How's that surge working?

The U.S. occupation of Iraq has taken a new and deadly turn with the escalation of violence with the Sadrist forces. We have gone from being occupiers to participants in a political purge.

This conflict lays bare the foolish and simplistic rhetoric that we are fighting "terrorists" in Iraq. We project our western impressions onto alien situations and manage to screw things up entirely. The militias are political as well as military entities, that provide security and order within their territories. Muqtada al-Sadr is a powerful and popular political leader as well as the visible head of the Mahdi army.

This mess came about because the Sunnis in majority Sunni regions were demanding new elections, and the band-aid of our bribe deal was collapsing. However, in southern Iraq, if new elections were held, the stooge government would lose badly to the Sadrist supporters (al-Sadr, an Iraqi nationalist, wants us out. Of course the stooge government wants us to stay so their gravy train of corruption and privilege can continue), destroying any claim of legitimacy.

So what does the stooge government do? It decides to take out the Mahdi army, and presumably Sadr's power along with it. This all happens with our full support and cooperation.

And just by chance, did you notice how close Basra is to the main oil channel in the region? And how close it is to Iran, a major supporter of al-Sadr? Stay tuned.

How's that surge working?

Headline

From the AP: "Bush sees Iraq violence as defining"

This, of course, is yet another example of his Orwellian up-is-down, any outcome clearly supports any actions he's chosen to take "logic." On the other hand, as does happen from time to time, it's also a case of him being correct, even though he knows not why. The violence in Iraq does indeed define his disastrous reign as a fascist murdering cokehound monkey. Bully for him.

I don't write about him or the rest of the scheming demons dressed in kingly guise that masquerade as our government very much anymore not because they're not doing horrible things, but because I'm tired of the inarticulate rage that bubbles around behind my eyes when I do.

How many levels of wrong is this?

From that deep thinker, Pat Buchanan, in a piece oh so cleverly titled "A Brief for Whitey":

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. [Pastor Jerimiah]Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American....We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude

Oh my God. Having generations of the best and brightest kidnapped and enslaved? Generations disrupted, families destroyed and entire civilizations ripped apart?

Excuse them for not sending thank you notes.

Go away. Now.

Dear Sen. Clinton:

You have been running on your experience.

The news of the last few days have shown how you lied about your experience, and did so in a stupifyingly lame way. There were reporters on the plane, Madam Senator. Remember? Did you think they wouldn't? It was such a dangerous mission that you were there with SINBAD??

It also appears from your own records, hesitatingly released, that you have your stories on NAFTA exactly reversed. It seems that you were an active advocate for this anti-labor and anti-American job measure.

Withdraw. Now.

Kisses,

Peter

How could you?

How could you? I know you have an important and stressful job, and that you need some levity occasionally. But how could you appear with someone like this? Why did you stand next to a cartoonish buffoon that no one believes in, just a fraud dressed up in a suit?

How could you, Easter Bunny?

Back from Away

Last night, Mrsdrmagoo and I finally made it back from Houston. I say "finally" not because the travel was tough - our flight was on time, and the drive home from O'Hare to Champaign was uneventful. I say it because downtown Houston is the most boring large city in the entire universe. Chicago is the third largest city in the country, and Houston fourth, which is bizarre because nobody's there. I've never crossed against the light so many times during the week in a business district in my life - there's just nobody there. Not only is the area around the convention center (which also houses the baseball and basketball stadia) dead in terms of people, there's nowhere to go to eat or drink. Every other city I've traveled to for conferences, especially in areas with this many large venues has, y'know, restaurants and bars and stuff where people can go, but not Houston. And if you do walk the 10+ blocks to the nearest handful of restaurants, your choices are fast food or $25 entrees. C'mon, folks. The worst is trying to find breakfast - it's either the hotel, where you're paying $8 for a bagel (once you figure in tip, etc), or Starbucks (which isn't really breakfast, at least not 7 days in a row). And all of that conveys an epic level of busy compared to Houston on a Sunday, a day which could best be described by Buzz Aldrin's comment about the moon, "Magnificent desolation."

The last day or so, we shared the convention center with the Foursquare Church, a group founded by Aimee Semple McPherson and which is so very excited about the imminent second coming. If they spend a lot of time in Houston, I can see why.

Pardon my skepticism

Time reports: Afghan and NATO forces killed more than 40 insurgents in an air and ground battle in southern Afghanistan, a security official said Sunday.

Insurgents? I'm sure.

Let's hear it for that foreign policy expertise

According to Sen. McCain, it is "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

Well, it isn't that special. We ALL know that despite being sworn mortal enemies, Iran and al Qaeda are practically sharing a summer home. After Joe Lieberman whispered sweet nothings in his ear, he had to come back to the reporters with an Emily Litella-like "never mind."

Just keep 'em comin' John.

All from this morning's paper

No longer shocking story #1:

Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress'

BAGHDAD, March 13 -- Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

No longer shocking story #2:

NRCC Says Ex-Treasurer Diverted Up to $1 Million
By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer

The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts,GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.

And no longer shocking story #3:

Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest
EPA Scrambles To Justify Action

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Environmental Protection Agency weakened one part of its new limits on smog-forming ozone after an unusual last-minute intervention by President Bush, according to documents released by the EPA.

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The president's order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past EPA statements on the harm caused by ozone.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement warned administration officials late Tuesday night that the rules contradicted the EPA's past submissions to the Supreme Court, according to sources familiar with the conversation. As a consequence, administration lawyers hustled to craft new legal justifications for the weakened standard.

And that's just ONE day, folks.

Oh Madam Senator..

For all of the drama of Ohio and Texas, Obama has made up any gains HRC might have gotten out of last Tuesday.

It is almost a statistical impossibility for her to win the available electoral delegates. I know the "superdelegates" have a role to play, and I believe in playing by the rules, but in this year, with record voter turnouts, I think there will be hell to pay if these party operatives thwart the voter's will.

So exactly what is HRC up to? Why is she praising McCain at Obama's expense? What is this endgame?

On Elliot Spitzer

I know, it's all been done. He's an idiot. Why does his wife stand on the podium? Even questioning the nature of the investigation, wiretaps? On prostitution? Even a prostitution "ring?" All that said, it comes back to--he's an idiot.

Maybe I'll stop going to work

This morning, gas spiked again (originally to $3.50/gallon) to $3.40 a gallon - it was $3.15 yesterday. I drive 50 miles each way to work in a car that averages 30 mpg, and my monthly gas costs are roughly 100*the cost per gallon. In the not quite 4 years I've had this job, gas has gone up roughly $1.50/gallon. Somewhere around 40+% of the raises I've received in that time have gone entirely to paying for the increase in gas prices. Whee!

Maybe I'll stop going out to lunch

Last week, when I went out to lunch, gas was $3.05. When I came back, it was $3.25.

While there was a store brand that was cheaper, in my local Jewel, the Dean's milk was $4.01 a gallon.

Groceries, fuel, the necessities of life are becoming too expensive while jobs are evaporating around us. Welcome to Potterville.

I try not to spread email spam

But this joke made me laugh:

The Pope and Hillary Clinton were on the same stage in front of a huge crowd. However, both of them have been in front of crowds before, so, to make this time more interesting, Hillary said to the Pope, 'Did you know that with just one little wave of my hand I can make every Democrat in the crowd go wild?'

He said, 'O. K., show me.' She waved. Sure enough, every Democrat in the crowd cheered wildly. The cheering then subsided as quickly as it started.

The Pope, not to be outdone by such arrogance, thought about what he could do to answer her stunt. 'That was impressive,' the Pope said, 'but did you know that with just one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go crazy with joy? What's more, this joy will not be a momentary display like that of your people, but will go deep into the hearts of this crowd. They will forever speak of this day, and they will rejoice.'

The senator doubted this, of course, and said with a smirk, 'One little wave of your hand and all people will rejoice forever? Show me.'

So the Pope slapped her.

Now don't you feel silly

The president has set us straight on those God-fearing telecom companies and those pesky lawsuits:

Now the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service; should those who stepped forward to say we’re going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the President say thank you for doing your patriotic duty? I believe we ought to say thank you.

Damn, I'm really starting to hate her

TORONTO (AP)--Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

The report comes just days after a Canadian government memo stated Barack Obama's senior economic adviser told Canadian officials that the Illinois senator's own comments about NAFTA were for "political positioning." The release of that memo helped Clinton defeat Obama decisively in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Ohio, where the trade treaty is unpopular.

On Wednesday, the Canadian Press quoted an unidentified source as saying that Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, made the comment last week to a crew for Canada's CTV television network during a press gathering to discuss Canada's budget. According to a person with knowledge of the incident, the source was a CTV journalist.

The Canadian Press story said a CTV reporter asked Brodie about remarks by Clinton and Obama that they would seek to renegotiate NAFTA.

"He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. ... That someone called us and told us not to worry," the journalist quoted Brodie as saying, according to the report.

The Fascist Ball

Apparently fascists like to dance.

War is the Health of the State

In Chimpy's world, at least...

No Need for Lawmakers' Approval of Iraq Pact, U.S. Reasserts

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

A so-called "emergency" authorization empowers the Bush administration to pursue endless war and permanent empire. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

It's not Karl Rove's math...

So, last night was a good night for the Clinton campaign. They learned that going negative gets them votes, and votes get them the media, and the media gets them the story. Congrats to them, and thanks for all the wonderment and joy.

But...

Did yesterday change anything? If so, how? And what has to happen in the remaining 12 races (WY, MS, PA, IN, WV, KY, ND, MT, NC, OR, Guam, and Puerto Rico) for her to win this thing?

Well, over at Daily Kos, a diarist named PocketNines has done a little bit of math (no, don't run away!) and we learn some interesting things from this diary:

Because of the way that the Democratic party splits delegates proportionally, merely winning a state or a district doesn't necessarily grant the winner a large margin of delegates.

In order to cross all thresholds except the initial break that give you a +2 delegate swing, you need to win by an extra 200/X%, where X = the number of total delegates at stake. Let's see how this works by easy example - West Virginia and its 10 statewide delegates. 200/10 = 20%. To go from 5-5 to 6-4 there you have to win by over 10% (55-45). But to get ANOTHER +2 you need to add 20% to your win and win by 30% (65-35).

What do we see here? In a district/state with 10 delegates, the "winner" gets 5 if they get less than 55% of the vote, 6 if they get between 55 and 65, 7 if they get between 65-75, 8 if they get between 75-85, 9 if they get between 85-95, and 10 if they win more than 95%. So, a 10-point win by either candidate only nets a +2 delegate margin, and to increase that they have to win by 30%. Trivia: In how many states has Hillary gotten more than 65% of the vote? Answer: One - Arkansas (70%)

What's the upshot of this? If Hillary was able to win every race by 10% and every district by 10%, she'd get a net gain of 58 delegates (Obama's lead is somewhere around 140-150 right now in pledged delegates). If we raise that number to 16.5% (58.25-41.75), then she gains 64 delegates on Obama. If she won every district by 24.9% (62.45-37.55), then she gains 110 delegates on him (and still trails by 30-40).

Putting it this way, there is no realistic chance that she'll catch him in pledged delegates, and likely not even get close. If she's still down by 80+ delegates, her means of victory are in SuperD's and/or Florida and Michigan. Of course, if she wins every state from here on out by 10%+, then her case to get the SuperD's is reasonable (not airtight, but it's certainly an argument with value). But if she splits the states reasonably evenly (which is still a good scenario for her), she won't gain any appreciable number of delegates on him, which means that she'll need a huge number of the remaining SuperDelegates to go her way.

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls...

The beat goes on.

BAGHDAD - A pair of car bombings, at least one of them a suicide attack, killed 26 Iraqis and injured dozens in Baghdad yesterday, Iraqi security and hospital officials said.

Hard work, makin' progress...

A question for the resident physicist

Old I know (but so am I), but it came up recently in another forum.

What do you see in the Pentagon surveillance footage, from size and motion to the colors of the explosion?

My kid (17) wants to teach physics.

Will wonders never cease?

From the Colonel's paper. The Tribune endorses a, shudder, Democrat!

For Congress: Bill Foster

The race to succeed former House Speaker Dennis Hastert in the 14th Congressional District has gotten very ugly very fast. That doesn't say much for the candidates. It does suggest that a congressional seat once considered safely Republican is now in play.

You have Republican Jim Oberweis and Democrat Bill Foster running in a special election Saturday in a district that runs from the far western suburbs across northern Illinois almost to the Iowa border. The winner gets to hold the seat for less than a year. They'll run against each other again in November for a full term.

Oberweis, from Sugar Grove, is chairman of Oberweis Dairy. Foster, from Geneva, worked for 22 years as a physicist at Fermilab and started a company that manufactures theater lighting equipment.

This page is closer to Oberweis than Foster on several economic and foreign policy issues [Editor's note: D'uh, ya think???]. But we watched Oberweis in his races for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2004, and for governor in 2006. We've watched this race for Congress. His campaign style has consistently been nasty, smug, condescending...and dishonest.

In 2004, he ran an ad in which he hovered over Soldier Field in a helicopter and said 10,000 illegal aliens come to the U.S. each day, "enough to fill Soldier Field every single week." The number was grossly inflated and the ad smacked of fear-mongering. In 2006, he ran TV ads that used headlines from the Tribune and other newspapers to attack an opponent. But the headlines were fake. They hadn't appeared in the newspapers.

This year, Oberweis' campaign is based on the notion that his opponent is a big-spending liberal. Oberweis' TV and radio ads quote Foster saying, "There's nothing in life that you can't improve by pouring money at it. ..." Foster did say that, at a League of Women Voters debate. But the transcript makes it clear he was talking about the federal government's "poor efforts" to improve air-traffic-control safety. His conclusion: "This is one example of a place I would look to save taxpayer dollars." And Oberweis' immediate response at the debate? He said: "I find myself in the almost embarrassing position of tending to agree with Bill on some of his comments there."

The sum impression of Oberweis from four campaigns: He sees public office as an opportunity to pick a fight. Bill Foster tells us that he will be a Blue Dog Democrat -- that is, part of the moderate caucus in the House that puts a high priority on controlling federal spending and returning to a balanced budget. He would almost certainly have to take a moderate Democratic line to hold this seat from a district that gave President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004 and 54 percent in 2000, and elected Hastert to 11 terms in the House.

He surely will be more willing than Oberweis is to listen to people with whom he disagrees. So we'll trust Foster when he says he would emphasize transparency, responsibility and bipartisanship in government. He is endorsed.

Call Hell and see if it's freezing!

Kudos to Nancy Nall

Nancy Nall, formerly of the wife's hometown paper, deserves a huge pat on the back for exposing one of the little Bush minions, a tiny troll named Tim Goeglein, as a shameless plagiarist. He was actually paid on our dime to minister to wingnut religious groups. Intellectual dishonesty in the Bush administration? I'm shocked I say, shocked!

Nice work, Nancy.

Hillary, meet Jabberwocky

Have a mirror handy?

The junior senator from New York, pandering on Iraq, stated that

We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift.

Hmmm, occupation is freedom, war is a gift, I don't understand...oh wait! I remember :

There was a book lying near Alice on the table...she turned over the leaves, to find some part that she could read, for it's all in some language I don't know,' she said to herself...She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. `Why, it's a Looking-glass book, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again."

Now where is that mirror?

Clinton's Laws of Politics

Bill in 2004:

One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

That law still in effect, Bill?

Don't go away mad

Just go away, Senator Clinton. Stop it with the random attacks on Senator Obama - you've tried everything, and you look pathetic and desperate. Let's say something works, and you manage to drag things out until August ('cuz you ain't winnin' afore then). Doesn't that sound like a grand time - 6 months of ugly attacks by Democrats on each other? And stop it with trying to change the rules midstream. Right or wrong, everyone involved had the chance to know the rules beforehand, and if your campaign was dumb enough to not learn how things work in caucuses, or in Texas, or in any of the roughly half of the country Senator Obama has already won, that's your own damned problem. Don't sue. You'll win or lose, but do so on the merits of your candidacy, and within the rules. Republicans break the rules to win at all costs, and we all know how that's turned out.

Just Think of the Possibilities!!

Yes, this is a real Playmobil item.

It is so popular that Amazon.com is completely out of stock. I'm not sure if I'm more frightened than amused by this. On the one hand, the people who would most likely purchase this for their kids are the ones whose politics which be most offended by the message being sent. On the other hand, I would have loved to have been sitting in the corporate boardroom when the braintrust at Playmobil gave this the green light. I wonder if they have plans to sell accessories. I can see the need to add a security perimeter. Perhaps an armed federal marshal? I understand that the optional commercial version of the Boeing 737 can be converted to a CIA rendition plane with a few contact stickers...

How does he hide this on his resume?

We here in Chicago are used to signing high-priced free agents who fail to deliver between the lines, but were any of our many failures bigger flops than Mark Penn, the "genius" behind HRC's campaign? It is absolutely staggering what a bad job this campaign has done.

Quote of the day

The "before the opening credits quote" from tonight's "The Wire":

"A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie."

I wonder if anyone has ever let the national media know this.

From "The Hill"

Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw (Brent Budowsky)

The most likely outcome is that on March 5 Hillary Clinton withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama. At this moment, Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) has three options, two of which are acceptable, one of which would be disastrous for her and the Democratic Party.
In my view she should withdraw today, though she won’t. Her second option is to campaign through March 4 at least but suspend all negative attacks and whatever happens, do it with class and grace as a unifier.

Her third option is to continue and escalate the negative attacks in a wrecking-ball, demolition-derby, scorched-earth desperation play that will be rejected by voters and do permanent damage to her national stature.

Two facts are obvious. First, she cannot be nominated at a price worth the nomination. If she pursues the desperation strategy, it will be rejected by voters as her attacks were rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin and nationally. Such a strategy would drive superdelegates to stampede to Sen. Obama (Ill.) and would be viewed as a direct attack on the prospects of the Democratic Party and on the aspirations of political independents that would make her nomination both impossible and worthless.

The worst case for Sen. Clinton is not that she loses the nomination, which is close to inevitable today, but that she loses in a way where she is seen as a destructive and divisive force that leaves large numbers of a generation of young people largely angry and bitter towards her for the rest of her career. The second fact is equally clear. Contrary to myths propagated by the pundits in the media and their embarrassing misreading of the history of our times, neither the voters nor the superdelegates want any part of any effort to steal the nomination, corrupt the democratic process of the Democratic Party or continue the politics of demeaning that the Clinton campaign has sadly trafficked in this year.

In the end, the superdelegates would never have considered violating and abusing the trust of the people who voted in primaries and caucuses. Equally ridiculous and offensive, the chance that Hillary Clinton could steal the support of elected pledged delegates is mathematically zero. The very notion that the Clinton staff would even consider this shows how far from the reality of 2008 the Clintons and their staff have been with tactics that have been a $150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good person, a good senator and a good public servant who has many years left in a career that could well ultimately lead to the presidency. She and her campaign have done some very bad things, in a very bad way, with very bad results.

It is time to begin a serious discussion of her upcoming withdrawal, and hope as Democrats and Americans that in the closing days of her campaign she acts as a healer and unifier who does credit to herself and a service to our party and our country.

Thoughts?

Completely off topic

If anyone is interested in watching tonight's lunar eclipse, we've got clear skies, and our students are streaming live video here:

mms://streaming.millikin.edu/astronomy

A tale of two headlines

The Chicago Tribune, historically a country-club Republican paper, described last night in their headline by saying:

Wisconsin to Obama, Decisively

The paper formerly known as the Wall Street Journal, which, now Fox-ified, is wetting itself to run against HRC, said

Obama Holds Off Clinton in Wisconsin

'nuf said.

Does this robe make my butt look big?

There isn't much I can add to this.

At the Electoro-Plex

NOW SHOWING!

Theater One: No Country for Old Men

Theater Two: The Hottie
and the Nottie

Theater One: There Will Be Blood

Be sure and visit us for our upcoming favorites weekend, where we will be showing

The Sting

Nosferatu

and

Clueless

The primary by the numbers

Note: Some of the numbers here may be off a few delegates, but it shouldn't be many.

We're far enough into the process where the variability has decreased, and we can with slightly more accuracy discuss what the possible outcomes are. As of this morning, Obama has roughly 1187 pledged delegates and Clinton has about 1028 (according to RealClearPolitics.com). If any of the superdelegate counts are to be believed, Obama has roughly 169 and Clinton has 239, giving them totals of 1356 and 1267, respectively. They need 2025 delegates to win the nomination, meaning that Obama needs 669 and Hillary needs 758. There are 1426 delegates left to get (Edwards has 26, and I'm including that in this number), 1049 of which are pledged and 387 are superdelegates.

Now, what about the future? How does each candidate picture getting those delegates?

Let's assume, as a best case scenario for Hillary, that she does as well in Texas and Ohio on March 4th as she did in California, where she won by a 10-point margin (and roughly 43 delegates). I don't see her winning by more than that, unless Obama falls on his face somewhere - he's winning too many subgroups, and even if she can hold the line, asking for more than what would essentially be a 30+ point turnaround from Wisconsin would be unreasonable. There are a total of 334 delegates available in those two states, 90% of California. In this scenario, she would gain around 186, and he would get 148. The other two March 4th states are Rhode Island and Vermont, with a total of 36 delegates. Comparing that to Maine and Delaware (two reasonably similar states which voted on Super Tuesday or later), that would project Obama to get 22 and Clinton 14 from those states. So the big "firewall" day would gain her a net +30 delegates, which would reduce the gap from around 90 to around 60 (assuming no changes in the superdelegate spread). Pennsylvania has another 158 delegates, and by this logic, she could gain another +16 on him (87-71).

Interim break: totals including projections for TX, OH, RI, VT, and PA:
Obama - 1597 (428 remaining to win)
Clinton - 1554 (471 remaining to win)

What are the other states still to vote? Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico (and Democrats Abroad). Given the results of the last 2 weeks, Obama has to be favored by significant margins in WY, MI, NC, IN, OR, MT, and SD. Kentucky could go more like Tennessee, he's really unpopular in WV (my sister lives there and has given me the inside info), and I have no idea what will happen in PR. Those seven states have a total of 315 delegates available. If they go anything like the states have gone in the 10-election winning streak, he'd come out with ~65% of the delegates, or 203 (compared with 112 for Clinton). Let's knock that down a bit, and call it 190-125. Then Obama's at 1787 and Hillary's at 1679. Those other states (KY, WV, PR, and the Dems Abroad) have a total of 141 delegates. Let's say she cleans up there, on the order of TN, which would give her an 81-60 edge in those states. Then, after all the pledged delegates are counted, the totals would be (there are roughly 57 assorted delegates that haven't yet been assigned due to close votes - I'm splitting them evenly):

Obama - 1875 (150 needed)
Clinton - 1789 (236 needed)

We'd then have to turn to the superdelegates. In this scenario (which, again, is a best-case scenario for Clinton), she'd need to get 236 out of 387 superdelegates (or 60.9%). That's certainly possible, given that she's won about 58.6% so far. If that happened, she could win the nomination, with these totals:

Pledged delegates - Obama: 1706, Clinton: 1550
Superdelegates - Obama: 318, Clinton: 475

In this scenario, she wins 2025-2024, on the strength of grabbing 60% of the superdelegates while winning 47.6% of the pledged delegates, and, obviously, causing headaches and turmoil the entire time. That would be a disaster.

I think a far more likely scenario is that Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania end up as essentially a tie (or, given momentum, an edge to Obama). If they're a tie, he'd be at 1902 before dealing with the remaining superdelegates, and she'd be at 1762. To win then, she'd have to take 68% of the superdelegates, and unless all the higher ups in the party want to screw themselves over, I don't see that happening.

Here's a more likely (in my opinion) projection of how this goes. One input is how Obama's done in the last 10 races - if we don't count the Virgin Islands and DC (both of which are outliers for different reasons), he's winning by a 29 point margin on average. That's a landslide, folks.

Starting Point - current tally
Obama 1365
Clinton 1267

The superdelegates have been breaking more in his direction over the last few weeks. She'd held a consistent 90+ margin, and now it's down to 70. I won't assume that it will narrow any more, but that they'll split the remaining superdelegates roughly 50-50.

Obama 193
Clinton 194

Remaining states and delegate breakdown predictions (written as Obama/Clinton state and total, without additional superdelegates):

Texas (105/88 - 1470/1355) - he'll be helped by the caucus format
Ohio (66/75 - 1533/1430) - Ohio is too red, and in a hick/racist way
Rhode Island - (13/8 - 1546/1438) - for the same reasons as the potomac states, etc.
Vermont - (11/4 - 1557/1442) - no state that elects Bernie Sanders will support someone who voted to authorize the damned war
Wyoming - (8/4 - 1565/1446) - look at Idaho and Utah
Mississippi - (18/15 - 1583/1461) - 19more like Alabama than Georgia
Pennsylvania - (90/78 - 1673/1539) - she'll be helped by the New York proximity and the racist governor, but by now, the momentum of him winning 15/16 races since Super Tuesday) is too much too stop
North Carolina - (75/40 - 1748/1579) - between SC and VA, and he'll romp here
Indiana - (40/32 - 1788/1611) - lots of Illinois folk to drive across the border
West Virginia - (12/16 - 1800/1595) - despite the historical fact that WV was created because it was the part of Virginia that didn't want slavery, Obama is way unpopular there
Oregon - (35/17 - 1835/1612) - another Western caucus state
Kentucky - (23/28 - 1858/1640) - caintuck just worries me, even though it's a caucus state
Montana - (12/4 - 1870/1644) - western state again
South Dakota - (11/4 - 1881/1648) - ditto
Puerto Rico - (25/30 - 1906/1678) - frickin' guess
Democrats Abroad - (5/2 - 1911/1680) - ditto

Actually, I think it could go a little better than this as the momentum builds, but let's say this happens. Now, if we add 1911 to 193, Obama's at 2104, and the Democratic nominee for president. The real question, in this model, is if after March 4, splitting Ohio and TX, and having a net delegate loss for Clinton of 20 on her firewall day, does she have the decency to drop out, or will she continue trying to hamstring Obama all the way to Denver?

Expect the ugly to continue

After Obama's win in Wisconsin tonight, the "inside information" (via MSNBC) from Hillary Clinton's campaign:

"If you look at his negatives, they have nowhere to go but up."

Like this is good news...

Israel Readies Missiles in North

By AP/STEVE WEIZMAN

(JERUSALEM) — Israel has deployed U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles near the northern city of Haifa in case of an attack by Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas in response to the killing of the group's top commander, security officials said Monday.

Thanks George.

RIP WSJ

The demise of the paper formerly known as the Wall Street Journal in the Rupert Murdoch Era is official.

The WSJ was never an exciting read, but they provided invaluable business reporting. The news department did so with the full knowledge that the editorial page was manned by major loons. Dow Jones did a remarkable job of maintaining the massive wall between news and editorial--I'd hazard a guess that the news group didn't even tell editorial where the Christmas party was going to be.

Alack and alas, now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over the WSJ, this once useful if dull paper has become just another mouthpiece in the Faux News arsenal. Just check out this FRONT PAGE headline from a recent edition:

Democrats' Attacks on Business Heat Up

Yeah, that is exactly "Fair and Balanced."

RIP WSJ

Thank God for the Constitution!

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would be proud (or at least Ben Franklin!)

From the 5th, a bedrock conservative circuit.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Texas Sex-Toy Ban

FORT WORTH, Texas — A federal appeals court has overturned a statute outlawing sex toy sales in Texas, one of the last states — all in the South — to retain such a ban.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Companies that own Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, which sell the devices in its Austin stores, and the retail distributor Adam & Eve sued in federal court in Austin in 2004 over the constitutionality of the law. They appealed after a federal judge dismissed the suit and said the Constitution did not protect their right to publicly promote such devices.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court cited Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 opinion that struck down bans on consensual sex between same-sex couples.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

Things Hillary's campiagn is doing that piss me off

General caveat - do I think that Hillary Clinton would be an awful president? No. She might even be good. But her campaign is based on sound Republican thinking - divide and conquer, squeeze every possible advantage out of the system, and do whatever it takes to win. There are some who like that style of campaigning, believing that it's what it will take to beat the GOP. Of course, that's the same logic as why we torture and destroy the Constitution and all that, and I just can't take it anymore.

1) I'll try to use small words as much as possible here: Florida and Michigan don't count. They can't. At some point, can't we all just agree that when there's rules, we, y'know, follow them? If the Sunshine and Mitten states want to have another election in March or April, they can play kingmakers then, but as for what's already happened, I'm having none of it. The Democratic leadership in both states knew the rules and consequences and made their choices anyway. Obviously, they thought one of two things would happen - either one candidate would run away with the nomination, they'd get seated out of "generosity", and in 2012 they'd have their slot in the process reserved, or it would be a fight, and someone would use the whole "disenfranchisement" argument, they'd get seated, etc. NO. I'm tired of this crap.

2) Everywhere Obama wins isn't insignificant or irrelevant. He's winning all over the country by large margins. Here is the data (from Kos):
Idaho +62
DC +51
Alaska +50
Kansas +48
Washington +37
Georgia +36
Nebraska +36
Colorado +35
Minnesota +35
Illinois +32
South Carolina +32
Virginia +29
North Dakota +24
Maryland +23
Louisiana +21
Maine +19
Utah +18
Alabama +14
Delaware +10
Iowa +9
Connecticut +4
Missouri +1

So, in the irrelevant states, he's won by an irrelevant average of 28.5%. Mark Penn can bite me. Oh, and one more tip, Mark - the next time you're on TV, comb your frickin' hair. You look like a slob.

Wow, am I a slacker

I apologize for not writing as much as I should here. That will change soon. As an interim, I was struck by these consecutive headlines on CNN.com:

* CNNMoney: Bernanke, Paulson: No '08 recession
* CNNMoney: Home price plunge sets record

Ben and Henry can say anything they like, but when houses (the biggest asset we'll ever lay our hands on for most of us) drop in value by almost 6% in 3 months, people get nervous...

From the "well duh" file

War strains U.S. military in tackling new crises
Admiral: Risk to capabilities remains significant, 15-month tours too long (full story)

I'm glad the Pentagon is on top of this one. I NEVER would have guessed that an endless, unpopular occupation would have an adverse impact on the military, or that repeated 15-month tours of duty were too long.

Good work there, fellas.

We've lost our Mittens...

Hair Dye Futures Plummet After Romney Withdraws

(AP) Stocks of several makers of men's hair coloring products plummeted in the wake of Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the presidential race. "We had hoped for a return to those halcyon never-gray Reagan days," said one company representative, "but what good does McCain do us?"

The American Society of Vacuous Empty Suits issued a statement expressing their regret over Romney's decision. "One of our own came so close," said the Society's release, "but despite this setback, we remain committed to our platform of being shallow and insignificant."

In a related development, Michael Dukakis is expected to deliver the traveling trophy for "Biggest Tool to Run for President from Massachusetts" to Gov. Romney later today.

The S.S. Mittens

Ah, the S.S. Mittens sinks to a watery grave, darker than even Willard's hair coloring. As Alex Koppelman reported in Salon this morning

we now have an estimate of exactly how much it's cost Romney to win each delegate he's earned so far, and the results aren't pretty for anyone still hoping to get a piece of the Romney estate. The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reports a calculation done by Alex Vogel, a Republican strategist, showing that Romney has spent $1.16 million per delegate at this point in the race. At that rate, it would cost Romney $1.33 billion to become the Republican presidential nominee. And remember, a lot of the Romney campaign's money is coming from Romney himself -- in the fourth quarter of 2007, the campaign announced over $27 million in total receipts; $18 million of that was Romney's personal money.

Great moments in political oratory

From Mittens Romney:

"All of us on this stage are Republican. But the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built - who will be able to strengthen that house, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton Hillary wants to build."

Wow, that's inspiring.

Off to do some judging

Yippie, 3:45 AM alarm! Off to do the election judge thing again. You kids play nice. I've got an uneasy feeling about today's results, but we will have to let it play out. If your state votes today, make sure you get to the polls, and if you can, help others to get there too.

One person's guess

On Daily Kos, a diarist named poblano has been making predictions as to how Super Tuesday will go. Here's the most recent breakdown (the work put into this diary is impressive):


Who knows how it will actually go, but wouldn't that be fascinating? I'll be safely ensconced in a polling place all day, judging all who come before me (or working for the county), but I can't wait to come home and see all those results coming in. This is the first time in my life that neither party has had either an incumbent President or VP running, and it should be a fun show.

Obamania/Hulkamania!

From CNN.com's Ticker: "Florida resident Terry Bollea –(Hulk Hogan’ to millions of wrestling fans) announced his own presidential pick: Democrat Barack Obama.

During an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Bollea was asked who he would like to see in the Oval Office. "If I had to step out, and say who I really believe in — that catches my ear, that makes sense, that really can make a change — I would say Obama," he replied."

At least Rudy's gone!

Rudy Giuliani, pictured below, plans to withdraw today.

Hello, I must be going

A couple of quick hits before I'm gone again (unfortunately, my brother's wife died from cancer at the far too young age of 48 earlier this week so I'm off for a few days.)

First--Damn you Schmidlap. A White House I thought already reclaimed is back in serious play again. You predicted a President McCain if HRC bears the Democratic standard.

I would have loved for any Dem to run against Romney. What a ridiculous man. besides his lack of core principles and disaffection for the truth, he is just a boneheaded empty suit. Any decent campaign could fill even this dreadfully long season with ads of his lies about pops marching with King and "varmint hunting." Almost topping those though was that splendid video of the well-coiffed bonehead with "who let the dogs out" and "bling bling," That made Dukakis in the tank and windsurfing Kerry look quite reasonable by comparison.

Or Huckabee, that would have been fun mocking the "earth is 6000 years old" crowd.

Or Rudy, with his mob connections and alley cat morals.

But McCain? That is a different story entirely, especially against HRC.

SO--here is what I would like to see happen.

1) Romney sweeps Super Tuesday and wins the nomination;
2) Obama MUST win
3) If McCain wins, he is dumb enough to pick Huckabee for veep (a long shot, sure, but there are rumors that McC and Hucklebuffoon have cut a deal for Mr. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a dinosaur to stay in long enough to split the votes of the "my religion is wackier than you" crowd.

Next--from my Mexican sojourn last weekend, it looks like the uneasy truce in northern Baja between the drug gangs and the authorities (we don't care if you kill each other, but we'll get ugly if you mess with the tourists) is collapsing. I saw a heavy armed police presence in Rosarito, my little beach spot 20 miles south of Tijuana, and the usual college party crowd was nowhere to be seen. Just what a struggling economy heavily dependent on tourism needs.

And how do any Californians deal with all those campaign ads for your various referendum propositions?

Clinton's Florida stunt was nauseating.

Pats 27
Giants 6

Edwards drops out

So my early vote for Edwards wasn't as useful as I'd hoped. Oh well. Obama will win Illinois easily anyway.

Re: Hillary in Florida

You conniving, win-at-all-costs harridan. What are you, a Republican? I have no choice but to support whoever's opposing the GOP this year, but yegads, she annoys me.

What are you going to do with your $600?

I'm not an economist, nor do I even pretend to understand how money works. On the other hand, I do try to observe how politics works, and I'm struck by how this process, rushed though it may be, is almost an example of our government functioning well. Everybody in Congress and the White House actually wants to accomplish something (or at least make it look like they're accomplishing something), so they're compromising, each side giving the other something they're asking for, neither side getting everything they want, and soon, there will be a bill. Weird. I didn't realize that our government could still, ya know, function. A little.

Although I am curious as to how, on the one hand, the members of the GOP can spend hundreds of billions on this, but when asked to spend $10 billion to help lower-income families keep their kids healthy (which would relieve a bigger burden on those parents than $300/kid), they go ape.

See you all next week

Off to a conference in (not very) sunny San Diego.

And now, in this corner...

Congratulations, Art Maurer of Crete (the hideously ugly suburb, not the beautiful Greek island). You are this week's winner!

This dimwit gives us

when I wrote this letter, it had been 2,313 days since the last terrorist attack in the United States--on Sept. 11, 2001. How many other countries can claim the same record for protecting its citizens? More than 1 million people jammed Times Square for the New Year's Eve celebration. None of them seemed concerned that a suicide bomber might be taking advantage of so many human targets in so little space. There must be a reason they were safe, and I, for one, don't want it changed.

Oh my God. Please tell me one thing Der Chimpenfuhrer has done to "make us safe" and

This one's for Schmidlap

From GOP caucus winner/freak Mike Huckabee

I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

That's rich.

From our favorite Bush apologist

Bush apologist Mark Silva is following Der Chimpenfuhrer to the UAE and gives us this:

where my room was running somebody 1595 USD a night, and the amenities include a PDA to control all of the entertainment The NEC flat screen, I am estimating 60 inches. And a balcony with a view of the arches at the gate to the grounds, sort of L'Arc de Triomphe Vegas-style, lighted last evening in purple. Fine Australian wine yet only Moet et Chandon, no Dom, sits in the minibar.

That's right, Mark. SOMEONE was paying what most Americans would LOVE to see as a paycheck every two weeks for your room. And who was that "someone?" Taxpayers, do we fund your junkets? Your employer, which just raised its price to 75 cents a day? Or perhaps the UAE, that may want favorable coverage for perhaps, another ports deal?

This is good news...right?

(WASHINGTON)—The Democratic-led Congress is unlikely to block U.S. plans to sell $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns from some members that the systems could be used against Israel. The Bush administration on Monday notified Congress of its intent to sell the bomb-delivery systems as part of a multibillion-dollar arms package to bolster the defense of U.S. allies in the Gulf.

Nothing like giving one of the world's largest sponsors of terrorism a whole bunch of bombs.

That's just perfect

The Chimp continues his tour of the Middle East with a stop in Dubai, which is apparently throwing him a holiday for his visit. Of course they are - Dubai is a country run by people exactly like Bush and his ilk. They're way too rich and are ruled by their adolescent passions to play and be wasteful rather than in any way contribute anything. It's a giant mega-rich frat party. Surrounded by hardcore Islamic regimes, Dubai is a playpen. Not enough beachfront property? Hell, let's dig up the ocean floor and build our own, palm tree-shaped islands! We live in a desert? Let's become an international golf destination, where people with way too much money can hit golf balls off the tops of hotels (I wonder where they land). My only hope is that the giggling murderer will realize that he's found his kind and will stay there and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

A HUGE shout-out and God bless...

Forgive me for getting personal, but basically since Christmas my lovely wife


has been in Indiana taking care of her mother. It's a beautiful thing you're doing (despite the fact that I am living like a Cro-Magnon man)

Love you dear.

You don't

Pete, the simple answer is that you can't talk to people like that, at least not about any issues dealing with science. Science is inherently a rational process (assuming the scientists act, as a whole, rationally, which eventually the community of scientists does), and people who make "arguments" from the perfect literality of the Bible are not being rational. They're ruled by their faith, which is their choice, but it provides no avenue for discussion. Entirely too many people in that community believe that if any aspect of the Bible is demonstrably untrue, the entire text is faulty and irrelevant, and once one builds that rigid a foundation to base one's entire life on, one cannot be willing to explore any variations. These are people who diffuse cogent, well-thought out, complex arguments about inconsistencies in the Bible with a simple "If you truly believed, you wouldn't see that as a problem." What do you do with that? Obviously, you don't truly believe, so nothing you say can be relevant.

To believe as many of these people do, you have to accept God as a being which, given infinite power and knowledge, would choose to (a) create humanity as a curious, thoughtful, questioning species capable of understanding complex issues through the human creation of science and (b) produce a staggering amount of data which such a species would be inclined to accept, but which would really be a trick, designed to make us prove our faith. I'm not sure why so many are so devoted to a God which, in that model, is a complete jackass. "Hey guys, I'm going to give you the skills to use science to, say, cure diseases and travel to other planets, but if you try to use those same skills to explore anything about any of these fossils or quasars or black holes or anything like that, you'll burn in Hell, you blasphemous bastards." I mean, does that make any sense?

Of course, religion as a whole confuses me, so I may not be the best source for answers here.

How can you talk to these people?

In another group, I have encountered the first of their kind for me, personally. Oh, I knew they existed, and I've seen and read their absurdities in the press. But even after 40+ years of involvement in organized religion, I have never personally encountered a young earth creationist.

He is a decent fellow, college-educated and a retired commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, and yet--the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon. Now this issue becomes more important with a GOP caucus-winner who thinks Jesus rode dinosaurs, but on a personal level, how do you deal with these people?

I am just amazed that some people could walk into a natural history museum in 2008 and look up at the dinosaurs and say, "Timmy, ignore what the exhibit signs said about all those millions of years. We know that the Lord God made them on the third day of creation, about 2:00 on the afternoon. Praise the Lord."

I grew up in the Methodist church, and my Sunday School teacher was also my 1st grade teacher. She recognized early on that I was an odd child, as I would ask in Sunday School (6 years old) how big a boat Noah would have needed for two of everything, and what if one of the two died on the boat? I still hear dear Mrs. Morse telling me, "it wasn't a real boat. It is an ancient story about a time when floods in the river valleys were very common and dangerous in that part of the world, and how God loves us."

Pretty damn good explanation.

I still see no conflict whatsoever between science, history and faith. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Today, I think he would expand his list to include geologists, physicists and archeologists as well as Caesar. Even Paul (who had his own issues) recognized that the Old Testament stories were allegorical. Science and history cannot challenge faith (if I happen to believe that "John's" words in 3:16, usually seen behind goalposts are true, that cannot be rationally challenged. Middle eastern mythology CAN however, be challenged by science and history, and it gets CREAMED.)

I won't even bother discussing how ridiculous the "science" of a young earth is. But even from a theological standpoint, there are just way too many conflicts to confound even the most since literalist.

There is a difference between Pauline theology (Paul knew none of the "Gospel stories," was unfamiliar with any claims of virgin birth, and in many ways portrayed Jesus as an object acted upon by God) and Gospel Christianity. From there you can even drill down and find differences between the Synoptic Gospels (M, M and L) and the Johanine version.

Another problem for Biblical literalists is that they treat as revealed texts things which either 1) weren't texts or 2) weren't viewed by the authors as revelations. The Old Testament was reduced to writing centuries after the origin of these tales, particularly the historical narratives of the Pentateuch, and the anonymous writers did not claim to be expressing revealed truth (as compared to the Quaran, for example.).

The creation story in Genesis is profoundly important because it allegorically disposes of polytheistic faiths. It is significant that the one god creates earth, sky, water, flora and fauna, rather than a multitude of deities identified with the various aspects of life in other faiths. By clinging to literacy, they miss the point.

In NT terms, Jesus of course wrote nothing, and nothing was written about him contemporaneously (the "gospels" were recorded between 30 and 70 years after his death.) [note there is also the problem of the non-canonical gospels, most notably Peter and Thomas, and the Gospel of James, which was a fictional effort to discredit non-Roman claims to primacy). The epistles were generally correspondence filled with theological interpretations, social mores and practical problems (most of what Paul wrote about the strictures of Mosaic law came from one basic question--was Christianity a sub-sect of Judaism? Jesus preached only to the Jews, but Paul carried the message beyond. There were several aspects of Judaism which were unpalatable to Hellenistic Gentiles. While quite willing to absorb other faiths, they, for some reason were not fond of ritual sacrifices, stoning, and for the men, one unpleasant practice on adults w/o anesthesia.) Not even Paul claimed that he was writing revealed truth.

In other words, they don't need to claim literal truth to proclaim their faith. Doing so, in my view, shows irrational thought, a lack of intellectual honesty and intellectual laziness. I repeat the question at the beginning?

How can one deal with these people?

Wait, I think this is where I came in...

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

The report stated that "Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines peace in Lebanon, sends arms to the Taliban, seeks to intimidate its neighbors with alarming rhetoric, defies the United Nations and destabilizes the entire region by refusing to be open about its nuclear program."

Haven't we heard this before? The not-so-veiled threat of "before it's too llate," the association with feared terrorists (Hussein-Osama, Iran-Taliban) no matter how ill-supported or illogical the connection is (I know, I've seen the news reprts about Iranian weapons being found in Afghanistan, according to "U.S. officials" and I know that there were some talks, but these two DESPISE each other, just like bin Laden and Hussein.)

And in terms of "defying the United Nations? George, need I remind you of the U.N. ambassador you forced down that organization's throat against the will of Congress and remarks such as

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States

and

The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Yeah, there's a deep and abiding respect for the United Nations.

The only comforting thing is that he can't INVADE Iran. He's broken the military too badly to open up another front. The flip side of that is that it leaves open even a more dangerous option.

There are a lot of jokes in the picture below, but I am too sickened and frightened to make them.

Which one is the better Mitt Romney?

OR

Rudy on Freedom

His campaign is essentially dead in the water (not as dead as Fred Thompson's, but pretty close), and here's yet another good reason why. The best mayor ever to see his city hit by a major terrorist attack and somehow try to turn that into a strength, in 1994:

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Your Bush administration at work

Baghdad Embassy Is Called A Fire Risk
'Serious' Problems Were Ignored, Says State Dept. Official

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 12, 2008

The firefighting system in the massive $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has potential safety problems that top U.S. officials dismissed in their rush to declare construction largely completed by the end of last year, according to internal State Department documents, e-mails and interviews.

Some officials assert that in the push to complete the long-delayed project, potentially life-threatening problems have been left untouched. "This is serious enough to get someone killed," said a State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation. "The fire systems are the tip of the iceberg. That is the most visible. But no one has ever inspected the electrical system, the power plant" and other parts of the embassy complex, which will house more than 1,000 people and is vulnerable to mortar attacks.

Nice work, fellas. Note in particular that last sentence, you know, the mortar attacks...

A good ID-ea?

The Supremes heard oral argument in a case involving Indiana's voter ID law (requiring a photo ID at the polling place.) The measure is obviously a political one, as there have been exactly zero reported cases of "voter impersonation" in the state of Indiana.

Note that this isn't about REGISTERING to vote, where your eligibility is determined through the presentation of various documents and information. This is AT THE POLLING PLACE where you have already established your eligibility and they already have your name on the list. To vote fraudulently, you would have to impersonate a registered voter. Here, the election judge compares your signature when you get your ballot to the one on file.

Voting has been characterized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right, and as such, any restriction is reviewed under the "strict scrutiny" standard. The state must show a "compelling interest" to prevail. Does it have one? I certainly can't find it.

Note: Here are the ID requirements for REGISTERING to vote in Indiana:

Box 10: Identification Documentation If you are registering to vote in Indiana for the first time, and you are sending this application by mail, you must provide identification documentation. Identification may include a current and valid photo id, current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the name and address of the voter. You may include a copy of your identification with this application. Do not mail an ORIGINAL copy of your document! If you do not provide identification with this application or to the county voter registration office before election day, you will be asked for it the first time you vote.

Pot, I have the kettle for you on Line 1...

Der Chimpenfuhrer called upon Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian lands. Wow, what a great idea there, ending the occupation of Arab lands in the Middle East! George, you should give it a try!

Why does anyone want John Kerry's endorsement?

Nothing like associating yourself with a winner..ahem.

The senator, pictured below, endorsed Obama today.

The Wisdom of Mitt Romney

Doing his best parsing on his marching with Martin Luther King lie:

"I'm an English literature major," he added, after the questions didn't stop. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there."

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls....

24 die in fresh Iraq violence

BAGHDAD: Blasts and clashes throughout the country and a fire at an oil refinery killed more than 24 people yesterday. Two suicide bombers struck in a Sunni district of Baghdad, killing 14 people including the leader of a US-backed neighbourhood security patrol.

And naturally, "The US military blamed Al Qaeda for the attacks, saying the attacks provided `perhaps the clearest proof of the nature of this enemy that will destroy the very people and neighbourhoods of whom it claims to protect'".

This one's just funny

ST. CHARLES, Mo. - What the ...?

A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music. City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights. City Councilman Richard Veit said he was prompted to propose the bill after complaints about bad bar behavior. He says it will give police some rules to enforce when things get too rowdy.

Early Results

In New Hampshire, there are these two small towns that have the quaint custom of conducting their voting at midnight, so that their small vote totals have some national media attention. Well, here's some attention to the results from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location (combined):

GOP
McCain 10 (43.4%)
Huckabee 5 (21.7%)
Paul 4 (17.4%)
Romney 3 (13.0%)
Giuliani 1 (4.3%)

Dem
Obama 16 (69.6%)
Clinton 3 (13.0%)
Edwards 3 (13.0%)
Richardson 1 (4.3%)

FWIW...

Rocket Man

(crossposted to the Scoreheads group)

So, Roger Clemens filed suit against his alleged steroid injector.Frankly, I'm amazed.The case was filed in Texas state court, and I admit to knowing NOTHING about Texas civil procedure. However, I'm assuming they have a rule similar to the federal one where, prior to discovery, in a motion to dismiss, the court assumes that everything the plaintiff alleges is true. If those allegations state a claim, the case proceeds, and goes into discovery.THAT is where things get interesting.

Discovery involves production of documents, interrogatories (written questions) and depositions (interviews with a court reporter present), both under oath. While there are limits of course, the scope of questions that can be asked in discovery is far more broad than what could be asked/introduced at trial. I am somewhat stunned that Clemens is willing to go under oath for such a far-reaching inquiry, when many stones can be turned over (He may also try to "out-lawyer" him, given that Clemens has millions and a trainer--doesn't.)

Substantively, under Supreme Court precedent, Clemens as a public figure has to prove "actual malice." For ordinary folks like us, we can sue just for falsity, even if the defendant had thoroughly researched the matter and made a mistake. For public figures, to promote open discussion under the 1st Amendment, they have to show actual knowledge of the falsity or a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

It will be interesting!

It's the end of the (Clinton) world as we know it...

SO--

Did either/or Iowa or what happens tomorrow end the "Clinton era?"

When the wingnuts turn on themselves

It's awfully fun to watch...

So, tonight the GOP is having another debate in New Hampshire, this time on the right wing propaganda network known as Fox News. For this debate, despite polling ahead of some of his competitors (including Hollywood Fred), Ron Paul has been put on the sidelines, and his supporters are fighting mad. Check out these posts on a story at FoxNews's website about the debate:

"I have been an avid supporter and fan of Fox News. If Fox News is to be Fair and Balanced then why have I heard that Ron Paul has been excluded from the NH roundtable discussion. I am interested in hearing his repsonses in comparison to the other candidates.
You report, We Decide!!"

"I will not be watching since this will be a farce. I will no longer be watching any fox news programs as fox has showed they can not be trusted with honest news. Ron Paul should be in the forum!"

"Fox,

You don’t know how dissapointed many, many of your fans are for your exclusion of Paul and Hunter from Sunday’s debate.
You have left us looking for your replacement in the “fair and balanced” arena.

Shad Hutnyak
Spring Creek, Nevada"

"FOX NEWS CHANNEL IS NOW OFF MY WATCHING LIST..UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED. HOPE THEIR RATINGS GO IN THE TANK."

Ahhh, blessed Schadenfreude.

Always a bridesmaid...

I heard an interesting rumor tonight, via . He posited that Edwards is trying to cast this as a two-person race (Obama-Edwards), and then said something surprising. The rumor is that Edwards might consider a veep run, round 2, with Obama.

When you think about it, it makes some sense. Edwards is still a young guy politically speaking, and could easily run on his own after being vice-president. However, if he doesn't, and doesn't get the nomination, his political career is practically over (approaching Harold Stassen territory then.)

Intriguing...thoughts?

Back from Nawlins

Great city to visit - bring an appetite, money, and your walking shoes. Oh, and some willingness to ignore the idiots (like the woman working at the World War II museum - great museum, btw - who was ranting about how Bill Clinton sold the national soul to the Chinese after he fooled around with Monica).

Thoughts:

1) I cannot say I'm saddened by Obama's performance Thursday night and the resulting Obamania surge in New Hampshire. As I said, I like Edwards a bit more, but I do really like Obama, and he's not Hillary.

2) I find it absurd that Hillary is touting her "35 years" of experience. She hasn't been in politics anywhere near that long - that dates back to her graduating law school. Essentially all that says is that she's older than Obama, who was 11 years old 35 years ago. Big whoop.

3) Schmidlap pointed out that Hillary had a big lead in the InTrade trading a few days ago. The worm has now turned, with Hillary at 38.0 to win (down from 75 in October and 69 on Jan 1) and Obama at 61.0 to win (up from about 21 on Jan 1). I have no idea what any of that means.

4) There has been a back-and-forth on the whole "hope" thing that Obama has been doing, with Hillary's supporters essentially treating it as wishful thinking. Obama, I think, has defended the idea pretty well, and it's what seems to be catching people's attention - working for something better, and people seem to be inspired by it. If he can continue to attract young voters the way he did in Iowa, that would be huge not just for his campaign, but for politics, where the Democrats haven't seen a real influx of new young voters since Kennedy.