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/2008/01/15/AR2008011503442.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503442.html
|
Senators Swept Up by Capitals
|
2008011619
|
Johnson didn't know what hit him -- literally -- and his head was pounding. But after a few moments, he picked himself up and made the decision to stay in the game.
The Capitals were sure glad he did.
Johnson made 26 saves against the Eastern Conference's best team and Alexander Semin notched his first two-goal performance of the season as the Capitals completed a rare season sweep of the Senators with a 4-2 victory at Verizon Center.
"I've still got a bit of a headache after it," Johnson joked. "Maybe that's what I need every game."
The victory was Johnson's first since Dec. 15 and improved his record 4-5-1. But more importantly, his steady play helped the Capitals rebound from Sunday's deflating 6-4 loss to Philadelphia and moved them to within five points of Southeast Division leaders Carolina and Atlanta.
"We're fighting here," Johnson said. "We have to catch up here and it's not going to get any easier. We understand that, especially at home, you can't lose two in a row."
The Capitals struck first, but after a second-period lull that saw the Senators score 82 seconds apart and take a 2-1 lead, they were in need of a big play. Semin came through for them.
The Russian winger, who struggled with turnovers against Flyers, scored a beautiful goal to pull the Capitals even. Semin picked off Senators defenseman Joseph Corvo's pass deep in the Ottawa zone, then turned Wade Redden inside out before sending goaltender Ray Emery to the ice with two stick-fakes. Semin capped the highlight-reel play by flipping the puck underneath the crossbar.
"It was sick move," Alex Ovechkin said of Semin's goal. "It was a very important goal."
Ovechkin scored one of his own in the third period. He fired a long rebound past Emery, who got a piece of the puck but not enough of it at 9 minutes 11 seconds to put the Capitals ahead 3-2.
The victory came on a difficult day for Washington, which learned yesterday morning that veteran center Michael Nylander will miss the remainder of the season after undergoing shoulder surgery today in Cleveland. Nylander, the team's biggest free agent acquisition this summer, is the team's second-line center and second-leading scorer (37 points) behind Ovechkin.
The win also gave Washington its first season sweep over the Senators since 1995-96, Ottawa's fourth season in the league.
Both teams were without key personnel last night. The Senators didn't have all-star Dany Heatley, who is sidelined for six weeks with a separated shoulder. The Capitals were in worse shape. In addition to not having Nylander, they also were without right wing Chris Clark (groin muscle) and defenseman Brian Pothier (concussion).
Because of the injuries, Coach Bruce Boudreau was forced to get creative with his lineup. He kept the first line -- Ovechkin, Nicklas Backstrom and Viktor Kozlov -- intact. Boyd Gordon, meantime, replaced Nylander on the second line and skated between Tomas Fleischmann (two assists) and Semin.
"That Semin line -- mostly Semin -- win game tonight," Ovechkin said.
The first period ended scoreless, with the Capitals holding an 11-5 edge in shots. The teams made up for it in the second.
Only 47 seconds in, defenseman Mike Green pinched in deep on the power play and snapped a spot-on crossing pass from Kozlov over Emery's glove to put Washington ahead 1-0. It was Green's 13th goal, the most among NHL defensemen.
The Capitals continued to pressure Emery, but the Senators got even thanks to a fortunate bounce. Andrej Meszaros's shot was blocked in front and sent up the slot, where Dean McAmmond fired it past Johnson, who wasn't expecting the shot, to tie the score at 1 at 13:41.
Less than two minutes later, Redden jammed a loose puck behind Johnson during a scramble in front to put the visitors ahead 2-1.
Johnson kept Ottawa from extending its lead, while Semin and Ovechkin restored Washington's. Semin knocked in a loose puck at 11:56 of the third to clinch the win.
"He was more determined tonight," Boudreau said of Semin. "Sometimes when you don't have a great game and you lose, it's not the coaches but your teammates you're embarrassed about. So you play hard the next game. That's what he did."
Capitals Notes: Backstrom was named to the NHL's YoungStars event, which will be held on Jan. 26 during all-star weekend in Atlanta. The game will feature a new three-on-three format.
|
Alexander Semin has two goals and an assist as the Capitals sweep their season series against the Ottawa Senators with a 4-2 victory on Tuesday night before 15,261.
| 30.258065 | 0.774194 | 2.451613 |
medium
|
low
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503318.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503318.html
|
Drug Exemptions Triple in MLB
|
2008011619
|
Major League Baseball gave permission to 111 of the 1,354 players who were tested in 2007 to use performance-enhancing drugs because of medical disorders, up from 35 of 1,356 the previous year, raising questions among medical experts as to what caused the increase.
The vast majority of the players (103 in 2007 and 28 in 2006) requested the exemptions for stimulants used to treat attention-deficit disorder such as those found in Adderall or Ritalin. That fact troubled medical experts contacted after the hearing because baseball included amphetamines in its drug-testing program for the first time during the 2006 season.
Two players last season and three the previous year also received exemptions for "androgen deficiency," according to information released by the committee. Several medical experts said the language seemed to indicate MLB granted exemptions for testosterone or other steroids. MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfred said in an e-mail he was bound by the collective bargaining agreement and could not comment. He added that MLB made a limited exception to release the information to the committee.
By comparison, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in 2007 granted 27 exemptions for attention-deficit disorder medication -- an estimated 90 percent of which were for athletes younger than 21 -- and none for testosterone for an athlete population of around 10,000.
Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) mentioned some of the numbers, which MLB had previously declined to release, during the hearing, which focused on baseball's efforts to implement recommendations by former Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell in his December report on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball.
Lawmakers requested the figures because Mitchell had mentioned in his report that the union and MLB refused to provide them to him, according to a committee spokesman.
Tierney contended that the incidence of attention-deficit disorder in baseball was eight times that of the normal population. Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig acknowledged the numbers were "a little higher" than is typical in the adult population. He said the rise in exemptions -- known as therapeutic use exemptions or TUEs -- was "one of the major subjects" of discussion during a meeting last week with MLB trainers.
Selig and MLB Players Association chief Donald Fehr noted that TUEs are overseen and granted only by the sport's independent program administrator, Bryan W. Smith, who was the team physician for the University of North Carolina for 10 years. Smith, according to the statistics provided by the committee, declined to grant 13 TUE requests in 2007. Two were withdrawn. The other TUEs granted in 2007 were for medications for hypertension (five) and alopecia (one).
They also noted that players are required to get a doctor's recommendation before taking the request to Smith, who was appointed in early 2006.
John Ratey, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, said the incidence of attention-deficit disorder among ballplayers was not out of line with the general male population since diagnoses of the disorder had increased in recent years. Ratey, however, said he was perplexed by the leap in diagnoses from 2006 to 2007.
"I don't know" how to explain that, said Ratey, author of the book "Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain." "They didn't get that many more minor leaguers who had ADD. . . . All of a sudden there are [nearly four] times the diagnoses? It's like, 'What?' "
Said Gary Wadler, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency's prohibited list and methods committee, "If that happened in society, we would have a health epidemic on our hands."
Christiane Ayotte, a Montreal lab director who conducts the testing of MLB's urine samples, described diagnoses of androgen deficiency in athlete populations as "a slippery slope."
"I don't know in amateur sports how many athletes would be diagnosed with androgen deficiency," she said.
Wadler said a testosterone exemption was once granted in the Olympic movement to a sailor (Kevin Hall of Bowie) who had both testicles surgically removed and could no longer produce testosterone naturally, but he noted that "it's not common."
|
According to information released during Tuesday's congressional hearings, the number of players in MLB seeking medical exemptions for banned drugs more than tripled.
| 31 | 0.730769 | 1.346154 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011500329.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011500329.html
|
20 Palestinians, Mostly Fighters, Killed in Israeli Raids
|
2008011619
|
JERUSALEM, Jan. 15 -- Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters battled in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday, leaving 20 Palestinians dead, a health official said, including a son of a senior leader of Hamas, the armed Islamic movement that controls the territory.
After Israel launched a pre-dawn raid involving troops, tanks and helicopters, Palestinian gunmen killed an Ecuadoran laborer working in an Israeli potato field near the Gaza boundary and fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel, wounding four people, officials said. Hamas asserted responsibility for the shooting and the rocket fire.
The fighting caused the highest one-day death toll for Palestinians in clashes with Israeli forces since November 2006 and occurred four days after President Bush visited Israel and the occupied West Bank to help revive peace negotiations.
The Israeli incursion prompted recriminations from the Palestinian Authority, which administers the West Bank and which is participating in the peace talks. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that the raid had caused a "massacre" and that "we say to the world that our people will not remain silent against such crimes."
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, whose son Husam was a Hamas fighter killed in the raid and whose son Khaled was killed in an Israeli bombing in 2003, said Bush had "encouraged the Israelis to kill our people."
"What is going on in Gaza today is a shame for all of those who cooperated with Bush, the criminal, and with the Zionists," Zahar said. "I am talking about all the kings, presidents and ministers," he added, criticizing Arab leaders who have met the American president during his tour of the region. Hamas, which the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization, is not part of the negotiations.
In June, Hamas seized unilateral control of Gaza, breaking a power-sharing arrangement with Abbas's Fatah movement and splitting the territories politically.
Capt. Noa Meir, spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces, said the raid Tuesday was a "routine pinpoint operation," intended "to keep terrorists away from the security fence" that divides Israel and Gaza. She said three airstrikes occurred during the operation, each targeting a group of Palestinian fighters. Israeli officials said the incursion ended at midday.
Meir said 50 rockets and mortar shells landed in Israel during the day. Four civilians in the city of Sderot were injured in the attacks, but there were no reports of Israeli military casualties.
Muawiya Hasanein, a senior Health Ministry official in Gaza, said that 14 fighters and five civilians were killed in the operation, with 55 people wounded. An Israeli airstrike later in the day killed another person, described by Israeli officials as one of a group launching rockets and by Hasanein as a civilian.
The Ecuadoran worker, Carlos Ch¿vez, was a volunteer at a kibbutz. His friends said he had hoped to make his life in Israel.
On Monday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qureia met in Jerusalem to begin talks aimed at resolving the "core issues" that divide the two sides, including the fate of Palestinian refugees and the borders of a future Palestinian state. Bush said Thursday that he believed an accord between the Israelis and Palestinians would be signed by the time he leaves office in January 2009.
Qureia, referring to the Israeli raids, said Tuesday that "these massacres, that go hand in hand with the continuation of the siege on our brave people in Gaza, and daily incursions to the cities of the West Bank and Gaza, with the continuation of the settlement activity, complicate and put obstacles ahead of the talks."
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip were defensive. "We are trying to protect our people from daily attacks from extremists," he said. "We are being as surgical as possible. Israel wants the negotiations to succeed; we are still committed to find a solution . . . this year."
Taher Nunu, a Hamas spokesman, said the violence was the result of the meeting between Qureia and Livni. "We have repeatedly warned that such meetings are exploited by the Israeli occupation forces to commit more massacres and to kill the large number of Palestinian citizens while negotiating illusory projects," he said.
Special correspondent Islam Abdel Kareem in Gaza City contributed to this report.
|
JERUSALEM, Jan. 15 -- Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters battled in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday, leaving 20 Palestinians dead, a health official said, including a son of a senior leader of Hamas, the armed Islamic movement that controls the territory.
| 17.458333 | 1 | 48 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503355.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503355.html
|
Wicker's Earmark Elicits Criticism
|
2008011619
|
Wicker's earmark for Manassas-based Aurora Flight Science fits a pattern that recently attracted bipartisan criticism and gave rise to the most far-reaching ethics overhaul legislation in a generation: The firm retained the services of the congressman's top aide after he passed through the revolving door to become a lobbyist, and its employees helped underwrite Wicker's reelection.
Over the past three years, as Aurora sought defense contracts, the Republican member of the Appropriations defense subcommittee received escalating contributions from the company's executives. Aurora was Wicker's top source of campaign funds in 2006, campaign finance records show. In 2005, the company flew the congressman on a private jet to the ribbon cutting of a manufacturing facility it opened in Wicker's Mississippi district.
And just days after Wicker's chief of staff, John Keast, left his employ in 2006, Aurora began listing the former staffer on public forms as one of its lobbyists in Washington. Wicker placed the earmark in a defense appropriations bill that became law in November 2007.
None of those contacts with the congressman violated any laws. But they drew criticism from the Project on Government Oversight and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), nonprofit groups that have tried to change how Congress handles earmarking.
"It's so commonplace that people have become desensitized to the outrage, but the fact is earmarks for the well-connected leave that much less money available for the real needs of the American public," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "Congressional leaders promised they were ushering in an era of cleaner government. I guess not."
Wicker did not dispute his role in the earmark or the company's contacts with him, but said in an interview that he sees no problem with directing money to Aurora. He said contributions from its employees played no role in his decision to request the earmark in March 2007. The money was meant to speed development of a new, unmanned aircraft that would be able to fly for days at high altitudes -- a valuable military tool, Wicker said. And the company is developing the aircraft while creating jobs in his home state.
"The long and short of it is, Aurora is putting out a good product in return for these federal expenditures," Wicker said yesterday. "It clearly passes any cost-benefit test." Patti Woodside, a spokeswoman for Aurora, said the earmark was going to develop "a vehicle with tons of potential. I don't think anyone would dispute that this is a worthwhile endeavor." The aircraft is in the research and development phase, Woodside said. The company is developing the aircraft for the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command.
She said Aurora located its facility in Mississippi because the company's chief executive had a close friend at the Mississippi State University, not because of Wicker's representation of the 1st Congressional District from 1994 until his appointment to the Senate. She also said that while the company's lobbying firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs, hired Keast after he left Wicker's employ, another lobbyist at the firm, Dan Fleming, took the lead in helping them obtain federal funding.
Messages left Monday and Tuesday for Keast and Fleming were not returned. A lobbying disclosure statement filed for the period from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2007, lists both as lobbyists for Aurora before the House on budget issues. Wicker served on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee before his appointment to the Senate. That appointment came shortly after Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)described earmarking as the key factor in scandals that helped drive Republicans from power in 2006.
John Pruett, a fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, said: "There are a thousand companies out there that make unmanned vehicles. Why did he choose Aurora? It points out that [it should not be] . . . left to the inclinations of a representative. There should be some standard."
John Cummings, a spokesman for the Army command, said he did not know why Wicker submitted the earmark request. "It's a congressional add," he said. "It was not requested. It wasn't in the president's budget. Anything that comes in above that means it has not been requested by us."
|
Sen. Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican congressman appointed to replace Trent Lott in December, last year obtained a $6 million earmark for a defense contractor whose executives were among his top campaign contributors and were represented in the matter by Wicker's former congressional chi...
| 16.734694 | 0.591837 | 0.795918 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503302.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503302.html
|
Lawmakers May Open The Way for Cameras To Watch for Speeding
|
2008011619
|
Local governments throughout Maryland would be allowed to use roadside cameras to enforce speed limits under legislation being considered by Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration and some lawmakers.
Supporters say it would make roads safer. But critics say the speed cameras infringe on civil liberties.
The O'Malley administration is preparing a bill that would authorize the use of speed cameras in construction work zones, Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari said yesterday. Meanwhile, some lawmakers and the Maryland Association of Counties are calling for a broader law that would also allow cameras near schools and in residential neighborhoods.
Last year, Montgomery County became the first Maryland jurisdiction to use speed cameras. Porcari said installing such cameras statewide is an important step toward stemming an increase in traffic fatalities. About a third of fatal accidents are caused by speeding motorists, according to state statistics.
"Sometimes we have only an orange cone between our highway workers and our motorists," Porcari told the House Environmental Matters Committee in testimony yesterday. "It is time to make sure we're doing all that we can to ensure highway safety."
O'Malley (D) believes using the cameras in work zones is a "no-brainer" and is considering broader legislation that would allow speed cameras in other locations, said his spokesman, Rick Abbruzzese.
"It's clearly a public safety issue to help local jurisdictions reduce speeding and aggressive driving in residential neighborhoods and in our school zones," Abbruzzese said.
Montgomery uses speed cameras in residential areas and near schools. The District also uses speed cameras. Virginia and Maryland both permit local jurisdictions to use cameras to enforce red-light traffic violations.
Critics say speed cameras represent an intrusion on civil liberties, serving more as a money-maker for local governments than as a safety measure.
Sen. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick) called use of the cameras a "backdoor tax on the people of Maryland."
"It's simply wrong to say it's a safety issue," Mooney said. "It's a tax issue. It's a bad idea, and it's a wrong way for government to go. What's next? We'll put cameras in people's homes to catch criminal activity in people's homes?"
"It seems Big Brother-ish to me to have cameras doing law enforcement," House Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert) said.
|
Local governments throughout Maryland would be allowed to use roadside cameras to enforce speed limits under legislation being considered by Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration and some lawmakers.
| 15.965517 | 1 | 29 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503356.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503356.html
|
When the Rules Run Up Against Faith
|
2008011619
|
Juashaunna Kelly, a Theodore Roosevelt High School senior who has the fastest mile and two-mile times of any girls' runner in the District this winter, was disqualified from Saturday's Montgomery Invitational indoor track and field meet after officials said her Muslim clothing violated national competition rules.
Kelly was wearing the same uniform she has worn for the past three seasons while running for Theodore Roosevelt's cross-country and track teams: a custom-made, one-piece blue and orange unitard that covers her head, arms, torso and legs. On top of the unitard, Kelly wore the same orange and blue T-shirt and shorts as her teammates.
The outfit allows her to compete while complying with her Muslim faith, which forbids displaying any skin other than her face and hands.
As one of the other heats was held, two meet officials signaled to Kelly and asked her about her uniform. Meet director Tom Rogers said Kelly's uniform violated rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations, which sanctioned the event, by not being "a single-solid color and unadorned, except for a single school name or insignia no more than 2 1/4 inches."
Rogers then told Kelly she was disqualified. Kelly dropped to her knees and began sobbing. Kelly's mother, Sarah, walked down from the bleachers at Prince George's Sports & Learning Complex in Landover and argued with Rogers, but left without coming to an agreement to console her daughter.
"I saw that this isn't getting anywhere, and I wanted to go see her," Sarah Kelly said.
Rogers said he made three public address announcements prior to Kelly's disqualification requesting that Roosevelt Coach Tony Bowden meet with him. Bowden said he didn't hear any announcements.
Kelly has worn the same uniform for three years without any questions, including the 800- and 1,600-meter races at last year's Montgomery Invitational, at which Rogers also was the director.
"She ran in the same exact meet last year," Sarah Kelly said. "There was nothing said. No one has ever said anything to her."
Rogers said: "We run over 2,000 athletes in this meet. Most likely an official missed her uniform [last year] and a call wasn't made."
Juashaunna Kelly, who last week was named the 2007 Gatorade girls' cross-country runner of the year in the District, had her uniform custom-made by a tailor in Apple Valley, Calif., two years ago.
"It's not special," Kelly said. "It doesn't make me perform better."
She said she has been questioned about her uniform before every meet in which she has competed, including Saturday's.
"It was the same as the other meets: They pulled me aside and asked me why am I wearing this," she said. "I said, 'It's because I'm a Muslim.' "
Rogers said he knew Kelly was wearing the uniform for religious reasons and that he offered her several options to conform to the rules of the meet while still respecting her faith, including placing a plain T-shirt over her unitard and then wearing her team uniform over it.
"Every sport has uniform rules. It has nothing to do with religious discrimination," Rogers said. "They were provided with several options that would have allowed her to run without taking off her head covering."
Sarah Kelly said that was not the case. She said meet referees made several demands of her daughter before Rogers made his decision.
"First, they said she had to take her hood off," Sarah Kelly said. "Then, they said she can't have anything with logos displayed. Then, they said she had to turn it inside out. When I told them that there weren't any logos on it, they said she had to put a plain white T-shirt on over it."
Bowden said: "It never started off about color [of her uniform]. It started with her head wear.
"It wasn't a problem last year, and it's a problem this year? Make me understand why."
Perhaps the most prominent case in the United States of an athlete competing in Muslim attire occurred in 2004 at the University of South Florida. Women's basketball player Andrea Armstrong said she was asked by her coach to not wear her Muslim head scarf, long sleeves and long pants on the court. The school said it would appeal to the NCAA for a uniform waiver on her behalf, but Armstrong quit the team before a ruling was made.
Kelly, whose 1,600 time of 5 minutes 17.49 seconds and 3,200 time of 12:00.81 are the fastest of any District girl, was hoping to run a time fast enough at the Montgomery Invitational to qualify for the New Balance Collegiate Invitational in New York on Feb. 8-9. Bowden said Roosevelt has no other meets scheduled that would allow her to qualify for the event, which attracts dozens of college recruiters.
"What she needs to do is get some religious documentation saying it's part of her heritage and bring it with her to every meet," said Jim Vollmer, the commissioner of track for Montgomery County public schools.
|
Theodore Roosevelt senior Juashaunna Kelly is barred from a track and field meet after officials say her traditional Muslim clothing violates rules.
| 44.608696 | 0.826087 | 2.478261 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803487.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803487.html
|
Can Obama Build a Movement?
|
2008011219
|
The early predictions about this presidential race were mostly wrong.
Republicans were supposed to return to a miniaturized version of Reaganism -- the narrow box of predictable, anti-government orthodoxy -- which would have turned out to be a political coffin. Instead, the two hottest Republican candidates are downright heterodox. Mike Huckabee pushes an unapologetic economic populism. And John McCain -- with his heretical stands on global warming and immigration -- also presents a conservative message that is reformulated, not just reconstituted.
Democrats were supposed to return to the good old days of Clintonism, with its war rooms, relentless partisanship and parsing denials. But Hillary's version seems less compelling than her husband's -- a Clintonism without charm. And despite his loss to Clinton in New Hampshire on Tuesday, this has allowed Sen. Barack Obama to turn a coronation into a real race.
As I saw while traveling with the Obama campaign in the Granite State, some of the senator's weaknesses are obvious. As a debater, he can be awkward and rambling. While he promises to get "beyond the partisan food fight," the policies featured in his campaign are conventionally liberal.
So far, he has not earned his reputation for post-partisanship by making creative, moderate proposals.
But among the snaking lines of supporters waiting in the cold for Obama events, there is, as he says, "something stirring in the air." One television reporter who covers the campaign told me of interviewing a New Hampshire woman with high regard for Clinton who was nonetheless supporting Obama. When asked why, she said, "Because on the day Obama becomes president, America would think differently about itself."
Obama and his staff clearly believe his candidacy has the potential to be a movement. During the last days of the Iowa campaign, one version of Obama's stump speech used the word "I" nearly 100 times -- typical for a candidate introducing himself to voters. But a few days before his Iowa win, Obama called his speechwriter in Des Moines to say his victory speech should be about "us."
"It was no longer just about asking for votes," Obama's bright young wordsmith, Jon Favreau, told me, "but about building a movement." Obama used the word "I" just 16 times in his memorable caucus night victory speech.
But what is the movement about? It is, above all, the return of idealism. Obama spent the last days before the New Hampshire primary defending "hope" against Clinton's contention that the Illinois senator was raising "false hopes." In the final debate, Obama also defended the use of inspiring words and rhetoric against Clinton's charge that words matter little in comparison to experience. It is a strange, shrunken presidential candidate who makes her final argument an assault on aspiration.
Obama is an impressive carrier of this message for a variety of reasons.
First, his personal style evokes the golden age of nonthreatening, high-minded liberalism from the early 1960s. His crowds may be young and denim-clad, but Obama has a JFK bearing -- conservative suits, fiddling with his starched cuffs, then a hand in his pocket. He dresses and speaks with a well-tailored formality -- his Iowa victory remarks were read from a teleprompter, the sign of well-crafted rhetorical ambition. His manner communicates that politics is a serious, adult business, which could eventually undermine Republican charges of ideological radicalism.
Second, however conventional his current ideological appeal, he has left room for future outreach to middle-ground voters. His stump speech, in the versions I heard, made no mention of abortion -- a typical (and divisive) Democratic applause line. His consistent emphasis on fighting HIV-AIDS globally and promoting development could appeal broadly to religious voters. And Obama does not make cynical use of his race.
Third, Obama's race matters greatly, because most of the American story -- from our flawed founding to the civil rights movement -- has been a struggle between the purity of our ideals and the corruption of our laws and souls. The day an African American stands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol -- built with the labor of slaves -- and takes the oath of office will be a moment of blinding, hopeful brightness.
Obama's performance in Iowa showed that this moment is a possibility. Clinton's stronger showing in New Hampshire showed it is not an inevitability. But in terms of raw talent and personal appeal, Obama beats Clinton hands down. And now we will see if Democrats agree.
|
There are rare moments in politics when a candidacy crosses some line of purpose and enthusiasm and becomes a movement.
| 42 | 0.761905 | 1.047619 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804600.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804600.html
|
The Comeback Grownups
|
2008011219
|
FOR ALL THE hoopla over Barack Obama's post-Iowa bounce, in the end the Democratic voters of New Hampshire buoyed Hillary Rodham Clinton with a victory that confounded the pollsters. This is good news, and not just for the senator from New York. It's good news for the voters in all the states that haven't yet had a chance to express a preference. The situation is much the same on the other side: John McCain, whose campaign was written off as hopeless only weeks ago, won a decisive victory in the Republican primary that could keep the GOP race scrambled for some time to come.
Mr. McCain's win improves the chances that voters in November will have two credible, thoughtful nominees from whom to choose. In many areas, his principled positions offer a welcome departure from the usual partisan playbook. In a campaign that has reflected some of the uglier aspects of American politics, especially when it comes to immigration, Mr. McCain offers a voice of reason tempered by the knowledge that many voters are furious about illegal immigration. His deep knowledge of foreign affairs, clearheaded approach to the threat of Islamic extremism and unwillingness to abandon his support for the war in Iraq, even when it threatened to cost him his bid for the presidency, are admirable, as is his unswerving opposition to the use of torture by U.S. personnel. Although we disagree with the Arizona senator on a host of domestic issues, including tax policy, abortion rights and gay rights, his willingness to take on such issues as climate change and campaign finance reform -- neither of which were particularly popular with his party -- reflects well on his character and judgment.
The Republican race remains far from settled, but having Mr. McCain in the fray as a credible candidate is a development to be cheered. As a bonus, Mr. McCain's unexpected rise after an apparent campaign implosion last summer, along with Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa last week, illustrates that money can't buy everything in American politics, at least not always.
The Democratic contest had been threatening to unfold with unsettling velocity. But New Hampshire applied a useful brake. The senator from Illinois is an impressive man whose rhetoric of inclusive post-partisanship helped inspire record turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has tapped into a deep vein of dissatisfaction with the status quo under President Bush, and his support reflects unease among many over the perceived divisiveness of Ms. Clinton and the restoration of a Clinton presidency.
As the New Hampshire results show, Mr. Obama has a formidable opponent in Ms. Clinton, who would bring to the presidency valuable experience, both in the White House and the Senate, that has given her a sophisticated understanding of the dangers and opportunities the United States faces in the world. Her policy positions overlap with Mr. Obama's more than they differ, but the differences aren't inconsequential, especially in foreign affairs, where Ms. Clinton has had the more sophisticated approach to how to deal with Iraq and other danger zones. The contrast between her experience and his inspiration opens a legitimate and important debate. It's good that more voters will have a chance to weigh in.
|
And the results keep the races nicely unsettled.
| 66.777778 | 0.666667 | 1.111111 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/2008/01/an_ever_living_people.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/2008/01/an_ever_living_people.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
I am one of the people interviewed in the PBS series and hope people will watch what I believe is the most nuanced and sophisticated telling of the Jewish American story to date: a story that has wisdom for any American because it is a story as much about being American as it is about being Jewish. So I will be sweet and allusive.
We do not know what Jewish identity meant in the past because there was no one Jewish identity to be known. There were Jewish identities. There were many different expressions of Jewishness that, as with any religious culture, were products of interactions between people, their times, their inherited tradition, the larger cultures in which they were embedded, and their personal biographies and biologies.
Jewish identity in the first century in Palestine was very different than Jewish identity in Poland in the seventeenth century which was very different than Jewish identity in Spain in the twelfth century which was different than Jewish identity in New Mexico at the end of the nineteenth century which is different than the many kinds of Jewish identities on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the twenty-first century. In fact, when one studies the Jewish past one discovers that identity is really a verb and not a noun.
It is something that is continuously being constructed and not some static thing one possesses. Judaism (a word that did not even exist until the modern period) is an ever changing construction and the Jewish people and ever moving construct. What does remain the same is the fact that there has been a group of people, whatever their particular theologies and practices, who continue to call themselves Jews, who use the Torah, understood as widely and inclusively as possible e.g. a biblical passage, a Talmudic text, a philosophical treatise, medieval poem, a recipe, a Lenny Bruce routine, a Philip Roth novel, a Bob Dylan song... to wrestle with the meaning of life, i.e. to know more clearly the truth about life, to love more deeply and courageously, and to live more justly and compassionately.
And what will Jewish mean in the future? The only thing one can say for certain about the spiritual journey is that it is unpredictable. If anyone would have told my grandmother â born in Poland in 1898 and who lived well into her nineties - when she was a teenager, that over the next century or so all of Jewry would basically move across oceans, that one third of those who called themselves Jews would be murdered by one of the most modern and cultured nations on the planet, that after 2000 years Jews would return to the Land of Israel and establish a democratic state, that in a place called America Jews would enjoy unprecedented freedom, power, and affluence, that in that place called America just about every university in the country would have a Judaic department, that more Jewish books, plays, music, art, would be produced than at any other time in Jewish history, that there would be forms of Jewishness that stretch from the most atheistic to the most conventionally traditional, from BuJews (Buddhist Jews) to HinJews (Hindu Jews), from New Age Jews to mainstream liberal Protestant- like Jews, from militant nationalistic Jews to pacifist Jews, from non-Jewish Jews (Madonna) to Seinfeld Jews, from synagogue going Jews to bagels and lox Jews, that in that place called America rather than wanting to convert or murder us Gentiles would actually want to marry us and that this profound change in attitude rather than being a cause for celebration and engagement would generate an anxiety only rivaled by an anxiety about anti-Semitismâ¦she would be completely dumbfounded.
Jewish identity will be plural and will mean what those people who consciously call themselves Jews decide it will mean. It will include, just like every other cultural/religious identity, âsaintsâ and sinners, tribalists and globalists, hustlers and heroes, spiritual geniuses and hardened cynics, Jews who exclude other Jews from being called Jews and Jews who include Jews who could not care less about being included as Jews, philanthropists and philanderers, good folk and bad folkâ¦all wandering âtogetherâ in a loose sort of way on the way to a promised land that can never be reached because it is always promised.
How will we Jews survive: retain our roots and embrace change? Like we always have, by never thinking we have the final solution (we donât like final solutions as they tend to be very unhealthy for us and others) to that question or for that matter to any really important question about life. We will retain our Jewishness by arguing about the meanings of our past, the challenges of our present, and the dreams of our future. We will survive and flourish as long as we, like every individual and every people, continuously negotiate an ever moving, ever fluid, never definitive, ever flowing line or dance between being separated and being connected, being different and being the same, resisting and adapting, drawing boundaries and destroying boundaries, celebrating differences and marveling at commonalities, affirming our uniqueness relative to other human beings/groups and embracing our oneness with other human beings and groupsâ¦all in the service of an ever-changing, always being argued about purpose: to heal ourselves and this world.
|
Irwin Kula on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/irwin_kula/
| 125.625 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/julia_neuberger/2008/01/jewish_identity_is_changing_th.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/julia_neuberger/2008/01/jewish_identity_is_changing_th.html
|
Julia Neuberger: OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
Jewish identity is changing the world over. Traditionally, Jewish status was conferred through the mother- if you had a Jewish mother, you were Jewish. American Reform Judaism established the principle of patirlineality so that the child of a Jewish father, with a Jewish upbringing, was also classed as Jewish by status- but that status was not recognized by orthodox Jews.
With Reform Judaism being such a large component of U.S. Jewry, this has meant that a large proportion of people recognized as Jews by one section of the community are not accepted as such by another -- and yet there are many activities that stretch across the whole gamut of Jewish affiliation in the United States.
To add to that, things are very different outside the U.S. In Europe, orthodoxy is still- nominally at least, the dominant player, though we in the UK and France live in a far more secular environment overall. Jews in the UK are increasingly seeking to identify in ways other than through the synagogue. There is the enormously successful Limmud study festival that takes place over Christmas, and is now a UK Jewish community export to the USA and elsewhere. There is an embryonic but successful move towards a JCC for London, with a site acquired and programs running, including a Mitzvah Day that attracts huge support, an important import from the U.S. to the UK. Official numbers of the Jewish population look astonishingly low in the UK given the numbers who attend Jewish Book Week or the Jewish Film Festival.
There is a new generation of young, vibrant, less traditional leaders across the community, and a sense that Jews are choosing to identify rather than being forced to do so by circumstances and birth.
That is really the nub of the question. In western liberal democracies, no one is forced to be anything specifically religiously speaking. So the fact that people are choosing to identify, whether through Limmud, Jewish Book week, through sending children to a Jewish school, an astonishing 1 in 4 of Jewish children, or more traditionally, through synagogues, is something of a triumph. We must be doing something right.
But how people choose, and what they will do, will change. I suspect that fewer people will join synagogues in the traditional way, but will instead pick and choose what they do and what they attend. The JCC will act -- as it does in many U.S. cities -- as a kind of portal. People will use it to make their choices, and they will vary according to their stage in life, the extent to which the community offers things they want, and the extent to which the community is prepared to recognize, accept and rejoice in a whole variety of different lifestyles. That will include people whose adopted children are not Jewish by status, but who will not want a full conversion for them, people who are gay and want to have a religious blessing of their civil unions, and people whose lives have been marked by a series of monogamous relationships, but find themselves living on their own in later life- in a pattern quite different from the conventional Jewish family pattern.
My own belief is that the community will adapt. It will also need to learn to cry antisemitism less often, and to trade on its strengths, not on a sense of victimhood -- that is not an attractive way of describing identity.
Jewish communities are stronger than they have ever been, more vibrant, more varied, and allowing huge opportunities for expression. The real question is whether, in free societies, that is enough to make people feel they want to stay involved, or whether they will just disappear, and deny their Jewish identity or simply forget it.
|
Julia Neuberger on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/julia_neuberger/
| 87.75 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/lisa_miller/2008/01/is_it_good_for_the_jews.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/lisa_miller/2008/01/is_it_good_for_the_jews.html
|
Is It Good for the Jews?
|
2008011219
|
In the 20th Century no group was better at chronicling its own experience than the American Jews. You want self-loathing, assimilation and paranoia? Turn to Philip Roth. You want bright young women resisting and yet conforming to family expectations? Check out Allegra Goodman. You want the passionate rediscovery of Jewish history and values? Turn to Steven Spielberg.
The story of the Yiddish-speaking bubby with the Harvard educated grandson has been told so oftenâin fiction and in lifeâit's become an American cliché and a reference point for subsequent generations of immigrants.
American Jews have documented their own journey so thoroughly and in so many brilliant, hilarious and accessible variations, the efforts of a documentary filmmaker to package it all in one television extravaganza is a bit puzzling. Nevertheless, starting this week and unfolding in three weekly, two-hour segments, PBS stations will air "The Jewish Americans," directed by David Grubin. With all the slow-moving self-importance of a Ken Burns documentary, "The Jewish Americans" tries to do too much: it sums up the highs and lows of the Jewish-American story, beginning with the first Jewish immigrants to New York City in the 18th century and ending with a Hasidic rapper, and still it manages to offend no one. Like an evening spent at dinner with one's beloved grandparents, "The Jewish Americans" is a pleasant if old-fashioned encounter with Jewish boosterism.
At its best, the series unearths stories not part of the Jewish folk canon, like that of Judah Benjamin, who was the attorney general for the Confederacy and, when the South lost the Civil War, fled to England and reinvented himself as a barrister. In a lovely aside, one commentator wonders aloud what Passover must have been like in the antebellum South, with Jewish families thanking God for their freedom from slavery while slaves served the Seder meal. In another memorable chapter Harvard president Abbott Lowell announces in 1922 a simple and effective way to reduce anti-Semitism on campus: admit fewer Jews. In a chapter about Jewish contributions to the westward expansion, the example of Anna Solomon, who moved to the Arizona desert, opened a store and then a hotel, and raised a bunch of Jewish kids with no synagogue in sight, is unforgettable.
Too often, though, the documentary functions as a kind of "Jewish Hall of Fame." Featured talking heads include Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sid Caesar and the playwright Tony Kushner. Exemplars of Jewish achievement include Albert Einstein, Hank Greenberg, Irving Berlin and Louis Brandeis. Worthy exemplars all, but in the 21st century, when so many have accomplished so much, and when Jewish identity is frequently a matter of hyphenationâKushner laughingly calls himself a "gay American Jewish socialist"âthis earnest ritual of praising famous Jews feels insufficiently meaningful.
Guardians of Jewish culture mourn the loss of Jewish identityâno one speaks Yiddish anymore, they say, and intermarriage is epidemicâand "The Jewish Americans" is clearly a valentine to a time when despite (or perhaps because of) anti-Semitism, Jews knew who they were. Now, the film rightly points out, the absence of significant antiSemitism in America allows Jews to embrace Judaism on their own terms, a situation that raises questions for which history has no answers. Can good American Jews disapprove of Israel's foreign policies? Does intermarriage mean the end of Judaism or the birth of a new kind of Jew? Can synagogues satisfy American Jewish longings for spiritual connection without sacrificing orthodoxy? "The Jewish Americans" ably reminds us and our children of where we came from, but it fails to address the more challenging question of where we go from here.
|
On Faith is an innovative, provocative conversation on all aspects of religion with best selling author Jon Meacham of Newsweek and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. Keep up-to-date on global religious developments with On Faith.
| 16 | 0.5 | 0.545455 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/01/too_sexy_for_the_dmz.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2008/01/too_sexy_for_the_dmz.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
North Korea is a throwback in time, in a sense, its a world not unlike what the ex-USSR was like under Stalin. It's a very good example of what terrible things happen when you have a long-dishonest 'government' of a bureaucratic elite that is willing to do *literally* anything to keep itself in power, even when its 'business model' has long since faded. very few understand what this means, because it is SO extreme. Imagine if you were a liar whose web of lies grew ever more fantastic and difficult to maintain, but you somehow managed it. That is Kim Jong-Il's evil genius. But it can't last. Maintaining the big lies takes a huge amount of energy that they can ill afford. It always does.
The tragic thing is that millions of people live there, and many of them are literally starving to death. Imagine an abusive father who starves his children, playing them off against each other for scraps of bread. North Korea is increasingly dysfunctional, but its still there. In a global economy, North Korea is an anomaly, a country that knows very little of the rest of the world. Why? Because any knowledge of the outside has the potential to blow its people's minds, the lies they are fed are so outrageous.
If you understand that, you understand a lot. But its very hard to understand unless you have met pathological liars like Kim. Few of us are so unlucky, thank God.
North Korea is a human rights disaster that transcends politics of any kind. From free-marketeers to communists, all who realize what is happening there become appalled. Its so incredibly cruel to the people there.
North Korea is divided into zones based on who is allowed to live there. The north and east of the country are basically riddled with varying kinds of penal colonies. Imagine if one careless word would land your entire family in exile, with you separated them and condemmed to be worked underground to death, never seeing them again and them not ever even being permitted to learn what it was you said that had condemmed them to Hell.
Read some of the accounts of defectors, only a few of whom have ever walked out of the camps there.
North Korea has huge concentration camps, as big as many counties in the US, that hold untold thousands of people who work as slave laborers.
The entore nation takes part in a caste system in which anyone who has committed a crime in the eyes of the government, and their descendents, as well as loyal party members, are rated in a hierarchy.
This is an incredible problem because in order to rewardthe loyal, the disloyal have been so deprived that they are dying by the thousands. Perhaps even millions.
The situation there presents huge problems for everyone else in the region because at this point, nobody wants to deal with the mess that would spill forth when the whole thing collapses. And it will, because it is based on a web of lies.
This is really tragic because the people of North Korea are pawns in a huge international game in which their lives are worth next to nothing.
To the government, it sometimes seems that so called 'undesirables' are worth their meat, and the calories that can be expended in working them to death before a person dies. Its like nothing else on Earth, and its been going on this way for a very long time.
The only parallel I can draw is to Stalin's Russia or the Holocaust, or maybe China during the Great Leap Forward famine or during the Cultural Revolution. These periods set their countries back decades.
North Korea's people have been similarly abandoned by everybody, including the South Koreans who at this point may speak the same language, but they live on another planet, literally, economically. When North Koreans, risking their lives, manage to escape, invariably into China, they are hunted down like animals or trafficked as virtual slaves.
Still they put up and shut up because if they are caught and returned, (China receives a cash bounty) the punishments are severe.
The punishments are based on your caste. Some are killed immediately, others get two chances, others are only executed the third time they are returned.
North Korea is a cult. Like Jim Jones in Guyana, or Pol Pot in Cambodia, their "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il may someday force his people to death rather than go down in history with them realizing him as the tyrant he really is.
Its an abuse scenario that makes all others pale by comparison. What drives people to act this way?
When will it end? Nobody knows. But I think everyone agrees that it probably won't end well.
By the way, I'm not a right winger, I'm a mainstream Democrat. I want to see peace in the region and I just hate to see tyrrany manage to pull the wool over so many people's eyes for so long.
This situation should not be exploited politically. Its far too terrible for that. At this point I think the only way to end the thing well is extreme, real, heartfelt kindness. To the people.
Bypassing the tyrant regime if possible, say with food sent in on millions of small balloons with pinholes in them.
|
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
| 69.666667 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/saul_singer/2008/01/dear_candidates_talking_to_the.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/saul_singer/2008/01/dear_candidates_talking_to_the.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
Jerusalem - David Ignatius detects in the panelâs responses a global and national Bush-fatigue. This is true, but should not be confused with a desire for America to disappear into its shell. Internationally at least, most people, whether they admit it or not, would dread for Americans to close their borders, close their minds, and leave the world to its own devices. That would be a disaster because power abhors a vacuum.
If every nation minded its own business, there would be no need for an assertive America in the world. Would that that were the case. Unfortunately, the result of America turning inward would be open season for every rogue regime, terrorist group, and megalomaniac dictator.
So my message to the candidates is that the leader of the United States does not have the luxury of having no interest in or strategy towards defending and advancing freedom and prosperity in the world. It can be a strategy very different than that of previous presidents, but they must have a strategy beyond "I won't be arrogant" or "I will talk to our enemies." Fine, but then what? What if talking is not enough?
Talk was not enough to defeat apartheid in South Africa, Marcos in the Philippines, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Soviet Union, etc. The same is true regarding today's enemies of freedom.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
|
Saul Singer at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/saul_singer/
| 15.888889 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/why_campaigns_matter.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/why_campaigns_matter.html
|
Clinton Teaches Politics 101
|
2008011219
|
Clinton, with Chelsea in tow, busing her way to victory. (Getty).
By Dan Balz MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Hillary Clinton's stunning victory here on Tuesday night was another powerful reminder of something that is taught in Politics 101: Campaigns matter.
In the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton ran a campaign. Barack Obama rode a wave. Everyone -- myself included -- believed the wave would not crest before Tuesday's balloting. Clinton, determined as ever, set out to do something to stop it.
VIDEO | The Post's Dan Balz on New Hampshire Primary Surprise
Clinton was tentative in the first hours on the ground after her loss in Iowa. Her advisers were confused and shaken by the results in Iowa. Friday was a day of taking stock and trying out new lines but without much to show for it. By Saturday night and the only debate between Iowa and New Hampshire, she was more certain of what she wanted to say. There was lots of focus afterward on the moment when her voice rose in apparent anger; there was not enough attention, post-debate, to the way she had framed the choice for voters in New Hampshire. "Words are not actions," she said. "And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action."
By Sunday and Monday, Clinton was focused on drawing contrasts with Obama. By then the comparison was less artful but more understandable: "Where's the beef?" And on Monday, her normally tough façade cracked under the strain of the campaign and a human side of America's Iron Lady crept into view.
Clinton said Tuesday night that she had found her own voice during her five days in New Hampshire. Many may have assumed she was referring to the moment in the diner on Monday when her voice cracked with emotion. But she may just have correctly meant that she had found a more effective way to talk about why she wanted to be president. In Iowa, the closing argument was: "Pick me because I'm experienced." In New Hampshire, it was: "Pick me because I care so deeply about what has happened to this country and to you, the voters struggling every day with the problems of finding affordable health care or paying the mortgage or financing college tuition." "I don't think tearing up/showing emotion was the crucial thing, so much as what she said when she had that brief moment of attention," Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin wrote in an e-mail this morning. "It was the first time she gave a personal sense of mission to her candidacy. Generally in the last few days, she connected herself more to people's concerns and hopes." Obama's campaign, in retrospect, was as much an extended victory party after Iowa as it was a campaign focused on New Hampshire voters. It wasn't that Obama was oblivious to the contrasts Clinton was drawing. But he was asking New Hampshire voters to ratify what happened in Iowa, a decision that might have effectively ended the Democratic nomination battle. That was not enough for what Clinton rightly knew about New Hampshire's stubbornly independent-minded electorate. Were there signs we all missed? I look back at the last few days and think about what I overlooked. On Saturday morning, I was there for Obama's enormous rally at Nashua South High School, where the lines stretched seemingly forever before the doors opened. I was more impressed with the lines than I was with my conversations that morning with a number of those who had come to hear Obama. Some were like David Batchelder, who said he was impressed with Obama's hopeful message and had decided to support him over John Edwards. A number of others were still clearly undecided and still shopping. "He's got a new message," said Bob Gosselin, an independent voter. "Whether he's got enough experience to pull it off is the question." Ken Cody, also undecided, had set out early that morning from the New Hampshire seacoast to see Obama, but also was interested in Clinton. Cody said he was impressed with Clinton's policy expertise and experience but credited Obama with having leadership skills that she did not show. "That's the balancing act," he said. "He creates a lot of excitement, but I don't think people have had a chance to look under the covers. That's a little scary to me." In short, there was evidence, for anyone willing to pay attention to it, that even in the middle of a boisterous Obama rally, some voters were still shopping - and perhaps more voters that anyone realized. Another overlooked factor was the strength of Clinton's support among women. In Iowa, Obama won the women's vote. Final polls in New Hampshire suggested he would do the same on Tuesday, which was evidence enough that Clinton could not win. No one has a good explanation for why there was such a disparity between those polls and the final results, which showed Clinton easily winning the female vote. With women comprising about 57 percent of the electorate, Clinton owed her victory to the gender gap. Another factor: that Clinton was performing well and drawing crowds that, if not quite as large and enthusiastic as Obama's, were nonetheless often impressive. For voters still listening, and there apparently were many, Clinton was talking directly to them. Finally, there were attacks against Obama, through direct mail as well as from the candidate. The Obama team may have underestimated those attacks. So there are plenty of lessons for everyone from Tuesday's Democratic results. The important question is what lessons the candidates will take away. Obama looked beaten when he came on stage Tuesday night. As the crowd chanted, "Yes we can," Michelle Obama, full of life, picked up the chant and looked directly at her husband, who stood with slumped shoulders and a slightly distant look on his face. It was as if she were trying to pump energy and confidence back into his candidacy. Defeat may serve to strengthen him -- and remind him that each election is new, each electorate is there to be persuaded. Clinton's lesson is one she and her husband have absorbed before: Never give up, keep fighting, block out all talk to the contrary. But there is a danger for her campaign if she and her advisers regard Iowa as just a place that did not particularly like her and that the campaign they were running was sufficient. The Democratic race is now unpredictable. Clinton and Obama are two strong but strikingly different candidates. Both campaigns have the resources to wage the battle on a level playing field as they point to what could be a showdown on Feb. 5. Iowa and New Hampshire voters have come down on different sides in the first two contests. Democratic voters in upcoming states have a clear choice and a difficult one. Perhaps everyone watching and interpreting the campaign will give these voters the attention and the credit they deserve, rather than assuming what they will do. There are likely to be more surprises ahead.
Posted at 12:25 PM ET on Jan 9, 2008 | Category: Dan Balz's Take Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Add The Trail to Your Site
Let's hope we get a chance to have her as our President.
Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 6:19 PM
Sure you are welcome to comment. But if I were British then I would have taken the time to vote out W's sycophant, Blair, long before he stepped down. In other words, you might try cleaning your own house first before telling someone else that they need to clean their home.
Posted by: brwntrt | January 9, 2008 6:04 PM
I worked for Hillary in Keene NH this weekend. She won for three reasons. The Debate Performance, and she finally has the right message and is being herself. Finally we had the harder working organization in Northern NH. She pulled in over 6433 votes in Cheshire County where we canvassed. We concentrated on getting women out to vote. Anyone who hates Hillary has never met her. I'll leave it at that. Onto Super Tuesday. :)
Posted by: denvgray | January 9, 2008 5:59 PM
Guys, I watched this alleged crying and her voice only hitched slightly. It was nice to see a bit of that human side, because not everyone sees it, but there's far too big a deal being made of it. It's just the female equivalent of a man getting angry. I'm tired of hearing about women being called less tough or less rational just because they have an internal vs external response. Get a grip.
Posted by: digtalcomp | January 9, 2008 5:57 PM
I trust Hillary. I think she has explained what she plans to do in detail. I know that she has the track record and I have seen the evidence of what she has done. She isn't just talking about change as a general concept or as an ideology. Rather she is specific in that she listens to the needs of people who are struggling day to day with finances, health care, and education, and she has highly detailed specific plans, backed up by years of practice. This paves the way for her to make specific changes in crucial areas. The main thing is I know that she truly cares about American families and she certainly cares about women. Her rhetoric matches her behavior and her sincerity comes through. I don't care whether a president is male or female but it is nice to think that someone might have a better understanding of women's needs. I am a woman and I want to have a president who understands what it is like to be a woman in the 21st century. There is no other candidate who can say that he knows what that is like.
Posted by: martisavignali | January 9, 2008 5:54 PM
Why is Chris Mattews and the other so-called pundits asking themselves and others how did Hillary turn certain defeat into a win? Actually the answer is that it was Obama who turned victory into defeat by his arrogant attitude ('If I win here, I think I will be the next president of the United Statess') and his foolish comparison of himself to Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. All I can say is "Mr. Obama, you are not John F. Kennedy, and you will never be Dr. Martin Luther King!"
Posted by: paynecarriere | January 9, 2008 5:50 PM
I think it's typical for voters to go with the same old thing. The younger generation of voters needs to step-up and let their voice be heard for once. Hillary keeps talking about experience and that words are not the same as action. Well, we have continued to put experienced people in office and they have continued to drive this country into the ground, so what do we have to lose by electing Obama.
Posted by: kloomis29 | January 9, 2008 5:46 PM
Obama for president -- in 2016. I'm really afraid of putting someone so inexperienced at national (or even state) policy-making into the most important job in the nation. Let him learn on the job as vice president.
Posted by: webg | January 9, 2008 5:43 PM
Enough with phony politicians and wannabe Dear Leaders. These people place their career goals far higher than our needs. I am voting for principled and responsible federal government - Ron Paul 2008.
Posted by: patrick4 | January 9, 2008 5:40 PM
Don't know if I have any right to be commenting on the wonderful primary system as I am British. We don't have such a clear and transparent system for choosing who represents us in major elections, our candidates are chosen in back rooms by their parties. If I'm permitted to comment on what I've seen of the Primary season so far this year, it is that I don't see how Hillary can possibly win a General Election, she appears to be too cynical, too divisive, too weighed down by the baggage of the past. In short she is a Republican dream, she has enough of a history to fuel endless attack ads and will inspire the Republican base against her. On the opposite side of the aisle, she only appears to be mildly enthusing democrats, if at all. I wish that people could disconnect Bill from Hillary, if you like Hillary, vote for for Hillary, if you liked Bill, that isn't a reason to vote for Hillary, it is a reason to examine what she actually means to you and to look at other candidates.
There is a lot of hope outside the US that Americans will see the promise of an Obama Presidency as a means of repairing the reputation of your nation after 8 years of Bush, by making a clean start.
Hillary on the other hand appears to be cyncially manipulating the media, through Kleenexgate, choking back the almost certainly fake tears, through to the lowering of expectations which make the fairly narrow NH win sound like a landslide.
Posted by: pr8mrh | January 9, 2008 5:34 PM
The only reason she cried in NH was because she realized that she was in real danger of losing the nomination, and her single-minded lifelong ambition was falling out from under her, and her decision to stay with Bill despite his philandering was not going to pay off and she was realizing that she had mortgaged her dignity, character, and ideals all for naught and would have nothing left to show for it.
Posted by: cakehydrant | January 9, 2008 5:18 PM
Posted by: davidmwe | January 9, 2008 5:16 PM
OMG. PUKE. I am a white single female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry for her or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. His accomplishments and success have come from his intelligence, hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!
Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:13 PM
OMG. PUKE. I am female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. His accomplishments and success have come from his intelligence, hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!
Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:12 PM
OMG. PUKE. I am female and it is embarrassing if females motivation for voting Hillary is because she was emotional and they felt sorry or just because she's a woman. Hillary is the phoniest, most manipulative person I've seen. When she doesn't get her way she throws an angry tantrum like at the NH debate or she cries. I think it's disgusting that she thinks she's entitled to the presidency because her last name is Clinton and she's been married to a president. 35 years experience is BS. She became Senator because of her husband's name and she could careless about New Yorker's. To her it's all about power and winning the presidency. This election is personal to her because it's the Clinton's fight against the Republicans and saying haha, we're still here. her husband was governor, NOT HER, her husband was president, NOT HER. What are her accomplishments? THe one thing he put her in charge of during the White House... healthcare.....she FAILED. GET RID OF BUSH AND CLINTONS!!!!!!!! OBAMA 08. A man who leads by uniting the people not all about me me me as Hillary is. Read his history, read his accomplishments. They came from hard work and determination and not because of his last name but despite it!
Posted by: vflex | January 9, 2008 5:11 PM
I like the Guy running against the Clintons! What was that name? Hussein?-No, he got hung! Osama? Noooo Don't think it was him!
Barak? Noooo Way! The Jews have too much influence already! Might as vote for Lieberman!
Oh shoot! Guess I'll just vote for that Guy with the great background and good family!
He PROMISES to ENFORCE our EXISTING Labor Laws! That will mean better wages, less Social Services Theft, ENGLISH spoken here!(Exept in Travel Industries), and more opportunities for Americans to have American jobs!
Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 5:02 PM
If anyone listened to the debates, and then the pundits' view of who won, or who crashed, then you know how the tv news media treats this as entertainment. ABC was horrible, with steph. noting that Clinton raised her voice - BAD! That was basically his analysis. To put an analysis of a whole debate into a one minute time frame by using a few punchy words is a sad commentary of what our news media is all about....
Posted by: moose123 | January 9, 2008 4:58 PM
Politics 101 - Voter Fraud
Posted by: US-Citizen | January 9, 2008 4:58 PM
"If SEXIST Nepotism gets Hillary nominated..."
'Sexist nepotism'...please speak English. You sound rather lamebrained.
"I'm voting against the Democrats for the first time ever."
You're a liar. No true Democrat would vote for any of the religiously-deluded, Bush ass kissing Republican liars after what we've been through with our Worst. President. Ever.
Since the people vote in the president, your idiocy regarding a monarchy makes me certain you're one of those that simply hates the Clintons.
Why do you think Republican voters have been urged to switch party affiliations in the primaries and vote for Obama?
Because as great as Obama *could be*, he doesn't yet have any EXPERIENCE. Republicans could chew Obama up and spit him out, especially someone like John McCain, war hero and political coward.
The Repubs are scared crapless with the idea of Hillary running against ANY of their Constitutionally-ignorant candidates.
"America is a Democracy = Not a Monarchy"
At least you got one thing right. George Bush has acted like a monarch since he got into office. Hillary will be changing that.
Posted by: 2229 | January 9, 2008 4:55 PM
Apparently the only people to whom primaries and elections do not matter are the press and the pundits who treat these elections like a board game and horse race.
Will you people please stop coronating candidates based on Iowa and NH and let them run?
The irresponsible reporting on the primaries does nothing but disenfranchise voters.
I don't know how you people sleep at night. You are subverting democracy, and the news media are supposed to be the 4th Estate, the watchdogs of government.
Posted by: VeloStrummer | January 9, 2008 4:51 PM
Hey dyk21005, are you a trust funder or does your boss know what you do all day at work? The column you pasted up here would be sooo profound if it weren't for the fact that Hillary is a political figure solely as a result of the awful compromise she made with herself: staying married to Bill in order to use her victim status for long term political gain. I know lots and lots of feminists and none of them would have stayed married to Bill Clinton, no way. He treated her like pond scum and she stayed on. Now she is the candidate of femminism?
Hey misogyny is as real as any other form of bigotry, but how can Hillary Clinton repect herself. Would you if you were her?
Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 4:48 PM
Has anyone thought about clinton wins being a republican strategy to ensure that she become the democratic nominee? In a state where republicans can register as independents and vote democratic, this could be a way to give Clinton a win so they can face her in November to tear her apart. I am sure the republicans must be nervous going up against Obama but are already have their play book ready for Clinton. How else could you explain last night polls.
Posted by: amthomas40 | January 9, 2008 4:47 PM
True that Obama does not have enough experience but Clinton does not have any more experience than he does. 35 years of experience? Come on! They both lack the executive experience that is needed to run US and the world. By making these two inexperienced candidates their frontrunners, the democrats give the republicans a chance that they have not dreamed about. We are all about change but at the end of the day you would not hire somebody even as a senior manager in a company if he/she has only a couple of years of real management experience.
Posted by: DroppedPass | January 9, 2008 4:45 PM
Posted by: Trumbull | January 9, 2008 4:35 PM
There are two thoroughbreds in this race... Along with Barack's ablity to connect/convey a heartfelt message, you cannot discount the ability of Hillary's brain to store and deliver information. Prior to NH I thought how could I be so far off from the picture the media/press was painting? I'm truly undecided.... unable to see Obama as the clear choice over Clinton or even my son's favorite Edwards. Obama's Iowa speech moved me to tears, the eloquence, the picture of his beautiful wife and daughters... yet all the points made by Clinton in the debate are true. She's been examined to the point of political autopsy and she's still standing informed, intelligent, articulate, heartfelt and strong. I'd trust her to debate not only the Republican nominee, but anyone in or out of politics in this country. She simply knows her stuff, all angles, all names, entire conflict history, beliefs... She doesn't have the smooth speech delivery of Obama, yet Obama is not as concise or clear in a debate. Clinton has outlined and answered a question from three angles in the time Obama is still Uhhhging. Also, Obama hasn't faced the Republican fire so we cannot know who he will be in the face of it. I loved him in Iowa and then overnight, watching him in NH, he looked like someone trying to step into too big of shoes - he seemed to lose his focus. Overnight, his message changed in that it became about creating history - he forgot that he is still in the interview process as Clinton forgot in Iowa.
Posted by: dschantz | January 9, 2008 4:29 PM
Personal integrity matters more than the accomplishments of your husband.
Why did Hillary not divorce Bill?
Tell me why, one real reason apart from the one that is so perfectly obvious.
I have been waiting for a D with personal integrity for a long time.
Posted by: shrink2 | January 9, 2008 4:27 PM
I was saddened by how the press attacked Hillary, and was thrilled by the strength of the New Hampshire voters to overcome that attack. I wish I lived in New Hampshire. She is still in the race, and she will still make the best president of the United States.
Posted by: lorihebel | January 9, 2008 4:24 PM
HILLARY CLINTON MAKES HISTORY FOR ALL WOMAN OF EVERY RACE. A TRUE EXAMPLE OF UNITING PEOPLE AND NOT DIVIDING THEM BY RACE. Obama camp needs to start taking lessons from the experienced candidates! Hillary Clinton makes History the First Woman to Win New Hampshire Primary Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women .Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what. I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. If you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama. But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't. What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama's dependence on the old -- for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy -- while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age. This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It's time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: "I'm supporting her because she'll be a great president and because she's a woman."
Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 4:22 PM
Would one of you Obama supporting idiots please care to tell me WHY Barack Obama would make a good president, instead of (1) bashing Hillary, (2) bashing Hillary, (3) bashing Hillary and (4) tell me Obama is good without any justification.
Posted by: quandary87 | January 9, 2008 4:10 PM
I am another one who see a large amount of bias against Clinton in the press. But this article is much better than most in getting back to a realistic assessment of where we are. It may turn out that Obama's results with a small set of Iowa voters were the crest of his surge. It may turn out that New Hampshire was the exception. Or it may turn out that the contest will go on until the convention. But we will not find the answer in the press. We will get a better idea when a large number of voters get to record their choice on Feb. 5.
Posted by: dn.jake | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Please do some research. Obama cam on the national scene @ the DNC a few years back. The Senator sworn in on Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an; his name is Ellison.
Posted by: i.supreme | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM
A woman poised to be in power can easily be criticized for being strong or weak. The problem is with our perceptions of what women should be, not with the woman.
Sen. Obama, a little less conversation a lot more action please.
Posted by: jheilman | January 9, 2008 4:05 PM
I only care about one thing: who will be the best president? And, that is what I will vote on.
Posted by: Fountainhead | January 9, 2008 4:04 PM
I don't know which is more interesting--the campaign results or the comments from the spectators.
Politics is alive and well in the U.S.A.
Posted by: bpatrick53 | January 9, 2008 4:03 PM
rat-the - LOL is right. too bad da bruddah gotta talk stink about growing up in hawaii . . .nah, even if he neva, i still would vote for Hillary!
Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 3:56 PM
Supposing the exit polls were right and the count was wrong. The american system and programs used are economical with the truth when collating results. Up Obama.
Posted by: daig | January 9, 2008 3:54 PM
1) First of all, Senator Clinton (if we're going to call her "Hillary," then the others should be John (M), Barack, John (E), Bill, etc) did not "tear up"...she had a moment of more personal reflection. At least get that fact straight (and yes, watch the video). Whether you believe it was genuine or not is up to you, but at least begin with an accurate description and proceed from there.
2) Do you think for a second that the "preacher" oratorical style (similar to the "trial lawyer" intonation) is not *learned* and *practiced* to garner---yes, folks, an emotional response? Please.
3) The drubbing women politicians get in this country both for being "too emotional" or "cold and unfeeling" is ridiculous. She was asked a personal question, not one about a matter of policy, so I for one would expect a less than steely and rehearsed response.
Focusing on one exchange that lasted all of 90 seconds is preposterous...could it possibly be that voters simply chose the candidate with the proven record of service, of achievements, of potential to lead well and effectively? Gasp.
Posted by: bloomsday_37 | January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
I'm Sooo "sniff", Happy for Billary "sob", I could CRY!
Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:53 PM
Why was Clinton's victory so "stunning". Wasn't she expected to win here for about the last 2 years? Didn't she pour a ton of money into New Hampshire? Likewise why has McCain "risen from the ashes"? Isn't he a senator that's on TV like... oh, every day?
The media has the attention span of a 1 year old and the way it tries to grab at the dramatic story is so painful, it's hard to even read these newspapers.
Posted by: bsatoris | January 9, 2008 3:51 PM
i can't fathom why obama has so much hype around his campaign. doesn't anyone remember why we ever even heard his name??? when he was sworn in as Senator (his first and only term) he used the Koran instead of the Bible. He goes to a christian church and the only reason why he got any attention was because of his choice. the idea that someone with about a year more of political history than me under their belt taking the highest elected post our country has to offer is offensive.
Posted by: kaykay0979 | January 9, 2008 3:49 PM
New Hampshire is only 'stubbornly independent' to beltway journalists. The fact that the oldest faces in the race won showed that party line outweighs independence in New Hampshire. Might as well call it Old Hampshire.
The political lesson is that it pays to be beholden to special interests and the insiders in your party. Obama and Edwards were virtually blacked out by the mainstream media the day before the NH primaries, with Hillary being given wall-to-wall coverage the entire day.
From now on, states will have two main choices in these primaries... go the way of Iowa and the outsiders, or go the way of New Hampshire and the insiders. Most states are going to opt the Iowa route, with Hillary only winning in states where the establishment-Democratic machine is strong.
Posted by: errinfamilia | January 9, 2008 3:44 PM
Senator Obama reminds me of the Peter Sellers movie "Being There" -- too little experience, just a lot of nice things to say. It's easy to imagine what he would think if elected President (What the heck do I do now?)
Hillary has the experience and the leadership. It's too bad that many people are intimidated by a strong woman.
Posted by: mom11 | January 9, 2008 3:42 PM
Hillary has all the advantages of an experienced politician, compared with the young and relatively inexperienced one. She certainly has more gravitas than Obama, who is rather a "rock star". Not that Obama is bad, either. Maybe next time around? Hillary has definitely shown that she can take personal pressure of publicity. Brave, though and principled...just the stuff good presidents are made of.
Posted by: paupa | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM
Substance triumphed over style. We do not need anymore "elect me, I'll do this". We need "elect me, I can do this because I did this." Hope is good, but you need bread to back it up.
Posted by: seog | January 9, 2008 3:38 PM
Hillary supporters -- the central problem is this:
Hillary's reason for doing what she does, is to help others. The very thought that brought her tears.
I have deep personal admiration for her (and your) ethic.
If Hillary were running for President of Denmark or somesuch, her caring soul would resonate with the national soul.
If we want to be respectful of our countrymen, we listen to them.
Some 50%, or more, of our fellow Americans (repubs and many indies) favor a notion of self-reliance over notions of mutual help.
A respectful vision of America respects this diversity of view.
But Obama is a more tolerant man, more profoundly accepting of his fellow Americans.
Hillary for President of the United Way, where we can all agree that do-gooderism is, and should be, the central ethic.
Obama for President of the United States.
Posted by: tdn0024 | January 9, 2008 3:37 PM
LOL! tomlll-What would want to bet Sean Hannity listens to the Eagles? ;~)
Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:36 PM
Can't Dems just be excited? I am so happy that we have this historic race to watch unfold over the next few months.
I truly think that this tight race will result in the Dems having the BEST candidate, whomever he/she may be represent our party and win back the White House from those wolves hiding in republican clothing.
The Republicans haven't a prayer, no matter if its Edwards, Clinton, or Obama as the nominee.
70% Voter Turn OUT! That's the story for the press!
Posted by: sonicpixie417 | January 9, 2008 3:33 PM
Shame on you, Dan! Calling the results of the New Hampshire primary a "stunning victory" for Clinton is a huge disservice to electoral politics in this nation. Hillary did not "WIN" the NH Primary. She and Obama TIED with 9 delegates each. Obama won in 6 of 10 counties with Hillary barely pulling out a win in one of the most populated to give her a slight edge in the popular vote. However, as history shows, the popular vote really means nothing! The fact is both Obama and Hillary each picked up 9 delegates each on the NH road to the Democratic Convention. IT WAS A TIE! 9 EACH. This is not a loss for Barak Obama.
Posted by: pasifikawv | January 9, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm an aging rocker who will never listen to country.
Country music is what inbred redneck racist Repuke rubes listen to. It is stupid music.
Posted by: TomIII | January 9, 2008 3:27 PM
She's going to be a GREAT President.
Posted by: svreader | January 9, 2008 3:26 PM
Clinton was leading in the NH polls until Obama's Iowa victory, then for *a few days* Obama led in the polls. In the end, it was a dead heat, allowing for the ballot change effect that has been documented. So Obama overcame months of Clinton lead to get where he did in NH. There is a stunning victory here, but it isn't Hillary's.
Posted by: lellsworth3 | January 9, 2008 3:25 PM
All this proves is how STUPID the Corporate Media are.
Fire them all, especially the nencons, and hire some young journalists who still believe in journalistic ethics.
Corporate media deserve to go bankrupt.
Posted by: TomIII | January 9, 2008 3:24 PM
Look at the comments above. The ones against Hillary are full of emotional vitriol. By and large, the reasoned and serious comments are for Hillary. "Gut feel" emotional voting has given us 8 years of disaster. We need a careful, reasoned examination of the ISSUES. Whether you "like" her or her "machine" is irrelevant. She's the best qualified. To the media: Why this obsessive naval gazing - and unashamed female bashing? Our US newscasts pale in comparison to the fact-based, worldwide breadth of foreign coverage like Once in Mexico, CBC in Canada, BBC in England, French, German, Spanish news etc.
Posted by: sestuff | January 9, 2008 3:20 PM
LOL! Folks, wake up! When Edwards brings his Socialist followers into Barack Hussein's Camp, the Clinton Moderates are doomed!
Like aged Rockers, they are going to wake up and find they are now "Country"!
Welcome to the Big Tent!
Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:20 PM
Is rigging the Diebold voting machines also part of Politics 101? I don't know that the voting machines were tampered with, however shouldn't someone be looking into whether the voting results are valid and accurate?
Posted by: johnc_80 | January 9, 2008 3:18 PM
"But he was asking New Hampshire voters to ratify what happened in Iowa, a decision that might have effectively ended the Democratic nomination battle."
Will you guys ever learn? You declared it all over after Iowa, now you've done it again? What is it with the press and this desire to declare the primary season over? This is a long haul, people - get used to it.
Posted by: petekwando | January 9, 2008 3:17 PM
The Clintons are to be congratulated on their surprising victory in New Hampshire. While I agree strongly that change is needed, it is also hard to accomplish, and the Clintons have certainly shown that to be the case in this election. Given the preceding polls, I was surprised by the results. I am not surprised, however, that Sen. Obama's campaign, representing as it clearly does an effort to hijack the Democratic Party from the control of its entrenched interest groups, is in for some tough sledding. Nevertheless, no one in the Republican Party is trying something similar; if frustrated Democrats, Republicans and Independents want a politics that facilitates change in an inclusive way, from the White House to the school board, then the campaign of this 46-year-old one term Senator with the funny name and the foreign background is all that is available. Senator Clinton has stated, "I AM change." Her husband, the former president, has denounced "fairy tales." I can only reply that when I'm in the pew communing with I AM and listening to fairy tales this Sunday, neither of the Clintons will come to mind. But I will pray for my country to work together for a better day.
Posted by: thewolf1 | January 9, 2008 3:16 PM
Experience?? That strikes me as something very thin to campaign on, especially considering you're currently in the ONLY ELECTED position you have ever had (riding hubby's coattails). Being married to Bill damn sure doesn't equate "experience" !! Hillary didn't even have a security clearance while 1st Lady. Ready to lead on Day1; lead what, an investigation into Bill's philandering ways. Remember in '93 when she was reforming Health Care, yeah right. The only change Hillary represents jingles in your pocket !!!!
Posted by: i.supreme | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM
The past few days i could not even bring myself to watch MSNBC OR CNN! I dont know what happened to these journalists, but i think oprah threw a little too much $$ in their direction. These people are not blabbering idiots. They are senior political advisors, professional pollsters, and experienced news anchors who have been around the block a few times, and seen a few things. But the way they have been treating Hillary is completely disgusting. I dont think they sayd 1 positive thing about her for the past week. And when Bill Clinton accuses them of it they call it rediculous and "suicide for his wife's campaign". Well look what HAPPENED! HAH! The people arent stupid enough to listen to Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzers scripted drudge downs, or Candie Crowley talk bad about the candidate that WE ALL KNOW she supports. Do you think that we didnt notice that?? Well the American people arent that easily decieved. "Work together with republicans!" "Bi- Partisan!!" YOU RETARDS. Do you actually think the republicans would let us instate universal health care? or even have a part in it? not a chance. No not this day, Hillary will be the next president. And 1 last thing: We ALL find it suspicious that alot of republicans are speaking out pro-Obama. U wont slip that by us either.
Posted by: aarond12 | January 9, 2008 3:14 PM
The only way for Hillary to beat Obama is to convince Americans that they are NOT voting for Bill Clinton when they vote for her. I don't know how she does that, but she has to.
I was wavering between Hillary and Barack until Bill had his 'how dare he (Obama)' tirade.
Bill's recent high poll numbers came as a result of Bill C. looking, well, presidential since he left office.
Let Bill get above the fray, let Hillary be Hillary, and she might just pull this thing off.
Posted by: WiltonManorsSteve | January 9, 2008 3:12 PM
YES, to borrow Tom Brady's recent pet-phrase, "Well done is better than well said". If you want your candidate elected, then, volunteer, get out there, and SHOW support - don't just give us chin music. I'm sure most contuributors here won't even bother to vote.
Posted by: dah1963 | January 9, 2008 3:10 PM
You say Hillary Clinton is teaching Politics 101. She needs to take a class in Diplomacy 101. Take a look at the top story on the front page of a Russian newspaper, entitled "Clinton: Putin has no soul." http://www.sptimes.ru/
Posted by: dmsafford | January 9, 2008 3:09 PM
saqk1961-LOL! Da Happa Haole thought he could ride waves!
Forget even Town-side! Da guy needs to go to Kailua Shore-break!
Posted by: rat-the | January 9, 2008 3:08 PM
The writer grossly overanalyzes and overcredits Clinton. In the secrecy of the voting booth one thing likely stood out to New Hampshire voters -- black.
Posted by: llrllr | January 9, 2008 3:04 PM
You mean How to screw up MSM 101
Posted by: SteelWheel1 | January 9, 2008 3:03 PM
Posted by: ellavador | January 9, 2008 3:01 PM
Like many Americans getting ready for work today, I rubbed the sleep out of my eyes, dragged myself out of bed and turned on the radio. The lead story on the morning news was the winners of the New Hampshire primary. As I listened to the commentary regarding Mrs. Clinton's victory, I was amazed at the subliminal, yet persuasive, messages used to sway voters, particularly female voters. I listened to how Senator Clinton compared herself to Senator Obama and I found her message to imply a double standard. Senator Clinton wants female voters to support her because she is a woman, who represents change. Many female voters cast their ballots for Hillary because she represents a shift from the good-ole-boy business as usual Washington politicians. In short women will vote for her because of her gender.
I find this to be hypocritical and yet typical of the Democratic Party. I find it hypocritical because it is acceptable for me as a woman to vote for Senator Clinton because she is a female but I would be wrong to vote for Senator Obama because he was African-American. It is amazing that in the 21st Century when an African-American candidate can win the Iowa Caucus that the fear factor would still be used. The Clinton campaign has used words like "inexperienced and unknown" to describe Senator Obama's bid for the nomination. Women should not vote for him because they don't know where he stands on women's issues.
If the label "the great unknown" is applied to Senator Obama, then it should be applied to Senator Clinton. When Bill Clinton was president, my neighborhood did not look any different than it does today. There was no new development and the rate of crime was the same, if not worse, than it is today. The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy. The Democratic Party courts the middle-class vote while ignoring the legacy of African-American civil rights leader Fannie Lou Hammer, a strong, sincere, and dedicated leader who was "sick and tired of being sick and tired". Ms. Hammer founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). In 1964, the MFDP challenged the all-white Mississippi delegation to the Democratic National Convention. As a result of her speech, two delegates of the MFDP were given speaking rights at the convention and the other members were seated as honorable guests.
Today, the Democratic Party turns a deaf ear to voices like Obama's. It continues to ignore the plight of the poor and African-Americans (in particular) because no matter what is said and done, African-Americans will ultimately support the party's nomination. The government will create more social programs and, in turn, African-Americans will tow the party line. The Democratic Party believes that African-Americans will support someone like Mrs. Clinton or Senator Edwards line because we are lost children that need guidance and we, like Senator Obama, are inexperienced in the body-politic. To coin senator's Obamas response in Iowa regarding this experience, we must be seasoned, stewed and have all the hope drained out of us.
During an interview in New Hampshire, a woman asked Mrs. Clinton, how does she keep it all together. When Mrs. Clinton gave an emotional response, I felt her response, betrayed the image she has so hard to create. While many women feel that her response dispelled the myth that she is cold, I felt it reinforced an age-old stereotype. When all is said and done, if a woman cannot get her way, she will resort to tears.
Like many American's I am tried of the double-talk, buzz words and endless/emplty promises. As a woman of color, I am tired of the party Democratic Party telling candidates like Senator Obama to rally the disillusioned but take a back seat it his white counterparts.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Posted by: benita_johnson2000 | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM
Your comment "Clinton owed her victory to the gender gap." was as sexist as they get. No wonder you got it wrong.
Sure, a larger percentage of women voted for her than men, but that alone is zero evidence that gender won the contest for her. The equation has two sides. Some men didn't vote for her because she is female, and some women voted for her for the same reason. But it's the sum total of these two groups which determines whether it was decided on gender. And you provide zero evidence of this which leaves only your sexism to base your opinion on.
Could it be - gasp - that she won on her message of experience and commitment to our great country? If she were a male with the same message, I dare say HE would have won just as well. If so, then the inescapable conclusion is that she won -despite- her gender, not because of it.
Your sexism is blinding you.
Posted by: WP11231 | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM
What a stupid thing to say stunning victory. She had a 12-17 point lead 1-2 weeks ago and barely won last night. NH is the Clinton's playground. I think results are simple the people lied about who they were going to vote for because they always like to pull a surprise and will not do what Iowa does, it's always been this way. Obama should be very happy today for coming in so close and losing will make him a better candidate. People are to wrapped up in polls. I think the polls are misleading us about the GOP in 08. They are trying to make you believe that the dems are going to take it all and I don't think for a second that is going to happen.
Posted by: sque1 | January 9, 2008 2:59 PM
One hopes that the media learns and remembers for the longhaul the right lessons from this debacle, though there is very scant evidence of such behavior in their record. Chris Matthews and Tim Russert in particular should realize that it is not their job to bring down Sen. Clinton and they aren't omniscient. Media in general should do some soul-searching on why they have so quickly gotten on the "Barack is God" bandwagon and engaged in the shameful mass hysteria for the spactacle of the whole world. Frankly, it's been disgusting to watch these guys over the last couple of weeks, salivating over the Clinton campaign's "troubles" and celebrating and congratulating each other that she lost Iowa !
Posted by: ee_maata | January 9, 2008 2:56 PM
expect this: whoever wins, will be the wrong one--it is our manifest destiny
Posted by: ramardeus1 | January 9, 2008 2:48 PM
it's pretty simple. this country voted an actor (someone who makes a career of an identity crisis) into office--mr. reagan--then, later, succumbs to the goons and henchmen who orchestrated the theft of an election backing the idiot son of a war monger (g. bush) what else can we expect? the general un-washed public are uneducated and this country is condemned. certainly we are not role models in this world, and in the next ? . . . there may be heavy reckoning to pay
Posted by: ramardeus1 | January 9, 2008 2:45 PM
balz, I hope the HRC camp gives you a tip afterwards. obama's speech was clear-headed, steady, welcoming to the continuing challenge, and inspiring to his NH supporters. like everyone has said, this was not a stunning victory. HRC has a vast political machine w/ a large cast of characters. if you told any obama supporter a month ago that he would win Iowa convincingly, w/ a third for HRC and the strongest of 2nd place showings in NH; the obama supporters would be--and are-- ecstatic. factor into that an ex-president who jumped in ( in the most negative fashion) w/ both feet and took untrue dirty shots at obama- which ultimately reduces bills standing. essentially, the clinton camp had to cravenly "go downtown " to survive. this only exemplifies, how unprecedented the HRC campaign is in a negative way - for a first world nation. simply said i believe it is un-american and nonprogressive to have 4 consecutive presidents from 2 immediate families, worst still the prospect of 2 consecutive co-presidencies. americans need to think soberly about this possibility. we know the press is undisciplined in coverage, pontificating and too willing to dictate a story rather than cover them as they emerge. msnbc's chris matthews particularly is all over the lot. one has to wonder if his past alcoholism, malaria, or other health problems have diminished his judgment. i believe the polls were not as bad as we think. voters who were decided stuck to their choice, and the large amount of undecided ,including many woman, broke to clinton late- not so much for her- but as a way to extend the campaign. as an obama supporter i never wanted it to end quickly-i want all voters to think and reason out their votes. if they do people cannot deny that this is a special moment in time- and that we should vote to get a grasp of our democratic republic; or we meekly cede it to those who stand up for the multinational corporate interests instead of the american people.
Posted by: jacade | January 9, 2008 2:44 PM
"on intelligence, hillary wins. on a lifetime record of working for americans, hillary wins. on EXPERIENCE, hillary wins."
On intelligence, running the harvard law review trumps yale law. On a lifetime record of working for Americans, while HRC was first spouse, BHO was working on the south side of Chicago. Yes, Senator Clinton has attended more state dinners than Senator Obama. The question becomes which experience is more relevant to making the most effective decisions as President.
Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM
For those of you that believes Hillary "cracked" her voince on purpose - you're idiots. . .
Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 2:39 PM
I think the lesson really is that you can take all the polls that you want, but there is only ONE that counts! The media was shocked in Iowa and New Hampshire, truth is the media is biased. There results are obtained using previous results. This is anyones race right now, 2 states down 48 to go!! Ok not anyones, but Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all have a lot of oppurtunity still left in this race. While I am inspired by Obama and will vote for him, Clintons record is exraordinary and for the media to put her off like she is no one, is foolish. Also don't be surprised if Edwards makes a comeback, a lot of unions are backing him, this was huge for Bill Clinton in his first election.
Bottom line, everybody chill out! If your favorite, like mine, didn't win in New Hampshire there is still a whole slew of delegates left. If your favorite is not one of these 3, hopefully you can find someone here who shares a simular view, because most likely your people will drop out very soon!
Lastly, to the people who say if its Clinton and Mccain at the end they will vote Mccain. (Because it is not Obama) While Obama and Clinton have some differant routes to the same point of view, they still share a simular point of view, If you really believe in the change that Obama is talking about you would NEVER cast a vote for any of the republican canadites, and you would still vote because you WOULD NEVER want them in. These people, expecially Mccain are wanting the polar opposite of Obama and so proclaimed you.
Peace be with all of you, and enjoy the political process there is none like it in the world, and no matter how much the media would like to control it, this is the one thing that is yours, this process is your American Right!
Posted by: kgorgei | January 9, 2008 2:39 PM
If "Obama looked beaten when he came on stage" then I really question whether he is ready for the job. And I really liked his message of change.
It's easy to be upbeat and enthusiastic when things are going your way. But the true test of character is to be upbeat and enthusiastic when events have dealt you a setback.
And if he really tries to implement his message, there will be no end to setbacks he will encounter. If he gets all dejected anytime he meets a setback, I'm sorry to say, we'll just end up with the same ol' status quo.
Posted by: WP11231 | January 9, 2008 2:38 PM
I don't vote for democrats (and certainly not republicans). I won't be voting for Hillary, because she is, by my standards, basically a moderate Republican. But SO is Obama. Their positions are nearly identical. And Hillary's healthcare plan is more inclusive and acceptable than his. The idea that Obama is some progressive democrat's option to Hillary is a joke. Because I already know that my guys are not going to be president I necessarily take an interest in the democratic primaries. I am a realist, after all. And all I have to say is that Obama's namby-pamby, non-partisan, 'can't-we-all-just-get-along, governing by pleasant-amiability method, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The conservative/neocon/religious-right/corporatists will eat him alive. In the real world, I'll take cold calculating competence over warm and fuzzy ineptitude any day.
P.S. Objectively speaking (since I'm not voting for her or Obama) the press coverage of Hillary has been a disgrace. You guys are nearly swooning over Obama while you can say nothing about Clinton without some mean and mocking implication or remark. Feeding the mob, as usual.
Posted by: Splatter | January 9, 2008 2:36 PM
Since it came up (zukermand's comment), yes I was raised Republican. I actually voted for Clinton twice though, so I think it's fair to say I'm an independent.
The bottom line is I lost enormous respect for the Clintons because of their tactics in NH. Had they kept to presenting their ideas I would have had more respect for them, maybe even been swayed by them. But when you use fear tactics like cracking your voice at the thought of your country going backward, the likely result of your not becoming President, how is that not Bush with Estrogen? How is fear mongering wrong from the male frame but heart felt concern from the female frame?
About change: How many times has Obama presented his change in Washington as taking on lobbyists? How many times has Hillary said lobbyists aren't the problem? But on this nothing was said in NH - instead the People's response to this stance was a "free ride," a "fairy tale," they chose to hear fluff instead of the substance. The change Obama talks about regarding Washington is specific and yet she paints it in vagueries. Where is Hillary's track record on ethics and transparent government? This is specifically the change that Americans have been craving: more voice, less special interests and lobbyists, but on this she has been silent and disregarded what it is people (especially NON-DEMOCRATS) listening to Obama are believing in for our country.
That aside I believe in voting for principled leaders. I am not a democrat so I am not jumping ship by voting for McCain. I am an independent. I am just as likely to vote democrat as I am to vote republican - my family was not happy when I voted for Bill, TWICE. So for those of you who live in red and blue states, all I can say is: it's a free country - I will vote my conscience, not a party.
Obama and McCain are the two most principled, electable people I've seen on the campaign trail. But hey, who's to say I speak for all independents?
Best to you Democrats! I hope you'll learn to speak to America and not just to yourselves. Maybe read more Lakoffe.
Posted by: vitt | January 9, 2008 2:34 PM
Funny how a lot of people seem to be forgetting that Obama is HALF WHITE. I grew up in Hawaii and graduated the same year as Barack at another private school 3 miles from him. It's a shame that he has portrayed his early years in Hawaii as someone who "struggled with being black". That is so untrue and his classmates and basketball teammates will probably agree. If any of you think Hillary is using the gender card then you would agree that Barack is using the race card. And I disagree, msdillo - a vote for anyone other that Hillary Clinton is a vote for WHOEVER wins the Republican nomination - and one of those votes will definitely be mine.
Posted by: saqk1961 | January 9, 2008 2:34 PM
To Dan and all the other Pundits:
You spend way, way more time talking about yourselves and what you think will happen or did happen than about the issues or even what the candidates say about the issues.
The lesson in New Hampshire and Iowa for you pundits is that it doesn't matter what you think.
There is no lesson for the rest of us.
Posted by: farmer1 | January 9, 2008 2:33 PM
My hunch is that the polls weren't wrong. Rather, they drove the results. I think a lot of independent voters saw Obama's double-digit lead in the runup to the primary and figured "well, it's a done deal--Obama doesn't need my vote, but it looks like McCain might."
If it's the case that registered Democrats favor Clinton nationwide, then she stands to do well in closed-party primary states where independents can't participate and will most likely be able to seize the nomination fairly early. Unfortunately for her, that same fact could come back to bite her in the general election if a large percentage of the independents with whom she has a high disapproval rating decide to cast an ABH (anyone but Hillary) ballot.
It's going to be an interesting election, that's for sure.
Posted by: ablackstormy | January 9, 2008 2:32 PM
Totally right about MSNBC piling on. So she should go after them.
Listen to some of the defensive venom coming out of the Clinton camp of late: terrorists are watching this election, fairytale, MLK LBJ e.g.
Hillary will have no more soul to sell come Super Tuesday.
Posted by: larsenist | January 9, 2008 2:30 PM
Stunning victory? Politics 101? The press predicted a tidal wave and was wrong. That was all that happened.
At the end of the day, Barack Obama walked away with the same number of delegates as the 'Inevitable Clinton Machine' in an uptight, all-white, backwoods, conservative state.
North Carolina will be much more of a test.
Posted by: don1one | January 9, 2008 2:20 PM
Clinton took criticism from Obama for her vote on Iran as a terrorist state. Obama did not vote, he was off campaigning. He could have returned to vote but decided that it was politically beneficial not to do so: another "present" vote. This is change? This is a new direction? I don't think so! I will be voting for Hillary Clinto.
Posted by: PaluzziR | January 9, 2008 2:15 PM
The election was a close one, and reasonably should have been expected to be a close one. The problem is not that the media rode the wave with Obama per se. If the weekend polls were accurate gauges of voter choices on the eve of the election, then what else were they to conclude but that Obama was about to achieve a stunning victory? The problem is, first, that the weekend polls may well have been inaccurate at the time they were conducted (and based on what happened between the final polls and the actual voting, that is a reasonable hypothesis), and, second, that the media accepted the results of the polls as accurate unequivocally and uncritically, without analysis of how or by whom they were conducted, or what questions were and were not asked, or what influence the remaining very high percentage of undecided voters might have, or what assumptions were made about which party' primary the independent voters would choose to participate in, or what the level of absentee balloting, already concluded before the Obama "wave" began, was, or what sampling methods were used to conduct the polling, or what the margin of error was. That was the problem with the reporting -- no one asked, are the polls right, how do we know whether the polls are right, and how do we assess whether the polls are right? The Washington Post itself ran an op ed piece (after Iowa, I believe) by a couple of professional pollsters who warned against the uncritical acceptance of poll results as the election approached. The job for the media now is not only to determine what factors influenced the voters' choices, but whether the polls were flawed such that they gave inaccurate answers of the voters' choices at the time they were conducted. And to apply a more critical eye in the future.
Posted by: JChoukasBradley | January 9, 2008 2:14 PM
I have been a political junkie since the early 60's and I have never seen the press pile on a candidate the way they did on Hillary. It got to the point where I couldn't watch MSNBC, where I seriously wondered if it was corporate policy to disparage her.
I found Hillary's win immensely satisfying.
Posted by: bschratwieser | January 9, 2008 2:06 PM
I am not a Hillary fan. I do not buy her "experience", which the press seems to buy, hook, line and sinker. If experience matters, they should have voted for Biden, Dodd, McCain or Richardson. I don't trust her to follow through if she becomes president unless it is to her political advantage to do so. However, that is not why I'm backing Obama. If Hillary is the nominee, we will have another Republican president and I can't stand the thought of that. She does not pull independents, much less moderate Republicans. Many Democrats don't like her and would vote for a moderate Republican over her. The vote in Iowa was telling - a conservative state by Democratic standards and it represents the many red states in the middle of the country. Yet Obama won there by a comfortable margin because of young people and independents. A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican president in November.
Posted by: msdillo | January 9, 2008 2:01 PM
I agree with the poster who said the big losers were the pollsters, not Sen. Obama. A week ago, a 2-3% loss to Sen. Clinton in New Hampshire for Obama would have been regarded as a setback for Clinton. She and the ex-pres have a history in NH, the active support of most of the NH Democrat office holders and the NH unions. I thought his concession last night was far more gracious than Clinton's in Iowa, and was an example of the "new" type of politics Sen. Obama is espousing. Obviously, the race will be close, but I believe Clinton's true manipulative, calculating personality will ultimately reveal itself to voters. But if she wins, the nomination, I would still vote for her, becasue she is certainly far more progressive than any of the Republican candidates, especially Sen. McCain who despite his so-called straight talk would keep us in Iraq for a generation.
Posted by: cdonham | January 9, 2008 1:59 PM
Politically, I'm closer to Obama but I like the old girl. She knows what's she's doing. She finally proved that she can do warm and fuzzy and do it better than anyone else.
Posted by: stroxal | January 9, 2008 1:54 PM
So pleased to see H.Clinton won last night. She won because she is smart, warm, conscientious, knowledgeable, hardworking and voters see that. There's just too much propaganda and rock star wave around Obama, untested, shallow, using rhectoric to hide lack of experience and to a degree arrogance. Go, go Hilary...
Posted by: claudiacook | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM
This was the plan all along .Well executed by the Clinton braintrust and furthered by the Media useful idiots and deliberately skewed polls.
Posted by: QPFLYER | January 9, 2008 1:49 PM
If SEXIST Nepotism gets Hillary nominated I'm voting against the Democrats for the first time ever.
America is a Democracy = Not a Monarchy
Posted by: PulSamsara | January 9, 2008 1:46 PM
I continue to be amazed by the emotion and focus on height, rhetoric, tears, and nonvalue added commentary I read above. More over, the threats ..."I will not vote if.." only show the lack of serious that is neeeded/required for this election. What happened to reason and measured judgement in so significant a choice?
I watch the debates. Particularly the last one -- before NH. My considered opinion is that John Edwards is passionate and "very personally" committed, but I also hear,"I'm gonna take on the (fill in the blank).. and fight fight fight..etc. The next President is going to be have to be calm, sober in thought, and consensus builder across the elements of power for this nation vs a divider with angst over his dad having to "work hard in a mill". Oh, and when Edwards started the tactic, "men and Obama are for change; I agree with Obama; people are attacking me and Obama.." -- I thought to myself, "man, this is a Presidential election... think for yourself, stand up for yourself, and stop the boot lickin...". He lost me right there... this election or the next.
Richardson lists his resume everytime out. Yes he is experienced, but in no way does he have a plan or understand the issues with the kind of depth we need. He is a good man and deserves to be on the stage, but not in the oval office.
Obama is exciting, charismatic, smart, and is very presidential. I do not think he, once again has the breadth of experience to understand the breadth of the issues... and listen closely to his "answers" ... they specifically answer the question asked, without understanding the implications of his assertions, nor how how the issues interact with each other. Reference his answer on ending the war... I find myself asking myself post his comments ..."and then what?" He is Presidential material for the next Presidential election.
Hilliary, atleast on the democratic side, is the best of this field. First lady (Arkansas and US), work on Fulbright campaign, experienced failure in fighting for health care, Law School grad with experience, went through national embarassment with class, senator from New York with real accomplishment to her record. Listen to the answers -- brought up the war, but out the right way ... while keeping Al Queda on the run; economy tied to global warming, tied to opportunity with an understanding of the complexity..; did the reality check when holding the others to account of their stated "accomplishments" -- that frankly did not exist. Folks, like her or dont like her ... that is irrelevant. Hillary won NH not due to tears or machine on the ground. She won it because she finally held folks to account for their words, and gave us an alternative with her words. She will win again ... dont be surprized. CW
Posted by: carl.williamson | January 9, 2008 1:44 PM
Politics 101: The only poll that counts is the one in the election booth.
New Hampshire people acted on the polls as if they were set in stone. Some didn't both to vote, particularly if the lines were long. Obama was going to win in a landslide anyway, right? Others thought they could vote tactically, have their cake and eat it too. They really disliked Romney and realized if McCain didn't win in NH, he would be toast. Women in particular didn't want to see another woman lose in DOUBLE-DIGITS - even those whose first choice was really Obama.
Experience is a hard teacher, but better New Hampshire than California or another state with lots of delegates.
Posted by: TomJx | January 9, 2008 1:43 PM
It's interesting how negative & personal some of Obama's supporters are on loosing NH... seems they can't handle the CHANGE (which is his mantra), that occured there.
Watching him upon losing NH, vis-a-vis the other candidates (both Democrat & Republican), gave me an inkling of his lack of experience and tenure. Yes, it does matter. Politics are rough, been nasty since it began. Unfair things are going to be said and that's the nature of the beast. Buck up and take the heat (or get a job as a lobbyist).
This election is NOT about race or gender. It is ALL about who will be ALL of this country's next President. Period. So folks, quit putting your personal agendas in this!
To the media. Your job it to report the facts. Not try to make them. So sit back, relax and REPORT the news. Pay attention, learn from EXPERIENCE and let the voters decide, OK?
Posted by: Jaxon1 | January 9, 2008 1:40 PM
It seems that most reporters do little research and only pick up the latest rumor, bandwagon opinion and publish it. Or, have they been made to feel so good by the inspirational speechifying by the pied piper that they have lost their ability to ask hard questions?
Posted by: readlife | January 9, 2008 1:39 PM
on intelligence, hillary wins. on a lifetime record of working for americans, hillary wins. on EXPERIENCE, hillary wins.
on oratorical skills, obama wins. obama for preacher of the year!
Posted by: mikel1 | January 9, 2008 1:38 PM
Between Balz and Cillizza, you guys are gonna run out of hyperbole before February.
I will concede the 'politics 101' argument if the Clinton campaign proves it can deliver consistent victories in states in which they don't have the kind of machine they have in New Hampshire. 28 hours ago even the Clinton campaign thought they were going to be in for a rough night. If the results caught them off guard, how on earth can you print a headline today congratulating them on their political savvy? I won't say they got lucky, but I will say they don't appear to know what they're doing that works. We'll learn more over the next couple weeks, when we can see which campaigns modify their message & which don't. Perhaps the Clinton campaign thinks they've finally hit on a message (after many tries) that connects. Perhaps they're even right.
Posted by: bsimon | January 9, 2008 1:38 PM
NH sealed the deal. the next president will be a democrat. intelligence, a lifetime of working on issues important to americans and yes, EXPERIENCE won the day. hillary clinton for president!
P.S. obama for snake oil salesman of the year!
Posted by: mikel1 | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM
Well I have to agree with the posts made by bazeballfanz and by mildbrew ........she is absolutely every thing you all said and then some ..... I am still undecided as far as who I am voting for however I know who I will not vote for and Hillary is one also I am still not sure about the Republicans either ....I am just sick of news of Clintons , Bush, Britney, Lindsey and Brad and Angie .....Please can the news people find some new news ????? Honestly I just wish people would research the candidates more and their records not what they say but what they did or did not vote for their attendance in the senate , their problems and their cronies .........and also the person them self .......
Posted by: drs_bnsn | January 9, 2008 1:31 PM
Sen Obama's more vociferous supporters here sound remarkably like Republicans in tone and substance. I wonder why that is.
Posted by: zukermand | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM
Notice how bazeballfan and mildew's main criticism about Hillary is that she's a manipulating, cunning woman. If she were a "deceitful" "power craving" man she would be called politically savvy and ambitious. It's sad that just as some people are not willing to vote for Obama because he's black, there are others who are as equally not willing to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. We need to ask better of each other.
Posted by: swkyle | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM
It seems Michelle Obama may be Barack's secret weapon, to keep him on the straight and narrow path, despite adversity. Barack needs to keep the movement's mood on an even keel despite periodic adversity and Michelle needs to be there to keep Barack on an even keel, as well. I haven't fully appreciated her, up until now.
Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM
Too bad she had to cry to get the sympathy vote from woman. I will never vote for the woman. She is a manipulating, cold, calloused, deceitful, scandalous - woman! Craving power! She is so fake and two-faced - thinks this is owed to her and Bill. I have even changed my view of former President Clinton, his remarks about Obama being a 'fairytale'! I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican!
Posted by: bazeballfanz | January 9, 2008 12:59 PM
It's comments and thinking like this that proves you're a moron. How do you know all of these traits about Hillary? Personal?What the MSM tells you? Watch Faux News do we? Listen to rush limpaugh?
How can any SANE person vote for a repub just for spite? You deserve another bushwack for your president,but my country and I don't.
PS: I would like to see how you(bazeballfanz)know about all of the nasty things you said about Hillary.
No talking points please. Solid proof will suffice.
Posted by: jime2000 | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM
Notice how bazeballfan and mildew's main criticism about Hillary is that she's a manipulating, cunning woman. If she were a "deceitful" "power craving" man she would be called politically savvy and ambitious. It's sad that just as some people are not willing to vote for Obama because he's black, there are others who are as equally not willing to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. We need to ask better of each other.
Posted by: swkyle | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM
I thank for this Author's effort in NH. Though, his effort always mislead the readers!
In my humble opinion, plase take a look at John Eward, A LOT OF HIS VOTES GONE TO OBAMA!!! SEE ANY SCRIFICE-HIT OR Obama just take vote out of Eward?
The most ambitious and aggressive John, he may team up with obama as Obama-Eward ticket.
Posted by: taichilo | January 9, 2008 1:25 PM
"America's Iron Lady"? Gimme a break, Balz. Sounds like you have a crush on her.
Posted by: guest1 | January 9, 2008 1:23 PM
At this point, all of the geniuses in the mainstream media, mainly in television news, need to summon the courage to tell their audiences that there are a few important issues to be discussed and a few important facts to be collected before permitting a public coronation of any candidate based on dynasty, momentum, charisma or, God save us all, likeability.Cable news pundits may have successfully predicted John McCain's victory in New Hampshire, but they sure had a lot of explaining to do around 10:30 p.m., once The Associated Press and MSNBC projected victory for Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The polls were so wrong. So off," MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said. Perhaps exaggerating slightly, Olbermann added, "Two cable news networks actually predicted this outcome after Sen. Obama conceded." Chris Matthews, co-anchoring the evening broadcast on MSNBC, told Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson an hour later, "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again."
It was that kind of night for the punditocracy. So how do the media come back after being so far off? "I think the people are going to make some judgments about us," Brokaw said. It is quite possible that voters, who were barraged in the past days with reports about how Obama was cruising to a double-digit victory, already have.
pundits were irresponsible in predicting Obama would win by 15 points or more just two days ago. There should be an investigation into that. Did these pundits have some hidden agendas? FOX NEWS and MSNBC
pundants and media should stop trying to control what our society thinks and how we vote and stick to reporting facts. It's sickening to hear all the endless chatter about polls and projections.
A major result of this election season so far is to demonstrate how damaging an unfiltered, unbroken media stream can be. Faced with filling endless space, journalists write endless nonsense... it is deeply harmful to efforts to elect the best possible leaders."
What arrested obama's surge is the fact that a lot of people can see whose side the press is on. The favoritism is sickening. No one wants a candidate shoved down thei
Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 1:22 PM
Obama admits campaign/PAC donation linksBad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."
Posted by: dyck21005 | January 9, 2008 1:21 PM
Think about action rather than words. Volunteer for a campaign and meet new friends.
Posted by: hhkeller | January 9, 2008 1:16 PM
I don't understand vitt's vitriol against Senator Clinton: it sounds almost personal. Does this person know the Senator personally? Has she done something really bad to this person? But then, I don't understand why so many people have such a visceral negative reaction to the Clintons in the first place. They are both political animals who play politics very well. And, frankly, a political campaign is precisely that: politics.
As an aside, perhaps one of the reasons for the Clinton victory in NH is as simple as the fact that the pollsters--the experts--touted in all their glory that Senator Obama had New Hampshire in the bag. With that certitude, independent voters would have been "freed up" to vote for McCain. So much for pollsters. . . . Much of America seems to be able to continue to think for itself and vote accordingly. Very refreshing after eight years of the Unenlightenment. Whether Clinton ultimately gets the nomination or Obama ultimately gets the nomination, my vote is with the Democratic nominee: we must escape the stupidity and ineptitude represented by this existing Republican Administration.
Posted by: smcg67301 | January 9, 2008 1:13 PM
This is a good example of the fiendish press. Initially it was Hillary Clinton, the moment Obama picked up then it was Obama, and a race to present him as the candidate. Instead of concentrating on his rather wonderful and uplifting speeches, how about providing us an analysis of how he would govern, or his policies versus Clinton's. I expected better of Chirs Matthews and Tim Russert who are now hiding under the race card, Obama lost because of race. No, Obama lost because the people of New Hampshire, especially the women decided to go for substance over just speech. What experience does Obama have, a lawyer who has had two years or four years as a state senator and a couple of years as a US Senator. Has he had any experience governing, taking major decisions. Even Geroge Bush had experience running a team and a state. Let Obama come back and take the Presidency in eight years time, but I will be sorry to see him President of a country like USA a leader of the free world because I can challenge anyone that we will fall into a worse abyss then we are in now. He does not have Bill clinton's sharp mind or experience governing, nor the political savvy to make it in Washington. All he has is his oratory, as the saying goes 'Where's the beef' ? If he becomes the President he will not last for more than four years and the Republicans will have a field day tearing him apart.
Posted by: malapalit | January 9, 2008 1:06 PM
****I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican! *****
Translation: If I don't get what I want I'll have a little tantrum, then take my ball and run home and pout. Vote Republican? Go ahead; you sound you'll get along famously with George W. Bush...he's a spoiled, entitled brat also.
Posted by: Jerryvov | January 9, 2008 1:05 PM
A class in Politics 101?
Apparently, some (children) in the media were left behind.
And some may still be judging from the "wisdom" dispensed regarding Sister Hillary's "stunning victory" in New Hampshire.
(Not to be confused with Brother Obama's "decisive victory" in Iowa. Forgive me if I chuckle over the relative percentages of these great victories or the even more howling actual number of votes of these two political tsunamis. For God's sake by now each must have 170,000 votes. I think it's pretty clear there's no need for an election in November. The people have spoken).
Is it the pressure to say something, anything to fill the air time or occupy the column inches?
Like those who work in the SETI project, I continue to search for signs of intelligent life in the punditocracy.
Posted by: R49Thomas | January 9, 2008 1:04 PM
Excellent analysis. Hillary's not my favorite in the field, but anyone who knows politics understood immediately last night that she must have done something right (and formidable) to turn around what looked to be devastating poll numbers in the final 24 hours of the race.
I got on a flight in California with the polls still open and landed with Hillary declared the winner. At the California airport watching the news, I thought (1) the media is throwing her under the bus; (2) the "crying" incident was way overblown, little more than a catch in her voice; (3) she didn't seem to be campaigning like a beaten candidate; (4) her crowds seemed to be large, impressive and enthusiastic.
The result surprised me, but I think the boys (and girls) on the bus got carried away. After burying her alive, the press was enjoying dancing on her grave. Now that she's emerged, Lazarus-like, to take up her campaign and walk, I wonder if the talking heads will develop a little more humility? Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: blaneyboy | January 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Hillary panicked after Iowa, then broke down and cried in front of the NH crowd, literally begging them to help her, which WASP could watch a fellow WASP be obliterated by a unknown slick talking black man with a name like Obama..hah!
Yep! They sure taught us a lesson, and these idiots will elect this cunning old hag who wants nothing but power and always follows the winds of politics and where they blow, she voted to give a maniac Bush authorization to go to war as well as her vote on declaring Iranian military a terrorist org.
Then she blames Bush for war mongering blah blah blah!
Damn this woman is cunning and shrewd.
Posted by: mildbrew | January 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Too bad she had to cry to get the sympathy vote from woman. I will never vote for the woman. She is a manipulating, cold, calloused, deceitful, scandalous - woman! Craving power! She is so fake and two-faced - thinks this is owed to her and Bill. I have even changed my view of former President Clinton, his remarks about Obama being a 'fairytale'! I hope my fairytale comes true and Senator Obama wins the nomination - otherwise I vote republican!
Posted by: bazeballfanz | January 9, 2008 12:59 PM
The reason the press blew it with exit polls is simple enough...reporters interviewed mainly young, enthusiastic, articulate voters, many of whom went for Obama. Maybe the middle-aged & older voters weren't as sexy as the young folk but they were solidly behind Hillary's candidacy and they delivered the vote. The media, as always, is ratings-obssessed and paid the price ending up looking follish and out-of-it....which they were.
Posted by: Jerryvov | January 9, 2008 12:58 PM
The polls predicted the outcome correctly. If you have compare the number of counties that Clinton and Obama have majorities the ratio is in the order of 8:1. But in the places where Clinton was leading the difference was significant. The pollsters try to have even sample distribution across all counties but the polling observed was very uneven and hence the problem with the polls. There is no analysis done as why and where this happened which can be a good answer for the future results.
Posted by: JustAHuman | January 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Stunning? The only people who were stunned by it were you media morons. Clinton is the front runner, has been the front runner, has the most money, has the most super delegates and is leading in the national polls. So why is it stunning that she won in NH? The national media is a national disgrace.
Posted by: barbnc | January 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Besides running a campaign, I think part of Clinton's victory is due to Iowa in a distinctive way. After watching her come in 3rd, Clinton's supporters in NH saw that her victory was not inevitable. Accordingly:
a. Supporters were reinvigorated to pass the word. b. Independents and those not thinking about voting, but leaning towards Clinton got the message that their vote could count; thus coming to the polls and giving her their support.
Posted by: jlm062002 | January 9, 2008 12:55 PM
I am completely turned off from the Clintons after what I saw from them in NH. Hillary and Bill's attacks on Barack like Bill's statement, "I can't make Hillary younger, taller and male." Or Hillary invoking images of a jive talking African-American man who is all rhetoric and no substance, calling voters decision after a hard fought campaign a free ride. As if Americans voting in the Primaries were unmoved by the ideas Barack put forth. If Clinton wins the nomination I will vote for McCain, and if McCain doesn't win the nomination I will not vote. McCain at least has the decency to not go after one's own. I am an independent and it was Obama that brought me into the Democratic party and I have never heard Republicans talk about one another in the way that Hillary spoke of Barack. She is not a team player and that she would "choke up" over the thought that the country would go backwards if she wasn't President was the feminine version of Bush fear tactics. I have never been so disgusted by a democratic candidate.
Posted by: vitt | January 9, 2008 12:53 PM
You can't see it can you? Obama did not lose last night, the press did. The savage, sexist press that Clinton got which culminated in the nasty NYPost front cover, Dana Milbanks' "Fired Up, Ready to Bore" and Chris Matthews ongoing jihad against the Clintons was what turned the tide. I'm an Obama supporter, but I've told my husband that the shameful treatment that Hillary has gotten in the press has made me want to vote for her just to stick it to you guys.
I should have known that you would never actually figure it out.
Posted by: boldbooks | January 9, 2008 12:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Hillary Clinton's stunning victory here on Tuesday night was another powerful reminder of something that is taught in Politics 101: Campaigns matter.--Dan Balz
| 700.407407 | 0.962963 | 21.481481 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010805009.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010805009.html
|
N.Y. Senator Defies Polls, Edges Obama
|
2008011219
|
"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," Clinton (N.Y.) said at her victory rally, embracing a newly emotional campaign style that appeared to fuel her turnaround here. "Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me."
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who had anticipated a second consecutive win after his Iowa caucus triumph last Thursday, conceded shortly before 11 p.m. "We always knew our climb would be steep," he told supporters, a day after he had confidently told backers that he was "riding a wave" to a win here. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) placed a distant third, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Clinton, defying predictions that she would be swamped by Obama, proclaimed herself the latest comeback candidate to emerge from New Hampshire. Her last-minute surge mirrored the late resurgence by her husband 16 years earlier, when he placed second in the state, and came as a shock even to her staff members, who credited the candidate with pushing through to victory even as her campaign apparatus listed.
But the team wasted no time embracing its success. Even before the outcome was official, Clinton advisers were saying that the Obama "wave has crested."
Obama advisers, meanwhile, were left struggling to explain why the momentum they sensed on the ground and in polls over the past five days did not translate into more votes.
"For most of this campaign we were far behind, we always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out, and you spoke out for change," Obama said after publicly congratulating Clinton. Before his remarks were finished, he had already started looking ahead to the next two contests, adding lines about immigrants, in a nod to Nevada's large Hispanic population, and textile workers, a beleaguered constituency of South Carolina.
Edwards, his hopes of continuing an upward trajectory dashed, pledged to carry on with his campaign. "Two races down, 48 states left to go," he said at a rally after the polling stations closed. He has vowed to stay in the race until the Democratic National Convention.
Now that Clinton and Obama have each scored an early win, both are poised to compete across the board -- in Nevada, which holds its contest on Jan. 19, then in South Carolina, where the contest is on Jan. 26, followed by a raft of states on Feb. 5.
The outcome capped a frenetic five-day rush out of the Iowa contest -- and came after several emotional peaks on the campaign trail as Clinton and her husband fought off grim predictions. Former president Bill Clinton launched a fierce diatribe against Obama the night before the primary, telling a crowd of students at Dartmouth that Obama's account of his opposition to the Iraq war was a "fairy tale" in remarks that were among the harshest of the campaign so far.
But when it came time for her victory speech on Tuesday night, Clinton did not lean on her husband. Instead, she appeared onstage alone -- projecting a far different image than she had in Iowa, when she struck a discordant note by bringing the former president and other gray-haired supporters to a speech in which she talked about change.
Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn, who had been under fire after the Iowa loss, credited the candidate for drawing sharper distinctions between herself and Obama over the past five days. "As voters began to see the choice they have and heard Hillary speak from the heart, they came back to her," he said.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 88.375 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010805518.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010805518.html?hpid=topnews
|
Dana Milbank - She Lives - washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
"I come here tonight with a very full heart," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a gym full of screaming and chanting supporters here a few minutes after 11 p.m. Tuesday. The unexpected victor in the New Hampshire primary, she vowed to "give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me."
In truth, it wasn't as much a comeback as a return from the political dead.
Even her own aides had seemed to believe the worst. They had booked the big gymnasium here at Southern New Hampshire University -- the same spot Howard Dean filled in 2004 -- and put the numerals "20:08" on the time clock and the words "Hillary" and "Clinton" in the home and away spots. But instead, they decided to hold the event next door, in a dank auxiliary gym half the size -- an irresistible metaphor for a dying campaign -- and the crowd of 400 was too small to fill the place.
But then, a few minutes after the polls closed, CNN broadcast an unexpected announcement: The candidate was not, in fact, deceased. It was, the cable network announced, a "close race" -- and the numbers crawling at the bottom of the screen even showed an early, narrow Clinton lead.
Fair-weather supporters rushed to join the party, and reporters, their Clinton obituaries already filed, hurried over from their hotel rooms. Finally, 2 1/2 hours later, the CNN broadcast made it official: The presumed-dead candidate had, in fact, won the New Hampshire primary. The wake thus terminated, Clinton aides and supporters screamed and danced, waving "Clinton Country" placards for the cameras.
Tom Thompson and his brother were in the middle of the celebration. "If you asked me last night, I would've said Obama's a lock," confided Tom, wearing a button of President Bush and the words "Good Riddance." But now, he said, "I'm loving every second of it."
It was not supposed to be this way. A Gallup poll released on the eve of the election showed her trailing Barack Obama, the buoyant winner of the Iowa caucuses, by 13 points. Reporters wondered if the margin would be even higher, and Democratic operatives began to hatch ways to nudge her gently out of the race.
Against those expectations, even a narrow defeat would have been a soaring victory for the new comeback kid -- and Clinton aides were ready to celebrate their victory over expectations.
At about 8:30 p.m., Phil Singer, Clinton's peripatetic spokesman, began to circulate in the gym, looking giddy.
"I'm not giddy," he said, smiling. "I had several beers before I came over."
|
HOOKSETT, N.H., Jan. 8 "I come here tonight with a very full heart," Hillary Rodham Clinton told a gym full of screaming and chanting supporters here a few minutes after 11 p.m. Tuesday. The unexpected victor in the New Hampshire primary, she vowed to "give America the kind of comeback New Hamps...
| 8.596774 | 0.887097 | 45.33871 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010801636.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010801636.html
|
Redskins' Gibbs Resigns As Coach
|
2008011219
|
Standing in an auditorium before a gleaming row of Super Bowl trophies -- the monuments of a legacy he was unable to re-create -- Joe Gibbs resigned as coach and president of the Washington Redskins yesterday. Much as he did at the end of his previous, more successful run as Redskins coach, Gibbs said he was quitting for family reasons.
Back in 1993, he said it was because he missed his two sons, J.D. and Coy. This time, he quit in large part because of a grandson, Taylor, who received a diagnosis of leukemia one year ago and is undergoing treatment in North Carolina.
A successor to the 67-year-old Gibbs was not named. While the Redskins employ three assistant coaches who previously have been head coaches in Gregg Williams, Al Saunders and Joe Bugel, neither Gibbs nor team owner Daniel Snyder would endorse any of the three for the position, leading to speculation that the new coach may come from outside the organization, possibly former Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher.
Snyder said at Gibbs's news conference yesterday that he had yet to start the process of finding a new coach. He had been up with Gibbs until 2:30 a.m. yesterday trying to persuade the coach to change his mind. Ultimately, he was unable to do so, Snyder said, finally extracting a promise from Gibbs that he would stay on as a team adviser.
"You can never replace Joe Gibbs," Snyder said.
There certainly is no more beloved figure in Redskins history than the bookish-looking Gibbs, a deeply religious man who won the hearts of Redskins fans in his first run as the team's coach with a quiet, humble nature and wildly successful football teams. While Gibbs routinely deflected attention from himself, his teams won 124 regular season and 16 postseason games, including three Super Bowls, in his first 12-season run as coach, making him the most popular man in the city. And when Snyder persuaded Gibbs to return in 2004, Gibbs was hailed as the savior of a floundering franchise that had been to the playoffs just once since his initial retirement.
Still, Gibbs's second run with the Redskins, beginning with the 2004 season, was not as successful. Inheriting a struggling team previously coached by Steve Spurrier, he labored to turn around the Redskins, and he left the job yesterday with mixed success. He twice led the team on frantic end-of-season runs that resulted in playoff appearances, including Saturday's playoff loss in Seattle. Yet the Redskins' overall record was 31-36 in the four seasons after his return, drawing the ire of many fans who said the game had passed Gibbs by.
The Redskins in Gibbs's second tour were marked by inconsistency and a frequent turnover of players and assistant coaches. Gibbs said his lowest moment came Dec. 2, the first game after the death of safety Sean Taylor, when he illegally called consecutive timeouts at the end of the game in an attempt to distract Buffalo Bills place kicker Rian Lindell as he lined up for a game-winning field goal. The ensuing penalty gave Lindell an easier kick.
After that loss, the team was 5-7 and, combined with the timeout debacle, many veteran players privately expressed concern their coach no longer was capable of handling the job.
Defensive end Phillip Daniels said yesterday that he remembered speaking to one of his teammates that week, and both of them expressed worry about their coach's health. "He just looked so tired," Daniels said.
Yet in the ensuing weeks, the players found a strength in Gibbs many had not seen before. After Taylor was killed, several of the coach's former associates said Gibbs's greatest ability as a coach was to lead a team through chaos. A day after Taylor died, Gibbs was in his office, preparing a game plan for the Bills. By compartmentalizing his grief for Taylor and redirecting the team's focus to the last quarter of its schedule, he was praised as the driving force for the four-game winning streak that propelled the Redskins into the playoffs.
Ironically, the postseason run may have hastened his departure. During yesterday's news conference, Gibbs said that after a 5-11 finish in the 2006 season, he didn't feel ready to leave three years into his five-year contract because he had failed to revive the franchise. "I hate to leave something unfinished," he said.
|
Redskins coach Joe Gibbs is resigning, according to Redskins sources. The team is planning a news conference this afternoon to discuss the Hall of Famer's decision to leave as both coach and team president.
| 22.473684 | 0.763158 | 1.078947 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010901743.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010901743.html
|
Justices May Iron Out Compromise On Voter ID
|
2008011219
|
Experts on voting rights see the legal battle over Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law as the most starkly partisan case to reach the court since Bush v. Gore decided the presidential election in 2000.
And the court's questioning during an hour-long oral argument broke quickly along its own ideological divide. But the justice most often in recent years to play the decisive role -- Anthony M. Kennedy -- made it clear he did not share the challengers' view of the burden that producing a photo ID imposes.
"You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?" Kennedy asked Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith, who argued the case on behalf of the Indiana Democratic Party, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other Hoosier community groups and individuals.
But Kennedy did join liberal justices in expressing concern about what happens to those registered voters who do not have photo identification. Indiana's law requires them to cast provisional ballots and then travel to the county seat within 10 days with the proper identification or other documentation such as a certified birth certificate for their votes to be counted.
Kennedy wondered whether there is a way "the central purpose and the central function of this statute can be preserved but there can be some reasonable alternatives for people who have difficulty."
The issue goes far beyond Indiana, as states with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they are a necessary and common-sense way supported by the public to combat voter fraud. Democrats say the laws do not address the most prevalent forms of fraud, such as absentee ballots, but discourage or even disenfranchise those least likely to have a driver's license or passport -- the poor, elderly, disabled or urban dwellers who happen to be most likely to vote Democratic The 2 to 1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that upheld Indiana's law frankly discussed the political realities -- the dissenting Democratic-appointed judge called it a "not-too-thinly veiled attempt" to discourage voters who skew Democratic. But yesterday there were only limited references from the justices to the political advantages at stake in this election year.
Justice John Paul Stevens asked U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who filed a brief on behalf of the Bush administration supporting Indiana, whether it was "fair to infer that this law does have an adverse impact on the Democrats that is different from its impact on the Republicans."
Clement did not answer directly, but he told Stevens that if "this was a cleverly designed mechanism by the Republican Party to disadvantage the Democratic Party, at least in 2006 it looks like it went pretty far awry." As in states with or without voter identification laws, Indiana Democrats did better in those elections than the previous one.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia led the tough questioning of Smith. Scalia suggested that such a broad attack of the law as unconstitutional was unwarranted, and questioned whether the petitioners Smith represented had the legal standing to bring the challenge.
Roberts pushed hard on a finding of the lower court that the petitioners had not produced a "single person" who had been denied the chance to vote because of the law. Smith responded that there were examples of voters whose provisional ballots were not counted because they had been unable to meet the state's standards.
The two even got into an argument about Indiana geography. When Smith questioned the law's requirement that those without photo identification make their case at the county courthouse, Roberts, who was raised in the state, responded, "County seats aren't very far for people in Indiana."
|
The Supreme Court appeared unmoved yesterday by arguments that an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo identification imposes an unconstitutional burden. Some justices, however, appeared to search for a middle ground on the divisive and partisan political issue.
| 16.651163 | 0.744186 | 0.837209 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803542.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803542.html
|
The Man Who Won't Go Away
|
2008011219
|
"I can win in New Hampshire as I did in 2000," McCain asserted. Hardly anyone in the room believed him.
It was a Saturday morning in July, and McCain's foundering campaign was so strapped for cash that his Straight Talk Express bus had been dropped for a less expensive vehicle to get his dwindling entourage to Claremont, on the western edge of the state.
I didn't end up writing about McCain that weekend, which turned out to be a lucky thing. I had planned (but was diverted by a more pressing topic) to compare McCain's candidacy with that of Hillary Clinton, who, accompanied by her husband, was making a triumphal return that weekend. I would have sagely explained why one supposedly inevitable candidate had seemingly tanked while the other was ascendant, noting Clinton's relentless discipline -- on money, on message -- and McCain's more freewheeling ways.
In retrospect, I would have looked awfully foolish, given McCain's decisive win in yesterday's New Hampshire primary.
On Monday I asked McCain about that painful weekend. The senator was once again comfortably ensconced on his campaign bus, once again ringed by reporters clamoring for the chance to experience McCain unscripted, holding forth on everything from Roger Clemens to Douglas MacArthur to the changing demographics of South Carolina.
"Grand times, weren't they?" McCain said. "Thanks for reminding me."
McCain's improbable resurrection is attributable to one chief factor outside his control -- the weakness of the rest of the Republican field -- but also to factors for which he can claim credit. In the wake of the McCain-backed surge, the situation in Iraq has improved, lessening voter anger at the war -- and at him. McCain is a happier and more compelling campaigner in the role of the scrappy insurgent, not the careful candidate of the establishment. His is a high-wire campaign act -- this is a candidate who enjoys, even craves, the interaction of town hall meetings, the more challenging the question, the better.
In a year when voters seem to be rejecting the manufactured, poll-tested candidate (e.g., Mitt Romney) in favor of the authentic and risk-taking (e.g., Mike Huckabee), Clinton did better when she descended from the Olympian heights of carefully guarded front-runnerhood to expose herself more, to voters and to reporters. For all the talk about whether a female candidate can get away with tearing up, I thought the glimpse of vulnerable Hillary was her affecting, and effective, moment of the campaign and a factor in her unexpected victory Tuesday.
On this day before the primary, McCain was chafing at the campaign schedule, which has him whizzing from rally to rally, and eyeing a laptop screen showing the latest poll results as if he thought they might evaporate before his eyes.
"There's no new polls today?" he asked an aide -- almost as if he wanted another hit of reassurance that the evidence of his resurgence was real.
McCain's route to the nomination is still far from certain. Mitt Romney remains a factor in Michigan, Huckabee and even Fred Thompson in South Carolina, where McCain retains a solid political base from the 2000 campaign but also faces voters more agitated about his immigration stand. But the money that had once disappeared is pouring in, and, although McCain qualified to receive federal matching funds, he hasn't taken any and will not therefore be hobbled by spending limits down the road.
If it comes to that, a McCain-Obama matchup would make for compelling drama. The oldest (save Ron Paul) candidate in the race would be up against the youngest, and the contrast would favor Obama over the man who likes to describe himself as "older than dirt," with "more scars than Frankenstein."
McCain-Obama would unfold the change-vs.-experience debate -- this time in the long form of a general election campaign, not the warp speed of the primaries. McCain argued on the bus Monday that he, too, can claim the change mantle. "People recognize that I represent change from business as usual in Washington," he said.
Yet McCain's fundamental message contains eerily Clintonian echoes. He is the candidate, McCain argues, with "the experience and the knowledge and the judgment" to deal with the "transcendent threat" of Islamic terrorism. The longer span and harder edge of the general election debate might tilt the advantage here to McCain.
Either way, there is one thing I learned at the American Legion in Claremont six long months ago. Standing in a corner of the room was Orson Swindle, McCain's fellow prisoner of war, who had come to cheer on his beleaguered buddy. "John's had six or eight near-death experiences in life, and he's still here," Swindle said. "He's not going away."
|
We never seem to underestimate our ability to underestimate John McCain.
| 79.083333 | 0.5 | 0.833333 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/06/DI2008010601824.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/06/DI2008010601824.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
Washington Post national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut was online Wednesday, Jan. 9 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 a podcast of the show.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Anne E. Kornblut: Greetings from Manchester, everyone! What a week. Let's go ahead and get started ... please send in your questions.
Dryden, N.Y.: What a night. Thanks you for your stories. How about a comment on old-fashioned fieldwork? Obama had the best organization in Iowa; Clinton built on the Shaheen-Sullivan-Clemons team that turned New Hampshire blue. What difference do you think these superior organizations meant in the two victories?
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a really good question. Organization arguably mattered more in Iowa -- both because it was a caucus and because it yielded a larger margin for Obama -- and the Clinton campaign is crediting her performance in the past five days with her victory as much as any ground operation. But there's no doubt that having that infrastructure in place helped her get there last night.
Lake Carmel, N.Y. : Anne, are New Hampshire voters really different -- more contrary -- after all? Is it possible that they really detest outsiders telling them what they want, and that the polls writing off Clinton and the piling on by the punditry just ticked them off? Also, as a state, is the populace better-educated than most?
Anne E. Kornblut: Another great one. New Hampshire voters are most certainly contrarians; don't forget that Patrick Buchanan won here. And they are also, at least in the southern part of the state, well-educated. So, does that mean that this result was an outlier? I don't think we know yet. It was striking to me last night that Sen. Obama did not dismiss New Hampshire the way Clinton did Iowa.
A Heartfelt Plea: Can we puh-leeze declare a moratorium on "Comeback Kid"? This isn't '92, she's not a kid, and using that tired, depressing phrase just highlights how much reporters want her to be president.
washingtonpost.com: With Echoes of Clinton '92, Another 'Comeback Kid' (Post, Jan. 9)
Anne E. Kornblut: Well, I definitely would have to dispute the notion that reporters "want" Sen. Clinton (or anyone in particular, for that matter) to be president. But I agree with you, the "comeback kid" phrase has gotten plenty of use/overuse at this point. But we're not the ones saying it -- it is a direct line from the campaigns, not just Clinton's but McCain's too, as you probably heard last night.
Washington: Joe Klein says Obama has been talking to Condi Rice about Kenya. How can he be an agent of change when he's apparently in so tight with the current White House?
washingtonpost.com: Obama's Other Life (Time.com, Jan. 7)
Anne E. Kornblut: My understanding is that he called the State Department before calling Kenyan officials -- a matter of protocol, so candidates don't start messing up diplomacy -- but he relies most heavily on Susan Rice, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, for his own policy development.
Perplexed in Los Angeles: So let me get this straight: Clinton winning New Hampshire is a "remarkable political comeback," according to a washingtonpost.com headline, because five days prior she lost Iowa, where 11 people voted in somebody's basement? Didn't David Broder write just before the Iowa caucus that Iowa meant nothing? (Yes, he did.)
washingtonpost.com: Wait for New Hampshire (Post, Jan. 3)
Anne E. Kornblut: By the Clinton campaign's own account, they were deeply stung by the Iowa results -- and we really won't know until it's all over which states were determinative and which ones weren't; it changes from cycle to cycle. It could well be that South Carolina or Nevada or even California could be a make-or-break state, which was not expected from the outset. We just have to wait and see what happens (which, believe me, is a very frustrating stance to have to take).
Avon Park, Fla.: Is Barack Obama in serious danger of having money dry up and facing pressure to bow out, given that he performed way below expectations in New Hampshire, or is this race a pure toss-up?
Anne E. Kornblut: Oh, there is no pressure for him to bow out at this point. He won Iowa fair and square, and was within two points in New Hampshire (let's not forget: former President Bill Clinton also came in second place in New Hampshire, and declared that a victory). This race is wide open at this point, and now becomes a national one.
Asheville, N.C.: I'm looking at the voter turnout numbers for 2000 versus 2008 for Iowa and New Hampshire caucus/primary. Total Republican voters are up 30,000. Total Democratic voters are up 300,000. In 2000, the two states cast about 215,000 Democratic and 330,000 Republican votes for various candidates. In 2008, those numbers are 515,000 and 360,000, respectively. Wow. Is this the "Bush Effect"? If the trend continues through South Carolina and Nevada, does it become a story in its own right?
washingtonpost.com: Tight Democratic Race, McCain Bid Spur Record Turnout (Post, Jan. 9)
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a terrific observation, and yes, I think it does. Congressional leaders especially are thrilled by those figures; and Democrats generally agree that -- no matter whom the nominee is -- they really will have to mess things up to not win this November. Which of course is one of the themes that the Republican candidates are running on.
St. Cloud, Minn.: I hope that the results yesterday will calm down the tone of the reporting. You are all very good when you report on what has happened, but for the past few days the emphasis -- even in The Post -- has been on speculation and reporting on what you think (or are sure?) will happen, and why. Mr. Kaiser last night was urging patience; he's right.
washingtonpost.com: Discussion Transcript: Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser on New Hampshire Returns (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 8)
Anne E. Kornblut: I agree! I'm a big fan of just waiting. That said, the expectations-management aspect of the campaign has become such a huge part of the campaigns' strategies that it is virtually impossible to leave it out -- so we've been doing our best to rely on the most solid predictive evidence that exists, and to try not to declare anything finished until it actually is. I appreciate the vote of support in that!
Arlington, Va.: Despite her (slim) victory last night, I really don't think we should be so presumptuous as to label Hillary Clinton the front-runner here. So far only two states have voted -- one went to Obama, one went to Clinton. Objectively, they're in a dead heat. Why not simply call it that? Call the spade a spade, if you will.
Anne E. Kornblut: A very good point. It is a dead heat. My preference would be to consider them both front-runners at this point. Thank you for the comment.
Santa Cruz, Calif.: Do we know what fraction of New Hampshire voted absentee? And what fraction voted for Hillary? My wife contends that the absentees likely voted for Hillary, at a time when she was the acknowledged front-runner, and that Obama actually would have won if everyone had decided on election day. So I'm curious about the facts.
Anne E. Kornblut: I do not know the answer, but I will try to find out.
New York: On one of the shows last night, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania was speculating on a possible Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Do you think the party establishment would put any pressure on the campaigns to play nice with each other and not go too negative -- at least not so negative that they won't be able to kiss and make up later?
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a great question, though it prompts me to wonder: what party establishment? Howard Dean is the DNC chairman, sure, but the party as a whole effectively is divided in two now between Obama and Clinton people, with some floaters in between, and certainly there is no one with the clout to tell either side what to do. That said, I am sure there will be voices inside both camps urging caution, for the reason you cite.
Helena, Mont.: So, Hillary Clinton delivers coffee and bagels to press bus and the reporters don't even have the courtesy to say "thank you," much less have any questions? So what are you doing to earn your salary? Just talking to each other about your feelings when she came on the bus? Sounds like you guys need another line of work!
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Clinton Joins the Girls on the Bus (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 2)
Anne E. Kornblut: LOL, I don't think it was quite as dire as that. But thank you for the question. Her arrival on the bus last week was something of a shock to the press corps -- she has spent years avoiding us, and never has done anything of the kind before. In the few seconds it took us to collect our wits, she was gone (though we did shout thank you -- lest my mother get after me for my manners, I have to say that). I suspect that, the lessons of Iowa learned, we will be seeing a lot more of her; she has in fact been conducting frequent press availabilities in the past few days. With any luck we'll get to ask her a lot of questions from here on out.
Valdosta, Ga.: Thanks for taking my question. How much do you feel the New Hampshire results show us what Iowa might have been like if second choices did not also count in Iowa?
Anne E. Kornblut: To be honest, I have not had time to go back and dissect all the numbers, but it's a good question. The Clinton campaign certainly feels that the quirks of the caucus system, and the second-choice aspect in particular, helped add to Obama's margin there. And they've always said they'd do better in a straight primary, and it turns out they were right. I will add this question to my list of things to find out!
Greenville, S.C.: Anne -- I've been listening this morning to a lot of "pundits" explaining why their predictions did not come top pass in the Hillary/Obama race last night. They've used all the old cliches, i.e. voters lied, white voters won't vote for a black man, voters changed their minds on the way to the polling places, etc. How about this; a lot of journalists, reporters, pundits wanted Obama to win, therefore the spin that he was 12 points ahead Monday was put out as gospel?
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good question. I think it's probably a mixture of reasons. There is no doubt that the polls failed to pick up on the change of momentum in the final days: and let's not forget -- there was only a five-day window to figure it out; it was over a weekend; and there was a debate smack in the middle of it all.
At the same time, even the Clinton campaign was anticipating, based on their own research, a loss of by at least 5 points. I'm pretty sure they weren't rooting for Obama. Is there a pro-Obama media bias? The Clinton camp, particularly the former president, believes so. But I hold to my long-held belief that the press is biased toward a good story, not any one candidate in particular. Looks like we've got one here.
Boston: Who writes the headlines for your front page political stories? "Lazarus-like" resurrection is an absolute gem. We know he is old, but that old? Do the reporters on his campaign trail hold a mirror under his nose every time he falls asleep?
washingtonpost.com: A Dramatic Second Act for the Senator From Arizona (Post, Jan. 9)
Anne E. Kornblut: I am sorry to admit that I'm out on the campaign trail and haven't even seen my own paper yet today! Will check it out. Thanks for the observation.
Romney?: Can we stick a fork in him now? Please?
Anne E. Kornblut: Now, now...
St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Anne! How's this for a conspiracy theory: Bush's recent comments on the run-in with Iran sent undecided New Hampshire Democratic voters to the right -- and thus to Hillary, who is the candidate Republicans really want to run against because they think they can beat her (insert Karl Rove politics-of-fear angle here). What do you think?
Anne E. Kornblut: Hm, I haven't heard this one. And to be honest, I'm not sure the Republican machine is organized enough to make such conspiracies happen at this point. But I'll keep an eye out...
Cabin John, Md.: The Republicans obviously aren't thrilled with any of their candidates, so they need a new one that they can all get behind. How about Joe Gibbs, now that he needs a job? Joe Gibbs for President!
Anne E. Kornblut: Brilliant! I'll start the rumor here.
Baltimore: So how many actual delegates does each candidate have now? How many are needed to win? Is there a table anywhere on The Post's site that will be kept updated to keep us numbers freaks happy?
washingtonpost.com: Democratic delegate count | Republican delegate count (Wikipedia via CNN)
Anne E. Kornblut: Let me see about where that feature is, and if we can make it easier to find. I believe that 67 delegates have been won so far on the Democratic side; 45 in Iowa; 22 in New Hampshire; and then there is some number of super-delegates that already have been committed to some candidates. Feb. 5 is the big prize: 1,681 delegates. (But as I am not a numbers freak myself, I am going to double-check those numbers before putting them in the paper, so forgive me if I'm off a point or two.)
Clinton and women: I'm wondering whether the difference between Clinton's showing in Iowa and in New Hampshire may have to do with women. The middle-class, middle-aged woman in New Hampshire identifies with Clinton; in Iowa many of the same women identify as Christians and therefore vote for Huckabee. What do you think?
Anne E. Kornblut: Well, it's a good question, and we're going to start looking at that now. I do think that women who voted for Huckabee never, ever were going to support Clinton. The better question is, why did so many Democratic women in Iowa, especially younger ones, support Obama? And which trend will carry over to the future states?
Shrewsbury, Mass.: Breaking News! We can all forget polling and pollsters and pundits -- ahead of the results. New Hampshire proved it's all horse exhaust. Thank goodness, that's settled.
Anne E. Kornblut: I thought we settled that in 2004? To be fair, the Des Moines Register had a poll right before the caucus that nailed in almost perfectly on the head. So the question to my mind isn't whether to throw the whole industry out, but which ones to trust.
Roseland, N.J.: You know why I think Hillary got such a huge surge in support? Columns like Maureen Dowd's today, written with headlines like, " target='_blank'>Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?" I know a lot of woman who may not like Hillary but respect her and identify with her, and they're getting incredibly angry about the progressively dismissive way she gets treated by the Dowds and Matthewses of the world. What do you think?
Anne E. Kornblut: I think there is something to that. There is no way for me to quantify it, but women on the campaign trail in the past couple of days expressed empathy toward Clinton, especially after the debate. And certainly Chris Matthews has taken her on quite aggressively in the past few weeks (though I did hear him tell Howard Wolfson on air last night that he never would underestimate Sen. Clinton again). All that said, it is true: When Sen. Clinton shows her human side -- or plays the victim, depending on how you want to characterize it -- the tides tend to turn in her favor. The question is how she handles it.
Rosslyn, Va.: Last night in her speech, Clinton said she was glad so many young voters had voted with their "hearts and minds," with definite emphasis on the "and." For someone like me, a 23-year-old Obama supporter, how is something like that going to draw me to her side? I thought it was a pretty tactless remark. I plan to vote with my heart and mind -- for Obama.
Anne E. Kornblut: You have put your finger on one of the great challenges for Sen. Clinton going forward. Every time she (and her husband) criticize Obama, and by extension Obama's supporters, they risk insulting the electorate. They did it after Iowa -- basically implying Iowa voters were flawed for backing Obama. I will be as curious as you to see whether they stay that sharp-elbowed going forward.
Albuquerque, N.M.: My boy Richardson is done, isn't he?
Anne E. Kornblut: I am a firm believer that no one should be counted out until they either lose straight-out or take themselves out of the running. (I am proud to say that I said last summer, during the McCain implosion, that he wasn't finished). Things don't look great for Richardson now, and if something were to happen to Clinton and Obama, Edwards would be the natural beneficiary. But I am sticking to my never-say-never rule for now
New York: Hi, Anne. You mentioned Howard Dean in an earlier response. I remember prior to the 2006 midterms, there was a lot of sturm und drang between Dean and Rahm Emanuel about building Democratic resources in all 50 states vs. focusing on states where Dems already had strength. Do you know if this battle is still raging or if it has been settled yet?
Anne E. Kornblut: My understanding is that there has been a truce. But -- you should ask that question of my colleague Jonathan Weisman during his next chat, that's much more in his wheelhouse.
Olney, Md.: Why does the media keep saying that Hillary has been helped by a gender gap? In Iowa, women split between Hillary and Obama, but men overwhelmingly went for Obama. The gender gap seems to be also helping Obama -- many men appear unwilling to vote for a woman. I think Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the Times was right on.
washingtonpost.com: Women Are Never Front-Runners (New York Times, Jan. 8)
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a good point; thank you for the link.
Osawatomie, Kan.: Seriously, why am I not hearing any talk about Obama's concession last night? I'm a fairly staunch Republican and I can't see myself voting for the guy, but I thought that was one of the most stirring speeches I've ever seen -- just an amazing grasp of the moment -- is Washington already writing off oratorical powers and the power to inspire as some sort of parlor trick? Are you simply buying into the Hilary storyline?
Anne E. Kornblut: Thank you for this -- very thoughtful comment. You have nailed one of the essential new dynamics of this race, which is the debate about whether words mean something on their own or not. Obama has contended, and demonstrated (again last night) that words alone can move mountains. Clinton has argued back that words are meaningless without action. I have a feeling you will keep hearing from Obama a lot in the next few weeks, even if last night was not "his turn."
Indianapolis: At some point, don't voters have to consider who can win the general election? I think the Republicans did that last night with McCain -- they don't love him, but he's unquestionably the most electable candidate they have. My Democrats, on the other hand, decided to support someone who I don't think has a prayer of winning a national election. I hope South Carolina Democrats are smarter than that.
Anne E. Kornblut: Another point of view...
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Hill went on the air and teared up. Bill went on the air and whined. Flush from the victory in New Hampshire, are we going to see more of Weepy and Whiney? After all, whatever works, right? In case folks in your profession missed it, Clinton failed to convince 71 percent of Democrats in Iowa and 61 percent of Democrats in New Hampshire. Do you people actually believe/think that she's going to coalesce the Democratic Party around her for the general election? As if Richardson and Edwards voters are going to be swept into line? How about some skepticism from "trained" journalists for a change. Thanks much.
Anne E. Kornblut: And another...
Atlanta: Hillary Clinton's win was certainly surprising -- but I can't help but draw a parallel to Truman in 1948. They both were come-from-behind wins. It seems like perhaps something went on in those several days, but I think the key is in demographics in the exit poll. Women, lower-income voters and registered Democrats all came through for her. It seems like their solidarity with her was at the heart of her upset.
Anne E. Kornblut: It seems that way, but we're going to mine the data also to see if that was really the case. Thank you for your observation!
Pittsburgh: What significance do you impute from the fact that both Clinton and Obama out-polled Republican winner McCain? Is this a sign that independents will be voting heavily Democratic in 2008 throughout the U.S., or do you think it's merely a New Hampshire or Northeastern anomaly?
Anne E. Kornblut: My understanding is that the independent demographic is growing everywhere, although it's true that New Hampshire always has had a strong bloc.
Did format make a difference with Democrats: Can you clarify the difference between a caucus and a primary? In Virginia we just vote and are done whereas (if I understand it correctly) in a caucus, you have to make a whole night out of it. So while I always will vote, with young kids I don't have time to do the whole hours-long debate with my neighbors to pick a candidate. Do you think that kind of difference has an effect?
Anne E. Kornblut: You're right about the difference between a caucus and a primary; a caucus is a much larger commitment, which is why the campaigns helped provide babysitting and transportation to try to get people out. The Clinton folks always contended that they would do much better in a primary for that reason -- her voters are lower income, and older, and thus less likely to make arrangements to trek out on a cold winter's night.
Osawatomie, Kan.: What did you think of Obama's speech last night? Clinton's? The other candidates?
Anne E. Kornblut: I continue to be impressed by the speeches all around. Maybe I'm just really tired. But I thought Obama's was stirring; Clinton's was much more heartfelt than others of hers recently; Edwards's had his amazing energy, added to when his wife spoke; Romney was extremely gracious; Huckabee was funny and folksy and upbeat; and McCain was ebullient.
Philadelphia: Hi. I tried this yesterday, but I'm sure you guys get enormous numbers of questions ... I'm wondering about Michigan. Has the Democratic National Committee established any mechanism to recognize delegates from there (as they're not going to recognize the primary next week)? Or will Michigan just be unrepresented at the convention? I think that would look really bad, and hope (as a Democrat) it doesn't end up costing us electoral votes in November.
Anne E. Kornblut: I am going to post this because I don't want you to think we're ignoring you; the sad truth is that I don't know the answer yet, I've been so wrapped up in Iowa and New Hampshire. Let me find out and I will publish whatever I find.
Sun Prairie, Wis.: Ms. Kornblut: Now that Sen. Clinton has gotten back on her feet, do you expect the media to be somewhat less credulous of her relentless claims to be "experienced"? John McCain is experienced. Joe Biden was experienced. You could point to major legislation these guys have gotten passed. Hillary Clinton's experience is mostly experience being Bill Clinton's wife, and her legislative activity has been on the kind of minor stuff on which staff do most of the work. But her "35 years of fighting" spin goes mostly unchallenged. Will that continue?
Anne E. Kornblut: I actually believe we have challenged it quite a bit; what remains to be seen is whether Sen. Obama or Sen. Edwards -- or the voters -- challenge it. It's a very legitimate question. It is also what she is running on, which is why you see it reported so widely. Thank you for the very good question.
Palo Alto, Calif.: People say things about the Clintons that they wouldn't say about other public servants in a million years. Why does the press let people get away with doing it? Shouldn't there be some respect for a former president and first lady, and for a current U.S. senator?
Anne E. Kornblut: LOL -- we are not the speech police, I'm sorry to say. But you're right, people do say an awful lot of things about the Clintons. We try not to be the messengers for the rudest parts, but there are some things that are a part of American history (Monica Lewinsky, etc.) that are simply part of the record, as distasteful as they are to think about.
Greenwood, Mo.: Did Obama just try to coast and Clinton put up a fight? Because that is what I'm thinking here in Missouri. I like both but it seems for him to talk about Kennedy's "sending a man to the moon" and MLK on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and equating those to the issues of today was over the top.
Anne E. Kornblut: There may be something to this. Clinton absolutely put up a huge fight, and Obama tried to stay above the fray, which did not pull him through. It will be interesting to see how both of them pivot now.
What Massachusetts effect?: Massachusetts politicians Dukakis and Kerry did well in past New Hampshire primaries, where presumably they were well-known, so why didn't Romney yesterday?
Anne E. Kornblut: That's a cringe-worthy question for them today. Some have suggested that New Hampshire just didn't like him -- he's not their type, and McCain is. But I'm not entirely sure yet.
Boston: Any word on the Culinary Workers endorsement in Nevada? Are they sticking with Obama?
Anne E. Kornblut: Last I heard they were, but not sure. Check our politics page today -- we have someone covering that.
Washington: My guy Richardson did seem a little lame in the last few outings. Did he even give a speech last night? Did the TV cover it? I sure wish Biden had stayed in!
Anne E. Kornblut: And another opinion...
Mike Gravel juggernaut: Last night I was wondering if he might throw his support behind Obama, on the condition that Obama give everyone who voted for Gravel a foot massage ... just a thought.
Anne E. Kornblut: And another...
Anne E. Kornblut: Sadly, I have to jump off now. But thanks to all of you for such thoughtful questions, and see you again soon. Stay tuned!
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 national political reporter Anne E. Kornblut discusses the latest political news and The Post's coverage of politics.
| 271.333333 | 0.952381 | 5.333333 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/02/DI2008010201976.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/02/DI2008010201976.html
|
Ask Tom - washingtonpost.com
|
2008011219
|
In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service?
Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema, The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. You can access his Postcards from Tom to read his recommendations for other cities, read his dining column, First Bite and the Dish or read transcripts of previous "Ask Tom" chats. Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web.
Tom Sietsema:"I always knew I'd come home."
Bryan Voltaggio, the 31-year-old executive chef and general manager at Charlie Palmer Steak, tells me he's leaving the popular Hill steakhouse after 4 1/2 years next month to return to his roots: Frederick, Md., where he plans to open a place of his own in an 1880s-era mansion at 228 N. Market.
The restaurant, which will include an outdoor terrace and an open kitchen, will feature "forward-thinking American cuisine" representing "my all my experience as a cook and a chef," says Voltaggio, who plans to call the 60-or-so seat restaurant Volt. Voltaggio, who leaves with boss Charlie Palmer's blessing, formerly worked at the acclaimed Aureole in New York.
Taking Voltaggio's place in Washington will be his long-time sous chef, Matthew Hill. Volt is expected to set sail by "late spring or early summer," says Voltaggio.
Lots of news to follow today! (Can you believe this weather? In January? I've seen restaurants seating guests outdoors since Monday.)
Bring on your rants, raves and comments, folks.
Hungry in Chevy Chase: What restaurant/event/food are you most eagerly awaiting for 2008?
Tom Sietsema: I can't wait for the new Sushi-Ko to open in Chevy Chase ... for Tom Power to open his new restaurant near the convention center ... to try the restaurant scene in Beijing before the Olympics ... for the Inn at Little Washington's 30th birthday bash in the city this spring ... for shad season to come in March .... the list is endless.
Fairfax, Va.: Hi Tom - love the chats! Any word on Colvin Run Tavern? We've really missed them since they closed and were hoping to hear about a new location soon ...
Tom Sietsema: No word yet, but I promise to share news as it's forthcoming. A lot of people miss the place, one of the few independants in Tysons.
D.C. in San Diego: Sushi Tipping: Hi Tom -
I'm a bit confused on tipping when seated at a sushi bar. If you grab a table, the tipping situation seems the same (server does it all). But when seated at a sushi bar, a server may bring your drink and apps, but you typically hand your order to the sushi chef and watch as they methodically prepare.
The bill often is returned to you by the server.
Question is: how much do you throw in the tip jar vs. leave on the bill itself in this situation? 20% on bill, a buck or two in the jar? 10% in the jar?
DC resident traveling in San Diego this week
Tom Sietsema: Restaurant policies vary; some servers are required to pool tips with the sushi cooks, others are not. I'd ask a manager what the deal is.
Banning Kids: I just saw on the CNN website that Disney World has banned young children from its high-end restaurant. While I can understand why they would do that, and the article points out that there are 97 other restaurants at Disney World that don't ban kids, it is ironic that Disney World is banning kids.
Tom Sietsema: The posh Victoria & Albert's isn't banning ALL children, just those under 10 years of age.
I think it's fine. Mom and Dad need some R & R, too, right?
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom. Hill-dweller here who excitedly read your review of Locanda and has tried a couple times in vain, albeit somewhat last minute in light of the glowing reviews, to get a reservation. Imagine my delight when last Friday evening around 6:00 p.m. I called to see if they could fit the two of us in and they said yes, of course, they'd be delighted to have us at 8:00! So we bundled up and walked over -- a miserably cold night -- happy to know we had the coziness of the warm little spot as our reward and, guess what? The heat was off. I don't mean "not functioning properly" but off. Zilch. And we learned it had been apparently for many hours. Do I know this because the hostess told us when we arrived? Or when we called to make our reservation? Nope. I only learned this because the couple seated next to us (after we had ordered wine) and decided to finally take our coats off (we thought we were just taking a while to adjust from the cold walk over) said to us we might want to rethink the coat removal as the heat was, in fact, off. That's when we noticed our co-diners all around us eating in coats, scarfs and gloves. No exaggeration. So we try to make the best of it as it's clearly too late to go elsewhere, ordered our food and drank our wine. When we said the obvious to the waiter, that it was very cold there, he said "yes, people have been saying that all night." We thought the people next to us might have been exaggerating so we asked if there really was no heat and he confirmed. No. Heat.
I realize that calling everyone who'd made a reservation prior to the heat system failure, or even closing the restaurant, might have been difficult to improssible, but would it have been too much to ask that they had at least told us about the lack of heat when we called for our last-minute entry? It was clear from the waiter and the crowd that this had been going on for hours when we called not even two hours earlier. And again, it was not at all like the weather we've been having this week, but one of those few arctic blast days we've had.
We should have brought it up to the manager, I know that. But it was Friday, we were tired, hungry and cold and it seemed, well, obvious to point out that the heat was off and that may affect the quality of our dining experience there. It would've been nice to know that before we sat down and ordered anything, but it was so outrageous it seemed a little funny at first so we thought we'd be good sports about it, and quite honestly, if the food had been good, we would have and you wouldn't be hearing from me now. But ice cold burrata? Mealy pasta? Just...wow.
Tom Sietsema: What a shame. When the heat is on, Locanda is a terrific restaurant. But are you saying the FOOD was also cold as YOU were? That's not good. At all.
If I were the owner, I would have let reservation holders know about the situation ahead of time (their contact numbers were available, right?) and new callers CERTAINLY should have been made aware of the uncomfortable dining room temperature.
Grrrrr. (Or should I say Brrrr.?)
Hope you can help out! My girlfriend and I are coming back to DC for a long weekend (both lived in DC at different times since the 1990s) and we booked dinner at Central, which is exciting for us.
We're meeting some friends for drinks beforehand. Because it's been a while since we were in DC, where is a hip, but not "of the moment," location for before-dinner cocktails? Also, does dinner at Central mandate a jacket and tie, or can I forgoe the tie at least?
Thanks so much. LOVE the chats!
Tom Sietsema: The bar at the Willard (Red Robin? Round Robin?) could be fun, as could the bar at the Occidental.
Coats and ties are not required at Central. I've seen people wear everything (and very little!) there.
Mt. Pleasant: Pasta Mia? I have never read anything about the place, but always wondered...worth the long line out the door?
Tom Sietsema: It's been so long since I've stood in line to eat there -- we're talking 10 years -- I can't tell you. Does anyone out thee have more recent experience with the place?
Washington, D.C.: Tom: Lately, I have heard radio advertisements where the announcer sounds just like you. Have you expanded your multi-talents into radio commercials as well?
Tom Sietsema: I do short segments for WTOP on Thursdays and Saturdays, so maybe it IS me you're listening to. But I'm plenty busy with print work to add more media to my plate.
Victoria and Albert's in Walt Disney World: Tom, don't forget that Walt Disney World is a huge vacation destination for adults without children as well. It's the #1 honeymoon destination in the US. Certainly there can be ONE restaurant in the entirety of the area that does not allow children under 10. I really hope they do not catch too much grief over this. Even within the same hotel where V & A's is located there are several wonderful restaurants for little ones.
Tom Sietsema: As the original poster mentioned, Disney World has nearly 100 other dining options where kids are welcome.
Silver Spring, Md.: Hi, Tom- It doesn't matter to me whether you post this or not. I just wish to encourage you to review the Hemisphere (reopens March 2008) at the Greenbrier hotel in West Virginia, and 1785 Tavern in nearby Lewisburg. I know this is four hours from downtown D.C., but know you sometimes cover restaurants farther away than that.
My wife (an omnivore) and I (a vegan) flipped over Hemisphere's food. http://www.greenbrier.com/site/dining-hemisphere.aspx . The service also was great.
1785 Tavern is a nice change of pace from eating days on end at the Greenbrier. Once again, my wife and I both flipped over their food -- though Hemisphere is in its own stratosphere -- and the service also was great. http://www.tavern1785.com .
We plan to return to the area at least annually in large part because of these two restaurants. If you know of similar restaurants closer to D.C. which cheerfully accommodate vegans, please let me know.
Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the prompt. I got a chance to taste Hemisphere's "global" food before the place opened last year, at a preview for participants of the Greenbrier's annual food writing symposium, where I was a speaker. BTW: Hempishere's chef is Michael Voltaggio, brother of Brian Voltaggio of Charlie Palmer Steak on the Hill.
Locanda: Instead of looking for a freebie, why not turn around a walk out. If it was August and the A/C was broken, would you have stayed?!?!
Tom Sietsema: Good point. But the poster mentioned being tired and not wanting to look for another restaurant ...
Crystal City, Va.: My recently widowed mother is turning 80 this week and I would like a recommendation for a suitable place to take her for a really nice dinner on Saturday. She is stylish and elegant, looks and acts much yonger than her actual age. I was thinking about the Prime Rib. Is it still a nice place or can you recommend something that would be more appropriate.
Tom Sietsema: The Prime Rib is great, old-fashioned fun, and if you like (soft) live music, you're in for a treat. But I'd also consider the Oval Room, Vidalia and Palena -- three comfortable and delicious dining rooms.
Alexandria, Va.: Tom, a question:
What do you do if you make a reservation at a restaurant that after making the reservation (but before you dine there) changes everything (i.e. name, menu, chef)? Is it usual for the restaurant to at least call you to let you know of the changes? (We were told it was the same ownership, just "different concept".) My fiance and I dined at just such a place and probably would not have chosen to dine there had we known they had made the changes.
Tom Sietsema: Can you provide a name? Describe how big the change was?
A diner has a right to know what he's getting into.
Disney World : I have a two-year-old son, who is good as gold, mostly, when we're out to eat. For a two-year-old.
That said, if we're at Disney World with him, the high-end restaurant would probably be the last place we'd try to take him anyway. Why should we be bothered that _ONE_ restaurant is adults-only, in a place full of 'em? Is it that irresistibly good, incomparably better than any other eating place within range? Then we'll hire a sitter. Sheesh. Get a grip, people. I could see a problem if every restaurant in the area, or even half of them, were adults only, but one out of a hundred or so?
Tom Sietsema: Okay, let's end the discussion there.
Happy New Year. When reading your review on Wildfire, it reads almost like Mon Ami Gabi, another Lettuce restaurant.
I have a business lunch meeting in Tysons and with so many steakhouses (The Palm, Morton's, Ruths Chris, Capital Grille, Flemings, and Shula Steakhouse), which one would you choose for an excellent steak?
Tom Sietsema: I've had the best luck with CG here in the city, so I'd be inclined to patronize its suburban branch.
washingtonpost.com: First Bite of Wildfire.
Tosca Ristorante - WOW: Right before Christmas, we had a FABULOUS meal there. Creamiest risotto, lightest gnocchi, Dover sole fileted table-side. WOW! That's all I can say. The service was impeccable. The food, fantastic. We definitely PAID for what we got, but it was money very well spent. A positive comment for the new year.
Tom Sietsema: Some food lovers tell me they think Tosca tastes better than it ever has; I didn't upgrade the sleek Italian restaurant (to three stars) recently for marching in place.
I thought I'd give this another try as I had asked before and got not response - Do you know of a restaurant that serves sticky date pudding a wonderful Australian desert I encountered in Sydney last year.
Tom Sietsema: Unfortunately, the best version, served at the Inn at Easton, is no longer available, since the restaurant served its last dinner there Dec. 31. Maybe a chatter knows of a source for that decadent dessert?
washingtonpost.com: The Dish on closing the Inn at Easton.
Before the Inn: Heading to the Inn at Little Washington on Friday evening with an 8:30 p.m. reservation. It's hardly downtown . . . what do I do beforehand? Any place in that town for a drink, or is there are bar/lounge at the Inn, should we arrive early?
Tom Sietsema: The best bar around is right at the Inn: The Monkey Bar is as luxe as they come, the perfect place to ease into an evening with champagne and whatever luscious snack the kitchen might send out.
Washington, D.C.: You don't resemble Jonathan Gold in way way, shape or form, do you?
Tom Sietsema: You are correct. We would not be mistaken for twins.
(Jonathan Gold is the brilliant critic at LA Weekly whose work garnered him a Pulitzer Prize last year.)
Locanda: The diner didn't say anything about wanting a freebie -- he just wanted to have been told that the heat was out. To me, the restaurant's not having done so when he called at 6, or at the latest when he arrived at 8, is inexcusable.
Tom Sietsema: I agree with you: Whoever took the poster's call should have made it clear that the restaurant was operating without heat.
Prince George's County: Hi Tom,
Do you ever get to Prince George's county? We do have restaurants here that are worthy of review. Great Thai, excellent pizza, lovely cafes, fabulous seafood! Come see us!
Tom Sietsema: Give us the scoop on all these "great" Thai, pizza and other restaurants! With precious few exceptions, I come up short when I venture there.
Washington, D.C.: Tom: I question whether you really need to go undercover when reviewing restaurants. First, it seems to give places that know you an unfair advantage. Second, why shouldn't a restaurant try to shine when you appear on the scene? That way, you can tell us how good the place can truly be so we can see if it measures up. Third, we hear you are a good looking guy, and your fanswould like to see more of you.
Tom Sietsema: As much as I try to dine under the radar, it's very difficult, given the number of years I've spent reporting on the restaurant scene, to be totally anonymous. But I still think it's important to reserve in a name other than my own and try to dine without being recognized. A million things can be altered to make the experience different for a known face.
That said, just because I'm recognized on occasion doesn't mean I get great service. I'd give you examples, but I don't want to effect the outcome of several in-the-works reviews.
Note to restaurants: You're not doing your businesses a favor when you switch out/switch in different servers, or servers you think I might like. Not only is it painfully obvious, but some of those servers aren't as good as you might believe them t be!
Le Tire Bouchon NO MORE?: Horrors! Our favorite place to dine for our anniversary, Le Tire Bouchon on Fairfax, has been replaced by an Italian restaurant, Villa Mozart. You wrote not too long agao about the new Rue 123 at the former Bailiwick Inn, a stone's throw away from the former Le Tire Bouchon. Did the new restaurant contribute to the demise of Le Tire Bouchon?
Should we give Villa Mozart a try for our anniversary meal, or go with La Rue 123?
Tom Sietsema: I had a very nice dinner at Villa Mozart not long ago. It gets my vote for the moment.
washingtonpost.com: First Bite of Villa Mozart.
Alexandria, Va.: (Resubmitting after a possible connection failure.)
Enjoyed today's review of Wildfire. But I have a cautionary tale.
Another couple joined my wife and I at Wildfire a couple of weeks ago. Three of four had a good... but not specteculary meal. When my wife alerted the server to her potentially fatal fish allergy, the server advised us that there is "very little on the menu that does not contain fish." Most dishes apparently arrive in pre-seasoned portions, with the seasoning containing worcestershire sauce (which contains anchovies.) Almost every dish is preseasoned and there is no assurance that worcestershire is not present. We asked about a "dry" steak, but that wasn't possible, as the meat is preseasoned. All salad dressings contain worcestershire. Pasta sauces contain some fish products.
I called this problem to the attention of the manager who responded that "that's the way it is" and made no effort to seek a solution. Both manager and server said the
policy is "to take allergies seriously" but no more so that us.
As I said, three of four patrons had decent meals. However, four of four will not return.
I did not intend this as a rant, just a warning to future patrons.
Tom Sietsema: A SUPERVISOR said "that's the way it is?" Which charm school did HE go to, I wonder? I can't imagine there weren't a few dishes your comrade couldn't try -- and what's with all the "pre-seasoning" at Wildfire?
Your rant raises more questions than we can address in our remaining time.
Prince Georges county: Try Bangkock Golden for Thai, Margellina's or Regina's for pizza and Italian. My fav cafe burned down, but is being rebuilt, and of course, we should get several upscale restaurants after National Harbor opens.
Tom Sietsema: That's a start, thanks.
Say no to Pasta Mia: I haven't been there recently, but a couple years ago when
I went a group of us (around 6, I think) stood in line for
about an hour and then were told that we could either sit
at two tables (for 4 and 2) or not sit down at all. When we
asked to speak to a manager about it, we were told the
same thing--sit where we tell you, or leave. Waiting
longer for a larger table was not an option, nor were they
willing to push the two available tables (which were
adjacent to each other) together.
The food was good (and there was tons of it), but
definitely not unique and not worth the wait or service .
We were also told as we sat down (at the two different
tables) that if we thinking of not leaving a tip, we should
just leave now. The waiter only got more surly and rude
Tom Sietsema: Ouch! Maybe all the negative field reports have been keeping me from Pasta Mia, which was reviewed by my predecessor.
Anonymous: Hey Tom - Mark Kuller here. Proof has a wonderful sticky
Tom Sietsema: To the rescue! I've had that dessert -- thanks for the memory jog, Mark -- and I've greatly enjoyed it.
On the subject of you dining in disguise, I would love to
know when you have been recognized. I agree with you
that you're going to get the restaurant's "best" service (or
what they think is their best) and I think knowing that
they've put on a show for you would help the review.
Especially if you know specific things they've done.
If I know that they gave you two amuse bouches, but
everyone around you got some stale bread, for example,
I'll know what to expect on my visit.
Tom Sietsema: Just for the record: Extra treats and pampering can backfire on a restaurant. Trust me, if I get a big dollop of beluga (caviar) on my appetizer, I'm going to write about it -- and readers are going to expect the same thing. And if they don't get it, they're ging to let me know.
DC ex London:"But I still think it's important to reserve in a name other than my own and try to dine without being recognized. A million things can be altered to make the experience different for a known face."
Oh Yes!!! Otherwise, you'd end up like that great white whale Michael Winner of the Sunday Times- who's reviews usually amount to a summation of who recognized him and if the host was adequately fawning.
Tom Sietsema: Most British food critics work differently than their American counterparts. (A lot of them announce themselves, for starters.)
Northwest, D.C.: Pasta Mia - I'm not a huge fan of standing in line for my food, but in defense of Pasta Mia, the place is famous for its "Pasta Nazi" attitude.
To some people - ti's kind of the charm. I'm sorry your poster was put off by the owner's attitude, but honestly, that's his "thing."
It's kind of like going to Ben's Chilli Bowl and complaining that, "the decor needs a bit of updating..."
Tom Sietsema: Good point. But that kind of attitude only works when the food is worth the snarl, you know?
Boston, Ma.: Arghh--I know you are typing on the fly, Tom--that's why I give you a pass on the affect/effect error. But stop the ridiculous proliferation of unnecessary (and incorrect) prepositions--waiters may be switched, but they are not switched in or out (things are not changed up, items are where they are not where they are at, etc). Phew. thanks for letting me rant.
Tom Sietsema: I realized my mistakes as I hit the send button. Thanks for giving me the chance to say I'm sorry. (But really, I'm typing fast and furiously here.)
Washington, D.C.: I just wanted to let you know of the sad passing of "Pyramids" restaurant at Florida & 6th St NW. Unfortunately, Pyramids never really got the support needed from the neighborhood and the owners of the building wanted to raise the rent to an astronomical level. It is all very sad. It was my favorite neighborhood restaurant thanks to you, Tom.
Tom Sietsema: Oh no! The kitchen was making some of the best Moroccan food around! But Pyramids also had a make-shift quality that made me wonder if it could survive.
I drove by the other night and was surprised to see no lights on. Now I know why. Thanks for relaying the sad news.
boston, ma/Pasta Mia: Now that I have left Adams Morgan I will share with you the secret of Pasta Mia. I love the food there but would never wait an hour in line for it. We used to call them the pasta natzis (like the soup natzi in Seinfeld).
The restaurant opens at 6:30. On a weeknight get in line at 6:10-6:15. On a weekend at 6. Therefore you are waiting in line for 15-30 min but once it opens you will get seated in the first round.
Do not go with a group of more than 4 people.
Do not ask them to substitute anything.
Do not expect overly attentive service.
Do not go if you do not eat dairy - cheese comes with everything!
Do expect great homemade pasta in huge bowls that will last you at least another meal with leftovers!
Tom Sietsema: Bless you for spilling the beans. I can see it now: Masses of us huddled outside Pasta Mia at 6:10 on a weeknight!
Crystal City, Va.: Just wanted to chime in on the cell phone thing. I cannot stand being assulted with someone's cell phone conversation espcially in a nice resturant. I wish resutrants would install cell phone blockers similar to what I have enountered at
hospital emergency room's waiting rooms where you are forced to take your cell phone outside to chat away. There are smoke free areas in resturants, how about cell phone free areas?
Tom Sietsema: I'm on the road a lot and have noticed more "quiet" zones springing up in airline lounges, among other public spaces. They're a great idea. Increasingly, restaurant menus tend to remind diners not to use cell phones in the dining room. I'd love to know if the verbiage actually works.
Alexandria, Va.: for the vegan and for anyone else, Stone Soup Bistro in Shepherdstown, WVA is simply amazing. They use locally grown and organic whenever possible, and I have had two stunning meals there. I am a veggie and husband is a meat eater and we both were delighted. It is fun to combine with a trip to Harper's Ferry or that area of the world.
Tom Sietsema: Here you go, chatters. Food for thought in West Virginia.
Just Curious: Good morning, Tom. To what extent do you use disguises when sampling restaurants? Wigs? Hair Dye? Lifts in your shoes?
How often are you still recognized by restaurant staff, and do you think it makes a difference in what is served to you, and in what manner/
Tom Sietsema: Let me put it this way: Barbara Bush and I wear the same dress size.
Washington, D.C.: Where do you recommend that I take my 80 year old mother for a special lunch in NYC, in the theatre district?
Tom Sietsema: While I have yet to personally taste-test the place, Insieme, an Italian restaurant (from the people who brought us Hearth in New York), has gotten good press from the critics there.
Woodley Park, D.C.: It looks like restaurant week is coming up again. While I liked it at first, it strikes me as one of the worst weeks to go to restaurants. It's done its job of filling seats--making reservations difficult to get. But every time I've gone out during the week, the "special" menu always seems a bit thin.
I guess restaurants must love it, though. Or do they? What's your take?
Tom Sietsema: Restaurants love it because they fill seats at a time that is traditionally slow for them. On the flip side, Restaurant Week also brings in hordes of people who are new or unfamilar to the dining out scene. Honestly, I think it's a mixed blassing for the industry.
And on that inconclusive note, I bid you farewell for today. Please come again next Wednesday, same time, same forum.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema answers your questions, listens to your suggestions and even entertains your complaints about Washington dining.
| 259.869565 | 0.869565 | 3.565217 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/04/DI2008010402244.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/04/DI2008010402244.html
|
PBS Frontline: 'The Medicated Child'
|
2008011219
|
"The Medicated Child" airs Tuesday, Jan. 8, at 9 p.m. ET on PBS (check local listings).
Gaviria won the 2005 Emmy for her documentary "The Storm," the prestigious 2003 duPont Columbia Silver Baton for "Truth, War, and Consequences," the 2002 duPont-Columbia Gold Baton for her post-Sept. 11 films "Looking for Answers" and "Saudi Time Bomb?" and an Emmy and a George Foster Peabody Award for the four-hour series "Drug Wars." Gaviria's work for "Frontline" has taken her to Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the Palestinian Territories, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait and Korea. Most recently she made her sixth trip to Baghdad for "Gangs of Iraq."
Chicago: What was the name of the song at the end?
Marcela Gaviria: That's "Just Like You" by Hannah Montana.
Washington: This is a very engrossing and interesting program, but the lack of critical mention of anti-psychiatry icons, and the inclusion of critical views on psychiatrists, was a little disconcerting. Also disconcerting was the fact that "Frontline's" previous forays into controversy in psychiatry were funded by EarthLink, a company founded by a Scientologist and staffed in management with Scientologists. This is as if Pfizer funded the show, but it is a lot less transparent, and the lack of transparency and full disclosure is what bothers me. Were you aware of this company's sponsorship of previous "Frontline" editions on such a controversial subject?
Marcela Gaviria: Frontline currently is funded the MacArthur Foundation. We are absolutely independent. If you want to read our journalistic guidelines, feel free to do so. They are on the Web. As for the previous show, you will note we were highly critical of the Scientology movement. For more, please see the web site for the show.
Hawthorne, N.Y.: I watched last night and was amazed at how young and how many children in our country are medicated on so many pills. The show was a wake-up call to me as a parent, as I have a child who was diagnosed with ADHD at age 10 and currently is taking Strattera. I felt the pain of those parents. My question is, what is the cause of these mental illnesses; why are so so many cases now being diagnosed younger and younger? I don't recall anyone I knew being on medication when I was a child.
Marcela Gaviria: This is a great question and a hard one to answer. There are many theories. One is that there is "genetic loading," meaning kids are getting symptoms younger and younger. Doctors now believe that environmental factors are probably part of the equations as well -- toxins in the environment, demands on kids putting more stress, global warming, etc. As with so much in this field, it's a question that needs more research.
Washington: Hi. I really enjoyed the program last night, even though I found it disturbing. Why do you think this generation of children seems to have so many emotional problems?
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for watching. I think the question above addresses this.
Freising, Germany: If there might be links between bipolar disorder and novelty seeking, and there also might be a genetic susceptibility to depression and bipolar disorder, then it sounds like these mental illnesses are part of the nature/nurture debate. But if the environment plays an important role in the development and diagnosis of such ailments, when adolescent or adult patients start receiving medication for depression or bipolar disorder, how often does it occur that they must take the medication for the rest of their lives? Do patients develop a physical dependence on medication, even if a change in environment might help to alleviate symptoms?
Marcela Gaviria: Classic bipolar is a life long condition and usually medication is a big part of treatment. With kids, it's a trickier question because so much isn't yet known about how the kids who are showing symptoms very young will develop over time. I think doctors would say we really need more time to watch these kids develop with time. I don't think the medications used for bipolar (mood stabilizers, etc.) cause dependence, but that's a good question for a doctor.
Brookline, Mass.: I missed the program but would like to know if any mention was made of children -- particularly minority children -- being misdiagnosed with ADHD or bipolar disorder?
Marcela Gaviria: We weren't able to deal with the question of minority children in particular, and because there aren't good epidemiological studies it's hard to generalize on this point. It does seem that more children in foster care are taking atypical antipsychotics than in the rest of the population.
Cary, N.C.: I was very disturbed while watching this show last night. It seemed to me that the parents and doctors were too quick to turn to chemical solutions instead of trying other options first. Do you have an update on D.J., the 4-year-old, and how he's doing? I couldn't believe it when the mother asked Dr. Bacon if there were other avenues they could try (alternative therapies) and he completely shut her down. In my opinion, these parents need to listen to their gut feelings and find another doctor.
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for your comment. I think this is a really tricky situation. Doctors are in a bind -- they want to offer some kind of help, but the way the system is set up they don't have time to really spend time with the kids. I think that's part of what leads to so many prescriptions. Last we heard D.J. has a lot of ups and downs, but he's starting a new program at school that should give him more support.
Kearney, Neb.: Do these parents who medicate their kids show any discipline toward their child? I didn't see one child told "no" or receive any type of scolding. I swear these people would rather dope up a child than deal with raising them.
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for your comment. We spent a lot of time with the families and we did see parents doing their best to discipline their kids. There's actually a scene in the film where Christina is trying to keep D.J. calm.
Philadelphia: I was interested in your piece, but I was concerned about how bipolar was being grouped together with ADHD, and how the National Institutes of Health studies on treatment of ADHD -- encouraging a multimodal treatment, with meds and behavioral therapy, which was shown to have the best long term outcome for kids -- were not mentioned at all. There seemed to be an anti-med bias here. I have two kids with ADHD who are treated with meds, and I felt the piece did not handle the issue of medicating less severe mental illness in children very well at all.
Marcela Gaviria: When Frontline looked at the ADHD debate seven years ago in "Medicating Kids," this was the heart of the question. I encourage you to take a look at that piece, because we did address the work being done on how to treat kids with less severe symptoms. In this piece, we chose to focus at the other end of the spectrum, where the symptoms and medications are more extreme.
Cleveland: Bipolar disorder is considered genetic, and so is autism. The symptoms of many of these illnesses overlap. Is it possible that if one group of people respond to an environmental neurotoxin (say thimerosal) one way (showing symptoms of autism) and another group responds another way (by showing symptoms of bipolar disorder), that the problem is really the neurotoxin, and not the genes at all?
Marcela Gaviria: This is the kind of question that researchers in the field are most focused on. From what we heard they believe that environment and genes both are involved, but the answers still are coming.
Washington: Are children in other countries having the same problems as American children?
Marcela Gaviria: There are studies that show that incidence rates in other countries are similar to those in the U.S., but Americans consume far more medication than any other country in the world.
Weston, Vt.: Do the parents depicted get counseling on parenting skills ... including what proper nutrition, exercise and discipline for a child? I understand that you must feel very protective of these people after being allowed into their lives, but really, any child who was fed what D.J. was shown eating would get sick mentally and physically very fast. Will you do a follow-up that educates on parenting skills?
Marcela Gaviria: Absolutely, it's crucial to look at the whole picture and this has to come from the conversation between the family and doctor. In this case, the Koontz family did ask about alternatives and Dr. Bacon told them that, so long D.J. was having problems, medication was 99 percent of the answer.
Baltimore: After watching the program and as a parent of a 1-year-old, I was left wondering how much a parent could do in advance of such problems arising. In essence, I'm sure there are situations where early intervention would have zero effect, but I'm wondering if (like autism) there would be situations where a child who has a pre-disposition towards a condition (like ADHD) might be able to be prevented from developing (entirely or partially) a condition if a parent does certain things ... like developing good conflict management and coping mechanisms in kids, etc. Just feeling this out, because I too was shocked about how D.J.'s parents "seemed" to ask about nonmedicated options pretty late in the game.
Marcela Gaviria: I really don't know the answer to that. I believe that the Koontz family, like millions of families, trust their doctor. But unfortunately a lot rides on the parents in cases like this. There are so many unknowns in child psychiatry, and with 15-minute appointments it's very hard to get the really comprehensive care you need for your kid.
Staten Island, N.Y.: The show was well done. I am in the process of yet another evaluation for my daughter, who is 11 years old and whose father is diagnosed as bipolar. I was surprised at how many children were diagnosed at such a young age. The several neurologists and psychiatrists that we have seen feel that my daughter's age is still too young ... I'm at a loss here ... I thought it very interesting that Dr. Cheng (?) thinks if you catch it early, you can prevent it? Any comments/insight for me on this issue ?
Marcela Gaviria: Dr. Chang's idea is very provocative one, but I think he'd tell you that the key is still to identify the kids who really will develop the disorder -- and that science is coming, but not here yet. As for the field, there's still debate about how young is too young to diagnose. Dr. Biederman says it's clearly in the preschool; others won't go younger than six; and still others are deeply wary of the whole pediatric bipolar phenomenon. It's hard to know what to believe. Which of course, for parents, is very frustrating.
Atlanta: Why do you think Americans medicate more than other countries? Is it the marketing by drug companies, or the way our health care system is set up? I also agree with the doctors not having time -- in the past, a pediatrician had much more time for the visit, but now it seems they are in and out in minutes, which I think is unfortunate for everyone.
Marcela Gaviria: That's a great question and one without a single answer, I think. Drug advertising and pressure on doctors for quick answers both seem to be a part of it. I asked this question of everyone and often they said that American culture is very accepting of new ideas and that medication appeals to our faith in technology.
Birmingham, Ala.: When the school, the psychiatrist, and the neuropsychologist evaluate a child and they recommend medications first, where can you find information on alternative therapies? This child is very intelligent and achieves at grade level or better. He seems very happy and enjoys life, but he does exhibit some elements of ADHD and depression. Is there no other option to help him develop successfully? What is the outcome for him if he doesn't get medicated?
Marcela Gaviria: There are other options and we heard from many doctors that there's good evidence that in many cases -- certainly with depression -- that the most effective treatment is a combination of medication and another sort of talk therapy. One good source of information on these alternative is the Web site for the National Institute of Mental Health.
Littleton, Colo.: You make mention that we have to see what the outcome is on these children later in their lives from taking these medications so young. Will you be doing any follow-up with the three children you featured last night in the next few years?
Marcela Gaviria: I hope to continue covering this subject and would love to keep up with these. We've thought of staying with them like the BBC's "Seven Up!" series ... but of course, it's up to the kids to decide if they want to continue to participate.
Oxon Hill, Md.: Two questions ... is bipolar disorder seen more commonly in internationally adopted children because of reactive attachment disorders? It seems like a lot of children who were formerly diagnosed with ADHD now are being diagnosed as bipolar?
Marcela Gaviria: I don't know the answer to the first part of your question, but we sat in on a session at the Pittsburgh clinic and it was startling how many of the kids admitted to the clinic were adopted. And you're right, there is concern in the field that bipolar has become a new "diagnosis of the day," like ADHD before it, and that the label is being applied a bit loosely.
Lawrenceville, Ga.: Why is there not a third party reporting agency for adverse drug effects, similar to vaccine reporting? Everyone I know who has had a bad reaction has just changed medicine. Neither the pediatrician nor the parents reported it anywhere.
Marcela Gaviria: The FDA collects reports of adverse events caused by medications. Best thing to do would be to let your doctor know.
Bethesda, Md.: Great program. Hopefully this isn't too personal ... but were you or a member of your family medicated in childhood? Is that what attracted you to this story?
Marcela Gaviria: No, I was not, but my mother is a psychologist and I've always had an interest in the field.
Fayetteville, N.C.: The program was a tear-jerker for me. Has anyone ever tried hypnosis for bipolar, that you know or have heard of?
Marcela Gaviria: We didn't encounter hypnosis, but there are certainly families that have tried everything.
Washington: As a neuroscientist and father of two, I was appalled by the pseudo-science being foisted upon parents. "Brain Matters" is pure hucksterism, a 21st century form of phrenology. The cofounder claims it's better than old diagnostic tests, even as she admits it isn't really definitive. Well, jeez, at $3,000 a pop, it sure is a better money-maker. What a scam.
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for your comments. We wanted to highlight the fact that there are so many desperate families looking for answers, and that many are getting advice with little scientific validity.
Littleton, Colo.: Marcela, during the show you made no mention of the fact that the Koontz family did try many other options before trying medication. Don't you think that it was unfair to portray them as parents who just wanted to medicate?
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for your comment. You'll note in the film that we show Christina going to the doctor to ask specifically about any possible alternatives. She's told that medication is essentially the only solution. I feel that that reflects her search for options and how her story echoes the stories of millions of families who consistently are told that medication is the way to go.
Colorado: I think that we only saw a very small window into the lives of these families and it is not fair to judge or comment without knowing the whole story. We do not know what steps were taken to get these families to where they are now. We do not know if D.J.'s diet is like that all time. We do not know what the problems,circumstances, or symptoms were leading up Jacob being put on eight medications and developing tics. We also do not know what roles mental illness plays in these children's family histories. There are so many questions that were left unanswered -- without more information, how can we even begin to draw conclusions?
Marcela Gaviria: That's a fair comment. It's difficult to tell all the details of three chidren's lives and to do justice to the story of the whole field in only 52 minutes. We easily could have made an hour on each child. We compressed stories in the hopes of telling the larger story of an American trend.
Marcela Gaviria: Thanks for all your situation. And I hope you'll go to the Frontline site and continue the discussion.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Frontline producer Marcela Gaviria discusses her film "The Medicated Child," which examines the dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications that are just beginning to be tested in children -- and which could cause serious, long-term side effects.
| 63.37037 | 0.759259 | 1.277778 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/08/DI2008010802285.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/08/DI2008010802285.html
|
The Reliable Source
|
2008011219
|
Reliable Source columnists Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts were online Wednesday, Jan. 9, at Noon ET to discuss your favorite gossip, what you think about their recent columns or who you want to see them writing about in future ones.
In today's Reliable Source: The Jerry Seinfeld food-fight heads to court .Catching up with Barbie Polaroid-toting It Girl Liz Glover in New Hampshire. And more Britney blah blah blah. In recent columns: Miley mania hits D.C. But we'd prefer to hang out at The Wire premiere. Sorry guys, ANTM star Sara Albert is off the market. Sen. Sununu's quick-thinking Heimlich action. Tim Kaine splits hairs: Is he a Hokie fan or Jayhawks fan? And Romney and Huckabee? 10th cousins. Also: Who should play Reagan in the exciting new Reykjavik Summit movie? And can we just let Gilbert Arenas write this column from now on?
Britney: Would somebody please get this girl an AAA membership? And send her to "What Not to Wear" and spend a week with Deepak Chopra? Of course, if she gets herself together, what would we have to talk about? The scary thing is, she's reminding me of Anna Nicole Smith in her last months of life....
Roxanne Roberts: See that LA police slapped her with a restraining order to keep her away from the kids? Can't stop talking about her, can we? My theory: Another celebrity-who-has-it-all goes bad, confirming all those notions that money can't buy love, blah blah. I think people want to believe they'd do better if they had what she has. Jury?
Roxanne Roberts: Amy just walked in and will entertain your "Wire" questions shortly.
Stepford First Daughter Redux? : I know she's been trained from infanthood to look just so at public events...but did y'all find it creepy that Chelsea Clinton always holds her hands in front of her, fingers clasped, EXACTLY as Hillary and Bill do? There's just something that I find deeply unsettling about her public appearances. Maybe if I knew she had a voice, it would be a different story.
Roxanne Roberts: The thing that I find odd? Her "I don't do press" mantra. If you're going out on the campaign trail, it seems a little strange to refuse to speak on your mother's behalf. Maybe she should just send one of those lifesize cardboard photos and prop it on the stage.
So I saw McCain's wife (Cindy?) on the news this a.m. and I have to say I love her hair. I feel like in 2000 she had a really short cropped do. I think this longer do suits her better.
I thought it and focused on it this a.m., and you seem the appropriate folks to share it with.
In that light, I like Michelle Obama's hair in an updo as well. She usually has it down, and I've seen it up more recently.
Roxanne Roberts: Thank God we're getting to the important part of the election coverage. My teenage son saw Cindy at McCain's acceptance speech last night and said, "Is that his wife? She looks like she's in her 30's." She's actually in her early 50's, but I thought she looked great. I like Michele's upsweep, too,
Chelsea's Mannerisms: Actually, this doesn't bother me. Many of us have the same mannerisms and facial expressions as our parents. In my family, I have a nephew who has many of my father's (his grandfather's) hand gestures, and he was born after my father died.
Roxanne Roberts: Okay, but what about the "no speak" thing?
Re: Chelsea: Hey, I refuse to do press, and no one thinks I'M odd.
Of course, I work at Hardee's. But we're talking about principles here.
Roxanne Roberts: Ha ha! You've got a great future as a deeply-principled diva.
Amy Argetsinger: Okay, I'm here, so STOP TALKING ABOUT ME!!!!!
Seriously, I was only a couple minutes late, then suffered horrible computer problems. It was torture, sitting in front of a frozen screen and hearing Roxanne cackle at something. "What?" I'd say. And she'd be like, "Oh, nothing, just something on the chat." So mean!
Virginia: Is it me, or is Jessica Seinfeld doing some kind of Raquel Welch impression? Short, short hair (which IS darling on her), skinny-girl sculpted cheekbones, frilled high neck dress? She looks completely different from the last picture I saw of her, with kids and hubby at a park in NYC.
Roxanne Roberts: She's a cutie, all right, but with the cookbook lawsuit, I expect some grim-faced courthouse shots. This thing has a decent chance of going to trial.
Cindy McCain...: I think she's had a little work done....
Silver Spring, Md.: What with John Kelly over in England, I don't ever see any celebrities anymore.
Well, except the ones I work for, but I can't tell you about them.
Ooh, the things I can't tell you!
Washington, D.C.: Hi Roxanne and Amy --
Random sighting ...we sat in front of Michael Chertoff at the Aimee Mann Concert at the Birchmere in December. Bizarre. I would have never pegged him as an Aimee Mann fan.
Oh, and he ordered the spinach salad with salmon.
Amy Argetsinger: We actually made note of Michael Chertoff's attendance at that concert -- go to our column page, it was one of the days before we split on vacation. He left before the encore, from what we're told.
For a while I was thinking that Chertoff must be one party animal, seeing as how not a week went by without a couple people telling us they saw him out and about somewhere. And then I realized it's just that Chertoff is more recognizable than ANYONE else in Washington, and that's why everyone's having sightings of him. I mean, would you recognize Robert Gates at Whole Foods?
Playing Ronald Reagan: So, who did your readers recommend to play the late president in the movie about Reykjavik?
Amy Argetsinger: We've gotten a couple of recommendations that we'll put in the paper later this week - but first, we want to hear YOURS. Who plays Reagan? And remember, James Brolin already did it.
BTW Happy New Year: It must be a new year, Amy's late and Rox is early. McCain is Lazarus and Hillary the underdog. Cats and dogs living together...
Amy Argetsinger: For my part, it was just payback.
Nicole is expecting!: Yay! I don't know why that makes me happy. Maybe because I'm 40 and also expecting. I wonder if she'll be one of those who name based on geography of conception.
Roxanne Roberts: Makes me happy too, after her previous miscarriages and the like. I think she's going to be a happy and hands-on mom. Good for her. And no, I don't expect a weird name from the Urbans.
Falls Church, Va.: Clearly you guys need to better understand unorthodox baby names. Last week, you guys goofed. Gilbert Arenas has one son, one daughter, not two daughters.
Amy Argetsinger: I was just about to tell you that YOU goofed, because we said no such thing -- everyone knows he has a son, Alijah, and daughter Izela, and we put both their names on the paper and never made a claim such as you claim.
But... just went back. Whoever wrote the headline on that item that night (and reporters not only don't write the headlines, they generally don't even see them before the paper comes out) did indeed goof. I didn't even notice until you pointed it -- it said "He'll Move Mountains For His Little Girls." Wrong, wrong, wrong, and we regret the error.
"What about the 'no speak' thing": Well, that Chelsea definitely did NOT get from her parents. Is she the only candidate child who does this? (Maybe she's just smarter than the rest.) I agree, though, that she could have a couple of canned phrases. Maybe she was just too burned by press stuff while her dad was president...she IS the only candidate kid who knows what it's like when your parent gets the job.
Roxanne Roberts: Maybe, but then I'd say limit her appearances. Speaking as a reporter, of course, I find the photo-op thing a little tiresome. I do believe Chelsea's very smart and maybe burned, but she's also smart enough to understand the whole process, so I find the "I don't speak to press" a bit arrogant.
Bethesda, Md.:"The Economist" quotes Chelsea Clinton saying to a group of reporters; "Sorry, I don't talk to the press and that includes you." Of course, the press in this case were a bunch of 4th graders in the junior press corps (or whatever). Then she has the gall to go on Today (?) or some other show. What a meanie.
The Wire: Is Dominic West as hot in person as I dream him to be?
Amy Argetsinger: He is that hot. In fact, since you're probably wondering.... he's taller than you expect. Or taller than I expected. I figured him for about 5-9, 5-10, applying the usual standard calculations for actors -- but he's actually gotta be above 6 feet. (Don't tell him I said so, I actually found him to be too tall.)
Ohio: Maybe Chelsea Clinton has not yet begun to give speeches because she has seen for so many years how words are twisted into different meanings, and she does not want anything she says to possibly be interpreted in a way that would not be of help to her mother. It seems the news people jump on how a person in the public life even ties their garbage bags let alone anything more significant.
Baltimore, Md.: Refusing to "do press": Chelsea is not alone. On ABC World News last night, Charlie Gibson profiled the young off-air reporters who are assigned to, essentially, be present at any event a given candidate has. There was very fetching footage of Obama, Edwards, Romney, Clinton, McCain and Richardson all joshing around with these young'uns. The one exception? Rudy Giuliani. One of the young reporters said, "He won't get anywhere near us."
I think this explains why Mr. G. is not likely to win his party's nod.
Roxanne Roberts: His relationship with his kids could be a really interesting aspect to his campaign. Then again, Reagan wasn't exactly father of the year, and voters loved him.
Question:: I don't know who Sara Albert or John Hallmark are. Should I? Why are they considered to be famous?
Amy Argetsinger: Did you read the item? She was the Georgetown volleyball star/D.C. policy wonk who made it to the finals of "America's Next Top Model" last year. We wrote about her a lot through her crazy short-lived fame trajectory. (She's MUCH happier being a normal person back in D.C. now, btw.)
Yada Yada Yada: Maybe Jessica Seinfeld will slip some arsenic into Missy Chase Lapine's chocolate pudding. That would make this whole lawsuit thing go away.
Amy Argetsinger: Does arsenic count as a vegetable?
BTW, pick up the print edition of Style to see today's column, if you have the chance. Was it just me or was that total Robert Mapplethorpe page, all that beckoning asparagus?
Who plays Reagain?: Sash Baron Cohen, of course!
The Cookbook lawsuit: Seems like everyone who has a cookbook could claim that someone else stole their ideas. I don't think putting healthy stuff into treats is a completely new idea.
Roxanne Roberts: True, but I think Lapine has a compelling case here. (Check out the lawsuit on Smoking Gun.) Her book came out six months before Seinfeld, was rejected twice by the same publisher, looks almost identical to Seinfeld's, and Lapine's recipes----using veggie purees---are repeated with the same ingredients in Seinfeld's book. At the very least, Seinfeld's publisher knew above Lapine's book in advance and could have changed a number of elements to eliminate the copycat qualities.
GG withdrawal: No Golden Globes. So sad. I loved the inevitable gaffes and booze-fueled stumbles. And the chance to see who was dressed so deliciously wrong. Still, it's hard to believe the proceedings were actually scripted by paid professionals.
Amy Argetsinger: Even worse: The Golden Globes were going to mark my debut as a live-blogger. I'm going to see if I can convince the web folks to let me live-blog anyway, just live-blog about a totally imaginary Globes ceremony. I mean, we've seen it enough, we know how it goes. "Julia Roberts just laughed at her own joke.... George Clooney is drunk... What the hell is Charlize Theron WEARING?"
Nicole expecting:"I think she's going to be a happy and hands-on mom."
Ummm, isn't she already a mom with a couple of teenaged adoptees?
Roxanne Roberts: Yes, and seemed to be very involved.....but see next post.
Name based on geography of conception?: Who's done that?
Amy Argetsinger: Ron Howard and his wife -- named their daughter Bryce Dallas, gave their twins the middle name "Carlyle" after the hotel...
To play Reagan: Brendan Fraser?
Amy Argetsinger: Hmmm... too young.
Tampa, Fla.: I am happy to hear that Ms. Kidman finally got her wish and is pregnant. However, I don't understand why no one seems to point out that since meeting Mr. Urban, her contact with her children, Isabella and Conner, seems to have withered away to nothing. She's made some interesting statements recently, "Well, now that they are teenagers, they have a choice in where they want to live, and L.A. has much more going on (I'm paraphrasing, of course) -- I guess to explain away why they don't live with her in TN, at least part of the time. Also, her comment that they don't call her Mom anymore, they call her Nicole.
One theory I have heard is that Tom has been instrumental in having them keep distant from her, for whatever reason. I don't believe this for a second.
I can't also believe that she has pulled a "I'm finally happy and in love, so please go away and leave me alone" thing. It's just that prior to Urban, they seemed to be with her all of the time, and now, hardly ever.
Roxanne Roberts: Interesting if true. I haven't seen any reports to confirm or deny this.
Amy Argetsinger: Damn, someone else had a better Gorby idea, but now I can't remember what it was...
A relief: Finally someone (Nicole Kidman) announces her pregnancy, and she's actually currently married to the father!
Amy Argetsinger: So not chic these days, huh?
Other important election news: I personally thought Cindy McCain's hair looked like it had been done by someone reading too many back issues of Bride magazine, but enough about her. Hillary's brocade jacket last night was just wrong. She looked like she had pulled a Scarlett O'Hara and used the drapes for her fashion inspiration.
Roxanne Roberts: Agreed! I thought "bedspead" myself, but the color was bad, too.
Seinfeld food fight: My kids are in their twenties, and I was hiding vegetables in all kinds of things back when they were little. I doubt it was an original idea with me. I can't see it could go to trial unless the recipes are identifical. But the idea is nothing new.....
Roxanne Roberts: Just think---you could have had a bestselling cookbook years before these two! The real question is how a jury---if it makes it to trial---rates this. Lapine puts avocado in chocolate pudding, and white bean puree in chocolate chip cookies, So did Seinfeld, and the same thing for a dozen more in both books recipes. Strikes me as a little coincidental.
Baltimore, Md.: I don't think there is much of a surprise that Mrs. Argetsinger was quite taken with Dominic West. Aside from him, who else looked great. Of he is the obvious No. 1, who were 2 and 3?
Amy Argetsinger: Okay, you know who was surprisingly cute? Gbenga Akinnagbe, the guy who plays stone-cold scary gang assassin Chris Partlow. Just lovely, cute smile, sweet manner about him. Seems he's really just an actor!
Andre Royo, who plays Bubbles.... if you saw him on the street, you'd spend hours thinking, "how do I know that guy?" Because he's actually a very nattily-dressed hipster -- art-student glasses, a glen-plaid suit.
The guy who plays Marlo? Very charismatic and good looking, but actually a little scary looking in person.
As always, the actresses who play average-looking women on TV are stupendously beautiful in real life -- and so tiny! Sonja Sohn, who plays Kima, and Deirdre Lovejoy, who plays Rhonda Pearlman.
I didn't catch up this time with Michael K. Williams, who plays Omar, but i met him before, and similarly, you wouldn't recognize him very easily.
The other "Wire" star I met previously (not at this party, of course), was Idris Elba, our beloved Stringer Bell. Like Dominic West, a really handsome, well-dressed man who's taller than you expect and carries himself like a superstar.
How about: Bob Hoskins as Gorbachev?
Reagan: Tom Selleck -- he already played Ike, and is a Republican, so the far right can't go nuts when he is cast, like they did with James Brolin.
Nicole and her teens: People are blowing this out of proportion. Here's the quote:
Mrs. Keith Urban good-naturedly scoffs, "They don't call me mummy."
When asked what they do call her, she laughs, "Mum, or sometimes Nicole. I'm like, 'Hey!'"
And when I was a teen, given a choice between living in California and living in Tennessee, I have no doubt I would have chosen California. Let's give Nicole a break.
Roxanne Roberts: I'm prepared to give her the benefit of doubt, since I've never seen anything questionable about her parenting to date.
Casting call: Gorby: Dennis Farina
Amy Argetsinger: That makes no sense whatsoever -- but neither does a movie about the Reykjavik Summit. Maybe both you and Ridley Scott are crazy like foxes.
The cookbook caper: I can see the publisher now - "Well, Jessica, I've actually seen this idea from another source, but you have the name recognition that will make these babies sell! So, we'll go with you!"
Amy Argetsinger: I can't imagine anyone would be that cynical! Oh, wait, we're talking about the publishing industry.. .
Reston, Va.: I'm sorry, but I don't blame Chelsea Clinton for not talking to the press. When she was going through her awkward years in the White House, the press (mainstream and otherwise) were not very nice to her. Why should she give them anything now?
Roxanne Roberts: To help her mother become president?
The Wire is the best tv show ever: How sad am I to realize that the Season 5 Wire premiere was one block from my house and I had no idea. How do I find out about these things before they happen?!
Amy Argetsinger: The Senator Theater screening? That was written up a lot in the Balitmore media. Or the downtown afterparty? What can I say, you kind of had to get an invitation -- I had to ask around to find out about it...
Chris Cooley Shorts: Still haven't seen these in the new Spring fashion collections.
Amy Argetsinger: Didn't take you for the kind of guy who's looking for his fashion cues on the runways. This look will start on the streets first. It will just bubble up in the zeitgeist. One day this spring, you'll wake up without knowing why and say, "these shorts are too long and baggy," and then next thing you know you'll be digging through that box of clothes you packed away in 1987.
Washington, D.C.: The Seinfeld suit: You ladies have some knowledge of the first amendment. What do you think are the odds of husband Jerry being held liable for the talk show cracks he made about the author who alleges plagiarism? He likened her to assassins (because she uses three names, a la James Earl Ray) and essentially said she was crazy.
Roxanne Roberts: I think his lawyer is right: He can say whatever he wants. However, it LOOKS like the Seinfelds are bigfooting this poor little not-crazy cookbook author, which may not play well in a trial.
Ned's younger brother, D.C.: My friend always claims that he made out with Jenna Bush at Third Edition in Georgetown years ago -- was that one of her hangouts our is he just the stonefaced liar that we all think he is?
Amy Argetsinger: Sad to think we'll never know. It could be true and we wouldn't believe him anyway.
Hannah Montana Fever: I really have a hard time picturing the parents of pre-teen girls hangin' out in a bar watching Miley Cyrus eat. Good grief! Did they try to nab her used napkin and utensils, too?
Amy Argetsinger: I know. What's the world coming to? The baby boomers are ruining their children.
Name based on geography of conception?: Who's done that?: We covered this issue several chats back. Unless I'm thinking of a different chat.
Amy Argetsinger: No, we've been over this turf before.
Katie Holmes: Saw a photo of her recently, and she is thin, but toned. She definitely looks like a runner now. Maybe the marathon thing is practice for running away from Tom....
Amy Argetsinger: I'm rooting for her!
RE: Chelsea Clinton always holds her hands in front of her: When she waves to the crowd, does she twist her wrist appropriately? I remember seeing that in some TV movie about the Queen being upset that Diana didn't know how to wave properly. I hope Chelsea knows the right way.
Amy Argetsinger: It's the most important skill for a Miss America too.
Albert -- Policy Wonk?: Working in marketing at the Advisory Board does not make one a policy wonk. It only means one is pretty. Trust me, that's the main hiring criteria.
Playing Reagan: Am I the only person who could see Alec Baldwin pulling this off( with a little make-up help, of course)?
Amy Argetsinger: Someone else said that. What do you think -- could the viewer get past the fact that he's Alec Baldwin?
Copyright alert!: The fact that Missy's book came out months before Jessica's -- and was being shopped around for ages before that! -- means that Jessica's publishers had plenty of time to be aware of it. Copyright law says you have to put in due diligence to make sure you're not copying someone else's work (intentionally or not) before publishing your own. All Missy needs is a good intellectual property lawyer and she's set.
Amy Argetsinger: Frankly, knowing nothing about nothing, I think she's got a good case.
"To help her mother become president?": Honestly, Chelsea didn't do anything to help her dad become president, so what's the big deal? Roxanne, you should give her a break and stop taking everything so personally (unless you're holding out on us and there IS a personal side to this...).
Roxanne Roberts: Nothing personal. I think there's a huge difference in expecting a pre-teen (as Chelsea was when her dad was campaigning) and a grown woman, as she is now. I rarely criticize celebrities for not appearing in public, but I do have expectations of them when they choose to do so. In Chelsea's case, I think her refusal to talk about her mother in public looks odd. If she believes strongly in her mother's bid to become president, then why not say a few carefully chosen words?
Washington, D.C.: Amy, I know you can understand this. I am feeling torn about Christian Bale. On the one hand, I'm glad he's finally getting all these big parts, like Batman and John Connor in the Terminator. But I'm not sure I'm ready to share him with a cold unappreciative world. Thank you.
Amy Argetsinger: I guess we can be happy that he's making enough money to support his weird indie work. Also, I think despite all his success, the general public still finds him unnerving, so he's still ours.
BTW, finally saw "The Prestige," which is a trippy movie. He's GREAT in it. Really transforms himself for every role, without doing so in an actorly, call-attention-to-himself way.
Lapine puts avocado in chocolate pudding, and white bean puree in chocolate chip cookies: Or, Seinfeld got the ideas from Top Chef episodes. There was one with avocado in ice cream.
Roxanne Roberts: By the time this is settled, I'm going to hear every strange vegetable-in-unlikely-places recipe in the universe.
Funnier than Liz Glover's Barbie camera...: is that guy running around getting pictures of candidates with his vintage Mr. Potato Head toy! The photos are funny, and he claims it tells a lot about the candidate when he sees their reaction!
Amy Argetsinger: Our colleague Jose Vargas did a great story on the Potato Head guy. Link to follow....
The Wire Hotties: What about Carver?
Amy Argetsinger: Didn't see him, but he might have been there -- the crowd was spread out over two huge rooms.... Saw him at another event in person, though. Cute.
Virginia Mom: My 4-year-old sometimes calls me by my first name, to get a rise out of me. They start young! He thinks it's hilarious. Of the two, I'd take Nicole over Tom as my primary caregiver ANY time.
Hillary's clothes: Nancy Pelosi's husband should take her shopping - he does a great job for the Speaker!
Roxanne Roberts: Paul Pelosi, presidential fashion consultant! I like it!
Amy is my hero: Amy, I'm so jealous you met THE Marlo Stanfield. I love him and hate him all at the same time. But the love part could be due to the fact that's he's just absolutely gorgeous.
I've watched the first 2 episodes (thanks, HBO on demand) and want to know what good spoilers you may have found out.
Amy Argetsinger: Uh, actually, I have to confess, I was too scared to go up and talk to him.
I didn't find out ANY spoilers. You chat up the cast members, and they won't leak anything. I asked Michael Kostroff, who plays the slimy lawyer Maury Levy, "who's your character representing this season? Marlo or someone else?" And he wouldn't say a thing!
washingtonpost.com: As the Iowa Caucuses Near, This Guy Is A Hot Potatol ( Post, Jan 1)
Of course, the press in this case were a bunch of 4th graders in the junior press corps: Well, if you have a principle you live by, it applies to all. Those young reporters gotta learn early how to deal with being snubbed.
Roxanne Roberts: Toughen them up for future abuse. It's a jungle out here.
Bob Hoskins as Gorbachev: Is it weird that I have had a crush on Bob Hoskins since I was in my 20s? Which leads me to say that men have it so easy. All they have to be is charming. Women have to be young and beautiful. I'm finding that harder and harder to pull off as I approach my mid 40s.
Amy Argetsinger: Hmmmm.... this is taking us into Carolyn Hax territory, don't you think? Or does this pertain back to our conversation last week about cougars? (Last time I use that word, I swear...)
Father of the Year: Reagan appeared to be kindly, genial, etc. We were also a lot more naive then, and as I recall, it wasn't widely known that he was not very close to his kids. As for Giuliani -- what can you say about a man who used a press conference to let his wife know that their marriage was over. He's mean and makes no bones about it.
Roxanne Roberts: Yeah, that was reality-show bad behavior.
Mothers: So now that babies are becoming the big accessory for the rich and famous, which of these celebrity moms do you think will be most likely to produce decent, productive children, and which will produce the next Britney or Lindsay or K-Fed?
Amy Argetsinger: I've said it before -- the celebrity parents most likely to produce decent, productive children are the ones who don't even let you know they have children.
Washington, D.C.: Name based on geography of conception?: Didn't the Beckhams name their child Brooklyn for this same reason?
Amy Argetsinger: I'm pretty sure, having recently read her 700 page autobiography, that she named him Brooklyn because she thought it sounded cool.
Re: Christian Bale: I gave him back to the cold world after seeing The Machinist. I cannot get that creepy image of him out of my head.
Amy Argetsinger: Haven't seen it yet.
Christian Bale: Isn't he British? I thought it was funny that the movie, "3:10 to Yuma", a classic American cowboy flick, had an Aussie and a Brit in the lead roles. Can't Americans play cowboys anymore? John Wayne would roll over in his grave!
Amy Argetsinger: Actually... he's Welsh. Like me!
Shorty Shorts: Supposedly, they are going to make a comeback in the NBA in the next few years. Not only will be looking at the shorts we're wearing and saying "these are too long." But we'll also be looking at photos of ourselves and saying, "What were we THINKING wearing such long shorts. How silly."
Springfield, Mass.: As to getting to the really important stufff.. I heard that Hillary Clinton has a makeup artist from this area of Mass that travels with her just because the makeup artist does shadows that make Mrs. Clinton look "ten years younger". And on the subject of the women and looking younger, Mrs. Obama's hair, Mrs. McCain's hair, someone is missing an opportunity to work with the Huckabee campaign and make Mrs. Huckabee stop looking like the preacher's wife at a Sunday morning service in rural Arkansas. Meow, I know but they should want me to listen to him instead of shake my head in amazement at her. Reminds me of Mrs. Carter doing her own hair at the White House.
Roxanne Roberts: Funny how easy it is to get distracted----especially during a McCain victory speech. Me-ow.
Washington D.C.: You said: "The baby boomers are ruining their children." That may be true, but not because of Hannah Montana. Most of her fans are of a demo too young to have boomer parents.
Amy Argetsinger: This is probably true. I sort of thought my own generation would look at the excesses of the boomer parents and back off, but I don't know that that's turning out to be the case.
RE: Women have to be young and beautiful. : I'm planning on being old and beautiful myself.
Reston, Va.: Nothing Chelsea has to say will help her mother become president. It could hurt her though.
Roxanne Roberts: Ya think? I figure it might show a sweeter side of Hillary.
Chelsea's job: She works for some big investment firm, right? She may not be able to speak to reporters because of her job....SEC regs and all.
Roxanne Roberts: I believe "I love and respect my mom and think she would make a great president" would be okay.
Washington, D.C.: I was thinking, you know, that some oversight person in L.A. must be counting on the number of tax dollars that they waste dealing with Britney's shenanigans. The worst is that she's rich enough they should probably give her the bill. She's a sad case, and I hope that someday she gets the help that she needs, but what a colossal waste of government funds...
Amy Argetsinger: I was thinking the same thing yesterday, watching the TMZ TV show and the images of her abandoning her car in the middle of the street.... I mean, just the traffic caused by the paparazzi following her around. Then again, having lived there, it's a big enough city that the average citizen doesn't really notice this stuff. It's not like D.C. and motorcades.
Nicole: So last week, Nicole Kidman's people are denying that she is expecting, but now she is. If we can't trust Hollywood PR reps, who can we trust?
But my question, if a PR person in Washington tells a lie intentionally to a reporter, their credibility takes a hit. Does the same rule apply in Hollywood? Or is lying about whether Nicole Kidman is pregnant much more allowed?
Amy Argetsinger: I've been meaning to go back and parse the actual statements that Kidman's reps released last week to see if they left some integrity-preserving wiggle room but... I don't know, life goes on.
Also: I mean, we're talking about a pregnancy here, presumably a fairly early-term one. I know a lot of people who don't want to tell friends or family until they're out of their first trimester, for obvious reasons, so I'm not offended if a celebrity goes out of their way to keep this quiet for a while.
Being young and beautiful: Comedian Richard Lewis once said, "Women get to sleep with whomever they pick. Men have to sleep with whomever will let them." 'Nuff said.
Why not?: Bea Arthur as Reagan, Estelle Getty as Nancy
Amy Argetsinger: I'd pay money to see that.
Speaking of candidate wife hair....: Ms. Kucinich has beautiful color, but boring style. Ms. Thompson looks like she forgot to get into the 21st century - too bad since she's attractive. Former President Clinton, of course, has a classic do for what is surely very difficult hair type -- he gets my vote for "best hair of a presidential candidate spouse"!
Amy Argetsinger: Were we speaking of candidate-wife hair? Damnit, I knew I probably missed some good stuff early in the hour...
Who plays Reagan...: Ralph Fienes after a little weight is added, with Sean Young as Nancy. What about Gorby?
Amy Argetsinger: Hey, not bad.
Falls Church, Va.: Up close, is Mike Huckabee cute? My mom keeps talking about how he is an attractive man. I'm not so sold.
Amy Argetsinger: I've never see him up close. Seems that people find him charismatic, though. And hey, mom is entitled to her opinion.
I asked about geography conception names...: Well ladies, if you had a chat archive, I'd have known better! But you don't, and I'm fairly new to your chat world, so I couldn't know. (pouting at the snippy other chatter's impatience)
Amy Argetsinger: Uh, we do have a chat archive. Link to follow....
Playing Ronald Reagan : Anthony Hopkins! He's already played Nixon in one movie so we know he can do American politicians. Anyhow, I've love to hear his Silence of the Lambs voice with an avuncular edge.
Amy Argetsinger: No, he's physically all wrong for Reagan.
washingtonpost.com: Reliable Source Discussion Archives
Reagan casting: Morgan Freeman should play Reagan. After all, if a man can play a woman (Travolta/Hairspary) and a woman can play a man becoming a woman (Huffman/Transamerica), why should a little thing like race get in the way of a good performance?
Amy Argetsinger: He does have the warmth and gravitas.
Forget about vegetables: Whatever happened to that poor guy Jessica Seinfeld had married about 6 weeks before meeting Jerry - in a gym, as I recall. Hadn't she just had some over the top wedding with some guy when she took up with Jerry? I thought it was all pretty shameless at the time. What is he doing now?
Roxanne Roberts: Jessica had just returned from her honeymoon with Broadway producer Eric Nederlander when she met Jerry in a NY health club and fell in love. Messy all around, but she left Eric, married Jerry and had three kids with hi. Eric married a doctor three years ago.
Iowa: Feeling lonely. My phone has stopped ringing, my mailbox is empty, and the corn rootworm ads have returned to the TV. But I feel like we did okay -- great turnout, provocative results on both sides, and for once, we voted for the coolest kid in the class.
Amy Argetsinger: Corn rootworm ads on TV! I forgot those kinds of things about life in Iowa. I lived there for four years, you know.
Amy Argetsinger: Okay, don't know if the link to the archives went out... To find our old chats, go to the "Discussions" page (scroll down the home page and see it on the left where the daily schedule roster is), then locate show by name or subject - we're in there under our names and under Reliable Source.
Alec Baldwin as Reagan: Could I get past seeing him as Alec Baldwin? Probably, at least until he started calling Gorby a thoughtless little pig.
Amy Argetsinger: Ha ha ha!
Nicole K: And what with being 40 and in her first (right?) pregnancy after years of nothing, it's all the more logical that she'd want to keep quiet until the second trimester. Darn mags and their "baby bump" insanity.
Amy Argetsinger: It's totally out of control.
Chelsea: Why isn't showing up at her rallies, standing by her side, holding her hands enough to show her support for mom?
Amy Argetsinger: Well.... I'm not saying I'm taking a side here, but there's an argument that one is having it both ways if one "campaigns" by merely showing one's face but refusing to speak.
Concerned Seinfeld Fan, Tyson's Corner: Do you ever stop and think just how different not only his life, but the lives of many others would be had Jerry just remembered Delores's name?
I mean, seriously "Mulva?" What was he thinking?
Amy Argetsinger: Um, that was just a TV show. But thanks for the memories!
RE: Stepford First Daughter Redux? :: In Chelsea's defense, my job sometimes requires me to be on television standing near or behind whomever is speaking. My job then becomes "not to be a distracting nuisance" since I'm not speaking and therefore am not the focus. I don't understand the snarkiness. I'm sure Chelsea talks plenty (to the people who actually know her as opposed to those watch her on television and gleam their insights from there).
RE: Britney: In my perspective what's going on with Brittany is more than a "Mo money, mo problems" situation. This is a young woman with possible mental problems who is not getting the help she needs. The fact that she would barricade herself in her home with her kids is proof that she's crying out for help. I'm actually to the point that I feel sorry for her and would much rather give her a hug than gossip about her. We're the same age but her actions are of someone much younger and with much less mental clarity. I think Britney will be my generation's Judy Garland. At this rate she won't live until the age of 30. I really, really, really hope someone steps in.
Roxanne Roberts: You're way nicer than we are. Love the Judy Garland comparison! (Aren't you too young to know about her?) Let's hope your prediction isn't true and Britney gets her life back on track.
Jenna Bush: How did she react when you presented her the plaque for being named Reliable Source Person of the Year? Did she have a gracious acceptance speech? I would expect nothing less from her. How were your show's ratings? Any problem from the striking writers? Did other celebs cross the picket lines?
Amy Argetsinger: Our first ever Reliable Source Person of the Year ceremony was a smashing success. We kept it small this time - just a party of about 40 VIPs in the back room of The Palm, the ceremony streamed live over my password-protected blog. Jenna looked gorgeous, and her (ad-libbed!) speech was both gracious and hilarious. I really wish you could have been there.
Nicole's baby: This made me realize we never see pictures or hear anything about her with her older kids. We see the kids plenty with dear old dad and the Stepford Wife....but why never with Nicole. Does Tom seriously have them more??
Amy Argetsinger: I do believe Tom has primary custody... but don't quote me on that.
Playing Reagan: Is Rich Little still available? Or is his career officially dead after the White House Correspondents Dinner last year?
Amy Argetsinger: Well, depends... what would you say was the status of his career BEFORE the White House Correspondent's Dinner last year?
Hollywood, Calif.: Hello from Picket Central-
Totally weird and random, but some buddies and I were reminiscing about those actors in the 80s who made a living playing the Pope, Queen Elizabeth, Ronald Reagan (wasn't there a Gorbachev guy, too?) Liza, etc., in movies and TV. That Pope guy was in everything.
Amy Argetsinger: The '80s were a good time for made-for-TV biopics of still-living news figures. I think both Anthony Andrews and Roger Rees got to take turns playing Prince Charles.
The burbs, Md.: Reason #84 why I'm glad I don't have kids:
-Not having to attend a Miley Cyrus concert.
Please tell me parents get paid overtime for taking their daughters to those concerts.
Amy Argetsinger: They do it out of luuuuvvvvv.
Aimee Mann: I saw her perform at a club in Boston once and fell in love. Man, she was hot. Of course, that was almost 20 years ago.
Kind of lost touch with her since.
Amy Argetsinger: Didn't you mean to say "Mann, she was hot" ? ha ha .
Likable... enough?: During Saturday evening's debate, in reply to a question about Clinton's likability, Obama said she was "likable ... enough." Oooh, meow! If they wind up on the Democratic ticket together, I'm betting that'll come back to bite Obama on the b-tt!
Roxanne Roberts: We could go on like this all day (Chelsea! Good hair! Bad suits!) but we've got serious colunizing to do. Thanks for all your Reagan-Gorby suggestions (look for Friday's column) and send in other fabulous tips and sighting to reliablesource@washpost.com. Oh, and don't eat any veggies you don't know about. Same time, 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.
| 216.268293 | 0.658537 | 0.804878 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/07/DI2008010701857.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/07/DI2008010701857.html
|
Sports Year in Review
|
2008011219
|
Dan Steinberg: Hey peoples, the purpose of this was supposed to be to discuss my list of the most memorable-ish D.C.-related sporting events of 2007, but based on the questions I'm staring at we'll probably stray somewhat. In due time.
First, I'd like to say that it'll be nearly impossible to top Gibbs's resignation for the top memorable-ish D.C.-related sports story of 2008. Possibilities: Opening Day at the new park, Georgetown wins the national championship, Bill Cowher and Gregg Williams get in a mud-wrestling bout, I get arrested in China.
Reston, Va.: Dan, where's the love for Gilbert's one-handed shooting exploits on your list?
Dan Steinberg: Fine question. I don't know what I was thinking. That, and the Beckham game at RFK, were the two clear and ridiculously short-sighted omissions. I saw both in-person, and both were tremendous.
Honestly, I'm not sure if the Boudreau hiring and Emilio signing really belonged; as important as the moves turned out to be, neither seemed overly dramatic at the time. But I wanted to come up with Caps/United stuff.
Washington, D.C.: Is Gilbert having another big birthday bash this year or is the cheerleader party THE party of January 2008?
Dan Steinberg: Gilbert's birthday bash made the list last year, but his birthday has come and gone. If there was a party, I wasn't invited. That would make it two years in a row.
Gil posted about his upcoming birthday on his blog last week:
My birthday is on Jan. 6. No plans this year. But I do have my birthday gifts from friends: An Olympic autographed Scottie Pippen ball, a Michael Jordan autographed bat and jersey from when he played baseball, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell autographed basketball together and shoes.
Right now I just have all this stuff, but probably after my next contract I'll build a gym and display all of it. It's just something to reflect on for when I get old. It will be something to keep my mind stimulated when I get into those old ages, especially if I'm not coaching or around the young players of that day or that millennium, or whatever you want to call it.
Arlington, Va.: What about Maryland winning the national championship?
Dan Steinberg: Wait, was this something I missed last year, or something I forgot to mention as a possibility in the coming year? In either case, what sport are we talking about?
Washington, D.C.: Not a question, but a comment:
We need more college hoops pictures of fans dressing up like wackos.
Apropos of nothing, it makes for awesome blog posts.
Dan Steinberg: Starting this weekend, I will be going to one (1) local college basketball game per week. The schedule doesn't really work out too great in this regard, but I was hoping to hit all the local powers, from Georgetown to....well, I guess the schedule won't be so hard after all.
No, seriously, on several Saturdays, Georgetown has the most compelling/most convenient local game, starting with this Saturday, when I'll be at UConn-Hoyas. As efficient and fun-to-watch as the Hoyas are, their program's lock-down mentality makes it hard to blog 'em up, so I will surely be on the lookout for fans in costumes. If you go to Georgetown and you're going to the game, please don't disappoint.
Baltimore: What time is it?
Okay, here's a real question:
It seems that a big French rugger club (Biarritz Olympique) has signed USA Eagles wing Takudzwa (Zee) Ngwenya. Zee is most well known for having the try of the Rugby World Cup against South Africa.
If he impresses and gets significant playing time, would you put in for a feature/road trip to that beautiful land known as Pays Basque?
And would you take me with you?
But this reminds me, it was in poor taste not to mention the Rugby World Cup in my Best of 2007, at least for an honorable mention.
Do Basque sheep's milk cheeses come from Pays Basque?
And seriously, can someone tell me why the U.S. is referred to universally as "USA" in rugby contexts? Is it like that in other international sports?
Apparently Not a Washingtonian: Wow,I've lived in this city for 15 years, but apparently I know nothing about sports in this town. So the Nationals don't crack the Top 11 even once? Not their beating the "worst team ever" preseason predictions? Not the "comeback kid" Dmitri Young story? Not the patchwork pitching that still managed to take them to 4th place in the NL East? Even the end of RFK only merits honorable mention? I love soccer, too, but I was shocked to see United make the list and the poor little Nats nowhere in sight.
Dan Steinberg: You've lived here five more years than me; your finger is 50 percent more on the pulse.
Well, I did have "Remaking the Roster" in the top 11. I was sort of trying to look for "moments," things you could look back at and say "oh yeah, I remember when...." Crushing the preseason predictions was sweet, or at least sweetish, but I'm not sure any one moment represented that. Ditto with Dmitri Young; I guess you could say the All-Star game, but I can't even remember where I watched that, so it couldn't have been that memorable.
To me, 2007 for the Nats was all about 2008, and the crazy rush of crazy signings late this year was what stood out. My clearest Nats memory ever was Opening Day 2005, and I'd reckon Opening Day 2008 will top that.
Why wasn't Blog Show on Washington Post Live yesterday????
Have you and that other dude been cancelled? That would be dumb. You guys are the best part of that show!!!
Dan Steinberg: I'm posting this for the benefit of "that other dude," my Blog Show co-host Yahoo! Sports's Jamie Mottram.
We were pre-empted yesterday in favor of continuing Gibbs coverage. When the Gibbs story dies down (November or so), we'll be back on the air.
No, we'll be on today (Comcast SportsyNet, 5-6 p.m.), featuring our newest pro athlete blog show correspondents.
Arlington, Va.: Dan, why haven't you updated the Bog's "Daily" Top 5 in over six weeks?
Dan Steinberg: That is a great question. Are you my editor?
I need to lock myself in a quiet room for 24 hours, then emerge, delete all my e-mails and update my daily feature more often than once every six weeks.
Honestly, I was trying to feature the five best D.C.-related blog items every day. I was finding it hard to come through with five must-read D.C.-related blog items every day. When it resumes (next week?), it will be actual stories in addition to blog items. I think.
DC United pushing Nats in Wheelbarrows: You hinted you were going to organize this. When is it happening? What would it take to have it happen? My first born child cut in half between Chang and the Lerners? I could do that?
Can we start voting for which Bog related stunt we most want to have happen? How do you come up with story ideas?
Dan Steinberg: Uh, I was just joking with that, but if it happens I'd cover it.
As for story ideas, mostly I go to local events, mope around for a while, complain about my job to the PR staffers, and then just cross my fingers and hope some pro athletes will show up wearing sunglasses and fur coats. Amazingly, this sometimes works.
Also, I've started admitting that a lot of time, the humor-like tales that I try to tell might not seem hilarious in person. I try to make them more funny-like. I'm worried someone will call me on this eventually, so I want to get it out there.
Arlington, Va.: If Gregg Williams gets the Redskins job, is he the kind of coach that will provide you with enough Blog fodder? Like Joe, he tends to toe the company line in terms of saying anything of consequence/interest...
Dan Steinberg: Well, I did write about Joe a lot, because his cliches were so relentless, but also charming in a way. I'm not convinced that would be the case with Gregg. I think Bill Cowher is more of an ideal hire for me, because I could write a lot about his chin and his mustache.
In fact, I'm gonna hereby pledge that if Cowher's the guy, I'm growing a mustache.
I read your blog all the time, but unfortunately, I rarely post. We have exchanged a few e-mails, though, especially early on in your blogging days. Love what you do. Always entertaining. My question has nothing to do with the year in review, though. I wanted to know what the transition has been like for you from newspaper journalist to online blogger. I'm sure some basic competencies, guidelines and ethics from the world of print journalism carry over, but what's changed and how have you handled it?
Dan Steinberg: Wow, a serious question.
If you live in Elon you might not know this, but I get excerpted in the actual living, dead-tree newspaper four days a week. This keeps me in contact with my editors, and keeps me from being completely inappropriate. Although would you believe I got a complaint last week from a reader for allowing the words "poopy diapers" to appear in the print Post? Decline of journalism, etc.
I'm not sure how much carries over, aside from writing and grammar and the rest. I try to be as accurate as I possibly can. I still use a tape recorder religiously. I still check facts.
The biggest change is the speed and lack of oversight...I can think something would make for a great post, throw it up immediately and then an hour later realize maybe that wasn't such a great idea. In print, you ALWAYS have someone double-checking to make sure you don't do something dumb. Theoretically.
Also, to me, there's a lot more pressure online, in the sense that you see your traffic every single day. If no one's reading your blog, you'll know about it the next morning. Whereas you can file a 14-inch story about GW-Rhode Island that runs on E13, but it doesn't matter, because you've still done your job.
I've handled that by drinking more.
San Diego, CA: Hey Dan! I'm looking forward (selfishly) to more Wiz content now that the 'Skins are done for the season. What's your take on the Wiz vets moving the youngsters' lockers to break up all the pre-game kiddie fun, so that they'll buckle down and become serious NBA players? I love the stories and vlogs, but we do need some actual production out of the kids with so many injuries.
Dan Steinberg: Interesting development, for sure. I haven't been over there for several weeks. I look for lightness in pro locker rooms -- that's how I make my living -- but usually I've found it from established pros: Gilbert, Smoot, Caron, Eskandarian, etc. I can see where there would be concern about two little-used rookies and Andray Blatche goofing off.
I'm not an insider, so I can't tell you exactly what the deal is, but my personal opinion is that all three of those guys have enough game to help the Wizards, and that I'd much rather cheer for guys who are overly loose than guys who are overly tight. Without all the injuries, this may never have become an issue.
I'm definitely hoping that this move doesn't take the life out of the locker room, but knowing some of those guys a little bit, I can't imagine that'll happen. And I find it at least a little heartening that the team's younguns get along so well.
Washington, D.C.: Dan - 4 or 5 times a day, I find myself overwhelmed by the power of the Bog. Maybe you can answer this -- why on earth is Omar Stoutmire in an Eastern Motor's commercial?
Dan Steinberg: This is the first I've heard of this. Really? Are you sure?
Do you watch "The Wire"? If not, do you know of any athletes following the show? Any thoughts about it?
Dan Steinberg: Sadly, I don't have HBO. In fact, my general cluelessness about pop culture is a huge, glaring weakness for someone attempting to the type of blog I'm attempting to do. When I watch TV at night, it's usually sports, with the sound down, which doesn't help anyone.
I know I've heard people around the Wizards locker room discussing the show in past years; next time it comes up, I'll try to make note.
If NBC4's Dan Hellie and The Post's Les Carpenter were to, IN THEORY, almost get into a fight in the Skins locker room earlier this year...who do you like in that throwdown?
Okay...what about Lindsay Czaniak versus Kelli Johnson?
Dan Steinberg: Trying to make amends for my rumor-mongering....
That was completely inappropriate of me to mention, both because I didn't see it in person and because it wasn't really a big deal.
On the other hand, if I ever scuffle with anyone, anywhere, I expect someone to blog about it. I need the help with the Q rating.
Kelli is a former athlete with a huge reach advantage over Lindsay, so I'll take her no contest.
Washington, D.C.: Since you spent all year writing about pro athletes' tattoos, do you have any of your own?
And if you do, what and where are they?
Dan Steinberg: I do not. Nor do I have a mustache or funny sideburns. Kind of like a penniless business reporter, I know.
Here's a marginally related question: some Redskins fans offered to buy me a jersey. I don't own any sports jerseys, because I'm supposed to be all objective. But many of my supposedly objective colleagues wear sporting clothing, plus I'm a blogger, not a beat reporter, so I was thinking of accepting the offer.
The question: what player do you get? Portis might be gone soon. Jason Campbell's spot is suddenly confused. London Fletcher might be their best player at this point, but he's sort of boring. Where does that leave things? Smoot? Suisham? Landry?
Blog Friends are our Friends: So Bobby Boswell is gone. Joe Gibbs is gone. Esky is gone, and it looks like Gros is no longer Frisbee golfing with you. Plus you've lost Schneider, maybe Gil and who knows about Smoot.
So who are your go-to Bog guys?
And on the bright side, Da Meathook is back. I expect to see lots of kiddie mohawk pictures.
Dan Steinberg: I never Frisbee golfed with Josh Gros. Bobby Boswell did; I just stole the video from his site. And I can't remember ever going to Brian Schneider for anything, although it's possible.
My Caps coverage has completely disappeared, but Ovechkin is always bloggable, Mike Green has promise, and I hear Quintin Laing is good. Boudreau is great, and I have high hopes for Alzner.
At D.C. United, if Emilio continues to improve with the English, he could be a huge get. Beyond that, I'm really not sure any more. An amazing Bog gutting in just over a year.
I should have done more with Da Meathook than I did last year; hope to improve there. I think Lo Duca and Milledge could be great, but the former will be mad at the media for a good long while, and the latter will be super cautious. So who knows.
Smoot and Portis are still the MBPs in Ashburn, and I'm hoping Portis returns.
Caron Butler also manages to be funny, professional and damn good at basketball.
Wheaton, Md.: Steinberg, your old pic with the fedora type hat and the press ticket was much better than the HD-ready mug shot.
Dan Steinberg: When I realized that it was theoretically possible that Ernie Grunfeld or Stan Kasten might click on The Post's sports site one day and see me looking like that, I began demanding change.
Plus, the Fedora type hat didn't really fit me, which made it look even sillier.
But I've actually heard this complain from a lot of people, oddly.
Washington, D.C.: Does Rock plan on keeping his mohawk through the offseason or will it be dependent on the new coach situation?
Dan Steinberg: Hadn't even thought to ask. Has anyone seen pictures of him over the past few days? I'm guessing that it's already gone.
I found it dispiriting that no one besides Khary Campbell seemed to jump on that train. Would have loved a Derrick Frost playoff mohawk.
Arlington, Va.: Being intimately familiar with the Local 11 poll as you are, what's the point of a "local city championship" that numerous people keep on pushing?
Yes, I'm a Georgetown fan, but the college basketball in the area is so bad so often that it would seem to be a repeated stinker.
Dan Steinberg: You mean everyone together in the BB&T? I think the point is just that fans, in general, would enjoy it.
Now, would Terps fans enjoy losing to Georgetown three or four or five years in a row? No, but I don't think that would necessarily happen. Guys would get up for a tournament like that...look at what GW used to do to Maryland teams that were often more talented.
Clearly American or George Mason wouldn't likely win many games, but the times they did would make it worth it for the small guys.
Right now, Georgetown definitely has the most to lose. And in some ways the media might have the most to gain, so I can't complain too much. The best way to argue this point, though, is just to look at what Philly has, and ask why we shouldn't get something just as cool.
Frederick, Md.: What cliche, over-used phrase will replace "hard fought" and "fought their guts out" this year?
Dan Steinberg: I don't have a good answer to this, but I'm glad you asked, because that reminded me....here's Barack Obama, late last night:
"I want to congratulate Sen. Clinton on a hard fought victory here in New Hampshire."
On the day Gibbs retired, that was a clear shout-out, right? No?
Arlington, Va.: What about Teddy winning the Presidents' race? Oh wait... maybe in 2008.
Dan Steinberg: That has to end at some point, right? Two years is a long time for one joke. The question is, how to keep the Race as amazing as it is once the defining joke is gone.
It seems clear that within a few years the Nats will become a winner (2009?), but I'm more concerned about whether Stan and friends will come up with a way to keep this race germane.
Middletown, Va.: Any truth to the rumor that Nick Young is planning on using you as a prop for this year's Slam Dunk Contest?
Dan Steinberg: I'm going to the Super Bowl, which I think is going to preclude me from going to the NBA All-Star game. If given the choice, I'd probably have chosen the latter, if for no other reason than New Orleans has lots of casinos.
Rockville, Md.: The obvious answer for jersey is Chris Cooley. Only problem is a lot of people have jumped on the Cooley jersey bandwagon so it isn't exactly unique.
The things to look for in your jersey are how long they'll be with the team, popularity/obscurity, and how much of a playmaker they are.
Cooley will be with the team for awhile and is popular and will make touchdowns. I once bought a Lavar Arrington jersey thinking he'd be around forever though.
Dan Steinberg: Also, I'm not sure I fit the Cooley demographic, exactly.
Thanks for the criteria. I've got to think Landry jerseys start flying off the shelves by next September.
I saw Leigh Torrence's parents at the Seahawks game. Both were wearing Torrence jerseys.
Reston, Va.: You're going to China? Are you going to blog about the fine cheese shops? Will Mike Wise be attacked by a bus? Will there be surly hottie rowers? There's no curling in the summer games, what would you cover? Team Handball?
Way more interesting that 2007, or your horrible influence on the destinies of local professional soccer players.
Dan Steinberg: Yes, I'm going to China. Haven't decided what to do, or what to eat? I was thinking strange Chinese candies, but we'll see.
The bigger issue: there will be 4 million U.S.-based bloggers there. I mean, there was some competition in Turin, but this will be insane.
Rockville, Md.: Dan, do you see Arenas continuing his shenanigans to the same degree of last year when he returns later this season?
Dan Steinberg: I feel like he's jamming more and more of his quirks into his blog. That way, he gets the hits, and he gets to keep the "quirky" label, but he doesn't have to face cameras, which he doesn't like.
Logic would tell you that after the past few months, he might want to just play basketball. But his stuff isn't an act. I'm telling you, it's not. Telling Gilbert not to shenaniganize would be like telling me to ignore those fans off to the right dressed like Psychedelic Croatian Kangaroos. It's impossible.
The next few months might be dry around here, but if Gilbert comes back healthy to a playoff-pushing Wiz team, I think things might get fun.
The District: Dan -- In the sea of mediocre content produced by over-hyped Web hacks, you stand as one of the evolved few, a journalist was has successfully executed in this new medium while still embracing the spirit of the Internet. This next year will be a formative one for you and for the Bog -- where are you headed? What can we expect in 2008?
Dan Steinberg: Can't ignore this question, since it was so eloquently framed.
My goal is to cash in before the local audience grows tired of reading about tattoos, locker room banter and Gilbert. Honestly, I've told many folks that at some point I'll feel silly asking kids half my age why they're wearing different colored socks, which means this thing will either change or die, assuming I'm unable to cash in. But as long as I keep getting paid, I try not to worry about that too much.
Frederick, Md.: If Gilbert Arenas was a block of cheese, what type of cheese would he be and why?
It's high-priced without having airs, it's more than a little flaky and yet everyone loves the stuff.
Waldorf, Md.: Dan, fill us in on your interview with Al Jazeera please.
Dan Steinberg: I got an e-mail from a producer saying they were working on a piece about NFL tailgating and they wanted to talk to me. So a crew is meeting me at the paper to shoot me at work (checking e-mail, I suppose), and then they'll ask me some questions. I'm going to try not to make America look too bad.
Dan Steinberg: Okay, gotta run and get ready for my Al Jazeera interview. Thanks for all the questions, maybe we'll do this again next year.
Oh, and I thought of one more Best of 2008 Highlight: the release of Fred Smoot's beverage. Here's hoping.
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.
| 120.073171 | 0.634146 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804535.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010804535.html
|
Stimulate the Economy, Don't Play Politics With It
|
2008011219
|
You'd think that if politicians were skilled at anything, it would be at reading election returns.
But you'd never know it from the way President Bush and congressional leaders led off the debate on a short-term economic stimulus package this week, completely ignoring the unmistakable message from Iowa and New Hampshire that people are fed up with the poisonous partisanship coming out of Washington.
The president started it off with a speech in Chicago in which, after acknowledging that there is too much partisanship in the capital, he argued that the best way to keep the economy humming was to extend his tax cuts. Not only is this a non-starter with the Democratic Congress, but there isn't a credible economist who would argue that extending tax cuts set to expire in 2010 will do much to help the economy in 2008.
As if on cue, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded to Bush's partisan nonsense with some of her own. After declaring her willingness to "work in a bipartisan way with the president to stimulate the economy," she blasted Bush for policies that have "failed millions of working families," and then proceeded to tick off a laundry list of Democratic proposals from consumer safety to international competitiveness that have nothing to do with an economic stimulus package.
Not to be outdone, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, the Attila the Hun of partisan warfare, issued his own news release criticizing the Democratic "tax-and-spend agenda." Never mind that Democrats don't even know what they'll propose.
Meanwhile, at that very moment, Barack Obama was bringing another crowd to its feet in Salem, N.H., by talking about the risk of electing the "same old people" who say "the same old things, over and over . . . hoping that the next time the results will somehow be different."
Does anyone want to connect the dots here?
Look, folks, this ought to be an easy one. Almost everyone agrees that recession is likely and a modest amount of fiscal stimulus could provide an economic cushion. It won't prevent a recession, but fiscal stimulus could be an insurance policy against the economy spiraling out of control. And it could take some of the pressure off the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which could stoke inflation, prompt a run on the dollar and reinflate the credit bubble that got us into this mess.
From experience, we know how much stimulus is needed -- about $125 billion, or 1 percent of GDP. And we know what programs can quickly deliver the biggest bang for the buck: extend unemployment benefits by 6 months, temporarily increase food stamp allotments and offer a flat, one-time payroll tax rebate to workers with household incomes below $100,000.
To broaden the political support for the package, you'd probably want to include money for the states, so they don't have to raise taxes or cut payrolls in the face of declining tax revenues. Budget experts agree that increasing the federal Medicaid match is a quick and efficient way to do that.
To win support of Republican business interests, it will almost certainly be necessary to throw in some tax breaks. The least objectionable is acceleration of depreciation, which doesn't reduce corporate tax payments, just delays them.
Since the housing downturn is heavily implicated in this recession, there are two other elements I'd add to the package.
|
You'd think that if politicians were skilled at anything, it would be at reading election returns.
| 35.052632 | 1 | 19 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803752.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803752.html
|
Bush Signs Bipartisan Gun Legislation
|
2008011219
|
The law authorizes as much as $1.3 billion in grant money for states to improve their ability to track and report individuals who should not qualify to buy a gun legally, including those involuntarily confined by a mental institution. Much of the money, to be spent over five years, would be used to increase state feeds to a national system used to run background checks on gun purchases.
Seung Hui Cho was able to pass a background check and buy two handguns, even though a Virginia court had deemed him mentally defective. In April, he used those guns as he shot and killed 32 people and injured two dozen others at Virginia Tech.
New York Democrats Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced the bill in 2002 after a shooting that year in a church. But the legislation did not gain the momentum it needed until after the April shootings, and families of the victims lobbied to strengthen the law.
"Had it become law earlier, it may well have saved the lives of 32 students who were killed at Virginia Tech by another mentally ill gunman," Schumer said.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush strongly supports the law's goals.
"We saw with the terrible shootings at Virginia Tech last year that an incomplete system can have tragic consequences," Fratto said.
|
President Bush signed legislation yesterday aimed at preventing the severely mentally ill from buying guns, a bill backed by both parties after the bloody Virginia Tech University shooting.
| 8.4 | 0.566667 | 0.766667 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702895.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008011219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702895.html
|
Security to Lower Pope's Profile on D.C. Visit
|
2008011219
|
Which position will the pope take up at Nationals Park? Second base or center field?
Curious questions face organizers preparing for the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI, whose three-day visit to Washington in mid-April will allow few opportunities for the public to see him.
From the White House to Catholic University to the new ballpark, the first papal visit to the District in 29 years will be tightly controlled and highly security-conscious. There will be no motorcades through the streets, with the pope standing and waving in a convertible, as Pope John Paul II did when he visited in 1979.
"Post-9/11 security concerns have changed that," said Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington, which is organizing the only public event here on Pope Benedict's schedule: a Mass at the stadium at 10 a.m. April 17.
Hence, the debate over where on the field the pope will celebrate Mass.
With requests for thousands of tickets pouring into the offices of the archdiocese, officials are looking to squeeze as many people as possible into the stadium.
At first, the decision was made to put the altar at second base, which is where Yankee Stadium officials place the altar for papal Masses, Nationals and archdiocese officials said.
But after looking at plans for Nationals Park, which is under construction, organizers realized that they could fit in 4,000 more seats -- for a total of 45,000 -- if they placed the altar at center field, said Heather Westrom, the Nationals' director of ballpark enterprises.
And so, the pope will celebrate Mass from deep center field.
The doors will open about 6:30 a.m. for pre-Mass activities, including music and videos. During the two-hour Mass, local Catholics will play a big role. Seminarians will be altar servers, and laypeople will be chosen to read Scripture. Music will be provided by Washington area parish choirs.
Plans for distributing tickets have not been completed. In the past, tickets to major Catholic events have been distributed through parishes and Catholic organizations.
The archdiocese has been asked whether non-Catholics can attend (yes) and whether the Mass is part of the Nationals baseball ticket package (no).
The archdiocese is trying to keep the free tickets from popping up on eBay and falling into the hands of scalpers.
The Mass "is for the faithful who want to be with the Holy Father," Gibbs said. "It shouldn't be an opportunity for people to make money."
The popemobile -- a specially designed automobile used by the pope during public appearances -- will be used to transport the pope into and around the stadium.
The rest of the pope's schedule will be strictly limited. Along with a visit to the White House on April 16, his birthday, the pope will meet with U.S. bishops at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Northeast Washington. After celebrating Mass the next day, the pope will address Catholic educators at Catholic University in Northeast and meet with Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh and Jewish leaders at the nearby Pope John Paul II Cultural Center.
On April 18, he departs for New York City, where he will address the United Nations and celebrate Mass at Yankee Stadium before returning to Rome.
|
Which position will the pope take up at Nationals Park? Second base or center field?
| 37.235294 | 1 | 17 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010701449.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010701449.html
|
Obama Carries Momentum to N.H.
|
2008010819
|
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) braced for a second jarring defeat to Obama (Ill.), her voice breaking as she told a questioner in Portsmouth of her experience here, "It's not easy." Her campaign, its air of inevitability gone, is now setting its sights on the large block of Feb. 5 primary contests to salvage her hopes of winning the Democratic nomination.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has seen his front-runner status in the Republican race left in tatters after a second-place finish in Iowa, is making similar calculations in the face of Sen. John McCain's revival here.
In the closing hours of the campaign, McCain (Ariz.) sought to win over independents, who under the New Hampshire rules can vote in either the Republican or the Democratic primary. That cross-party campaigning only added to the sense of urgency across the state, where political ads dominated the airwaves, campaign signs cluttered snow banks, and buses ferrying the candidates rolled down the highways.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), looking to build on a second-place showing among Democrats in Iowa, held a 36-hour campaign marathon, and frenzied supporters of the long-shot Republican Ron Paul stood on street corners waving signs and urging motorists to back the congressman from Texas. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the GOP winner in Iowa who is simply hoping for a respectable finish here, stumped with actor Chuck Norris.
The five-day sprint from Iowa to New Hampshire created a crush of events and resulted in the complete exhaustion of several of the major candidates. Obama, his voice hoarse, reversed the order of his campaign slogan at one point; Clinton, in perhaps the notable moment of her New Hampshire effort, let her emotions show during a visit to a coffee shop in Portsmouth.
In a moment that immediately dominated the day's news, Clinton responded to what seemed to be an innocent question from a freelance photographer, Marianne Young, about how the senator manages to look good under so much pressure. After an upbeat initial response, Clinton grew serious. Her voice breaking, she replied: "It's not easy."
"It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it," she said, referring to the direction of the country. "Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. And it's really about all of us together." The moment offered a snapshot of the severe jolt Clinton has suffered in less than a week.
Across the board, the campaigns are already looking past New Hampshire and crafting long-term strategies for protracted nominating battles. Clinton strategists, still stung by the Iowa defeat and the snowball effect it created here, are scrambling to plot a national campaign that focuses on Feb. 5. Whether to go negative against Obama -- and precisely how to do so -- was a topic of debate.
In a rally in Salem on Monday night, Clinton rebuked Obama for comparing the power of his rhetoric to that of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. and used the occasion to strike her favorite campaign theme: experience.
"President Kennedy was in the Congress for 14 years," Clinton said with a note of indignation. "He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president." She continued: "I'm running for president because I believe there is not a contradiction between experience and change. I don't know since when experience became some kind of liability for running for the highest office in our land."
Although Clinton had long doubted her ability to finish first in Iowa, her campaign never anticipated such a resounding defeat stretching across broad demographic lines, and her team always expected to recover quickly here. With polls showing her trailing Obama by double digits in the Granite State, Clinton is now carefully weighing her prospects in South Carolina, a state where she amassed broad support among black leaders early on but where her strategists are increasingly concerned that she has not built a sufficient grass-roots infrastructure.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 101.625 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/maggie_williams_to_join_clinto.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/maggie_williams_to_join_clinto.html
|
Maggie Williams to Join Clinton Effort
|
2008010819
|
Even before the polls close in New Hampshire comes word of changes at the top of the Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign.
Maggie Williams, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidante, is reportedly being brought on to coordinate the campaign's activities. Insiders have urged campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle to stay on, but no decision has been made, according to senior-level campaign operatives.
Williams has already been on a handful of strategy calls although no firm start date has been set.
Williams served as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff during Bill Clinton's first term and has remained close to the former first lady ever since. (Here's a 1994 story about her by The Post's Ruth Marcus.)
We hear that more change is on the way.... stay tuned.
By Chris Cillizza | January 8, 2008; 6:15 PM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 Previous: Looking Ahead (Already) | Next: McCain Wins New Hampshire
Add The Fix to Your Site
Maggie Williams is the epitome of a black "sellout or modern day Uncle Tom." She is a part of the machine that has pit the black vote vs. Hispanics and the black vote vs. white women. Barack Obama's strenght as a presidential candidate has blown white America away. He has simply become too much for the Clinton think tank to go head-to-head against so they have to make the democratic race a ethnic "problem." The Hispanic vote I'm sure is pertinent in its own way ... but does not have the power compared to the droves of black folks who are coming to Obama's side. Black folks who probably haven't gotten involved in the process for some time due to boring white candidates in the past. Obama is not just black, he exciting and tells it like it is. And historically, dating back to the Jim Crow era, whites have always had this standing need to defend the "white woman's honor" against "mean and immoral black men." In their pathetic, 21st century version of "sophisticated racism," Maggie Williams and her slave masters have tried to pit Obama against white women. Obama has nothing to do with Clinton losing white women ... they just don't like Clinton. Let's get back to the issues: the Iraqi war, the economy; and the healthcare that is non-existent to so many Americans ... of all races. And should Obama win, African-Americans should distance themselves from Maggie Williams.
Posted by: scribenoir | March 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse
Excuse me, is it not relevant that Maggie Williams had some unfortunate dealings with a huckster who provided a whole lot of money to the Clintons under less than ethical circumstances? And that there were public investigations of those dealings?
I mean, the Clinton campaign now needs money and-----am I the only one getting a picture here?
Posted by: HillNo | February 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse
Nobody factored in that the Clintons would CHEAT.
Posted by: Marnie42 | January 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse
It is common knowledge that it is VERY simple to falsely register to vote in NH and Hillary flooded the state with operatives from Massachusetts. Google; (Russert license plates Hillary), if you don't believe me.
Posted by: H29ector | January 9, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse
As a white, moderate democrat, I was outraged by hillary and bill injecting race into this campaign
It was vile, foul, and repulsive.
I cannot, in good conscience, ever, ever support them.
Shame, shame, shame on hill and bill.
Posted by: bobnsri | January 9, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse
it was worth it just to stuff the stinking dog crap down Chris Matthews' arrogant obnoxious lying condescending revisionist macho-licking throat
Posted by: andfurthermore1 | January 9, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse
Wonder if Obama is going to start playing the race card in the next primary?
Only time will tell. In his book he talks about the "white man" doing this and the "white man" doing that. The racist door swings both ways. I hope I am mistaken, but time will tell.
Posted by: cjones210 | January 8, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse
"HRC is making a surprisingly strong showing."
Oh how expectations change! (me too)
Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse
Breaking news... Nov 1st, 2008
Osama just congratulated Hussain Obama for leading the US Presidential race. What will American voter do?
Democrats seems to be getting back their senses.
Posted by: SeedofChange | January 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse
Mark: This is a surprise to me, I readily admit it. Maybe my message about the Repub strategy to knock off Hillary got thru to some folks there in NH. She is holding about a 4 to 6 % lead for quite a bit of time now. I'm watching two TVs and using my computer as well.
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse
lyle, you must really be liking this.
No matter what the result, HRC is making a surprisingly strong showing.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse
20% reporting-- Hillary leadin 40 to 36%.
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse
We can enjoy this a few minutes longer, AT Least.
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse
There's some chicken counting going on, but only eggs to look at...
Posted by: bsimon | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse
She's winning!!!!! What say you know Chris? Sober second thought rules the day. I thought it was possible. He was polling only 1% ahead of her yesterday, and the old folks came out in greater force than the kiddies, which is normal.
GO Hillary! Even if he wins by a bit, which he still might. She came back! She did it. Rational thought prevails. Obama is not a great choice right now. Maybe in 8 years. He may still win, but boy is in he for a fight! Maybe then he will have earned it and it will have toughtend him up and it would be ok, but it wasn't going to be ok as a media love afair.
Posted by: slbk | January 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: parkerfl | January 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse
snowbird25, I don't read books. I write them.
My newest is one sentence long:
Obama wins the White house.
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse
JUST IN: 8% reporting and suprise Hillary is ahead by 2% points. Hint--Hint--Jab- Jab.
Posted by: lylepink | January 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse
"No way Obama wins the general election, btw."
Despite Bush's poll ratings, and the giddiness in most Democratic quarters for at least a year, I'd be very surprised if the GOP doesn't retain control of 1600 PA. Ave. Read Greg Palast's book 'Armed Madhouse', specifically his 60-page chapter detailing precisely what occurred in Ohio in '04 and how a repeat is likely this year.
Posted by: snowbird25 | January 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse
Bill takes over the campaign staff, decides to run for president and Hillary accepts to run as vicepresident.
The people are not amused.
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse
Nothing the Clintons do is without political calculation. I think Hillary thinks she will appeal to more women with the choked-up bit. This woman thought it was embarrassing. Plus, as I mentioned before, she was telling us a month ago that "this is the fun part."
Posted by: joy2 | January 8, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse
Hillary should have gone long ago not to yet another Clinton loyalist from the glory days of yesteryear, but to some people outside of the Clinton camp who have won campaigns in multiple states recently, and by "recently" I mean this decade. If you haven't made any new friends since the days when Kurt Cobain still lived and breathed, Team Hillary, you really need to get out more.
What I'd like to see tonight: *600k+ turnout, 60% or more for the D's *65%+ of indies voting D *Obama winning by 15%+ *A muddle on the R side, at 1-2 and at 3-4-5 *Richardson out, Edwards doing well enough to keep going *Wizards thump Houston
Posted by: novamatt | January 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse
What is your conclusion on the crocodile tears.
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse
Obama's appeal to democrats, republicans, independents, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, men, women will make for a very exciting and inspiring white house win.
we haven't even begun to see the upswell of support.
Posted by: wpost4112 | January 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse
It takes a village to kick these Clintonista gang of fools back to their Lindy "Gulf of Tonking" Johnson glory days.
Dr. King, Obama is kicking major behinds!
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse
Bill's rant about the "fairy tale" basis for the Obama campaign made him look like an aging, adled Elvis whining about the ascendency fo the Beatles back in the late 60's, which led to that famous "Elvis meets Nixon" moment. But the best line so far tonight belongs to Jack Caferty of CNN: "That's not a fairy tale. A fairy tale is when you say "I never had sex with that woman...."
Posted by: dmooney | January 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse
It takes a village to kick these gang of fools back to their Lindy "Gulf of Tonking" Johnson glory days.
Posted by: rfpiktor | January 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse
I can already see all the RATS fleeing Hilary's sinking ship... Poetic justice at it's best!
No way Obama wins the general election, btw.
Posted by: ryan.crowley | January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse
No one and nothing will help Hilary at this point. Her day is over. She and her husband have revealed that they are the other side of the Bush political coin. Negative and inaccurate attacks, unchecked narcissism, polarization, etc.
It is time for them to leave the stage before they fall off in total disgrace.
Posted by: wpost4112 | January 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse
"...having heard HRC's "moment" on the car radio, I reacted negatively to her WORDS, which sounded a condescending vision of her entitlement and our witless, callous disregard."
Now I have seen the "moment" on tv - and I take it differently. I THINK she may have meant she loves the country very much.
The difference between hearing it and seeing it? Priceless.
Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 8, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse
"Roger Simon: Inside New Hampshire
By: Roger Simon Jan 8, 2008 12:05 PM EST SAVE Digg del.icio.us Technorati reddit SHARE COMMENT PRINT EMAIL RECOMMEND Hillary's mention of King enrages Obama camp
A senior Obama staffer just told me the Barack Obama campaign is livid over Hillary Clinton's recent comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and what was apparently her attempt to point out the difference between dreaming and accomplishment.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said in the TV interview Monday.
"It took a president to get it done."
Some in the Obama campaign are now outraged at what they take to be a denigration of King's accomplishments and the sacrifices made during his era.
"Go ask black people what they think of that statement," the Obama staffer told me.
"People died for the civil rights movement in this country. People marched and put their kids in front of fire hoses! They were bitten by dogs! This is the worst thing she has said in this entire campaign."
So no matter what the results here tonight, don't expect the two sides to kiss and make up soon. "
Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 8, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
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.
| 64.575 | 0.7 | 1.05 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010703333.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010703333.html
|
Little New Hampshire Could Hold Big Significance for Both Parties
|
2008010819
|
Just months ago, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was building a substantial lead over Sen. Barack Obama and her other Democratic rivals. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, capitalizing on the apparent collapse of Sen. John McCain's campaign, was opening a lead in the Republican race.
Today Clinton is frantically trying to slow the momentum of a surging Obama, who rode into the state Friday morning after his victory in Iowa and has played to enormous and enthusiastic crowds. Obama has opened up a clear lead, and a second victory over Clinton would leave the New York senator's candidacy gasping for breath -- but with her advisers already determined to try to mount a comeback.
If you wanted a measure of how discombobulated her campaign has been since Iowa, look no further than the memo sent out under the name of chief strategist Mark Penn -- and reportedly approved by her inner circle of advisers -- shortly before the Democratic debate on Saturday night.
"Where is the bounce?" the e-mail subject line read. Noting two newly released polls that showed a close race in New Hampshire, Penn argued that there was no statistically significant change in the Democratic contest pre- and post-Iowa.
At the time, surveys showed the race still essentially tied, but it was clear from all evidence on the ground that Obama was moving up. Within 24 hours, the memo was rendered inoperative, as new polls showed Obama with a lead of about 10 percentage points, which is where Monday night surveys put the race.
On the Republican side, McCain is the focus -- his revived candidacy aided by disarray in the GOP field and by Romney's loss to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Now Romney's outcome may depend on whether independents, who backed McCain eight years ago, move in major numbers to the Democratic primary and Obama.
The huge crowds that have greeted the candidates here in the past four days foreshadow a potentially record turnout -- topping the 2004 Democratic primary, when 221,000 voters participated, or the 2000 Republican primary, when 239,500 did so.
"The state is as involved as it's ever been," said Tom Rath, a strategist on Romney's team. "We're going to have massive turnout."
The Republican race appeared more competitive on primary eve, but the Democratic contest holds the greater significance, if only because of what it may say about the future of the couple who gave the party consecutive White House terms for the first time since Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency.
Top Clinton campaign officials and alarmed allies are braced for a defeat on Tuesday. Five days is not enough, they have argued, to slow and reverse the momentum Obama developed in Iowa. What they are looking to do is hold down his margin in New Hampshire and then try to restart the race on Wednesday, hoping to stay alive until Feb. 5, when many of the biggest states in the nation will hold primaries.
"Whatever happens tomorrow, we're going on," Clinton told CBS's Harry Smith on Monday morning. "And we're going to keep going until the end of the process on February 5th. But I've always felt that this is going to be a very tough, hard-fought election, and I'm ready for that."
|
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 7 -- A few months ago, New Hampshire's reputation for delivering spellbinding primary elections was in danger. But if trend lines hold, a pair of contested primaries Tuesday will deliver outcomes with potentially enormous significance.
| 14.066667 | 0.644444 | 0.911111 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/08/mccain_ready_to_truth_squad.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/08/mccain_ready_to_truth_squad.html
|
McCain Ready to Truth-Squad
|
2008010819
|
By Juliet Eilperin MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Hoping to fend off the kind of campaign loss they suffered in 2000, advisers to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have formed a Truth Squad to counter any sort of negative attacks they may face in South Carolina, which could determine McCain's shot at the GOP presidential nomination.
McCain's aides expect he will win here in New Hampshire today, just as he did eight years ago. But his 2000 New Hampshire victory was quickly erased once the contest shifted to the Palmetto State, when backers of George W. Bush circulated rumors, including that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child. In a statement, several senior South Carolina elected officials said they would quickly respond to any such aspersions.
"We saw what happened in Iowa with the negative attacks. We see what's happening in New Hampshire, and I can tell you for certain, we won't stand for it here in South Carolina," said Adjutant General Stan Spears. "Some candidates are spending more of their campaign war chests on telling voters why John McCain shouldn't be president rather than telling voters why they should. Voters in South Carolina need to be on the lookout for these kinds of negative attacks."
The South Carolina contingent -- which will issue statements to voters as well as be available to comment to the media -- will include Spears, Attorney General Henry McMaster, House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy.
"Our goal is to set the record straight," McMaster said. "As soon as one of these negative attack ads goes up on the air or hits the mailboxes, we'll let the voters know the truth. Hopefully candidates will have learned, given what happened in Iowa, that negative campaigning just doesn't work. But, just in case, we'll be ready."
Posted at 1:23 PM ET on Jan 8, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Previous: Arkansas Travelers Flock to N.H. | Next: As Gibbs Goes, So Goes Clinton?
Add The Trail to Your Site
rat-the: Think about what you just said. You've declared yourself the enemy of a man who spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp for you. That says a lot about you. Take a look in the mirror
As for the people on that truth squad - McMaster and Harrell specifically, those are two of the most powerful Republicans in all of South Carolina, and are likely to be battling it out (along with Gresham Barrett, who's a Thompson supporter) for the gubernatorial nomination in 2010. McCain's got some pretty big guns there.
Posted by: Quiet_American | January 9, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse
The question: Why DID McCain lose in South Carolina in 2000? The answer: South Carolina is a conservative state. Bush was the choice of conservatives, McCain was not. McCain ran against the Christian right. And won the media and lost the Republican primary voters. I was there,in Columbia, attending as many McCain rallies as I could. He was charismatic and funny and a great guy. And he lost. Not because of dirty tricks. This is a media monster myth, fed by their love for McCain. He lost because he was not conservative enough for South Carolina Republicans. Period. Save the conspiracy stories and the "national disgrace" moanings. This time, McCain has learned to run as a conservative. So he may win. South Carolina will be a great test. Is he a real conservative? Who cares? Both sides just want to win. Ideology is sooo 2000.
Posted by: Craig_Colgan | January 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse
Whether you like McCain or not, what happened to him in SC in 2000 was a national disgrace. I hope this "squad" will help destroy any similar rumors this time around, though I don't see them appearing this time - there isn't an establishment candidate that certain people would go to such desperate lengths to defend.
Posted by: edmcglothlin | January 8, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse
The Mittster has all the backbone of a cup of melted marshmallows...if liberal Massachusetts was too much for him, why didn't he stay in Michigan or head out to Utah with the rest of the whirling-ninnies?
Posted by: Jerryvov | January 8, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse
SC_GOP-YOU, like too many others in this Country, fail to realize how the powers are arranged. There is first of all, Federal limitations, State limitations, County, and finally Township!
Labor and Immigration, are federal. What BITES, is when the Federal makes Statutes, that the States have to follow. Such as Education, Language(EO13166), and benefits-IE Anchor Babies!
The President is a duly Commisioned representative subservient to the Federal Representatives. He is authorized by the Constitution to enforce the Federal Laws, and to protect the Constitution, and the people. Congress however, Legislates, and Funds!
THE LAWS ARE THERE! However, ALL the Federal Agencies dealing with Immigration, Labor Law enforcement, and Prosecution, are severely UNDERFUNDED! Or, at least that is the BS line we keep getting fed. See, I would swear that at $1,000/ Un-Documented worker/Day, writing Tickets would be an incredibly PROFITABLE and Lucrative enterprise! But, the smokescreen, is the Immigrant, not the Employer! Ohhh, we have caught an Immigrant! NOW we have to incarcerate Him(Her), deport, and break up their happy Family(The DUAL-Nationality Anchor Babies!)!
Take away the Illegal Employment, by just fining the employer, and watch the Invasorios at sunset swimming south!
THAT is the Garbage that we keep getting shoveled, and THAT is where MY Patience runs out! NO Governor, or ME, can Force Nancy Pelosi to get off her ample butt, and push through HR:1940-Birthright Citizenship Act. She, can stall it as long as she wants! No president can do anything but chastize her, and look forward to possibly eventually signing it! SAME was true of the Dim Sponsored Amnesty Bill Reagan was duped into signing-Under false pretenses Congress was going to push the FBI and INS Services with funding, to handle the job!
This is what needs to be fixed! Someone needs to take names and start kicking some dead-beat butts!
Obama-He is being coddled! That, should warn everyone! Mitt Romney, is being treated like the Anti-Christ!
Guess, who I feel is going to be wanting to actually Kick Booty!
As far as what Mitt did in Mass.s, he represented one of the most Liberal States in the Country, as Their Rep.-While probably having to hold his conservative nose half the time!
Posted by: rat-the | January 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse
Huckabee has the best shot in South Carolina as well as national election. The most recent polls from realclearpolitics.com shows.
I like McCain to some extend but Huckabee is a better choice.
Just a short comment to rat-the. The United States is founded by immigrants. Legal invaders? You can't use this title for our founding fathers. Certainly you can't use that for the new comers either.
If you are so anti-immigrants, too bad you won't have any candidate to vote for, not even the double-talker Mitt. He became "tough" on immigration issue only after he decided to run for the president. He actually praised McCain's plan "reasonable". Hunter has no chance; he wasn't even in a debate. Tom has dropped out. Who are you going to vote for?
Posted by: SC_GOP | January 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: usadblake | January 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse
Gimme a Break! McCain has support in a far Northern State like New hampshire because they like him for all the Pork he has thrown them while in Congress! TRUTH SQUAD? Here is a tidbit for you! Those Supporters in New Hampshire, THEY would prefer he actually had to stay in Congress! As President, he would not be able to throw anything their way! They know full well, he will NEVER win, but want to stroke Him, and make him feel all Fuzzy inside while they can!
The South, has had it with our NON-Unionized Jobs being underbid, and all wages across the board destroyed due to too many Illegals, and possibly a few too many Legal invaders as well!
Texas, California, Arizona, The Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida, are MAJOR States, and McCain is our Enemy!
Posted by: rat-the | January 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Hoping to fend off the kind of campaign loss they suffered in 2000, advisers to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have formed a "Truth Squad" to counter any sort of negative attacks they may face in South Carolina, which could determine McCain's shot at the GOP presidential nomination.--Juliet Eilperin
| 28.833333 | 0.983333 | 23.65 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702263.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702263.html
|
A Candidacy's Prose and Cons
|
2008010819
|
Clinton has not heeded her own lesson. She is campaigning in prose and has left the poetry to Barack Obama. She has answers to hard policy questions, but he has the one answer that voters are hungering for: He offers himself as the vehicle for creating a new political movement that will break the country out of a sour, reactionary political era.
The most telling laugh line in Obama's stump speech is his description of the dreadful charge his opponents make against him. "Obama's talking about hope again," the candidate says, mimicking his foes. Then his tenor drops to a low, conspiratorial pitch: "He's a hope monger." His audiences roar.
There is a certain melancholy in watching Clinton do battle. Obviously aware that the bottom is falling out from under her, she choked up Monday during her last day of campaigning here. By way of proving her tenacity and the depth of her policy knowledge, she has subjected herself to unremitting rounds of questions from voters about every issue from health care to global warming.
Clinton knows her stuff and would pass the most rigorous test available under any "No Policy Left Behind" program for politicians. If we chose a president by examination rather than election, she would win. In Hampton on Sunday night, Maggie Wood Hassan, a prominent state senator, said of Clinton's savvy on health care: "There isn't a single piece of the puzzle she hasn't figured out." True, but voters right now are not thinking about intricate puzzles.
There is compassion in Clinton's wonkiness. At a rally in Penacook on Saturday, she spoke with energy about the struggles of foster parents and the suffering of foster children. She pledged to make their problems a priority of her presidency, even if there are no headlines in it. She sounded absolutely believable.
Yet if Clinton's answers come off as well-intended lectures, Obama is offering soaring sermons and generational opportunity. In 1960, the articulate Adlai Stevenson compared his own oratory unfavorably with John F. Kennedy's. "Do you remember," Stevenson said, "that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.' " At this hour, Obama is the Democrats' Demosthenes.
It is no accident that the two best preachers on the trail, Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, broke through in Iowa -- even if Huckabee's prospects here and in the long run are dimmer than Obama's. And it has to be painful for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who saw themselves 16 years ago as the heirs to John and Robert Kennedy, to watch Obama march off as the champion of a vast band of young and practical idealists.
The Clinton campaign is rooted in the idea that "Experience Counts" -- ironically enough, Richard Nixon's slogan against John Kennedy in 1960. But it is Obama who may have precisely the right experience for the mood of the moment. As a community organizer early in his professional life, Obama understood his task as catalyzing citizens into building movements for change. Obama's speeches are about citizen action, assembling coalitions, forcing change through popular demand.
"I'm betting on you," Obama told a rapturous audience in Derry on Sunday afternoon. "I don't believe change comes from the top down. It comes from the bottom up." Change will come "if you believe," Obama declares.
"When you've got a working majority behind you," he says at another point, "you can't be stopped." Transformation is not about policy details but about altering the political and social calculus. Obama presents himself, in one of Karl Rove's favorite phrases, as a game-changer.
If Obama seems to have history's winds at his back, Clinton is carrying history's burdens. In trying to push her way back into the contest by Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states vote, Clinton would have to press her sober case that, as good as Obama sounds, she's the one who is vetted and tested. "If you want to know which kind of change we will make," she pleaded to her Sunday night crowd, "look at what we've already done."
Here again, the echoes of the past are eerie. It was Hubert Humphrey, on the aging side of the generational divide in 1968, who declared: "Some people talk about change, others cause it." Hubert Humphrey was a great man. He did not become president.
|
CONCORD, N.H. -- Hillary Clinton may have unintentionally written the obituary for the Iowa and New Hampshire phase of her presidential campaign, and perhaps her candidacy, when she told voters on Sunday: "You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."
| 18.367347 | 0.77551 | 1.183673 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702260.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010702260.html
|
The Color of an Advantage
|
2008010819
|
If I had a 10-euro bill for every time some incredulous foreigner asked me that question in the past week, I'd be a very rich person, particularly given the current exchange rate.
I never had a proper answer prepared -- I don't have a crystal ball, after all, and the polls change every day. But it hardly mattered, since any mildly positive reply wasn't believed. Surely, I told one British acquaintance, the Iowa caucus vote is evidence that at least some Americans will vote for a black man for president. He disagreed, citing the atypicality of Iowa. After all, "there are plenty of states where you hardly see any black faces at all." Alas, he seemed to have forgotten -- or perhaps never knew -- that Iowa is one of them.
One can laugh off these British prejudices, of course -- but they got me wondering how many of them we Americans share. All of us have grown accustomed to the idea that darker skin is a crippling liability in a national election. But right now, at this admittedly odd historical moment, isn't it actually an enormous advantage?
To see what I mean, back up and focus (again) on who is in the White House, how he got there and who wants to replace him. In case you'd forgotten that George W. Bush is the scion of an American political dynasty, or that Hillary Clinton is married to a former U.S. president, let me remind you. And let me remind you also that at many points in the past, these sorts of connections would have been advantages.
Though we like to remember our first president gallantly turning down the chance to be crowned king, Americans love dynasties. Think of the multiple Gores, Landrieus, Browns, Longs, Dingells, Rockefellers and Udalls in politics, not to mention the Adamses, Kennedys and Roosevelts.
And no wonder: Even aside from the money and connections, growing up surrounded by politics is probably a good way to develop political opinions. Marriage to a politician is probably even better. Besides, from the voters' point of view, surnames function as a form of branding, particularly in very large, inattentive electorates such as those of India, Argentina and the United States. In theory, you know what you'll get, more or less, if you elect a Gandhi in India or a Clinton in America: You can save yourself the time it would take to read about them.
Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, she is running for election at a moment when the flaws of oligarchy and dynasty are on display as never before. One of the least talented members of one of our most prominent families -- the wrong brother, as some would have it -- is in the White House. And at least in this narrow sense, she has more in common with him than she does with her husband. Bill Clinton was "the man from Hope." She is the "woman from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
No wonder the clichéd word "change" works like magic for Obama. And no wonder it is beginning to seem, possibly for the first time in history, that it is better to be black. To put it bluntly, for a large, frequently inattentive electorate, there could be no more potent symbol of his differentness, his non-Clinton-non-Bushness, than Obama's dark skin. His race also functions as a form of branding, telling you that he is the anti-oligarch in this contest, "the man from Hawaii by way of Jakarta, Chicago and Harvard." It's even more effective than a famous surname. You don't have to hear him speak to know he isn't related to this president or any other: Just look at his photograph.
Naturally, I can't speak for all Americans, and I have no idea if primary voters, let alone the national electorate, will line up behind him. But I'll bet that if they don't, it won't be because of his skin color. And many of those who do vote for Obama will be motivated by his skin color, just to spite the oligarchs. As for the expats whom I know: I can promise that most of them, even the Republicans, would vote for Obama in New Hampshire or South Carolina if they could, precisely because he is black. At least that would show all of our snotty foreign friends that we really aren't governed by dynasties. At least that would make us feel once again that we come from a country where any child really can grow up to be president.
|
For the first time in history, it is beginning to seem that it is a campaign advantage to be black.
| 40.636364 | 0.954545 | 4.590909 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602401.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602401.html
|
Whose Line Is It, Anyway?
|
2008010719
|
If Hillary Clinton borrowed any more from Barack Obama's campaign theme of "change" at her rally here, state troopers guarding the entrances would have been compelled to charge her with grand larceny.
"This election," she told 3,000 cheering supporters Sunday, "is about how we bring about change."
She went on to promise to "produce the changes that we desperately yearn for," asserted that she's "been making positive changes in people's lives," reminded the audience that she was busy "creating change in those years in the White House" and offered again to furnish "the change that is necessary."
Those things Obama has done? "That's not change," Clinton said, in a call-and-response chant with the audience. By contrast, Clinton said of her own record: " That is change."
It certainly is: 16 invocations of "change" in the first 10 minutes.
In the presidential race, Clinton has been the most flagrant shoplifter of others' campaign rhetoric. Last week, she cribbed verbatim three of Obama's slogans in a single phrase: "We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change."
But Clinton is hardly the only thief in a primary battle that is overrun with me-tooism. Last week's Iowa caucuses exacerbated the pilfering, as candidates purloined themes that seemed to have worked for their rivals. Obama has stolen Republican John McCain's "straight talk" theme and has made off with numerous phrases belonging to fellow Democrat John Edwards. And Republican Mitt Romney has been openly borrowing the "change" theme from Obama -- or is it from Clinton?
With so much word theft occurring on the campaign trail, the most famous confirmed plagiarist in the race, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Neil Kinnock), couldn't find an opening and had to drop out after his loss in Iowa last week.
Apparently, the theme thievery works. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a Clinton backer, recalled to The Washington Post's Paul Kane how George W. Bush in 2000 stole the mantle of change from McCain. "We all laughed when we saw 'Reformer With Results,' " Menendez said. "We said, 'You gotta be kidding me.' But it worked."
On Saturday, the Boston Globe caught Obama red-handed after the new Democratic front-runner stole words from Edwards. Obama announced that "we shouldn't just be respecting wealth in this country -- we should be respecting work," suspiciously similar to Edwards's line in 2004: "we're going to reward work, not just wealth." Obama also joked about commercials about sexual-performance drugs that "have all these people running around in the fields" -- not unlike Edwards's 2004 joke about the same drugs: "Take it, and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."
In his campaign announcement speech, Obama said: "I've been there [Washington] long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." Four years earlier, Edwards, in his announcement speech, said: "I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington." Coincidence? Consider that Edwards's 2004 adviser David Axelrod is Obama's 2008 adviser.
|
NASHUA, N.H., Jan. 6 If Hillary Clinton borrowed any more from Barack Obama's campaign theme of "change" at her rally here, state troopers guarding the entrances would have been compelled to charge her with grand larceny. "This election," she told 3,000 cheering supporters Sunday, "is about how w...
| 10.819672 | 0.901639 | 26.672131 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/01/mcgovern.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010719id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dot.comments/2008/01/mcgovern.html
|
The Impeachment Crowd
|
2008010719
|
In the seven months I've been monitoring comments, I've seen nothing to match the number of respondents to former Sen. George McGovern's call Sunday for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Despite their volume (more than 2,000 at this hour) the comments are easy to summarize: our Readers Who Comment either think the former Democratic candidate for president has a great idea or that he's nuts. There is no middle ground.
McGovern may be an ancient liberal has-been who was trounced by Richard Nixon in 1972, but he has twanged a raw nerve displayed by a number our RWC during those same seven months. Comments on many political articles and almost all Iraq War articles invariably have Why Not Impeach? questions. Sometimes they just call for impeachment, other times they do that and also ask very specifically why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn't getting the process under way.
And that brings us to today's offering from Jonathan Weisman on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. Weisman examines whether Sen. Barack Obama's call for bipartisanship can actually work, and cites a number of presidents who ran on pledges to unite the country but didn't exactly deliver. Nonetheless, Weisman reports, Republicans view Obama's appeal with both skepticism and fear -- fear that it might work.
First, a brief look at comments on the McGovern article.
Casey1 said that "Bush/Cheney should have been impeached a long time ago. The problem has been a fearful, Democratic majority that has willingly handed its constitutional powers over to the White House rather than use those powers to protect the people they represent..."
But foxlumder wrote, "...Mr. McGovern is horridly out of touch with reality. His remarks are straight party policy and anyone who fails to see that is intentionally blind. Mr. McGovern is way off the mark on this one. Way off."
charlie8 said, "It won't probably happen but McGovern is correct. In order to maintain the integrity of the office these two must be sanctioned..."
KJB013 opined, "Some things never change. McGovern was a middle aged idiot 40 years ago. Now he's an old idiot. The same views that led him down the path to nowhere years ago now keep him company on his path to small footnotes in american history books. Sad, isn't it?"
MacRandall asked, "Was this an attempt by the WaPo to show that only pathetic losers actually think impeachment is somehow justifiable?"
And jhbyer summarized, "Readers gone wild from guzzling 200 proof truth."
Now to the article about the "post-partisan" Obama.
We'll start with BartonKeyes, who wrote that "The increasingly attractive fact about Obama is that more and more Americans are coming to believe that Obama can siginificantly reduce the partisan divide and gets things done... But whether he actually can will require more than overcoming Washington's entrenched belief that partisanship works. It will require Obama to come up with a bi-oartisan consensus... If partisanship needs to end in Washington, Americans themselves need to first be more united on the major issues."
kase said that "The naked fear is growing among the stupid...Obama is gaining momentum and they will not be able to stop him. Obama will beat any of the Greedy Old People party but my fervent hope is that they run Huckabee...What a landslide!"
And goldie2 asked, "So what has been working so well with the rank partisanship approach? We aren't getting anything done. How do fist fights solve anything?... Right now, partisanship is just a swamp and everyone is sinking except those at the top."
But RoboFlop said, "... I've lost my trust in government. If I don't trust them with small, incremental changes, why does he think I'll trust them with large, sweeping changes? That's why I'm a Republican. I think government is a necessary evil that should be as small as possible, in order for us to remain free people."
MPatalinjug wrote that Obama "...is either a starry-eyed neophyte as far as Washington and national politics are concerned, or... a cynical politician... With the country deeply and long divided politically and ideologicall between "conservative"Republicans and "liberal" Democrats, and with the ideological fissures so wide as to be unbridgeable, no such "post-partisan" Obama regime will ever happen..."
PJTramdack said, "...When you come up with an idea and hear a chorus of "can't do its" from the people with the most to lose, you KNOW you're on the right track... Obviously the GOP is going to run scared when they see somebody who unplugs the fear and hate machine. That's all they've had to sell in a generation."
morningglory51 wrote, "I think Obama is too wet behind the ears to solve the worlds probelms,and makes a lot of grand promises he can't keep..."
And Casey1, quoting the article, asked, "This is what Republicans fear? 'Federally run health care, government-mandated energy changes and a rapid pullout from Iraq'? If these are the issues that make Republicans afraid of the American people, they'd better renew their anxiety prescriptions. These are the things the American people want!..."
All comments on McGovern's article are here.
All comments on the Obama article are here.
By Doug Feaver | January 7, 2008; 9:45 AM ET Previous: A Storm of Comments | Next: New Hampshire vs. Gibbs
Posted by: duchos | April 18, 2008 6:27 PM
Posted by: duchos | April 15, 2008 9:27 PM
Posted by: scuko | April 12, 2008 6:50 AM
wuhdpj nuborip dqwbeg ifxgz poimr sxnh geicxmaj
Posted by: evmxwg cmklp | April 7, 2008 3:20 AM
wuhdpj nuborip dqwbeg ifxgz poimr sxnh geicxmaj
Posted by: evmxwg cmklp | April 7, 2008 3:18 AM
wuhdpj nuborip dqwbeg ifxgz poimr sxnh geicxmaj
Posted by: evmxwg cmklp | April 7, 2008 3:18 AM
Posted by: carnival of carnage - entrails yanked out | April 4, 2008 12:12 PM
Posted by: free cats | April 4, 2008 6:05 AM
Posted by: russian sex | April 3, 2008 5:25 PM
Posted by: boxing day family | March 29, 2008 3:23 AM
Posted by: boxing day family | March 29, 2008 3:23 AM
Posted by: simeksaz | March 28, 2008 12:48 PM
Posted by: hockey jersey nhl vintage | March 28, 2008 7:30 AM
Posted by: hockey jersey nhl vintage | March 28, 2008 7:29 AM
Posted by: boat in sail sale texas used | March 28, 2008 5:22 AM
Posted by: boat in sail sale texas used | March 28, 2008 5:22 AM
Posted by: coaching golf tip | March 28, 2008 12:24 AM
Posted by: coaching golf tip | March 28, 2008 12:24 AM
Posted by: callaway golf pants | March 27, 2008 11:26 PM
Posted by: callaway golf pants | March 27, 2008 11:26 PM
Posted by: kia amarillo | March 27, 2008 11:26 AM
Posted by: kia amarillo | March 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Posted by: sex | March 26, 2008 11:11 PM
Posted by: sex | March 26, 2008 11:11 PM
Posted by: kirby vacuum cleaners | March 25, 2008 11:45 PM
Posted by: kirby vacuum cleaners | March 25, 2008 11:45 PM
Posted by: cleaner download spyware | March 25, 2008 7:24 PM
Posted by: cleaner download spyware | March 25, 2008 7:23 PM
Posted by: bioflex energy gulfstream | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Posted by: bioflex energy gulfstream | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM
Posted by: big dick free gay porn | March 25, 2008 1:11 AM
Posted by: big dick free gay porn | March 25, 2008 1:10 AM
Posted by: masturbation | March 24, 2008 12:23 AM
Posted by: masturbation | March 24, 2008 12:23 AM
Posted by: oral sex | March 23, 2008 10:41 PM
Posted by: oral sex | March 23, 2008 10:41 PM
Posted by: free porn movies | March 23, 2008 6:08 PM
Posted by: free porn movies | March 23, 2008 6:07 PM
Posted by: nude girls | March 23, 2008 4:16 AM
Posted by: nude girls | March 23, 2008 4:15 AM
Posted by: teens | March 23, 2008 2:23 AM
Posted by: milf hunter | March 22, 2008 10:26 PM
Posted by: milf hunter | March 22, 2008 10:26 PM
Posted by: nudes | March 22, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: gallery free nude | March 22, 2008 6:56 AM
Posted by: naked picture | March 22, 2008 3:52 AM
Posted by: naked picture | March 22, 2008 3:51 AM
Posted by: naked picture | March 22, 2008 3:35 AM
Posted by: naked picture | March 22, 2008 3:34 AM
Posted by: free nude pic | March 22, 2008 1:54 AM
Posted by: free nude pic | March 22, 2008 1:53 AM
Posted by: naked picture | March 21, 2008 10:21 PM
Posted by: celebrity nude | March 21, 2008 3:42 PM
Posted by: | March 21, 2008 7:43 AM
Posted by: | March 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Posted by: kings have long arms - do the safety bounce | March 20, 2008 12:29 AM
Posted by: kings have long arms - do the safety bounce | March 20, 2008 12:29 AM
Posted by: boxing instructional video | March 19, 2008 10:51 PM
Posted by: cheap baseball ticket | March 19, 2008 10:16 PM
Posted by: cheap baseball ticket | March 19, 2008 10:15 PM
Posted by: basketball | March 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Posted by: basketball | March 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Posted by: basketball | March 19, 2008 1:10 PM
[URL=http://www.youngamericansfund.com/spring-break] spring break [/URL] spring break
Posted by: Scott | March 19, 2008 4:40 AM
Posted by: sexy boob in bra | March 19, 2008 1:05 AM
Posted by: sexy boob in bra | March 19, 2008 1:05 AM
Posted by: body bodyweight exercise sculpting woman | March 18, 2008 8:30 PM
Posted by: body bodyweight exercise sculpting woman | March 18, 2008 8:26 PM
Posted by: babe bikini in sexy | March 18, 2008 3:27 PM
Posted by: babe bikini in sexy | March 18, 2008 3:26 PM
Posted by: directory health in man yahoo | March 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Posted by: directory health in man yahoo | March 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Posted by: Jake | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM
Posted by: Jake | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM
Posted by: www giantcocktinyholes com | March 18, 2008 9:03 AM
Posted by: 2005butterflymasher com | March 18, 2008 8:45 AM
Posted by: 2005butterflymasher com | March 18, 2008 8:45 AM
Posted by: Mike | March 18, 2008 4:42 AM
Posted by: cambridge center for adult education | March 18, 2008 3:34 AM
Posted by: hiphopbutt com | March 18, 2008 3:00 AM
Posted by: http infoadult com | March 18, 2008 1:44 AM
Posted by: http infoadult com | March 18, 2008 1:44 AM
Posted by: Drake | March 17, 2008 10:25 PM
Posted by: hentai taboo | March 17, 2008 7:24 PM
Posted by: lemon squeezer | March 17, 2008 7:07 PM
[URL=http://www.key4fun.com/risonanza-magnetica] risonanza magnetica [/URL] risonanza magnetica
Posted by: Mary | March 17, 2008 3:59 PM
Posted by: granite top | March 17, 2008 3:39 PM
Posted by: costume sexy | March 17, 2008 2:10 PM
Posted by: lance bass gay | March 17, 2008 10:35 AM
Posted by: lance bass gay | March 17, 2008 10:34 AM
Posted by: Halim | March 17, 2008 9:33 AM
Posted by: cleveland | March 17, 2008 7:02 AM
Posted by: youngstown | March 17, 2008 2:39 AM
Posted by: youngstown | March 17, 2008 2:39 AM
Posted by: Adelaide | March 17, 2008 2:27 AM
[URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/hotel-york] hotel york [/URL] hotel york
Posted by: Jessica | March 16, 2008 8:16 PM
Posted by: youngstown | March 16, 2008 3:58 PM
Posted by: sex | March 16, 2008 3:08 PM
[URL=http://www.ncfliving.net/rimini-fiera] rimini fiera [/URL] rimini fiera
Posted by: Aria | March 16, 2008 2:13 PM
[URL=http://www.betamate.com/pacchetto-viaggio] pacchetto viaggio [/URL] pacchetto viaggio
Posted by: Max | March 16, 2008 12:58 AM
[URL=http://www.betamate.com/tfr-2007] tfr 2007 [/URL] tfr 2007
Posted by: Christophor | March 15, 2008 7:04 PM
[URL=http://www.huraiyth.com/lipari-appartamento] lipari appartamento [/URL] lipari appartamento
Posted by: Hopper | March 15, 2008 1:07 PM
Posted by: Mary | March 15, 2008 7:14 AM
[URL=http://www.cedricleroy.com/posizionamento-excite] posizionamento excite [/URL] posizionamento excite
Posted by: Juan | March 14, 2008 2:08 PM
Posted by: skjirfdtq bhedprf | March 2, 2008 12:26 AM
divfwmpq vgawfq dguobmfya ejihvzw hgdsqjul naqtjy slgemc
Posted by: rnhga ntxygkhla | March 2, 2008 12:25 AM
divfwmpq vgawfq dguobmfya ejihvzw hgdsqjul naqtjy slgemc
Posted by: rnhga ntxygkhla | March 2, 2008 12:25 AM
Posted by: ambien cr mg | February 29, 2008 3:11 AM
Posted by: pill valium | February 28, 2008 7:35 PM
Posted by: download free ringtone for verizon cell phone | February 28, 2008 2:17 AM
Posted by: download free ringtone for verizon cell phone | February 28, 2008 2:17 AM
Posted by: downloadable ringtone for cingular | February 27, 2008 7:45 AM
Posted by: cingular ringtone coupon | February 27, 2008 5:02 AM
Posted by: cingular danity kane ringtone | February 26, 2008 5:59 PM
Posted by: mad mugs | February 25, 2008 3:18 PM
Posted by: custom bags | February 25, 2008 2:24 PM
Posted by: download free ringtone for sprint phone | February 24, 2008 7:59 AM
Posted by: yahoo ringtone free download | February 24, 2008 12:23 AM
Posted by: yahoo ringtone free download | February 24, 2008 12:22 AM
Posted by: custom mousepads | February 23, 2008 8:55 PM
Posted by: custom mousepads | February 23, 2008 8:21 PM
Posted by: download free ringtone for verizon wireless | February 23, 2008 7:44 PM
Posted by: totally free ringtone | February 22, 2008 7:16 PM
Posted by: totally free ringtone | February 22, 2008 7:15 PM
Posted by: download free sprint ringtone | February 22, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted by: download free cingular ringtone | February 22, 2008 6:00 AM
Posted by: free ringtone for sprint phone | February 21, 2008 8:14 PM
Posted by: free metro pcs ringtone | February 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Posted by: free virgin mobile ringtone | February 21, 2008 11:40 AM
Posted by: cricket ringtone | February 21, 2008 8:25 AM
Posted by: caller ringtone | February 21, 2008 2:42 AM
Posted by: music ringtone | February 20, 2008 7:47 PM
Posted by: t mobile ringtone | February 20, 2008 5:05 PM
Posted by: polyphonic ringtone | February 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Posted by: free verizon ringtone | February 20, 2008 3:23 PM
Posted by: ambien pill | February 19, 2008 9:58 PM
Posted by: ambien pill | February 19, 2008 9:57 PM
kevin devoto writes: This is insightful and helpful. Please bring more of this to our attention. thanks kevin devoto
Posted by: kevin devoto | February 19, 2008 1:34 AM
Posted by: hivflwoe agdhbnjlw | February 11, 2008 1:54 AM
wyha ayfgieldk afykbwul dpwrsgcvt kwuavz tanoumjc jmalwuoq
Posted by: lsorp aoub | February 11, 2008 1:52 AM
Just a reminder that most of the poorly-written replies bashing McGovern and the democrats occurred because some hard-core right-wing site sent out an email to it users asking them to post comments. So, most of the 'support' for Bush comes from a few dead-enders....
Posted by: Tom | January 8, 2008 8:07 PM
When are you people going to realize that laws are only written for the peasantry? The rich and powerful in the U.S. have always been above the law. Clinton was impeached only because the rich and powerful wanted him impeached. The peasantry didn't want this. Now the peasantry wants Bush and Cheney impeached. Those who own this country do not. I wonder who's running this country, the peasants or those who own them. Trying to impeach these two should give you the answer.
Posted by: | January 8, 2008 11:11 AM
THE ABBREVIATED BEHIND THE SCENE VERSION "Why I Believe Bush Bust Go" by Georgia McGovern Hey, I'm just an old washed up political hack with a history of failures. If I can say anything at all now to influence the unsuspecting "undecided" who don't pay attention until the last minute and have no core beliefs and vote for anybody that makes them "feel good", I'll do my part. He##, I've nothing to lose, it's not like it takes courage or anything. THE END Ps. To the Democratic Party. No personal or company checks please, make that a money order or cashiers check only. Glad to do my part as a proud American. And damn this publicity will really help me hock my new book.
Posted by: truthseeker | January 8, 2008 11:02 AM
If the Democratic Congress had a scintilla of evidence you can bet your gluteus maximus they would without reservation proceed in impeachment. The congressional approval rating was the lowest in history at less than 11%. Don't you think they wanted to avoid this. They realize it's nice talk to have impeachment talk in the background to help their cause by fooling some but they had ZERO evidence for actual impeachment and to proceed would have put their rating even lower. You can't impeach based on the hearsay, conjecture, distorted and biased information, hate or the aberrant hormones of WP posters. Get a life if that's possible.
Posted by: truthseeker | January 8, 2008 10:56 AM
24 hours later, you *still* haven't done any work on this column in order to make it say something?
you *still* haven't just gone through the reactions to the mcgovern piece, in order to get a count of how many agreed and how many disagreed?
don't you realize that blogs can be updated? and that blog-readers *expect* updates?
look, i don't want to accuse you of every sin in the msm playbook, but, fer chrissake, this just looks lazy.
you have a genuine story on your hands--mcgovern's call for impeachment provokes a strong reaction. but instead of *investigating* the story, by finding out whether it was a strong reaction *in favor* of impeachment or *against* impeachment, you do the tired, pathetic, lazy thing of saying "gee, there were opinions on both sides!"
couldn't you just assign a copy boy to do the task? what, is jimmy olson busy making a coffee run?
i mean, the two competing theories here are: 1) too intellectually lazy to break out of the msm mindset that every you have to present a "balanced" picture even of wildly unbalanced facts, or 2) you are just in the tank for the bush crime family, and afraid to say out loud that the vast popular consensus favors impeachment followed by prosecution.
so, you know, me calling you "lazy" is pretty generous, don't you think?
Posted by: | January 8, 2008 10:45 AM
Bush & Cheney did more damage to the world than 10 Saddams, killing many times more Iraqis than he did in the process. After impeachment send them to the Hague tribunal to face the same charges that the Nurenberg defendants did: launching a war of agression. And let Tony Blair & John Howard join them!
Posted by: Paul | January 8, 2008 7:00 AM
Funny how support for Clinton's impeachment is such a good predictor of opposition to Bush's impeachment.
Lie about a consensual blow job and you're evil - lie about a list of crimes as long as your arm and you're apparently untouchable.
This irony seems almost entirely lost on mainstream US media which, were it impeachable, should also be impeached.
Posted by: AlanDownunder | January 8, 2008 4:49 AM
I support impeachment, if for no other reason than the stonewalling of congressional investigations by the White House. If there are no serious consequences to autocratic actions by this administration, then we may never get to the truth about all of the abuses and scandals. The threat of impeachment brings one new reality to the table: leverage.
Posted by: Richard Myers | January 8, 2008 4:24 AM
The problem with impeaching Bush is that the Republicans did it to Clinton for purely political purposes. People then lost faith that impeachment would be used only as a tool for justice. Republicans tarnished it, to the delight of Bush/Cheney.
Republicans do everything just because they can. Redistrict Texas out of cycle. Recall California's governor. Spend the citizen's money like pigs in a trough. Stealing the vote in Florida. All because they can.
I would not have made such blanket statements about Republicans years ago, but you would be a fool not to see what they have become.
I don't trust Republicans to be honorable and ethical.
Posted by: DM | January 8, 2008 12:00 AM
McGovern is exactly right. All the "conservatives" decrying his points in this comment thread demonstrate how far respect for the Constitution and rule of law has depreciated in this country. I'd add that it appears the Bush fanatics have embraced an entirely different kind of nation and government than the one the Founding Fathers envisioned. Anyone who argues that Bush and Cheney have not violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution is simply putting party before country, and demonstrating awefully well the threats of faction, and civic ignorance, to our national government's integrity and viability.
Posted by: tim silva | January 7, 2008 11:57 PM
At 61 I never felt that Nixon did not genuinely care about the United States-no matter unforgiveable his actions may have been. I cannot say the same for George W. Bush. I honestly believe he does not even have affection for America let alone loyalty. He will manipulate fear and patriotism without any genuine concern for my country. I suppose that having lived this long it was inevitable that sooner or later a person would become president whose model was the former Soviet satellites. I just never thought it would have been a president's son. A president who I voted for. As alarmed as I am at W's actions I can only imagine the shame and embarassment his father must feel. His father was a good man. His son is not.
Posted by: Big Drop | January 7, 2008 11:04 PM
My favorite bumper sticker of 2007, seen on a pickup truck in Raleigh, NC: "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For McGovern"
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
Posted by: George Doctoroe | January 7, 2008 10:15 PM
Bad news for Republicans, if Bush/Cheney are not impeached, then Hillary or Obama can sic the justice department and FBI on anybody they want .... best thing for Republicans to is cut off the phones, cell phones, iPods, cable tv, and start using barter to get suff. Give me that Renoir, and I will give you all my dog food. Nope, just the dog food unless you got a van Gogh. Don't get pushy unless you want to rendered to Libya. Yeah, just like Hitler, only Bush goes to bed earlier.
Posted by: Harrison Picot | January 7, 2008 10:14 PM
"McGovern may be an ancient liberal has-been who was trounced by Richard Nixon..." Then again, maybe he's not, so Doug may be parodying the baser of "the base" who call this elder statesman a loser for being, I guess, a decorated WWII combat vet, an ordained minister, a prof with a PhD, a published historian who served for over a 1/4 century in the US Hous e and Senate, who at 85, dared to dis Bush in WaPo. Yes, he lost one whole election none of us here has risen to strive. That it's mocked by no less than our Doug, suggests why we circle the drain in Iraq, vainly wishing to win for the sake of not losing, there being nothing left to win but more loss, as if what we've lost weren't enough loss.
Posted by: jhbyer | January 7, 2008 10:05 PM
I can't imagine sleeping at night knowing that most of the country would never vote for me and felt that Gore should have won. There is true hatred out there for the two of them. Hope George Sr. is proud. If it were me, my dad would kick my you know what if my approval rating was so low.
Posted by: Jonathan | January 7, 2008 9:58 PM
They think they are angry. lol. Just wait until we have a democrat president and there is a terror attack. Half the country won't be calling for his impeachment; they will be actively seeking his head.
Posted by: Demsdontgetit | January 7, 2008 9:49 PM
i completely agree with every word George McGovern said. The only thing that incenses me is that your newspaper hasn't published more views like it. It's about time to bring back the rule of law in America. I want to be proud of hailing from a democracy again.
Posted by: j_in_paris | January 7, 2008 8:54 PM
In regard to Mr. Feaver's analysis of the comments on Mr. McGovern's "Why I Believe Bush Must Go" column, he might have found it enlightening to click on the commenters' handles to see just how many were first-time posters the created an identity apparently just to rebut the column. Mr. Feaver's "representative" commenter "FoxLumber" is one of them (KJB013 and MacRandall, however, have posted before). One of the most prolific commenters, edfarmeriii, came into existence for the sole purpose of bashing Mr. McGovern.
A little more analysis and a little less artificial but misleading "fair & balanced" (i.e., "If I chose a pro comment, I gotta follow it with a con comment") might provide more insight into the views of WaPo's readers.
The best consolation, however, is the good chance that we'll see a link to Mr. McGovern's column come December when WaPo publishes it's top ten "most viewed" list.
Posted by: MultiplePOV | January 7, 2008 8:44 PM
McGovern is a respected veteran who served his country in the military and in the US Senate.
His observations are spot on; and, the US citizens would do well to read and understand McGovern's remarks on the very serious subject of Constitutional provisions for the impeachment of elected officials.
Generals, preachers, laypersons, members of Congress and of local government have been vocal in speaking of Bush/Cheney's lies and malfeasance. If we don't act, we can at least pay attention and listen.
Posted by: suzeq | January 7, 2008 7:41 PM
I worked at the White House before Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings. I was ashamed of him and what he did - but was it impeachable??? HELL NO!
What GW and Dick have done is so much worse it screams for impeachment! GW blew a chance to fight a global war against terror with his Iraq war obsession - which Dick pushed for so his buddies in the defense industry could get rich.
That alone is IMPEACHABLE! 100000s dead for ego and $$$.
Posted by: Antiwarrior | January 7, 2008 7:31 PM
Anyone who defends Bush/Cheney has got to be out of their minds. The evidence is right in front of your noses; to refuse to see it is exactly what they charge Mr. McGovern with. So sad, but so typical today.
Both parties have, each in their own way, set this country backwards so far it will take generations to recover - if we do.
Posted by: Tim Gallagher | January 7, 2008 7:14 PM
Both the boy idiot george and the hitler cheney are class A war criminals and should be hung just like the Nazi war criminals.
Posted by: Scott S. | January 7, 2008 6:46 PM
1. Tou did a lousy job as a comments editor, on what came in response to the McGovern piece. What good is an 'assessment' if it doesn't make any real assessment?
2. Those who wrote against McGovern used entirely ad hominem attacks to make their supposed points.
3. Pretty clearly, from what has been submitted in this online commentary. the weight of opinion is FOR impeachment.
4. The entire situation points up the very unprincipled and shameful way that the press has dealt with this issue, the Wash Post not excepted!
5. The American people are MADE silent by a press that does not speak for them.
Posted by: irvthom | January 7, 2008 6:43 PM
Within hours of McGovern's Op-Ed being published,an email alert from the extreme Right-Wing group, "Free Republic", exhorted all of it's members to register on the Post site and vent their spleens against McGovern. This orchestrated campaign of Right-Wing ranting is why there are an unusual number of messages supporting Bush. There aren't many "Freepers", as they are called, but they are very noisy in expressing their hatred for anyone that isn't Rich, White and Republican.
Posted by: John Galt | January 7, 2008 6:36 PM
What I mean is that it doesn't seem like the congress has the stomach for this now, can't a future administration punish these guys and their minions for breaking important laws on the book to prevent future presidents from trying to become ("It's easier to govern as a dictator" GWB) an American despot?
Posted by: Tim | January 7, 2008 6:26 PM
Whats to stop a future presidents justice department from criminal prosecutions against these obvious constitutional lawbreakers. Just curios if anyone has thought about this.
Posted by: Tim | January 7, 2008 6:17 PM
For people who use the terms "liberty" and "freedom" so much, Bush and Cheney don't seem to believe in it for Americans. Impeachment is long past due.
Posted by: Stus | January 7, 2008 6:09 PM
A review of the comments on the McGovern piece late Sunday counted recommendations on posts rather than posts. Recommendations ran 10 to 1 in favor of impeachment.
Its also interesting to note the tone of posts: con posts were almost universally limited to ad hominem attacks on McGovern, while pro posts piled up references to factual material, legal clarifications, etc. in support of McGovern's reasoning.
Final observation: many people posting seemed unaware of when calls for impeachment began taking place.
Posted by: Marcia | January 7, 2008 5:58 PM
I sure hope we don't have another close election. We have too many people in denial about who won. They are also in denial who tell you that Congress didn't authorize war in Iraq, or that we have lost vague Constitutional rights.
Posted by: Sternberg | January 7, 2008 5:50 PM
Why has it taken this long for this to become a discussion? The list of crimes is endless.
Posted by: Gord Metcalfe | January 7, 2008 5:16 PM
It's too bad that you cannot impeach a Presidential Candidate. George McGovern (I'm a 1000% behind Eagleton) should have been. It showed political cowardice.
Flying B-25s shows he has great courage, unfortunately patriotic courage and political cowardace are not linked.
Posted by: Peter Schwartz | January 7, 2008 4:57 PM
A sane and responsible society would impeach Bush, vote for conviction and then he should face treason charges and when convicted of those, executed.
His actions at Tora Bora are alone enough to accomplish this. His refusal to allow US troops to block off bin Laden's escape route are written-in-stone evidence that he didn't want to kill or capture the architect of 9/11. The reason he didn't want to are obvious:had he killed him there the desire for revenge with the public would have lowered to the place where he could not have found the political support for his Iraqi caper.
Posted by: Wolf Vorkian | January 7, 2008 4:47 PM
I have wrote congress people and senators for at least 2 years on a weekly basis asking them to impreach these guys. Isn't strange that the voice of the people are not heard, nor even get a reply back. I am ever more concern about who the nex President will be. If the far right gets in office again. It will be a continuance of Bush's policy. Our country is in a real scary time right now.
Posted by: Rick | January 7, 2008 4:35 PM
As a Republican I'd love to see an impeachment of Bush. Probably the only way we have a shot of winning in 2008!
Posted by: Burgundy | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM
It is believed that the majority of opposing comments against impeachment came specifically from one group. Allegedly the group sent massive emails to their members asking them to refute McGovern's call for impeachment. I do not recall the group's name.
Why McGovern's op-ed got published, but not the op-ed recently submitted by three House Judiciary Committee members: Congressman Robert Wexler, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is a mystery to me. They "set out a substantive case for impeachment hearings against the sitting Vice President," but mainstream media refused to publish it. Wexler is quoted saying,
"I was shocked when no newspaper would publish the op-ed I wrote with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). It is not every day that three members of the House Judiciary Committee set out a substantive case for impeachment hearings against the sitting Vice President."
So despite the media's refusal to publish their op-ed, 182,435 people have signed the petition. Their goal is 250,000:
Do note impeachment is a remedy, not a political ploy (or shouldn't be despite the politically-driven impeachment hearings against President Clinton for an erroneous and inconsequential act that was none of the nation's business IMHO).
In contrast [Bush &] Cheney's unprecedented abuse of power acting outside the rule of law, far beyond that of previous veeps [and presidents], potentially could be found guilty of criminal acts. But first to determine if innocent or guilty necessitates impeachment hearings.
When it becomes necessary to remove a president (the Founders understood the value of) "impeachment" as the remedy. "Impeachment" is mentioned 6 times in the Constitution. Neither Bush nor Cheney have upheld the Constitution -- that alone is cause for impeachment.
"... George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that impeachment was the single most important part of the entire document. "Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?"
I absolutely support Wexler's call for impeachment hearings.
Calling for hearings is the only way we can stop this abuse of power -- now and in the future. Whether the next President is Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney or someone else no American President today or in the future ought to have the amount of power Bush & Cheney usurped. It is unprecedented and dangerous. Otherwise holding the executive branch accountable will be next to impossible.
Absent transparency and a check on power are not only unhealthy for an open-society it makes it that much easier to close down an open society.
Our freedom is at stake amongst other things.
Moreover no man is above the law. We are a nation of laws, not men. Hold them accountable.
Posted by: serena 1313 | January 7, 2008 3:41 PM
I think that people should recall the time when Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney first came to office. The Peace Talks were taking place, the budget was balanced, Europe respected us, the Muslim world was at peace with us, only a handful of crimminal American citizens were being wire tapped and then only legally, gas was at $1.67, waterboarding and torture didn't take up editorial pages, New Orleans was dry and was pleading for Federal money to upgrade the levees, and we were that bright shining city on the hillside. Since then the lights have gone out. Alot of damage can take place in a years time. These two need to be impeached just for damage control, the sooner the better.
Posted by: Mike M | January 7, 2008 3:29 PM
Impeach these crooks? Try these people for treason? You wish!
Posted by: | January 7, 2008 3:23 PM
Yes, an orderly, bloodless transition to another group of leaders is key to the renewal of our freedoms. It sure is time if only to end this tiresome shouting and arguing between people who would otherwise enjoy the chance to converse.
I hope the issues are discussed with the rational approach you prefer so we can pick between clear choices.
Best wishes (and back to work I go).
Posted by: thuff7 | January 7, 2008 2:47 PM
"The UN Charter does NOT grant member states the right to aggressive war as a means of defense against a member state."
You say "aggressive." I say reasonable defense. If we were that aggressive, we wouldn't have skirted the major Iraqi cities when we sent our army to move on against SH. We would have laid them to waste as George McGovern did in Germany.
Posted by: | January 7, 2008 2:40 PM
The only thing saving Bush and Cheney from impeachment is Clinton. Had Clinton not been impeached the Democrats in congress would not be so scared that this will be viewed as a reprisal. the truth remains that Bush and Cheney have much more severely harmed our country than any president that has been impeached. They deserve it and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read the grounds for impeachment.
Posted by: kjj348 | January 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Thanks again for the comments. Its good to know an opposing viewpoint without the usual rhetoric of late. Even if we are debating a moot point, I feel its a debate worth having.
And you're right. I not proposing that Bush be put on trial for war crimes. Thus there is no need to be proven innocent of casualities related to this conflict.
I just feel the timing of the conflict is exceedingly curious. We were in the final push of a conflict (Afghanistan), that would ,once resoundly successful, have made an Iraq conflict moot (yeah, ya got me, speculative. But think beyond the speculative along this line of thinking.)
What is fact? It took me years to come to believe that impeachment for both President and Vice President was necessary, though not likely.
I'll watch closely the upcoming November elections.
There, I speculate that the american public will render its own version of Impechment.
Posted by: Kevin | January 7, 2008 2:34 PM
it would have been nice to see a numerical breakdown of the commentary--two-to-one for impeachment? six-to-one against? was that too hard?
Posted by: kathleen | January 7, 2008 2:32 PM
It would be nice to think that there is some measure of justice for the likes of Bush and Cheney. While they question others' patriotism and tout their own, they have done more to damage this country than any terrorist ever could have done. They will commit their crimes and walk away from the damage they've caused, and sit back in their plush houses and laugh. When you look at why certain groups want war against certain other groups, why they think global warming is bunk, why they want state rights in one breath and federal power in another, small government on one hand and then grow it, it's all about the flow of cash. You'd think "men" who were "leaders" would aspire to more. But they are only boys with a license to do as they please. Bush and Cheney should be impeached to push this country more towards actually being a democracy. When you look at population growth, food production, pollution, resource control, microbial mutation and evolution, the advancement of cheap, highly effective weapons any terrorist could use, and a host of other growing factors, you see quickly that what the world needs now are people that can lead--truly lead--to unite people on this planet to move fwd productively. Without that, when you view the facts that are coming together like 10 giant snowballs, we're in for some hard times. While people like Bush/Cheney play clever games for cash and psuedo-power, humans are sliding into serious danger on a macro level.
Posted by: kevindreed | January 7, 2008 2:31 PM
The UN Charter does NOT grant member states the right to aggressive war as a means of defense against a member state.
Posted by: cryhavoc | January 7, 2008 2:31 PM
It would be nice to think that there is some measure of justice for the likes of Bush and Cheney. While they question others' patriotism and tout their own, they have done more to damage this country than any terrorist ever could have done. They will commit their crimes and walk away from the damage they've caused, and sit back in their plush houses and laugh. When you look at why certain groups want war against certain other groups, why they think global warming is bunk, why they want state rights in one breath and federal power in another, small government on one hand and then grow it, it's all about the flow of cash. You'd think "men" who were "leaders" would aspire to more. But they are only boys with a license to do as they please. Bush and Cheney should be impeached to push this country more towards actually being a democracy. When you look at population growth, food production, pollution, resource control, microbial mutation and evolution, the advancement of cheap, highly effective weapons any terrorist could use, and a host of other growing factors, you see quickly that what the world needs now are people that can lead--truly lead--to unite people on this planet to move fwd productively. Without that, when you view the facts that are coming together like 10 giant snowballs, we're in for some hard times. While people like Bush/Cheney play clever games for cash and psuedo-power, humans are sliding into serious danger on a macro level.
Posted by: kreed | January 7, 2008 2:30 PM
George McGovern used the Greatest Generation argument and noted he was a bomber pilot risking his life for his country. He was good, Bush was bad.
But here are some little discussed facts from WWII and the effects of the bombing runs: We deliberately fire bombed Tokyo targeting civilians. Over 100,000 civilians mostly women and children were incinerated in one night. We targeted civilians with firebombing in virtually every major city in Japan. WE firebombed and incinerated as many as 40,000 civilians in Dresden.
In WWII, we deliberately and viciously targeted civilians. What would you say if Bush did this today? Instead, he has instructed the armed forces to use unprecedented care in avoiding civilian casualties to an extent never before done. Yet you call him a war criminal. You have no historical basis for that.
Finally, the UN charter allows a nation to use whatever means are necessary to defend your nation. Bush was acting in good faith to do so, despite your partisan claims to the contrary.
Posted by: thuff7 | January 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Kevin, all well-said points. More substance than style. Refreshing.
My point regarding the UN speech in Oct 2002 was that other reasons for going to war were given, but those stated reasons are currently ignored in the debate. Bush said that the UN would be a stronger institution if it's resolutions were more effective than "Stop or I shall warn you some more". Effective UN resolutions with real consequences would have been useful in Lebanon, Iran and North Korea, etc.
The other point in the speech is that the people of Iraq were under the thumb of a murderous despot. I believe that anywhere that exists: Kenya, Burma, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan etc. we have a moral obligation to free those people or we ourselves are not free.
Quickly, I don't believe you think that Bush should be tried and then required to prove that he was not responsible for killing 600,000 Iraqis. That runs counter to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. You can't prove a negative. My point is that if a meteor knocked out the entire Saddam Hussein government, there would have been an even greater amount of bloodshed between the same factions, plus the remaining Baathists. Without US troops present, it could easily have exceeded 600k.
Posted by: thuff7 | January 7, 2008 2:10 PM
As far as the McGovern comments go, I was appalled at the highly untrue, vicious, personal attacks on Mr. McGovern by those who opposed Impeachment.
Personal attacks are the hallmark of those who are unable to refute the truth of an proposition.
Posted by: C. Feher | January 7, 2008 2:09 PM
Hi- Hang 'em high. It may not do much to stop them anymore, but it will discourage others (It is odd that punishment to deter others, a sentiment generally associated with Republicans, doesn't resonate with the many true Republicans who can't stand the war criminal in the White House).
Posted by: doctor t | January 7, 2008 2:08 PM
Sorry, you can't cover Bush's illegal invasion and continuing illegal occupation of Iraq with the preceding decade of UN resolutions, because Bush decided he just couldn't wait for the final resolution needed to make these misadventures "legal."
It will matter when Bush is tried as a war criminal. For the moment, just remember that invading Iraq to try to clear a way out for all that lovely oil was the kind of horrible mistake only a dry drunk could make.
If impeachment just won't happen, you'd better start figuring out what you're going to use instead to fix this mess.
Posted by: fzdybel | January 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Looks like the freepers are trying to hijack this thread too. Pretty soon RoboThinker will be in here cussing out all of us who support impeachment.
It's not about the 2000 election. Only the trolls would throw that out, hoping to deflect attention. It's about what the administration has done since.
The trolls can lie about it all they want but it does not change a thing. 70%+ of the country is against the administration.
Posted by: osmor | January 7, 2008 2:04 PM
PatD: "My own take was something like %80 agreeing with the author"
That only means that 80% of the people who read Post Op Eds by George McGovern and then respond to them on this blog agree. That is not the same as saying 80% of Americans or 80% of registered voters or 80% of any other subgroup in this country agree.
It is skewed by the mere fact that the audience here in this place is more likely to be pro-McGovern that pro-Bush. Why? Philosophical and political Darwinism. You've chased away any opposing viewpoints by the failure to allow them to effectively make their points. They left years ago and haven't come back. Don't believe me? Watch if there is an Outlook rebuttal from a 3rd party not part of the current writing staff or the administration.
Posted by: thuff7 | January 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Thank you for your opposing arguement. Now, if I may, I will go over your points:
I agree that calls for Bill Clinton's impeachment where political. May I counterpoint that the Democratic response against impeachment is ALSO political. Neither case serves the nation nor defends the constitution.
Next point. You're correct. Congress, to its eternal shame, shirked a sacred responsiblility in regard to declaration of War. But there IS ALOT OF circumstantial evidence that states the Bush Administration cherry-picked data to confirm to its assessment. A lie of omition is no less a lie (sorry for the typos..gotta type fast). Such a lie alone is impeachable.
McCovern based his casualty estimates on a John Hopkin's Report. So I believe the burden of proof lies then John Hopkins. Perhaps it would behoove Congress to do a little fact checking themselves. Which would be in form of impeachment (impeachment of course, is charges brought against an elected official. NOT a conviction. There, you get to spell out your evidence..like any other court in the land). But can you truly argue that a vast amount of casualties between 2003 and present in Iraq is NOT the result of the ongoing conflict?
As for the President's plea in his 2002 speech, was it not true that inspectors were permitted back into Iraq, finding nothing. That the Air Force strongly rebuked an assesement that Iqaq had a flying drone for a nuclear delivery device. That an International Nuclear Commission refuted Bush Administion claims that rods where being used for nuclear device purposes.
Against ALL THAT...we still go to war? No nuclear evidence. No link with Al Queada. And most damning: a pull back of an intensive hunt for Bin Laden...to the utter shock of the people on the ground in Afghanistan.
How about water boarding? Warrantless wiretaps? Destruction of evidence? How about holding a US CITIZEN for years without the right to habeous Corpus, or counsel, or anything. Years, thuff7. Defying court orders, anyone?
I submit, thuff7, that YOU try any of those things. And after you do that, please provide me the mailing address of the federal prison you've sent to. I'd like to continue corresponding with you.
One thing you and I do agree on : impeachment will not happen.
That, I believe, is the the nation's great shame.
Again, thank you for your response.
Posted by: Kevin | January 7, 2008 1:52 PM
I want the same protection against any potential crime I may commit that these two have received. Why not just throw away the law books and let Bush and Cheney decide what's best for the country, that what has been happening anyway. Criminals have been in charge of this country since the year 2000, and the citizens have to sit back and watch these two people literally get away with murder. It must be nice to have that much power.
Posted by: Miltownlady | January 7, 2008 1:48 PM
Feaver tries to balance what was unbalanced--the overwhelming sentiment for impeachment. Sadly, McGovern offers too little too late, but its instructive that the Post's writers have been dismissive of this perspective, even though its probably had as much or more popular support than the various neocon schemes that the Post happily publishes on its op-ed pages.
Posted by: Rich | January 7, 2008 1:43 PM
George McGovern is behaving like a silly old man that has nothing wrthwhile to say any more.
Posted by: bogeyman | January 7, 2008 1:22 PM
Why prosecute the past? Because that's where crimes are the very second after they're committed.
I have HAD IT with unreasonable people telling me what reasonable people can supposedly disagree about.
This administration doesn't offend more than 2/3 of Americans because it has been successful and acted legally. They are criminals and liars and they don't care about YOU.
Posted by: Mobedda | January 7, 2008 1:16 PM
Sen McGovern's editorial received an astounding number of comments. In the commentary on the comments, while noting their extreme polarity, Mr. Feaver was remiss in not offering a figure representing the relative mix of pro/con reactions. My own take was something like %80 agreeing with the author.
Also, the con %20 seemed like an awful lot of freeper trolls, fwiw.
Posted by: PatD | January 7, 2008 1:12 PM
'foxlumder' is the one who is out of touch with reality. I did not see him refute a single fact that Sen. George McGovern outlined in his article. The GOP tried to impeach President Clinton for having an affair. President Bush created an unjustified international war which has killed thousands, and has directly benefited the shareholders of Halliburton. The impeachment process was created solely with people such as G.W. Bush in mind. The silence of the American people is deafening and is what scares me the most. "The Greatest Generation" would have never stood for this travesty. We have become a nation of compliant sheep. -Baa Baa!!
Posted by: Thomas Paine | January 7, 2008 1:10 PM
There is nothing new in McGovern's call for impeachment that hasn't been repeated ad infinitum in similar columns throughout the Post's opinion sections. To rebut point by point would take more time than I have, but it isn't hard to do.
First, the call for impeachment echos that of Bill Clinton's impeachment, where the opposition, however well intentioned, is merely trying to undo the election. IN this case, 7 years after the fact, McGovern is still arguing against the Supreme Court decision regarding the 2000 election. REgardless of how you like that outcome, it stands as the law. But post facto analysis still concludes that Gore did not win. It is not grounds for impeachment.
McGovern states that the Bush administration went to war without a declaration. Congress did vote to authorize this invasion. Not grounds for impeachment just because you don't like the outcome.
McGovern states the over 600,000 Iraqi citizens were killed because of the war. I doubt this can be confirmed and McGovern believes these deaths are attributable to the president. Prove it.
The other misstatement of facts is that the President and VP intentionally and with malice lied to the American people to go to war against Iraq. If that is the case, then so did 12 years of United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to comply with inspections and open access. The president pleaded with Iraq and the UN (see his speech from Oct 2002) to both free the Iraqis from oppression and genocide as well as put strength behind current and future UN resolutions. The WMD not NOT the sole reason for invading Iraq. Again, no lying, no impeachable offenses.
Why do so many McGovernites get so worked up about this, yet offer no viable, implementable alternatives that address all the issues in Iraq? Answer: they can't. So they need to satisfy their anti-Bush lust with dreams of impeachment.
So sorry. It ain't gonna happen. Time to look to the future, not relive the past.
Posted by: thuff7 | January 7, 2008 1:00 PM
From Kid bitzer: "...tell us something of substance, okay?"
Although my request is for oposing views only. I would truly love to know the "WHY" of those views.
As an example of my reason for asking: I had a recent conversation with a co-worker about presidential candidates. She was definetely against Hillary Clinton. Fine. But when I asked her why, she said it was a "gut feeling". Then I asked her how her "gut" formed it's "feeling" --- she replied, "I don't know. But I follow my gut".
It chills me to the core that a PRESIDENT can be elected based on gastronomical assessments.
Posted by: Kevin | January 7, 2008 12:50 PM
From what I read, the VAST majority of the comments were FOR impeachment. Yet, this article give 3 examples of comments against impeachment and 2 for. Seems like slanted reporting to me.
Posted by: Russell | January 7, 2008 12:32 PM
Dear Doug Feaver, regarding: kid bitzer's post:
Posted by: kid bitzer | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM
Will someone at the Post adress this one - its an important one.
Posted by: steve | January 7, 2008 12:27 PM
I believe that we really need to impeach them both. YES... porque de facto, nós os Europeus, temos uma visão geral e aprofundada, de toda a polÃtica que nos cerca. Daà o termos a noção da má polÃtica levada a efeito, por esse Mundo fora, pelo actual Presidente do V/ PaÃs. Nunca na minha vida de 60 anos, observei um responsável tão tacanho, inculto e irresponsável. Deus te abençoe América !
Posted by: António Ramos (Coimbra -Portugal) | January 7, 2008 12:20 PM
I believe that we really need to impeach them both. However most of the reasons given are just smoke screens. Why not just impeach them for personally directing the murdering of american citizens that may be out of the country.a There was a famous case in Yemen where the president personally directed a drone plane to kill aan merican that may have been assoicated with some known alQueda.
Posted by: william Hall | January 7, 2008 12:11 PM
wow. your column is a perfect illustration of the "he said/she said" mind-set that is killing the print media.
you tell us that some of the commenters supported the call for impeachment, and some opposed it.
that's news? some support and some oppose every damn thing. that's to be expected.
the only things you did not tell us were the important things, like: 1) how many of each kind were there? you know, people disagree about the shape of the world, too, but the numbers tilt pretty strongly against the flat-earthers. numbers matter here.
2) more importantly: what were the arguments on both sides? "gee, our readers disagreed with each other!" so what? did their arguments and evidence support mcgovern's call or did they undermine it?
tell us something of substance, okay?
Posted by: kid bitzer | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM
I'd like to hear the arguements of those writing against impeachment. Something other than, "..he's nuts...out of touch...liberal.."
Posted by: Kevin | January 7, 2008 12:03 PM
The funny thing is that I think Obama is striking a nerve because the left (and I'm part of it) is tired of not only the ridiculous shananagans of the right, but the weak and undermined actions of 'leadership' on the left (Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, Pelosi, Conyers, etc). I predict that many of the incumbents on both sides may be voted OUT as a result of Obama's promise.
Posted by: frenchdel | January 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Does anyone consider the irony that a good chunk of Republicans find McCain and Huckabee too LIBERAL and a chunk of Democrats find Obama too CONSERVATIVE?
Earth to Right and Left Wings -- You have officially become Wing-Nuts.
Posted by: David | January 7, 2008 11:40 AM
I'd wager those screaming loudest AGAINST impeachment for ChenyBush were also the ones screaming loudest FOR Clinton's impeachment.
In other words, their arguements ring hollow.
Posted by: HillRat | January 7, 2008 11:24 AM
Bush and Cheney will never be impeached or brought to trial for they're crimes. Only congress could do that. And congress works for the same bosses that the white house works for. Those bosses are NOT you and I. This country is now completely controlled by the wealthiest 1%. The other 99% of us have no say whatsoever in how this country is run. The proof is in the amount of tax payer's money congress has sent to the Middle East. No receipts. No accounting. No records. What has your trillion dollars bought you? What will your grandchildren have to give up in order to pay the bill you're leaving them? Sooner or later the American people will realize that this is not a democracy. It's an aristocracy, and you're not citizens. Your peasantry. You can deny this all you want, but you're money is still being sent to the Middle East. Isn't it? Is that what you wanted? Or is it what "someone" else wanted?
Posted by: Awake | January 7, 2008 11:07 AM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 6,116.5 | 0 | 0 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/on_all_sides_stakes_couldnt_be.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/on_all_sides_stakes_couldnt_be.html
|
On All Sides, Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
|
2008010419
|
The Iowa results could upend Hillary Clinton's prospects -- or ratify them. (Reuters).
By Dan Balz DES MOINES -- This is the day Hillary Clinton's campaign has anticipated, pointed to, prepared for -- and dreaded -- since the New York senator announced her candidacy on Jan. 20, 2007. Victory here Thursday night will be a clear boost and a huge relief. Defeat will send the ever-aggressive Clinton camp to Def Con 1.
Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa and former candidate for president, was prowling the corridors of the Polk County Convention Center Thursday morning. Like all supporters of Hillary Clinton, he is trying not to show his nervousness. Vilsack said he had checked with the campaign's numbers guru here in Iowa, Karen Hicks. If turnout doesn't totally blow the doors off the caucus sites, he said, the Clinton camp remains cautiously optimistic. Anything beyond that spells trouble. Yet even those assumptions might be overly upbeat. For the national front-runner, Iowa has been a struggle from start to finish. The state looked inhospitable enough for deputy campaign manager Mike Henry to suggest in a memo last spring that the candidate consider skipping the state and saving what will be more than $20 million spent here for use in other states. As a result, the Clinton team will take any kind of win possible -- clean or narrow -- and scamper out of Iowa feeling lucky. But it is the prospect of a possible Clinton defeat -- particularly to Barack Obama -- that would radically reshape the Democratic nomination.
The permutations are many, depending on who wins here Thursday and by how much -- and who finishes third among Clinton, Obama and Edwards. But one thing seems likely: What has been a hard-fought but relatively civil contest may turn sharply negative overnight. A Clinton loss in Iowa would dramatically raise the stakes for upcoming contests. It was once assumed that a Clinton victory would give her unstoppable momentum for the nomination. That may still be true, but New Hampshire has become a much different race than it was two months ago, with Obama rising and even Edwards showing more support. The five days between Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary -- with a big debate on Saturday night -- will produce one of the shortest and most fiercely fought contests that state has seen. I talked with Bill Mayer on Wednesday. He's a political science professor at Northeastern University and the editor and co-author of a number of books on the nominating process. I asked him about the infamous Iowa Bounce -- the boost that a winning candidate gets heading into New Hampshire. What he said was instructive. There is a modest bounce for the Iowa winner but with a relatively short half-life, and it begins to dissipate about four days after Iowa. In a normal calendar -- eight days between Iowa and New Hampshire -- it's possible for a loser in Iowa to recover and for a winner to begin to lose some of the Iowa glow. But with just five days in between, the Iowa Bounce might be decisive. That means an Obama victory in Iowa would spell significant trouble for Clinton in New Hampshire -- and, conversely, a Clinton victory here Thursday night could help her arrest what has been a decline in her support. Obama advisers believe they are in the same position everyone has assumed Clinton was in. If he wins Iowa, they believe, he will become the Democratic nominee. Not without a fight, but they see the momentum building quickly behind him, pushing him to victory in New Hampshire and then again in South Carolina, where his statewide organization has been judged as superior to Clinton's. Edwards believes that a victory in Iowa will help him enormously in New Hampshire, even though he has long struggled more there than in Iowa. But his hope will be to survive New Hampshire. His real play will come later -- in Nevada and then South Carolina, which he won in 2004. He will be at a financial disadvantage, however. Losses anywhere will cost him dearly. Edwards's senior adviser Joe Trippi has a counterintuitive theory, which is that even if Clinton wins, she could face problems in New Hampshire. His thinking is that New Hampshire voters may decide, especially if the results in Iowa are close, that they don't want the Democratic race to end there and will be less inclined to ratify a Clinton victory. That seems overly Machiavellian, but Trippi says he believes it. Such theories abound here right now. Iowa is an information vacuum until Thursday night, a petri dish for speculation. As the saying goes, bad data is better than no data, and right now, no one has anything concrete on which to prepare for the next round, which means the campaigns are doing two things: making assumptions and contingencies for all of them. One of the wild cards about New Hampshire is the independent vote. Obama needs it there as he needs it here, and so does John McCain, whose rejuvenated candidacy now is on an upward trajectory. It's been assumed that the better Obama does in Iowa, the more that might rob McCain of independents in New Hampshire. A top McCain adviser said Wednesday night they believe they will get enough independents' support regardless of whether Obama wins here. McCain roared through Iowa on Wednesday hoping to stoke what appears to be growing enthusiasm in the state into a solid third-place finish -- and the overflow crowd that awaited him at his headquarters testified to his renewed energy. Given where he was a few months ago here -- battered over immigration and sinking into single digits -- a solid third looks highly possible. He and Mitt Romney have been brawling for more than a week now. Their feud will only intensify by the time the campaigns arrive in New Hampshire. A Romney loss to Mike Huckabee in Iowa will make New Hampshire make-or-break for his candidacy. A Romney victory over Huckabee will put McCain on notice in New Hampshire. Either way, the bad blood between McCain and Romney -- and the urgency facing Rudy Giuliani to win votes somewhere -- means the Republican race in New Hampshire may be even more negative than the Democratic race, and far less likely than the Democratic race to end there. As always, Iowa will be a prelude to the rest of the campaign. It has been a wild, wild year, with the final chapter here ready to unfold. Then it's on to New Hampshire and points beyond. By Friday morning, it could be a brand new campaign.
Posted at 2:24 PM ET on Jan 3, 2008 | Category: Dan Balz's Take Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Previous: Looking For Answers: What Iowa Could Change | Next: Romney Harnesses Anti-McCain Voices
Add The Trail to Your Site
Posted by: thirdrailradio | January 21, 2008 5:38 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: thirdrailradio | January 21, 2008 5:37 AM | Report abuse
Anne9: Hillary has not championed anything that we know of during her 35 years she claims. The fact is we would never have known who she is if it wasn't for her husband being in the public eye. Just like how Paris Hilton became a celebrity, Hillary Clinton has taken the center stage. When people say they support the Clintons, they are talking 90% about Bill and the 10% about his family. Nepotism should have no place in a democracy. During this age of information at your finger tips we still find it very hard to see any article describing Hillary's accomplishments or contributions to the soceity at any capacity. Generalized statements like 'she helped women in third world countries to rise up for democracy' are totally baseless. None of the countries that she has visited ever made the news to that effect. Hillary's contributions - Zilch.
Posted by: JohnMcCormick | January 3, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse
I, too, find brilliant women sexy and even married one but what does that have to do with Hillary? although he had his development arrested at about age three, Bill Clinton was brilliant yet she is merely well educated. many said that Clinton was the first 'black' president; interesting how far he will go to prevent a 'real' black man from becoming president. Bill owes Hillary a lot perhaps he should figure out another way to repay her.
Posted by: jganymede | January 3, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse
I can only believe some of you who post here must be 13 year old adolescents. I certainly cant judge you by your looks...but I can judge you by the words you use. If we are going to judge a candidate on their appearance...we are in serious trouble. At that rate..we would have never elected Abraham Lincoln. Look what we would have missed. I do not endorse nor will I trash a person (Senator Clinton) who has spent nearly all her life in public service. I am ashamed to acknowledge you as fellow Americans. Maybe the world is right...when they say we are arrogant and selfish. If you are unable to identify an issue you disagree with....I might suggest you take a look at your true motive for bashing someone else. If you support someone else....state that...but to post simple bashing is childish and immature.
Posted by: anne9 | January 3, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse
Sorry, but his point is moot to me. I go with my own predictions, and I have not been incorrect as previously stated. Every election cycle is filled with unknowns, and indecisiveness by voters. This year is no different (although the media would have us believe that). That claim by them is not new either.
Posted by: amadeus56 | January 3, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse
I never implied that meant your predictions matched your own choices -- congratulations BTW -- now, care to respond to Jim Hale's point?
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse
Yes, I am saying that he is who I correctly predicted both in 2000 and 2004.
And although I have predicted each election correctly, that does not mean the predictions matched my own choices.
Posted by: amadeus56 | January 3, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse
I've never seen an electorate this angry at the established Party and its supporters. They're mad at the President for all the reasons we know. They're mad at the Senate and Congress for allowing it to happen and they're mad at the Press for not screaming their heads off while it was happening. Politicians may not listen to polls, or read newspapers or to the other co-equal branches of government but they will hear it when the voters speak. If you thought the 2006 election spoke loudly, you ain't seen nothing yet!
Posted by: thebobbob | January 3, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse
P.S. to amadeus5691 -- you seriously are going to admit to predicting GWB in both 2000 and 2004?!
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse
Hillary could use some teeth whitening, or teeth cleaning. Her teeth look like that of some british folks, all yellowish. Looks like she has finally changed her lipstick from the dark red ('I am all yours if you give me some money type' which Norman Hsu fell for) to something lighter. These are some tips for her to use, regardless of whether she wins or loses the Iowa caucus. If she loses the caucus and the election, we will be relieved of looking at her wrinkles and the hoochimama looks.
Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | January 3, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse
Out in this big land of ours, there must be 100,000 people who could say they've been right with their presidential picks since 1976 -- all with different picks this time out. Sign me: Repwhoknowsthelawofrandomnumbers
Posted by: JimHale1 | January 3, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse
Hillary Clinton will get the Dem's nomination, and go on to win the presidency. I've been right with my predictions every election since since 1976.
Posted by: amadeus56 | January 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse
In my humble opinion, in the Democratic primaries there is just one all-important point to consider: when is John Edwards going to quit? If he quits very early in the race, Hillary Clinton will have serious troubles, since everybody who dislikes her will have to vote for Obama. But if Edwards stays at least until Big Tuesday, Obama will not be able to gain enough momentum to knock Clinton out. And at the distance Clinton is a sure winner for the nomination.
Posted by: unicorn | January 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse
The Clinton camp's position (as illustrated by Tom Vilsack's comments today) that they are hoping for a low turnout to the caucuses is eerily like traditional Republican strategy. It is very troubling that a prominent Democrat, by most people's estimate the establishment Democrat, would EVER hope that people stay home so that they can win an election. This type of thinking brought us the Poll Tax, and GOP election officials harassing, scaring off, and otherwise attempting to suppress voter turnout. While I have no fear that those high in the Clinton camp would even think of stooping to such tactics. If you set the tone: "low turnout = good" doesn't that give rank and file volunteers a disincentive to help drive potential voters / caucus attendees to attend if they are unsure of the voter's declared candidate. This no more of a stretch then to see that if the culture in the Administration minimizes the importance of following humane treatments, the troops on the ground will be far more likely to then go about treating prisoners inhumanely. We as Democrats can not afford to open the door, even the slightest bit, and go down the route of "fewer voters are a good thing."
Maybe I'm a bit too naïve for politics, but the American democracy (especially the Democratic Party) that I knew and love was based on campaigning to win more hearts and minds, and hoping that more people show up to vote. Not merely winning the hearts and minds of die-hard partisans, and then hoping that the less worthy of us don't bother to show up, as they might just vote for the other horse in the race. If Clinton can't appeal to a plurality of young people, and others who haven't caucused before, then instead of hoping that they don't show up, her camp should re-assess what their campaign is about. Otherwise they don't look too much different then their vote obstructing brethren in the GOP.
Posted by: web1 | January 3, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse
Please take a look at that picture of Hillary again, and say "I find her quite sexy" with a straight face.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse
We have an arrogant, incompetent, illiterate, and inept fool in the White House, a demoralized and decimated military, plundered treasury, trashed world standing, trampled rule of law and Constitution while the nation is sinking under an tidal wave of Illegal Aliens waving the Mexican flag in our faces, demanding their rights, while feasting at the trough of Public Welfare, as they Kill, Rob, Rape thousands of American Citizens each year. .
In all, my country, a potential benefactor and beacon for all the world - is headed right off a cliff and to an third world status!
Senators? We as a nation can survive fools in our White House. What we CANNOT survive is fools in our Congress like McCain, Kennedy, Reid, Hillary, Obama, etc. & now they want to be President!.
In my view - and evidently in the view of many Americans - this has all come to pass because you, the elected and sworn stewards of this country, have allowed it to happen. Surely you should have known better...when you refused to abide by the Constitution or enforce our laws and disgraced your oath of office. The only way this nation is to recover is for the lot of you to be gone from those hallowed halls of Congress that have become a house of paid party-bound prostitutes swirling amidst the rubble of your own malfeasance - taking the country right down with you.
As a proud and concerned American that proudly served by Country in time of War as did my Father, my two brothers and my son. I am appalled and very angry at what self severing, corrupt politicians have done to my country!
Posted by: american1 | January 3, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse
my sense of the dems is that they think hil's a phony and an egotist, and that barack could be a saviour (although i am an edwards supporter, i call 'em as i see 'em) and i think mccain is going to come out of these next seven days smelling like a rose...
Posted by: coastaldude | January 3, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse
It strange that so many of the other guys here are frightened of Brilliant, Powerful Women.
I find them quite sexy.
Posted by: svreader | January 3, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse
If Hillary does lose, the effect can be measured on a scale similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes:
Loss by 1-5% Throw 1 lamp
Loss by 6-10% Throw 2 lamps
Loss by 11-15% Throw 3 lamps
Loss 16%+ Throw Bill and restrict Bill from dating
Posted by: JaxMax | January 3, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse
We have endured 8 years of Sleaze, Scandal, and Corruption under Bill and Hillery followed by 8 years of Arrogance, Corruption, Criminal Incompetence and Gross Stupidly under Bush Jr.. and Chicken Hawk Chaney. Either party cares about our Constitution and the rule of Law, Their priorities are self first, the party second, special interests third, American Citizens and the Future of this Nation is not even on their list until election time then they pull out their spin, lies and attack ads again to get elected, after which they go back to their priorities.
It is increasingly looking like this Nation cannot survive more years of the same type of Corrupt, Lying, Self serving, Worthless Politicians that support and allow the largest invasion of a Nation in world history. While ignoring Article IV Section IV of our Constitution against invasion, and our Immigration laws. They have refused to aide by our Constitution, refused to enforce the very laws they passed and dishonored their oath of office!
Now both parties seen to have the nearly the same type candidates seeking our vote. From the polls it seems we have learned very little in the least 16 years and seem to prefer Sleaze, Corruption and Lies over Honor, Principles, our Constitution, and the Rule of law or Ron Paul would win the election by a wide margin.
Posted by: american1 | January 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse
"It was once assumed that a Clinton victory would give her unstoppable momentum for the nomination. That may still be true, but New Hampshire has become a much different race than it was two months ago, with Obama rising and even Edwards showing more support. "
RESPONSE: The Hillary the Inevitable tour has been derailed.
Hillary is going to get spanked with an unforeseen "Jezebel Factor" in Iowa which will cost her 7-11% of her poll predictions.
Posted by: JaxMax | January 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse
So much of this is about expectations. In all of the recent polls Ron Paul is within striking distance of 3rd place of Iowa. What are the ramifications, if he wins 3rd place? Does he then become part of the mix in NH, competing for independent votes that both Obama and McCain so desperately need? Would 3rd place in Iowa for Ron Paul force Fox to re-consider including him in this weekend's debate. Also, his fundraising seems to ensure he is in this race as long as he wishes to stay.
Posted by: welchd | January 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse
"Trippi says he believes [even if Clinton wins, she could face problems in New Hampshire]."
Of course he does - that is what he's paid to say. What's he going to say, that Edwards is done as a candidate if he doesn't win Iowa?
Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
The Clinton team will take any kind of win possible - clean or narrow - and scamper out of Iowa feeling lucky. But it is the prospect of a possible Clinton defeat - particularly to Barack Obama -- that would radically reshape the Democratic nomination. --Dan Balz
| 82.142857 | 0.979592 | 11.714286 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/post_258.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/post_258.html
|
Skipping Early States All Part of Giuliani's Plan
|
2008010419
|
Giuliani with the Segway folks, hoping New Hampshire rolls along smoothly. (AP)
By Juliet Eilperin BEDFORD, N.H.--While some might have questioned whether former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has spent enough time in New Hampshire lately, he was the one presidential candidate of either party in the state today. All the others, of course, were working to get out the vote in Iowa. In a meeting with several dozen Segway employees, the Republican made his usual points about the need to fight terrorists--"the defining mission, focus, of our era"--while expanding the economy. Giuliani also seemed tempted to try out one of the company's products himself, though his aides convinced him to give it a pass. "Maybe instead of giving a speech I should just ride one of these things, back and forth, back and forth," he said, eyeing a Segway. "What do you think?" After the event, Giuliani defended his decision to skip Iowa the day of the caucus. "This is the strategy that we selected pretty close to Day One," he told reporters. "We were not going to emphasize Iowa in the way two or three other candidates did. We see this as a very different election. Something different is going to win this election."
The fact that states such as Florida have moved up their primaries--and the fact that early voting has already begun there and in California--helps justify the campaign's tactics, Giuliani said, adding that at least 30 percent of Florida's electorate is poised to vote before the primary takes place there Jan. 29. "That's one of the reasons we're going to Florida today," said Giuliani, who left the near-freezing temperatures of New Hampshire to hold a rally in Hialeah, Fla. late this afternoon. But Giuliani promised he would return to New Hampshire tomorrow and stay through the state's primary on Jan. 8. "None of this concerns me," he said of speculation that his campaign is flagging in early voting states. "These are all tactics." And Giuliani also elaborated on his foreign policy experience in a chat with reporters, saying that since leaving the mayor's office he had visited at least 34 countries in more than 90 separate trips. He said he had not traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries he frequently talks about on the trail, but noted he had met with Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai a year ago in India. "I'm very current on the world. I don't know the whole world," he said, adding when it comes to his GOP presidential rival Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), "He has had a lot of experience. But so have I....As mayor of New York, I got involved in every foreign policy dispute that exists." While Giuliani told a New Hampshire audience last night that he admired former secretaries of state such as George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, most of those men have already declared their support for McCain. Both Shultz and Kissinger endorsed the senator months ago, while Powell--who has yet to endorse anybody publicly--gave McCain a campaign contribution in August.
Posted at 2:44 PM ET on Jan 3, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Newsday.com Missouri murder controversy hounds Huckabee MCCLATCHY NEWS
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this week that he is "heartbroken" over the pain suffered by the families of two women murdered in Kansas City more than six years ago.
Authorities say both victims, Carol Shields and Sara Andrasek, were killed by Wayne DuMond, who was released from an Arkansas prison in 1999, a year before Shields' murder. Their mothers say Huckabee is responsible, at least in part, for DuMond's release.
"What a fool," said Lois Davidson, Shields' mother. "Thinking he could rule the country when he couldn't even do a good job as governor of Arkansas."
Janet Williams, Andrasek's mother, said, "Wayne DuMond should have never been on the streets in Missouri. ... When politics are involved, people get hurt, and Sara and Carol Shields paid the ultimate price with their lives."
"I'm deeply sorry for what they've been through," Huckabee said in a telephone interview with The Kansas City Star on Tuesday. "Nothing I can do or say can reduce their level of grief." But the Republican said he wanted the families -- and the public -- to fully understand his role in DuMond's controversial release from custody. "I should be held responsible for the things I did," Huckabee said. "The one thing I didn't do is let him go."
DuMond died in 2005 in a Missouri prison, where he was serving time for killing Shields. He was never charged with killing Andrasek, although prosecutors say they have "no doubt" he did.
Huckabee's connection to Wayne DuMond has been a part of Arkansas politics for more than a decade. Now, as Huckabee climbs in some presidential polls, the case is getting new scrutiny.
A jury sent DuMond to prison in 1985 for the rape of Ashley Stevens, 17, a distant relative of then-Gov. Bill Clinton. While awaiting that trial, DuMond was castrated -- some say by assailants, others say at his own hand. But his conviction and imprisonment became a rallying point for Clinton critics and some Arkansas Republicans, who said they believed DuMond was innocent and in prison because of the Clinton connection.
In 1996, then-Gov. Huckabee said he planned to commute DuMond's sentence to time served, in part because evidence in the case was "questionable." That announcement set off bitter complaints, including from Stevens. On Jan. 16, 1997, Huckabee officially reversed the decision and denied clemency, but he told DuMond in a letter "my desire is that you be released from prison."
That day, the Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board agreed to release DuMond.
Huckabee says claims that he had tried to influence the parole board were ludicrous. He admitted he considered commuting DuMond's sentence to time served and doubted DuMond's guilt in the 1990s. Now, he says, "given what's happened," he believes DuMond was guilty of rape and regrets the release.
"They say you're supposed to forgive," Davidson said. "There are two men I don't think I'll ever forgive: Mr. Huckabee and Wayne DuMond."
Dan White prosecuted DuMond for Shields' murder. A jury convicted DuMond; he was sentenced to life in prison. Huckabee "was certainly an advocate for the release of Wayne DuMond," White said last week. "I don't think there's any question he shares some responsibility."
Davidson and Williams say Huckabee has never called them to apologize or to explain his part in the case, even though he told interviewers he "felt horrible" about DuMond's release.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 11:01 PM
Judging Huckabee's Clemencies Prison Commutations Under Scrutiny; What Role Did Faith Play? By MARY JACOBY December 24, 2007; Page A4
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- In 2004, Mike Huckabee granted clemency to John Henry Claiborne III, a man facing the prospect of life in prison for a violent crime spree committed 11 years earlier.
The grant came following the plea of a prominent African-American evangelical supporter of Mr. Huckabee, then the Republican Arkansas governor -- and over the objections of Mr. Claiborne's victims, and the prosecutor in the case.
As Mr. Huckabee has surged to the top of the Republican presidential race, scrutiny of his record here in Little Rock has grown. One element in particular is the high number of prison-sentence commutations and pardons that Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, granted during his decade in office -- more than a thousand, or twice those of the previous three governors combined.
One of Mr. Huckabee's opponents, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has zeroed in on the clemencies to paint Mr. Huckabee as soft on crime. Mr. Huckabee has responded that his governing philosophy included a willingness to give people "a second chance."
The clemency decisions go to the heart of Mr. Huckabee's message: part Christian moral conservatism, part liberal-leaning social conscience. Little Rock lobbyist J. J. Vigneault, a former political aide to Mr. Huckabee, says of his former boss's faith: "I do think it has the potential to influence everything he does."
The minister who would eventually become Mr. Claiborne's champion began his political relationship with Mr. Huckabee around 1993.
The Rev. Charles E. Williams, of the Covenant of Zion Cathedral Church in Little Rock, grew up in Cleveland, Miss., the son of sharecroppers. His family of 10 lived in a shack with no plumbing beside their cotton field, and his tale of childhood hardship echoes the one Mr. Huckabee often tells of his own upbringing. "But we were never on welfare. And my parents taught us to value America and its values, despite deep racism," Mr. Williams says in an interview at his church in a blighted area near downtown Little Rock.
After Mr. Williams moved from Mississippi to Arkansas, he met Mr. Huckabee, then the lieutenant governor, at an event at the state capitol. Mr. Huckabee greeted Mr. Williams with a big hug, Mr. Williams recalls. "We bonded. The guy is as comfortable around blacks as he is any other people," he says.
Messrs. Huckabee and Williams -- now both 52 years old -- shared a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible and a strong opposition to abortion and homosexuality.
Mr. Huckabee took office as governor in 1996. In 2001 he appointed Mr. Williams to a post on the state Claims Commission reviewing tort litigation, a position that paid around $20,000 a year. Mr. Williams served on the panel until 2006.
Mr. Williams was part of Mr. Huckabee's network in the religious African-American community. Mr. Huckabee regularly won around 20% of the black vote in his gubernatorial races in Arkansas, substantially more than any other Republican candidate for statewide office. Much of that support came from his close connections with black evangelical ministers in the state, allowing him to tap their networks for votes, said former aide Mr. Vigneault.
Over the years, Mr. Williams brought what he thought were worthy clemency applications to Mr. Huckabee's attention. "I would pray over them, weigh how heinous was the crime," he says.
In an interview, Mr. Huckabee said of Mr. Williams, "I've known him for many, many years." He said he couldn't remember whether Mr. Williams had influenced any specific clemency cases. "I'm sure he wrote letters for somebody," he said, but added: "One letter is never going to be the thing."
One application Mr. Williams promoted was from Mr. Claiborne.
Mr. Claiborne, who will turn 40 on Friday, grew up in Little Rock. In 1991, while he was living in Washington state, Mr. Claiborne was convicted of robbery and possessing stolen property and went to prison briefly. When he got out, he returned to Little Rock.
On the morning of April 1, 1993, according to a prosecutor's notes, Mr. Claiborne broke into the home of 72-year-old Cloy Evans, in a working-class neighborhood of Little Rock. Mr. Claiborne tied Mr. Evans to a chair and ripped his phone from the wall. He ransacked his house. He took a shotgun and rifles and headed next door.
Vivian Allbritton had just come inside from hanging the laundry when Mr. Claiborne broke down her back door. He ordered her and her husband, Homer, a World War II veteran, to lie on the kitchen floor, and pointed the shotgun at their heads. He ripped the wedding rings from Mrs. Allbritton's fingers, according to her son, Greg.
Mr. Allbritton, then 69 years old, started to have chest pains. Still, he tried to flee for help. But he slipped and fell, and Mr. Claiborne dragged him back inside the house and ransacked their home, according to Greg Allbritton and the prosecutor.
Mr. Claiborne left in the couple's 1983 Mercury. A few weeks later, Homer Allbritton suffered a heart attack, his son says. After he had committed seven more felony crimes for which he was convicted, Mr. Claiborne was apprehended.
Mr. Claiborne went to prison on a 375-year sentence, which was later reduced to 100 years by Mr. Huckabee's predecessor, Jim Guy Tucker. Mr. Claiborne repeatedly applied for early release, Greg Allbritton says.
Mr. Williams said he pushed for Mr. Claiborne's early release because his family asked for his help. "And I want to help people," he says, declining to elaborate. Mr. Williams says in general he would lobby the governor in person when he saw him at political or official events.
In 2004, the Allbrittons got word that Gov. Huckabee was going to back Mr. Claiborne's commutation request. "It was like anyone who said they'd found Jesus could get Gov. Huckabee to commute their sentence," says Greg Allbritton, whose father, Homer, had died in 2001. Greg called the Pulaski County prosecutor, Larry Jegley, to complain about Mr. Huckabee's decision.
"When I heard his story, I got angry," says Mr. Jegley, a Democrat. Mr. Jegley held a press conference to press Mr. Huckabee for a moratorium on clemencies. Of Mr. Claiborne and his list of felony convictions, he says: "This guy was trouble."
Mr. Huckabee plays down the idea that arguments for redemption influenced his clemency decisions. "Everybody in jail will always claim to have a conversion," he says. "You look at institutional records, disciplinaries, recommendations from prosecutors, police, friends, family, whether they have a job." The Huckabee campaign declined to comment on Mr. Claiborne's case.
After Mr. Claiborne was granted parole in 2004, he married the sister of Mr. Williams, the minister.
In September of this year, a police officer found Mr. Claiborne slumped over the wheel of his car in the middle of a Little Rock intersection, passed out. The officer found marijuana, small bags and a scale in the car with Mr. Claiborne. He was charged with possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Mr. Claiborne is now out of jail on $15,000 bond, court records show.
Mr. Claiborne couldn't be reached for comment, and Mr. Williams declined to arrange an interview with him. But, Mr. Williams said in an interview last week: "He's doing real well."
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 10:43 PM
Hey Babe, you hate gays, want to ban abortions, but love the Born-Again, Faith-Based, Pro-Life Lying Serial Killer in Chief Mass Murderer War Criminal's Illegal Invasions. You want to Wall off the South, but like Mission Accomplished, you are just another Religious Fraud and Hypocrite who harbors a lot of Hatred. Babe, there are many more Fundamentalist Extremists Religious Nuts like you in Canada than in Mexico. You better move your useless Wall up North. Babe, your Huckster is not going very far outside of Iowa. Does your Delusional Imaginary Fairy Tale Book include shooting God's creatures just for pure pleasure?
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 10:41 PM
That should be "abortifacient" = any substance that induces abortion or prevents implantation.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 7:46 PM
I don't think that Jesus would "hate" anyone -- BTW neither do I -- please re-read your own posts if you are really wondering who "hates" whom. As for "not answering any questions" I (at the very least) answered that I wouldn't mind my "race" becoming a minority in the USA faster if that meant banning all abortions. You now throw in other "birth control" on top of the discussion re: abortion -- as long as said birth control is not an abortifacent and is practiced between a married man and women, I have no problem with that -- anything more detailed than that is probably better addressed on a specific thread about birth control. Better luck next time.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 7:21 PM
Hey, nikb, we don't need more humans on the Earth. Now that we're here let's keep the planet pristine for ourselves. You favor abortions, but really now, does that go far enough. Do we really need all those old folks who occupy space in nursing homes. After all they've lived their lives. Let's propose a program to let them go gracefully so they don't take up any precious space, not to mention the carbon dioxide they produce and the food they consume. And why not rid ourselves of those folks in mental institutions and those with debilitating illnesses. Gee, they're such a burden to society. Who needs them. While we're at it let's propose to get rid of all those useless kids that are born with imperfections. After all, we want the world we live in to be a utopia for those of us fortunate to be here now. Come to think of it, I think the Nazis tried these ideas already.
Posted by: zapo | January 3, 2008 7:06 PM
December 05, 2007, 4:00 a.m.
The Story Mike Huckabee Dreads With his new success comes new attention to an old Arkansas crime.
In August, I interviewed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee about the case of Wayne Dumond, the convicted rapist who was freed under Huckabee's administration, only to rape and kill a woman in neighboring Missouri. The crime attracted enormous attention in Arkansas, but at the time of our interview, it had not made its way into much coverage of Huckabee's presidential bid. "If [Huckabee] continues to rise in the polls," I wrote, "it's likely he'll be talking about it a lot more."
Now Huckabee is rising in the polls, and sure enough, the Dumond case is attracting more attention. This morning, ABC News ran a report featuring the mother of the woman Dumond murdered, who blames Huckabee for her daughter's death and vows to do everything she can to stop his campaign. "I can't imagine anybody wanting somebody like that running the country," the woman told ABC.
For many people, the report is the first they've heard of the Dumond case. Once they learn about it, however, they are unlikely to forget its bizarre details and the strange turn of events that led to Dumond's final crime. The case is the wild card in Mike Huckabee's record, the single most controversial event during his time in the Arkansas governor's office. And it is a potential threat to his now-soaring candidacy.
It began in September 1984, when Dumond, a 35-year-old handyman, kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old high-school cheerleader in the small eastern-Arkansas town of Forrest City. Dumond was allowed to remain free on bond while awaiting trial, and in March 1985 two masked men entered his house, tied him up with fishing line, and castrated him. People were stunned; the case, already notorious, became much more so. And that was before the local sheriff, a rather colorful man named Coolidge Conlee, displayed Dumond's severed testicles in a jar of formaldehyde on his desk in the St. Francis County building. Amid tons of publicity, Dumond was found guilty and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
The case took on a political coloring when it became known that the victim was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton. After conviction, Dumond, who claimed he was innocent, asked Clinton for clemency. Clinton declined.
Dumond also argued that even if he were guilty his sentence was excessive, and his position won him some sympathy, not least on the grounds that he had suffered terribly at the hands of those unknown assailants. In April 1992, when Dumond had served just seven years, Lt. Gov. Tucker, acting as governor while Clinton was out of state campaigning for president, commuted Dumond's sentence to a level where he would be eligible for parole. That didn't mean Dumond would go free, only that the state parole board would consider the question. The board declined to free Dumond.
That's where things stood when Huckabee took office on July 15, 1996. Last August, Huckabee told me he had his doubts about Dumond's guilt, and also felt sorry for him over the castration attack. On September 20, just weeks after taking office, Huckabee announced that he intended to set Dumond free, saying that there were "serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt." On October 31, Huckabee met with the parole board. Not long after, the board voted to free Dumond, but on the condition he move to another state. Huckabee was pleased, in part because -- given that the board had voted to free Dumond -- there was no need for Huckabee to commute the sentence or pardon him. So Huckabee denied Dumond's now-irrelevant pardon application while at the same time congratulating him on his soon-to-come freedom. "Dear Wayne," Huckabee wrote in a letter to Dumond. "My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place."
But no state would take Dumond. He remained behind bars for two and a half more years, until the board voted to free him in Arkansas. He was released in October 1999 and returned home. The next year, Dumond left the state, moving to a small town near Kansas City, Mo. Within weeks of arriving, he sexually assaulted and murdered a 39-year-old woman at an apartment complex near his home. The day that happened, everyone knew that freeing Wayne Dumond had been a very, very bad idea.
A political storm erupted. Huckabee sought cover by saying that all he had done was to deny Dumond's pardon application. But some Democrats claimed that Huckabee had pressured the parole board to free Dumond. What actually happened between Huckabee and the board remains unclear to this day, but there is no doubt that Huckabee wanted Wayne Dumond set free. And today, he knows he was terribly wrong, but he still defends his actions. "My only official action was to deny his clemency," Huckabee told me in Iowa. As we talked, Huckabee spread the blame around, not only to Tucker, who originally commuted Dumond's sentence, but to Bill Clinton as well. "Tucker could not have done that without Clinton's full knowledge and approval," Huckabee said.
I asked about the "Dear Wayne" letter. Didn't Huckabee want Dumond to go free? "I thought he would, you know, be clean," Huckabee told me. "And he had a job, he had sponsors lined up, so at the time, I did not have this apprehension that something horrible like that would happen. I did want him to report in [to parole authorities], because I just didn't know -- you never know about a guy like that."
As he talked, Huckabee looked down. "I hate it like crazy," he said. "It's one of the most horrible things ever that he went off and did what he did. It's just terrible. There's nothing you can say, but my gosh, it's the thing you pray never happens. And it did."
The Dumond case followed Huckabee around for the rest of his time in the governor's office. In his 2002 reelection bid, his Democratic opponent based virtually her entire campaign on the issue. And beyond the narrow issue of Dumond, Huckabee's actions raise larger questions about his views on crime and punishment. Critics, and some friends, too, have said Huckabee's position was deeply influenced by his Christian faith. "When I first met him, I was going through his positions on issues and I said, 'You're a conservative, so I'm sure you oppose granting parole for violent felons,'" Dick Morris, the campaign consultant who ran Huckabee's first run for lieutenant governor, told me. "And he said, 'Oh no, I would never take that position, because the concept of Christian duty requires that there is a possibility of forgiveness. The concept of Christian forgiveness requires that we keep open the process of parole -- use it sparingly, but keep it open.'"
When I asked Huckabee about that, he reminded me that he was tough on a lot of criminals, too. "Heck, I executed more people than any governor in the history of the state," Huckabee told me. "It's not something I'm bragging about, I'm just saying that if it had been simply a matter of my Christian conscience saying I don't believe in capital punishment, then I was pretty lousy in my conscience."
Huckabee doesn't duck talking about Dumond or the larger clemency issue. But he doesn't enjoy it, either, given that it was unquestionably the worst thing that happened while he was governor. Now, with the press spotlight shining on him, he has no choice but to explain himself.
Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President -- and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 6:56 PM
Huckabee faces scrutiny for involvement in rapist parole
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Following the release of several new polls suggesting Mike Huckabee has risen into the first tier of the Republican presidential candidates, the former Arkansas governor is facing a fresh round of scrutiny over supporting the parole of a convicted rapist in 1999.
Huckabee, then in his first term as governor, expressed support for the parole of Wayne DuMond, who was serving a life sentence for raping a 17-year-old girl. Less than a year after his release, DuMond was accused of murdering and raping a woman in Kansas City, Missouri, a crime he was eventually convicted of in 2003. He died in prison in 2005.
Huckabee has repeatedly said he wished he had more information about DuMond before advocating the release, and recently told CNN there was no indication DuMond remained a threat.
"There's nothing any of us could ever do," Huckabee said. "None of us could've predicted what he could've done when he got out." Huckabee also said that the process leading to DuMond's release began under former President Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.
But new documents posted on the liberal Web site The Huffington Post indicate Huckabee had received letters from several victims of Wayne Dumond's before his release. The letters detailed his past actions and pleaded that he remain incarcerated.
"I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time," one victim wrote. She described how DuMond had raped her at knifepoint.
In another letter, a woman documented how her mother was raped by DuMond, and said he had told her mother that he would rape her daughter if she did not cooperate.
The Huffington Post says it received the never-before-published letters from a "deeply troubled" former aide to Huckabee who believes the now-presidential candidate has "deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of DuMond's other sexual assaults."
Huckabee spokesman Alice Stewart denied to the Huffington Post that Huckabee ever received any of the letters, but now tells CNN he got at least one from a victim named "Onita" who lived in DeWitt, Arkansas.
It's not clear if this is one of the letters posted on the Huffington Post, because the site has redacted the names.
The Huffington Post has published three victims' letters, and says it will post additional files later Wednesday.
- CNN's Dana Bash and Alexander Mooney
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 6:54 PM
ON DEADLINE: Did Huckabee go too far? By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 31, 4:56 PM ET
Mike Huckabee may have finally gone too far.
After running an unconventional, surprisingly strong and sometimes strange race to the top tier of the Republican presidential campaign, the former Arkansas governor topped himself Monday with a campaign stunt that smacked of hypocrisy.
He called a news conference to unveil a negative ad that he had just withdrawn from Iowa television stations because, he told a room full of journalists recording the ad, he had a sudden aversion to negative politics. Quite a convenient epiphany.
"If people want to be cynical about it," Huckabee said, "they can be cynical about it."
If he loses Iowa's caucuses, New Year's Eve will forever mark the day Huckabee blew it -- the day a crowd stopped laughing with the witty Republican and laughed at him.
If he wins -- a possibility that even Huckabee now thinks he put at risk -- he sealed victory in a weird way Monday.
Huckabee came out of nowhere a few weeks ago to overtake former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in Iowa polls, despite being massively outspent and out-organized. Romney answered back with television ads criticizing Huckabee's record in Arkansas.
While guilty of cherry-picking the worst aspects of Huckabee's resume, the negative ads stuck with the facts. For example, Huckabee did grant 1,033 pardons and commutations, including for 12 convicted murderers, as Romney's ad stated.
Huckabee's lead evaporated, which suggests that the ads worked or that a series of gaffes had caught up to him.
So he did what desperate candidates do. Huckabee took himself off the campaign trail Sunday to shoot a negative ad. He bought $30,000 in television time to air the spot and called a news conference to unveil it.
While awaiting the late-arriving Huckabee, more than 50 reporters and a dozen photographers got to read five huge cards placed on easels by Huckabee's staff -- all highly critical of Romney's record as governor.
"Enough is enough," the signs said.
When Huckabee arrived, he announced that he had just changed his mind. The ad wouldn't run. It was too negative.
"I believe the people of Iowa deserve better, and we are going to try and give them better ...," he said.
But he didn't. Instead, Huckabee showed off the spot to the journalists, knowing full well his negative message would seep out of the room. He told the media to pay close attention.
"You're not going to get a copy of it," he warned, "so this is your chance to see it, then after that you'll never see it again."
One of the funniest, most charming presidential candidate in recent memory, Huckabee normally makes reporters and voters laugh at his one-liners. On Monday, he made himself the butt of his own joke, urging journalists to take careful note of the negative ad that he had withdrawn because he wanted to run a positive campaign.
"It's never too late to do the right thing," he said.
The ad criticizes Romney's record as governor, fairly so, but goes on to question his character. "If a man is dishonest to obtain a job," Huckabee says in the ad, "he'll be dishonest on the job."
Funny that Huckabee decided at noon that line was too negative, because he used it six hours earlier during a national TV interview.
He used it on a Sunday news show, too.
And he didn't disavow the line Monday. "I said what I said. I spoke the truth," Huckabee said.
If he loses Thursday, Huckabee said, "I'll be the last guy to do this. But I want to be the first who will at least try."
Iowans have a reputation for punishing politicians who go negative. The question is whether voters, particularly evangelicals who make up his political base, will believe Huckabee had the political equivalent of a deathbed conversion.
Or will they think he's treating them likes rubes -- appealing to their sense of fair play while being foul?
Either way, the bizarre news conference was the latest twist in a campaign that has given new meaning to the word paradox. Huckabee is an immensely talented communicator and successful former governor who is nonetheless a flawed candidate.
⢠He is mistake prone, particularly when it comes to commenting about foreign policy.
⢠He can be thin-skinned and rash. Two of his advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said privately Monday that the production of the ad was fueled by Huckabee's white-hot anger with Romney, and that his change of mind was jarring to the campaign staff.
⢠He has a paltry political organization in a state that values the ground game, according to an informal survey of GOP county chairs and co-chairs. "I haven't seen much of a sign of him or his people," said Jim Conklin, chairman of the Linn County GOP.
He can also be disarmingly honest. Asked whether Romney should stop running negative ads, Huckabee said, "I'm not going to try to run his campaign."
"I'm having enough trouble running mine."
EDITORS: Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years. On Deadline is an occasional column.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 6:51 PM
Sure, let's ban all birth control and abortions throughout the world. The Earth needs more humans on it. We need to clear cut all the forests everywhere and build more houses and whatever. We need more stuff for everyone. Let's all have one big feast and bring more people on the planet and manufacture more stuff for everyone to use and throwaway. Let's build more coal power plants.
So, why have a Mexican Wall? There are very few Fundamentalist Muslims in Mexico. There are tons in Canada. It just shows what a bunch of racists the Wall Wackos are.
You have no answers. You are just full of Hate like most Religious Extremists. You want to impose your Delusional, Imaginary Religious Fairy Tales on others who are capable of independent thought and analysis.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 6:12 PM
Well, nikb, I wouldn't mind my "race" becoming a minority in the USA faster if that meant banning all abortions -- not sure how that makes me a "racist" though -- as for all your other ad hominem attacks (even if they were true), it doesn't actually address the issues at hand.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Why not have a wall on the Canadian border and the coastline? How many Islunatics have emigrated to Canada from Mission Accomplished's warzones, PakiPsychostan, Iran and other wonderful Islunatic countries? You should pay a visit to Toronto, Montreal, etc. So, basically, you Wall Freaks are just racists? You will go and pick the veggies and fruits? You don't need to pick the nuts, because you are one. You Wall Wackos ever heard of tunnels, ladders, boats, planes, etc.? Your useless money wasting Wall is full of holes like your arguments. So, you claim to be Pro-Life but you support the Mass Murderer and the Serial Killings of others. People in Iraq did not attack the USA before the Axis of Evil invaded, but I am sure many would like to now, and the only WMDs are the Weapon of Mass Delusions of the Extremists Psycho NeoConArtists. So, it is better to waste a couple of Trillion Dollars fighting Illegal Invasions that will only make the USA less secure? You support the Death Penalty or are you like the Huckster and trust all the Rapists and Murderers in the Big House have all found the Good Lord and push for their early release on parole so they can go out and Rape and Kill your daughters, sisters, wives, etc. again?
Your Pro-Lifer is just another Dukakis.
Banning all abortions only means your race will become a minority in the USA faster. So, get used to it.
You can always drink the Kool-Aid.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 5:48 PM
I understand what you are saying, zapo, but "Anybody" is a pretty broad category ; )
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:31 PM
JakeD, where I come from one of the local radio stations distributes bumper stickers that read, "Anybody but Hillary". I'm dedicated to that position, and I think Rudy is the one guy who can make that happen.
Posted by: zapo | January 3, 2008 5:27 PM
"In a meeting with several dozen Segway employees..."
How the mighty have fallen.
Posted by: zukermand | January 3, 2008 5:25 PM
I don't think that anyone is calling for a wall all along the Canadian border and the coastline.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:23 PM
He is a joke. He will try to ride to coat tails of 9/11 forever. He really didnt do much of anything besides walk around for a photo op
Posted by: rdy4all2000 | January 3, 2008 5:23 PM
He is Pro-Death like the Born-Again, Faith-Based, Pro-Life Lying Serial Killer-in-Chief Mass Murderer War Criminal. At least he will not grovel to the National Right to Annihilate like everyone else in the Guns Owned Party. We should continue to flush away $15 billion/month ($500 million per day) in Mission Accomplished's Illegal Invasion of Sovereign States. We should build a wall not only on the Mexican border but the Canadian border and all along the coastline. We should invade more Islunatic countries to generate more hatred and enemies. Happy now, Extremists Psychos?
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 5:10 PM
If my only choice was Rudy vs. Hillary, Obama or Edwards, yeah, I guess I would have to vote for Rudy -- talk about choosing between two evils -- luckily, there's always been a pro-life candidate running ; )
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:04 PM
JakeD, would you rather have the socialist leaning, pro-abortion, tax increasing, terror-war defeatist, little management experienced Hillary, Obama or Edwards running the White House? Rudy may not be a far right conservative (note he doesn't personally believe in abortion), but the Time 2001 Person of the Year is a superb, tested, tough and experienced leader whose moderate social stances make him nationally electable.
Posted by: zapo | January 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Ouch, kase. You don't see me hoping for another James Earl Ray against Obama, do you?
P.S. to bsimon -- I never claimed that Rudy was part of the State Department or federal government, nor that his staff negotiated or signed treaties, nor that he directed foreign policy -- all he said was "As mayor of New York, I got involved in every foreign policy dispute that exists." I don't find that so hard to believe. Go ahead a disprove it if you can.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 4:51 PM
Hopefully his cancer will kill him before election day.
Posted by: kase | January 3, 2008 4:39 PM
I believe we'd be better off if Herr Rudy (and most of the others of both parties) skipped ALL the states.
Posted by: filoporquequilo | January 3, 2008 4:34 PM
JakeD, perhaps you've forgotten that the mayor of New York is not a position within the state department or federal government. Neither he nor his staff negotiates or signs treaties. Nor does he direct foreign policy. At best, the job could be described as a 'figurehead' position, i.e. 'Welcome to New York, enjoy your visit to the United Nations'.
Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 4:31 PM
On the positive side, the CFR article linked to above has some very good ideas, as well as the following: "Since leaving the New York City mayor's office, I have traveled to 35 different countries. It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining America's message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest."
That sounds good to me.
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 4:17 PM
I'm fairly concerned that he is pro-choice and pro-homosexual rights -- so, I probably could not vote for him -- I would like to see New York and California in play come November though
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 4:08 PM
The other presidential hopefuls talk a good talk, but Rudy is the only one who showed us how a leader should perform in a crises. His management after the 9/11 catastrophe was tech book perfect. This, after he made New York a decent place to want to live in and visit again, and after he put New York on a sound fiscal footing. Oh yes, and he also personally took on the mob. This guy is for real, not some media made over.
Posted by: zapo | January 3, 2008 4:03 PM
Dennis Kucinich is also campaigning in New Hampshire today.
Posted by: jfung79p | January 3, 2008 3:54 PM
Posted by: JakeD | January 3, 2008 3:47 PM
"As mayor of New York, I got involved in every foreign policy dispute that exists." What a joke.
Posted by: bsimon | January 3, 2008 3:17 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.
|
Rudy Giuliani defends his strategy of skipping Iowa and looking forward to Florida and the Feb. 5 primary states.--Juliet Eilperin
| 380.409091 | 0.772727 | 1.227273 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/looking_for_answers_what_iowa.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/looking_for_answers_what_iowa.html
|
Looking For Answers: What Iowa Could Change
|
2008010419
|
Dan Balz's analysis of key questions the caucus could answer:
1) Will Either Race End in Iowa? The only race that could is in the Democratic Party and only if Hillary Clinton wins a big victory. Iowa has proved resistant to the Clinton brand, and she has struggled there throughout the year. But her final days of campaigning have been solid, and a victory, no matter how narrow, would be a big boost for her.
2) How Big Will the Iowa Bounce Be? The big difference this year is the shortened time between Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primaries. Normally eight days, it will be just five this time, thanks to the decision by New Hampshire Secretary of State William M. Gardner to schedule New Hampshire so soon after Iowa.
3) Is This Process Defensible? Some political strategists found this question too hot to handle, not wanting to offend Iowans but not enamored of a process in which fewer than 200,000 Democrats and fewer than 100,000 Republicans will participate. Add to that the fact that the state is largely white and rural -- and the absence of one-person, one-vote rules on the Democratic side -- and the caucuses attract even more critics.
4) Which Candidate Will Turn Out the Most First-Time Caucus Participants? Lots of candidates for this award, but the consensus among strategists in Iowa and elsewhere is that Obama will draw the most newcomers. "He has lit a fire among many younger voters and those on the fringes of political activism that is unprecedented in recent years," one GOP strategist said.
Bonus answer to one important question today: how the caucuses actually work. See details here.
See full answers below the jump.
1) Will Either Race End in Iowa?
The only race that could is in the Democratic Party and only if Hillary Clinton wins a big victory. Iowa has proved resistant to the Clinton brand, and she has struggled there throughout the year. But her final days of campaigning have been solid, and a victory, no matter how narrow, would be a big boost for her.
Barack Obama has plenty of money to keep going, whatever the outcome. If he wins or there is any kind of a muddled finish on the Democratic side, the battle goes to New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. An Edwards victory here guarantees the race continues; he has been trailing in New Hampshire and lags both Clinton and Obama in money.
There is no way the Republican race ends in Iowa. If Mitt Romney comes back to win, he will get more credit than he might have before Mike Huckabee's dramatic surge into the pre-caucus poll lead. But Romney has now got a fight on his hands in New Hampshire against John McCain, and the GOP race is too fluid.
Huckabee has an even more difficult path, even if he wins here, because he has been lagging in New Hampshire. "If Huckabee wins, the results will confuse the Republican nomination, rather than clarify it," said GOP strategist Terry Nelson.
Both the Democratic and Republican races could go to Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will hold contests. Some strategists believe the races could go beyond that, particularly the Republican campaign.
The campaign, however, will end for some after Iowa. Lower-tier candidates may try to hang on through New Hampshire, but single-digit finishes in Iowa will spell the end for a number of candidates. And as a Republican strategist observed, "Iowa will mark the beginning of the end for other major contenders in the field, but we just aren't smart enough to figure out which ones."
2) How Big Will the Iowa Bounce Be? The big difference this year is the shortened time between Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primaries. Normally eight days, it will be just five this time, thanks to the decision by New Hampshire Secretary of State William M. Gardner to schedule New Hampshire so soon after Iowa.
The bounce, say experts, usually shows up a couple of days after Iowa and then begins to dissipate. A clean Obama victory over Clinton and Edwards would become a very big story and would dominate the news into the weekend debates. A Romney win could arrest McCain's growing strength in New Hampshire. But the altered calendar throws a monkey wrench into the predictions of the experts, who are in considerable disagreement on this question.
3) Is This Process Defensible? Some political strategists found this question too hot to handle, not wanting to offend Iowans but not enamored of a process in which fewer than 200,000 Democrats and fewer than 100,000 Republicans will participate. Add to that the fact that the state is largely white and rural -- and the absence of one-person, one-vote rules on the Democratic side -- and the caucuses attract even more critics.
Some Democrats also believe the caucus electorate is too left-leaning for the party's good. As one strategist put it, "The only time Democrats have nominated a candidate who won the White House since 1976 was the year everyone skipped Iowa." That was in 1992, when all other candidates deferred to home-state Sen. Tom Harkin's presidential bid. Harkin won Iowa handily, and Clinton went on to become the party's nominee and president.
But Iowa voters have earned the respect of the candidates and their staffs, even those who feel the caucus process itself is flawed. Iowa's process forces candidates to look voters in the eye and answer their questions. The long exposure voters have to the candidates -- and in this election, it has been longer and more intense than ever -- gives them a unique opportunity to weigh strengths and weaknesses. "Somebody needs to do that and Iowans have been trained to do it," one Democrat wrote.
There is widespread agreement that what has happened this year requires major surgery for 2012. The compressed calendar and the early start to voting have left almost everyone involved in this campaign frustrated. "The caucus process itself is defensible," said Democratic strategist Bill Carrick. "The calendar is not defensible."
4) Which Candidate Will Turn Out the Most First-Time Caucus Participants? Lots of candidates for this award, but the consensus among strategists in Iowa and elsewhere is that Obama will draw the most newcomers. "He has lit a fire among many younger voters and those on the fringes of political activism that is unprecedented in recent years," one GOP strategist said.
Certainly the Des Moines Register's final poll suggested that was the case. More than 70 percent of Obama's supporters in the Register poll said they had not gone to a caucus in the past -- well above the percentages for Clinton and Edwards.
On the Republican side, there seems little doubt that Huckabee will find more support among newcomers to the caucuses. Ron Paul could attract newcomers, but the view of one strategist is that Paul's followers are more likely to show up for a primary -- which is why he could surprise people in New Hampshire -- but are less comfortable with party-establishment events such as the caucuses.
Posted at 1:35 PM ET on Jan 3, 2008 Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This Previous: Relaxed Romney Gets a Punch Line In | Next: On All Sides, Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
Add The Trail to Your Site
Posted by: thirdrailradio | January 4, 2008 6:51 AM
Newsday.com Missouri murder controversy hounds Huckabee MCCLATCHY NEWS
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this week that he is "heartbroken" over the pain suffered by the families of two women murdered in Kansas City more than six years ago.
Authorities say both victims, Carol Shields and Sara Andrasek, were killed by Wayne DuMond, who was released from an Arkansas prison in 1999, a year before Shields' murder. Their mothers say Huckabee is responsible, at least in part, for DuMond's release.
"What a fool," said Lois Davidson, Shields' mother. "Thinking he could rule the country when he couldn't even do a good job as governor of Arkansas."
Janet Williams, Andrasek's mother, said, "Wayne DuMond should have never been on the streets in Missouri. ... When politics are involved, people get hurt, and Sara and Carol Shields paid the ultimate price with their lives."
"I'm deeply sorry for what they've been through," Huckabee said in a telephone interview with The Kansas City Star on Tuesday. "Nothing I can do or say can reduce their level of grief." But the Republican said he wanted the families -- and the public -- to fully understand his role in DuMond's controversial release from custody. "I should be held responsible for the things I did," Huckabee said. "The one thing I didn't do is let him go."
DuMond died in 2005 in a Missouri prison, where he was serving time for killing Shields. He was never charged with killing Andrasek, although prosecutors say they have "no doubt" he did.
Huckabee's connection to Wayne DuMond has been a part of Arkansas politics for more than a decade. Now, as Huckabee climbs in some presidential polls, the case is getting new scrutiny.
A jury sent DuMond to prison in 1985 for the rape of Ashley Stevens, 17, a distant relative of then-Gov. Bill Clinton. While awaiting that trial, DuMond was castrated -- some say by assailants, others say at his own hand. But his conviction and imprisonment became a rallying point for Clinton critics and some Arkansas Republicans, who said they believed DuMond was innocent and in prison because of the Clinton connection.
In 1996, then-Gov. Huckabee said he planned to commute DuMond's sentence to time served, in part because evidence in the case was "questionable." That announcement set off bitter complaints, including from Stevens. On Jan. 16, 1997, Huckabee officially reversed the decision and denied clemency, but he told DuMond in a letter "my desire is that you be released from prison."
That day, the Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board agreed to release DuMond.
Huckabee says claims that he had tried to influence the parole board were ludicrous. He admitted he considered commuting DuMond's sentence to time served and doubted DuMond's guilt in the 1990s. Now, he says, "given what's happened," he believes DuMond was guilty of rape and regrets the release.
"They say you're supposed to forgive," Davidson said. "There are two men I don't think I'll ever forgive: Mr. Huckabee and Wayne DuMond."
Dan White prosecuted DuMond for Shields' murder. A jury convicted DuMond; he was sentenced to life in prison. Huckabee "was certainly an advocate for the release of Wayne DuMond," White said last week. "I don't think there's any question he shares some responsibility."
Davidson and Williams say Huckabee has never called them to apologize or to explain his part in the case, even though he told interviewers he "felt horrible" about DuMond's release.
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 11:00 PM
Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release December 4, 2007 11:18 PM
Little Rock, Ark -- As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of a convicted rapist despite being warned by numerous women that the convict had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. The convict went on to rape and murder at least one other woman.
Confidential Arkansas state government records, including letters from these women, obtained by the Huffington Post and revealed publicly for the first time, directly contradict the version of events now being put forward by Huckabee.
While on the campaign trail, Huckabee has claimed that he supported the 1999 release of Wayne Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Thanks to Huckabee's intervention, conducted in concert with a right-wing tabloid campaign on Dumond's behalf, Dumond was let out of prison 25 years before his sentence would have ended.
"There's nothing any of us could ever do," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN when asked to reflect on the horrific outcome caused by the prisoner's release. "None of us could've predicted what [Dumond] could've done when he got out."
But the confidential files obtained by the Huffington Post show that Huckabee was provided letters from several women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond and who indeed predicted that he would rape again - and perhaps murder - if released.
In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond's victims warned: "I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time." Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee's urging, records show that Huckabee's office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas' parole board.
The woman later wrote directly to Huckabee about having been raped by Dumond. In a letter obtained by the Huffington Post, she said that Dumond had raped her while holding a butcher knife to her throat, and while her then-3-year-old daughter lay in bed next to her. Also included in the files sent to Huckabee's office was a police report in which Dumond confessed to the rape. Dumond was not charged in that particular case because he later refused to sign the confession and because the woman was afraid to press charges.
[See the full letters sent to Huckabee's office here.]
Huckabee kept these and other documents secret because they were politically damaging, according to a former aide who worked for him in Arkansas. The aide has made the records available to the Huffington Post, deeply troubled by Huckabee's repeated claims that he had no reason to believe Dumond would commit other violent crimes upon his release from prison. The aide also believes that Huckabee, for political reasons, has deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of Dumond's other sexual assaults.
"There were no letters sent to the governor's office from any rape victims," Huckabee campaign spokesperson Alice Stewart said on Tuesday when contacted by the Huffington Post.
Subsequently, however, the campaign provided a former senior aide of Huckabee's who did remember reading at least one of the letters.
But Huckabee and his aides insist that his receipt of the letters is irrelevant because the decision to release Dumond was made by the parole board. Huckabee on Tuesday again denied allegations by former parole board members that he lobbied them to release Dumond. "I did not ask them to do anything," he said. "I did indicate [Dumond's case] was sitting at my desk and I was giving thought to it."
Charmaine Yoest, a senior adviser to the Huckabee campaign, told the Huffington Post: "I think what should be considered here is that if he [Huckabee] could have changed what happened, he would. His whole life has been about respect for life and understanding the value of each individual life. Nobody regrets the loss of life here more than him."
In 1996, as a newly elected governor who had received strong support from the Christian right, Huckabee was under intense pressure from conservative activists to pardon Dumond or commute his sentence. The activists claimed that Dumond's initial imprisonment and various other travails were due to the fact that Ashley Stevens, the high school cheerleader he had raped, was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton, and the daughter of a major Clinton campaign contributor.
The case for Dumond's innocence was championed in Arkansas by Jay Cole, a Baptist minister and radio host who was a close friend of the Huckabee family. It also became a cause for New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy, who repeatedly argued for Dumond's release, calling his conviction "a travesty of justice." On Sept. 21, 1999, Dunleavy wrote a column headlined "Clinton's Biggest Crime - Left Innocent Man In Jail For 14 Years":
"Dumond, now 52, was given conditional parole yesterday in Arkansas after having being sentenced to 50 years in jail for the rape of Clinton's cousin," Dunleavy wrote. "That rape never happened."
A subsequent Dunleavy column quoted Huckabee saying: "There is grave doubt to the circumstances of this reported crime."
After Dumond's release from prison in September 1999, he moved to Smithville, Missouri, where he raped and suffocated to death a 39-year-old woman named Carol Sue Shields. Dumond was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison for that rape and murder.
But Dumond's arrest for those crimes in June 2001 came too late for 23-year-old Sara Andrasek of Platte County, Missouri. Dumond allegedly raped and murdered her just one day before his arrest for raping and murdering Shields. Prior to the attack, Andrasek and her husband had learned that she was pregnant with their first child.
Dumond died of natural causes while in prison on September 1, 2005. At the time of his death, Missouri authorities were readying capital murder charges against Dumond for the rape and murder of Andrasek.
Huckabee has refused to release his gubernatorial administration's records on the matter, saying that he was concerned for the privacy of Dumond's victims and that the records contain sensitive law enforcement information.
The Arkansas Parole Board also refuses to make public any letters or warnings it received from Drumond's victims. "We don't release comments for or against a clemency application or a parole case," the Board's spokesperson told Huffington Post, "except when they are comments from public officials."
But most of the women assaulted by Dumond and interviewed for this story say that Huckabee could have made information public while guarding their privacy. Law enforcement authorities also scoffed at the idea that anything in the records would have harmed an ongoing investigation since Dumond is no longer alive .
The records revealed in this story -- including correspondence between Dumond's victims and Huckabee, as well as the governor's own file regarding Dumond -- were provided to me in the fall of 2002 by a Republican staffer to then-Gov. Huckabee.
I made the decision not to make the files public at that time because of concern for the privacy of the rape victims and their families. I felt that their right to privacy outweighed the public's right to know, although I understand why many people would disagree.
Now that Huckabee is running for president, and after consulting with the victims and their families, I have decided to proceed, given what his actions on the case - and his attempts to whitewash his involvement in it -- say about his judgment and integrity.
During a 2002 bid by Huckabee to be re-elected governor of Arkansas, the staffer who provided the documents attended a meeting where Huckabee and top aides expressed concerns that information in the files showing that other women had told Huckabee about being raped by Dumond might somehow become public, and thus become an issue for his opponent. The information remained secret, and Huckabee won a tight race for re-election.
The staffer said that during that same period, another senior aide to Huckabee suggested asking other state agencies, which might have portions or even the entirety of the Dumond file, to transfer their records to the governor's office. If the files were transferred, the aide to Huckabee said, they would no longer be obtainable by reporters or political opponents under the state's Freedom of Information statute.
Arkansas has one of the most progressive Freedom of Information laws in the country. People need only to make requests orally whereupon state officials have to quickly respond and make them public. Governors, in sharp contrast, have wide latitude in deciding which of their own files to make public.
"The files had to be disappeared because there just wasn't a plausible explanation for the governor's stance," the former staffer said. "I mean, what could the governor say? That he believes these women made up their stories? That women lie when they say they are raped?"
Asked on Tuesday whether Huckabee would release his file on Dumond, campaign spokesperon Alice Stewart said, "We're not the governor, we don't have the file." Asked if Huckabee would ask the current governor to release the file, she responded, "No. I don't want to see it. You apparently want to see it."
Dumond raped Ashley Stevens, Clinton's distant cousin, in 1984 when she was a 17-year-old high school student in Forest City, Arkansas.
He was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison, plus 20 years. In 1992, Jim Guy Tucker, who became governor of Arkansas after Clinton left office, reduced Dumond's sentence to 39.5 years.
Shortly after taking office in 1996, Huckabee announced his intention to commute Dumond's sentence to time served. A public outcry ensued.
Stevens, her father, and Fletcher Long, the Arkansas state prosecuting attorney who sent Dumond to prison, met with Huckabee to protest.
"'This is how close I was to Wayne Dumond,'" Stevens says she told Huckabee at the time. "'I will never forget his face. And now I don't want you ever to forget my face.'"
Stevens now says: "This isn't and was never about politics. This is about a rapist. This is about a murderer. ... I might never forget Dumond's face, but there are other women [for whom] Dumond's face was the last thing they ever saw on this earth... I would hope that Huckabee would remember the faces of his victims."
Stevens, who had been silent about her rape and not identified in the press for more than a dozen years, finally spoke out publicly in 1996 after feeling frustrated by her meeting with Huckabee. Twenty women members of the state House of Representatives protested the commutation proposal. The editorial pages of some Arkansas newspapers questioned Huckabee's judgment and suggested he reconsider.
What the public never knew, however, was that other women who had been sexually assaulted by Dumond had privately written Huckabee about their anguish. Their very private attempts at changing Huckabee's mind, they later told the Huffington Post, were based on concerns that speaking out publicly would have been too painful and traumatizing.
One such letter was from the daughter of a Dumond rape victim:
When you ran for office, one of the reasons I voted for you was the fact you are/were a Baptist preacher. I come from a very strong Baptist background... [O]ne of my grandfathers is also a preacher. I have always been a faithful church member where I am the choir director, yet this is one event that is not so easily forgiven. I have prayed about these feelings, but once someone hurts your mother, or daughter the way this man hurt my mother I believe that you would feel the same...
Please understand that this letter is coming from my heart.... I would love to have the chance to talk to you about this matter as a daughter of a surviving rape victim.
The woman provided Huckabee with her personal phone number in hopes that he or at least someone on his staff would call. She says that she never heard back.
What was left unsaid in her letter to Huckabee was that she was three years old when, in the 1970s, Dumond raped her mother. The girl was in her mother's bed asleep when the rape occurred. Dumond held a butcher's knife to her mother's throat during the assault.
In an interview, her mother told the Huffington Post how she fought with Dumond to wrestle the knife away from him, willing to risk her own life rather than suffer at Dumond's hands.
But Dumond overcame her resistance. He pointed to her daughter sleeping next to her and threatened: "If you don't cooperate with me, she'll be next."
The woman did as she was told. As Dumond continued to violently rape her, the woman recalled, she lay consciously and deliberately silent. Even as she was being assaulted, she gently stroked her daughter's hair, praying she would not wake up.
When the assault was over, the woman said, Dumond threatened to come back and rape and kill her daughter if she told anyone.
Twenty-three years after the rape, the girl who had been protected by her mother's silence attempted to persuade Huckabee to keep Dumond behind bars. Fearing that the rapist would attack her mother again, she wrote to the governor:
Governor Huckabee, I really wish you could spend one night in my mother's home. Even though twenty years have past [sic?] she still has trouble sleeping at night. The house is never dark... Friday afternoon when I heard the dreadful news [that Huckabee intended to commute Dumond], I was the one to tell my mother. She was on her way out of town and I didn't want her to hear this on the radio while she was driving. I wish you could have heard the emptiness in her voice.
In her own letter to Huckabee, the woman who was raped by Dumond in the 1970s wrote that she felt deep guilt over what happened later to Ashley Stevens:
I feel responsible for Ashley's years of suffering at Dumond's hands because I was so naïve as to believe that since Dumond was arrested for raping me that he had learned his lesson and would not do it again. I was raised to take a person at their word, so I believed him when he said he was sorry. The woman said in an interview that she wrote Huckabee out of concern for him. If she felt so much guilt about what happened to Ashley Stevens, she wondered, what private Hell would Huckabee go through if he commuted Dumond's sentence, and Dumond harmed or even killed someone else?
If Huckabee had any doubt that the woman and her daughter were telling the truth, included in the materials provided to him was a police report in which Dumond confessed to authorities that he had raped the woman.
According to the report, "Wayne stated that he went upstairs to the bedroom, and that the woman was asleep when he went into the room. Wayne stated the woman woke up, and he held a knife on her while he committed the rape, and that the woman's baby was in the bed with her."
When police detectives pressed Dumond to admit his involvement in other rapes, however, he "stated that he desired not to answer any further questions" and also "refused to read, sign, or initial the statement that he had made in the presence" of police officers.
Also in the file sent to Huckabee was a letter from yet another woman who said that Dumond attempted to rape her, with some striking similarities to other accounts of Dumond's assaults.
This woman wrote that she awoke in her bed to find Dumond above her: "Standing there, yielding a butcher knife above his head was the shadow of a man..."
Startled, she asked who was there. Dumond threatened her by saying he would cut her throat. But, as the woman wrote, once Dumond's "eyes got accustomed to the darkness, he saw the figure of someone laying next to me." When Dumond saw her boyfriend, he became frightened and skittish.
"At this," the woman wrote, "Wayne realized we were not alone, jumped up from the bed, and leaped down the stairs in three bounds and I heard him go out the front door...and ran across the street into the darkness."
The woman explained in her letter why Dumond was not arrested: "I was talked out of filing charges by the city police because they said rape cases are hard to prove, that I might be able to charge him with breaking and entering, assault and battery, etc., but that the evidence was slight. I took their advice."
There was additional and compelling evidence available to then-Governor Huckabee that releasing Dumond would pose a threat to society.
Dumond had been previously arrested for violent acts and an attempted sexual assault of an underage girl.
In 1972, Dumond had been arrested for his involvement in the beating death of man in Lawton, Oklahoma. Court records showed that the man who was murdered had been dating an ex-wife of a Dumond friend named Bill Cherry. Enlisting the aid of Cherry's underage daughter to lure the man to a public park, Cherry, Dumond, and a third man bludgeoned the individual to death with a claw hammer.
Dumond was granted immunity from prosecution in the case in exchange for his testimony against the other two men. On the witness stand, Dumond admitted to beating the man repeatedly over the head with a claw hammer, but denied that he struck the fatal blows.
Dumond said that when Cherry asked him to finish off the victim, he refused, only to have one of the others do the deed. Dumond's accomplices, however, claimed that it was he who was responsible for the killing.
The following year, in 1973, Dumond was arrested again, this time for attempting to assault a teenage girl in a parking lot in Tacoma, Washington. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to five-years probation.
In an effort to preempt scrutiny of the Dumond case, Huckabee has said that if the issue were to be raised during the '08 race, it would be because his rivals for the nomination feel threatened by his campaign. "Suddenly I seem to be in the cross hairs of every predator who is out there," Huckabee told reporters recently. "To me that seems to be a good sign of life."
When he was governor of Arkansas, Huckabee similarly attempted to deflect Dumond-related criticism by claiming that those raising the issue -- among them, members of the state's parole board, women state legislators, journalists, and even one of Dumond's victims -- were doing so for partisan political purposes.
"If he makes it about politics, he doesn't answer the hard questions about why he did what he did," says Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas' sixth judicial district. Jegley is a Democrat who campaigned against Huckabee when he ran for re-election because of Huckabee's actions on the Dumond case, as well as his commutation of the sentences of other convicts who went on to commit additional crimes.
Although Huckabee has yet to give a detailed account as to why he pushed to free Dumond, he provided his fullest explanation to date in his published campaign manifesto "From Hope to Higher Ground." In the book, he wrote that he was moved to act on Dumond's behalf because he believed Dumond might have been wrongly convicted. Ashley Stevens and Fletcher Long confirmed in interviews for this story that when they met with then-Gov. Huckabee, he insisted to them that Dumond might be innocent.
Huckabee also wrote in "From Hope to Higher Ground" that he moved to act on Dumond's behalf out of compassion. He said on numerous other occasions that he felt sympathy for Dumond because Dumond was allegedly castrated while awaiting trial for raping Ashley Stevens. Dumond had claimed that unknown assailants wearing masks broke into his home, hogtied him, and then surgically removed his testicles.
Evidence has since come to light indicating that Dumond might not have been attacked but engaged in an act of self-mutilation. A physician who treated Dumond after his alleged attack told police, according to state police records, that Dumond's own wife asked him "if it was possible for Dumond to have inflicted the wound himself." The Forest City Times Herald, which published a series of articles about the Dumond controversy in 1996, quoted experts on sexual predators as saying it was not uncommon for them to engage in acts of self-mutilation to garner sympathy or because they feel guilt for what they have done.
Huckabee also wrote in his campaign book that his intervention on Dumond's behalf reflected his broad philosophy that the criminal justice system is too harsh, and that his religious faith requires him to take chances to act with compassion towards the accused.
Regarding the Dumond case, a Huckabee adviser says: "It might have been wrongheaded for him to do what he did. But his heart might have been in the right place even though the outcome was horrific. What he did was for reasons of faith and compassion."
But the daughter of one of Dumond's rape victims -- herself devoutly religious -- wrote Huckabee wondering whether his faith was leading him down the wrong path:
You were called to deliver the work of the Lord as you interpret the Bible. [But] the actions you are taking you are taking in regard to Dumond's release makes me believe that you are trying to act as the Lord. There were twelve people on the jury that convicted him of this crime. There have been numerous people on the jury that convicted him of this crime. * * *
Huckabee has also tried to deflect criticism over his role in freeing Dumond by saying that his two immediate predecessors, Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton, were responsible for Dumond's release.
Huckabee wrote in "From Hope to Higher Ground": "In 1992, while Governor Bill Clinton was out of state campaigning for president, Acting Governor Jim Guy Tucker, the lieutenant governor, commuted Dumond's sentence, making him eligible for parole... While there was speculation at the time that Governor Clinton was unaware that the commutation was going to take place, I know from my understanding of the inner workings of the process in the governor's office how impossible that would be."
Tucker, however, only reduced Dumond's initial sentence of life in prison plus 20 years to a total of 39.5 years -- which meant that Dumond was still unlikely to get out of prison until he was an elderly man, if at all.
Moreover, Tucker told the Huffington Post in an interview that, in stark contrast to Huckabee's advocacy on Dumond's behalf, he had told his parole board that he did not believe Dumond should be paroled. Tucker also said that, contrary to Huckabee's claim, Clinton had entirely recused himself from the matter because Ashley Stevens was a distant relative.
Huckabee and his aides have always denied that he secretly pressured the Arkansas parole board to free Dumond in an effort to hide his involvement and avoid political fallout.
But, in a 2002 story I wrote for the Arkansas Times about Huckabee's role in freeing Dumond, four board members -- three of who spoke on the record -- said that Huckabee lobbied and pressured board members on the matter. This included a 1996 executive meeting at which the board's recording secretary -- who ordinarily tapes the entire sessions -- was asked to leave the room. Several board members and members of the state legislature have said the secret session violated state law.
Huckabee, in turn, has said that all four parole board members have lied about his role in Dumond's release from prison.
For a full and detailed refutation of that claim, read the 2002 piece here.
So while Huckabee continues to rise in the polls, Dumond's victims are left with questions as to why the former Arkansas Governor did what he did.
The woman who was raped by Dumond while her 3-year-old daughter lay beside her tells the Huffington Post that one day she worked up the nerve to call Ashley Stevens to tell her how sorry she was. The two began to discuss their shared trauma.
"It was when I first began talking to Ashley that I began to heal," the woman said.
When Huckabee pushed through Dumond's parole, she says, "It was like he believed we were lying and Dumond was telling the truth. I wish he would now say in front of the entire world whether we told the truth or lied. And if he believes we told the truth, explain why he did what he did."
In 2001, the woman ran into Huckabee in her hometown. She wanted to know if he had any regrets in light of the Missouri murders.
"He was down here on a fishing trip," she recalled, "He was in one of the convenience stores and I went in to get me a Coke. And I went up and spoke to him.
"And all he said was, `How are you doing?' That was it."
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 10:49 PM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTcyMTM5YzRiMzVjMjA3MGEwMjUwM2Y3NGJiMzM1YWY = December 05, 2007, 4:00 a.m.
The Story Mike Huckabee Dreads With his new success comes new attention to an old Arkansas crime.
In August, I interviewed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee about the case of Wayne Dumond, the convicted rapist who was freed under Huckabee's administration, only to rape and kill a woman in neighboring Missouri. The crime attracted enormous attention in Arkansas, but at the time of our interview, it had not made its way into much coverage of Huckabee's presidential bid. "If [Huckabee] continues to rise in the polls," I wrote, "it's likely he'll be talking about it a lot more."
Now Huckabee is rising in the polls, and sure enough, the Dumond case is attracting more attention. This morning, ABC News ran a report featuring the mother of the woman Dumond murdered, who blames Huckabee for her daughter's death and vows to do everything she can to stop his campaign. "I can't imagine anybody wanting somebody like that running the country," the woman told ABC.
For many people, the report is the first they've heard of the Dumond case. Once they learn about it, however, they are unlikely to forget its bizarre details and the strange turn of events that led to Dumond's final crime. The case is the wild card in Mike Huckabee's record, the single most controversial event during his time in the Arkansas governor's office. And it is a potential threat to his now-soaring candidacy.
It began in September 1984, when Dumond, a 35-year-old handyman, kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old high-school cheerleader in the small eastern-Arkansas town of Forrest City. Dumond was allowed to remain free on bond while awaiting trial, and in March 1985 two masked men entered his house, tied him up with fishing line, and castrated him. People were stunned; the case, already notorious, became much more so. And that was before the local sheriff, a rather colorful man named Coolidge Conlee, displayed Dumond's severed testicles in a jar of formaldehyde on his desk in the St. Francis County building. Amid tons of publicity, Dumond was found guilty and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
The case took on a political coloring when it became known that the victim was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton. After conviction, Dumond, who claimed he was innocent, asked Clinton for clemency. Clinton declined.
Dumond also argued that even if he were guilty his sentence was excessive, and his position won him some sympathy, not least on the grounds that he had suffered terribly at the hands of those unknown assailants. In April 1992, when Dumond had served just seven years, Lt. Gov. Tucker, acting as governor while Clinton was out of state campaigning for president, commuted Dumond's sentence to a level where he would be eligible for parole. That didn't mean Dumond would go free, only that the state parole board would consider the question. The board declined to free Dumond.
That's where things stood when Huckabee took office on July 15, 1996. Last August, Huckabee told me he had his doubts about Dumond's guilt, and also felt sorry for him over the castration attack. On September 20, just weeks after taking office, Huckabee announced that he intended to set Dumond free, saying that there were "serious questions as to the legitimacy of his guilt." On October 31, Huckabee met with the parole board. Not long after, the board voted to free Dumond, but on the condition he move to another state. Huckabee was pleased, in part because -- given that the board had voted to free Dumond -- there was no need for Huckabee to commute the sentence or pardon him. So Huckabee denied Dumond's now-irrelevant pardon application while at the same time congratulating him on his soon-to-come freedom. "Dear Wayne," Huckabee wrote in a letter to Dumond. "My desire is that you be released from prison. I feel that parole is the best way for your reintroduction to society to take place."
But no state would take Dumond. He remained behind bars for two and a half more years, until the board voted to free him in Arkansas. He was released in October 1999 and returned home. The next year, Dumond left the state, moving to a small town near Kansas City, Mo. Within weeks of arriving, he sexually assaulted and murdered a 39-year-old woman at an apartment complex near his home. The day that happened, everyone knew that freeing Wayne Dumond had been a very, very bad idea.
A political storm erupted. Huckabee sought cover by saying that all he had done was to deny Dumond's pardon application. But some Democrats claimed that Huckabee had pressured the parole board to free Dumond. What actually happened between Huckabee and the board remains unclear to this day, but there is no doubt that Huckabee wanted Wayne Dumond set free. And today, he knows he was terribly wrong, but he still defends his actions. "My only official action was to deny his clemency," Huckabee told me in Iowa. As we talked, Huckabee spread the blame around, not only to Tucker, who originally commuted Dumond's sentence, but to Bill Clinton as well. "Tucker could not have done that without Clinton's full knowledge and approval," Huckabee said.
I asked about the "Dear Wayne" letter. Didn't Huckabee want Dumond to go free? "I thought he would, you know, be clean," Huckabee told me. "And he had a job, he had sponsors lined up, so at the time, I did not have this apprehension that something horrible like that would happen. I did want him to report in [to parole authorities], because I just didn't know -- you never know about a guy like that."
As he talked, Huckabee looked down. "I hate it like crazy," he said. "It's one of the most horrible things ever that he went off and did what he did. It's just terrible. There's nothing you can say, but my gosh, it's the thing you pray never happens. And it did."
The Dumond case followed Huckabee around for the rest of his time in the governor's office. In his 2002 reelection bid, his Democratic opponent based virtually her entire campaign on the issue. And beyond the narrow issue of Dumond, Huckabee's actions raise larger questions about his views on crime and punishment. Critics, and some friends, too, have said Huckabee's position was deeply influenced by his Christian faith. "When I first met him, I was going through his positions on issues and I said, 'You're a conservative, so I'm sure you oppose granting parole for violent felons,'" Dick Morris, the campaign consultant who ran Huckabee's first run for lieutenant governor, told me. "And he said, 'Oh no, I would never take that position, because the concept of Christian duty requires that there is a possibility of forgiveness. The concept of Christian forgiveness requires that we keep open the process of parole -- use it sparingly, but keep it open.'"
When I asked Huckabee about that, he reminded me that he was tough on a lot of criminals, too. "Heck, I executed more people than any governor in the history of the state," Huckabee told me. "It's not something I'm bragging about, I'm just saying that if it had been simply a matter of my Christian conscience saying I don't believe in capital punishment, then I was pretty lousy in my conscience."
Huckabee doesn't duck talking about Dumond or the larger clemency issue. But he doesn't enjoy it, either, given that it was unquestionably the worst thing that happened while he was governor. Now, with the press spotlight shining on him, he has no choice but to explain himself.
Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President -- and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time .
http://www.patriots247.com/forums/index.php?s=f8556f6dd7d5c4749e7471397ba29f7d&showtopic=1628&st=0&p=12750entry12750 Huckabee faces scrutiny for involvement in rapist parole
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Following the release of several new polls suggesting Mike Huckabee has risen into the first tier of the Republican presidential candidates, the former Arkansas governor is facing a fresh round of scrutiny over supporting the parole of a convicted rapist in 1999.
Huckabee, then in his first term as governor, expressed support for the parole of Wayne DuMond, who was serving a life sentence for raping a 17-year-old girl. Less than a year after his release, DuMond was accused of murdering and raping a woman in Kansas City, Missouri, a crime he was eventually convicted of in 2003. He died in prison in 2005.
Huckabee has repeatedly said he wished he had more information about DuMond before advocating the release, and recently told CNN there was no indication DuMond remained a threat.
"There's nothing any of us could ever do," Huckabee said. "None of us could've predicted what he could've done when he got out." Huckabee also said that the process leading to DuMond's release began under former President Bill Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.
But new documents posted on the liberal Web site The Huffington Post indicate Huckabee had received letters from several victims of Wayne Dumond's before his release. The letters detailed his past actions and pleaded that he remain incarcerated.
"I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time," one victim wrote. She described how DuMond had raped her at knifepoint.
In another letter, a woman documented how her mother was raped by DuMond, and said he had told her mother that he would rape her daughter if she did not cooperate.
The Huffington Post says it received the never-before-published letters from a "deeply troubled" former aide to Huckabee who believes the now-presidential candidate has "deliberately attempted to cover up his knowledge of DuMond's other sexual assaults."
Huckabee spokesman Alice Stewart denied to the Huffington Post that Huckabee ever received any of the letters, but now tells CNN he got at least one from a victim named "Onita" who lived in DeWitt, Arkansas.
It's not clear if this is one of the letters posted on the Huffington Post, because the site has redacted the names.
The Huffington Post has published three victims' letters, and says it will post additional files later Wednesday.
- CNN's Dana Bash and Alexander Mooney
Posted by: nikb | January 3, 2008 10:46 PM
Meeksj- don't boycott the vote on the tax questions on the Florida Ballot, please.
And it wasn't the DNC that screwed it up, it was the Republican Legislature and the sorry State Democratic Leaders... including all those from down South near the Beaches who think they will be saved by a Nominee, but who have refused to believe it could even come close to a split convention.
Posted by: Pogoagain | January 3, 2008 10:25 PM
Hey Dan Balz...Paul not only is going to have more newcomers who WANT to go to things like caucuses (research Republican straw poll results), when he outperforms what all you "journalists" so intellectually predict, the new age of rapid information and reference will label you lazy and uniformed reporters as incompitent and unreliable. Don't lie to the public...Paul has too many supporters that will slam you with the truth. Good luck!
Posted by: scpeacer | January 3, 2008 5:52 PM
When I see the name "Ron Paul" there are times I can't help thinking "Ron, Paul, George, and Ringo"
Good night John Lennon, where-ever you are.
Posted by: svreader | January 3, 2008 5:50 PM
So Obama's grassroots support and appeal to political newcomers is unprecedented? What does that make Ron Paul's then? Go to Meetup.com and see who has more supporters.
Ron Paul supporters have turned out all year for Republican Party events like straw polls, which he has dominated, so I don't see why the caucus would be any different.
Ron Paul's chances are actually BETTER in the caucus states, because turnout is lower and his more motivated and better organized supporters can have a bigger impact proportionately.
Posted by: drd6000 | January 3, 2008 5:19 PM
"Ron Paul could attract newcomers, but the view of one strategist is that Paul's followers are more likely to show up for a primary -- which is why he could surprise people in New Hampshire -- but are less comfortable with party-establishment events such as the caucuses."
Dear writer, you need to get out more, visit a Ron Paul Meetup group before trying to report on our movement. For example, I am a professional sales person for the bioresearch industry. My days are spent emailing, calling and visiting customers in person. I have an advanced degree in science and am more than happy to interact with people and share my opinion with others. Think I'm alone? In our group there are at least 2 other people in sales, one in money management and a couple of others who own their own businesses. This message is being spread because it is important and because we are comfortable with people. We don't have problems or mistrust of local government, many of us have been active in our local governments; our issue is with the Federal government trying to control our lives. What is good for California may not be good for Indiana; this is really not a difficult concept...
Posted by: corsonjm | January 3, 2008 4:41 PM
Even if Iowa were America in perfect miniature, meeksj is right in that they should not have such influence. As I recall, Elizabeth Dole dropped out in 2000 after a STRAW POLL in Iowa. Dick Gephardt dropped out after the caucuses in 2004. The rest of the country deserves a voice.
My solution is all primaries on the same day, eight days after Labor Day. Sorry, New Hampshire....
Posted by: nck6 | January 3, 2008 4:24 PM
Who thought up this current system of primaries any way? I personally like the idea of the US having 8-10 primaries - say 5-7 states at a time. Starting with the states with the lowest populations (like Nevada, Wyoming and North Dakota) and moving onto eventually the 5 states with the most people voting last, like California, Texas and New York etc. If we did this every week or two, then the whole process is done in 3-4 moths. The small states have some impact that is not diluted by big states voting first. No one can say that their votes are not important because the proportionately bigger states will still have a tremendous impact even though they vote later than the smaller states. This gives the candidates a chance to campaign nationwide but starting with the inexpensive low population states first so that grass root, non-MSM supported candidates have a chance to catch fire. Anyway it sure beats what we are doing now, with the race likely over on Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 and the other 30 or so states who have not voted, essentially disenfranchised. The current system favors the rich pro-status quo candidates. And we sure do not need the status quo now! I am sure there are better ways but this is one way that seemed logical to me.
Posted by: RamseySt | January 3, 2008 4:18 PM
Are you kidding me? Ron Paul supporters are willing to walk through fire and snow to show their support.
This pundit ought to get out of his ivory tower sometime and actually go to a few events before he puts fingers to keyboard.
The conventional wisdom that all Ron Paul supporters are socially inept teenagers is just flat-out wrong.
It is just this sort of lazy reporting that is going to have eveyrone shaking their heads tomorrow morning, saying "how could we have missed this?"
I don't know who will win, but I can guarantee that the big loser will be telephone polling. The Iowa results will not look anything like the polling.
Posted by: demonrats | January 3, 2008 4:10 PM
Speaking of indefensible, I am boycotting the Democratic primary in Florida this year. The DNC, in its efforts to placate Iowa and New Hampshire, is refusing to seat Florida delegates. It's a shame that less than two percent of the population gets to bully the rest of America into letting them winnow down the presidential field each year. Why did I even bother to vote in the 2004 Florida primary? John Kerry was already crowned the nominee and I was left voting for a candidate (John Edwards) who dropped out before I even entered my polling place. Is it wrong for the other 48 states to seek some relevance in this election without having to hear about candidates' supposed 'momentum after brown-nosing for votes among a state that is about as diverse as a 1968 George Wallace rally? I think it's great that Iowa and New Hampshire have tradition behind them but the large question is whether the larger system benefits from their 'special status' of being able to preempt the votes of the others.
Posted by: meeksj | January 3, 2008 3:30 PM
Will the press 'savage Hillary Clinton no matter how well she does'? (Milbank told Kurtz that that would be the case last weekend on the 'Reliable Sources' program that Kurtz hosts on CNN.)
Posted by: factorfiction | January 3, 2008 2:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Key questions the campaign could answer.--Dan Balz
| 1,183 | 0.888889 | 2 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702075.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702075.html
|
Live Analysis: Iowa Caucuses Returns
|
2008010419
|
Robert G. Kaiser: Welcome to a caucus-night conversation about the Iowa results. We're getting real numbers now and hope to be able to evaluate results in some meaningful way in the next hour. We'll stay with it until the outcome is clear or I run out of ethanol. Your comments and questions are, as always, the juice that can make this interesting, so please send them in.
The early results are fascinating. They actually deserve the label "historic." I think we have seen two big things here tonight: The Reagan coalition is indeed fracturing, and the Republican Party is now certifiably in the midst of an identity crisis. This does not mean there is no hope for the Republican candidate next November, but it does mean that the Republican Party we have been living with since 1980 is on its way to the dust bin of history, to coin a phrase.
Second, of course, is the apparent repudiation in Iowa of the Clinton legacy and the prospect of its renewal. Sen. Clinton's biggest hope, I have always thought, was that she would be seen as truly inevitable -- the only candidate with an obvious claim on the White House, the one most likely to win in November. Does she look like that tonight? No.
On to your questions and comments...
thebobbob : The MSM and the Washington pundits seem to be missing a major element in this election. If the Power Players and the Democratic Machine all are supporting Hillary, why can Obama raise as much money as Hillary? Who are all these people giving Obama money? Follow the money! There's a change in the weather.
Robert G. Kaiser: There is indeed a change in the weather. A big part of the change is the Internet, obviously. Clinton raised one kind of money, Obama another. The second kind, small contributions from the 'Net, looks as good or better than the first.
Queens, N.Y.: Will we know how much support the "marginal" candidates received before the "viability" stage of the Iowa caucuses? For example, will we know how many Kucinich supporters here were before they shifted over to other candidates (especially Obama)?
Robert G. Kaiser: I'm embarrassed to say I don't know. I will try to find out. The precinct caucuses report final results; not sure there is a mechanism to report preliminary ones.
Anonymous: What does Romney do now? Does he hit either Huckabee or McCain, or does he try to present a positive message about what he would do from here on out?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. You have to feel some sympathy for the guy, who spent a pile of money and a year of his life in Iowa. This is truly a humiliating result for him. And negative ads obviously didn't work in Iowa, so your prescription might not be effective this year.
Tampa, Fla.: Do you think Obama would consider Hillary as Vice President? Would she want it?
Robert G. Kaiser: I don't think he'd consider her -- but it's much too early to be talking about this subject.
Hillary as vice president? Sounds unlikely.
Houston: What did the (Dem) first votes look like in percentages before they added the people who had to pick a second choice?
Robert G. Kaiser: We have an "entrance poll" of Democrats, a poll of 2,136 people chosen at random as they entered caucuses all over the state. Here are the numbers from that survey:
We can see from the top three that Clinton and Edwards got more than that percentage of votes. That suggests that when "viability" kicked in, votes for the others went to them more than to Obama. But of course the poll wasn't necessarily right.
Auckland, New Zealand: How was overall turn-out, please? Notably increased interest and participation, marginal increase, or hardly anything to write about?
Robert G. Kaiser: Huge Democratic turnout today, much bigger than ever before.
Falls Church, Va.: What significance does the Republican front-runners' poor showing in Iowa have? Does the fact that Giuliani and Ron Paul garnered about the same number votes mean Giuliani's dead in the water? If Romney loses to McCain in New Hampshire after his embarrassing defeat to Huckabee in Iowa, is he dead in the water?
Robert G. Kaiser: Good questions. I heard today about a very smart Republican who has been supporting McCain all year who says the reason his man will win is not because he is doing to do so well, but because his rivals are all going to do badly, one at a time. Romney did badly tonight; Giuliani could do badly in New Hampshire (and did poorly in Iowa); you can spin it out. Might this Republican have it just right?
Anonymous: Coming in second is a "win" for Edwards in Iowa. What do you think it means for him in New Hampshire?
Robert G. Kaiser: It seems to me that Edwards would have been in a much better position if he had won tonight. Problem is, he doesn't have a large fraction of the money available to Obama and Clinton. Boston television, important in New Hampshire, is expensive. He hasn't been using it. I think he needs a stumble by Obama or Clinton to get to second in New Hampshire now. But I am not a seer.
Reston, Va.: Thanks for the chat! Can you explain something to me? On MSNBC I see Huckabee won with about 25,000 votes and Obama won with about 750 votes. Are there really that few Dems in Iowa, or is the process different with the two parties? Thanks!
Robert G. Kaiser: We aren't talking votes in this caucus, we are talking delegates. I don't know what numbers CNN is showing, but many, many more Iowans cast ballots for Obama tonight than for Huckabee. Democratic turnout was way, way up; Republican turnout was flat.
Carrboro, N.C.: With more than 95 percent of the nomination process ahead of us, I just watched David Gergen on CNN say that John Edwards, the candidate who came in second in the Iowa caucus, "has no where to go from here" in a race in which the three top candidates are within 7 percent of each other, and in which Edwards has over $13 million in cash on hand.
Have we reached complete insanity on the media crafting a narrative around the expectations game rather than results? As someone who has to wait until May to vote, I feel like my voice in the Democratic process is being stolen by bloviating talking heads who are saying "this person can't win" or "that person can't win" and are then making it so -- rather than them reporting that the Democratic Party has three candidates who significant numbers of people found compelling, and that further amounts of voting by other citizens actually will pick one of them to go forward. Instead, it seems the media is ready to pick for us. Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear your take.
Robert G. Kaiser: This is a thoughtful question and comment, and I am sympathetic to it. Here's my answer:
Edwards is running a distant third in New Hampshire, according to the latest polls. If this is where he finishes next Tuesday, the pundits will tend to line up with a Gergen-like analysis, for a simple reason: If Edwards, who was on the national ticket four years ago, can't do better than second or third in Iowa and third by a long distance in New Hampshire, why should anyone expect Democrats elsewhere to turn to him then?
This could be unfair of course. If he came in a close third in a New Hampshire race also close between Obama and Clinton, this could look quite different. But in a year like this, I think you have to expect winners' momentum to build. If Obama won New Hampshire now, what would stop him?
Derry, N.H.: Would you agree that we here in New Hampshire have the ability on Tuesday effectively to end the Romney and Edwards campaigns?
Robert G. Kaiser: Well, only Romney and Edwards literally have that power now. But you can make it a lot harder for both of them.
Boulder, Colo.: In the opening portion of the chat you suggested that the Republican primary results represented the crumbling of the Reagan coalition. Could you please explain why you think this?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the prod. My thinking is this: Reagan brought together evangelicals, old-fashioned country-club Republicans, Southern middle-class voters and the group that became known as "Reagan Democrats." Huckabee wins Iowa without bringing together any broad coalition at all; he got evangelicals and a few others, it looks like. Other Republicans fractured in many directions.
I agree with the now-common commentary that there is no heir to Reagan now, or even to President Bush. Fred Thompson was, for ten minutes, the guy tapped to play that role. He did very poorly in Iowa tonight -- 14 percent.
I also confess to thinking for a couple of years now that the Republican coalition was in danger of fracturing. I may be looking tonight for evidence to support my own theory. But I don't think so. I think it's really happening.
Bronx, N.Y.: Why do you think Biden has done so awfully? Everything I read before the caucus said that he had at least some support. Also, do you think there actually was a deal between Obama and Biden, as reported in today's Post? Thanks.
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: A Biden-Obama Deal? (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 3)
Robert G. Kaiser: No evidence available to me yet about whether this deal came to fruition. But I see in our "entrance poll," which is looking pretty good, that of the 2,100 Democrats surveyed on their way in to the caucuses tonight, Biden got just five percent.
Why has he done badly? I can't answer that. Ask your cousin in Iowa.
Washington: Okay, so perhaps I'm a bit out of it ... what happened to Tancredo? I don't see his name anywhere. Did he drop out and I didn't notice? (I have been trying to avoid too much focus on this so I don't burn out by November.)
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Tancredo Leaves Race, Endorses Romney (washingtonpost.com, Dec. 20)
Robert G. Kaiser: Yup, you're out of it. Here's a link to the story. He dropped out weeks ago.
San Jose, Calif.: Mr. Kaiser, thanks for the chat. I am a bit naive to the how Democrats are "counting votes." On washingtonpost.com, I am seeing that there have been 80,000-plus votes cast for the Republican candidates, but only 2,000-plus for the Democratic candidates. You have explained that there are many more Democratic voters than Republican. So to piggyback on an earlier question, can you explain the math? Thanks!
Robert G. Kaiser: As I said earlier, the numbers you see are delegates, not voters. Numbers of voters won't be available for a while.
New York: Seems like the GOP "party elders" have two things to worry about -- they no longer can plan to run against Clinton, and they have to figure out a way to stop Huckabee, who's not exactly running according to the playbook.
Robert G. Kaiser: Correct on both counts -- I think.
Scranton, Pa.: I just heard Tim Russert on MSNBC discussing the importance of the young vote in this election, especially for Obama's 7 percent lead. Did Obama really have that level of support from young voters? Do you believe the young vote will be prominent in the general election?
Robert G. Kaiser: The "entrance poll" says 57 percent of 18-29 year-olds supported Obama tonight, and that they represented almost one fourth of the caucus attendees. Both are striking figures. Clinton got 11 percent of the young; Edwards 13 percent. If that is a harbinger, then young people can have a huge impact in November.
Caucus Survivor in Iowa: I was at the Democratic caucus tonight, and I noticed that when it came time for supporters of non-viable candidates to choose a new home, a majority of them in my precinct went for Edwards. This pushed him from a solid third place to a decent second behind Obama. Any idea why Edwards might be the second choice for so many Biden and Richardson supporters? I'd add Dodd supporters, but we only had three, and I think they evaporated...
Robert G. Kaiser: Great to hear from you, thanks. I couldn't guess why this happened, but maybe you could help: Were these people with whom Edwards' quite angry populist message resonated? Might it be fair to conclude that of the Democrats in Iowa who chose not to support either of the front-runners, Obama and Clinton, that message was meaningful?
Wyncote, Pa.: Are you people serious? This means Hillary and Romney are through? Re-read this in a month. There are more people in South Philadelphia than voted tonight. Iowa Democrats are more liberal, and this is her weakest state. I think the race is long from over, and making predictions about any candidate being damaged is a little silly...
Robert G. Kaiser: I'll promise to re-read in a month if you do.
Warrenton, Va.: So you're saying that evangelicals and a few others were enough to win the caucus? Surely there will be other Republican subgroups emerging as strong supporters of Huckabee. How else does he emerge as the winner tonight?
Robert G. Kaiser: According to the "entrance poll," 60 percent of the Republicans voting tonight described themselves as evangelical Christians. Of them, according to the poll, half voted for Huckabee. Half of 60 percent is 30 percent. Huckabee got 34 percent of the actual vote. So yes, evangelical Christians provided nearly all of his votes.
Alpharetta, Ga.: There was a lot of fuss about the Des Moines Register poll, but it projected pretty accurately
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: About That Independent Turnout... (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 3)
Robert G. Kaiser: Good point. Also, that poll foresaw a big turnout of independents, and according to the entrance poll, 20 percent of the voters who came to Dem caucuses described themselves as independents. Interesting.
Washington: Robert, while I get why this is a stinging rebuke for Romney given that it wrecks his campaign strategy, how much effect will Iowa really have? Is it possible the MSM makes the caucus into something that is much bigger than it really is? It isn't as though we ever had a President Pat Robertson.
Robert G. Kaiser: Fair point. I think the difference is that Romney's national strategy was built around winning Iowa. Unless he can score a thumping victory in New Hampshire next week, I see trouble ahead.
TKPK: It must be fun to be reporting and commenting on surprising events. I wasn't that worked up about the caucuses, but these results (on both sides) are rather exciting. Might this evening invigorate the electorate as a whole?
Robert G. Kaiser: Very possible, don't you think? I loved the comment of the first or second questioner tonight: the weather is changing. This is not your father's United States. We are entering an era of change.
Fairfax, Va.: Could you elaborate just a bit on why you think Thompson's 14 percent should be considered a "poor showing"? Given all of the negative press he recently has had about his lack of organization and staff turnover, when I turned on MSNBC and saw that he had finished third I thought -- in light of the above obstacles -- that a third-place showing was actually quite good. Agree? Disagree?
Robert G. Kaiser: Disagree. Thompson has to show that people actually want him to be president. There is no evidence of that anywhere that I am aware of. He is doing poorly in national polls, in New Hampshire polls and elsewhere.
Robert G. Kaiser: Correction: Egad, I have been misspelling Huckabee throughout this discussion. What an embarrassing mistake! I thank my producer/editor, Chris Hopkins, for pointing this out. I get two demerits. At least.
[Ed.: This was fixed in the transcript.]
Sun Prairie, Wis.: Mr. Kaiser, good evening. Do you think Sen. Obama's 37 percent represents a "ringing affirmation of his message of change" as the purple prose of The Post reporter writing your paper's lead put it? Or did he just spend a lot of money and time in a state with more liberal Democrats than most, and came through with a narrow win?
washingtonpost.com: In Iowa, Obama Wins, Clinton Concedes (Post, Jan. 3)
Robert G. Kaiser: Your interpretation is as valid as mine, or as Chris Cillizza's, who I presume is the writer you are referring to. Yes, Iowa Dems are liberal, but as noted above, Obama seems to have gotten a lot of independents to turn out to vote for him. And as I've said already, my view is that Clinton had, as the longtime favorite, by far the most to lose tonight.
What is Hillary's theme now? I am the most electable? How well would that work?
Caucus Survivor again: I don't think Edwards' angry populism did much; it struck a lot of Iowans I know as a calculated pose rather than honest belief. Some of the secondary Edwards support was clearly anti-Hillary sentiment. And I know of several people who say they agree with Obama but wouldn't vote for him because he's "not electable." My guess? Race is still a factor with the older crowd, and they're the ones who moved to Edwards when their candidates weren't viable. Not because they're racists, but because they suspect other parts of America are. Any other takes on it would be welcome.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you again. Very thoughtful and persuasive comment.
Virginia: Here's a question, relating to the question above about the impact of pundits -- do you think we'll ever see a one-day national primary?
Robert G. Kaiser: Geez, I hope not. That would be bad for the news business!
Seriously, I also think it would be bad for the country. IT would enormously favor known, established candidates. I hate what we have now, but that would be worse.
Years ago David Broder proposed a series of regional primaries starting in late winter or early spring, lasting into the summer, with two weeks ( I think) between each round. That would be good.
Anonymous: Why are so many pundits dismissive of Huckabee's chances in a general? Assuming he wins the nomination (big if), he's going to get money. He can neutralize issues like health care with his support of SCHIP. He's got a compelling story because of his background and weight loss. He's affable and funny. He's shown a willingness to have a moderate foreign policy and can still bring the evangelicals out better than likely any GOP candidate. The FairTax may be ridiculous, but I bet people who aren't tuned into the campaign will like the idea because who's opposed to a "fair tax"? Okay, the AIDS thing is weird, I'll admit that.
Robert G. Kaiser: Are we going to elect a president who dismisses Darwin? Are we going to elect a Baptist minister? I doubt it. I think the "new weather" overhead is bad for a Huckabee candidacy myself.
I have been wrong--really wrong!--before.
Philadelphia: Robert, is there a chance you may be getting a little carried away here? I half expect you to break into a chorus of "The Times, They Are a-Changin'"
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes there is a chance. But keep watching. I think it really is happening.
Gainesville, Va.: Robert, on the crumbling Reagan coalition, are you suggesting, like David Brooks, that Republicans need to move back into a more George Bush the First kind of moderation to win?
Robert G. Kaiser: I don't know. I liked that Brooks column, but it was short on prescriptions. I think H.W. Bush was a really ineffective politician, which is why he joined Jimmy Carter as one of only two presidents in a long time who got beaten after one term.
I do think the Republicans need a lot of new: New people, new ideas, and new ways to talk about the country's problems. And as I have suggested in chats a year or two ago, George W. Bush is going to be a heavy weight for Republicans to carry for a long time.
Halifax, Canada: Bill Clinton got less than 3 percent of the vote in the Iowa Caucus in 1992, and came back to win the nomination and the presidency. Do you think Hillary, who did much better in Iowa, can come back from a (still hypothetical) third-place showing there? Will it be harder for her than for Bill?
Robert G. Kaiser: Much harder for her. She is not the fresh face that her husband was 16 years ago. She was the Inevitable Candidate, the heavy favorite for months, and she got whupped tonight. Bill Clinton was a rising upstart; tonight she looks like a declining "favorite."
That's not the last word, to be sure. New Hampshire is, as David Broder points out in the column I hope we can link to here, much more important. My own hunch is that Obama gets a big bounce out of tonight in New Hampshire. My hunches have a -- well, a mixed record. If she comes back strong and can whup Obama on Tuesday, the race will go on and will be even more exciting.
washingtonpost.com: Wait for New Hampshire (Post, Jan. 3)
Anonymous: Obviously Huckabee got most of his support from evangelicals -- but when it comes down to it, will the business community, national security conservatives and fiscal conservatives bolt to the Democratic Party, or suck it up and vote Huckabee?
Robert G. Kaiser: Tonight I would expect many of those groups to vote Democratic or stay home if Huckabee were the candidate. But it is early days, really early days.
Washington: Bush isn't exactly a big believer in Darwin, and he's served two terms!
Robert G. Kaiser: But he carefully never dismissed evolution the way Huckabee has.
Anonymous: But a plurality of Americans dismiss Darwin! Our country is like at the bottom of developed countries on the percentage of people who believe in evolution.
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, I've seen those polls. But evolution is not a voting issue, as they pollsters say, for a lot of them. And many of the mainstream Eastern and Midwestern Republicans that any GOP candidate has to have to win might be alienated by a Baptist minister from Arkansas as the GOP standard-bearer.
Washington: I can't believe the idea that Democrats would not vote for Obama because they think other people are racists. Shouldn't they push all the harder for him if that's what they believe about America?
Robert G. Kaiser: I'm curious to see whether this issue comes out into the open. My colleague Gene Robinson made an interesting point on the Chris Matthews panel tonight: in his home state of South Carolina, he said, many black voters have decided to vote for Clinton because they can't believe white voters are ready to support Obama. But, Gene said earlier tonight, if Obama were to win Iowa, they'd be much more prepared to support Obama in their primary next month, because they'd see that white Iowans had indeed supported him. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but I have a lot of confidence in Gene as a reporter.
Jacksonville, Fla.: Bob, Bill Clinton only got 3 percent in Iowa in 1992 because no one contested Iowa, as Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) was running that year.
Robert G. Kaiser: Good point.
Washington: What AIDS thing from Huckabee? I missed that one.
washingtonpost.com: AIDS Comments Alarm Ryan White's Mother (AP, Dec. 11)
Robert G. Kaiser: Here it is.
Portland, Ore.: Isn't Huckabee's win tonight also good news for Sept. 11 Rudy? His whole strategy seems to be hoping for the field to fracture in the first few states and then win Florida and Feb. 5.
Robert G. Kaiser: My hunch is that it's better news for McCain.
Washington: Does the difference in turn out between Republicans and Democrats signal anything for the general, or is it just too early to say anything?
Robert G. Kaiser: Andy Kohut, one of America's best pollsters, who polls for the Pew Center on People and the Press, published a long and detailed study last year showing why he thought 2008 would be a good year for Democrats. You can find it on the Pew Center Web site. It is very persuasive -- not definitive, but persuasive.
Washington: I'm curious, do you vote, or do you abstain because you think it would interfere with your objectivity? If you do vote, at what point do you usually decide on a candidate to support (primary season, early general election, late general election, etc.)?
Robert G. Kaiser: Glad to have the opportunity to say that I do vote (unlike my friend and colleague Len Downie, who has for years said he avoids voting to help him avoid coming to a conclusion in his own mind about who would make the best president/mayor/whatever). But I often find it really hard, because, as a natural skeptic and trained doubter, I haven't been able to feel enthusiasm about a candidate in a long time. More than once I have cast a "wasted" vote on some kind of protest candidate. I decided very late on those.
The hard thing for nonjournalists to understand is how those of us here actually think. As I have said many times in earlier discussions, I never have had any idea how David Broder, Dan Balz or our other political reporters vote in elections (and most do vote). And those guys all worked for me for years when I was an editor here. We analyze; we speculate; we look for strengths and weaknesses. But even among ourselves, we very, very rarely state a preference.
Our big preference is for a good story. In 2008, we've got one!
Jacksonville, Fla.: For the person from Washington who doesn't believe Democrats would vote against Obama because they believe other people are too racist - Take a look at the posts on The Fix here at washingtonpost.com -- many liberal Democrats have posted comments that say exactly that. I have found that a certain type of liberal likes to believe that the country is far more racist than it actually is. I think it feeds their sense of moral superiority.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the post. Chris Hopkins has provided a link so people can follow your advice.
Philadelphia: I read there was a youth vote behind the Obama win. Is this replicable in New Hampshire?
Robert G. Kaiser: I should know more than I do about New Hampshire demographics, but if a lot of young turn out for Obama, it will certainly help him there.
New York: If Hillary was inevitable -- and I certainly thought she was -- what went wrong? She has the money, the name, her husband and all those advisers who have done so well for them all along.
Robert G. Kaiser: I think we have seen in our reporting and polling already what some of her problems are: she made a big mistake on Iraq, and another on Iran; she promises to bring back the Clinton era -- good news for some voters, bad news for others; she is a throwback, not a promise of big change, and this one is probably most salient. In the entrance poll tonight, 52 percent of Democrats said "the ability to bring about needed change" was the most important quality they were looking for in a candidate; of them, 51 percent voted for Obama.
Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton -- I think that's important too. She does not remotely have his capacity for empathy; she doesn't seem to connect with people the way he did; she does not have his natural political gifts. This may be hurting her now.
Edwardsville, Ill.: How much of Obama's success in Iowa has to do with the fact that he is from next door in Illinois? Neighbors always do well in the Iowa caucuses. In 1988, Missourian Dick Gephardt won and Paul Simon of Illinois came in second. In 1984, Minnesota's Walter Mondale won. And of course in 1992, Iowa's own Tom Harkin won handily. None of those men wound up president, and only one was the nominee.
Robert G. Kaiser: Interesting point, thanks. I can't answer the question.
Fox Lake, Wis.: Is it illegal to even mention Ron Paul's name on network television? Even on the web you have to be pretty determined to find sites that mention his name while supposedly reporting the news of the Iowa caucus results. Many sites mention Thompson and McCain "fighting it out for third" and talk about McCain's "resurgence," but finding any mention of Ron Paul, who is only slightly behind them, is extremely difficult. Why is this?
Robert G. Kaiser: Paul never has shown up higher than about 10 percent in any polls, has he? McCain's resurgence is visible in New Hampshire; I agree it's easy to exaggerate his resurgence in Iowa.
Philadelphia: Any gender breakdown in Iowa? Did Hillary do well with anyone but old ladies? Looks like Obama got a lot of young folks excited. Did Hillary?
Robert G. Kaiser: Obama won more women than Clinton, according to the entrance poll. Important fact, I think.
Fairfax County, Va.: Looking at the photos of the two projected winners (Obama and Huckabee), I would like to suggest one instant analysis: America (or at least Iowa) is not simply fed up with legislative "gridlock" or "the status quo." Like the kids in a divorce, we're truly tired of people yelling at each other and getting fighting mad. These two guys differ on so many issues, but they certainly come across as two of the nicest, most pleasant and least hostile of the candidates out there. What a relief from the old-style partisan shout-fests. What do you think?
Robert G. Kaiser: I like your comment. I wonder if Iowa's special traditions have a role in explaining this? Perhaps this is part of the new "weather"?
Cupertino, Calif.: How does Richardson's fourth-place finish carry into New Hampshire? Does he pick up the Biden and Dodd support?
Robert G. Kaiser: I nominate this as the most quixotic question of the evening...
Ankeny, Iowa: Finally getting my feet up after a hectic Democratic caucus event. 541 turnout in Crocker precinct Polk County, Iowa -- largest in its history. We ran out of voter registration forms and had to go begging from the Republicans in the cafeteria. Exhilarating and exhausting!
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the report!
Mount Airy, Maryland: Why can't a Baptist minister be elected President? The comment you made is ridiculous. ... I do have a problem with someone who doesn't read the papers (uninformed) and who dismisses science...
Robert G. Kaiser: Because we have a long tradition in this country, going back to the founders, of keeping the clergy in church.
Iowa City, Iowa: The caucuses were very crowded tonight: We had around 620 people in a small elementary gym. There were problems with accurate counting of people, with hearing speakers, of knowing what to do when. It was so crowded we found it hard to talk and think. I think that produced biased results in some way. In Hillary Clinton's corner people left thinking the event was over and the group lost people even though newcomers had joined. Could it be that the Iowa caucuses don't and can't give accurate indications of what voters really think?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks to you too...
Caucus Survivor: To New York: Out here on the wild prairie, at least, Hillary never looked inevitable. As many people hate her as love her. She's a divisive, polarizing figure who gets most of her support from people who toe the Democratic party line. I supported Obama partly because I like the Democrats, and I don't want them to nominate the one person who energizes the Republican base. Many other voters out here did the same thing.
Robert G. Kaiser: And to you...
Lexington, Ky.: How many votes did Alan Keyes receive?
Robert G. Kaiser: Wait a minute, here's a contender for the quixotic question trophy...
Bozeman, Mont.: I find it interesting that the Obama supporters are claiming victory, and in an obvious sense they may, but almost twice as many people voted for other candidates than him. Does this not concern him in his forward motion? Can these other candidates, Edwards and Clinton in particular, not collaborate on a unified effort to prevent his momentum somehow? Or is the -- again obvious -- historic individuality of the candidates insurmountable?
Robert G. Kaiser: Hmm. Good questions. I can't remember anyone winning more than 50 percent in an Iowa Democratic Caucus. My memory is far from perfect!
The big excitement of Obama supporters, I think, is explained by his biography, and by the drama of his rise over the last six months or so. He now does have what George H.W. Bush once called The Big Mo. It won't be easy for Hillary or Edwards, alone or together, to stop it. Not impossible, but difficult, I think.
Re: Ministers: How can you forget James Garfield? He was minister who was elected president.
washingtonpost.com: "Garfield was a minister and an elder for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), making him the first -- and to date, only -- member of the clergy to serve as president." (Wikipedia)
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes I almost mentioned old James. Might we refer to him as the exception who proves the rule?
Waterloo, Iowa: I am a Black precinct caucus chair in a mostly white precinct in Waterloo, Iowa. 202 people caucused in my precinct. The results were as follows: Obama -- 3 delegates; Edwards -- 2; Clinton -- 1. None of the other candidates had more than 14 supporters, while Kucinich and Gravel had 0 each. Obama has a strong, focused team, while Clinton's group was presumptuous. It's up to the rest of the country now -- I've done my part until after the Democratic National Convention!
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks. I am really grateful to all the Iowans who have posted tonight. I love the idea that washingtonpost.com is the place you would come to give us these reports.
Karachi, Pakistan: I have two part questions: In Iowa, what is the ratio of registered Democrats vs. Republicans? Also, historically, what percentage of Republicans and Democrats participate in presidential primaries and elections?
Robert G. Kaiser: Don't have those numbers at hand, but Bush carried Iowa last time, in 2004. It's always been a closely-divided state. It has one Democratic and one Republican senator. The difference in participation this year is striking; the Democrats turned out in unprecedented droves.
Marietta, Ga.: I know several people here in Georgia who like Obama but are afraid that racism will keep him from being elected. I think this win will help alleviate those fears. My feeling is that anyone who is that racist is not going to vote for a Democrat for president. The old "Dixiecrats" tend to vote for Dems in local races, and the GOP in national races.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the post.
Lime Springs, Iowa: It seems like the story isn't so much that Hillary lost, but that Obama won. I'm also hearing a lot about Edwards being finished. Is Hillary being propped up by a party-apparatus and media that still consider her the front-runner?
Robert G. Kaiser: Watching TV out of a corner of one eye, I don't get the sense that anyone is propping her up tonight.
Escondido, Calif.: Tim Russert thinks Iowa is a swing state (it was blue in 2000 and red in 2004). Could we possibly be looking at the entire election hinging on Iowa's five electoral votes? I suppose Diebold will move it's headquarters to Des Moines.
Robert G. Kaiser: I doubt it.
San Diego: Is Edwards or Hillary more apt to endorse the other?
Robert G. Kaiser: Hard to imagine Edwards endorsing Hillary.
Olympia, Wash.: About the race issue: I grew up in the rural South, where people still don't know that there are certain things that you just aren't supposed to say. I often heard white folks express the following sentiment, usually in these exact words: "There are black people, and there are (n-word)s." Those people would say that Obama is a black person.
People have a tough time talking about race in this country, but they have a much tougher time talking about class. The poor young angry urban black male scares middle-aged, middle-class white folks to death. Educated, middle-class, and "articulate" black men like Obama: not a threat. Race is a huge issue in this country, no doubt -- I am one of those liberals who makes a very big deal about race -- but Obama's race will not be the issue in this campaign that some might expect. Now, Hillary's gender, Romney's religion, Giuliani's Italian New Yorker background ... those are issues.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks. Very interesting comment. You know, we have a great many younger black politicians now whose race seems almost secondary. Obama feels like one of them to me. And there is a lot of evidence that young people, under 30, just don't understand how their elders could have made such a big deal out of race. Maybe this is changing too?
Fox Lake, Wis.: Are you saying that if Ron Paul gets more than 10 percent of the vote in New Hampshire he will start to get some recognition in the mainstream media? Don't you think it is more likely that if he starts to get votes the Democrats, Republicans and MSM will team up to destroy him like they did with Ross Perot when he threatened the status quo? Thanks.
Robert G. Kaiser: Ron Paul has had quite a lot of attention from the mainstream media, including The Post. His fundraising has been impressive. But he hasn't had much support from voters. He has a devoted following, to be sure, but it isn't very big.
Caucus Survivor yet again: Of course Iowans came here to post results -- you have the best (and only) ongoing chat about the whole affair. Heck, you just posted something from my very own precinct chair in Waterloo. Remember me, Mr. T? I was the tall dude in the black shirt, holding the Obama sign.
Robert G. Kaiser: All right! Thanks.
Orland Park, Ill.: How popular is Oprah Winfrey in Iowa and how much influence did she have in this caucus do you think?
Robert G. Kaiser: David Broder thought she made a big impression in Iowa. I have no information of my own about this.
New York: I've found your theory on the fall of the republican party interesting ... what's your view on the impact to the party(s) if Bloomberg takes a stab at this?
Robert G. Kaiser: I am a third-party skeptic. On the one hand, as Perot showed in '92, as many as a fifth of the voters can vote for an independent. On the other hand, the system is heavily loaded against an outsider. I don't expect to see a third-party candidate win the White House.
Are you suggesting that Bloomberg might become the Republican nominee? Zero chance of that. He just quit the Republican Party. He shares none of the positions of today's Republicans. Well, he likes his mother.
Medinah, Ill.: I have two short questions Mr. Kaiser, the first being whether Obama is the first African American to win a primary/caucus, and the second being whether that, now that Obama is presumably the Democrats' front-runner you think it will change his strategy?
Robert G. Kaiser: I don't think Jesse Jackson ever won a caucus or primary; I am going to check to be sure.
Did you see Obama's speech tonight? It was remarkable. It suggested to me that he has his strategy for the rest of the year. I hope washingtonpost.com can post the full text, or the video of the full speech.
washingtonpost.com: Sen. Obama Delivers Remarks on Caucus Win in Iowa (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 3)
Washington: Can we take a moment to say so long to Sens. Biden and Dodd? More than 50 years of experience in the Senate and they couldn't garner 1 percent combined in the caucus!
Robert G. Kaiser: Both smart, serious people, too. Thanks for posting.
Ashland, Mo.: Is it wrong to think of everything before Feb. 5 as preseason baseball (or football) and that Feb. 5 is the real beginning of the election cycle because it will overwhelm anything that happens before?
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes. This was the beginning -- only the beginning, but its impact will be felt.
Cleveland Heights, Ohio: Iowa was worth the wait and wading through the daily punderium. On the other hand, if I hear the word "change" one more time. ... What's your intuition about what Hillary has left in her thematic tool box now that it seems probable that experience, womanhood, steely drive, nostalgia and her new dulcet voice couldn't turn back Mr. Obama?
Robert G. Kaiser: You've asked the $64,000 questions. Why indeed do Democrats need Hillary, if they have an exciting alternative who happens to be 15 years younger and a fresh face? Mark Penn and her other strategists are going to have to come up with something pretty good to answer that, I think.
St. Louis: Have all of the votes been counted at this point? Is it possible to see the number of votes for each candidate instead of percentages? Also, one wonders if any of the winners had reservations about ethanol? It is my understanding that growing crops for ethanol really has boosted land prices, etc.
Robert G. Kaiser: As I said earlier, we don't get individual numbers tonight, if ever. Each caucus had a fixed, small number of delegates it could choose. We are learning who got those delegates. In some precincts, a handful of voters could choose a delegate; in big-city precincts, it took scores or even hundreds to pick a delegate. In other words, rural voters have a lot more influence than urban ones. It's a lousy system.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa: After a record turnout in our caucus, 287 folks, I am proud of Iowans who braved cold temperatures to vote their conscience. It appeared the young folks who attended were Obama supporters, excited, energized. It was a great night to be an Iowan...
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting!
Pacific Junction, Iowa: I was at our local caucus in a small rural county where we had about four times the amount of people than four years ago. I was one of three Biden supporters in the room and there were five Richardson supporters. Three of the Richardson supporters and all of us Biden supporters flocked to Edwards without a second thought, as we wanted experience and change with solid leadership (I asked them as well). Edwards finished just behind Clinton and Obama. Obama's crowd was very young, 18 to early 20s, mostly. Do you really think that these young supporters will be that reliable after today?
Robert G. Kaiser: Another intriguing report from the scene. Thanks. The young are traditionally the least reliable participants in the system. Is tradition relevant? I have no idea. Note that in the entrance poll, Iowa women -- not just young women, all women -- favored Obama over Clinton and everyone else.
Maryland: I'm not big on Hillary but I'm really for a woman in the White House. What are the chances that Obama (if he wins) will choose a woman as a running mate?
Robert G. Kaiser: I have no idea.
Bethesda, Md.: I don't have a question. I would like to compliment and thank Mr. Kaiser for the most intelligent and accessible sustained discussion of political issues I've seen this year.
Robert G. Kaiser: Are you my cousin? Or a childhood friend? (I grew up in Bethesda.) Thank you!
Crookston, Minn.: Mr. Kaiser, how big an influence do you think Michelle Obama had in Iowa? I listened to several of her speeches, and the woman seems to have a lot of power on the platform.
Robert G. Kaiser: Agreed. You have to wonder if she undercut the idea that women ought to be for Hillary. Or if Oprah did.
Iowa City, Iowa: Sorry guys, but in my caucus I saw the Obama people bullying poor Richardson's diehards -- terrible, not always polite and nice. Iowans feel passionately about their candidates. This was messy politics and it was very amazing. The state has invested so much time and energy in this event. And are you really going to let someone get away with this comment about Clinton? "She's a divisive, polarizing figure who gets most of her support from people who toe the Democratic party line."
Please. Her caucus corner was full of men, women of all ages, with notable turnout from the gay community. What was missing was teenage men. I do think Clinton made a mistake by providing refreshments for her corner -- it just wasn't Iowan -- not sure how to explain it. But it is much more complex than "divisive." Isn't that what people always say about strong women?
Robert G. Kaiser: This is really terrific. Thanks to you for thinking of us to file this report.
Arlington, Va.: Is it accurate to think tonight was a blow to conventional wisdom and pundits leading up to the vote for the past many months? The two front-runners, Clinton and Romney, both suffered humiliations. Is this just a commentary on the unpredictability of such things months, or even weeks, ahead? Or something more?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you for this. Yes! The conventional wisdom is a curse. So, so much of the commentary in 2007 was feckless speculation based on assumptions and prejudices, not facts or even wisdom. Americans are not very political most of the time. To try to divine their thinking more than a year before an election is very risky, and fruitless -- but the 24-7 news culture seems to demand very early predictions. They should be ignored by people as smart as you.
Akron, Ohio: I'm curious why Saturday's Wyoming caucus isn't getting getting any coverage at all. My understanding is that the delegate count will be reduced as a penalty for calendar gamesmanship, but there still will be delegates awarded. I can't even find a poll anywhere online. Your thoughts?
washingtonpost.com: Will Anyone Notice Wyoming Caucuses? (AP, Jan. 3)
Robert G. Kaiser: Chris Hopkins has found a story. Wyoming has very few delegates. Polls are expensive. There's too much else going on.
Portland, Ore.: Kaiser: Breaking new ground, have you received any indication of the prominent issues from the entrance polls? If yes, what percentage did the economy receive? Iraq? Health Care? Farm subsidies? By the way, for all the Midwest bashers, Iowa likely produces a greater amount of its energy from biofuels or renewable sources (particularly wind) than your pollution-addled domicile. Get with the program.
Robert G. Kaiser: I'll try to give you a few numbers.
For Democrats, the poll says these were the big issues:
Need for change: 51 percentWar in Iraq: 36 percentHealth care: 27 percent
Illegal immigration: 32The economy: 26Terrorism: 21War in Iraq: 17
Greenbelt, Md.: Jesse Jackson won many primaries in '84 and '88, including Michigan.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you. I remember Michigan, now that you mention it.
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks to all -- especially you Iowans -- for this engaging conversation. I enjoyed it and hope you did too. We shared some interesting history tonight. More to come!
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.
| 238.390244 | 0.634146 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702055.html
|
Previewing the Iowa Caucuses
|
2008010419
|
Washington: Let's get to it: What are your predictions for both caucuses tonight?
Christopher C. Hull: Sorry for the delay, all. We're having technical problems.
I just happen to have completed my rough statistical estimate of the results, which follows:
Obama 35 percentClinton 25 percentEdwards 23 percentRichardson 6 percentBiden 4 percentKucinich 0 percent
Romney 39 percentHuckabee 32 percentPaul 11 percentMcCain 9 percentThompson 5 percentGiuliani 0 percent
Know that I don't claim this as particularly accurate or prescient. It IS the result of a complex statistical model built over many years, though, so might be of some interest. Happy to answer further questions about it.
And, for the record this is the tagline:
Christopher C. Hull, Ph.D., Andrea Mayer, and Briana R. MorganGeorgetown University Department of GovernmentStatistical Estimates of 2008 Iowa Caucus ResultsCompleted January 3rd, 2008, 6:09 AMMethodology from Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American PresidentsStanford University Press, 2007
Dayton, Ohio: It seems to me that the Iowa Caucuses are a boon for the state with questionable return on investment for America. Candidates spend tens of millions to attract 4 percent to 6 percent of dedicated Iowans. How can we better balance the process? Thanks for your consideration.
Christopher C. Hull: Certainly there's a concern anytime so much money is spent in one state at a single time. There are two ways of balancing the process, in my view.
One is to move in the direction of a national primary -- whether that is by compressing states into regional contests or by actually allowing all states to compete at once. My serious concern about that is that it eliminates the winnowing process that currently takes place, during which different states learn about the candidates sequentially.
The other way would be to improve the Caucus' process itself. In the book I recommend tying delegates to the percentages, bringing the state in to regulate the process, and eliminating the Democratic caucuses' silly 15 percent viability threshold.
The return on investment for America, at that point, is to cull out candidates with little support from the grassroots activists of the party.
That may not address your fundamental concern -- but we do need to be careful, it seems to me, not to sacrifice the upsides of the current process in our drive to change it.
Lyme, Conn.: Because caucus meetings allow for shifting of people who leave candidates who fail to achieve a threshold, or perhaps shift to allow a candidate to achieve a threshold required to obtain a delegate, are these initial results tabulated and kept, or are only the final results reported? If these initial results are not kept, is the press observing, and has the press recorded initial votes and how much shifting occurs? If so, how much shifting does one see at these meetings? It would be interesting to see a political science study of these shifts and to learn the factors behind these shifts.
Christopher C. Hull: The initial results are not kept, nor are the raw total vote counts on the Democratic side, and the press is not recording what those totals are, as there are 1780-plus precinct caucuses going on. Jonathan Alter from Newsweek just asked me this very question, and I had to admit we as scholars have no way of seeing this crucial information.
My recommendation to the Iowa Democratic Party, actually, would be to eliminate their 15 percent viability threshold altogether. That would take care of our curiosity!
Washington: Around what time tonight will we start getting results? Will they trickle out like in normal elections, or do caucus results arrive all at once?
Christopher C. Hull: Oh, this is hard-core trickle. It will take a long, long time to get the Democratic results in, as the caucuses can take as long as three hours, and then the precinct leadership will have to get the results reported back to headquarters -- and then the party still has to total up their State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), the measurement of support which they actually report. Expect the GOP results to be in first, as the contest is more simple both at the precinct and state-wide level.
I'd guess 9 p.m.-10 p.m. for Republicans and 11-midnight for Democrats.
Iowa: Good morning, looking forward to the caucuses today. I am from Scotland, so it is interesting reading how they work! Hope they were not counting on the weather helping the attendance -- it's hovering around six degrees right now. How do you feel the people with the candidates that get less than 15 percent will realign to? It seems that if you are for Hillary then you are already in her corner; not many people who were originally with Richards, Biden or Dodd will migrate to her. Even if she goes in level, if she does not attract those others, then it's a straight race between Obama and Edwards.
Christopher C. Hull: My sense is that the beneficiaries of the second-place phenomenon will be Barack Obama especially, and John Edwards to a lesser extent. I totally agree with you that few non-Hillary backers will move to her if their candidate falls below the 15 percent threshold of support.
I do think that Sen. Clinton's support is strong enough to push her past Edwards even with this effect, however. We'll see if I'm right!
Boston: Aren't only hardcore partisans represented in the Iowa caucus if only 6 percent of eligible voters go to what is a fairly time-consuming and cumbersome process? And who came up with the idea of making people stand up in front of the community and to state who they support? So much for making whatever choice you wish anonymously. If these caucuses are as democratically challenged as Karen Tumulty in Time suggests, why should the rest of the country and the national pundits care what the results are tonight? To see what the fringe of the various parties in some small rural state thinks about the candidates?
Christopher C. Hull: Gosh, this 6 percent figure is everywhere. In the best-attended years the figure can be 10 percent or 11 percent, and I'd expect the Democratic caucus this year to potentially even top that. The figure sounds low, granted, but it's very high relative to other caucus states. Imagine a primary in which you would be required to show up at one exact time -- and potentially give a speech in favor of the candidate you voted for. It's an intimidating process that keeps turnout to, as you say, hardcore partisans.
Regardless, that begs your question: in fact, absolutely, the Iowa caucus attracts only the most committed supporters of either the party or a given candidate. Don't forget the latter, though -- Barack Obama, for instance, is drawing enormous support from political independents in Iowa who may Caucus for him as Democrats, but their loyalty is to him, not to the party. Likewise, Hillary Clinton is drawing many women into the Caucus who are inspired by her, not by partisanship.
You're also right, though, that the Caucuses are not the most democratic of contests. The answer to your question of why people should care is exactly because Iowa is an acid test of partisanship and/or mobilization. Only those who care passionately about their party or their candidate will show up -- which means candidates who don't have a draw to either will suffer badly. Rudy Giuliani might be an example -- someone with very high favorables within the GOP, but without a core of activists that support him.
If you are opposed to partisans having their say about their party's nominees, Iowa is a very serious concern. But it is, after all, their party.
Anyway, just to point out the other side of the argument.
Philadelphia: I notice recent polls have even some major candidates like Thompson at 12 percent, Giuliani at 12 percent, Paul at 9 percent, etc. If this holds consistently statewide and they consistently fail to obtain 15 percent at caucus meetings, doesn't this mean their final percentages may be far below what they are polling? Will the public understand this, or might this potentially be fatal for the candidates who collapse in the Iowa caucuses?
Christopher C. Hull: Well, the first important note here is that the 15 percent viability threshold is only imposed on the Democratic side. So Thompson, Giuliani, and Paul will be unaffected by it.
That said, your point is absolutely correct - the examples would be Gov. Bill Richardson (the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations), Sen. Chris Dodd (a 26-year veteran of the Senate), and Sen. Joe Biden (a 30-year veteran of the Senate and Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
I think you are right that each of these candidates could be mortally wounded in Iowa, in large part because of this one Caucus quirk. And I don't think that's right.
Dallas: Do you think Huckabee is getting his approval with his approach in Iraq? I think he is the only candidate who will not "stay the course"' as this is such a hot topic with voters, could this be the reason that he is in the lead?
Christopher C. Hull: Can't say as I know. My own guess would be that Huckabee's social conservatism is driving his support in the state. But you may be right.
Arlington, Va.: Mr. Hull, do you think the Iowa Caucuses distract from and substantial discussion of candidates' policies? It seems to me that TV is saturated with too-short interviews of candidates eating breakfast at diners, and radio and the print are full of who-said-what-about-who type commentary and horse-race-type analysis. Frankly I think it's going to take real work for the voter to find the information to compare and contrast candidates' policy stances.
Christopher C. Hull: Certainly the media is heavily focused on horse-race politics in Iowa, agreed. That said, I'd say that if we were to actually peel back one of these town hall meetings, we'd find very serious policy discussions going on. Remember, these are committed and heavily ideological activists.
Try C-SPAN's coverage, for instance, and see if I'm right.
Baltimore: I understand (sort of) the complex system the Democratic voters use with the second choices counting and viability, etc. But what's the Republican system "straw poll" like? How is it different from a normal primary vote?
Christopher C. Hull: Good question. The GOP straw poll system is different from a primary because it takes place at a set time, is held in the context of a party meeting where other business is conducted, and is surrounded by speeches of support for various candidates. The feel is very different from a primary.
That said, you're on to something -- the Republican process is much more like a primary than the Democratic one is in the Hawkeye State.
Washington, D.C.: Can you give an indication of what kind of timeline we should expect for getting results? During the caucuses, I guess we'll get speculation based on turnout but when do hard numbers start coming in and when should we see the process finalized? Thanks!
Christopher C. Hull: In case you didn't see before -- I bet you were caught in the delay along with me -- my guess is 9 p.m.-10 p.m. CT for the GOP and 11 p.m.-midnight CT for the Democrats.
Oradell, N.J.: Which counties in the state have the most disproportionate influence in the delegate distribution on the Democratic side, and which candidate will benefit most from that distribution of delegates?
Christopher C. Hull: Ooh, fabulous question! It depends on what you mean by disproportionate. In terms of housing large numbers of Democrats, Polk County -- which contains Des Moines is the titan of the Caucus. Democrats are heavily implanted in that area. My own bet is that Sen. Clinton is pretty popular there (here!).
However, the other way to look at disproportionate impact is that the Iowa Democratic party weights rural areas more heavily than urban ones. So expect candidates who spent more time in rural areas like John Edwards to outperform on that score.
Annandale, Va.: How is it fair that a couple of states determine who gets to run for president? They do not reflect my values or politics, yet play one of the most important roles in the process.
Christopher C. Hull: I think you're right that "fair" is not the first word that comes to mind when considering the geographic distribution of influence in the presidential nominating process.
In my book ("Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents," for the record) I argue that the Hawkeye State plays a particular role, forcing candidates to rely on retail politics in a way other states don't.
But, still, it probably doesn't meet your test of equity, regardless.
Princeton, N.J.: Gail Collins in the New York Times has a column on why we should ignore Iowa. Here is a brief quote: "People, ignore whatever happens here. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors."
Sitting in a town that I am sure is quite different than any town in Iowa, she makes a lot of sense to me.
washingtonpost.com: The Slice of the Sliver Speaks (New York Times, Jan. 3)
Christopher C. Hull: Princeton, N.J., is actually very like a lot of the academic communities in Iowa -- Iowa City comes to mind. I adore Princeton, and think it's one of the most terrific places in the country, actually. But you'd be surprised, I think, by how coastal the Iowa Democratic Party is: highly educated, anti-war, sympathetic to progressive causes.
Feel free to ignore the results if you like, of course. Ms. Collins certainly has a point.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Let's cut to the chase. Re: Returns -- what time will be too early to see anything important happen tonight on TV? What time will be too late? No, I don't want to hear noodles from the press opine about who could do what. Nor do I want to hear them explain in a thousand ways what happened. I only want to see the victors crowned and the losers led away in suck-it-up dignity. When will that occur? Thanks much.
Christopher C. Hull: (Know I already answered this, but just to keep things clean, again it's 9 p.m.-10 p.m. CT for the GOP and 11 p.m.-midnight for the Democrats. Boy, I hope I'm right on this!)
Not Iowa: Everybody goes on about "ground games" and "organization" and "get out the vote," but if Huckabee does well with little such organization, does that invalidate the millions of dollars others spent on their ground game? Or does that mean that if he'd had the money and people to combine with his charm he would have won handily?
Christopher C. Hull: There is a serious question as to the value of just dumping large dollar figures in Iowa. Television, the spendthrift's choice of tactics there, may have a negative effect on candidates' performance -- at least, according to the analysis in my book.
Also, don't discount the Christian community's internal organization in the Hawkeye State. Though Huckabee didn't create it, it still exists, and is powerful.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa: As an Iowan, I haven't made my mind up yet, and for me it comes down to "who would you rather have a beer with?" Have you had a beer with any of these candidates, and if so could you tell me which one was the best one to have a beer with?
Christopher C. Hull: LOL -- no, I haven't had a beer with any of them. I'd sure like to have a beer with Joe Biden, though, wouldn't you? And certainly Barack Obama would be on my list -- seems like both an inspiring and approachable guy. And Rudy Giuliani. I'm not sure whether Mike Huckabee drinks beer, but if he did, I'm sure that would be fun, too.
Triangle, N.C.: What's your take on the rumors that Biden and Richardson will tell their supporters to vote for Obama if they fall under 15 percent, as Kucinich did?
Christopher C. Hull: My understanding is that Biden's people are being directed to vote "undecided" if they fall under the threshold. I don't know about Richardson, but I would doubt that -- I think he's campaigning to be Vice President, and Hillary Clinton would be the safer bet if he were to do something like that.
Avon Park, Fla.: I must say that I'm a little disturbed by the fact that the Iowa Democrats caucuses aren't secret ballots like the Iowa Republicans' are. The GOP appears to have an easier system. Has there been talk about simplifying the Democratic caucuses? If not, what reasons have people given for keeping it that way?
Christopher C. Hull: There is talk every four years about simplifying the system, but the Iowa Democratic Party seems to like it this way. Their argument, from my interviews, is that the complexity requires even more organizational skill to handle, which they view as a positive thing. In my book I do recommend eliminating the 15 percent threshold, as I've said, but I do recognize the value in what the IDP says.
Washington: Hello. Thank you for your predictions -- I'm curious about the model you used to make them. What variables do you include? How are they weighted or otherwise adjusted? I'd love to hear more about it, seems like something very different from the usual polls. Thank you!
Christopher C. Hull: Aha! For that, you'll have to buy the book! The models are laid out in detail there...
Okay, okay, I know that was a cheap plug. The short answer is that the Predictive Model is based on four things: The Iowa Poll, results in state-wide straw polls, the Gallup Poll (which has a negative effect in predictions), and the results of my Explanatory Model, which take into account candidate level of effort on a number of fronts.
This prediction is hampered by a lack of data on a number of fronts, including perceptions of electability and ideological crowding. That makes the GOP estimates especially suspect, I think. Huckabee's ideological room on the Right may have a dramatic impact on his performance, pushing him far past Romney, if that's true.
Philadelphia: I notice the names missing from your estimate -- such as Dodd, Hunter, etc. Are they also expected to draw 0 percent?
Christopher C. Hull: Actually, that's just from lack of data. But I don't expect them to do well.
Rolla, Mo.: I assume there is a federal law that mandates that employers have to allow employees to caucus. If people who have to work evenings (which tend to be more blue-collar or lower income) can't show up in proportional numbers to the rest of the population, does this hurt a pure populist like Edwards?
Christopher C. Hull: No, I don't think there is such a law. This process is not official -- just a party meeting. That's part of its infuriating charm.
Yes, I think populists are harmed by the process for exactly the reason you state. And Dick Gephardt apparently suffered from that exact fate in 2004, again according to Jonathan Alter from Newsweek.
Anonymous: There are some obvious striking aspects of your predictions. This morning's analysts on TV were predicting a McCain resurgence, a Huckabee win, and Edwards coming in second. If your predictions come in, this has to hurt Edwards, McCain, and just about any candidate except for the top two in each party (and possibly Giuliani who mostly skipped Iowa). If your predictions are accurate, how do you see this shaping the field, especially in the face of "expectations" that the press seems to be building that candidates such as McCain, Thompson, Paul and Edwards should be doing better than what you predict?
Christopher C. Hull: Oh, I wouldn't put that much stock in these estimates, to tell you the truth. They're interesting because they tell you what the data say -- but I don't know that Huckabee will actually lose, or that McCain will come in fourth behind Paul. Let's just see how folks do, and not put too much stock in these numbers -- yet.
(Note -- in 2004 a version of this model called the top-tier results in order: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt...)
Denver: Colorado has caucuses for nominating candidates at state level and the attendance is very poor. I think the attendance in Iowa is also very poor -- what is it, below 10 percent? If there is any tinkering to be done, maybe they should just move to a primary rather than caucus. As for Democrats' 15 percent viability, I think that is better than having just raw percentages. This 15 percent is at the precinct level, so there is plenty of opportunity for voters to choose a second candidate.
Christopher C. Hull: My own view is that the caucus process adds something important to the nomination contest. But I recognize the concern about low turnout.
Silver Spring, Md.: Paul over McCain: If true, would this result mean anything to either candidate outside of Iowa and looking forward? Thanks!
Christopher C. Hull: Yes, I think so. Again, we shouldn't get carried away interpreting these results -- let's see what happens. But certainly losing to Paul wouldn't help McCain any in New Hampshire, especially if Romney does in fact win.
Washington: I think the viability rule is linked loosely to the delegates awarded, so roughly 15 percent is needed to get one delegate to the next level of the process. Without the viability rule, if your candidate gets 14 percent, then you go home. With the rule, you can join another candidate's caucus or, to avoid the my-way-or-the-highway scenario when one candidate dominates, several non-viables can create an uncommitted group after the first round. With so many candidates splitting the vote, though (24, 25, 26, etc.), it is possible for all candidates to fail viability in some areas and then dominate the process in other regions.
Christopher C. Hull: Hm. I don't think so, actually -- the delegates awarded are linked to population and Democratic vote, I think, and so don't correspond with that 15 percent figure. But I could be wrong, as that's pretty far into the arcana.
Annandale, Va.: Do you think the Orange Bowl will have any affect on the turnout? Will it help Hillary since the woman might caucus while the men watch football? I am a political junkie and would stay home to watch the game rather than spend three hours trying to vote.
Christopher C. Hull: Great question! Sure, it's too bad that this process is also discriminating against college ball fans -- though of course personally I avoid what I call "amateur football." I'm sure that will start an entirely new, violent debate here.
Washington: You expect results at "9 p.m.-10 p.m. for Republicans and 11 p.m.-midnight for Democrats." Is that local or D.C. time?
Alpharetta, Ga.: Do you think caucus results might raise questions about whether McCain or Rudy should have competed more aggressively in the state?
Christopher C. Hull: Hell yes -- Giuliani especially. I'm not sure why his campaign continues to stick with this late-state strategy, while his polls erode not just in early states, not just nationally but in the very states where he's ounting on winning.
Albany, N.Y.: One of the major issues among other polling wonks has been how to identify "probable caucusees" among respondents. Can you say a little bit about how you identified these folks and how your approach differs from other estimates, such as the recent Des Moines Register poll that has caused something of a flap?
Christopher C. Hull: Oh, my estimates aren't polls at all, remember. They use the Iowa Poll -- the Des Moines Register poll you mention -- which has the best caucus attendee filter in the business, in my view, though.
What's the flap over the Iowa Poll, by the way?
Philadelphia: Are Republicans allowed to vote in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and may Democrats vote in the Iowa Republican Caucus? The press is telling of Republicans voting for Obama. Is this permitted, or would the Republicans have to switch their registration to being Democrats? If they have to switch, how far in advance of the caucus would they have to have switched in order to vote today?
Christopher C. Hull: Yes, if a voter is willing to change parties at the caucus site, they may. So yes, Republicans (and Independents) may well have some impact on Obama's results.
Bremerton, Wash.: It's the A-caucu-lypse! Can you tell me if the "15 percent viability" rule came from Bygone Days, or were they put in relatively recently? And I'll predict Edwards and Romney, with Richardson and Paul doing better than expected.
Christopher C. Hull: I'm actually not sure. My understanding is that the viability rule was in place in the mid-1970s -- but it may have come about from the Democratic Primary reforms after 1968. Good question to which I don't have the answer.
Anonymous: Did Ohio Gov. Strickland's bashing of the Iowa caucus the day after he stumped for Hillary in Iowa resonate with Iowans?
Christopher C. Hull: I hadn't heard about it, actually. Have to pass on that one, too.
Atlanta: What role do you think endorsements from local people in government and past officials play in winning support for candidates?
Christopher C. Hull: I think there is some. My colleagues Steger, Adkins and Dowdle have done a lot more work on that than I, though -- Google their journal articles and you'll get an excellent answer to your question.
Boston: Ugh, I am so sick of people saying they want to vote for the candidate they would most want to have a beer with. That is the most ridiculous criteria for electing arguably the most powerful person in the world. They are not supposed to be just like us -- they are supposed to smarter than the average person, better educated than the average person, more driven than the average person, basically not like you and me. Vote for who you think can solve the country's problems the best, not who you think you would be friends with!
Christopher C. Hull: Fair point.
Washington: Do you suggest any good international sites or blogs for assessing the interest in and impact of our elections overseas?
Christopher C. Hull: No, I'm not sure I know of a good place to direct you. I love RealClearPolitics.com, but I'm not sure that's what you're asking about.
Christopher C. Hull: Well, thanks, all for your terrific questions. I have to sign off now. Please consider picking up my book -- again, "Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents" from Stanford University Press.
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.
| 134.658537 | 0.682927 | 0.878049 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702003.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122702003.html
|
Post Politics Hour - washingtonpost.com
|
2008010419
|
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 reporter Lois Romano was online Thursday, Jan. 3 at 10 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.
Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to a podcast of the show.
Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts
Lois Romano: Good morning everyone, and thanks for joining us. As most of you know, this is a significant day in American politics: Finally real voters will have a chance to express their preference in the presidential race. The Iowa Caucuses are today, kicking off an intense and short primary season that might yield a nominee as early as next month. We're looking forward to your questions. Today, I'm in Manchester, N.H.-- site of the first primary on Tuesday -- and it's very cold!
Faber, Va.: What time do the Iowa Caucus sites report their results? Is there a time limit, or do they debate until the weak of heart leave and then vote? I have looked at the DNC site and found only the starting time.
Lois Romano: The caucuses report late. I'm not sure if there is an actual time limit but caucusgoers generally are efficient in their deliberations. We're starting to see reports that candidates who suspect they might not make the 15 percent threshold of support already are instructing their followers where to throw their second choice support. If so, that should make the process fairly streamlined. Complicating it, however, could be reports that many first-timers will be participating, which could slow down process.
Faber, Va.: Thanks for that answer. ... No deadline and yet still efficient? Can we hire these folks? Given that immigration is such an issue, what are the credentials necessary to vote at a caucus? What ID will be checked at the door? What happens if the crowd overwhelms the living room of the meeting home?
Lois Romano: I said I wasn't sure about time deadlines. Voters have assigned places to go.
Pittsburgh: Good morning. I'm fascinated by the media's sense that we really don't know what will happen/who will win tonight's Iowa caucuses. In such an environment, is there a risk in placing too much stock in who finishes first? And a second question ... in such an environment, isn't it critical for the media to offer critical analysis of not only what happens tonight, but what comes next? Thank you!
Lois Romano: Good questions. Tonight's analysis will in part reflect the expectations game. Everyone will look at not only who comes in first but who was expected to come in first. In the past few weeks, you've seen the people around Hillary Clinton trying to bring down expectations -- suggesting she was never expected to do well in Iowa. That way, if she comes in third, they are able to say that's acceptable. Of course, the media and pundits would not agree. In her case, she is expected to do well. An Obama victory would be portrayed as besting Hillary Clinton. Yes, it's critical to look forward. Everyone will look to New Hampshire the second results are posted in Iowa.
Potomac Falls, Va.: The biggest 2008-Presidential-news over the next 7 days will come from (choose one): a. Iowa, b. New Hampshire, c. Oklahoma. I choose "c." Whaddya think ... will he do it?
washingtonpost.com: New York Mayor Bloomberg says he's not a presidential candidate (Reuters, Jan. 3)
Lois Romano: We have to take the mayor at his word -- he's not running. His greatest hope is that no clear winner emerges from the GOP side and he's recruited to step in, but that is very unlikely -- the process usually works.
Silver Spring, Md.: I know that Dennis Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for Obama as their second choice tonight. Have any of the other also-rans announced who they've instructed their supporters to pick as second choices?
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Kucinich Throws His Support to Obama (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 1)
Lois Romano: There is some buzz in blog world that Biden and Richardson may do the same.
St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Lois -- Thanks for taking my question/comment. Yesterday I heard several pundits commenting on how great Hillary "looked" in her "closing argument" video for the caucuses -- her hair, makeup, etc. (Roger Simon commented that she looked "fantastic," and Chris Matthews readily agreed.) Fair game? I don't hear the same analysis of the male candidates, or is it out there and I'm just missing it? Once again I feel like she's getting far greater scrutiny about things that have nothing to do with her policy views -- or it is just me?
washingtonpost.com: Channel '08: Hillary's Two Minute Ad (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 2)
Lois Romano: She does get greater scrutiny. She is the first truly viable woman to run for president -- which is historic -- so people will look at more than policy. But Clinton's policies do get scrutiny -- as much or more than her competitors. She is a formidable candidate.
Kansas City, Mo.: Why isn't Joe Biden doing better in the debates and polls? He is the total package for this country, but somehow all his credentials appear to mean nothing in the time of thought of change.
Lois Romano: Good question, and I'm not sure anyone can answer it. Joe Biden is qualified to be president, but for whatever reason he didn't catch on. The general feeling, however, is that he ran a good campaign and will come out okay; he may even be in line for a high-level cabinet post when it's all over.
Greenville, S.C.: Lois -- Happy New Year. Has there ever been a Congress with lower approval ratings than the current one?
Lois Romano: Hard to imagine. I think I read that theirs was the lowest in history.
Arlington, Va.: Lois, how does the Justice Department's decision to look into the CIA torture tapes really help, as they're using an internal investigation instead of an independent council? Seems like it's just business as usual at Justice. Why isn't there an independent investigation?
washingtonpost.com: Criminal Probe on CIA Tapes Opened (Post, Jan. 3)
Lois Romano: Attorney General Mukasey yesterday named a federal prosecutor from Connecticut to lead the investigation -- which is start, as John Durham is not at main Justice.
New Boston, N.H.: As I'm from New Hampshire, you can assign my question to the sour grapes department if you like, but it seems to me that the Iowa caucuses have no more intrinsic value than the Iowa August popularity poll since no one actually votes. My question: Is the Iowa phenomenon entirely media ensconced?
Lois Romano: Probably. A lot is said and written about whether a candidate will get a "bounce" from Iowa -- whether New Hampshire voters will in some way be swayed by the results. Historically, that has not been the case. New Hampshire voters are very independent-minded.
Dallas: Do you think Huckabee is getting his approval with his approach in Iraq? I think he is the only candidate that will not "stay the course"; as this is such a hot topic with voters, could this be the reason that he is in the lead?
Lois Romano: I don't think Huckabee's lead is attributable to Iraq. He's a Christian conservative in a state where Christian conservatives vote. He comes across as sincere and folksy, and people like that.
Washington: I just read on The Post's Trail page that Clinton dropped by the press bus to drop off coffee etc. and was met with cold silence. Wow. Even after 15 years, why is there so much press hostility towards the Clintons? If it turns out to be McCain vs. Clinton (my current guess) in the general, the difference in press coverage between these two is going to be as staggering as it is depressing.
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Clinton Joins the Girls on the Bus (washingtonpost.com, Jan. 2)
Lois Romano: I was struck by that as well. I have covered Hillary Clinton off and on for 15 years and I've never seen anything that stark happen. While there is a tense relationship between Clinton and the media, I'm not sure why the reporters on the bus wouldn't have tried to take advantage of her appearance and ask some good questions. All she could do is refuse to answer them. It's not for the press to be hostile to Clinton -- it's the media's responsibility to cover her.
Boston: "Have any of the other also-rans announced who they've instructed their supporters to pick as second choices? Lois Romano: There is some buzz in blog world that Biden and Richardson may do the same."
"The same" meaning telling their supporters who to pick as a second choice, or "the same" meaning telling their supporters to pick Obama as their second choice?
Arlington, Va.: Hi, Lois. Cold here in Washington, too. With the three leading Democrats all bunched up in a very close race, what happens to the dynamic going into New Hampshire if there is no clear winner, if two or even three candidates end up within a point or two of each other? Happy New Year, and thanks for your great reporting.
Lois Romano: It means an exciting race. New Hampshire right now is very competitive between Clinton and Obama, so I'm not sure it could get anymore intense. But if Edwards does well in Iowa, New Hampshire voters might take another look at him.
Raleigh, N.C.: When I read that a particular candidate, lets say Romney, is particularly well-organized, what exactly does that mean? What kind of special organization helps a candidate win a caucus?
Lois Romano: It means he has ample staff and volunteers available to get people to the caucuses tonight, that he has identified people who have committed to show up and that he has enough staff to follow up with them, that he has prepared for weather contingencies, etc. Everyone tries to do this, but not everyone has the resources to do so. Mike Huckabee, for example, doesn't have that kind of organization in place. He knows people suppo -rt him- but he can't be sure if all those people will show up to tonight.
Lois Romano: Sorry for the delay everyone -- our system had a glitch. Thanks so much for joining us. See you in two weeks!
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post national political reporter Lois Romano discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
| 99.909091 | 0.954545 | 8.045455 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202487.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202487.html
|
Too Quick to Triangulate
|
2008010419
|
One longtime Democratic consultant, not involved in any campaign this time, suggested that Clinton propose a genuine universal health-care scheme. Everybody would be covered by Medicare, except people who chose to retain their private health insurance plans. The consultant gave the idea to somebody close to the senator, but the intermediary refused to pass it on to the candidate. He said it would never get beyond Mark Penn and his strategy of triangulation.
Penn, a professional pollster who was political adviser to President Bill Clinton, is chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's campaign. He has embraced the triangulation -- coming across as a third force somewhere between the liberal and conservative poles -- that characterized Bill Clinton's politics after 1994, based on advice from Dick Morris. To many Democratic operatives, Penn's triangulation prematurely introduced a general election strategy when in fact the party nomination was still in doubt.
Health care is a particularly sensitive issue for Clinton. Her failed 1993-94 plan is blamed inside Democratic ranks for the Republican takeover in the '94 elections and for freezing the entire health-care issue for a decade. While her current call for mandatory health-care coverage might seem radical, it is criticized on the left as embracing "shared responsibility" with private health insurance firms (similar to plans by Republican Govs. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California). That looks like triangulation.
Clinton was even more obviously engaged in triangulation in September, when she voted for a resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The other three Democratic senators seeking the presidential nomination -- Obama, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd -- all opposed the resolution on grounds that it would give President Bush a pretext for invading Iran (though Obama was not present for the vote). Clinton, while attacking Bush's Iraq policy, did not want to seem soft on Iran's Holocaust-denying president, who has vowed to destroy Israel.
Penn's strategy from the start was predicated on the inevitability of Clinton's nomination, so the real concern was to position her to run against the Republicans by making clear that she was no more a hard leftist than her husband had been. Iowa, whose passionately liberal caucusgoers are not suited to triangulation, always was a problem for Clinton. Early polls there gave the lead to John Edwards, who has run on a class-warfare, populist platform.
But Edwards, an unlikely threat beyond Iowa, did not worry the Clinton camp. His lead was considered a holdover from his strong second-place showing there in 2004. Clinton's concern soon became the unexpected rise of Obama. While one major national pollster is now saying he believes Clinton will finish third in Iowa, her supporters do not consider that really bad news, so long as it is Edwards, not Obama, who finishes first. In her Iowa campaign, Clinton has stressed "experience" (suggesting support for Obama requires "a leap of faith"). With many more Democrats desiring "change," those who prefer "experience" may constitute only 30 percent of Iowa voters (though that could be enough to win).
The threat of Obama winning in Iowa makes it white-knuckle time for Clinton. With Obama ahead in some New Hampshire polls, a double loss for Clinton in the first two tests of 2008 would raise the specter of Howard Dean's collapse four years ago after losing in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Hillary Clinton is surely no Howard Dean. Furthermore, Michael Dukakis finished third in Iowa in 1988 and went on to be nominated (on the Republican side, both Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1988 got the nomination after losing Iowa). But an Obama victory in Iowa could be fatal for Clinton. It is believed in Democratic circles that Mark Penn, as the advocate of triangulation, would be the scapegoat, with Bill Clinton leading the trashing of the strategy that helped make him president.
¿ 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
|
Appealing to a general election audience too early could wind up a fatal flaw for Hillary Clinton's chances in Iowa.
| 33.26087 | 0.652174 | 1.26087 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202489.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202489.html
|
Wait for New Hampshire
|
2008010419
|
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- One final reminder: When you're reading the returns from the Iowa caucuses, you are viewing them through a double distortion mirror.
The outcome of Iowa's first-in-the-nation voting is skewed by two big factors. The turnout is ridiculously small, barely 20 percent of the eligible voters. And those who choose to caucus are hardly representative of the population as a whole.
This is not said in disparagement of Iowans, whose overall civic spirit and political acumen are as outstanding as those of any voters I know. But their traditional way of expressing their early choice for president and the disproportionate influence it exerts in winnowing the field leave a lot to be desired.
The maddening thing about the caucus system, for candidates and outside observers as well, is that large and enthusiastic rally crowds tell you almost nothing about the dynamic of the decision making. I have been dazzled this year, not only by the thousands who filled arenas in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids to see Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama but by the turnouts of hundreds at high school gyms on freezing Friday nights in small towns such as Oelwein.
Yet getting crowds to a rally or a town meeting is child's play compared with getting them to caucus. In 2004, 1,506,908 people voted in Iowa in the general election for president. Turnout at the Democratic caucuses that year was 124,000. The biggest number ever for Republicans was 115,000 in 1980.
That system empowers the activists and those with built-in organizational ties who can mobilize people to leave their homes for a couple of hours on a weeknight and motivate them to declare a public -- not private -- preference for a candidate.
On the Republican side, those networks belong principally to conservative Christian groups, antiabortion organizations, home-school advocates and some economic interests.
On the Democratic side, organized labor and the teachers boast the best networks, but the main impulse is a broader populist tradition that tugs the Democratic Party of Iowa to the left. That tradition may go back to the days of Henry Wallace, the Iowa-born vice president under FDR. But it has been embodied in recent decades by Tom Harkin, the longtime Democratic senator who ran for president himself in 1992 and quickly fell behind the more moderate Bill Clinton and Paul Tsongas.
Harkin has accustomed Iowa Democrats to a red-meat diet of anti-corporate rhetoric, a tradition he shared with the late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That theme was echoed this year and in 2004 by John Edwards and was imitated -- with varying degrees of conviction -- by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the closing stages of the Iowa race.
It has been an Iowa pattern to tilt the Democratic race leftward and the Republican race to the right. And often it has been New Hampshire, where the primary turnout approximates the pattern of the overall electorate, that restores the balance and corrects for the distorting effects of the Iowa dynamic.
The key to New Hampshire is usually found among independent voters, who can take part in either party's primary, depending on the choice each individual makes on primary day.
That fact by itself pulls the candidates away from the ideological edges and back to the center, and it is abetted by two other forces. Organized labor is a much weaker political element inside the New Hampshire Democratic Party than it is in Iowa's. And among Republicans, the state is much more secular than Iowa, with a significantly smaller percentage of people who describe themselves as born-again Christians.
The Democratic Party of New Hampshire is a balanced blend of college-trained, high-tech people and educators, with a leavening of retirees and a significant ethnic, urban contingent in Manchester and Nashua, as well. The Republican Party here is a small-business and professional class, with some blue-collar elements and a spillover of former Massachusetts residents living along the southern border.
In New Hampshire, nearly half as many people voted in the 2004 primary as in the November general election -- a far better cross-section of the state. What was even more remarkable was that the number of votes cast in the Democratic presidential primary -- 221,309 -- was two-thirds of the votes John Kerry received when he carried the state in November.
New Hampshire is a more reliable, less distorted lens through which to view the presidential landscape than Iowa.
|
New Hampshire is a more reliable, less distorted lens though which to view the presidential landscape than Iowa.
| 40.285714 | 0.904762 | 6.714286 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101300.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101300.html
|
Parties Trading Places
|
2008010219
|
As the first actual voting in this year's presidential contest is finally about to begin, the two parties have swapped places. The Democrats, by tradition the party of irreconcilable factions, are, for all their election-eve squabbling, more united than they've been in decades. The Republicans, by tradition the party that submerges its differences to rally 'round the front-runner, have become a collection of distinct, disconsolate camps.
Barack Obama and John Edwards are just now having at it, and each is touching distinct themes in the final appeals to Iowa voters. Obama seems more in the tradition of the early-20th-century progressives, middle-class reformers who sought to clean up politics to restore a functioning democracy. Edwards is more in the tradition of the early-20th-century populists, railing at the monied interests that really ran the country.
But Obama is a rather populist progressive, a onetime community organizer who understands the power of organized popular protest. And Edwards is a progressive populist, heir to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, not William Jennings Bryan or Huey Long.
Time was when the Democratic presidential field would extend from the hawkish Henry Jackson to the dovish George McGovern, neither of whom could count on the other's Democratic supporters in a race against the Republican. These days, the differences dividing the Democrats are far narrower, and the Democrat who wins the party's nod will command nearly consensual Democratic support. The same cannot be said for the Republicans.
Indeed, half of the Democrats polled in November by NBC and the Wall Street Journal said that they could support either Hillary Clinton or Obama "with enthusiasm"; 36 percent said that of Edwards. Among Republicans, however, only Mitt Romney, at 35 percent, approached the Edwards level of enthusiasm; and the rest of the major GOP candidates lagged far behind.
It's not hard to see why. Mike Huckabee has brought not just the Old Time Religion to the campaign but also a populist touch that appalls the economic right. With each passing day, moreover, he looks less and less ready for prime time. It's difficult to imagine Huckabee commanding much support outside the party's Christian right -- just as it's hard to imagine Rudy Giuliani commanding much support inside the party's Christian right.
Besides, the resurrection of John McCain as a credible candidate has damaged Rudy's claim to being the toughest anti-jihadist on the block. More precisely, McCain comes off, some of the time, as a judicious anti-jihadist, at least when compared with Rudy's one-note obsessive anti-jihadist.
McCain's problem may be that he's too good for the Republicans this year. On two of the defining moral issues of our time -- whether America should torture its enemies and how America should treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants already among us -- he has consistently exhibited decency and common sense that shouldn't be in the least bit notable but which stand out given the demagogic savagery that his rival Republican candidates have championed. McCain would hardly be a slam-dunk if he won the GOP nomination -- he'd still have to explain why he thinks the Iraq war was a good idea and why our forces should stay there indefinitely -- but he'd certainly be the strongest candidate the GOP could select.
What's not clear is how McCain can win the nomination, given the anti-immigrant torrent sweeping the Republican base and the Republican elite, who never liked McCain to begin with. In 2008, nativism shapes up as the one issue both to mobilize the party's core voters and sway undecideds into the Republican column. It's the only issue that has worked for congressional Republicans in off-year special elections; it's clearly the card that GOP members of Congress plan to play to hold on to their seats in November -- though how they could do that if McCain headed their ticket is a difficult question. McCain could switch his position on immigrants, but not without damage to his damn-the-torpedoes, straight-shooter image.
Which leaves the GOP with Mitt Romney, whose prime virtue is that he's minimally acceptable to all wings of the party. Indeed, the reason that venerable conservative standard-bearer the National Review gave for endorsing Romney is that he is the candidate most likely "to keep the [conservative] coalition together." But Romney's strength is also his weakness: He doesn't offend Republicans for the positions he takes; he offends Republicans for all the back-pedaling and 180s he's had to perform in order to espouse the positions that don't offend them. Besides, standing at the midpoint of the GOP may be a dubious general-election asset to an electorate that increasingly rejects the Republican worldview.
Is McCain too authentic to win the GOP nod? Is Slick Mitt too inauthentic to win the White House? Come tomorrow, voters will start sorting this, and more, out.
|
On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, one party is unusually united, while the other is uncommonly fractious.
| 45.380952 | 0.761905 | 1.047619 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122701432.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/27/DI2007122701432.html
|
White House Watch
|
2008010219
|
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Dan is also deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org.
Dan Froomkin: Hi everyone and welcome to another White House Watch chat. I've spent the last 24 hours or so furiously catching up on the goings-on since my last column almost two weeks ago. I was seriously offline for most of that time.
And as it turns out, there was plenty to write about. Today's column, Bush's Final Year, looks at Bush's goals in the home stretch. Domestically, there's not a whole lot of big stuff on the list, with the notable exception of the FISA bill he wants to ram through Congress. Bush will be doing a lot of international travel, including a trip to the Middle East starting next week. But as the recent events in Pakistan suggest, Bush's interventions abroad tend to do more harm than good -- whatever his intentions.
That said, however, it would appear Bush was not exactly at the center of the news cycle these past two weeks. Was that just because he too was on vacation? Or is the 2008 presidential race going to eclipse him from this point forward? Let's talk about that and whatever else is on your mind.
St. Louis: Dan, why do you think that the mainstream media is giving so little coverage to the destruction of the torture tapes? This should not have been a one- or two-day story ... it deserves ongoing coverage; it is a smoking gun. By the way, thank God you are back! Happy New Year!
washingtonpost.com: CIA Tapes Were Kept From 9/11 Panel, Report Says (Post, Dec. 23)
Dan Froomkin: Thanks. Happy New Year to all of you, as well!
As for so little coverage of the torture tapes? Beats me. I think torture remains the most seriously undercovered story out there, and hoped the cover-up angle would at least whet some more journalistic appetite for it.
Perhaps today's New York Times op-ed by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission, will reinvigorate my colleagues.
Kean and Hamilton write that "the recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes -- and did not tell us about them -- obstructed our investigation."
As Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald writes: "Both legally and politically, it's hard to imagine a more significant scandal than the President and Vice President deliberately obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission by concealing and then destroying vital evidence which the Commission was seeking. Yet that's exactly what the evidence at least suggests has occurred here."
Or at least it hasn't been ruled out. See my Dec. 20 column, The Weakest of Denials.
Dan Froomkin: And here's a question for you clever readers. Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti had an important story in the Sunday New York Times, about how the CIA apparently destroyed videotapes of its agents torturing terror suspects for fear that their release would hurt the agency's image.
And in addition to that hideous irony, they offer a fascinating tidbit: "The tapes documented a program so closely guarded that President Bush himself had agreed with the advice of intelligence officials that he not be told the locations of the secret CIA prisons."
What possible reason is there for Bush to keep such information secret from himself? So he won't blab? Or so he has plausible deniability? Any other reasons you can think of.
Hartford, Conn.: Dan: welcome back. I read over the weekend that Bush signed some kind of FOIA-related legislation, but didn't read whether he attached a signing statement. I can't imagine he'd sign anything that required more disclosure without exempting himself from it. What do you know?
Dan Froomkin: There was no signing statement. Just an announcement. But don't be so shocked. The White House is largely exempt from FOIA! Only a few sub-offices within the executive office of the president are FOIAble.
And you may recall that back in August, the White House suddenly claimed that its Office of Administration, which had been on its own public listing of FOIAble entities, was no longer subject to the open-records law and didn't have to respond to requests for information about missing e-mails.
Washington: So ... was it a pocket veto or not? Is there any possibility that Congress will say that the military policy bill was not vetoed within 10 days and therefore becomes law? Or will they cave again?
Dan Froomkin: Great question. As Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while vacationing at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session."
But Congress was in session -- sort of.
Feller explains: "The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief, often seconds-long pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.
"Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, 'The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto.'
"When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications -- such as veto messages -- from the White House during the monthlong break."
One advantage of a pocket veto, of course, is that it cannot be overridden -- and it fuzzes things up.
As for what Congressional Democrats will do? I suspect they will cave. Don't they always?
Boston: Re: Torture -- how about a straightforward question to Bush: Have you ever watched any part a taped interrogation? All of his ... equivocating phrases (I was going to say tortured...) and non-answers about "he had no recollection of being made aware, blah, blah, blah" seem to be almost Bill Clinton-esque...
Dan Froomkin: I agree. But I strongly doubt he actually watched them. (Consider how he didn't even want to know where the sites were!)
That said, the question I would have liked to see asked at his press conference on the 20th was: "Was it news to you today that four of your lawyers were involved in discussions about the fate of these tapes -- and didn't explicitly forbid their destruction? When exactly did you find out that your aides had been involved in such discussions?"
What possible reason is there for Bush to keep such information secret from himself?: Definitely plausible deniability. Also though, perhaps if he is uninformed, it will also uniform his successor ... thereby "protecting" those sites. Just a thought.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks. I like the idea of "uninform" as a verb.
Austin, Texas: Dan, first of all, Happy New Year. We all missed you over the holidays -- there was so much to report on and I missed your take on all things White House-related. Second, what is the real story behind the Bush pocket veto of the defense bill?
Dan Froomkin: Thanks. Another good question. I wish someone had written more about this. I'll poke around.
Oh wait! Here's a story fresh out from Walter Alarkon at The Hill: "House Democrats and the Bush administration appear on the verge of a new constitutional fight over whether President Bush can pocket-veto the defense appropriations act.
"The White House on Monday said it was pocket-vetoing the measure, but a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president cannot use such a measure when Congress is in session...
"The White House argues it pocket-vetoed the defense bill on Dec. 28 by sending it back to the House with a message of disapproval. It argues that a pocket veto was possible because the House, where the bill originated, was out of session.
" 'A pocket veto, as you know, is essentially putting it in your pocket and not taking any action whatsoever. And when Congress -- the House is out of session -- in this case it's our view that bill then would not become law,' White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Monday...
"Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress, said that the president is inviting a constitutional fight in trying a pocket veto.
" 'The administration would be on weak grounds in court because they would be insisting on what the Framers decidedly rejected: an absolute veto,' Fisher said.
"True pocket vetoes are available only when Congress is away for months and unable to vote on an override, he said."
Oh boy! This could get good!
San Ramon, Calif.: Happy New Year, Dan. I always enjoy your column. As President Bush enters his final year in the White House, his popularity is sinking to a very low level. However, the Democrat-controlled Congress has not been able to push through some of the key laws they promised during the 2006 election. Why can't Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid just stand firm and demand George Bush to give in, especially on the issue of brining the troop home? All the polls show that this is what majority of American people want, and yet Bush still has his way.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks. And I don't know.
One thing that seems to be missing from the Democratic side is a clearly articulated position on why withdrawal from Iraq is critical, and a clearly articulated vision of how that would happen. It will be interesting to see if the newly-anointed Democratic presidential front-runners decide to give that a shot.
Why Bush didn't ask where the prisons were: He didn't want to know who leaked Valerie Plame's name. He didn't want to know why those U.S. attorneys were fired. He doesn't want to know what this economy is really like, or what it's like to depend on the ER for health care. In Bush's mind "we don't torture." He's not curious about much of anything. Why would he care to know the name of yet another place that "we don't torture"?
Dan Froomkin: Wow. That could be like the Unifying Theory of George W. Bush: He doesn't want to know.
I've been operating on the assumption that he generally knows, he just doesn't want to say. But you may be right. It certainly jibes with his avoidance of dissenting views -- the famous Bush Bubble, that I think will go down as one of the defining characteristics of his administration.
Why Bush is keeping secrets from himself?: So that if he's captured and tortured, he can't spill "state secrets"?
Washington: If President Bush is wrong about the pocket veto, then the bill is law, right? And all he had to do to ensure the bill definitely was vetoed was sign a veto statement? I get the impression he isn't so nervous about losing a fight with Congress.
Dan Froomkin: Would you be, if you were him?
Warren, N.J.: Dan, Bush and his administration have managed to stall countless inquiries, from Abramoff to waterboarding (sorry, couldn't think of crime starting with a Z). What happens to these inquiries after he leaves office next January?
Dan Froomkin: (Thanks Chris for a good Z one.)
Interesting question, and one I should pursue further.
Much of the "stalling" you cite is actually more the function of a spineless Congress than of some great exertion of executive power. It's not clear to me how much appetite Democrats really have for such information -- or how that will change come January 2009.
If a Democrat becomes president, one would certainly expect him or her to make public a lot of stuff that has been withheld by Bush. And presumably, the Justice Department would no longer support such an expansive position on executive privilege, forcing some Bush folks to choose between testimony and jail.
But a lot of the documents in question are presidential in nature, and due to executive orders like this one, those may be locked up for a long while.
Seattle: Reason for not knowing where the prisons were: So he would neither avoid nor visit the place purposefully or otherwise reveal the location because it would undermine that nation's supportive government, ala England and Blair.
Dan Froomkin: A possibility. I could see Bush preferring ignorance to, say, an uncomfortable moment across the conference table from, oh, the leader of Thailand or some such country.
Not knowing a certain prime minister was obligingly hosting a secret CIA torture site might allow Bush to more easily give him a funny nickname, or razz him about his outfit or something.
Corvallis, Ore.: Do his aides really think they can "rehabilitate his legacy" in the next year? I think it's way too late for that. He's stuck being "Mr.-Decider-Torturer-Bush-Stupid" kinda guy to me, and I think to the world at large.
Dan Froomkin: They are already well on their way. See how extensively the "Bush has turned the corner" narrative has permeated the Washington political-reporting narrative. It's shocking.
Congress and the pocket veto: Whether Congress has the fortitude to pursue this or not, wouldn't it be like the contempt of Congress citations, in that it would be up to the Executive Branch to go to court, and we know they won't? Or can Congress go directly to the courts in this case?
Dan Froomkin: I'm not an expert, but since this would not be a criminal suit, I suspect Congress could sue on its own.
Fort Worth, Texas: Dan: Paul Kiel at Talking Points Memo recently updated his list of Bush administration officials who have been indicted, convicted or have pled guilty; resigned because of investigations or allegations of impropriety; failed to get nominated because of scandal; or been notified they are under investigation but are still serving. The length of the list is staggering and is probably matched only by that accumulated during Ronald Reagan's eight years in office. How do you account for the fact that this gets virtually no coverage from the White House press corps? No one even raises it in the press conferences with the president. To me, it shows the ingrained corruption and cronyism that has been the hallmark of George Bush's tenure in office.
Dan Froomkin: Here's that list, for those of you who are interested. I agree it's quite fascinating.
Toronto: Regarding the issue of the media not reporting more on torture, I would argue that it is because torturing (others) isn't really that abhorrent to many Americans. Now, if an American is tortured, that would be a different story, but I bet many simply aren't that freaked out about it. Do you agree, Dan?
Dan Froomkin: For a marginal number of Americans, I am sure that is true. But I don't think it's overwhelmingly true. And anyway, that doesn't excuse the media from reporting about it.
Peaks Island, Maine: What is your current take on whether the light at the end of the Iraq tunnel is a beacon of democracy or an oncoming train on a trajectory to impact post-Bush?
Dan Froomkin: I'm not even sure it's a light at the end of the tunnel!
The people I trust say that the reasons behind the violence remain, even as the violence ebbs. So I guess my answer is that I am afraid that the surge has resolved nothing, and that all Bush has done is (yet again) bought himself some time. How much time -- and whether things get bad again during the next year or post-Bush, I don't know.
Denver: Good to have you back. Does it drive you nuts when you go on vacation and a bunch of newsworthy stuff happens?
Dan Froomkin: Thanks, and of course!
Obviously, the most newsworthy thing that happened was the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. (And, yes, that news penetrated even my largely offline sojourn to my North Carolina in-laws.)
Bhutto's death conspicuously leaves Bush with no clear strategy in Pakistan -- and serves as yet more evidence that White House intervention anywhere these days seems to do more harm than good.
But as I said up above, while there was plenty of White House news, it was still less than I might have imagined.
San Francisco: Dan, welcome back! If the pocket veto argument holds (if the House caves and accepts it) won't Bush then make a bunch of recess appointments before the Senate returns, making Jim Webb's seven-second every-three-day gaveling worthless? And won't the litigation to undo those recess appointments take longer than they'll be in office doing their Bush damage?
Dan Froomkin: Wouldn't that be something.
Concord, N.H.: What possible reason is there for Bush to keep such information secret from himself? Have to go with plausible deniability. He knows that genuine ignorance on this issue is in his best interest, in the event that someone shows enough cajones to go after him. It's also catchier than "I do not recall"!
Dan Froomkin: Well, it's really part and parcel with "I don't recall," isn't it?
Chandler, Ariz. -- Republican Support?: Dan, how much support among Republican law makers does the President still hold? Do you think they are frustrated with him behind closed doors, or happy he is being so obstructionist with the Dems?
Dan Froomkin: From what I hear, they are delighted that he is being obstructionist with the Dems.
As Stan Collender blogs, "the Bush administration and congressional Republicans won't allow congressional Democrats to do much of anything so that the Dems can't get credit for making it happen."
Or as John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Even if Mr. Bush fails to get much more action out of lawmakers, White House pressure could help Republicans' political fortunes by reinforcing negative public perceptions of inaction in the Democratic-led Congress."
In other words, beyond doing exactly what Bush asks them do, they want to keep their political distance from him as much as possible.
It's an interesting balancing act that the media is largely enabling.
Minneapolis: If the "ignorance is bliss" theory of the Bush [residency is superior to the "I don't recall" efforts of prior presidents, the cherry on top is coupling the ignorance with a refusal to comment during ongoing criminal investigations. Where's the accountability?
Dan Froomkin: That would indeed be an extraordinarily effective way of avoiding accountability, wouldn't it.
Chandler, Ariz. -- one more on the pocket veto: Bush et al are very good about making very technical moves that incite Democratic ire but don't motivate the public because of their technical nature. It's hard to get an apathetic public to get upset about a "pocket veto"; it has no heart -- no slogan!
Dan Froomkin: Consider this a slogan contest. Send submissions to froomkin@washingtonpost.com.
Houston: Difficult to endure so long a time without a Froomkin fix, it's good you're back. On the "out of pocket" veto, what do the legal eagles you have access say in terms of the mechanics of the fight? Would this go straight to the Supremes, as it definitely would qualify for an expedited review, or is this a drawn-out fight up through the ranks? (Yes, yes, all theoretical, they'll cave -- but still, what's the procedure?)
Dan Froomkin: Thanks, and I dunno. Haven't had a chance to talk to my eagle yet. Stay tuned.
Washington: Was it a smart idea to meddle so much in Pakistan's political process, given that we're so much hated there? It's almost like we're creating another Iranian situation. Why can't we leave these countries alone?
Dan Froomkin: A legitimate question, given the circumstances.
Stallings, N.C.: Can you see any future President who might find out that Bush or Cheney broke international laws concerning torture and would allow them to be brought up on war crimes? Or would we protect our own?
Dan Froomkin: I can't imagine that, no. But they could conceivably be prosecuted domestically.
Dan Froomkin: Thanks for the great questions and comments. See you again here in two weeks, and every weekday afternoon at washingtonpost.com/whitehousewatch.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 102.146341 | 0.609756 | 0.804878 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101303.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2008010219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008010101303.html
|
'House Lust' Hits Home
|
2008010219
|
Down the block from my home, workmen are finishing a new house. It replaces a bungalow that had measured about 1,500 square feet. The new home has a covered front porch, two fireplaces and a finished basement. It comes in at just under 5,700 square feet. What is it with Americans and their homes?
Everyone knows the direct causes of the present housing collapse: low interest rates, lax mortgage lending, rampant speculation. But the larger force lies in Americans' devotion to homeownership. It explains why government officials, politicians and journalists (including this one) overlooked abuses in "subprime" lending. The homeownership rate was approaching 70 percent in 2005, up from 64 percent in 1990. Great. A good cause shielded bad practices. The same complacency lulled ordinary Americans into paying ever-rising home prices. Something so embedded in the national psyche must be okay.
"House lust" is what Dan McGinn calls it in his book by the same title. McGinn documents -- sympathetically, for he dotes on his own home -- our housing excesses, starting with supersizing. In Sweden, Britain and Italy, new homes average under 1,000 square feet. By 2005, the average newly built U.S. home measured 2,434 square feet, and there were many that were double, triple or quadruple that. After World War II, the first mass Levittown suburbs offered 750-square-foot homes. (Full disclosure: McGinn is a Newsweek colleague.)
"We're not selling shelter," says the president of Toll Brothers, a builder of upscale homes. "We're selling extreme-ego, look-at-me types of homes." In 2000, Toll Brothers' most popular home was 3,200 square feet; by 2005, it had grown 50 percent, to 4,800 square feet. These "McMansions" often feature marble floors, sweeping staircases, vaulted ceilings, family rooms, studies, home entertainment centers and more bedrooms than people.
In a nation of abundant land -- unlike Europe and Japan -- our housing obsession is understandable and desirable up to a point. People who own homes take better care of them. They stabilize neighborhoods. In a world where so much seems uncontrollable, a house seems a refuge of influence and individuality. In a 2004 survey, 74 percent of would-be home buyers preferred a new home to an existing house. One reason is that a new house often allows buyers to select the latest gadgets and shape the design. The same impulse has driven the remodeling boom, which totaled $180 billion in 2006.
"The most exciting thing was just watching the house go up piece by piece," said one buyer of a new, $380,000 home in Las Vegas. The 50-ish couple added a pool, hot tub and deck. They love their home.
Homes are a common currency of status. As McGinn notes, many jobs in an advanced economy are highly technical and specialized. "I could tell you more about (my job)," a woman informed him at a dinner party, "but you won't understand it, and it's not that interesting." By contrast, a home announces that, whatever the obscurities of your work, you've succeeded. There's a frantic competition to match or exceed friends, co-workers and (yes) parents.
Some house lust is fairly harmless. Several Web sites ( http://www.zillow.com, http://www.realtor.com) provide estimated prices for homes. People can indulge their nosiness about their neighbors', friends', co-workers' or relatives' finances. They can also fantasize about their next real estate adventure by watching a cable channel ( HGTV) devoted to houses, home buying and renovation.
Other effects are less innocuous. Although house prices recently exploded, they have increased only slightly faster than inflation since the 1890s, concluded a study by Yale economist Robert Shiller. The recent sharp run-up may imply years of price declines or meager increases. "Buying a bigger house isn't an investment," warned Wall Street Journal columnist Jonathan Clements. It's "a lifestyle choice -- and it comes with a brutally large price tag." Not only are mortgage payments higher; so are costs for utilities, furniture and repairs.
Worse, government subsidizes these supersize homes along with suburban sprawl and, just incidentally, global warming. In 2008, the tax deduction for mortgage interest payments will cost the federal government $89 billion. The savings go heavily to the upper-middle class and the wealthy -- the least needy people -- and encourage ever-larger homes. Even with energy-saving appliances, those homes are likely to generate more greenhouse gases than their smaller predecessors. As individuals and a society, we've overinvested in housing; we'd be better off if more of our savings went into productive investments elsewhere.
Sociologically, the "housing bubble" resembles the preceding "tech bubble." When people paid astronomical prices for profitless dot-com stocks, they doubtlessly reassured themselves that they were investing in the very essence of America -- the pioneering spirit, the ability to harness new technologies. Exorbitant home prices inspired a similar logic. How could anyone go wrong buying into the American dream? It was easy.
|
How the size of the housing crisis is related to the size of your house.
| 63.0625 | 0.75 | 1.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500865.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500865.html
|
Learning From Jamie Lynn and Juno
|
2007122919
|
I didn't have to figure out how to break the news of Jamie Lynn Spears's pregnancy to my kids.
Disconcertingly attuned to all celebrity news at ages 10 and 12, the girls broke it to me at the dinner table -- along with an explanation of who, exactly, Jamie Lynn Spears is.
It turns out, in case you are a fellow inhabitant of Planet Clueless, that: (1) this is a different person from Jamie Lee Curtis; (2) Britney Spears has a younger sister; (3) she is the "good one."
It also turns out -- and this is about the closest I can get to a music joke -- that, oops, Jamie Lynn did it, at least once. The supposedly virginal star of Nickelodeon's "Zoey 101," is, at age 16, three months pregnant.
Okay, Teachable Moment Alert. But what, exactly, to teach?
Mom: So, what do you think the lesson is here?
Ten-year-old Julia, brightly: Don't have sex until you get married!
Uh, um, is that the lesson? Did I hear Daddy's car in the driveway? Anybody want more peas?
This is the conundrum that modern parents, boomers and beyond, confront when matters of sex arise. The bright-line rules that our parents laid down, with varying degrees of conviction and rather low rates of success, aren't -- for most of us, anyway -- either relevant or plausible. When mommy and daddy didn't get married until they were 35, abstinence until marriage isn't an especially tenable claim.
Nor is it one I'd care to make. Would I prefer -- as if my preference much matters -- that my daughters abstain until marriage? No; in fact, I think that would be a mistake. But I'm not especially comfortable saying that, quite so directly, to my children, partly because that conversation gets so complicated, so quickly.
A few weeks ago, the girls and I were watching "Gossip Girl," the odious television series about overprivileged Upper East Side teenagers. (In a bad parental bet, I okayed this show at the start of the season, thinking it might offer some cautionary tales about wretched excess. Turns out the kids consider it more of a roadmap. But that's another column.)
In this episode, one high school girl was about to have sex with her boyfriend.
|
I didn't have to figure out how to break the news of Jamie Lynn Spears's pregnancy to my kids.
| 22 | 1 | 22 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500862.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500862.html
|
Sally C. Pipes - Brave New Diet - washingtonpost.com
|
2007122919
|
If you're like most Americans, you've probably stuffed yourself like a holiday turkey during the past few weeks. So it should come as no surprise that the average American gains about one pound between Thanksgiving and New Year's, according to the National Institutes of Health. That pound a year really adds up over the decades. Today, 17 percent of children are overweight.
By the time they reach adulthood, that number climbs to 66 percent.
It's a common political refrain that America faces a childhood obesity epidemic that's turning us into a nation of blubbery diabetics.
Underlying this is the premise that we're helpless before gingerbread cookies and honey-roasted hams -- unable to resist these and other foods and incapable of putting down our forks. We can be cured, it seems, only by government intervention such as the banning of trans-fats and sodas from public schools.
But is it the food, or is it us? Is it a proper role of government to tell us what we can or can't eat? And are we really as fat as the NIH numbers suggest?
Before we let Uncle Sam into our kitchens, at school or at home, these questions deserve some exploration.
For starters, government data about what constitutes "overweight" and "obese" are misleading.
The standard metric for this measurement is a person's body-mass index, or BMI -- the ratio of one's height to one's weight. But at best, BMI is a rough tool that does not take into account an individual's body type. A six-foot-two athlete who weighs 210 pounds would be classified as "obese" according to BMI charts -- despite his 32-inch waistline, 17-inch biceps and his less than 6 percent actual body fat.
If you believe the BMI tables, most of the best players in the NBA and NFL are "overweight," including superstar athletes Kobe Bryant and Tom Brady.
Many Hollywood heartthrobs also qualify as fatties -- Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Tom Cruise and George Clooney, to name a few.
What's more, the acceptable BMI continues to be ratcheted downward -- transforming those who were considered perfectly healthy yesterday into "overweight" and "obese" today.
Before 1998, a "healthy" BMI was anything less than 27. Then, suddenly, the government changed the "healthy" number to anything less than 25. Overnight, more than 25 million people who were previously considered to be a healthy or normal weight were reclassified as overweight. Looked at another way, the government artificially manufactured an obesity crisis by moving the BMI goal posts.
This raises the question: Are supposedly overweight people in fact heavier than they ought to be?
While more people might be overweight now, and it's true that people who are seriously overweight tend to have a higher risk of developing some illnesses, the government flip-flop suggests how difficult it is to determine what truly is overweight.
Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had to publicly concede in 2005 that its estimate a year earlier of "400,000 obesity-related deaths per year" should have been 112,000. But once prevented deaths are factored in, the figure is closer to 26,000 deaths per year -- one-fifteenth its original estimate.
The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports has stated that what matters most, in terms of overall health, is whether a person is active. People who happen to be a few pounds overweight but who exercise regularly "have a lower morbidity and mortality than normal weight individuals who are sedentary."
More important, is it government's role to help us reduce our rolls? Or is it a matter of personal responsibility?
We know that fries and cheeseburgers aren't healthy fare. And thanks in part to heightened concerns about obesity, we can now buy low-fat salads at just about every fast-food outlet in the country. The same supermarkets and convenience stores that sell popcorn and candy bars also sell healthful foods.
People make choices. And government should protect -- not restrict -- the freedom to make those choices so long as we're not harming others.
While we may not always like the choices others might make, it is essential that we all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Once we accept the idea that the Nanny State should step in when it's "for our own good," we've taken a very big step down the road to something like the scene painted in George Orwell's "1984" -- when citizens wake each day to mandatory exercise classes on the Telescreen.
Most of us would prefer to choose for ourselves whether to exercise or have an extra helping of apple pie. And if we gain an extra pound over the holidays -- so what? That's why we have New Year's resolutions.
Sally C. Pipes is president and chief executive of the Pacific Research Institute and the author of "Miracle Cure: How to Solve America's Health Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn't the Answer."
|
Is it government's role to help us reduce our weight? Or is it a matter of personal responsibility?
| 46.666667 | 1 | 9.571429 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500863.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500863.html
|
The End of Free Trade
|
2007122919
|
Here's today quiz. What do the following have in common: (a) Vladimir Putin; (b) China's currency, the renminbi; (c) the U.S.-Peru trade agreement; and (d) Hugo Chávez? Answer: They all reflect the "new mercantilism." It's an ominous development affecting the world economy. Even as countries become more economically interdependent, they're also growing more nationalistic. They're adopting policies intended to advance their own economic and political interests at other countries' expense. As practiced until the mid-19th century, mercantilism aimed to do just that.
It was an economic philosophy that favored large trade surpluses. At the time, this had some logic. Trade was an adjunct to military power. Exports earned gold and silver coin, which financed armies and navies. But mercantilism fell into disfavor as a way to promote national prosperity. Free trade, argued Adam Smith and David Ricardo, would benefit all countries, because each would specialize in what it did best -- the doctrine of "comparative advantage." The post-World War II economic order took free trade as its ideal, even though trade barriers were lifted slowly. Now mercantilism is making a comeback, as governments try to manipulate markets to their advantage.
The undervalued renminbi is a glaring example. China's leaders have staked their country's political stability on export-led job creation driven by an artificially cheap currency that puts competitors -- Mexico, India and other developing countries as well as the United States and Europe -- at a disadvantage. China's trade surpluses have swelled. In 2007, the current account -- a broad trade balance -- will register a $400 billion surplus, about 12 percent of gross domestic product, says economist Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute. That's up from $21 billion, or 1.7 percent of GDP, in 2000. As a share of GDP, China's current account surplus is "triple Japan's level in the 1980s when Japan-bashing was at its peak."
Mercantilist notions also affect the energy trade. "A bear at the throat" is how the Economist recently described Europe's reliance on Russia for about a quarter of its natural gas. Putin talks of a gas cartel, and Europeans fear that their dependence exposes them to political blackmail. Chávez is already less subtle. He dispenses Venezuela's oil to Cuba and other friendly countries at discounted prices. The specter is that scarce energy supplies, now available to all on commercial terms, will be increasingly allocated by political commitments.
Finally, the retreat from global trade agreements also reflects the new mercantilism. The Doha round of worldwide trade talks is floundering. Countries feel more comfortable with nation-to-nation and regional trade agreements, where they have more control over the terms. The World Trade Organization counts about 400 such agreements; the U.S.-Peru pact is the latest.
The paradox is that as the Internet and multinational companies strengthen globalization, its political foundations are weakening. Of course, opposition is not new. Even if free trade benefits most countries, some firms and workers lose from added competition. But for most of the postwar era, a pro-trade consensus neutralized this opposition. That consensus is now fraying.
Two powerful forces had shaped it, notes Harvard political scientist Jeffry Frieden. First was the belief that protectionism worsened the Great Depression. Everyone wanted to avoid a repetition of that tragedy. The second was the Cold War. Trade was seen as a way of combating communism by promoting the West's mutual prosperity. Both ideas bolstered political support for free trade. For years the global trading system flourished on the inertia of these impulses, whose relevance has faded.
In a booming world economy, the resulting tensions have so far remained muted. China's discriminatory trade practices, for example, have excited angry rhetoric, but not much else. The Chinese have generally deflected protests by, among other things, announcing large import orders at crucial moments. When European officials recently visited, there was a placating order for 160 Airbus planes worth an estimated $15 billion.
But would a global slowdown change that if other countries blamed Chinese exports for destroying their domestic jobs? Would import quotas or tariffs follow? Already, China has turned from the world's largest steel importer to the largest exporter, says Lardy. In the United States, the present pattern of global trade is viewed with increasing hostility: U.S. deficits are seen as eroding industrial jobs while providing surplus countries with the dollars to buy large pieces of American firms.
The world economic order depends on a shared sense that most nations benefit. The more some countries pursue narrow advantage, the more others will follow suit. "What's the glue that holds all this together?" asks Frieden. "Is there a common agreement about cooperation that allows governments to give up something to maintain the international order?" It's an open question whether these conflicting forces -- growing economic interdependence and rising nationalism -- can coexist uneasily or are on a collision course.
|
Even as countries become more economically interdependent, they're also growing more nationalistic.
| 64.733333 | 1 | 15 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500864.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500864.html
|
A Chance to Rein In North Korea
|
2007122919
|
Last week's presidential election in South Korea presages a sea change in that key U.S. ally's policies toward North Korea. The resounding defeat of the candidates who favored more of Seoul's all-carrot, no-stick approach to Kim Jong Il presents Washington with a horizon of new possibilities for reining in Asia's most troublesome dictator. The question now is whether the Bush foreign policy team will be adept enough to seize this opportunity.
The landslide vote, to be sure, was in large measure a rebuke of President Roh Moo-hyun's inept handling of the economy and polarizing domestic policies. Yet, taken together, the candidates who opposed the "Peace and Prosperity" policy (originally dubbed "Sunshine") toward North Korea in last Wednesday's election received more than 63 percent of the vote -- compared with 35 percent for all those who approved of it. Why the widespread discontent with "sunshine"? Because what had started as a policy of reconciliation with the North had degenerated in practice into almost reflexive appeasement of the "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il. Unsurprisingly, many ordinary Koreans found that kind of "sunshine" too distasteful, too embarrassing and just a bit too dangerous.
South Koreans winced as their government repeatedly abstained from U.N. votes criticizing North Korea for human rights abuses. They grumbled as they saw their tax-funded "economic cooperation" projects with the North devolve into an economic lifeline for a still-hostile government in Pyongyang. And they worried as the undisguised rift with Washington over "the North Korean threat" created unmistakable strains in the vital U.S.-South Korean alliance.
South Korea, in short, is ready for a new and more critical approach to engagement with North Korea -- and this is just what President-elect Lee Myung-bak has promised. Lee is no Cold Warrior: He styles himself as a pragmatist who judges by results. Since his election, he has signaled that restoring the health of the U.S.-South Korean alliance and achieving a genuine denuclearization of the North Korean regime are to be top foreign policy priorities. He has also served notice to Pyongyang that it can no longer count on Seoul for a "see-no-evil" spin on events in the North -- much less unconditional handouts.
There would seem to be great promise in this new attitude toward "engagement with the North" -- to say nothing of new vistas for genuine cooperation between the United States and South Korea on the multifaceted North Korea problem.
With Seoul finally willing to criticize Kim Jong Il' s gulag "paradise," for example, an effective worldwide human rights campaign in the name of the North Korean people comes much closer to reality. With a South Korean government that no longer insists on sitting on the sidelines, the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict illicit North Korean revenue (from drug-running, counterfeiting, weapons sales and the like) stands to be much more effective -- and that much more costly to Kim Jong Il. No longer a "runaway ally," South Korea could at last join with the United States and Japan in a common policy to bring real pressure on North Korea for real denuclearization -- and to impose real penalties for noncompliance.
Today, China can depict its support for the North as joining a South Korean bandwagon. Without the cover of a seemingly all-forgiving South Korean government, China would finally be forced to make hard choices about the Kim Jong Il regime -- within the confines of the six-party talks and beyond.
But is the Bush foreign policy team ready to make use of this long-desired diplomatic windfall from South Korea?
For a variety of reasons (among them the Republicans' loss of Congress in 2006 and the situation in Iraq) the Bush team all but abandoned its previous posture toward North Korea at the end of last year. These days it appears intent on producing only "good news" on the North Korean front. "Good news" about North Korea, for its part, seems to have been defined down to meaning a nuclear deal with Kim Jong Il -- irrespective of the fine print.
If this sounds implausible, consider the actual record of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea over the past 12 months.
Early this year, the U.S. government quietly agreed to help "unfreeze" more than $24 million in suspect North Korean funds from bank accounts in Macau. Why? Because North Korean nuclear negotiators threatened not to return to the table until their Dear Capo got his money back.
After returning to the six-party talks, the North Korean side then inked an "action plan" in February that promised to provide an accounting of its previous nuclear activities within two months. Here we are at the end of the year with no accounting -- and, so far as one can tell, no worries from the White House, either.
In September word emerged that Israeli jets had leveled a facility in Syria that from the air looked a lot like the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. The Syrian site was reputedly being developed with North Korean assistance. Yet under Washington's new rules of engagement with Pyongyang, the Bush team has scarcely whispered a word about this mysterious -- and potentially grave -- international incident.
And by the way: Have you heard from President Bush's special envoy for human rights in North Korea over the past year? Neither has anybody else.
Last week's election in South Korea should serve as a wake-up call to the Bush administration. With willing new partners in the wings in Seoul, President Bush still has the chance to register some real gains for his legacy on North Korea -- and, more important, for the security of the free world.
Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt chair in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute, is a member of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.
|
Last week's presidential election in South Korea presents the Bush foreign policy team with new options. But will they take them?
| 45.28 | 0.88 | 3.92 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html
|
5 Myths About the Poor Middle Class
|
2007122919
|
1. The middle class's standard of living stagnated while the dot-com boom made the super rich even richer.
Not really. In fact, the U.S. economy hands out wealth far more evenly. Per capita gross domestic product has increased by more than 65 percent since 1979 -- growth that translates to $26,000 per household. If all that money had gone to the richest 10th of the population, it would now hold more than 60 percent of the national income. That's nearly twice as much as the super rich actually have, according to the best census surveys available.
To be fair, demographic changes have sparked many misunderstandings about the economic health of the middle class. For example, Americans today are more likely to live in single-adult households than they were 30 years ago. Adjust incomes to take into account this shift, along with increasing employer contributions to retirement savings and to health insurance premiums, and you find that the real middle-class median income has risen 33 percent, or $18,000, since 1979. Of course, that's a third less than the $26,000 that those households would have gotten if the growth had been distributed equally. But the middle class didn't stand still, either.
2. The middle class is shrinking.
True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of "middle class") than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
3. The only way people cope with the middle-class meltdown is by falling into debt.
You've probably heard that the average U.S. household carries $9,300 in credit card debt. But that misleading statistic includes the debt of the self-employed and some small businesses. The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, which does not include business debt, showed that 54 percent of households had no credit card debt after paying their monthly bill and that the average household credit card debt was just over $2,300.
Mortgages, which represent 79 percent of all debt, are the more pressing concern. But even according to the most pessimistic estimates, only 1 to 2 percent of homeowners will be forced into foreclosure in the next few years. Assets have grown faster than debts for most middle-class families. Median net worth has grown 35 percent since 1989, according to the Federal Reserve Board, and only 15 percent of households have debt payments worth more than 40 percent of their income or are 60 days late on any debt payment.
4 With the rise in trade with China and India, the United States has become a nation of low-paid service workers destined for a high rate of unemployment.
The claim that automation and international trade will create a large class of permanently unemployed American workers remains as fuzzy as ever. Certainly, in the churn of the modern economy, more firms are closing or reducing their labor forces. Every week for the past several years, nearly 1 million workers either quit or lost their jobs. But a slightly higher number were also hired in a typical week. At the national level, overall employment has grown slowly but steadily. And Commerce Department data show that even at the state level, including in Midwestern "Rust Belt" states, employment is up at least 14 percent since 1993, the year the North American Free Trade Agreement was passed.
Blue-collar manufacturing job losses were offset by the rise in what I call the "office economy" -- jobs in administration, sales, finance and other business services that sprouted nationwide. The health care industry also created lots of new jobs, many of them filled by college graduates who have experienced the largest gains in earnings. Per capita income has increased by at least 15 percent in every state since 1993 -- a good sign that state economies are large enough to adapt to the changing economy.
5. Companies are walking away from their commitments to workers by cutting pension and health insurance benefits.
Yes, companies are requiring more co-pays and higher deductibles in health-care plans. But medical costs are also on the rise, and employer contributions for health insurance jumped from 3.5 percent of wages in 1979 to 7.2 percent in 2005, according to the Commerce Department.
Virtually every large company provides coverage and pays more than 75 percent of employees' premiums. The rise in the number of uninsured workers over the past decade comes from cutbacks by small businesses and the self-employed.
U.S. companies are being reasonably generous with retirement benefits, too. They've remained steady over the past 30 years; the difference is that employers contribute to 401(k) accounts instead of traditional pensions. Workers lose the security of a guaranteed income in retirement, but they gain the flexibility to carry their investments with them when they change jobs, which Americans do more frequently now than in the days of old-school pensions.
Just look at the ever-proliferating suburbs, the high rate of home ownership, and the thriving market for new cars, HDTVs and videogame consoles. Inequality is certainly up, but it's the bottom 20 percent of the population, not the middle class, that's really struggling. Just don't tell the presidential candidates.
Stephen Rose, an economist, is at work on "Mythonomics: Ten Things You Think You Know About the Economy That Are Wrong."
|
The American middle class is fighting for its life -- or at least that's what Lou Dobbs would have you believe. The CNN anchor's rants about "the war on the middle class" are probably the most prominent examples of such economic doom-saying, but he isn't alone. Democratic presidential candidates...
| 18.4 | 0.683333 | 1.15 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801634.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801634.html
|
Hard-liners for Jesus
|
2007122219
|
As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.
There's nothing new, of course, about the Christianization of the GOP. Seven years ago, when debating Al Gore, then-candidate George W. Bush was asked to identify his favorite philosopher and answered "Jesus." This year, however, the Christianization of the party reached new heights with Mitt Romney's declaration that he believed in Jesus as his savior, in an effort to stanch the flow of "values voters" to Mike Huckabee.
My concern isn't the rift that has opened between Republican political practice and the vision of the nation's Founders, who made very clear in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for officeholders in their enlightened new republic. Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace.
The policies of the president, for instance, can be defended in greater or (more frequently) lesser degree within a framework of worldly standards. But if Bush can conform his advocacy of preemptive war with Jesus's Sermon on the Mount admonition to turn the other cheek, he's a more creative theologian than we have given him credit for. Likewise his support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding.
It's not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety. Virtually the entire Republican House delegation opposed the ban on waterboarding. Among the Republican presidential candidates, only Huckabee and the not-very-religious John McCain have come out against torture, while only libertarian Ron Paul has questioned the doctrine of preemptive war.
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. Consider: Christmas, after all, celebrates not just Jesus's birth but his family's flight from Herod's wrath into Egypt, a journey obviously undertaken without benefit of legal documentation. The Bible isn't big on immigrant documentation. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him," Exodus says the Lord told Moses on Mount Sinai, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, children and parents alike.
So Romney attacks Huckabee for holding immigrant children blameless when their parents brought them here without papers, and Huckabee defends himself by parading the endorsement of the Minuteman Project's Jim Gilchrist, whose group harasses day laborers far from the border. The demand for a more regulated immigration policy comes from virtually all points on our political spectrum, but the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn.
We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It's more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.
It's difficult today to imagine KKKers thinking of their mission as Christian, but millions of them did.
Today's Republican values voters don't really conflate their rage with their faith. Lou Dobbs is a purely secular figure. But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party, and woe betide the Republican candidate who doesn't embrace it, as John McCain, to his credit and his political misfortune, can attest.
The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week. And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy.
|
It's not just George W. Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety.
| 46.333333 | 1 | 8.111111 |
high
|
high
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801633.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801633.html
|
Another Credit Minefield
|
2007122219
|
There is a vast gap of perception between the real economy of production and jobs and the financial economy of loans and investments. The real economy, though weakening, is hardly in a state of collapse. In 2007, it has grown about 2 percent; payroll jobs are up by 1.3 million. Even economists who expect a recession generally think it will be mild. Meanwhile, financial markets are described hysterically as being "in turmoil"; there is a "credit crisis."
This contrast reflects fear of the unknown. Since 1980, America's financial system has changed dramatically in ways that are now arousing widespread anxieties. Many loans once made directly by banks are "securitized": packaged into bondlike securities and sold to investors (pension funds, investment houses, hedge funds and banks themselves). There's been an explosion of bewildering financial instruments -- currency swaps, interest-rate swaps and other "derivatives" -- that are used for hedging and speculative trading.
Until recently, the transformation seemed a splendid success. Credit markets had broadened; risk was being spread to a larger spectrum of investors. So it was said. This was an illusion. The securities containing "subprime" mortgages -- loans to weaker borrowers -- have experienced unexpected defaults, rating downgrades and losses. The unpleasant surprises have ignited fears among bankers and investment managers over how the new financial system operates.
Credit and financial markets subsist on trust and confidence. The subprime crisis has corroded both. Estimated losses range upward from $50 billion. Because trading in subprime mortgage securities is thin, how can they be accurately valued? Who holds them? Banks and investors have reacted to these uncertainties. For example, banks now find the "interbank market" -- banks lending to each other -- riskier than before, because they don't know which banks are most exposed. The three-month LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) jumped to more than two percentage points above U.S. Treasury bills, triple the historic "spread" of 0.6 percentage points.
The subprime debacle also posed a question: What if it's not the only problem? Consider "credit default swaps" (CDS) as a possible sequel. CDS's are, in effect, insurance contracts on loans or bonds: The seller receives a payment and, in return, agrees to pay the buyer some or all of the amount of a designated loan or bond if the borrowing company (say, General Motors or IBM) defaults. But note, neither party to the CDS has to be the underlying lender or borrower. They usually are outsiders. They are simply betting on the creditworthiness of different borrowers.
Since 2004, the volume of CDS's has increased about sevenfold. Possible losses could dwarf those on subprime mortgages, argues Ted Seides of Prot¿g¿ Partners, an investment fund. In a strong economy, defaults on corporate bonds and business loans have been low. On "high yield" bonds (a.k.a. "junk bonds"), they've been about 1 percent recently, compared with a historic average of about 5 and 10 percent in recessions. As the economy weakens, junk-bond defaults will increase, Seides says. This will give rise not only to direct loan losses but to additional losses on CDS's.
There's a pyramiding effect; the economy has become more vulnerable to credit setbacks. In theory, one investor's CDS losses should be offset by another's gains. In practice, Seides expects, some CDS investors themselves will default. The capital and loss reserves of banks and investment houses would suffer, limiting their ability to lend to businesses and consumers.
What ultimately matters is the connection between the financial economy and the real economy. In housing, that's clear. Subprime losses reduced mortgage lending, housing construction, sales and prices. But not all credit cutbacks are so damaging. If too many junk bonds were sold at foolishly low interest rates to finance "private equity" deals -- buyouts of companies -- the process had to reverse someday through higher rates and fewer bonds being sold. That's not turmoil so much as the distasteful reality of retreating from dubious investments.
Despite all the bluster, evidence of a widespread credit crunch is so far scant. Though credit standards have tightened, bank lending is still increasing. Many U.S. companies have paid down short-term debt, and corporate cash flow is running at a respectable $1.2 trillion annual rate. This insulates many firms from strains in credit markets.
The obvious danger is another wave of large losses that would cripple investors, particularly banks. The Federal Reserve acted last week to forestall that possibility by creating a new lending procedure by which banks can borrow from the Fed. This provides an escape valve if the interbank market remains too unforgiving. The Fed seeks to maintain confidence without bailing out lenders from bad decisions. It's also trying to avoid recession while cutting inflation. The difficulty of reconciling all these worthy goals may well explain the great perception gap.
|
The spreading of risk has made the economy more vulnerable to credit setbacks.
| 68.571429 | 0.928571 | 3.214286 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801183.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007122219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801183.html
|
The Case Against Immigration
|
2007122219
|
But the two "mistakes" she claims are made by immigration restrictionists are evidence that she misses the broader context of the immigration debate. She says that the "scapegoating vitriol" of immigration critics will drive immigrants away from the American mainstream, and that people like Harvard professor Samuel Huntington and Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly "unwittingly imperil" our "ethnically and religiously neutral national identity, uniting individuals of all backgrounds."
There is a grain of truth here. Immigrants, even illegal aliens, are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect and humanity. This points to the vital distinction between immigration policy and immigrant policy. Immigration policy concerns how many we let in, and who, and how we enforce the law. It is in serious need of adjustment. Immigrant policy concerns how we treat those foreigners we lawfully admit to live among us and eventually to join us as Americans. In this respect, Americans remain the least xenophobic people on the planet, far more welcoming of newcomers than any of the countries from which our immigrants arrive.
But Chua's useful note of caution is almost lost in a mountain of nonsense. First, to imply that Huntington, this nation's preeminent social scientist, is capable of "scapegoating vitriol" is absurd. In his book, "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity" Huntington argues not that only WASPs can be Americans. He simply says that our institutions and culture were permanently shaped by British low-church Protestantism -- and that diluting that inheritance would undermine much of what has made America such a successful multi-ethnic society.
In fact, the "vitriol" is mainly on the other side of the immigration debate. This Post editorial, for example, scoured the thesaurus for terms to hurl at immigration critics: "xenophobes," "vigilantism," "cruel," "toxic," "intensifying nativist zeal," "venomous," "pernicious," "ferocity of the demagogues." This kind of outlandish rhetoric is hardly unusual among supporters of amnesty and high immigration and, to paraphrase Chua, will drive the U.S. mainstream farther from the elites that spew it. This is why the immigration bill failed in the Senate this summer: The public has little confidence that government, business, the media and other elements of the elite feel any sense of solidarity with their fellow citizens or are even remotely interested in preserving American sovereignty.
The other restrictionist "mistake" Chua points to is neglecting "the indispensable role that immigrants have played in building American wealth and power." The present-day examples she cites have nothing to do with "a fierce global competition to attract the world's best high-tech scientists and engineers." Intel cofounder Andy Grove, for instance, is a manager, not a technician, and Google cofounder Sergey Brin came here as a child as part of a refugee family. The push by high-tech firms to import more talent from abroad is simply a 21st century version of the eternal search for cheap labor.
And Chua's examples from the past are just that. Although today's immigrants are very similar to those of a century ago, we are a completely changed society. As I argue in my forthcoming book, "The New Case Against Immigration," immigration is simply incompatible with modern society. Our economy places a much higher premium than ever before on education. The United States already spends too much on an extensive welfare state. And advances in communications and transportation make immigration, even of the educated, deeply problematic for assimilation and security and sovereignty. In other words, the immigrants are the same, but we are different.
These are hardly quibbles. But it would be churlish to end on them. Our immigration policy is so dysfunctional that any moves in the right direction should be applauded. And Chua's suggestions for change would represent huge moves in the right direction. If her essay represents a shift in the center of gravity of this debate, then it is an encouraging sign indeed.
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
|
Amy Chua's recent Outlook article on immigration contains more common sense than one might expect from a Yale professor. Her calls for limiting family chain migration, encouraging assimilation and simply enforcing the law are long overdue. Her concern that we not erode the "unifying identity" tha...
| 14.981132 | 0.584906 | 0.773585 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101835.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101835.html
|
The Heart of Conservatism
|
2007121519
|
For many conservatives, the birthday of the movement is Nov. 1, 1790 -- the publication date of Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Burke described how utopian idealism could lead to the guillotine, just as it later led to the gulag. He rejected the democracy of the mob and argued that social reform, when necessary, should be gradual, cautious and rooted in the habits and traditions of the community.
Some of Burke's contemporaries took these arguments further. "I am one of those who think it very desirable to have no reform," declared the Duke of Wellington. "I told you years ago that the people are rotten to the core." And this affection was returned. Wellington took to carrying an umbrella tipped with a spike to protect himself from protesters.
But there is another strain of conservatism with a birthday three years earlier than Burke's "Reflections." On May 12, 1787, under an English oak on his Holwood Estate, Prime Minister William Pitt pressed a young member of Parliament named William Wilberforce to introduce a bill for the abolition of the slave trade. Wilberforce's research found that the holds of slave ships were, according to one witness, "so covered in blood and mucus which had proceeded from them in consequence of the (dysentery) that it resembled a slaughterhouse." Enslaved Africans on the ships attempted to starve themselves to death or to jump into the ocean. Wilberforce thought this suffering a good reason for reform.
A later conservative, Lord Shaftesbury, fought against conditions that amounted to slavery in British factories, rescued child laborers from chimneys and mines, and worked for improved sanitary conditions in British slums. In 1853, for example, the citizens of Dudley, England, had an average age at death of 16 years and 7 months. "I feel that my business lies in the gutter," said Shaftesbury, "and I have not the least intention to get out of it."
Both Wilberforce and Shaftesbury considered themselves Burkean conservatives; Wilberforce was a friend of Burke's and a fellow opponent of the French revolution's wild-eyed utopianism. Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were gradualists, not radicals. They hated socialism and rejected the perfectibility of man.
But both were also evangelical Christians who believed that all human beings are created in God's image -- and they were deeply offended when that image was degraded or violated. Long before compassionate conservatism got its name, the ideas of compassion and benevolence were central to their political and moral philosophy.
Other conservatives dismissed these reformers as "saints," prone to "fits of philanthropy." But according to historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, these saints and others like them achieved "something like a 'conservative revolution' -- a reformist revolution, so to speak -- that permitted Britain to adapt to industrialism, liberalism and democracy without the violence and upheavals that convulsed the Continent."
And Burke himself had a foot in this tradition. He was an early opponent of slavery, supported reforms to help debtors and opposed discrimination against Irish Catholics. He accused reactionary conservatives of defending "their errors as if they were defending their inheritance." He was deeply critical of those who refused to act because they thought nothing could be accomplished. Burke has been quoted as saying, "Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little." In many ways, Burke was a bridge between conservatives of tradition and conservatives of moral passion.
This history is directly relevant to modern debates. In some conservative quarters we are seeing the return of Burkeanism -- or at least a narrow version of it. These supposed Burkeans dismiss the promotion of democracy and human rights as "ideological," the protection of human life and dignity as "theological," and compassionate conservatism as a modern heresy.
But the compassionate conservatism of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury is just as old as Burke, and more suited to an American setting. American conservatives, after all, are called upon to conserve a liberal ideal -- that all men are created equal. A conservatism that does not accommodate the "ideology" of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. will seem foreign to most Americans. A concern for the rights of the poor and vulnerable is not simply "theological"; it is a measure of our humanity. And skepticism in this noble cause is not sophistication; it seems more like exhaustion and cynicism.
A significant portion of Americans are motivated by a religiously informed vision of human dignity. For them, compassion is not merely a private feeling but a public commitment -- as public as the abolition of slavery or the end of child labor. And they are looking not for another Wellington but for another Wilberforce.
|
How William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury started a new kind of conservative movement.
| 65.357143 | 0.785714 | 1.071429 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101834.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121101834.html
|
Robert J. Samuelson - Food vs. Fuel - washingtonpost.com
|
2007121519
|
If people can't eat, they can't do much else. One of the great achievements of the past century has been the enormous expansion of food production, which has virtually eliminated starvation in advanced countries and has made huge gains against it in poor countries. Since 1961, world population has increased 112 percent; meanwhile, global production is up 164 percent for grains and almost 700 percent for meats. We owe this mainly to better seed varieties, more fertilizer, more mechanization and better farm practices. Food in most developed countries is so plentiful and inexpensive that obesity -- partly caused by overeating -- is a major social problem.
But the world food system may now be undergoing a radical break with this past. "The end of cheap food" is how the Economist magazine recently described it. During the past year, prices of basic grains (wheat, corn) and oilseeds (soybeans) have soared. Corn that had been selling at about $2 a bushel is now more than $3; wheat that had been averaging $3 to $4 a bushel has recently hovered around $9. Because feed grains are a major cost in meat, dairy and poultry production, retail prices have also risen. In the United States, dairy prices are up 13 percent in 2007; egg prices have risen 42 percent in the past year. Other countries are also experiencing increases.
Higher grocery prices obviously make it harder to achieve economic growth and low inflation simultaneously. But if higher food prices encouraged better eating habits, they might actually have some benefits in richer societies. The truly grave consequences involve poor countries, where higher prices threaten more hunger and malnutrition.
To be sure, some farmers in these countries benefit from higher prices. But many poor countries -- including most in sub-Saharan Africa -- are net grain importers, says the International Food Policy Research Institute, a Washington-based think tank. In some of these countries, the poorest of the poor spend 70 percent or more of their budgets on food. About a third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is undernourished, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. That proportion has barely changed since the early 1990s. High food prices make gains harder.
What's disturbing is that the present run-up doesn't seem to be temporary. Of course, farming is always hostage to Mother Nature, and drought in Australia has cut the wheat harvest and contributed to higher worldwide prices. But the larger causes lie elsewhere. One is growing prosperity in China, India, other Asian countries and Latin America. As people become richer, they improve their diets by eating more protein in the form of meat and dairy products. The demand for animal feed grains rises. This has been going on for years and, until recently, was met by the steady gains in agricultural output from improved technology and management.
It's the extra demand for grains to make biofuels, spurred heavily in the United States by government tax subsidies and fuel mandates, that has pushed prices dramatically higher. The Economist rightly calls these U.S. government subsidies "reckless." Since 2000, the share of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol production has increased from about 6 percent to about 25 percent -- and is still headed up.
Farmers benefit from higher prices. Up to a point, investors in ethanol refineries also gain from the mandated use of their output (though high corn prices have eroded or eliminated their profits). But who else wins is unclear. Although global biofuel production has tripled since 2000, it still accounts for less than 3 percent of worldwide transportation fuel, reports the U.S. Agriculture Department. Even if all U.S. corn were diverted into ethanol, it would replace only about 12 percent of U.S. transportation fuel (and less of total oil use), according to one study.
Biofuels became politically fashionable because they combined benefits for farmers with popular causes: increasing energy "security"; curbing global warming. Unfortunately, the marriage is contrived. Not only are fuel savings meager, so are the environmental benefits. Substituting corn-based ethanol for gasoline results in little reduction in greenhouse gases. Indeed, the demand for biofuels encourages deforestation in developing countries; the New York Times recently reported the clearing of Indonesian forests to increase palm oil production for biofuel. Forests absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
This is not a case of unintended consequences. A new generation of "cellulosic" fuels (made from grasses, crop residue or wood chips) might deliver benefits, but the adverse effects of corn-based ethanol were widely anticipated. Government subsidies reflect the careless and cynical manipulation of worthy public goals for selfish ends. That the new farm bill may expand the ethanol mandates confirms an old lesson: Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious.
|
The world's food system may be about to go into crisis, and the U.S. government's energy policy may be partly to blame.
| 35.923077 | 0.884615 | 1.346154 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001633.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001633.html
|
Not Left Out of Academia
|
2007121519
|
This argument may sound convincing, but it is flawed. And I say this as someone who has long respected Robert Maranto and his work. I was his mentor at the University of Maryland, from which he received his bachelor's degree in government in 1980. We have kept in touch and see each other often. We do not, however, commiserate about how people like us face discrimination in the academic marketplace -- because I am part of the liberal majority he sees as threatening people like himself.
In one crucial way, his argument is beyond reproach: Study after study indicates that most university faculty tilt to the left. But they are liberal Democrats, not Marxist zealots protesting the evils of the capitalist system. Maranto tells a handful of stories about alleged bias in academic hiring, but he provides no systematic evidence that liberal academics either consciously or unconsiously seek to replicate their own ideology in hiring.
A more fruitful way to begin a discussion of bias among academics is to ask why so many academics are liberal in the first place. I have no data about this question. But my own life story, and those of others I know, suggest an alternative explanation: People choose academic careers because they care more about intellectual pursuits than about making lots of money.
I had two opportunities as an undergraduate to select careers that would have been far more lucrative -- a college girlfriend who wanted me to join her father's accounting firm and a guaranteed position in a major law firm if I went to law school. I turned down both -- and lost the girlfriend -- because I wasn't interested in becoming an accountant or a lawyer. I'd be making substantially more money than I do now if I had chosen either route, but I doubt that I'd be very happy.
Still, plenty of people do choose to go to law school and business school, and some of them earn starting salaries approaching what I make after almost 40 years of university teaching. Law school and business school are rigorous, but they demand more rote memorization and less creativity than Ph.D. programs. The payoff for enduring these curricula are large salaries -- while academics "pay a price" for the "luxury" of pursuing research agendas of their choice.
The lure of large salaries is likely to appeal more to conservatives than to liberals. It seems very likely that business school graduates are as conservative as university faculty are liberal. Just as academics tilt to the left, people in the business world tilt to the right. Financial success is more important to young conservatives than to young liberals, so early on, there is a sorting out of career options.
We in the academy don't seek to replicate ourselves. I can't remember any hiring decision my department has ever made where the candidate's ideology was discussed. There are Republicans on our faculty -- when you teach about elections, it is useful (and fun) to have colleagues on the other side of the political fence. Even as I am a liberal Democrat, I wrote the evaluation for promotion for a conservative Republican colleague -- and he, in turn, wrote the tenure evaluation for a then-junior colleague considerably to the left of me. Some of my best and most successful students -- and the ones I have been closest to -- have been Republicans.
On rare occasions, someone will raise the issue of the ideology of a colleague. About a decade or so ago, one colleague on the left raised a question about a tenure candidate's past affiliation with conservative think tanks. The other tenured faculty at the meeting, including several even further to the left, shouted him down. These concerns were irrelevant, they insisted. And they carried the day: The anonymous vote for the candidate was unanimous for tenure and similar issues have never been raised since then.
All that said, I am not arguing that there is no ideological discrimination in academia. The anecdotes in Maranto's article show there is. But Maranto, of all people, should know that anecdotal evidence is hardly conclusive. His own area of expertise -- school choice -- is hotly debated in political science circles. The main advocate for a more market-based solution is a universally respected full professor at Harvard.
We have no evidence that ideological discrimination is common. If Robert Maranto believes it is, there is at least one concrete step he can take to combat it: Encourage his best conservative students to join him in the academy.
The author is a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland.
|
If Maranto really wants to tip the ideological balance in the academy, he should encourage his best conservative students to join him in the academy rather than going to law school or to business school.
| 23.648649 | 0.837838 | 4.189189 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001600.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001600.html
|
Beyond the Run of the Mill
|
2007121119
|
Early in the morning, the young boy would wake up to find his dad bathed in the light from the television, a notepad on the table in front of him.
John Edwards's father, Wallace, a small-town millworker with a high school education, would be taking math courses on instructional TV before reporting to work. He was always trying to better himself, to get ahead at a company that did not seem to respect, or advance, anyone without a college degree.
Wallace's status at the textile company, where he worked for more than 30 years, cast a shadow on the Edwards home. The son knew that his knowledgeable, motivated father was routinely overlooked for supervisory positions. Even worse, he was often asked to train the people hired as his superiors. It was a painful lesson that John Edwards never forgot.
"I saw my father, one of the finest people I've ever known, struggle because he didn't have a college education," Edwards says. "To me, he was a perfect example of somebody who was strong and good and worked incredibly hard, but they were bumping their head against the ceiling."
Of all the 2008 presidential candidates, Edwards talks the most about where he came from: the working-class mill towns of the Carolinas and Georgia.
Always describing himself as "the son of a millworker," he tells stories of family hardships -- the one about his father having to borrow $50, at 100 percent interest, to bring his newborn son home from the hospital is a favorite -- and says he identifies with "the little guy." But he does so with such glibness, and frequency, and it contrasts so greatly with who he is today -- a polished former trial lawyer worth millions -- that the truth of his biography is sometimes lost. These days, Edwards's $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion's share of attention, and he is testimony to the fact that youthful good looks aren't necessarily a political asset.
In an interview, Edwards dismisses the accusations of phoniness as "just politics." The rich-lawyer label rankles a little, though not enough for him to abandon the trappings that he has worked so hard to obtain. "What I want to say to people is 'Well, if I hadn't been successful, would that make me better qualified to be president?' " he asks.
On the campaign trail, however, he doesn't mind poking fun at himself. "My parents actually brought me home to a little house in Seneca, South Carolina," he told an appreciative crowd in last month in Bow, N.H. "Today, as many of you have heard, I don't live in a little house."
But there is another John Edwards, the one who tooled around tiny Robbins, N.C., in a red Plymouth Duster as a teenager, who took the greasiest summer jobs at the mill to earn money for college, who still often forces his staff to eat at Cracker Barrel because it reminds him oh-so-faintly of the big meals his mother used to cook. "You can never forget where you came from," he says more than once, and friends from the old days insist he is, at his core, still one of them.
"I've known that man over 40 years, and he's the real deal," says the Rev. John L. Frye Jr., pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Gastonia, N.C., and one of Edwards's best boyhood friends. "I don't hear him saying anything different than the interests he truly has in his heart. I don't have any kind of disconnect."
To see Edwards at work in New Hampshire, where he came in an embarrassing fourth among Democrats in 2004, is to see his father's son in action, determined to overcome some pretty long odds. This go-round, he has four times the number of field organizers in the state, and he has logged countless hours in small-town forums and community meeting rooms. Armed with a 76-page plan for fighting rural poverty and helping the working poor, he has repositioned himself as the populist who "will fight for you."
Maybe something in him relishes being the underdog. But Edwards acknowledges that other forces also propel him.
|
Early in the morning, the young boy would wake up to find his dad bathed in the light from the television, a notepad on the table in front of him.
| 25.727273 | 1 | 33 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001588.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001588.html
|
Working It - washingtonpost.com
|
2007121119
|
No other candidate seems to spend as much time in front of the cameras dressed as if he's on his way to put up drywall than John Edwards. Wearing stonewashed Levi's, a long-sleeve work shirt, a rubber "Livestrong" bracelet and a sport watch the size of a hubcap, Edwards regularly embraces blue-collar clothes with the zeal of a man eager to demonstrate that he's no stranger to elbow grease.
He pairs his faded jeans with sport jackets in that baby-boomer way, rather than a metrosexual way, in which case the jacket would be Prada Sport and the jeans would be overpriced. Sometimes Edwards channels Johnny Cash and wears a black shirt with his jeans, and one half-expects him to break into a country ballad about growing up as the son of a millworker -- just in case there's one living soul left who is unaware of that biographical detail. The candidate is also a firm believer in rolling up his sleeves for emphasis.
This summer, an especially flattering photograph of Edwards appeared on the cover of Men's Vogue. Taken by celebrity portraitist Annie Leibovitz, the picture shows Edwards wearing jeans, a black shirt and a Carhartt canvas jacket. He's sitting against the beaten-up bed of an open pickup truck and he's cuddling a sturdy dog.
The candidate has noted that he is only a single generation removed from being a working stiff. And these images are meant to highlight his intimate understanding of those who live hand to mouth. In his campaign story line, he is selling empathy.
But often there is the sense that Edwards is so aware of the camera's gaze that he can't stop posing and simply be. He looks like a man in costume -- as though he has popped his face into a cardboard cutout of "American Gothic." He is a millionaire tourist in his own narrative. Instead of underscoring how close he is to his working-class roots, he reminds viewers of how far he has come.
In the Leibovitz portrait, the details contradict the regular-guy theme. His hair is tousled and gleaming in the way that only expensive hair can be both fabulous and mussed. His canvas work jacket is too crisp and spotless. The dog looks as if it has just come from a pampered grooming session. Edwards doesn't look like some family farmer getting ready to walk the back forty. He looks like a gentleman farmer preparing to tour his estate.
His body language doesn't match his workingman wardrobe, either. He has a tendency to underscore his points with a familiar gesture that surely must be attached to the gene that harbors political striving: the thumb jab. To hammer home a sentence, he pounds away at it with his hands curled into a thumbs-up configuration. Does anyone other than a politician jab a thumb into the air while speaking? Who has ever witnessed thumb jabbing on the factory floor? In line at McDonald's?
Edwards dresses like the common man, but every gesture is a reminder that his life has been undeniably exceptional.
|
No other candidate seems to spend as much time in front of the cameras dressed as if he's on his way to put up drywall than John Edwards. Wearing stonewashed Levi's, a long-sleeve work shirt, a rubber "Livestrong" bracelet and a sport watch the size of a hubcap, Edwards regularly embraces...
| 9.564516 | 0.983871 | 60.016129 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001587.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001587.html
|
No More Mr. Nice Guy
|
2007121119
|
This time around, Edwards is answering the question himself. Mr. Nice Guy of '04 has remade himself as Nasty Boy of '08 -- a tightly wound ball of belligerence prowling for a skirmish.
"What America needs right now is America needs a fighter," says the candidate, who was a trial lawyer and a Democratic senator from North Carolina. "Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy."
Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut.
"This is not class warfare," he continues. "This is the truth."
And the truth is that Edwards likes to fight. He used a version of the word 23 times -- about once a minute -- in a stump speech he gave to the Democratic National Committee recently: "Who's going to stand up to those people and fight? . . . This is going to be the fight of our lives. . . . You can win the fight."
The fighter theme climaxes in a paroxysm of pugnacity: "I fought. I did not walk away from the fight. I fought. I stood my ground. I took them on. And I beat them, and I beat them, and I beat them again. I won. I won . . ."
But Edwards is not winning at this particular moment. Speaking before the DNC crowd, he found that his "stand with me" line did not cause audience members to stand. Neither did they rally behind his "one America" and "fighter" themes. And so he kept going, turning a tight 10-minute stump speech into a rambling 25-minute address that ended only when a DNC official stood impatiently at the candidate's elbow.
Still, we know that Edwards means what he says. We know this because he says everything loudly, shouting from beginning to end as he denounces the "rigged" system in Washington. For further evidence of sincerity, he swaps his trademark smile for a pained squint when he speaks about the "disappointment" of the parents who have no money for their children's college, and he shakes his fist when he demands removal of the "wall."
There are many things Edwards does not say, however. While arguing that "it is not okay that No Child Left Behind has left us behind," he neglects to mention that he voted for that education legislation. When he thumps the lectern and speaks of the need to "end this war" in Iraq, he omits the fact that he voted to give President Bush the authority to start the war. And while it sounds good for him to say "I did not walk away from the fight" as a product-liability lawyer, he skips the part about walking away from the Senate in 2004, effectively ceding the seat to Republicans.
In lieu of that nuance, the Edwards stump speech is heavy on repetition -- the "wall" got 31 mentions in his DNC speech -- and anecdote. He told the story about Army Capt. Drew Sloan, then the tale of Orelia Tyler of New Orleans, then the yarn about cancer patient Sheila of Cleveland, and of course the part about James Lowe and his cleft palate.
For all his wordiness, Edwards is mostly silent when it comes to policy details. The stump speech offers few specifics about what he would do, even as he told his DNC audience that he would build "one America" -- eight times. "Will you join me in creating one America?" he asked.
Well, sure. But what are we going to do with all those people you've been fighting with?
|
During his first run for the presidency four years ago, John Edwards posed a question to his audiences: "Are you in fact looking for somebody who can say the nastiest thing about the other candidate, or are you looking for someone who can lift this country up?"
| 14.566038 | 0.641509 | 0.792453 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/09/DI2007120901078.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007121119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/09/DI2007120901078.html
|
The Front-Runners: John Edwards
|
2007121119
|
"To see John Edwards at work in New Hampshire, where he came in an embarrassing fourth among Democrats in 2004, is to see his father's son in action, determined to overcome some pretty long odds. ... Maybe something in him relishes being the underdog. But Edwards acknowledges that other forces also propel him. 'I thought everybody was smarter than me when I went to college,' he says. 'And I thought everybody was smarter than me when I walked into a courtroom, and I thought everybody was smarter than me when I went to the Senate.' Like his father before him -- who, near the end of his career, finally became a supervisor at the mill -- he would just work harder to prove himself."
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Hello, and thanks for joining us today to talk about John Edwards and the early influences in his life
Olney, Md.: While I didn't think the other pieces of the feature were very positive or flattering, I did enjoy reading the main piece about John Edwards's life story, growing up, especially the section about his dad and his influence on him. Given how the two front-runners are jabbing and sniping constantly at each other, using everyone from Oprah to Bill Clinton in their respective assaults, do you think John Edwards can capitalize on that division and somehow sneak a first- or second-place finish in any or all of the first three or four primaries?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: I think it is clear that anything can happen, but John Edwards is known for nothing if not for his tenacity. As his mother says, "Don't underestimate Johnny." But I think it is clear he has to overcome what some see as an image problem.
Louisville, KY: Why is it that the majority of the media seem to cover only Clinton and Obama, as though they (the media) already have decided that one of them will be the nominee, to the exclusion of somebody like John Edwards, who really "gets it" as far as poverty and classism goes, and is the candidate who most exemplifies the American Dream incarnate?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Thanks for your comment. It's an interesting question, and one that I'm sure troubles the Edwards campaign. But I think the answer is that in all of the polls, he places no better than third. We certainly have made no conclusions about who is going to win this thing--we simply are going by the indicators we have so far.
Columbus, Ohio: Will today's news (release of a positive poll results by CNN) prompt a significant rise in the poll numbers in Iowa? If Edwards does well in Iowa, will the rest of the country take notice and begin to look at him as a true contender?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: It will be very interesting to see what happens in Iowa, where, I believe Edwards placed second in 2004. It is an area, obviously, where his populist message goes over well, and I can tell you from observing Edwards that he is best in person, in small groups. That has been his strategy in Iowa--also trotting out Mom and Dad, who are very popular there!
Columbus, Ohio: I heard about several stories regarding integration at John's high school; do you have any insight on how he reacted to this change?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: From my limited reporting on this subject, I understand that he attended schools that had only been integrated a few years, and counted among his friends many of the African-American players on the football team. North Moore High School was not a hotbed of activism, but when some of the African-American students staged a sit-in to protest discrimination, he was not a leader of the effort, but joined in spontaneously on the school lawn.
Richmond, Va.: With the other candidates pulling in the big celebrities, I think all Edwards would need to do is a little political jujitsu and just bring an average guy on stage who supports him and say this is the support that matters to him ... just the average American. Would fit into the image he's trying to build, don't you think?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Yes, and he has done that to a certain extent. One of the people he mentions often is a Virginia resident named James Lowe, who lived most of his life with a cleft palate and didn't have the money or health coverage to fix the problem. After Lowe did receive treatment, and was able to speak clearly, Edwards said he was most impressed with Lowe's attitude about the whole thing. "Instead of being angry about it, or sad, or like he was entitled to it, he was just grateful that somebody finally fixed it for him," Edwards said. But perhaps the problem is that Edwards has mentioned the Lowe story so often that Lowe no longer seems quite real.
Poplar Bluff, Mo.: People have made fun of Edwards's $600 hair cuts and big house. I really enjoyed today's article about his humble beginnings. Has being financially successful become a negative now in American society for some people?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: That's an interesting question. As Edwards himself said, "If I hadn't been successful, would that make me better qualified to be president?" I think it is a frustration for Edwards that he does not get full credit for the truth about where he came from and how hard he has worked.
Seattle: I really enjoyed the article. Compared to others in the race, especially Romney, I love the fact that Edwards is embracing his life's story and trying to run a no-holds-barred progressive campaign.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Well, some have criticized him for embracing his life story a little too much. But Edwards is certainly running true to form--and a more dogged and determined candidate would be hard to find.
Birmingham, Ala.: Does the Edwards campaign survive until Super-Duper Tuesday if he comes in second to Obama or Clinton in Iowa (and finishes no better than second in any of the other early primaries)?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: I have nothing to go on here but my sense of his determination, but I don't see Edwards as an early dropout.
Pasadena, Calif.: I always have liked John Edwards. I voted for him in the 2004 primary, when I lived in Virginia. I have seen him speak in Pasadena. How is it that the press is ignoring him? A lot of the buzz about the other candidates is made by the press, and then people begin to believe it and the polls follow. What is going on?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Well, I don't think the Post is ignoring him, but I get your point--he does often seem to be the forgotten man in this race. But there is certainly no media conspiracy to keep him down. I do think he has some sort of problem in convincing people that all of the truly authentic things about him are real.
Seattle: Comment to The Post: Your photo selection and commentary could not be more biased. Compare the Edward's photo on the Web to that running for previous candidates. You have to search far and wide to find a worse photo of Edwards. Congratulations of finding a photo to fit your purpose. And it is oh so "tort reform." And the glib description which says in so many words "we think he is a phony" because he dresses well and has made money but talks about poverty. Could you maybe -- just maybe -- focus on substance, and give him equal footing? You are the Prell team. Oh so witty and beautiful.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Thanks for your comment.
Greenbelt, Md.: Dana Milbank's piece focuses on the "stump speech" without discussing his health care, energy and environment, foreclosure or tax proposals, all of which are the most substantive of any of the candidates. Hillary's health care program copies Edwards. His growth as an individual is astounding. Opposing changing one of side of "K" street for another apparently is too strident for some, yet critical to changing the perception that many Americans have about "their" government. Should he have made these points while retaining the "I'm going to be positive only," as he did in 2004 when he was far less substantive? Or has it been the lavish personal lifestyle, the $400 haircut, working for a hedge fund that has kept him in third place?
washingtonpost.com: No More Mr. Nice Guy (Post, Dec. 11)
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: I don't know if those personal trappings have kept him in third place, but all of the talk about them has certainly distracted from Edwards' message. Everywhere he goes, he hands out that 76-page booklet that lists his positions on everything--and coincidentally informs the audience that he was "the first" of the candidates to draw up a plan for this or that. He has obviously made a decision to be more the scruffy underdog fighter this time--but the haircuts and hedge funds apparently keep getting in the way.
Columbus, Ohio: After reading the positive statements from those participating today, it is hard to imagine that Edwards will do poorly in New Hampshire this time around. ... Why do you think his message does not resonate with New Hampshire voters?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: I'm not sure it isn't resonating to a degree. One thing he has done, which is typical of him, is to get out there and work harder and appear more often and see more people and hand out more of his booklets than he even did last time. I spent a brief time with him in New Hampshire and found people very receptive to him--in person, he comes across more charming and accessible. Those I talked to said, to a person, that they admired his hard work, but then they would say something like, "But he's a trial lawyer, and that comes through." Or, "He's got to overcome that pretty-boy image." It will be interesting to see how he does there.
Boston: I actually liked the photo. It is the ugliest one I've ever seen of him and it doesn't look like he does in person. But it gives him the look of someone who has been through a lot (which he has).
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: You're right. He has been through a great deal in his personal life, with his teenaged son's death and his wife's illness. And I think that is where accusations that he is "shallow" do not wash.
Greenbelt, Md.: Why are so many people so obsessed about his personal wealth? While RFK is a hero of Edwards's, I had forgotten the negative perception that Bobby Kennedy received for being a "do-gooder." After all, how can someone who is wealthy truly be concerned for those who are ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-educated?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: It is curious that Edwards seems to come in for so much slamming for his wealth, when there are other candidates with money. Maybe it is because there is such a large chasm between how he grew up and how he lives now. But I do think he is sincere when he says, you can never forget where you came from. At a photo op at a food pantry in New Hampshire, he passed out apples and oranges to the people in the line, and said later that he was thinking about how these were good decent hard-working people with pride who were going through hard times. I think he relates what he sees to his memories of growing up--but a lot of people, apparently, don't seem to buy it.
Edwards's Money: His giant house only has attracted attention because he claims to be "looking out for the little guy." I'd bet Romney has more money, and Clinton will soon, but they don't claim to be proletarian. Being a hypocrite matters too.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: All I can say is, he says he and his family have been "blessed." There is no question he came from a working-class environment.
Washington: Were you aware that your article on Edwards was going to be run the same day as Givhan's nasty little piece on him in the "Style" section? I guess this question really isn't about Edwards, but more about how things work behind the scenes at The Post...
washingtonpost.com: Robin is writing pieces on each candidate as part of the series. Clinton, Romney, Edwards.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Yes, we were aware that there would be a variety of small articles accompanying the big piece, and I am happy that fashion writer Robin Givhan lent her expertise and insights to the big picture.
Ohio: Mr. Edwards comes across as more presidential than most of the candidates; he certainly would be a better person to address concerns of other countries than what we have in the White House at this time. I don't care what he pays for haircuts or suits -- he is a professional, he could hardly go to a Thrift store for his suits or have his wife cut his hair. He would catch it from the media for that, too. I like Mr. Edwards, but it remains to be seen if he can make it to nomination. I wish him the best of luck and reward for his work.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Thanks for your comment.
Boston: I am a big admirer and supporter of Sen. Edwards and a political junkie who regularly travels the 40 miles north to get to know each of the candidates. In the past two election cycles, Edwards has been the strongest in conviction and charisma (by far in 2004 and just slightly this year). I don't get why he doesn't catch with broader swaths of the electorate (I don't say this in a partisan way, I got W from my meetings with him in 1999/2000). Also, his press coverage always seems to have a slightly negative tint that I have read comes from a general disdain towards him from reporters. What gives?
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Well, I think we apply a critical eye to all of the candidates. I do not think anyone is trying to isolate Edwards. But that does get at what I see as a basic issue with his campaign--getting people to see him the way he wants to be seen.
Sue Anne Pressley Montes: Thank you so much for joining us today.
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 writer Sue Anne Pressley Montes will discuss his article exploring John Edwards, his relationship with his father, and his campaign for the presidency.
| 104.571429 | 0.857143 | 1.785714 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502237.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007120819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502237.html
|
Fighting History In Harlem
|
2007120819
|
HARLEM (or maybe not) -- Asked whether his brownstone residence is in Harlem, the Rev. Michel Faulkner says, well, that depends. "When something bad happens, the neighborhood is called Harlem. When something good happens, it is the Upper West Side." Faulkner is trying to make something good happen, but he is opposed by a speaker of the U.S. House who died 114 years ago but whose mischief goes marching on.
Faulkner, 50, is an African American who played defensive line for Virginia Tech and, briefly, the New York Jets. Recoiling from what he calls "the social and community chaos" that he saw growing up in Anacostia, and that he blamed on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfarism, Faulkner served as vice president for urban ministry at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. He left that sedate environment to minister to the down-and-out around Times Square, before its sinfulness had been scrubbed away.
Now he wants to create a charter school -- a public school enjoying considerable autonomy from, among other burdens, teachers unions. It would be affiliated with his New Horizon Church. But New York's constitution has a Blaine Amendment.
Republican James G. Blaine came within 1,047 votes of becoming president. He lost New York, and hence the White House, by that margin to Grover Cleveland in 1884. New York's large Catholic population loathed Republicans after a Presbyterian clergyman, speaking in Blaine's presence, said the Democratic Party's antecedents were "rum, Romanism and rebellion."
Protestants resented the impertinence of Catholic immigrants who founded schools that taught Catholicism as forthrightly as public schools then taught Protestantism. Protestants thought a public school should be, in Horace Mann's words, a "nursery of piety" -- of Protestant piety -- dispensing "judicious religious instruction," judiciousness understood as Protestantism.
In 1875, Blaine, hoping anti-Catholicism would propel him to the presidency, unsuccessfully tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to stipulate that no public money should go to schools "under the control of any religious sect." The pervasive Protestantism was not considered sectarian. Eventually 37 states passed similar amendments to their constitutions. Congress required Blaine provisions in the constitutions of new states entering the union.
New York's proscribes public assistance to any school "wholly or in part under the control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught." Faulkner, however, wants to bring his church's family-support skills to the task of teaching only a secular curriculum. A Baptist, he shares his denomination's traditional suspicion of entangling religion with government. He just wants to increase choice and competition within the city's school system.
Not until about 15 percent of a school district's children are in charter schools do those schools exert pressure to change the way the district functions. Of this city's 1,453 public schools, only 61 are charters. They serve 19,000 of the 1.1 million public school students -- 1.7 percent.
Andy Smarick, writing in Education Next, reports that only 2 percent of America's public school pupils are in charters, which are being opened very slowly -- only 335 a year nationwide, even though the students already on charter waiting lists would fill more than 1,000 schools. At that rate, by 2020 charters will serve only 5 percent of the public school enrollment. One reason for the slow growth is that some school districts, terrified of competition, mount expensive advertising campaigns -- parents' tax dollars at work -- to dissuade parents from choosing charter schools.
Faulkner wants to create a school that will be nimble at overcoming the sort of problems detailed in a recent report by Paul E. Barton and Richard J. Coley for the Educational Testing Service. These include:
The out-of-wedlock birthrate among black women under 30 is 77 percent. Only 35 percent of black children live with two parents. By age 4, the average child in a professional family hears about 20 million more words than the average child in a working-class family and about 35 million more than the average child in a welfare family. Only 24 percent of white eighth-graders watch four or more hours of television on an average weekday; 59 percent of their black peers do.
Faulkner, represented by the Gotham Legal Foundation, wants a federal court to declare the Blaine Amendment an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. He really should ask the legislature to repeal the amendment because it is an unsavory residue of 19th-century bigotry and an obstacle to educational experimentation. Many legislators, however, are on leashes held by teachers unions that, in their grim defense of his retrograde amendment, are appropriate allies of James G. Blaine.
|
Michael Faulkner is trying to make something good happen, but he is opposed by a speaker of the U.S. House who died 114 years ago.
| 33.962963 | 0.962963 | 23.185185 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/06/BL2007120601312.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007120819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/06/BL2007120601312.html
|
Bush: Misleading at Best
|
2007120819
|
The White House acknowledged last night that President Bush learned in August that Iran might have shelved its nuclear weapons program, contradicting what the president said at his press conference earlier this week.
Critics and journalists alike responded with incredulity that Bush didn't insist on some details. And so late yesterday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino disclosed in an unusual e-mailed statement to reporters that McConnell had in fact told Bush that the new information "might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran's covert nuclear program."
Perino insisted that Bush was told at the time that the findings were provisional enough that there was no need to change the tenor of his statements about Iran. But that doesn't hold water either. As I documented in yesterday's column, Bush's word choice on Iran did indeed change significantly in early August. He stopped speaking definitively about an Iranian nuclear weapons program -- shifting to vaguer accusations about their pursuit of the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon -- while ratcheting the rhetorical stakes up higher than ever, even going so far as to repeatedly warn of a possible nuclear holocaust.
Yet another challenge to the newly revised White House story is an alternate narrative, woven by some investigative reporters, in which White House officials and particularly Vice President Cheney were involved in a pitched battle over the last 18 months to squelch a report they knew would undermine a key pillar of their foreign policy. In this scenario, Bush presumably knew even before August that what he was telling the American people was unsupported.
Last night's reversal only increases the pressure on the White House to come clean. Why did Bush mislead reporters at the press conference about what he'd been told in August? Did he not remember what happened? Was he just being sloppy in his answer? Was he trying to throw reporters off the trail with some imaginative hair-splitting? Was he outright lying?
Exactly how long has Bush known that the intelligence didn't back up his assertion (either direct or implied) that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program? It's not just a question of what McConnell said that day in August. Is the White House really willing to say that was the first indication Bush ever had of such doubts?
And let's not forget the central mystery: Why did Bush and Cheney ratchet up the anti-Iran rhetoric if they knew their primary concern had abated? Why hype a threat they knew was overstated -- especially after the damage they inflicted on American credibility after invading Iraq on false pretenses?
Martha Raddatz blogs for ABC News: "The White House made a stunning admission Wednesday that appeared to suggest President Bush has directly contradicted himself about when he learned U.S. intelligence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program. . . .
"After taking a reporters' question earlier today about exactly what the President was told, White House press secretary Dana Perino provided a response to reporters Wednesday night.
"Perino stated Bush had been told in August that Iran suspended it's covert nuclear weapons program.
"'In August, DNI Director McConnell advised President Bush that the intelligence community would not be able to meet a congressionally imposed deadline requiring a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because new information had been obtained just as they were about to finalize the report,' Perino wrote in an emailed response.
|
The White House acknowledged last night that President Bush learned in August that Iran might have shelved its nuclear weapons program, contradicting what the president said at his press conference earlier this week.
| 18.4 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502254.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007120819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502254.html
|
Stop Getting Mad, America. Get Smart.
|
2007120819
|
The world is dissatisfied with American leadership. Shocked and frightened after 9/11, we put forward an angry face to the globe, not one that reflected the more traditional American values of hope and optimism, tolerance and opportunity.
This fearful approach has hurt the United States' ability to bring allies to its cause, but it is not too late to change. The nation should embrace a smarter strategy that blends our "hard" and "soft" power -- our ability to attract and persuade, as well as our ability to use economic and military might. Whether it is ending the crisis in Pakistan, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deterring Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, managing China's rise or improving the lives of those left behind by globalization, the United States needs a broader, more balanced approach.
Lest anyone think that this approach is weak or naive, remember that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used a major speech on Nov. 26 "to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use 'soft' power and for better integrating it with 'hard' power." We -- one Republican, one Democrat -- have devoted our lives to promoting American preeminence as a force for good in the world. But the United States cannot stay on top without strong and willing allies and partners. Over the past six years, too many people have confused sharing the burden with relinquishing power. In fact, when we let others help, we are extending U.S. influence, not diminishing it.
Since 9/11, the war on terrorism has shaped this isolating outlook, becoming the central focus of U.S. engagement with the world. The threat from terrorists with global reach is likely to be with us for decades. But unless they have weapons of mass destruction, groups such as al-Qaeda pose no existential threat to the United States -- unlike our old foes Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
In fact, al-Qaeda and its ilk hope to defeat us by using our own strength against us. They hope that we will blunder, overreact and turn world opinion against us. This is a deliberately set trap, and one whose grave strategic consequences extend far beyond the costs this nation would suffer from any small-scale terrorist attack, no matter how individually tragic and collectively painful. We cannot return to a nearsighted pre-9/11 mindset that underestimated the al-Qaeda threat, but neither can we remain stuck in a narrow post-9/11 mindset that alienates much of the world.
More broadly, when our words do not match our actions, we demean our character and moral standing. We cannot lecture others about democracy while we back dictators. We cannot denounce torture and waterboarding in other countries and condone it at home. We cannot allow Cuba's Guantanamo Bay or Iraq's Abu Ghraib to become the symbols of American power.
The United States has long been the big kid on the block, and it will probably remain so for years to come. But its staying power has a great deal to do with whether it is perceived as a bully or a friend. States and non-state actors can better address today's challenges when they can draw in allies; those who alienate potential friends stand at greater risk.
The past six years have demonstrated that hard power alone cannot secure the nation's long-term goals. The U.S. military remains the best in the world, even after having been worn down from years of war. We will have to invest in people and materiel to maintain current levels of readiness; as a percentage of gross domestic product, U.S. defense spending is actually well below Cold War levels. But an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar's worth of security.
After all, security threats are no longer simply military threats. China is building two coal-fired power plants each week. U.S. hard power will do little to curb this trend, but U.S.-developed technology can make Chinese coal cleaner, which helps the environment and opens new markets for American industry.
In a changing world, the United States should become a smarter power by once again investing in the global good -- by providing things that people and governments want but cannot attain without U.S. leadership. By complementing U.S. military and economic strength with greater investments in soft power, Washington can build the framework to tackle tough global challenges. We call this smart power.
Smart power is not about getting the world to like us. It is about developing a strategy that balances our hard (coercive) power with our soft (attractive) power. During the Cold War, the United States deterred Soviet aggression through investments in hard power. But as Gates noted late last month, U.S. leaders also realized that "the nature of the conflict required us to develop key capabilities and institutions -- many of them non-military." So the United States used its soft power to rebuild Europe and Japan and to establish the norms and institutions that became the core of the international order for the past half-century. The Cold War ended under a barrage of hammers on the Berlin Wall rather than a barrage of artillery across the Fulda Gap precisely because of this integrated approach.
Specifically, the United States should renew its focus on five critical areas:
|
Shocked and frightened after 9/11, we put forward an angry face to the globe. That's not who we are.
| 42.5 | 0.958333 | 9.791667 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401669.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007120519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120401669.html
|
The Myth of the Mad Mullahs
|
2007120519
|
In the entryway of "Persia House," as the CIA's new Iran operations division is known internally, hangs a haunting life-size poster of Hussein, the martyr revered by Iran's Shiite Muslims. The division was created last year to push more aggressively for information about Iran's nuclear program and other secrets.
Creating Persia House and spinning off Iran from its old home in the agency's Near East division were part of a broader effort to "plus up" collection of secret information, in the words of one senior official. The CIA made it easy for disgruntled Iranians to send information directly to the agency in cases known as "virtual walk-ins." The National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations made similar drives to steal more of Iran's secrets.
Meanwhile, the intelligence analysts responsible for Iran were given new encouragement to think outside the box. To break the lock-step culture that allowed the disastrous mistake on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar ordered that analysts be given more information about sources and, rather than trying to fit information into preexisting boxes to prove a case, they should simply explain what it meant.
All these strands converged in the bombshell National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was released Monday. That document was as close to a U-turn as one sees in the intelligence world. The community dropped its 2005 judgment that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and instead said, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" because of international pressure.
The secret intelligence that produced this reversal came from multiple channels -- human sources as well as intercepted communications -- that arrived in June and July. At that time, a quite different draft of the Iran NIE was nearly finished. But the "volume and character" of the new information was so striking, says a senior official, that "we decided we've got to go back." It was this combination of data from different sources that gave the analysts "high confidence" the covert weapons program had been stopped in 2003. This led them to reject an alternative scenario (one of six) pitched by a "red team" of counterintelligence specialists that the new information was a deliberate Iranian deception.
A senior official describes the summer's windfall as "a variety of reporting that unlocked stuff we had, which we didn't understand fully before." That earlier information included technical drawings from an Iranian laptop computer purloined in 2004 that showed Iranian scientists had been designing an efficient nuclear bomb that could be delivered by a missile. Though some U.S. analysts had doubted the validity of the laptop evidence, they now believe it was part of the covert "weaponization" program that was shelved in the fall of 2003.
The most important finding of the NIE isn't the details about the scope of nuclear research; there remains some disagreement about that. Rather, it's the insight into the greatest mystery of all about the Islamic republic, which is the degree of rationality and predictability of its decisions.
For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred."
"Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be "deterrable" if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, "That is the implication." He added: "Diplomacy works. That's the message."
While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque -- a "black box," in the words of one senior official. "You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process." This official said it was "logical, but we don't have the evidence" that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003.
The debate about what the NIE should mean for U.S. policy toward Iran is just beginning. But for the intelligence community, this rebuttal of conventional wisdom will restore some integrity after the Iraq WMD debacle. In challenging the previous certitudes about Iran and the Bomb, the NIE recalls the admonition many decades ago by the godfather of CIA analysts, Sherman Kent: "When the evidence seems to force a single and immediate conclusion, then that is the time to worry about one's bigotry, and to do a little conscientious introspection."
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
|
'Diplomacy works. That's the message.'
| 97.5 | 0.8 | 6.4 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301302.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007120119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301302.html
|
Hey, Young Americans, Here's a Text for You
|
2007120119
|
When I speak on college campuses, I find that students are either baffled by democracy's workings or that they don't see any point in engaging in the democratic process. Sometimes both.
Not long ago, I gave a talk at a major university in the Midwest. "They're going to raze our meadows and put in a shopping mall!" a young woman in the audience wailed. "And there's nothing we can do!" she said, to the nods of young and old alike.
I stared at her in amazement and asked how old she was. When she said 26, I suggested that she run for city council. Then she stared at me-- with complete incomprehension. It took me a long time to convince her and her peers in the audience that what I'd suggested was possible, even if she didn't have money, a major media outlet of her own or a political "machine" behind her.
This lack of understanding about how democracy works is disturbing enough. But at a time when our system of government is under assault from an administration that ignores traditional checks and balances, engages in illegal wiretapping and writes secret laws on torture, it means that we're facing an unprecedented crisis.
As the Founders knew, if citizens are ignorant of or complacent about the proper workings of a republic "of laws not of men," then any leader of any party -- or any tyrannical Congress or even a tyrannical majority -- can abuse the power they hold. But at this moment of threat to the system the Framers set in place, a third of young Americans don't really understand what they were up to.
According to a recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics, only 47 percent of high school seniors have mastered a minimum level of U.S. history and civics, while only 14 percent performed at or above the "proficient" level. Middle schoolers in many states are no longer required to take classes in civics or government. Only 29 states require high school students to take a government or civics course, leaving millions of young Americans in the dark about why democracy matters.
A survey released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in September found that U.S. high school students missed almost half the questions on a civic literacy test. Only 45.9 percent of those surveyed knew that the sentence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence. Yet these same students can probably name the winner of "American Idol" in a heartbeat.
The study also found that the more students increase their civic knowledge during college, the more likely they are to vote and engage in other civic activities. And vice versa -- civic illiteracy equals civic inaction.
Here are some actual quotes from otherwise smart, well-meaning young Americans:
"I show my true convictions by refusing to vote."
"The two parties are exactly the same."
|
Is America still America if millions of us no longer know how democracy works?
| 38.2 | 0.6 | 1.266667 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601442.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601442.html
|
Outlook: The Futility of Food Banks
|
2007112319
|
"America's far-flung network of emergency food programs - from Second Harvest to tens of thousands of neighborhood food pantries - constitutes one of the largest charitable institutions in the nation. Its vast base of volunteers and donors and its ever-expanding distribution infrastructure have made it a powerful force in shaping popular perceptions of domestic hunger and other forms of need. But in the end ... there is something in the food-banking culture and its relationship with donors that dampens the desire to empower the poor and take a more muscular, public stand against hunger."
Mark Winne, former director of the Hartford (Conn.) Food System and author of "Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty" was online Monday, Nov. 19 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his Outlook article about how the food bank infrastructure prevents any serious efforts to truly solve poverty and food insecurity.
Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors
Mark Winne: Good morning and good afternoon. I'm Mark Winne and I'm looking forward to today's conversation. I'd like to say first off that I've received over 100 fascinating and thoughtful emails in 24 hours on my article. They range the full spectrum of opinion. That seems to suggest that this is an important and timely topic.
Chicago: Mr. Winne asserts in his opinion piece that the work of food banks to feed hungry Americans distracts lawmakers from solving the problem of hunger itself. It seems that the author is suggesting that food pantries, soup kitchens, food banks and others stop operating so that elected officials solve the problem. Is that the argument that the author is making? Is it not possible for charitable organizations to both serve needy families and individuals and help foster positive changes? In many cases, food banks are doing both.
Mark Winne: This is a very important question. What I am saying is that we cannot end hunger unless we end poverty; food banking as well as other antihunger programs do a good job of managing poverty by alleviating its worst symptom, hunger. While antihunger programs remain necessary for the time being, they have strayed too far from, and in some cases never acknowledged the need to end poverty. And I do get more specific in my book "Closing the Food Gap.."
Washington: I enjoyed reading the article all the way to the end, but the prescriptions you give in the final paragraphs don't make sense to me. If private handouts do foster a culture of dependency, then why do you believe that public (government) handouts won't do the same?
Mark Winne: People seemed disappointed that I didn't end poverty with my article, that I left a lot unstated or implied. I won't end poverty here either, but let me say that we won't end if we continue down the same road that we are on. This is a public policy problem for which there is a role for private charity, however,we must begin to generate effective antipoverty initiatives -- initiatives that will cost money that will come from reducing the enormous income disparities that we have in this country and from correcting the low wage marketplace which has been given the license to increase the wealth of the few at the expense of the many.
Indianola, Iowa: Don't you think that it's short-sighted to promote self-sufficiency and address the long-term causes of poverty without also ending hunger today by providing food? It's hard to tell a woman whose kids are whining because their bellies hurt that you're busy addressing poverty and economic injustice so that she won't have to suffer in five years.
Mark Winne: There must be a transition. By no means I am suggesting that we close food banks tomorrow and end the food stamp program. But we must begin to develop an effective antipoverty strategy, that, as it becomes successful, will mean that we can significantly diminish or change the role of food banks.
Santa Fe, N.M.: Hi Mark. You make several good points, but it would be helpful if you acknowledged the public policy work being done by America's Second Harvest. Plus, don't you think that food banks are helpful today, while the policy change you are arguing for slowly takes place?
Mark Winne: Some food banks are doing a better job of public policy than others. I want to single out the Oregon Food Bank as an exceptional example that puts public policy at the top of the list. I discuss them more in my book "Closing the Food Gap..." They have dedicated a not insignificant share of their budget to policy work, including work that is designed to increase health care and wages for low income Oregon citizens. This is a model that needs to be widely replicated.
Gainesville, Fla.: In a children's bicycle program, we found kids took better care of their "free" bikes when they earned them by learning how to repair bikes and apprenticing in the shop fixing other kids' bikes. Have food banks thought of taking this "empowerment" approach?
Mark Winne: You suggest empowerment as a good approach to ending hunger and poverty. Ultimately, that is the answer. Meaningful antipoverty efforts will make those who are poor meaningful partners in finding solutions. I love your bike program idea. Are one of these young people available to fix my bike?
Aiea, Hawaii: Instead of using so many volunteers, could the poor people themselves volunteer -- or better yet, be paid to work at food banks? They might learn a skill.
Mark Winne: It is interesting that you rarely see the recipients engaged directly in food distribution activities. Some self-help approaches like community and youth gardening, and other community food security strategies do focus on participant engagement. The direction you suggest has been tried in some place, though I'm not sure of the outcome. It's worth exploring more.
Alexandria, Va.: If your solution to the domestic hunger issue is "ending poverty," what do you suggest we do on a daily basis as local citizens to help with this?
Mark Winne: Good question. A few thoughts: become involved in local living wage campaigns. Expecting people to live on the minimum wage, making both spouses work two or more jobs at a time, isn't going to cut it. Support community economic development strategies that will bring good paying job to poor communities. Establishing new supermarket in underserved low-income communities helps people get lower priced and healthier food and also creates high paying jobs. But don't stop supporting those efforts that address the immediate problem. They are important too.
Washington: I'd also like to mention our friends at the Vermont Food Bank. They are doing some very innovative work with local farms and the Vermont public schools. What Vermont has in common with Oregon is its willingness to break out of the typical Second Harvest mold and actually attack the root causes behind poverty instead of simply focusing on pounds of food donated and pounds of food distributed. Certainly we need to continue programs that feed; we cannot, however, kid ourselves into thinking that these programs are in any way an answer.
Mark Winne: Yes, I'm familiar with Vermont's good and progressive work. Perhaps you and others could take the lead in assembling a list of model, food bank-based approaches, with case studies from around the country, that will change the direction of emergency feeding system.
Alexandria, Va.: I found the article thought-provoking -- I've volunteered at and contributed to food banks through my church, and I've had some of the same thoughts before. But the article offered only one possible solution: legislative action. In the past, federal antipoverty programs have produced limited results and troubling unintended consequences of the kind you decry around food banks. Could there be some other way to maximize the advantages of the current structures that exist essentially in the private sector?
Mark Winne: One criticism I received was that my recommendation for effective antipoverty approaches harkened back to the supposedly failed Great Society days. I don't think Head Start was a failure. I don't think that housing programs were a failure, And I don't think that a host of low income outreach and empowerment programs were a failure. Yes, politics and corruption were rife, incompetence was too prevalent, but that doesn't mean we dismiss a whole range of useful social policy initiatives.
Washington: What role do you see nonprofits playing helping low-income communities fill in service gaps? Should nonprofits participate in advocacy 100 percent of the time and never provide a direct service? Do after-school tutoring programs enable schools to remain weak on education? Do free clinics enable the government to ignore pleas for health care reform?
Mark Winne: Good question. As a 25 year director of a non-profit program I began to see the need to shift from only doing projects/programs to also doing policy work. In Hartford, we started a city food policy council and a state one as well; we worked closely with our state's antihunger coalition, which I might add, was heavily supported by our food bank. Your projects can often demonstrative new and innovative approaches that can be supported and eventually replicated with greater support from the public sector. Showing up and speaking up at city council and state legislature hearings are essential, but so is the project work.
Anonymous: What specific governmental programs would you advocate, and what are their real prospects in the near-term?
Mark Winne: Health care for all. 47 million uninsured Americans is a drain on them and society. Childcare let's people get an education and into the work force. A living wage for all means that people now working at Wal-Mart won't have to apply for food stamps and go to food banks to also feed their families. A quality education for all would also have to be on the agenda.
Palo Alto, Calif.: I lead a group of folks who help at a soup kitchen, and I read your insightful article. In the three years I have done this, I see a lot of the same people coming again and again. How do we remove the dependency (if there is one) while continuing to do what we do? How do we know the truly needy from those who are dependent, and who am I to judge? A majority of the folks are living on disability or working minimum-wage jobs.
Mark Winne: I know this is a conundrum that many face. Taking a more case-oriented approach to clients not only means that you get to know them and their needs better, but also means that you can play a more active role in securing other services for them that might provide a long term solution. I'm surprised, for instance, by how many food pantries and soup kitchens don't attempt to hook their clients up with food stamps. But more important, you need to play a role in long term public policy solutions. Go to the legislature, go to Congress, go to city council; don't just go the private sector requesting more food donations.
Montgomery County, Md.: I found your article extremely interesting. As an applied social scientist, I have studied poverty programs for state government. In my experience, the food pantries and other emergency services were the first to seek government grant funding but the last to be willing to provide data on who was being served. They had to be threatened with losing state funding before they began providing some minimal counts of meals served -- a count that in and of itself is not meaningful in understanding the causes or faces of poverty.
There was a "ministry" mentality -- "back door of the church" -- that caused them to act differently than the other kinds of community services. They were also highly reluctant to collect data on the people using the services. This became a point of contention after welfare reform, because poverty advocates insisted that welfare reform was causing numbers at food pantries to rise, yet there were no data showing who was using the food pantries. Please keep up the provocative dialog on this topic.
Mark Winne: I know data collection has been a problem for food banks who serve large numbers of food pantries essentially run by volunteers. Getting the numbers right is the last thing on their mind. Yet, as you point out, without the numbers, it's hard to formulate good responses and public policy. It is a flaw in a system that depends so heavily on volunteers and is so independent by nature. The sense of doing good at a very local level has not yet extended to the higher levels where change might occur.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Mark, your article mixes courageous truth with flawed logic. The result is a disservice to the many households in my state that struggle to keep hunger at bay. The USDA does not measure hunger or food insecurity by reference to the number of people served by emergency food providers -- it uses a survey methodology that meets the highest standards of the Census Bureau. So your story of the food bank truck describes a very different problem than the one described last week by the USDA. Yet you leave your readers with the impression that reports of hunger in America (such as the USDA survey) fail to measure reality, and instead only measure an artificial free food phenomenon.
It's fine to hold food banks accountable to their professed mission; indeed, you showed some courage in attempting to do that. But along the way, you should not have cast doubt on the fact that hunger is a reality for one or more members of 4 percent of U.S. households, or that food insecurity (poor food quality, reduced portion sizes, etc.) is a reality for 11 percent of U.S. households.
Mark Winne: Hunger and food insecurity numbers have changed very little over the years. I'm not sure of the exact reality you're describing, but the lack of progress in reducing these numbers does suggest that a new approach, one more systemic and policy-based, is required.
Denver: Did you know that Second Harvest has done quite a bit of research to substantiate that people seeking emergency food assistance through charitable agencies are, in fact, needy? The latest stats show that the folks in the lines at soup kitchens and pantries have a median income of 70 percent of the poverty level. That proves that people don't just "show up" because of the free food. I myself have better things to do than go to an emergency shelter just because I heard the stew is good.
Mark Winne: I don't doubt that most people seeking assistance are needy. But our lack of engagement in finding out why they are needy and what to do about it is the failure I describe. I am not suggesting that we dismiss people because we lack hard evidence that they are needy, but they we get moving with solutions to that need.
Chicago: I'd suggest that you also note that a number of food banks across the country have Community Kitchen programs that train low-income individuals in culinary skills. More than a handful of food banks actually are trying to make changes at the federal, state and local levels to help low-income families (which results in less demand at their facilities, which is a good thing). Most if not all of them work to educate the public that charity can't solve the problem of hunger alone.
Mark Winne: Yes. Good point. Job training programs like you describe have made a contribution. I'd like to press food banks further. Look at your budget and set aside a meaningful amount of money for advocacy work. I'm sure America's Second Harvest must have some numbers on that. A couple of full time people doing nothing but advocacy that is designed to end poverty, not only increase funding for food banks, is what's necessary.
Maryland: There are many institutions committed to economic justice -- particularly unions. What have you done personally to strengthen the hand of that sector?
Mark Winne: I've joined Santa Fe's Living Wage Network, a city which I'm proud to say has the highest living wage, as promulgated by ordinance, of any city in the nation.
Potomac, Md.: I've read about these Food Stamp Challenges where community leaders and politicians live on a food stamp budget (I think it's $1 per meal). Wouldn't it help to educate the public on what it is like to be poor and hungry in this country? Wouldn't it be an eye-opener if the president and his cabinet would take part in such an effort?
Mark Winne: Yes, that kind of education can be helpful. But I'm concerned that such efforts have a very short half-life. Empathy for the poor is lacking in America. It is a bridge to antipoverty efforts that need to be rebuilt. But once rebuilt, it must be crossed. Empathy is a starting point, not an ending point.
Visalia, Calif.: Hi Mark, I appreciate the point you are making, that in some ways food banks represent not just a stop-gap measure, but in some ways are a diversion of resources and energy to change the underlying problems of poverty and lack of opportunity. Thanks for using your experience to look at the problem with fresh eyes.
Mark Winne: Thanks. It's nice to get an easy and sympathetic comment. I'll take them all.
Washington: Hi! Can you talk a little bit about the nation's food industry? Do you think there's overproduction of food in this country, and if so, what's overproduced? And what else would you say about the industry regarding food banks as a waste-management tool? What kind of food producer or industry is likely to do this? Thanks.
Mark Winne: Great question. Overproduction of the wrong kinds of food, corn being our current example,cause problems, especially obesity, which may have eclipsed hunger and food insecurity as our nation's number one nutrition problem. I recognize the extraordinary work that many food banks have done in securing fresh produce and even fighting off the donation of junk that America's food industry benevolently shares with them. I don't think food banks are culpable in promoting obesity, but I do think more has to be done to look at the co-dependency that has formed between them and the food industry. I discuss this connection more in my forthcoming book "Closing the Food Gap..." which I am shamelessly promoting here.
Takoma Park, Md.: Excellent, thoughtful article. Always courageous to question and shed light on well-intentioned efforts that may have unintended consequences. The real underlying question is two-fold. First, why is it so much easier to get people to donate and volunteer to feed the hungry and not to help the poor? Is it just that it is so simple and elemental to offer food, or is there more to it than that? Second, how do you transform or redirect all the political will surrounding feeding the hungry into political will to address poverty? What are the successful strategies? Witness the power of the nutrition community in the Farm Bill debate to secure funding for feeding programs. Thank you.
Mark Winne: As a compassionate people, we won't let somebody starve. We just aren't wired that way. But as an up-by-the-bootstraps kind of people, we won't help anyone more than we have to. And we sure don't like gov'mint getting in the way. We are unique among developed nations in that we rely so heavily on food as a form of public assistance. USDA's 2006 food assistance expenditures were $53 billion. No other country manages social welfare this way. Looking at social and economic problems comprehensively, not single focused solutions like feeding people, will eventually muster the political will to change. As you suggest, the movement by nutrition and public health advocates in this farm bill is a breath of fresh air that will only grow stronger in time. Healthy food and health may be the way to open the door to real change.
Reston, Va.: Ending poverty means changing society. Right now, social policy will allow a person or family to do no work from cradle to grave and receive government assistance and charitable assistance to survive. Universal health care would mean providing health care to those who are disinterested in being part of the system. Isn't this the bottom line? How is it possible to change a system that does not have real consequences for those unwilling to participate? Current social policy will not tolerate the Jamestown-era rule of "those that work, eat." Is change possible for that section of society that is willing to continue suffering?
Mark Winne: You can't receive a living wage unless you work. I'm not suggesting so-called government handouts. I'm suggesting that the private sector has to play a role, that why wages need to be commensurate with the true cost of living. As a nation with one of the greatest income disparities in the world, there is plenty of room for the haves to "share" with the have-nots.
Washington: Why would you choose to publish this article the week before Thanksgiving? What with increasing food prices and decreasing USDA donations (see today's article in The Post) food pantries and food banks need donations and support more than ever.
washingtonpost.com: Food Pantries Struggling With Shortages (Post, Nov. 19)
Mark Winne: Because this is the time of year, perhaps the only time, when people listen and hopefully think about these issues. If we can mobilize to raise food for Thanksgiving distribution, we can contact Congress, talk to Presidential candidates, and otherwise make our voices known. A letter to the editor of your local paper about the underlying cause of hunger at this time of year can go a long way.
Falls Church, Va.: The Post's editorial page previously has been harshly critical of the Government for using the term "food insecurity," arguing that hunger is an either-or situation, and that the term "food insecurity" disguises the severity of hunger in the U.S. Can you tell us a bit more as to what the term means to you when you use it?
Mark Winne: Food insecurity generally refers (and I think accurately describes) the real sense of vulnerability that lower income people feel when they don't know their next meal is coming from. It represents a series of coping behaviors such as a parent skipping a meal so that their child can eat, or even sending their children off to play with a neighbor just before dinner time in hopes that they will be fed there. More severe forms of food insecurity do exist in the U.S., but generally speaking, a high degree of uncertainty about your next meal is the dominant reality for those we classify as "hungry."
Arlington, Va.: I am intrigued by the "good intentions going bad" idea in your column, and wonder if Congress made a big mistake giving tax write-offs and suit indemnity to restaurants and stores that contribute food to food banks. Other comments to your article I read indicate this has become a back-door way for companies to get a tax write-off for donating waste and garbage to poverty programs. Is this correct? And if so, do you have a corrective?
Mark Winne: My point is we have relied too heavily on this kind of private sector response as a solution, even a cop-out for a more vigorous public response. Just think about the reality: every get's excited about coming up with new ways to share food, especially wasted or surplus food, food drives occur, new food banks are built, food industry donates their trucks to move product, and the media constantly recognizes and even praises these efforts. Pretty soon, the public does not see anything else but this solution. No one is talking about poverty or the public sector's role. We need a new analysis, a new frame of reference, and new policies.
Belmont, Mass.: Are there specific problems in our corporate tax codes that make it more profitable for a company to underpay its workers while donating to the community? I'm thinking specifically of companies like Target and Wal-Mart, which pride themselves in giving to the community but don't pay much above minimum wage to the bulk of their workers.
Mark Winne: I'm not able to comment on the corporate tax code, but what you suggest is worth exploration. I do know that the companies like you suggest use a variety of public relations gimmicks to camouflage their low-wage, low health insurance benefits. A food stamp director in New Mexico told me that he was seeing a growth in food stamp applications because the only industry in his area were several Wal-Marts. They have shifted responsibility of providing for their employees to the public sector.
Mark Winne: Thank you all for a spirited, and for me anyway, exhausting conversation. I learned much and hope we can continue in other forums. In the meantime, get engaged in public policy, don't forget the needy this Thanksgiving, and read "Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty" due out in January.
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.
| 121.390244 | 0.658537 | 0.853659 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601210.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601210.html
|
Winning by Rook or by Crook
|
2007112319
|
It's been a banner year for cheating scandals in sports. In baseball, allegations of steroid use and a federal indictment on charges of lying to a grand jury tainted Barry Bonds's record-breaking 756 home runs. In football, the New England Patriots got caught videotaping the defensive signals of the New York Jets. In cycling, the Tour de France became the Tour de Pharmacie when officials stripped Floyd Landis of the 2006 title after he tested positive for elevated levels of testosterone. In Formula One racing, the leading team, McLaren Mercedes, was fined a bracing $100 million for stealing confidential technical specifications about rival Ferrari.
I'm not much of a sports fan, so my couch-potato juices started flowing only when the cheating epidemic spread to chess. I've been playing since I was 5 years old and have spent untold hours practicing sequences of moves such as the Fried Liver Attack and the King's Gambit Accepted. Chess, I'd always thought, is an ennobling cerebral contest between two determined players armed only with their intellect and free of all drugs, except perhaps caffeine.
So you can understand my chagrin when Azerbaijani adults attending the European Union children's championship last month accused the 8-year-old Russian winner of receiving illicit help from a third party during the game. Tournament organizers ultimately rejected the allegations and berated the adults for smearing the child's good name.
But his was not the only indignity the royal game endured recently. The gentlemen's-club respectability that chess once enjoyed was flushed away last autumn at the 2006 World Chess Championship when Bulgarian contender Veselin Topalov accused the reigning champion, Vladimir Kramnik, of making a suspicious 50 trips to the bathroom during a single game. The implication: that Kramnik was secretly consulting chess-playing software on a Palm Pilot or talking on his cellphone to a confederate armed with a chess computer. Officials hastily boarded up his private loo. "I had to go to the bathroom urgently," Kramnik said later. "I asked the arbiter to open my toilet. He just shrugged and offered me an empty coffee cup."
The charges looked too much like an underhanded attempt by Topalov to rattle the taciturn Kramnik, who was forced to explain his hydration and evacuation habits to a prying press corps, and the International Chess Federation ultimately decided that they were spurious. Nonetheless, organizers of future tournaments are now debating whether they should herd grandmasters -- the black belts of the chessboard -- through metal detectors and all but strip-search them before a match. Already, playing halls have been bombarded with electromagnetic signals to jam secret wireless communications.
Overkill? Not really. At the 2006 World Open in Philadelphia, the biggest annual amateur chess event in the United States, a player was caught with a concealed wireless earpiece. And the 2007 World Open reportedly had its own problems involving the use of body doubles, when a weaker player entered a competition for players of similar skill but had a much stronger look-alike sit in for him.
Trickery and deception are nothing new in chess. In the 1400s, Lu¿s Ram¿rez de Lucena recommended positioning the board so that light would shine in the opponent's eyes. "Also," de Lucena advised, "try to play your adversary when he has just eaten and drunk freely."
In the pressure-cooker environment of world championships, where the most prestige (and cash) is at stake, players have done much worse. In 1978, world champion Anatoly Karpov employed a sketchy-looking "parapsychologist" to sit in the audience and "hex" challenger Viktor Korchnoi. Not to be outdone, Korchnoi hired two saffron-robed mystics, Didi and Dada, both convicted of attempted murder, to meditate distractingly in the front row.
Many players routinely use more modest means of unnerving their opponents, from banging the pieces and glaring menacingly to chewing with their mouths open and rocking maniacally in their chairs. It is against the rules to purposely distract an opponent, but who is to say that a coughing player doesn't really have a cold or a fidgety opponent an uncontrollable nervous tic?
Benjamin Franklin objected to all of this. "If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay; not even by looking at your watch, or taking up a book to read," he wrote in a classic essay on the morality of chess. "You should not sing, nor whistle, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may distract his attention."
Wood-pushers are happy to claim the illustrious Franklin as one of their own, but they almost universally ignore his plea for gentlemanly behavior. In 1972, the Brazilian star Henrique Mecking faced former world champion Tigran Petrosian at a tournament in San Antonio. Mecking said that the Soviet grandmaster "was only quiet when it was his turn to move. All the time I was thinking he was kicking the table and elbowing the board to make it shake. If this was not enough to upset me, Petrosian kept making noises, stirring his cup of coffee, all the time varying the rhythm. And rolling a coin across the table."
Mecking retaliated by making some noise of his own, but Petrosian calmly turned off his hearing aid and crushed him.
Paul Hoffman is the author of "King's Gambit:
A Son, a Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game" and the Web site and blog thepHtest.com.
|
It's been a banner year for cheating scandals in sports. In baseball, allegations of steroid use and a federal indictment for lying to a grand jury tainted Barry Bonds's record-breaking 756 home runs. In football, the New England Patriots got caught videotaping the defensive signals of the New York...
| 18.465517 | 0.982759 | 27.913793 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601204.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601204.html
|
A Mullah Dies, and War Comes Knocking
|
2007112319
|
Wednesday, Oct. 31: I woke to the sound of artillery thudding -- like the beat of a heavy heart. It was Afghan army batteries firing into Arghandab, at new Taliban positions there. Through several nights, I had been listening, my ears pricking like a dog's, to the faint popping of gunfire, the clattering of helicopters, the whine of personnel carriers speeding along the roads, falling asleep only when the morning call to prayer rang out in the pre-dawn chill.
I can't explain how this felt, the penetration of war to this crucial part of Kandahar, where I have lived for six years. Arghandab district, with its riot of tangled fruit trees, is the lung of Kandahar province; its meandering, stone-studded river is the artery of the whole region. Arghandab is shade and water, and mud-walled orchards, and mulberries and apricots, and pomegranates the size of grapefruits hanging from the willowy branches.
This magical land was first given to the fighting Alokozai tribe by Nadir Shah, who brought down the Safavid empire of Persia with its help in 1738. The latest in the line of Alokozai leaders was the gentle, jocular military genius Mullah Naqib, who died of a heart attack in mid-October. Mullah Naqib fought the Soviets from his base in Arghandab; they were never able to dislodge the mujahideen from this place.
As the Taliban gathered strength and insolence recently, they would contact the mullah from time to time, trying to strike a deal, telling him that they wished him no ill, but just to pass through Arghandab. He would bellow his retort. He would get on the radio and vow by God that if they dared set foot inside his Arghandab, the whole population would rise up. And thus he held his fractious, disgruntled tribesmen firm against them.
A week after the mullah's death, Zmarai, the district police chief, received a phone call at 1 a.m. "You're alone now that Mullah Naqib is gone," said the voice on the line. "We're coming to Arghandab, no matter what. Why don't you just stand aside? We're your friends and tribesmen."
"If you're coming as our friends," Zmarai shot back, "don't. If you're coming as our enemies, we will fight you."
I heard about this the next day, at an Alokozai elder's house where some friends of Mullah Naqib's had gathered to figure out how things would shake out in the wake of his death. It seemed as though the governor of Kandahar, President Hamid Karzai's two brothers and the president himself were deliberately creating the conditions for disaster in Arghandab.
They had interfered in the recent selection of a new elder, sidelining a man who had been Mullah Naqib's deputy during the anti-Soviet jihad, army corps commander after the fall of the Taliban, then chief of police in two cities. This man had been implacable in his opposition to the Taliban since before the Islamic radicals first appeared in Kandahar in 1994. If anyone knew how to fight the Taliban in Arghandab, it was he. And yet the government's machinations were plainly aimed at shutting him out.
We spent several urgent days thinking strategy, poring over maps, cross-checking the stories people were reporting. The Taliban now owned the whole district of Khakrez, just to the north of Arghandab. They had mined the roads and trapped the police and government officials in the district government building.
We looked at the roads leading down through the mountains, picking out good places for checkposts to stop a Taliban advance. Veteran fighters said each one needed only about 50 NATO soldiers and 200 Afghans. When I went to the local Canadian peacekeepers with the advice, they laughed. The Canadian commander simply didn't have the men.
Some days later, after a couple of desultory Taliban advances across the Arghandab district line, word leaked out from an infiltrated contact that they were withdrawing back to Khakrez, that we were safe for a time. It was a lie. And the effectiveness with which it was put about, the degree to which the truth was sealed away, demonstrated a significant level of command and control.
|
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan Wednesday, Oct. 31: I woke to the sound of artillery thudding -- like the beat of a heavy heart. It was Afghan army batteries firing into Arghandab, at new Taliban positions there. Through several nights, I had been listening, my ears pricking like a dog's, to the faint popping...
| 13.225806 | 0.967742 | 54.322581 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601202.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601202.html
|
The B-Word? You Betcha.
|
2007112319
|
When you work for a magazine called Bitch, the phone tends to ring a lot when the word pops up in the news.
When the New York City Council announced a symbolic ban on the word several months back, the phone rang. When New York Knicks coach Isiah Thomas defended his use of the term toward Anucha Browne Sanders, a former Knicks marketing executive who won a sexual harassment suit last month, it rang some more. And since one of Sen. John McCain's supporters used the B-word to refer to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a question last week, it has been ringing like crazy.
People want to know whether it is still a bad word. They want to know whether I support its use in public discourse. Or they already think it's a bad word and want to discuss whether its use has implications for free speech or sexual harassment or political campaigns.
The other thing about working for a magazine called Bitch is that you really can't cop to being totally sick of having this conversation. But I am. Still, I'll continue to say the same things I always say, partly because talking about the word is an occupational responsibility/hazard and partly because, despite the fatigue, I believe them.
So here goes: Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on the street who doesn't respond to men's catcalls or smile when they say, "Cheer up, baby, it can't be that bad." We use it for the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn't apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn't back down from a confrontation.
So let's not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is. As a culture, we've done everything possible to make sure of that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine -- and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a tidy, well-run world.
It's for just these reasons that when Lisa Jervis and I started the magazine in 1996, no other title was even up for consideration. As young women who had been bombarded with the word for, say, daring to walk down the street in tank tops, we knew what kinds of insults would be hurled when we started publishing articles on sexism in consumer and popular culture.
When Lisa and I were on tour with a 10th-year anniversary anthology, men wandered up to us after several readings to ask, nervously, whether we hated men -- or whether men were "allowed" to read the magazine. We always told them the same thing: If you actually read the magazine -- which includes everything from essays on racism in the modeling industry to columns on the marketing of the HPV drug Gardasil -- you'll find that it's not about hating men but about elevating women. But too many people don't see the difference. And, at least in part, that's why the B-word is still such a problematic term.
In fact, we hoped that we could reclaim it for mouthy, smart women in much the way that "queer" had been repurposed by gay radicals. As Lisa wrote in the magazine's mission statement, "If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we'll take that as a compliment, thanks."
I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton, though probably not a reader of our magazine, has a somewhat similar stance on the word. After all, people who don't like Clinton have been throwing the slur at her since at least 1991. So everybody else in the room laughed knowingly when a woman at a campaign event in South Carolina last Monday asked McCain, "How do we beat the bitch?"
In fact, the most surprising thing about the whole dust-up (available on YouTube for the world to see) is that something like it didn't happen sooner. Sure, it was disrespectful of McCain to laugh off the insult. (Rather than admonishing the questioner, he called it an "excellent question," then added, "I respect Senator Clinton.") And sure, the woman who asked the question was transparently courting sound-bite fame. (Congratulations, faceless woman! Stay classy!) But for Clinton, this episode has to be pretty much a case of another day, another insult.
These days, the people hurling the term at Clinton are her direct opponents: Republicans, social conservatives, assorted Schlafly-ites and Coulter-ites, and that sludgy, amorphous pool of across-the-board woman-haters.
|
When you work for a magazine called Bitch, the phone tends to ring a lot when the word pops up in the news.
| 37.28 | 1 | 25 |
high
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601765.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601765.html
|
Iraq's Narrow Window
|
2007112319
|
THE EVIDENCE is now overwhelming that the "surge" of U.S. military forces in Iraq this year has been, in purely military terms, a remarkable success. By every metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been an enormous improvement since January. U.S. commanders report that al-Qaeda has been cleared from large areas it once controlled and that its remaining forces in Iraq are reeling. Markets in Baghdad are reopening, and the curfew is being eased; the huge refugee flow out of the country has begun to reverse itself. Credit for these achievements belongs in large part to U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who took on a tremendously challenging new counterterrorism strategy and made it work; to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of that strategy; and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite.
It is, however, too early to celebrate -- as Gen. Petraeus and his commanders in Iraq are the first to point out. The principal objective of the surge was not military, but political. It aimed to create conditions that would encourage Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians to compromise over such issues as the terms for a federal system of government and the distribution of oil revenue. By that measure, there has been no progress since January. Iraq's national government seems all but paralyzed, its leaders unable to set aside sectarian agendas despite the ebb of sectarian warfare. Though U.S. officials point to local progress and talk of reforms "from the ground up," these can advance only to a limited degree without breakthroughs at the national level. Laws spelling out the authority of provincial governments and authorizing local elections, for example, are among those caught in the gridlock.
Though casualties in Iraq are still falling this month, U.S. forces may be approaching the limits of what can be achieved. The American troop level will begin to decline next month and will probably return to pre-surge levels by next summer. No wonder a number of U.S. officers recently told The Post's Thomas E. Ricks that the Iraqi government is in danger of missing the opportunity bought with the sacrifices of U.S. troops. "It's unclear how long that window is going to be open," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations.
Iraq's politicians aren't the only ones suffering from inertia. On Wednesday, House Democrats passed an Iraq spending bill that would have required Gen. Petraeus to abort his successful strategy, limit operations to counterterrorism and training, and withdraw all troops by the end of next year. Democratic leaders acted as if nothing has changed in Iraq since January. Perhaps the most charitable interpretation of their initiative is that they knew it would never survive scrutiny by the Senate, which promptly killed it.
But the Bush administration's passivity is even more disturbing. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has immersed herself in the details of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and senior U.S. envoys were dispatched last week to troubleshoot in Pakistan and even Georgia. But there has been no visible effort by the administration to help Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker prod the recalcitrant politicians of Baghdad to act. The only high-profile diplomacy by the administration recently was aimed at heading off a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq. The White House and State Department seem to be turning their attention from Iraq at the very moment when they should be mounting a diplomatic offensive to secure concrete steps toward a political settlement. Such negligence would be another fateful mistake in the conduct of this war.
|
Iraqis, and the Bush administration, risk squandering the political opportunity created by the surge.
| 41.294118 | 0.764706 | 1.352941 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/11/lebanon_elections_assassination.html%20
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/11/lebanon_elections_assassination.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
Michel Aoun will side with whoever if it benefits his political purposes.
He was a popular general and leader during the Civil War. He still currently leads the "Patriotic" party, but does not speak for all the Christian Lebanese. Aoun supporters generally follow Aoun wherever he goes, and will take whatever Aoun's positions are.
Aoun was initially Pro-Syrian until 1989, moving up the ranks by toeing the Syrian line.
Around 1988, a temporary Minister's (Executive branch) government of only Aoun supporting Christian leaders (Aoun kicked out both Sunni and Shiite leaders) was formed and lead by General Aoun. Aoun's temporary Minister government and his Prime Minister appointment was pre-authorized by Syria. The parliament eventually elected another President but Aoun used his military power to keep his temporary Ministers government in power. When Aoun refused to step down, Syria then viewed Aoun as a threat.
Aoun came to the realization then that he would never become President through Syria. Aoun waged a several month war against Syria in the name of freeing Lebanon from any foreign occupier, despite the obvious risk. Many Christian militia members died senselessly in this mad rush for power that Aoun authorized, this failed attempt to push back Syria devastated the Christian power and community in Lebanon. After this failed attempt, Aoun turned against his own community and attacked a Christian militia, further devastating the Christian situation.
These wars ended when Aoun was forced to leave after the Syrians attacked the Aoun controlled Presidentâs House. The Syrians were then able to place their puppet President through the Pro-Syrian Lebanese Parliament in 1990. Aoun went into exile in France for 15 years.
During his exile, Aoun consistenly took Anti-Syrian and Anti-Hezbollah positions.
According to Le Monde newspaper in April 25th, 1996 Michel Aoun said, "Everybody knows that Syria is giving armor and ammunitions to Hezbollah, who is defying the Lebanese government everyday, and Hezbollah is forming a kind of foreign occupation in Lebanon. The view that this militia is a form a resistance against the Israeli occupation is just unnacceptable."
In February 27th, 2002, Michel Aoun addressed his supporters in a University in Ashrafieh through a conference call which was published in the Annahar newspaper, saying that "Hezbollah should disarm and take a solely political form like all other Lebanese parties. He added that Hezbollah is now taking the role of the Lebanese Army which is unacceptable."
Quotation from Aoun's (via phone) meeting with the Free Patriotic Movement's school students third annual conference on April 5/2003, Journalist Katia Srour moderated the dialogue: Question by one of the students, "The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is the son of our country. What will be our position?" Aoun answered, "I had previously invited Hezbollah to a solution. I am not willing to assume the results for the policies it follows and for its external ties. I advised them to abandon the military work and return a political party, for then we congratulated them on liberating Lebanese land. But when Hezbollah wants to stand outside the Lebanese framework for other objectives, we cannot bear the results of its policies. Then I cannot engage in a dialogue with Hezbollah while it is carrying the rifle. Let it put the rifle aside, then we sit down and talk. I call on Hezbollah to turn into a political party and we will cooperate with it..."
Aoun returned to Lebanon in 2005 after the Cedar Revolution (lead by the Lebanese majority of Sunni, Christian, & Druze) that ousted Syrian occupation. Aoun quickly aligned himself with this Anti-Syrian movement. An Anti-Syrian Cedar Revolution government was elected in Lebanon in 2005.
Hezbollah was a part of the new Lebanese government, but they were a Pro-Syrian minority. Hezobollah needed a Christian cover to support their Shiite minority movement.
Aoun signed an agreement with Hezbollah in February 6th, 2006, bringing Aoun's Christian parliament seats (not the other half of Christian seats such as the Lebanese Forces) to the Hezbollah/Shiite minority opposition of the current Anti-Syrian Cedar Revolution government. Aoun sided with Hezbollah despite their Pro-Syrian ties and despite their continued military presense outside of the Lebanese government. Aoun has a strong desire to become Lebanon's President, and this move was his best chance to realize it. You can see Aoun's political contradictions: he was Pro-Syrian initially, then Anti-Syrian & Anti-Armed Hezbollah when exiled, then Pro-Syrian & Pro-Armed Hezbollah when given a chance to become President again. The only common thread in this pattern is Aoun's obsession to become President.
This puts Aoun & Hezbollah's alliance of convenience in perspective. Aoun's Christian supporters will continue to follow where Aoun goes; but many supporters have become alienated and have defected from Aoun because they were Anti-Hezbollah and are confused by Aoun's confusing new alliance with Hezbollah. Aoun's remaining supporters follow their leader, reject American involvement in Lebanon and accept Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah, and see it as a beginning to a united Lebanon because it includes the Shiite people. Unity is obviously very important in Lebanon, but Hezbollah has always had in it's sights an Islamic Revolution in Lebanon, which would alienate a significant Christian & Druze community. Hezbollah can't be an equal party in any political arrangement as long as they are holding a separate military outside of the Lebanese government. Hezbollah engulfed Lebanon in the July 2006 war with Israel without asking the Lebanese government, military, or people. If Hezbollah truly wants a unity government, they certainly don't want an equal one, or they would disarm. Hezbollah wants complete control of the Lebanese government.
Regarding the opinion of the Hezbollah supporters that America is blocking a consensus candidate, that America prefers a Civil War to reconciliation...
The Liwaa newspaper just quoted Aoun speaking to his political party a few days ago, "Parliament members should not attend the session to elect a new president, even if they find a consensus candidate they ought not to go."
The Pro-Syrian opposition parliament members (Hezbollah, Nabih Barre Shiite members, Aoun Christian members) are consistently boycotting sessions to elect a new president.
About general opinions of America in Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution is a real Lebanese majority movement, including Sunnis, Christians, & Druze. Which foreign countries supported this majority Cedar Revolution movement? The Sunni middle eastern countries and the West (Europe & America). Who opposed this Cedar Revolution movement for Lebanese Independence? Syria, Iran, & even Hezbollah.
|
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
| 84.866667 | 0.533333 | 0.533333 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/11/god_war_and_coffee.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/11/god_war_and_coffee.html
|
God, War, and Coffee
|
2007112319
|
One thing that has always struck this veteran about those who serve our nation in the armed forces is the incredible generosity with which they care for each other, the incredible generosity with which they love one another. They do this in sharing meals, in giving burned-out comrades time to catch a bit of sleep, and in simple things like cups of coffee. Although I could not see it as clearly then, God was very present to us in such simple gestures during the First Gulf War. Now that I am a bit more practiced in looking for signs of Him, it is not too hard to figure out. To take care of someone is to love that person, and God is love. Therefore, we can find Godâs love in our service membersâ care for each other.
Among the many hardships of life in our unitâs deep desert days, one simple joy I found was having a nightly cup of coffee with my comrades-in-arms. Despite the burning heat, the nagging flies, and the ever-present tension of maintaining force protection, we had coffee anywhere we could. In an era before the stateside proliferation of Starbucks and its many clones, my family would mail us little red and white tins full of brown powder and labeled âCafé Vienna.â One of our drivers used to call it âthe good stuff.â More often than not, we turned it into âmocha,â dumping a pack of MRE cocoa into the mix. We drank coffee from aluminum canteen cups after the entire Brigade âstood-toâ on alert in the early desert dawn. We drank it from paper cups while waiting in tactical chow lines, each soldier 20 feet apart âso one artillery round wonât get you all.â As we prepared in our battalionâs jumping-off point for the ground war D-Day in February of 1991, we drank it in a little mobiflex tent and rode out blinding sandstorms that the locals called âShamals.â
On further consideration, maybe God was not so much in the coffee as in the conversation. While sitting on a collection of boxes and ammunition cans in our âmobi-hootchâ, my buddies and I would joke by the light of a kerosene lamp about what we would do when we got back to âthe world.â While some of that talk was none too wholesome, the friendship was heartfelt and would ultimately stretch far beyond the war. Telling stories about the girl back home or the most recent dayâs adventures, we enjoyed an intimacy I have never found in other walks of life. We shared a lot of love in those hastily assembled coffee breaks. Of course, in a rifle battalion in the 101st Airborne Division, I do not think we would have labeled our relationship as âloving.â But nowadays I look back and see that it was true. We would have done anything for each other. There was real love there.
One time, our unit was setting up positions in a small gully on a ridge line near the Saudi border, rehearsing defensive scenarios in the early days of Desert Shield. A company Executive Officer, Iâll call him Lieutenant Keith, pulled up to our little forward Operations Center to requisition some supplies. The man looked like hell. He had a heavy growth of beard, and was caked in dust and grime. He had not slept in more than two days. Wobbling visibly, he leaned his rifle against a stationary Humvee, which promptly moved off to a covered position in the wall of the ravine. I watched in astonishment as the weapon was sucked into the loose and rapidly shifting sand in the vehicleâs wake. It simply disappeared. In the 2nd Battalion of the 502nd Infantry of those days, to lose a rifle would have been utterly unimaginable. A vision of 700 soldiers crossing the desert on line and at âextended intervalâ searching for an M-16 flashed through my mind.
Our Adjutant, then CPT Sean Scally, took matters into his own hands. While we retrieved the buried rifle, he ordered the weary XO to lie down and sleep for thirty minutes. Keith accomplished this still wearing boots, flak jacket and full combat gear. He lay on the sand floor of an open-air Command Post that was really no more than a camouflage net shading our mapboards and radios. When he woke, he was ordered to shave in some water that we heated in a canteen cup and to brush his teeth. Hygiene accomplished, we fed him an MRE and he was ready to get back to work. That is the way soldiers take care of each other. Keith, did not work for CPT Scally, and in the ârapid operational tempoâ of the time, it took some courage to start ordering around another Company Commanderâs Exec. It was a good call. I am certain Keith would have gotten himself or one of his men killed if he had kept going at that pace.
Looking back across the years, I can see love in the concern Sean Scally showed our friend. Even before the war, when I was early on in military training, the care we showed for each other in the service was evident. When I brought some buddies home on leave, my mother got a kick out of how careful we were about âsecuringâ each otherâs equipment. âCan you watch my gear?â was a constant refrain. Mom got such a laugh out of this that, to this day, she volunteers to âkeep an eye on my stuff.â Godâs love and care is reflected for me in the way service members watch out for each other in this fashion too. Most seriously, they donât just guard equipment. They provide life-saving physical protection for their shipmates, aircrew mates and platoon mates. Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coastguardsmen can count on each other, even when called upon to risk their lives. Their availability for service in the face of the possibility of total self-sacrifice speaks most strongly to me of Godâs love. In this generosity, Christians can recognize a reflection of the self-giving love of Jesus Christ.
For any service member in harmâs way having a particularly rough time of it at present, I cautiously offer the following for your consideration. It is a suggestion my brother made during one of the hardest times in my life: âWhen things get bad, find one good thing in your day, no matter how small, and hold on to that.â It might be the fact that someone smiled at you, or that the sunrise was pretty. You could hold onto the countless prayers that are daily offered on your behalf by people at home. We love you and want you back safe and whole. On the other hand, maybe all you have to hold onto today is the possibility that someone might make you a cup of coffee. If they offer it, you may want to take it. Their care and concern is a sign of Godâs love for you. Accepting it could be the one thing that will get you through this war.
Blessings upon you all and all those you love.
William Blazek, SJ, MD, is a Jesuit Scholastic. He served as an Infantry Captain in the U.S. Armyâs 101st Airborne Division during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. He now teaches health care ethics as Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., while training for priestly ordination in the Society of Jesus.
|
A conversation on religion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/
| 100.5 | 0.428571 | 0.428571 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2007/11/faith_without_ego.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2007/11/faith_without_ego.html
|
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
Detail Life of Greatest Saint of India (RA)is in
The life of a Sufi is the "life of the spirit " regulated strictly in accordance with Islamic theology and traditions. To attain this his first lesson is unshakable belief in the existence of God and unconditional surrender to His will. This entails a strenuous life attended by rigid austerity and self-denial. He has to undergo a course of training in regular prayers and meditation to attain the Divine Knowledge and realisation of Truth. This particular knowledge is passed on 'in secret' by one Sufi to another having the requisite qualifications i.e. one who does not think evil does not see evil, does not hear evil and does not speak evil. Without this Divine Knowledge, one cannot fathom the hidden mysteries of the Nature and those of the soul. To sum up the whole object of Sufism is to attain the highest spiritual perfection.
A Sufi will be distinguishable from others on account of his detachment from his parents, children, wealth, power, position and comforts. His ignorance vanishes in the effulgence of the 'Divine Light' of the most High, the Lord of the entire Universe. In such an ecstatically devotion there is neither pain nor sorrow for him as he is overwhelmingly dedicated to the will of the Almighty God. Thus a Sufi saint is the Spiritual King, far above all temporal kings, disguised in the patched robes of a humble dervish.
Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin Chisty (May peace of God be upon his soul) was one of the greatest Sufi saints the world has ever known. His spiritual influence and benedictions have been, and are still a perpetually source of inspiration courage and guidance to the afflicted humanity, irrespective of caste creed or religion.
The Sufis are classified into four prominent silsilas (categories) or lines, viz. Qadaria, Chishtia Suhraward and Naqshbandia.
Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty belonged to the second 'silsila'. There is no fundamental difference between these silsilas except in matters of minor details. They are all within the framework of the Islamic law as laid down by the Holy Quran and expounded by Hadith but the rituals applied for obtaining the communion or 'raza' of God are different just like the modern Universities where student take different courses for obtaining a particular class of degree. The Chishtia 'silsila' does not enjoin any indifferent belief from that of the other Hanafi Sunni Mussalmans. Their belief is based upon the Holy Quran. A study of the lives of Chishty saints, including Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin and his spiritual preceptor Hazrat Khwaja Usman Harooni reveals that they preached and held purely Quranic beliefs. According to Shariat, every Chishty saint has to follow the Quranic laws strictly.
The Sufi 'silsilas' however, are not sects. They grew up because people went to Sheikhs or 'murshids' (religious masters) for spiritual guidance and training who invested those of their disciples whom they regarded as spiritually fit to cater for the spiritual and moral needs of others Traditions, no doubt, grew up differently in different 'silsilas'. What is common between the various Sufi 'silsilas' is confined to few spiritual practices like auraad (verses from Quran) 'sama' (audition) certain festivals, institutions like veneration of the shrines, the etiquette of visiting them and the devotion to certain leading personalities of the order. One special features of the Chishtia order, which is particularly observable among the early Chishty saints of India, is their love for all humanity. They sought to inculcate among their followers an attitude of broad sympathy for the common man irrespective of caste, creed or nationality. They stressed more on humanitarian of caste, creed or nationality. They stressed more on humanitarian obligations of Muslims than on any other point. And that is why Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty attracted lakhs of people to the vast circle of his devotees in India in a very short time.
There are certain regulations of Sufism which are called âAdraakâ and âEhsasâ in Sufi parlance. They are also known as âArkaan Tasawwufâ or âArkaan-Baataniâ i.e. the rules and discipline for the acquirement of the hidden wisdom or knowledge. They are divided into the "hidden wisdom" or knowledge. They are divided into the following three categories:
(1) "Knowledge" i.e. the âdivine Knowledgeâ attainable through the rigid discipline of âShariatâ.
(2) "Amal" i.e. action under the above discipline with unflinching faith and devotion.
(3) "Haal" i.e. the resulting reaction from âAmalâ or the action.
A Sufi aspirantâs first important step to act upon the above course is to seek a religious preceptor or âmurshidâ who should be a practical master of the said Divine Knowledge and its training experience. His preliminary lessons start with,
(i) Liturgical practices and exercises with unswerving devotion to certain Quranic verses which are pregnant with the Divine Knowledge in order to grasp their spiritual interpretation and values.
(ii) A rigid control over his soul called âNafsâwhich starts which renunciation and self-mortification.
When a person decided to become a mystic or Sufi, he was expected to go to a Sheikh or Murshid (master) and spend with him as much time as was deemed necessary by the Sheikh for his spiritual development. During this period of apprenticeship which, in most cases, lasted a lifetime the Sheikh used to instruct the disciple to perform mortification (Mujahedas) so as to gain control over his appetitive soul, i.e. 'Nafs'. This was done by performing service like hewing of wood, drawing of water from the wells and so many other menial services in the Khanqah (the monastery or chapel). Even Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty himself had to pass through this hard and rigorous course of probation when he was under training for a period of 20 years with his Pir-o-Murshid (master) Hazrat Khawaja Usman Harooni. Every Sufi saint had to perform these hard services for his 'Pir' before achieving the robe of Khilafat (succession).
According to the Islamic standard of judgment, the seeker after Truth, as stated above has to pass through many stages before he can actually feel himself in commination with the Truth being the ultimate object. The elementary condition is to have an unshakable faith and a firm resolve in doing or not doing a thing that is termed 'niyyat' (intention) in Muslim theology which is followed by repentance and penitence. The next stage is called "Mujaheda" (probation of striving). When it reaches its zenith then the revelation process begins which is known as "Mukashfa" (the uplifting of veil). At this stage the attainments of the saint (or Sufi) are so exquisite that he emerges his identify in the will of God, the creator, and the reactions are visible and affect the code and conduct of human beings. The effort by which each stage is gained is called 'haal' (state). It is a state of joy or desire and when the seeker is in this condition he falls into 'wajd' (ecstasy).
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism> Basis Of Sufism
Early history of Sufism reveals that this particular branch of Divine knowledge originated and developed under conditions of strict discipline of quietism, seclusion, renunciation and incessant devotion to prayers under the guidance of a 'Murshid' or spiritual preceptor. In the popular sense, Sufism is known as mysticism in the West but it is not at par with the conception which the word 'Sufism' actually carries in Islamic parlance. One of the advantages of this cult is that its follower speedily discovers all the mysteries of Nature for the benefit of mankind. Its greatest gospel is to Live and Let live' and to bestow undiscriminating affection upon all mankind. It caters for the real peace and spiritual needs of the people who are generally sick of the material world and seek a spiritual asylum. To be brief, unless one is a God's chosen man endowed with the inherent natural spark of Divine love, pity and religious devotion, and is also fit for the necessary hard Mujahedas (probation and strivings) one cannot become a prefect Sufi.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism> Brief History Of Sufism
Brief History Of Sufism | Sufism In 12th Century | Doctrine Of Sufism And Its Need | Wealth Despised | Attendance At Shrine
The origin of the term Sufi is rather complex, but in general it signifies one who wears the garment of ''suf'' i.e. wool. In the beginning it was a mark of personal penitence though some early Muslims, like Ibn Sirin (died 729 AD) criticised the ascetics for wearing Suf in imitation of Jesus Christ. He said, "I prefer to follow the example of the Prophet who dressed in cotton." In the second century of Islam a particular group of ascetics of Kufa were generally called al-Sufiya due to their dress. But, by 4th century wearing of woolen garments became the recognised badge of the Sufis of Iraq and hence the term was commonly applied to all Muslim mystics. In the same century, groups of these a sites used to assemble to recite aloud the holy Quran and other religious pieces which practice gradually took on a liturgical character called Zikr evolving into spiritual concerts named Sama (now popularly called Qawwali in India) with their attendant perils of extreme ecstatic nervous.
Gradually a change was coming over the general character of Sufism. Its basis was " fear of God and His wrath to come " with the mystical element of love and adoration. According to a woman saint, Rabia al-Adawiya (died 891 AD) The mainspring of mysticism is Love. She said, "Love of God had so absorbed me that neither love nor hate for any other things remains in my heart."
While Imam Ghazali (died 1111) and Abul Qasim Al Qashari (died 1072) laid the basic foundation of Sufism, it was Ghos-ul-Azam, Mahboob Subhani Hazrat Sheikh Abdul Qadar Gilani (died 1166) who helped to give it a real practical shape by instituting the famous "Qadaria" silsila of Sufis in Baghdad in the 12th Christian century which did wonders in raising the cult at Sufism to a glorious pitch in the succeeding generations. Sufism under Hazrat Gilani's spiritual and moral spell created a marvelous revolution which brought the whole of Afghanistan and its adjoining parts in Islamic fold in a very short time. This was one of the greatest miracles of Sufism in the history of Islam at a very crucial period. The number of converts after Hazrat Gilani's every preaching meeting, often exceeded 70,000 necessitating the employment of as many as 400 writers for the registration of these converts. Other Sufi saints of this century were Sheikh Najeebuddin Abul Qahir Suhrawardy, Sheikh Akbar mohiuddin Ibn Arabi (1156-1240) and Hazrat Sheikh Shahabuddin Suhrawardy (1144-1234), the last named being the founder of another famous "Suhrawardia" silsila which Sheikh Saadi embraced in his later years of life. Their services to the cause of Islam proved exceedingly invaluable and their innumerable writings and speeches helped to rejuvenate the waning spirit of Islam, serving the cause of Sufism itself as a guiding star for all future generations.
Doctrine Of Sufism And Its Need
After the death of the Prophet the overpowering influence of his religion and sacred traditions dominated the lives of his succeeding descendants and the Caliphs. During the early period of Islam there was no necessity of any new cult like Sufism. But, as time passed on a revival of the Islamic influence was deemed necessary and Sufism took it up in right earnest. The term Sufism denotes nothing but a direct interpretation of the cardinal principles of Islam and certain spiritual practices to be observed in this process. Its originator Abu Ishaq Shami was the first Sufi who preached this cult which was in conformity with all the basic principles of Islam.
One of the cardinal principles of the followers of Sufism is the hate of all wealth pomp and show. All great Sufis have always therefore refused to accept any money or presents from any quarters whatever, and they never went to the glittering courts of any monarch which made them bold, selfless and independent of all secularism, thus distinguishing them from the class of the Ulama, who so often succumbed to these temptations. On the contrary, if any ruler or rich person sought an interview with them they either refused it flatly or gave them illuminating sermons, bluntly reminding them of their misdeeds and instructing them to realise and follow their duties and responsibilities to the cause of Islam and the Holy Prophet's Shariat. Once Khalifa Abu Muzaffar Yusuf of Baghdad approached Hazrat Gilani for a blissful advice with a present of 10 bags of gold mohurs. This great Sufi saint contemptuously refused to accept the money but when the Khalifa insisted upon its acceptance he picked up two of the bags one in each hand, and squeezed them. And as he did so human blood flowed out of them! The great saint said: "Abu Muzaffar, don't you feel shame in offering me this blood of the poor people?" The Khalifa was dumbfounded and went away in a shameful disgust.
During the 13th century AD Sufism had gained greater popularity among the masses as the result of the persistent efforts of the above named Sufi saint. Under the rule of the Ommayads and the Abbassides, secularism had usurped the real spirit of Islam and had economic, political and social fabric of Islam to pieces resulting in the ultimate downfall of their power itself. Baghdad, once a flourishing capital, was in the grip of debasing frivolities and revelry. Unbalanced secularism had caused unprecedented pillage, arson, murder and all round destruction at the hands of Mongols and Tartars. Although this condition was generally attributed to the intruders' invasions but as a matter of fact it was primarily due to the deterioration of the spiritual and moral character of the Muslims from top to bottom.
When these Sufi saints left this world their devotees put up impressive buildings over their tombs (Mazaars) most of which are attractive monuments of architectural beauty and subdued oriental splendour where Muslims, Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, and their beneficiaries pay loving homage to their immortal glory all the year round, and receive all sorts of benedictions even to this day. On the occasions of their death anniversaries, which are called Urs, the gatherings in many cases run from thousands to lakhs, according to the popularity of the saint. Religious ceremonies are performed on these occasions and the poor and the needy are fed liberally. Of the numerous Sufi saints of India, Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin Chisty of Ajmer, (the founder of Sufism in this country) Hazrat Makhdoom Allauddin Saabir of Kalyar and Hazrat Baba Fariduddin Ganj Shakar of Pak Patan are the most celebrated. But each Indian province from North to South and East to West has one or more monumental shrines of its own Sufi saints whose benedictions have left an impressive mark upon the people of those parts and whose blessings they still enjoy year after year.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism> Divine Love
The next important feature of Sufi belief was divine love. From the time of Rabia Al-Adawiya (died 801 AD). It had become the mainstream of Sufism while in India it had become the dominant feature of the popular Bhakti movement. Love they said was both the causes as well as the effect of gnosis. A person was likely to achieve gnosis as a result of divine blessing only when he had devotion for God. While a person who had achieved gnosis could not help being overwhelmed and overpowered by cosmic emotion (jazba) and divine love. Love, according to them was emotive force of life in fact raison dâêtre. This powerful emotion dominated every thought or sentiment, contemplative life, theology, ritual thought of heaven and hell and all else. "The heart of a mystics is a blazing furnace of love which burns and destroys everything that comes into it because no fire is stronger than the fire of love", says Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty. Love implied an illuminative life a state of continued communion with Reality (haal). The object of life was indifferently described as apologetic vision (sometimes used in spiritual sense at others in a physical sense), nearness to God, annihilation (fana), everlasting life in God (baqa) and ultimately absorption or union (wassail). It was only on the achieves tranquillity by falling into the sea? Thus when the lover finds the beloved he no longer wails."
The natural outcome of such an outlook was a religion of ecstatic fervour and intoxication (Sukr). Such an attitude of mind could best be produced by and then find satisfaction in liturgical practices (Azkaar-Zikr-e-khafi, zikr-e-jail), spiritual concerts or audition (sama), and other forms of auto hypnosis. Because of the efforts of Khawaja Qutubuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki, Sufi Hameeduddin Nagauri and Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Delhi, 'sama' became a cranial feature of the Chishty silsila and brought it in occasional conflicts with the orthodox Ulama.
The mystic belief in gnosis and love is usually accompanied by characteristic ethics. The Sufis had fully followed and systematised certain ethical concepts before Islam came to India. The Indian Sufism merely reiterated these beliefs although there was difference in the degree of emphasis. The basis of the Sufi attitude is that the Veil which hides Reality from mankind is that of Bashariyat, (creature hood). The nature of man consists of sensual, intellectual and spiritual features. Intellect, according to them performed a restricted function. The central pivot of spiritual life was the Qalb (heart) or the Rooh (soul). They were regarded as ethereal in nature and hence capable of communion with God. This function however could never be performed until the heart was purified of the dirt of sensual or lower self called in Sufi terminology the nafs (appetitive soul). The struggle against nafs regarded as wholly evil, therefore, became one of the main concerns of the Sufis. This implied an outlook of renunciation, penitence, asceticism, poverty, self-mortification and quietism-in short, other worldliness. This other worldliness was never interpreted strictly and the Chishty product recommended more an outlook of another-worldliness than actually going away from society.
The idea among the nobler minds in the world of Islam, that there is a deeper and more inward sense in the words of the Quran arose not from the wish to escape from the rigour of ' texts and dogmas', but from a profound conviction that those words mean more, not less than the popular expounders supposed them to convey. This conviction combined with a deep feeling of Divine pervasion, a feeling originating from and in perfect accordance with the teachings of the Quran and the instruction of the Prophet led to the development among the Muslims of that contemplative idealistic philosophy which has received the name of Sufism. The appeal of which among the Mohammedans was probably assisted by the prevalence of Neo-Platonic ideas. Imam-al-Ghazzali in the East and Ibn Tufail in the West were the two great representatives of mysticism among the Muslims.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Ulema Sufi Clash
At first the leaders of mysticism were supposed to be the Ulema or orthodox religious teachers but by the end of 3rd century they were replaced mostly by middle classes, specially from the mixed half Persian and half Arabian population of Baghdad, who followed Sufism. Against the political revolutionary aims of Shia'ite propagandists the Ulema protested vehemently. Their programme of reform included the awakening of religious conscience of individuals and the spiritual revival of the social organisation of the community. These social implications were reinforced by the labours of Sufis in preaching and converting, firstly members of their own class or followers and secondly carrying on their missionary work for Islam in other distant lands. For all times and in all countries these Sufi ascetics were the most active and powerful propagandists of Islam and it was none but Hazrat Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty of Sanjar who introduce the Chishtia silsila (order) of Sufis in India and did such a wonderful service to the cause of Islam.
For the above reasons the orthodox Ulema began to suspect the new social implications of the Sufi movement in Islam and a rift seemed to be widening between Sufism and orthodoxy. Serious attempts were made to silence the Sufis and on failure an example of punishment was set of one prominent Sufi Mansur al-Hallaj, who was charged with heresy in having identified himself with God and was cruelty executed in the beginning of the 4th century. This punishment was not inflicted by any violent fanatics but by pious upholders of the ancient Faith like the Good Wazir' Ale-ibn-Isa. Repression however proved futile and the Sufi movement continued firmly based as it was on both the open and 'secret' teachings of Quran and the moral standards of Islam. Despite the adverse views of the learned layers, the tendency towards the neglect of the ritual prescriptions and the outside influence clashing with the traditional outlook of Islam the strength of Sufism lay in the satisfaction which it gave to the religious instincts of the people, instincts which were chilled or starved by the rigid and impersonal teachings of orthodox Ulema but which found more relief in the directly personal and emotional approach of Sufism.
It must be remembered that this popular character and appeal of Sufism arose out of the ranks of the people themselves and appealed to the people whose main reading matter was furnished by short lives of the saints often replete with their miraculous deeds. It was the unceasing labours of the mystics ascetic or Sufis that gave to Islam its widespread permanent hold upon the masses and that plated such a conspicuous part in spreading the Divine Message among new and fertile lands rather than the slow work of purely orthodox Ulema or their system of propagation.
During the 4th and 5th centuries, Sufism grew in strength in spite of the frowning Ulema it was in this period that the Zikr and Sama from their simple congregational recitation and meditation over the Quran began to show more definite liturgical tendency marked specially by the recitation of chants and litanies. But it was not this difference alone that marked off Sufism from the orthodox services as similar liturgical ceremonies were commonly performed in the mosques as well. The hostility of the theologians was however due partly to their fear that the Sufi Zikr might replace the mosque as the center of religious life. There was also a more deeper and selfish reason for the conflict, the traditional exclusive claim of the possession of sciences of theology and law and their position as the sole authoritative exponents of the Islamic doctrine-sciences which they had built up by infinite trouble and whose acquisition involved long and arduous study. They maintained that it was by their means that the substances of Faith had been preserved against both heretical innovations in doctrine and the attempts of the secular arm to override its privileges and obligations.
Naturally the theologians were proud of their system and jealous for the maintenance of their authority. They held that it was by this method alone that they were able to propagate Islam and promote its cause and that any relaxation would open the way to heresy and corruption both spiritual and material. But the Sufis rejected these claims bluntly and even derisively. According to them there was only one way to knowledge which lay through the direct and personal experience called "Marifat" culminating in momentary union with or absorption into the Godhead and not through the rational and second hand knowledge or ilm of the scholastic type. They thought, theology instead of assisting their process. Actually hindered it. The conflict between the doctrinaire and the seeker or follower of the Inner Light therefore seemed irreconcilable.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Sufism Triumphed
The outside influences and doctrines implied in Sufism in these formative centuries, were also suspected by the Ulema. Apart from the various orthodox rules and concepts of Islam the exaltation which the holy Prophet Mohammed enjoyed also appeared to be eclipsing against the overwhelming veneration accorded to Sufi sheikhs in their lifetime and their elevation to sainthood after death. Nothing could, therefore be more intolerable and repugnant to the primitive ideas of Islam and the system of their maintenance by the Ulema but in the teeth of Quran. Tradition, rationalism and orthodox theology the worship of Sufi saints irresistibly crept into the Islamic fold, and eventually swept everything before it. As time went on popular elements of Sufism established themselves more and more firmly in the Islamic fold. More and more religious minded people also joined the ranks of Sufi mystics who sought not metaphysical knowledge of religion but living experience of God. During the 5th century there was a marked drift towards Sufism of some of the ablest thinkers of Islam. Ultimately principle of compromise between orthodoxy and Sufism was inevitably sought with the result that a celebrated theologian Al-Qushari (died 1072 AD) wrote a treatise urging the cause of the higher Sufism and the acceptance of the doctrine of ecstatic communion with God. The actual revolution is however linked with the name of Imam al-Ghazale (died 1111 AD) who stands high in his religious insight and intellectual ability and who dived deep into mystics sciences and philosophies. He changed his convictions again and again in his long religious experiments and research. First, he revolted against the casuistry of the theologians and incessantly sought ultimate reality through all the Muslim religious systems and philosophies of his time.
After a prolonged bodily mental and intellectual struggle he finally fell from sheer philosophic agnosticism upon his personal experience of God which he found only in the Sufi path. To his school of thought belonged such Sufi giants as Maulana Rum the author of the celebrated Masnavi (one of the most authentic works on Sufism) Hazrat Junaid Baghdadi, Maulana Shibli, Maulana Fariduddin Attaar, Khaqani, Shamsuddin Haafiz Shirazi (one of the greatest Persian Sufi poets in the East) Sheikh Sa'adi and others. Both Imam al-Ghazali and the stalwart Al-Qushari forged a synthesis that ultimately accommodated the essential principles of Islam between orthodoxy and Sufism which were thus tied to one and the other forever though their paths remained different.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Sufism In India
From Iraq and Persia, Sufism perpetrated into India with Hazarat Khawaja Muinuddin Chishty where it found a very congenial soil to prosper after some stubborn opposition. With its advent a large number of Sufi saints sprang up all over the land, doing invaluable service by their solacing influence to the afflicted humanity irrespective of caste or creed. It was this indiscriminating service to the cause of the suffering humanity and peace that won the hearts of the people of India and made the Sufis highly popular among all classes of people from a peasant to the prince. Not only this but even after their death, they are still held in high reverence, a thing which is unknown in other countries. This unflinching devotion is of course not with out any reason; there must be "something" very real and serious to come and end it?
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Meritorious Contribution
Sufism in spite of its loftiness in religious ideals has been less fastidious and more ready to accept alien practices and ideas provided they produced good results. Blended with Sufism the orthodox couch was undoubtedly refreshed and strengthened and in fact acquired a more popular character and attraction in Islam. Sufism in Western Asia, North Africa, won over large multitudes to Islam. Central Asia, India and Indonesia. In the wake of Sufism, Shia'ism also suffered an eclipse and lost much of its original influence. On the whole Sufism has made a meritorious and invaluable contribution to the promotion and prosperity of Islam in the world.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Sufism Defined
Sufism implies "Iqtida" i.e. to adhere strictly to the laws of Shariat. It means highly pious and enlightened way of life which may be expressed in conformity with thought and action as explained below:
(a) `Qualanâ i.e. expression through âShariatâ or the Divine Law (ordained for the harmonious conduct of man in this world with promise of his salvation in the next.)
(b) `Failanâ or âTariqatâ i.e. expression through human activity and discipline under the said Divine Law or âShariat.
(c) "Haalan" or Haqiqat i.e. the âstate â acquired by acting upon and passing through Qualan and Failan stages reaching the zenith of the spiritual perfection.
While the Qualan and Failan stages can be analysed or expressed through the human faculties, the expression of Haalan âHaqiqatâ or âRealityâ is beyond the scope of all human conception and is therefore inexpressible and indescribable because human intellect or faculties are restricted to a âlimit and transcend no more. This is the highest and final stage of Sufism in which the aspirant is face to face with the âDivine Light â and ultimately merges his identity with God Supreme. It is therefore a state, the secrets of which have never been divulged to the humanity at large without Sufism entitles.A Persian couplet describes this âstateâ as follows "Aan raa ke Khabar shud Khabarash baaz nayamad." i.e. nobody ever heard of them who dived deep into the secrets of God or the mysteries of Nature.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism > Ma'Arifat
The Sufis emphasised that ultimate Reality could be grasped only intuitively (Ma'arifat or gnosis). It was veiled from the human eye and intellect, and constituted a mystery which could be apprehended by none but the advanced spirits. Although they described in vivid details how Ma'arifat could be achieved they never concerned themselves with the nature of the Reality. There are clear traces of belief of pantheism and of monism, although in general they believed in a transcendental omnipotent God as the Creator of the universe.
The intuitive or esoteric experience or Reality implied that parallel to the orthodoxy or "external" theology, there was also an "internal" or spiritual interpretation of the Holy Quran and of the actions prescribed by the Law. This spiritual interpretation was necessity subjective, intuitive and esoteric. But this is a very delicate point to be discussed by a layman. Only the advanced Sufis or Saints, who are now rare, can interpret them satisfactorily in the light of their own practical experience. No one in the present scientific civilisation can either understand or convince easily the average man on these delicate points.
Islam And Sufism > Philosophy Of Sufism>The Process
According to Islamic conception a Sufi is one who is fired with Divine live and who as a true devotee of God and is constantly impatient to seek nearness to HIM. The quest of a Sufi centers round the exploration or probe into the mysteries of the nature. He is whole-heartedly engrossed in seeking out the myriad truths of the TRUTH, and concentrates on the hard task of reconciling his action to his thoughts. This is an extremely difficult process. He has, first of all to suppress or subdue his worldly desires inherent in the soul of man called Nafs in order to attain purity and steadfastness in his character. After attaining this stage, he enters the second phase of building up his external and internal character through mental exercises as the result of which the knowledge of the hidden mysteries of Nature or God is revealed unto him. To summarise the whole process of Sufism, the true path of a Sufi's salvation lies through the thorny wilderness of renunciation, self-mortification on and annihilation of the Nafs by incessant devotion to God. Thus a Sufi aspirant has to under go a rigid test in morals and by acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Quran and Islamic theology. Also strict adherence to the Muslim law of jurisprudence called 'Fiqah' and 'Hadith' which deal with the moral, social, economic, and political aspects of Muslim life, he reaches his goal ultimately.
The basis of the teachings of the early Sufis was a clear distinction between the real and the apparent, between the external and the internal, between the formal and the spiritual. The codes of beliefs and behaviour prescribed in the two were the Shariat which they called 'external science' and the Tariqat (the path or way) or the 'internal' or "spiritual science". The starting point of the spiritual progress, they argued was the Shariat but their distinctive contribution to the religious life of the Muslims was the emphasis which they laid on Tariqat. They bypassed the abstract and colourless scholastic discussions of faith and ritual, and supplemented the inspiring orthodox attitude of commands and prohibitions with an "emotive principal and a living religious experience." In orthodox Islam, these features had become subordinated. By emphasising them the Sufis sought to restore the religious balance and brought Islam into greater harmony with the prevailing Indian traditions.
|
Finding Faith on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/
| 365.470588 | 0.647059 | 0.882353 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/2007/11/other_countries_cant_match_isr.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/2007/11/other_countries_cant_match_isr.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
The day after I returned from a three-year stint reporting in the Middle East, while war raged between Israel and Hezbollah militants, I turned on the news back here at home. It was eye-opening.
At the time I was jet-lagged, culture-shocked, and feeling seriously withdrawn from the controversy from which I had so suddenly removed myself. It was a difficult time to return. The first story I saw on TV was a pro-Israel war rally taking place here in New York. Would-be presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave the keynote address. She told the crowd of thousands, "We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing for American values as well as Israeli ones." A day or two later, still glued to the television set, I caught one of Pat Buchananâs several MSNBC appearances. With the blunt candor he is known for, Buchanan said, with regard to presidential hopefuls and the Israel-Hezbollah war, "Let's face it: there are more people in America who will vote for you because you are pro-Israel than those who will vote for you because you are pro-Arab."
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, authors of the controversial Israel Lobby, "we use 'the Lobby' as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." Of course, this should not be blurred with the Jewish lobby. The Israel Lobby has more influence on U.S. foreign policy because it has the support of many conservative Christian groups, which the mainstream media dubbed "Christian Zionists" in the days following September 11th. Certainly it is worth noting that Israel receives the most U.S. foreign aid per year ($2.5 billion in 2006, according to Reuters), though I hesitate to say that this is directly the result of the lobby â especially since Egypt and Colombia, the second and third highest recipients, respectfully, do not have nearly the same lobbying support as does Israel. Rather than question the power and/or influence of the Israel lobby, I'd like to pose a related question: Is there any lobby that is nearly as influential as Israelâs? The recent decision by a U.S. Congressional panel to recognize the Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey was a major success for the Armenian Lobby in America â though it came after many years of lobbying. After a countermeasure supported by the Turkish Lobby, as many as eleven House members later withdrew their support for the genocide resolution. Of course, this is likely due to America's reliance on Turkey as a strategic regional partner rather than the Turkish lobby's pull in Washington. The Indian Lobby has been gaining ground in the U.S., particularly in light of the somewhat recent nuclear deal between the U.S. and India.
Still, none have mobilized in the way the Israel Lobby has since the days of World War II. (An interesting book documenting the earlier days of the Israel/Jewish Lobby is Arieh J. Kochavi's "Post-Holocaust Politics"). What about the Arab lobby? There is no cohesive Arab lobby in the U.S. Groups such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Arab American Institute (AAI) and a few Islamic groups pose as lobbyists, but it is really the oil companies (or their respective Gulf monarchs) and various donors who serve as the true supplicants. The problem is that they do not truly represent the Arab people. There's no telling whether recent developments, including Condoleezza Rice's comments about the imminence of a Palestinian state or AIPACâs legal troubles, will eventually level the lobbying playing field. For now, however, it is hard to imagine that any group will surpass the Israel lobby's ability to win hearts and minds in Washington.
|
Vivian Salama at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/vivian_salama/
| 40.666667 | 0.388889 | 0.388889 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/11/lebanon_elections_assassination.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/11/lebanon_elections_assassination.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
Michel Aoun will side with whoever if it benefits his political purposes.
He was a popular general and leader during the Civil War. He still currently leads the "Patriotic" party, but does not speak for all the Christian Lebanese. Aoun supporters generally follow Aoun wherever he goes, and will take whatever Aoun's positions are.
Aoun was initially Pro-Syrian until 1989, moving up the ranks by toeing the Syrian line.
Around 1988, a temporary Minister's (Executive branch) government of only Aoun supporting Christian leaders (Aoun kicked out both Sunni and Shiite leaders) was formed and lead by General Aoun. Aoun's temporary Minister government and his Prime Minister appointment was pre-authorized by Syria. The parliament eventually elected another President but Aoun used his military power to keep his temporary Ministers government in power. When Aoun refused to step down, Syria then viewed Aoun as a threat.
Aoun came to the realization then that he would never become President through Syria. Aoun waged a several month war against Syria in the name of freeing Lebanon from any foreign occupier, despite the obvious risk. Many Christian militia members died senselessly in this mad rush for power that Aoun authorized, this failed attempt to push back Syria devastated the Christian power and community in Lebanon. After this failed attempt, Aoun turned against his own community and attacked a Christian militia, further devastating the Christian situation.
These wars ended when Aoun was forced to leave after the Syrians attacked the Aoun controlled Presidentâs House. The Syrians were then able to place their puppet President through the Pro-Syrian Lebanese Parliament in 1990. Aoun went into exile in France for 15 years.
During his exile, Aoun consistenly took Anti-Syrian and Anti-Hezbollah positions.
According to Le Monde newspaper in April 25th, 1996 Michel Aoun said, "Everybody knows that Syria is giving armor and ammunitions to Hezbollah, who is defying the Lebanese government everyday, and Hezbollah is forming a kind of foreign occupation in Lebanon. The view that this militia is a form a resistance against the Israeli occupation is just unnacceptable."
In February 27th, 2002, Michel Aoun addressed his supporters in a University in Ashrafieh through a conference call which was published in the Annahar newspaper, saying that "Hezbollah should disarm and take a solely political form like all other Lebanese parties. He added that Hezbollah is now taking the role of the Lebanese Army which is unacceptable."
Quotation from Aoun's (via phone) meeting with the Free Patriotic Movement's school students third annual conference on April 5/2003, Journalist Katia Srour moderated the dialogue: Question by one of the students, "The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is the son of our country. What will be our position?" Aoun answered, "I had previously invited Hezbollah to a solution. I am not willing to assume the results for the policies it follows and for its external ties. I advised them to abandon the military work and return a political party, for then we congratulated them on liberating Lebanese land. But when Hezbollah wants to stand outside the Lebanese framework for other objectives, we cannot bear the results of its policies. Then I cannot engage in a dialogue with Hezbollah while it is carrying the rifle. Let it put the rifle aside, then we sit down and talk. I call on Hezbollah to turn into a political party and we will cooperate with it..."
Aoun returned to Lebanon in 2005 after the Cedar Revolution (lead by the Lebanese majority of Sunni, Christian, & Druze) that ousted Syrian occupation. Aoun quickly aligned himself with this Anti-Syrian movement. An Anti-Syrian Cedar Revolution government was elected in Lebanon in 2005.
Hezbollah was a part of the new Lebanese government, but they were a Pro-Syrian minority. Hezobollah needed a Christian cover to support their Shiite minority movement.
Aoun signed an agreement with Hezbollah in February 6th, 2006, bringing Aoun's Christian parliament seats (not the other half of Christian seats such as the Lebanese Forces) to the Hezbollah/Shiite minority opposition of the current Anti-Syrian Cedar Revolution government. Aoun sided with Hezbollah despite their Pro-Syrian ties and despite their continued military presense outside of the Lebanese government. Aoun has a strong desire to become Lebanon's President, and this move was his best chance to realize it. You can see Aoun's political contradictions: he was Pro-Syrian initially, then Anti-Syrian & Anti-Armed Hezbollah when exiled, then Pro-Syrian & Pro-Armed Hezbollah when given a chance to become President again. The only common thread in this pattern is Aoun's obsession to become President.
This puts Aoun & Hezbollah's alliance of convenience in perspective. Aoun's Christian supporters will continue to follow where Aoun goes; but many supporters have become alienated and have defected from Aoun because they were Anti-Hezbollah and are confused by Aoun's confusing new alliance with Hezbollah. Aoun's remaining supporters follow their leader, reject American involvement in Lebanon and accept Aoun's alliance with Hezbollah, and see it as a beginning to a united Lebanon because it includes the Shiite people. Unity is obviously very important in Lebanon, but Hezbollah has always had in it's sights an Islamic Revolution in Lebanon, which would alienate a significant Christian & Druze community. Hezbollah can't be an equal party in any political arrangement as long as they are holding a separate military outside of the Lebanese government. Hezbollah engulfed Lebanon in the July 2006 war with Israel without asking the Lebanese government, military, or people. If Hezbollah truly wants a unity government, they certainly don't want an equal one, or they would disarm. Hezbollah wants complete control of the Lebanese government.
Regarding the opinion of the Hezbollah supporters that America is blocking a consensus candidate, that America prefers a Civil War to reconciliation...
The Liwaa newspaper just quoted Aoun speaking to his political party a few days ago, "Parliament members should not attend the session to elect a new president, even if they find a consensus candidate they ought not to go."
The Pro-Syrian opposition parliament members (Hezbollah, Nabih Barre Shiite members, Aoun Christian members) are consistently boycotting sessions to elect a new president.
About general opinions of America in Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution is a real Lebanese majority movement, including Sunnis, Christians, & Druze. Which foreign countries supported this majority Cedar Revolution movement? The Sunni middle eastern countries and the West (Europe & America). Who opposed this Cedar Revolution movement for Lebanese Independence? Syria, Iran, & even Hezbollah.
|
America on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/
| 84.866667 | 0.533333 | 0.533333 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2007/11/israel_taiwan_face_similar_thr.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/2007/11/israel_taiwan_face_similar_thr.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
HONG KONG - I guess I don't have to spell out my answer to this question. Like my fellow panelist Saul Singer, I am also pro-Israel. While I neither live in Israel nor write for an Israeli newspaper, I supported the organization for which Mrs. Singer works when I was living in Washington, D.C. My favorite magazine is Commentary. Most of my good friends are Jews. And my ex-wife is a Jewish woman from New York. I would like to draw your attention to a recent article in The Washington Post titled, "Are American Jews Too Powerful? Not Even Close." Ruth Wisse provided a much more sophisticated case than I ever could have.
She writes: "Consider a basic paradox. Even anti-Semites often give Jews credit for having exceptional intelligence. Self-congratulatory Web sites reckon that Jews, who make up about 0.2 percent of the world's population, have been awarded more than 160 Nobel Prizes. But if Jews are so smart, why do 22 Arab League countries account for a tenth of the Earth's land surface while the Israelis struggle to secure a country that is 1/19th the size of California? If Jews are so powerful, why does Israel attract twice as many venture-capital investments as all of Europe, even while it's the only one of the United Nations' 192 member states that has been charged with racism for the crime of its existence? How powerful is that?" As for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, I share what another fellow panelist from Israel said. Yossi Melman wrote that the organization, "is a typical example of the opportunities and guarantees provided by American democracy. AIPAC is playing by the rules set by the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and political system. Yes, it has used those rules and opportunities to gain advantages. But what's wrong with that? Such clever behavior should be admired, not cursed. In that sense, AIPAC is no different from any other lobby in America; it exists to promote its interests. If AIPAC or its officials are breaking the laws or the rules, put them on trial. AIPAC's only problem is that it is successful and outstanding, and thus has become an object of envy." As a strong supporter of Taiwan, I have no choice but to lend my support to Israel as well. As another author wrote in Mr. Melman's newspaper, Taiwan and Israel are "two small and effervescent 'real democracies' engaged in their own security-existential troubles, exposed to threats from a huge external enemy and dependent on American protection and aid. Some call Taiwan 'the Israel of the Pacific' and 'the David of the Far East.â" I only wish the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese counterpart to the AIPAC, would become as effective and successful as their Jewish friends.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
More Posts About: Israel , Taiwan
|
Kin-ming Liu at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/kinming_liu/
| 28.85 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2007/11/rockwells_model.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/2007/11/rockwells_model.html
|
On Faith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007112319
|
Claire G. Williams was 29 when she modeled for Norman Rockwell, whose illustrations for Saturday Evening Post still define for men and women of a certain generation what it means to be a good, patriotic and faithful American.
Some 49 years have passed since Rockwell himself phoned her. She still remembers the event in detail. The periwinkle dress she wore. Her two-hour studio session with Rockwell -- she posed while he sketched. Rockwellâs studio, now preserved on the grounds of the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Mass., looks exactly as it did then. The Shalom sign, the brushes meticulously cleaned, an African Christ hanging on a cross, a Zenith radio.
âWe came through the door right there,â Claire said on one of her recent tours. She's retired now, and her husband has passed away, but she still volunteers at the museum.
Many of Claire's former neighbors show up in Rockwell's famous illustrations. The postmaster is a model for an Imam in The Golden Rule. The dry goods store owner is a town hall clerk, waiting on a young couple applying for a marriage license. Then there's a classic Rockwell painting called "The Runaway," in which a little boy and a policeman are sitting together at a lunch counter. "That's Dick Clemens," she said of the policeman. "I went to school with him, and he really did grow up to be a state trooper." The boy who modeled for the runaway is a maintenance person in the area, she said.
Claire herself appeared in advertisements illustrated by Rockwell. Laminated reproductions of the black and white drawings show her younger self in a series of domestic scenes that ran in magazines around the country. She remembers receiving a phone call from a friend on the other side of the country who recognized her in an ad.
Claire marveled at the details of Rockwell's illustrations, how he used light and shadow, how he captured moments in ordinary lives. "It seems he brings good out of everything," she said.
She finds these intimate moments and their echoes of faith and values still resonate with those who take her tours. Rockwell was raised Episcopalian, served as an altar boy, but didnât attend church in later years, said Stephanie Plunkett, chief curator of the Norman Rockwell Museum. Rockwell wasnât religious, although he painted Freedom of Worship and The Golden Rule, two paintings that depict American ideals of liberty and treating others as you would like to be treated.
âHe painted America like what he wanted it to be,â said Claire, herself a lifelong Protestant, born and raised in Stockbridge, where she has attended the First Congregational Church on Main Street all her life. It is the same church where the fire and brimstone colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards once preached.
âAll the values that I feel are in the paintings. You donât have to look very hard to find them, I feel. My values anyway,â she said, then paused. âI wonder what the values are that people have today.â
|
Finding Faith on On Faith; blog of religion in the news on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/findingfaith/
| 34.705882 | 0.529412 | 0.647059 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701641.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701641.html
|
The End of a Failed Technique -- but Not of a Prison Sentence
|
2007112319
|
SMITHFIELD, N.C. -- Lee Wayne Hunt readily admits that he once was a major marijuana dealer who so antagonized police that they used to call his fortified home "Fort Apache," mocking his Native American heritage. But Hunt is adamant about one thing: He never committed the two execution-style killings that sent him to prison for life.
"It was like him bringin' a gun in and say that this is the murder weapon that was used to kill these people," Hunt said of the FBI testimony. "It's the same thing. He said that these are the bullets that come out of this box that killed these people."
In 2005, the bureau ended its bullet-lead-matching technique after experts concluded that the very type of testimony given in Hunt's case -- matching a crime-scene bullet to those in a suspect's box -- was scientifically invalid.
Hunt, 48, said in a prison interview with The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" that he was never informed by the FBI, and that his attorney discovered the flawed science while attending a conference.
"We wouldn't know about it today if we were waiting to hear from anybody else," said Richard Rosen, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has taken up Hunt's bid to win freedom. "I think anybody involved in a case involving fraudulent scientific evidence ought to know."
State prosecutors now concede in court filings that the FBI's testimony was unreliable, but they argue that the conviction should stand because two witnesses implicated Hunt after receiving plea deals.
Now those accounts have been questioned.
In 1986, Hunt and a co-defendant, Jerry Cashwell, were convicted in separate trials of killing Roland and Lisa Matthews, who were shot execution-style, their throats slit, in their home on a dirt road near Fayetteville two years earlier. Jurors spared Hunt the death penalty.
Prosecutors argued that the murders were punishment for Roland Matthews's theft of marijuana from Hunt's drug ring. Gene Williford, an associate of Hunt's who received immunity, testified that Hunt had told him that he intended to teach Matthews "a lesson" for allegedly stealing drugs.
Williford, who is now dead, also testified that he dropped Hunt off at the murder scene and that he later picked up Hunt and Cashwell, who both appeared to be wearing bloody clothing. A few days later, Williford told jurors, he and Hunt were present when another member of the drug ring referred to the killings, allegedly stating that Lisa Matthews had "begged us not to kill her."
Williford, however, did not witness the killings and never claimed that Hunt had admitted to them. Hunt's mother and aunt said that he was at home with them that night.
|
SMITHFIELD, N.C. -- Lee Wayne Hunt readily admits that he once was a major marijuana dealer who so antagonized police that they used to call his fortified home "Fort Apache," mocking his Native American heritage. But Hunt is adamant about one thing: He never committed the two execution-style kill...
| 9.396552 | 0.982759 | 54.086207 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/15/DI2007111501575.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/15/DI2007111501575.html
|
Silent Injustice
|
2007112319
|
John Solomon: Folks, thanks for your interest in this project. I'm looking forward to spending the next hour or so answering your questions.
Fredericksburg ,Va.: Hi John. Great work.
1. You worked with several groups and one other news agency for this series. Can you walk us through how you first got involved, and how you were able to connect with 60 Minutes and the other groups to work together on this series? Did someone basically provide you the foundation for the story and you pieced it together?
John Solomon: Absolutely. I had written extensively on FBI lab problems in the 1990s and earlier this decade. And I had worked for the last several years with some groups to pursue Freedom of Information Act requests seeking documents about how the FBI was handling the end of its bullet lead science. When the bureau announced the end of the science, it had claimed publicly that it remained confident in the "scientific foundation" of its past work. But when we started to get internal emails and documents under FOIA and from sources, we realized the bureau was aware that large numbers of its scientists had given testimony that was inaccurate and not supported by science. And that is what got us started. We began by reviewing trial transcripts and finding cases where the now-discredited bullet lead science had been a crucial piece of the prosecution's evidence. As for 60 Minutes, I had been talking with producers there for about a year about possible collaborations and this project just made sense. It had strong visual elements and characters to go along with a compelling issue of justice and fairness.
Washington, D.C.: Do you think that laboratories are resistant to change that would help weed out bad science, such as more oversight, blind testing, or redundant independent testing?
John Solomon: This is a good question, which is resonating in courts around the country as defense lawyers begin to identify flaws in many local crime labs work. While it is hard to make sweeping conclusions, the internal FBI documents we obtained provided some fascinating insight into why the FBI was so slow to end the science in the face of questions. As early as 1991, the FBI lab had done a study that raised questions about some of the assumptions being made about lead bullet matches. But rather than seeing the red flags, the scientists dismissed them as coincidences. In 2002 when one of the FBI's own retired metallurgist questioned the science, the FBI sought to drown out his concerns by flooding the forensic science journals with articles praising the bullet lead science. And even after the National Academy of Sciences concluded the science was flawed in both its statistics and testimony, many in the lab fought to continue its use or at least to minimize the problems when informing the public. When asked why, FBI officials told us that it was hard for scientists who practiced a particular science for decades in good faith to admit they were wrong. What should not have been so hard, the FBI officials said, was for the lab to do the right thing and to review all cases were misleading testimony was given. That didn't happen back in 2005. But now that these are issues are public, the FBi has belatedly agreed to do that.
Have you found a difference in the way courts are handling these appeals in jurisdictions that have the death penalty as opposed to those that do not?
John Solomon: We did not see any difference. The states where convictions were reversed because of bullet lead were split between death penalty and non-death penalty states. More noticeable was the difference in opinion between the trial courts and the appeals courts. The trial courts were more likely to uphold the original convictions that had occurred in their courts, claiming their was other evidence to support a conviction. The appeals courts were more likely to reverse convictions, citing the broader legal principle of fairness. Last year in Maryland, a murder conviction based on fairly strong evidence was reversed at the appellate level on the grounds that bullet lead matching was no longer considered generally accepted science. Most states have a requirement that forensic science be generally accepted as accurate before it can be used in courts. I suspect that if more convictions are reversed, they will be based on that concern.
What's next?: Will you follow this with more stories/investigations on this issue?
John Solomon: We have some additional stories coming out in the next month as part of this series. So stayed tuned. Also, we are committed to following the developments in the cases and events that these first two stories raised. The FBI is taking the fairly dramatic step of launching a nationwide review of cases. We'll be following that closely to see how often defendants have been alerted to prior flawed testimony. Also, we will be watching to see how the bureau implements a new monitoring system designed to routinely check the accuracy of its scientists' court testimonies.
Richmond, Va.: I think it was prosecutors, not scientists, who held back concerns about the accuracy.
John Solomon: This is a question that courts often have to weigh. In the cases we reviewed, we did not find much evidence that prosecutors knew during the original trials that the FBI science was flawed. For three decades it was simply assumed to be accurate. But we did see a couple of cases where prosecutors have tried to sustain old convictions by trying to defend the science even though it is now widely accepted that the science was flawed. The most interesting development to watch going forward is to see how prosecutors react when they get notified by the FBI about bad testimony in prior cases. We'll be watching to see if those prosecutors actually follow through on their obligation to notify the affected courts and defendants.
I wrote a series of articles a few years ago on the state of indigent defense in Virginia. I think the problems here stretch throughout the country. Do you have any evidence that indigent defense attorneys knew about this faulty testing, but never followed up on it for their clients because of the heavy workloads and low fee schedules in most states?
John Solomon: Many of the cases did involve defendants represented by public defenders. But the most noticeable thing I saw going through the transcripts was that defense lawyers in general _ whether privately paid or appointed by the courts _ paid enormous deference to the FBI witnesses and did little to challenge their scientific conclusions in the 1980s and 1990s. Famed defense attorney Barry Scheck told me that one of the lessons from the bullet lead saga is that defense attorneys must do more "homework" studying scientific issues so they are better prepared to challenge prosecutors' experts in the CSI era where most jurors are more likely to give enormous weight to forensic science.
Burke, Va.: Do you ever consider the practical matter of how many murderers are put behind bars because of "faulty" science?
Is it progress to prevent one innocent person from being convicted if you let ten guilty people go free? How about a hundred? A thousand?
There's an obvious cost to convicting the innocent; but there's just as real a cost in allowing the guilty to go free.
John Solomon: The U.S. justice system relies on fairness and it has a built in process for how to handle post-conviction appeals to address the very concerns you raise. Convicted murderers usually don't just go free when a new trial is ordered. They usually are held on bail or remanded to prison until a new trial occurs. So there won't be a whole lot of convicts being freed. But there could be some that are granted new trials. That means they get another chance to prove their innocence because their last trial was unfairly impacted by bad science. That's hardly as threatening as some mass release of murderers. In New Jersey, Michael Behn was one of the first murder defendants to be granted a new trial because of bullet lead. And last year he was re-convicted using other evidence. The system has plenty of experience and safeguards to handle the review that is about to begin.
Maryville, Tenn.: No question, but I would like to mention one case that I am currently handling in the Tennessee Court system. Asata Lowe vs. State of Tennessee. I handled the Post Conviction Petition and it is pending before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Even though I raised the issue of the FBI expert's improper testimony (she has since been convicted in KY for "False Swearing") the trial court refused to allow me to have an expert to contest the evidence due to the Tennessee Supreme Court rules which prohibit state funds being used for an expert in a post conviction hearing (he, obviously, could have had an expert if he had the money).
John Solomon: This sounds like an interesting case and the very type of circumstance the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Network had in mind when they announced Sunday that they are forming a joint task force to help defendants affected by this science. I bet they might be able to help find some resources to address your questions. In the meantime, I'd love to learn more about the case if you are willing to drop me an email with the details.
Washington, D.C.: Lead comparisons may be only one of many questionable techniques that erroneously link suspects to crime scenes. The Mayfield case that linked an innocent person to the Madrid bombings showed that a fingerprint could lead the FBI to the wrong person. Given that the FBI has had to give up lead comparisons, are they planning to do anything to make sure their other forensic methods are reliable?
John Solomon: An outstanding question. One of the most dramatic outcomes from the Silent Injustice series is that the FBI has agreed to institute a new monitoring system that will routinely check the accuracy of its experts' testimonies in court. One of the things the FBI is thinking about is dispatching a supervisor unannounced once a year to watch each of his or her scientists testify live in court. If that system gets fully implemented, it would become one of the most significant new safeguards against bad science and testimony in the court system. Barry Scheck said the FBI's proposed new monitoring system could become a "gold standard" that other local crime labs could adopt to ensure similar protections at the state level.
Richmond, Va.:"John Solomon: Last year in Maryland, a murder conviction based on fairly strong evidence was reversed at the appellate level on the grounds that bullet lead matching was no longer considered generally accepted science."
Will you be doing a follow up story about how many convictions are reversed based on these results and what percentage of the reversals were most likely "innocent" or "guilty" of the original charges based on the strength of the other evidence?
John Solomon: Yes, we do plan to keep watching this play out in the courts. The entire process is likely to take two to five years, according to the experts we've talked to. I'd also recommend checking back at the www.washingtonpost.com/SilentInjustice Web site next month for the next round of stories, which will shed some new light on how this process works.
Washington, D.C.: One thing that strikes me about these cases is that bad judges and bad prosecutors could stand in the way of efforts to get back into court and retry the case. This seems like an area in which some prisoners would have to seek executive clemency. Other than that long shot, what other options exist when a person has a good case, but a judge or prosecutor block the path back into court? Is there anything state legislatures or Congress can do about these scenarios?
John Solomon: There is one interesting development to watch in North Carolina, the state where Lee Wayne Hunt has been unable to win a new trial despite significant new evidence of innocence. The state legislature is working to create a new "Innocence Commission" that would give defendants one last resort to appeal their convictions _ even if they lost in the courts. Outside of the courts, sometimes compelling cases can generate political pressure. And that can force an examination by a state governor, who can commute a prison sentence as a way of freeing a person who has significant new evidence of innocence.
Washington, D.C.: Has it been determined that the bullet lead analysis has no meaningful correlation? Or, is it that the correlation is there (say, 80% to 90%) but not strong enough to be beyond a "reasonable doubt" and therefore not admissable?
John Solomon: The National Academy of Sciences concluded that the science was so limited that all an FBI witness could say about two bullets that matched was that it was possible they were made from the same batch of lead, along with as many as 35 million other twins. The FBI decided that was so general a statement that it would have no value to jurors.
Oxon Hill, Md.: What is the best method to get a case reviewed?
John Solomon: In most states, the process begins with a post-conviction review petition that a defendant files with the orignal trial court asking it to order a new trial based on new evidence. If the court turns it down, the defendant can next go to the appeals court or the state supreme court. If a defendant exhausts all avenue of appeals in a state, he or she still can seek a habeas review in the federal courts. If all courts at all levels turn down a defendant, the last avenue is a political solution: seeking a commutation, grant of clemency or pardon from a governor or the president.
John Solomon: Thanks for all the great questions and observations. I look forward to chatting with you again and promise to stay on top of developments in this 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.
|
Washington Post staff writer John Solomon discusses his investigation with 60 MINUTES correspondent Steve Kroft into a flawed science used in the convictions of thousands of defendants, scores of whom may be innocent.
| 77.228571 | 0.714286 | 1.057143 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701599.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701599.html
|
Clinton and Obama Campaigns Clash Over Report
|
2007112319
|
Just days after a series of sharp exchanges in a debate Thursday night, a tense back-and-forth erupted between two top Democratic presidential candidates Saturday as Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) accused Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) of spreading rumors that her campaign is in possession of potentially damaging information about her rival.
Robert D. Novak wrote in his syndicated weekend column that "agents" of the Clinton campaign have been "spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent." Novak did not offer any further details about the allegedly negative information.
The Obama campaign lashed out at the report, saying it is "devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we've become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades."
Obama challenged Clinton's campaign to either make the information public "or concede the truth: that there is none."
Clinton campaign aides, in turn, denied any knowledge about what led to the Novak remark and accused Obama of "echoing Republican talking points," as well as of falling prey to a conservative columnist's attempts to pit Democrats against each other. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, in an e-mailed statement accused the Clinton campaign of evading the question of whether she was behind the item.
"The Clinton campaign refuses to answer two simple, direct questions: Are 'agents' of their campaign spreading these rumors? And do they have 'scandalous' information that they are not releasing?" Plouffe wrote.
Further escalating the exchange, the Clinton campaign again mocked Obama for betraying his promise to implement a "politics of hope" and said he is wasting his time on insubstantial matters.
"It's telling that the Obama campaign would rather spend the day throwing mud in Bob Novak's sandbox than talking about the issues," said Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, in an e-mailed statement. "Our statement was crystal clear: Democratic voters should be concerned about any presidential candidate inexperienced enough to fall for Republican talking points. The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item."
None of the parties involved -- including Novak -- specified the substance of the rumors. Novak wrote that Clinton has "decided not to use" the material.
"This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent," Novak said, in the three-paragraph item.
|
Full coverage of Congress, including the House of Represenatives and the U.S. Senate. The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com provide analysis of Capitol Hill.
| 18.346154 | 0.461538 | 0.538462 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701625.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701625.html
|
McCain Stakes His Campaign on New Hampshire
|
2007112319
|
As he began his four-day tour of New Hampshire in the state's northern tier, there is a renewed, anxious energy around McCain, who has become more aggressive in challenging his better-funded rivals and increasingly eager to highlight his military service as voting nears.
"In June, this was sort of like a death watch, and now people actually think he's got a shot," said David Winston, a Republican pollster who is not working for a presidential campaign this year.
McCain hasn't strayed far from the message he presented to voters in his 2000 campaign, offering himself up as a principled politician who will speak his mind without always testing the prevailing winds first.
This time around, however, McCain is explicitly selling himself as a man whose life and career were shaped by military experience -- culminating in 5 1/2 years in a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp -- that makes him uniquely qualified to lead the nation in a time of war. That emphasis is a direct attempt to build on what advisers see as his starkest contrast with former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and ex-Tennessee senator Fred Thompson.
"I think it's wonderful to have been mayor of a big city. I think it's great to have been a governor. I think it's great to have served eight years in the Senate," McCain told about 50 people who gathered at the Balsams hotel to hear him speak. "But I'll match my qualifications, my background, my experience, my knowledge and my vision. [That] is what I think qualifies me for their consideration.
"I have a background of all my life in the military, the last 24 years in national security issues," McCain emphasized in response to a question from Dave Spalding, 48, who owns a small business in Milford that recycles asphalt and concrete.
Spalding, who goes by the nickname "Skippy" and was deer hunting in the North Country when he saw McCain's bus pass by Friday afternoon, said later he may support McCain. But he added that he is concerned that the senator is too far behind in the national polls to be considered a serious contender for the nomination.
"I am a McCain believer. I'm trying really hard to be a believer," Spalding said. "John McCain, he's been there. He's done that. He's a true patriot. But is he electable? I really hope that he is."
McCain's aides insist the calculus exists for victory. The candidate has brought the bulk of his limited resources to bear here. Even during the campaign's darkest days this summer, not one of his public supporters switched sides here, and his visits to the state far outnumber those to others hosting early contests.
If McCain won here, they say, money would pour in. (His 2000 campaign raised $1 million online in one night after defeating George W. Bush, even though Internet fundraising was almost literally unexplored territory at that time.) McCain would be on the covers of the most-read newspapers and magazines, and the cable networks would provide him around-the-clock coverage. And less than a week later, they say, he would translate that momentum into a win in Michigan.
In South Carolina, which falls just a few days later, there is no clear front-runner, and victories in the two previous state primaries would make him the odds-on favorite to win the Palmetto State, his advisers insist.
|
Follow 2008 Elections & Campaigns at washingtonpost.com.
| 86.5 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701459.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701459.html
|
N.J. Takes A Holiday Back From Workers
|
2007112319
|
TRENTON, N.J. -- In the eyes of many New Jersey state workers, the governor is the Grinch who stole the day after Thanksgiving.
New Jersey used to be among at least 24 states that let their workers take the day after Thanksgiving as a paid holiday, not by law but as a proclamation by the governor. But this year, Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) halted the decades-old tradition, saying state that employees who want that Friday off to create a four-day weekend would have to use a vacation or personal day.
Corzine's staffers say they have received about 5,000 calls and e-mails protesting the action.
"I'm all jammed up, and I don't understand why the governor would do this," said Shawn Ludwig, a state child abuse investigator now scrambling to find child care that day for his two young children.
Corzine warned the state's nearly 80,000 workers last year that it would be the last time he gave them a day off after Thanksgiving.
"State employees have had a year to plan for this eventuality, and if an employee wants the day off, he or she can use vacation time or an administrative leave day," Corzine spokesman Anthony Coley said.
New Jersey state workers already get 13 paid holidays and are unlikely to get much sympathy from the private sector, or from state workers in other states who do not get the day off.
While many other states give their workers the day after Thanksgiving off, some designate it as a distinct holiday.
Indiana celebrates Lincoln's birthday on the day after Thanksgiving. New Mexico calls it Presidents' Day. Lincoln was born in February, but New Mexico traditionally keeps state offices open on the third Monday of February and instead observes the holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving to create a four-day weekend.
Louisiana law allows the governor to declare the day after Thanksgiving as Acadian Day, to honor the arrival of people from the French colony Acadie in 1713. Nevada dubs it "Family Day." Georgia celebrates Robert E. Lee's birthday.
Three of New Jersey's 13 paid holidays come in November -- Election Day, Veterans Day and Thanksgiving -- but Ludwig said he would gladly give up one.
"If you want to take one of my other days, that's fine. Just take it," Ludwig said.
"What I don't understand with the politicians is they make sure we're off on Election Day so we can vote for them, but on a day when we're supposed to be with our families, they're taking that away from us."
New Jersey governors have granted the day after Thanksgiving as an extra day off through a proclamation at least since 1962, according to the Rutgers University Library for the Center for Law and Justice. State law has never been changed to make it an official holiday.
|
Get Washington DC,Virginia,Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news,featuring national security,science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 13.285714 | 0.428571 | 0.571429 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601638.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601638.html
|
Science: How Climate Change Impacts Agriculture
|
2007112319
|
This discussion is part of The Washington Post's series: In The Greenhouse: Confronting a Changing Climate.
Buffalo, N.Y.: It seems to me that for some major parts of the U.S., the combination of shorter duration but more intense rainfall (which means more runoff and therefore less infiltration) combined with increased evapotranspiration and increased irrigation will lead to groundwater depletion. Is this sort of secondary effect being incorporated into the models attempting to assess costs of climate change?
William Cline: What is not included is increased incidence of droughts. Otherwise, to the extent that the observed variation in today's climate across different regions already reflects shorter, more intense rainfall in the warmer areas, at least one of the two sets of agricultural impact models I use -- the "Ricardian" statistical models -- should already incorporate this effect. On the other hand, in my book I do point out that the Ricardian models may not have fully separated out the influence of irrigation. In at least one case, India, where July rainfall increases sharply from already high levels in the climate projections, the model does seem to be picking up a negative impact. The broad answer, however, is that I suspect both sets of models (the other one is "crop models") may not fully capture possible effects of increased rainfall intensity and shorter duration.
Washington, D.C.: While agriculture may be threatened, do you think our farming technology is improving at a fast enough rate to supplement what Mother Nature can't provide?
William Cline: The last chapter in my book considers whether we should be relaxed because technical change will solve the problem. I was surprised to find that, using FAO data, the green revolution has slowed down considerably. In the 1960s and 1970s annual global yield increases for grains rose at about 2.5 percent per year. For the subsequent 25 years this pace slowed down to 1.5 percent per year. The Washington Post article focused on new varieties resistant to heat, drought, and flooding. But if you think about it, focusing research efforts on new varieties that stave off damage means less net gain than we had in the past when new varieties mean outright improvements in total production potential. Basically I think such technical change will be needed and should be encouraged, but I do not think we should fail to take action reducing carbon emissions because of the expectation that improved varieties will solve the problem.
Alexandria, Va.: Is there a great threat to the U.S. or other strong economies, or is the fear only in developing countries? And as a follow-up: Which country/region is the MOST at risk, and which nations may be the least at risk. I suspect this has more to do with the economic/technological set-up of a country rather than what the actual weather will do, correct?
William Cline: The threat is mainly to developing countries, because they tend to be closer to the equator, and the damage is greater closer to the equator where temperatures are already high. But there will be losses in the Southern United States, Southern Europe, and especially Australia, given the same phenomenon. Least at risk would be say Scandinavia. Yes, the economy's ability to adapt matters, but the Australia example suggests that climate and location cannot fully be offset by having more resources for adaptation.
South Ryegate, Vt.: In the late 80s Congress directed the EPA to produce a document identifying two things. First, an analysis of the potential impacts to the U.S. from global climate change, sector by sector. Second, to identify effective adaptive strategies. In 1988 EPA produced a thirteen volume analysis accomplishing the first, anticipating much that is reflected in current thinking. However, the second charge as not executed.
Who, if anyone, in any sector of government or business in this country is focused on this issue, particularly as it relates to not just commercial advantage or opportunities, but also the welfare of the commons and promotion of the public good? Thank You
William Cline: It is my understanding that the World Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation are increasing their efforts on adaptation for climate change in Africa in particular. My impression is that most of US government research funding on climate change has concerned new energy sources, such as coal gasification with carbon sequestration in underground caverns. It would certainly seem to me that the Department of Agriculture should be conducting research on farm adaptation and new seed varieties, and no doubt it is doing some of this already, but others would have more details on this than I do.
Harrisburg, Pa.: What is global warming doing on our supply of water? Are warmer temperatures part of the explanation why water resources seem to be dwindling?
William Cline: There has been a relatively high incidence of drought in the United States and elsewhere in the past year. Like Katrina, it is ambiguous whether we should attribute this to the effects already being felt from global warming, but the answer is probably "yes to some extent." Basically global warming intensifies evaporation and rainfall. The problem is that the increase in the rainfall tends to be more concentrated in areas other than the mid-continents. Meanwhile evaporation rises rapidly with temperature, and it is the difference between evaporation and rainfall that determines drying. In short, yes, I think the warming already is having some effect on water availability, but the impacts are likely to be much more severe with the kind of warming possible by late this century.
Rockville, Md.: My experience with farming was when my father tried to get cotton crops to fit the short growing season north of Lubbock, Texas. I would expect a longer season to make that easier with an earlier plant date and/or a later fall frost. How is that bad?
William Cline: The effect of warming on the planting and harvesting date is already taken into account in the agricultural models I have used. One effect you don't mention is that the higher temperature speeds the crop through its cycle and leaves less time for grain-filling. But the impact also differs by crop, and although my book does not go into product detail, I would suspect cotton does better than many other crops in a world with global warming.
Munich, Germany: How would you rate likelihood of the scenarios of drought and saltwater invasion to farmland that you describe in your article? Is this close to worst case conditions?
I've read that scientists believe that mankind must undertake drastic measures by 2015 in order to prevent the worst, but no matter what we do, the temperature of the Earth will still rise a few degrees because of current CO2 levels. Will this best case condition still result in ocean level increases?
William Cline: The article's discussion of saltwater invasion drew on materials other than my book. On drought, I emphasize that my projections are probably too optimistic because they do not explicitly include increased incidence of drought. Yes, the "committed" warming will take about 3 decades to arrive because of "ocean thermal lag." So we would see more warming even if carbon emissions were cut by 50-60 percent today. Although there would be some sea level rise, it would be on the order of a few centimeters. But if we stay on our present course, then on a time scale of centuries, the sea-level rise could be in the range of 20 feet or more.
College Park, Md.: Numerous studies have shown that organic livestock production results in 25 percent to 30 percent more greenhouse gas emissions. This is due in part to organic rules forbidding the use of ionophores in beef cattle and dairy cattle which reduce methane and the use of feeding limiting amino acids in poultry and swine because the amino acids were created just like insulin is made for human medicine, by genetically modified bacteria.
What will it take to educate consumers that purchasing organic livestock products is worse for the environment than purchasing non organic products?
William Cline: This is an interesting argument, but unfortunately I am not qualified to comment on it.
washingtonpost.com: Graphic: A Prediction of Agricultural Production
Rockville, Md.: Do you have any projections that show the effect of a new ice age?
William Cline: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that a new ice age is highly unlikely within the next 30,000 (thirty-thousand) years. Ice ages are result of changes in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycle).
Washington, D.C.: So the point is that we must reduce carbon, not increase food production? If we increase agricultural productivity regardless of pollution effects, then won't there be more food generally? More food, regardless of anything else, is better than less food, is it not?
William Cline: Certainly the policy implication of my book is that prospective negative impacts of global warming on agriculture are one of many reasons to move meaningfully toward a curbing of carbon dioxide emissions. If we do nothing, they will rise from 8 billion tons of carbon today to over 20 billion tons by the end of this century.
Washington, D.C.: To assess the accuracy of your estimates, can you identify some futuristic agricultural productivity estimates from 1937 (70 years ago) to compare to today's levels? Seventy years is a long time. Compared to today's levels, how much more productive will agriculture be just before the estimated 20 percent decrease?
William Cline: In the final chapter of my book I use 1.6 percent annual yield increase as the baseline. This is the average for the past 25 years. This multiplies baseline output potential by about 3-fold by 2085. But much land could be diverted from food, and food demand is also likely to rise by 3-fold or more because of higher population and incomes. So there is a tight race between supply and demand, such that a 20 percent or more reduction in the baseline because of global warming damages could be painful.
Arlington, Va.: Have you herad of "global Dimming"?
Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action.
Supposedly, this reduced irradiance has countered the increasing temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.
Is it true? Does reduced irradiance affect crop yields? If we clean out atmosphere of particulates will global warming accelerate?
William Cline: Yes, increased sulfate aerosols have partially masked global warming by acting as a screen and changing properties of clouds. As increased clean-up of local pollution occurs, this cooling effect could be unmasked. The climate models specifically incorporate these effects.
William Cline: This completes the hour for this interactive session. Thank you all who have participated. I have tried to answer the questions for which I felt I had sufficient information to make a useful reply. - Bill Cline
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.
|
William Cline, a senior fellow at two nonpartisan economic think tanks, discusses the impact of climate change on global food demand.
| 90.416667 | 0.791667 | 1.291667 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/17/DI2007111700792.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/17/DI2007111700792.html
|
Carolyn Hax Live: Pre-Thanksgiving Special
|
2007112319
|
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.
Working vs. Staying Home?: Hi Carolyn, found out my sitter may be leaving the area. I adore her and my daughter is very happy with her. How to decide if I should find another sitter or stay home? Don't like my job, but do enjoy working outside the home. Thoughts from you or the peanuts?
Carolyn Hax: How old is your daughter? Maybe you can switch to a part-time job and find a part-time program for your daughter.
Alexandria, Va.: Hello, I am posting in advance. How would you respond to nosey coworkers? I have been out on medical leave for two months and will return next week. I have told no one about my medical condition that involved surgery. It is inevitable that someone will ask me for specific information. What should I say?
Carolyn Hax: Here are two, so you can mix it up based on your mood: "That's awfully private," or "Why do you ask?"
Happy Thanksgiving! Do you think it's possible to change the way you think about something? For instance, if you have an unhealthy outlook towards something (food, your body, squirrels, whatever), can you change it?
Maybe it's more about feelings than thoughts, but I think the two go together.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks! You too. Absolutely I think it's possible to change your outlook on something. It can be difficult, and I think also you have to be realistic about the extent to which you can change--for example, for someone with steep boy hangups, a conversion to complete insouciance isn't going to happen. But it is possible for that person to identify the origin of the issues, address that origin, learn ways to anticipate and work around the most common triggers, and incorporate these ways into habit. How one gets there varies by person, but I think the big three are willingness to accept blame/responsibility instead of pointing fingers at everyone and everything else; eagerness to do what it takes to change, no matter how hard the work of it gets; and the ability to take the long view, and get right back to it after a slip, instead of getting frustrated and derailed. Almost making that list, by the way, is a supportive environment. If you can't jettison underminers from your life completely, you at least need to see them coming early enough to keep them at arm's length. Good luck.
Holidays: I don't want to appear ungrateful but my mother-in-law always gets me gifts that really don't fit my personality at all. Either clothes I would never wear and always in sizes way too big, or jewelry I would never consider. Should I say something, politely of course, or should I just continue to accept these as if they were thoughtful gifts.
Carolyn Hax: They are thoughtful gifts; you just don't know what she's thinking. Since you and she are related to each other in a way that is classicly fraught, I think it's probably a good idea to see these as diplomatic exchanges, where it's the relationship that counts. In the meantime, you can take this as a sign that you and your MIL could use a few more opportunities to know each other better. A well-meant overture from you couldn't hurt.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Today's my birthday, but I'm not really planning on celebrating. I just started the job I have now about three weeks ago, so I haven't said anything about my birthday today (though I did mention it in passing over the past couple of weeks) because it's still a new environment. I moved to this area three months ago, so outside of my new coworkers, I don't know anyone. I'm actually sorta looking forward to spending the evening by myself, with laundry and perhaps a cupcake from the grocery store bakery. But I know when I go home for Thanksgiving and everyone asks "So what did you do for your birthday?" and I say "nothing really," I'll get those looks of pity that I hate. Is there a better way to deal with this?
Carolyn Hax: This came up last week--just say you took the opportunity to pamper yourself. When you're ready to take it to a higher plane, the best way to rid your life of the pitying looks is to rid your mind of the idea that what you did was grounds for pity, even you dion't think so, you just think other people think so. It's brutal, really, the way any little hairline crack of vulnerability translates to bystanders as GET HER ON SOCIAL LIFE-SUPPORT, STAT. But it's true. Love your laundry night and people will envy you your laundry night, because they'll see it for what it is--freedom from giving two [suds] what anyone thinks of your plans. Happy birthday.
Medical Leave - just got back myself: Remember, though, that your co-workers are also going to ask things like "I heard you've been out. You OK?"
Now, yes, one one level, they're hoping you'll dish. But on another, they're really just saying exactly what they're saying. So if you don't want to confide, just answer kindly but firmly, "Yes, I have been out, but I'm better now. Thanks for asking. What's new with ____?"
Carolyn Hax: Great point, thanks. There's nothing to be accomplished by going into it on the defensive.
Chicago, Ill.: How do you deal with a friend who never asks you how you are when you talk, but always just launches into a series of complaints? When he does occasionally ask me how I am, he doesn't do a lot of listening, just quickly turns the subject back to himself, especially if I am not doing "fine" This is someone who I have supported through many difficult times, including a serious illness, but if often feels as though our friendship is one-sided, and it's hard to not feel resentment toward him.
Carolyn Hax: Then resent him. Sounds like you've earned it. Then, when you feel confident you've identified the right emotion for the right reason, decide how you want to deal with this friend. Tell him how you feel? Write him off as not worth it? Pull back to a distance where you can still enjoy what he offers but he won't annoy you so much (because you're no longer giving so much)? In other words, the trick isn't so much in what you do about him, it's in making sure you know what to think about him. Know what he can and can't give, will and won't do. Once your friendship (or non-)is based on realistic expectations, that should take care of the resentment.
So what did you do for your birthday?" and I say "nothing really." : If you put it THAT way, they WILL feel sorry for you. How about, "I had a great time pampering myself at home, with some take-out, a cupcake, manicure and movie I've been wanting to watch." Or something along those lines. I mean, you're not actually going to just stay at home and stare at the wall.
Carolyn Hax: Unless that's what you were waiting all year for a chance to do, right? Here's the thing. The list you proposed sounds great, but out of the mouth of someone who believes it was a pathetic birthday, it will sound like a pathetic person trying to be brave. There are people living solitary lives that we would all kill for, and people living solitary lives who induce an ache of sympathy wherever they go. The only difference is the messenger. I do appreciate, by the way, what hideous advice this is: "Love your life." But until one of the easier answers proves itself to be true, it's all there is.
Medical leave questions: Thanks for expanding on this. I have co-workers for whom I feel real compassion, connection, etc...just not personal friendship.
I want to give them the chance to talk if they want. so is "Glad you're back. Hope you're feeling okay." enough of an opening in that circumstance?
I just can't see it as offensive if I back off when I get a no-info response.
Carolyn Hax: I don't think it's offensive at all, especially since it's not even a question. "Hope you're feeling okay" works as a closed-ended expression of concern for those who don't want to share, and an open-ended expression of concern for those who do.
New York, N.Y.: Hi Carolyn,
I just started reading you recently... and it seems like you usually advise people to look for the silver lining. I wonder where you draw the line of psych/emotional abuse?
Maybe I'm just more of a direct communicator... why not advise people to set boundaries and say what they want? For MIL gifts, for example, why not say "MIL dear, I love that you are always so thoughtful and generous with gifts. I love X catalog and would be thrilled to receive anything from them." or just tell MIL what you would like -- "Oh, I can always use a gift certificate from X"
Carolyn Hax: A direct communicator is someone who says, "I love that you got me a gift, but this isn't a sweater I'd ever wear." Your, "MIL dear, I love that you are always so thoughtful and generous with gifts. I love X catalog and would be thrilled to receive anything from them," is a very broad hint. There's a huge difference. Some people who recognize broad hints for what they are will be garteful for them, and start ordering gifts for you from your catalogue. Others who recognize broad hints for what they are will go home afterward and say to the nearest sympathetic confidant, "Did you catch that 'dear' [bleep]?" You have to know your audience. And, since I'm answering people without knowing their audience--and since, by the fact of their asking me, I also have to assume they don't know their audience well, either--all I can do is propose the highest-percentage behavior. See the silver lining, say thanks, try to improve the relationship. I see it as a win in the form of an ugl;y sweater. By the way--you may be too new to have seen this, but my answer was very different to someone asking about gifts from a romantic partner. That's not a diplomatic situation, that's a let's-trust-each-other-enough-to-speak-openly-without-being-hurtful situation. As for psych/emotional abuse, I don't see where that factors in here, unless it's someone messing with your head by buying you stuff you expressly don't want. If you know it's a problem--a gift of Omaha Steaks to a vegan--then you state your limit clearly. If it's at all fuzzy, you decline to enagge. But that's hardly a fitting answer to such a nuanced situation. How to hold a boundary against an intimate who doesn't respect them is an answer that requires attention to the detail of a particular situation. If you're trying to read my slant there, I don't think you'll raelly see it except over time.
Please help... situation worsening: I have a nephew (age 9) who is exhibiting some serious psychological problems. Specifically, he talks about killing people and blowing up the world and drawing violent pictures. The other day, I found out that he held a knife to his chest and threatened to 'end it all because he disappoints everyone.'
My brother thinks he's 'just being a boy' and refuses to acknowledge that the kid needs psychiatric help. He won't listen to anyone, including his wife or our mom. Wife won't 'disobey' husband; and mom/grandma doesn't want to tell her son how to parent (though she has been pushing wife to get the kid to a psychologist).
Unfortunately, I'm all the way across the country and can't do anything (at least not physically) either. But I do know that the kid needs help... and sooner rather than later.
Carolyn Hax: Do you know where he goes to school? You can contact the head of the school to pass this along.
Riverdale, Md.: I have the opposite problem from Holidays -- my mother-in-law-to-be gets AWESOME gifts, and tons of them. Despite being a good liberal, I don't freak out too much about the consumerism; I donate her very few bobbles, and the rest of it is stuff I use year-round. But I always feel like I come up short in trying to give her something equally good. Any ideas from the peanuts on what a 60-year-old progressive Catholic schoolteacher with limited mobility would like? Besides books, I did that the last two years.
Carolyn Hax: I can't think of anything better than showing her that you appreciate her, and inviting her to join you for [something that you can share, like theater, here] would say that well in gift form. I also think this is where it's important to remember that the joy of giving is its own reward. If she's as good at giving as you suggest, then she would probably be bothered by the idea that she was inadvertently making your life more difficult by creating pressure for you to keep up. be good to her in as many ways as you can. That matters so much more.
Re: Please help: If, you do not get the school to intervene, maybe try the local child services. If, the child is talking like that there maybe a mental or physical abuse situation that you are unaware of especially since you are across the country.
My partner and I always go to our respective parents' houses for holidays. Everyone except us (but including the parents) think this is bizarre and that we should travel as a pair. But we see each other all the time and our families notsomuch. Do you see a downside?
Carolyn Hax: Not until you do.
Olney, Md.: My in-laws had a recent very serious health issue and have gone low-sodium, low-fat, etc. We are having thanksgiving with them and I am wondering if it would be entirely crass to bring a small dessert. I know that my FIL is not supposed to have dessert anymore, although I can say his compliance is far from sure. But, Thanksgiving without pie? Whimper.
Carolyn Hax: Oh come on, you can find a dessert that conforms to their diet. The Internet: It isn't just for porn any more. You can also have your pie the other 364 days of the year, or you can have it T-day furtively in your car like everyone else without serious health issues who can't lay off butter for 24 hours.
Richmond, Va.: Hi Carolyn! So excited to chat on a Monday! I'm wondering...is there a polite way to refuse a friend's request that I invite a friend of hers to join in on an event that I'm planning? This person is trouble with a capital "T" and someone always has to end up babysitting them. Any suggestions for how to tell my friend that I just don't want to include this person -- without destroying my relationship with my friend?
Carolyn Hax: If declining to invite a known problem person would create a problem in your friendship, then your friend is a problem, too. (You got a problem with that?) Just tell your friend you would like to accommodate, but this person is too disruptive. Disruptive Person has made his/her own bed--a point you can make if asked to elaborate.
Thanksgiving without pie? Whimper.: ...Or have something when you get home as a special "us" time. If you can't get though one family reunion without pie, there IS a problem. Respect Dad's health concerns and save the pie for another time.
Carolyn Hax: Is pie affecting your relationships? Is pie causing you to miss work, or affecting your performance at work? Have you told yourself, "I can stop eating pie any time I want"? Have you vowed to stop eating pie after two pieces, then eaten the whole pie?
Washington, D.C.: My ex and I broke up six months ago, and for the last four months, have been attempting to be friends. I still want to be with him, and over these last few months, he has been very flirtacious with me (we've been intimate multiple times). This all stopped a few weeks ago, when he told me that he started to see someone. Now he wants nothing to do with me - no more phone calls or email. I'm a mess - how do I pick up the pieces? Is this for the best that we do not communicate? I miss him very much and consider him my best friend.
Carolyn Hax: I'm sorry. I have no doubt you miss him terribly, but I don't think he's your best friend. To earn that designation, he'd have to prove not only that he knows you well, but also looks out for you. He let you down badly with the flirtation, the sex and the (I'm sorry again) false friendship. They mean he either didn't know you well enough to recognize that you still wanted him back and were staying friends for that reason, or he didn't care enough to guard his actions against raising your hopes falsely. So, I guess that means it is for the best that you arent' communicating--but it's a moot point. He has taken that choice away from you. The way to start picking up the pieces is to get on with the process that the "friendship" was clearly hindering, of recognizing that it is over, he isn't who you had hoped, and your future is going to look different from the one you have imagined. As you get more and more used to that idea, you'll start to see that "different" doesn't always mean "worse." If nothing else, this guy is really bad at navigating another person's feelings, and so even if you were still together, that shortcoming of his was going to put you through hell eventually. Small consolation now, but one that I hope will grow with time and awareness. Hang in there.
Just checking in: Heya Carolyn! I'm the proposal-dreader from a few weeks ago. You and the nuts will be pleased (or possibly disappointed, if you were hoping for a scandal) to know that the boyfriend and I have done some thinking/talking/etc about the Rest Of Our Lives, and I am no longer dreading -- I will happily say yes whenever he asks. (And it's a good thing, too, because he's got some kind of "appointment" to "play golf" with his "father" over Thanksgiving week that sounds reeeeeally suspicious to me.)
Now, to start daydreaming about monogrammed tableware.
Carolyn Hax: You're going to think I'm completely nuts. But I happen to have this lying around: "Re: Bug-eyed about engagement: Me again. Thanks for taking my question. I've been turning it over (and will keep on thinking, per Hax instruction). I think it's partly that the man in question can be really difficult at times -- 98% of the time he's funny, loving, great to be with, but when we do fight, he's a hard arguer and gets super-defensive. Credit to him, he's working on it and we resolve our conflicts well. It's just hard work, and the prospect of a lifetime of that gives me the bug-eye. "On the other hand, I'm totally in love with him, and all relationships take some sort of work. Maybe I need to think about the positive realities of this, instead of just the problems. If you see anything in here, I'm all ears. If not, I'll be sure to post an update for the voyeurs." You posted this to the original discussion a few weeks ago, and I saw it after the fact and hung onto it. First, please accept the voyeurs' thanks for keeping us up to date. Second, has your job of being his Pooh Bear gotten markedly and sustainably easier?
Germantown, Md.: Spouse and I have been having problems lately. For a few months we dealt with it by ignoring it, not talking much, fighting over little non-issues, etc. I know, great approach. About a month ago we finally got everything out in the open. There is blame on both sides. I have made many changes to myself after listening to her reasons for being upset and agreeing that on several issues I have been selfish and have not changed things she has been requesting for years: from not doing enough of her activities with her or not spending enough time with her friends (or doing it grudgingly when I did), to small annoyances like not slamming the front door. Rather than embracing these changes she is overwhelmed by so many changes all at once. I am frustrated because I am trying very hard and it's as if she's not trusting or not accepting these changes. How can I help her to embrace and enjoy the new me? I understand it is a lot of changes all at once but I value my marriage and want to do everything I can to make it work, so doing a couple of changes here and there doesn't seem like the right approach to me. Thanks for any help, Carolyn.
Carolyn Hax: I agree, a couple of changes here and there doesn't seem like the right approach. It might have been a while back, when each of you was asking for a couple of changes here and there. But when those requests go ignored for a long time, the anger sets in, fueled by (I think you'll agree on this, too) a very real sense that the one person who is supposed to care about you more than anyone else in the world can't even bother to change [small thing here] to make you happy. And wow can that anger eat away at your feelings for someone. Now, I'll throw in a disclaimer or two: One, this may be working both ways in your marriage, I can't tell from what you wrote, so I'm going to respond as if it's one-way, wife angry at you. Two, these small changes can be justified and indeed small (and therefore the askee is at fault), or they can be the behavioral equivalent of scaling Everest in knee socks (and therefore the asker is at fault). One spouse asks a small thing and should be met with loving accommodation; another sposue asks a "small" thing and it's really one of a thousand "small things," making Spouse needy and impossible to satisfy (verging on abusive), rightly answered with clear and firmly enforced boundaries. Which are you? I can't say. Many people in these situations can't say. [more]
Carolyn Hax: So here's what you do. You try to get as objective a view as you can about whether your requests of each other in this marriage are reasonable. Talk to people you trust. Run through your mind the behavior of people who seem happy and at peace in their relationships. Take a hard look at your own definition of "normal" in a marriage. Were your parents miserable together, great together, happy but only after they worked at it pretty hard? What's your model? This is informing your judgment, and your judment is informing your behavior. Try to get a handle on these connections so you an trust your judgment more. Then, assess your behavior in your marriage using this informed judgment. Have you been a jerk? Have you both been jerks? Have you been doing your best, for someone who will never see your best as good enough? If you have been a jerk or you both have, then keep up the improved version of you, but know it will take months of heartfelt consistency for these improvements to make a difference. That's because the only message that can counteract the anger is, "I care enough about you to think about someone other than myself." And that message just doesn't get persuasive until it gets applied to the front door, the laundry pile, the sinkful of dishes, etc. If she has been a jerk, too, then you will need to address what you need from her, but only in the framework of your knowing and appreciating how you've let her down. If she's too angry to admit to her share, then, counseling is a swell idea. If, finally, you conclude through your analysis that you're with someone who makes demands just to keep you off balance (it doesn't sound that way, by the way, but SO many people miss it, especially men with needy women, that it should always be considered), then counseling for you alone would be my suggestion. As always, with a two-parter, I hope that made at least 50 percent of sense.
Husband who made lots of changes: It could be that once the wife was "allowed" to be mad in the open, she needed/needs some time to be mad for a while, not just immediately be grateful and happy that everything is changed. It makes the angry person feel even more out of control to be told after years of helpless resentment that "Everything is Okay Now!" Allow her to let her feelings naturally subside. Allow her to process, and hopefully accept, the changes that were made.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks. This is important, the processing part of it. I cited this once before, about a wife who grew angrier and more resentful over time at her husband's refusal to do his share of the housekeeping, to point where he finally made the bed and announced to her, "I made the bed ..." and her answer was, "Great, like I've done every [bleeping] day until now." His asking for a pat on the back was unwitting proof to her that he just did not get the erosion of goodwill between them that he had caused by mistaking her for his maid. Moral of the story, you can't just make a little change, you have to get the bigger message.
The Couch: I am good friends with both halves of a couple going through a really rough time. Thing is, I have come to the definite conclusion that he would be happier if he left. They are in counseling, which is good. But it's not going great.
I know he is going to ask my opinion eventually. I could say "it's not my place" -- but I think that's a total cop out. I know him as well as anyone and I feel like I owe him a straight, honest answer.
Carolyn Hax: Your answer is the series of leading questions: Do you think X will ever change? Do you think either of you will be happy if X doesn't change? And so on. I really would caution against an opinion, unless it's that the other person is abusive.
For Germantown: Is it possible that Germantown's wife enjoys the misery? I have known people who gripe about everything, and constantly change their complaints, even when the subject of the complaint has addressed it appropriately. I sometimes believe those people enjoy having something to be miserable about -- it lets them direct their unhappiness outward and blame someone/something else, rather than looking inward and really having to find out what's bothering them.
Carolyn Hax: It is entirely possible. That's why it's so important to figure out whether the other person is reasonable, fair and (most important) capable of being satisfied. I can't tell you how common it is for people to walk around with a bad case of the if-onlys ("If only I do X for her, she'll ..." relax/trust me/start sleeping with me again/whatever), when everyone else around them sees that the if-only thing never has happened and never will happen. Often it's a control tactic, to keep one's mate attentive to one's every whim. Miserable.
Brother's wedding: I've submitted this a few times before, so I hope you can answer! My brother's wedding is in a few weeks. Problem: my stepdad will be there. He was verbally abusive to me and my brother growing up, but the worst came when I was engaged 2 years ago. He called my now-husband a terrorist and said some awful things, simply because my husband is a foreign-born Muslim. How do I handle him at the wedding? I haven't spoken to him in 2 years.
Carolyn Hax: I don't think you're under any obligation to seek him out (you'd be a much better judge of that, based on your history), but if you're faced with him I think it's acceptable just to greet him civilly, answer a question or two if they aren't inappropriate ("How are you," etc) and then excuse yourself. If he says anything inappropriate, you can point out that you're under no obligation to listen to to this, excuse yourself and walk away.
For "please help": Given the situation, you might consider bypassing the school and going directly to child protective services. The school would first need to address it with the parents or see their own signs of risk before, say, going to child protective services themselves. On the other hand, you have some very clear evidence that the signs of risk your nephew is exhibiting are being ignored. That's neglect, to most child protective services agencies, and your nephew at least deserves to have some adult looking out for him.
Carolyn Hax: Thanks. I wouldn't call CPS without a call to the school, though. The people who are in daily contact with the child ought to know what's going down, so they can anticipate/respond/help out accordingly.
Progressive Catholic MIL gift: Somebody may have suggested this already, but how about a donation to a charity?
Carolyn Hax: Or, even better (if it's feasible) her presence. If the MIL has a cause to which she devotes time, energy and money, the DIL might make an even more meaningful gift of her time and talents. Thanks.
A person is more important than a pie: My daughter has severe food allergies and we've given up on trying to convince my family that she is more important than having nuts at Thanksgiving.
It makes me so sad that she is missing out on a chance to bond with her extended family, but the last time we tried she ended up in the hospital, and they STILL won't change.
Yes, I realize I can't force the world to keep her safe, but I would think family would do so without my even asking.
Carolyn Hax: If it makes you feel better, it's not just your family. I have run across an incredibly persistent, incredibly stubborn strain of person/family that thinks serving a vegetarian meal is an insult to guests, an allergy sufferer is just high-maintenance, and flipping everyone else the bird is an entitlement. Bonds with this family would probably have been nice, but also probably never as rewarding as you had hoped when you were making the effort.
Spouses Changing....: Different couple, same problem. We've talked -- with professional help -- about saving our marriage.
Sure, now she is swallowing her complaints, but I -know- this woman and exactly what she's thinking. The years of pressure and resentment are still there, for all that the packaging is a little nicer.
I'm sure she thinks the same thing. Can we move on?
Carolyn Hax: Can she ever love you the way you are? That is the question I hope you have asked, and I hope she has answered honestly. If not, then it's quiet desperation pas de deux.
Engagement pressure in Virginia: Hi Carolyn,
My boyfriend of two years is starting to receive tons of pressure from his family, friends, and coworkers to propose to me. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that his sister and mine have already planned the wedding; however, he and I have not talked about marriage, and I wonder if I need to let him off the hook, so to speak, by letting him know that I'm not sitting at home wondering why he hasn't proposed yet. I think that we're heading in the wedding/marriage direction, but I'm not in a hurry.
Thoughts? I'm also spending Thanksgiving at his house this week, which I'm sure is going to lead to more wedding suggestions from his folks and family.
Carolyn Hax: Talk to him about it. It's bad enough having an elephant in the room, but when it's wearing tulle and picking out china, it's uniquely distracting.
Washington, D.C.: I have a friend who always makes a big deal out of her birthday (no, she is not 16) by inviting friends to join her in something expensive. Once it was a vacation. Another time we were asked to go to a spa day at a fancy salon. This year it's being held at an expensive restaurant. She expects everyone to attend or have a really good excuse. I can't afford these things, but even if I was rich, I would not spend that much on someone's birthday. I make up a benign excuse, but what I really want to say is "please stop asking people to go broke celebrating your birthday every year". What do you think?
Carolyn Hax: When the invitation is to something you can't afford, say, "I'm sorry, I can't afford that." And when her answer is to put pressure on you, say, "Please stop asking me to go broke celebrating your birthday every year." It sounds as if it would be about time.
Raleigh, N.C.: Regarding nephew with knife... I am a child psychologist. Please, please, please contact the school, or his teacher, or push harder on the parents. While some aggressive play is normal at that age, the level of what you describe is not. He needs to be seen by a professional. What he is doing is a cry for help. Really, he is doing those things because he is practically begging for help. Something is going on with him.
Carolyn Hax: thanks for the push.
Washington, D.C.: How can I make myself 'grow up' and want to adjust to a relationship which involves spending a lot of time with someone instead of spending a lot of time by myself?
Carolyn Hax: Don't. The relationship for you is one that allows for your needs for alone time--sans guilt, pressure, whining, emotional contortionism. Bringing a baby into that relationship would change the terms somewhat--you just don't get as much say in your time when a little person needs you--but even that is something you can have in mind and discuss openly when you're choosing a mate.
Fairfax, Va.: I think my girlfriend is moving down a different and more serious track than I am. She only just stopped herself from saying "I love you" the other night, and I am not in the same place at all.
I like her very much and do care for her, but I'm not ready. I'm not even sure I'm particularly interested in heading down that road at all -- with anyone.
In years past, I would have just started treating her badly until she left; sadly, I'm too old to take the "easy" way out anymore. Clearly I need to say something. But what? I'm so bad at this stuff. Any thoughts on what I should say?
Carolyn Hax: You were too old to take the "easy" way out (i.e., easy on you) before, but that's beside the point. First, you might not need to say anything. Maybe she stopped herself becuase she knows you're not there. That in turn could mean she already knows you're not the committing kind, or she at least knows you need more time. Could be she's better for you than you think. Second, you might need to pay attention to your own behavior. Are you treating her like a potential mate, knowing that's what you need to do to get what you want from her? Then you need to start being more honest in your actions, before you even get to the words. And if you've weighed both but still feel like she's running away with the wrong idea, then you need to just risk looking like the stereotypical jerk commitmentphobe and say that you feel like the relationship is getting ahead of you. it may sound bad coming out, but it'll sound worse if it doesn't.
Carolyn Hax: To the no-longer-door-slamming husband--I just got your follow-post, but I have to go. Instead of slaming together an answer, I'm going to re-post to the Nov. 30 discussion, and answer you then. Sorry for the cliffhanger, but it just makes more sense this way. To everyone--this is goodbye, obviously. Thanks for coming, happy Thanksgiving and I'll type to you next Friday.
|
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.
| 186 | 0.585366 | 0.780488 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111600904.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111600904.html
|
Book World Live
|
2007112319
|
Anthony Bourdain fielded questions and comments about his new book, "No Reservations."
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
Anthony Bourdain's television series, "No Reservations" appears on the Travel Channel. He is the author of several other books, most notably "Kitchen Confidential."
Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.
Anthony Bourdain: Hi, everybody. Live from Minneapolis....I see some interesting questions!
Claverack, N.Y.: What is the difference between a Guinness served in the U.S. and a Guinness served in Dublin?
Anthony Bourdain: The difference is...magic. Maybe it's the freshness? I dunno. I DO know that the farther you get from Dublin, the less wonderful the stuff is.
Alexandria, Va.: At this point, you've been everywhere, twice. What are your top 2 or 3 favorite places out of all the places you've been?
Anthony Bourdain: Vietnam. Brazil. Singapore. Bali. All great places with great food.
Boston, Mass.: Mr. Bourdain, you show and your books are really great, good to see from a fellow son of New Jersey.
I'd be interested in knowing what direction you think the food/restaurant/cooking/travel shows on cable are heading? I've noticed people lamenting the decline of the Food Channel, I agree with this, what's the next big thing? I'd really like to be able to watch cooking/travel shows from all the other countries on earth, not just the U.S.
Anthony Bourdain: What direction is food/travel TV taking? Where is it likely to go? Well...one need only look at Have Fork Will Travel--where Food Net apparently hired some comedian to travel the world making fun of people's accents. They will continue to blunder along, looking to find the next "hip, happening, edgy" concept--while at the same time staying the same. An impossibility. Organically, most nets (except Travel Channel, of course)can only allow themselves to do what has been done before.
Mclean, Va.: Tony, per your recommendation during your appearance at GWU earlier this month, I went and bought "Ratatoullie." You're right, it was the best cooking movie I've seen. The only one that comes close was "Big Night." Any other film recommendations?
Anthony Bourdain: Eat Drink Man Woman, Mostly Martha, Babette's Feast, La Grande Bouffe and Tampopo are all great food movies.
Tucson, Ariz.: Because institutionalized fast food is America's gift to the world, what is the general attitude of people around the world towards this?
Anthony Bourdain: Sadly, the face of American cuisine internationally--in fact, the face of America's cultural identity worldwide is largely defined by the Clown, The Colonel and the King--and the expanding thighs of their adherents.
Washington, D.C.: I may be betraying my age, but whenever I see your show I think you're channeling a Richard Hell or Tom Verlaine or Stiv Bators. Were you in Manhattan during the 1975-1979 period and what was that like, catering to the foodies in amongst the "Bronx is Burning," "Son of Sam" and 1977 blackout squalor? Half the time I think Curtis Sliwa is going to burst onto your show and try to clean it up.
Anthony Bourdain: LOVED Richard Hell and the Voidoids, and Television--and the Dead Boys and the Ramones--and in many ways, my musical tastes are stuck in that time. That said, those were not particular wonderful times to be in NYC. And I was pretty messed up. It's easy to over-romanticize that era because of all the good music. But so few of those bands ever made a dime.
I love your TV series. What do you consider to be some of the differences between instructional food TV and adventure food TV? PBS continues to air primarily cooking instruction shows (I still think Caprial Pence is underrated and her perky girl attitude was co-opted by you know who), but Discovery Networks, HGTV and Food Network mix up food adventure with food instruction. The only thing I don't like is the attempt to mix the two. Martin Yan's or Emeril's or Paula Deen's style of humor just doesn't cut it for me -- more cooking, less "personality" please. So tell me, what do you consider the critical lines that food adventurers and food instructors shouldn't cross on their shows?
Anthony Bourdain: Interesting question about lines that shouldn't be crossed. My suggestion would be to never mock a host or a culture who are giving the best they have in good faith. To never pretend you're even more stupid and ignorant than you are in real life for purposes of comedy. (Alternately, To RAISE expectations--not lower them). To never spit out food in front of your host or be knowingly or uncaringly rude. To never turn down a sincere offer of a drink. To NOT frighten children with your frozen, glassy-eyed rictus of a TV smile and piercing accent.
Millbrae, Calif.: What do you think of this obsession that certain non-French chefs have with Michelin stars?
Anthony Bourdain: Michelin stars are the traditional route to money and prestige for chefs. It;s like asking "what's this obsession with Oscars" to an actor. And we all--all of us who cook in the Western cooking tradition, owe a debt to French techniques and classical methods. And that has an emotional grip on us.
Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.: Tony, first off, your show and books are absolutely amazing. I really enjoy your witty commentary on food culture.
Now for my question! Are you planning on writing any more fictional stories?
Anthony Bourdain: Yes. I'm writing one now. Should be out next year some time.
Malvern, Pa.: Hello. Big fan. Love "No Reservations" show.
What food experience (on your show or anywhere) has made you the most sick (you know the vomiting and diarrhea variety)? I've seen you eat some sick stuff.
It's great to watch but I'm not as brave as you are.
Anthony Bourdain: The warthog poop chute required a few weeks on antibiotics ...
I'm meeting my mother in mid-town NYC tomorrow for lunch. We only have a couple of hours. Anywhere near Grand Central we should try?
Anthony Bourdain: Uh...how about Les Halles?
Anonymous: Man, you sure booked out of the Food Fight pretty fast. How was the chili halfsmoke?
Anthony Bourdain: Mmm... mystery meat! Good!
Reston, Va.: Is there any place in the world you will not visit -- or any food you will not eat?
Anthony Bourdain: No Myanmar right now--as I'm not happy with the idea of encouraging tourism for a particularly unlovely regime.
And no live monkey brain. Ever.
Washington, D.C.: Hi Tony -- My husband idolizes you! Are there going to be more DVD sets of "No Reservations" any time soon? He's only been able to find season one.
Anthony Bourdain: I assume there will be more DVD's. In the meantime, I think you can download from iTunes.
Reston, Va.: I notice that France doesn't make your list of favorite places. What's your take on French food? Are there any countries in Europe you particularly like -- Spain maybe? (I'm thinking Basque cooking, or Catalan.)
Anthony Bourdain: Love Spain and love the Spanish. Crazy for Basque country and have a deep love for Juan Mari Arzak and Elena Arzak's restaurant in Saint Sebastian. Also a fan of Barcelona, Ferran Adria and everyday Spanish food. Spain and Italy are the very best of Europe.
Arlington, Va.: Is there anything worth watching in the way of cooking shows these days (in your opinion)? (I mean real shows where people actually cook, a la the great Julia Childs.)
Anthony Bourdain: I don't hate Ina Garten. She actually cooks "correctly". You actually learn how to do it right on that show.
I think Molto Mario was a great, instructional series. So, of course, the nitwits at FN cancelled it.
I love Jacques Pepin. I appreciate Nigella's taste in food--particularly pork fat, though she isn't a professional. And while frightened by Giada's large head, I think she cooks pretty well on that show. Oh..and I dig Lidia Bastianich.
Seattle, Wash.: When's your Holiday Spectacular (Craptacular?) show airing? I can't wait to see the QOTSA in their horrific holiday sweaters.
Also, how long has it been since you've cooked a meal as a professional?
Anthony Bourdain: I think our ultra-violent Holiday Special--with foie gras propaganda, Curling explained!, musical guests, Queens of the Stone Age and blood-soaked turkey-fest is airing Dec. 10th on Travel. The QOTSA guys were absolutely amazing and fun and put up with a lot for the show.
Washington, D.C.: What's your beef with Bobby Flay? Can't blame him for the overabundance of attention the guy gets.
Anthony Bourdain: Honestly? I have no beef with Bobby. I have a lot of respect for him as a restaurateur and as a guy who has accomplished a lot in his life. His restaurants are very decent. I just hate his shows.
Washington, D.C.S: So, the two places I've lived outside the U.S. you have done a show on (as far as I know), Scotland (don't laugh -- there are lots of great opportunities for salmon, lamb, duck...and there's a definite French influence) and Emilia-Romagna. Any plans for these? Or where can we look forward to?
Anthony Bourdain: Scotland with Ian Rankin coming soon.
23rd and N: Hi Tony,
I love "No Reservations" and am always excited to see you on Top Chef. Hope you will be back to guest judge next season. I have to know: were CJ's broccolini REALLY that bad?
Anthony Bourdain: I hated to see CJ kicked off the show. But yes, his broccolini WAS that bad. And barely mentioned in the edit was the fact that his fish and sauce that week were similarly awful. Truly truly horrible. He's a great cook and a great guy--and I gather he's cool with what I said and that he got tossed. But his food was the worst of the lot that week. And on Top Chef? That gets you voted off.
Cleveland Park, Washington, D.C.: Speaking of live monkey brains, what did you think of Andrew Zimmern eating live lobster tail? Seems a bit much to me.
Anthony Bourdain: Been there. Done that. Yeah. The lobster is a little tough. And it's unsettling.
Washington, D.C.: If you could only eat ONE type of cuisine the rest of your life what would it be?
Anthony Bourdain: Japanese. If I had to? I could eat sushi every day.
Washington, D.C.: My husband and I spend many rainy Saturdays watching reruns of your show. I lived in Ghana for a while, so that episode is my absolute favorite. The Rajasthan episode inspired our next vacation!
Any hints on where you'll be headed in the next season? I'd love to see your take on South Africa, Zanzibar or Morocco.
Anthony Bourdain: Look forward to Laos, Singapore, New Orleans, Crete, Romania, Columbia, Tokyo, Vancouver, and on and on and on....
Baltimore, Md.: Anthony, I love your Rock 'n' Roll take on life and world travel. I have seen you get tattooed a number of times so far on "No Reservations," but what, to you, is your most meaningful tattoo, or tattooing experience and why?
P.S. I went to a job training a little while ago, and we had to go around and say our career aspirations. I said "I want to BE Tony Bourdain!"
Anthony Bourdain: My wife and I each have a knife with a single drop of blood on our backs.
Washington, D.C.: If you had to eat every meal at one restaurant for the rest of your life (other than your own) what would it be?
Anthony Bourdain: Maybe...Masa in New York? The menu changes every day--and it's Japanese and the chef is a genius.
Washington, D.C.: Would you ever consider challenging Chef Flay or Batali on Iron Chef? Would the Travel Channel even allow this?
Anthony Bourdain: No way. I'd get my ass kicked. And with my luck, the secret ingredient would probably be Tofu.
Annapolis, Md.: Good Afternoon --
I enjoy your show, and loved Kitchen Confidential when I read it. Do you ever have trouble with unadventurous eaters? I have many friends and relatives who are so hesitant to try new things that I have trouble when traveling with them, because we wind up eating bland, boring food in bland, boring restaurants. Do you have any tips for coaxing them away from their comfort zones?
Washington, D.C.: I find your commentary the most memorable thing about Top Chef, which isn't saying much. Isn't it a little like having color commentary on a little league game? But, comme chez soi in Brussels, world series.
Anthony Bourdain: I love doing Top Chef. I'm a fan. I watch every episode. It's fun. And the quality of cooking/contestants are pretty good. What I love best is that it's not bent. Best food gets you the win. Worst gets you gone. The judges spend a LOT of time considering. I think that's refreshing after the suspiciously bathos-loaded Next Food Network Star.
Since you brought up Spain...: I'm taking my first trip to Barcelona soon so any other suggestions for places to hit up? I love cava and pork products if that helps.
Anthony Bourdain: You're going to the right place. Jamonissimo for pata negra. And Cava is everywhere.
How you can eat so much and stay thin as a rail?
And do you really eat those full plates of food brought to you or does your crew dig in too?
Anthony Bourdain: I really do eat those plates of food and often seconds. But my crew also eats (additional portions). We usually hang out with our hosts--before and after the shooting. It makes things more relaxed and natural--and fun that way and is, I think, what separates our show from those where the host just shows up, takes a bite for the camera and then everybody runs away. We try to actually connect with people and enjoy ourselves. We're lucky to do what we do--we don't want to waste it.
Washington, D.C.: Would you win Top Chef if allowed to compete?
Washington, D.C.: Just got DVD of your first season TV program, as I read an article about you and you seemed like a cool guy. I have traveled the world eating as well and you looked to be better than the usual brain-dead make-fun-of-other-cultures people. I was right about that part. You have a passion and respect for this and it shows. But...what about the food, dude? I saw great things on the table in Paris on your show but the one thing that was missing was...the taste! How did it taste? All of it. That never came through on the program. I am looking for an intelligent American who can present the food of the world in a respectful way and...in a way that I can taste it. You are so close, but thus far no cigar. Black pudding? Great! But how does it TASTE to you. I need to see that you really love EATING the food.
Cheers. I will probably buy your book and more of the DVDs -- fingers crossed that they improve as the season goes on.
Anthony Bourdain: I think that writing about food and describing taste all the time risks sounding like writing porn. There are only so many adjectives before you cheapen the experience. I think that if we SHOW you the food and describe the ingredients well enough--and you see it cooking--and you get a sense of where we are and the surroundings and the context and the smell of the room, then that's enough. That an occasional "awesome!" is fine. You do the rest. How many times can you use the words "crunchY', "unctuous", "minerally" before they lose all meaning--or worse, become too clinical?
Fairfax, Va.: Your show is so different from most travel programs -- both the attitude and the essay-like narration. Was it a struggle selling The Travel Channel on this approach? Did network execs have reservations about No Reservations?
Anthony Bourdain: The Travel Channel has--amazingly--been extraordinarily permissive, supportive and easy to work with. Pat Younge, the "Big Cheese" at the network, in particular. He's stepped in to "save" shows when middle management boneheads have demanded cuts. The network has given us as much "creative control" as anyone has ever enjoyed in television history. They actually LIKE innovative, new, previously untried stuff! They let us go anywhere we want. So if you hate a particular episode--it's no one's fault but mine. They've been great. Hard to believe possible of any network--particularly after my Food Net experience.
Alexandria, Va.: What do you like so much about Japanese cuisine? (I'm totally falling for it myself, but I can't figure out why. It's weird. )
Anthony Bourdain: Fresh, clean, refined--it removes all but the necessary. And because it's the end product of centuries of thinking very seriously about food and pleasure. And because the Japanese can and will pay 300 dollars a POUND--wholesale--for the best fish.
I know you have been critical of chefs with endorsement deals. Maybe it was just coincidental, but to me your segment of the Cleveland episode of "No Reservations" looked suspiciously like Skyline Chili may have provided promotional consideration. I am from Ohio, so I know the product well. The ingredients, including neon orange "cheddar" cheese and bland, industrially produced hot dogs don't seem like the typical fresh street food that is featured on your show. Add to the fact that the company logo of this chain restaurant was all over the camera shots, it just looks a little suspicious. Or is this all just a coincidence?
Anthony Bourdain: The Skyline Scene was there so that I could torture and embarrass Cleveland native, Michael Ruhlman. I have never endorsed a product. I have never taken a thing of value in return for consideration. There's been no product placement. It's been suggested that Heineken has a deal with us. Nope. I just drink a fair amount of the stuff. How could I--with a straight face--endorse chili over spaghetti?!!!
Springfield, Va.: What music do you like to listen to while you cook?
Anthony Bourdain: Curtis Mayfield, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Chili Peppers...Stooges, Parliament/Funkadelic...Surf instrumentals, soundtracks...you name it.
Forget food, travel and restaurants for a second and let's talk Yankees baseball. As a die-hard fan, how do you feel the team is shaping up so far this off-season (Girardi replacing Torre, A-Rod's return, etc.) and do you think they have what it takes to put the Red Sox back in their place and start winning championships again?
Anthony Bourdain: I'm heartbroken Torre isn't returning.
Food Net Experience?: Sorry, for those of us who don't know, what was your Food Network experience like? Permission to be as diplomatic as necessary...
Anthony Bourdain: I had two good and pretty indulgent years there. Then the new regime came in. You see the result every day. Peer deep into the horror of Sandra Lee's eyes!
Bethesda, Md.: I agree with you -- too much "yummy" talk on some of (most of) the FN shows. If it wasn't good, why would you be there in the first place?
Anthony Bourdain: Things were different then--but perhaps, I naively figured that I could turn a few tricks, take a long shower and that I'd feel fine about myself in the morning. Seriously? The then VP, Eileen Opatut--and the Pres, Judy Gerard were pretty cool to me. They let me make TV I'm still pretty proud of--travelling anywhere I wanted to in the world. When that changed and they were gone ? So was I.
Washington, D.C.: Are you finding it harder to travel now that you've got a child at home? She must grow a lot in the time that you're gone.
Anthony Bourdain: Thanks for playing! Thanks for coming. Thanks for the questions...and keep watching. best, Tony
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Join live discussions from the Washington Post. Feature topics include national, world and DC area news, politics, elections, campaigns, government policy, tech regulation, travel, entertainment, cars, and real estate.
| 104.463415 | 0.560976 | 0.707317 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601524.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/16/DI2007111601524.html
|
The Chat House
|
2007112319
|
Age of Aquarius: Are we in some weird sports cosmic plane right now with footballs bouncing off uprights and supports, teams being called back onto the field, Cuisinart college football polls, Randy and TO dueling banjos, home-run king indictments, Buffett advising ARod and Pats perfection? Will Al Gore be a guest on PTI to explain it is all due to global warming?
Michael Wilbon: Hi Everybody...I'm in Denver for tonight's MNF game, where who knows what in the world will take place...Per this first question, as strange as the sports universe seems these days, it has cycles like this all the time...Every year there's some stretch that defies logic, where a boxer bites off a chunk of his opponent's ear and a string of crazy things happens...That's why we love it. That's why reality TV tries to duplicate it. It's why they play the games and why we watch...
New Orleans: Despite the losses, doesn't it seem that Jason Campbell is establishing himself as the current and future quarterback for the 'Skins?
Michael Wilbon: Yes sir...It's been a long, long time since the Redskins had a mid-20s guy establish himself as a franchise QB. Seriously...The Redskins got Mark Brunell old, Brad Johnson fairly old (though he did win a Super Bowl for somebody else)...Gus Frerotte and Heath Shuler weren't the real things, though Frerotte, for a guy who wasn't supposed to make it, has been around what, 13, 14 years...He's had a nice career, but he was never a guy you'd build around. The Redskins had Trent Green when he was up and coming but the sale of the franchise after Jack Kent Cooke's death led to him leaving for St. Louis...How far do we need to go back, to Mark Rypien? That's a long, long time. But Campbell seems to be that guy. The Redskins need to replenish his offensive line and he needs another deep threat, but my goodness he knows how to throw. He seems calm enough for a guy in his first full season starting...How could you be unhappy with anything you've seen from Campbell is you're a Redskins fan...or a Redskin?
Accomac, Va.: So, who will be the head coach of the Redskins this time next year?
Michael Wilbon: Oh, can't you just let a few more weeks play out? Suppose they make the playoffs and then win a game or two? I don't know. Bill Cowher is an easy answer. We all know by know beyond a sliver of doubt that Dan Snyder is enamored of big splash hires. He's not going to seek out the next Ken Wisenhunt or Mike Tomlin...I don't believe you'll see Bill Parcells, but Cowher is on a TV set these days and we know that won't last for long.
Detroit: I know many alums will be happy that Lloyd Carr is leaving, but even if Michigan should move in another direction, Coach Carr exhibited the kind of class that is sorely missing in college football today. Sure has a losing record against OSU and lost some big games, but he did so much for his players, for his school and the community. Michigan Football will not be the same without him.
Michael Wilbon: I'm not going to get into a debate about how much class Lloyd Carr has...or doesn't. I don't know. He seemed, mostly, to be a crusty, cantankerous, jerk to me...And that doesn't matter in the final analysis because he's been a great coach. He won one more national championship (a share, I think in 1997) than Bo Schembechler. Carr was good enough as a coach to get his team to recover from those shattering losses to open the season, both at home. Coaches are supposed to do a lot for their players, and the vast majority do...So, I'm not going to write him a love song. But the guy was a damn good coach, consistently. And if the Michigan alums want him out because of his record against Ohio State they're being silly and short-sighted. Michigan football steers clear of scandal, produces NFL players and fine college graduates annually...These schools and their idiot alums had better be careful about running off coaches as good as Lloyd Carr. Ask Nebraska. Ask Notre Dame.
You've been fairly critical of Belichek this season, especially in regards to his personality. Have you ever had a chance to spend time with him or conduct an interview with him? Most people who spend time with him come away impressed.
Michael Wilbon: I've been both critical and praising, and wrote a column a week or two ago talking about spending time with Belichick who is very, very impressive. I'm appreciative of the time he granted me. Just because I like somebody -- and most people have NO idea how different he is socially -- doesn't mean I'm not going to deal with the issues he's involved in. He cheated. That's not arguable. The NFL fined him and his team for it. That's one piece. Now, he's the best coach in the league, period. He's probably the best over the last six or seven years. His teams are the smartest, best-prepared, most clutch teams in the league. Like most people, Belichick is complex...and that justifies observation that is both critical and praising.
Washington, D.C.: The '85 Bears beat teams by an average of 16 points per game. The '07 Patriots are doing it by 22 ppg (in a parity driven era). If the Pats can run the table and go 19-0, will they be considered the best ever?
Michael Wilbon: Yes. Absolutely. No question in my mind. I don't know if they're the most dominant. The Bears still own that distinction after 22 years because they battered people, made them quit...quite literally made them not want to play. And they did it by 16 points a game with a basic offense, not this Star Wars thing the Patriots trot out every week. The Bears scared you, these Patriots awe you...
Ravens/Browns... are you kidding me with that ending?
Michael Wilbon: How great was that? I was watching live on DirecTV (by the way, if you love pro football and don't have Sunday Ticket you're just...well...not with it) and screaming at the TV. I'm just glad the officials got it right. I don't care if they looked at the jumbotron or sneaked a peak at the replay or asked somebody upstairs to give a hand signal. Getting it right is all that matters. Kudos to the officials for doing so.
Panic in D.C.: Hey Michael,
Don't you think that the Redskins are in a decent position. The next three games are Tampa Bay on the road and then Buffalo and Chicago at home. I think we could win all three of those games and find ourselves at 8-5. Isn't it a little too early to panic or call for the head of Gibbs?
Michael Wilbon: Refresh my memory...how many times have the Redskins won three straight this year? You're counting victories when they needed OT to beat the Dolphins and a great degree of luck to beat the Cardinals? At home? The Redskins are in it. Don't try to draw conclusions. They're in it. They've got a good chance to make the playoffs by winning two of the three games you mention...Last I checked, Tampa Bay has a better record than the Redskins, a more experienced QB and they're playing at home...The Redskins ought to beat the sorry Bears...but Buffalo is better than you think, too.
LA, CA: There was nothing "weird" or "cosmic" about the fact that The Skins couldn't cover T.O. was there?
Michael Wilbon: I'm so sick of these zone defenses that let T.O. and Randy Moss just wander into the end zone with guys looking back in confusion because the corner thought he had help and didn't, or the safety thought the corner was going to run with the guy down the field and didn't...COVER THE @&$^$%#*)&(*^%&$^# receiver with two guys like in the old days. Double-team, man to man. COVER HIM! Coaches stay awake all night to devise this garbage? Hell, I can devise a scheme sitting here at my computer than will let T.O. run behind my guys all afternoon. How hard is that? Cover Patrick Crayton single, and double T.O. every snap. Make the tight beat you, or force the Cowboys to run the ball...Sure, Jones and Barber are capable of beating you. BUT NOT IN ONE PLAY! How bright is it to continually let the best receiver on the field run past you?
Baltimore: Hello Mike: Who do you think will go first, Joe Gibbs or Brian Billick? (please say Billick)
Michael Wilbon: I'm not going to engage, week after week, in these silly "Who's going to get fired" garbage...So stop asking. Both teams have six games to play. Suppose they both make the playoffs, unlikely as it seems...Stop. There's got to be something more creative on your mind, and if not there ought to be.
Boston: Word is that Lowell is staying with the Sox and accepting three years instead of four. With ARod, Posada and now likely Rivera and Lowell all staying with their teams, have free agents figured out the grass isn't always greener on the other side?
Michael Wilbon: For now. Temporarily. Then next year or the next a bunch of people will jump ship and we'll come to a different conclusion. Nothing last for long...
I agree with you about warning schools that if they run off their coach, the next one might be far worse, but all the folks in Michigan can see is that Ohio State ran off John Cooper because he couldn't beat Michigan, although he averaged more than 9 wins a year. OSU hired Jim Tressell, who is 6-1 against Michigan. So sometimes is does work out.
Michael Wilbon: And many many times, it doesn't. My point is, it's risky. Very risky.
Pocomoke City, Md.: It looks like the Wizards will take it to the next level this year. But the question is -- next level UP or next level DOWN?
Michael Wilbon: Too early to know that. They've responded to the 5 straight losses to start the season with 4 straight victories, which is pretty decent. The schedule gives the Wizards a chance to get above .500 with a cushion if they can keep rolling for another week or two..Question, of course, is when Gilbert (if?) is going to be 100 percent physically. He isn't now. And in the meat of the schedule, the Wizards will need him to be...although I think it's a silver lining that they have to play without him a bit or with him playing reduced minutes. This team has been FAR too dependent on Arenas. Jamison can play. Butler can play. And so far I LOVE what I see from Brendan Haywood.
Anonymous: Do you get into the NBA this early in the season or when can you really start talking about who are the good and bad teams.
Wiz: four in a row. Thats nice to see.
Michael Wilbon: I get into the NBA from Day 1 because I'm paid to do so. Hell, I got into it from Day 1 anyway because I love professional basketball. You need to see 25 or 30 games to have a really good idea, and sometimes we're looking at 40 or so. But 30 games should really give you some indication, presuming relative health thereafter.
Bethesda, Md.: I noticed Randy Moss and TO don't celebrate touchdown passes like they used to. Any reason they've calmed down the flamboyancy?
Michael Wilbon: Randy Moss was never much into dances and choreographed stuff the way T.O. has been. I don't know this but I suspect it just got old and T.O. knows this might be his best chance to play for a championship team and simply cut the theatrics. Whatever the case, good.
Annapolis, Md.: Did you watch the game between the Cowboys and Redskins yesterday?
I may be in the minority here, but I am patient and realistic when it comes to the Redskins -- and I was very pleased to see Jason Campbell unwind it yesterday and show what he can do.
I think he's the real deal.
Michael Wilbon: See above answer!
New Orleans: While watching the Saints-Texans game, it was interesting to watch the battle between the No.1 and No.2 picks of last year's draft. Mario Williams definitely won.
Michael Wilbon: Great point. And this is why people need to stop drawing definitive conclusions after one year in professional sports. Mario Williams looked pretty darned good, didn't he?
Washington, D.C.: Eddie Jordan has taken a lot of heat in DC, but he finally seems to have learned that the Wiz are a better team with two 7 footers on the floor at the same time. Imagine that!
If the new Haywood isn't a complete mirage, and Blatche steps it up we're looking at a pretty good team, no?
Michael Wilbon: Pretty good, yes. I think so. The Wizards need size and toughness, and Haywood and Blatche together provide at least the size. And it gives the team some flexibility, which is more important when you don't play shut-down defense. We'll see over the next couple of weeks whether the Wizards learn how to play that way...I think it will be beneficial in the long run.
Washington, D.C.: No more questions about which NFL coach gets fired --
instead, which top-ranked BCS team will lose this weekend?
Michael Wilbon: Great question...I like Kansas over Mizzou and I have LSU LOSING to Arkansas! You think I'm out on a limb. I'm feeling pretty cocky after picking the Jets to beat the Steelers yesterday in my confidence pool.
Are you looking over the edge of the Saints bandwagon and deciding if it's safe to jump?
Michael Wilbon: You didn't see me back off that puppy? I'm gone. I picked the Saints to lose yesterday, too...what a reality check for me.
Fairfax, VA: Marty Shottenheimer was fired for being too conservative and having a run first defense. The Chargers GM wanted to open it up more. Looks like he didn't know Phillip Rivers as well as Shotty did.
Michael Wilbon: It was plain dumb to fire Marty Schottenheimer. Dumb and stupid...and the Charges front office is getting what it deserved.
Vienna, Va.: Mike, what's the best way to get snail-mail to you? The Post, ESPN in Bristol, Atlantic Video over near Mt. Vernon Square? I have a recent magazine article inspired by your March Madness story about JTIII as compared to the experiences of his father, and I would like to share a dead-tree version of it with you. Thanks!
Michael Wilbon: Send it to Atlantic Video at 650 Mass. AVE NW, D.C. 20001...
Reston, Va.: What is going on with Marvin Lewis and the Bengals? Are they going downhill?
Michael Wilbon: Going downhill? They're at the bottom of the hill already. This is a classic case of deciding talent trumps every consideration. Marvin Lewis, who I like tremendously, picked these players including the lawless knuckleheads that rendered the top of one of his recent drafts useless and took his team down. I'm not saying you have to take boys scouts in the draft. But you can't do what Lewis did...Now, even the great professionals like Carson Palmer and Willie Anderson seem affected. That team is a mess and I don't know what the quick fix is. They're wasting the best years of a golden-armed QB.
Tenleytown, Md.: Okay, I'll bite..if you got LSU losing (and if you picked the Jets, you are HOT right now), who plays in the BCS title game?
Michael Wilbon: Hell, I'm hot right now...not necessarily two weeks from now when we see how all this plays out. Suppose Kansas and Arkansas both lose? We're looking at West Virginia vs. Mizzou? Or West Virginia vs. Ohio State (in case Missou loses to Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game)...I don't know...I just want to see the BCS in a shambles every year until college football gets a playoff system.
A-Rod Consults with Warren Buffett: I guess this shouldn't have been so surprising. Warren probably doesn't have much chance to heart to heart with people who are as loaded as he is...
Michael Wilbon: It's the smartest thing A-Rod could have done, consult Mr. Buffett. My question is, shouldn't he be able to get some sound advice from his agent, Scott Boras? Apparently not. Kenny Rogers bolted from Boras. Let's see if it's a trend.
RE: Coaches: I saw what you wrote about the questions but please offer your insights as to whether Joe Gibbs looks like he's having ANY fun this season?
Michael Wilbon: I have no idea. I don't cover the Redskins every Sunday like I used to...I've seen Gibbs twice, after the Philly game early in the season when he was darned happy and two weeks ago after the Jets game when he was darned happy again. You'll have to consult the Redskins chat to get that kind of up close observation on Gibbs. But I don't think coaches in the NFL, or any professional sport, have ANY fun during a season. It's work, it's stress, it's sleepless nights and weeks. It's pounds gained or lost, hair turning white or falling out. You and I have fun watching. They face a firing squad of people every week asking, "Who's going to be first, Gibbs or Billick?" You think there's any fun in that?
What is the deal with the Bulls?! It seems like every single player on that team is slumping. I don't buy the whole "Kobe trade rumors made us distracted" line, either. How are they going to turn it around?
Michael Wilbon: Good observation. The Kobe rumors did kill them the first few games, but they still stink. I saw the Bulls in person in Phoenix the other night, and a Bulls player who I will not name had a great theory on why they start 3-9, 3-7, 0-8 the last three years (before making the playoffs each season)...He thinks it's because every team plays as hard as is humanly possible the first two weeks, but only a few maintain that level the rest of the regular season. He says the Bulls will continue to play just this hard, most of the others won't, and the results will turn around...Fascinating, really...We'll be able to see whether he's right (again).
Dallas: Everyone is always asking who the Patriots are going to lose to...ENOUGH!
On to more important things...so who are the Dolphins going to beat?
Michael Wilbon: The Bengals and Ravens...I've got the Fish winning twice...Okay, gotta run...Tony is screaming that he wants to get started with PTI prep...Back to D.C. first thing Tuesday, and we'll chat next Monday, post-Thanksgiving, from Pittsburgh. Everybody have a wonderul holiday weekend...Eat, drink...and GET ON A TREADMILL! MW
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.
| 96.512195 | 0.585366 | 0.634146 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/15/DI2007111502204.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/15/DI2007111502204.html
|
Talk About Travel
|
2007112319
|
The Post's Travel Section Flight Crew will take your comments, questions, suspicions, warnings, gripes, sad tales and happy endings springing from the world of ... the world. Of course, the Flight Crew will be happy to answer your travel questions -- but the best thing about this forum, we insist, is that it lets travelers exchange information with other travelers who've been there, done that or otherwise have insights, ideas and information to share. Different members of the Crew will rotate through the captain's chair every week, but the one constant is you, our valued passengers.
We know you have a choice in online travel forums, and speaking for the entire Flight Crew, we want to thank you for flying with us.
You may also browse an archive of previous live travel discussions. For daily dispatches, check out Travel Log, the Travel section's new blog.
KC Summers: Hey everyone, welcome to the chat on the eve (well, almost) of the busiest travel day of the year. That would be Wednesday, and I sincerely hope you're not one of the poor multitudes caught in travel hell. But amid all of our usual complaining, here's a twist: On this week when we're supposed to count our blessings, just what *are* you thankful for about travel? Come on, there must be something. The most thoughtful and/or funny post wins a swell porcelain hula dancer for his or her dashboard, complete with faux grass skirt.
On board today to answer your travel questions are Flight Crew members John Deiner, Andrea Sachs, Scott Vogel, Christina Talcott, and me, your captain of the day. We're also fortunate to have Terry Ward, author of yesterday's "Palm Beach for the REst of Us" piece, here to answer any questions you may have about Florida. So, let's take off.
Reston, VA: I take a few vitamin supplements per day and wondering if I can pack them in my carry on luggage? Does TSA require all pills, including vitamins, to be in the original container? I buy the larger bottles and not sure if I want to bring the whole shebang. Do you have any ideas? I was thinking about putting them all in a small container but then wonder if they ever look inside? Thanks!
Christina Talcott: Hi Reston! TSA only states that prescription medications need to be in their original container whose label matches the name of the person traveling. With non-prescription meds, it seems to be at the discretion of the screener. The only rule about vitamins and non-prescription medications is that gel or liquid capsules may need to be handed over to whomever's screening your bags. Though I've never had a problem getting medications through security, you might want to put them in a container and label it ("Centrum, Echinacea, Vitamin C," etc.), then pack it within reach so you can easily grab it to hand it to the screener.
Occasional flyer: Are battery operated digital cameras considered an "electronic devices" that must be turned off during take-offs and landings?
KC Summers: Interesting question -- and we have no clue. Any experts out there want to enlighten us?
Alexandria, Va: After successfully avoiding any thanksgiving travel for my entire life, I'm flying out of National tomorrow around noon. How bad should I expect it to be? How big a difference would taking only carry-on luggage make?
Andrea Sachs: Not as bad as Wednesday, Thursday or Sunday. Definitely check-in online and print out your boarding pass. And, yes, if you can go carry-on only, that will reduce your stress level immnensely. Also, check your flight status before you go. I flew this weekend and was delayed coming and going.
Flying From Guayaquil to Galapagos: Hi,
I'm heading to Galapagos in December, but my flight from the US doesn't land in Guayaquil until mid-night and the first flight to the Galapagos doesn't leave until 9 am.
Does it make sense to get a hotel room for a few hours and/or do people normally just wait at the airport for flights with this kind of transfer situation?
John Deiner: Hey there. As I recall, Guayaquil's aiport is no place you want to chill for seven or eight hours (actually, most airports are places I don't want to chill for seven or eight hours). I'd get a room somewhere; it be relatively inexpensive. And as wonderful as the Galapagos Islands are, you want to at least have a decent night's sleep before you start your voyage, as there's a lot of hiking on most trips.
Any other thoughts on this?
Arlington, VA: We are driving to Philadelphia from Arlington on Thursday. Any ideas on how bad traffic is leaving Thanksgiving morning will be, or when the best time to leave is?
Also, do you know of anything not to miss in Philly right now (like an arts exhibit or show, etc)?
Scott Vogel: There certainly is an art exhibit you must not miss, and it's the "Renoir Landscapes" exhibition at the Phil. Museum of Art. Held in tandem with the nearby Barnes Foundation, there will be over 250 masterworks by the French painter on display at once (through Jan. 6).
There won't be much aesthetic appreciation on the drive up there. Still, traffic should be lighter on Thanksgiving Day than on the day previous. Travel as early in the day as possible, however.
DCA on Thanksgiving Morning: Hi Crew. We have a 10am flight from DCA on Thursday. Could you remind me--is there an online way to check if parking is full? Or should I just park my car at my job in SW DC and try and catch a cab (relatedly--advice on how to catch a cab on Thursday morning?)
Christina Talcott: Hi DCA, CoGo's Cindy Loose wrote about this last weekend (link to come). You can check http://www.mwaa.com or call 703-417-7275. Parking at your job sounds better, to me, than battling airport lots, as long as you leave yourself enough time to get to the airport via cab or Metro. As for cabbing it, is there a hotel nearby that usually has cabs waiting? If not, you might consider calling ahead for one, or even scheduling a service like SuperShuttle.
Christina Talcott: Here's last week's CoGo.
Silver Spring, MD: Hi there! I've been invited by friends to join a group tour to Mexico City and surrounding sites. I'm usually a much more independent traveler and avoid the group tour thing. That said, nowadays would it be safer to travel that way to MC? Pros and cons? If there are enough cons to traveling with the tour group, I might be able to persuade my posse to go it alone. Would really appreciate your advice.
KC Summers: Hi SS. Sadly, our Mexico City expert, Gary Lee, is no longer with the Flight Crew (but check out his new restaurant, Las Canteras, in DC's Adams Morgan!), so I'm going to throw this one out to the chatters. Anyone been to Mexico City recently who can address the safety issue? I'll also link to Gary's December '06 story about MC though, in which he writes realistically about touring amid a city's turmoil. A bit dated, but still useful.
Claiming Baggage at Reagan National: Hi Flight Crew!
The last two times I checked baggage and claimed it at National, I've had to wait what seems like forever compared to my experiences at other airports. Last year flying Frontier I waited over an hour for the bags to start coming onto the baggage carousel. Two weeks ago I flew ATA from Chicago to National and waited about 45 minutes for the bags to arrive on the carousel. I know both these airlines don't have a huge presence at National, but seems a bit excessive for a wait. Your thoughts?
Andrea Sachs: Agree that is long, but so much depends on other factors, such as how many other planes arrived at that exact same moment and how many ground workers are available to unload bags. I don't think it is necessarily airline related.
Travel gift for my parents: Hi Flight Crew,
My dad is retiring at the end of Dec and for Christmas I'd like to give him and my mom a trip. A few years ago I sent them to the Inn at Little Washington where they stayed the night and had dinner. I'm looking for a place within driving distance of DC (no more than 2.5 hours). They love areas like old town area of Ellicott City--where you can walk around little shops and see historical sites. Any suggestions? Since they are retiring they can now do this during the week so I'm open to anything. Thanks!
John Deiner: Very nice! First, congratulations to your dad -- I'm sure he can't wait. And that was a nice trip you sent them on a few years ago: The Inn at Little Washington? Wow.
A couple of suggestions here: Both Frederick and Fredericksburg have nice little downtown areas with plenty of shops and sites. If you really want to go nuts, send them to the Inn at Perry Cabin and let them wander around St. Michaels, or any of the other little towns in the area (Chestertown, anyone?). Charlottesville has a terrific vibe and plenty of BnBs and hotels. And don't forget Annapolis -- great downtown, the Naval Academy, all sorts of nice lodging and restaurants. Let us know what you decide!
I'm flying out of Dulles on Thursday morning. Will I have trouble finding parking in their lots?
Christina Talcott: Hi Dulles, in Cindy's round-up of airport parking, she quotes National airport spokesman as saying Dulles is guaranteed to have plenty of parking. Call ahead to (703) 572-4500 to check on parking status, or tune your car radio to AM 530 as you're approaching for more updates. But prepare for the possibility that for cheaper parking, you may have to park in an overflow lot and take a shuttle bus to the terminal.
Harrisburg, Pa.: I am most thankful this Thanksgiving for knowing I will not be winning a hula dancer with faux grass skirt.
KC Summers: Harrisburg, just for you I'm going to up the ante. I'm going to throw in a CD by the Ying Yang Twins (too bad they can't spell yin yang), that platinum duo (it says here) responsible for the smash singles "Dangerous" (featuring Wyclif Jean), "Jack It Up" and "Jigglin'." No, I have no idea why someone sent this to the Travel section.
Central Cal: Thanks: I'm thankful that I finally understand that travel can be more than vacation time. It really does help you understand more about people and their views, and how they view us as Americans. More of us should travel.
I wish I would have found this out earlier in my life. And, with the internet and folks like you, travel here and abroad isn't as expensive as I thought, and the stories I can tell...Guiness at the Glenmore Pub in Ireland, snorkling between the Pitons in St. Lucia, even driving to Halifax from Boston (14hrs) with other displaced flyers... just go folks. It really is good for you.
KC Summers: Amen to that, CC.
Cabs in SW: I'm a Southwest resident, and there is in fact a cab stand at the Holiday Inn near FEMA. If not, there's always Metro right nearby!
Christina Talcott: Hey, thanks for the tip for the DCA-bound parker!
Thankful for it ALL!: As I get ready to make the (albeit short) trek to the Philly area for Thanksgiving, I realize that I'm thankful for most, if not all, parts of the trip! First, I'm thankful that I get time ALONE in my car (I work with teenagers), listening to a book on CD I've been waiting to enjoy for months. I'll sip a warm beverage as a tale is told; traffic only means I get further along in my book!
KC Summers: Love your attitude. Happy T-Day to you too.
Washington, DC: I'm driving to NY tomorrow morning--and no, we're not the type to get up with the birds. Should I wait until rush hour is over? Or hit the road as soon as I can? I'm never on the Beltway during the week, so I don't know when the morning rush is over.
John Deiner: Hey, D.C. The Thanksgiving holiday traffic nightmare seems to be spreading itself a little thinner these days, but you never know what you're going to hit: One fender bender, and you have 30,000 eyes that just have to take a look. I'd either hit the road at 5 a.m. or wait till after 9:30, always listening to local traffic reports and keeping my fingers crossed. The Beltway may not be as bad as it usually is if more people are taking the day off, but again, you never know. I'd guess that from 10 a.m. to just after midday will be the best time to rush up there until things get really thick again.
Thankful for: Three trips thus far to the Azores to meet long-lost distant cousins whom I discovered online and began email correspondence with them when I first got Internet. Some of them like to practice their English on me, and I like to practice my Portuguese on them. Plus, the Azores are scenic, largely unspoiled islands (#2 out of 111 vacation destinations on National Geographic Traveler's survey, just published this month); how lucky was I that my ancestors just happened to come from there?!?
KC Summers: Oh, you are so lucky. But it's of your own doing. Good for you. We love the Azores too -- did you see John's piece on them last March? Want a link?
washingtonpost.com: Touring Amid a City's Turmoil, (Dec. 31, 2006)
KC Summers: Here's Gary Lee's story for the Mexico City person.
PR?: is an hour a sufficient layover for a flight transfer in Puerto Rico? Coming from BWI to Antigua, changing in PR? And if not, does the airline have an obligation to me to get me on one of the 2 remaining flights that day?
Andrea Sachs: With so many plane delays these days, that could be tight but it is definitely doable, since you don't have to go through customs or immigration. Best to plot out your Airport Marathon route before you go, so you know which gate you have to race to. Also, try to go carry-on if possible, or carry extra clothes in your onboard luggage, just in case.
And, while the airline does have a responsibility to get you on a connecting flight (if it is the same ticket), if the following flights are booked, you could be stuck. You might have to overnight in Puerto Rico--not a bad place to be, but I'd prefer Antigua.
MD: cameras don't have the ability to transmit a signal - that's the issue. I can leave my phone on during landing and takeoff, I just have to turn off the wireless transmitter/receiver.
KC Summers: I believe you, MD.
Chicago, Ill: Last week there was a question regarding the safety of travel to Sri Lanka. I've been there twice (once just a month after the tsunami). Go! It is a lovely country, and the people are very proud of the history and beauty of the island and want to show it off. I was even invited to a wedding ceremony and reception. I visited Anuradahpura, Sigiria, Dambulla Caves, and Kandy - all UNESCO world heritage sites. Also Horton Plains National Park, tea plantations and Newara Eliya are worth a visit. The conflict is in the North and Northeast, and the only evidence I saw was sandbag bunkers manned by soldier in the diplomatic section of Colombo - Cinnamon Gardens neighborhood. English is widely spoken-and the people are very helpful - for example a taxi driver who took me to the train station didn't just leave me at the door - he helped me at the ticket counter and carried my luggage to the correct platform. Enjoy!
Christina Talcott: That's really great to hear. Thanks for writing in! I was hoping Colombo would be ok to visit, and I'm happy hear you didn't run into any problems there. It sounds like such a beautiful country, not least because of the helpful, kind locals. No doubt Sri Lanka can use all the tourism it can get.
Boston, Mass: What about travel am I most thankful for? Noise-reducing headphones. They changed my life! I arrive at my destination happier and more alert thanks to not having spent hours with my ears completely overloaded.
KC Summers: I know a lot of travelers swear by those and I really ought to invest in a pair -- it just seems like one more thing to remember to take, but it sounds like an essential. Keep an eye out for this Sunday's edition when we check out three of the higher-priced versions.
In response to a letter in the Travel section from this weekend regarding off-airport parking, I want to point out that BWI also offers car-side to curb-side shuttle service in its Express parking lot. In other words, the BWI Express lot features shuttle service that picks up customers directly as their vehicles. BWI's Express lot is a high-level parking product that also includes luggage assistance.
With the current "Express for Less" coupon promotion available on the Airport website (www.BWIairport.com), travelers can save $5 off the full-day rate at the close, convenient Express lot.
I should also point out that with the busy holiday travel season upon us, the Express for Less coupons can be used in the BWI Daily Garage if the Express lot is full.
BWI believes that parking plays an important role in customer service, and BWI offers a number of excellent parking options that are close and convenient to the Airport terminal.
Thank you, and have a great Thanksgiving.
--Jonathan Dean/BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport
Christina Talcott: Thanks for the info!
Washington, DC: I have to travel on business this Sunday morning. My flight leaves IAD at 7am to SFO. I was planning on getting there by 5am. I can't imagine the airports will be that busy so early in the morning. Sound ok?
John Deiner: Hey, DC. I'm thinking you'll be good at that early hour. It's the after-breakfast crowd that'll be packing the planes.
Anyone been to Dulles that early on the Sunday after T-giving?
Anonymous: Comment and a quesiton: for the honeymooners who asked about Catalina in yesterday¿s Q&A column, I would suggest they also consider day outings to Channel Islands National Park and staying in Santa Barbara or Ventura (lots of nice hotels in both). Question: my wife and I may be in Memphis in March. I wanted to go to the Mud Island Museum (river history including the blues), but it will be closed. Any alternatives? My wife wants to go to Graceland. Before Memphis we hope to hit St. Patrick¿s Day in Erin, Tennessee.
Scott Vogel: The couple was actually on their anniversary but your point is well-taken. The Channel Islands would be a wonderful trip. As for Memphis in March, there's a wonderful pre-planned itinerary offered on the official Memphis Web site (www.memphistravel.com). For information on the world-famous Beale Street blues and jazz scene, see www.bealestreet.com, and don't miss the Memphis Rock 'N Soul Museum (www.memphisrocknsoul.org). Both make great supplements to that all-important trip to Graceland.
Albuquerque, NM: I'll be going to Islamorada, FL next March. It will be my first trip to Florida and the Keys. Air fares to Ft. Lauderdale seem much cheaper than air fares to Miami, but the drive from Ft. L to Islamorada is longer. Why are flights to Miami so much more expensive? I know you don't have a crystal ball, but are airfares expected to drop much in the next two months?
Terry Ward: It's only a little over 25 miles between Fort Lauderdale's airport and Miami International - and when I mapped the mileage difference between each airport to Islamorada, MIA's advantage was only 22 miles. So if the price difference is considerable with the tickets you're finding, I say it's worth flying into Fort Lauderdale.
You're right - it's hard to speculate on the likelihood of airfares dropping in the next few months. But with ever-increasing fuel prices and Florida's popularity as a wintertime destination, I certainly wouldn't count on it. One perk about flying into Fort Lauderdale over Miami is Fort Lauderdale's considerably smaller size. A compact airport usually makes everything from luggage retrieval to car rental that much faster. Fort Lauderdale is sounding better and better..
East Coast driving for Turkey: It used to be that driving on 95 early on Thanksgiving morning was a breeze but people have figured that out and now there's a lot of traffic. Late (after 11 p.m.) Wednesday is okay though.
John Deiner: I'm all for the going-late-at-night routine. That's how I travel most of the time, but wasn't sure if our Clickster felt the same way. Thanks for the nudge.
Washington, D.C: I am so puzzled. Air France is having a sale to Europe for Fall/Winter. I can book a $520 RT fare to Dublin (with connection through Paris), and yet the same fare to Paris only is $740? Can I book the fare to Dublin, don't check baggage (carry on only), and then step off in Paris when I get there? How would the airline react when I show up on the return date in Paris and want to take half of my return trip (Dublin to DC) from Paris instead?
Andrea Sachs: It is my belief that if you don't check in at the original departure point (Dublin), the airline will assume that you are a no-show and will give away your seat. And there is no way they will refund your money. Best to either go to Ireland or find a cheaper flight to Paris.
Enjoyed all the feedback on the hapless Naples-bound traveler!
Why was she so adamant about getting flights all the way to Naples, and rejecting a flight that would end in Rome? Those two cities are only about 140 miles apart, less than 2 hours by train or bus! What was she even thinking? Had she looked at a map before going to Italy?
Did you hear anything from Ms. Lanza in response to all the letters to the editor about what she should have done in the first place, that is, take a nonstop from D.C., or else drive/train to Newark?
KC Summers: Hi CC. Cindy Loose, the author of the Lanza piece, is off today, but I know that Lanza told her that she sort of panicked at the airport (probably due to sleep deprivation, from sleeping on the airport floor) and wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously, in retrospect, she should have gone to Rome and taken a train to Naples.
As for not connecting in Newark, that's a little less obvious. It wasn't the connecting itself that was bad, it was in not leaving enough time. I'm paranoid about that sort of thing. For example, when I went to Paris last spring I flew out of DCA and connected in Philly, but booked myself a six-hour layover just to allow for stuff that might go wrong. As it turned out nothing did, but I was content with a book and an iPod.
Arlington, Va.: Are daily disposable contact lenses subject to TSA's 3-1-1 rule? I recently made the switch to daily disposables and haven't been able to find the answer on TSA's website.
Christina Talcott: Though I haven't seen anything specifically saying so, the consensus around the office is that you'd need to put them in your quart-size baggie, since they come packaged in liquid.
Alternate airports: Why do you think people in this area don't really consider Philly or Newark as alternate airports? Taking the train to either airport is simple and even the cost of that can be less than the cost of flying from IAD/DCA/BWI to wherever.
KC Summers: I dunno -- the convenience factor, I guess. But you're right. Getting to BWI is such a hassle at certain times of day from N.Va., it can't be much worse to drive to Philly.
Dupont, Washington, DC: I have an international flight out of Dulles tomorrow at 9:30pm. I don't fly internationally often and since the airport may be busier this week than a normal Tuesday night, I was wondering what time you think I should plan on arriving? Thanks for your help.
KC Summers: Hi Dupont. The airport is advising arriving at least three hours before international flights. Don't cut it any closer than that. Btw, they have a nice holiday travel tips guide at www.metwashairports.com/news_publications/holiday_travel_tips_2.
Thankful for Disney: I recently traveled to Disney with my family and can honestly say I was dreading it. The whole prospect of forced merriment, crowds and noise really had me worried. But I can report I did not hate this trip. And my kids, husband and sister loved it. So I am grateful that this perceived parental obligation is out of the way and that my kids were so happy and loved it so much was quite a nice reward.
KC Summers: Awww. That's nice. I agree completely about Disney -- I also dreaded taking my kids there, but I also believe it's in the Kids' Bill of Rights to go, and it was worth it to know they could hold their heads up high at the school bus stop.
Arlington, VA: I suppose you get this question frequently, but I'll ask it
anyway: Given that the planes will be full this upcoming
Thanksgiving holiday and that nerves will be frazzled, what
is the best diplomatic way to handle kids who kick your seat
onboard planes or stare at you from their seat in front of
you? Do you ask the flight attendant to ask the parents to
restrain their kids, or do you ask the parents themselves?
Ouch. That's always a tough question, because I know it drives people batty when kids are misbehavin' on a plane. Ideally, the parents would make the first move if they see their young'uns kicking the back of a chair, but I think if they continue to kick and the parents continue to ignore, you are totally within your right to turn around and (politely, pleasantly, etc.) ask the parents to step in.
I've often found that just being pleasant goes a long way to getting matters resolved. If it's not resolved? Hmmm. Bring in the attendant.
Baltimore, MD: I am thankful for my parents who took me on trips to Africa, Europe and the Middle East so that I would learn to love to travel as well. No matter if it is to a new U.S. city (like the first time I went to New Orleans) or to the other side of the world (can't wait to visit my friend in China).
I wish more people had the means to see the country and the world. There is no better way to learn.
KC Summers: So true, and it's also good to know that you don't need a whole lot of means to travel cheaply, thanks to youth hostels, the couch-surfing movement, hotels with shared baths, etc.
electronic devices: When they say to turn off your electronic devices during take-off and landing, they usually specify that it includes mp3 players, so it seems to me this would include digital cameras, too. I don't think they're worried only about transmissions (like from a phone).
KC Summers: Hmm. Care to rebut, original poster?
Thankful....: I'm thankful that I've already had my Thanksgiving turkey dinner (holidays are prone to rescheduling when everyone's got ten places to be at once!). On Thursday, I won't even have to leave the house. No crowds, no lines, no traffic, no stress. A friend and I are going to watch movies in our pajamas all day and think of all the poor souls at the airport.
KC Summers: You've got the right idea!
Arlington, VA: Hi, Flight Crew!
My wife, our baby (9 mos.) and I are considering a family trip abroad during Christmas this year. The parameters: a place suitable for baby travel (i.e. nothing exotic); a place where Christmas is celebrated; ideally, a non-stop flight from IAD (or one connection if we have to); and a place where we might find or take advantage of a deal on airfare and/or accomodations (understanding, of course, that we're dealing with a weak dollar). What would be your thoughts and suggestions? We'd appreciate any ideas you have. Thank you!
Scott Vogel: Would love to see if others have thoughts on this one. Given the current poor state of the dollar, it won't be easy to satisfy all your parameters. Having said that, my vote is for Stockholm, one of the most baby-friendly cities I know of (children of all ages seem to be welcome everywhere there), and Christmas is certainly celebrated with gusto. Flights won't be cheap unless you can leave well in advance of Christmas week, but keep your eyes out for deals; SAS does leave nonstop from Dulles.
Something I'm sure many of us want to know.... What's the best time Wednesday to drive up I-95? 7am? 10am? noon?
Is Tuesday night much better?
John Deiner: Hey, Arl. Either go reallllll early (hit the road by 5 a.m.) or go realllll late. My folks make the drive each year from Jersey, leaving about 9:30 p.m., and arrive in Silver Spring by 1 a.m. Yeah, it's a late arrival, but they get real antsy in traffic (don't we all?) and haven't had many problems the past few years.
Washington, D.C.: Flew Spirit airlines to Guatemala last week and what a hassle. Should have known the price was too good to be true.
While we were prepared to have to pay to check luggage we had no idea we would have to pay for everything, even water.
But, the flight down was uneventful so so far so good. The flight back and the connection in Ft. Lauderdale was a different story. We had a very tight turn around time (typically not a big deal), but the fact that you have to go back out to the main ticket counter to recheck your luggage after clearning customs and then have to go through security again made things extremely difficult. There was also no signage whatsoever explaining/pointing you in the right direction in Ft. Lauderdale.
Also, on our flights between Ft. Lauderdale and Guatemala and vice versa not one announcement was ever made in Spanish...not even the safety announcements. That's really silly on the part of Spirit, bordering on dangergous.
KC Summers: Thanks for the report, Wash. A bunch of us have flown Spirit and had no problems (well, other than not being able to carry on our bag -- they forced us to check it), but clearly you had a different experience. The no-Spanish thing seems particularly egregious, I agree.
Alexandria, VA: Getting married next July -- looking to honeymoon in Maine (either Portland or somewhere water-side) for 3-4 days, then head to Montreal or Quebec City for 3-4 days. Biggest problem is: How to we get from Maine to either one of these spots without losing 5-6 hours of travel time or spending $600-$700 in airfare? Flights from Portland only seem to go through NYC and aren't cheap...
Andrea Sachs: Gosh, I am currently stumped. Flights are pretty expensive, and driving will eat up some hours. You can take a combination of trains, but then again you will be en route a lot. My thought is to maybe change your Canadian destination and think about Nova Scotia, a gorgeous parcel of land. On the CAT fast ferry, the crossing time to Yarmouth is 5.5 hours (three from Bar Harbor)--long-ish, but at least you're not driving and you can get some sun and sea on your face. From there, you can explore Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. For ferry info: www.catferry.com.
I am flying out of Dulles on Thursday afternoon (the flight leaves around 2). Will airports still be hectic then, or will it have died down?
Second, I love to travel. However, I was spoiled by traveling with the family, and now that I'm on my own (read: entry-level salary!) I just can't afford expensive travel. Any tips for traveling on a low budget? Are there any websites that keep track of airline specials, etc?
I loved the recent article on on shared-bathroom hotels in NYC...it's inspired me!
Christina Talcott: Hi Fairfax, so glad you enjoyed the NYC hotel piece! As for Thursday, I'd steel myself for a hectic experience and prepare for long security lines (airports.com/IAD says maximum waits can be around 20 minutes Thursday afternoon). Just give yourself plenty of time, bring reading material and music, and you should be fine. As for budget travel, there are so many ways to do it, and we're always trying to offer advice. A few tips: Travel off-peak if you can (on weekdays or 6 a.m. flights); take public transportation when at all possible; stay in hostels or spartan hotels, and find deals online, or try renting an apartment through Cragislist if you're staying more than a few days in a city; save $$ by not eating out every meal, buying bread, fruit and spreads and having picnics when you're out or in your hotel room. You can find out when the best time to fly to a location at www.farecompare.com, and sites like Expedia, Travelocity, etc. usually have great deals. Also, we'll post some recent budget-travel stories to inspire you. Happy traveling!
Alexandria, VA: My wife is taking a group of high school students to France early next year. At least two of those students will be traveling on passports that will expire within six months of the date they will be arriving in France. We've heard this can be an issue - should we be concerned?
Andrea Sachs: Not a major issue, but some countries want a larger cushion of time before expiration. Since you are not leaving until early next year, have the students get their passport renewed tout de suite.
Potomac MD: Hi Flight Crew,
I'm taking my nephews (in their 20s) to Turkey next year for a week to 10 days and want to know the best time to go (we have choice of mid-May or September) as well as whether we should plan everything ahead or leave room for discovery. We're all pretty adventurous and want to keep it fairly inexpensive- I'm thinking some hostels, train travel in-country. Do we need reservations ahead of time? Thank you!
Scott Vogel: In a contest between May and September, May would win hands down during most years. It's a good time to visit for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that tourist season won't have started yet. It's certainly possible to do a "stream of consciousness" Turkey and have a ball. My one suggestion would be to book a few days in a hotel in advance so you might have a chance to get your bearings before the trip begins in earnest.
Washington, DC: We have a reservation on United "Ted" for this Friday that we booked thru Expedia. The United website seatfinder says there are no seats available and that I have to get my seat at the gate. When I called the reservation line they concurred with that and reassured me that we have seats - just not assigned. I don't feel very warm and fuzzy about that. Is is that a standard practice? I have always been able to get assigned seating prior to my flight. Thanks.
KC Summers: Unfortunately, Wash, this is becoming more and more a standard practice. We've gotten LOTS of complaints from readers about it in recent months. It makes the boarding process very dicey: When you don't have an assigned seat, you're the first to be involuntarily bumped in the event of overbooking. All I can say is get to the airport very early and check in as soon as possible.
Dallas, Tex: I am thankful for the ease of travel. One hundred years ago it was not easy to go to Europe for a week or on an African safari. Leisure travel was for the idle rich. If you had family far-off, you wrote to each other. I'm thankful that I can easily drive two hours to spend Thanksgiving with my nieces and nephew. And it is just a short three hour flight to see my parents. My Dad will be flying home from Nepal tomorrow, we he has spent the last few weeks hiking to Mt. Everest Base Camp with my brother.
We spend an awful lot of time griping about the experience of travel without being thankful that we have the opportunity at all. The world is so much more connected than it has ever been.
KC Summers: Very true, Dallas, that's something we often forget. Thanks for chiming in.
Silver Spring, Md: I don't consider taking the train to Newark or Philly because you never know what the train's going to do. Yes, it basically works (and I love it) but if I plan to take the train to Newark, and then a freight train derails and I'm stuck on my train somewhere between here and there, I am 100% out of luck with my plane ticket. It's as bad as booking separate legs with separate airlines - if the first one doesn't get me there on time, the 2nd one will have no pity. I'd rather stick with one of the three airports within an easy, multiple-affordable-transportations-options hour of here.
KC Summers: When you get down to it, it's really scary to put your faith in any public conveyance. The last time I took the Metro to DCA it broke down halfway there and I was trapped underground for half an hour -- luckily I had built a cushion in, but I was sweating for a while there.
Falls Church, VA: For the traveler with contact lenses:
The TSA's website says that contact lens solution is a medical necessity and thus doesn't need to conform to the 3-1-1 rule. I have twice taken my lenses in their case and a 4-oz bottle of saline solution (the smallest size I could find at Target) through the screening, with no problem. Just have the contact lenses and saline in a separate ziploc bag and note something as you send them through noting it's for medical reasons.
"To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers, in the absence of suspicious activity or items, greater than 3 ounces of the following liquids, gels and aerosols are permitted through the security checkpoint in reasonable quantities for the duration of your itinerary (all exceptions must be presented to the security officer in front of the checkpoint):
-All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes;....
Christina Talcott: Aha, thanks! That's helpful to know that you have the option to hand over contacts and saline solution to the screener for inspection instead of trying to cram them into your baggie.
Indianapolis, Ind: They want you to turn off the MP3 player so you can hear instructions on take off, like "hold your nose we're going into the Potomac"!
Disney Cruise: Hi, we were trying to price out the 3 night disney cruise and the flight charges were coming out 3k for 2 adults and 2 kids. Why do they make it this expensive. If we book on our own, we will only have to spend the 4k or 5k on the cruise. Is it worth taking the risk. I know we barely get any snow around christmas time but my family is saying if we book the whole thing as a package we will have some assurance of everything not falling apart if our flight gets delayed. Thanks.
John Deiner: Hmmmm. Good question. We recently ran a first-timer's guide to cruising that said, yes, if you book a cruise-and-air package with a cruise line they will either try to accommodate your late arrival or fly you to the first port of call.
That said, $3,000 for airfare to -- I dunno, exactly, Florida? -- does seem excessive. If you can find much cheaper airfare to the port, why not book a night or two ahead of time if possible to cover yourself if there are delays? And consider taking out trip insurance that would cover you in case of bad weather.
washingtonpost.com: Euro Shock, (April 1, 2007)
Christina Talcott: Here's a recent story on budget travel in Western Europe (and no, it's not an oxymoron!).
I'm Thankful for...: I'm thankful for all the bonding my son and I have done while traveling. I'm a single parent, military type and my son and I have traveled all over the world together. We moved from Texas to England when he was nine. He was such a little man, helping me lug our suitcases through multiple airports. I was so proud of him. Or the time when he was eight and we got bumped up to first class. He told all the surrounding passengers, that we'd never ridden in first class before and that we'd been put there by mistake. I was so embarrassed but he was so cute.
KC Summers: Awwwww. How old is he now?
Rockville, MD: electronics on planes: as they say now on most flights "anything with an on/off switch should be switched off." it's true that the major concern are "transmitters" such as cell phones, but also there are take-off/landing safety issues. mostly the rule is, to the degree possible, to prevent people's attentions from being elsewhere in the approximately first 15/last 15 minutes of the flight.
KC Summers: Makes sense. Thanks.
Delaware: For those of you traveling up I 95 to the Philly area during the holidays. You may want to consider taking rt. 40 east to 13 North and connecting back to 95 or 495 once you are past Newark, DE. They are doing some construction through Delaware and its a mess on a normal day/night.
John Deiner: Delaware is the Nightmare State these days . . . and they bumped up the toll on that plaza to $4 to boot. Both ways! Good suggestion, Del.
Going to Mexico City: My son and I spent a week in Mexico City in August. We felt very safe (there are cops on every corner), walked all over and rode the subway. We stayed at Casa Gonzalez, a great little family owned inn. I forget what the neighborhood was called but it was accross the main drag from the Zona Rosa neighborhood.
KC Summers: Thanks very much for that firsthand report.
Re: Traveling Wed up I-95N: So, leaving any time after 8am on Wednesday is evil? I may have no choice. Sounds like Tuesday late night would be best but I worry about being too tired.
If I need to leave Wed morning (with enough sleep to stay awake), is 8am (during rush but early) better than 10 (after rush but still before everyone leaves at noon)?
John Deiner: Good question, and let's slam this out there. Anyone know the best time to hit the roads on Wednesday morning?
Can I just ask why one would need a digital camera during take-off? I can't imagine any pictures taken through the window would turn out, and really, who wants the person sitting next to you snapping pictures on a busy travel day? I say, turn it off and put it away; don't submit strangers on a plane to being in your snapshots!
KC Summers: Oh, I dunno. I love slice-of-life snapshots -- settling in on a long plane ride, staring aghast at the meal tray, your sweetie pie asleep next to you. Personally, I don't think it would affect my hearing the safety messages.
New York, NY: I'm trying to plan a 10 day trip to South America to meet up with a friend while she is traveling the continent. We have already determined that we will either meet or end up in Cartagena, Columbia in April. Any recommendations for our itineary after Cartegena? We want to go to places that are either cultural/historical or alternatively, just relaxing. Budget (especially any travel by plane, bus, etc.) is key. My friend also suggested going to Bogota. What do you think?
Scott Vogel: If you go to Bogota, you won't be far by plane from Leticia, which is Colombia's gateway to the Amazon (fares can be rather inexpensive too). There you can board boats of all sorts for a once-in-a-lifetime cruise upriver.
Gaithersburg, MD: Call me crazy, but for each of the last 15 years, we have driven on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving from Gaithersburg to Philadelphia, leaving at 7:00 and the traffic is heavy, but not stop and go. A usual 2 hour 45 minute trip takes us 3 hours and 15 minutes.
No, you're not. You're incredibly helpful and this is a great thing to know. Thirty minutes extra is nuthin'.
British Airways luggage woes: Hi, back in January my friend lost his luggage (both suitcases) while traveling to india on british airways. The suitcases never came to him. I was reading on the net around that time the BA is having severe problems with their baggage handlers and apparently there were 2000 luggage pieces stuck in heathrow. I am thinking of traveling on BA in February. Do you know if BA fixed the luggage handler contract issues and all that jazz?
Andrea Sachs: I am not sure if this will help you in time, but Heathrow is planning a major overhaul for 2012. That might help with some of the problems that have been dogging the airline--and airport.
Maryland: if you get off your flight in Paris and don't check in to continue on to Dublin, the airline can and will invalidate the rest of the trip and you have no recourse for refund.
Andrea Sachs: Exactly what I said! So, best to stay on the flight and grab yourself a Guinness at your final destination.
Pittsburgh, Pa: Would today's Flight Crew be so kind as to share with us clicksters what you're thankful for about travel?
KC Summers: Love having the tables turned on us, Pitt. Here you go:
Andrea: "I'm grateful for my parents instilling a love of travel in me as a young child, for giving me that sense of wanderlust."
Scott: "Being able to reinvent myself."
Christina: "Finding a good travel companion."
As for me, I love the chance to spend one-on-one time with whomever I'm traveling with, far away from email and ringing phones. Also, getting to read all the magazines I never have time for in real life. Also, having my perspective altered by being in a new place.
In response to DC United "Ted" flier: I will now avoid Ted flights like the plague. First of all, they seem to have on board a lot of clueless, inexperienced fliers who slow down the process.
Also I hate the lack of assigned seating. My husband and I were on a Ted flight from Chicago to Las Vegas and weren't able to get seats next to each other, even though we had called days in advance, told we had to get them at check-in, and arrived at the gate FOUR HOURS before departure!
KC Summers: Thanks for the feedback. If anyone from Ted is online and wants to respond, feel free.
Kids on plane: Sorry, but I have to throw this in... We travelled with our son who was 16 months at the time- he was restrained in his carseat. If the man sitting in front of him had not reclined the chair all the way back, my son's feet would not be able to reach. Trust me, as a parent, no one enjoys when their child has a meltdown on a flight or is noisy or anything else. Even with snacks and toys and flights scheduled around perceived nap times, not everything goes as planned.
My point- sorry to those travelling without kids- but cut parents some slack sometimes. If a child is truly misbehaving, that's one thing, but seriously, everyone has a right to travel. Don't put your seat back and turn up your headphones. If a child looks over the seat at you, hold your book up higher. Work with us.
John Deiner: Good points, and you should all feel that you can throw anything in. I don't want to get into the whole reclined-seat issue again -- I'm a non-recliner from my infancy and I know what you're talking about. And you're right: You make it easier for someone to kick your seat, it's your own fault.
Re: Take-off and Landing: The airlines want ALL electronic equipment turned of during take-offs and landings. Basically if it has an on/off switch, they want it off. During the flight, "approved electronic devices" can be used so long as the wireless functions are disabled.
The poster who is using his phone (even in airplane mode) during take-off and landing is not following the rules.
Whether the rules make sense is another question altogether!
KC Summers: Yeah, it's best not to wonder why...
Tysons Corner, VA: What happened to Anne? No offense to the rest of you, but she was my favorite travel crew member.
Christina Talcott: We miss Anne too! She disembarked a few months ago to start a new journey - grad school. I'm trying to fill her shoes here at the office, but I'm afraid no one can replace her unique voice here on the chat. Sorry!
TSA stuff: re: contact lenses
what the poster wrote is true for DOMESTIC flights and please remember that international is entirely different. Had my lens solution confiscated in Heathrow last Summer and went to three stores before I could find a replacement (for gas perm lenses) in Paris--and then got to pay 3x as much as I pay here
I've taken some GREAT shots from airplane windows!
I hope you don't sit next to me because I will either ask you to turn it off or ask the stewardess to ask you. The rule is to turn off all phones and my life is not worth trusting that people know how to use their phones -that- intimitely. I've been next to folks who won't fasten their seatbelt, for goodness sakes!
Christina Talcott: Thanks for the info! I for one would be hesitant to try anything out of the ordinary at Heathrow. Sounds like the best solution would be to put your lenses and lens solution in 3 oz containers inside your one-quart baggie.
Rockville, MD: Have a 5 hour layover in Oakland and want to dash up to Berkeley to my fav restaurant for lunch. Am flying on two tickets (a risk, I know but had no choice) and wonder how chancy it would be to not claim my luggage and then come back to claim it from unclaimed luggage.
Andrea Sachs: That sounds slightly risky, especially leaving your luggage alone for so long. Why don't you store your luggage at the airport; there is a storage service in Terminal 1. (Some BART stations also have lockers.)
travel after Thanksgiving: I've got business travel the week after Thanksgiving. I've booked a direct flight, and made sure that I leave for home on a weekend. I do plan to check one bag for the flight, but will carry my laptop and a change of clothes on board.
Is this going to be as bad a time to travel as Thanksgiving, or am I missing the worst?
Andrea Sachs: You should be flying in the calm eye of the travel hurricane.
I am traveling to India in December and I've hired a van with a driver for the 10 days that I will be there. How much should I tip? Should I tip at the end of each day or at the end of the trip.
KC Summers: Not sure how much you're paying the guy, Sterling, or if he's supposed to act as your tour guide or is just driving you to appointments, etc. Recently in Ecuador, I tipped my driver about 20 percent above his rate each day because he did such a nice job explaining things, buying admission tickets, etc, over and above driving. We think that if your driver is in fact being a tour guide, you should tip about $10 a day, each day. If he's just driving, about $5 a day. Hope that helps.
Hyde Park, NY: Cara's nightmare trip points out the importance of overnighting before an important flight or cruise. We live about two hours from JFK but almost never fly out of there for a major trip without overnighting at an airport hotel. When you figure the two hour drive followed by three or four hours at the airport, you're investing half a day to get on a two hour flight. If you're meeting up with a cruise or taking a once a day overseas flight, you can get a room for about $130 and arrive at the airport fresh and ready to travel. As we drive to the airport, we use a park and drive hotel where we can stay overnight and park the car for the duration for little more than just the cost of parking at a reserved lot. For our cruise in March, we will fly out of Stewart in Newburgh,NY and overnight in Lauderdale to avoid hassles in the event of weather problems. For $115, the hotel will pick us up at the airport and shuttle us to the cruise terminal the next morning. Look at all the stress we're avoiding. For $130 bucks and a good night's sleep, Cara could have made her flight.
KC Summers: Yep, I think that's the biggest lesson of her horror story. Be forewarned, everyone!
After reading all the letters to the editor, and the comments on last week's Flight Crew, it seems obvious (alas) that in discussing Ms. L's problems, both you and she failed to address the root causes. Instead, you only looked at what she should have done after her trip already started.
A root cause analysis would have focused on her failure to book a non-stop flight from Dulles to Rome, or if she absolutely had to fly Continental's nonstop from Newark to Rome, her failure to consider more reliable methods for getting from D.C. to Newark (Amtrak or driving), as opposed to taking a connecting flight from DCA to EWR.
While I think you did a great job in highlighting what she should have done once airborne, it would have been even more informative, and a greater learning experience for your readers, to do a root cause analysis as that would have prevented her problems from occurring in the first place!
The fact that so many readers readily spotted these two issues also indicates that this article would have benefitted from a preliminary review on the Travel Log blog, to allow for reader comments that could have been incorporated before publishing in the print edition.
I encourage you to do more in-depth analyses of travel problems, but one that focuses on how to prevent the problems, and not just after-the-fact bandaid solutions.
KC Summers: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Great idea to vet this stuff on our blog. I repeat, though, that there was nothing wrong with her connecting -- it's just that she didn't allow enough time. I'm famously paranoid about this and will book ridiculously long layovers because I'm so afraid of things going wrong. It's paid off so far -- I've never missed a flight. (Dang, I should never have said that, now I'm doomed.)
KC Summers: Oops, we seem to have gone over our allotted time. Thanks for all your questions, everyone, and sorry if we didn't get to yours. We were down a couple staffers today. Try us again next week.
This week's prize goes to the single military dad whose young son was so helpful on their flights around the world. Please send your contact info to me at summersk@washpost.com and we'll get the prize right out to you. And if you don't want the hula dancer, let me know and I'll find something more suitable for a military guy. Also, never heard back from the lucky rap CD winner -- you know where to find me!
See you next week, and keep an eye out for this Sunday's issue, when we take a look at the conditions in Oaxaca, Mexico, one year after the riots.
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.
| 283.317073 | 0.682927 | 0.878049 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700180.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700180.html
|
On a Laptop Mission for Kids
|
2007112319
|
For two weeks this month, Americans are being invited to join a global marathon -- the uphill effort to take 21st-century computing to poor children around the world.
The invitation comes from One Laptop Per Child, a nonprofit group founded in 2005 by academics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab. The MIT gang is trying to jump-start unexpectedly slow laptop computer sales abroad by appealing to charitable impulses at home.
Through Nov. 26, it is offering to sell anyone in the United States and Canada two of its bright green XO laptops for $399. While one goes to the buyer , the other will go to a child in a developing country.
"We want to broaden the scope of the program, to engage more people and let them participate," said Walter Bender, the nonprofit's president.
The unusual "Give 1. Get 1." marketing campaign ( http://www.xogiving.org) is a departure from the original distribution plan promoted by the group's founder, new-media guru Nicholas Negroponte. It called for no sales in the United States or to the public, only to governments in large developing nations. The sales force was mainly Negroponte, who spent the past several years flying around the world to meet with heads of state and announcing handshake commitments in Brazil, Thailand, Nigeria and other countries.
For various reasons, those agreements yielded fewer laptop orders than Negroponte wanted. Changes in political leadership were partly to blame, he said, but the bigger factor turned out to be fierce competition from the tech industry at home after Intel and Microsoft joined the race, launching for-profit ventures to sell computing technology to developing nations.
"So in August we came up with another strategy. We said instead of going to big governments, let's go to the people," Negroponte said. "The truth is I don't know whether this is going to generate 100,000 laptops or a million, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't take a lot of snow to generate an avalanche."
Negroponte is hoping his campaign will allow laptops to reach poorer, more remote nations because the subsidies no longer have to come exclusively from the governments in target countries. Rwanda, Haiti and Cambodia were among the first to sign up to receive Give 1, Get 1 computers.
Uruguay and Peru, meanwhile, were the first to place orders for the XO laptops that went into mass production near Shanghai a few weeks ago. Uruguay ordered 100,000 laptops and Peru ordered 250,000. The machines cost $187 to make, but Negroponte is hoping the price will drop closer to the original $100 target as production volume rises.
The lightweight machines have been winning positive reviews from the media but a fair amount of ridicule from American tech titans, including Intel Chairman Craig Barrett and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Barrett belittled the XO laptop as a "$100 gadget." Gates ridiculed its hand-crank method of generating power, saying, "Geez, get a decent computer where you can actually read the text and you're not sitting there cranking the thing while you're trying to type."
Negroponte counterattacked early this year, publicly accusing the tech leaders of trying to undercut his program because it didn't use Intel microprocessors or Microsoft's operating system. In July, Barrett softened his stance and joined the board of One Laptop Per Child. While the XO laptops originally only contained microprocessors from AMD, Intel's chief rival, by next April some of the XO machines will run on Intel chips.
"We are in the honeymoon phase with Intel," Negroponte said, chuckling.
|
For two weeks this month, Americans are being invited to join a global marathon -- the uphill effort to take 21st-century computing to poor children around the world.
| 21.84375 | 1 | 32 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701109.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701109.html
|
Terrapins, Turner Left Licking Their Wounds
|
2007112319
|
TALLAHASSEE, Nov. 17 -- Not long after Maryland's bowl ambitions took a potentially lethal hit Saturday, Terrapins quarterback Chris Turner sat patiently as he was prodded to explain his roughest performance of the season.
Turner admitted he wasn't quite sure why so many of his passes were off line, or why he showed none of the sharpness that came to define his best performance just seven days ago. Was it just a bad afternoon? A lack of focus? An undisclosed injury?
"I'm not hurt," Turner said, the fallout of a 24-16 loss to Florida State. "But I'm hurting."
There were plenty of other reasons for the Terrapins' defeat before 80,213 fans on a pleasant afternoon at Doak Campbell Stadium. The Terrapins twice pulled within eight points of the Seminoles in the second half, though they routinely failed to capitalize on chances to make game-changing plays.
Florida State fumbled five times, but Maryland recovered just one. The typically disciplined Terrapins committed drive-killing penalties, and the Seminoles turned their first three drives into touchdowns.
But Turner became a fall guy of sorts when Terrapins Coach Ralph Friedgen benched him for two series late in the first half, a move that surprised the quarterback and seemingly reopened questions about who will lead the Terrapins (5-6, 2-5 ACC) in Saturday's season finale at North Carolina State, their final chance to become eligible for a bowl game.
"It's frustrating," Turner said. "I didn't know that my leash was that short in the first place, to be honest. I didn't think it would come to this. I guess I should have."
Earlier this week, Friedgen wondered aloud which Terrapins offense would show up.
Two weeks ago, Maryland stumbled against North Carolina largely because of a sloppy, clumsy offensive effort. But the Terrapins rebounded the next week in an upset of Boston College, scoring 42 points behind an aerial assault led by Turner.
But Friedgen got his answer on Maryland's first possession of the game.
A false-start penalty put the Terrapins into a second and long. The Terrapins made up for the miscue -- Turner hit running back Lance Ball for what would have been a first-down pass -- but wide receiver Isaiah Williams didn't start from the line of scrimmage. The resulting illegal formation penalty nullified the play.
Turner compounded the problem on the next snap, throwing an interception that Florida State defensive back Patrick Robinson returned to the Terrapins 26-yard line and which led to the Seminoles' first touchdown.
|
Preston Parker runs for 133 yards and a touchdown in his first start at tailback as Florida State clinches a winning season with a 24-16 victory over Maryland.
| 16.225806 | 0.645161 | 1.096774 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701287.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701287.html
|
Jefferson Accused of Two More Schemes
|
2007112319
|
In 2002, the government alleges, Jefferson asked a lobbyist of a U.S. oil service company for $10,000 a month for a family member in exchange for Jefferson's assisting the company in promoting business in Africa. The lobbyist turned down Jefferson's request, the document said.
Three years later, according to the filing, Jefferson allegedly agreed to urge NASA in a letter to consider doing business with a U.S. rocket technology and rocket launch services company. In exchange, the company allegedly agreed to pay Jefferson's family business and a relative.
In June, a federal grand jury indicted Jefferson, 60, on charges that he used his official position to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes for himself and his family, falsely reported trips to Africa as official business and sought to bribe the former Nigerian vice president. He has denied wrongdoing.
A spokesman for Jefferson declined to comment Friday night.
|
Federal prosecutors on Friday accused Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) of soliciting bribes in two alleged schemes that had not been previously disclosed.
| 5.965517 | 0.344828 | 0.344828 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701414.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701414.html
|
Falling in Love, Giving Children a Home
|
2007112319
|
For 34 newly adopted children, the prospect of unconditional love was born in a courthouse yesterday.
Angel, 2, loves vanilla pudding. Tayvon, 2, has a penchant for chasing his dogs around the dinner table. And Paul, 4, helps build model planes and dreams of being a pilot.
Clutching teddy bears and clambering over seats at the balloon-festooned third floor of the Moultrie Courthouse, the three were among dozens to walk away from the 21st-annual D.C. Adoption Day with a permanent home and proud new parents, all of whom had fallen for the children and earned their trust during months and years of foster care.
The event, timed to coincide with National Adoption Day on the Saturday before Thanksgiving, aims to encourage area residents to adopt or foster a child.
Last fiscal year there were 234 adoptions in the District. This year, an additional 200 children in foster care await adoption, according to the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency. Most of them come from neglectful homes, with parents with a history of substance abuse, mental health problems or who exercise inappropriate or excessive discipline, said Anita M. Josey-Herring, presiding judge of family court, a division within D.C. Superior Court. Currently, 2,600 cases of neglect are pending, she said.
Speakers repeated the same message, almost like an incantation: Could you be a prospective foster parent? Call 202-671-LOVE, the Child and Family Services Agency adoption hotline.
The smallest speaker of all, D'Juantez Brown, 9, barely peeped over the lectern as he read a poem dedicated to his grandmother, who had just adopted him:
You are the one by my side when nobody else is there
You are the one I can always count on
You are always there to care
You help me through the times, in foster care, and when I lost my hope . . .
You have a special place in my heart
|
For 34 newly adopted children, the prospect of unconditional love was born in a courthouse yesterday.
| 20.833333 | 1 | 18 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700854.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111700854.html
|
Montgomery Mansion May Be Sold To School
|
2007112319
|
It started as little more than neighborhood rumor: The old Grosvenor Estate was up for sale. But in Bethesda's development-wary neighborhoods, a juicy real-estate rumor can hit like a molotov cocktail.
Within days of hearing last month that a buyer was sniffing around the Tudor mansion and 35-acre property on Grosvenor Lane, once the estate of National Geographic patriarch Gilbert H. Grosvenor and currently the home of a small complex of nonprofit groups, the neighbors were at battle stations. Having successfully squared off against several projects in recent years, the Wildwood Manor Citizens Association knew just how to respond when rumors began to spread that the estate was going to be sold for use as a private school or possibly an Islamic prayer center, or maybe both.
Mass e-mails were sent, testimony was prepared and the usual lawyers and traffic and environmental experts were put on standby.
"Wildwood has been extremely successful in protecting its borders," said Ann Bryan, a former development chairman of the association. "They know the troops have been rallied over here."
If these are the opening moves of a classic Montgomery County development duel, they are starting a little prematurely, according to the owners of the property. The Natural Renewable Resources Foundation, which bought the site in 1973, said there is not even a sales contract on the place. But the foundation eventually responded to the growing neighborhood buzz, acknowledging that a private school is looking at the site and a deal could be announced in coming weeks.
Robert Day, the foundation president, said he was obligated to not reveal the buyer's identity, but he did seek to quell widespread rumors that the project would also include a mosque associated with the United Arab Emirates. "The planned use for the property is entirely non-sectarian and non-religious in nature," he said in a letter to the president of the citizens association.
Day lamented the speculation that was flowing around the neighborhood. "I really wish we were allowed to say more," he said. "I haven't heard a single piece of information circulating that is accurate."
No matter what kind of school is planned, neighborhood leaders said they would resist any proposal that would leave the area with more traffic and fewer trees. The Grosvenor Estate is one of the last largely undeveloped patches of forest in the densely packed area at Interstate 270 and the Capital Beltway. The property is on Grosvenor Lane, a narrow street that runs between Rockville Pike and Old Georgetown Road.
In recent years, Wildwood Manor residents have used traffic-impact arguments to win concessions from several proposed development projects, including a medical office building that will be smaller and more buffered than proposed. A high-rise retirement home that was blocked.
"We've had so much development that we're used to this," said Cheryl Leahy, president of the citizens association. "We're getting it from all sides."
According to documents at the Montgomery County Historical Society, the 14-bedroom house was built by the Grosvenor family in 1928 and features doors and windows taken from the Washington mansion of Alexander Graham Bell, Grosvenor's father-in-law. The property was purchased by the foundation from Grosvenor's heirs 17 years ago for $1.23 million for use as office space for environmental groups. The Society of American Foresters is housed there. Several other groups, including the Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society, work out of two buildings constructed by the foundation.
The property is also a candidate for the county's Legacy Open Space registry, a program that adds a layer of protection to environmentally significant land. Open Space status would not necessarily preclude a school from being built, according to Brenda Sandberg, manger of the program, but it would give the county more say in changes that might affect forestland on the property.
|
It started as little more than neighborhood rumor: The old Grosvenor Estate was up for sale. But in Bethesda's development-wary neighborhoods, a juicy real-estate rumor can hit like a molotov cocktail.
| 18.625 | 1 | 40 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701404.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007112319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701404.html
|
Rev. John Cross Jr.; Pastor at Bombed Church
|
2007112319
|
The Rev. John H. Cross Jr., who was pastor of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala., in 1963, when four girls at his church were killed in a bombing that became a turning point in the civil rights movement, died Nov. 15 at DeKalb Medical at Hillandale, in Lithonia, Ga. He was 82 and had had a series of strokes in recent years.
Rev. Cross was named pastor of the venerable Birmingham church in 1962 after serving at a Baptist church in Richmond. Not previously identified as a civil rights activist, he appeared to be a good match for the conservative black church, which was known for its educated congregation.
But when he stepped off the train in Birmingham and tried to hail a taxicab, Rev. Cross encountered a level of racial animosity he hadn't seen anywhere else.
"[I] don't drive coloreds," a white taxi driver told him, according to a 1991 article in the Boston Globe.
"I'll tell you what," Rev. Cross said, leaning in the window. "I'm coming here to pastor a church. Before I leave here, you'll be hauling anybody who wants to be hauled."
With the encouragement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Cross made his church a rallying point for the civil rights movement in one of the most volatile cities in the South. Birmingham had a strong Ku Klux Klan presence and had been shaken for years by an insidious, random violence that led to its infamous nickname, Bombingham.
The city's public safety commissioner, Eugene "Bull" Connor, was notorious for unleashing dogs and turning high-powered fire hoses on demonstrators. Many protesters were beaten in clashes with police.
On Sunday, Sept. 15, 1963, Rev. Cross was at the church, preparing to deliver a sermon called "A Rock That Will Not Roll" for a youth worship service. At 10:22 a.m., an explosion shattered the morning calm, crumbling a brick wall and destroying the face of Jesus in a stained-glass window.
At first, Rev. Cross thought the church's water heater had exploded, but he could smell the powder of explosives and hear anguished cries amid clouds of dust and smoke. As he and church members dug through rubble in the collapsed basement, he found the bodies of 11-year-old Denise McNair and Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley, all 14.
"They were all stacked in a pile, like they clung together," Rev. Cross recalled in 2001. "Their bodies were so mutilated I couldn't recognize any one of them, as well as I knew these girls. It was like looking at strangers."
As word of the bombing spread, more than 2,000 people gathered at the church, and some began to throw stones and concrete at passing cars with white drivers. Rev. Cross stopped one woman from hurling a brick.
"I had to reach up and touch her hand," he said. "I said, 'No, you can't settle it like this.' "
|
Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia obituaries, appreciations and death notices.
| 45.769231 | 0.384615 | 0.384615 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/09/DI2007110901876.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/09/DI2007110901876.html
|
Opinion Focus - washingtonpost.com
|
2007111519
|
Archive: Eugene Robinson discussion transcripts
Eugene Robinson: Hi, folks. As I've said before: So much to talk about, so little time. So, without preliminaries, let's get started.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: Fascinating column today. Two questions: Regarding your closing comment that you'd rather be treated here (provided you have insurance), is that exclusively because of perceived degree of patient input/autonomy in our system? Or are there other reasons? I'd argue that patient input varies wildly between educated consumers such as yourself and those who have less knowledge or ability to confidently assert their care preferences. Secondly, what sort of change do you think would be most effective and practical to implement in our country? Many thanks!
Eugene Robinson: Today's column was about an international Commonwealth Fund study showing that the myths about single-payer health care systems -- that you can't get in to see the doctor when you want to, that you don't have a regular doctor, that you have to wait years for elective surgery, etc. -- are indeed myths.
My comment that I would rather be treated here for a life-threatening illness stems from the fact that we do "overkill" medicine here. I was just being honest in saying that if I thought my life was on the line, I'd want doctors to throw the book at whatever ailed me. But there's little difference, I know, in outcomes between the two philosophies of care.
Baltimore: Thanks for holding this discussion. For 11 years, I lived in Japan, which has a two-tier governmental health system. Under this system, you can choose your doctors and hospitals. Not everything is covered: catastrophic illness insurance is needed for extremely expensive treatments. The system does a pretty good job of keeping costs down. In contrast, health care here is viewed more as a big business than as health care per se. Politically, is it even possible for us to change to a system that actually makes sense?
Eugene Robinson: I hope so. People forget that we already have two "socialized" health care programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- plus a new prescription-drugs program, so it's not as if the idea of single-payer is completely alien to us. Maybe some kind of mixed system will be the solution. I do know that it makes no sense to leave things as they are, with 47 million Americans uninsured. That's barbaric.
Giuliani and the Truth: Is Giuliani's refusal to admit that he was wrong about the cancer figures something personal, or is it something he picked up from Bush to help win over the GOP faithful?
Eugene Robinson: Obviously I don't know what's in Giuliani's head. But if this indicates a tendency to disregard inconvenient facts -- "I believe it, therefore it must be so" -- then, well, we've already seen that movie.
Seattle, Wash.: I think you should cut Giuliani some slack on the prostate cancer numbers. He is right with one proviso: That you only compare rich whites between the countries. The British rate accounts for less-aggressive screening but better care at the lower end of the income scale, and the American rate accounts for aggressive screening and treatment at the upper end but neglect at the lower end. Giuliani was telling the people he is wooing -- rich white Republicans -- exactly what they want to hear. So he was being somewhat accurate. (P.S. I am being ironic about defense of Giuliani, in case that gets overlooked.)
Eugene Robinson: You were right to put that parenthetical note at the end. Irony does not always translate on the Web, I've learned.
Kensington, Md.: Mr. Robinson, I love your column and love it when you are on "Meet the Press." Can you tell me why think that Giuliani has been so popular early, and do you think the lead can be sustained?
Eugene Robinson: I think he has run a good campaign so far, and I know he has articulated a clear, easy-to-understand message: I'm tough enough to protect you from terrorists and beat Hillary Clinton. I have thought for a long time that his numbers would have to head south as more Republicans realized that he doesn't share their views on social issues, but so far I've been wrong. Nevertheless, I'm sticking with my view that the GOP race will become much more fluid and that at this point it could go to Mitt, Rudy, maybe Fred, or even the comeback kid, John McCain.
Anonymous: Re: Your discussion of Obama's recent Iowa speech -- while I have heard rave reviews of the Obama speech discussed by you today ( YouTube video), I was very disappointed by his "Meet the Press" appearance. Approaching it as someone who wants Obama to succeed, I still found his performance disheartening. He had less enthusiasm and energy than Al Gore. And despite the criticism of Clinton for not having clear positions, Obama's position on what's on the table for social security reform (as he described it on Russert's show) was borderline incoherent. I very much hope that Obama's recent speech is some sort of turning point, but I am skeptical that he can translate the enthusiasm and energy of his stump speech into debates or policy discussions.
While I think "Meet the Press" sound bites and debate gotchas are given too much value by the media and public, I also think he will have real trouble increasing his following with this wonkish, sober and intelligent style he displays on forums such as "Meet the Press." Anyway, that's just my two cents, but I was wondering what you think of this seeming disconnect in Obama's campaign.
washingtonpost.com: Obama Makes His Move (washingtonpost.com, Nov. 12)
Eugene Robinson: Beats me. That speech he gave in Iowa was electrifying, it really was. But on "Meet the Press" -- admittedly, not a forum for great speechmaking -- I thought he was good-not-great. Sometimes "cool" works better on television than "hot," though.
Fairfax, Va.: I have medical insurance. I will need a hip replacement in next 6-12 months. Why should I vote for a single-payer candidate over one who would allow me to have my surgery on my schedule and with my surgeon of choice?
Eugene Robinson: I wouldn't. But the point of the Commonwealth Fund study that I wrote about is that a single-payer system wouldn't keep you from having the surgeon and the date that you want.
Anonymous: Hi Mr. Robinson, a poster in "Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood" commented: "White America will not put an African American in the White House. And, that's why African Americans are supporting Clinton." So far, "white" Iowa is significantly supporting Obama, and "white" New Hampshire is supporting a black man too. So I challenge that black-female poster. If the sweeping generalization she made is true -- that blacks will vote for Clinton -- it is black America that will not put an African American in the White House. Can you name five people whom you know who will not vote for Obama because he is black? (And they must be known to you personally -- so not David Duke, for example.)
Eugene Robinson: No, I can't name five people known to me personally who would not vote for Obama because he's black. At least, I don't know five people would would admit that. Nevertheless, there have been times in fairly recent memory when pre-election polls showed black candidates winning and actual election results showed them losing -- and I'm talking about vote swings that are way outside the margin of error of any poll. If people voted the way they said they would vote, Tom Bradley would have been elected governor of California not once but twice.
Maybe we really have gotten beyond that phase in our development as a nation. But it's not hard to understand, given American history, why many black voters would be skeptical. If Obama were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, that would change some minds.
Richmond, Va.: What's your take on the article today income decline in middle class African American families?
washingtonpost.com: Middle-Class Dream Eludes African American Families (Post, Nov. 13)
Eugene Robinson: I'm still digesting the study, so I have to confess that I haven't really decided what I think. My preliminary guess is that if the numbers are right, this phenomenon probably is related to the huge gap in wealth between blacks and whites, which as you know is far larger than the gap in income. The suggestion is that without a cushion, the consequences of one misstep -- losing a job, suffering a serious illness, etc. -- can be much more profound for middle-class blacks than whites. But I'll have to finish reading the study and giving it a little thought.
Scotch Plains, N.J.: I always have been insured, and I still think our system stinks. I have worked for small businesses for the past decade, and as costs have risen they have tended to switch plans year to year. Often that means getting a new physician because the network changes -- not to mention that the cost keeps rising and rising. Even for the fully insured, this patchwork system is a pain and keeps you guessing all the time as to what is covered, who you can see, etc.
Eugene Robinson: I think just about everyone has had that experience. Our current system really is a messy hodgepodge. Starting from scratch, no one would come up with what we have now.
Washington: Hi there. You posted about Obama's speech this weekend in Iowa. I saw it and I thought it was very good. Did you happen to see footage of the pre-speech rally/march? He was with a full marching band, with Mrs. Obama along dancing and enjoying the moment. The last shot I saw (on YouTube) was of them walking with their arms around each other. Very cool. Honestly, more inspiring to me than even his great speech.
washingtonpost.com: Obama in Pre-Jefferson-Jackson Dinner March (YouTube, Nov. 10)
Eugene Robinson: Agreed, very cool. But, um, do pay attention to the candidates' speeches. Dorkiness should not be a deal-breaker.
Chicago: Thanks much for your column today -- it is a much needed diversion from the daily dissection of Sen. Clinton's evil character and motives. I wonder if you will lose your gigs on the Kill Hillary Show("Hardball")? Is this a temporary diversion, or is the MSM now turning its attention to the Republican frontrunner? I wonder if Rudy can withstand the intensity of the attacks that have been directed at Clinton. But I'm sure we will hear weeks of analysis of the planted question in Iowa. I'm curious about the lack of MSM outrage about President's seven years of staged events that they covered as legitimate. Orwell's predictions were just 20 years early.
Eugene Robinson: Now, now. I seem to recall many, many stories about George Bush's stagecraft, along with his continuing refusal to talk to groups of people who don't already support him. Look, Hillary Clinton had a bad couple of weeks. But she's still leading in all the national polls, and also in New Hampshire and South Carolina. The people around her are smart enough to know that they're still in a position that all the other candidates would die to be in -- and that it was never going to be a cakewalk to the nomination. The next eight weeks will be a real battle.
Baltimore: Re: Giuliani and Sept. 11: I long have been perplexed by the amount of political mileage Giuliani has gotten out of the fact that he happened to be New York's mayor when the planes hit the Twin Towers. How does that make him an arch-fighter of terrorism? Columnist Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News had it exactly right when he said of Giuliani and his disgraced protege Bernie Kerik that " all they did was help pick up the pieces along with everybody else."
Eugene Robinson: That would be my view as well. But in politics, you use what you've got. Giuliani became a national figure after 9/11 -- not "one of the four or five best-known Americans," as he has claimed, but a national figure nonetheless -- and so far the association is working well for him.
Hilton Head Island, S.C.: Mr. Robinson, I watch you on "Hardball" all the time. Thank you for taking my question. With the new Pew study out today that reports that more than half of the children from black middle-class families have fallen into poverty in the next generation, do you think this will become a campaign issue? The study was shocking to most of those interviewed, and seemingly points to a rather large block of voters who are going to want to know what is going to be done.
Eugene Robinson: This study is part of a larger, ongoing Pew/Brookings project on economic mobility in the United States. I don't know if economic mobility among African Americans will become an issue, but I think the broader issue of economic mobility for all Americans certainly should be.
Re: Quote:"American doctors do tend to give patients more information and thus involve them more meaningfully in their own care. That's a good thing, and I'd hate to give it up." What are you basing this on? I sometimes feel like I have to bar the door to keep the doctor from leaving before I'm done talking to them, and it has been well publicized that they are under pressure to fit in more and more patients.
Eugene Robinson: That is from the Commonwealth Fund study. That specific question wasn't asked, but the survey found that American doctors are much more likely to give patients a detailed, written plan for follow-up care at home, for example, and to remind them of follow-up appointments.
Anonymous: Michelle Obama's response to the question as to why her husband wasn't doing well with black voters suggested that black-on-black racism is a problem. Black youths I've worked with tell me that black cops are much more hateful and harsh toward them than are white cops. Is Obama's biggest hurdle to election getting the white vote or the black vote?
Eugene Robinson: You're drawing the wrong inference from Michelle Obama's remarks. She wasn't suggesting black-on-black racism. She was saying that many blacks couldn't yet bring themselves to believe that a black man could actually win.
Bluffton, S.C.: Any idea what a Mitt Romney speech about his religion would contain, and do you think it is necessary for him to give it? Doesn't he have bigger problems than his religious beliefs?
Eugene Robinson: His religious beliefs might actually be a real problem for him. They shouldn't be. But polls have shown that a surprisingly large number of respondents say they would have trouble voting for a Mormon. You ask a good question, though -- what on earth would he say in such a speech? It would be hard to say that religion doesn't matter, since all the candidates are making such an unvarnished appeal for religious voters. So what would he say?
Charleston, S.C.: Why does "electability" seem to be the primary concern of Republican primary voters but not Democratic primary voters? Like it or not, Rudy Giuliani's positions on the issues are more popular nationwide than most of the other Republican and Democratic candidates. His appeal to me seems to be that he actually articulates his positions and does not shy away from his views. Most of the others, especially Clinton, come across as pandering to their base and whatever audience they are in front of at the moment. It amazes me that the general media and political pundits don't seem to recognize the fact that people are willing to overlook some policy disagreements in favor of someone who actually believes something and is not afraid to voice their positions.
Eugene Robinson: I disagree with your premise, since I think that in many ways this whole primary season has been about electability, in both parties. One reason Hillary Clinton has such a big lead is that some Democrats worry that Obama might not be enough of a street fighter to beat Giuliani.
Boston: Have we "lost Pakistan"? If so is Cheney to blame, given reports that he -- not the State Department -- had Pakistan in his portfolio? Weren't Pakistani officials who visited Washington in recent months taken to the vice president's office instead of Foggy Bottom? Can Bush/Cheney still credibly argue that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror?
Eugene Robinson: I'm not sure we ever "had" Pakistan. I think Cheney would probably be happy to throw Musharraf under a bus if he thought whoever came next would be equally cooperative with the administration's agenda. And no, I don't see how they can claim Iraq is the "central front." But of course it never was.
Eugene Robinson: That was a quick hour! Thanks for dropping by, everyone, and talk to you again next week.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
|
Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson discusses his recent columns and anything else that's on your mind.
| 181.789474 | 0.736842 | 0.947368 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/11/interfaith_conversation.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2007/11/interfaith_conversation.html
|
OnFaith on washingtonpost.com
|
2007111519
|
Some of the most important and illuminating literature of the 20th Century was about the role that faith played in peopleâs lives. The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr., The Story of My Experiments With Truth by Mahatma Gandhi, and The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton are just a handful of the most celebrated titles.
Who can forget Malcolm X describing his two transformations â one from being a pimp and a hustler to the Nation of Islam in jail, and the second from the Nation to a more traditional understanding of his faith in Mecca? Who isnât invigorated by the descriptions of the early days at the first Catholic Worker House of Hospitality that Dorothy Day established?
An important feature of many of these faith journeys is an encounter with another religious tradition, or with people of other faith backgrounds. During his younger days, when he has drifted away from his Hindu faith, Gandhi reads the Sermon on the Mount and is deeply inspired by the example of Jesus â an inspiration that ultimately brings him back to Hinduism. As a seminary student, Martin Luther King Jr. studies Gandhi, and marvels at how the great Hindu leader put the ethic of pacifism into practice in a social reform movement.
Unfortunately, not enough space is devoted to this fascinating interfaith dynamic in either the autobiographies of these faith heroes, or in many of the biographies.
Thatâs one of the reasons that I found myself deeply enjoying a new book called The Faith Between Us by Peter Bebergal and Scott Korb - a book I would recommend to everyone. Bebergal and Korb , a Jew and a Catholic, discuss their faith journeys as a conversation. Most of us understand faith as a conversation with God, but it is also very much a conversation with others â and in a world where people from different backgrounds are in more frequent and intense interaction than ever before, it is often a conversation between people of different faiths.
Bebergal and Korb write in the Introduction: âFaith is not, weâve learned, a private matter at all. Weâre tired of faith coming between us. Godâs will is that it may live between us.â
As the great Religious Studies scholar Wilfred Cantwell Smith once noted: âThe religious life of mankind from now on, if it is to be lived at all, will be lived in a context of religious pluralism.â How people from different backgrounds engage one another â whether it is based on conflict or cooperation, mutual respect for identity and tradition or mutual destruction â will determine the shape of the 21st century.
We need models of mutually enriching conversations between people from different backgrounds committed both to the preservation of their tradition and a world of pluralism. The Faith Between Us is an excellent place to start. As Bebergal and Korb write, âThe faith between us is a faith in this world ⦠We still long to find and please God. And we know weâre better off trying to do this together.â
|
Eboo Patel on OnFaith; Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/
| 71 | 0.125 | 0.125 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/2007/11/israels_thinktank_lobby.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/2007/11/israels_thinktank_lobby.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007111519
|
The Israeli Lobby has tremendous influence on American foreign policy. However, that does not mean that Israel runs America, nor that the lobby is behind all American foreign policy.
To begin with, the fact that the Lobby enjoys such power is indicative of the convergence of imperial interests between the ruling American elites and Israel.
Both of these view pan-Arab nationalism as an impediment to their expansionism and their interests. Both Israel and American administrations, to different extents, are driven by colonial foreign policies. The U.S. makes no secret about its drive to control the oil-rich region; Israel views a weak, if not a disintegrated, Arab World as a prerequisite for pursuing expansionist, racist and colonialist policies unchallenged.
If you monitor closely the White House foreign policy hearings on Middle East issues, you would find that the vast majority of âexpertsâ are drawn from major pro-Israeli institutions. These âexpertsâ had been in the forefront of advocates of the invasion of Iraq and currently an attack on Iran.
For skeptical readers, these âexpertsâ come mostly from the following organizations: www.washingtoninstitute.org www.aei.org www.jinsa.org www.defenddemocracy.org www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org www.hudson.org www.meiforum.org
The "think tanks " mentioned above all share and actively pursue very strong pro-Israeli positions. More often than not, they also share the same people - members, scholars, advisory boards or staff in other capacities. They endorse Israeli political partiesâ agendas ranging from Labour (at best) to Kadima to Likud, if not more extremist Israeli movements.
Thus the Israeli Lobby in America is not simply AIPAC, but mostly the think tanks that act as insider lobbyists and, at times, as direct players. The case of the neoconservatives and their hard line pro-Israeli agenda is another testament to the lack of a clear line differentiating Israeli from American interests - even if some policies prove costly to America, such as the war in Iraq.
The fact that key neoconservatives are Jewish Americans, in my view, is not the main issue here. There many American Jews who vehemently oppose the neoconservative agenda. But the confluence of the neoconservative agenda with Israeli goals is a fact that should be scrutinized and analyzed. The problem is that such scrutiny invites threats of anti-Semitism --a favorite tool for blackmailing and silencing critics.
I urge readers to visit AIPAC's website and read the speeches of American officials at the annual conferences. Most officials, especially Secretaries of State, chose AIPAC conferences to declare anti-Arab and anti-Iranian policies. You can barely differentiate between the Israeli agenda and American officialâs speeches at these conferences.
But a confluence of interests of some American elites with those of the Israeli leaders does not mean that American strategic interests are properly served. This confluence has only served to increase the perception that America is the direct enemy of the people of the region.
I disagree with the argument that America is simply fighting Israeli wars. It is wrong to exonerate American foreign policy from its imperial goals. But the Lobby has always played and continues to play a crucial role, in the media (through journalistsâ lazy reliance on pro-Israeli analysis from the think tanks listed earlier) and the pro-Israeli roster of experts summoned to the Congress floor to âinformâ American decision-makers.
There is another factor that is linked to partnerships in arms deals, which are most visible in the work of the Jewish International Security Agency (JINSA.) Many retired American generals are recruited by JINSA and get involved in military industries in Israel. Thatâs food for thought for skeptical readers.
There is no conspiracy in the arguments about the role of the pro-Israeli Lobby. Neither the formal Lobby nor the informal lobby of pro-Israeli âthink tanksâ is secretive about their work and their views. That proves that the American system is fertile for such expansionist and colonialist policies.
|
Lamis Andoni at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/lamis_andoni/
| 40.777778 | 0.444444 | 0.444444 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/11/limiting_lobbys_power_is_misgu.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/11/limiting_lobbys_power_is_misgu.html
|
PostGlobal on washingtonpost.com
|
2007111519
|
Tel Aviv - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a typical example of the opportunities and guarantees provided by American democracy. AIPAC is playing by the rules set by the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers and political system. Yes, it has used those rules and opportunities to gain advantages. But what's wrong with that? Such clever behavior should be admired, not cursed. In that sense, AIPAC is no different from any other lobby in America; it exists to promote its interests. If AIPAC or its officials are breaking the laws or the rules, put them on trial. AIPACâs only problem is that it is successful and outstanding, and thus has become an object of envy.
AIPAC is indeed a powerful organization. It is one of the oldest lobby groups in the U.S., established 1951 by Isaiah (Si) L. Kenen, a Canadian-born Jewish journalist. It is committed to its mission to promote the Israeli-American alliance, and has been effective in doing so.
Itâs no surprise that Israel's opponents and bashers would like to see a weak and dysfunctional AIPAC. But those who claim that the lobby is too powerful and too influential are not honest in exposing their true motives. They don't wish to curb only AIPAC. They have a different, hidden agenda: to restrain and downgrade U.S.-Israel relations. But as is said of ancient Rome, the alliance between the U.S. and Israel was not built in a day. It is a result of many factors: the horrors of the Holocaust, family and cultural ties, common shared values, religion, military, intelligence and strategic cooperation. AIPAC is only one more contributor that cements the multi-layered, patchwork-quilt nature of strong U.S.-Israel ties.
I find a lot of hypocrisy in the argument that AIPAC's power needs to be limited. It is like getting angry at the messenger. Is a strong NRA responsible for the violence in America? Of course not. The roots of the violent disease are deeper. The same is true about AIPAC. If U.S. administrations had reached the conclusion that strong relations with Israel were a disservice to their national interests, they would have severed them without a second thought. As long as U.S. governments maintain pro-Israeli policies, it means that they perceive them as in their national interest. If the American public has a problem with the policy, it should challenge American leaders to modify those policies and their consequences. But neither Israel nor its strong lobby is to blame. Governments are persuaded or even manipulated because they allow themselves, or even want themselves, to be.
|
Yossi Melman at PostGlobal on PostGlobal; blog of politics and current events on washingtonpost.com. Visit http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/
| 28 | 0.388889 | 0.388889 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111300260.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111300260.html
|
Bhutto Calls On Musharraf To Resign
|
2007111519
|
Bhutto, whose arrest prevented her from leading a 210-mile procession from Lahore to Islamabad, the capital, has for several months been engaged in quiet power-sharing negotiations with Musharraf. But on Tuesday, after nine days of increasing tension following the president's declaration of emergency rule, she broke sharply with him, declaring she would not serve as prime minister during his presidency and suggesting her party would boycott parliamentary elections in January.
"I'm calling for General Musharraf to step down, to quit, to leave, to end martial law," Bhutto said in a telephone interview with foreign journalists. "I will not be able to work with General Musharraf, because I simply would not be able to believe anything he said to me."
Bhutto's sharp comments came as anti-government demonstrators battled police in several cities. Cable television coverage -- available only by satellite because of a government-instituted blackout -- showed running men, clouds of tear gas and vehicles in flames. In the southern city of Karachi, protesters fired at two police stations after a violent clash with police, but no one was killed, authorities said. The house in Lahore where Bhutto was staying remained barricaded and surrounded by security forces.
At the same time, Bhutto reached out to competing political parties she had previously shunned, especially the Pakistan Muslim League headed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and the Jamaat-e-Islami religious party headed by Qazi Hussain Ahmed. She said they should agree on a "minimum agenda" and demand that Musharraf restore the constitution, reinstate deposed judges and lift emergency rule.
Musharraf, under mounting international pressure, announced Saturday that elections would be held in January, but he refused to say when he would lift the emergency, under which public meetings and rallies are banned and many private television stations have been shut down.
The Bush administration plans to send John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, to Pakistan later this week for talks with Musharraf. Officials said Negroponte will carry a tough message that emergency rule must be lifted in order to prevent elections from being discredited.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during a visit to Tennessee, said Tuesday that the United States is particularly concerned that elections take place "in a different atmosphere than now. You can't have free and fair elections with the kinds of restrictions on the media that you have, with the kinds of restrictions on assembly of opposition."
The White House also acknowledged the growing turmoil in a country that has been key to U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Until now, Washington has been reluctant to publicly criticize Musharraf and quick to praise him for even small positive steps, arousing anger and frustration among many Pakistanis.
"The most important thing is for the country to return to its democratic path," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "That's why we are having to urge strongly President Musharraf to get back on the path to the constitution."
Until recently, the Bush administration also had supported Bhutto's exploration of a deal with Musharraf in a bid to help stabilize the country, which has a nuclear arsenal and a growing Islamic extremist movement. Bhutto, 54, returned from an eight-year exile last month in hopes of galvanizing popular support and eventually becoming prime minister for a third time.
In the days since, she has veered between contradictory images, holding protest marches one minute and being shuttered under house arrest the next, visiting diplomats under VIP escort while thousands of her supporters were being detained.
On Tuesday, imprisoned in a mansion belonging to a legislator from her party and faced with mounting skepticism about her intentions, Bhutto seemed to have made her choice.
As police stopped a caravan of her supporters not 50 miles into their "long march" to the capital, she worked the phones from the house, issuing constant denunciations of the man she was once shown in cartoons as "marrying" in South Asian wedding garb.
"Pakistan and Musharraf cannot coexist. He must go. My dialogue with him is over," she told a cable TV channel. She said that once the seven-day detention order against her expires, she intends "to build a broad-based alliance with a one-point agenda for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law." Sources said intermediaries had arranged phone conversations involving her, Ahmed, Sharif and another key political leader, Imran Khan.
Analysts and politicians said Bhutto's moves could be a significant step toward uniting what until now have been fractured and isolated protest efforts by secular and religious parties, students, lawyers and women's civic groups. Thousands of lawyers have boycotted courts across the country since Musharraf fired a number of senior judges under emergency rule.
"Today Benazir said clearly that Musharraf has to go, which is what the others were waiting for her to say," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political analyst in Lahore. "This is an initial sign that things are moving toward a single wavelength. If the trend continues, it will create a very difficult situation for Musharraf."
A spokesman for Sharif, who is in exile in Saudi Arabia, said that he was "very happy" about Bhutto's comments and that they "vindicated our position that all democratic forces must put aside their differences." The "new twist of martial law" may end up being the impetus for "a new start, and a new movement to restore democracy," the spokesman, Ehsan Iqbal, said by cellphone from an undisclosed location in Pakistan.
A leader of Sharif's party in Peshawar, where police beat dozens of protesters Tuesday, expressed bitter disappointment with Bhutto, calling her "a spent bullet for Pervez Musharraf." However, the leader, Anwar Kamal Marwat, said that if Bhutto's party works to overcome mistrust, "I think we can lend our support . . . and line up a united opposition against the military dictator."
Bhutto said her "breaking point" came during the previous 24 hours when she learned from aides that an estimated 7,500 activists from her Pakistan People's Party had been arrested across the country, with police raiding homes at night, kicking in doors and breaking windows.
"I realized the depth of public anger towards General Musharraf," she said. The brutal crackdown "left my party with the conclusion that he does not really want to do business with us. It made it clear that he was using us as icing on the cake to make sure no one notices the cake was poisoned."
Wax reported from Lahore. Special correspondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar and staff writer Robin Wright in Washington contributed to this report.
|
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 13 -- Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, under house arrest in Lahore, called Tuesday for President Pervez Musharraf to quit and reached out to her main political rivals, opening the way for a common front among anti-government forces that so far have been divided by...
| 23 | 0.767857 | 1.446429 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111202043.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111202043.html
|
Musharraf's Army Losing Ground in Insurgent Areas
|
2007111519
|
But in vast stretches of the country's rugged and wild northwest -- heartland of the Islamic extremist insurgency -- President Pervez Musharraf's army did not have any more control than it did when the military-led government imposed emergency rule nine days ago. In some areas, it had less.
While Musharraf has justified emergency rule by arguing that he needs a free hand to battle groups including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, local officials, residents and analysts say that so far, at least, the government's troops remain on the defensive against extremist forces, which have been gaining territory for more than a year.
"For us, it does not make a difference whether it's democracy, emergency or martial law," said Maulana Siraj Uddin, spokesman for a radical cleric who has seized control of much of the scenic Swat Valley in the country's far northwest. "But I can tell you that our mujaheddin are fighting from the core of their hearts, and we have made spectacular progress in the last week."
Fighters loyal to the cleric, 32-year-old Maulana Fazlullah, have in recent days overrun three additional police stations and now roam unhindered through much of the valley, once known to tourists as "the Switzerland of Asia."
A military spokesman confirmed that the group had recently forced local security officials to flee several areas. But as of Monday, Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad said, the army had taken control of operations in the valley, and he hinted that it was on the verge of launching an operation to stop the losses.
"We don't want these militants to be terrorizing the people. So they'll be taken to task, that's for sure," he said.
To date, it has more often been the other way around, with extremist fighters inflicting damaging defeats on the Pakistani military. In the tribal areas that border Afghanistan, insurgents have virtually free rein, using the territory as a base from which to mount attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and beyond, according to military analysts.
When the army has tried to conduct operations in the tribal areas, it has paid a heavy price. In August, for example, Taliban fighters commandeered an entire army convoy, taking 250 soldiers hostage without firing a single shot.
The Taliban held the troops for more than two months. They were released the day after Musharraf imposed emergency rule, when the government acceded to Taliban demands and freed nearly 30 of the group's fighters, including several who had been involved in planning suicide bombings.
Advisers to Musharraf have conceded that the main reason he suspended the constitution, fired most of the Supreme Court and declared an emergency was that the court was about to rule him ineligible for another term as president.
But Musharraf himself has explained his actions in terms of the widening war against extremist groups in Pakistan, insisting that the country would spiral out of control unless the government did everything it could to counter the threat.
|
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 12 -- Across much of Pakistan on Monday, the government was firmly in command -- squelching protests, blacking out television stations and picking up dozens more political prisoners to add to the thousands already in jail.
| 13.022727 | 0.568182 | 0.840909 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.