You know, if I really admired and respected someone to the point that I named them one of "three wise men" that I would consult if I were President, and that person said something highly critical of me, I wouldn't be whining because some third person didn't repudiate the criticism. I'd be talking to that person, finding out why they were being critical, and doing some self-searching to see if there was any validity in the criticism.

What is the point in having advisors if you only listen to them when they say things that you agree with? We've had eight years of a President who has rejected any advice that didn't agree with his preconceived notions. We don't need four more.

That's why my running mate and I bring him up every chance we get.

Well, kind of.

NSFW due to language.

Hayden Panettiere PSA

Josh reports on the front page that Todd Palin gave a deposition on the 'Troopergate' affair (which was promptly leaked by his lawyer). An interesting paragraph from the Anchorage Daily News:

"In his statement, Palin is unapologetic about his efforts to get Wooten fired, but he says he doesn't think those efforts had anything to do with Monegan's dismissal. He said his understanding is that Monegan lost his job due to a 'dispute with the governor and her staff over budget issues and failure to fill trooper vacancies.'"

He refers to the governor as if he doesn't even know her, rather than being her husband.

Todd Palin also says that there was bad blood between Governor Palin and Monegan because he didn't always provide a state trooper airplane for her to use as often as she wanted.

Maybe she shouldn't have put the governor's plane on EBay?

McCain:

“And I'm going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.”

I tried to change my avatar, and now I don't have one at all. I go into my profile and select a jpg file 64 pixils wide and click on save. Nothing happens.

Any suggestions about what I might be doing wrong?

I don't know if this guy is a crook or not, but if he isn't, he's certainly making it easy for the Republicans to paint him as one.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats should do the right thing and remove him from his chairmanship. It would send a message that the Democrats are different when it comes to possible corruption.

Even if Rep. Rangel is only guilty of making multiple honest mistakes, that kind of inattention to detail is not the image that the Democrats should be projecting for their leadership.

You're probably seen this quote from Governor Palin:

"You're gonna hear a lot about the abusive practice of earmarks in Congress from our good senator here. We championed in Alaska reform of the old earmark process. I told Congress, `Thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge To Nowhere up in Alaska. If our state wanted a bridge, we were gonna build it ourselves."

and know that it isn't true. But Governor Palin's own words show that is a blatant lie:

"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329-million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island."

She took the money and spent it on other projects. She didn't say, "No, thanks."

So, not only is it a lie, but the truth is the exact opposite of what Governor Palin says. Congress told her that if she wanted to build a bridge to nowhere, that she'd have to use Alaska money.

Dear Mr. Marshall:

I am eight years old. Some of my little friends say that there is no Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. They have teased me horribly because I said that I believe in it.

I said, "There must be a Fourth Amendment, or else how could there be a Fifth Amendment?"

One of the boys (it was that nasty Georgie W.) said, "Dummy, what makes you think there is a Fifth Amendment?"

I kicked him in the nuts, which was very satisfying, but it got me sent to the principal's office. The principal (we call him Mr. O), used to teach constitutional law. He said that there was a Fourth Amendment, but that it hadn't meant anything in years. In fact, he said the Founding Fathers just meant it to be an ideal, like that phrase "all men are created equal" and wasn't really supposed to be taken literally.

After I got home, I asked my cranky Uncle Dick if there was a Fourth Amendment. Frankly, he was kind of a prick about it. He said, "Shut up, kid, or I'll send you to Guant, Guantan, I mean Cuba, and have them waterboard you."

When my papa got home, I asked him. He said, "If you see it on TPM, it's usually the truth. At least if you stick to the staff-written articles. The other stuff, you're on your own."

So, Mr. Marshall, please tell me the truth; is there a Fourth Amendment? Does it mean anything?

Sincerely,

Virginia C.

TPM reported that Obama picked up two more superdelegate, Texas Democratic Party chairman Boyd Richie and his wife. An interesting tidbit in the Dallas Morning News article is this:

"Texas is sending 228 delegates to the national convention. Almost all of them are pledged according to primary and caucus results, except the superdelegates and three others the chairman gets to select."

Seems likely that Obama will actually get a net gain of five, rather than just two.

I can't say I care much for the idea, but I'm beginning the think that Obama is going to have to offer Hillary the vice presidential slot, whether he wants to or not.

He has a real, unsurmountable lead in pledged delegates. It seems improbably that the superdelegates will overturn that. But he has not racked up the kind of victories that would make everyone acknowledge the he is the clear winner.

Whether you buy them or not, Hillary's arguments about the popular vote and victories in the big states have gained some traction. More importantly, her supporters believe them. A discouraging high percentage of them claim that they will not vote Democratic is Hillary is not the nominee. At this point, can we take the risk that they will not follow through on this threat?

I think Obama may have to publicly offer the slot to make peace in the party. Then it will be up to her whether or  to accept it.

I think she would accept it, because she really wants to be president, and history tells us that a lot of vice presidents have become President due to death. Furthermore, if a President Obama serves two full terms, his vice president would have front-runner status in 2016, and that would be hard for a 68 year old Hillary to compete with if the vice president is not her.

Making her the vice presidential nominee would cut the potential rebellion of her supporters off at the knees. Few of them would be willing to vote against electing the first woman vice president.

Her campaign has made me really dislike Hillary. But if it's a question of winning with her on the ticket and losing without her, I'd take her.

For anyone who is not aware of it, I'd like to recommend White House Watch, an online column by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post.

Mr. Froomkin scans the online media for information about what's going on currently in the White House, and posts a five page summary (with links) every week day.

Today's column leads with the question of whether General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, was duped about the torture at Guantánamo Bay and other prisons.

Honestly, Froomkin's is the one column most worth reading anymore in the Post.

I missed the debate last night, but from what I've read, it was the usual, with the questioners going for "gotcha" questions, spreading heat, but little light.

I've been very disappointed in the debates I've seen. The questions have been mostly about "controversies" that have arisen during campaigning, and very little about how the candidates would govern as president. Has anyone ever asked the Democratic candidates their position on the unitary executive theory or signing statements?

It seems unlikely that Senators Clinton and Obama will have any more debates, but here are some ideas that I've been thinking about for a better debate. These ideas could also be used in the general campaign.

First, lose the sponsoring networks. They are unnecessary, and most of the questioning has been inane. If the two candidates agree to debate again, they should jointly rent a hall and anounce that they are going to have a debate, and that a feed will be provided for anyone who wants to broadcast the debate, with appropriate breaks. Someone, C-SPAN, if no one else, would.

As for the format, the two candidates should pick a moderator that both can agree on. The moderator can either formulate the questions or solicit question from other sources (newspapers, internet, etc.).

Alternatively, the candidates could submit questions that they think should be asked. The moderator would alternate between the two sets of questions.

What I'd really like to see is the candidates go head to head. Each candidate would alternate asking the other a question. The other would respond, and the questioning candidate would then have a chance for rebuttal.

I think a debate like this would be much more interesting, and have a chance of allowing the candidates to present useful information to the voters.

The competition for the Democratic nomination has become increasingly bitter. No matter who you think is at fault, you can be sure that there are people who support the other candidate who believe the same thing about your candidate.

I'm beginning to wonder if we've passed the point where either candidate can heal the wounds and hard feelings of the other side after being nominated. If not, the nomination may be a prize not worth winning. I know that the blogosphere is not representative of Democratic voters in general. But I've seen increasing numbers of comments on varying blogs that say "If X is the nominee there's no way I'll for Y. I'll vote for McCain first (or not vote, or write in X).

One thing we have learned from the recent unpleasantness (if we didn't already know it) is that there are still people in this country who are not willing to vote for an African American for president, and some of them are Democrats. There are undoubtedly people who feel the same way about voting for a woman.

If the Democratic Party is not united behind whoever our nominee is, we're going to lose. I think putting John McCain in the White House would be a disaster for not only the Democratic Party, but the country.

In the days before the delegates were chosen directly by voters, when a party could not coalesce around a single candidate, it was possible for party leaders to do whatever it took to get a candidate, even if it meant nominating a dark horse who wasn't one of the leading candidates.

I don't know if that could even be done today. One, I don't know if there would be a candidate that both Obama and Clinton would enthusiastically support, and I don't know if the voters would accept the legitimacy of a nominee who few if any voted for in the primaries.

I don't have any answers to the situation. I am increasingly concerned about the increasingly harsh words that are being spoken on behalf of the two candidates and what it may portend for the general election.

The Washington Post is reporting that Senator Clinton is stating flatly that Senator Obama is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022002981.html?hpid=topnews
'"One of us is ready to be commander in chief," she told the crowd in New York. "Let's get real. Let's get real about this election, let's get real about our future, let's get real about what it is we can do together."'

I'm thinking that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, it's going to be extremely difficult for Clinton to turn around and endorse him as the best person to be President. She seems to be burning her bridges behind her.