Richardson's dilemma

So who to endorse?

As the highest-ranking Hispanic in the Democratic Party, Richardson's endorsement is being aggressively sought by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. California, Colorado, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico are among the 22 states voting next week, and each have sizable Hispanic electorates. Richardson, who cruised to re-election as New Mexico governor in 2006, is a popular figure in the Hispanic community.

Richardson's torn. He served in the Clinton White House, first as ambassador to the United Nations, then as Clinton's Secretary of Energy. "I have a history with the Clintons," Richardson said. "And I've always liked her. She always seems very genuine." But Richardson considers Kennedy, who's long been respected by Hispanics, as "a mentor." In 1982, when Richardson ran for Congress for the second time -- he lost two years before -- Kennedy flew to Santa Fe and campaigned for him. "That might have been the reason I was elected," Richardson said. And he said he likes Obama, telling a story about how Obama saved him during one of last year's Democratic debates:

"I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'"

Bill, endorse Barack Obama!

Poll Vaulting

I love how people continue to claim Billary is the front-runner. That is really kind of funny. She is a front runner is the polls, most of which are done with telephone calls. A number of the telephone polling is done with automated messages. When is the last time you listened to an automated message that called you? I don't even have a home phone (just a cell) and I suspect that large numbers of people don't either. The current numbers are heavily skewed to old voters who like Clinton. They are not a true reflection of who people are going to vote for as seen by their dismal failure to predict the NH and SC contests.

I'm a Virginia voter for Barack Obama

Whether I realized it at the time, or not, I had made this decision in the summer of 2004. Seeing Barack Obama speak before the DNC Covention that year was the first time in my life (I'll be 26 in April) that I had seen a living politician who inspired me. What's more is that his speech surprised my very conservative mother & even elicited a surprised grunt from my moderate father.

As early as spring of 2006 I was walking on the mall with Jacob and we were discussing the viability of the possible Dem candidates for 2008. We discussed Edwards, Obama, Billary, and even Mark Warner of Virginia (who has now announced that he will be Senator Mark Warner come November of 2008, thank you very much [seriously....the RNC is running Jim Gilmore against him? Are they trying to set a new record for biggest landslide defeat? I mean, cmon guys - you're trying too hard. Srsly....]). I was hopeful about Obama but Jacob was reticent about his "electability" in the South. He and I having both grown up in the South, we know as well as anyone what ugly skeletons still lurk in closets there. I kept thinking, sure but the same people that are likely to have racial problems with Barack are the same people who would be voting for a BushClone anyway. I told him that my concern was the we would be stupid enough to give Hilary the nomination where, it is without question, she is very very unpopular in certain parts of the country. My parents, for instance, while they aren't enthused about any of the Republican candidates & might actually vote for Barack, are thoroughly opposed to Hilary. It seems like this throughout the South. In Red & Purple states, moderates are willing to come across the isle & vote for Obama but will either stay at home or vote for the other team if its Hilary. Look at South Carolina. Yes there is a large black population there but I don't think the 55% to 27% gap was due to that only - I think the anti-Hilary sentiment plays in there as well.

Anywho - moving on. Other reasons I want prefer Obama over Hilary? Rather than explain myself, I'm going to quote Dave Winer from his blog at Scripting News. If you don't know Dave, & are a geek, well... then you should.  A brief description:

Dave Winer, 52, pioneered the development of weblogs, syndication (RSS), podcasting, outlining, and web content management software; former contributing editor at Wired Magazine, research fellow at Harvard Law School, entrepreneur, and investor in web media companies. A native New Yorker, he received a Master's in Computer Science from the University of Wisconsin, a Bachelor's in Mathematics from Tulane University and currently lives in Berkeley, California.

Anyway - I generally agree with most things he says & think he makes some very very good points in several posts that he has made over the last several weeks.

From January 22nd:

If Bill Clinton doesn't get off the campaign trail, other leading Dems should get out and stump for Obama, to level the field.
I said this on Twitter and Adam Wygle sent a pointer to this site, that says it better than I could.
22nd Amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."

From January 24th:

A couple of weeks ago I didn't really think Bill Clinton would be a problem if HIllary was elected. I thought he might be a curmudgeonly joke of a First Lady. "There he goes again, he's so funny."
Yeah uh huh. Sure.
I didn't think it was an issue until Bill started throwing the mud so aggressively. Then I noticed that Hillary was talking about the first two terms as a plural accomplishment, as if she were in office then. The more he attacks and the more she takes credit for the first two terms, the more I think they're fucking with the Constitution.
Further, there are good reasons why the first lady (or first spouse) isn't actively involved in running the government, so we don't have to understand how good their marriage is, and they get a tiny bit of privacy. Then we remember how their marriage was in the middle of everything when they were in charge, and god damn we don't need that mess now. We've got so many other things to deal with.
I'm so opposed to them that depending on who the Republicans nominate I could actually see myself voting for a Republican if Hillary is nominated. I can't believe that after listening to her on Meet The Press a couple of weeks ago I was almost ready to vote for her. What a mistake that would have been.

From January 24th:

I was totally on the fence until they started saying he said things he didn't say. Maybe I could have ignored it if he hadn't been saying things we need him to say, imho. The reason people running for office don't try to express complicated ideas is because people like the Clintons will spin it with confusion, and try to convince us he said something idiotic, corrupt or naive.
And even that wouldn't be so bad, but the insult of the Clintons isn't that they're playing unfairly to defeat a good candidate, but they're insulting our intelligence or saying we're ignorant. The only way we could misunderstand what they're doing is if we didn't understand what Obama said, or if we didn't bother to listen. Speaking for myself only, neither are true.
To be clear, Obama said something that Pat Moynihan said first, a NY Democrat known for his intellect. He said that the Republicans had become the "party of ideas." Neither Moynihan or Obama said the ideas were good, or supportable, just that they had some.
A picture named thinkUsa.gifThe Democrats, Obama said, were not known for having ideas. I would agree with that. Further, the most effective Presidents have been those who could express simple important truths in ways that got people to listen and act. The greatest Presidents are the ones who did that, and who led us to a good place or a necessary one. The two outstanding Presidents in recent history are Roosevelt and Kennedy, both Democrats. That we have a candidate this year who aspires to be a Roosevelt or a Kennedy is something I support. If he doesn't win because the electorate prefers a technocrat and workhorse (Hillary Clinton) so be it. But I'll never forgive the Clintons if they win by dragging our aspirations down into the mud, which after all is what they did when they were in office.
Who knows how their marriage works, and after all this time, who wants to know? I sure don't. But that's becoming a central issue in the 2008 election, as it becomes more clear that the Clinton family is running for a third term, circumventing the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution. It's a bad idea.
If we want to do a great job of digging out of the Bush mess, we'regoing to need great leadership and we're going to have to rally behind and support our leader. Now that the primary campaign may well be entering its final phase, it's clear we're now at a fairly historic moment. My vote goes not just for change, but for hope. Obama might not be the most qualified at a technical level, but we can make up for that. We the people, this is our country, to make something of, or to give up on. A vote for the Clintons is giving up on our greatness. A vote for Obama says "Let's keep going."

From January 27th:

It was an interesting election until the Clintons started calling Obama the nice young African-American candidate. Yeah, I lived in the south long enough to understand what that means. When I went to Tulane I was often explained as soandso's Jewish friend Dave. It meant that I could come over for dinner, but there would never be a marriage.
I should say The Old South. The problem for the Clintons is that the country has changed, as recently as the generation that's now in its early 20s. Because of my experience at Harvard, I know quite a few of them, and I promise you, race doesn't mean to them what it meant when I was their age. To them, this country is a melting pot where we've not only accepted blacks and Hispanics, but people from incredibly far away with incredible complexions, hair, clothes, traditions and names. Amazingly, it's still America.
A picture named whitewashingthepast.gifThis time around a young African-American with a funny name is very mainstream, so much so that the blatant appeal racism of the white-haired old man is as ridiculous as the praise Trent Lott gave to the almost-dead holdover from the Old South, Strom Thurmond.
The problem for Clinton is actually much worse, we now saw how she'd govern. Let's say a young African-American Senator from Illiinois got in the way. Would she argue the issues with him in a respectful way? Why bother when you can smear him into silence. Now she spins around like her husband oblivious to what the rest of us suspected, and now knows for sure. If there isn't now a landslide of support for Obama, from all segments of the Democratic Party and from many Republicans, then our country truly is without hope. I suspect that's not what will happen, and we'll see the same kind of weak attempt at redemption that Trent Lott tried after his fiasco. It won't work, because, as with Lott, we've seen too much.
Now do we know that Obama would be any different? We don't. My cynical side says of course he's just like the Clintons say. "Give me a break" -- it's a "fairy tale." (BTW, I'm quoting the Clintons accurately, a form of respect they don't practice.) Maybe they're right. Maybe this is the last (futile) gasp of hope in America for America. Okay, maybe so. But I'm willing to give it one more try. I think it would say to the rest of the world that America has caught up with reality. Look at how we've changed. Maybe they'll put pictures of Obama in their public buildings as they did with JFK. I could think of worse things. (Caroline Kennedy thinks it's possible.)
What a fantastic way to recover from Bush, who so completely represented the greed and arrogance and uglyness of America, to reinvent ourselves in the image of our best, in the image of hope.
Hope, that's the difference, and it's not just a word. We've all been disempowered during the Clinton and Bush years, sidelined. I remember when I gave up on Clinton, it was during the brightest period of hope for the web, when they passed a compromise that said that the First Amendment didn't apply here. There are some things that are so important that you can't compromise on them. It was then that I knew that Clinton (and Gore) were phonies. Maybe Obama isn't. I never thought I'd get another chance to use my vote to say, along with so many other Americans, that we still believe the bullshit they taught us in school and that our grandparents taught us, and that the flag says to us every time we think of what it means. There's a reason this country is so great. We forgot it. Let's remember.
Bill Clinton wanted us to think well of him when he spoke at Davos in 2000. I choose to remember what he said then, Find A Shared Vision. If by any chance he should read this, I'd say it's time for you to not just say those words but to live them.

By the way: the above post by Dave made it to the Huffington Post the next day.

From January 28th:

Most of what Chris Matthews says is mindless trash, but today he pulled out a great analogy immediately after Ted Kennedy's stirring endorsement of Obama.
A picture named amadeus.gifHe compared Hillary Clinton to the character Salieri in the movie Amadeus. Until Mozart came along he was the leading composer in Vienna, but he was just a workman, a technician. Mozart had inspiration, feeling, the spirit. Salieri, even though he lived a long life and Mozart died young, is a footnote to Mozart's lasting greatness.
Matthews nailed it.
Maybe this makes up for his calling the voters of New Hampshire racists because he and every other pundit read the polling data wrong. ;->

This was a very very long post & I understand if few of my readers will consume it all, however, for the few of you that might read it in its entirety I am glad. I thought it was a post that needed to be written.

Please vote for Barack Obama: its the medication this country needs to get over Dubya.

Tom D'Antoni: Candidates In Pissing Contest as Washington Burns

This week the U.S. Senate Democrats caved in again....twice. Once on re-authorizing illegal domestic spying by giving immunity to the Telcos' past criminal offenses. Next on the spare change hand-out which patronizes most of America.

That was bad enough. Bad enough to make one lose further faith in the Congressional Democrats who voted with Bush. It another example of the Democrats' litany of "we want to work with the Republicans and stop the partisan bickering," in action. In fact, 99% of the partisan bickering has come from the Republicans.

What's worse is that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were absent from duty while this was going on, missing both votes and engaging in a juvenile pissing contest while campaigning.

Amidst the pissing, they had a few things to say about what they would do if elected. Back when they were running for Senate, they also told voters what they would do. Unfortunately, they did not promise those who voted to elect them to Congress that they would miss two of the most important votes of the year by talking smack at each other while running for President.

The media, needing no excuses to ignore substantive issues, loves a fight. Therefore, the two votes that Clinton and Obama missed were also missed by most of the media, or buried so far down that they bumped up against the day's Brittney Spears incident.

Since they didn't make the votes, they obviously couldn't talk about the issues, thereby ignoring the issues. Vicious cycle isn't it?

All this is supposed to make us have faith that either one of them can bring us change? For a dollar, maybe.

The Dems know they have us progressives by the balls. We have nowhere else to go. We're not going to allow another Republican to be elected, or to steal another election. There's no alternative. And Mayor Billionberg won't get us.

It wasn't supposed to be like this.

Who is to say that, even with a Democratic President and Congress, what needs to get done WILL get done? I'll believe it when I see it and all I see is the Republican in the White House having his agenda furthered by a Democratic Congress, in the face of his overwhelming unpopularity in America.

To hope that the candidates will stop pissing on each other and begin to deal with their responsibilities as United States Senators and as the future President, is about the same as hoping you'll win PowerBall. And yet we go back and play again and again. That is our strength and our folly.



(Via The Huffington Post | Raw Feed.)

Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for $1 a Gallon, and Without Corn

coskata_ethanol_630px A biofuel startup in Illinois can make ethanol from just about anything organic for less than $1 per gallon, and it wouldn't interfere with food supplies, company officials said.

Coskata, which is backed by General Motors and other investors, uses bacteria to convert almost any organic material, from corn husks (but not the corn itself) to municipal trash, into ethanol.

"It's not five years away, it's not 10 years away. It's affordable, and it's now," said Wes Bolsen, the company's vice president of business development.

The discovery underscores the rapid innovation under way in the race to make cellulosic ethanol cheaply. With the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring an almost five-fold increase in ethanol production to 36 billion gallons annually by 2022, scientists are working quickly to reach that breakthrough.

"It signals just how hot the competition is right now," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There are a lot of people diving into this right now, trying to figure out how to crack the nut. This increases my confidence that someone will do it."

Besides cutting production costs to fire sale prices, the process avoids some key drawbacks of making ethanol from corn, company officials said. It wouldn't impact the food supply, and its net energy balance is high because the technique works almost anywhere using almost anything with great efficiency. The end result will be E85 sold at the pump for about a dollar cheaper per gallon than gasoline, according to the company.

Coskata won't have a pilot plant running until this time next year, and it will produce just 40,000 gallons a year. Still, several experts said Coskata shows enough promise to leave them cautiously optimistic.

"The question will come down to 'Can they deliver?'" said Nathanael Greene, a senior energy-policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The approach is interesting and promising in the problems it addresses."

Coskata uses existing gasification technology to convert almost any organic material into synthesis gas, which is a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Rather than fermenting that gas or using thermo-chemical catalysts to produce ethanol, Coskata pumps it into a reactor containing bacteria that consume the gas and excrete ethanol. Richard Tobey, Coskata's vice president of engineering, says the process yields 99.7 percent pure ethanol.

Gasification and bacterial conversion are common methods of producing ethanol, but biofuel experts said Coskata is the first to combine them. Doing so, they said, merges the feedstock flexibility of gasification with the relatively low cost of bacterial conversion.

Tobey said Coskata's method generates more ethanol per ton of feedstock than corn-based ethanol and requires far less water, heat and pressure. Those cost savings allow it to turn, say, two bales of hay into five gallons of ethanol for less than $1 a gallon, the company said. Corn-based ethanol costs $1.40 a gallon to produce, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

The company plans to have its first commercial-scale plant producing up to 100,000 gallons of ethanol a year by 2011. Friedman and Greene said the timeline is realistic.

May Wu, an environmental scientist at Argonne National Laboratory, says Coskata's ethanol produces 84 percent less greenhouse gas than fossil fuel even after accounting for the energy needed to produce and transport the feedstock. It also generates 7.7 times more energy than is required to produce it. Corn ethanol typically generates 1.3 times more energy than is used producing it.

Making ethanol is one thing, but there's almost no infrastructure in place for distributing it. But the company's method solves that problem because ethanol could be made locally from whatever feedstock is available, Tobey said.

"You're not bound by location," he said. "If you're in Orange County, you can use municipal waste. If you're in the Pacific Northwest, you can use wood waste. Florida has sugar. The Midwest has corn. Each region has been blessed with the ability to grow its own biomass."

Still, consumers will need some way of getting that fuel into their vehicle. Less than 1 percent of the nation's 170,000 gas stations sell E85, said Mike Omotoso, senior manager of the global power train group at J.D. Power & Associates.

"Even if you produce it county by county, you still need an infrastructure," he said. "People aren't going to go to some remote location for fuel."

But with production set to ramp up quickly to meet the 36 billion gallon mandate, ethanol advocates believe it won't be long before E85 is widely available.

This article courtesy of Wired.com

FLASHBACK: Economists Predicted That A Prolonged U.S. Presence In Iraq Could Lead To A Recession

In yesterday’s press briefing, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino about the tie between the current U.S. economy and the Iraq war. Perino quickly dismissed the reporter’s question, insisting that the U.S. economy has been “very strong” and adding that the money was necessary to “take the fight to the enemy” after 9/11.

Oil prices are at approximately $88 a barrel, although they have dropped from the record high of $100 earlier this month. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently noted in Vanity Fair, “The soaring price of oil is clearly related to the Iraq war. The issue is not whether to blame the war for this but simply how much to blame it.”

Before the war, economists were predicting that oil prices at just $75 a barrel could potentially send the U.S. economy into a recession. Therefore, the current economic situation should not come as a complete shock to the Bush administration. A look at economists’ pre-war predictions:

“A war against Iraq could cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars, play havoc with an already depressed domestic economy and tip the world into recession because of the adverse effect on oil prices, inflation and interest rates, an academic study [by William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale University] has warned.” [Independent, 11/16/02]

If war with Iraq drags on longer than the few weeks or months most are predicting, corporate revenues will be flat for the coming year and will put the U.S. economy at risk of recession, according to a poll of chief financial officers.” [CBS MarketWatch, 3/20/03]

“If the conflict wears on or, worse, spreads, the economic consequences become very serious. Late last year, George Perry at the Brookings Institution ran some simulations and found that after taking into account a reasonable use of oil reserves, a cut in world oil production of just 6.5 percent a year would send the United States and the world into recession.” [Robert Shapiro, former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, 10/2/02]

“Gerd Häusler, the IMF’s director of international capital markets, said that ‘purely from a financial markets perspective, a serious conflict with Iraq would not be a very healthy development.’ … Häusler said there could be a repeat of what happened in 1990 following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when there was a sharp rise in oil prices.” [World Bank, 9/02]

MoveOn has a petition here to tell Congress to “quickly pass a stimulus package that helps those who need it the most and will spend it the fastest.”

UPDATE: Martin at Scholars and Rogues has more.

Transcript:

QUESTION: Dana, how can the president give a great financial boost to help the ailing economy when it’s being held down by $9 billion a month to pay for the Iraq war? How is he going to really bring that together?

PERINO: Well, I don’t — you know, we’ve been at war, as you know, since September 11th, the day after September 11th, when the president decided we were going to take the fight to the enemy. And during the past several years, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, during those years that we’ve been at war, this economy has been very strong. We’ve had 52 consecutive months of job growth.

And fighting the war and making sure our troops have what they need is going to be imperative to the safety of this nation. The president does not apologize for spending money on national security.

Going forward, what the president wants to do in this short-term package is to make sure that we get enough money moving in the economy so that we can avoid the potential risks of a downturn.

QUESTION: I’m not saying apologize, but that is a fact that on your books, if you’re saying you have a checkbook, you’re writing out your checks for the $9 billion a month, and then you still have other things. You say you want to give incentives to businesses, financially, I guess, and tax relief to consumers. How do you balance those books, though…

PERINO: I think I would flip it around and say I think that members of Congress might be able to find some of their pet projects and their earmarks that they could eliminate, that could help with this package. We’re talking about, you know, 1 percent of GDP that’s going to be robust enough to be able to have an impact.

But the president is certainly not going to shortchange our troops. One of the most important things he can do is make sure that the economy stays strong, that it supports all Americans and it certainly supports the troops.

And it supports the economies overseas as well, in terms of if you look at places like Iraq, we’ve been able to help them over the past several years, as they’re getting their democracy under way, but their economy is starting to improve as well. And so we can start transferring over to the Iraqis more of that responsibility. And the Iraqis right now, I think today, are talking through their budget for 2009. And they’re moving forward in a way that we would want them to. And they were going to take up a lot more responsibility to pay for their own security and their roads and bridges and their schools, all the things that we pay for here.