Not politics, but cool

More here.

Read the rest of this post...

Hillary staffer says states that voted for Obama "sip lattes" and only care about "feelings." That would include Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota...

I'm not sure what to make of this. Sounds like a bit of gay-bashing, a bit of yuppie-bashing, and a bit of overall liberal bashing to boot. And of course, it continues Hillary's theme of bashing any state and any constituency that favors Obama (like she did when said that Mississippians have a problem with women):

One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in “boutique” caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: “Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.”

Actually, the Clinton folks are dissing all of Obama's states. Not only are the caucus states "boutique" (wonder what that means), but none of his victories were in the "hardscrabble terrain." I guess that means that Obama never won any manly-man states. So which sissy Obama states are we talking about? His primary victories in: Missouri? Illinois? Maryland? Georgia? Alabama? Wisconsin? Virginia? Louisiana? Utah? South Carolina? Or the caucus states of: Nebraska? Alaska? Idaho? Kansas? North Dakota? Iowa? And soon-to-be Texas? (There are more primary and caucus victories, but these were the "manliest" ones I could think of, off the top of my head.) Obama has won far more than just caucus states, and the caucus states he won are far from latte-drinking San Franciscans (let's face it, that's what Hillary's campaign meant).

Seriously, which of those states does Hillary think are just a bunch of latte-drinking airheads? Wow, that is amazingly dumb, and amazingly Republican. Not to mention, now we can expect an ad from John McCain in the fall telling those states' voters that this is what Democrats think of them. Way to go, Hillary. Now whose staffer needs to be fired?

Also in the article, an interesting quote from an unnamed "senior Democrat":

But the concern in the party is that Mrs Clinton will succeed in wounding Mr Obama without quite killing him off. That task, warned a senior Democrat, would be “left to Senator McCain in the general election”.

Others point to the title of her book, It Takes A Village To Raise A Child, suggesting Mrs Clinton may now be more intent on “rasing the village – to the ground”.

Read the rest of this post...

Friday Orchid Blogging

Oncidium Millennium Gold 'Geon' AM/AOS

This is a funny one. I bought it an orchid show a few years ago because I liked the big oversized yellow flowers on the demo plant. I think the flower spike (the long stalk that the flowers grow on) was maybe 2 feet, or possibly 3. I thought it was kind of cool being that long, so I bought it. It's been a few years, no flowers, a bout of rot, and finally, again with the new lights, the plant started to take off. I noticed several months ago - we might be talking 4 months ago or even more - that it was starting to develop a flower spike. Cool, I thought. And the months passed, the spike grew longer, and no flowers. I kept moving the plant farther and farther away from the curtains, so it wouldn't hit the window (it grows towards the light, and then the things started branching off into more spikes, but still no flowers. Finally, a few weeks ago, the flowers starting, and the damn thing just kept growing. It stills lots more flowers to go - I counted around 45 to 50, but more keep growing at the tips. As you can see in the photo to the left, it's now taller than me, and I'm around 5-10. Check out how small the actual plant is. Oh, and this is the first time it's bloomed. That generally means, it's going to be far more spectacular in future blooms. The funny thing is, I'm not even sure if I like it anymore! That's a problem with orchids, they tend to stick around a while, the flowers do, so after a while you're like, okay, enough already. Anyway, it's kind of funny how big this thing has gotten, and is still getting. So, enjoy. Read the rest of this post...

A reminder to Democrats: On Iraq, Clinton's "experience" told her to trust George Bush and side with the GOP nominee John McCain

Via Greg Sargent:

Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson, on a conference call with reporters a few moments ago:

"The issue of who's best prepared to be commander-in-chief will continue to drive discussion in this campaign because it is a critical one."

It is a critical one, Howard. And, we have to base our decisions about who should lead us based on their demonstrated judgment.

Here's the deal. What we know about Hillary Clinton as commander in chief is that she trusted George Bush's judgment and voted for the war in Iraq. In her 2002 speech, Clinton listened to Bush and took him at his word because, you know, that's what her "experience" as First Lady of Arkansas and the United States told her to do:

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Classic use of Bush talking points circa 2002. Now, if Clinton or her staff had listened to what the White House press secretary was saying on the very day she gave that speech, she'd know that Bush was going to use that vote to go to war:

Q If the President gets the same kind of a vote from the Senate, does he feel that he can immediately or at any point have a free hand to go to war?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, under the Constitution, Helen, the President, of course, does have the authority --

Q -- or even with or without allies.

MR. FLEISCHER: Under the Constitution, the President does have the authority as Commander-in-Chief to make those determinations. The President has asked -- said he would ask the Congress to weigh in on this matter, and the Congress is doing so and doing it today. And the President thinks that will be very helpful in keeping the peace. The President has made no decisions about what the next step will be. Clearly, we will continue to talk to the United Nations about the inspection process, and that's where the matter currently stands.

Q But he would never go back to Congress again for another go-ahead? I mean, he considers this the green light?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Congress is speaking today about authorization of the use of force. Today's vote by the Congress is an important vote.

Pretty clear.

Let's not forget Iran. Her "experience" listening to one end of a phone call told her to trust George Bush's judgment and vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution last September. (That resolution is worded an awful lot like the resolution that authorized the war with Iraq.) Just as Clinton stuck by her Iraq vote, she strongly defended that pro-Bush Iran resolution at a debate in December:

Clinton started by suggesting that the resolution, which urged the Bush administration to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, had been successful. "Since that resolution passed," she explained, "our commanders on the ground in Iraq have announced that we've seen some progress from the Iranians backing off, no longer sending in weapons and materiel, and beginning to withdraw their technical advisers."

That's a Bush talking point from Hillary.

Keep in mind, she thinks McCain is commander in chief material and he voted for the war in Iraq. Given Hillary's imaginary standard for Commander-in-Chief, George Bush would probably make the cut too -- so would Joe Lieberman.

So Democrats have a simple choice: Do you want another commander in chief whose "experience" channels George W. Bush on Iraq and Iran? If so, then vote for Hillary or McCain and buy your kids some kevlar. As Clinton has made clear repeatedly over the past week, she and McCain are interchangeable. Read the rest of this post...

Gary Hart: Hillary "has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her."

Former Democratic Senator, and presidential candidate, Gary Hart on HuffPost:

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her....

If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.

It's time the media asked Hillary one simple question: Who is more qualified to be president, John McCain or Barack Obama. Ask her. Then let's see if she weasels out of it or defends the Democrat. Read the rest of this post...

The 2002 speech that Hillary is afraid of

Hillary Clinton has been positively apoplectic for days over Barack Obama's "speech in 2002." The speech she's so critical of, so afraid of, is this speech below. It's the speech in which Barack Obama, over five years ago - two weeks before Hillary Clinton sided with George Bush and voted to authorize the Iraq war - predicted that everything would go horribly wrong if we invaded Iraq. That's why Obama opposed the Iraq war. Had Hillary read Obama's speech then, rather than criticizing it now, perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Read for yourself the speech that Hillary mocks on a regular basis:

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Read the rest of this post...

Lady fingers or Black Forest cake?

Colbert at his best, interviewing Robert Reich (via Blogometer and C&L;, which has the video):

Colbert: Are you endorsing Hillary Clinton?
Reich: No, I decided not to endorse this round.
Colbert: So, you're endorsing Barack Obama?
Reich: No, I'm not going to endorse anybody. [...]
Colbert: Okay, let me put it this way: if we were at a restaurant together and the waiter brought around the dessert cart, and the choice was ladyfingers or Black Forest cake, which way do you think you'd lean?
Reich: Quite seriously, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make a great president.
Colbert: Let me put this a different way. If I were a waiter and I were to offer you two different slices of pizza, and one was half-Hawaiian and you weren't entirely sure what it was going to taste like. And the other was plain with cheese and had been under a heat lamp for 35 years, I mean, it had seen everything. Which would you go for?
Reich: I don't think I'd be terribly excited about either of those slices.
Colbert: Which movie would you rent? 'Big Momma's House' or 'Medea's Family Reunion'? Be careful, they are both about strong women who are actually black men.
Reich: Um, gosh. I think I'd try both of them out."

Read the rest of this post...

McCain nearly loses it with reporter

John McCain's famed temper, the one that makes several of his GOP Senate colleagues question his readiness to be president (apparently they disagree with Hillary), was on full display today:

The following is an ABC News transcript of the conversation:

New York Times correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller: Senator can I ask you about Senator Kerry. I just went back and looked at our story, the Times story, and you told Sheryl Stolberg that you had never had a conversation with Kerry about being, about Vice President –

John McCain: Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that. That I had a conversation. There’s no living American in Washington -

EB: Okay.

McCain: - that knows that, there’s no one.

EB: Okay

McCain: And you know it too. You know it. You know it. So I don’t even know why you ask.

EB: Well I ask because I just read –-

McCain: You do know it. You do know it.

EB: Because I just read in the Times in May of ’04 you said.

McCain: I don’t know what you may have read or heard of, I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe in May of 04 I hadn’t had the conversation --

EB: But do you recall the conversation?

McCain: I don’t know, but it’s well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?

EB: Well can I ask you when the conversation was?

McCain: No. Nope, because the issue is closed as far as I’m concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.

EB: Can you describe the conversation?

McCain: Pardon me.

EB: Can you describe the conversation?

McCain: No, of course not. I don’t describe private conversations.

EB: Okay. Can I ask you –

McCain: Why should I? Then there’s no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don’t know that that’s a private conversation. I think that’s a public conversation.

EB. Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you’re so angry?

McCain: Pardon me?

EB: Nevermind, nevermind.

Read the rest of this post...

Speaking of vetting

Since Hillary is demanding that we ensure that our future nominee be fully vetted, that no past or present scandals will come back to haunt our candidate in the general election, a Dkos diary takes her up on her offer. Read the rest of this post...

Senate passed strong consumer product safety bill -- after Senator Susan Collins "watered down" the legislation

Progress in the Senate yesterday on consumer product safety:

Said [Minnesota Senator Amy] Klobuchar: “This legislation will help keep toxic toys off our shores and out of our stores. Parents must know that when they buy products for their children they have met the highest safety standards and will be safe. It’s simply unacceptable that we continue to see more and more toys recalled due to high lead content and safety flaws – we must act now.”

That certainly is good news.

But, according to the New York Times, the bill had to be weakened to accommodate Republican Senators, including Susan Collins:

In recent weeks, the Senate bill was watered down to gain the support of a core group of Republicans, most notably from Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the senior Republican on the commerce committee, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

Just whose side is Susan Collins on when it comes to product safety. Who is she trying to protect?

Despite her faux moderate reputation, Collins is always doing someone's bidding in the Senate. Usually, it's George Bush. Increasingly, it will be John McCain. In 2006, she was campaigning for Rick Santorum. But, it's never just her constituents. Susan puts her fealty to the GOP leadership first. Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

I really, really don't think I can take eight more months of Chris Matthews. His painfulness knows no bounds.

Also, who made Time Magazine's Mark Halperin the arbiter of the so-called "conventional wisdom"? He's the guy who said McCain can "Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama"...providing what he called "an analysis" that basically condoned the use of racist attacks on Obama. Apparently, when Halperin speaks, all the other pundit-types must listen. Huh? Are they really all lemmings? Times have changed. The new media has as at least as much impact on what's going on as the old media types like Halperin. It's not a small little club anymore.

Obviously, the traditional media is annoying me today...again...or still.

Let's get started. Read the rest of this post...

UK to close legal loopholes for Big Pharma

This in response to deaths and an inability to prosecute GlaxoSmithKline in relation to those deaths allegedly linked to the GSK drugs because there were no specific laws related to the alleged actions by the company to hide test results. Interesting how those laws work in the favor of such companies though it's good to see the UK cracking down. My only caution is that ethics have little to do with this industry so until you speak to the almighty bottom dollar profit, they may not listen.

GSK could not be prosecuted for concealing results which proved the antidepressant Seroxat caused children to become suicidal because the law only obliges companies to hand over safety data from trials when drugs are being licensed. That loophole will now be closed.

Woods said yesterday he could not rule out the possibility that other companies were sitting on unpublished data that could cause them commercial damage.

"I think there is a tension between marketing considerations and the ethical dimension of making health products," he said. "We have to look again at that. The pharmaceutical industry has to look again at that. You could even say there is a positive disincentive to explore the data as fully as it could be explored."

Read the rest of this post...

Another record low & record high for GOP economics

Another day, another record low. How long before the GOP spins yet another terrible number as somehow unimportant?

Homeowners' portion of equity slipped to downwardly revised 49.6 percent in the second quarter of 2007, the central bank reported in its quarterly U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts, and declined further to 47.9 percent in the fourth quarter — the third straight quarter it was under 50 percent.

That marks the first time homeowners' debt on their houses exceeds their equity since the Fed started tracking the data in 1945.

The total value of equity also fell for the third straight quarter to $9.65 trillion from a downwardly revised $9.93 trillion in the third quarter.

And again, oil hits an all time record high courtesy of the dollar being thrashed again, hitting a new low against the euro. Read the rest of this post...