If John Breaux dos run, I beg Rep. Jindal to use this ad. It's worthless against Breaux (if, however, there is enough noise for Breaux, it mighht be effective against another Democrat. Of course, if Blanco runs again, Rep. Jindal really won't have to spend too much on ads).

Attacks are the best form of political praise. Breaux would beat the GOP, so they are trying anything they can to face Blanco and not him. Maybe Jindal isn't as strong as the GOP thought???

Rich
http://route22.blogspot.com

Sure, Breaux is a conservative. Otherwise, he couldn't get elected as dogcatcher in LA.

But I think his positive comments on Rep. Jindal will enhance his reputation, not diminish it. Whether in LA or elsewhere, I believe voters want candidates who can work in a bipartisan way. Sort of like Congress did when they actually accomplished some good legislation in the past.

And, yes, Capster is right about the Social Security "trust fund."
As a participant, I know the fund is based on IOUs, in place of the money that the government has already spent.

Seriously, who cares? In LA, Ds are Rs, and they are all conservative. If Breaux runs, big deal. He was among the most conservative senators, he'll be a conservative governor. It will really make very little difference. It's virtually impossible for a moderate Dem to win a statewide election in LA.

And by the way, KOZ is right about one thing - there really is no hidden fund for SS. It really is all on paper only (no, not real dollars). You can claim it's t-bills or anything else, but if you take the money actually set aside for SS vs. the expected outlays, we are in pretty deep sh*t. Facts is facts. Al did try to make this clear with his talk about a "lockbox", but he ended up being a punchline for SNL.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Look at me! I'm the king. I'm the king. Nobody beats the king. Whoopee!

actually 1653 views is what i saw just now

1020 views

drindl, I agree with what Colin wrote about Breaux.

In a VERY conservative state in the Deep South, who would you prefer the Dems ran for governor? Howard Dean? Obama? Dennis Kucinich?

Be realistic. Just as Rick Santorum was too conservative for PA, and just as James Inhofe could never get elected in NJ, you are NOT going to see a liberal Democrat win election in LA.

Blanco even signed an abortion ban and the Castle Doctrine into law.

If you want a Dem governor in LA, you need to pick a conservative Dem.

And, it would benefit Dems to keep the LA statehouse since LA will likely gain a congressional seat after 2010, and it would be nice (for Dems) to change the current congressional delegation from 5 GOP, 2 Dem, to 5 GOP, 3 Dem.

Wouldn't you say?

Honestly, do you really think you can get a Northeast style Dem to win in the South???

RACIST ALERT ! !

I will be reposting this message to make sure everyone sees it.

To the person who is posting under the name "William" and linking to solidpolitics.com and making other posts, STOP IMMEDIATELY.

In case you haven't realized it, I have already taken that moniker, so CHOOSE ANOTHER!!!!

According to the rules of this site, using someone else's handle is prohibited.

It's possible that you didn't know this, or didn't realize "William" was already taken.

Well, it is.

So, stop using my handle IMMEDIATELY.

Thank you.

To everyone else on this thread, that person is NOT ME (the real William.)

So please do not convince that troll's posts with MINE.

I will be reposting this message in all threads to make sure everyone reads it:

To the person who is posting under the name "William" and linking to solidpolitics.com and making other posts, STOP IMMEDIATELY.

In case you haven't realized it, I have already taken that moniker, so CHOOSE ANOTHER!!!!

According to the rules of this site, using someone else's handle is prohibited.

It's possible that you didn't know this, or didn't realize "William" was already taken.

Well, it is.

So, stop using my handle IMMEDIATELY.

Thank you.

To everyone else on this thread, that person is NOT ME (the real William.)

So please do not convince that troll's posts with MINE.

To the person who is posting under the name "William" and linking to solidpolitics.com and making other posts, STOP IMMEDIATELY.

In case you haven't realized it, I have already taken that moniker, so CHOOSE ANOTHER!!!!

According to the rules of this site, using someone else's handle is prohibited.

It's possible that you didn't know this, or didn't realize "William" was already taken.

Well, it is.

So, stop using my handle IMMEDIATELY.

Thank you.

To everyone else on this thread, that person is NOT ME (the real William.)

So please do not convince that troll's posts with MINE.

For an in-depth article on the medical disability ratings system, see the Post Sunday Magazine's main article from 02/25/07. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022200891_pf.html

You can't blame Rumsfeld for this. This has been evolving since the Civil War. The system's supposed to be designed to meet the needs of those who need help, and weed out those that don't qualify.

But, it hasn't really worked that way for decades. It's a game of chance. Some are accurately diagnosed and properly rated, others beat the system and win, while deserving others get screwed and lose.

Nothing new here; just something that should have been addressed by many Congresses and Administrations of both parties.

Drindl -- Rereading what I wrote, I just want to reiterate that I understand your position on Breaux. He often was irritating when he refused to allow the Dem leadership to negotiate from a stronger position and clearly will not be a progressive governor if elected. I just know that he'll be WAY better than any Republican that he runs against and his presence at the top of the ticket will probably allow Dems in the state legislature to mantaine their majority prior to the next census -- which I know you'll agree is very important.

What Rumsfeld did to the military:

'Another witness at the Congressional hearing, Annette L. McLeod, spoke of how the Army tried to deny benefits to her husband, Wendell, for a brain injury he suffered, by suggesting that he had always been a slow learner.

Mr. McLeod, a specialist in the South Carolina National Guard known by the nickname Dell, was injured in Kuwait near the border with Iraq.

Army officials resisted determining that he was in fact brain-injured, Mrs. McLeod said. "They stated that Dell appeared to be intellectually slow and that this was the cause of the problem," she said. "They also said he over-exaggerated his injuries so that he could get attention."

Unsurprisingly, the final solution will almost certainly be a compromise that combines minor trimming of benefits with modest tax increases, just like in 1986.''

I agree with you there, colin. i just wish Breaux wasn't so eager to 'privatize' everything. It's just a giveaway of taxpayer money to corporations.

'ignore his useless dribble.'

it's not nearly as useless as yours.

CC - This YouTube post doesn't have much political impact... and the posters are thus resorting to verbal spitballs

What about posting on the Semla dust-up, or the Romney-bused-in CPAC straw poll. Or Richardson's first visit to Iowa.
http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Has the Queen of Zouk returned?

attention all there is a lib impersonating me. ignore his useless dribble.

Drindl - Breaux isn't my favorite Democrat, but he's not a Republican by a long shot. That's the kind of thinking that got us into trouble in 2000 when waaay too many people said that there wasn't any difference between Bush and Gore. Pretty safe to say we know better now. Moreover, this is an important gubernatorial election since LA is either going to end up like Georgia or like Arkansas. I know which outcome I'd prefer.

As far as SS goes, I actually respect Breaux for being willing to discuss the issue. Now, obviously Bush's proposals have all been ridiculous -- in the sense that he's refused to compromise at all -- but ultimately something will have to be done. Unsurprisingly, the final solution will almost certainly be a compromise that combines minor trimming of benefits with modest tax increases, just like in 1986. And just like then, it will have to be bipartisan to work.

your complete ignorance of all things economic is utterly stunning - ignorant coward. what exactly is a US treasury bond? what assett is it guaranteed by - a house, a car, a bank account?
since you are so obviously dim - it is guaranteed by the full faith of the US government. that is taxes we intend to collect.
Perhaps you are the proud owner of one of these bonds. you gave the goverment some money and in exchange you foolishly accepted a piece of paper saying they would repay you someday with a little extra kicked in. do you think the $100 you spent is sitting in fort Knox? do you really think that? Now you are just making it easy for me to ridicule you. Can you really be that shameless about knowing so little that you would post it to a blog for all the world to see? I guess it runs in your party.

how laughable you are zouk.

Looks like ol' William has been spankin' it to Rep. Sanchez. A lot.

It is the size of government that drives economic growth. Professor drindl should cite her wild claims about economic numbers or be laughed out of the room. take a look at this actual professor of economics and his view and paper on economic growth. the growth of real GDP averaged 1.9% in the 90s, a lowering trend.

http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/function.pdf

Don't you find it funny when kruggman things we are underestimating growth when he picks on social security but overestimating it when he talks about budget deficits. How very convenient but subscribing to his usual methods of "truthiness".

If you want economic numbers average over as long as it takes to make your point, if you want global warming numbers only do the hot years. this must be the new math they are teaching to your children.

' there are no assetts to repay it (some IOUs'

The 'ious' are US Treasury bonds. never stop spreading your lies and ignorance, do you?

When drindl can pose as the voice of economic reason, I must admit I checked the temperature of the underworld.

do you know exactly where the SS trust fund is located? the one with a trillion dollars? since you don't seem to know I will alert you. It is located in fantasy land. this is money that was spent and must be repaid. there are no assetts to repay it (some IOUs). it must come from the general income. Now the general income is limited since we don't tax at 100%. If we are to use this "trust fund" we will have to either 1. spend less or 2. tax more. It is similar to my 7 yo promising to pay me back next week if I "lend" her money for a candy bar. but guess where the payback money will be coming from?

Relying on anything Kruggman says is not a good stategy. he is widely known to be almost clintonesque in his depth and breadth and ease in concocting lies. He has successfully predicted 15 of the last 3 recessions.

Yet all this talk of extending the inevitable is illuminating on the Dems position. "Take no brave action that could actually solve problems. Instead, stall, flim-flam and point fingers. hope no one notices you haven't offered anything". Leopards spots.

It is important to note that the intermediate estimate assumes that over the next 75 years, economic growth will average only 1.5 percent per year. To put this in perspective, during the past 75 years, which include the Great Depression, economic growth averaged 3 percent annually.'

Rosy? Not at all. It's simply assuming that growth will continue much as it has over the last 75 years, which would be about 3%.

I have yet to see any correlection between higher taxes and growth. That's a red herirng. We have had strong economic growth during times when taxes were far, far higher than they are now, and recession when taxes were low. It's a myth.

Now that CC's posted the video, at least 3 dozen others will view it.

"because privatization simply means destroying Social Security, and the transitiion costs would far exceed what just funding the program would cost. Wherre are we going to get the gigantic sum it would cosst to transisiton? Borrow it?"

here's a thought: raise the eligibility age on a rolling scale (people in their 50's keep it where it is, 40's add 3 years, and 30's add another 3). I suspect that would solve most of the problem.

As for the assumed low growth rates - I guess he figures taxes are bound to go higher, which will stangle the rosy economic growth predictions.

You call Samuelson a lackey then cite Krugman as an objective economist for your source? LOL

BTW I did read your post. You cite a bunch of problem with what Breaux came up with. You offer no solutions.

Many republicans would say that that is the problem with many democrats these days - throwing stones, offering no good ideas.

'um, drindl, didn't Breaux lead Clinton's Medicare/Social Sec reform team? I think he came up with those kinds of solutions that you disparage as politicize/privatize, and Clinton ignored him. OK then, what's your solution?'

If you read the rest of what I posted, you would know. It's good that Clinton ignored him... because privatization simply means destroying Social Security, and the transitiion costs would far exceed what just funding the program would cost. Wherre are we going to get the gigantic sum it would cosst to transisiton? Borrow it?

Samuelson is a corporate lackey. I'm sure you love his ideas. They are all profoundly helpful to the very wealthy.

Here, perhaps this will help you understand what I mean:

'It is important to note that the intermediate estimate assumes that over the next 75 years, economic growth will average only 1.5 percent per year. To put this in perspective, during the past 75 years, which include the Great Depression, economic growth averaged 3 percent annually. The intermediate estimate is thus extremely conservative.

If the economy does grow more quickly, the date the trust fund becomes insolvent will recede into the future. Economist Paul Krugman (New York Times, July 22) notes that if the economy were to grow at the rate assumed by Bush in his tax cut bill, the trust fund would still be solvent in 2075.'

I forgot to add:

It's a sad statement about modern politics that Breaux is being criticized for not being nasty enough to his (potential) opponent.

I don't see how this would be the work of a Republican activist. How does it make Breaux look bad? By showing that he likes the Republican candidate? In the general election campaign, this video wouldn't be useful at all. It's more applicable to the Democratic primary. A more liberal Democrat can use it to criticize Breaux for being too friendly with the Republicans, like the picture of Lieberman and Bush hugging.

Um, this clip has been on YouTube for four days, has a grand total of 36 views, and CC thinks this is news?

Serious lack of discrimination here. Even if someone cannot tell the difference between a YouTube phenomenon and a YouTube clunker, the numbers should be able to tell them that.

Cool stuff makes its way around YouTube but YouTube doesn't make stuff cool. Duh.

PS eagerly awaiting drindl's off-topic response, almost certainly about Iraq. Bush lied, people died, etc.

Make that Feb 14 for Samuelson, sorry for the mistype

um, drindl, didn't Breaux lead Clinton's Medicare/Social Sec reform team? I think he came up with those kinds of solutions that you disparage as politicize/privatize, and Clinton ignored him. OK then, what's your solution?

You say that this won't save SS. Fine, but I suggest you get a little smarter about the coming disaster - read Samuelson, a non-political finance/economics type if there ever was one, especally his Feb 3 and Jan 3 pieces.

So, if you have a solution instead of just throwing stones, we're all ears. At least Clinton tried to get a bipartisan solution, too bad he ignored it.

and in re: breaux, he is a democrat in name only, at least recently. does anyone know anything about his track record in congress? what did he sponsor / support? i know he went to bat for bush on at least one issue before he left...

as far as youtube goes, it seems to me to be not the best format for political debate. used this way, it's like writing nasty stuff on a bathroom wall - can't be answered, and the writer is often hard to track down. not defending breaux, understand, but this isn't politics... it's name-calling and juvenile.

i don't usually read che's long offerings either, although sometimes i have. but it bothers me not at all to scroll down for three seconds to get to the next entry. it does bother me that so many people seem to feel compelled to criticize him for making what he obviously feels are valid contributions. this is just a blog - get over yourselves. he isn't hurting anyone.

Che.... Please. Those posters wanting to read the World Socialist Web Site can go there themselves. You're not winning any hearts or minds.

I expect that Breaux will absolutely stand by his statement that Bobby Jindal should serve this country as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Affairs.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

US severe poverty highest in three decades

By Naomi Spencer
5 March 2007

Extreme poverty in the US has reached its highest point in at least three decades, according to an analysis of Census Bureau figures by McClatchy Newspapers published February 22. The increase reflects the stark reality of declining living standards for the majority of the population in the so-called capitalist recovery of the past five years as well as during the period that preceded it.

In 2005, individuals earning less than $5,080 a year were considered severely poor; a family of four with two children was severely poor if they lived on less than $9,903. The data review found that nearly 16 million Americans in 2005 were living in severe poverty, or below half the federally designated poverty threshold.

This figure represents nearly half of the total poverty population, the highest proportion of the poverty population in dire straits since at least 1975. Between 2000 and 2005 alone, this group grew by 26 percent, even as the economy recovered from recession.

According to Tony Pugh, the author of the report, this growth in severe poverty was 56 percent more than the growth of the poverty population overall, which also grew substantially over the period.

In 2005, 12.6 percent of the population, or 37 million people, including 13 million children, lived below the official poverty line. The McClatchy report notes that about one in three severely poor people are under the age of 17, and that nearly two thirds of the poor population are female. Families headed by women bear a great deal of the deepest poverty in the US.

Minority families are disproportionately impoverished. Census data suggests that low-income blacks are more than three times as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be severely poor. Poor Hispanics are more than twice as likely to suffer severe poverty. In 2005, 4.3 million of the severely poor were black, and 3.7 million were Hispanic.

Many of the severely poor among minorities are older, having worked for decades in the now-collapsed manufacturing sector and developed job-related injuries and other health problems. The McClatchy report quoted congressional testimony from Community Service Society of New York City president David Jones, who remarked, "You have this whole cohort of, particularly, African-Americans of limited skills, men, who can't participate in the workforce because they don't have skills to do anything but heavy labor."

University of Wisconsin social welfare professor Mark Rank told the news agency that one in three Americans experience a full year of extreme poverty at some point in life. Based on longitudinal research, Rank estimated that 58 percent of Americans between ages 20 and 75 will spend at least a year in poverty. Two in three will use a public assistance program between the ages of 20 and 65, and 40 percent of Americans will rely on public assistance for at least five years. The poverty estimates do not include the undocumented immigrant population, which would certainly increase the rates.

According to the McClatchy review of Census data, 65 of 215 large US counties saw statistically significant increases in severe poverty. The report also suggested that, rather than being concentrated in particular regions of the country, such as the Gulf Coast or collapsing manufacturing centers in the Midwest, "the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas."

The US-Mexico border and the South registered the most extreme poverty. Here, 6.5 million are severely poor. Many worked in generally low-wage jobs in apparel, textile and furniture factories that are now closing down or relocating. Similarly, severe poverty has grown in the so-called rustbelt of the Midwest and Northeast in the wake of mass layoffs and plant closures.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/pov-m05.shtml

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Breaking news!!!
Bush departments alliance with Al Qaeda related groups in Lebanon

A major focus of the US strategy is to weaken the Syrian government of President Bashir Assad and his alliance with Iran, and to undermine the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Bush administration actively encouraged Israel's savage bombardment and invasion of Lebanon last year as the opening shot in a broader campaign against Syria and Iran. But in a significant blow to US plans, Israel failed to destroy Hezbollah, which emerged from the rubble with heightened political stature. In an interview on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, Hersh described Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah as "the single most popular figure among Sunnis and Shias" in the Middle East.

In its efforts to counter the Shiite-based Hezbollah and shore up the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, the US is now covertly supporting Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon that are known to have close ideological ties to Al Qaeda. Nothing is more revealing of the criminal character of the Bush administration. In the name of fighting its bogus "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascists" to defend the American people, the White House has no compunction in forming in a de facto alliance with Sunni fanatics who pay homage to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

A former senior American intelligence official told veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh: "We are in a program to enhance Sunni capacity to resist Shiite influence, and we're spreading money around as much as we can... In this process, we're financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don't have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don't like. It's a very high-risk venture."

Former British MI6 agent Alastair Crooke, based at the Conflicts Forum think tank in Beirut, explained that Fatah al-Islam, which broke from the pro-Syrian group Fatah al-Intifada in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon, had been offered money to fight Hezbollah. A larger Sunni fundamentalist group, situated at the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp, received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.

An article in the British-based Telegraph last month confirmed that President Bush had given the green light to the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the Lebanese prime minister. The classified presidential order "authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hezbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding [order] means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable."

All these activities are going on behind the backs of the US Congress and the American people. It is no surprise that Elliot Abrams, who was convicted over the Iran-Contra affair, is a central figure in these dirty operations. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was involved in secretly selling arms to Iran as a means of covertly funding and arming the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua without congressional approval. Now Abrams is directing another criminal operation, involving the Saudis, to fund Sunni extremists to undermine Tehran and its allies as the US prepares to launch a war on Iran.

The close involvement of Saudi Arabia in the enterprise is particularly significant. The Saudi monarchy, which has a long history of financing Sunni fanatics, was a close partner in the 1980s in the CIA's backing of Mujaheddin fighters against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. The "blowback" from that operation included the creation of Al Qaeda, which called for a jihad against the US after American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War in 1990-91. Now with Saudi assistance, the Bush administration is unleashing the same reactionary forces in its efforts to undermine Iran, with cynical disregard for the consequences.

As a US government consultant told Hersh, Prince Bandar and other Saudis had offered assurances that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was, 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis [Sunni fundamentalists] to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at--Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran." No doubt similar assurances were given in the 1980s that Riyadh would control a little-known Saudi engineer, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/iran-f28.shtml

Just can't stop snickering about women in bras, can you? Women must wear burqas at the school you go to.

Adam.... I totally agree. Praise for an opponent if they have done the job should be a plus, not a negative. It'll never reach Macaca heights even with CC pushing it.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Everything I'm reading coming out of Louisiana tells me that it's going to be a solid Republican state no matter who the Democrat running is. But, on a lighter note, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez did an interview with the LA Times wearing only pants and a black bra: http://www.solidpolitics.com

He also wanted to privatize Social Security... to me, he's just another republican, who would not be any different from Jindal.

'Senators Judd Gregg and John Breaux, along with President Bush's commission, believe our current Social Security system is unsustainable. The senators also seem to agree with the commission that partial privatization is needed to preserve Social Security for future generations.

Under partial privatization, workers would invest a third of their payroll deduction in individual retirement accounts and presumably take advantage of higher yields in the stock market.

With all due respect to the senators, there are several problems with partial privatization.

First, it seeks to solve a problem that may not exist. In their 2001 report, the Social Security trustees, whose members include Bush's secretaries of the treasury, health and human services, and labor, estimated that the trust fund had assets of slightly more than $1 trillion.

The trustees also presented three estimates of Social Security's future status. Their intermediate estimate, the one most often cited by the media, projects that the trust fund will run out of money in 2038. After that, Social Security will take in enough in payroll taxes to meet 73 percent of its obligations; by 2075, this will decline to 67 percent.

The problem is not saving Social Security but closing this gap.

It is important to note that the intermediate estimate assumes that over the next 75 years, economic growth will average only 1.5 percent per year. To put this in perspective, during the past 75 years, which include the Great Depression, economic growth averaged 3 percent annually. The intermediate estimate is thus extremely conservative.

If the economy does grow more quickly, the date the trust fund becomes insolvent will recede into the future. Economist Paul Krugman (New York Times, July 22) notes that if the economy were to grow at the rate assumed by Bush in his tax cut bill, the trust fund would still be solvent in 2075.'

This has a feeling of "so what". You Tube is going to be a powerful tool, but I don't think anyone is going to be moved much by a series of quotes praising a potential opponent. You can praise someone and still disagree with their ideas.

The stuff that's going to get a lot of play on You Tube is going to be macaca moments.

John Breaux may be a democrat but I have no use for him. He's a creature of the privatize-politicize government and sell it to the highest=bidding global corporation. Here's how he wanted to destroy Medicare. CC falls into the gullibility trap of saying this group of privatizers wanted to 'preserve' Medicare and that's a straight out lie:

'Under the Breaux-Thomas plan, beneficiaries would receive a voucher to buy private health insurance. Breaux-Thomas would also increase the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67.

Critics of Breaux-Thomas have raised several concerns. First, Breaux-Thomas would not guarantee Medicare's current package of benefits and many recipients could find themselves priced out of badly needed services. Second, by increasing the age of eligibility, Breaux-Thomas would increase the number of people without insurance. Third, by shifting costs to recipients. Breaux-Thomas would force many older adults, who tend to have the greatest health needs, into low-cost health maintenance organizations of varying, and sometimes dubious, quality. Fourth, Breaux-Thomas does little to address the high cost of prescription drugs. Critics argue that Breaux-Thomas is really a wolf in sheep's clothing, a plan to destroy Medicare in the guise of saving it.

"Consider Maureen Dowd, a perceptive and often witty columnist who understands very well how destructive the Bush presidency has been to her beloved country. Just the other day Dowd acknowledged in the New York Times that we and the world would be in considerably better shape today had Gore -- whom she described as 'prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq'--ascended to the Oval Office instead of the current occupant. But she neither noted the guilt of the media in that travesty nor recalled her own starring role."