I really enjoy reading your blog, it always has great insight. But I am very frustrated with the media’s lack of questions to the presidential candidates about global warming. Now that it is down to just a few candidates I would think that this would be a bigger issue.
Live Earth just picked up this topic and put out an article ( http://www.liveearth.org/news.php ) asking why the presidential candidates are not being solicited for their stance on the issue of the climate change. I just saw an article describing each candidate’s stance on global warming and climate change on earthlab.com http://www.earthlab.com/articles/PresidentialCandidates.aspx . So obviously they care about it. Is it the Medias fault for not asking the right questions or is it the candidates’ fault for not highlighting the right platforms? Does anyone know of other websites or articles that touch on this subject and candidates’ views? This is the biggest problem of the century and for generations to come…you would think the next president of the United States would be more vocal about it.
Clinton right on right on the strategy to help subprime loan victims... No, she isn't. Legally the fed govt can't order lenders to change existing private party loan agreements. The demand that they freeze the interest rates (even if it could be done) is a surefire way to bring future lending activities in this country to a full stop. The help should be limited to those who were fraudulently steered into high cost loans when they were qualified for conventional fixed rate loans - IOW could afford to buy the property.
Posted by Marie at February 22, 2008 04:00 PMI don't believe she didn't attack him on being Commander in Chief in case she loses is something new. Clinton has run her entire campaign keeping in mind the betterment of the party and Obama thinking he has been up against the Clinton machine is a joke. She's right in saying it's been a relatively positive campaign and it's been her character that has made it so.
Posted by nycvoter at February 22, 2008 04:05 PMThis is the most sensible thing you've said for weeks.
Posted by John at February 22, 2008 04:31 PMThis is giving Team Clinton way too much credit.
Hillary was out today talking about the MI and FLA delegates and "demanding" that they be seated--which would be crucial to her having any chance whatever of emerging from a brokered convention. Her "demands" for MI (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) are particularly rich. If she wins either OH or TX by 1%, she'll remain in the "race".
All that's changed is that she might (possibly) concede if she loses both TX and OH, but it would probably have to be by very substantial amounts. And she'd likely still say "We now move on to PA!!" (cheers)
They think they can win via super-delegates and poaching of pledged ones. Haven't they made that quite clear? Why do you suppose such "musings" are brought up?
Posted by euzoius at February 22, 2008 07:00 PMDoesn't want any more debates? There's another one on Tuesday.
Posted by dday at February 22, 2008 07:34 PMshe wanted more before austin, and he turned her down. typical politics- underdog wants debates, favorite doesn't.
Posted by Turkana at February 22, 2008 08:13 PMNot surprisingly, most of the commentors you mention make little or no sense.
The risk of Hillary getting aggressive is huge. Obama debates skill are inferior and unless he attacks Hillary viciously he always looks like a deer caught in the lights. Slow and meticulous argumentation is the best she can do now. She obviously was way better than he was and still many so him as the winner.
Clemons "Now may be the time for magnanimity and embrace of Hillary Clinton, much of her message, her followers and some of her staff." is out of place from "he is the one." God, as we all know, doesn't need help and doesn't have to magnanimous.
Grace has nothing to do with anything. The most graceful exist is going down fighting. That's what so is doing in a very balanced way. Again, being more aggressive will bring the howls of the Obama Talibans and the MSM mafia.
As for "liking both of them" all I can say is I liked Edwards and I have no affinity for Republicans even when their name is Obama.
Posted by Koshembos at February 22, 2008 08:49 PMClinton has run her entire campaign keeping in mind the betterment of the party ...
If that is the case, then she needs to get this off her website:
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137
In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”
"I don’t think she’s conceded the nomination in her mind, but I do think she had two temporal audiences in mind when she answered: Democrats now and the nation in the fall."
As Martha Stewart would say, "and that's a good thing." It is refreshing to see a politician consider her party and her country ahead of her own personal success.
Posted by theExile at February 23, 2008 03:11 AMPerhaps someone on this blog can clear this up. I think I heard on NPR that Texas delegates are chosen by both a primary and a caucus. a majority via primary and a large minority in caucuses held in the evening? I also thought they said a candidate in the primary needed to get 2/3 majority to get a majority of the delegates in that district. So, for instance ,if there are 4 delegates in a district, if a candidate wins 52-48 the winner would get 2 of the delegates and the loser would as well. Only with a 66-33 or better victory would the winner get 3 delegates to the loser's one. If this is true, I find it mathematically impossible for HRC to change her standing in delegates out of Texas. Unless history is turned on its head and HRC wins hugely in the caucuses. Well, it is Texas, so I am sure anything can happen. But if someone would clear this up it would be helpful.
Posted by leftymn at February 23, 2008 06:33 AMfixed your sentence Jay: close enough that the ReTHUGS can steal the right states to irk out a win.
Posted by gay veteran at February 23, 2008 12:54 PMDuring the last two debates (California and now Texas), Barack Obama threw out the "J" card again, as in "judgment." He knocks Hillary constantly for "voting in support of the war..."
Well, for one thing, unlike Barack Obama, she actually showed up to vote and thereby placed her faith and trust in an "INEXPERIENCED PRESIDENT," taking him on his word that he would exhaust all diplomatic means first and prove the need to use military force. This is precisely what happens when you put your faith and trust in a president who has zero experience in foreign affairs and therefore must rely on others to forge his policy. On whom would Obama rely to guide him in foreign affairs policy...nobody can say for sure, nor does anyone know the hidden agenda that comes with these unknown advisors. At least with Hillary, we've got folks with a proven track record that we can rely on!
What I find most ironic is that Obama plays the "judgment" card so frequently (it is, after all, his only dart to throw at her), but this coming from the man who voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill that resulted in the robber-barron oil companies receiving in excess of $6 BILLION of taxpayer money in the form of federal subsidies (as if their record profits weren't enough)!!!! Gee whiz, where's the "judgment" there, Mr. Obama?!?! Or, how about voting against capping credit card interest rates at 30%--now there's some great judgment for you! I think his campaign wreaks of hypocrisy and yet people actually fall for the rhetoric. In my humble view, if you're voting to give our tax dollars to oil companies, then there really is NO CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!!
Posted by mike at February 23, 2008 10:30 PM"....unlike Barack Obama, she actually showed up to vote..."
Ummmmmm - if Barak Obama HAD showed up to vote, he would not have been allowed to because HE WASN'T A MEMBER OF THE SENATE AT THE TIME! What part of that is difficult for people to understand?
And for the record, I am neither an Obama nor a Clinton supporter.
Posted by Shirin at February 24, 2008 06:00 PM