The wonders of the human body

A new mini-series about the wonders of the human body premieres this Sunday on the new Discovery Channel. Looks good!

Listen to this

Obama's campaign was criticized when one of his surrogates was unprepared to answer a question on MSNBC about Barack's legislative accomplishments.

Today, Clinton's campaign put out the new "phone" ad, trumpeting her ability to handle international crises.

So a reporter asked her top campaign staff to name such a crisis where she'd been tested. They didn't really have an example...

Listen in.

Talk about a fast response!

Obama has a phone ad of his own out in response to the one that the Clinton campaign unveiled less than 24 hours ago.

Saving what's left

In a world where species are disappearing at an alarming rate, an effort to preserve the seeds of the world's plant life is underway. One vault is near the North Pole and has security measures worthy of a missile silo.

The February issue of Scientific American suggests that the only way to save the bluefin tuna may be to domesticate it.

Yesterday I was talking to Dad about the crazy solutions that we propose for the problems we've created for ourselves. It's usually an attempt to sweep something under the rug (carbon sequestration), paint over the problem (fortifying junk food), or substitute something "new and improved" (importing Australian bees when the domestic ones starts dying). Rarely these days does the proposal actually deal with the underlying mess.

The conversation turned to the Planet of the Apes movies, and in particular, that final image from the original when Charton Heston realizes, "We did it to ourselves."

We may just yet do it.

New video

Watching this video, I found myself navigating multiple crosscurrents of thought.

Feeling happy and proud and hopeful.

Wondering what non-supporters make of this sort of thing.

Thinking that Obama is human and as a consequence, inherently imperfect. Some disappointment is inevitable.

And yet, something about him and his campaign speaks to people in a way that no one running for the presidency has done in a long time. Something inspired the people in this video to make a work of art in tribute to this man and what he stands for.

Hope, like all thoughts, emotions, and impulses, lives in the moment, in the present. It takes something to challenge oneself and to move beyond what is simple, easy, expedient. Challenging a nation is infinitely more difficult.

Somehow, people are responding.

I'll see your ad and raise you an endorsement

A big endorsement for Obama from someone who has the inside scoop on international threats to the U.S., Senator Jay Rockefeller:

As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious. What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It’s about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time – and every time.

Four other superdelegates endorsed Obama earlier today.

More on telecom immunity

Here's a bit about Bush's weird logic for why Congress should give telcos immunity from lawsuits for cooperating in warrantless wiretaps, and a semi-humorous picture illustrating it. Thanks to Matthew Yglesisas at The Atlantic for both.

The ACLU has a page where you can thank the House leaders for finally showing some backbone on this issue.

Exaggerated fear?

Are we exaggerating the danger of terrorism? Andrew Sullivan's blog led me to this Washington Post article, "The Fading Jihadists." David Ignatius discusses a new book written by a former CIA officer who argues that that is indeed the case, and by doing so we've taken actions (e.g. invading Iraq) which have made the situation worse.

Whenever anyone talks about terrorism being an "existential threat" to the United States, two thoughts come to mind:

1. You're nuts. Even if terrorists obtained a nuclear weapon, at most they'd be an existential threat to a city. And that would be truly horrible, but obviously not a game-ender for the America.
2. The only way terrorism can be an existential threat to the U.S.A. is if we overreact and trample on the Constitution. What we'd be left with would be something that resembled the country we know in geography only.

Fear is a tool that the Republicans have deftly wielded these past seven years. It was disappointing to see Hillary go there as well in her latest ad.

UPDATE: And a fellow Obama supporter sent me a link to his blog with a very ironic quote from Bill Clinton...

Obama and the gay community

Obama continues to speak out for LGBT equality, even in front of audiences that aren't initially receptive.

And more and more lesbians and gays are responding.

We're just asking for trouble...

by arming robots. More here, my original conspiracy theory here.

Nevada caucus redux... in Texas

Hillary's campaign may challenge the rules in next Tuesday's Texas caucus.

First the Strip caucus sites in Vegas, then Michigan and Florida, now this. Sigh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23408698/

Camera phone sunset

"We are the ones we've been waiting for"

From the first time that I heard that quote of Obama's, it struck me as a statement about our being responsibility for creating the change that we want.

I later found it amusing when some people thought it was somehow "messianic," lol.

Here are a couple of posts from Andrew Sullivan on the topic. His original post and a reader's follow-up.

Have a great night, going to go meet a friend who is visiting from San Francisco.

Obama's open letter on LGBT equality

Obama released an open letter today addressing issues of equality for lesbians and gays in America. Read it here.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Today's second shocking headline

I can't believe that we can't do a better job of giving people opportunities in the first place or more effectively rehabilitate them when they go astray. Sad...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=144541&f=19

Young Albert

I never realized how handsome Einstein was as a young man. :-)

Iraqi Sunnis growing weary

Apparently Iraqi Sunnis, whose support has been key to the decrease in attacks there, are becoming impatient with the pace of political progress. Should their assistance to U.S. forces wane, the surge may no longer look like such a success come the fall.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23382421/

Re-used syringes

Shocking.

Superdelegate gap narrowing

Obama has narrowed Hillary's lead in superdelegates by almost 40 since Super Tuesday according to the Democratic Convention Watch blog.

Another of Hillary's superdelegates, Texas Representative Senfronia Thompson, switched camps today. Georgia Representative John Lewis did so yesterday.

More on that poll

I had meant to add a couple of comments about that poll that I posted about yesterday.

First, with respect to the comments about voters being uncomfortable with some of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, it gives me hope that people are finally sufficiently tired of negative campaigning to negate its effectiveness. (Diagram that sentence, lol.)

And second, in regard to the poll's findings that McCain will be a difficult general election opponent, I suspect that people have made only fairly superficial comparisons of each parties' candidates as of yet. More specifically, I think voters have largely compared the Republicans against the Republicans and the Democrats against the Democrats, viewing each race as somewhat distinct.

The analogy that occurred to me last night when Victor and I were on our way to dinner is choosing something to eat. Imagine you're faced with a couple of restaurant choices. You've eaten at both, and you've heard from friends that there have been some changes to the menus. If you were asked to select the dish that you'd prefer, your previous experiences with the restaurants would likely color your answer. But if you had the opportunity to sample a couple of entrees side-by-side, your choice might be rather different.

My point is simply that all of these polls that ask voters to state a general election preference are somewhat artificial. November is a long way off, there aren't yet official nominees, and America hasn't had any opportunity to see them interact.

Obama ads in LGBT publications in OH and TX

Towleroad is reporting that the Obama campaign is placing ads in gay and lesbian publications in Ohio and Texas. Woo hoo! (Click here or on the image to go to the original... it's more legible.)

Latest poll

It's got good news and bad news for Obama. But this section really struck me:

The poll suggests that the once-muscular grip on the Democratic base held by Clinton and her husband, the former president, has loosened quickly as they have intensified their attacks on Obama and tried to paint him as ill-prepared for the presidency.

One of the most striking findings is that when Democratic voters are asked whom they support now, regardless of whom they voted for in an earlier primary or caucus, Obama leads by nearly 20 points, 55% to 37%. [my emphasis]

"I liked Bill [Clinton], and I liked the combo of both of them," said Monica Butler, 48, an executive assistant who lives in Orlando, Fla. "But then Bill just started running off his mouth again, and then you really think about things, and you think, 'Oh, my God, are we going backward again? We need to go forward.'

"As for the New York senator, Butler added: "I just don't relate to her anymore. She came out with good intentions, but I think she was more true to herself in the beginning than she is now."

Poll respondent Valerie Grivas, a 49-year-old graphic artist in San Antonio, said she decided in the last few days that she would vote in the Texas primary for Obama, even though she has been excited about the prospect of electing the first female president.She said she "couldn't bear to watch" as Clinton attacked Obama during their debate in Austin last week. Playing off Obama's campaign slogan of "Change you can believe in," Clinton called his recent repetition of language spoken in 2006 by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an Obama friend and supporter, "change you can Xerox."

"I can't stand to hear her try to shame him or insult him," Grivas said. "It makes her look petty and small, and I don't want them to attack each other. I want them to be on the same team."

It's something I worry about!

Killer robots, that is. Here was my original post, here's a new article on the topic.

Let me re-phrase that

I wrote that "A serpent passes" post quickly before I ran off to class and when I re-read it just now, it seemed a little mean. I did think he was a serpent 20 years ago. I have long since changed my mind, though not to say that he became one of my heroes.

In any case, a poor choice of words in my title.

Here are some more carefully selected words on the wordsmith from Andrew Sullivan.

A serpent passes

When I first saw William F. Buckley Jr. on television, I thought he was a serpent. No doubt it was an episode of Firing Line, and most likely during the 80s. I was in high school; Ronald Reagan was in the White House. I was a already a member of Green Peace and a critic of the President.

Over the years I learned to appreciate his singular mastery and appreciation for the English language.

Buckley died yesterday, may he rest in polysyllabic peace.

Assessing the debaters and the moderators

I watched the final 20 minutes of last night's debate this morning. The debates sponsored by CNN and MSNBC are worlds apart. CNN's moderators tend to throw in so many questions about insubstantial topics, often more interested in the "horse race" aspects of the campaign than the issues.

MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams both asked tough questions of both candidates, really putting them on the spot.

I've only recently started watching MSNBC. It's far from a perfect news source, but I've already come to prefer it to CNN. (If I hear Wolf Blitzer say they've got "the best political team on television" one more time... I mean, what does that mean anyway? Most of the time they're just yakking about b.s. anyway, lol.)

I'm obviously biased, but this seemed like Obama's strongest performance to me. He appeared confident, in command of the issues, and clearly aware of the situation he is in and sufficiently posed to not be knocked off stride.

I checked out the New York Times debate analyzer, and Obama spoke for a total of 38 minutes, Hillary for 30, a dramatic reversal from two debates ago when she had a similiar advantage in speaking time.

Let's hope that in a week the campaign has reached a point where we can begin building unity in the Democratic Party. It's time.

And sometime early this morning, the one millionth contributor sent a donation to Obama's campaign. Wow.

Ohio debate

I finished my chemistry pre-lab, so tuning into the debate. (Which was, of course, why I completed my pre-lab on time. :-)

Here we go! I have to admit to having a bit of campaign fatigue. I'm ready for some resolution.

From the opening moment, a much different tone to this debate.

Hillary was put on the spot with the first question which compared her expression of unity with Obama at the end of the last debate with her angry words in Ohio 48 hours later.

And she repeated for the 15 millionth time her claim that Obama's healthcare plan leaves out 15 million people. I see both of their points: I personally like the fact that Obama's plan doesn't force people to buy health insurance. And I also see John Edwards' point (which Hillary is now repeating) that health insurance works best when the risk is spread as broadly as possible, and that it should work more like Social Security where everyone is automatically covered.

But Jesuchristo, we got it! I can't imagine that there's a person in America who cares that doesn't understand this difference in their plans.

Frankly, my guess is that she is grating on anyone who is undecided by belaboring this point.

Maybe her strategy here is to just piss him off. Sigh.

Yea, moving on! NAFTA

I thought Obama seemed a little nervous in the first few minutes of the debate in Texas, so I was watching for it this time, but didn't notice anything.

OMG. I think Hillary just blew a gasket, complaining about always getting the first question in the recent debates and suggesting that Obama be offered a pillow like last weekend's episode of Saturday Night Live!

Tim Russert is holding both their feet to the fire, reminding them of their previous statements, as he likes to do, and forcing them to say whether or not they still agree.

Hillary is getting the question again about whether or not Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief. She wisely dodged it in Texas... she seems to be doing so again, backing off a bit from speeches she's made at recent campaign appearances.

It is getting hot. Obama just made the most direct statement I've heard him make that Hillary's vote for the authorization for military force in Iraq was a strategic blunder and has harmed the United States of America.

Obama is occasionally looking exasperated. And at the risk of offending a certain someone in Kansas (whom I love!), Clinton has practically had daggers coming out of her eyes a couple of times.

OMG, back from the commercial break and MSNBC played the wrong tape in setting up a question to Obama! LOL

What he meant to ask Obama about is his comments with regard to Hillary picking and choosing what parts of Bill Clinton's presidential record she takes credit for and highlights.

Obama is making a point that I've wanted him to make for awhile: that being a fighter is not enough. And he went on to say, "hope is not enough."

"The only way we are going to get this stuff done is #1, mobilize and inspire the American people.... There's nothing romantic or silly about that."

GOING TO HAVE TO HEAD to my chem lab soon, here's a link to Andrew Sullivan's live blog post on the debate.

Dodd endorses

While neither captured my imagination, I had nothing but respect for Senators Biden and Dodd and their candidacies. Both are intelligent and seasoned statesmen.

Senator Dodd endorsed Obama today. He is the first of the Democrats who have dropped out this year to make an endorsement.

I had a physics exam and an organic chemistry test today, and with chem lab tonight, my academic day is far from over. I may even have to watch tonight's debate on the internet tomorrow. :-(

Story here, video here.

Interesting article about 'Obamacans'

Republicans for Obama, that is. (Sent while I peddle away on the stationary bike at the gym :-)

http://mobile.latimes.com/news.jsp?key=146438&rc=nation

Quiet man

Check out the final paragraph of this article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. His analogy seems rather poor. If this hypothetical gall bladder surgery was unusual in some way, I'm confident that the surgeons *would* have a discussion about it.

And aren't cases that reach the Supreme Court unusual by definition?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23335249/

Obama's coalition broadens

And he is seen as the stronger candidate against John McCain in the latest New York Times poll:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=143824&f=19

Same old Bill

So now Bill is knocking Texas' unique hybrid primary-caucus system as being somehow unfair, neglecting to mention that he benefited greatly from that same system when he was running for the presidency in 1992. Sigh.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23339362/

Hillary's "moment"

I am trying something new since I am getting a lot of my news these days by reading new stories on my cell phone between classes: this post is coming from my cell phone. (I also made all my posts from last Saturday's Clark County Democratic convention via phone.)

I just read this story which mentions a new Clinton TV ad which focuses on her "moment" from the last debate. Maybe it was just me, but my sense was that the standing ovation she received was in response to her expression of pride in being onstage with Obama and the possibility of party unity that it represented.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23338227/

Aftermath of Saturday's convention

A report from the Las Vegas Gleaner.

Feeling cranky

After Saturday's crazy (and prematurely concluded) Clark County Democratic Convention, I had a rather unpleasant Sunday.

I skipped the Academy Awards and studied physics. I did see Sweeney Todd over the weekend, which won the Oscar for art direction. While it had me squirming in my seat at moments, the gore was sufficiently theatrical to be bearable. Johnny Depp is so gifted, and Helena Bonham Carter was fabulous as always. Go see it... just not on a full stomach. :-)

SPEAKING OF "GORE" (as in Al's loss in 2000), I was annoyed to see Ralph Nader announce yet another run for the presidency. Come on, man, get real. I voted for you in '96 as a protest against Bill Clinton. This is not your year (and your year, I hate to tell you, Ralph, has long since passed).

And I caught Hillary on CNN yesterday mocking Obama, his campaign, and his supporters, and I have to say I was rather offended. Does she realize that while this act may play well to her own supporters, it turns off all of those supporting Obama. If she turns things around and wins the nomination, she's presumably going to want our votes. It's this shortsightedness in her campaign strategy that belies her claim to being "ready on day one." If the day after Super Tuesday was day one, she sure wasn't ready.

Heading home

One comment I heard on the way out: "I can't wait to read the paper tomorrow!"

Back in general session

What an insane day! I got a chance to ask my question which was: will the same number of delegates be voting on the new date if the motion passes? Answer: yes.

The motion passed the second time around, and the convention is adjourned.

In the Obama caucus room

We're re-visiting the motion to recess voting to a future date. Because of the problems of seating all the delegates today, there is concern that the Nevada delegation could be challenged at the national convention.

The Obama campaign reps are urging us to support the motion to suspend voting. There is also concern about the integrity of the first vote today (at least one ballot box was found in the women's room).

A tough call after a long day. But at this point it seems like the way to go. Several speakers were delegates who were unable to get their credentials.

The 'ayes' have it.

Another motion

Convention Chair William Stanley is now presenting a second motion: that the Obama and Clinton supporters caucus separately. The motion carried. The Obama supporters are being asked to move to another room. Hmm...

Reid speaks about 'the winds of change'

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is speaking. He was responsible for moving Nevada up to such an early date on the primary schedule. He was ridiculed for suggesting last fall that 100,000 people would caucus. Close to 120,000 did so. There are now 35,000 more Democrats in Nevada than Republicans.

The chair...

that I've referred to is John Hunt, Chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party.

Those alternates

No one has clearly explained what is going on and why the alternates should be allowed to vote. According to the rules they shouldn't be allowed to vote unless there are empty delegate slots to fill. The chair was sggesting that everyone--delegated and alternates--be allowed to vote on some 'to be determined' date in the future, a clear deviation from the rules.

Al Franken

Unrecognizable in this camera phone pic, though!

The convention continues

Apparently there is a roomful of alternates who couldn't get in, and the local party officials are trying to figure out whether or not to let them vote and, if so, how.

I heard a rumor that the registration staff lost the credentials for delegates from 200 Clark County precincts, and that problem is part of why the chair wanted to delay the voting and state delegation selection to a later date.

But while the chair claimed that they didn't expect this many people, they've known since January 19th how many county delegates there were.

My suspicion: there are more Obama supporters here than expected, and someone is worried that Hillary is going to get fewer delegates from the county than expected. (Note, however, that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns apparently agreed to the motion that failed.)

The motion fails!

Wow, who knew this would get so exciting. The motion to suspend voting due to the inability to get everyone into the hall caused a firestorm of dissent. At one point the chair even summoned the sergeant-at-arms to remove a woman from the room. After listening to several people from the floor comment on the motion, a vote was taken and the "no's" had it.

Back room deals

Breaking news: the chair of the convention is making a motion that the voting be suspended due to a 'pressing situation related to the privelege of assembly.' Boos in the room. Something feels dirty.

O... Bam... A!

The crowd reacts to Obama's video message to the convention.

Buttoned up and ready to go!

Only in Vegas

Whoops

Left Obama's percentage out of that last post: he had 48% of the straw poll votes. When Nevada caucused in January, the results statewide were Hillary 51%, Obama 45%.

The results of the binding first alignment should be announced soon, and that will determine how many Obama and Clinton delegates will be sent to the state convention. It's unlikely that we'll need to do a second alignment because Mike Gravel got exactly one vote in the straw poll.

Straw poll results

They just announced the results of the non-binding straw poll. Clinton won with 51% of the 2,605 votes cast; Obama collected 1,260 votes. (There are over 7,000 delegates here, but the strawpoll closed before registration was complete.)

Last January when Nevada had its caucus, Hillary won Clark County by 11 percentage points, so Obama may have a much stronger showing here than expected.

Fabulous hat

It's difficult to see but she's wearing a 'Fabulous Las Vegas' hat. :-)

First alignment...

Whew, made it back in the room! Had gone back out to the line to help get Obama alternates in, then got stuck outside when the room reached capacity.

Now in the process of making our first alignment preferences.

The fire marshall has closed the hall...

Huge turnout at the Clark County Democratic Convention

My second chance to vote for Obama tomorrow...

Well, actually, my second chance to "align" for him. I'm attending the Clark County Democratic Convention as a delegate; I was elected at my caucus site back on January 19th.

Should be an interesting day! Hillary's campaign has called me twice urging me to support her tomorrow instead of Obama. Not likely. :-)

I'll post some pictures from convention and write up my experience when it's over.

McCain's memory lapse?

A bit more information comes to light in the current McCain controversy stemming from a recent New York Times article which suggested a possibly inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist eight years ago. The new facts seem to contradict statements McCain has made in his defense.

Last night's debate

The New York Times has a great debate analyzer page. Interestingly, in last night's debate, Obama had more speaking time than Hillary, a marked change from the previous debate.

Making the switch for Obama

Kansas' Governor Kathleen Sebelius speaks in Ohio about the high numbers of Republicans and independents who registered as Democrats in order to support Obama on Super Tuesday.

Comparing Obama's and Clinton's Senate bills

Another blogger took the time to research their records in the Senate at the Library of Congress website. You can read her findings here. She's an Obama supporter, but she includes links the the Library of Congress' database so you can review her findings or do more investigating on your own.

Here is an excerpt from her post, a list of some of the bills that Obama has introduced in the U.S. Senate:

On Iran: S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

On voting: Passed out of Committee and now on the Senate Calendar for Feb. 22, 2008 S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Please check this out! This is a great bill. We need this. I can't believe that this time voter intimidation is not already illegal.

On veterans and military personnel: S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans;

On global warming: S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States;S.1389 : A bill to authorize the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program; S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. (This last one passed both the House and the Senate as part of the budget bill.)

On campaign finance and lobbyists S.2030 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require reporting relating to bundled contributions made by persons other than registered lobbyists; and S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

On Blackwater S.2044 : A bill to provide procedures for the proper classification of employees and independent contractors, and for other purposes, and S.2147 : A bill to require accountability for contractors and contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

On global poverty S.2433 : A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

On global nuclear proliferation S.1977 : A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

I counted nine education bills, but it's getting late and I've got to get my kids ready for bed.

One thing that she found depressing was how few of either Obama's or Clinton's bills had become law. As he has said, "Washington has become a place where great ideas go to die." If we want to change the status quo, we're going to need to be more active citizens. That's Obama's message.

21yo superdelegate update

A few days ago I made a brief post about a 21yo gay superdelegate named Jason Rae. Turns out that he is the youngest superdelegate, and he's now put his name in the Obama column.

Obama nails it

Fifty-five minutes into the debate, Obama nailed it, clearly defining the differences between him and Clinton. And the audience is roaring.

And he just ridiculed--rightly--Hillary's plagiarism charge.

Right on.

And now, as Hillary tries to push the plagiarism issue, she's being booed. As Obama noted, the person he's accused of plagiarizing--Governor Deval Patrick--is one of his national co-chairman.

Once I find a link to the transcript after the debate, I'll share it. (Here it is.)

Even better, here's the video where he defines the differences in his and Hillary's strategies for seeking change.

A "level playing field"

I just received this fundraising request from Clinton's campaign:

Here's what you need to know this morning. We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4 to 1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4....

Let this remarkable two-person contest for the Democratic nomination be determined by the strength of our ideas, the quality of our leadership, or the depth of our experience. But whatever you do, don't let the outcome of these crucial March 4 contests be decided by a lopsided spending advantage for the Obama campaign. [original emphasis]

Only you -- our incredible online community -- can act quickly and decisively enough to create a level playing field. And with everything on the line, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do.

It seems to me that the reason more people are donating to Obama's campaign (over 509,000 so far in 2008!) is that more people are being inspired by his ideas, his leadership, and his experience. The money isn't coming out of thin air, Hillary. It's coming in hundreds of thousands of small contributions from people across the country who are ready for change.

As for a level playing field, the Clintons are master fundraisers and began this race with a huge list of previous donors to call on.

Hillary has money to put commercials on the air. She's spending plenty in Ohio and Texas. If she was outspent in Wisconsin, it's because her campaign made a choice not to invest there.

Choices have consequences. You can't whine after the fact about losing a state if you didn't work to win it.

The plagiarism non-issue

Hillary has tried to make a lot of hay recently about a line that Obama ad libbed in a speech that echoed a line spoken by his friend Governor Deval Patrick.

I mean, here she is talking about a guy who has written several books. Does she really think that the fact that he borrowed a line in any way diminishes his ability to inspire people?

And for the record, the Clinton campaign declined to state that Hillary herself has never borrowed a line.

The state of the military

I read an article yesterday about the grim results of a recent poll of U.S. military officers. The consensus is that American forces are stretched "dangerously thin" and that we are unprepared to fight a second war (the ability to simultaneously fight two wars has long been part of U.S. military doctrine). So much for the Republicans' professed ability to maintain a strong military!

There was also this post about the respondents' attitudes towards allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, as well as this follow-up.

Obama nō ka‘oi!

Just woke up and checked on the Hawaii caucuses... Obama won resoundingly 76% to Hillary's 24%.

CNN has a story that highlights how much Obama bit into her base in Wisconsin. The final tally there was 58% to 41%, especially significant in that the most recent polls showed the race there in a dead heat.

Now Obama will find himself squarely in the sights of both McCain and Clinton (and her supporters). The negative attacks disgust me... and we'll see how Obama weathers them.

Another win!

MSNBC has projected that Obama has won Wisconsin. Exit polls indicate that voters felt that Hillary's attacks on him were more unfair than any of his responses.

Obama also won 2/3 of male voters and almost evenly split women with Clinton. He won voters who went to college and who didn't and every age group except voters over 60.

With 22% of the precincts reporting, Obama is leading 56% to 43%.

TODAY I READ AN ARTICLE ON CNN (which I can no longer find, they tend to edit their stories throughout the day) where Hillary was quoted as saying that we didn't need a President that people wanted to sit down and share a beer with (though she said she'd be happy to sit down and have a beer). Number one, the whole thing sounded odd.. and secondly, when did Obama ever ask people to have a beer with him? I thought his demographic was supposed to be the wine-drinking crowd. :-) So what gives? Is this and her lame "plagiarism" attack the best that she can do to differentiate herself?

Okay, I'm out of here... gotta head to organic chemistry lab. Oh, joy!

First, do no harm

Given our lousy record of trying to solve problems by moving plants and animals from one environment to another (killer bees, kudzu, Cane Toads), I'm somewhat skeptical of this plan to save coral reefs by injecting new species of algae.

Certain kinds of algae give corals their spectacular colors; they live in symbiosis with the tiny creatures that make up coral reefs. Scientists have discovered that there are over a dozen types of algae that live in the reefs, and some are less sensitive to temperature increases than others.

And with ocean temperatures rising due to global warming, many coral reefs around the world are dying off.

The proposed solution? Re-invigorate the dying reefs with injections of more heat-resistant varieties of algae.

Time will tell...

Just ended a call...

with Barack Obama.

Yes, I've been hiding the fact that I'm a superdelegate.

Riiiiight. :-)

Actually, I was on the phone with Obama. He just had a conference call with his Nevada precinct captains to discuss this weekend's Democratic conventions which will be held at the county level across the state. I was elected as a delegate to the county convention when Nevada caucused on January 19th. Should be an interesting day!

Ready on day one?

Hillary continues to tout her experience and the fact that she's "ready on day one."

But I've heard a number of commenters note that for someone making these claims, she and her campaign were surprisingly unprepared for the Democratic race to continue beyond Super Tuesday.

It was Obama who a year ago was building organizations in states across the country, states like Idaho and North Dakota.

And I saw this story today which highlights the fact that the Clinton campaign is only now fully understanding Texas' delegate assignment rules. You'd think if you picked a state to be your "firewall" that you'd understand the lay of the land a bit more clearly...

McCain and torture

My respect for John McCain continues to wane... he no longer strikes me as the principled, non-ideological maverick that he did a few years ago.

After vocally arguing with the administration this past year over the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture, last week he voted against a bill that would have specifically prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding.

His explanation didn't convince me that his vote was a wise one, particularly given his previous strong position on the issue.

Willie Brown's legacy

Willie Brown, one of California's most colorful and powerful politicians in the latter decades of the 20th century, has written a new memoir, Basic Brown. In this excerpt he describes the elaborate and somewhat sneaky maneuvers required to decriminalize sex acts between consenting adults.

Robot Chicken

If you're a Star Wars fan, check our the Robot Chicken parodies. Hilarious. :-)

Thank you, Governor Sebelius

Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of my home state of Kansas, is calling on Hillary and her campaign to stop dismissing the votes of Democrats in "red" states. I wrote about this a few days ago myself.

My great compromise

I read a post on the DailyKOS blog the other day suggesting that Michigan and Florida's delegates be split 50-50 between Hillary and Obama.

More background here.

Here was the suggestion that I offered as an alternative:

I'm in the camp that thinks "they knew the rules" and it's not smart to change the game mid-play.

But I'm also reminded of the founders' Great Compromise (the states have equal representation in the Senate but representation based on population in the House).

Rather than turn this into a bitter fight, perhaps a compromise can be negotiated such that:

• the uncommitted delegates in Michigan go to Obama (since his name wasn't on the ballot)
• the number of delegates from Florida and Michigan are cut in half (or some other percentage)

Hillary still gets a net increase in delegates. The net increase, however, is reduced to reflect the fact that no campaigning took place, as agreed to by both Clinton and Obama.

Clinton seems to be the "winner" in the compromise, but if Obama proposes such a compromise he cements his position as the candidate who can bring people together and avoids a convention fight.

A 21yo gay superdelegate

Wow, talk about a great conversation opener. Read on.

Present

In one of the recent debates, Obama was questioned about why he had voted "present" 130 times while he was in the Illinois legislature. Hillary then jumped on him about this issue as well.

Obama explained that the rules in the Illinois legislature are different from those in Congress and that those "present" votes were a small percentage of the approximately 4000 he had cast. Still, the confines of the debate setting made it difficult for him to fully deflate the issue.

Just read an excellent explanation of the "present" vote from a former Illinois legislator. Here's an excerpt:

Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.

In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.

New Obama site

Found a new site (less than a week old) with an objective of giving users the ability to share news stories about Obama and the presidential race. Check it out, DigObama.

Our strange and error-prone voting procedures

Now this is odd:

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

Final tallies are turning up the discrepancies. One district went from 118 votes for Hillary and zero for Obama to Hillary 118, Obama 116. He may gain a few additional delegates in New York as a result. Full story here.

These results were with paper ballots, and the story reminds me of the madness in Florida in November and December of 2000. Back then I remarked that the margin of error in as complicated a process as a U.S. presidential election can be largely than the margin of victory in some cases... a worrisome prospect.

Electronic voting machines are probably even worse because it becomes easier to hack the process on a much wider scale.

My Barack Obama homepage

This page has links to previous posts I've written about Obama. And you can find his website here.

• Why I chose Obama
• Why I ask you to join me
• His policy positions
• His experience
• His LGBT record
• Great speeches and substance

And to make a contribution to Obama's campaign, please visit my fundraising page at his website.

The mystery of muscle fatigue...

may finally have been solved. I'd read a year or so ago that researchers had determined that muscle fatigue was not the result of a build-up of lactic acid as had long been theorized.

Read the New York Times article for the latest research.

And on that note, I'm heading to the gym!

Oratorical prowess

I continue to find myself bemused by the Clintons' characterization of Obama as being someone who can make great speeches but otherwise has no substance. Exactly what are they basing these claims on?

A couple of posts on the subject from my favorite guys at The Atlantic...

Matthew Yglesias has this to say:

... it's not as if Hillary Clinton doesn't give speeches. Giving speeches is part of being a presidential candidate. Indeed, it's also part of being president. And, again, both candidates deliver speeches. So it would seem that Clinton is accusing Obama of giving speeches well.

... the fact that he's a better orator just doesn't count as evidence for the inferiority of his proposals.

And Andrew Sullivan adds:

... because Obama actually inspires with oratory, they also assume he doesn't have substance. The premise is that you cannot be inspiring and detailed at the same time. Two words: Why not?

What people fail to understand is that in politics, words are also substance. The ability to inspire people is not inherently a dangerous phenomenon. It is sometimes critical to effective governance. Conservatives used to understand this. Perhaps Churchill's greatest actual weapon was the English language. It did things no bureaucrat, soldier, armament, or policy could do. The core of Ronald Reagan's success was his rhetorical ability to reach over the heads of the Washington process to the people who can force Washington to change: the American people. And I don't recall conservatives decrying the rhetoric of hope reacting to George W. Bush's inspired speeches after 9/11.

Both posts go on to talk about the fact that Obama does, in fact, have quite specific proposals on a wide range of issues. (Check his website.)

And, for the record, I voted for Bill Clinton in '92 (in fact, I took a day off from work to get out the vote for him on election day) almost entirely based on a speech he gave. I knew little about his experience, and what I later learned about his tenure as Governor of Arkansas would have been unlikely to sway me.

And some links to past speeches:

• Andrew Sullivan's collection (mostly from 2007, including both concrete proposals and details on his overall worldview)
• Speaking 2/9 in Virginia
• His South Carolina victory speech
• His Potomac Primary victory speech

SOME NYT ARTICLES ON THE CAMPAIGN that are worth a read:

• Clinton's campaign knocked off stride (2/14)
• Obama's new opportunity to state his case (2/13)
• Obama's jobs program speech (2/14)
• The Times political blog notes a variety of campaign developments (2/14)

Military contributions to the candidates

Heard an interesting factoid on NPR today... apparently Ron Paul and Obama have been consistently the top two recipients of campaign contributions from members of the U.S. military.

WHY OBAMA?

I received an email from the Obama campaign today asking why I am supporting him. This is my response; it includes key sections of posts I've previously written.

I grew up in a small town of 800 in Kansas. I went to Stanford University and spent 19 years in the Bay Area, four years in Portland, Oregon, and I now live in Vegas.

Open letter to February 5th voters

FOR MANY YEARS I have bemoaned what seems to have been lost in Washington, D.C.; indeed, what seems to have been lost across the country: a sense of the common good, of our collective heritage and of our shared future.

Only one candidate in either party embodies this sense as a core value of his or her campaign: Obama.

Only one Democratic candidate looks beyond this election as simply being about returning a Democrat to the White House; only one believes that this is an opportunity to build a new nationwide majority that moves beyond partisan politics. Obama.

Only one person vying to occupy the White House wants to bring all the rest of us along, to re-connect Americans with the promise of our Constitutional government and re-ignite a shared sense of responsibility for solving the challenges confronting us. Obama.

Over the past few years I have become increasingly pessimistic about our future. I have worried about threats to our civil liberties. I've worried about our ability to continue to grow our economy in a world of limited resources. And I've worried about my nieces growing up in a world that would be far bleaker than the one I grew up in.

And then, last November, I started listening to Barack Obama as he spoke about why he is running for the Presidency. And somehow, against all the odds, I began to hope again. And for the first time since 1992, I am voting for someone, voting for something. In 1996 I voted for Nader, a protest vote against Bill Clinton who I had supported in '92. My votes for Gore and Kerry were essentially anti-Bush.

But like so many who have been electrified by Obama's message of possibility and transformation and change and MOVING FORWARD, for the first time in my life a candidate has me believing in our ability to transcend our differences and not simply "beat the other guy."

Why I support Obama

Since I began following the presidential race in high school, I've always been drawn to candidates on the basis of their experience, integrity, and principles.

Unfortunately, that's rarely been a successful strategy as most of the candidates I've picked have lost out early in the process.

And, in fact, I've only once voted for the winner in a presidential election, in 1992.

But this year is different: the candidate who has the integrity that I look for has inspired the imaginations of millions of other voters.

I chose Obama because he shares my sense that the country has lost sight of the common good and that partisan politics in Washington is poisoning our national well-being. I chose him because I believe he is a once-in-a-generation figure who has the ability to enlist the American people in rising to the challenges facing them, someone who asks us to be better than they know ourselves to be.

Obama's strategy of visiting so many states

You might argue that Obama's record of visiting almost every state that's voting is a function of the delegate race. But I'd respond that to the voters of the states he visits, the message is very different: You matter, that's why I am here. It's only together--all of us--that we can make a difference in Washington. He's essentially looking ahead to being President and saying, "When the time comes to make change, I'm going to need the support of voters across the country, not just in the big states." And ultimately it will be the weight of all of those supporters pressing on their Senators and Representatives that will shift the path that our government is on.

Different visions of change

Earlier today I saw Hillary on TV speaking at a rally in Maine. I had the sense that she thinks she's the best candidate for president because of what she'll do for people. Then I read the Cleveland Plain Dealer's endorsement of Obama and this idea really solidified: with Hillary it's really all about her, about her knowing what's best for us, about what she'll do for us when she's in Washington.

What is challenging about Obama's candidacy is that he asks us to get off of our collective ass and be the solution we've been waiting for. For all his intellectual and oratory gifts, it's ultimately up to us to find our way out of the darkness.

Thoughts on Iraq

Yesterday I was listening to NPR and someone was making the case that the Democrats were advocating a strategy in Iraq that amounts to losing the war.

"Losing the war?" I wondered. How could we possibly lose the war, even if we leave?

While we are now five years past the debate about whether or not to attack Iraq, I remember clearly what the original justification was (and yes, over time, George W. did come up with a variety of other reasons).

We went into Iraq because our government claimed that they had WMD. We went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Well, they didn't have any WMD and Saddam is dead. From that perspective, I have to agree with Bush on that "Mission Accomplished" thing.

In the process of doing so, however, we badly destabilized the country, and for several years I was of the opinion that while I thought the war was a hugely bad idea, we had a moral responsibility to clean up our mess.

Yet at some point it became the Iraqis responsibility to fix their country. We've done our duty: we've maintained a presence there for a sufficiently long time to give them the opportunity to form a government and begin to resolve their internal differences.

It isn't our responsibility to babysit them indefinitely.

And as for the issue of terrorism in Iraq--specifically, al Qaeda or other external forces--it wasn't a problem in Iraq before we invaded, and as long as we are there it will remain a factor. I don't know what will happen when we leave. Will terrorism further engulf the country? Or will the country stabilize itself, one way or another? It could follow a path toward real democracy, or it could become a somewhat authoritarian state. That's not for us to decide. We should influence their leaders, of course, but in the end, the destiny of Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.

We have no more chance of eliminating terrorism from Iraq than we do of eliminating it in Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or England or Spain.

Terrorism is a technique, a behavior, a strategy. It's not a "thing" that can be destroyed. We can't rid the world of terrorism anymore than we can rid it of burglary. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it, but it does mean that we have to be honest about what the objective is.

AND AS FOR JOHN MCCAIN'S COMMENT about staying in Iraq for 100 years or longer, I watched him clarify what he meant on Larry King Live last night. He said we've had troops in Japan and Germany since 1945, in South Korea since the 50s, and so on. For McCain, there's no difference in keeping U.S. military forces in Iraq.

The difference, of course, is that Japan and Germany and South Korea weren't on the verge of civil wars. Our presence there was to defend against external dangers. If that is to be our role in Iraq, then we need to stop policing factions within the country.

Election updates... and Uhura

Lots of Presidential race tidbits today, but I have a wee bit of a headache after my Valentine evening with Victor last night. :-)

So I'll just point you all to Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias's excellent blogs.

The latter, by the way, has an interesting video of Nichelle Nichols (Uhura on Star Trek) explaining that it was Martin Luther King, Jr. who persuaded her to stay on the show when she considered leaving after the first season.

AND SINCE I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT EARMARKS before, one item of note caught my attention a day or two ago. Hillary Clinton in the top ten Senators in terms of attaching earmarks to spending bills last year. Her $340 million is almost four times as much as Obama's $91 million (he ranks in the bottom quarter on this measure).

McCain, to his credit, had none.

More trouble for crops

First bees, now bats.

Apparently bats are dying off in New York and Vermont from a disease that hasn't previously been reported. Bats are important for agriculture as they eat huge amounts of insects. And with mortality as high as 97% for some colonies, watch out for mosquitoes in the Northeast this summer.

And that means watch out for the West Nile virus, of course. There is speculation that the bat disease may itself be a new arrival from somewhere else on the planet.

Oh, the joys of globalization.

Horny science students?

Saw this sign today in my science lab building...

Happy Valentine's Day! :-)

Member of Bill's inner circle endorses Obama

David Wilhelm, who ran Bill Clinton's successful campaign for the Presidency in '92, has endorsed Obama, calling him "more electable." Clinton rewarded Wilhelm by making him head of the Democratic National Committee, and he remains a superdelegate.

And speaking of Bill's '92 campaign--"It's the economy, stupid"--Obama is giving a major economic policy address in Wisconsin today. Full details here, a short video excerpt here.

Email from John Kerry

I received this email from John Kerry today; I've highlighted a paragraph that jumped off the page for me:

With eight consecutive victories, and a momentum for change that is rolling across the nation -- in caucuses and primaries, East Coast and West Coast, the South and the Midwest, Barack Obama is on the move, smashing the old stereotypes into a million different pieces.

This blew me away: in Barack’s victory in Virginia last night, he won 142,000 more votes than all of the Republicans combined, and his victory margin over Senator Clinton was larger than John McCain’s entire vote total. All of this, in what the Old Guard liked to pretend was "red state" Virginia.

When Barack and I rode together in the motorcade in Charleston, South Carolina on the day I gave him my endorsement, we talked about the three-million-member-strong johnkerry.com community. We both agreed that this email list was a community of supporters, not an ATM machine.

And so these last weeks, as I’ve talked with you, as Barack introduced himself to you, as Ted Kennedy talked about Barack’s commitment to health care for all, and Gov. Tim Kaine talked about Barack’s ability to unite our country -- we haven’t asked you to dig into your pockets. We’ve asked you to get to know Barack, to study his positions, to make phone calls to your neighbors, to go door to door -- to get involved.

But today, I ask you to consider making a contribution as the campaign enters a new phase. Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania -- the next big contests in this campaign are big media market states, huge states that are expensive to build statewide field organizations in, and Barack has a lot of ground to make up. To win, Barack can use all of our help....

So there it is. I know not everyone here is an Obama supporter, and diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness of our community -- but you’ve "had my back" in so many fights these last years, I knew I could ask you to consider signing up for another mission.

So now I'll add my voice to Kerry's and ask you to consider contributing to Obama's campaign. Together we can make a difference.

Voting trends

According to exit polls, Obama won about 60% of female voters in Virginia and Maryland and won the Latino vote by 6 percentage points in both states as well.

Another thing...

that I like about Obama's campaign is that he campaigns everywhere. I can't think of only a couple of states that have already held their primary or caucus where he didn't make a visit to the state. Oklahoma and... well, maybe it's the only one.

Contrast that with Hillary's approach of focusing on "big" states, essentially writing off the voters in so many "smaller" states. And since Iowa she has taken to downplaying caucus states because it's mostly "activists" who attend, which begs the question of why Democratic activists aren't choosing her or why it wasn't important to her to build an organization in those states.

You might argue that Obama's record of visiting almost every state that's voting is a function of the delegate race. But I'd respond that to the voters of the states he visits, the message is very different: You matter, that's why I am here. It's only together--all of us--that we can make a difference in Washington. He's essentially looking ahead to being President and saying, "When the time comes to make change, I'm going to need the support of voters across the country, not just in the big states." And ultimately it will be the weight of all of those supporters pressing on their Senators and Representatives that will shift the path that our government is on.

Perception often becomes reality, as seen from the perspective of people in Wisconsin:

But in trying to set low expectations here, the Clinton campaign also has left some Democrats wondering how aggressively it would seek to match Obama's effort....

The Clinton campaign's recent efforts to downplay the state have surprised some Democrats here.

"They're doing as much as they have to, to give the appearance they're competing but I don't think they are, really," said John Kraus, who ran John Edwards' Wisconsin campaign in 2004 and isn't working for either campaign.

And another perspective on why the ability to inspire matters from Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic.

Internet political laughs

I was talking to my Dad the other day... he'd seen one of those emails that suggests Obama is a Muslim.

It's amusing enough to think that people actually believe that kind of thing--the whole "Manchurian Candidate" idea--but I understand their trepidation.

But what I think is hilarious is the notion that people would think that someone would be dumb enough to try to sneak in a Muslim as a presidential candidate... someone named Barack Obama! Not John Smith, but Barack Obama! :-)

Also of note, the one email I saw that smeared Obama this way was sort of tricky. They said that "they'd checked it out on snopes.com" as a sort of an innoculation against the reader actually doing so. Of course if you do, you find the truth.

February 12th primary results open thread

Virginia's polls closed at 7:00pm EST, and CNN immediately called the state for Obama. He split the white vote with Hillary, won more women's votes than Hillary, and was the choice of voters for whom the economy or the war in Iraq was the top concern. (Hillary had expected to do well among voters who cared about the economy.)

More Virginia exit poll info here.

8pm EST: The polls in Washington, DC, have closed and MSNBC immediately projected Obama the winner.

An interesting post that looks at some of Hillary's logic with respect to caucuses and superdelegates, and another that compares Obama's and Clinton's superdelegate supporters. They're pretty evenly matched with respect to elected officials (governors, Senators, Members of Congress), but not in pledged Democratic National Committee members (mostly party activists). Time will tell how this balance will shift over time, especially with Obama's momentum.

Here's a story and video about Hillary's response to Obama's victories last weekend.

MSNBC is reporting that about 21% of Obama's votes in Virginia came from independents. Obama also won the 65 and older voters there, as well as the blue collar voters. His coalition is growing... and this map is starting to look pretty purple!

They also just announced that Clinton's deputy campaign manager Mike Henry has resigned...

9:30pm EST - The polls (which were kept open late due to weather) have closed in Maryland... and MSNBC is declaring Obama the winner by a significant margin. Some exit poll data here.

And in Virginia, with 83% of the results in, Obama is leading 63% to 36%. In DC, with 49% of the vote counted, Obama is trouncing Clinton 76% to 23%.

10,000 years

So my friend Jack sent me a couple of links that I thought went well together.

The first is an article from Science News that reports the world population is getting older, but life expectancy is also increasing, with the net result that being 60 isn't what it used to be. (Maybe 60 will be the new 30 before we know it!)

The second is a new video spoof that doesn't do for McCain what the original did for Obama. Maybe Americans don't care about being at war for 10,000 years because our life expectancy is increasing... but I doubt it.

Enjoy.

Campaign notes

Just took my first biology exam, think I did pretty well. So I'll indulge in a little bit of online political reading... getting my fix, so to speak. :-)

Read this commentary on the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegate situation on The New Republic's website. They haven't endorsed a candidate, but looking around their site, it seems like they lean Obama. Still, I think their argument is fair and reflects my own feelings.

NOW ABOUT ROMNEY... good riddance. Not so much because I disagree with his current positions (which I frequently do) or because I think he has no integrity (he's changed positions so often and refuses to acknowledge doing so), but because he continues George W.'s habit of questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with fighting the Iraq war.

Listen to him in this video beginning around the 2:30 mark: Romney says that electing Obama or Clinton is the equivalent of "surrendering to terror."

To surrender to terror would require that somehow we were challenged by a group of terrorists and gave in rather than pursued them. Now that's a scenario more akin to Afghanistan than Iraq. All evidence points to Osama bin Laden being the mastermind behind 9/11. His last known whereabouts were Afghanistan, not Iraq. We've prioritized a war of choice in Iraq over responding to the folks who attacked us; during the last several years, al Qaeda has had the opportunity to re-group. And Obama and Clinton have both highlighted this error and the need to re-focus on Afghanistan (though Clinton does have her vote to authorize force against Iraq as a blemish on her record).

So which strategy--George W.'s (which Romney seems to endorse) or the Democrats'--amounts to surrender with respect to the attacks of 9/11?

I LOVE HOW THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN dismisses an Obama win if it's in a "red" state. This is exactly the mindset that Obama's campaign transcends, the notion that Democrats have to write off huge swaths of the country in the general election. What is it about Hillary that has her thinking so small? More here, here, and here.

And while her campaign likes to say that Obama does well only in caucus states, he's actually won nine states that held primaries. And Hillary has won how many primaries? Nine as well. Hmm.

And don't tell me that she's simply realistic... that's a cop-out, an acceptance of the status quo and a lack of vision inappropriate for America when we face so many challenges at home and overseas.

THREE INTERESTING POSTS from The Daily Dish, each highlighting an email he has received about Obama: one from a caucus-goer from Maine, another from an Iowan Republican, and a third from a couple visiting Yemen. (And thanks, Dish, for bringing several of the other links above to my attention.)

Here's video of Obama answering the question, "Why should I vote for you?" in Alexandria, Virginia.

And finally, a link to his in-depth interview last night on 60 Minutes.

Sweets

Okay, done studying peptides, polysaccharides, and lipids for the night.

Took a quick peek at CNN.com and saw this article, which was an amusing coincidence given that I'd just been studying sugars and fats. :-)

It provides more evidence that the key to good health is to eat real food... the body is not so easily fooled by artificial ingredients, especially sweeteners. Read on.

The "dirigo" state goes for Obama

Maine's state motto is dirigo which is Latin for "I guide." So hey, folks, if you haven't voted yet, just follow Maine's lead. :-)

The Obama campaign's post-caucus memo here.