If The Shoe Fits!

We expend a lot of energy trying to get the rest of the world to see itself as we would have them. What we sometimes don't do well is lead by example. We're a very self indulgent people.

The news has been full of the story about a single mother of six who just gave birth to an additional eight - all conceived by vitro fertilization. The ethics issue involved here is a book yet to be written as well as the idea that we tax payers will undoubtedly foot the bill until the children reach the age of responsibility. The mother obviously has not at age 33!

Other countries in the world are concerned about their over population problems. China, for instance, one child per family. I am not an advocate of this degree of big brotherism but with economies suffering to the extent that children cannot be fed, housed, cared for nor educated, maybe the restrictions make some sense.

Now, it would seem the Brits are suggesting that couples having more than two children are creating a huge burden on the environment. A study claims each child born in Britain will burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2 1/2 acres of old growth oak woodland in its lifetime.

The global population is expected to be 9.2 billion by 2050. Multiply that out! Does the world have that much acreage in woodland? Are we killing ourselves here or what?

There has been a great deal of controversy about U.S. tax dollars going to support family planning efforts around the world if they include contraception and/or abortion. It's bad enough that teenage pregnancies are still outrageously high and that no matter what the country may be, someone other than the mother will bear the financial burden.

It's even worse when in this country an unmarried mother stockpiles embryos just because she wants babies! And she is able to do so! She's adding to the environmental problem on my dollar. Enough.

Use my tax dollars if you must but at least let them go to stem cell research! Not the old lady in the shoe.

Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?

From the executives at Citigroup who will get 60% of their obscene bonuses even after the bailout to the local vet who refused to euthanize a dog because the owner couldn't afford it, I'm wondering if all the hype over hope and change has failed to penetrate our thick skulls!

On the "tell me something I don't know" segment of the Chris Matthews show, Bob Woodward said the issues of unpaid taxes were not over for Obama appointees. He didn't name names but assured Matthews there were names yet to come. A vote is due on an admitted tax cheat for Treasury Secretary. The headlines this morning tell me Lobbyists skirt Obama's earmark ban.

There are efforts being made to include adding sand to a beach in New Jersey and building a water park in Miami as part of the stimulus package! We're told the mall in D.C. needs re-sodded. How many hundreds of those promised jobs is that going to create? Please!

Another headline tells that a lack of grants and other funding will end a transportation service in Spokane to get seniors and disabled to doctors appointments. Well, thats certainly a method of population control!

The mayor of Portland refuses to step down after admitting he had lied about an improper relationship with a minor. He had this to say, "Tomorrow I go back to work as your mayor. I know I have let you down and made mistakes. I ask your forgiveness. I believe I have a lot to offer the city I love during this time of important challenges."

Please forgive him! Please forgive Bill Richardson and Rod Blogojevich and Timothy Geitner. How about throwing in all those banking execs who have gotten billions but won't account for them Forgive them. Don't forget former Treasury Secretary Paulson for giving it to them carte blanche. Forgive him.

My understanding and forgiveness quotient is tapped out. We have a new President who is trying to bring forward ideas to get us out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into. That won't happen unless we get beyond our own selfish interests and work with him. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing no remorse for anything other than getting caught.

It's a sorry day when the letter "O" no longer brings to mind Obama, but rather a collective "Oops"!

To Those Who Would Serve - Pony Up!

Have you noticed that Obama's dream team is turning out to be less than perfect? Supposedly his selections for the Cabinet are thoroughly vetted before being offered a position. The process needs some fine tuning!

First there was Bill Richardson falling by the wayside by being under a Federal investigation. There are questions regarding Attorney General select Eric Holder for his part in pardons during the Clinton administration and the question of National Security Director designate Admiral Dennis Blair's role in backing the Indonesian occupation of East Timor back in the '90s.

Today, according to an AP report, we have yet another. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner is having to explain why he failed to pay personal taxes and check the immigration status of a housekeeper! At least with Hillary, I think, the questions are more about Bill's relationships and activities rather her own.

The vetting process aside, I'm wondering what it says about these men who have been chosen to serve! Richardson knew he was under investigation, Blair knew what his activities were in East Timor and certainly a potential Treasury Secretary, Geithner, would remember he had failed to pay his taxes! If he doesn't remember, being a money man, I don't want him managing mine!

Is the urge to be part of the power base so strong it precludes honesty? And if it does do we want these men serving? I understand the mandatory questionnaire one must fill out to even be considered to be considered for a post in the Obama administration is so stringent it's practically a "boxers or briefs" probe!

I can't help wondering who will be next, what little tidbit will be revealed and how it will be explained away. All these men are well aware of the promises Obama has made to the people about "change". At the moment it looks more like business as usual.

Any real change will begin as a crawl before it can walk. I know that. I'd like to think, however, those who are to be part of the process are as pure of heart and clean of scandal as those who actually do crawl.

It's time for the euphoria of the moment to subside and allow reality to surface. A new administration is nothing more than that, no matter that the first African American President is at the helm. We sorely need some smooth sailing even if the crew is imperfect. The American people have put their trust in all of them. Is integrity too much to ask for in return?

Oprah, Maybe YOU Ought To Read The Books You Recommend!

If Oprah wants to go into politics it would seem she has some of the necessary qualifications. The willingness to recommend something even if she, personally, hasn't read it!

Just like in Washington where staffers read pending legislation and give their bosses a synopsis thus suggesting how they should vote. If it turns out to be a bad piece of legislation the caveat seems to be "I voted for it based on the information available (from members of my staff who read it.) If they did. Or did they merely skim it and pass on a less then accurate summation?

A mere two years ago Oprah was embarrassed and angry when she found a book she had strongly recommended turned out to be fiction rather than non-fiction. Remember Jame Frey and A Million Little Pieces ? The story about a young man's decent into and ascent from the world of drug and alcohol addiction. It was replete with bone chilling detail and characters that should have made one suspect. Why the author didn't present it as a brilliant piece of fiction is still a puzzle.

Next there was Love and Consequences a piece of fiction represented as a memoir that wasn't even written by the same person!

Now there is one of the greatest love stories the book club has ever come across. Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love that Survived. This one is such a pat man-meets-girl-man-loses-girl-man-gets-girl, it's a wonder that even with the briefest of skimming one might be suspicious! A man in a concentration camp meets a young girl on the other side of the fence who gives him apples to sustain him until he is moved out. Years later, after a blind date, they discover their past connection while reminiscing. It's a wonderful, heart warming story. The problem is it's not true!

My, oh my. It reminds me of the old saying, "Please Mother, I'd rather do it myself!" It also reminds me of the recent turmoil we had here regarding whether certain major pieces of writing should be on school's required reading lists. I've yet to learn if those opposed had actually read the books to which they objected.

I would guess Oprah has little time to delve deeply into the books she recommends. As with the politicians and their legislation, she depends a great deal on staff. If it were me, however, putting my name on a recommendation that could boost an author onto the best seller lists, I'd want to make darn sure it was warranted.

Having made my living in public relations for a good many years, I know a bit about "spin" and embellishment. So this an across the board recommendation to a person who's name is considered trustworthy, if they want it to remain so, and the staff that serves them, read the book - and if anything looks to be a little much, check it out. If you don't have the time, don't make the recommendation.

The same goes to the politicians. The least you can do for us is read what you're going to vote on or make darn sure your staff does!

As for the authors; what the heck is wrong with good fiction anyway? A good read is a good read!

Silence Is Not Always Golden!

Okay, the Blagojevich mess in Illinois isn't what Obama and his transition team need at the moment. What puzzles me is why Obama doesn't speed things up by clarifying who has talked with the governor and why. How long does an internal investigation of his inner circle take? It isn't that large! If someone lied to Obama, even if it's his designated chief of staff, he ought to be out of there immediately if not sooner!

I would expect, if it wasn't Obama himself, the filling of his Senate seat would have been talked about in some sense without it having any degree of impropriety. After all, the Governor is the only one with the power to fill it. This parsing of words on Obama's part and the stone walling by Rahm Emanuel makes it look like business as usual rather than the "change" Obama has been espousing!

The stories are full of conflict. It is reported that Obama and Blagojevich didn't like each other. It's a different story with Rahm Emanuel. One story has it that he may have been the one who tipped authorities. Others place him in a far more compromising position.

When he skips a news conference and refuses reporter's questions because he's being a "father" attending a concert in which his daughters were performing, it smacks.

If he was the informant I should think he would be applauded. If he merely had a conversation about who the candidates might be, what harm is there in that? If he tried to influence the decision and was held up for it, that's a whole different ball game. That isn't just Chicago nor Illinois politics. That's politics as usual.

If there is indeed an attempt to cover up someones involvement, mark my words it will come out. If Obama is trying to sweep this under the rug it won't work. As it stands now, if it isn't fully resolved by January 20 he will take the oath of office under a cloud that may never lift.

Politics as usual. What a sacrifice of promise that would be. Especially since it can all be saved with a moment of truth.

Franken (Non)Sense And Mirth Or Mini Ha Ha?

Oh my, the old pun machine is really cranked up today! The subject matter isn't quite as amusing to me, however.

Just think about the state (small "s" on purpose) of Minnesota. It nurtured some stalwarts of the political world in days past. Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone. Whether or not you agreed with their politics, they all left an indelible mark. Then came Jesse Ventura and now Al Franken. Explain to me, please, what qualifies an alum of Saturday Night Live and a rather poor excuse of a talk show on Air America for the United States Senate?

It's no wonder Minnesota's best known small town is called Lake Wobegon! It's hard to grasp it's actually a fictitious place.

Let's get back to Mr. Franken. He is in a tight race against incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman. The race was so close a recount was automatic. I understand each wanting to win, I really do. I wonder, however, when scores of lawyers are being employed by both sides whether the ultimate victor will really be the "winner".

It seems like everything under the sun is being challenged. It has even been taken to the point where if a ballot has no mark for either candidate, it goes to "intent". Mr. Franken is demanding to know the names of those voters so they can personally be questioned. A judge has ruled that the candidates are entitled to those names.

Secret ballot elections are a fundamental American right. They ensure that everyone can vote their choice without peer pressure or harassment and that the choice of the majority prevails. That’s why we use private ballots to elect the president and members of Congress.

The concept has long been under assault by Unions; it should not be dismissed lightly. It's why the likes of Saddam Hussein can be elected with 100% of voters voting and 100% voting for him. It is a right we should fight for, not relinquish.

I leave categories blank on my ballots often. Sometimes I don't have enough knowledge to make an educated decision. Leave it blank. Sometimes I just plain don't like either candidate. I don't have "none of the above" to check off so leave it blank. How dare anyone, especially one of the candidates, question my "intent"! If I slipped up, it's my fault and the ballot should not be counted. Period.

I think the judge has set a dangerous precedent. Ill will is bound to follow, no matter how this sorry story ends. I can't put in print what I'd tell either camp if I were contacted with such a question.

The premise of the secret ballot makes ultimate sense. And it is no laughing matter.

The Slippery Slope From Fear Mongering To Hate Mongering

Ever since 9/11 we have been living in an atmosphere where the fear has been palpable. The administration, while telling us just to go shop, was at the same time forming the Department of Homeland Security to rob us of many of our rights, treat us all as suspected terrorists and tell us if we dared to question their actions we were unpatriotic. The public, in general, nodded their heads and said, "Duh, okay, jist as long as they're keepin' us safe!" Balderdash.

As bad as this has been, it is getting even worse as desperation raises it's ugly head heading into the final weeks of the campaign. Fear mongering. Obama is "palling around with terrorists". Who is the real Obama. Wink, wink.

I'm wondering if the unintended consequence of this baiting isn't far more dangerous than another attack on American soil. It is turning rallies which are supposed to support one candidate into mob mentality against the other. It is one of the most frightening scenarios I've witnessed in politics.

The Washington Post described one event as such:

There were boos, middle fingers turned up and thumbs turned down...

The rhetoric is vehement and irrational. "We have the good Reverend Wright. We have Pfleger. We have all these shady characters that have surrounded him. We have corruption here in Wisconsin and voting across the nation. I am begging you, sir. I am begging you. Take it to him!" This from a radio talk show host. He's nearly as incoherent as Sarah Palin has been.

Even McCain was quoted as saying, "Senator Obama has a clear, radical, far-left, pro-abortion record."

The very worst however, are the women. Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin stirring the fervor. McCain using her own son as bait. "The day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a chill through my body." Please.

Fomenting frustration and raw emotions into hate filled responses like "kill him" is dangerous beyond words. I am appalled that it is two women leading the charge. Especially these two. The potential First Lady and the potential Vice President.

I understand their own frustrations in having to confront the notion that they may not win. But to allow themselves to be so used by the campaign is not only insulting to them, it is insulting to every woman in the country. At their most disappointed, you never heard Hillary supporters saying much other than they'd never vote for Obama. No threats, no character assassination.

As this continues any neutral thoughts I may have had about McCain and his team have eroded. I am embarrassed for these women who'd I'd like to have thought would be above such behavior.

I fear for the mood of the country already stressed to a dangerous degree. No good can come from this tactic. As for women, we're being set back decades.

It's ugly.

Loose Lips And Fact Free

I'm tired of looking at pictures of Sarah Palin so when I saw this I thought it made a good metaphor. Old Navy man John McCain being the ship. Hahahahaaaa.

Yep. It's all beginning to get to me. I read Bill Crystal's pander to Palin in the New York Times and thought there she goes again!

Crystal was having a little chat with Sarah discussing among other things Obama's associations with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers. Now, we knew Wright was going to be resurrected didn't we? Specifically he wanted to know if Wright wasn't in fact the bigger issue because of Obama's closer connection with him.

She had this to say:

"To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character..."

Discussed more? Where were you during the primaries, honey? It was beaten to death and then some!

First, it was explained, ad nauseam, that Reverand Wright did not spend every single sermon lambasting America. And, by checking the dates of the offensive sermons against Obama's schedule found his claims that he was not present to be true.

Oh, I'm getting so weary of Ms. Palin playing catch up and in so doing not doing her homework. Attacking Obama's character can be treading on thin ice. There is the Keating Five issue with McCain now getting some play; there is his Brazilian hottie and the treatment of his first wife that are all ripe for exploitation.

As for Palin, it's out there honey - your alleged affair with your husband's one time business partner not to mention hubby's involvement with a secessionist group. If seceding from the United States isn't anti-American I don't know what is!

Oh yeah, it's all out there. The bloggers have been having a field day with it. The main stream press is beginning to pick it up. But don't blame them for gottcha journalism.

Gottcha!

The Bailout As Political Hay

The campaigns are going nuts. There has been little on the talk shows other than finger pointing. The administration has come out with a plan. It is three pages long. This is of immense importance because now it goes to the House and the Senate. How much pork will be added?

It's important to understand that the posturing by both candidates is for naught. There is nothing either of them can do about the current financial meltdown. Forget that they both are party to the laxity that brought it about in the first place.

We need to know from each of them what their ideas are on how to prevent this from happening again. Some regulation will be necessary. How much and why? They can only speak to the future and we should make them do so.

If the bailout emerges from Congress with any more than the three pages it had going in, I want to know who added what and why. And why I should not vote them out of office.

Lions Of Their Professions

Robert Novak, long time conservative columnist and Ted Kennedy, long time U.S. Senator. The tie that binds is they both have malignant brain tumors. Other than being close to the same age that's where the similarity between the two men ends.

When news of Kennedy's affliction became public there was a tremendous outpouring of support from everyone he has touched during his political career. There seems to be little of the same for Mr. Novak, who too has had a long and illustrious career. I'm supposing it is because, as one reporter described him, he is pugnacious. A man who revels in his "Prince of Darkness" image.

I recall watching him over the years on Cross Fire and The Capital Gang. I distinctly remember that he didn't seem well liked by his fellow panelists. They were always taking shots at him and he absorbed them practically without notice. The first time I noted what he really might be like was when he swore and walked off the set during an interview.

Of course he is most famous for having "outed" Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative. I don't understand all the ins and outs of professional ethics at his level but that he was given a pass by everyone amazed and disturbed me. I guess when you break bread with Karl Rove you have a certain immunity - at least with this administration.

I'm thinking what goes around comes around. Especially when it comes to how you treat people and how they perceive you in return. When Tim Russert died unexpectedly the out pouring of sympathy equaled that for Kennedy. Both men, highly respected, are and were generous of spirit.

Novak, on the other hand, commented in an interview a year ago, "I'm 76 years old and I don't have much time on this earth. There's very little people can do to hurt me and so I say what I want to say."

The "Prince of Darkness" indeed. I wonder if it's lonely having such a title.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly vs. The Bold and the Beautiful!

During the last week or so the local blogs have been filled with hate mongering and some of the most vial commentary to surface in quite awhile. Friends have suffered personal attacks as have I. Such is the nature of blogging. It seems some are most emboldened by anonymity. These episodes, thankfully, are cyclical and hopefully this one has run its course.

In an e-mail from a friend, this observation really struck me. "It's hard to conceive of others always being so negative when there is so much for which we can be positive." That got me to thinking about some of our local blogs that are anything but negative.

Get Out North Idaho! and OnLocation North Idaho are unabashedly pro northern Idaho and community. They contain information about everything and anything there is to do, right-on restaurant reviews, photos galore of attractions and hidden treasures. They are both well written with humor and pride.

These are the blogs to follow to understand what the people who have rich and fulfilling lives do with their time, their friends and their families.

I felt refreshed just browsing through them this afternoon. Interestingly, one is authored by a Spokesman Review columnist, the other by a Coeur d'Alene Press columnist. They both view their community with similar vision. Pride.

Wouldn't it be nice if it was catching?

Unintended Consequences

The conversation continues in regard to the coffee shared by NIC board member Christie Wood and community advocate Mary Souza. It has me puzzled. When word got out that the conversation had been covertly recorded by Ms. Souza, the lid flew off. I found it interesting the direction the different blogs took.

HBO, the Spokesman Review blog broke the news and no one doubted the word of Ms. Wood. Confirmation was immediately requested from Ms. Souza, one of the founders of the openCDA blog. None was forthcoming. There has been no denial but no confirmation. Rather the allegation is being framed as everything from a personal attack to an avoidance of the issue of the conversation.

That doesn't eliminate the reason to believe the conversation was indeed recorded without Ms. Wood's knowledge.

The city and any official that serves it has long been under intense scrutiny by the openCDA members. What I don't understand is what has driven them to pursue such measures during private conversations. It is said, after having obtained the tape, Ms. Souza rushed it to the CDA Press editor and a reporter who was present, claiming - what - proof of some wrong doing? Allegedly neither the reporter nor the editor agreed. Why would anyone resort to such behavior?

It saddens me that a person who has long lived in this community and once served it well, has so much hatred for the current power structure that she felt such an action was necessary. You may think my use of "hatred" is rather "love" of the community. I think not. It would seem to have become an agenda.  Just what exactly that agenda is remains a mystery.

The main consequence, it seems to me, is that the only thing to have come from this sorry incident, is that the wedge between the two sides has just been driven deeper. Those who were once much admired for questioning the process have now been diminished to the level in which they have so ardently placed the power structure.

As one blogger observed, the staunch supporters of both sides will remain loyal. The rest of us will watch the story fade. But the trust has been broken. That's not something to take lightly for it will not be easily regained.

For what?

The Never Ending Battle For Truth, Justice and the Coeur d'Alene Way

Wow! I go away for a few days and I miss all the excitement. It seems our super heroes are back on the job to save us from ourselves!

As I was getting ready to leave last week, the chatter was about a Council meeting during which a councilman asked if anyone was recording it. He asked a few by name plus a reporter. It hit the shadow government blog like fat in a hot pan. What was he afraid of? Why was he so paranoid? Besides it would be perfectly legal if someone was.

It seems in Idaho only one person need know recording is going on. That would mean the person doing the recording. Well, this is Idaho! Nothing much surprises me anymore.

When I returned today, it seems our very own Wonder Woman actually did record a conversation she had - with a police officer no less. There were charges and counter charges about the propriety of this action. Will it rage on? In one way or another I expect so. It's the nature of the town and those who would be the power brokers. Soap writers need only look to Coeur d'Alene politics and they'd never have to stretch their imaginations again.

On a more serious note, I must say I am appalled by what's going on. Even if taping is legal, when is it and when is it not ethical? For keeping track of the facts about a policy question, why not just announce that you'll be taping for the sake of accuracy?

I have long since given up trying to understand our merry band of caped crusaders; their obsession with everything that goes on and their unending search for misdeeds. I have my own thoughts on how they might be more successful in their attempts but any suggestions, given long ago, fell on deaf ears. So be it.

This obsession, however, is now turning ugly and I must say I would never trust one of them again. Like minds and all that. I would not speak to a one of them on the phone. I would be fearful of being honest not knowing how or when it might be used against me.  The knowledge that they are willing to tape is chilling. 

There is a lot of anonymity in blog postings under the guise that people fear for their jobs. If true, it's not a nice community we live in. One where a person can not speak their mind without fear of retribution.

I nearly lost a friend because of this obsession. A comment on a post some time ago sounded so much like this friend I didn't believe her denial. We've discussed it often since. Wonder woman admitted she had made the comment and had signed it as anonymous to protect me. That's when I washed my hands of the whole bunch and apologized profusely and profoundly to my friend.  

What we have here is no longer politics as usual. It's becoming vindictive and vengeful. It is a sad state when a city with such a beautiful lake has such frightening and dangerous undercurrents.

Of Loopholes And Truth Holes

So Obama has come out with a proposal to curb speculation in the energy markets. Speculators - those who would gamble on the price of oil for the benefit of their pocket books and the detriment of everyone else. A reason why gas prices are what they are.

Futures are sold electronically to evade regulation. That allows commodity traders play their game, at our expense, with no public oversight. This is a simplistic explanation of the "Enron Loophole", written by Enron lobbyists back in 2000. Passage through Congress was spearheaded by then Senator Phil Gramm.

Senator McCain's campaign has accused Obama of "mimicking" McCain's lead. McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds says, "John McCain has supported bipartisan efforts to close this loophole and will work to address abuses in oil speculation."

Hmmm.  How can you trust McCain's sincerity about closing this loophole when his chief economic advisor is the same Phil Gramm and while he was busy pushing it through Congress his wife sat on Enron's board of directors?

Talk about an oil slick!

The "Me" Generation

Last night should have belonged to Barack Obama. In his camp and with his family it did. With the media it was split between his historical accomplishment and Hillary Clinton's mean spirited lack of grace.

I am so tired of hearing how she has the "right" to get used to the idea that her hard fought battle has been lost. Nonsense. She's known it for quite sometime; if she hadn't she wouldn't have had to keep changing the rules to favor her. When Terry McAuliffe introduced her as "the next president" at last night's South Dakota victory speech it was a slap at Obama heard around the world.

We've a president now that has refused to recognize reality for the past six years and look at the mess we're in.   Similar tunnel vision is one reason I've not been drawn to Clinton - that, plus her sense of entitlement for which she's done nothing to earn.

For anyone who does not recognize the Clinton campaign has had nothing to do with the Democratic party nor the best interests of the United States, please, review her speech from last night. It's all about something. Hillary. Pure and simple.

Does Obama need her supporters?   To an extent and I believe most will set aside personal preference for good of party and country.

As much as I like what Barack Obama represents, I would rather see him lose the general election and maintain his integrity than win if the only way to do so is to give in to Clinton demands. And that's saying a lot because McCain frightens me too.

Someone needs to take her ego, lock it back in Pandora's box and throw away the key. Enough is enough.

Taming Of The Shrew?

Not a chance. Harold Ickes made that perfectly clear at Saturday's Democratic Rules and Bylaws meeting.

Has Hillary overplayed her hand? Maybe, but my wager is she is not going to fold.

I've been reading Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice. I should have finished it weeks ago but after three or four chapters I get so exercised I have to set it aside for awhile. What I am learning, however, is that everything we have been witness to during this primary season follows Hillary's pattern since childhood. When she gets in hot water she turns to the victim strategy. She does not accept defeat. Period. And, in truth, she is an elitist.

Had she been of a different generation, she may not have attached her ambitions to Bill Clinton. Every choice she made since the day they met was calculated to elevate him to the presidency. She had the instincts, the drive and the discipline he lacked. She sacrificed hugely for the effort. He had the ability to schmooze. He sacrificed little and benefited mightily.

Time and again during their tenure in Arkansas it was suggested perhaps the wrong Clinton was being supported. That was probably a correct observation. She mastered the art of compartmentalizing her bruised feelings, inflicted by Bill's inability and unwillingness to curb his own weaknesses. He, and her ambitions for him, always prevailed.

Now it's her turn. It would seem she has some weaknesses of her own. An ego without check. A campaign staff and spokesmen, including Bill, who are less than warm and fuzzy. A penchant for miscalculation - the primary would be over super Tuesday. Rules don't matter unless they are to her benefit.

She has said all those against her are misogynists, haters of women. Does that mean the women who so fervently back her are misandrists? Haters of men? Sometimes I've wondered! They certainly have no comprehension of fair play, truth or rules. Nor do the have any comprehension of the fact that people who don't back Hillary have very valid reasons. That she is female has nothing to do with it.

I'm guessing if Hillary does bow out of the race before the convention it will be with a great deal of reluctance and no poker face. I'm guessing she'll do no more than absolutely necessary to bring the party together or to help Obama beat McCain.

We know by now she's not a team player. We know rules are not meant for her. We know that the Clinton to be feared is Hillary, not Bill. What we don't know is whether or not she will have expended all her political capital by the time this is over.

Will she rise from the flames like a phoenix or has she driven a stake through her own heart?

Chasing Votes

With apologies to the late Al Capp, this illustration reminded me of Hillary in West Virginia chasing votes.

She is expected to win both West Virginia and Kentucky. They are Clinton strongholds. Largely white and working class. Miners. Hard scrabble work. Good people. Older. That's the key word. The young who can, leave.

Even with a lopsided victory tomorrow, it will do little to help Clinton's effort. The party elite figure as long as she does nothing to hurt Obama's chances, she can go where ever and do what ever she wants. Okay. I'll buy into that.

However, an article in today's Financial Times adds a disturbing dimension to the story. It quotes a retired coal miner, a life long Democrat, who vowed to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Why? "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist."

This, after all the Jeremiah Wright flap. Do these folks live in a vacuum? Well they do have the lowest college graduation rate in the country, mainly because they can't afford to send the young to college.

Then again, a school administrator had this to say, "If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia. He doesn't understand ordinary Americans." Whew! Like I said. A vacuum.

Even one of the younger set had this to say, "I want someone who is a full blooded American as President."

Are the campaigning Clintons doing anything to correct this misthinking? Oh, I don't think so. Not when Bill tells them Hillary represents "people like you, in places like this", to send a message to the "higher type people " who are trying to force her out of the race.

This from a Rhodes Scholar, graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School about his Wellesley/Yale Law educated wife. Yep. Just ordinary folks.

If ignoring false impressions and creating false impressions aren't a way of doing harm to Obama's chances I don't know what would be.

Then too, I had to read the Financial Times to find this. The London Financial Times.

Just Which Administration's Policies Would Be Continued?

Well, North Carolina and Indiana are now behind us. Hillary has made it perfectly clear she has no intention of quitting though continuing is sure putting a dent in her pocketbook.

Much has been said by both Democratic spokespeople about moving on, not allowing John McCain to continue as the surrogate for George Bush's third term. What about Bill Clinton's third term? Is that not what Hillary would be? A surrogate for Bill's third?

Okay. The lady wants to win. No one enters the race not wanting to win, but just how much is she diminishing herself in the process? It seems every twist and turn she takes makes it less clear as to what she really represents? The gas tax holiday is a page from McCain. A bad one at that.

Is her obstinate determination not unlike Bush's? Is she seeing only what she wants to see rather than reality?

I'll be waiting to see how many super delegates come forward before the West Virginia primary. She should win because of the demographic mind set. Obama is black. Same in Kentucky. But as all the pundits have made clear, the math isn't working for her. Yet she continues.

It's so everyone has a chance to have their say in this historical election. She's still more electable than Obama. She'd make the better president, commander-in-chief, and so forth and so on.

The Clinton's still maintain a lot of clout within the party. That's pretty clear. But is it too diminishing because this relentless pursuit, using every tactic imaginable, is showing them to be what they actually are? Is it for the good of the country? Or is it for the good of a couple of narcissistic opportunists?

Time will tell.

My Way Or The Highway!

Dan Henninger wrote a column in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal asking where all the self-proclaimed supporters of Barack Obama were during the darkest hours of his ordeal with former Pastor Jeremiah Wright. You know, like Ted Kennedy, Patrick and Caroline, Oprah, Bill Richardson, Robert Reich, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller. Just a few of the better known. Good question. Where were they? There was certainly no outcry of support for Obama!

A letter to the editor in today's Journal may have answered that question. They are afraid of the Clintons. There may be more than a little truth to that. Hub has had a theory for some time now that Bill is proficient with photoshop and has pictures of every single super delegate. Back Hillary or the press will get them.

Win at all costs is one of the Clinton family mantras it would seem. You've seen it in Hillary's treatment of Obama. You've seen it in James Carville's treatment of Bill Richardson.

I get nervous as I watch a man of the church exercise ego over judgement in the treatment of a one time friend, member of his congregation and presidential candidate and the voting public can't divorce the story of the pastor from the story of the candidate.

I get even more nervous when the desire to win is so egocentric that every state that has voted for the opposition is dismissed as not important; facts are twisted even with documentation staring them in the face; people across the board are summarily trashed for backing the opponent, sabres are rattled over a country that can be "obliterated" and the voting public looks at all this and says, "Wow! Look how strong she is! She can handle the job!"

It disappoints me that the character of the Clintons and their history has so little resonance with the voters. Vote gender. Vote race. Character doesn't matter. Honesty doesn't matter. The threat of retribution does on the delegate level.

You'd think the threat of an additional war would with the voting public.

Bottomed Out?

The newspaper business is in trouble. Their very existence depends on revenue and the largest chunk of that revenue is derived from advertising. It is diminishing.

Our regional paper, The Spokesman Review, is not immune from such problems. Those of us who hang around it's blogging arena are well aware of it. Not so long ago there were huge cuts in not only reporting and support staff but even the geographical areas of coverage. With a great deal of reshuffling and reassignment it appeared they had gotten a handle on the problem for at least the time being.

A column written about the president of the Better Business Bureau serving eastern Washington, northern Idaho and western Montana, Jan Quintrall, made me wonder if in fact they have. In her column she asks a very valid question. When reporting complaints should names be named or merely categories.

For better than five years she was free to name names, but now those names are being edited out for the most flimsy of reasons. She was told that the editors "believe our readers came away from from your column with exactly the information you sought to convey - be careful when dealing with companies in these 10 industries."

Bunk! Ms. Quintrall goes on to explain the fallacy of this type of thinking - why specific companies are named. It's a no brainer. Not every business in a category is guilty of questionable practices! We probably, at one time or another, patronize businesses in all categories. If certain ones are not serving us well we need to know and that is the function of the Better Business Bureau. It is the one neutral avenue the consumer has!

It also brings into question the ethics of the newspaper and perception. One could assume that some of those named are heavy advertisers. Or is it merely perception? It opens a Pandora's Box on the issue of trust. If one perceives the above, one could also question the credibility of the paper's news coverage. I often point out stories covered by one of the two papers in the area that are not reported by the other. Or the differences in content if covered by both. I've never probed the issue of why.

Is it time? I hope not.