I am not taking sides (yea right…go Obama!) but according to Newsweek and Jonathan Alter, Hillary is even closer to losing the nomination now than she was before last night’s “wins”. Why’s that?

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she’s now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It’s relentless. To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday—an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio. Superdelegates won’t help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama’s lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren’t complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That’s 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

Honestly, at the beginning of this race I was for Edwards and neither of the other two candidates at all. But then he dropped out (why John, why??) and I had to pick one of them, and the one I chose just happens to be winning by a seemingly insurmountable amount. So Hillary, please stop spending money that we could be using to defeat McCain. Stop saying that the other candidate is not ready to be in charge. Stop going negative on the guy that basically already has the nomination wrapped up…you are only hurting the party as a whole. Drop our gracefully, accept it, and move on. In fact, go back to the Senate and take over for useless Pelosi…at least I know you will get something done there! Please let us all work on defeating McCain, as you surely are not helping the cause any at all by staying in this thing when there is no chance of you winning.

Comments on this post: 1

Huh? Well, so says big-time Clinton supporter and surrogate speaker Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers). From MSNBC:

But it was Obama supporters for whom Buffenbarger saved his most vitriolic contempt, and he proved that the Democratic Party’s coalition is nothing if not fragile. Channeling Howard Beale from the movie “Network,” he yelled into the microphone, “Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

Watch the video:

Hmm…OK, you got me, I do like lattes. I don’t drive a Prius, but not that I wouldn’t. I have never owned or worn Birkenstocks, and I am not a trust-fund baby (that I know of…am I, Mom?). So why am I supporting Obama for President? Because I am tired of this kind of crap, which has infected the last 8 years of politics, from Congress to the White House. Strange how a Clinton supporter talked mostly about Obama and barely about Clinton, isn’t it? I hope he got a gold star from the Clinton camp for being such a good surrogate speaker! It doesn’t seem too wise to send your lapdogs out to bash the other candidate and all of his supporters, when it’s pretty obvious that the target of your attack is going to end up being the nominee for President if things continue to go the way they have been. Combine that along with providing fodder for the Republicans to use against him when the time comes to do so - pure brilliance, dear Clinton camp!

Comments on this post: 19

Parade Magazine has come out with their list of the Top Ten Worst Dictators again (how does a year go by so fast?), and it looks like the same old faces made the list again. When are these guys going to disappear? And what could be the most eye-opening fact about this year’s list is that Parade included information about how much business the U.S. does with these countries, even though publicly we denounce the atrocities.

1. Kim Jong-Il, North Korea - Our buddy Kim. Oh, how we miss your boisterous claims about getting holes-in-one on every hole when you play golf.
2. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan - The U.S. criticizes them, but we continue to purchase 4,000 tons a year of ‘gum arabic’, which is used in soft drinks, candy, shoe polish and stamps. Good thing we can mail a letter, too bad for all the people dying over there!
3. Than Shwe, Burma - Sure, we ended imports in 2003, but we still export over $7 million worth of products to them each year.
4. King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia - Our buddies, the Saudis. We love them so much we can look past the fact that women are more oppressed there than anywhere else on earth, teens can be sentenced to death, and defendants can be tortured. We have also sold them more then $15 billion worth of arms in the last decade. It’s good to have friends in high places!
5. Hu Jintao, China - Good thing we gave them the Olympics, with it’s international spirit and all-inclusiveness. After all, the government of China forces abortions on people, controls all media, and limits the practice of religion. They are our second biggest trading partner, so who cares about injustice!
6. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe - With inflation at 8,000%, protesters being killed, and Bush calling their policies “an assault on its people”, you would think we would not be doing business with them…but you would be wrong. U.S. trade with Zimbabwe has increased each of the last 4 years - mainly in importing nickel so we can make stainless steel. Go Zimbabwe!
7. Sayid Ali Khamenei, Iran - We all know their deal and how much our government supposedly wants to attack them. But why has trade been increasing with them, to the tune of $125 million last year? Strange world, it is…
8. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan - Another one of our good buddies, in the last year Pakistan has suspended the constitution, shut down the courts, arrested thousands of protesters and passed a law removing challenges to his continuation as President. And this is before President Bush called them an “advanced democracy”…I would not want to find out what a dictatorship was like then!
9. Islan Karimov, Uzbekistan - We need their uranium to make weapons, so we look past their torturing of citizens, forced psychiatric treatment of dissenters, and a president who got elected to a third term - even though the constitution set a two-term limit.
10. Isaya Afewerki, Eritrea - First of all, I had never heard of Eritrea. But maybe that is because there is no free press there, no elections, and no constitution. Sounds like a fun place to visit for vacation, no?

Very interesting stuff, take a look at the full list and information at Parade.com.

Comments on this post: 0

After everyone claiming Hillary was the big winner last night, Obama has moved ahead in the delegate count as of this morning. Check it out. It will be interesting how things will work themselves out from this point on…

Comments on this post: 0

As a follow-up (and just to be “sorta” fair) to yesterday’s post about the Democrats running for President and their views on the environment, I present to you the same for the Republicans running this year. I don’t know which of the three will get the nomination, but I am guessing that it will be McCain…but what do I know. So here you go:

John McCain
Well, he believes climate change is real, which is at least a good place to start. He acknowledges that we might reach a tipping point where we actually cannot save ourselves anymore. He wants more nuclear energy, and he wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Does he tell us how he would do anything though? No, not really.

Mitt Romney
From the sounds of it, he is only concerned about foreign oil dependence. (I have written before that it’s not just foreign oil we have a problem with, it’s oil itself) He wants clean, efficient uses of existing fossil fuels, e.g. clean coal, coal-to-liquids, carbon sequestration. More nukes and more domestic production of oil in places like ANWAR are also on his list. That’s it - that’s the extent of his concern.

Mike Huckabee
He says “The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term.” - I would love to see the comprehensive plan, Mike - not because I am voting for you, but because I am interested. Then he says “We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.” Well, that’s overstating it a little bit. Basically, he says nothing while saying a lot. Kind of like McCain, really.

So there you have it - your three candidates that actually have a shot of getting nominated tomorrow. Not that I would ever vote for any of them, but I am all about being fair…sometimes.

Comments on this post: 4

While I understand there are very big issues that the next President will have to face, one of my personal concerns is how they are going to treat issues pertaining to the environment. Prior to Edwards dropping out of the race, he had my vote based on his concern for the poor and for the environment. But alas, he is not in the race anymore. So I will now be voting for Obama, although sort of reluctantly and mostly because I do not want another Clinton in office - I feel it is time for a different family to be running the show for a bit. Personally I would love to have a woman President - just not this one at this point in time. But that is an argument for a different time! As of today, the day before Super Tuesday, here is some of what the two Democrat candidates are saying about their policies concerning energy and the environment:

Hillary Clinton

• A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence - by 2050.
• An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs
• A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan
• Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030
• 10 “Smart Grid City” partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies
• An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of “Green Vehicle Bonds” to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards (Toyota doesn’t need help, funny, huh?)
• A new “Connie Mae” program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements
• A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
• Creation of a “National Energy Council” within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
• A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.

Barack Obama

• Cap and Trade: supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
• Will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.
• Will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
• Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
• Will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
• Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
• Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world.

Now, how much of this do we believe will actually happen? If history is any guide, adult politics is kind of like high school politics - promise the Coke machine in the cafeteria and get elected. What happens? No Coke machine ever shows up. Let’s hope I am wrong. But that all being said, what do you guys think of these 2?

Comments on this post: 7