Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

New Open Thread here
Previous Open Thread here

1514 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1514 Newer› Newest»

Yamaka said...: "I should add that the Nazis, as exemplified by Joseph Goebbels, were the masters in DISHONESTY."

Rodent:

Good, you understood well of Goebbels.

Aren't you the Goebbels of BHO's Company, the Minister of False Propaganda?

Get lost.

:-(; May 17, 2008 12:37 AM
Aunt Jean said...: WASHINGTON—The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school—but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

“He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

I guess the school thought of him as a professor but he still wasn't. Jean; May 17, 2008 12:38 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus -

Yesterday or the day before it was announced that Hillary and Obama signed an agreement for Joint-Fundraising which will help her to pay off her campaign debt. So she will play nice now otherwise it will cost her where it hurts - in her pocketbook.

______

softspoken22 - thank you for the link - I will go take a look at it now ;); May 17, 2008 12:39 AM
protactinium said...: "Rodent:

Good, you understood well of Goebbels.

Aren't you the Goebbels of BHO's Company, the Minister of False Propaganda?

Get lost."

Wasn't it that Nazis that used there power to help fix the officals? Sounds like Hillary supporters trying to replace their own personal blame.

Hey guys Russia fixs election, you could always move their.

You tell people to get lost? and yet you have nothing better to do then sit here all day and critize others? Maybe you should take your own advice?

Or would you rather try and force other people off the site in order to squish freedom of speech? Again Nazi tatics.

I know understand why you will vote for Mccain. Facism at its finest.; May 17, 2008 12:43 AM
Yamaka said...: "Did you really just call UoC corrupt? Desprate!!! Why don't you go read about it before you critize."

Proto:

This is the story perhaps you don't want to know:

U of C has its Hospitals, where Michelle Obama works.

As soon as BHO became the US Senator, her salary increased about $200K a year.

Her initial salary was about $121K, which jumped to $312K !

In return, BHO asked for a pavilion for the UC Hospitals at a cost of $1 million dollar from the US Govt as an Earmark!

This is a quid pro quo.

He will be asked about it in the Next Debate, if he is the Nominee!

Now, tell me how good are U of C and Obamas? This matter will be one of the hundreds under the front-burner of the 527s for the Fall!

BHO is very Risky. The Democratic Party can not afford to field a messy character like BHO as their Candidate for the GE.; May 17, 2008 12:45 AM
Aunt Jean said...: I've got one question why is it when you prove that something obama said wasn't really fact that it's just foolishness on Hillary supporter side but when obama supporters says that Hillary is wrong that they go to huffington post or some other god forsaken place to try and prove something. I don't get it. I do believe this just like other people in politics even though he wasn't a professor he probable thought of himself as one. But here's the tricky part if you are not really one even though you and the school might consider you one .You shouldn't say you are one if you have never had that title. Jean; May 17, 2008 12:46 AM
tmess2 said...: The debate over Obama's position at the University of Chicago shows how people who don't know what they are talking about will spin things.

Having attended a law school comparable to Chicago, I can tell you that my law school could have issued a similar press release about any of our senior lecturers. To claim that this statement is evidence of corruption shows a lack of knowledge of the institution -- which has a reputation beyond reproach as a leading CONSERVATIVE law school.

For most purposes, senior lecturers (or equivalent titles) are treated as if professors for most purposes. At my law school, we had the distinct honor of having a Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court teach an annual course on comparative constitutional law during that court's recess. Officially, he was a lecturer, but I can assure you his students gave him the full respect of a professor as did the other members of the faculty.

For talking to lay people (e.g. in a biographical press release), most lecturers would describe themselves as professors because it easier than taking 20 paragraphs to explain the technical academic distinction (mostly having to do with their role in school administration) between the various academic titles. The only place where it would be clearly inappropriate would be in a resume or curriculum vitae.

In short, the spinners in this discussion are either trying to make something out of very little or pretending that the very little does not exist at all.; May 17, 2008 12:47 AM
Hippolytus said...: Leah,
Yes, I read about the joint-fundraising agreement. However, Hillary's going to have to do more than the bare minimum to qualify for campaign debt relief, in view of what's happened. She's going to have to work very hard on Obama's behalf over the course of the campaign, in order to undo the damage. She's no dummy -- she knows that unless she does so -- persuasively -- she's going to look like Lady MacBeth with all kinds of blood on her hands. I don't think it will come to that. She'll be Super Dem because it's in her best interest to do that.
As I said to Aunt Jean, things are going to look a lot different in five months or so.; May 17, 2008 12:49 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Instead of this page being called OPEN THREAD it should be called THE TWILIGHT ZONE!

.; May 17, 2008 12:50 AM
Aunt Jean said...: orotactinium I don't know where you are saying that I'm smearing obama are you anough lemming?I don't know if you have noticed yet or not since you have a brain the size of a cockroach obama hasn't won . Jean; May 17, 2008 12:53 AM
suzihussein22 said...: http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=442-This is what I've read about Strickland so far. I know this is only one source so far, but it sounds promising too.; May 17, 2008 12:55 AM
billyjay66 said...: aunt jean

I read your post on 12:58 about please consider Hillary. I was a fan for all eight years of President Clinton. He brought the economy back as he promised and better. He inherited a four year term that had created no jobs - left a $300 billion deficit 7.5% unemployment and 475k new unemployment claims each week - a horrible figure. Everything got better for eight years.

I met Hillary early in Bill's primary season Feb '92 when her engagements were less than 100 people. I handed her a letter for Bill encouraging him to fight back on the draft dodging stuff. Had no idea how much fight was in her.

I was not ready to be impressed. But hearing her talk - I knew she was capable of making it to the top also.

BUT the way she has waged a win-at-all cost campaign - she can wage it without me. I have said before if she somehow wins no way could I vote for McCain.

If somehow she is offered the VP to unite the party I recogognise how passionate her supporters are and I would volunteer to help the ticket. just don't think it will happen. Thanks for putting out your plea for Hillary; May 17, 2008 12:59 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: softspoken22-

Here is wikipedia link for Sebelius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

For some reason the photo did not show up with the article on the link above, maybe it is just my computer acting funny tonight.

p.s. The link you posted was interesting re: selling off the 700 cars and having the folks wear their own pants ;) That's one way to be frugal.; May 17, 2008 1:07 AM
protactinium said...: aunt jean - "orotactinium I don't know where you are saying that I'm smearing obama are you anough lemming?I don't know if you have noticed yet or not since you have a brain the size of a cockroach obama hasn't won . Jean"

Ahh nothing like being told off with 5th grader insults.

Here let me fill in your clueless self.

1. Hillary and Obama are doing joint fundraising to pay off her debt. This is essentially her quiting but she has to recover all her lost cash before she can quit.

2. Obama is leading in everything. We do not live in Russia. He will be the nominee, and the next president of America.

Go back to your smear talk, and personal insults. I love it. It feels so good knowing that your dying on the inside becuase Hillary has lost. Oh and when Obama is offically nominated I will think of you, and feel the joy.

Good luck trying to hurt Obama I have seen it on these blogs from the day he won Iowa. :-) NONE OF IT HAS WORKED. Now I will take my cockroach brain back to doing some thing productive for society so people like you can freeload off my hard reasearch. :-)

Enjoy being a bitter old lady.; May 17, 2008 1:09 AM
Hippolytus said...: softspoken22
thanks for the link re: Strickland. I don't know anything about him, and appreciate the info. Based purely on the link, I'm glad to see the priority that he has demonstrated giving to education, from pre-K through college. Seems like his heart is in the right place. Seems like a good man...We could do a lot worse! Do you (or others) think he can take the rough and tumble?; May 17, 2008 1:11 AM
protactinium said...: Kathleen Sebelius is awesome by the way. There is a very very good chance she will be the first female president.

I do believe she would be a much better vp then Hillary. There would be less of the fights for power such that exsited between her and Gore in the 90s.

I would be very happy to vote for that ticket it could be a 16 year democratic rule with those two.; May 17, 2008 1:18 AM
Yamaka said...: tme:

"Officially, he was a lecturer,"

This is the key.

What was BHO's Official Position as given in his Appointment Letter?

I say it was Senior Lecturer, Not Professor, period.

Believe me, I was there in the U of C Pritzker School of Medicine for 5 years. The U of C has a practice of actual title vs for external use. I have seen internal memo regarding this issue.

External use is a political matter.

________________________________

Folks:

American Research Group predicts that

HRC will have about 65% to 29% for BHO in KY

She will have about 45% to 50% for BHO in OR.

It could be a big blowout for her in KY.

My Math for HRC is still holding as of this minute:

1911 + 102 + 200 = 2213 a few over 2209 the Real Hurdle (2025 is the Bogus Hurdle, w/o MI and FL)
__________________________________

jp:

A correction. MI "Uncommitted" must be divided by 4 contestants Biden, Richardson, Obama and Edwards whose names were not there in the ballot. The UnCom vote could be to any one of them!

HRC, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd's names were in the ballot, as I understand.
___________________________________
:-); May 17, 2008 1:21 AM
Hippolytus said...: We seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to VP possibilities. Here's to Obama making a shrewd and wise choice!; May 17, 2008 1:23 AM
Yamaka said...: "I do believe she would be a much better vp then Hillary."

prot:

HRC is NOT for VP.

She has been a Co-President for 8 years.

She is a Presidential Timber.

Not for a VP.

She will clinch the Nomination.

Dems cannot afford to lose another GE with inexperienced BHO!

:-(; May 17, 2008 1:24 AM
protactinium said...: Kathleen Sebelius page.

http://www.ksgovernor.com/ShowPage.asp?page=issues.asp

Streamlining state government to save taxpayers nearly $1 billion, and cutting wasteful government spending to the tune of nearly $159 million so far.

Balancing three state budgets in a row - without a tax increase, and protecting every dime of education funding.

Enacting the most substantial investment in public schools in Kansas history - again, without tax increases - and initiating audits to ensure education dollars are spent directly on classroom learning.

Launching initiatives to provide lower-cost prescription drugs for older Kansans, more affordable health insurance plans for small businesses, and health coverage for thousands of additional children.

Honoring the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform in the Kansas National Guard with passage of a new Military Bill of Rights that provides additional benefits and security to soldiers and their families.

Encouraging the creation of thousands of new jobs - leading Kansas to seventeen consecutive months of job growth, and earning Kansas accolades from Forbes magazine as the nation's best place to do business; May 17, 2008 1:25 AM
Hippolytus said...: Yamaka,
Do you never tire of your drivel? Give us and yourself a rest.
The cake is baked. It's on the cooling tray.; May 17, 2008 1:29 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama just received another 'pledged delegate' in the top side bar box. I can't tell where it came from though yet.

So now - total number of delegates to cinch the nomination is:

Obama 123
Clinton 307; May 17, 2008 1:35 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Hippolytus-your welcome...and I echo your opinion on the 1:23 post.

protactinium-just wanted to say-Your name made me think of The Core, a movie...unobtanium-the material created to make a "terraship." For the Dem. primary, it could be the material needed to unite HRC and Obama supporters.:)...and Sebelius of KS seems to have found the ruby slippers.:) Now I have also made a reference to the political satire of Baum.; May 17, 2008 1:36 AM
Yousri said...: Leah,
It is another Edwards' delegate from SC, for a total of 7 from that state.; May 17, 2008 1:41 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yousri -

Thank you.
I've been looking all over here at DCW and never could find a note about it ;(; May 17, 2008 1:45 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yousri-

If it was Marilyn Hemingway, then someone forgot to put the 'bold' notation next to her name on the Edwards' page. Just thought I'd mention it.; May 17, 2008 1:48 AM
Yousri said...: Leah,
If you click on thidebar Ultimate Delegate Tracker
You would've known what changes took place. ;-); May 17, 2008 1:49 AM
suzihussein22 said...: Is Mrs. McCain fully vetted?-http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080515/cm_uc_crjcox/op_456120;_ylt=Ap6GaLRhoFJRRieI8MOjE6fSos4F; May 17, 2008 1:55 AM
Amot said...: Leah, you should ask me :)
I track the pledged I can give you an idea what to follow with IA nd NH :)

P.S. You, addict! :); May 17, 2008 1:56 AM
Amot said...: I can't understand why did you, guys, fell into the cheap trick trap and got engaged on the problem has Obama been Assosiated Professor or not... 50+ posts on that! Instead of continuing the discusiion about fuel, which I found interesting...

Ignore future stupidities like that!; May 17, 2008 1:59 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yousri-

Yeah I see it now "Green Papers moved another Edwards' delegate in SC for a total of 7." ;p

But it is easier to find the new ones on the Edwards Delegate Status page - if the 'bold' notations are added like the other ones there.; May 17, 2008 1:59 AM
Yousri said...: Leah,

Edwards Deleagtes Status post has been updated.

There you go! :-); May 17, 2008 2:02 AM
Amot said...: Mike in MD,
I have case-studied the 269 some weeks ago when I had 3 scenarios dead lock on 269 (and none below!) There are 4 states currently with 0 votes - tied R&D and 5 R states that can turn either tied or D with a single seat! I will recheck it and give you a detailed summary :); May 17, 2008 2:04 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Amot-

Yes I am an addict.
I will have to enter a 12 step program after Obama is inaugurated!

Actually I was obsessed with learning the Italian language (for 7 years) before I got addicted to watching the 'delegate' counts. I must say that I have been shamefully neglecting my studies the past couple of months ;(

OBAMA / V.P. of your choice '08; May 17, 2008 2:06 AM
Amot said...: Leah,
I was sleeping, otherwise I post some news to explain the changes on the pledged when they occur. You can simply track my post in Edwards tread and Ultimate summary (2) tread.; May 17, 2008 2:06 AM
Amot said...: Leah,
many people are addicted - that's what happens when too much hope is accumulated and focused on single person or event.
That is why I refer to Obama as teh person who opened the Pandora's box again and gave Hope to the Earth. I think he will put the evils back in the box and close it to build a much better world!; May 17, 2008 2:10 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: softspoken22-

Nope.
Cindy McCain probably will never be vetted. She claims her money has nothing to do with John because of the agreements they signed when they got married and she files separate income tax returns.

Yesterday or the day before there was an article on www.huffingtonpost.com that said she just sold off $2,000,000. in investments in Sudan.

And don't forget that Bill Clinton is not fully vetted yet either. He has not released the Clinton Library Donor List and I believe he said he was not going to.

And Hillary has not released her tax return for last year either.; May 17, 2008 2:13 AM
Yousri said...: Leah,
Another Pledged deleagte from Edwards' to Sen. Obama (IA), don't know the name yet.

Amot, do you know the name?; May 17, 2008 2:14 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama just got ANOTHER delegate!

Needed to win:

Obama 122
Clinton 307

What a wonderful evening it is here in the world ;); May 17, 2008 2:19 AM
Yousri said...: Amot,

Nevermind, I got the name. It is Arlene Prather-O'Kane.; May 17, 2008 2:25 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Amot said: "That is why I refer to Obama as the person who opened the Pandora's box again and gave Hope to the Earth. I think he will put the evils back in the box and close it to build a much better world!"
______

I believe you are right.
That about sums up how I feel too.; May 17, 2008 2:29 AM
Amot said...: On energy:

Europe is spending billions on renewable energy. EU has put goalpoints to be reached for clean energy as part of the whole. We use all - nuclear, solar, wind, water. I think Netherland use tidal too. Sweden for example use only water and nuclear. I don't like bio-fuels - check SE Asia for famine :(((

Something else you are forgetting:
Europe spends less fuel per citizen! I mean we don't drive as long as Americans do, we use more mass transit, we don't drive alone if we can sit two in a car!
USA has to run two step program - energy savings when it comes to electricity at home and work. Some countries in EU have cheap low consumption package sponsored by the government, and when you spend too much energy the bill goes really high! Government encourages people to save! We have cheap credits if we want to renew our buldings etc. Some EU countries had problems with energy suplly long ago and have developed really good programs. Germany is one of the leading in the innovations, but you know - Greens are part of the government there for decades. If we face fuel crisis, 90% of the Europeans will be able to go to work by mass transit based on electricity or by bycicle or simply walking, many others will be able to change job and do the same. Such a crisis will hit USA the most! You have to catch up fast! You have to start a green life, green behaviour and green programs. Coal is not the solution. Nuclear is fast solution on energy but not on fuel. Solar is! And yes, you don't need direct sunlight to produce energy...
You have to restructure your mass transit, even the way you build and plan your cities.

And guess what, you need a government to help with all that! What Huckabee said at NRA meeting was bad bad news because he got applaused - he said we need less government in our lives! When the fuel ends, will he say the same? You need strong government, acting government, government that is involved, even commanding goverment! That means Dems!

Live the people alone, let them lose jobs, savings, houses, let them be blocked at home because there is no fuel for their cars, hungry, because the supply tracks are off. Let them vote GOP!!! That should be the campaign slogan - YOU NEED GOVERMENT THAT GETS INVOLVED!!!; May 17, 2008 2:35 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: FEC Nominee Withdraws Name

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/fec-nominee-withdraws-nam_n_102210.html

Now maybe something will get done.; May 17, 2008 2:38 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 17, 2008 2:41 AM
Aunt Jean said...: protactinium your not worth commenting on.Jean; May 17, 2008 2:43 AM
Amot said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 17, 2008 2:44 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Amot said: What Huckabee said at NRA meeting was bad bad news because he got applaused - he said we need less government in our lives!"
________________________

Obama said the other day during his stump speech that 'we need smarter government in our lives' - when he was talking about when McCain has talked about 'less government'.

I know that in Italy most of the houses that I've been in use a lot less energy than those here in the U.S.A. Houses are kept colder in the winter and hotter in the summer - and people don't use as many lights as we do here in America. One of my cousins keeps on one tiny little light bulb in the evening and the TV of course. I saw only ONE clothes dryer in all of the times I've been in Italy. I think people in America don't know how to hang up clothes outside anymore ;)
There is a huge difference in the culture in regards to electricity in Italy vs the USA.; May 17, 2008 2:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah so when is obama going to release all of the years of taxes he's only released a few. Jean; May 17, 2008 3:07 AM
Ariane said...: Lately Nazi references have again been made in public and on this blog. I have noticed that people who make such comparisons usually are very poorly informed about the actual history of those times.

On here someone has been mentioning the good old Reichspropagandaleiter der NSDAP
and Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.
It is my opinion that Dr. Josef Göbbels (by the way it can be spelt Goebbels but not Goebells) would be most impressed today by Fox News. Dr. Göbbels was excited about the medium of moving images for propaganda purposes- - he did not yet dream of these images being beamed into peoples homes! - -and he would admire Fox for its success in advancing the agenda of a particular political party, glorifying a nationalistic, xenophobic, militaristic/pro-war point of view, demonizing dissent as weak and unpatriotic, and spreading disinformation and hate, while at the same time persuading a large chunk of the masses that it is "fair and balanced" because they allow some people with a different viewpoint to appear - - where they are often interrupted and shouted over by hosts in the manner of the Volksgericht.
(Bill O'Reilly in the role of that hideous toad Roland Freisler.)

One of the favorite references people like to draw from history is to Neville Chamberlain and the policy of appeasement of NS Germany in the 1930s. I'm not questioning that the Western democracies made a huge blunder in not stopping Hitler when he marched into the Rhineland demilitarized zone. And what they did to Czechoslovakia was criminally stupid AND unethical. (of course hindsight is 20/20, but I won't cut them slack, there were plenty of signs what Hitler was intending.)
And what about Japan's invasion and brutal massacres in China?
What about Italy's invasion of Abyssinia? All the elements of WW2 were building up while the Western powers were into appeasement and isolationism. They made some huge mistakes.

BUT - people take that history and misapply it. It doesn't translate that any meeting with one's adversaries equals "appeasement". Were all the presidents who talked to the USSR "appeasers"? - -They were the USA's arch enemy at the time, jUSt as feared and reviled as any Islamists today, if not more so. The idea that one should insist on people making concessions in advance on the matters you will be discussing - -is just the kind of anti-diplomacy we've seen over the past few years that comes off as bullying and meets with a defensive and obstinate response, and has a tendency to trigger a reaction within the adversarial country to unite and support their leader against the common enemy -- this affects even those usually in opposition to their govt., either because they share the "circle the wagons" mood, or they realize it makes it even more dangerous than usual to speak out.; May 17, 2008 4:03 AM
Amot said...: Leah,
I am not sure about electricity, but they have a progressive price for water in Italy. They save a lot. In Italy people consider waste using bath if you can use the shower. BTW I dry inside but I dont use dryer :) We use less air conditioning. But you have to know that houses in EU are much more heat efficient than in USA. I can talk a lot about that...

Huckabee - 'We believe that government should get his hands off of us as much as possible. We don't need that much of it, we'd like the less of it!'
It is either contradiction with what you said or he thinks the best is less government and smarter government. I agree on smarter government, but 10yo is smarter than Bush is so that is easy to achieve. Less government... NO! 8 years of less governemnt resulted in crisis. If you decrease the role of the government even more - you are doomed!

GOVERNMENT THAT IS INVOLVED!

Vote Dems!; May 17, 2008 4:07 AM
Amot said...: Leah,
sorry about Huckabee - I misunderstood you! For a moment I thought you a quoting Huck, not Obama... But my quote was good too :)

Am I right that the big difference when it comes to both parties is the involvement of the government? Should that be emphasized in the campaign? I believe so!; May 17, 2008 4:13 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Amot,

Checked the state delegations again and here are my findings (D first, R second), bold indicates (according to CQ Politics) a race that could tip the balance to the other party because of no clear favorite in the race:

Split delegations: 2
Arizona (4-4) (Renzi [R] - no clear favorite)
Kansas (2-2) (Boyda [D] - no clear favorite)

One GOP advantage:
Alaska (0-1) (Young - no clear favorite)
Delaware (0-1)
Georgia (6-7)
Idaho (0-1)
Louisiana (3-4)
Missouri (4-5)
Montana (0-1)
Nevada (1-2)
New Mexico (1-2) Wilson - no clear favorite)
Utah (1-2)
Wyoming (0-1)

One Dem advantage:
Colorado (4-3)
Indiana (5-4)
Iowa (3-2)
New Jersey (7-6)
No. Carolina (7-6)
No. Dakota (1-0)
So. Dakota (1-0)
Tennessee (5-4)
W. Virginia (2-1)

Mississippi - If Childers loses in November, the state goes back to a 2-2 split

Missouri - Two (of five) Rs are listed only as leaning. If either or both lose, state tips D.

You can see the CQ Politics take on the upcoming House elections at:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-house
( http://tinyurl.com/4c7kaj )

Mike; May 17, 2008 5:45 AM
ed iglehart said...: JP,
"what solution works? "

Using LESS ENERGY! Just like we have done except for the last 0.025% of our life as a species.

The present high (and daily increasing) use of energy exhibits truly addictive behaviour:

Look here

And this:

"A junkie without access to his stash is in a state of crisis. The ``energy crisis'' that exists intermittently when the flow of fuel from unstable countries is cut off or threatened, is a crisis in the same sense. When such a crisis is perceived in the western sphere, there are normally two solutions proposed: Relieve our dependence on foreign fuels by developing ``ecologically friendly'' energy extraction technology, or send an army to pacify the fuel-rich region in question. Both of these paths, seemingly at odds with each other, take as fundamentally true a certain proposition, that in no circumstances should we use less energy than we already use. In this conception, all human problems must be solved by the impressment of still more ``energy slaves'' to meet the expanding demand of human masters. The two solutions consist of securing the current source of the drug, or finding a different, more secure pusher...."

Kick the habit!; May 17, 2008 5:55 AM
Ariane said...: tmess2, Thank you for explaining the "Senior Lecturer"thing from your own law school experience, with your example of an Israeli Supreme Court Justice having such a title like "Senior lectuer" but being considered a professor.
You made a great point about explaining to laypeople. Most of us have not gone to law school, and if told he was a Senior Lecturer, some laypeople might think a "Lecturer" ("Senior" or otherwise) just meant someone who came in occasionally and gave a lecture to a class - - not someone who taught entire courses, which is what they really do. So the word "professor" signifies better to a layperson what they actually did at the school. As you said, many people serving in such a postition, if talking / writing to laypeople, would just say they are a professor rather than take the time to go through the whole explanation.

There are a lot of people with high positions like your Israeli Supreme Court justice who also serve as part time law professors with the title of "Senior Lecturer" (or whatever that particular LS uses). They don't have the official title "Professor of Law" they don't have to publish, they aren't on a track for tenure. But they do have to prepare lesson plans and teach classes, correct work, and carry out the functions of a professor teaching a course. Their not having the official title is not a reflection on their qualifications- -it is just due to their having another career and not choosing a full time academic career. They are still referred to as professors at the school and, as was the case of Obama at U of C, the LS often would hire these folks in full time tenure track positions if it were possible.

It is mistaken (or to put it more bluntly, silly) that people say U of Chicago's explanation is due to corruption. It's not like this description is different from what they might say about other Senior Lecturers. Making a big issue of this as some kind of lie from Obama and U of C only shows that people don't get it - - or else they are trying to confuse others who don't get it.
It's OK not to understand how law schools work, BUT after having it explained, people who still keep harping on this either just love to nitpick over meaningless minutia purely for the sake of it...or want to confuse other people who aren't familiar with the definitions... OR their emotions are so caught up in hate and suspicion of Obama that they WANT so badly to believe anything bad they hear about him that they are unable to even look at it logically. Some people are like that about the Clintons too.

***Another way to explain the language in this situation is that it is the difference between a common noun, written in lowercase ("a professor") and a proper noun - in this case a title - which is capitalized ("Professor of Law"")
Other examples of how this could be confused:
X is described as having been a cabinet secretary. Y says that is a huge lie because X actually held the title "Attorney General" and even though the Attorney General IS a member of the cabinet, (s)he does not have the title "Secretary of _____".
OR...
A has the sniffles and B says "Here, have a kleenex." -using that word as a common/generic noun. And then A screams "LIAR! You claim you have Kleenex and really you deviously offer Puffs!" So A writes mass e-mailings and blogs about what an unscrupulous, dishonest person that lying scum B is for calling a Puffs facial tissue "a kleenex."; May 17, 2008 6:21 AM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

"That is why I refer to Obama as teh person who opened the Pandora's box again and gave Hope to the Earth."

Ah, so you're a classicist!

Try this, from ny favourite translator, who teaches Classics in Kansas, no less, and in the evenings goes down the road to teach as a Zen Master

Vaya con Gaia
ed
....; May 17, 2008 6:22 AM
ed iglehart said...: Webb is ahead of HRC in the VP betting!

Ariane,

I thorougly applaud your comments on Nazism and the context as related to today's media.

I'll just add, if I may, that Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians seems to have been calculated to entrench their resistance and thus to make the likelihood of any progress towards peace vanishingly small.

In the context of an Obama candidacy, I have been distressed that Barack has seen it necessary to constantly stress that israel is our "staunchest ally", etc., but I understand the potentially toxic nature of not doing so.

Anyone who actually reads the "road-map" and the Israeli "reservations" in accepting it, will see that it is an exercise in expecting complete surrender on the part of the Palestinian people, with precious little "give" from the Israeli side, and even such "give" (e.g. an end to settlement activity) as is intimated has not been forthcoming.

Yes, I am obsessed with this horrible injustice! I am also obsessed, as Leah and Amot have admitted, with this election cycle. Unfortunately, only one of the two has a clear end in sight.

Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 6:41 AM
ed iglehart said...: On matters carbon-related, there is a promising technology which may enable us to use coal AND biomass together.

The Biomass portion of the process actually produces carbon-negative energy"!!!

Much more background can be found here. The irony is that a process derived from an ancient culture virtually destroyed by European colonisation may come to be our salvation.

"...the most striking and immediate effect of the spread of
European settlement beyond the boundaries of Europe itself was
its lethal impact on indigenous peoples and societies." -- Clive Ponting (A Green History of the

World)

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 6:52 AM
ed iglehart said...: Sorry folks, the link to the "Road map" and "reservations should have been this.

;-((; May 17, 2008 7:01 AM
Ariane said...: softspoken22 said "WC said he would vote for hope above fear."

That is one of my favorite lines of WJC Bill Clinton on Fear vs Hope; May 17, 2008 7:19 AM
Amot said...: Mike,
Thank you for the '269' details!
I think Dems need some defence in PA and IN, not likely to lose but they should defend the seats in trouble. And I think Nevada can turn blue too - they have a GOP leaner there... The aim in this campaign is to not only win 15 seats that are toss-up, but at least 10-12 more GOP leaners and 2-3 upsets in the strongholds. Total +30 Dems :)))

Ed,
I agree - the easiest way to defeat the shortage of energy is to consume less! As I do :)) BTW I have applied many eco-inovations in my properties! About Israel - maybe Obama will be able to handle that later - now he needs the Jews, their votes and their money...; May 17, 2008 7:25 AM
Ariane said...: Ed,
Yes I too care very much about the tragic situation in the Middle East. I have been to Israel and Palestine and met people on both sides and some peace activists. I have a "surrogate mother" who is a survivor of Auschwitz who went to Israel as a teenager and lived there 10 years, and so I have heard her perspective. And I have worked with Palestinians and heard their perspective.

I think it is the extremists on both sides who have too often set the agenda and the regular people suffer. I have seen polls where the majority of both sides wanted peace and a 2 state solution.

One of the most significant things that has most prevented peace is the continual settlement expansion that has been going on through all the different Israeli governments and throughout the Oslo "Peace Process". And the settlers have had an inordinate influence on Israeli politics. It has made Israel less secure not more, and all the off-limits areas and Jewish Only Roads and the Roadblocks and now the Wall/Fence has made life intolerable. Just getting around a few miles is very difficult and uncertain.

One guy who I think has written some interesting things and done some good work is Dan Bar-On, an Israeli psychologist. You might read what he has written on displaced aggression (from the Nazis to the Arabs). I think there are some papers of his online. I heard him speak at a conference in London and interviewed him.
He also has done work with children of Nazis and children of Holocaust survivors.; May 17, 2008 7:50 AM
ed iglehart said...: Ariane, Namaste

"I think it is the extremists on both sides who have too often set the agenda and the regular people suffer. I have seen polls where the majority of both sides wanted peace and a 2 state solution."

I agree, but I cut a lot more slack to the side who have been violently expelled from their homes and lives and denied the right of return.

it is one thing for an Israeli to wish for peace, while living in a secure and prosperous place, able to go to dance clubs and Pizza parlours, fly to any destination in the world (and back), etc., etc. and quite another thing to wish for peace while cherishing the keys and deeds to a home and farm, from which your grandparents were driven, and to know that either it has long been bulldozed or simply taken by those who did the deed...

I offer this.

In hope of some form of justice, without which there can never be peace,

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; May 17, 2008 8:18 AM
Richard said...: The VP has one constitutional power: that of breaking ties in the Senate. Other than that, as long as the President lives and is in good health, the Vice President has no powers. Period.

In the Clinton White House, Al Gore was given a really unprecedented role in the White House. I believe he was the first to have an office in the White House, and he was allowed room to lead on some policy issues. Clinton kept a short leash on him, though, and his role was more one of supporting the president.

It is really only in the Bush White House that the Vice President has assumed such disturbing authority and unprecedented power. I think we forget that a VP-driven administration is not the norm, but the very new exception.

Greatly scaling back the role of the VP is not just something Obama could do, but something he really should do.; May 17, 2008 9:46 AM
Richard said...: Wow, if there was ever a pointless semantic discussion it is the professor/lecturer flak that has erupted on this blog since I was last here. The fact is that the position Obama held is called a number of things at different universities and schools, and is primarily an internal designation. At my university, they were called adjunct assistant professor and adjunct professor. No matter what their official titles are, people in Obama's position are generally called "professor" by their students, and their duties are much different from the impression "lecturer" gives to a layperson.; May 17, 2008 10:03 AM
ed iglehart said...: This person has no place here; May 17, 2008 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: I agree, Ed; May 17, 2008 10:39 AM
Yamaka said...: Dear Management:

The posting at 10:28 AM May 17 is very offensive and must be removed immediately.

It does NOT belong in this Site. The person has gone wild and is insane, truly.

Thanks.

___________________________________

Fellow Democrats, Good Morning.

Another cloudy day in Houston.

I just finished reading the Editorial in WSJ:

BHO's Appeasement was the topic. His Achilles heel is National Security, Foreign Policy and Economy.

His penchant to talk with our arch-enemies will be the death knell for the Democrats.

He is the least experienced, least vetted and the RISKIEST Candidate for the Party to field, if he is the Nominee.

We could very well lose the White House and the Congress: Pelosi and Reed can pack their stuff to hit a retirement home!

Cheer, Smile and Nominate Hillary for REAL POSITIVE CHANGE.

:-); May 17, 2008 10:50 AM
Yamaka said...: "No matter what their official titles are, "

richard:

We are talking about BHO's Official Title when he worked at the U of C Law School. Not appearances and impressions.

His appointment letter will say it clearly, if at all he READS it!

He joined several years ago as a part-time Lecturer, and left the School as Senior Lecturer, period.

All others are dishonest propaganda perpetrated by the BHO's handlers.

I am not sure at this point whether he himself started this as "I was a Professor" or the handlers started this as ""He was a Professor".

Either way, it reflects very poorly on HIS character, IMO.

Cheers.; May 17, 2008 11:19 AM
suzihussein22 said...: OR Dem-Is the heat wave part of your usual chinook?

JayW-Aunt Jean isn't stupid. What does Southern have to do with anything anyway. Your kind of posting is pointless. I usually scroll past you.; May 17, 2008 11:24 AM
jpsedona said...: Yam, Yam, Yam,

you said "JP Goebells' & Co, go get a life!!"

It's interesting that when facts and logical arguments cannot be debated, some folks will resort to name calling. Those sorts of attacks don't get under my skin which is why I am one of the few people that are willing to interact with you in a civil manner.

If I'm spreading propoganda, please point out some of what I've said that could be construed as such.

If you don't agree with my opinions, that's fine. You're entitled to own viewpoint. But when you purposely mistate facts, know that these won't go unchallenged by readers on this blog.; May 17, 2008 12:14 PM
billyjay66 said...: ariane

Your post about Nazi name calling was simply amazing. If voters had some hint of the educated opinion and world view you show, we would have much fewer problems and the republican party would be a museum piece.

I hope you caught the Hardball segment with Chris Matthews pounding that talk show hate spewing ignoramus to finally admit he knew nothing of the history and Neville Chamberlin and what appeasement was about.

The double tragedy of Neville Chamberlin's failure is that "when in doubt strike first" has followed many times since his failed attempt at peace.; May 17, 2008 12:14 PM
suzihussein22 said...: amot-ed i-issue-energy-What about compressed gas? About 5 lbs. of propane could take you up to 500 miles. I think my missionary friends said they did that in some of their taxis in China. Solar cells-The utility company would end up paying you for electricity.Short term-Get a motorcycle or scooter. We've got a "bike." It gets over 60 mg. My husband loves his Gator do-rag in UT country! Chomp! Also, our truck is a double 4 cyl. It gets almost 40 mpg. The biomass energy plan sounds great.

Bush is once again sounding so intelligent.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast;_ylt=AvNum4t2tf9qgMMUzvTG.8n9xg8F

Ariane and others-I just noticed how my blog name could be shortened. I would change it if you want me to. I believe Israel has a right to be a state. I also believe they could compromise more. Diary of Anne Frank is one of my most important books-to say favorite would be shallow on my part.; May 17, 2008 12:17 PM
Yamaka said...: "you said "JP Goebells' & Co, go get a life!!"

jp:

There is a terrible mix-up.

I was referring to MikeinMD.

I meant Joe P Goebells, not jp, you.

I was attacking MikeinMD, certainly not YOU.

A misunderstanding.

Sorry, if I had offended you.; May 17, 2008 12:19 PM
Amot said...: softspoken,
your husband behaves green when he uses his 'bike'. Compressed gas is also exhaustible, whatever such source we choose it will end sooner or later. We need to focus on renewable energy or energy that will not be exhausted in at least 100 years... In my experience a family can reduce its consumption of energy 3 to 5 times if they behave green! If we focus on energy savings, cutting energy losses and using energy more efficiently we have the start. But most important is that we shift to new sources!; May 17, 2008 12:33 PM
jpsedona said...: Ed / AMot,

Relative to conservation...

At the end '07, Congress passed a bill that phases out incandescent bulbs. The newest compact fluorescent bulbs are phenominal; 2/3 less energy, longer life and significant lower energy expense.

If everyone changed one 100W bulb that they use for 4hrs. a day, the net savings is more than 87kw per bulb per year.

With more than 100 million households in the US, that's 800,000 Megawatts per year. That equates to about 90MW less of power plant capacity nationwide.; May 17, 2008 12:37 PM
suzihussein22 said...: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080517/wl_asia_afp/myanmarcyclone;_ylt=AsDT7SIlDyfjlnPE7ui4lT1BXYh4

Myanmar and China trajedies have taken up a lot of my thoughts, prayers, and tears this month as politics continue in the primaries. This is what would be worth HRC getting choked up about.

Amot-living green for us-flourescent bulbs, F/L W&D, ceiling fans, open houseplan, light-colored roofing, well-insulated house, and thermostat set at 70 in the winter(sorry, but I've got a low body temp. of 97.4) and set at 75 in the summer. Our elec. bill runs from $70 to $160 with these tweakers.; May 17, 2008 12:47 PM
RobH said...: Softspoken22:

My understanding re natural gas as a substitute in transportation is that the hurdles are volume and infrastructure related.

In an uncompressed state, it wwould take a tanker truck size volume to fill up enough for ranges we are used to. To acheive a compressed state the gas must have its temp lowered to near absolute zero. The infrastructure necessary to transport in that state is specialized (mega plants to do the compressing and trucks capable of handling/maintaining the low temps) and thus very expensive. Also of course the infrastructure to convert "filling stations" over.

Not impossible, but not economical in the short term. We have tens of trillions of dollars tied up in (invested in) our present petroleum based system (refineries, trucks, filling stations) that need to be recovered
(amortized.) As much as we all decry oil and it's risks, to force an abrupt end to that system would make the costs of transition to any workable alternatives crippling.; May 17, 2008 12:47 PM
RobH said...: Best wishes to the Kennedy family, on this hard day.; May 17, 2008 12:48 PM
ed iglehart said...: Softspoken, Namaste

"I believe Israel has a right to be a state."

I don't want to cause trouble, but this concept keeps coming up. Just what gives ANYONE a 'right' to violently seize power and create an ethno-religious "state" in a land where their ethnicity is only a one-third minority?

People have a right to exist. Peoples have a right to exist. The UN and the League of Nations before it had the right of "Self-determination of indigenous peoples" as a founding principle.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that Israel has a 'right to exist'. It wouldn't have such a right, even if Jews had constituted a majority of the population at the time.

The only way a Jewish majority could be established in Palestine was by the forcible (terroristic) expulsion of the majority and the prevention of their return.

The Europeans (including the USA) looked the other way because of our guilt in having not prevented the Holocaust. It was convenient for us that the Jews had somewhere to go and "have their own country".

It was very INconvenient for the Palestinians, who had NOTHING to do with the Holocaust.

I'm sorry to be obssessed with these matters, but the magnitude of the injustice visited upon the mostly innocent Palestinians because of European treachery and misdeeds has caused me to study the matter in depth.

Please put me out of my misery and explain just HOW Israel "has a right to exist" Who or what confers such a right?

If you are interested enough (and unafraid of the truth), here is a primer.

I personally owe tremendous debt to Jewish culture and to Jewish traders, who taught me most of what I know of business. The Ashkenazi gene-pool is the most intelligent on the planet, as demonstrated by the disproportionate number of its members at the top of virtually every field of human endeavour.

This manifest success has, ironically, given rise to much resentment and fed the idea of a "Jewish conspiracy". To a large degree it is based upon wholesome "family" values - education, nepotism, self-denial, community, etc.

There are something like a quarter million Jews in Britain - less than 1/2% of the population - but a far greater proportion in Government, finance, the Arts, and education. Their success is well-earned. Other cultural groups exhibiting similar qualities include certain Asians, Chinese, and interestingly, the Scots, who rival Jews in the boardrooms of the corporate world. The Scots also predominate, at present in the UK Government, and there is an element of English resentment.

Zionism has to have been one of the most arrogant, racist (YES! RACIST!) and mis-guided ideas to emerge in the last couple of centuries, and our complicity in the deprivation of the basic human rights of the Palestinian people is a stain upon all of our characters.

Sorry for the rant, but you will see that my antipathy towards Zionism has nothing to do with anti-semitism, but everything to do with outrage at injustice.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
(I really mean it) -ed; May 17, 2008 1:01 PM
Amot said...: JPS,
In CA they have a program that pays 75% of the price for incandescent bulbs. You can buy a new one for as much as $1 (my info). One more hint - average family uses 10-20 hours light per day (4bulbs*5hours or however you want it, that is increased in winter). That is at home only!!!

Ed,
in my country we don't have to blame ourselves for the Jews (we saved ours). I must say I prefer they were still here instead of moving to Israel. IMHO Israel was forced decision and problems with it will go on in time. When you are on other people's land you can't enlarge!
I am watching what happens in Kosovo right now! Big mistake! And MSM convinced Americans that the state must be created... They backed bush on the issue! Sorry but this kind of foreign policy is absurd! I believe when the proper time comes Obama will change his attitude toward Israel!; May 17, 2008 1:11 PM
jpsedona said...: Also, a promising future energy source is on the bottom of the sea. It's frozen methane gas (methane hydrate; methane clathrate actually). Because of the high pressures, the gas is a solid. There are estimates that vast quantities exist off of CA and in the Gulf.

The drawbacks are many. The hydrates contain high concentrations of Methane and potentially could increase global warming. The technologies to extract and store the methane do not exist. Methane hydrates tend to explode. Sea floor collapses of methane hydrate deposits have been linked to tsunamis / underwater earthquakes.

However, these energy deposits are American sources. It's estimated that the amount of methane hydrates is 15-20 trillion tons wordwide. For comparison, that's more than ALL the other carbon fuels wordwide combined (coal, oil, gas).; May 17, 2008 1:16 PM
Amot said...: Jps,
during last two decades world climate has suffered global changes! I don't think we have to endanger the planet anymore. And this new source looks potentially dangerous... The shelf next to CA? The most unstable part of Earth core... Better not! I want to visit L.A. one day :) Moon looks like nice place to use resources!; May 17, 2008 1:21 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

There are more than 3,000 oil wells in production in the LA Basin (greater LA area). In the event of a large earthquake (not hte 'big one'), there's potential for significant environmental imapct today. I think CA is still the fourth largest oil producing state...; May 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Richard said...: Our natural gas reserves will not be significantly more long-lived than our petroleum reserves, especially if we convert to LNG as a primary fuel for automobiles. Certainly they will not last long enough to justify such a huge infrastructure conversion.

What would probably be feasible is a conversion to hydrogen. Despite what many people seem to think, hydrogen itself is not a fuel; it requires more energy to produce than can be derived from it. It is, however, a relatively portable energy storage medium which can be produced using electricity. In the short term, such electricity needs probably need to be provided by nuclear reactor. In the long term, perhaps some sort of solar or fusion technology can be perfected.; May 17, 2008 1:34 PM
ed iglehart said...: Ironically, the new, energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, and thus present a pollutive disposal problem...

As to using LPG, like every carbon fuel, it results in CO2 emissions.

The answer is LOCAL LIVING - less travel, less food-miles, less import/export, etc.

Some rules we might consider, notably:
(3) Always ask how local needs might be supplied from local sources, including the mutual help of neighbors.

(4) Always supply local needs first. (And only then think of exporting their products, first to nearby cities, and then to others.)
....
(These rules are derived from Western political and religious traditions, from the promptings of ecologists and certain agriculturalists and from common sense. They may seem radical, but only because the modern national and global economies have been formed in almost perfect disregard of community and ecological interests.)

Economies of scale?

And, as RobH has mentioned several times, we should look to James Howard Kunstler

(Funny, but that sounds like yet another "Jewish" name ;-))

Salaam, etc.
ed; May 17, 2008 1:37 PM
themann1086 said...: In Obama's worst case scenario, he is now 51.5 delegates away from clinching the majority of pledged delegates (Source is the 538 link I've been referencing before). It is possible, though not likely, that he will get this number on Tuesday. I'd put the odds at around 4:1; May 17, 2008 1:37 PM
Richard said...: I'm confused. I would say Obama's worst case would be for FL and MI to be seated as-is with no penalty and uncommitted delegates free to choose Hillary. In that case total pledged delegates would be 3566 and a pledged delegate majority would be 1784 (50% + 1). Obama would have 1679.5, for a total needed of 104.5.; May 17, 2008 1:53 PM
ed iglehart said...: Should've been

Oops!; May 17, 2008 1:54 PM
ed iglehart said...: Conserving communities

"IN OCTOBER OF 1993, the New York Times announced that the United States Census Bureau would "no longer count the number of Americans who live on farms " In explaining the decision, the Times provided some figures as troubling as they were unsurprising. Between 1910 and 1920, we had 32 million farmers living on farms-about a third of our population. By 1950, this population had declined, but our farm population was still 23 million. By 199l, the number was only 4.6 million, less than 2 percent of the national population. That is, our farm population had declined by an average of almost half a million people a year for forty-one years. Also, by 199l, 32 percent of our farm managers and 86 percent of our farmworkers did not live on the land they farmed....."; May 17, 2008 2:00 PM
CathyNYC said...: Question: does anyone here know whether Green Papers has always listed the middle names of candidates on their website, or is this new? I noticed it this week and had not noticed it before--is it a change, does anyone know?

Also, on this professor/lecturer front: law schools like other professional schools and unlike traditional academic disciplines use the title lecturer for practitioners who would or could otherwise be appointed as (full/assoc/asst) professors but whose extramural responsibilities preclude such a commitment. One way to think about this: constitutional law sections are primo real estate in the law school curriculum--you don't give them over to the equivalent of adjunct law faculty. Chicago would like to have hired Obama to its faculty, but bec. of his other interests he didn't pursue it. The notion that the president of the HLR would not be up to professorial rank at a school like Chicago is laughable.; May 17, 2008 2:07 PM
countjellybean said...: I wonder if the current situation in Kosovo can be blamed on the Bush administration. Isn't it the almost inevitable result of American/NATO intervention in the Balkan wars of the 90s?

From http://serbblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-clintons-warmongering-kosovo.html:

According to Hillary-fan, Gail Sheehy' book, ("Hillary's Choice", p.345), it was actually Hillary, personally, who in 1999 urged her husband to bomb Serbia on behalf of the Albanians. Hillary convinced then President Clinton to violate the US Constitution and NATO's charter to arm-twist NATO countries to go along with the bombing so that the US would not be left holding the bag, alone.

Despite the obvious bias of the source, that matches my recollection of the events of the time.

I also recollect that during one of the Bush-Gore debates, Bush said that he believed that the Kosovo action was correct.; May 17, 2008 2:19 PM
ed iglehart said...: Your Grace, Namaste

My recollection is similar. Our present First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond called it "an unpardonable folly" and was widely derided.

I recall my great(n) uncle's warning that we should beware of foreign entanglements...

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; May 17, 2008 2:30 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: It really doesn't matter if the University of Chicago wants to say that Senator Obama was a professor or not - the important thing is that in a few more months we will all be calling him President Obama :)

Lots of wonderful posts here today - it took me two cups of coffee to read them all.

If anyone is ever in Houston we have a wonderful Holocaust Museum here. It is well worth setting aside a morning or afternoon to visit: http://www.hmh.org/; May 17, 2008 2:40 PM
ed iglehart said...: While we're remembering avoidable 'foreign entanglements', it's noteworthy that the person who prevented a US-led bombing of Dien Ben Phu to bail out the Feckless French in 1954 was one Lyndon Baines Johnson. As Senate Majority leader, he forbade the operation unless a broader coalition could be formed. Instead, we sent in "advisors", and we know the end result, including LBJ's ironic sinking in that quicksand....

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 2:44 PM
ed iglehart said...: Leah, (Daughter Leah?) Namaste

The mayor of Galveston at the time is among the illustrious signatories on the bottom of this document.

Would that their warning had been heeded!

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; May 17, 2008 2:50 PM
Amot said...: I don't know who urged NATO to attack but it was enexpected and rude intervetion in an independent country. If Hillary is even partially responsible she better not travel to Balkans anymore because sniper fire can be true this time... Serbian people are not very polite toward intruders.; May 17, 2008 2:51 PM
protactinium said...: jp- "If everyone changed one 100W bulb that they use for 4hrs. a day, the net savings is more than 87kw per bulb per year."

I have replaced all these bulb in my house. However I am not a fan of these bulbs. They all contain Mercury in them. They should not be thrown out atleast accroding to the box, and yet I guarentee the masses are throwing them out.

Also they are supposed to last for 5 years so the mercury would not be so bad. However older houses, espically in rural areas have surge issues. This will blow the bulbs everytime. Seems to happen bi-monthly. People I know in Rural Il have completly given up on these bulbs because of this. Considering they are much more expensive. This will be another way to put murcury in to our system. If the goverment really would have been better off helping people put wind on solar panels, and wind turbines on houses then pushing this law. They were heavly lobbied by GE for this bill.

These bulbs for reducing energy is good. But for them to be better for the enviroment in the long term is questionable.; May 17, 2008 2:55 PM
Amot said...: prot*,
bulbs are just a drop in the ocean! But yes, solar panels, solar boilers (if any of you has travelled Turkey he knows what I mean), bulbs, energy efficiency at home, class A appliances, more walking, more bikes, less 'one person in the car', all this will help very much! Does anyone knows huch much of the energy produced is used in the households (in USA)?; May 17, 2008 3:04 PM
jpsedona said...: Ed,

you said: "Always supply local needs first. (And only then think of exporting their products, first to nearby cities, and then to others.)"

This is more redily done in smaller (geographic size) countries and smaller city populations. It's much more plausible solution in Eurpoe than the US.

As an example, in France, Paris is the largest city with about 2 million people (about the population of Houston). Marseille would be next with about 800,000 (about the size of Indianapolis). And then Lyon with 450,000 (about the size of Sacramento).

Large sections of the country are mountainous, other vast areas are desert. Local sustainability is not viable in many sections of the country. In the arid Western states, water is vital. Additional agricultural activities would not be sustainable.

Where I live, the next nearest town is 30 minutes away (driving 76mph). The population is more dispersed. Unlike the East Coast, the distance between smaller cities and towns is significant. Public transportation is not viable except in metro areas like Phoenix.

IMO, local sustainability is just not a viable solution for most of the US population.; May 17, 2008 3:07 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

Power geenration in the US is in excess of 4000MW. There are in excess of 100 million households.

Underwriters Lab (UL) has this chart:

U.S. Household Energy Consumption; May 17, 2008 3:16 PM
protactinium said...: Amot -"But yes, solar panels, solar boilers (if any of you has travelled Turkey he knows what I mean), bulbs, energy efficiency at home, class A appliances, more walking, more bikes, less 'one person in the car', all this will help very much! "

I agree, and to be perfectly honest rising energy prices will be the best thing for America in this sense. One thing Americans are finacially driven. Getting energy prices up to a point where it is cheaper to reisulate your house, or afford solar panels, or boilers (i actually do know).

Seeing oil continue to rise will also bring jobs back to America as it will be cheaper then shipping goods across the world.

The down side is we have to stop buying so much useless crap, and won't be able to eat so extravagently.

For the truely enviromental stand point we should want to see energy prices double again. Which is completly possible with globalization.; May 17, 2008 3:18 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

"IMO, local sustainability is just not a viable solution for most of the US population."

It's coming, whether or not we want it. It's either that or die.

Regarding Paris,
"The Paris unité urbaine (or urban area) extends well beyond the administrative city limits and has an estimated population of 9.93 million (in 2005).[5] The Paris aire urbaine (or metropolitan area) has a population of nearly 12 million[6], and is one of the most populated metropolitan areas in Europe.[7]"

In the past, cities had a natural size limit of between 1/2 and one million - the first to a million was London in the early 19th C.

The limit was imposed by how much food (and other essentials) could be transported (largely by horse) without spoilage. Obviously sea and river ports were among the largest.

The brief present period of massive, cheap carbon fuels has given us the illusion that distance doesn't matter, BUT IT DOES, and it will matter more with each passing year.

I think your statement above has a tinge of denial about it. Here's a wee poem on the matter, and here's the most often-cited article in the history of Science magazine, and here's a comic.

Vaya con Gaia (there is no other way!)
ed; May 17, 2008 3:21 PM
themann1086 said...: Richard,

That's a good point, I honestly hadn't thought of that. According to my sources, most of the uncommitted pledged delegates are Obama supporters; the rest are union/Edwards supporters, who are likely to prefer Clinton. I could try and find the information on those delegates if you would like.; May 17, 2008 3:29 PM
ed iglehart said...: Protactinium, Namaste

"Give palastians a few secular collages and it will change the dramatically the way the culture views the west."

It might help if the IDF stopped killing their children. 935 since 2000, and 69 this year so far!

Check this out.

Don't believe me - do some research of your own.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed; May 17, 2008 3:32 PM
jpsedona said...: Ed,

You are correct that I do not believe the US can be locally sustainable.

With respect to the article on population from Science magazine, I'm familiar with it. The planet can only support so many people; but there are extremes to controlling it (like the Chinese policies). In some European countries, population decline has raised an alarm. In others like Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and India, population growth is staggering.

IMO, energy security is paramount; it leads to economic security and correspondingly national security. As for local sustainability, I think it's a nice 'concept' but if we can't get politicians to balance a budget, reduce the national debt and stop sending our dollars overseas for oil, there's no will do address much more drastic efforts that you would suggest.; May 17, 2008 3:46 PM
ed iglehart said...: Hillary Turns Fire On The Media; May 17, 2008 3:46 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

"there's no will do address much more drastic efforts that you would suggest."

So, we're gonna face some interesting times.

Enjoy the ride

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 3:50 PM
jpsedona said...: Here is the Kubler-Ross Grief cycle:

Shock stage Paralysis of hearing the bad news. In the Clinton campaign, this was Super Tuesday.

Denial stage Trying to avoid the inevitable. The Clinton campaign has been in this stage since NC & IN results.

Anger stage The outpouring of anger, frustration and emotion. Hillary's attack on the media.

Bargaining stage This stage is an attempt (in vain) to seek a way out. Also happening now in conversations with SD's.

Depression stage Final realization of the inevitable. May 31st?

Testing stage Seeking solutions. June 4th?

Acceptance stage The resignation stage. June 6-15th?; May 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: As of today

Delegates need to secure the nomination:

Obama...121
Clinton 307

Obama - the next President of the UNITED States of America!; May 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona said: "Acceptance stage The resignation stage. June 6-15th?"
__________________

Do you really think she will accept/believe it before 'the day after' Obama is sworn in?; May 17, 2008 4:03 PM
Hippolytus said...: President Obama, the Obama Administration. Has a nice ring to it!; May 17, 2008 4:06 PM
RobH said...: jp,

As I read your post regarding your distance to the nearest town, I couldn't help reflecting on what Kuntsler has to say about the prospects for your neck of the woods in "The Long Emergency".

The term I've used several times "intensely local" is stolen from that source. His sketch of the challenges for the desert southwest, in particular, have more to do with the coming absence of powered environmental conditioning systems (a/c, water) than distance. But it's a challenging outlook to say the least.; May 17, 2008 4:14 PM
Amot said...: JPS,
I was asking what percentage of the total is used by households. Households are where you can apply serious decrease! I agree high prices will help, but those should not be used as weapon! Progressive scale or government bonuses for less consumption will do the job.

on MI:
I have posted half an hour ago in the new thread on front page, check it! My info is 35 out of 36 uncommitted are strong or very strong Obama's. Unless FL is seated as is (2 eEdwards in FL pledged to Obama today) Obama will meet 2025 at May 31st before the RBC meeting and he will meet the new goal 2162.5 (scenario 4) on June 1st or June 3rd the latest. In case the Nuke hits RBC and they vote scenario 5 (Yam's dream), Obama will simply need FL Edwards' and MI uncommitted to pledge him (90% will) and he will cross the line on June 4th with few more endorsements ;); May 17, 2008 4:16 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

US household energy use is:

10,660 kwh / year per household
x109,902,090 households
============
1.7 trillion kwh per year

Power capacity:
604,514MW (5.3 trillion kwh per year)

So, about 1/3 is for household use. About 20% of household use is lighting (6-7% of total).; May 17, 2008 4:34 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

There are two things going for the Southwest. We get about 300 days or more of sunshine. The days are not as long in the summer nor as short in the winter when compared to most of the country.

We also have tremendous amounts of wind in many portions of the SW states (where it's mountainous / high eleveation). The area is much more able to be energy sufficient than other areas of the country. What we lack is water.

The Southwest states could supply significant amounts of energy to CA... if there were a power grid that would support it. High voltage lines to route electricty are in a critical consition and getting worse.

Our local power company, APS, is currently building the World's Largest HCPV Solar System. If this is successful, more will come.; May 17, 2008 4:42 PM
Amot said...: JPS,
to be honest I expected bigger number than 1/3, which means there is probably waste of energy in the production sector too. If you add public and office buildings, malls etc. to the households, probably that will exceed 1/2 of the consumption. And all this (not only bulbs) can be reduced to 30%. That is 34% less energy used nationwide! And I guess the percentage for fuel will be even bigger if measures are taken in that direction too! Guess what - you need Obama and his green strategy!

I know, Obama is not omnipotent! But he proved during his campaign something very important for executive - he can build excellent team! He won the nomination due to his team! I guess if he can beat Hillary and than McCain in campaigning he can beat any previous Cabinet in efficiency! Next slogan for GE - SMART AND EFFICIENT CABINET!; May 17, 2008 4:49 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

"MO, energy security is paramount; it leads to economic security and correspondingly national security."

I reckon "energy security" is a thing of the past. At least security even at the present European consumption levels, which are rather less than your airconditioned desert-dwelling levels.

Economic and national security will have to look elsewhere for a foundation.

Some data:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.php?theme=6

from which UK
Energy consumption per capita, 1997
UK / Europe / world
3.89 3.51 1.64
% change since 1990 5% -14% 0%

and USA:
Energy consumption per capita,
USA / North America / World
1997 7.96 7.95 1.64
% change since 1990 5% 5% 0%

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 5:08 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

The transmission of electricity uses about 30% of all the power that's created. The reason that all the long run lines are high voltage is because the loss is much less than lower voltage.

But consider that if you could build an abundance of power in one location (say Arizona) and use the electricty to create hydrogen (ignoring the lack of water), then ship it by rail or pipeline to CA or other states, it may be less efficient, but it 'stores' at a much lower cost than battery.; May 17, 2008 5:19 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

"create hydrogen (ignoring the lack of water), then ship it by rail or pipeline to CA or other states,"

Hydrogen is extremely explosive, cannot be liquified at normal temperatures (not above minus 400°F), so transporting it presents considerable safety (and security?) problems.

xx
ed; May 17, 2008 5:27 PM
jpsedona said...: Ed,

Anything thats combustable is explosive... some more so than others. The advantage to hydrogen is Fuel Cells... clean to use... long in comparison to battery-based technologies.

Also, if the US were to stop the use of all fossil fuels, worldwide CO2 levels would continue to increase due to China and some developing countries. That's not to say that we shouldn't work the issue, but the rate of coal usage in China is almost more than the rest of the world combined (and China coal use will continue to grow rapidly).

The Engery Information Association, a part of the DOE, has great historical & perdictive info for US & worldwide.; May 17, 2008 5:50 PM
billyjay66 said...: re energy solutions:

Did you hear of good ol' T Boone Pickens the oil man moving forward with 1 megawatt of wind generators? 667 turbines from General Electric. Costing 2 billion dollars but equivalent of one nuclear power that doesn't have to be built. It may be hard to trust an oil man but when I hear him talk on CNBC he looks at renewables as the future and fossil fuels as the past.

I also am watching Republican congressional energy policy develop and don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Lamar Alexander did a talk and said he eagerly looked forward to ramping up 5-7 new nuclear plants a year up to 200!

My question about reducing carbon emissions is.....how does cap and trade help? Isn't that just a license to pollute and if that gets too costly doesn't the corporation just twist the arm of his friendly congressman?; May 17, 2008 5:56 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

"but the rate of coal usage in China is almost more than the rest of the world combined"

China
Energy consumption per capita, 1997
China / Asia (excl. Middle east) / World
0.88 0.90 1.64
% change since 1990 19% 13% 0%

They've got a long way to go to catch up with us!; May 17, 2008 6:03 PM
jpsedona said...: Obama picked up 3 add-on delegates including NV:

Obama steals NV delegate; May 17, 2008 6:08 PM
jpsedona said...: Ed,

Try these links instead. The next EIA report comes out in July.

Coal Usage Chart

International Energy Outlook 2007; May 17, 2008 6:13 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP,

Those charts still show projected Chinese PERCAPITA coal use well below US. (Though it has to be inferred because the charts are gross)

Fair shares for all, or there'll be wars. There already are!

How can Americans hope or expect to continue to have the lion's share?

By force of arms? I hope not.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; May 17, 2008 6:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona-

Thank you for posting the good news.

But I would not say that Obama 'stole' the NV delegate. The good people of NV gave it to him. And that was 'after' Bill Clinton was there telling them:
""Don't you forget why you came here. You did not go to all this trouble to have an argument with each other," Clinton said. "The argument is necessary so we can pick the best president and the most electable one. Those are the only two things that matter ... After that, we have to get the show on the road, folks. We have a country to change and a future to secure.""

THANK YOU NEVADA :)

.; May 17, 2008 6:29 PM
suzihussein22 said...: ed iglehart-Oops...I messed up my toolbars. I've also been reading a couple of other related topics. I don't think you're ranting. I try not to be afraid of the truth. I'm not giving Israel a free pass. My knowledge of Judaism is one-sided, as are other issues. A history professor in my family has already shown me 2 sides to a couple of other issues. I read that there might not have been persecution of the Jews if they had already had a homeland before WWII. Does that mean I believe they have a right to bomb Palestinian civilians? NO. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This makes me think of Kosovo. Do they really need to create their own state without major neighboring allies? Have they exhausted diplomatic and political pathways to solving ethnic oppression? Do they have a right to defend themselves in the meantime?; May 17, 2008 6:43 PM
jpsedona said...: billyjay66,

Considering that it's been 35 years since a nuclear plant was built, I wouldn't get overly concerned about any statements that indicate ramping up to 200.

Palo Verde here in AZ has been talking about adding reactors for a long time. More than a dozen companies have started a licensing process but it'll be a long time before anything come on line.; May 17, 2008 6:45 PM
Amot said...: Sorry for deserting you guys for a while, but I had to visit the other threads too :)
The good news are:

Obama: +1 super, +3 add-ons, +1 pledged NV, +1 switch at-large DC

Clinton: -1 pledged NV, -1 at-large DC

Total: Obama +6, Clinton -2

Net gain: Obama +8

P.S. I like the thread much better now when we talk on issues. And I trust the oil man - I was working on wind project last month, much better than any nuclear! Almost any area has potential, be it solar, wind or water (or tidal)!; May 17, 2008 6:45 PM
jpsedona said...: Amot,

Yes, another good day for Obama. Tomorrow is CA; it's supposed to split 3-2 for Clinton; but since she will need about 80% of the SD's depending upon FL&MI, anything that reduces the pool of delegates works for him if she's picking up less than 80%.

Try to explain that the odds are exceedingly thin that Hillary can win to a die-hard. Tell them that they're in denial ... they will say "No I'm not in denial... you just don't understand"...; May 17, 2008 6:56 PM
RG said...: Matt/Oreo:

On the latest endorsements page, why is the name of DNC Eric Coleman (MI) not in red like DNC Virgie Rollins (MI), since they're both from Michigan? Is he being counted for another reason even though Michigan hasn't been recognized yet?; May 17, 2008 7:11 PM
ed iglehart said...: McOvenchip just can't seem to keep it clean

£Stung by the news that two aides once lobbied for the Burmese junta, John McCain last week rolled out a sweeping new conflict-of-interest policy for his campaign, requiring all staffers to fill out questionnaires identifying past or current clients that "could be embarrassing for the senator." Aides say that McCain was furious over the Burma connection (which he learned from a NEWSWEEK story) and was "adamant" about banning campaign workers from serving as foreign agents or getting paid for lobbying work.

But the fallout may not be over. One top campaign official affected by the new policy is national finance co-chair Tom Loeffler, a former Texas congressman ......"

;-)
ed; May 17, 2008 7:22 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: The concerns about mercury in CFLs is real, but then you also must consider other facts.

1. Not all CFLs will be broken before their life span is over.

2. Not all CFLs will be improperly disposed. And as time goes on, there will be increasing availability of sites where these bulbs can be disposed in a proper manner.

3. Incandescent light bulbs contain much more lead than CFLs.

4. When you consider the mercury that is emitted in coal-fired generating plants, CFLs win hands down when considering how much mercury is released into the atmosphere for electricity generation to power the light bulbs.

The web site EnergyRace has a page explaining the benefit of CFLs over incandescents for mercury alone. The page is located at:
http://tinyurl.com/6khetz

The page discusses ONLY the 100% lack of proper disposal of CFLs. If 50% or more are properly disposed, the ratio goes much, much higher in the favor of CFLs.

Mike; May 17, 2008 7:34 PM
magia said...: Leah,
This might put you over the deep end, in that you are so busy counting down, but have you even considered that if (and when, as in 5/31) the DNC comes up with a plan for MI and FL, there will likely be some delegates seated, and the total will change? Thereby changing the number Obama needs to hit?

For instance, if they go with FL @ 50%, MI @ 69-59, and all supers @ 50%, the total becomes 4297 and the majority becomes 2149.

Amot, do I have those numbers right?

Now, that is pertinent even if you all continue to disregard the fact that supers do not vote until convention :); May 17, 2008 7:48 PM
ed iglehart said...: Softspoken,

No easy answers. You're OK by me. You just touched a 'hot' dog-whistle button with "Israel has a right to exist."

I am serious, though, because that one gets trotted out a lot, and it's a total red herring. People have a right to exist, not states. And there are no rights without corresponding responsibilities.

'nuff said.

Salaam, etc.
ed; May 17, 2008 7:53 PM
ed iglehart said...: MikeinMaryland,

Thanks for that perspective. I've noticed that the new bulbs do fail fairly quickly out here in the boondocks...; May 17, 2008 7:55 PM
Yamaka said...: "He won the nomination due to his team!"

Funny, the Coronation Ball is already happening for the

Skinny Guy with the Funny Name!

He is the least vetted, least experienced and the riskiest Candidate in half a century!

The Democratic Party will soon lose the Congress, and for sure the WH, if BHO is the Nominee!

Folks:

He has 1984 TDs and Hillary has 1910 TDs with another 259 SDs left wondering what to do.

The Party still has some chance of winning the WH and the Congress -

Here is the Math, if you all care:

1910 + 102 + 200 = 2212; a few more than 2209 is the Real Hurdle.

BHO's Achilles heel is the Economy, Foreign Policy and National Security.

McCain will beat him like a drum!

He will be a dead meat in the GE, if he is the Nominee.

Hello, SDs, are you thinking or what?

:-); May 17, 2008 7:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: magia said...
Now, that is pertinent even if you all continue to disregard the fact that supers do not vote until convention

Most of us are using the CURRENT rules on delegate selection, not what ifs as the scenario.

When the MI and FL situation is solved, we can easily readjust our figures to reflect the THEN-current landscape.

As to the superdelegates switching their endorsements:

Yes, all those who support Senator Obama recognize that. However, unless there is a completely unexpected situation that would cause Senator Obama's campaign to become non-viable, do you REALLY expect that the superdelegates would switch? Do you think that Senator Obama would not recognize such a situation, and by not recognizing the situation, he would not withdraw?

If his candidacy became untenable, so you not think that most of the pledged delegates would not switch?

In other words, your scenario of superdelegates changing their endorsement to Senator Clinton is wishful thinking, and delusional. After all, how many superdelegates have switched their endorsement from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama? At least 10. How many superdelegates have switched their endorsement from Senator Obama to Senator Clinton? So far none.

If. The biggest two letter word in the English language. Most who use the word "if" do not understand the implications of that word, nor do they understand the difference between possibility and probability. It would appear that you are included in that group.

Mike; May 17, 2008 8:05 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: magia said: "Leah,
This might put you over the deep end, in that you are so busy counting down,....."
_________________

magia :)
I have considered FL and MI.
As far as SDs go, at the moment, Obama has 10 (MI + FL) and Clinton has 15 (MI + FL) that have endorsed. So not a landslide of SDs there for Clinton so far.

Michigan is pushing a 69/59 split of pledged delegates. So not a huge gain there for Clinton either.

So, the only place left Clinton could gain would be Florida and the RBC is not going to let Florida be the deciding state. SO, I am not worried about Clinton surpassing Obama.

Besides IF Obama receives the current number that it takes to secure the nomination (2025) it will make WORLD NEWS and then for sure the RBC would not override it.

After all the add-ons from today and switches are added to the DCW totals, by the end of the day we should be sitting somewhere around:

Obama 114
Clinton 309

needed to secure the nomination.

.; May 17, 2008 8:09 PM
Unknown said...: The irony of this whole situation is that while Obama wanted Oregon to push him over- he will actually be pushed over by KY....with the extra delegate he took in Nevada, he is only 16 short now...and he should get around 20 delegates from Kentucky....However truth be told the majority of pledged delegates is somewhat meaningless...except for it may release the Pelosi club....; May 17, 2008 8:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: There are only 28 uncommitted 'superdelegates' left in Michigan and Florida.
Clinton will not get 100% of them.

So that just leaves the pledged delegates in Florida that Clinton could make up any ground on - and it won't be enough to secure the nomination for her.

.; May 17, 2008 8:18 PM
suzihussein22 said...: issue-global warming-Does anybody think Chaiten Volcano in Chile will have any effect?

I read in the past that our power grids are headed for critical. Then what?

This excerpt is from another website about things that are younger than McCain. I don't think age is the actual issue. I think his medical condition is a factor. It's also interesting that this comes from someone in his party.

Senator Thad Cochran (R - Mississippi) is younger than John McCain by a few months and, lest you think I have nothing nice to say about Republicans, has one redeeming quality that I know of (he may have more - but I’m tired). When asked if he would consider the office of Vice President (a far less taxing position than that of President), he said the following:

“When I was much younger I would have probably said, ‘Sure, I’ll be glad to accept it,’ but I’m 70 years [old] and they need a younger person for the job. I would probably tell them, ‘Look for somebody else.’; May 17, 2008 8:18 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jcaesar91-

Yep - 16 more to go for Obama to have the majority of the 'pledged delegates'. I doubt though that the Pelosi Club members will come out publicly anytime soon though. Pelosi, Carter, etc. will probably wait at least until after the last primaries June 3rd.

I heard yesterday that Al Gore is supposed to make an announcement next week, but it could be just a rumor. If it is not a rumor then I suspect he might come out for Obama on Wednesday to help diminish any hoopla over Kentucky.

.; May 17, 2008 8:23 PM
countjellybean said...: I've been following the pledged delegate race more closely. Here is the worst case scenario right now.

Obama has 1611.5 pledged delegates, plus 64 from Florida and 0 from Michigan, for a total of 1675.5.

Clinton has 1443.5 PDs, plus 108 from Florida and 73 from Michigan, for a total of 1624.5.

Edwards has 9 PDs, plus 13 from Florida. There are 244.0 PDs from Michigan (55), Oregon (52), Kentucky (51), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16), and South Dakota (15). That's 266 PDs up for grabs.

The grand total is 3566 PDs. Half of these plus one-half is 1783.5.

Out of the 266 PDs available, Obama needs 109 PDs to get to this number. Clinton needs 159.

For me the nomination fight is over. Obama has it, barring an unforeseen and earth-shattering event. I am looking past the convention to the fall campaign. The Democrats will need to be able to counter insinuations from the Republicans and/or the Clintons (especially Bill) that Obama's nomination is open to question.; May 17, 2008 8:37 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: ed iglehart said...
I've noticed that the new bulbs do fail fairly quickly out here in the boondocks...

Ed,

I picked up my first CFL bulb more than 10 years ago. It was put in a socket in a hallway that has an 11 foot ceiling (I live in a Baltimore rowhouse that was completed in 1884 - 10 and 11 foot ceilings throughout the house). That socket was selected since it took an 8 foot step ladder to replace the bulb.

Just recently, that bulb had to be changed.

Since then, I've changed almost all bulbs in the house to CFL. I've had one other that I've had to change, but the average life of the bulbs is now probably approaching 5 years and the average is still going up since I've put the bulbs in over the years, and changed only two so far. Most are turned on for at least 8 hours per day, some more, some less.

Mike; May 17, 2008 8:47 PM
Hippolytus said...: magia says:
"Now, that is pertinent even if you all continue to disregard the fact that supers do not vote until convention."

Magia, the fact that the supers don't vote until the convention is not going to cut in the way that you hope or expect. Long before the convention, all the Pelosi Club and quasi-Pelosi Club members (like Lynn Woolsey) will be jumping on the Obama bandwagon. There is no evidence to support the idea that it's going to cut the other way.
"Can you feel the force, magia?"
Signed, Obama-Won Kenobi; May 17, 2008 9:03 PM
Yamaka said...: To ALL the FAR LEFT Liberals:

You have been in the cold for nearly 30 years, since the disaster days of Carter.

You fielded your best: Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. All suffered humiliating defeats, and understandably you are again anxious to field another weakest candidate
"BARack Hussein BIN Obama".

How emotionally drenched you are all!

He has some rhetorical eloquence in reading a prepared speech in a teleprompter, that too he does not do it right: he confuses grandfather for father!

No experience in National Security, Foreign Policy, Economy or Government. In deed he is the weakest candidate in half a Century!

He is just a Manchurian Candidate sponsored by some BigMoneyBags (a liberal media tycoon or liberal Hollywood consortium or what, some foreign agency..?).

Truly he amazed me by collecting so much money with so little name recognition. I don't believe the notion that the Blacks, the college kids and the semi-educated "affluent" crowd (his constituency) paid so much money into his coffer. This may just constitute just 30% of the money, the rest is from his Puppet Masters.

If the Democratic Party refuses to move to the Center (towards the Clintons) then the result in the GE will be the same: You again hit the brick wall of utter failure.

For most of the American Electorate is near the Center, not at the FAR LEFT end. This is a simple fact you refuse to accept, and refuse to learn from the past history.

Not even God can help you!

:-); May 17, 2008 9:32 PM
magia said...: I guess none of you noticed that my point was about the "countdown" - I make no argument as to who will or will not eventually get this nomination, only that your "countdown", your "KY will put him over" and such is not quite dealing with one reality:

there is no decision until he gets 2025 votes, or a higher number if there is a decision to allot FL & MI votes.

So your arguments about the various factors not changing who will win are unnecessary. Relax! It's the 'when' I am questioning.

On the other hand, Leah has aired an argument that even if the numbers change the other way, the WHOLE WORLD will already have been told that Obama is the candidate, so there could not be any change. Scary reasoning, I'm sorry.; May 17, 2008 9:39 PM
magia said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 17, 2008 9:46 PM
magia said...: Not too enamored of the “professor” debate, but can’t keep quiet when facts are skewed so badly, so here goes (and I have indulged your penchant for links):

Catherine said... “Chicago would like to have hired Obama to its faculty, but bec. of his other interests he didn't pursue it.”
____
Yes, but then does it not follow that he was NOT a professor but was “called” a professor? That is how it has been explained many times by the U of C. On the other hand, in fact they did list Obama in their 2007 catalogues as “Professor.”

However, that is a bit odd, in that all of their catalogues for 2002-2006 list him NOT as a professor -- although many professors are listed -- but as follows:

Barack H. Obama, A.B., J.D., Senior Lecturer in Law (and he is referred to as Mr. Obama, not Professor Obama, in the copy.)

http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/Law%2002-03.pdf
http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/Law%2003-04.pdf
http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/Law%2004-05.pdf
http://catalogs.uchicago.edu/law-folder/Law%2005-06.pdf

Lynn Sweet called Obama out on the mis-appellation first, during the 2004 Senate campaign. She reprised it, with an update, in March of this year, AFTER she had begun supporting him for President. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

Nevertheless, there is a theory that the U of C decided to change the record for Obama’s benefit when the issue was raised in this campaign. Why else would his listing be changed AFTER he was no longer teaching any classes? Possibly we should agree he is an HONORARY professor!!

(Yes, some think there is a fishy smell out there in Chicago, especially around U of C.); May 17, 2008 10:07 PM
RobH said...: Hello Magia,

The professor/not professor debate died a long ugly death last night after about 150 posts exchanged. Perhaps we should leave it dead if you don't mind, else you be percieved as someone who is trying to muddy the waters, and stir up our delusional friends to pollute this thread again??

Just a thought. I hope the reasoning folks on the thread (and you all know who I'm not including) will not take this bait, and let this issue lie?; May 17, 2008 10:19 PM
Hippolytus said...: Yammer,
At least we won't be going into an election with a nominee with negatives approaching 50%, who has managed to drive her negatives higher still though her use of scorched earth tactics.; May 17, 2008 10:22 PM
magia said...: Hippolytus - from Euripides? Sad ending.

Assume not the Saint - Roman - or you might have referenced . . .

"Per amore... per magia..."; May 17, 2008 10:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: If his being or not being a professor, his wearing or not wearing a flag pin, and questions about his religion - are the main things people take issue with then I think we are good shape.

Obama - our next POTUS ;)

magia - you have confused me by your latest comment regarding the 'countdown' - is it that you take issue with the 2025 number or something else? The reason I am using that number is because at this moment in time that is the number that the DNC is using as the official number.

.; May 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Hippolytus said...: magia,
Yes, Hippolytus from Euripides. Some of us can handle self-deprecation, unlike the candidate that you appear to be backing.
Hugs & kisses,
Obama-Won; May 17, 2008 10:27 PM
RobH said...: Additionally magia,

I find I have to take issue with your assertions that Leah's reasoning is scary. Or maybe it's scary to you, but it's probably realistic (IMO.) The writing has been on the wall for a while now. When Obama's lead becomes a mathematical certainty (probably pre 5/31 with add-ons, SD's, etc) the global community WILL be made aware, and the possibility of any 'extraordinary' ruling by the RBC will be extinguished.

The wider community is looking at how we behave, and with an eye towards the idea that we are theoretically the model of democracy. Any 'hijinks' (as percieved by the global community) would really give pause to an audience that already questions our motives and methods.

IMO.; May 17, 2008 10:29 PM
tmess2 said...: All of the debates about alternative numbers to 2026 are about the "appearance" of victory. As any good advertising person or historian could tell you, our perception of reality tends to shape reality (at least in the realms of politics, economics, and business).

The Obama campaign wants to use 1,627 -- the majority of pledged delegates under the decisions of the RBC as of January 1st (i.e. the rules under which all of the primaries and caucuses were conducted). They want to use that number to put the unpledged delegates in the position of having to go against the voters to give someone else the nomination. They also understand that once Obama is perceived as the winner, it is easier for those who don't want to take sides (since many of the unpledged delegates have to run in their own local races and don't want to tick anyone else) to merely be seen as supporting the nominee rather than picking the nominee.

The Clinton campaign wants to use 2210 -- even though they helped lower the official number to 2026. They know that the higher number will not be the final number and they know that their campaign lacks credibility on this issue with the unpledged delegates and the RBC. However, they want to use this higher number for the same reason Obama wants to use the lower number. If the media accepts this number instead of the real number of Obama's lower number, it prevents Obama from being recognized as the nominee and starting the bandwagon rolling with the remaining unpledged delegates and thus buys Senator Clinton more time.; May 17, 2008 10:39 PM
Hippolytus said...: If Hillary wanted to adopt a Euripidean handle, I'd suggest Medea. Although she hasn't eaten her children, she doesn't mind taking a bite out of her fellow Dems and spitting them out. And she will need a deus ex machina to save her.
How will it all end? Riding off in a maniacal stupor, or with her awakening from a nightmare of her own making? Stay tuned.; May 17, 2008 10:40 PM
magia said...: leah said . . . The reason I am using that number is because at this moment in time that is the number that the DNC is using as the official number.
_____
Actually, how can you have it both ways? The DNC is using 2025; however, to my knowledge, the DNC is not counting the supers votes until convention. Maybe I'm being dense, but I think I am being logical.

robh . . . I didn't look to "resurrect" the p-word; I have not been around and found all of those posts this evening. But I do not think any of them (posters from either side) had first checked the facts of the issue, and leaving it at that goes against my nature.

I do not think the facts of this issue are in any way dispositive in terms of Obama's character. But facts are facts.

A pet peeve of mine throughout this process, and in these blogs, is the way statements are made, assertions made, by people who do not check them out first, but rather parrot something they read (usually by another blogger!)

It's disappointing, at the least, and absurd. Do you think it is a valid way to form opinions or make judgments?; May 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Yamaka said...: "(Yes, some think there is a fishy smell out there in Chicago, especially around U of C.)"

magia:

As I wrote before, U of C has a corrupt hand with Obamas in bilking the US Govt.

I wish Michelle's pay hike was discussed in the last Debate with George Stapha!

So much for the New Type of A Leader!

He is just another Black Politician from Chicago.

The Democratic Party is dancing with a Devil!

:-); May 17, 2008 10:54 PM
magia said...: robh . . . leah wrote . .

"Besides IF Obama receives the current number that it takes to secure the nomination (2025) it will make WORLD NEWS and then for sure the RBC would not override it."

So we are to take it that not only you, but world leaders too, will accept this reasoning that Obama reached 2025 when he actually reaches . . . what??

The supers will not have voted.

This is a circular reasoning. I think I'll go read a book.; May 17, 2008 10:56 PM
Hippolytus said...: magia,

Respectfully, I think you are being dense. No delegate, pledged or super, is technically compelled to vote until the convention. However, we do have expressions from intention for committed supers, as well as a reason to believe that the pledged delegates will support the candidate for whom they were chosen to support (with notable exceptions being pledged delegates who change their preference). Of course, any delegate can change his or her preference between now and the convention. But we are making a reasonable supposition that they will not. Otherwise, why don't we just have secret ballots, and have one big crap shoot at the convention? The process just doesn't work that way.; May 17, 2008 10:56 PM
Richard said...: I have to disagree about local sustainability being impossible for the U.S. We have the world's largest reserves of uranium, and could very easily provide all our power needs through nuclear-generated electricity and electrolyzed hydrogen. Whether we want to do that, with the accompanying waste disposal issues, is another question.

Our only real hope for long-term sustainability is nuclear fusion. The U.S. needs to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in fusion research rather than spending it on wars to secure our oil supply.; May 17, 2008 11:04 PM
Economy said...: billyjay66

Do you have a problem with Hillary being a woman? She is less liberal than Obama but yet you would vote for McCain. Please ellaborate. It would make more sense for Hillary supporters to go to McCain; Obama supporters would really be making a huge shift.; May 17, 2008 11:14 PM
RobH said...: Magia,

Please take no offense regarding my attempt to detour around a resurrection of the p-word issue.

I agree with you completely - it is not a valid way to form opinions or make judgements by not having full information.

But, to be sure, the delusional types who clogged the thread last night with hundreds of posts were not in the business of pursuing best information. They were in the business sowing discord by muddying the waters with UNFOUNDED arguments. And I think we'd all benefit from avoiding that again.; May 17, 2008 11:19 PM
RobH said...: I'm sorry magia, but I didn't really say it the way I meant to in my last post. What I should have said was, if you review last nights posts you'll see a valiant attempt, by many posters, to use credible sources (as you did) to prove the fallacy of the divergent positions.

In the face of innumerable ('cause I don't feel like counting them) attempts, certain posters simply ignored the proofs, and kept posting the talking points.

My fear is that your introduction of additional sources would not compel agreement, and thus prove ultimately frustrating.; May 17, 2008 11:27 PM
Hippolytus said...: "Dammit, Bill, I said 'order the cavalry, not the calvary'!"
-- Hillary; May 17, 2008 11:51 PM
Yamaka said...: "When Obama's lead becomes a mathematical certainty ..."

It becomes a "mathematical certainty" only when ALL the SDs vote, which happens only at the time of the Convention!

Therefore, shall we all WAIT till the Convention gets over before we Coronate BHO!?

As I said before, Hillary's constituency is broader and deeper than BHO's. If all States had Primaries (that is, eliminate Causes where many women, working and older folks shuned to go) Hillary's support would have been 55% to his 45%, as shown in battle ground States of NJ, PA, OH, CA and FL.

Because he won more Caucus Red States, her predominance is NOT apparent in the pledged delegates.
This is just an ARTIFICIAL situation created by the faulty measuring mechanism. In GE there is no Caucus, therefore BHO would get the support of just a Minority of the Democrats, if he is the Nominee.

Boisterous Minority is making too much noise. I hope the remaining SDs understand this fact and Nominate the Candidate liked by the Majority, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the First Woman POTUS.
_______________________________

Next week: KY will be a blowout for Hillary, and OR will be very close.

Why the (Minority) "Front-Runner" cannot win ALL the 5 remaining Contests?

His support is only among Blacks, mis-educated Whites and college kids, that is all. This is not a winning constituency, IMO.

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary FOR REAL POSITIVE CHANGE.

:-); May 18, 2008 12:06 AM
billyjay66 said...: economy

re "do I have a problem with Hillary being a woman"

......."yet (I) would vote for McCain" Not true in the least! I would vote for her without a second thought (over McCain). I would support her in any position on the ticket. Do I dare criticize her? Being a woman does not eliminate her from criticism. Am I happy we have Rep Pelosi as speaker. You bet! Proud that we have the first. Am I happy with everything she has done? No. But not because she is a woman. Not in the least!

I have enjoyed posting back and forth with you in the past. Sorry we are crossing now.; May 18, 2008 12:12 AM
Yamaka said...: "At least we won't be going into an election with a nominee with negatives approaching 50%,"

Hippo:

Of the BHO supporters, true FOR Obama is just 30%, the remaining are anti-Bill Clinton and anti-Women Crowd.

With a very poor name recognition of BARack Hussein Bin Obama Jr how could you go to the GE in America?

Unless, you are very suicidal, like most of the FAR LEFT Liberals are..

:-(; May 18, 2008 12:16 AM
Economy said...: The voters of Florida and Michigan are depending on us to help them make sure they have a voice in this race, and your action is going to make a difference for them — and for Hillary.

If you haven’t already, please take a moment to forward this message on to your friends, and urge them to join you in standing up for Florida and Michigan voters.

Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place. (Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted).
Required: 2209.0 unless the caucus delegates are removed.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/flmidnc/?sc=1858&utm_source=1858&utm_medium=e; May 18, 2008 12:24 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: An interesting article from Boston.com (dated May 4), on how the planning done by Senator Obama and his staff in the summer of 2007 paid benefits after the turn of the calendar to 2008:

http://tinyurl.com/5mqyvj

Mike; May 18, 2008 12:26 AM
Economy said...: billyjay66

I stand corrected:

BUT the way she has waged a win-at-all cost campaign - she can wage it without me. I have said before if she somehow wins no way could I vote for McCain.; May 18, 2008 12:27 AM
Hippolytus said...: Yammer,
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not on the far left, as evidenced by my kind comments about Sam Nunn the other day on this blog.
The sooner you can push yourself through the Kubler-Ross grief cycle, the better all of us will be.
"Feel the force, Yamika."
Obama-Won; May 18, 2008 12:28 AM
Hippolytus said...: Yamika said:
"With a very poor name recognition of BARack Hussein Bin Obama Jr how could you go to the GE in America?"

Anyone in America that does not know who Barack Obama is after all the commotion of this primary season must be brain-dead, and won't be voting anyway.; May 18, 2008 12:33 AM
protactinium said...: Pickens is very serious and I do trust him. No one dumps 2 billion in a company that he expects to fail. I am glad to see the beginings of the oil tycoons jumping ship. However this will not help the vechile issue until we get better battery technology.

As for the Nucleur Fusion process it is believed that Helium-3 is needed to make Fusion a viable way to produce energy. The extra atom makes makes the activation cost much lower.

However on earth is is very rare, and found in things like nuclear weapons when dismantled. This stuff is very abundant on the moon.

China and Russia have both said they plan on going to the moon to mine this stuff. Yet America appears to making no moves toward it what so ever, and would rather shun off space travel. A huge mistake IMO.

Here is a great article about Helium-3. It has both side of the arguement.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html; May 18, 2008 12:39 AM
Yamaka said...: "commotion of this primary season must be brain-dead, and won't be voting anyway."

Very wrong.

Only about 34 millions have voted in the Democratic Primary.

Even if you assume all of Hillary's will vote for the "Minority" Nominee, this will fetch only 100 EVs. (Believe me, 70% of Hillary's will either sit at home or go to McCain in the GE!)

I expect another 30 million Left-leaning voters are out there in the heartland of America, who have not gone to the Primary at all.

For these 30 million, BHO is a foreign entity! Not truly an American! That's my point.

:-(; May 18, 2008 12:43 AM
protactinium said...: Ps. I did not proof read. I meant extra electron and not Atom. Id be shot if people found out I said that.

Also as for this professor controversy, Wright, or any other distrations that will be thrown at Obama is fine. I am preety confident Obama will be fine.

Reason are:
1. Hillary tryed it.
2. The republicans tryed it against their democratic Oppenents in Missippi, and Lousiana running Obamas endorsement of them, and atleast one of those 2 ran Wright also. What Happened? They lost 2 more seats they once controlled. Also a Sentor won in IL by running an ad of Obama endorising him, taking away Haserts seat. So 3 elections have been won by democrats
3.Obama is already saying alot of the right things in order to make these attacks look unfair, and unimporatant to the lives of the people. This is the thing old style politcal types are having a problem understanding. People are embracing him for the new style of politics that make Obama more insulted to smear attacks.

So I really hope that repugs attempt to attack him on everything but Issues, Obama has already showed resilance to those attack in Repug states. Its 50 50 chance at this point. Mccain has already come out blazzing with the questionable attacks and Obama calls him out on it everytime.; May 18, 2008 12:50 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here's a link to an interesting two page article that tosses out some names of women that 'might' have a chance at being the 'first female president' in the future:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18zernike.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Obama / Sebelius '08
Sebelius '2016

.; May 18, 2008 12:50 AM
Economy said...: It is unclear to me why Obama is making such a fuss over President Bush comments. A mountain is being made of a mole hill. Obama is quick to criticize anyone with a record. What will he do after he has a record? Who will be blamed then? Hopefully not the American people.; May 18, 2008 12:50 AM
Yamaka said...: "I would feel kind of sorry for you, if you weren't such a racist pig."

martin:

I will tell you about racist pigs:

John Lewis and most of the Black Caucus pledged their support to Hillary for a long time before the Iowa caucus, because they knew her very well. Many did not know BARack Hussein Bin Obama that well because he is not from the Civil Rights Heritage of Black America.

After Iowa, they deserted her solely on the basis of the color of the skin.

Remember Dr. King told us all, "Do not judge a person by the color of the Skin, but judge him on the strength of the character".

Now tell me who are the racist pigs?

Can you think and analyze? Or are you just like any other Lemmings here?

:-(; May 18, 2008 12:52 AM
protactinium said...: economy - "It is unclear to me why Obama is making such a fuss over President Bush comments."

I will seriously try to answer your question even though I have a feeling it may do no good.

He wants to prove he his against Bush in everyway. It will also help insulate him against future attack from Bush by getting people to just disregard them as politics as usual. It also is helping him link Mccain to Bush.

Also as for this Obama only has 30 million vote crap. Has no one told you Obama has more votes then any democratic Nominee in History?

I know its tuff to understand but its not all about the "hard working White people" Its one vote per person no matter what there demographic is. Also Clinton won with the Mintority of the white voters.; May 18, 2008 1:01 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yakama said:
"Remember Dr. King told us all, "Do not judge a person by the color of the Skin, but judge him on the strength of the character".
_________________________

THIS is one reason Senator Obama IS winning - the strength of his character!

.; May 18, 2008 1:07 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Not too long ago in one of those exit polls that CNN was talking about after a primary the poll said that...

around 30% of the people said that they thought Hillary was 'honest'

and around 60% of the people said that they thought Obama was 'honest'

that there tells ya somethin'

;); May 18, 2008 1:11 AM
Economy said...: protactinium

That looks like Kool-Aid to me. Obama's paranoid behavior is probably due to his admitted drug usage. What kind of a society would we have if Obama becomes President and takes exception to comments being made both here and abroard? Candidates for President should have a more thorough background check than any civil servant to get a top secret clearance. Hopefully the superdelegates supporting Obama will reconsider their choice.; May 18, 2008 1:13 AM
protactinium said...: Keep the mudslinging comming. :-) Has not stoped Obama yet. To bad you guys are uncapable of debating issues. Much as Hillary was. Hence why she lost.

Enjoy your Its not over yet Kool-aid Hillary feeds you.; May 18, 2008 1:16 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Economy-

If the Clintons and their Machine haven't been able to find anything to bring down Obama - no one will be able to.

Senator Obama IS vetted.

Senator Obama is qualified.

Senator Obama has integrity, wisdom, compassion, intelligence, eloquence and grace.

Senator Obama will make America proud and will bring respect to America in the eyes of the world when he becomes the next President of the UNITED States of America!

Just keep repeating over and over 100 times ... President Obama President Obama President Obama

you'll get used to it ;); May 18, 2008 1:20 AM
Hippolytus said...: "Don't worry, Hillary. Your nomination will be a slam dunk."
-- George Tenet; May 18, 2008 1:22 AM
Economy said...: protactinium

Obama is not held accountable by the media. No mud is being sent at Obama; he avoids debates with Hillary after a few questions where he does not provide an answer execept to put the attention somewhere else. This is the truth. Obama may get the nomination and be in the general election. This is only because of smoke and mirrors. Obama has the potential to be worse than GW Bush. Hillary is the one who has more than paid her dues.; May 18, 2008 1:24 AM
billyjay66 said...: protactinium

In my mind the comparison of T Boon Pickens wind generator project to a nuclear plant is this: Two billion would barely build a nuclear plant thirty years ago - who knows what it would take now - wouldn't produce an electron for at least 12-14 years. Let alone the waste disposal and the limited lifetime. It is not zero emissions when you consider the mining process.

Those who put down wind generation & solar downplay their current rising competitiveness. For example "It would take over ten thousand windmills to replace one nuclear plant" that was ten years ago. Now it is less than a thousand.

The University in our town - Colorado State - is building 40 wind generators that will power the entire university - on 200 acres of land it owns outside of town.; May 18, 2008 1:26 AM
Economy said...: Leah

I did not vote for GW Bush and have survived two terms. Obama may get one and then it will be time for another change. Occasionally the person I vote for wins.; May 18, 2008 1:27 AM
protactinium said...: Obama can be worse then Bush? Hillary is Bush of forign Policys. Watch her talk about why we should attack Iraq. :-) Preety compeling.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oTqs85ES9pk

She casts her vote with Conviction.

And here is Obama talking about the issue the same year.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&feature=related

The videos tell it all.; May 18, 2008 1:38 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama needs only 14.5 more pledged delegates to have the 'majority' of PDs!

Economy-
No mud? Haven't you been watching the news the past couple of months?
And as far as Hillary paying her dues - she road the coat-tails of her husband to the top.

Senator Obama has paid his dues as much if not more that Hillary has.

Why not try doing a little objective unbiased research on what Senator Obama has done in his lifetime. Then we can talk.; May 18, 2008 1:39 AM
suzihussein22 said...: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080517/pl_bloomberg/anehvghrn8o;_ylt=AkrcceIuvBlcvr_u3S9Pu3.MwfIE

I can already see a contrast between campaigning in the primary and how different the tone will be in the GE. IMO it's the difference between being tougher and being negative, not that Annie Oakley was necessary.; May 18, 2008 1:41 AM
protactinium said...: BillyJ I could not agree with you more. I would much prefer wind over most types of electricity. Was not trying to argue against it.

Yes you are correct we have improved windturbines greatly by making them much larger and they spin slower producing more energy if my memory serves me right.

Also they are preety far along on a cheap solar panel thats preety much a sheet of plastic supposed to greatly reduce the cost of it. But I belive its less efficent but who cares, what are we using our roofs for anyways? Hopefully they can get it down in price enough to allowe every middle class consumer to purchase it.; May 18, 2008 1:43 AM
Hippolytus said...: softspoken22,
More like Calamity Jane. Pound down another boilermaker, Hillary. You look like you need it.; May 18, 2008 1:46 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: softspoken22 -

I believe we will see a much stronger Obama going up against McCain than we did when he was up against Hillary.

Obama couldn't go 'rough' with Hillary because:

1: He didn't want to attack (viciously) another member of his party

2: He didn't want to look like he was attacking the first viable female that ever ran for the presidency

3: The differences on where he stands on issues compared to McCain are 'massive'

Pop the popcorn and put your feet up for a spell - we are fixin' to see a might good fight in the upcoming weeks and months.

The glove are off - ring the bell and let the fight begin ;); May 18, 2008 1:50 AM
Hippolytus said...: When Barack said that McCain had lost his bearings, he wasn't referring to McCain's moral compass. He was referring to the metal marbles that Captain Queeg rolls in his hand.; May 18, 2008 1:51 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus said: "When Barack said that McCain had lost his bearings, he wasn't referring to McCain's moral compass. He was referring to the metal marbles that Captain Queeg rolls in his hand."
______

Good one Hippolytus!

Ya know McCain being in the Navy should have known licktey spilt what 'losing one's bearings means'
I think that it was probably someone in his campaign that didn't know what it meant jumped the gun on the initial press release from the McCain camp.

p.s. But I got a kick out of the talking heads during that time talking about "losing one's marbles!"

I am sure a lot of people would have liked to have said that but weren't able to until the bearing-gate happened.; May 18, 2008 2:02 AM
billyjay66 said...: protactinium

My guess is that corporate culture is against wind and solar because once they are built they simply produce power. They want a machine that needs to be constantly feed something that costs money and spews out a profit for them.

I heard Sen Lamar Alexander(TN) speaking on the new Republican energy policy. He downplayed solar as contributing only 1/100 of 1 percent of our electricity needs. Think of it. Out of 300 million that is only 30,000 people or 10,000 homes. We are much further along than that. Of course he was pro nuclear!; May 18, 2008 2:04 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1514 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

1514 comments:

Tags