comment #1

Jay T. says ...

I liked Edwards, but him using that damn John Mellencamp Chevy commercial song shows he's out of touch. I am so fucking sick of "This is our country" that I can no longer stand to hear Mellencamp sing anything.

comment #2

Geoff says ...

Agreed. Some people are really blind to the facts or reality though...."How is Edwards done for???" is what I've actually heard.

comment #3

jeffmcm says ...

The difference between Nader and Edwards is that Nader was always a horrible, unelectable vanity candidate and Edwards is still a better candidate than his rivals.

comment #4

christian says ...

Edwards is Nader now?

Get a grip Jeff. Iowa does not dictate the president. Check history. This is still a democracy and just because your candidate hoovered up lobbyist/corporate funds doesn't mean they all have to.

Great, here come the Obama fascists.

comment #5

Geoff says ...

My God I've been mocking Mellencamp with friends for years now.

"A LITTLE DITTY about Jack and Diane......"

comment #6

Balthazar says ...

Obama supports need to be careful what they wish for, IMO.

I don't think it's a slam dunk that the majority of Edwards supporters would switch to Obama.

comment #7

christian says ...

Especially if Obama-maniacs turn into bullies.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

Good point, Christian.
I honestly don't get why Wells likes Obama so much since many of the things that Obama speaks out against are things that Wells explicitly is in favor of.

comment #9

JHRussell says ...

I agree that Edwards has no chance at the nomination, but that doesn't make him a spoiler, and he should stay in the race at least until South Carolina...face it, this is his last chance at the presidency - even though he is a young man, he won't be back...he will withdraw in a couple of weeks when the till runs dry...

comment #10

JHRussell says ...

jeffmcm:

Frankly, I don't know why anyone supports Obama - it sure can't be on the basis of his proposals, because he has been very unspecific - it is all hot air and rhetoric from him right now. I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what Obama will do about anything...Obama is capturing hearts right now, but when that wears off, he needs to capture the minds of voters...I will not be surprised if Obama goes on to win the nomination, but he is a poor debater, and he will get torn apart by any of the GOP frontrunners in the general election...

comment #11

Balthazar says ...

Edwards hanging around longer hurts Hilary more than it hurts Obama, IMO

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

JHRussell: not by Huckabee.

comment #13

christian says ...

The politics of personality. Yay.

comment #14

Dave says ...

Ditto what JHRussell said.

Is Edwards done? Sure, of course he is. This race was always going to be Hillary, and The Other Guy. I think after last night-- and the media lovefest coming Obama's way after last night, and his surely-strong performance to come among New Hampshire's independents-- all the folks who want Anybody But Hillary! will gravitate towards Obama.

After all, if you have two inexperienced candidates virtually indistinguishable from each other, you pull a Mae West and try the one you haven't tried before. Edwards started running for President in *2003*, and has been running ever since. He's spent more time in Iowa than the letter "I", and he *still* couldn't break through.

That said, much like the folks on the Right who are proclaiming Romeny is toast now, I sure hope we haven't reached the point in this country where our parties don't get a choice to choose which candidates we want after the first week of voting. I dunno whether it makes Democrats sad to neck down to a Hillary-Obama race this early, but I don't know a single Republican (including me) who is happy with the prospect of a Huckabee-McCain match-up for our nomination fight.

Two candidates who hardly reflect the majority view of Republicans and conservatives, and us rightwingers are facing the prospect that BOTH will have Big Mo' in a week's time all because Iowa and New Hampshire are both-- to put it charitably-- batshit crazy.

Virgina doesn't vote until 12 February, and I'm facing the prospect that I will have zero say in the nomination of my party's presidential candidate barely a month after this all started.

How very democratic, eh?

We need rotating primaries, and we needed them *yesterday*. Either that, or a national primary with a runoff vote a month later. But as long as we have this process in place, it doesn't matter how super-duper-REALLY-duper you make a Tuesday in February, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are going to fight way, way, WAY above their weight.

comment #15

JHRussell says ...

jeffmcm: don't underestimate Huckabee - he is a killer - he has gotten to where he is today chiefly through his debate performances - he may not have the legs or broad enough appeal to get the nomination, but he is an excellent debater. For that matter, so is Rudy, but man, is he ever in the toilet? A couple of months ago, I would have bet even money on Rudy vs Hillary, but now I wouldn't even bet your money on that matchup...

comment #16

christian says ...

I've been collecting money from friends who swore it would be Hillary-Rudy. Fat chance.

comment #17

Dave says ...

Oh, and P.S.-- Edwards lost every NFL lovin' American with that "Our Country" song.

As any of us rubes who watch football can attest, that awful commericial has been played far, FAR beyond the point of parody.

Now, it's just painful.

comment #18

Walter Sobchak says ...

"I honestly don't get why Wells likes Obama so much since many of the things that Obama speaks out against are things that Wells explicitly is in favor of."

Come on, jeffmcm, this is Wells we're talking about. Not exactly George Will or David Halberstam. Obama dresses nicely, is handsome and has produced some slick adverts. What more is needed?

(btw, that's not meant as a knock on Obama)

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

Walter: I actually think it's more to do with his pervasive obsession with youth culture and what's 'hip'.

comment #20

Dave says ...

All the Kool Kids like Obama, and Jeff *aches* to be kool.

It's a thread-count thing.

I'd be tempted to call it unseemly, if Jeff wasn't so golly-gosh-darned entertaining.

comment #21

jesse says ...

My dream ticket (in terms of realistic candidates, anyway) would actually be Edwards/Obama, with Obama as the potential VP. Edwards has done a better job of putting forth actual ideas rather than just ideas of ideas, and most progressives I know actually like him the best of the three. I mean, hell, I'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. There's a lot to like about him. But I wish he wasn't boosted so blindly (and, again, I'll be happy to boost him if and when he gets the nom; I'd just personally prefer Edwards).

comment #22

Walter Sobchak says ...

If Obama gets the nom, his best choice for VP would be, I think, Bill Richardson.

Could counter-balance Obama's liberalism with indies.

Reagan should've picked Jack Kemp back in '80. Just sayin'.

comment #23

christian says ...

The MSM hates Edwards because of his anti-corporate rhetoric. He is a threat to their power structure, so he gets demonized in favor a lightweight whose only operative word is "hope."

Please Jeff, name me two positions of Obama's that spark you. Huckabee will wound him in a debate because for all his spechifyin' he sucks at the format. Fortunately, Huckabee is a nutcase.

comment #24

George Prager says ...

I already voted for Edwards once, back in 1984 when his name was Walter Mondale.

comment #25

bebe says ...

It's ironic that the first time I'm writing to you has to do with politics and not movies but I couldn't believe your comment about Edwards. How many people actually voted in Iowa anyway? How can this decide the Democratic nomination? I'm so tired of people making pronouncements based on what? a few thousand votes? Let the primary season run its course and then we'll see who's left standing!

comment #26

christian says ...

Maybe you didn't get the message, bebe:

OBAMA or DIE.

comment #27

Dave says ...

"The MSM hates Edwards because of his anti-corporate rhetoric. He is a threat to their power structure, so he gets demonized in favor a lightweight whose only operative word is "hope."

Christian, God love ya man, but the only thing John Edwards is a threat to is a full bottle of hair gel.

comment #28

George Prager says ...

What you Obama-phobes fail to understand is that Presidents don't get elected on the basis of what they say they are going to DO for you. John Kerry had a long laundry list of things that he was going to DOm what his position was on this and that. No one gave a shit. It doesn't matter if he was right. People voted for Bill Clinton because he was Bill Clinton, not because of his "New Covenant."

comment #29

Monument says ...

Is anyone unaware at this point that Christian doesn't like Obama?

comment #30

Walter Sobchak says ...

the MSM hates Edwards? Hates?

What is it that you consider MSM? The Rush Limbaugh radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, Sean Hannity, the National Review and the Glen Beck show?

comment #31

renorambler says ...

The only problem with Jeff's argument is that judging from their resumes Edward's would probably make a better president. But when all is said and done let's face it, practically any in the entire Democratic field would be a better option to what has been going on for the last 7 years and better qualified than what the GOP has been offering up this cycle.

comment #32

GonePostal says ...

Edwards is perceived negativley because he's not seen as trustworthy. He talks a good progressive game, but how many people actually believe he means what he says? Also, Obama has a magnatisim in his speaches that only Reagan and JFK possessed.

As for Huck, he won for similar reasons. He sounds authentic and gives a good speach and is very good off the cuff. Romney lost because he comes off as phony, willing to say what needs to be said to get elected. I'd never vote for Huckabee, but I respect him. Same with Obama. I don't respect Edwards, Romney or Hillary. I think Iowa felt the same way.

But it ain't over yet Jeff. Winning Iowa does not make Obama the nominee. Clinton lost Iowa AND New Hampshire in '92 and won the nod, and neither Gulianni or McCain even campaigned in Iowa, so Huckabee's win only hurts Romney, no one else.

comment #33

George Prager says ...

Newsflash: Giuliani has changed his name to 9iulliani.

comment #34

le corbeau says ...

I already voted for Edwards once, back in 1984 when his name was Walter Mondale.

I already voted for Edwards once, back when his name was William Jennings Bryan.

comment #35

renorambler says ...

Good one, GP.

comment #36

renorambler says ...

Good one, GP.

comment #37

SpinDozer says ...

Edwards spent one-third of what the other two front runners did and came in second. He's never attracted corporate dollars the way his competition has and so not winning Iowa isn't fatal due to the money thing. I bet he goes through Super Tuesday, he wins California, that'd wipe the smirk right off the Obamanoids.

I heard that even though he didn't actively campaign, 9iulliani spent a lotta dough hoping to do 'better than expected' and got humiliated insted and has his hopes pinned on FLA. He may be done before Super Tuesday.

comment #38

christian says ...

I would be happy if in the end Obama won. It would make a nice evolutionary change in America.

But I don't know what he stands for outside of a continued Iraq presence, his diss of unions as "special interest" groups or taking impeachment off the table.

I am coming to dislike his bully supporters.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

jeffmcm: "The difference between Nader and Edwards is that Nader was always a horrible, unelectable vanity candidate and Edwards is still a better candidate than his rivals."

I think you got those mixed up, jeff.

"I honestly don't get why Wells likes Obama so much since many of the things that Obama speaks out against are things that Wells explicitly is in favor of."

He likes Obama for the same reason I do: the guy isn't going to dump the country's problems on the next generation like Hillary and Edwards.

Russel: "I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what Obama will do about anything..."

He'll think outside the box.

"I will not be surprised if Obama goes on to win the nomination, but he is a poor debater, and he will get torn apart by any of the GOP frontrunners in the general election..."

It doesn't matter what the GOP does to any of the Dem nominees, because 2008 is not their year.

jesse: "Edwards has done a better job of putting forth actual ideas"

He's only telling the public what it wants to hear. He's not actually connecting with us. We stopped buying them giving us free ponies when Billary reneged on universal health care.

George: "People voted for Bill Clinton because he was Bill Clinton, not because of his "New Covenant."

No, they voted for Clinton, because of the health care and the jobs. If it was because of him, then he wouldn't have had lost a significant chunk of votes to Perot.

Postal: "He talks a good progressive game, but how many people actually believe he means what he says?"

That war vote is really why no one believes him.

comment #40

christian says ...

Here's how the MSM treats Edwards, and watch Elizabeth smack Matthews:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22508268#22508268

comment #41

George Prager says ...

"No, they voted for Clinton, because of the health care and the jobs. If it was because of him, then he wouldn't have had lost a significant chunk of votes to Perot."

They could've voted for Tom Harkin for health care and jobs.

Did they let out D.Z. last night to make room for Britney Spears?

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

If by 'they' you mean his parents?

comment #43

George Prager says ...

The authorities.

comment #44

nola says ...

Clinton did not compete in 92 because Harkin was running and he is the Senator from Iowa.

I think the bigger issue is the way Hillary ran her campaign in that state. It's all about retail politics. She ran as if she was already the nominee. It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire and So. Carolina.

I think Edwards will wait to see what happens in So. Carolina. Both my siblings work in politics and tell me the Republicans would much rather run against Hillary. Her negatives are highest and she would rally the other side. I could see social conservatives who have a problems with Guiliani's pro-choice stance coming out to vote just so they could vote against her.

comment #45

christian says ...

But it will be tough for Dems to fight this kind of Republican success:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Wary employers clamped down on hiring and pushed the unemployment rate to a two-year high of 5 percent in December, an ominous sign that the economy may slide into recession. President Bush explored a rescue package, including a tax cut, with his economic advisers.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080104/economy.html?.v=12

But Dirty Harry and Mgmax said that the economy was booming!

comment #46

George Prager says ...

"Clinton did not compete in 92 because Harkin was running and he is the Senator from Iowa."

I'm talking about the Democratic nomination, not the '92 Iowa caucus.

"Both my siblings work in politics and tell me the Republicans would much rather run against Hillary."

My cousin works at a movie theater and he told me that NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS sold a lot of tickets last week.

comment #47

BurmaShave says ...

christian, I'd like you to find me one lobbyist cent that Obama has taken. If you Edwards people (I love how this is turning into a civil war!) have to resort to lying to feel better about your candidate, that's just sad. Edwards will stay in until he gets creamed in South Carolina. He might actually do well in Nevada.

comment #48

Abbey Normal says ...

I can tell you a few things about Obama's positions:

1) He thinks forward-looking energy policy means corn ethanol and nuclear power

2) He thinks Social Security is "broken"

3) His health care plan wouldn't cover everybody (from 15-30 million, depending on who's crunching the numbers), unlike both Hillary's and John's.

4) He thinks it's OK to share his stage with anti-gay zealots like Donnie McClurken

5) He's in favor of keeping--or even strengthening in some cases--the useless, Draconian drug policies we've had in place since Reagan.

What's "progressive" about this guy again? How exactly does he represent change? Sounds like Bill Clinton all over again. He's more like Bill Clinton that Clinton's own wife.

There isn't anything wrong with that necessarily. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're promoting some kind of revolutionary liberal/left platform by supporting his candidacy.

comment #49

christian says ...

How about more than one cent?

"But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

So I'm not lying. Now stop the accusations.

BS, I'm not an Edwards person. It's just a fact he's fought and won against corporate sleaze. He disavowed corporate funding; he's the actual populist. I have problems with Edwards, but Obama's shiny speeches are a poor substitute for action. Edwards said he'll pull troops out of Iraq. Obama will make a speech about the future. And he uses rightie talking points on Social Security among other things. All this chat of HOPE is nice, but actions speak louder.

I sense you're a moderate democrat, but that dog don't hunt anymore. I'm through with this spineless and unpopular chaste Dem congress. They had their chance to stand up to Bush but they bend over for him. Still! We need a corporate corrective but Obama ain't the one. He misses important votes so he doesn't have to take a stand. And I want a fighter in there.

I'd like to be proven wrong on Obama but I find myself blank at his incessant speeches. And the Jesus complex of his followers bothers me. Just like Huckabee. Obama is objectively not good at debating. That's an indicator of how somebody can stand up to or communicate with others. We'll see.

comment #50

christian says ...

And Abbey Normal nailed it better than I.

comment #51

BurmaShave says ...

Nuclear power is sensible, and Social Security is broken, that's why we need to fix it. Obama is the only one talking about raising the cap and means testing. As for the troops, even as a Democrat I'm able to see the progess on the ground. Things have gotten a lot less dire there, and Edwards' promises to first pull the troops training Iraqis immediately disqualify him from being commander in chief. So help me you McGovernites are not going to cost us another election.

comment #52

SpinDozer says ...

'Nuclear power is sensible, and Social Security is broken'

Wanna go for the trifecta, how about 'The Surge Is Wor...' never mind

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

George: I'm guessing Tom Harkin was that year's Kucinich, cus I've never heard of him.

Abbey: You forgot to add that he's in favor of negotiating with Iran and Cuba, getting rid of our embargo in the latter country, raising the standard of living, and tightening a noose around NAFTA. On the other hand, much like Clinton, your bitch Edwards ended up taking the same positions you decry.

christian: The key word is he "fought" against corporations. Then he acquiesced to their biggest puppet. A guy who's willing to betray his own principles to win is no better than the "fiscal" conservatives who voted for Bush.

Burma: I don't think nuclear power is sensible; and the "progress" in Iraq is likely to be temporary. But at least Obama is addressing the issues on most voters' minds, instead of just trying to cover up for his mistakes. Edwards chose to make a run for Fantasy Land, because he thinks
we want another politician who makes promises he can't or won't keep, when we really want a leader who will tackle the problem.

comment #54

jeffmcm says ...

"I'm guessing Tom Harkin was that year's Kucinich, cus I've never heard of him."

God damn, it's pleasant when you reveal how ignorant you are. Harkin has been Senator from Iowa for over twenty years. He's the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Thank you, thank you, for that reaffirmation that every time I converse with you I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

comment #55

D.Z. says ...

jeff: Oh, so is he the one who keeps black and brown farmers in other countries poor by asking for subsidies?

comment #56

jeffmcm says ...

Always with the zingers.

comment #57

jeffmcm says ...

Seriously, though: if you really cared about 'black and brown farmers' you should know the names of the guys in Washington who control their fates. But you don't, so you don't.

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

Ok, I've wiki'ed the guy out of respect for him and jeffmcm, and he sounds decent enough. I'm guessing he lost, because he didn't tap into the issues most important to Americans like Clinton.

comment #59

le corbeau says ...

Nuclear power is sensible, Social Security is broken, the surge is working, the correct solution to a real, but far from catastrophic, health care coverage shortfall of around 15% of the population is NOT completely wrecking our existing health care system and replacing it with one in which bureaucrats decide how many months you wait to get your cancer looked into, based on your lifestyle, Europe will begin enforcing sharia law in the next ten years and burning representational Renaissance paintings within 20, and the only way to ensure mankind's survival against a Bin Laden with weaponized smallpox is to start terraforming and colonizing Mars.

This is my platform, thank you and goodnight.

comment #60

le corbeau says ...

Oh, and D.Z. just demonstrated why I'm so happy the youth vote doesn't turn out.

comment #61

le corbeau says ...

One last thing: Edwards fights corporations because he's a fricking trial lawyer. If fuzzy kittens had deep pockets he'd be fighting them, too. Congratulating a man for his populism when he gets 30% of the award is like congratulating Drew Carey for his hard work making sure Americans know the right price of the items they buy.

Quick, name something Edwards did in office-- besides vote for the Iraq War, I mean. I'll give D.Z. this much, when he suggested that "vanity candidate" applied to Edwards rather than Nader, he was halfway right.

comment #62

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax, I like how your platform increases in lunacy as it goes along. I assume that was by design.

comment #63

SpinDozer says ...

It's called logical progression. Kinda like a tumor.

comment #64

christian says ...

BS, I assume you're anti-gun control too. But Iraq is not "working" and this year has seen the biggest death toll. And fer Gawd's sake, nuclear power is not sensible in this day and age. It's global psychosis. Especially given this story from September:

A three-month investigation into security issues at our nation’s nuclear power plants found something disturbing at Peach Bottom nuclear facility outside of Philadelphia. Security guards charged with protecting the plant are sleeping on the job. And not just one of them. Several were caught on tape snoozing during their shifts.

CBS 2’s three-month investigation into the security gap yielded some shocking information and video.

The video shows the inside of the nation’s largest nuclear facilities. There are images of security officers responsible for protecting the plant against a terrorist attack, an attack that could kill or injure tens of thousands, including people here in our area.

But instead of being alert and prepared for anything, the officers are asleep and unaware a fellow guard is videotaping these disturbing images shot at different times of the day.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2007/09/25/peach-bottom-nuclear-power-plant-security-guards-asleep-on-the-job/

As for as these candidates go, they all suck. I prefered the only real liberal who has stood up to the powers, but Kucinich is too wacky for all the pragmatists in love with dreamy Obama.

comment #65

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "the surge is working,"

Yeah, that shoot-out in Pakistan proves freedom is on the rise and Al Qaeda is on the run.

"completely wrecking our existing health care system and replacing it with one in which bureaucrats decide how many months you wait to get your cancer looked into,"

Yes, bean-counters are so much better at saving lives than doctors working for the government.

comment #66

nemo says ...

"Christian, God love ya man, but the only thing John Edwards is a threat to is a full bottle of hair gel."

I think you're confusing Edwards with Mitt Romney.

comment #67

SpinDozer says ...

I know there are other opinions, but this quote from wikipedia should be dismissed by only the most obtuse (feel free, Mgmax):

'Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that

" ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239 then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in.'

Nukes do not = magic bullet

comment #68

le corbeau says ...

Mgmax, I like how your platform increases in lunacy as it goes along. I assume that was by design.

I call it vision!

Yeah, that shoot-out in Pakistan proves freedom is on the rise and Al Qaeda is on the run.

Actually, Pakistan is not in Iraq. It's a country of its own. Today's fun fact from Hollywood Elsewhere!

But Iraq is not "working" and this year has seen the biggest death toll.

Christian, do you think people like me don't know that that's because of a high death toll before the surge started? The fact is that we just had the lowest three-month death total, the first one below three figures in the entire war. Not to be flip about an utterly serious subject, but most airline crashes kill more people than Iraq has killed American soldiers in the last three or even six months.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/01/iraq-casualty-numbers.html

comment #69

nemo says ...

"Ok, I've wiki'ed the guy [Harkin] out of respect for him and jeffmcm, and he sounds decent enough. I'm guessing he lost, because he didn't tap into the issues most important to Americans like Clinton."

Tom Harkin is my senator, and he is a hell of a lot better than just decent enough. He just couldn't raise enough money. Plus I think he's not insanely hungry enough to do what it takes to win a presidential nomination.

comment #70

SpinDozer says ...

'do you think people like me don't know that that's because of a high death toll before the surge started? '

By this same standard, do you really believe that people opposed to the Surge believed that the military wasn't capable of a short term reduction in violence, following the bloodiest year of the conflict? Are you not able to see that the future potential for violence both against our troops and Iraqui's is the gamble the Surge makes in order to secure the oil agreement that is priority numero uno?

comment #71

le corbeau says ...

Gee, my exhaustive two-minute search of Wikipedia says we use 3.3 terawatts total, not 10. (The world uses 15, did you mean global usage?) In any case, if 16% of that is provided by 439 nuke plants now, then we need about 2200 more plants equal to current plants, not 10,000-- not, of course, that anyone thinks we're going to replace one with the other wholesale.

comment #72

SpinDozer says ...

'Pakistan is not in Iraq'

Great point, what is it about the GLOBAL war on terrorism you don't understand?

comment #73

SpinDozer says ...

'Gee, my exhaustive two-minute search of Wikipedia'

Thanx for your obtuse contribution. I'm sure 2200 more plants is no biggie.

comment #74

le corbeau says ...

Spin, that would be a valid concern if the surge were solely a military phenomenon. The security and the political atmosphere have changed because we've changed the military situation, however. Will it last? Did it last in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea? How long did we stay to make sure?

Oh, and Harkin (whom I gave money to in '92, incidentally-- hey, I subscribed to The Nation then too) lost because that Shrum populism stuff only flies in Iowa. Clinton ran on more moderate positions and... well, then Ross Perot gave him the best Christmas present any boy ever got.

comment #75

le corbeau says ...

'Pakistan is not in Iraq'
Great point, what is it about the GLOBAL war on terrorism you don't understand?

What is it about the fact that Pakistan has been erupting in violence like Old Faithful for 60 years, starting with the very night of its birth? Do you really think that has a goddam thing to do with America?

comment #76

SpinDozer says ...

'Do you really think that has a goddam thing to do with America?'

You mean the country that declared global war on terrorism?

comment #77

SpinDozer says ...

BTW, nice use of the xenephobic 'stupid foriegners' defence. Pleases apply to India and Pakistan, Greece & Turkey, Britain/Ireland, North/South whenever it meets you needs.

comment #78

SpinDozer says ...

' that would be a valid concern if the surge were solely a military phenomenon.'

Which is precisely what it is at this point and the foreseeable future. Thanx

comment #79

SpinDozer says ...

'There are 103 operational commercial nuclear power plants in the United States today, and a 104th is expected to resume operations in a few years.(2001)'

2200 is only 44 per state. Good plan.

comment #80

le corbeau says ...

Actually that was 2200 worldwide-- not that (as I said) anyone thinks we'd be building all that to replace existing power as opposed to meeting future needs that way.

But in any case, a simple "you're right, my facts were off by a factor of 5" will suffice.

comment #81

SpinDozer says ...

'Did it last in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea? How long did we stay to make sure? '

50 fucking years and counting (nearly 20 years after the fall of the Wall). I'm sure the taxpayers can ante up for a 50% increase over the next decade.

comment #82

SpinDozer says ...

'Actually that was 2200 worldwide'

Good thing you are emporer of the planet and can determine all nation's acceptible growth rate, otherwise you'd be pissing in the wind, huh?

comment #83

christian says ...

Nukes do = global bullet.

comment #84

le corbeau says ...

That's three incoherent rebuttals in a row. Get some sleep and try again tomorrow.

comment #85

SpinDozer says ...

incoherent = dumbshit no-likee

comment #86

le corbeau says ...

alligator rugburn = marzipan haste