Obama '08?

It was a letter to the editors - two pages all about the same topic (A6 and A7) in last week's Tuesday's edition.

I got the "Final****- edition". Might well be that in the earlier editions the letter by Mr. Seligman was printed differently.

But however: it is completely untrue.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

This won't mean much to anyone but Sozobe, but, my very liberal bro-in-law is now insisting that he will vote for McCain before Clinton (Sis was leaning the same way, last we spoke). Reason: 20 years Bush/Clinton/Bush is too much already. As I'm sure you can imagine; he was VERY against the war, so playing devil's advocate I pointed out that McCain has stated he may have us in Iraq for 100 years... "That's fine. I think it shows responsibility that we don't abandon them after we screwed up their country so badly."

I wonder how many of you Mad Town hippies are thinking along these lines.

Grateful Dead fan Ann Coulter and your liberal bro-in-law might, if they come in contact, cause the universe to disappear.

I didn't say it was true. I just said that it was said and I couldn't locate the source. I never would have mentioned it if I had known anybody would make a federal case out of it.

It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

Clinton responds on Kazakh issue
Posted: Sunday, February 03, 2008 10:41 AM
by Chuck Todd

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
ST. LOUIS, MO, Feb. 3 -- In an interview this morning on Fox, Hillary Clinton sought to "set the record straight" -- in her words -- about a New York Times report that linked her husband to a Canandian financier.

The paper reported last week that Bill Clinton helped Frank Giustra close a lucrative uranium mining deal while on a philanthropic trip to the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan and that Giustra later donated $31 million to the former president's foundation and pledged to donate even more.

When asked whether as president she would tell her husband to "knock off those kinds of dealings", the New York senator said the description of what had occured was inaccurate.

"He went to Kazakhstan to sign an agreement with the government to provide low cost drugs for HIV/AIDS, a growing problem in Central Asia. While he was there he met with opposition leaders and certainly spoke out about the hopes that we have to have a good relationship with that country," Clinton said.

The senator said she had been on record for many years as against the country's anti-Democratic government and had called for changes.

"So I think that it's clear that I will stand on my own two feet. I will say what I believe and I will be a president who pursues policies that I believe will be in the best interest of our country," she said.

In an odd response to a follow-up question about her husband praising the Kazakh leader, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who has led the country for 19 years, and suggesting he could lead an international election-monitoring organization, despite her coming out against his anti-Democratic government, Clinton noted that Dick Cheney had also gone to the country to praise its regime.

She went on to explain that she believed in using carrots and sticks in diplomacy and said these difficult issues required "seasoned leadership", especially in dealing with a region where the United States has many interests, from natural resources to fighting extremism.

The trip illustrates the unusual position the former president is in. He is his wife's top political adviser, and Hillary does little to downplay the idea that he would be a notable, if unofficial, presence in her administration. In speeches, she says that she would deploy her husband as a roving ambassador. Yet unlike Hillary, who must report the names of her campaign contributors and how much they give, Bill Clinton is a private citizen and does not have to disclose most details about his charitable and business ventures. His private dealings raise inevitable questions about who might come seeking favors if he and Hillary move back into the White House.

Clinton has used his global travels and unrivaled schmoozing skills to raise billions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, much of it from wealthy American and foreign individuals. The former president does not disclose all the names of those who have written his charity checks, or how much they gave, nor is he required to. Many private foundations do the same.

and to boot Finn, your "good ole boy" reference is as close to being stupid/inane/childish as was your reference to my hat. do you really want me to research you comments about my hat?

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't say it was true. I just said that it was said and I couldn't locate the source. I never would have mentioned it if I had known anybody would make a federal case out of it.

Okay - but it really wasn't the Journal who got it wrong :wink:

Foxfyre wrote:

It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't say it was true. I just said that it was said and I couldn't locate the source. I never would have mentioned it if I had known anybody would make a federal case out of it.

Okay - but it really wasn't the Journal who got it wrong :wink:

Foxfyre wrote:

It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

Which is out of context.

ehBeth wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

This week the Albuquerque Journal commented on the universal coverage plans in the UK and Canada. Both do not provide coverage for treatment of prostate cancer for persons age 65 or older

Perhaps the AJ should do better research. Treatment for prostate cancer is in fact provided to men over the age of 65 in Canada.

I know several of them personally.

I hope you're right Ebeth. I went back through our papers for the last several days but didn't find the article. Wanted to check the source it was using. It wouldn't be the first time that the Journal got something quite wrong, however.

[ There's not supposed to be tax breaks, for the rich, while the poor pay through the nose!

teenyboone wrote:

[ There's not supposed to be tax breaks, for the rich, while the poor pay through the nose!

Many wage earners at lower income levels receive a tax refund which equals most if not all of the tax they paid that year.

Are you unaware of this?

Of course he didn't liken Obama to Hitler, and neither will I. It is not a sense that a sinister danger hides within Obama's charisma, but it may be that incompetence does.

What ARE you comparing him, to, then? Can you spell B-U-S-H? Now THAT'S incompetence!

real life wrote:

teenyboone wrote:

[ There's not supposed to be tax breaks, for the rich, while the poor pay through the nose!

Many wage earners at lower income levels receive a tax refund which equals most if not all of the tax they paid that year.

Are you unaware of this?

That's a nice benefit to have, but it doesn't do much to help them survive the year while waiting for that refund to appear in the mail box, especially when prices for everything are going up as fast as they currently are.

The advance EITC allows taxpayers who expect to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and have at least one qualifying child to receive part of the credit in each paycheck during the year the taxpayer qualifies for the credit. The credit is sometimes called the AEITC.

Q2. Why should I be interested in the advance EITC?

A2. You can choose to get part of the credit in your paycheck, if

you are working;
you expect your adjusted gross income (AGI) and earned income will fall within the income limits for the year;
you expect to have at least one qualifying child; amd
you expect to qualify for the EITC.
Your employer will put a part of the EITC in your paychecks but there is a maximum amount that can be paid during the year.

Note: You may be able to claim a larger credit when you file your tax return because your employer can only pay a part of the credit to you in your paycheck. Also, you may be able to claim a larger credit if you have more than one qualifying child. But you must file your tax return to claim any additional credit.

Holy ****, that was unexpected. At the big rally at UCLA with Michelle Obama, Oprah, and Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver just unexpectedly showed up to endorse Obama.

I wonder how Ahnold took that.

Update: Keep in mind, this is now top-of-the-fold news in every California newspaper tomorrow, it will lead every newscast. And it should push into Tuesday as the governor is forced to answer questions about it.

Well played, Obama campaign. Well played.

Good timing for NPR folks too:

Writer and humorist Garrison Keillor today announced his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President.

Keillor is best known as the host of Public Radio's A Prairie Home Companion and is also a best-selling author and humorist.