The final rounds of the Scripps National Spelling Bee were unusually prolonged and suspenseful.
Thirteen finalists began and were winnowed down to five. And then they went 21 more rounds without any one of the five missing a word.
Finally two were left: 12 year old Laura Newcombe from Toronto and 14 year old Sukanya Roy of Pennsylvania. Sukanya won by correctly spelling "cymotrichous" after Laura was eliminated for flubbing "sorites."
I was humbled to realize that I was completely unfamiliar with a single word that the article mentioned as the crucial ones in the final rounds, including:
Cymotrichous
Sorites
Bondieuserie
Zanja
Jugendstil
Galoubet
Sukanya modestly attributed her success to the fact that she had gone through the entire dictionary a couple of times, and "I guess some of the words really stuck." She says every word she was given, she knew. She didn't have to guess.
Sukanya is the fourth consecutive Indian-American to win and the ninth in the last 13 years.
Impressive !! Something positive in the news.
Ralph
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Edwards indicted #2
John Edwards says that he did wrong, and he apologized; but, he says, "I did not break the law."
He may be right, and that is all that should matter when the case comes to trial. It all hinges on whether the $975,000 contributions from two wealthy friends, used to keep his mistress and baby out of sight and away from the media, constituted a campaign contribution.
Prosecution claims it did, because the secret revealed would have adversely affected his campaign for president. There's absolutely no doubt: it would have ended it, on the spot.
But Edwards claims the money was to keep the secret from his wife, not from his campaign. Shady, but nothing illegal about that, if you have friends that wealthy and that devoted to helping you evade responsibility. They can give you, or your mistress, that much money, if they wish. But the amounts are way over the limits set by law for campaign contributions. That's what would make it illegal, and that's the only way John Edwards may have broken the law.
Some legal experts have said that no court has ever interpreted campaign contributions this broadly to include such payments. So he could be acquitted if a jury agrees.
Here's the question I would raise to the jury to test whether it should be considered a campaign contribution: if he had declared these as campaign contributions, would the expenses to which they were applied (ie, buying a house for a mistress, paying her lavish living expenses) be accepted as legitimate campaign expenses?
Probably not. So, if the money was given specifically to be used for the mistress, and if that is not a legitimate campaign expense, how can it be called a campaign contribution?
So . . . as much as I recoil from what Edwards did, and the betrayal of us all and the danger he put the country in, I too am not sure that he broke the law. If he did, it's way out at the margin of interpretation of what constitutes a campaign contribution; and there will be legitimate differences of opinion by legal experts.
Let's see what a jury decides. It's going to be hard to keep that one focused narrowly on whether he broke any law, because it is so sensational a story that will necessarily be told in court. That's what good lawyers are for -- to keep it focused narrowly on the law and not let it become a media circus.
Ralph
He may be right, and that is all that should matter when the case comes to trial. It all hinges on whether the $975,000 contributions from two wealthy friends, used to keep his mistress and baby out of sight and away from the media, constituted a campaign contribution.
Prosecution claims it did, because the secret revealed would have adversely affected his campaign for president. There's absolutely no doubt: it would have ended it, on the spot.
But Edwards claims the money was to keep the secret from his wife, not from his campaign. Shady, but nothing illegal about that, if you have friends that wealthy and that devoted to helping you evade responsibility. They can give you, or your mistress, that much money, if they wish. But the amounts are way over the limits set by law for campaign contributions. That's what would make it illegal, and that's the only way John Edwards may have broken the law.
Some legal experts have said that no court has ever interpreted campaign contributions this broadly to include such payments. So he could be acquitted if a jury agrees.
Here's the question I would raise to the jury to test whether it should be considered a campaign contribution: if he had declared these as campaign contributions, would the expenses to which they were applied (ie, buying a house for a mistress, paying her lavish living expenses) be accepted as legitimate campaign expenses?
Probably not. So, if the money was given specifically to be used for the mistress, and if that is not a legitimate campaign expense, how can it be called a campaign contribution?
So . . . as much as I recoil from what Edwards did, and the betrayal of us all and the danger he put the country in, I too am not sure that he broke the law. If he did, it's way out at the margin of interpretation of what constitutes a campaign contribution; and there will be legitimate differences of opinion by legal experts.
Let's see what a jury decides. It's going to be hard to keep that one focused narrowly on whether he broke any law, because it is so sensational a story that will necessarily be told in court. That's what good lawyers are for -- to keep it focused narrowly on the law and not let it become a media circus.
Ralph
Friday, June 3, 2011
Inner curmudgeon #8
I just signed a petition to the news directors of every major news network, sponsored by my phone company, Credo. It asks them to stop reporting on Sarah Palin's bus trip to nowhere. She's not a serious presidential candidate but a media-manipulating TV personality engaging in yet another publicity stunt to milk the gullible conservative public into boosting the earning power of her and her exploited children.
She is news only if you cover her antics. So, just stop.
Ralph
She is news only if you cover her antics. So, just stop.
Ralph
Inner curmudgeon #7 - statistics and lies
I've railed before about the sorry state of understanding of statistics, not only in our populace but especially in our journalists.
For example: a study shows that 52% of people favor x, while 45% favor y, and 3% have no opinion. The article, and especially the headline, will often claim that "most Americans" favor x. Obviously there is a confusion between "majority" and "most."
Now my latest gripe about misleading use of statistics has to do with medical statistics and especially drug studies. Example: the big flap in the news about whether cell phone usage causes brain cancer.
On one day the WHO put out a report that says there is no evidence that cell phones overall result in higher risk for brain cancer. The next day the same WHO puts out a report that says those with the highest use of cell phones have a 40% increased chance of developing gliomas, a type of brain cancer.
How can both be true? Statistics. Glioma is only one type. So, let's suppose that the overall incidence of brain cancers is 10 in 10,000 people. And half of those are gliomas. That's 5 in 10,000. In highest cell phone users, maybe the incidence is 7 in 10,000. That's a 40% increase. But it's also a very very tiny difference in incidence: from 5/10,000 to 7/10,000. [I'm making these numbers up for illustration; I don't know the actual incidence.]
But -- you see the different? To say 40% sounds really alarming. To say from 5 to 7 per 10,000, not so much.
In fact, the WHO has categories of cancer risk: definite, probable, and possible. They classified this one as "possible." Also in that category?
Coffee.
So, let's don't get all hysterical about cell phones. Bah humbug.
Ralph
For example: a study shows that 52% of people favor x, while 45% favor y, and 3% have no opinion. The article, and especially the headline, will often claim that "most Americans" favor x. Obviously there is a confusion between "majority" and "most."
Now my latest gripe about misleading use of statistics has to do with medical statistics and especially drug studies. Example: the big flap in the news about whether cell phone usage causes brain cancer.
On one day the WHO put out a report that says there is no evidence that cell phones overall result in higher risk for brain cancer. The next day the same WHO puts out a report that says those with the highest use of cell phones have a 40% increased chance of developing gliomas, a type of brain cancer.
How can both be true? Statistics. Glioma is only one type. So, let's suppose that the overall incidence of brain cancers is 10 in 10,000 people. And half of those are gliomas. That's 5 in 10,000. In highest cell phone users, maybe the incidence is 7 in 10,000. That's a 40% increase. But it's also a very very tiny difference in incidence: from 5/10,000 to 7/10,000. [I'm making these numbers up for illustration; I don't know the actual incidence.]
But -- you see the different? To say 40% sounds really alarming. To say from 5 to 7 per 10,000, not so much.
In fact, the WHO has categories of cancer risk: definite, probable, and possible. They classified this one as "possible." Also in that category?
Coffee.
So, let's don't get all hysterical about cell phones. Bah humbug.
Ralph
John Edwards indicted
Politicians and their zipper problems. Many an otherwise good man has been brought down from pinnacles of power and influence by that one little item of modern clothing.
Rarely have I been so wrong about a politician I strongly supported for high office, and I am monstrously disappointed in John Edwards and angered by the danger he put our country into with his affair. Suppose he had been nominated? The affair would inevitably come out during the general campaign -- and today Sarah Palin would be Vice President of the United States.
Unless she quit half way through, that is.
It's not just that Edwards had an affair, nor that he fathered a child with his mistress. After all, John F. Kennedy was no paragon of monogamy. That was a different time, however, before the intense scrutiny and 100% squeaky-cleanness was demanded of our politicians.
No, it's more the betrayal of a mortally ill wife, while pretending to be the devoted family man and making that a center piece of his campaign, and the betrayal of those of us who supported his presidential candidacy. That behavior -- the danger he put our country in -- to me, speaks to far more serious character deficits than the zipper problem.
So, now he's been indicted for illegal campaign contributions, conspiracy, and making false statements. His defense has been that the money from wealthy donors to silence and keep hidden his mistress and child was for the purpose of keeping his wife from knowing, not to keep it from affecting his campaign -- which it undoubtedly would have.
If it's the latter, which the grand jury believed, then it's illegal campaign contributions. Edwards and his lawyers tried to negotiate a plea that would allow him to keep his license to practice law; but the prosecutors insisted on a felony plea.
So now there will presumably be a trial, which he could win, but all the sordid details would be aired. Or he pleads guilty and loses his license.
Either way, John Edwards is paying a very high price for his deception to cover up his fun. As he should, in my opinion.
Was there something we did know about him that should have tipped us supporters off to his hubris and recklessness? The 20/20 vision of hindsight does say: there was just a whiff of it in the 'pretty boy' image; but I thought that was minor and that underneath he was sincere about his commitment to helping the disadvantaged, to promoting democracy and equality.
A near miss -- but a good lesson for all.
Ralph
Rarely have I been so wrong about a politician I strongly supported for high office, and I am monstrously disappointed in John Edwards and angered by the danger he put our country into with his affair. Suppose he had been nominated? The affair would inevitably come out during the general campaign -- and today Sarah Palin would be Vice President of the United States.
Unless she quit half way through, that is.
It's not just that Edwards had an affair, nor that he fathered a child with his mistress. After all, John F. Kennedy was no paragon of monogamy. That was a different time, however, before the intense scrutiny and 100% squeaky-cleanness was demanded of our politicians.
No, it's more the betrayal of a mortally ill wife, while pretending to be the devoted family man and making that a center piece of his campaign, and the betrayal of those of us who supported his presidential candidacy. That behavior -- the danger he put our country in -- to me, speaks to far more serious character deficits than the zipper problem.
So, now he's been indicted for illegal campaign contributions, conspiracy, and making false statements. His defense has been that the money from wealthy donors to silence and keep hidden his mistress and child was for the purpose of keeping his wife from knowing, not to keep it from affecting his campaign -- which it undoubtedly would have.
If it's the latter, which the grand jury believed, then it's illegal campaign contributions. Edwards and his lawyers tried to negotiate a plea that would allow him to keep his license to practice law; but the prosecutors insisted on a felony plea.
So now there will presumably be a trial, which he could win, but all the sordid details would be aired. Or he pleads guilty and loses his license.
Either way, John Edwards is paying a very high price for his deception to cover up his fun. As he should, in my opinion.
Was there something we did know about him that should have tipped us supporters off to his hubris and recklessness? The 20/20 vision of hindsight does say: there was just a whiff of it in the 'pretty boy' image; but I thought that was minor and that underneath he was sincere about his commitment to helping the disadvantaged, to promoting democracy and equality.
A near miss -- but a good lesson for all.
Ralph
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Girls just don't play fair
Poor Tim Pawlenty. He just can't get a break. Nobody is trying harder to get people to pay attention to the fact that
Stuck in single digits in the polls, behind both Ron Paul and Herman Cain -- no matter what he does. Yet T-Paw is the one that the serious GOP-ers turned to after white-knight Mitch Daniels opted out. They think he will be the one left standing at the end of the primaries.
Did it help his ratings? Nah. He just doesn't make that splash that gets crowds excited. He's not even boring like Mitch Daniels. He even shouts and points his finger. But people still yawn.
This may sound sexist (in fact this whole piece is very sexist, calling them 'girls' -- read it as ironic levity) but there's just something about the name "Tim" that doesn't sound, well, quite manly. And his voice lacks booming resonance; it's closer to squeeky. I'm just suggesting that his image does not convey authority, mastery, and leadership -- and that has nothing to do with his actual accomplishments. I'm talking about early impressions that make someone stand out in the crowd.
Like, who even noticed that he made his big announcement last week in Iowa telling us that he's
It's the fault of those damn girls, stealing the spotlight.
Sarah just stole all the attention by waltzing in a few days later to start her hyped up bus tour of America's Historical Sites -- kicking it off Saturday by riding through DC on a Harley with the bikers, leather jacket and all. Then she and Todd and the kids went to the National Archives to commune with the actual authentic parchment of the Constitution. Talk about masterful image-making. Mama Grizzly, biker, but beautiful and sensitive, all in one. Take lessons, Tim.
And she won't even say if she's running for president. Just plays coy. That girl's a big tease, that's what she is. George Will says she is "a genius at manipulation." He's so right. She won't even tell the media where the tour is heading next. She's playing "catch me if you can" -- which of course just makes all the more news: Where's she going next? Stay tuned and find out !!!
You can't tell whether that girl's serious or not. Maybe she will, maybe she won't. She's not telling. Personally, I think she's just getting her revenge at the media and the political pros for dissing her in 2008 -- plus, of course, all that dough she's raking in that'll dry up as soon as she says, "No." She'll say that for herself she would be willing to make the sacrifice "fer all the good Americans out there in the Real America," but that all that toxic media exposure would be harmful to her family. That's a good one. Has anyone in history ever exploited her family any more than Sarah?
And then there's that other one -- you know, the one who's "not interchangeable" with Sarah. What did Michele do to steal T-Paw's thunder? She let it be known that God's telling her to run. She feels the "calling." Did God tell any of the guys to run? Haven't heard of it, if He did.
Damn, those girls. They just don't play fair. T-Paw, he's just so sincere and decent and plays it straight. And they're running circles around him, grabbing the spotlight.
So who would you rather have answer the red phone at 3 AM? Sarah, Michele, or T-Paw?
Well, actually, my preference is that guy, Barack. But I'd sure take T-Paw ahead of the girls.
Ralph
HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Stuck in single digits in the polls, behind both Ron Paul and Herman Cain -- no matter what he does. Yet T-Paw is the one that the serious GOP-ers turned to after white-knight Mitch Daniels opted out. They think he will be the one left standing at the end of the primaries.
Did it help his ratings? Nah. He just doesn't make that splash that gets crowds excited. He's not even boring like Mitch Daniels. He even shouts and points his finger. But people still yawn.
This may sound sexist (in fact this whole piece is very sexist, calling them 'girls' -- read it as ironic levity) but there's just something about the name "Tim" that doesn't sound, well, quite manly. And his voice lacks booming resonance; it's closer to squeeky. I'm just suggesting that his image does not convey authority, mastery, and leadership -- and that has nothing to do with his actual accomplishments. I'm talking about early impressions that make someone stand out in the crowd.
Like, who even noticed that he made his big announcement last week in Iowa telling us that he's
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?
It's the fault of those damn girls, stealing the spotlight.
Sarah just stole all the attention by waltzing in a few days later to start her hyped up bus tour of America's Historical Sites -- kicking it off Saturday by riding through DC on a Harley with the bikers, leather jacket and all. Then she and Todd and the kids went to the National Archives to commune with the actual authentic parchment of the Constitution. Talk about masterful image-making. Mama Grizzly, biker, but beautiful and sensitive, all in one. Take lessons, Tim.
And she won't even say if she's running for president. Just plays coy. That girl's a big tease, that's what she is. George Will says she is "a genius at manipulation." He's so right. She won't even tell the media where the tour is heading next. She's playing "catch me if you can" -- which of course just makes all the more news: Where's she going next? Stay tuned and find out !!!
You can't tell whether that girl's serious or not. Maybe she will, maybe she won't. She's not telling. Personally, I think she's just getting her revenge at the media and the political pros for dissing her in 2008 -- plus, of course, all that dough she's raking in that'll dry up as soon as she says, "No." She'll say that for herself she would be willing to make the sacrifice "fer all the good Americans out there in the Real America," but that all that toxic media exposure would be harmful to her family. That's a good one. Has anyone in history ever exploited her family any more than Sarah?
And then there's that other one -- you know, the one who's "not interchangeable" with Sarah. What did Michele do to steal T-Paw's thunder? She let it be known that God's telling her to run. She feels the "calling." Did God tell any of the guys to run? Haven't heard of it, if He did.
Damn, those girls. They just don't play fair. T-Paw, he's just so sincere and decent and plays it straight. And they're running circles around him, grabbing the spotlight.
So who would you rather have answer the red phone at 3 AM? Sarah, Michele, or T-Paw?
Well, actually, my preference is that guy, Barack. But I'd sure take T-Paw ahead of the girls.
Ralph
Monday, May 30, 2011
MD's to the left
Very interesting trend noted in a New York Times article today: a change in the medical profession from predominantly male and owning their own practices to half the young doctors being female and working in salaried jobs.
And the political results? Definitely trending to the left.
Psychiatrists were always more liberal than most doctors and psychoanalysts even more than that. So I was not out of step with my subspecialty. But I definitely did not want to get into political discussions with the typical doctor -- Republican through and through.
As the Times states:
A welcome awakening.
Ralph
And the political results? Definitely trending to the left.
Psychiatrists were always more liberal than most doctors and psychoanalysts even more than that. So I was not out of step with my subspecialty. But I definitely did not want to get into political discussions with the typical doctor -- Republican through and through.
As the Times states:
That change could have a profound effect on the nation’s health care debate. Indeed, after opposing almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century, the American Medical Association supported President Obama’s legislation last year because the new law would provide health insurance to the vast majority of the nation’s uninsured, improve competition and choice in insurance, and promote prevention and wellness, the group said.Another sign: in Maine, a conservative legislator introduced a bill that would limit doctors' liability from patients' malpractice suits. She thought the medical lobby would cheer; instead they asked her to withdraw the bill.
Because so many doctors are no longer in business for themselves, many of the issues that were once priorities for doctors’ groups . . . have been displaced by public health and safety concerns. . . .The executive director of the Oregon Medical Association said: “When I came here, it was an old boys’ club of conservative Republicans.” Now she says that her group lobbies for public health issues that it long ignored, like insurance coverage for people with disabilities.
The Maine doctors’ group once opposed health insurance mandates because they increase costs to employers, but it now supports them, despite Republican opposition, because they help patients. . . .
A welcome awakening.
Ralph
Nut - #12 - All quiet this week
For the week of May 30:
Little has been heard from Nut this week. The only news was that the "bling thing" still had some legs -- you know, the half-million credit line at Tiffany's. While it's perfectly legal, it hurt Nut's image.
Instead of the hard-working, Big Ideas man who can start up a new think tank or foundation before breakfast, we were suddenly reminded of his philandering past. The jewels were apparently for his wife, but that only served to remind us that Callista was the mistress with whom he had a long-running affair while married to wife #2.
On top of that, any ostentatious display of wealth to those without jobs or who lost their homes will hurt your cause. Not that Nut tried to "display" this -- it was picked up in some sleuthing, including Callistat's financial disclosure records for her government job.
Maybe Nut's been out there this week on the ground shaking hands in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he hasn't done much that attracted news coverage -- or else there is a media boycott.
Which is a good thing, I guess. With Nut still languishing in the polls, pulling 6 to 8% and often behind Michael Cain, the only way he can move up from there is to make a big splash. And Nut's splashes usually turn into disasters.
My guess is that the campaign strategy is: stay out of the spotlight for a while and hope people forget. Then come back and try to think before you speak.
Ralph
Little has been heard from Nut this week. The only news was that the "bling thing" still had some legs -- you know, the half-million credit line at Tiffany's. While it's perfectly legal, it hurt Nut's image.
Instead of the hard-working, Big Ideas man who can start up a new think tank or foundation before breakfast, we were suddenly reminded of his philandering past. The jewels were apparently for his wife, but that only served to remind us that Callista was the mistress with whom he had a long-running affair while married to wife #2.
On top of that, any ostentatious display of wealth to those without jobs or who lost their homes will hurt your cause. Not that Nut tried to "display" this -- it was picked up in some sleuthing, including Callistat's financial disclosure records for her government job.
Maybe Nut's been out there this week on the ground shaking hands in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he hasn't done much that attracted news coverage -- or else there is a media boycott.
Which is a good thing, I guess. With Nut still languishing in the polls, pulling 6 to 8% and often behind Michael Cain, the only way he can move up from there is to make a big splash. And Nut's splashes usually turn into disasters.
My guess is that the campaign strategy is: stay out of the spotlight for a while and hope people forget. Then come back and try to think before you speak.
Ralph
Sunday, May 29, 2011
And then there were 18
The GOP is going through more auditions for a presidential candidate than a revival of "A Chorus Line." It's hard to keep up with the latest.
Barbour, Daniels, and Huckabee have opted out. Trump jumped out, but then said he might come back. Nut is at the being-ignored stage, and going nowhere in the polls. In fact, Nut (8%) came in behind Herman Cain (10%) in the latest Gallop poll, which means he's got to make a big splash soon, or he's out.
Romney is still the nominal front-runner at 17%, but nobody seems happy about it. Palin comes in second at 15%, but may or may not announce, although she's doing a good job of building expectations this week.
Ron Paul is a perennial also-ran who won't catch any more fire than he has now. Pawlenty keeps plugging along without any increase in his poll numbers (currently in 6th place with 5%). Herman Cain? Seems to make a big impression when he speaks to a conservative crowd, but not likely to be acceptable to the GOP powers that be. Santorum? He'll never make it out of the distant pack. Nothing much to recommend him, and he tends to shoot himself in the foot and leave crazy tag lines behind, like "man on dog sex," in his attempt to disparage gay rights.
Huntsman has a lot to offer, but may have too much (good) baggage: he's bright, thoughtful, sane, and has more liberal views on some social issues than the right wing can handle. But he's handsome, speaks Mandarin Chinese fluently, was Obama's ambassador to China and distinguished himself; was a popular governor of Utah, he's also a Mormon and fiscally conservative -- and, proving his manly bona fides, he rides a motorcycle.
Jeb Bush continues to lie low, repeating that he will not be a candidate. Texas governor Rick Perry is subtly allowing his name to be floated, and hinting that he'll "think about running." And Rudy Guiliani is headed for New Hampshire. That was the one bright spot thus far: we've been spared his toothy grin and megalomania. The Donald has enough New York narcissism for everyone, thank you very much.
Oh, I forgot: Michele Bachmann, who insists that Sarah Palin's entry into the race won't change her plans. "We're not interchangeable," she proclaims. If Palin announces, Bachmann may just have to jump in to prove her point. Lately, she's taken to saying she feels "a calling" to run. That's code to the religious right that it's God's will that she run.
And then there are the hardly known and the completely unknowns: Buddy Roemer, Greg Johnson, Fred Karger.
So there you have it. Short of a white horse knight like David Petraeus (who wouldn't be popular with the get-out-of Afghanistan crowd) or possibly Michael Bloomberg, I don't see the winner they're waiting for.
They're going to have to choose him/her and turn her/him into that white knight (or knightess).
Ralph
Barbour, Daniels, and Huckabee have opted out. Trump jumped out, but then said he might come back. Nut is at the being-ignored stage, and going nowhere in the polls. In fact, Nut (8%) came in behind Herman Cain (10%) in the latest Gallop poll, which means he's got to make a big splash soon, or he's out.
Romney is still the nominal front-runner at 17%, but nobody seems happy about it. Palin comes in second at 15%, but may or may not announce, although she's doing a good job of building expectations this week.
Ron Paul is a perennial also-ran who won't catch any more fire than he has now. Pawlenty keeps plugging along without any increase in his poll numbers (currently in 6th place with 5%). Herman Cain? Seems to make a big impression when he speaks to a conservative crowd, but not likely to be acceptable to the GOP powers that be. Santorum? He'll never make it out of the distant pack. Nothing much to recommend him, and he tends to shoot himself in the foot and leave crazy tag lines behind, like "man on dog sex," in his attempt to disparage gay rights.
Huntsman has a lot to offer, but may have too much (good) baggage: he's bright, thoughtful, sane, and has more liberal views on some social issues than the right wing can handle. But he's handsome, speaks Mandarin Chinese fluently, was Obama's ambassador to China and distinguished himself; was a popular governor of Utah, he's also a Mormon and fiscally conservative -- and, proving his manly bona fides, he rides a motorcycle.
Jeb Bush continues to lie low, repeating that he will not be a candidate. Texas governor Rick Perry is subtly allowing his name to be floated, and hinting that he'll "think about running." And Rudy Guiliani is headed for New Hampshire. That was the one bright spot thus far: we've been spared his toothy grin and megalomania. The Donald has enough New York narcissism for everyone, thank you very much.
Oh, I forgot: Michele Bachmann, who insists that Sarah Palin's entry into the race won't change her plans. "We're not interchangeable," she proclaims. If Palin announces, Bachmann may just have to jump in to prove her point. Lately, she's taken to saying she feels "a calling" to run. That's code to the religious right that it's God's will that she run.
And then there are the hardly known and the completely unknowns: Buddy Roemer, Greg Johnson, Fred Karger.
So there you have it. Short of a white horse knight like David Petraeus (who wouldn't be popular with the get-out-of Afghanistan crowd) or possibly Michael Bloomberg, I don't see the winner they're waiting for.
They're going to have to choose him/her and turn her/him into that white knight (or knightess).
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
