BESTSALVIA.INFO

On the December 20 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, discussing controversial remarks by William Shaheen, a then-co-chair of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Jennifer Donahue, a senior adviser for political affairs at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, claimed that the Clinton campaign is "playing the race card" because of "what happened last week on the drug issue with Shaheen, and, moreover, with [Clinton's chief strategist] Mark Penn, who then kept repeating it over and over and over." But, as Media Matters for Americadocumented, the entire December 13 Hardball segment on which Penn appeared was devoted to the controversy over Shaheen's comments, and Penn was not the first to raise the drug issue. Indeed, as Bob Somerby noted on his Daily Howler blog, host Chris Matthews "asked Penn a series of questions -- and every single one concerned drugs."

The December 13 Hardball segment featured a discussion with Matthews, Penn, Obama chief strategist David Axelrod, and Joe Trippi, adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. As Media Mattersnoted, Matthews began the segment by asking Axelrod, "[A]re you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top?" During his questioning of Penn, Matthews' questions were exclusively on the issue of drugs:

• Matthews first asked Penn, "Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say?" Penn replied, "Oh, I don't know," before going on to say: "I'm really disappointed. I think this thing with Billy Shaheen, he's stepped down. It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable."

• Matthews then asked, "Did you tell him to step down? Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it. Do you think he did it in time to stop this from becoming a story?" Penn replied: "I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn't condone it. We weren't part of these -- of the story that he went on with. And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign."

• Matthews continued, asking Penn: "These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I'm not sure how they're coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt?" In response, Penn said: "Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that's been made clear." As Media Mattersnoted, Penn answered questions from Matthews and spoke for 1 minute and 43 seconds from the time he responded to Matthews' first question until he said the word "cocaine."

Later during the Anderson Cooper 360 discussion, Donahue followed up her assertion that the Clinton campaign is "playing the race card" by asserting, "I don't mean that Hillary Clinton is trying to play a race card, but I think that they're bringing up the issue of fear of African-Americans in a way that is either intentional or not, but is real."

From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the December 13 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, David Axelrod, are you satisfied with the explanation from the Hillary Clinton campaign that the comment by Mr. Shaheen about drug use by your candidate was not something coming from the top?

AXELROD: Look, I have no way of knowing that. They say that, and we have to accept them at their word. I'll say this, Chris. When you, when you launch a negative attack and you say that this is the fun part of the campaign, you send a signal down the line to others in the campaign that leads to this kind of thing.

And so whether or not there was an instruction to Mr. Shaheen, I think it's important that a signal get sent right from the top of the campaign that this isn't encouraged, that it's not the fun part of the campaign, that we ought to be lifting up this country instead of trying to tear each other down.

MATTHEWS: Are you serving notice by your comment right now and your comment in the spin room that any further negative attack or suggestion by one of the Clinton people will come from Hillary?

AXELROD: Well, I -- I'm not suggesting that, Chris. But I will say this. Unless there's a strong, consistent signal from the top, unless we refrain from saying things like, "Negative campaigning is the fun part of the campaign," you're going to have that happening. There's sort of -- it's sort of a wink-and-a-nod thing. Everybody down the line says, "Oh, well, this is what this is about."

So, I would think that it would be important for all the candidates to send a strong signal to their troops that this isn't where we're going go with this campaign. We're not going take it into the gutter.

MATTHEWS: Mark, given the fact that this has reached into the spin room today and there were several questions to David Axelrod about whether his candidate, Senator Obama, has in fact shared or sold drugs, do you expect the Republicans to use this against the Democrats, no matter who wins the election -- the nomination fight, I should say?

PENN: Oh, I don't know. I think, though, I'm very disappointed by David's comments. I mean, you know, he's trying to rewrite history here. It is his candidate, Senator Barack Obama, on the front page of The New York Times that called Senator Clinton disingenuous.

He started a wave of direct, personal negative attacks. And the senator finally began to reply very substantively that his plan leaves out 15 million people, whereas hers covers every single person. And he kept bringing up an Iran vote that he, in fact, skipped.

So, I'm really disappointed. I think this thing with Billy Shaheen, he's stepped down. It was never a part of this campaign. It was unacceptable.

MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down?

PENN: The senator made that clear.

No, he stepped down. And he made clear --

MATTHEWS: Did you tell him to step down? It took 24 hours for him to do it.

Do you think he did it in time --

PENN: No. No.

MATTHEWS: -- to stop this from becoming a story?

PENN: I think this story is over. I think we made it very clear yesterday that we didn't condone it. We weren't part of these -- of the story that he went on with.

And we absolutely apologized. And the senator went on the tarmac of the airport as we were all coming down to this debate and apologized personally, because this is not part of her campaign.

MATTHEWS: Right.

PENN: And I think it's very important. She has been running a year-long positive campaign in which she's out there talking about ending the Iraq war and health care for all.

MATTHEWS: These comments that are coming out of your campaign from different directions -- and I'm not sure how they're coming, and nobody does -- but going after his perhaps youthful drug use, which he admitted in his book, and going after comments he made as a student and as a kindergarten student in fifth -- at the age of 5, I should say, do you think those are appropriate shots at the opponent, or are they below the belt?

PENN: Well, I think we've made clear that the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising, and I think that's been made clear.

I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator -

TRIPPI: I think he just did it again. He just did it again.

PENN: This kindergarten thing, after what the senator did -

TRIPPI: Unbelievable. They just literally -

[crosstalk]

PENN: Excuse me.

TRIPPI: No, no. No, no, Mark, excuse me.

PENN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

TRIPPI: This guy's been filibustering on this. He just said "cocaine" again. It's like -

PENN: I think you're saying "cocaine."

TRIPPI: No, no.

PENN: I don't know. I think you're saying it.

[crosstalk]

TRIPPI: You just did it.

PENN: I don't know why you're saying it.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: OK, Joe Trippi's turn.

[crosstalk]

TRIPPI: No.

MATTHEWS: Joe Trippi's turn.

From the December 20 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

COOPER: Jennifer, in New Hampshire is there the perception that Hillary Clinton is being singled out unfairly?

I want to read you something that Time magazine's editor at large mentioned to The Washington Post, Mark Halperin. He said: "She's just held to a different standard in every respect. The press rooted for Obama to go negative. When he did, he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety. It's not a level playing field."

DONAHUE: Well, they're doing it in an entirely different way.

When Barack Obama went negative on Hillary Clinton, he did it after Edwards did, first of all. He grilled it and got it ready. And then Obama flipped it, and he basically did it in a way that was policy-based, issue-based.

What [former Sen. Bob] Kerrey [D-NE] did the other day and what happened last week on the drug issue with Shaheen, and, moreover, with Mark Penn, who then kept repeating it over and over and over, they're playing the race card. I mean, this is not some small thing where they're saying, like Gore did about [Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bill] Bradley [NJ] in 2000 -- "He wanted to raise the retirement age" -- when, in fact, he didn't.

This is the race card. They're attacking his race. And I think it's really above the pale. Voters here don't like it.

[...]

DONAHUE: Anderson, can I just jump in? Because I want to hear David's [Gergen, CNN senior political analyst] perspective.

I mean, would you also say, then, that [Republican presidential candidate Mike] Huckabee is not playing the religion card against [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney?

GERGEN: No, I think he is playing the religion card.

But that's -- that's said in a positive way. But I think, when you say somebody is playing a race card, you suggest that they have racist motives or they have a racist quality to them.

DONAHUE: I don't -- well, I guess I don't --

GERGEN: I think that's unfair to the people involved.

DONAHUE: They're trying to -- but don't you think -- I don't mean that Hillary Clinton is trying to play a race card, but I think that they're bringing up the issue of fear of African-Americans in a way that is either intentional or not, but is real.

COOPER: I want David to respond, and then we got to go.

GERGEN: I just don't happen to agree. I think that's unfair.

Look, I think they have been clumsy. I think -- I think this is going to rebound against them. But I think it goes too far to say they're playing a race card.

COOPER: [CNN chief national correspondent] John King, David Gergen, Jennifer Donahue, appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Today in his nomination hearing to be Deputy Attorney General, Mark Filip refused to explicitly say whether he believed waterboarding to be torture. He told Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that he found the interrogation technique “repugnant,” but couldn’t answer without taking “a long hard look at” the information:

KENNEDY: The key question is what constitutes torture. So the question that Judge Mukasey would say nothing at all on that question. So the same question to you: Do you consider waterboarding torture.

MARK FILIP: Senator, speaking personally, I consider waterboarding to be repugnant as it’s been reported in any of its various iterations. […]

That said, the Attorney General of the United States is presently reviewing that legal question. He determined that he wanted to have access to the classified information and memos about it. I don’t think I can or anyone who could be potentially considered to be his deputy could get out in front of him on that question while it’s under review.

Watch it:

Kennedy continued to press Filip, expressing surprise that he was dodging the issue:

I must say, everyone is familiar with the challenges that were out there for Mr. Mukasey when he refused to give an answer on that, and we thought you’d be able to give a response to this. You’ve been a judge, made the decisions, know what the issues are. It’s not a complicated issue in question, and it seems to be that you ought to be able to respond to it.

Filip simply replied that he awaits the opportunity to have “access to that information” so that he can “give candid advice to the Attorney General.

In October, the Senate Judiciary Committee was set to approve Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey with little objection, until he obfuscated on waterboarding. Mukasey claimed that although waterboarding was “repugnant” to him on a “personal basis,” he was unable to strike a “legal opinion” without the “actual facts and circumstances.”

UPDATE: Later in the hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Filip that he was not “satisfied” with Filip’s answer on waterboarding:

I think it is a response consistent with Attorney General Mukasey. But consistent with Attorney General Mukasey’s response to this committee, he received the lowest confirmation vote of any Attorney General nominee in the last fifty years. And that’s where you find yourself at this moment, over the same issue.

Digg It!

Transcript: (more…)

The Questions We Never Answered in 2007 Digging through the bottom of the Explainer mailbag. By Daniel Engber Another year of Explaining is drawing to a close. Over the last 12 months, regular readers of the column learned what to do when confronted by a gun-toting madman, how to fight off a band of bloodthirsty monkeys, whether a racehorse really pees like a racehorse, and why the camera adds 10 pounds. But for every reader question we managed to answer, 50 more arrived in the Explainer inbox. By year's end, these numbered in the thousands. Today, the Explainer renews a holiday tradition and presents an assortment of inquiries culled from our voluminous backlog, which Slate felt ill-equipped or unwilling to answer in 2007. Once again, we'd like you to let us know which of these unanswered questions is most deserving of an answer. The one receiving the most reader votes will be designated Explainer Question of the Year for 2007 and addressed in an upcoming column. The Explainer's Unanswered Questions From 2007 • Could you play sports in space, if you had a spacesuit? • Can a baby get drunk off of nonalcoholic beer? • Very rare to find a hotel room with a light on the ceiling, they're usually floor lamps or desk lamps. Is there some structural reason for that? • Mitt Romney is running for president. His father, George Romney, a former governor of Michigan, ran for president in 1968. Is "Mitt" named for the mitten-shape of Michigan? • How do surface-dwelling fish survive monster sea storms? • If I drank a bunch of orange juice, which caused me to get heartburn, then ate a bunch of antacids, would it neutralize the vitamin C, thus providing no benefits from the ingested vitamin? If so, if you ate antacids continually, would you get scurvy? • I've been looking for information on how the word "dick" became an insult, especially since people still go by the name Dick. Why would anyone choose that name, when it has other meanings?!?! • Why do male ice skaters have routines that are so feminine in execution? After all these years, there should be some kind of movements on ice that would be more masculine-looking. The gymnastics shows have them. • Why are some cats softer to the touch than others? Is it possible I have the softest cat in the world? • In Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity, he says that Jason Bourne can pack with great economy of space, allowing him to pack much more in a small bag than it would seem. How would one do this, and is it even a real thing? • Do you have any idea why sporting the moustache was so much more common in the military than in any other job in 19th-century Western countries, and to some extent present-day Western countries? • If an unscrupulous bar owner was to mix diethylene to, say, whiskey, what would the effect be on the consumer? • I am an Afro-American woman. I am in my youthful 50s. My hair is strong and a little past the shoulders. I wear it pressed (hot combed or flat iron). It is also a salt-and-pepper color; I get great compliments on it. The problem I have is static. Could you give me some tips on what to use to stop this? • There was the most beautiful sunset here in Indiana last evening. Would the California fires have anything to do with that? • I haven't seen this in the news, but perhaps you could explain it anyway. Why do people feel like destroying things when angry? • Why do most reptiles go to sleep when you rub their bellies? I have done it myself with everything from domestic water dragons to wild alligators, but I heard recently that it is bad for them—and they only appear to be sleeping, when in fact they are having trouble breathing. Is this true? • Would it be possible to "shoot" someone with "lightning"? Like, a Taser with no electrodes. • Why do men almost never win on ABC's Wheel of Fortune? • Are any of the scorpions in central Vietnam deadly? I was stung three times one night, and evacuated to a hospital where doctors said the one that stung me was the only lethal one in Vietnam. Truth or lie? • Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes, the "ultimate high-temperature incinerators"? • Hello. I am an editor and writer and I would like for everyone to change some letters that are now in lowercase to uppercase. An example would be the 18th century to the 18th Century. Where does one go about starting to do this? • Is it "open sees me" or "open says me"? • Can dogs be mentally retarded? • Why don't they build into cars a secret button for police to use, and when these people are trying to get away from police down the freeway and city streets at 100 mph, the following police car could push the button, making the engine on the speeding car stop? Surely there must be some smart person who could make this. • Why does having a foreign accent make a person seem more attractive? • How often are presidents born, and how often do they die? Do they die in bunches, or on average every four years? • When a fly lands on a ceiling, does it execute a barrel roll or an inside loop? • Is there such a thing as "crazy eyes," where the whites go all the way around the corneas and makes the person look psycho, such as those of runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks and wife-dismemberer Stephen Grant? • I've always wanted to know why bald heads shine!!! • Who is Daniel Engbert? I'm sure that I'm spelling his name wrong, but he's one of a few guys that you regularly go to as a reliable source—and I want to know who he is and why he's qualified. • What infections do viruses and microorganisms suffer from? My guess is none. They only suffer from random mutations and suffering caused (mostly by humans) by chemicals. • I have been looking for an old movie from about the late '60s. I was born in 1960 and watched it as a little kid. It was a Santa movie and it had the Devil in it. It was like the Devil was trying to stop Christmas. I remember the Devil was wearing red PJs. Santa has a magic powder that would make people sleep. It was a cute movie. Please help. • What do the SWAT teams do to keep their fitness? Like, do they run for half an hour, or do five pressups? • If mountains are measured from sea level, then the 12,000-foot peaks in Colorado are only about 7,000 feet above Denver since they lie on a 5,000-foot-high plain. That being so, a one-foot rock lying on the ground becomes a 5,001-foot-high mountain. Do we need to address this differently, if it really matters at all? • Is it possible in any way to prove that someone was on crack cocaine nine to 10 years ago? • Why don't long-haired football players, many of them of Polynesian descent, get their tresses tugged during their gridiron clash? • This may be a dumb question. Most people spell their names as first name, middle initial, and last name. But some people spell their name as initial, given name, and then last name. Is the initial before the given name their first name, and they go by their middle name? Or is the initial before the given name their middle initial? If it is their middle initial, why would you put it before your first name, because then it is not in the middle anymore? It seems like conservatives or Republicans are more likely to list their name starting with an initial. • What would happen to the rest of the planets and the sun if Jupiter were to explode, or somehow leave our galaxy altogether? • Which is the best hearing aid? Why are there so many different ones, and are the ones that allow you to hear others' conversations across the room legal? • When a man lies to his lawyer to obtain a divorce from a wife of 47 years when she is ill and does not even know and cannot defend herself, is this legal, or perjury? Which of these questions is most deserving of an answer? The one receiving the most reader votes will be designated Explainer Question of the Year for 2007 and addressed in an upcoming column.

During the December 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews introduced as the "Hot Topic" for that night's show -- "Is the [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] campaign trying to obliterate [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] candidacy? Not just beat it, but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on?" Matthews then asserted there were "[m]ore efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib" and went on to say, "The picture is not pretty, but it could very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib." In fact, during the one-hour show, Matthews invoked imagery of Clinton murdering an infant Obama on four occasions, noting in a later discussion, "My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they have to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa," and asking Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, "Everybody's got a job in mind [in a Hillary Clinton administration], and they're willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language?" Scarborough responded, "No, it's not."

Matthews later suggested that Clinton's surrogates were "attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it," and he asked, "Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas." NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell responded, "Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to." He then asked Mitchell "[W]ill she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?" Mitchell replied by asserting: "Absolutely." Matthews then described the "poisons" he associated with Clinton's surrogates: "Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?" He concluded by saying, "She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her," referring to a Mafia enforcer in the Mario Puzo novel The Godfather.

As Media Matters for America has documented, media figures frequently portray the Clintons and their staff as ruthless and even violent.

From the December 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. The "Hot Topic" tonight: Is the Hillary Clinton campaign trying to obliterate Obama's candidacy? Not just beat it but strangle it in the crib before there's any chance he catches on? That's our "Hot Topic" tonight.

On the Republican side, thrice-married Giuliani loses his once commanding lead nationally, and the Reverend Huckabee is ascending. And speaking of Huckabee, is he the affable Midwestern pastor, or is there a reason to be afraid of his candidacy? So who's afraid of Mike Huckabee? We'll debate that tonight.

And we'll ask you -- we'll give you, rather, our daily "Political Fix" with Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell and John Harwood.

But first, the "Hot Topic." More efforts today by the Clinton people to smother the Barack Obama campaign in its crib, as I said. One, a letter attacking Obama's health care plan pretending to come from John Edwards but actually set up by a pro-Clinton union. Two, the launching of two websites specifically targeting and attacking Barack. Suddenly, the campaign for president on the Democratic side is dominated by this dark struggle to hold power.

The Clintons -- Hillary, Bill, the whole universe of advisers and backers known as Hillary-land -- have targeted its enemy. The Clinton order comfortable at the center of Democratic power for a full generation is on the attack. The target: the junior senator from Illinois who dares to challenge the former first lady for commander-in-chief. The weapons being wielded against him are the wide-ranging regiments of Clinton people.

A Clinton surrogate attacks Barack for saying he'd like to be president back when he was in kindergarten. In New Hampshire, the husband of a former governor talks up what Republicans would do with Barack's admission of using drugs as a teenager. A former senator from Nebraska talks up Barack's middle name and the religion of his forebears, a comment for which he later apologized.

But the attacks refuse to stop. Keeping up the beat, a group of back-bench congresspeople held a press conference today -- actually, a conference on telephone to call reporters to attack Senator Obama for voting president -- present -- as a state legislator back in Springfield. A friendly labor union is now putting out an attack on Barack's health care plan, making it appear to be from John Edwards. And according to ABC's Jack Tayper [sic: Jake Tapper], the Clinton troops have now set up two different websites with the expressed mission of destroying Obama. Tapper says it's the first case, at least in this campaign, of a candidate setting up websites with the single purpose of attacking another candidate.

The picture is not pretty, but it could be very well be deadly. The goal is to smother the young senator in his crib. Whether it's right or wrong is, as in much of politics, a matter of how you look at it. A lot of true believers, the young and idealistic at heart, will find it -- let's agree on this thing -- dispiriting.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Is there a smart political tactic here, Mark [Green, president of Air America Radio]? You've been in some campaigns. You've won a lot of them. Is there a smart political tactic here -- if you're a Clintonite, saying, "Wait a minute, don't let this guy land on the beach"? It's like the Germans when they saw us coming in Normandy -- "Don't let them land on the beach because once they're on the beach, they're going to break out." Are the Clinton people afraid that if Barack does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be unstoppable, therefore, they've got to throw every trash can they got at him right now?

GREEN: I agree with everything --

MATTHEWS: Is that the strategy?

ED SCHULTZ (liberal radio host): Absolutely.

GREEN: One second.

MATTHEWS: OK --

GREEN: I agree with everything you just said except for the word "trash." Ed, there's no serious evidence --

MATTHEWS: Trash can.

[...]

MATTHEWS:. Let's talk about this fight here. My conjecture here, which I opened the show with, was the Clintons believe they've got to stop Obama early. They want sudden infant crib death, is what they want. They want this guy to die before Iowa. And they are unleashing everybody they've got, everybody who wants -- every meal ticket they've got, everybody that wants to be a cabinet member, a VP, a staffer. They're all out there -- [former Sen.] Bob Kerrey [D-NE], [former Iowa governor Tom] Vilsack, [former Clinton campaign New Hampshire co-chairman] Billy Shaheen, [Clinton campaign strategist] Mark Penn, [Clinton campaign spokesman] Phil Singer.

Everybody's got a job in mind, and they're willing to put the knife in this guy in the crib to get that job. Is that too strong a language, Joe Scarborough?

JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC anchor): No, it's not, because if she wins Iowa, she walks toward the nomination. The problem is, they're trying too hard. I can't help but go back -- and I know you were there, too, Chris -- in 2004 in Iowa, and you had all these people shipped in from out of state and it ended up making the Iowans just roll their eyes and toss Howard Dean to the side and go with John Kerry.

No, I think actually the person who is damaged goods right now is Hillary Clinton. If you look at the latest NBC poll, which shows that Obama does much better in general election match-ups, and Hillary's negatives are above her positives now.

MATTHEWS: Let me go to the question of tactics here. She is using things like having AFSCME -- the union, the federal, the state and county employees -- put out a letter that looked like it came from John Edwards, apparently, attacking Obama, so that she gets the knife into Obama without her fingerprints on it.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Andrea, again, about this way this campaign has to be run. The traditional way of an incumbent to defeat a challenger, in any congressional race we've ever covered or seen, you try to, first of all, check their petitions and make sure there's no names wrong, use every trick in the book to get them out of the race. Is this an attempt to basically get a preliminary shot against this guy? Kill him early. Before Christmas.

MITCHELL: Kneecap him, I mean, if you have to. The whole point is to get him out by Iowa so that she doesn't have to face him in New Hampshire, because what she's seeing is that her New Hampshire firewall, what was to be the firewall, has eroded. And that depending on the poll, they're either dead even -- he's ahead in some, she's ahead in others. So she no longer can count on New Hampshire, where the Clintons have a record.

MATTHEWS: Will she continue -- Andrea, you first. Will she continue to have surrogates drop these little poison pills in the public reservoir of public opinion?

MITCHELL: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Hussein, Muslim, blah, blah, blah, coke, all kinds of stuff. Will they continue to drop these poisons in the water?

MITCHELL: I think it will continue to be this kind of tough, nasty campaign. The difference is that it was a big mistake for her to do some of the negative stuff. She is going to be all warm and fuzzy.

MATTHEWS: She needs Luca Brasi to do this stuff for her.

Do you want to be stressed and anxious or do you a want to savor and live a luscious life? Lois Barth, life coach, speaker and writer, or what she likes to call herself - a stand-up philosopher - uses life as a classroom to learn and live vitally. In this Lovecast episode Lois will empower us to gain knowledge about ourselves and our partners and why we are marrying this special person. Together we discover how to strengthen communication skills as Lois guides us to greater fulfillment and joy in our relationships while honoring each otherâs style.

What does Luscious Living mean? What is Conscious Coupledom? What are the 4 Lâs of Luscious Life Partnership? Why is the first âLâ so crucial while planning your wedding? What are the biggest stressors of getting married and how can you take care of yourself better? What are the five love languages? Want to play the Loving Luscious Life Partnership game? What is Loisâ suggestion to all engaged couples? These questions and so much more are answered to help you support each other and get to know each other on a deeper level.

Lois steers us in a wonderful direction to open our mind to possibilities we may not have considered. Lovecast is dedicated to helping us all enhance the passion in our relationships and experience great happiness in marriage. You will leave todayâs podcast more connected than the love that brought you together in the first place.

Click here to listen to the show

Luscious Living with Lois website

To subscribe to our podcasts click here

Thanks for making us the number one ranked wedding podcast on iTunes with the the most wedding podcasts in the top 100.

Subscribe in iTunes right here

We love your feedback.  Send us an email or call our listener hotline 800.882.1259.

Another great wedding planning podcast from Wedding Podcast Network

Think about it? Think before you leap to any conclusions. The Magna Carta was/is a great document but it needed to be up dated. The best update of the Magna Carta was the United States Constitution. The Constitution is now over 200 years old. Does it need to be updated? Like your favorite old car- do we need to rebuild the engine and replace the seats?

My answer is I’m not sure. If we really want a democracy than we need to look at the constitution and examine what has happened over the last 6 - 7 years. For that matter, we should examine the last 60 years. How is it in a democracy that a president can be elected without a majority of the popular vote? Why do we still have the electoral college? Is that a democratic institution? When the president has the ability to appoint judges and cabinet members and heads of other government agencies is that democracy in action? When a president vetoes a bill that passes both houses of Congress, the president knows that there is over a 90% chance that Congress will not be able to override his veto, is that a democratic process. I’m just asking because I think that these questions need to asked. We need to think about our democracy from time to time.  When we see that abuses of the Bush administration maybe overhauling our constitution can prevent such abuses in the future.

Bill Moyers has University of Texas professor of law, Sanford Levinson on the Bill Moyers Journal. This is a thoughtful discussion. Mr. Levinson’s book, the Undemocratic Constitution raises many of the questions that I have listed above. This is a great interview. Enjoy.

FAP710: Politics and the Election, Things You Should Do

Listen now:

Student Financial Aid News
+ Financial Aid Podcast Live on Friday at 2 PM
+ Diverse Issues in Higher Ed: With a presidential election on the horizon, 2008 on Capitol Hill is shaping up as a year for quick action on budget, student aid and other education bills before the fall campaign takes the national spotlight, advocates say.
+ “The battles are going to start in January,” says Carmen Berkley, vice president of the United States Student Association. Topping the list is funding for the current and the next federal fiscal years. After using his veto pen to help rein in federal spending last fall, President Bush gets another chance in early February when he will present his 2009 education budget.
+ USSA is seeking long-range increases in the Pell Grant to $9,000 a year for needy students, about double its current amount, Berkley says. Increases in college work/study, GEAR UP and college-access programs also are on the group’s agenda.
+ But the budget is not the only issue on the minds of education advocates, who cited these topics in their 2008 agendas:
+ Textbook costs
+ HEA Reauthorization
+ FAFSA simplification and drug policy
+ The election itself

Scholarship Update
+ Ted Scripps Fellowships in Environmental Journalism
+ The Ted Scripps Fellowships program covers tuition and fees. In addition, for the 9-month, 2008-2009 academic year, a $47,000 stipend will be paid. Employers are strongly encouraged to continue benefits, including health insurance.
+ The fellowships are a nine-month academic program that allows eligible professional journalists to acquire knowledge necessary to cover the environment more effectively and enrich the public’s understanding of this crucial subject. The Scripps fellows audit classes, conduct in-depth research, and reflect on critical questions without the pressure of deadlines.
+ Deadline March 1
+ Details at our free college scholarship search site

Politics
+ How to get engaged in the political process
+ Register to vote
+ Evaluate candidates based on their web sites
+ Check out their previous records - voting records, accomplishments in previous positions
+ Evaluate their campaign contributions
+ Check out the Electoral Compass
+ The Student Loan Network does not endorse any political candidate or position. Please think for yourself.
+ A couple of techniques that political campaigns will use to distract you
+ Bandwagon: Pump up the value of ‘joining the party’.
+ Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.
+ Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.
+ Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.
+ Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.
+ Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.
+ Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.

Promo
+ Private student loan consolidation

Did you enjoy today’s show? If so, please consider subscribing for free to get it delivered to you. Subscribing for free means you don’t have to remember to download it every day.
+ Click here to subscribe for free by email
+ Click here to subscribe for free in iTunes
+ Click here to add the Financial Aid Podcast to Google Reader or your Google Homepage

Direct MP3 file download: Click here to download the MP3

Reminders
+ Financial Aid Podcast Show Notes at FinancialAidPodcast.com.
+ Discuss this episode at the Financial Aid Forum!
+ FAFSA form tutorials and free help at FAFSAonline.com
+ Stafford federal student loans at StaffordLoan.com
+ Student loan consolidation at StudentLoanConsolidator.com
+ Private student loans available at any time - visit AlternativeStudentLoan.com
+ The Financial Aid Podcast is a publication of the Student Loan Network.

I want to hear from you! Email me at financialaidpodcast {at} gmail {dot} com, visit http://www.FinancialAidPodcast.com, or call 206-350-1208.

Technorati Tags: financial aidfinancialaidpodcast

ShareThis

On the December 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and said, "Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do." Blitzer then asked Giuliani: "Has [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] been a good senator for New York state?" After stating, "[n]ot from my point of view," Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "want[s] to move toward mandated government medicine, socialized medicine." In fact, as The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog noted on October 24, "the Clinton plan does not force Americans to accept 'government insurance.' It offers people a choice. If they are happy with their present health plan, they can keep it. Otherwise, they can switch to the plans offered to members of Congress, or a government-run plan similar to Medicare." Blitzer did not challenge Giuliani's false statement, which echoed a similar comment Giuliani made about Clinton's health care proposal on September 17: "What [Clinton] will do is socialized medicine." PolitiFact, a project of Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg Times, said Giuliani's statement was "inaccurate" since "the government would not control the system and because of the heavy involvement of private insurance companies." Additionally, Media Matters for America and several media outlets -- including CNN, Blitzer's assertion notwithstanding -- have documented that Giuliani has made other false or misleading statements throughout his presidential campaign.

For instance:

• In a radio ad released on October 29, Giuliani claimed that when he had prostate cancer, his "chance of surviving ... in the United States [was] 82 percent" but that his "chance of surviving prostate cancer in England [was] only 44 percent under socialized medicine." But as Media Mattersdocumented, an October 30 entry by Michael Dobbs on washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker blog noted that "the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain." Dobbs wrote that "the two countries are much closer" in terms of the "mortality rates from the disease," adding, "About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year" in both countries. Dobbs quoted Howard Parnes, chief of the Prostate Cancer Research Group at the National Cancer Institute, saying, "When you introduce screening and early detection into the equation, the survival statistics become meaningless." Similarly, during the November 6 edition of The Situation Room, medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen noted that "all the folks we talked to -- they said [Giuliani] did not get his numbers right" and that Cancer Research U.K., the English equivalent of the American Cancer Society, asserted that Giuliani's "survival numbers are really not the operative numbers here. They said it is actually more accurate to look at the chances that -- of men dying from prostate cancer once they are diagnosed." On October 31, the New York Timesreported: "Asked if Mr. Giuliani would continue to repeat the statistic, and if the advertisement would continue to run, [Giuliani spokeswoman Maria] Comella responded by e-mail: 'Yes. We will.'"
• On the December 12 edition of the CBS Evening News, Giuliani claimed that "Iran is moving toward accomplishing the worst nightmare of the Cold War -- nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And then they're threatening the use of these weapons, which is something unheard of." But, contrary to Giuliani's assertion, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had "halt[ed]" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and "assess[ed] with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007."
• The New York Times' Michael Cooper asserted in a November 30 article, headlined "Citing Statistics, Giuliani Misses Time and Again," that of the "fusillade of statistics and facts" Giuliani has used "to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views," a notable portion of them "are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong." Cooper further claimed that while "all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record."
• In a campaign ad released on November 29, Giuliani claimed that "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don't know that. They don't believe that." However, numerous current and former Bush administration economists and officials have stated the opposite -- that tax cuts do not bring in more revenue.
• During the October 9 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America." In fact, in a 1996 C-SPAN interview, Clinton agreed with author Aren Ehrenhalt's characterization of the "unfettered free market" as "the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation" -- not the "most destructive." Clinton went on to say that the "market is the driving force behind our prosperity" but that it "cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives." Giuliani made similar false assertions in an August 13 interview on CNBC's Kudlow & Co., and in a May 15 Republican presidential debate.
• During the October 9 Republican presidential debate, Giuliani claimed Clinton is "going to give out $1,000 to everybody to set up a 401(k). The problem is, this one costs $5 billion more than the last one." However, as Factcheck.org noted, "It's simply not true that Clinton proposes to give out $1,000 to 'everybody.' That sum would only go to those making $60,000 a year or less, and only if they also contribute $1,000 of their own to their 401(k) plans." Clinton's plan also "provide[s] a 50% match on the first $1000 of savings for every couple making between $60,000 and $100,000, which will be phased out after that."

From the December 19 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: We're almost out of time. Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do. Has Hillary Clinton been a good senator for New York state?

GIULIANI: Not from my point of view, from the point of view of my ideology, my thinking, the things that I would like to see, which would be, you know, smaller government, tax cuts. She made the right vote on Iraq in -- in having to deal with Saddam Hussein. I think her backing away from that vote, I know that was popular within the Democratic Party. To me, that was very disappointing.

She's worked hard, if that's what you're saying. Has she been a hardworking senator? Absolutely. And, for the short time that we overlapped, when I was the mayor, I was able to work with her, and she was always cooperative in doing what the city needed. But her ideology is so different, her wanting to move toward, you know, mandated government medicine, socialized medicine.

BLITZER: If you became president, would you be able to work with her and other Democrats?

GIULIANI: Of course.

The Basketball Jones — The Fix — Episode 227 (.mp3)

On today’s show, Tas and I look back at the NBA season — 25 games old. We discuss a few surprising teams and players, scold those who have disappointed us, pick our early MVP, Rook and MIP winners, and much, much more.

We also talk Jordan’s Bobcats, question Simmons’ Bargnani trade proposal and Whoa Boy it up. Enjoy!

Today’s overall rating: 4 All-Star Shimmies!

Subscribe to The Jones podcast: iTunes | RSS

And oh, we’re still a #7 seed in some Sports Blog of the Year NCAA-style bracket. So if you’d like to vote for The Basketball Jones (scroll down) and/or any of the other fine NBA blogs in the tourney, jump on over to Busted Coverage and git ‘er done.

Share This

Click here to download
NOCTURNAL Episode #8

IN THIS EPISODE:
Frank Lanza and Firstborn meet, giving us insight into Lanza’s plan for San Francisco. Robin Hudson and Stone Mason delve further into the mysterious Zed chromosome. Homicide detective Bryan Clauser visits his opinionated father before joining his parther Pookie Chang as the two question Marco Gastineau, the sole witness to Kyle Souller’s murder.

LATEST JUNKIE VICTIM:
Robert Wicks is the lucky Junkie to be immortalized in the pages of Nocturnal. Listen for his name in this episode.

AFTER THE EPISODE:
Deadline announced for the Sigler Stank™ book tour contest. Get your votes in now by clicking here.

BONUS STUFF:
The guys over at Variant Frequencies are pimping their Christmas present to podiobook fans everywhere. Click on the picture at left to get a free PDF with stories from the Failed Cities Monologues, written by this gigantic award-winning douchebag named Matt Wallace. Seriously, if you haven’t heard this podiobook, you’re only cheating yourself. This PDF is extra content after the main story, but if it’s written by Wallace, it’s worth your time. Oh and please read everything the man has now, because I’m going to have to have him killed soon, and when he’s gone, so is his fiction.

NOCTURNAL goes on GO DADDY. Visit GoDaddy, buy all the URLs you want and transfer domains until you crap, then enter the code ‘SCOTT1′ and whammo, your Junkie ass gets 10 percent off!

Our holiday festivities continue with a black tie event. Judges David Johnson and Mac McEntire host the First Annual Buster Awards, acknowledging the best and worst of 2007 on film, television, and DVD. Enjoy!

You can email the boys your questions, suggestions, and complaints at fridayfilibuster@dvdverdict.com, or show your support by voting for us at Podcast Alley, and Digg.

To avoid missing any episodes in our schedule, subscribe to the show via iTunes.

As the time comes to wrap up things for this new year, I would like to thank to the most regular commentators of the year on this blog. Its been great conversing with them and knowing more about their views.

• Madhur Kapoor (88)
• Shankar Ganesh (74)
• Ken Xu (52)
• Nirmal (49)
• Thilak (48)
• Brown Baron (48)
• Atul (42)
• Rishi (29)
• William (24)
• Ramanathan (22)

As we are planning to wrap up things and finish off planning for the next year, you might see lesser frequency in posts. Me and Manav are working around together for moving Technospot.Net to the next level.

In the mean time here is a small request from our side. We need a couple of minutes for your feedback. Below you should be able to see a form which will ask you a question. Its multiple choice and you can also add your comments. Help us in improving so in turn we can benefit you too.!!! Thanks

Please follow this link here ( click)

ShareThis

On today’s show we do a lot of follow up on some news items that we have previously reported on. Most of the time we talk about a certain items in the news and then we never hear again what happened to the story or how it developed. We aren’t sure why but today a lot of the things we have talked about have come back. The Wiccan Christmas ornament at the Green Bay City Hall, the swan that was in love with a plastic swan paddle boat, the woman who was charged with swearing at her toilet and Santas down under that curse have all cropped back up in the news today.

We were so excited the other day when they decided to open up the Christmas scene at the the Green Bay City Hall to other religions. They even placed a Wiccan Holiday Wreath on the roof. Unfortunately, the wreath was vandalized and knocked off the roof. The mayor has now suspended putting other religious symbols up until the city can get its act together. Can’t we all just get along?

We’ve gotten a kick out of the black swan in Germany who fell in love with a swan shaped paddle boat two summers ago. This past summer she took up with the big plastic beast again, but now it seems she is moving on. Yes, it’s over for Petra and the big paddle boat. The swan is spending the winter at a zoo apart from the boat and has taken up with a real live younger swan. Will flesh win out over plastic? Only time will tell.

We thought it was hysterical when Dawn Herb was charged for swearing at her toilet. How frustrating that must have been for her to have toilet overflow and get arrested? Well, the judge dismissed the case against her saying that she was in her rights to cuss. We say “hell yeah,” after all, who hasn”t screamed as their toilet overflowed all the floor?

I guess the “Ha, ha, ha!” is on us! We thought it was so ridiculous that it just might be true but it turns out that an Australian Santa did not in fact get fired for saying “Ho, ho, ho,” because it is offensive to women. Ho of course is slang for whore. It turns out the story is just an urban legend.

According to Snopes.com the Aussie Santas were told not to use the booming “Ho, ho, ho!” around some small children because it may frighten them. The company that trains the Santas asserts that some children are scared by the loud “ho, ho, ho” and that a a nice “Ha, ha, ha!” is better suited to for small children. So now, we question whether a Santa did indeed get fires for saying “Ho, ho, ho!”

After a month of grueling hard work, the FINAL entry in the Gay Bloggies chllenge is now up.

I’m baring it all an answering all your “Frequently Asked Questions” about life, love and the nature of the universe. Go check it out, give me the thumbs up and post a comment. Please don’t post any comments (positive or negative) on the other competitors entries. If you have something to say about the competition, post your comments about their entries in mine.

As you may know, comments encourage traffic (and votes) to their entries and lower my chances of winning this competition. If I win the competition, Marc will sit on a cake dressed up as Santa Claus AND he’ll reveal the celebrity he made cry when he had his picture taken with them.

I’ve read on the other competitors blogs that if you give them the thumbs down, (here and here) it’s like giving me two more votes!

The fruitcake everyone wants a slice of- Feast of Fools!

Featured Music:
• The Christmas Jug Band - Santa’s Lost a Ho: iTunes | Amazon | Site
Darlene Love - It’s Christmas, of Course:iTunes | Amazon | Site

RSS FEED | SUBSCRIBE VIA iTUNES
SUBSCRIBE VIA: GOOGLE | PODZINGER
CONTACT US DIRECTLY