Second time today, Hillary implied that she'd nuke Iran - now she's backing off

Nice. So in the space of 12 hours, Hillary has twice suggested that she'd nuke Iran, but now her staff is saying that she didn't mean to imply that she would. Maybe she's just 60 years old and tired, like her husband said she was when she repeatedly lied about Bosnia for four months. So long as foreign policy crises only happen when Hillary is well rested, and feeling honest, we should be fine.

I've thought some more about this. And jokes aside, this is serious. Hillary Clinton misspoke today, twice, when detailing the possible use ofUS nuclear weapons in the Middle East as it concerns Iran and the defense of Israel. This is an incredibly dangerous topic. And she made a mess of it, repeatedly, to the point where her staff had to get involved to try to make amends, so that now our enemies and our allies have no idea what Hillary's position is on war with Iran, the defense of Israel, and the possible use of US nuclear weapons. Even more disturbing is the possibility that Hillary made these comments, this apparent flip-flop on US nuclear policy, in order to curry favor with voters in Pennsylvania on the eve of that state's primary. (I've also heard speculation that Hillary's new nuclear policy is really about forcing Obama into some kind of bind, or something.) This isn't Bosnia any more, where you can send the First Lady in with a child, a singer and a comedian to read a poem. It's a possible nuclear war scenario, and Hillary, in an effort to act all tough, win a few votes, and take a jab at Obama, played politics with our national security and sent the wrong message to the world, the wrong message to our enemies. It's 3am, folks, and the phone just rang. And Hillary got it wrong. Read the rest of this post...

How Hillary's ongoing temper tantrum is hurting the DNC's effort to go after McCain

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

Unlike the House and Senate campaign committees, the DNC trails the Republican National Committee in fundraising. At the end of March, the DNC had $5.3 million on hand compared to $31 million in the bank for the RNC.

With such a meager cash on hand total, it's hard to imagine the DNC keeping up a sustained paid advertising campaign [against McCain] for very long.

What that means -- barring a quicker-than-expected resolution to the ongoing Clinton-Obama scrap -- is that an outside organization must step into the void.

The obvious candidate is Progressive Media USA, the group now controlled by Republican turned Democrat David Brock. While Brock touted a $40 million budget for the group, its first foray -- an ad that ran on MSNBC and CNN last week -- cost just $7,000, according to a Democratic media buyer.

The dearth of money coming into the DNC and the lack of real dollars being spent on outside groups' attempts to define McCain present a serious problem for Democrats if the race between Obama and Clinton goes all the way to June 3 or beyond.

Not only do Democrats run the risk of allowing McCain several more months to define himself, they also could watch as disaffected donors, who favor either Clinton or Obama, walk away from funding the DNC and other outside groups if their preferred candidate doesn't wind up as the nominee.

Well, this is the way the DNC wanted it, I thought? The primary could go on forever, for all they care. How's that working out for you? Read the rest of this post...

Russian newspaper closes after story on Putin

Just a simple coincidence, no doubt. After all, Bush did look into his heart and I think we all know Bush's judgment is infallible.

Moskovsky Korrespondent, the newspaper that first reported rumours of a marriage between Vladimir Putin and Alina Kabaeva, a 24-year-old gymnast, has closed, shortly after the President told journalists it was unacceptable to pry into his private life with "snotty noses and erotic fantasies".

Read the rest of this post...

ABC News -- Clinton on Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'

Not very presidential. (Not very believable either.)

Read the rest of this post...

George Will goes hard left, leaves Democrats in his dust

What will the neighbors say? TPMCafe has a great blog about Will calling out the corporate welfare to Wall Street, going far to the left of mainstream Democrats. Of course, it also raises serious questions about the Democrats and how they managed to keep quiet and do nothing while this has unfolded. How in the world did they let this happen and why?

While most Democrats seem to have no objection to these huge welfare grants to the incredibly rich, Georg Will does.

Will argues that as a condition of accepting Fed bailouts, the banks' executives should agree to restrict their pay to $124,010, the maximum for federal civil servants. This seems eminently fair. After all, no one is forcing the banks to accept money from the Fed. If they think they can do better without it, then they don't have to take it.

It is remarkable that only a right-winger like Will seems upset about the Fed giving taxpayers' money to the very richest people in the country with no strings attached.

Read the rest of this post...

Michael Moore: "The actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting."

From MichaelMoore.com:

[O]ver the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you.

Read the rest of this post...

And another record high for oil, $117.53

It gets worse by the day and we're in yet another weird range. There were a few new incidents today but let's be clear, there will always be another incident. Whether another problem in Nigeria, a hurricane, a whatever, it's always going to be there. The US will keep buying more oil just as China will keep buying more and more oil.

All of this was predictable but the Republicans all made a big joke out of it, dismissing the seriousness of energy independence until we arrived at this period where too many other issues have spiraled out of control such as the fall of the US dollar. It's a good thing voters fell for the Republican propaganda of mocking Democrats on this issue. How's everyone feeling about that now? Read the rest of this post...

Conservative bloggers thanking Clinton for latest campaign ad

I personally don't really care what imagery Clinton chooses to use in her campaign ad. But some conservatives seem pretty convinced you could just cut off the "I approved this message" part and replace it with the same from McCain and have a Republican spot good to go for the general:

First the 3 a.m. ad, now this: It’s awfully sporting of her to keep making the case for John McCain.

That can't be good.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Democrats never learn that when you give the voters the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they choose the real one every time. Read the rest of this post...

Bill Clinton: Hillary would be the nominee if she were in the Republican primary, or something equally idiotic

Isn't she?:

"If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

Would you like some cheese with that whine? Read the rest of this post...

Secretary of State taunts our (sometimes) enemy in Iraq, al-Sadr

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric who has massive support from Iraqi Shia, are part of a popular nationalist movement, committed to a united Iraq, relative independence from Iran, an end to US occupation, and conservative religious government. Needless to say, I personally think many Sadrist goals and actions are noxious. I also recognize, however, that there are a limited number of players in Iraq with real support; Sadr is one of them, and he continues to prove that he has at least some control over his putative followers ... many of whom are armed to the teeth.

So when our Secretary of State engages in schoolyard bullying, taunting the leader of millions of (armed) Iraqis, many of whom are actively engaged in the political process, it's a slap in the face not just to a massive popular movement in a country we're occupying, but in the face of the troops who are on the ground simultaneously trying to work with and/or fight against Sadrists. It's yet another "Bring 'em on" moment from an administration that seems to have made an art of underestimating and misunderstanding the enemy.

Again, I have no affection for Sadr, and I know better than most the result of the work of him and his followers. Let's take a look, though, at the person Secretary Rice calls a coward: Throughout Saddam's reign, Sadr's family was one of very few religious families not to leave the country. For their troubles, the family was rewarded with murder after murder after murder. Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. So were two of his brothers. So was his father in law. This is not a guy who has avoided the effects of violence.

If we're serious about democracy, we have to be serious about dealing with people who are popular, even if we don't like them. General Petraeus made engagement with Sadrists a high priority, and it's not clear why we've now gone 180 degrees. But needless provocation has no military or political benefit, and it should be beneath the highest-ranked diplomat in the nation. Read the rest of this post...

Immigration bashing backfires on Virginia county -- and the GOP

I have to admit, I love articles like this. Prince William County took an aggressive immgrant bashing stand last fall. Got them lots of national attention -- the wrong kind. It looks like a bastion of hate and that's not good for the economic climate. The butthead who is the county's top elected official isn't backing down:

Many blame Stewart (R), who put the county on the map nationally for its tough approach on illegal immigration. As the top elected official, Stewart is the most visible face of the county and nominally its biggest cheerleader. But his colleagues and some residents are starting to question his leadership....

...Stewart, who was elected to his first full term as chairman in November with 55 percent of the vote, is not fazed by the criticism. "They might not like my style, but it's been successful."

To his critics, Stewart's rhetoric on illegal immigration, although direct, comes off as intolerant in a diverse region that has assimilated thousands of newcomers in the past 20 years.

"If you violate the law and we catch you, we are going to do everything we can to have you deported," Stewart once said of immigrants.

He also called a group of county religious leaders "illegitimate" and "misguided" when they offered to serve as intermediaries between elected officials and the immigrant community. "They need to do what they do best: serve their congregants and attend to their denominations and not get involved in partisan politics," Stewart said.

Seems Mr. Stewart likes all the attention he garners. Seems like every time he opens his mouth to immigrant bash, he costs his county a lot of money. So be it.

Mr. Stewart is also helping the GOP lose votes every time he opens his mouth. As Markos documented earlier this month, immigration bashing is a political loser:

Pew surveys have tracked the GOP’s cratering popularity with Hispanics from a 49-28 deficit in voter identification in 2006 to 57-23 in 2007. All of this comes during a cycle when the Hispanic percentage of the overall vote is estimated to reach 14 percent, compared to 9.3 percent in 2004. (It was 12.8 percent in the 2007 off-year elections.)

What’s this all mean? Karl Rove gets it when he says, “I am worried. You cannot ignore the aspirations of the fastest-growing minority in America.” The GOP’s top tactician knows his party faces a world of hurt for years to come. The GOP thought they had their new wedge issue in immigration — instead, as NDN concludes, “the relentless demonization of Hispanics by the GOP has turned this community, the fastest growing part of the American electorate, against them.”

Ironically, even the GOP’s own supporters don’t buy the harsh rhetoric. According to exit polls from this year’s primary states, Republican voters oppose deportation in most states, from 54 percent in Louisiana, Georgia and Virginia to 61 percent in Texas.

The vocal anti-immigrant fringe promised electoral gold to Republicans. Instead, it’s delivering electoral annihilation.

So, keep it up, Mr. Stewart. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary will win tomorrow, it's only a question of by how much

Well, the pundits are finally saying what Joe and I have been saying for weeks. Hillary will win tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania, just as she has been predicted to win it for the past 18 months. It's only a question of by how much. From Chuck Todd and company over at MSNBC:

So here’s the game on Tuesday -- it’s not if Clinton will win, but how big will her victory be. She'd like to net more than 200,000 in the popular vote, which she would only get with both a large turnout (approximately 2 million total) and a 10-point-plus victory.

As Joe reported earlier, Hillary's people have reportedly told Drudge that she expects to win by 11 points, and even Obama is saying that he expects Hillary to win. Which gets us back to something I've been saying for a while. Tomorrow's vote won't change a thing. Obama will still be ahead in the delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won. Hillary will win Pennsylvania, which we already knew would happen. Hillary will still be in a race she can't win, her people will still be crowing that Obama couldn't even win a big state like Pennsylvania, and Obama's people will rightfully respond that if they suck, then she must really suck, since she's still losing to him. At some point, Hillary is going to have to explain to the voters, and the SuperDelegates, under what possible scenario she wrenches the nomination away from Obama, short of an asteroid landing on his head. If she can't explain even one plausible scenario for victory, she should get out. Read the rest of this post...

"A real debate. On the issues. Just you and me."

In addition to starting my own site and weighing in here when inspiration and/or fancy strikes, I've spent much of my recent downtime watching "The West Wing." I didn't get into the show when it was on the air, but after almost three years in DC and countless cocktail party references that flew right over my head, I figured it was worth checking it out.

Thanks to Netflix, I'm now about 1/3 of the way through the final season and have developed a potentially unhealthy intellectual crush on Aaron Sorkin. (I was one of the 12 people who watched "Studio 60", liked it, and wish it were coming back. I also know Sorkin left "The West Wing" after the first four seasons. I'm ok with that.)

Anyway, I just got to the part where Congressman Santos and Senator Vinick are "backstage" at The Al Smith dinner, agreeing to a real debate. Vinick thinks he's going to smush Santos. Santos is confident he's got a shot. The West Coast version of the live debate's next so I don't know what happens yet, but the whole exchange got me thinking about the current race for the Democratic nomination.

What would happen if Obama and Clinton had a real chance to go toe-to-toe on substance? What would be so wrong with that? I know the parallel's a little skewed because "The West Wing" debate pits two opposing parties, and I'm floating the idea of an intraparty match-up, but wouldn't the end result be the same? Wouldn't we - the voting public - get a better sense of what we're considering?

I never thought I'd see the day when a fictional account of our political system was more inspirational and educational than our actual political system. I don't know what's in store this next episode, but I'm guessing the live debate notes didn't mandate the candidates get into who does or doesn't wear a flag pin. I'm thinking anything in the realm of "does you pastor love America as much as you do?" would have been scrapped in the script meeting as unrealistic and downright absurd.

Even though I've been known to watch my fair share of bad reality shows, I've never once pretended they're consequential or even remotely value-add. The problem with Wednesday night's debate was that it was reality - not a reality show - and it did purport to be significant, seeing as how it was a step in the process of choosing the next leader of our country.

If the ABC debate had been an episode of "The West Wing," I would have been disappointed in the writers and producers of the show.

Instead, I'm disappointed in ABC news, and because they're supposed to be a real news organization, that's far more disheartening. Read the rest of this post...

Uh oh, time to denounce and reject top Hillary supporter Ed Rendell

Seems Rendell has a man-crush on Louis Farrakhan. Funny, cuz last week during the ABC debate Hillary had a problem with people who associate with Farrakhan:

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan... You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

Then again, you know what they say: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little candidates. Read the rest of this post...

Blogs and the American elections

I was searching around YouTube and came across this interview I did with an Italian journalist in Rome a few weeks ago. The interview is about the role of the blogs and the Internet in the US elections. It should give you a flavor for the kind of things Europeans are interested in regarding our use of the Net, but also the key points I raise when I travel and do these talks.

Oh, and I found a talk I did, also in Rome, for college students in Sardinia and Sicily (we did it via Web video from Rome). Same topic, how the US is using the Internet for the elections, but this talk went for a good hour-plus, in Italian, with Q&A; (kids in some of the more out of the way places in Italy not only don't speak English well, but they don't get American speakers because visiting Americans generally don't speak Italian - so it was kind of neat being able to do talks and Q&As; for younger people). Just to give you the flavor, here is a short part where I explain what ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising site, is (again, in Italian). Read the rest of this post...

Cindy McCain "cohosting" The View

No, I don't watch "The View" on a regular basis, but flipping through the TV's on-screen guide just now, I noticed Cindy McCain was listed as a cohost today. Call it morbid curiosity. I tuned in.

Seems I've already missed the first half of the show (insert sarcastic "awwww" here), but in the past 5 minutes, Mrs. McCain has said the following - and only the following - 5 words: "This is Emily from Virginia." Then Emily announces what's coming up after the break.

Nevermind cohosting implies actually opening your mouth and contributing something, but McCain looks as stiff and cold and uncomfortable as you might expect. Come to think of it, she actually looks like Elisabeth Hasselbeck, just older. (They're sitting next to each other. Someone get a screengrab, stat!)

Craig Ferguson is the guest now, and he keeps trying to engage McCain. G-d bless him. But she just keeps smiling and giggling.

Chelsea Handler's not having much luck either.

Again, I missed a large part of the program so maybe I missed the kickin' Cindy McCain monologue o' laughs.

But I doubt it. Read the rest of this post...

Today: An Obama Minute. A million dollars in one minute.

Jacki wrote about the Obama minute a couple weeks ago asking: Is it possible to raise a million dollars in 60 seconds?

Today, we find out. One million dollars in one minute at one PM eastern time. If you want to be part of it, click here. If you'll be tied up at 1 PM, give anytime til then. It counts towards the total.

Obama will need every dollar possible to take on McCain his GOP cohorts. The right wingers are already conniving to raise millions to run the nasty, negative campaign against Obama:

With Sen. John McCain facing the prospect of being dramatically outspent in the race for the White House, a collection of major Republican donors and party leaders that includes former Bush strategist Karl Rove is scrambling to catch up with the efforts of liberal groups aiming to influence the outcome in November.

Yes, Karl Rove is in the thick of it. You know they'll come up with something evil.

But, the GOP can never match the power of the progressive online community. Show that them again today by helping raise a million in a minute. Read the rest of this post...

Did Obama flip the "Italian bird" to a CorningWare plant? Yes, if you're an idiot.

You may have read that some idiots on the Internets, including the LA Times, are convinced that Obama flipped Hillary the bird during a recent speech in front of tens of thousands of people and dozens of TV cams. Yes, imagine Obama, possibly days away from finally knocking Hillary out of the race, and he says to himself, hey, maybe I should give Hillary the finger right now in front of an audience of millions of TV viewers! Uh huh. I'm sure.

Well, I decided to do what apparently no one else in the media or conservative/pro-Hillary blogosphere had the time or brains to do, I looked at a few other Obama speeches on YouTube to see if he has a habit of touching his face while he speaks. And what do you know? He does.

Media Matters went the extra mile and pulled a second video, from a different vantage point, of the famed "finger" speech, and lo and behold, Obama is actually using several fingers to scratch his face, not one. But I did have an extra laugh when researching this post. I found a great Obama speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which, if you slow the speech down all the way, it looks like Obama is giving the vafangu (a la Antonin Scalia) to a Corning plant. Seriously. Watch for yourself.

Maybe we can get the LA Times to report on Obama's hatred of CorningWare too. Read the rest of this post...

PA Polls: SurveyUSA shows Clinton lead drops from 14 to 6 over past week; Quinnipiac has Clinton up 7; PPP has Obama up 3

NOTE FROM JOHN: To put these polls in context, Joe added a link at the bottom of this post to a Bloomberg News article. The article explains that even if Hillary beats Obama by 25 percentage points in Pennsylvania, she still is unlikely to overtake him in either delegates or the popular vote nationwide:

``I am a big believer that she needs either one, the popular or the delegate count,'' in order to make a case for why she should be the nominee, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, a Clinton backer, said in an interview....

To earn that split decision, though, Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon -- a prospect that's not at all certain.

Keep these numbers in mind tomorrow night. Hillary needs a 25 point win in Pennsylvania, and even then, she's in trouble.
__________

SurveyUSA, which has had a solid track record this year, finds a 6-point lead for Clinton, down from 14 last week:

The survey concluded that Clinton will finish with 50 percent, 6 percentage points ahead of Obama. The margin of sampling error is 3.8 percent.

Looking only at SurveyUSA numbers and ignoring the polls that have been released by 12 competing pollsters in Pennsylvania, Obama gained ground in a week when he was largely on defense and off-message. Last week, SurveyUSA had Clinton ahead by 14 points. Monday, in a poll conducted using the identical methodology, SurveyUSA found Clinton ahead by 6 points.

Of all the polls coming out today, SurveyUSA is the most surprising and shows the biggest movement for Obama.

Quinnipiac shows Clinton leading 51% - 44%:

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 51 - 44 percent among Pennsylvania likely Democratic primary voters, compared to 50 - 44 percent last week, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

White voters back Sen. Clinton 57 - 38 percent, while blacks back Sen. Obama 84 - 10 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. A look at other subgroups shows:

* Women back Clinton 57 - 38 percent, while men are for Obama 53 - 42 percent;
* White Catholics are for Clinton 66 - 29 percent;
* Voters under 45 go with Obama 57 - 41, while older voters back Clinton 54 - 40 percent.

PPP Polling, which has also proven to be pretty accurate this year, has Obama leading Clinton by a 3 point margin:

Barack Obama 49
Hillary Clinton 46

For the fourth week in a row PPP is showing the margin between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Pennsylvania to be at three points or less.

With such a close race the final result tomorrow should hinge on turnout. If there is disproportionately high turnout in the Philadelphia metro area, where Obama has a 58-32 lead, he could pull out a victory. Clinton is dominating throughout pretty much the rest of the state.

Regardless of whether Clinton or Obama finally wins this primary, it is almost certain the margin will be so small as to have minimal effect on the delegate count.

There you have it.

Keep in mind, Hillary Clinton was always supposed to win Pennsylvania by a very wide margin. She had been way up in the polls -- and has the Rendell machine working very hard on her behalf. Bloomberg reports Clinton "Needs Record Margins" to even stay in the game:

To overtake Barack Obama in the nationwide popular vote, Hillary Clinton needs a bigger win in tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary than she has had in any major contest so far. And that's just for starters.

We'll know tomorrow night. Read the rest of this post...

McCain economic plan doesn't add up

How many more times are we going to hear yet another Republican claiming to have a magic plan to sort out the budget? They always talk about it but when they control all branches of Washington, the results spoke for themselves. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the McCain plan is the latest GOP attempt at spinning America into giving corporate welfare while everyone else pays the price. Since McCain thinks it's so easy, let's hear specifics now. What is he going to cut from the budget? Sounds like the latest edition of Republican voodoo economics.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Washington-based Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget restraint, said ``the huge imbalance'' in McCain's plan ``is that the tax cuts are specific and large and the spending cuts are small and vague.''

Once, McCain was a deficit hawk, Bixby said, but ``strange things happen when people run for president.''

Read the rest of this post...

AP: Clinton's campaign "in the red" -- debts exceed cash on hand

The March FEC reports have been posted for the presidential campaigns. Obama's is here. Clinton's is here. McCain's is here.

At the end of February, Clinton's campaign was in the red when her debts and loan to herself were factored in. It appears that at the end of March, her financial situation has worsened. In fact, at the end of March, Hillary Clinton's campaign debts alone exceeded her cash on hand. That's quite stunning for a campaign that was supposed to be built on fundraising prowess.

As of March 31, 2008, Clinton reported cash on hand totaling $31,712,197.67. However, that's not the real number -- a good chunk of that money, over $22 million, can only be spent in the general election. The Associated Press is even reporting that Clinton is in the red:

Clinton reported raising $20 million in March and had $9 million for the primary available at the beginning of April. But she also reported debts of $10.3 million, putting her in the red.

To be exact, the campaign owes debts totaling $10,321,562.87 -- and that doesn't include the $5 million loan she made to the campaign. Mark Penn's firm is owed over $4.5 million.

Further proof that Clinton's fundraisers and donors should have been spending their time raising money instead of attacking Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.

Obama raised over $40 million in March -- and had cash-on-hand for the primaries of approximately $42 million.

Meanwhile, John McCain continues to break the campaign finance laws. After Tuesday we can start to focus much more attention on that. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

It's going to be a wild couple days. New polls will be out today. We'll post them as we get them. Still not linking to the Zogby poll. Because it's not the Zogby poll, it is the NewsMax/Zogby poll. If Zogby has to team up with the very right wing, very biased, very wacko site, NewsMax, that's says it all.

We'll be obviously posting other news that breaks out of PA. It's wild in the Keystone state. And, seriously, a year ago, even six months ago, who would have thought that Hillary Clinton's campaign would be having serious money troubles?

In the meantime, what's going on in the rest of the world? Read the rest of this post...

Blair blocked from EU presidency

That's OK though, he really wanted to be the EU Foreign Minister which we all know is much more important, anyway. That's the Blair-spin, at least. If he is as successful with the EU Foreign Minister position as he is as the Middle East whatever-he's-supposed-to-be, the EU better brace for a step backwards. The bigger question though is whether he will quit his 'consulting' jobs where he makes millions or will he downgrade to £200,000 (roughly $400,000) per year? Read the rest of this post...

OPEC - no plans to increase production

It's a good thing the GOP made 'conservation' a dirty word. Oil tested the $117 support level and went up to $117.05 though it has since backed down.

"No," said Chakib Khelil, who is also Algeria's Energy and Mines Minister, when asked by reporters whether OPEC would raise production. "I don't think that any increase in production will have an impact on prices.

There is a balance between supply and demand," he said, speaking during a visit to Kuwait. "Even if we raised the production we may not find a buyer," Khelil said.

He added a previous output increase had failed to bring prices down.

"We raised output last year and there was an increase in prices not decrease." A falling dollar was a main factor behind the surge in oil prices, he said.

Read the rest of this post...