She somewhat grudgingly assures me she will see that her sister "doesn't starve" after I'm gone, but I find that small consolation. Is there some way I can turn her into a more loving sister? What did I do wrong? Sad Mom in Texas
Jeanne Fleming: Your older daughter has a point. Think about what you can do to encourage your younger daughter to become financially independent, because in the long run that's the only real solution.
Michelle Singletary: I couldn't agree more with Jeanne. In many ways you may just ben enabling her to play the "I'm single with kids, you should help me."
Or maybe she isn't singing that song but since it's in your head you go ahead and give money when you shouldn't.
Stoping giving and you may be surprise what your daughter may do on her own to improve her situation.
Fairfax, Va.: Hi, All. Friends and I have the little things down pat. We split the check only if amounts spent were fairly equal, and if someone with a lot of money wants to treat me to a meal or evening out (no one has yet offered to take me to Europe), I smile and say, Thanks!
Potential problem is, I am seeing a very nice man who is the only member of his family to go not only to college but to law school. We are both lawyers in our 40's, make pretty good money, have never been married, though I've had a couple long-term relationships. His family is not the "trailer trash" example used in your book, in fact, they seem like nice, hardworking people, but with little education, skills or training they are facing some tough times. Because he "had it better," even though mostly through his own doing, he feels responsible for their lives. He bought his parents a house, now paid off, some years ago and regularly helps out with medical and other expenses. I know Michelle is strongly opposed to a married couple having separate accounts, but I'm tempted to stash some money away in case his generosity increases to the point I find uncomfortable. I realize he is unlikely to change, and actually think this is a pretty nice trait, though contributing to the support of 12-13 people is pretty overwhelming. He has resisted my suggestions that he set limits on his giving, says he considers all requests on a case-by-case basis, but it's awfully hard for him to say "No" and I'm afraid the more he gives, the more they are going to request.
Leonard Schwarz: You're right about two things. Your man sounds like a prince -- a generous responsibility-taker, to be more precise. And, second, if he can't say No, you have good reason for concern. If you're considering marriage, you need a household cookie jar that is off limits for his family and another cookie jar that is his to do with as he likes -- buy skis or fix a relative's car. You can't have all your joint funds at risk to his family's emergencies.
Michelle Singletary: I actually agree with Leonard and this can be done with joint accounts. But as he said if this is the "man" you should have this conversation often and negoitate to have certain family funds off limits as Leonard said.
If he can't agree to that, then your prince hasn't come yet.
Thanks for the advice, and sorry in advance for the long question.
I over-withheld my taxes by accident this year (oops! Fixed it for next year already) and am getting a large refund. The amount of my refund is equivalent to about 6 months of minimum payments on my school loans (I have no other debt.) Ordinarily I would just overpay, but I'm competing for a prestigious 6-month fellowship that would reduce my salary. I have enough to pay the minimums while I'm gone in my emergency fund, but not much left in that after. Should I save the refund (and pay the extra interest) in case I get the fellowship? Or should I pay now deplete my emergency fund if I get it?
Michelle Singletary: In this case I would put aside the money for a time when you might have reduced income.
BUT as soon as that fellowhip is up get rid of that debt. If you do it won't limit you in the future -- like now.
Washington, D.C.: My sister is getting married this summer and asked me to be the matron of honor. I couldn't say no (it would have devastated my mother), so I recently shelled out about $300 for the dress. Between the dress and alterations, travel expenses to the shower and to the wedding itself, and other things, I'm estimating that the wedding is going to cost us at least $1,000. I'm trying to say "no" where I can (I'm trying to gracefully bow out of the pedicures and fancy hair appointments), but where I'm stuck is on gifts. What are appropriate bridal shower and wedding gift amounts when you're already being asked to spend such a large amount of money on everything else?
Jeanne Fleming: The right amount to spend on any gift is an amount you can afford. Even if most people are giving your sister gifts that cost, say, $100, if what you can afford to spend is $25, that's fine. This is a joyous event, not a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.
Michelle Singletary: That's right. Give what you want, can afford.
Be true to yourself financially.
Chantilly, Va.: Thank you so much for your common sense guidance. Now my husband and I just have to implement it!
You could almost use us as a "final exam" question if you taught a course based on the book. We have 5 grown children, one with chronic fatigue syndrome and one with chronic disabling depression. The other 3 are professionals, 2 doing very well but the 3rd does not handle money well, and despite a good income is frequently asking us and his better-off siblings for help, which he does not repay. Fortunately, we are pretty well off and have established trusts to help the 2 with problems receive the care they need, most likely for the rest of their lives. The question is, how to treat the other 3? We're tending towards equal treatment even though one has received much more than the others. We know there is no "right" answer for this, but we are still torn.
Leonard Schwarz: You're right, there is no perfect solution here. First off, before you decide to divide things evenly, ask yourself why that is fair. Specifically, shouldn't the love, attention and support you've received from each of your children influence your decision, just as the disabilities of two of them did? Secondly, if you divide the remainder of your estate between the three professionals and take no account of the fact that you've been helping to support one of them, you are, in effect, punishing the other two for their prudence. All of which is not to say that you shouldn't divide things three ways. But do consider these other factors ... and good luck.
Washington, D.C.: Here's a good one for you -- my sister and I had inherited our parent's house (and my sister continued living there). She felt it was my duty to subsidize her and pay half of all repairs even though I had my own mortgage/family to take care of. She eventaully bought my share but we don't speak much now.
Jeanne Fleming: There are three areas where money-and-relationships trouble is most likely to emerge, and inheritances in one of them. Your sister, of course, was being completely unreasonable. I hope the two of you can one day return to having a closer relationship, but in the meantime don't forget that you weren't the bad guy here.
Michelle Singletary: I agree with Jeanne. So going forward why don't you send a card here and there, call her on her birthday, holidays. Reach out --even if she hangs up the telephone.
Do what you can to keep the lines of communication open. After that it's on her. One day she will (hopefully, prayfully) realize how wrong she was.
Bethesda, Md.: What advice would you give if you are in business and a personal friend runs for office and asks for a campaign contribution? You know it is not going directly to your friend and you may be concerned that too large a contribution might even hurt, as people may claim your friend is too close to the interests of your business. Yet you may not want to give too little and insult your friend. Do you have any ground rules for this situation?
Jeanne Fleming: You're right to be concerned. Why not start by discussing these issues with your friend and seeing what he or she has to say? And don't worry about giving too little: There's nothing wrong with saying "I'd love to help, and I think I can contribute about $x. Wish I could do more!"
I was interested in what you said about strings being attached to gifts or loans. Can you elaborate on your thinking? My family has always felt a gift is a gift. Of course, we never had much so a monetary gift was never more than $100. My husband's family (but not my husband), on the other hand, are very wealthy and all gifts of money came with strings attached. His family offered to pay medical bills that wouldn't be covered by insurance only if the payor was given full access to the doctors to monitor progress (and all checks were made to the vendors). Some gifts to some members of the family are free of strings, other gifts to others are not. Once a gift is accepted, you are basically held accountable for some unspecified length of time - based soley on the capricious nature of the giver. I'm to the point where I don't want to accept ANYTHING from his family. He's getting to that point, too, but isn't quite there yet.
So, when are strings appropriate?
Leonard Schwarz: In general, there is nothing wrong with attaching a string to a gift. After all, the recipient doesn't have to accept the gift if they don't like the string. The main exception would be gifts with strings that exploit the desperation of the recipient (e.g., telling a daughter in desperate economic straights that you'll give you money if she agrees to put a child up for adoption) -- that's dishonorable. You're father-in-law appears to be approaching another dishonorable arena -- using the gift to invade the privacy of the recipient (i.e., access to doctors) And, more generally, it sounds like he is very interested in control. Shame on him for being so manipulative. But the bottom line remains, if you don't like the string, say no to the gift.
Virginia: I've been married for 5 years. At the beginning of the marriage, I was making good money, but spending way too much on personal luxuries - which I was hiding from him. I have since realized my errors, and now live according to a budget. About a year ago, my husband paid (out of his personal savings) about $30K in my high-interest student loan debt and $10K in my credit card debt, to wipe my/our slate clean. Our debt now is confined to a small, reasonable car loan (almost done) and my 2% interest rate student loan debt (there is a lot - more than $50K). Due to a valid health issue, I can no longer work. I feel terrible about the debt I caused him, and put him behind on his/our financial goals. Given my inability to work now, I feel my hands are tied to make this up to him - his financial security is much less due to me. I do what I can to make his and our life nice and happy, but the reality is that the money I wasted is never coming back. He is frustrated by it, too - he was living frugally, and I was wasting money, behind his back. He says he'd have no problem giving his life savings for me if I had an accident or tragedy, but it's continually frustrating for us both that I've put us behind on our financial goals in a significant way due to my frivolity and indiscretion. How can we move past this hump in our relationship? He doesn't hold it over my head, but we're both frustrated every time we look at our financial picture, and I feel just awful.
Leonard Schwarz: You can't beat yourself up forever over the mistakes of the past. All you can do is learn from them and be certain never to repeat them. You are fortunate to have a husband to be so accepting. Count your blessings.
RE: Maid of Honor Gifts: In response to the maid of honor and gifts, I was in a similar situation. In lieu of a wedding gift purchased from the registry, I instead made the bride an "emergency kit" for the day of the wedding including asprin, tissues, nylons, mouth wash, mints, sewing kit, bottles of water, energy bars etc. Everything I could think of that would be great to have on hand. It cost about $25 for everything - and the bride loved it - and we used nearly everything on the day of!
Washington, D.C.: My boyfriend of 7 years recently proposed to me. As he was planning the proposal, he also planned a surprise engagement party at the house of some of our closest friends, for the evening after he proposed. He invited his sisters, who each live about 4 hours away, several of our local friends, and even some of his childhood friends, who live several states away. They all came on less than 3 days notice.
I am currently in a sticky situation as my (now) fiance also invited my best friend and college roommate to the party. She was very excited to come, but on 3 days notice, the train fare or airfare was out of her price range (she's a graduate student), and she told him so. He replied with, "well, of course I would pay for your travel." To him, it was important that she come for the party for my sake. She was terribly offended that he offered to pay, she felt like it was charity. He's offended that she turned him down, and seems to think she doesn't value our friendship enough to make the trip. And I'm stuck in the middle. Thoughts?
Jeanne Fleming: Well, this is a sticky situation.
Your boyfriend's heart was certainly in the right place when he offered to pay your friend's travel expenses. But there was nothing wrong with your friend declining his offer, either.
These two nice, honorable people should like each other. How about planning a reconciliation dinner -- and telling them each in advance that you love them both, and it's very important to you that they get over this. (And if dinner's in your town, give your friend plenty of notice and don't offer to pay her way.)
I follow your articles religiously. I make $100K a year and my boyfriend makes $70K. We've been dating for 3.5 years. Previously, when we did stuff together we paid 50-50. That was when we were making roughly the same. Now I tend to pay roughly 70%. I do this voluntarily. Now, I don't want to make him feel bad, but I feel that that's fair since I make more. Does that make sense? He does treat sometimes and is not the kind of person who would take advantage of me.
Leonard Schwarz: Sounds like you have a nice boy friend. But the problem with you paying less than your full share is that this makes you, in a way, his dependant. Maybe your relationship is so well established that this is irrelevant, but be careful.
Danville, Ca.: I have a relative who has a boyfriend who is very nice and very wealthy. Sometimes we are invited out with them--on yacht trips and dinner events. Frist question: how do you repay someone who pays for a week long paid trip on a yacht in the Carribean when they also paid for our children's air fare (we paid for our own).
Also when they want to go to dinner or when they visit us I feel like we have to pay but definitely cannot afford it.
What is the best way to handle this?
Leonard Schwarz: You repay him by doing something special for him. It doesn't have to be particularly expensive, just particularly thoughtful (a bottle of his favorite wine, a pair of tickets to a sporting event that interests him). If you can't afford to take to dinner someone who takes you to the Carribean for a week, perhaps you should say no to the next trip he offers. You of course don't need to reciprocate his generosith and graciousness dollar for dollar, but you do have to hit a minimum level, and we'd say dinner is definitely in order for a trip like that.
Dallas, Tex.: You are a well-paid reporter at a respected newspaper involved in other media ventures and the crowd you run with deals with this kinds of issues?
I'm referring to the lady ordering the entire menu (basically) then you saying, no, I am only paying my share. That's kind of distasteful, on both of your ends.
But, thank you for this insight. As a recent college grad I thought only my broke circle was pinching pennies to pay our meals.
Now, I know even REAL grown folks who make a lot of money still fight over the bill.
Michelle Singletary: I see an insult in here. Of course I may be wrong but if I'm not poot you.
I run with all crowds -- well off, living paycheck to paycheck, low income, high income, etc.
It doesn't matter how much money you make you have a right to spend it how you want. I am not subsidizing other people's liquor at a meal. I typically order frugally. If you want to splurge then fine. But pay for it yourself.
Me, I choose to use those dollars for other things such as helping others go to college (Just sent $400 to a niece to buy books at Spelman. You give anything to anybody?)
Is that real enough for you?
RE: Wedding Gift: When I got married, two of my friends had tight finances. Both actually told me that after paying for dresses (and one had to travel) that they were strapped. I appreciated them thinking enough ahead to tell me that and told them that their participation in my wedding was the best gift they could have gotten me.
Michelle Singletary: Good for you. Wish more brides/grooms were like you.
I don't understand the problem: I don't mean to sound rude or harsh, but I don't understand paying for food you didn't order/didn't eat. My friends and I have been splitting the check SINCE HIGH SCHOOL. It's never been an issue or a problem. No one's grumbled or complained or said "it'll be easier this way". Why do people have such a hard time standing up for themselves and their finances?
Michelle Singletary: Because of people like the person who sent in the last question.
Somehow when you make money people think you shouldn't worry about money.
Can you offer any advice on this matter? About three years ago I took a trip with my best friend. I took charge with the travel arrangements because she is a procrastinator. As a result, I used my credit card to pay for the airfare, hotel, etc. As of today she still hasn't paid me back for most of her expenses. Over the course of the last three years she has taken numerous trips throughout the world some of which she has paid and others where friends paid. I am resigned now to never receive my money back. It's actually not the amount that matters to me, but more the principle behind it. She's not the best with money and her income is iffy as she relies on singing/acting gigs. Do I just let this go or actually say something about it? Thanks.
Leonard Schwarz: You should have spoken up MUCH sooner -- nip it in the bud is the best approach when someone is slow to repay you. But certainly speak up now. She's the bad guy here; you have nothing to be embarrassed about.
Michelle Singletary: Totally agree. Why don't you make a copy of all the bills, credit card statements, etc. Send a nice note highlighing her charges. Ask for your money.
If she doesn't pay up after that you have two choices:
a.) consider the money a gift
b.) kick her to the curb
If you value the friendship and drop it if you can't collect. But NEVER ever pay for her again.
New York: My parents are retired and don't have a lot to go to an "estate". However, they have felt it very important to treat my brother and I fairly. My brother is in his 40s and has been subsidized by my parents for most of his adult life. He is now self-supporting and we are all very VERY happy and proud. He's had a rough time but he's been working hard. My parents decided quite a while ago that they would keep a running account of the money that was going to my brother. They decided that he was getting his inheritence early. Ultimately, when they do pass on, the estate will be liquidated and an executor will subtract the amount given to my brother and give it to me. What is left, if anything, will be divided equally between the two of us. My parents thought this was the best they could do under the circumstances.
Jeanne Fleming: It's great that your parents are keeping that accounting. But do take a look at it and make sure that it's precise and includes dates, amounts, check numbers, etc. (Their executor should have an up-to-date copy of this document as well.) And do make sure that your parents' will/trust includes language that insures that the amount your brother owes will be subtracted from his share.
Washington, D.C: I just don't understand all these stories about people who have family members who make a good salary but still ask for help from parents, siblings, friends. Out of pride alone, I would never ask a family member for help. I would have to be on the brink of eviction for that to happen. I would cut out or sell everything else I have before that would happen. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
And honestly, the people that lend the money are even worse. If they "need", ask them first if they've sold that car, and bought a used one. Or if they cancelled their cable, or their cellphones. If they haven't, DON'T LEND!
Leonard Schwarz: You got that right. One of the most important things to consider when someone asks yo borrow money from you is what are their other options for raising cash. And downscaling their lifestyle is definitely on the table (and so is going to a bank).
Jeanne Fleming: We have three rules for handling money-and-relationships problems: Nip it in the bud. Learn to say no. And don't forget who the good guy is (you, not, say, the guy who isn't throwing in enough money to cover his three martinis and big steak).
Baltimore, Md.: I need some help. I am a contractor and I did some work in early 2007 for a friend on a house that he purchased to "flip". I told him that since we were friends, he could hold off on paying me until he sold the house in Feb/March 2007. Well, the market softened and he decided to hold off on selling the house indefinitely- and decided to hold off on paying me indefinitely as well. Well, he owes me $5K and I have no idea how to go about collecting this money.
Jeanne Fleming: If you haven't already spoken very directly with your friend about this, you need to. Right away. He needs to understand that just because he decided not to sell doesn't mean that you decided not be repaid. I hope you got your deal with him in writing (in particular, that the due date for payment was Feb/March 2007).
The next step, if your friend refuses to pay you, is probably to talk to a lawyer about what your options are for collecting.
If you're worried about offending your friend, worry less. He's over a year behind in paying you a large sum of money.
Washington, D.C.: This is a very basic question, and I admit I have not read your book, but how do you start the "let's talk about money" discussion with your significant other without sounding like a lout. I make substantially more money than my boyfriend of more than a year, who I love very much. He also has signficant debt from student loans and other past events. We have talked about marriage, but I have some serious questions about whether we are on the same page about how we see our future financially. How do I bring this up without sounding like all I care about is money?
Leonard Schwarz: What's wrong with caring about money? Don't be defensive. To have a successful relationship in the long run, couples have to be on the same page with respect to money. If he thinks money is all you care about, shame on him. He's known you for a year and knows better. Sounds like he just doesn't want to hear what you have to say.
New England: My brother makes a lot more money than I do. I don't even know exactly how much. He & his wife have been very generous in paying for us to fly cross-country visit them at Christmas. They say it is fair because they want to see us and we are going through the hassle & discomfort of travel. We don't mind the travel and there is more to do in their hometown than ours. We take turns treating one another while we are together for meals out, tickets, etc.
Is there a point where we should stop accepting? The first time this happened we had been hit with an unexpected expense and their support really helped me relax & enjoy the time together rather than envisioning the $ flying out of my account. The second time, I was surprised but grateful. Now it almost seems to be taken for granted by them that they pay and we shouldn't worry about it. We're close and I know they're good with money and not going to do something they can't afford, but!!! I never expected to be in this position & I just wonder if there may be future problems or things to watch out for.
Jeanne Fleming: You are right to be concerned. You need to decide whether you want your brother and his wife to be your peers or your patrons ... and if you keep accepting this money systematically, they'll be your patrons.
Michelle Singletary: Well this has been a great chat with lots of interesting questions, comments.
Thanks to you all you joined me today. As alway my guests have agreed to answer some of the questions they couldn't get to in the time allowed. Please look for them answers either in my print column on in my weekly eletter.
Thanks again. And be safe and save.
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.
|
Personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary hosts a discussion with Jeanne Fleming and Leonard Schwarz, the authors of "Isn't It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?"
| 315.612903 | 0.935484 | 1.516129 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003651.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003651.html
|
Showdown Nears on Stimulus Bill
|
2008020219
|
The Bush administration and House leaders had hoped the Senate would simply accept the stimulus plan approved by the House on Tuesday, ensuring final passage this week and the mailing of the first checks by May. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will try today to block the Senate from adopting the Finance Committee plan and force the passage of the House bill instead.
That effort received a blow yesterday when Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the influential ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, threw his weight behind the Senate alternative. Finance Committee Republicans Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Gordon Smith (Ore.) also backed the bill.
"Concern with timing must be weighed against the question of the quality of the House bill," he said, singling out that plan's failure to include as many as 20 million retirees in the tax payment plan.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is counting on Democrats to stay unified behind their leadership, and said that if enough Republicans join Grassley, a threatened filibuster by McConnell would be broken and the House and Senate would be forced into negotiations on a final stimulus bill.
But with only three Republicans on the Finance Committee voting for the package, and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) absent, Baucus's ability to round up 60 votes to thwart a filibuster is far from certain.
Senators added provisions to the Finance Committee bill to make a "no" vote on the Senate version very difficult, offering federal stimulus checks to 20 million low-income seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans who would be ineligible under the compromise worked out by Bush and House leaders. Senators also tightened wording in the House bill to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim a check.
After the Finance Committee vote, AARP launched a lobbying push to win passage of the Senate version. Advocates of the Senate bill said House-Senate talks should take a few days.
The Senate Finance Committee bill would send checks to virtually every American. Individuals would receive $500 -- for couples, it would be $1,000 -- plus $300 per child. Workers who can show $3,000 in earned income last year -- or seniors who had $3,000 in Social Security benefits -- would also qualify, even if they earned too little to pay income taxes.
After a revolt among Senate Democrats, Baucus added income caps on eligibility that he had initially rejected, but they are considerably more generous than the ones imposed by the House. Rather than capping eligibility for the full check at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples, the new bill phases out eligibility at $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples. The committee also said no member of Congress would qualify.
The Senate bill extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks, includes tax incentives for business investment similar to the House's and allows businesses more generous tax write-offs for their losses.
It adds $5.5 billion worth of tax-credit extensions for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources, as well as incentives for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient. The committee also accepted an amendment to allow states to offer tax-free mortgage bonds for the ailing housing market.
|
With bipartisan support, the Senate Finance Committee yesterday approved a $157 billion economic stimulus plan that rivals the measure fashioned by President Bush and House leaders, setting up a Senate showdown today that could determine who will receive rebates from the federal government and how...
| 12.959184 | 0.673469 | 1.122449 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013002886.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013002886.html
|
Bush Urges Passage of Tax Rebate
|
2008020219
|
TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 30 -- President Bush teamed up with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday afternoon to press Congress to move quickly on his economic stimulus package, telling workers here the Senate should accept the $146 billion accord that passed the House this week.
The House has approved a package of tax rebates and business incentives, but the Senate is considering its own plan.
"My attitude is, if you're truly interested in dealing with the slowdown in the economy, the Senate ought to accept the House package, pass it, and get it to my desk as soon as possible," Bush said.
Schwarzenegger joined the president at Robinson Helicopter Co., the world's biggest helicopter manufacturer. The popular Republican governor said the stimulus package is necessary "to get our economy back on track."
Bush acknowledged signs that the U.S. economy is slowing but maintained his bullish long-term perspective, refusing again to cite the possibility of a recession.
"There's some uncertainty in the economy, but in the long run you've got to be confident about your economy," Bush said. "Inflation is down, interest rates are low, productivity is high. Our economy is flexible. It is resilient."
In Washington, the Federal Reserve cut a key interest rate Wednesday for the second time in eight days, seeking to boost an economy that in the past three months grew at the slowest rate since 2002, according to a government report.
Bush arrived here Wednesday morning on the first leg of a three-day Western swing aimed at highlighting his State of the Union themes and raising money for the Republican Party. Despite low approval ratings, Bush remains a GOP draw and was set to help raise more than $3 million Wednesday for the Republican National Committee at events in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Bush renewed his call for Congress to approve trade deals he has negotiated with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Like other elements of his stripped-down final-year agenda, the free-trade agreements face uncertain prospects in Congress, but Bush made the case that the deals would help not only the nation's economy -- giving U.S. manufacturers access to foreign markets through lower tariffs -- but also its security.
He singled out the need to approve the free-trade deal with Colombia as an important indicator of U.S. support for President Alvaro Uribe, a strong ally who Bush noted has been battling drug traffickers and other militants.
"He's taking the fight to this enemy, and he's an ally," Bush said. "And if we reject this opportunity to support a friend with good economic policy, if we turn down this free-trade agreement, it will hurt our relations in South America."
Lawmakers have raised concerns over the Colombia deal, citing in particular the deaths of labor leaders over the years, allegedly at the hands of paramilitary groups.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters this week it is doubtful that any of the trade deals will pass this year, adding that Colombia "has had a very bad record" on worker rights.
But Rep. Jane Harman (D), who traveled with Bush on Air Force One, said she is studying the legislation and has not made up her mind. The charges about unionists being killed are "very serious," she said. "Colombia disputes this. We need a review of the facts."
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 83.75 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/30/ST2008013003585.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/30/ST2008013003585.html
|
A Tax Rebate? Feed Piggy.
|
2008020219
|
Whatever the amount, which is still being debated, President Bush and the other powers that be are hoping that people go right out and spend the money to boost the economy. To pay for the rebate, the federal government is going to have to borrow, increasing the deficit.
I could discuss what a horrible example our government is setting. But what good would that do? What I will say is that it bothers me that we are being told to spend this money for the greater good. We are told that by spending the rebate, we can either help avoid a recession or lessen the one we may already be in.
When the last tax rebate was given in 2001, people did exactly what the government wanted them to do. For the most part, they spent it.
In 2001, about two-thirds of U.S. households got a rebate of $300 or $600, thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
The average household spent 20 percent to 40 percent of the rebate on nondurable goods such as food and clothing during the three-month period in which the rebate was received, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization.
Not surprisingly, those who could least afford to splurge did just that. The households that were more likely to spend the rebate were those with "relatively low liquid wealth and low income," the National Bureau of Economic Research found.
For many people, the best thing financially would be to save the rebate money -- not spend it.
"I have to believe if someone put into practice responsible use of this money, America will be better off," said Gail Cunningham, senior director of public relations for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.
If you don't have an emergency fund, use this windfall to start one. If you've got small debts that have been causing you to lose sleep at night, pay them off.
Even if you have some debt, consider starting a rainy day fund, Cunningham said.
"If you're not paying any bills late and you are able to limp along, then sock away the money for that emergency fund," she said. "Commit to leave it alone because it's not a matter of if an emergency is going to happen, it's when."
|
Once the bluster has settled down on Capitol Hill, millions of taxpayers will likely be getting a tax rebate later this year.
| 19.166667 | 0.5 | 0.583333 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/27/DI2008012702592.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/27/DI2008012702592.html
|
National Security and Intelligence
|
2008020219
|
Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote " The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military"(W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.
Archive: Dana Priest discussion transcripts
Dana Priest: Thanks for joining me early today. I have to be out of the building at 1:10 p.m. Welcome!
Los Angeles: Hi Dana, Thanks for providing a forum on such an important topic. As someone who's had a family member commit suicide, I have only the deepest sympathy for the anguish some of these vets and their families must be going through. Do you know if there has been any effort on the part of the military to enlist the aid of national organizations, such as the American Association of Suicidology?
Dana Priest: They usually are not enlisted to the fullest extent, no. I find the uniformed services to be all too resistant to outside advise and, more importantly, help. With exceptions.
Richmond, Va.: Why does the media ignore the war in Afghanistan? There are soldiers dying and being wounded there too.
Dana Priest: Ignore is too strong a word. When there are many more troops in Iraq, and so many more deaths there too, and the resources are just going to gravitate over there. That said, the focus has shifted a little back to Afghanistan, and I think that will continue because of the strong resurgence of the Taliban, and the foreshadowed increase in U.S. troop strength.
washingtonpost.com: NATO's Not Winning in Afghanistan, Report Says (Post, Jan. 31)
Fayetteville, N.C.: This is not a question but a comment. I am a behavioral health care provider for the Army and am retiring in disgust after close to 45 years of service to start a private practice. Part of the issue, I believe, is inability to trust the organization we work for, the U.S. government and the Department of Defense. Most of us who provide care for our soldiers desperately want to do a good job, but are hampered by incompetent supervisors who are more interested in furthering their careers than in caring for our patients. We also are bogged down in paperwork imposed by the insurance companies. I am not at all surprised that soldiers feel that they are not cared for in our system -- they simply are observing things as they really are.
Dana Priest: You are not alone, believe me. Good luck.
St. Petersburg, Fla.: I'm just wondering what good it does to report on Lt. Whiteside's second suicide attempt. That's not a rhetorical statement, mind you -- I really am wondering. I'm with you 100 percent on the first report, which I read when it came out, but for some reason my gut response to this new report today is that it verges on sensationalism. I can see the logic behind reporting it, but for some reason I just feel icky about it. Did you have any qualms about this update? Did Lt. Whiteside? Thanks.
Dana Priest: Lt. Whiteside's second suicide attempt, as she wrote in her note and as her father explained it to me, happened in part because the Army was being soooo slow responding to her court-martial process. It was a shock to me when it happened -- truly. When I spoke with her father (she was in ICU) he was livid and determined to kept fighting. It was only after he secured Lt. Whiteside's permission (after she had stabilized and was able to talk and was more aware of things) that we went ahead with the report. Like our first story, we only wrote what we did with their permission.
Baltimore: I am so happy that PTSD finally is being recognized, although we are still such a long way from accepting it. At one time tuberculosis and epilepsy were rejected, and so I found that learning the history of this disorder was necessary for me to find some healing. Two of my uncles were in the World War II, and after I was diagnosed with PTSD I understood them.
My best help came from a book written by a lawyer in Los Angeles who was a medic in Vietnam. He committed suicide in a cemetery in Los Angeles (his book was "Defending the Vietnam Combat Veteran" by Barry Levin), and the book "Trauma and Recovery" by Dr Judith Herman. My best help came from the Veterans of Nam in Towson, Md.
The military is stuck in their own sense of entitlement, as Rumsfeld was -- my way or the highway. They just don't want to think someone is an expert in a field they don't know diddly about, and it is a threat to their way of doing business. This affliction has wrecked my life, and the fact that most people deny it has crippled me in many ways since I was 21 years old. I am now looking at my 73rd birthday in April. I wonder if these military geniuses allow their families to get antibiotics when needed, or if their children receive immunizations? Thanks for the sounding board.
Dana Priest: As you know, it is not entirely recognized. In rhetoric, yes it is, but in reality -- as your case and others show -- not so much. Let me be more specific: This morning I attended a Department of Defense-sponsored mental health conference. DOD's top health manager, Dr. Ward Casscells, actually said that he thought the medication for psychiatric problems was not all that good. What had proven to work, though, he reminded the 500 professionals in the audience, was (I'm paraphrasing) exercise, diet and putting on that uniform every morning and going to work. Really? Dr. Casscells is a very nice man. I'm sure he wants to do the right thing and is working very hard at it. But come on!
New Berlin, N.Y.: Thank you Dana for all your work. I worked as a Certified Nurse Assistant at a VA facility in New York state. I resigned from my position there because of the treatment I witnessed and could not be a part of. I wrote a letter to the governor, my union representative, and the Department of Health. To date there has been no real response to my description of what I witnessed. I had written to them back in Feb. 2007. I think much of what you report on is pretty widespread.
Dana Priest: I would suggest calling your local newspaper or television station. Be ready with details.
Washington: Hello, Ms. Priest. I'm a survivor of suicide -- twice. My father took his life, as well as my sister. I'm a federal employee, and I can tell you from my 24 years in service, this mental illness issue is buried, avoided, etc. Few want to talk about it in the federal government. Your efforts to put much-needed sunshine on the issue are appreciated. Until physical and mental health issues have parity in this country, more people will die needlessly, for they will not get the medical help and the reasonable accommodations of their substantial limitations that they need to do their jobs and live their lives to their fullest God-given potential. Thanks.
Dana Priest: Thank you ... passing this on.
Rockville, Md.: My wife and I would like to send Elizabeth Whiteside a card or something to let her know we are standing with her. Elizabeth is a person, not just an Army statistic. Is there an address? Also, does she have friends and family who are supporting her? Thanks.
Dana Priest: I can't really give out her number on this chat, but I'll post your note. Maybe her father will see it and pass it to her.
Washington: Military suicide opportunities are strengthened by the presence of firearms and dangerous locales (Mike Boorda, James Forrestal). I've never seen a study of suicide attempts in the military, but I have heard stories of mysterious deaths of military members that may have been determined to be suicides if the military had bothered to investigate the incidents.
The popular gossip at the Bethesda Naval Hospital in the '80s was that the parking garages were dangerous places because of the number of suicides that occurred there. I also recall that after Forrestal's death, the hospital administrators moved the psychiatric ward down to the ground level, out of the tower that he made famous (old navy hands call it the Forrestal Tower). Have you seen any studies of the military's suicide problems, and if you have, have you seen the raw data behind the study?
Dana Priest: Yes, I have seen some raw data collected on the method of suicide. In the military they overwhelmingly are done with a firearm, and in most cases the firearm was readily available.
Baltimore: I have no military experience, but I cannot for the life of me fathom a system that responds to a suicide attempt by bringing charges against the individual. Yeah, that will help. Seriously, does the military think that the threat of court martial will be a deterrent for troops considering killing themselves? Thanks.
Dana Priest: There are people who fake suicide to get out of service. There is a special charge for that. Lt. Whiteside, the army charges state, did not fall into this category. But still, the military code of justice allows for prosecution under the grounds that it affects the good order and discipline of the Army.
Ottawa, Canada: It appears that the situation in Afghanistan has been deteriorating rapidly in the last few months. The British have been criticized by Karzai, and Secretary Gates has criticized his allies for not being trained to fight an insurgency. Do you think that it's only a matter of time (a few months) before NATO retreats and leaves the fighting to U.S. forces? What will happen to NATO if this takes place?
Dana Priest: No, I don't think NATO will retreat for this reason: It is not in the interest of Europe (most of NATO) to have Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and allow al-Qaeda to grow there once again -- because if AQ members leave Afghanistan, they often head to Europe.
Princeton, N.J.: Dana, I just listened again to the exchange between White House and Mukasey on the Nuremberg defense. I do not understand the administration's position. Why was it wrong for Eichmann (say) to say he was just doing what his government asked him to, while it is okay for CIA torturers and telecoms? Why did Mukasey say that not only was it improper to litigate this matter, but that he would not even investigate it?
washingtonpost.com: Mukasey Hints at Wider CIA Probe (Post, Jan. 31)
Dana Priest: My guess is that it would open the U.S. up to international war crimes tribunals for using torture, and open the U.S. up to prosecution in our own courts as well.
Seattle: When Iran's president visits Iraq, will the U.S. ultimately be held responsible for anything bad that happens? Are we, by proxy, responsible for his security?
Dana Priest: Oh my, that's a fun one to contemplate. Yes, I would think so, because the reality is that the U.S. still occupies the country. But I would imagine that everyone concerned would put the U.S. at arms-length in the security arrangements, at least publicly.
Seattle: Any more news on the Department of Defense ordering VA officials not to help veterans with their disability paperwork? I was incredibly amazed and alarmed at the gall of it all.
Dana Priest: Not exactly, but I'm sure they put an end to that after NPR reported it.
Colorado: I seem to remember that a year ago at this time, there was a lot of talk about a Taliban offensive (I almost typed "surge") in the spring. My recollection is that, if this happened, it wasn't enough to get the attention of most Americans. Is another offensive (offensives?) expected? Will this become an annual event?
Dana Priest: Word of it already has made it an annual event, whether it happens or not. It's all related to the climb in temperatures -- it's just too darn cold to move around in the winter. So yes, I do believe everyone is expecting a spike in activity this spring.
Re: Baltimore: May I give somewhat of a defense of Dr. Ward Casscells? My significant other works as a psychologist for the VA and is the PTSD "expert" at the facility they work at. Now, my significant other has told me often that medication is overrated for PTSD (and from what I can tell the majority of her cases have the additional burden of addiction because of "self-medicated" PTSD).
In this small context I think Dr. Ward Casscells is correct. I must disagree with him that just "going to work" is the best treatment, however. I think major advances in therapy, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), are the way to go from what little I hear. I think your paper even reported on this new way of treatment being quantitatively shown to work better than older treatments.
Dana Priest: Fair enough, meds are definitely overused. But for people with serious depression, psychosis and other problems, meds are a must, or so the psychiatrists say. I've met so many psychologically wounded soldiers who deeply resent the idea that if only they did PT and showed up at formation, they would stop having panic attacks every time the door slams.
Washington: Is the problem with medical care largely concentrated with the Army? I have been in the Air Force for 18 years, and as a whole I have received great care. I sometimes wonder if the Air Force and Navy medics unfairly are being brought into what always appears to be an Army problem.
Dana Priest: It's largely an Army and Marine problem because they have the most troops deployed in these conflicts. And it's not really a medical problem except in the area of mental health, where so many practices in the services seem to be behind the times. Many soldiers, including Lt. Whiteside, think they received great medical care -- it's the outpatient and the psychological care and follow-up that are the issue.
Chicago: Got any good news?
Dana Priest: Feds cut the short-term interest rate.
Stem cells can be grown from skin.
My first piece for CBS News (last night's Evening News -- I just switched from NBC to CBS as a contributor) seemed to work out well, thanks to some quick work all around.
The yearlings in Loudoun County are free.
The sun is out in Washington and the air smells clean.
Dana Priest: I think I should end there. 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.
| 71.97561 | 0.634146 | 0.731707 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003951.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003951.html
|
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Favor Pause in Troop Cuts
|
2008020219
|
There are about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, with about 5,000 leaving every month; the proposed freeze would go into effect in July, when troops levels reach around 130,000. Although violence is dropping in Iraq, commanders say they want to halt withdrawals to assess whether they can control the situation with fewer troops.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will probably argue for what the military calls an operational "pause" at his next round of congressional testimony, expected in early April, another senior U.S. military official here said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top military officers have said they would like to see continued withdrawals throughout this year, but Bush has indicated he is likely to be guided by Petraeus's views.
Bush trumpeted the success of his Iraq strategy during his State of the Union address this week. But if he agrees with Petraeus's expected recommendation, the administration will not be able to reduce troop levels much below what they were in early 2007, when Bush began to deploy additional forces.
Officers are still debating the length of the proposed freeze, with some arguing for 90 days and others saying it could be as short as 30. Because it can take as long as 75 days to withdraw a brigade, a freeze could result in troop levels remaining steady through most of the rest of Bush's term, deferring any continued drawdown to his successor.
Military planners fear that maintaining the current pace of withdrawals could lead to an unstable situation just as a new administration takes office in January.
"So far, so good," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said in an interview here earlier this week. "I feel very comfortable with where we are and our plans to reduce to 15 brigades by July."
But after that, Odierno added, "I believe there should be a period of assessment." He said such a pause will be necessary because the impact of the current U.S. troop reductions on Iraqi army and police forces, on the Iraqi government and on the overall security environment won't be immediately apparent.
At the peak of the U.S. counterinsurgency effort that began last year, commonly called "the surge," there were 20 U.S. combat brigades in Iraq, each with about 3,500 troops. Adding in other forces, about 170,000 U.S. troops were in the country.
Another officer said he advocated a freeze because there has frequently been a lag between events in Iraq and their impact on security. He noted, for example, that it took several months in 2006 to see the full effect of the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which by that summer had helped push the country into a small-scale civil war.
Petraeus told CNN on Sunday that he would "need to have some time to let things settle a bit, if you will, after we complete the withdrawal of what will be over one-quarter of our combat power, one-quarter of what we had during the height of the surge."
He added, "We think it would be prudent to do some period of assessment, then to make decisions, and then, of course, to carry out further withdrawals if the conditions obtained allow us to do that."
|
BAGHDAD, Jan. 30 -- Senior U.S. military commanders here say they want to freeze troop reductions starting this summer for at least a month, making it more likely that the next administration will inherit as many troops in Iraq as there were before President Bush announced a "surge" of forces a y...
| 11.175439 | 0.754386 | 1.280702 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003576.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003576.html
|
A Scramble for Edwards and Giuliani Fundraisers
|
2008020219
|
Edwards's finance team splintered in a matter of hours, with both Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in hot pursuit of the top fundraisers.
Several of Giuliani's top bundlers, whom he had given such baseball-themed designations as Most Valuable Players and All Stars, said yesterday that they were hesitant to join another campaign.
"I'm distraught," said Richard Hug, a prolific Republican fundraiser who helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for Giuliani last year. "I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm probably just going to relax and stay out of politics."
For Giuliani backers, the shock of his campaign's collapse was still sinking in yesterday. Many of the former New York mayor's supporters had been convinced that Giuliani would surprise the political establishment with a win in Florida and would set off toward the nomination from there.
To Edwards confidants, by contrast, signs of his campaign's imminent disintegration had been evident for weeks. At last weekend's winter conference of trial lawyers -- many of whom had been his loyal supporters for years -- there was open discussion about when Edwards would give up his bid. And top finance officials from both the Clinton and Obama camps worked feverishly to recruit his supporters.
Yesterday, the finance operations of both Clinton and Obama shifted gears. Clinton's campaign sent out an e-mail providing the names of scores of women who had been backing Edwards, and asking supporters to contact them.
One of Obama's California organizers was the first to reach Deborah Rappaport, a San Francisco philanthropist who a month ago put $25,000 into an independent expenditure effort for Edwards. She told the Obama aide that she already had plans to attend a fundraiser this week for Obama, the candidate who would now "get my wholehearted support."
Florida trial lawyer Mitchell Berger, who helped raise money for Al Gore and solicited contributions for Edwards in both the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, said he, too, will be joining Obama.
"That's where I will be," Berger said. "The reason? John Edwards and Barack Obama completely agree on the institutional problems that exist in Washington."
Others said they were more inclined to get behind Clinton.
Joseph J. "Jerry" McKernan, a Baton Rouge trial lawyer, said he thinks Obama is "just a very big flash in the pan right now."
|
When Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani abandoned their presidential bids yesterday, their exits marked the beginning of an open season on the supporters who had helped them raise a combined $100 million last year.
| 11.95 | 0.625 | 1.075 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/rudy_and_mccain.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/rudy_and_mccain.html
|
With Giuliani Aboard, Is Straight Talk Express Moving at Warp Speed?
|
2008020219
|
It's a testament to how fast-moving this election cycle has become that even before former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to end his campaign and endorse Sen. John McCain (R) later today, the development already feels like old news.
But it would be a mistake to gloss over the Giuliani endorsement without weighing the impact it will have on the race. And since we don't like to make mistakes here at The Fix, we've spent the last few hours talking to party operatives in an attempt to understand what Giuliani's support for McCain means and what it doesn't.
As with any high-profile endorsement, Giuliani's decision to back McCain works on both a symbolic and a practical level.
The symbolic is more important in the larger fight for the nomination, so let's start there.
Although it's easy to forget given the utter collapse of his campaign over the past month, Giuliani spent the majority of the Republican presidential race as its leader -- thanks to sky-high name recognition and favorability ratings due at least in part to his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In the months and years leading up to his presidential bid, Giuliani was among the most coveted Republican surrogates on the campaign trail. Senate, gubernatorial and House candidates all clamored for an event with Hizzoner, knowing that not only would it bring in scads of campaign cash but also that it would identify them with Giuliani's sterling brand.
That brand has been tarnished somewhat by Giuliani's lackluster presidential bid, but for the average Republican he remains an American hero and a symbol of what is good about the Republican Party.
Thus, by scoring Giuliani's endorsement, McCain can bask in the goodwill that most GOP faithful still hold to Giuliani while also using Hizzoner's backing to suggest that the party is starting to rally behind him.
John Weaver, a longtime McCain aide who left the campaign over the summer, predicted that Giuliani's endorsement would be the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of establishment support coming home to McCain.
The next few days will be telling when it comes to whether Giuliani's move leads a flood of major figures in the party to endorse McCain. Our guess is many more endorsements will follow -- reaffirming the symbolic importance of Giuliani's nod.
On the practical level, Giuliani could not have timed his endorsement any better to benefit McCain. The endorsement is set to be announced at 6 p.m. ET at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, Calif.. It will comes just two hours before McCain is scheduled to debate the other GOP candidates, a debate being held at the same location and being sponsored by CNN, Politico and the Los Angeles Times.
That means that every one of the hundreds of reporters out in California to cover the debate will also be in attendance at the Giuliani-McCain endorsement fete -- ensuring wall-to-wall coverage in print and on television.
Giuliani's endorsement has another practical effect, as Hizzoner's popularity in the northeast could well make McCain close to unbeatable in a handful of states set to vote on Super Tuesday. McCain already leads in places like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, but having Giuliani behind him -- and potentially out on the campaign trail with him -- should make McCain's position all the stronger.
Giuliani could also help as a surrogate in places like California and Illinois where moderate Republicans comprise a significant segment of the likely voters on the Super Tuesday.
"McCain has now locked [up] the center and center right," said Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist not affiliated with any campaign.
For all that Giuliani's endorsement can do, it will not likely endear conservatives in the party to McCain. Many conservatives have long been skeptical of the Arizona senator due to his support for campaign finance reform and, more recently, his advocacy for a comprehensive immigration bill that included a path to citizenship.
Giuliani's pro-choice and pro-gay rights positions never sat well with conservatives, and his endorsement may reinforce the doubts some within the party have about the Arizona senator.
Exit polling from Florida showed that six-in-10 voters described themselves as conservatives; among that bloc Romney beat McCain. But the other 40 percent of the electorate (self identifying moderates and liberals) went strongly for McCain, more than making up for his defeat among conservatives.
The traditional thinking about the Republican nomination is that no candidate can emerge as the standard-bearer of the party who is not embraced by the conservative wing. McCain, with an assist from Giuliani, appears well on his way to proving that conventional wisdom wrong.
By Chris Cillizza | January 30, 2008; 4:44 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: Winners and Losers: Florida Primary Edition | Next: GOP Debate Preview: Clashing in the Shadow of Reagan
Add The Fix to Your Site
I can't see a Giuliani endorsement counting for much. To whom did Giuliani appeal that do not like McCain? My perception is that their target markets overlap, with the possible exception of fiscal conservatives, who seem to believe what Giuliani says, rather than look at what he accomplished.
Posted by: bsimon | January 30, 2008 05:06 PM
I agree, bsimon, but only from the standpoint of actually getting votes. I do think that his endorsement gives McCain a ground team in CA in time for Super Tuesday. Further, Giuliani has raised a lot of money from moderate Republicans here, and McC's camp desperately needs cash.
Posted by: femalenick | January 30, 2008 05:15 PM
I'm very happy that the Republican Party has final decided (at least it looks that way) to nominate the best and most electable person in the race.
I'm glad to see that the party is not completely controlled by one issue voters, but instead appears to be rallying around a man who, while solidly conservative, has shown the ability to compromise and make tough choices. This is exactly what America needs after the devisive presidency of George Bush.
Posted by: HokiePaul | January 30, 2008 05:16 PM
I too am glad to see McCain emerge as the front-runner because he is so beatable. He wants to keep pouring American lives and limbs down the garbage disposal of Bush's vanity wars because he doesn't think we can survive having our feelings hurt. He wants to go on cutting taxes and deregulating. He wants to put women in prison for getting abortions.
Americans love tough talk but we really don't like conservative ideas, and McCain is forthright with a whole palette of wildly unpopular ideas.
Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 30, 2008 05:39 PM
Posted by: davidmwe | January 30, 2008 05:42 PM
Oh great, now Giulani gets picked for VP nod. No way would I vote for Rudy for President nor for Veep to an elderly president
Posted by: atlrichard | January 30, 2008 05:47 PM
George Bush got nominated in 2000 because he was able to combine support from GOP social conservatives and extreme tax cut supporters with establishment Republicans who backed Bush because he was his father's son.
No candidate in the race has that kind of advantage, and because that's true the conservatives who dislike McCain are just another faction. Another thing to keep in mind is that the influence of the most dedicated conservatives is greatest in low-turnout elections -- because they always vote, and less motivated Republicans don't. These Presidential primaries are relatively high turnout elections, and McCain should get more than his share of Republicans who don't vote in every election but will vote in this one.
Why? Mostly because they like the guy. Here is the anti-McCain Republicans' biggest problem -- to vote against McCain they have to persuade GOP voters to vote for Romney. And not as many people like Romney as like McCain. It isn't that they hate him, or dislike him the way many Democrats dislike Hillary Clinton. Romney is just a guy running to be the candidate Republicans will vote for so they don't have to vote for a Democrat, which is fine for the general election. We're not there yet -- and most people who don't have a specific reason to vote against McCain are pretty sure he's a good guy who is on the level more than most politicians, and certainly more than Romney.
You know, if Romney had emphasized his business experience right from the beginning, not hidden his disinterest in social issues or tried to present himself as Barry Goldwater reincarnated, he'd probably be in pretty good shape right now. GOP primary voters want an idea of what they are getting, and they think they have that with McCain. With Romney, not so much. How could they?
Posted by: jbritt3 | January 30, 2008 05:49 PM
The reality of the Giuliani endorsement is that it doesn't do much as far as adding supporters. But it lends to the general consensus that McCain is the frontrunner.
Posted by: parkerfl | January 30, 2008 05:51 PM
He wants to put women in prison for getting abortions.
Americans love tough talk but we really don't like conservative ideas, and McCain is forthright with a whole palette of wildly unpopular ideas.
Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 30, 2008 05:39 PM
Moonbat alert. Keep your arms inside the car and watch your children
Posted by: kingofzouk | January 30, 2008 05:56 PM
Giuliani Got What He Deserved In Florida Rudy Giuliani put all his eggs in one basket, the basket was Florida and the eggs were Cuban-Americans. In his case it would have been wiser if he had filled the basket with Republican admirers of Janet Reno, that is, the anti-Cuban voters, a bloc at least as sizable in Florida as the Cubans. Unlike Cuban-Americans, who were featured in every story about the Florida vote, Cuban-haters were never mentioned although they are as much one-issue voters as Cuban exiles are reputed to be. Rudy's credentials as a persecutor of Cubans far exceeded those of the other candidates, whose xenophobia was generalized and, in some cases, even provided for exemptions for Cuban-Americans. Giuliani was anti-Cuban when Janet Reno was still wiping our collective arse.
As Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration, he was put in charge of the "clean-up" after the Mariel exodus and did his job with so much enthusiam that he even had to be called to task by the president for his ruthlessness. First, he ordered a freeze on all Cuban visas: 23,000 Cubans who had already been approved for admission to the U.S., including 1500 political prisoners and their families, were left stranded in Cuba. He refused to recognize the legal status granted to the Mariel refugees under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 and kept them all in legal limbo for several years while he decided which to deport to Communist Cuba. If most had not already been processed by the time Carter left office he would probably have tried to deport them all.
Giuliani set up a special camp for social "undesirables" who were not criminals: these included unwed mothers and their children, the physically handicapped, the mentally defective and homosexuals. The so-called common criminals which Castro infiltrated into the boatlift, which numbered no more than 2000 out of a total of 135,000, Giuliani wanted to deport en masse without reviewing their individual cases. What is considered a "crime" in Cuba is not necessarily a crime here. For example, eating a steak in Cuba is considered theft of state property punishable by 10 years imprisonment, since all cattle in Cuba are owned by the state and Castro does not allocate any beef to the Cuban people. There is very little activity in Cuba that Castro has not criminalized in some form or another; in fact, Castro has so ordained it that all Cubans are "criminals" under Cuban law and can at any moment be transferred from the "big house" to the "little house." This did not matter to Giuliani who shared Castro's penchant for criminalizing as much human activity as possible.
Very few Cuban-Americans at the time objected to Giuliani's draconian treatment of their compatriots because they were emotionally-crippled, indeed, paralyzed, by the national smear-campaign which was unleashed against them by both government and media. We had always been the model "immigrants," the "most successful immigrants in the history of this nation of immigrants," as George Gilder called us. Overnight and everywhere we were portrayed as a social scourge, the new mafia, the flotsam of a corrupt and irredeemable society whose Augean stables Castro was right to have flushed out.
In such a hostile climate, which was fostered as much by Rudolph Giuliani as by Brian de Palma (did these Italian-Americans have a vested interest in portraying Cubans as the new mafiosi in order to whitewash their own image?), there was little Cubans could do but try to ride out the wave of ethnic hate which engulfed the entire nation for the first time since the 1930s. It was then that Newt Gingrich, a college history professor, realized that xenophobia was still as powerful a demon in the American psyche as it had ever been and decided to reintroduce it into the American political culture through the "Contract (On) America," which excluded even legal immigrants from the social contract. Gingrich was the agent but Giuliani the catalyst for the rebirth of xenophobia in this country.
It was Giuliani also who, in 1981, in clear violation of the law -- for the Cuban Adjustment Act is the law of the land, then as now -- deported for the first time since 1959 a Cuban refugee to Communist Cuba. He was not a Mariel refugee, but, rather, a Cuban who had hidden in a cargo container aboard a freighter. This was 15 years before the implementation by presidential fiat, contrary to existing law and precedent, of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy by President Clinton. There is even a connection between Clinton and Giuliani and her name is Doris Meissner. She was Giuliani's protegé at the Justice Department during the Reagan administration. Although Meissner was a Democrat, Giuliani sponsored her for acting director of INS, and when she was replaced by a Reagan appointee, secured for her the #3 spot in the department. It was Meissner, appointed director in her own right by Clinton, who oversaw the implementation of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy and the kidnapping at gunpoint and forcible return of Elián González to Cuba.
Giuliani was not through with us when he left the Justice Department to become U.S. Attorney in New York. He made a name for himself in his future fiefdom by prosecuting Omega-7, the anti-Castro resistance group. It is interesting that in a city where the IRA and its "civilian leaders" were inviolate, feted at Gracie Mansion and not just on St. Patrick's Day, Giuliani should have aimed his guns at the Cuban group, which, unlike the IRA, had never been responsible for the death of even one innocent bystander. Of course, criminal prosecution comes with the territory if you are going to wage a war of liberation from American soil against American interests.
What Giuliani did, however, went much beyond the limits of his authority or the law. He essentially set up a star chambre along the lines of the House Un-American Activities Committee 30 years earlier except that he was fishing for anti-communists rather than Communists. Many Cubans with no connection to Omega-7were sent to jail because they refused to "name names" before grand juries. Using Omega-7 as a pretext Giuliani inflicted greater damage to anti-Castro organizations in the U.S. than Castro's agents and infiltrators, who worked in close collaboration with Giuliani, ever managed to do by themselves. Again it was Giuliani's cultivation of Castro's moles in the prosecution of Omega-7 which provided the precedent for the FBI to use Castro double-agent Juan Pablo Roque to infiltate the "Brothers to the Rescue" organization nearly 20 years later, which resulted in the murder of four Cuban-American pilots in international waters at Castro's orders with the coordinates provided by FBI informant Roque.
Later, as mayor of New York, Giuliani would undergo a Pauline conversion and become a vocal critic of Castro and friend (?) of Cuban exiles. He even renamed the street in front of the U.N. Cuban Mission in honor of the "Brothers to the Rescue." A guilty conscience, perhaps. Political opportunism, more likely.
He came to Miami last year to reap the rewards of his trajectory of 30 years. And he did, yesterday.
Of course, this is not the end for Giuliani. He's already on the McCain bandwagon and will go as far as it does. Personally, I would favor his appointment as War Czar in Iraq. Granted, Giuliani was studying for the priesthood, or something, during the Vietnam War, before he married his cousin and forgot his vocation. But some men, even without military experience, are born to lay waste to lands and annihilate populations. I believe that Rudolph Giuliani is such a man. Really, I would support Giuliani for any position but Attorney General, because Cuba is about to implode and the last man to deal with that situation is our "friend" Giuliani.
Posted by: manuel | January 30, 2008 05:57 PM
Nick, If I were McCain I would go with Martinez or Crist. They are popular in FL and FL is a lynchpin state. They are capable and moderate, but well regarded in R circles.
Martinez is only a gutsy call if you think 2 Senators is a bad ticket.
Otherwise, it is stronger than either of the tix you suggest.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 06:08 PM
McCain has always been the "next in line" to the GOP machine's throne and it's no surprise that things are going down as they are.
When a party's core is called "conservative," which is by definition "resistant to change" how on earth would anyone expect someone fresh like Romney or Huckabee to get the nod? Republicans don't want change. They want to conserve their values - homophobia, bigotry, sexism and white supremacy. Keep gays out of the military, keep women out of the workplace, keep black people out of college and high-paying jobs and keep Hispanics out of their neighborhoods.
This is why I can only support Obama. He is the only true non-establishment candidate who still has the intelligence to not ruin this country. Look at what the last Republican presidents did - George Bush was a failure and George W. Bush did the best he could to ravage our military, destroy the economy, put the Bible in the Constitution and solidify decades of class warfare with his top-heavy tax cuts.
Obama is the candidate that we need to stop the fighting and abandon all of the toxicity that has taken over our political discourse over the past 20 years. He's looking forward while remembering his past, not relying on it, which cannot be said about any of the other candidates.
Romney relies on his economic successes in the past but has no optimism when it comes to the future of the country. He thinks the "religion" of secularism is taking over and homosexuals are going to somehow ruin our culture.
McCain relies on his reputation as a straight talker, even though he's been double-talking voters since the first day of his campaign so he can try to salvage independent support while maintaining a strong base with the homophobic conservative core.
Hillary is relying on Bill's presidency to evoke positive memories of a healthy economy, even though she had little to nothing to do with any of the successes of the 90s and under the Constitution, Bill would have no authority as the "first gentleman."
Obama is relying on nothing but hope and optimism, which Americans used to have back when the "greatest" generation was rising to the forefront. He is the only candidate that isn't talking about how the other party is going to destroy the country. He knows we're all Americans and we all love this country, no matter how liberal or conservative we are. And he's the only one who can help us find common ground so we can all share in the hope and optimism he's had for America since he entered politics.
Posted by: thecrisis | January 30, 2008 06:09 PM
Romney's problem - most Florida Republicans did not support his deport-only strategy. Fifty-eight percent preferred either a path to citizenship or a temporary worker program. McCain had a 22 point lead with path to citizenship voters and a 7 point lead with those supporting a temporary worker program.
This will plague Romney in California.
Posted by: PollM | January 30, 2008 06:09 PM
McCain could use someone who could help him in the south... Rudy wouldn't seem to help in at all. But then, McCain's goes his own way.... isn't that why his supporters love him? Is the GOP setting themselves up for another Bob Dole candidacy?
Tonight's debate should be interesting.... it seems Chuckles is staying in mainly to siphon votes away from Romney. Will it be another love-fest debate, or a tag-team on Romney. Tune in to CNN at 8pm ET.
Posted by: Truth_Hunter | January 30, 2008 06:15 PM
Posted by: Trumbull | January 30, 2008 06:17 PM
It seems that everytime McCain is interviewed by reporters or when he's giving his victory speeches, his wife stands prominently behind him. I don't recall seeing her in his last race as much as I'm doing now. Makes me wonder if she's concerned that the stress and strain of the campaign on his health.
Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 30, 2008 06:25 PM
"And since we don't like to make mistakes here at The Fix"
So listing Romney as the front-runner for months just because of his $ even though it was clear he was damaged goods isn't a mistake?
More seriously, isn't this race really over? Romney is already behind in all the polls. Why are we even talking about a race anymore, besides for the media's desire to sell more news stories?
Posted by: freedom41 | January 30, 2008 06:37 PM
Couple questions for you: (1) do you really think Martinez and Crist are moderates in any objective sense of the word; and (2) are you really comfortable with either of those two guys being a heartbeat away from the presidency when the president will be 72 in January, 2009?
From what I hear, Crist is very capable guy and a good governor, so maybe he's not a bad practical choice. But Martinez strikes me as a hack. Then again, I'm a progressive Democrat so what do I know about GOP politics...
Posted by: _Colin | January 30, 2008 06:46 PM
I think the Republicans are realizing that if they nominate another Bush Republican they will surely loose the next election. Nominate John McCain and they may keep the White House.
Posted by: kenpasadena | January 30, 2008 06:55 PM
|
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 103.136364 | 0.681818 | 0.909091 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html
|
John Edwards to Quit Presidential Race
|
2008020219
|
John Edwards will end his presidential bid today, a source close to his campaign confirmed, effectively narrowing the Democratic field to two contenders less than a week before the Super Tuesday round of primaries.
The former North Carolina senator is scheduled to speak in New Orleans this afternoon, an appearance originally billed as an anti-poverty speech but now expected to serve as the platform for ending a White House run that has been five years in the making.
Edwards, 54, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2004, has failed to win any of the Democratic primaries or caucuses so far, narrowly capturing second place in Iowa and finishing a distant third in his native South Carolina. However he has accumulated dozens of delegates in the process, and his backing could prove important to the remaining candidates.
Upon Edwards' withdrawal, the race between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) becomes historic, guaranteeing that a major party will nominate someone other than a white man for the nation's highest office. They will debate each other head-to-head for the first time on Thursday in California.
Former senator Mike Gravel is still running but has not attracted a wide following and has not participated in recent debates.
Edwards will not endorse Clinton or Obama today, aides said, and has no plans to weigh in for either candidate in the immediate future. One aide said Edwards spoke in person to both Obama and Clinton yesterday and informed them he was considering leaving the race. Edwards did not asked for any sort of quid pro quo in exchange for an endorsement, this aide said, but rather sought a pledge from Clinton and Obama to keep the issue of poverty a central one in the campaign.
Edwards' withdrawal comes on a day when the nominating processes of both major parties drew into sharper focus. Following a third place finish in Florida's Republican primary yesterday, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is expected to quit the race as well. That leaves Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee battling for the GOP nomination.
Edwards launched his campaign a year ago, also in New Orleans, where the slow rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina formed a fitting symbol for the issues of poverty and economic inequality, couched in language of the "two Americas," around which he built his campaign. In summoning the media back to New Orleans today, he referred to poverty as "the great moral issue of our time."
His bid for the White House included a compelling personal drama as well, when he and his wife Elizabeth announced in March that the campaign would continue despite the return of her breast cancer.
According to a tally kept by the Associated Press, Edwards has accumulated 56 delegates to the Democratic convention in Denver, of nearly 500 awarded in the first primaries and caucuses.
After Saturday's disappointing finish in South Carolina, he said he was buoyed by recent fundraising successes and intended to continue his battle through Super Tuesday, even launching an ad blitz in 10 states participating in the mega-primary. As of yesterday, Edwards put out a full campaign agenda, including a scheduled address to the Georgia Democratic party this evening and participation in the Democratic debate in California tomorrow.
Though aides remained surprised at the decision, Edwards acknowledged that he was facing an uphill battle.
"To win the nomination, I've got to win a contest, of course," Edwards told the AP after South Carolina. "At some point, we have to get to the place where either the thing is deadlocked, which is a real possibility, or we're accumulating more delegates."
Uncertainty about his viability has built in recent weeks, as he failed to make inroads on his chief rivals. Last weekend, as fundraisers for Obama and Clinton trolled for support at a convention of trial lawyers -- a group that has raised millions of dollars for Edwards -- some of the Edwards faithful wondered quietly whether he might be offered a prime cabinet position in an eventual Democratic administration.
"I sure would hope there will be a role for him," said C. Gibson Vance, a Montgomery, Ala., trial lawyer who has been a longtime friend and supporter of Edwards. "He would be a heck of a tough attorney general. Think about it."
Staff writers Debbi Wilgoren and Peter Whoriskey contributed to this report.
|
John Edwards will end his presidential bid today, a source close to his campaign confirmed, effectively narrowing the Democratic field to two contenders less than a week before the Super Tuesday round of primaries.
| 23.108108 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003803.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003803.html
|
For John Edwards, A Moment of Truth
|
2008020219
|
Politics demands that some truths cannot be told. You cannot divulge how much you ache inside, how difficult defeat is to swallow until you swallow it.
A week ago John Edwards was on his campaign bus barnstorming through rural South Carolina when he was asked a question that so many were pondering about his presidential candidacy: Are you in the Democratic race for the long haul?
Regardless of how well you do in the South Carolina primary or on Super Tuesday? Is there any calculation that would change your mind?
Edwards shook his head, no. He would compete all the way to the Democratic National Convention.
"This is not about me or my personal ambition," he said in the interview. "It's about the cause and the voices who are not being heard."
Yesterday, Edwards ended his campaign where he began it, in New Orleans, invoking the cause of poverty and the voices of janitors, nurses and poultry workers. He ended it with a straightforward declarative sentence: "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path." That was a simple truth he had long known, for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was bound to win the Democratic nomination. But it was a truth he felt he could not reveal even a week ago.
Hindsight is a cheap piece of instant wisdom, not nearly so valuable as prescience. But here's some hindsight from South Carolina: As Edwards campaigned there, a native son come home, his voice was strong and passionate whenever he was onstage or bellowing from a bullhorn. But when he was mingling in a diner, when folks were whispering in his ear, when he was signing their posters, his eyes sometimes told a different story -- and not one of attentive exuberance. He had the dead eyes of a candidate looking past the moment.
At Whiteford's Giant Burger in Laurens, S.C., a retired woman beckoned him toward her. "I don't know if I can get way over there," Edwards told her. "I'm sorry." She was not more than 10 feet away. Would Edwards have made the small effort at a different point in his campaign? For whatever hindsight's worth.
And there was this: "The whole country knows [Elizabeth] is terminally ill," former Georgia congressman Ben Jones said of Edward's wife and political partner. "If it's you or me, it's a no-brainer. Elizabeth is such a trouper, and she campaigned so relentlessly, I'm sure she was exhausted. I think he made the right decision on a personal level, that his priority was her health. It's hard for either one of them to give this up."
Beginning Tuesday night and continuing yesterday morning, Edwards made phone calls to people who needed to know of his decision before he announced it. He reached Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a senior strategist and the campaign's national rural liaison, in a hotel room in Atlanta. Saunders was preparing for Super Tuesday. The news turned him melancholy.
"I'm a Scots-Irish hillbilly. I operate on passion rather than intelligence," he said. Saunders spoke by phone yesterday evening while traveling the highways headed home to Virginia. "I'm going to get home and get under my bed and get in a fetal position and suck my thumb with my gun, and then get back out there."
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 13.156863 | 0.372549 | 0.372549 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003480.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003480.html
|
Entering Sector D
|
2008020219
|
There's something about the word "disembowel." Or "depravity," or "disfigurement" -- about so many words that begin with the letter "d." Divorce, destitution, doubt, drugs, dirt, dwindle. So many of them are on our lips just now -- though not "disembowel," and we should be thankful for that much. Once more, as a nation, we have entered Sector D.
As in: debacle, depression, debt and debauchery.
Which is to say: mission unaccomplished in Iraq, world stock markets on tumble-dry, subprime mortgages imploding, Britney Spears.
People watch their houses plummet in value and say: "We'll just have to make do."
Do. D. Do as in doom, which is mood spelled backward, as in the national mood that dotes on rising global temperatures, falling test scores, and death from diseases such as mutant tuberculosis strewn across the continent by defiant airplane passengers.
Our leaders have a new motto: Defeat is not an option. If it isn't, why do they keep saying it all the time? Distraught Democrats dread demagoguery and decline.
If the '70s were the Me Decade, this one, the Zeros, has been the D Decade ever since the 9/11 terrorists demolished the World Trade Center.
This keeps happening. As a nation, we veer like bad drunks from triumphalism to despair. Maybe it's an American thing. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville spotted Sector D but didn't know what to call it when he said of even our upper classes that "a cloud habitually hung on their brow, and they seemed serious and almost sad even in their pleasures." Henry David Thoreau was the genius who discovered Sector D when he said: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
When Franklin Roosevelt said we had "nothing to fear but fear itself" and Jimmy Carter decried a national "malaise," they were talking about Sector D.
Sector D is a neighborhood in the American mind, the psychic equivalent of the neighborhood you find yourself lost in after getting off at the wrong exit on the New Jersey Turnpike, a winter neighborhood strewn with broken glass, and packs of dogs circling your car as you struggle to fix a flat tire on a dead-end street while derelicts glare at you over a barrel fire and darkness descends.
Sector D can also be found in the very best neighborhoods. You know that house with that perfect family with all the dogs and ski racks and those golden children who have perfect scores on their SATs and then the parents divorce and the kids end up kicking drug habits in rehab and writing memoirs about incest? Released from their envy, their neighbors indulge in another of the Seven Deadly Sins, pride, by describing the family as "dysfunctional."
The hymn "Abide With Me" was written for those who find themselves in such neighborhoods, metaphorical or real. Come on, sing along, you know the words: "Life's little day . . . Earth's joys grow dim . . . change and decay in all around I see . . ."
Sector D in our schools: passing, but just barely. The next grade down is F. We will not discuss Sector F.
Day of Judgment, deadlock, drunk driving, default. But thankfully, not disembowelment.
|
There's something about the word "disembowel." Or "depravity," or "disfigurement" -- about so many words that begin with the letter "d." Divorce, destitution, doubt, drugs, dirt, dwindle. So many of them are on our lips just now -- though not "disembowel," and we should be thankful for that much....
| 9.4 | 0.985714 | 68.014286 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003744.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003744.html
|
For Peru's Indians, Lawsuit Against Big Oil Reflects a New Era
|
2008020219
|
NUEVO JERUSALEM, Peru -- Tomás Maynas Carijano strolled through his tiny jungle farm, pinching leaves, shaking his head. The rain forest spread lushly in all directions -- covering what oil maps call Block 1AB.
"Like the trunk of that papaya, the cassava and bananas are also dying," said the spiritual leader of this remote Achuar Indian settlement in Peru's northern Amazon region. "Before Oxy came, the fruits and the plants grew well."
Oxy is Occidental Petroleum, the California-based company that pulled a fortune from this rain forest from 1972 to 2000. It is also the company that Maynas and other Achuar leaders now blame for wreaking environmental havoc -- and leaving many of the people here ill. Last spring, U.S. lawyers representing Maynas and 24 other indigenous Peruvians sued Occidental in a Los Angeles court, alleging that, among other offenses, the firm violated industry standards and Peruvian law by dumping toxic wastewater directly into rivers and streams.
The company denies liability in the case.
For indigenous groups, the Occidental lawsuit is emblematic of a new era. The Amazon region was once even more isolated than it is today, its people largely cut off from environmental defenders in Washington and other world capitals who might have protected their interests. Now, Indians have gained access to tools that level the playing field -- from multinational lawsuits to mapping technologies such as Google Earth.
Oil companies that once traded money and development for Indians' blessings are increasingly finding outsiders getting involved. "History has shown that oil companies will cut corners if someone isn't watching," said Gregor MacLennan of Shinai, an internationally funded civic group in Peru. "We try to get to local communities first to help them make informed decisions about oil companies and the changes they bring."
Lured by global energy prices, Peru is placing record bets on Amazon energy lodes: Last year the country's concessions agency, PeruPetro, signed a record 24 hydrocarbon contracts with international oil companies. EarthRights International, a nonprofit group that is helping represent the plaintiffs in the Achuar case, says half of Peru's biologically diverse Amazon region has been added to oil maps in the last three years.
Occidental pumped 26 percent of Peru's historic oil production from Block 1AB before selling the declining field to Argentina's Pluspetrol in 2000. "We are aware of no credible data of negative community health impacts resulting from Occidental's operations in Peru," Richard Kline, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail statement.
Kline said that Occidental has not had operations in Block 1AB in nearly a decade and that Pluspetrol has assumed responsibility for it. Occidental made "extensive efforts" to work with community groups and has a "long-standing commitment and policy to protect the environment and the health and safety of people," he said.
The California-based group Amazon Watch has joined the suit as a plaintiff, and the case is now inching through U.S. courts. In a federal hearing scheduled for Feb. 11, company lawyers will ask a judge to send the case to Peru, where Indians say corruption and a case backlog will hurt their chance of winning.
The primitive trumpet -- a hollowed cow's horn -- brayed over this gritty river community at sundown. Residents of Nuevo Jerusalem, the Achuar settlement on the Macusari River, trudged up a path, toting shotguns and fishing nets. Some stepped down from palm huts, walking to the meeting in twos and threes. Soon, Lily La Torre was on stage.
"I've come to give you news of the Oxy suit," said La Torre, a Peruvian lawyer and activist working with Maynas's legal team. Barefoot women in dirty skirts circled the room, serving bowls of homemade cassava beer.
|
NUEVO JERUSALEM, Peru -- Tomás Maynas Carijano strolled through his tiny jungle farm, pinching leaves, shaking his head. The rain forest spread lushly in all directions -- covering what oil maps call Block 1AB.
| 18.538462 | 0.974359 | 28.564103 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/25/DI2008012502271.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/25/DI2008012502271.html
|
NFL Playoffs - washingtonpost.com
|
2008020219
|
Cindy Boren: Welcome to the Super Bowl Redskins-coachapalooza chat! Got questions? I've got something resembling answers. I continue to stick by pity pick of the Giants to win, although I'm dismayed that so many people are picking them now, too. Let's hit the send button, pigskin peeps.
PDX, OR: Hey there, Cindy,
Can you break down The Post's team in Phoenix? Who is there, who'll be covering what on game day, who gets the best seats in the press box?
Cindy Boren: Hey, PDX! The Post's team in Phoenix is Mark Maske, Les Carpenter and Dan Steinberg. Les will be writing a column for Monday, Mark will write the game story and Dan-o will do the A1 piece, as well as his Razing Arizona feature. They'll all do quick sidebars, too. And ... burying the lede here ... Mr. Tony will be blogging. Mr. Tony, the one blogger in America whose fingers never move. Yep, he'll be here until he gets sleepy.
Crankypants, USA: Lemme reiterate: I am NOT watching this game. Now leave me alone.
Cindy Boren: Okay, Crankypants. As I said last week, you're going to be a real drag around the water cooler Monday. You could be a contrarian instead of a crankypants and just watch the commercials.
Ashland, Va.: What did former Redskins' linebacker Antonio Pierce say that was so dissing the Redskins?
Cindy Boren: Nothing that he hasn't said before, only this time he had 2,597 microphones in his face. Here's the quote, courtesy of Dan Steinberg:
"It's tough. When I was there, we went through three head coaches, four defensive coordinators, four linebackers coaches," said Pierce. "Four of everything. And that's not good. Too much turnover. You never get the continuity you need as a team. You never feel like you know anybody in the organization because there's always a new coach, a new system, new terminology. So it's not something to look forward to. When everybody was talking about our head coach here, that's one of the main reasons I didn't want him to go. I don't want to deal with a new coach, someone coming in with a new regime, a new system and new way to work out. I'm OK with Coach Coughlin. I'm good."
NOVA: Cindy... to keep in the media day theme... will you marry me?
Cindy Boren: Depends....is your name Tom Brady?
Washington, D.C.: Cindy, why weren't you at media day asking Tom Brady to marry you?
Cindy Boren: I was holding out for him to propose on my chat.
Rapid City, S.D.: Cindy, what happened to Wilbon? The only mention we way out here had seen was the question to Mark Maske in his "chat" this week? Mark didn't provide any details as to why Michael is hospitalized.
washingtonpost.com: There was a mention in Wednesday's Reliable Source.
Cindy Boren: Let's take a moment to address this. Mike had a cardiac event in the middle of the night Monday. He woke up with chest pains, went to the hospital and underwent a balloon procedure to restore an artery to its Autobahn-like status. He is recovering nicely at home, but won't be able to write this week, which is always disappointing because he's so great at the big, non-cardiac events. He scared us all because he's just one of the very best people on Planet Earth, but he's going to be just fine. It's probably good that this happened. Now, he'll be monitored. He'll speak soon for himself, but he won't mind my saying thanks to everyone for their notes, calls and concerns.
Alexandria (via The Empire State): What on Earth was Plaxico Burress thinking when he made his prediction????
Take it to the bank!
Cindy Boren: I was annoyed that he did it so tepidly! Sing it, bay-bee! Just because it didn't work for Anthony Smith doesn't mean it won't work for you. I agree with Brady that there's no way the Pats score 17. I don't think 24 is likely, either. It would be cool if it came down to a field goal and Gostkowski missed....Honestly, truly, I think the Pats will come out and show that they're just really superior. I mean, who would pick against them with their pride and history on the line -- and two weeks to prepare? Me, that's who. I stand by my pity pick.
Any Super Bowl ads that you're looking forward to or any favorites from games past? I'm partial to Terry Tate, the Office Linebacker myself.
Cindy Boren: The Tatester is very solid, but I'm hoping the Dude dude returns. I'm also partial to critters -- chimps and Clydesdales in particular.
Harpers Ferry, W.V.: I've wondered this for years and can't come up with a good reason for it. Why is the Super Bowl played on Sunday and not Saturday, when we would be given a day to recover before having to wake up and go to work?
Cindy Boren: Because Sunday is football day. And Oscars day. Nobody watches TV on Saturday nights. Just call in sick.
Tom Brady or David Beckham?
Cindy Boren: Ah, a delicious dilemma. It's close, but I'll say Brady because Becks has a kind of, um, high-pitched voice. Remember the "Seinfeld" episode in which Elaine had the friend who sounded like a woman?
Work: During this whole process has Pete Caroll ever been contacted?
He does always get the best players, but he seems to be a players' coach and wouldn't mind Clinton's antics and I think he would be the best fit, why no talk of him (and his sexyness)?
Cindy Boren: They did indeed speak to Mr. Carroll. That could always heat up again, I suppose. I keep remembering the Pete Carroll of the NY Jets -- I had to watch those games in NYC. He was horrid; what if that guy came back to the pros and not the USC guy?
Please help solve a debate in our house, do we stick with the half time show on Fox or move over to the kitty bowl on Animal Planet? What will you be watching at half time?
washingtonpost.com: I thought it was the Puppy Bowl?
Cindy Boren: This would be a total no-brainer if it were indeed a Kitty Bowl (or even a kitty box...). But it is indeed a Puppy Bowl (I have a press release and everything!) -- Puppy Bowl IV in High-Def. I'll be blogging with Kornheiser and sticking with Fox, because of 1) Jimmy Johnson and 2) Tom Petty, who should be pretty good. I'll Tivo Puppy Bowl.
Alexandria, Va.: As a 30-year transplanted inside the Beltway fan of the NY Football Giants (and life-long Cowgirl hater), I'm wondering if we don't have the support of most true 'Skins fans in Sunday's game? I mean, HEY, we beat Dallas in the playoffs!
Cindy Boren: How about it, Skins fans? Do you support the Giants? (I'm going to guess the answer is no....)
Columbia, Md.: May I just chime in on the Redskins coaching search and say that I for one am glad that Gregg Williams is not going to be the head coach of the Redskins. I thought he was awfully overrated, both as a defensive coordinator, and in his time as a head coach. Since there was actually some thought that former coach Marty might have been considered for the job, was there any thought of bringing Marvin Lewis back from Cincinnati to be the coach of the Redskins?
Cindy Boren: I've heard nothing about Marvin Lewis. Gregg Williams is a brilliant defensive mind, but he was a mess in Buffalo. While I believe in second chances, I said way back in October, I think it was, that, if Gibbs were to quit, I wouldn't go with Williams. I'd look for the Jeff Fisher of 1994 or the Jack Del Rio of 2001 -- the untested, supersmart (sorry; habit) young coordinator who is going to work 27 hours a day. I stand by that.
D.C.: Is there any possibility that the Redskins have a secret deal in place with one of the assistants for the Giants or the Pats? They seem very confident that they'll be able to bring in a new HC who wants to work with the assistants who are already under contract.
Cindy Boren: Damn you, DC! You KNOW I love a good conspiracy theory with a second spitter on the gravelly road. There could well be a gentlemen's agreement in place...
Silver Spring, M.: Cindy, what's your take on Fassel and Mariucci as head coaches for the 'Skins? Which is the lesser of two evils? Why wasn't Mariucci's name mentioned when other teams were looking for head coaches? And why do The Danny and his cousin Vinny continue to think they know how to build a winning team? Thanks.
Cindy Boren: Fassel or Mariucci? Oatmeal or cream of wheat? Fassel at least got to a Super Bowl...and yet he had to be fired by his friend in Baltimore. Mariucci was very successful in San Fran, but was a disaster in Detroit. Everyone excuses that by saying, well, it's Detroit. But it concerns me.
As for why he hasn't been courted before, I think he was quite content to toil for the NFL Network as he continued to be paid ($11 million) for no work by the Detroit Lions. That deal is expiring. Maybe he missed coaching. As for Snyder and Cerrato, they have a good start on players. Let's see what the offseason brings. They get one more pass.
Germantown, Md.: The half time show for the Puppy Bowl is the Kitty Bowl. Does this change your answer?
Cindy Boren: Oh! It is??? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. I'm calling in sick.
Washington, D.C.: Bill Belichick has always maintained that Paul Brown was the greatest football coach ever. Who's your pick as best ever?
Cindy Boren: Steve Spurrier. Sorry, hope that didn't hurt too much. I think you'd have to say Paul Brown. In the modern era, I take Bill Walsh.
Washington, D.C.: Cindy, if you were guy, whom would you choose -- Giselle or Jessica?
Cindy Boren: Giselle -- even though I've never heard her utter a word and I have no idea if she likes football or has any discernible interests or talents. Sure, I'm rolling the dice, but if she's good enough for Leo ...
Glacca Morra: There's "only" two weeks between the last playoff game and the SB, so I was wondering to what extent coaches exploit scheming, film work, etc., by fellow coaches. For example, the Giants could possibly get a wealth of information from Tony Dungy and crew or Mangini-us. Certainly, Payton might have some insights to offer little bro Eli. Is it your sense that this kind of interaction occurs...or do the teams just concentrate on their own efforts and work based on the attitude, "hey we got here on our own and it's too late to change things too much," plus these two teams have already played once?
Cindy Boren: Peyton Manning said he did speak with his brother about the Patriots. But, really, wouldn't you rather he didn't? Eli is on a roll; noted philosopher Crash Davis says you have to respect the streak. And there usually is little collusion among NFL coaches. Besides, wouldn't it be unfair if everyone sent Coughlin a gameplan and ganged up on the Patriots? If New England wins, they should change the Pro Bowl to Stars vs. Pats -- see if they can beat them. Or the winner of the Puppy-Kitty Bowl.
Baltimore: Re Antonio Pierce: I would hardly describe his comments as "dissing" the Redskins. Football is a tremendously complicated game. When you have a constant turnover of coaches and coordinators, each with his own schemes and playbooks, it has to be an exhausting process to go through. And that is precisely what the 'Skins have had since Joe Gibbs first left town.
Cindy Boren: Give that Antonio Pierce is often at Redskins Park on off-days, I'd say that he wasn't dissing them.
Boston: How can we get so worked up about these guarantees to win? This happens a dozen times a season, the whole thing is just dead now. Of course he thinks his team is going to win or he wouldn't be playing. I think the only interesting thing is the score prediction, that would be the least number of points the Patriots have put up all season. I think the 24-hour news cycle on the Super Bowl just can't be sustained for two whole weeks, everyone knows it's mostly junk and is watching basketball and golf for a week.
Cindy Boren: Particularly tepid ones! If Plaxico had said, "We're going to crush them and then I'm going to go out with Giselle and I'm going to burn a couch at Disney World," that would have been entertaining and fun. Super Bowl week is just borrrrring.
Cindy Boren: Time for me to drop back and punt to the next chatter. Thanks for stopping by; I hope to see you all on Tony's Super Bowl blog. We'll be starting around 5:30.
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 NFL Editor Cindy Boren takes your questions about the Super Bowl and the latest coaching rumors.
| 154.555556 | 0.833333 | 1.277778 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003677.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003677.html
|
Tech Giant CSC Moving Its Base to Falls Church
|
2008020219
|
Global technology and consulting firm Computer Sciences Corp. is relocating its headquarters to Falls Church from El Segundo, Calif., making it one of the largest companies based in the Washington area.
The move, which may bring as many as a couple of hundred employees to the area, caps a consolidation of CSC management in the region. The company already has 11,000 workers in the area, and chief executive Michael W. Laphen has long lived here.
CSC has 90,000 employees worldwide and an aggressive outsourcing business with clients as varied as NASA, Sun Microsystems and an Indian financial group. The company's large footprint in the area is a reflection of the work it does for the government, which accounted for $6 billion of the company's $15.5 billion in sales last year.
Company officials portrayed the relocation as part of a broader change in strategy. CSC has experienced little overall growth in recent years as the market for the very large, complex technology projects in which it specialized has slowed and the company has faced increased competition from abroad.
Now the company is working to rebrand itself as a more nimble consultancy that can work with smaller projects. It said the move to Washington is an important logistical step, merging its executive headquarters with its operational one.
"Any number of executives who happen to be in the building can meet with customers for short impromptu sessions," said David Booth, president of global sales and marketing. "It certainly speeds the engagement of the executive team."
Booth also praised the region's amenities.
"It's got a great skilled workforce. The education system is absolutely outstanding, and the proximity to travel is outstanding," he said.
But, he said, "in any environment there may be a trade-off, and it seems like traffic might be one."
Last month CSC filed an earnings report that corrected income tax calculations and the impact of foreign exchange rates on the company's financials. In 2006, CSC said it would consider a sale of the company, and it cut 5,000 jobs, mostly in Europe. CSC's stock price has never recovered the highs reached during the Internet bubble. Its shares have been relatively flat for several years.
The transition of roughly 200 people based in the Los Angeles area, where the company was founded in 1959, should be complete by this summer. Those employees will move to the Falls Church offices; some will remain in El Segundo.
The move reinforces the area's image as a major hub of knowledge workers. CSC joins a group of the country's largest technology consulting firms that are based in the region or maintain a sizable presence here, including Booz Allen Hamilton and Science Applications International Corp., both in McLean.
Those firms focus mainly on government work, while CSC has a more extensive commercial background.
|
Washington,DC,Virginia,Maryland business headlines,stock portfolio,markets,economy,mutual funds,personal finance,Dow Jones,S&P 500,NASDAQ quotes,company research tools. Federal Reserve,Bernanke,Securities and Exchange Commission.
| 12.431818 | 0.477273 | 0.477273 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013004100.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013004100.html
|
Redskins, Mariucci Will Talk
|
2008020219
|
The Washington Redskins are likely to formally interview Steve Mariucci for their vacant head coaching position this week, league sources said. As they headed to Arizona for Super Bowl XLII, owner Daniel Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, the executive vice president for football operations, stopped Tuesday in Indianapolis for a second series of talks with Ron Meeks, another candidate, as they seek a replacement for Joe Gibbs.
Mariucci, who has coaching ties to Washington's coordinators -- Greg Blache (defense) and Jim Zorn (offense) -- and worked with Cerrato in San Francisco, has told associates he is interested in returning to coaching after two years as an NFL Network analyst. Mariucci has been in Arizona this week working for the NFL Network, and the Redskins have said that they will make no coaching decision until after the game.
Mariucci's agent, Gary O'Hagan, said "no comment" last night when asked if a meeting with the Redskins was scheduled, but denied broadcast reports that there were plans for the sides to meet last night.
Meeks, the Colts' defensive coordinator, joined Jim Fassel, who was nearly offered the job Jan. 23, as remaining candidates who have been interviewed twice. New York Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo and New England offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels could be interviewed next week.
Mariucci, 52, led San Francisco to a 57-39 record and four playoff berths in six seasons (1997-2002), but faltered with Detroit and was fired during the 2005 season after compiling a 15-28 mark. Several of Mariucci's former players and coaches said they believed the Redskins were a good fit, with the team hiring from the West Coast offense coaching fraternity that Mariucci belongs to. Some associates said Mariucci's wife may have some concerns about moving to the East Coast, and noted that Mariucci may have to work through some questions about Washington's front-office structure, but did not believe they would preclude him from taking the job.
Several league sources said that Mariucci has contacted former assistants recently to inquire about their job status -- the Redskins could have a position or two to allocate on their offensive staff -- and is mulling over possibilities should he reenter coaching.
One NFL general manager, after studying the consecutive hires of Zorn and Blache, said: "It all points to Mariucci. It's like you're starting a Washington branch of the West Coast family. Look at the coordinators. Then you've got Vinny, who could put it together. That's viable. That's something I think you could sell.
"He's a likable guy, he's had success, been to the playoffs, you can trace him back to [San Francisco's Hall of Fame coach] Bill Walsh. I think you could sell that package to the fans and everybody's comfortable. That's what I think he's trying to pull off."
Snyder is known for quietly pursuing coaches, and Mariucci's name was rarely mentioned as the Redskins interviewed other candidates over the past two weeks. His last two hires -- Gibbs and Steve Spurrier -- surprised the football world. Snyder could still offer the job to Fassel, who coached the Giants from 1997 to 2003 and reached a Super Bowl. Zorn and Blache were recommended by him and league sources said Fassel remains enthused by recent developments. Meeks was impressive in his talks as well, but sources who worked with both Mariucci and Snyder maintain that Mariucci's affability, charm and outgoing personality mesh with what Snyder looks for in a coach, with compatibility a key factor.
"I know [Snyder] would be very attracted to Steve," said a league source who has dealt with both. "Steve's got that big smile, he loves to [talk]. He's the kind of guy Snyder could put his arm around and buddy around with."
Both Mariucci and Fassel have developed young quarterbacks -- helping Jason Campbell grow is a priority -- and will be broadcasting during the Super Bowl. Fassel, who lives in Scottsdale, Ariz., works as a radio commentator. Mariucci worked previously with Blache for two years in Green Bay under Mike Holmgren, and tried to hire Blache in Detroit in 2004. Zorn also learned the West Coast offense under Holmgren in Seattle.
Meeks met with Snyder in Indianapolis, with the question-and-answer portion of the interview lasting about five hours. Meeks, who has no head coaching experience, helped revitalize the Colts' defense late in the 2006 season as the team went on to win the Super Bowl. He first interviewed with the Redskins shortly after Indianapolis was upset by San Diego in an AFC semifinal on Jan. 13.
"I felt good about everything after my first interview and I feel good about this one, too," Meeks said. "I've moved forward in this process because Mr. Snyder and Vinny wanted me to move forward, and I really appreciate that. All you can do is do your best and then just hope for the best."
Meeks, who coached Washington's defensive backs in the 2000 season, just completed his sixth season as the Colts' defensive coordinator. Indianapolis ranked third in the league in total defense this season and ranked second against the pass.
"We've had some success here," Meeks said. "I've enjoyed working with [Coach Tony Dungy] and watching this team grow and get to a point where we're competitive every year. The system we have is good. It's something that could be valuable to many organizations."
Redskins Notes: The St. Louis Rams hired Al Saunders as offensive coordinator yesterday, signing him to a three-year deal. His hiring makes it virtually certain that Saunders's son, Bob, a Redskins assistant, would join his father. Redskins quarterback coach Bill Lazor, whose responsibilities will be assumed by Zorn, could end up in St. Louis as well, while free agent backup quarterback Todd Collins, an expert in Saunders's system who shined after Campbell was hurt this season, would be prized by the Rams. The Redskins' switch to a new offense makes him less valuable here. . . .
Gregg Williams, former assistant head coach-defense, interviewed Tuesday in Jacksonville and has drawn interest from Tennessee, St. Louis and Dallas, with more interviews possible shortly, league sources said . . . .
Running backs coach Earnest Byner had a strong interview for a position with Tampa Bay on Tuesday, according to league sources, but the Buccaneers intend to interview one more candidate before making a decision. Byner's contract with the Redskins expires today, and he is the only coach not under contract for 2008. He is mulling a one-year offer from the Redskins.
|
Info on Washington Redskins including the 2005 NFL Preview. Get the latest game schedule and statistics for the Redskins. Follow the Washington Redskins under the direction of Coach Joe Gibbs.
| 37.028571 | 0.714286 | 1.285714 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003448.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003448.html
|
Udvar-Hazy Center Lands $15 Million for New Wing
|
2008020219
|
A surprise $15 million gift will enable the National Air and Space Museum to add a new wing where visitors can watch the delicate process of bringing historic airplanes back to life.
The hangar will be at the museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia.
The money comes from the son of Donald D. Engen. The senior Engen was a decorated Navy flier and test pilot who later headed the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air and Space Museum. The restoration building has been on the drawing boards for years but was postponed when fundraising stalled.
D. Travis Engen, the former president of Alcan, the global aluminum and packaging company, said yesterday the passion of both his parents for the museum and for aviation inspired him and his wife to give the money.
"My father had a life in aviation," Engen said. "This is something he really enjoyed. My mother was always there, always quite engaged, and when he passed away, her activities become more out-front. She then joined the Air and Space board. This is something I'm doing to give back."
Donald Engen died in 1999 in a glider crash near Lake Tahoe, Nev. He was 75. The hangar will be named for his wife, Mary Baker Engen, who died in 2006. A tower at the Udvar-Hazy Center already carries the aviator's name.
As director of Air and Space, Engen worked to restore stability after a debacle over the display of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. Veterans' groups were outraged over what they saw as a negative interpretation of the bombing mission in early versions of the exhibit's script.
One of Engen's other efforts was the development of the Northern Virginia annex. The facility near Dulles opened in December 2003 and was named after its principal benefactor, airline executive Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, who gave $66 million to the center. From the start, officials said they wanted to include a place where the public could watch technicians restoring old aircraft.
Travis Engen said that last fall he was checking on the restoration of a Helldiver, a plane his father flew in World War II, and learned of the hardships with fundraising.
Gen. John R. "Jack" Dailey, the current Air and Space director, said Engen was told the plane couldn't be restored until the hangar was completed. "He called back and said: We are interested. This was almost like a bolt out of the blue," Dailey said.
With this gift, the museum has now raised $54.5 million for the expansion that includes the hangar. The total price tag is $74 million, but the Engen gift allows the construction planning to begin. Air and Space hopes to start work in the fall.
The restoration hangar will be connected to the main building at the Udvar-Hazy Center. It will be part of a wing that will include archives, a conservation laboratory and a storage facility. Previous donations for the project include $15 million from Boeing in 2006, $3 million from John and Adrienne Mars in 2003 and $3 million from the Daniels Fund in 2005.
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 12.313725 | 0.313725 | 0.352941 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003621.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003621.html
|
Plan for Carbon Storage Dropped
|
2008020219
|
Michael J. Mudd, chief executive of FutureGen Alliance, said that the Bush administration's decision would set back the timetable for carbon capture and storage technology that is considered essential for meeting targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
"It took four years to get to where we are today," Mudd said, citing financing needs, project design and the preparation of environmental impact statements.
Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said the administration was dropping the FutureGen Alliance project because costs for the planned 275-megawatt coal-fired plant had risen to $1.8 billion and because of advances in technology. Instead, the department said it would be willing to pay the cost of adding carbon capture and storage technology to new or existing coal plants bigger than 300 megawatts. Sell said that would lead to multiple projects and more sequestration.
Sell said Bush's fiscal 2009 budget proposal would seek $648 million for coal technology, a 25 percent increase.
The FutureGen project, a nonprofit venture that included 13 utilities and coal companies, involved construction of a plant that would turn coal to gas, strip out and store underground the carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change, and then burn the remaining gas to produce electricity and hydrogen. The industry group was to pay 26 percent of costs, and the Energy Department was to cover 74 percent.
As recently as December, administration officials were calling it a "centerpiece" of their strategy for clean coal technologies.
Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club lawyer who has been fighting to stop new coal plants, said the flap over rising costs showed that solar and wind energy are more competitive than coal advocates say they are.
In December, FutureGen selected Mattoon, Ill., as the project's site over three other finalists, two of which were in Texas.
Members of Congress from Illinois blasted the Energy Department's decision, questioning whether it would have been made if the project had been awarded to one of the finalist sites from Texas, Bush's home state. Illinois GOP lawmakers appealed to Bush yesterday, but in a telephone call with Reps. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Timothy V. Johnson (R-Ill.), the president said he was standing by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman.
In a conference call, Sell said the Illinois lawmakers "want to attack and berate the department for not proceeding . . . just so they can see a few hundred million dollars wasted in their districts."
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said that the Energy Department's new plan "cannot be taken seriously." He said project applications are due in December, weeks before the administration leaves office. "It makes no sense," Durbin said.
Sell said that the department's concern about costs date to last spring. He complained that the industry group's plan to borrow money against the plant put taxpayers at risk. But Mudd said that banks accepted the plant as collateral, posing no risk to taxpayers. He said that FutureGen's private partners had agreed to cover half of any cost overruns.
|
The Energy Department said yesterday that it would ask for new proposals from companies seeking federal aid for capturing and storing carbon dioxide released by coal-fired power plants, officially shelving the FutureGen Alliance project that the Bush administration had supported for five years.
| 12.574468 | 0.723404 | 1.617021 |
low
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003805.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003805.html
|
Saudi Women See a Brighter Road on Rights
|
2008020219
|
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 30 -- Buoyed by recent advances in women's rights, advocates for the right of women to drive in Saudi Arabia -- the only country in the world that prohibits female drivers -- say they believe the ban will be lifted this year.
The women's group has collected more than 3,000 signatures in the past five months and hopes that King Abdullah will issue a royal decree giving women the right to drive.
Since taking the throne in 2005, Abdullah has championed women's right to work and often takes official trips overseas with delegations of female journalists and academics. The king has said that he does not oppose allowing women to drive but that society needs to accept the idea first.
"I think the authorities want people to get used to the idea and will lift the ban before the end of the year," said Wajeha al-Huwaider, 45, an educational analyst and co-founder of the group.
The group, which sent the king petitions in September and December asking him to lift the ban, is working on a third. "Every time we gather 1,000 signatures, we will send them," Huwaider said.
She and co-founder Fouzia al-Ayouni said they were encouraged by the recent easing of certain strictures on women and statements from senior officials saying the driving ban is more social than religious or political.
In November, the foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told Britain's Channel 4 news that there was no Saudi law prohibiting women from driving.
"Myself, I think they should drive," he said, but added: "For us, it is not a political issue, it is a social issue. We believe that this is something for the families to decide, for the people to decide, and not to be forced by the government, either to drive or not to drive."
Saudi Arabia follows a strict form of Islamic law that does not allow women self-guardianship, mandating a male guardian for women of all ages. A woman cannot travel, appear in court, marry or work without permission from a male guardian, sometimes her own son.
Until recently, women were also barred from checking into hotels and renting apartments unless they were with a male guardian. But a royal decree announced this month now allows women to stay in hotels and furnished apartments unaccompanied.
The newspaper Al-Watan reported last week that a circular has been issued to hotels asking them to accept women who show identification. The hotel is then required to register the women's details with the police.
But in this deeply religious and patriarchal society, many believe that allowing women the right to drive could lead to Western-style openness and an erosion of traditional values.
|
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.
| 11.673913 | 0.456522 | 0.456522 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001654.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001654.html
|
Mukasey Hints at Wider CIA Probe
|
2008020219
|
His testimony indicated that the CIA tapes probe, which Mukasey launched earlier this month, could go beyond the tape destruction itself to examine the actions of the current and former CIA employees who carried out coercive interrogations.
His remarks represented a small concession to Democrats on Capitol Hill, at a generally contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. There, a stream of lawmakers assailed his refusal to say clearly whether one of the CIA's most notorious interrogation methods -- known as waterboarding -- was illegal at the time it was done.
At one point, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) asked: "Would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?"
"I would feel that it was," Mukasey replied.
But Mukasey said that does not mean it would be illegal. "This is an issue on which people of equal intelligence and equal good faith and equal vehemence have differed and have differed within this chamber," he said.
The hearing marked the end of a quiet period for the new attorney general, whose November confirmation was opposed by most Democrats because of his refusal to take a stand on waterboarding's legality. Mukasey replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, who quit after months of controversy surrounding the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and other scandals.
During his testimony, Mukasey said he saw no cause for launching a separate investigation into the use of waterboarding and other severe interrogation tactics by the CIA. But Mukasey also indicated on several occasions that the tapes probe could lead investigators in that direction.
"There is an ongoing investigation into the destruction of the tapes that may well disclose what was on them," Mukasey said during a heated exchange with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a former U.S. attorney. "And it may also well disclose whether it was anything further to be investigated. I think we ought to await that."
The appointed prosecutor on the case, Mukasey said later, "is going to follow it where it leads, and that means wherever it leads."
The outcome is far from clear, however. The Bush administration has steadfastly maintained that its interrogation techniques have been lawful, and Mukasey stressed yesterday that investigators should extend great deference to intelligence officials engaged in protecting the nation from terrorist attack.
Last night, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement that nothing Mukasey "said suggests that any of those who relied in good faith upon the Department's advice would be subject to criminal investigation." CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said that the tapes, which recorded the interrogations of two al-Qaeda captives in 2002, were destroyed to protect the identities of the CIA officers involved. But other intelligence sources have said agency officials were also worried the tapes could be used as evidence in criminal or congressional probes.
|
A special Justice Department probe into the destruction of CIA videotapes could be expanded to include whether harsh interrogation tactics depicted on the tapes violated federal anti-torture laws, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey testified yesterday.
| 13.820513 | 0.692308 | 1.25641 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013004274.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013004274.html
|
Energy Act Backers, Foes Square Off
|
2008020219
|
D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh stood atop a hill at the University of the District of Columbia recently and explained how a large solar panel and a two-story-high windmill there represent the city's future for going green.
"There's just no other way to go," Cheh (D-Ward 3) said from Power Hill. "We have to become energy efficient."
But the freshman council member met resistance yesterday at a hearing on her Clean and Affordable Energy Act, legislation meant to create a sustainable energy utility. The bill would gradually increase the amount of energy used from renewable resources, such as solar power, until reaching 20 percent by 2020.
Opponents, however, say the legislation would increase utility bills and should be retooled.
About 40 people testified yesterday, with environmentalists squaring off against utility companies and others opposed to the bill. Environmental groups praised the legislation, which would promote the installation of solar panels and energy-efficient appliances. Pepco, Washington Gas and the D.C. Apartment and Office Building Association said Cheh's plan is too costly.
People's Counsel Elizabeth A. Noel, who represents utility consumers, said the cost to customers would be $26 million annually. She said Cheh should consider the immediate effect on residents who are struggling to pay rising bills and consider funding the effort through other means. "It is very easy to be cavalier with somebody else's money," Noel said.
Pepco Region, which serves customers in the District and in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, has offered energy-reduction initiatives that are before the D.C. Public Service Commission for approval, said Thomas H. Graham, president of the regional utility.
In "Pepco's Blueprint for the Future," a document Graham provided to the committee, the company estimated that customers would pay $14 more a month. The bill, Pepco said, would require the city to increase energy surcharges and would take money from a program that helps low-income residents pay bills. The city would issue $100 million in bonds to support the legislation.
The legislation does not pass the repayment of the bond to consumers, Cheh said, and her office estimates that additional costs would be much lower, though her staff was not specific. Cheh also said bills would decrease in the long run when customers are using less energy.
Patty Rose, executive director of GreenHOME, a nonprofit group that promotes green building in affordable housing, said arguments about costs are shortsighted. "You need to make some upfront investments, but they are pretty manageable," she said in an interview.
Graham recommended abandoning the idea of a separate sustainable energy utility and instead allowing Pepco to do the job. "Pepco has unmatched expertise in energy delivery, energy conservation and system adequacy and reliability," he said.
Cheh asked what kind of experience an electric company has in handling gas, solar energy and other sources.
Only a few states, including Delaware and Vermont, have adopted similar legislation. Delaware state Sen. Harris McDowell III (D) testified that he received pushback when he proposed a bill two years ago. Other state legislators "gave me a funny look," he said.
But McDowell said only one state senator voted against the measure, which was approved last year. "One by one, we really won them over," he said.
|
D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh stood atop a hill at the University of the District of Columbia recently and explained how a large solar panel and a two-story-high windmill there represent the city's future for going green.
| 14.863636 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012802604.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008020219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/28/AR2008012802604.html
|
'Romeo and Juliet': Such Sweet Sorrow
|
2008020219
|
If you've never experienced the hyper-theatrical dance moves and dramatics of the astonishing Synetic Theater, may I suggest that now would be a very good time to start?
Your point of entry at the moment is a new adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet," a production that, owing to its sophisticated melding of sensuality, musicality and storytelling, lifts the company to another magnitude of accomplishment.
Synetic -- under the leadership of director Paata Tsikurishvili and wife Irina, the dancer-choreographer -- has always used rigorous acrobatics and stylized movement to express the passions alive in the versions of well-known plays, short stories and novels it primarily dramatizes. What often rescues these works from the well of the mundane or shopworn is the company's unshakable belief that it has something crucial to say about them -- and then demonstrates it, in imagery-rich explosions of physicality.
That facility has been especially apparent in Synetic's wordless reimaginings of Shakespeare, which release the company from its sometime struggle to reach a comfort level with language that matches its ease with the body. First in "Hamlet . . . the rest is silence" and then with "Macbeth," the Tsikurishvilis had the advantage of working with the exposition of familiar, school-taught scenes and plays, which they were able to transform into easy-to-decode waves of pure and emphatic gesture.
The approach has been hammered to an even more exhilarating finish in the "Romeo and Juliet" they are presenting at the Rosslyn Spectrum. Utilizing perhaps the most fluidly integrated and athletically gifted ensemble they've ever assembled, the Tsikurishvilis create a dance-play version of the tale that at times brings to mind the youth-driven elan and poignancy of "West Side Story."
The 90-minute production gallops by, testimony to the exertions of both the company and Shakespeare. Our collective fatigue with this most accessible and oft-performed of Shakespeare's tragedies can dull a spectator to the play's seamless craftsmanship, its propulsive story, its unrelenting tension. Synetic's penchant for tornadic activity plays exceptionally well with the heightened emotional tempests of "Romeo and Juliet," suggesting that few notions lend themselves more credibly to quicksilver leaps and gyrations than the raging of teenage hormones.
Such is the concentration here on the impetuosity of youth that the adapters, Nathan Weinberger and Paata Tsikurishvili, have simply excised some of the older characters and shaved decades off the ages of others. Thus Juliet's Nurse, typically portrayed by a player of some maturity, is embodied by an actress, Marissa Molnar, who looks no older than Courtney Pauroso's dewy Juliet. As a result, choreographer Irina Tsikurishvili is free to design for the taunting of the Nurse by Romeo's friends a slapstick tumbling routine in which Molnar gives as good as she gets.
Assigning the role of the wit-meister Mercutio to a thrillingly elastic Philip Fletcher, meanwhile, gives this young company regular the best and showiest role of his Synetic life. He creates with his elongated limbs and effortless-looking spins and spills exactly the sort of exuberant comedy Mercutio would have been capable of, had he enrolled early in the Verona Academy of Dance.
Most critical, of course, is the casting of Juliet and Romeo, and the choices here not only generate applause, but also heat. An angelic Pauroso is paired with the rugged Ben Cunis, and there's more than a little bit of the golden couple about them; you're encouraged to believe that despite being from eternally warring families, they really have been waiting all their short lives for each other.
The magnetic attraction is totally convincing, and developed thoughtfully in a repeated emphasis -- aided by lighting designer Colin K. Bills -- on the intermingling hands of the lovers. Inspired, it seems, by Juliet's line in their first awed encounter at the Capulet party, "and palm to palm is holy palmers' kiss," the director suggests a Romeo and Juliet so emotionally synchronized that their romance can be conducted by touch.
The idea is not merely tossed in. It's further developed, in an artful scene imbued with just the slightest tinge of the blue. A swath of white fabric is stretched across the stage, behind which Cunis and Pauroso's shadows embrace and undulate in stages of undress. For those who have seen or remember the depiction of budding sexuality in Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 film version, the Tsikurishvilis' tableau feels like a natural extension.
Hands are obliquely conjured, too, in Anastasia Ryurikov Simes's set, which is dominated by a clock's giant wheels and gears and pendulum. The hands in this regard are by implication those of time, which weighs so heavily on the doomed lovers.
The multilayered original score by Konstantine Lortkipanidze reinforces the conceit subtly, with a beat that sounds at times like a tick-tock played as distortions on a scratched record. For the first time, Synetic places a live musician on the stage -- in this case, Lortkipanidze himself -- and the choice adds a dimension of immediacy. The composer, perched atop the set, handles the electronic soundscape as if he were a deejay and the play were a disco hot spot.
The music and swinging pendulum mark each precious moment, as if to memorialize each short minute of bliss the lovers get to share. On this evening, the tragedy of their time running out becomes an enthralling bereavement for us all.
Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare, adapted by Paata Tsikurishvili and Nathan Weinberger. Directed by Paata Tsikurishvili. Choreography, Irina Tsikurishvili; sets and costumes, Anastasia Ryurikov Simes; sound, Irakli Kavsadze and Konstantine Lortkipanidze. With Ryan Sellers, Scott Brown, Salma Qamain, Nick Vienna, Madeline Carr, Meghan Grady, Vato Tsikurishvili, Irakli Kavsadze. About 90 minutes. Through March 8 at Rosslyn Spectrum, 1611 N. Kent St., Arlington. Call 703-824-8060 or visit http://www.synetictheater.org.
|
Search Washington, DC area theater/dance events and venues from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for theater, dance, opera, musicals, and childrens theater.
| 30.675676 | 0.513514 | 0.675676 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/30/BL2008013001912.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008013019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/30/BL2008013001912.html
|
Bush Thumbs Nose at Congress
|
2008013019
|
It's about as basic as it gets: Congress has the power of the purse. And Section 1222 of the massive defense appropriation bill enacted this week asserts that power. It reads, in its entirety:
"No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
"(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
But in another of his controversial " signing statements," President Bush on Tuesday asserted that Section 1222 -- along with three other sections of the bill -- "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief."
Therefore, he wrote: "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
The overall message to Congress was clear: I'm not bound by your laws.
The three other sections Bush reserved the right to ignore are also significant. One mandates the establishment of a commission to investigate waste and fraud in military contracts; another strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for federal contractors; a third requires the president to explain in writing each time an intelligence agency refuses to respond to a document request from the House and Senate armed services committees.
But it's Bush's cavalier dismissal of the ban on funding for permanent military bases that really speaks volumes -- not just about his view of the role of the legislative branch, but also about his intentions for Iraq.
An overwhelming majority of the American public wants a withdrawal of U.S. troops; the Democrats who control congress, and may take over the White House in a year, are committed to doing just that. But, by keeping open the possibility of permanent military bases, Bush raises suspicions domestically that he is trying to lock the nation's armed forces into a long-term presence -- while risking increased anger in Iraq over what many perceive as a long-term project of imperial domination.
Looking for a news story about all this in your morning paper? You won't find one in The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the Wall Street Journal.
Instead, you must turn to the Boston Globe and Charlie Savage, who won a Pulitzer Prize last year for being the first -- and for a long time, only -- reporter to write about Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements.
|
In another of his controversial signing statements, Bush tells Congress he's not bound by its laws.
| 27.894737 | 0.947368 | 2.736842 |
medium
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902214.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008013019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902214.html
|
Ruth Marcus - Kumbaya Caucus - washingtonpost.com
|
2008013019
|
One of the most interesting contrasts between last year's State of the Union address and this year's has nothing to do with President Bush. It involves the transformed tone of the Democratic response, from partisan lion to post-partisan lamb.
And this, in turn, reflects a schism in Democratic thinking -- to what extent to be the party of fighters and to what extent the party of Kumbaya -- that is being played out most prominently in the presidential race.
Last year's Democratic response came from Jim Webb, the newly elected, perennially pugnacious senator from Virginia. A former Reagan administration official turned populist, antiwar Democrat, Webb's most recent book, about the Scottish-Irish influence on America, was "Born Fighting." His speech lived up to type.
Webb invoked the memory of Teddy Roosevelt taking on the robber barons and Dwight Eisenhower ending the Korean War: "These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way."
Flash forward to Monday night. For a brash male senator speaking from Washington, substitute a soothing female governor, Kansan Kathleen Sebelius, speaking from the heartland. Both Webb and Sebelius were new faces, from purple (Virginia) and red (Kansas) states, but their messages could not have been more different.
Seated in front of a flickering fire, with a colorful spray of flowers beside her, Sebelius was assertively post-partisan -- so much so that some Democratic lawmakers grumbled afterward that there was not enough mention of their accomplishments.
"I'm a Democrat, but tonight, it really doesn't matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. Or none of the above," Sebelius began. "In this time, normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more -- an American response." Instead of Webb's bellicose challenge to lead or step aside, Sebelius's message was more accommodating: "Join us, Mr. President." Americans, she said, "aren't afraid to face difficult choices. But we have no more patience for divisive politics."
This new messenger and overhauled tone is no accident. It reflects the mounting anxiety among congressional Democrats that the change in congressional leadership has not produced enough of the promised results in the public mind. "It's clear we can't fight them to a win," said one Democratic strategist close to the congressional leadership. "If you can't wrestle them to the ground, you try another approach."
However much Democratic lawmakers believe the fault rests with Republican obstructionism, however much the Democratic base may crave Webbian confrontation, the thinking goes, the wider audience -- to wit, swing voters in swing states that Democrats need to retain and expand their majority -- has no tolerance for they-did-it-first finger-pointing.
"Reality has set in," says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who advises House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "The Democrats have learned if you don't get anything done, they don't blame the Republicans, they blame both of you."
The mixed messages of 2006 and 2007 reflect the inner conflicts of the voters Democrats are trying to attract. "One, they want a party that stands on its principles, and two, they've got a pox-on-all-your-houses attitude," said one congressional Democrat. "While they blame Republicans more than Democrats, when you peel back the numbers there's a general concern about what's going on in the current state of politics. So you're trying to thread that needle."
That needle-threading does not sit well with some die-hard partisans. "Bring back Jim Webb!" read a headline on the MotherJones.com blog. Wrote Todd Beeton on MyDD.com, "She's asking Bush 'to join us?' Is she kidding?"
|
One of the most interesting aspects of this year's State of the Union address was the transformed tone of the Democratic response.
| 33.541667 | 0.958333 | 4.625 |
medium
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2008/01/report_will_derail_mideast_pea.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008013019id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2008/01/report_will_derail_mideast_pea.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008013019
|
This afternoon, the countdown leading to a new and early election in Israel will begin â and mark the end of the peace process.
At 6pm Israeli time, the Winograd Committee will publish its final and full report on the Second Lebanon War, which Israel launched in June 2006. The report is considered to be one of Israel's most guarded secrets. But leaks by interested political and military parties, off-the-record conversations with the five members of the Committee, and the Winograd interim report all hint at the findings and their consequences. The report will undoubtedly bash both military and political leaders, as well as decision making process which led to the 33-day war.
It will probably say that Premier Ehud Olmert, then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and the entire cabinet hastened to launch a military campaign without prioritizing its goals. It will state that the military supreme command, led by Chief of Staff General Dan Haloutz and senior officers from brigade upwards, had neither a clear vision of what they wished to achieve nor a full command of the battlefield. Nevertheless, the report will also say that the war was not a complete failure. It will attempt to pinpoint the military, political and strategic gains the war achieved for Israel. These include the destruction of Hezbollah's long-range missiles by the Israeli Air Force within the first 34 minutes of the war; the dismantling of Hezbollah fortifications along the Israeli borders; and the creation of a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon, manned by UN peacekeepers.
But regardless of its findings, in reality the report will have impact of preaching to the converts. The Israeli public has already made its verdict. Due to strong (and in many cases biased) media reports, the war is unjustifiably etched in collective Israeli memory as a colossal disaster. Most Israelis think that Premier Olmert, as one of the three architects of the war, should follow his two colleagues out of office: General Haloutz, who resigned. and Defense Minister Peretz, who was forced by his labor party to be replaced by Ehud Barak.
The publication of the report will only strengthen those powerful convictions. Thus, the question is no longer whether Olmert and his Kadima Party-led coalition will survive the report, but when the next elections will be held. There are three scenarios. One is that Olmert and Barak will agree to call an early election either in November 2008 or March 2009. A second scenario is that Barak, joined by Olmert's Kadima party rebels, will try to replace the prime minister with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Olmert will oppose both scenarios, which may lead to a third: he will somehow hold on to power, but the coalition will be bleeding and will eventually die.
Either way, from Wednesday on, Israeli politicians will be engaged in perfecting what they know best: the art of political survival. Their minds, hearts and energies will be devoted to political spins and campaigns, not to diplomatic initiatives. With an outgoing American administration, complicated inter-Palestinian relations and the controlling of Gaza by Hamas, the chance of enhancing the peace process is already quite slim. Yet so far, there has still been a meager hope that Premier Olmert shall be committed to his words and declarations to make 2008 the year of an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough. Very few Israelis truly believe in Olmert's genuine intentions. Yet he has created an aura of expectation in some quarters in Israel, among moderate Palestinians, and in Washington. The Winograd report and its political fallout will definitely crush such hopes. In such an atmosphere, the possibility that the already crippled peace process is resurrected is very slim. It is almost nonexistent.
Yossi Melman is a PostGlobal panelist, commentator with the Israeli daily Haaretz and co-author of "The Nuclear Sphinx of Teheran," published recently by Carroll & Graf.
|
Yossi Melman at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/
| 41.277778 | 0.611111 | 0.722222 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.