Log and Line

Pfizer sticks it to New London

2009-11-11T08:03:00.003-05:00

More than four years ago, I wrote on this blog about the Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court case, a landmark victory for towns and cities looking to use eminent-domain powers to achieve economic-development ends--a debate in which the idea of "public benefit" was used as the definition of the Fifth Amendment's phrase "public use."

At the time, New London, CT was trying to clear out the residents of its Fort Trumbull neighborhood in order to make room for a hotel, health club, and office complex, all facilities designed to enhance the area, which was dominated by a large R&D facility owned by Pfizer.

Well, as it happens there are no spandex-clad people exercising in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood--the buildings still stand condemned, and the redevelopment was never completed. Nor, it seems will it be: in what must be a monumental tragedy for the city of New London, Pfizer has announced it will pull out of this facility and move its R&D operations over the river to its center in Groton.

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal puts it best:

[Pfizer's move is] especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.

A train-station project in my home town took a strip of land from a warehouse owner under eminent domain. At the time, the owner objected, saying (and here he's backed up by no less an authority than the United States Constitution) that he was due compensation for the land he lost. The town, in order to forestall a lawsuit, groused about his outrageous claims but eventually compensated him with $1. Their position was that the economic development spurred by the new train station would increase the value of his land, and that should be enough. Well, years later, the train station is not built and the development company hired to do the work is bankrupt.

Let's not think the issue of eminent-domain abuse is dead.

Technorati Tags: Kelo, New London, Pfizer, Eminent Domain, Fifth Amendment

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists - Taking Liberties - CBS News

2009-11-10T08:10:00.000-05:00

In a disturbing echo of the White House's war on Fox News, the Justice Department has demanded the personal information of everyone visiting an online news site during one particular day. Moreover, they appended a gag order to the subpoena asking the news site (!) not to report on the request.

It's possible that this was just a local US attorney "going rogue," according to the director of a press-freedom organization:

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."

I don't know that I'm so sure, since in the same article it's stated that the DOJ can't subpoena a member of the press without the "express authorization of the attorney general." Moreover, the administrator of the site in question, indymedia.us, says she was threatened with prosecution for obstruction if she went public with news of the subpoena.

Technorati Tags: Department of Justice, gag order, freedom of the press

Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right | Webware - CNET

2009-10-15T10:36:00.000-04:00

"Declaration of the Rights of Man" this certainly is not. Indeed, I wonder what civilizations living just a few decades from now will make of such a statement.

Imagine that it's 1843 and the US Congress is considering amending the Declaration of Independence to read, "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and an annual allotment of 25 gallons of whale oil." Or perhaps that it's 1933, and FDR's first order of business is to allow everyone to send telegrams free of charge.

In the end, Finland, it's very nice, and good job; but wouldn't it have been less ridiculous to simply allow citizens free access at libraries or post offices?

President Barack Obama Wins Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T07:59:00.003-04:00

When I saw this headline in the news this morning, I had to stop and ask myself whether today was some sort of autumn version of April Fool's Day. I just can't make any sense of it.

The Nobel Foundation's press release on the award makes interesting reading. Apparently there is a "new climate in international politics" that's due entirely to him; we also read that "[h]is diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Whatever the hell that means.

Looking at the fact that we are still heavily engaged in two wars, one of which may well see a troop surge in coming months; looking at the fact that Obama's soft-touch approach to Iran seems to have emboldened the mullahs; looking at the fact that the "reset" (or was it "overload"?) with Russia appears to be an uncompensated rollover to their government's demands...I just don't understand how Obama's lofty rhetoric trumps his dubious record of accomplishment.

A fun quote about tort reform for healthcare

2009-09-29T07:26:00.003-04:00

From DNC chairman Howard Dean, speaking at a town-hall event in late August:

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

Choosing not to fight the "War of Necessity"

2009-09-28T15:47:00.003-04:00

Obama said it hundreds of times on the campaign trail: Iraq was Bush's "war of choice" that distracted him from the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. There was the promise that the United States would focus on this neglected but essential front in the war on terror, or whatever the Obama administration is calling it these days. And on this point, I have agreed wholeheartedly with the public pronouncements of the President--the war in Afghanistan is too important to risk losing.

Well, there's some sense now that Obama has not paid a terrible amount of attention to the job of defeating the Taliban. In a televised interview, General Stanley McChrystal has admitted that he's only spoken to the President once since taking command of the theater more than two months back.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.
“That is correct,” the general replied.

Sure, you can argue that the President has had a lot on his plate. But ask yourself: how important can Afghanistan be to Obama if he's putting a higher priority on personally petitioning the IOC to award the Olympics to Chicago?

As far as I'm concerned, Roman Polanski can rot in hell.

2009-09-28T13:33:00.003-04:00

Not normally the stuff I'd blog about, but a passage from this CNN report has me agape:

"He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland," said photographer Otto Weisser, a friend of Polanski.

A little mistake...the same article has the following description of what happened:

Polanski was accused of plying the [13-year old] girl, Samantha Geimer, with champagne and a sliver of a Quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house. He was 43 at the time.

These facts are not in dispute, nor is the fact that Polanski fled the country when it became clear he might have to serve real jail time for his "little mistake."

Brilliance, whatever that might mean, is no defense against child rape. Isn't that something we can all agree on?

Friday Melange

2009-09-25T16:19:00.002-04:00

So it's Friday afternoon, and I'm sitting outside being caressed by a cool, early autumn breeze. I've also got a lot of other work to get through, and a variety of tabs are clogging up my Firefox window. But for the sake of the archive, let's run through them fairly quickly.

There's a video making the rounds that shows a bunch of elementary-school students practicing a song praising "Barack Hussein Obama." The lyrics are pretty...well, they're just not right. I find it interesting that the superintendent of the school district excuses it by saying, "The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized." OK, all better now.
Yesterday there was a hubbub about the various world leaders attending the UN conference. Apparently, Britain's Gordon Brown repeatedly sought a few minutes with Obama, but was snubbed no fewer than five times. My reaction at the time was, sure, I bet Gordon wants a photo-op with Obama to help his sagging poll numbers, but at the absolute minimum his country has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, where we're struggling. In short, cut the guy some slack and give him his face-time.
Then of course we learn that Iran has been secretly building a hitherto unknown uranium-enrichment facility, and all of the sudden the US, UK, and France are putting up a united front at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. Maybe those five minutes the day before would have been a good investment.

A little extra confirmation is always a good thing.

2009-09-23T16:40:00.000-04:00

Seems like CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf has struck again:

Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.

Baucus, Humana, Maddow

2009-09-22T14:52:00.000-04:00

The story so far:

1) Earlier this year, President Obama proposed eliminating Medicare Advantage, a program by which seniors can receive their healthcare through private plans, rather than directly through Medicare. Current stats show that approximately nine million are enrolled. On the 12 January 2009 edition of This Week with George Stephanopolous, he said

"We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and I’ll give you an example in the health care area. We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them subsidies to accept Medicare recipients but doesn’t necessarily make people on Medicare healthier. And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion out of the health care system that we’re currently spending, and take that money and use it in ways that are actually going to make people healthier and improve quality."

Please remember what the President told the AMA on 15 June: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan."

2) Humana, a large insurer, sent out a letter to its Medicare Advantage participants stating, in part, that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."

3) Senator Max Baucus referred the matter to Health and Human Services, which then penned a cease-and-desist letter to Humana. In the wake of this, the Humana story has been all over the news.

I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal on this one when they represent Baucus's actions as bullying.

[Baucus stated that] "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that."
In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.

A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.

In short, both Obama and Baucus have proposed either eliminating or slashing Medicare Advantage...and they're complaining when the insurance industry rightly warns their customers that their current plan may be on the chopping block?

A quick note on the "Maddow" point: I first heard of this kerfuffle while flipping past the Rachel Maddow show. It is my recollection that she introduced the topic by quoting from the Humana letter, but in a choppy way that disguised the fact that they were talking specifically about Medicare Advantage. While I have not been able to confirm this (I haven't been able to find a transcript of the program), it would not surprise me.

You can bash greedy insurers all you want; but it seems to me that you shouldn't give them too much grief for telling the truth.

Technorati Tags: Baucus, Humana, Healthcare, Obama, Maddow

Something that's been bothering me...

2009-09-18T07:40:00.001-04:00

The more I consider Obama's healthcare proposals, the more I keep coming back to the aspect of constitutionality--which, I realize, is a perilous thing for a non-lawyer to do. Nevertheless, there appears to be a fundamental disconnect between a) asserting that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the ability to mess with the health-insurance marketplace, and b) the fact that health insurance companies can't currently operate across state lines.

An editorial in today's WSJ, however, raises another interesting point: whether sticking the uninsured with a penalty "excise tax" is a form of punitive taxation:

Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables...a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans.

One further question: if the Obama reforms aren't scheduled to go into effect until 2013, how will the inevitable legal challenges impact their rollout? Politically, I wonder whether it would be better for Obama to get a reform bill passed sooner, so that lawsuits can be characterized as obstructionism for the 2012 campaign

Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Obama, Constitution

False Flag

2009-08-27T17:49:00.000-04:00

I came across this article today, which suggests that the suspect behind the vandalism of a Democratic legislator's Denver office is...a Democrat.

Now, this did not surprise me in the least. Indeed, I often wonder why we don't hear more about this sort of "false flag" operation by political partisans. I'm sure it happens a great deal, on the right and the left. Yard signs are probably a big item, for example: how easy would it have been for Democratic operatives in 2008 to go around, steal Obama signs, then have a local Dem organization talk to the press about the fear and intolerance of the right? (And, before you start, I bet similar operations were carried out by the right.)

Whenever some information or story is too good to be true, my mind tends to consider a false flag cause. The Bush National Guard/Dan Rather dustup is one case in particular: the documents were such poor forgeries, and their appearance and debunking did so much to undercut the tale of Bush's service, that I have to wonder...was this cooked up by a right-wing operative? If so, I say kudos. 'Cuz you have to salute excellence, wherever you find it.

Technorati Tags:
Democrats, Democrat, False Flag, Partisan, Denver

Processing Teddy's Death

2009-08-26T10:35:00.000-04:00

So Ted Kennedy is dead, felled by cancer at age 77.

Let me say up front that I am not pleased in any way by his death. I considered him the poorest form of statesman, and he seemed a man of few admirable personal qualities. But he was, in the end, a man; and I can mourn his death on this basis.

We hear from Shakespeare's Mark Antony that "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." If recent events are any indication (and I'm looking in your direction, Michael Jackson), it appears that this antique approach is long dead. The advantage here, if there is one, is that most media outlets are rolling out prefab encomia, composed during the course of Ted's long and terminal illness.

I know firsthand how popular he was with many of the people of Massachusetts; I know that he will be hailed as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. But what I hope people also remember was that he was a drunken womanizer whose reckless action resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

So let's not get too crazy here. His soul is in God's hands, but his record here on earth shouldn't be scrubbed clean.

One of my periodic epiphanies

2009-08-24T16:41:00.000-04:00

Five minutes on the right side. Roll onto back. Five minutes. Roll onto right side. Five minutes. Return to start and repeat again and again and again.

It kept me up for about two hours last night. It wasn't the usual wakeful worrying about money or health or any of the big life issues. No, instead it occurred to me that I wasn't writing enough.

This is a ridiculous thing. I am, after all, a writer. When someone asks me what I do for a living, I say, "freelance writer." I say this despite the fact that, since late in 1999, caring for the children has taken up the vast majority of my nonsleeping/noneating time.

The last time I abandoned Log & Line was about a year and a half ago, in early 2008. Maybe this return will be the same--a flurry of posts for a month or so, then a disappearance. But is the possibility of failure enough of a reason not to try? And at least, for a while, it may exercise my long-dormant fingers.

2009-10 Budget Announced

2009-02-04T07:48:00.000-05:00

Ken Flatto has announced his town budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year. There are few surprises: once again there is a sharp tax increase and Flatto tells us how small it is; Flatto has reined in the BoE budget request, but only by $400,000. This is the same town that just a few weeks ago voted $165,000 to make a bridge look pretty.

The Post's article makes some startling points:

'"I could not see how we could go any higher than that," Flatto said. "This [3.07% tax increase is] below the rate of inflation and the lowest tax increase in a decade."' The first thing that jumps out here is that, based on the most recent statistics, 3.07% is certainly far above the rate of inflation. The CPI-U (seasonally adjusted) actually contracted for the 12 months through 12/1/08. The second is that, if 3.07% is the lowest figure in a decade, a decade where the town grew fat off insane Grand List growth, then something is definitely wrong.
'The town contribution is needed because late last year the town suffered a $42 million loss in the collapse of the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Madoff.' The town made $17 million in contributions. That is the most they can ever lose. It irks me that people consistently get this wrong.
'The first selectman said there are 13 fewer town positions included in the 2009-10 budget, compared to 2008. For 2009, there are 483 budgeted positions, just three more than the town had in 1988, even though at that time, the town was smaller.' It's not like we've grown from a village of farmers over the past 20 years--according to state demographic numbers, Fairfield's gained only about 4,000 people. And note that we're not talking about teachers here, but town staff.
'And department heads who were supposed to get about a 3 percent increase are only getting about half of that, Flatto said, adding that he put in a 1 percent reduction in the raise he is supposed to receive.' Bravo. The town's in crisis and inflation is practically nonexistent at the moment, but the people at the top still deserve more money. We're supposed to be grateful for the fact that the "more" is somewhat less than otherwise?

Lucky for any Grand List growth

2009-02-03T08:03:00.000-05:00

Fairfield's 2008 Grand List growth suggests that the next few years might be grim: article

Reflecting the nation's economic problems, the town's grand list of taxable property for 2008 recorded only a slight increase -- 0.5 percent -- over the previous year.

The $11.93 billion list represents a $63.4 million increase over the 2007 figure of $11.87 billion.

The town's grand list had grown 1 percent in each of the two preceding years.

Real estate increased by $74 million, attributable primarily to new construction and new subdivisions in place as of last Oct. 1 [emphasis mine], according to Browne. Residential property makes up 85 percent of the town's total grand list.

"What I'm finding is that what a lot of builders are doing is not finishing off projects," Browne said. "When they get to a certain point, they stop until they get a contract for a sale and then they finish it off."

"Fairfield School Spending Plan Adjusted"

2009-02-03T07:56:00.000-05:00

On a 6-3 vote, the Fairfield BoE votes $201,393 in additional funding into its 2009-10 budget. In order to pay for this, the same body agreed to reduce its budget for travel and conferences by $1,000.

Article here

The author notes that, "There was, however, no further discussion of freezing school administrators' pay raises. According to the spending proposal, the raises for 12 top school system administrators, managers or directors total over $62,000. The increases for 2009-10 include $7,438 for the superintendent, $10,381 for the director of operations and $10,054 for the finance director."

Pre-Election Thoughts...For Posterity's Sake

2008-11-03T07:39:00.002-05:00

As much as it pains me to say it, America stands ready to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency tomorrow. For the past few weeks I've been trying to get my brain around that idea so the shock doesn't do permanent damage.

The world, and my neighborhood, hates Bush and loves Obama. There is a great deal of glee percolating through the Democratic base; and I'm frankly OK with that. If history has taught me anything, it's that mankind runs in cycles, and we're at the end (or beginning) of one right now. Barack Obama isn't the messiah; but I also have to admit that he's not Satan either. But what is he?

The campaign has told us a great deal about him, for those who have ears to hear. Here we have a man who has been classed as an outsider, a fresh voice; despite all evidence saying that his political record is one of expert play within the political machinery of Chicago. We have a man who is considered a moderate despite the evidence showing a very left-wing voting record. We have a man with no executive experience being given a pass for this by the media (even, I shudder to say, The Economist) because "he's run a good campaign."

He has no record of accomplishment. The record he does have gives me the willies. We are about to elect the most pro-infanticide President in our history, and no one seems to care. How the hell did this come about?

Obama gives people hope. He speaks, and crowds melt. Chris Matthews gets a "thrill up his leg" when Obama works his magic. But let me put this to you Democrats a different way and see what you think.

A Candidate emerges to challenge for the highest office in the land. Some are surprised that he would choose to run, since his political record is fairly thin; but on the other hand, many have been watching him for years waiting for the moment when he could stand up and proclaim his vision to the people. He puts together a campaign staff of stunning effectiveness, and in the primaries manages to beat back a strong challenge from a candidate the media seems to back wholeheartedly. The Candidate's approach is simple: Washington is broken, and requires healing from an outsider. In his campaign, the Candidate relies more on rhetoric than concrete policy platforms--the message is that there should be first and foremost an emphasis on the common man. As questions about experience swirl about his campaign, he makes a brilliant VP selection--an old and respected Washington hand. The election is tight, but in the end our Candidate prevails.

This Candidate is George W. Bush.

I hear so many times about how Obama is "different" and "transformational" and "inspiring." Is this enough?

I hope like hell that it is. But I have my doubts.

Jeremiah Wright: A Quick Observation

2008-04-28T09:58:00.003-04:00

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's "Spiritual Mentor," is doing a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club right now. The moderator asked him a question regarding a passage from the Gospel of John: "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). In the light of this well-known passage, she asked him, what did he think about Islam and Judaism?

Wright's response was brief and illuminating. He said, "Jesus also said, I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold." This generated cheers and applause from the audience, and seemed to suggest that Wright feels there are other paths to salvation. Now while this is a valid topic for theological debate, I find Wright's use of this passage very disingenuous--because he only quotes the first half of the verse. Here is John 10:16 in full (emphasis mine):

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

You can read it yourself; it's part of the famous parable of the "Good Shepherd".

So here's the thing: Wright is a pastor, and he knows exactly what John 10:16 says...yet he rips a piece of it out of context in order to give a "politic" answer to a question (or perhaps more accurately, he gives a politic response to avoid answering the actual question). He insists that he is a servant of the truth. What does his response to this query tell us?

There's something appealing about this photo.

2008-02-29T07:54:00.002-05:00

Manufactured Drama, Part II

2008-02-13T12:46:00.000-05:00

Looking for an example of the media's obsession with creating the story? Look no further than this piece, detailing Chris Matthews's excited gurglings.

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

What kind of journalism school did you go to, Chris? "And that is an objective assessment." I don't often mind commentators expressing opinions because, hey, they're commentators; but are you kidding?

Manufactured Drama and the "Potomac Primaries"

2008-02-13T08:45:00.004-05:00

No one doubted that yesterday's "Potomac Primaries" (Virginia, Maryland, and DC) would be important. Heck, given the wafter-thin delegate margin between Hillary and Obama, every state is taking on immense significance. But what was most interesting, to an enthusiast of the political theater that's playing itself out, is the degree to which the various media outlets are trying to manufacture drama to fill the gaps between actual news items.

McCain's win in Virginia (50-41% over Huckabee) is a prime example. The early returns, with just 10-15% of districts reporting, had Huckabee with a 4-point lead. Since the results were slow to come in during that first hour or so, the commentators had a lot of time to fill. They constantly gushed about what a blow it would be to McCain if Huckabee upset him here, how this was a sign that "conservatives" were rebelling against him, and how this was going to prevent McCain from launching into the national campaign he'd been looking forward to. Then, with about 20% of the vote in, the gap started to narrow. When it stood at 47-45 Huckabee, I caught Karl Rove on Fox News. He--and only he, at this point--spoke out against reading too much into these early results. He spoke a bit about McCain's campaign in Virginia and predicted that, by the end of the night, the senator would capture Virginia with 50 to 52% of the vote. And he was right.

This became clear at about 40% of the precincts reporting, but the narrative didn't change much: Huckabee still put up a stern resistance, a sign of McCain's weakness in the conservative base. Apparently, a 9% margin isn't big enough. If this had been a Presidential result, it would have been called a landslide.

The Obama/Clinton narrative was similarly flogged to death. There's been a good amount of fretting, in the public and in the media, about whether the news organizations are setting the story, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Well, duh. There's a need for drama, and the media fill every empty second with whatever drama they can scrape up. We hear about Obama's momentum (probably real enough), but less about the fact that the delegate count has what's effectively a microscopic edge for Obama. A Hillary sweep in big-ticket states like West Virginia and Wyoming would bring her back. Obama's not running the table...yet. The media just needs to polish its scripts so they can be ready when he is.

Hillary's Disconnect From Reality

2008-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:00

Came across an interesting quote in this piece as I skimmed the news this morning.

The senator was asked a question from a Politico.com reader in Santa Monica, Calif., who was seeking assurance that "no new business or personal scandal involving Bill Clinton" could erupt if she were in the White House and give fodder to Republicans.

"You know, I can assure this reader that that is not going to happen," she said. "You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we are running for, but I am very confident that that will not happen."

Is there really anyone out there, Democrat or Republican, who thinks that Bill is capable of remaining scandal free?

"We are in crisis. There is panic and fear"

2008-02-10T20:32:00.000-05:00

According tothis article from the UK's Times Online, al-Qaeda is finally beginning to feel the pinch.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.

These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.

If these are authentic, it's a stunning testimony about the effectiveness of the ground-up strategy the US has been pursuing in recent months. But I have to admit some degree of skepticism about the documents: they are almost too good to be true. If, for example, you wanted your enemies to think you'd given up the fight, what better way than to "allow" such documents to fall into their hands? But this may be too paranoid of me.

Skirting the Chelsea Issue

2008-02-09T09:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, an interesting story started percolating through the media.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines [a Clinton campaign aide], who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

There are two, well maybe three, issues here. First, it was clearly in bad taste for Shuster to suggest that the candidate's daughter is being "pimped out," especially since it was clearly in the sense of "being prostituted." He could have dismissed this in two minutes if only he had said that it was a slip of the tongue and that he certainly didn't mean that Hillary was offering superdelegates sexual favors from her daughter.

The second issue appears to be why Shuster failed in his basic task: the Clinton campaign has shown great reluctance to talk about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is front and center on the campaign stage. She is calling superdelegates and sounding them out, and she therefore is a valid target of journalists' inquiries. The media's frustration with this disconnect is natural. But of course, as is always the case in these matters, Shuster and Reines are talking about completely different things. But in the end, this will blow over as the public realizes there is no meat here.

The third issue: another "uncharitable" bit from me, but I have to say it--I don't find Chelsea attractive. The picture I posted above is her at her best, and she's certainly not ugly (the straightened but somewhat wavy hair suits her), but she is certainly not attractive in the classical sense. I suspect the fact that I keep hearing the media spout about how hot she is is a reaction to seeing the change from a gawky teenager to a put-together 27-year-old. Just don't make her out to be something she's not.