NATIONAL & WORLD DIGEST January 6, 2008

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT rays.list@comcast.net and we'll be happy to send the full article.

=

Forwarded from Christian and Leo

Interesting Political Analysis tool
Find the candidates that match your views on the issues.

http://www.electoralcompass.com/language/en



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06campaign.html

Sharp Clashes in Hectic Days Before Primary

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
January 6, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. - The presidential candidates rushed into a final weekendof compressed and often harsh campaigning here Saturday, as they presentednew themes to New Hampshire voters and tried to keep pace with a schedulethat left little room for error before the primary on Tuesday.

The day ended with heated back-to-back, nationally televised Republican andDemocratic debates, including a moment when the candidates from both partiesshared the stage. For a few minutes, six Republican candidates and fourDemocrats mingled in front of the cameras, shaking hands, embracing andtalking as the audience applauded.

In a tense 90-minute debate among the Democrats - marked by bouts ofshouting and finger-pointing - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New Yorkwent after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois aggressively, contending that hehad switched his positions on crucial issues, including health care andfinancing the Iraq war. Mr. Obama said she was distorting his record. Athird Democrat, John Edwards of North Carolina, briefly joined forces withMr. Obama, asserting that they were both "agents of change" and describingMrs. Clinton as a force of "the status quo."

Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts Republican, was the target in the Republicandebate. He was attacked by two rivals - Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who beathim in Iowa on Thursday, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is leadingin polls here - on issues like immigration and on his history of shiftingsome positions.

"We disagree on a lot of issues," Mr. McCain said at one point, setting up ashot intended to illustrate perceptions that Mr. Romney had recalibrated hispositions on issues to make himself more attractive to Republican voters."But I agree you are the candidate of change."

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/weekinreview/06powell.html

The Nation: Democrats in Sync, Mostly

By MICHAEL POWELL
January 6, 2008

DEMOCRATS might be forgiven for wearing shades, so bright are their daysjust now.

The Democratic turnout in Iowa more than doubled that of the Republicans.National polls show the party's top candidates edging out the best of theRepublican field. They have also declined to feast on each others' entrails,although that could change as the campaign and the candidates grow morefrenzied.

And, whatever their differences in emphasis and philosophy of government,the Democrats have danced to remarkably similar themes. They favor universalhealth care, withdrawing troops from Iraq, combating global warming, hikingtaxes for the very rich, and slashing taxes for the working and middleclasses.

It's all poll tested and much applauded by the party faithful.

"It's a remarkable consensus," said Robert B. Reich, former secretary oflabor in the Clinton administration and a professor at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley. "This is the greatest degree of unanimity I've seenin at least three decades and we owe it to George Bush and all herepresents."

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06kinsley.html

Op-Ed Contributor: Stirred, Not Shaken

By MICHAEL KINSLEY
January 6, 2008
Seattle

IF it's a question of "experience" versus "change," change will win everytime. Hillary Clinton, of all people, should have known that. Doesn't sheremember 1992? That was when her husband made "change" his mantra andchanted it all the way to the White House. This year, Mrs. Clinton tried tosuggest that Barack Obama does not have enough experience to be president.He hung her experience around her neck and chanted the change mantrahimself.

An Obama presidency would, in fact, be a huge change in all sorts of obviousways. Yet on the Republican side as well, there is talk of change. Of courseit is trickier with a sitting Republican president. But that hasn't stoppedone of the candidates from seizing on the word and using it as thecenterpiece of his campaign.

It's not the candidate you would have guessed if you haven't been listeningto them: it's Mitt Romney. Nothing better illustrates the mystical power of"change" in American politics, and its malleability, than its selection bythe expensively engineered Romney machine, even though the word doesn't seemto apply in any way to the man or his campaign.

It's hard to say what Mr. Romney's campaign is really about. He wouldclearly do or say anything or its opposite to become president. But, ingeneral, he seems to be trying to make himself as conventional a Republicanas possible, calling for tax cuts blah blah blah, supporting President Bush100 percent on Iraq, shedding any aberrant views on abortion or gay rightsthat he may have picked up by accident in Massachusetts.

He radiates conventionality, with his "Leave-It-to-Beaver"-and-then-somefamily and his good looks straight out of "Mad Men," the TV series aboutMadison Avenue in the early 1960s. (I was a few years behind Mr. Romney at asmall private high school in Michigan. He graduated in 1965 and looksexactly the same now as he did back then.) If anything, his message ought tobe stability: things do not have to change.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Republicans-Rdp.html

Analysis: Rivals Now Taking on Romney

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:16 a.m. ET
January 6, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Surging in New Hampshire, John McCain seeminglyshould be the candidate taking heat from his Republican presidentialopponents. But Mitt Romney was the one assailed during and after ahigh-stakes GOP debate

Romney's rivals want to cripple his campaign with back-to-back losses inIowa and New Hampshire that would hamper the wealthy former Massachusettsgovernor in states beyond. They also don't particularly care for him.

Back and forth it went on Sunday, two days before the primary and only hoursafter Saturday night's debate.

''My friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but itstill won't be true,'' McCain told his chief competitor Saturday night,taking issue with Romney's characterization of the Arizona senator'simmigration plan as amnesty.

''I don't describe your plan as amnesty in my ad, I don't call it amnesty,''Romney shot back -- even though two of his TV commercials use the term,including on that says McCain ''wrote the amnesty bill that Americarejected.''

more . . . . .



=

Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119949950505869431.html?mod=PageOne_1

Black Leaders in a Quandary
Clinton Backers Are Put
In Uncomfortable Spot
After Obama's Success

By VALERIE BAUERLEIN and COREY DADE
January 5, 2008; Page A5

Barack Obama's resounding victory in Iowa is creating intense pressure onblack leaders who have backed Hillary Clinton, and it has exposed ageneration gap between cautious older black preachers and politicians andtheir younger counterparts and students.

Early on, Mrs. Clinton lined up support among the established leaders of thecivil-rights era, including former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young and Rep.John Lewis of Atlanta, as well as several members of the Congressional BlackCaucus. On the ground in South Carolina, her campaign said she has more thantwice as many endorsements as Mr. Obama from black politicians andpreachers. Mr. Obama's top black endorsers include Oprah Winfrey and theRev. Jesse L. Jackson (though Mr. Jackson's wife, Jacqueline, backs Mrs.Clinton).

Now, for many black voters, Mr. Obama's Iowa victory, in a state dominatedby white voters, is muting the concern that Mr. Obama couldn't be electednationwide. The problem facing many black supporters of Mrs. Clinton: how tooppose a black man anointed a presidential front-runner by an overwhelminglywhite state.

This is especially pressing in South Carolina, where as many as half of thevoters in the Jan. 26 Democratic primary are expected to be black. Lastsummer, Mr. Obama trailed Mrs. Clinton among South Carolina's black voters,according to a Clemson University poll, but in recent weeks had taken aslight lead. At the same time, the number of undecided blacks has grown,demonstrating the wide-open status of the state's primary.

Black voters are also likely to be critical in the rush of later primaries.Blacks make up 40% of Democratic primary voters in Georgia, a third inVirginia and a quarter in Tennessee. They also make up a fifth of primaryvoters in New York and 15% in Delaware and Ohio.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?hp

U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan

By STEVEN LEE MYERS, DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
January 6, 2008

WASHINGTON - President Bush's senior national security advisers are debatingwhether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and themilitary to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribalareas of Pakistan.

The debate is a response to intelligence reports that Al Qaeda and theTaliban are intensifying efforts there to destabilize the Pakistanigovernment, several senior administration officials said.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a numberof President Bush's top national security advisers met Friday at the WhiteHouse to discuss the proposal, which is part of a broad reassessment ofAmerican strategy after the assassination 10 days ago of the Pakistaniopposition leader Benazir Bhutto. There was also talk of how to handle theperiod from now to the Feb. 18 elections, and the aftermath of thoseelections.

Several of the participants in the meeting argued that the threat to thegovernment of President Pervez Musharraf was now so grave that both Mr.Musharraf and Pakistan's new military leadership were likely to give theUnited States more latitude, officials said. But no decisions were made,said the officials, who declined to speak for attribution because of thehighly delicate nature of the discussions.

Many of the specific options under discussion are unclear and highlyclassified. Officials said that the options would probably involve theC.I.A. working with the military's Special Operations forces.

more . . . . .



=

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06sun2.html?ref=opinion

Editorial: California Rules

January 6, 2008

California has now sued the Bush administration over its refusal to allowthe state to set its own rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions fromcars and trucks. The state's legal arguments are sound and so is its policy,especially when one considers the White House's seven-year failure toseriously confront the problem of global warming.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 allows California to set stronger air pollutionstandards as long as it gets a waiver from the federal government.California has applied for many such waivers over the years and has neverbeen denied. One result is that the state has been a leader in the effort toreduce pollutants like those responsible for smog and acid rain.

In 2005, California sought permission to regulate vehicle emissions ofcarbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. For two years, the Bushadministration hid behind the claim that carbon dioxide was not a pollutantcovered by the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court demolished that argumentlast year. The administration still denied California's request on equallyspurious grounds.

It argued that a national standard would be preferable to a "patchwork" ofstate rules. However, the Clean Air Act allows only two sets of rules,federal rules and California's more stringent rules. Other states can thenchoose which to adopt. Sixteen states, which with California make up halfthe vehicle market, have said they will adopt California's rules. This ishardly a patchwork.

The administration also argued that tougher fuel efficiency standards in theenergy bill recently signed into law by President Bush would yield greatergreenhouse gas reductions than the California rules would. This isdemonstrably untrue. California's regulations would reduce emissions fromnew vehicles by nearly 30 percent by 2016 - double the estimated reductionsthat would result from the energy law.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403566.html

A Last Hurdle for Obama?

By David S. Broder
Sunday, January 6, 2008; B07

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- It may seem paradoxical, but New Hampshire is poised toclose down the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and launch awide-open Republican contest.

The difference is that Barack Obama, the winner of the Iowa Democraticcaucuses, can well repeat his victory over Hillary Clinton and John Edwardshere. But Mike Huckabee faces much steeper odds in duplicating his Iowa winon the Republican side.

While Huckabee shattered Mitt Romney's strategy by winning Iowa, whereRomney had invested massively in advertising and organization, it is likelythat he will simply empower John McCain to repeat his 2000 victory in NewHampshire.

A second Romney loss would effectively end the former Massachusettsgovernor's candidacy -- a victim of a campaign that lost its credibilityalong with its ideological definition.

But McCain and Huckabee have yet to build broad constituencies amongmainstream Republicans. Huckabee's following is primarily among evangelicalChristians, who dominated the traditionally low-turnout Iowa caucuses.McCain's greatest appeal is to Republican-leaning independents who poweredhis 2000 victory and who remain loyal to him.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403567.html

No Longer Unimaginable

By Eugene Robinson
Sunday, January 6, 2008; B07

It was one of those moments that give you goose bumps -- the cheering crowd,the waving placards, the candidate and his family looking Kennedyesque onthe occasion of a stunning victory. Barack Obama took the stage Thursdaynight in Des Moines and proclaimed his vindication of hope: "They said thisday would never come. They said our sights were set too high."

Yet there he was, the son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother, a man withbrown skin, kinky hair and utter command of what he called a "definingmoment in history."

Those of us who have struggled to get our minds around the notion that a manwho looks like Barack Obama could be the next president of the United Statescan no longer take easy refuge in the disappointments of history. Obama maynot be elected president; he may not even get the Democratic nomination. Butat this point, it's impossible to deny that what we are witnessing issomething new.

The Iowa caucuses showed us the America we like to believe we live in, acountry ready to embrace a man with brown skin as its leader. Is this reallya land of such racial harmony and understanding? No, it's not. "We are onenation, we are one people, and our time for change has come," Obama said inhis soaring victory speech. But sometimes we see things so differently thatit's a wonder we agree on the blueness of the sky.

I spent Thursday evening doing television commentary on the caucus results.During a break, one of my fellow pundits -- Air America radio host RachelMaddow, who happens to be white -- mused that white Iowans who harboredracist views might be unwilling to put them on display in the caucuses,where participants have to take a public stand. Voters in a secret-ballotprimary would have no reason to be so inhibited, she speculated.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010501984.html

Lethal Injection: Executions should not cause pain.

Sunday, January 6, 2008; B06

TOMORROW, THE Supreme Court will again take up arguments over the deathpenalty. But in a challenge to Kentucky's use of lethal injection, thejustices aren't being asked to reconsider whether capital punishment isconstitutional; the court decided three decades ago that it is. They arebeing asked to determine only what standards states should apply inevaluating whether a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment'sprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court has never struck down a method of execution. Lower courtsin recent years, however, have differed on what standards to apply inevaluating the constitutionality of lethal injection, the most commonly usedmeans of capital punishment. Lethal injection, ironically, was conceived 30years ago as a more humane alternative to electrocution. Should states beallowed to proceed unless a particular method carries a "substantial risk ofthe wanton infliction of pain," as Kentucky and its supporters argue? Orshould states be held to a tougher standard, as Kentucky death row inmatesRalph Baze and Thomas Bowling urge, and be forced to change or abandon atechnique if it carries an "unnecessary risk of pain and suffering"?

We have long opposed the death penalty. But if capital punishment is to becarried out, it should be done as humanely as possible by a method thatcauses no pain. Evidence submitted in the Supreme Court case suggests thatthe current protocol for administering lethal injection cannot meet thisstandard.

Kentucky and most of the other states with the death penalty use athree-step process to administer a so-called lethal injection. First, aninmate is injected with a barbiturate general anesthetic that essentiallyrenders him unconscious; if administered correctly and in the right dose,this drug should prevent the inmate from feeling pain. A second drug is thenadministered to paralyze the inmate; this drug is meant to preventdisturbing muscle spasms that sometimes accompany death. The third drugstops the heart and causes excruciating burning sensations. The mostsignificant problem with this lethal cocktail is that because the seconddrug paralyzes the inmate and prevents him from reacting, there is no way toknow whether he feels pain from the injection of the third and lethal drug.

Medical monitoring of the inmate could help prevent administration of theheart-stopping drug unless the inmate is unconscious and unable to feelpain. But the plaintiffs offer an even simpler alternative: administer alethal overdose of the barbiturate general anesthetic, which would renderthe inmate unconscious and stop his breathing.

more . . . . .



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010501985.html

Democracy Delayed, Again
Hong Kong is told it must wait until 2017 -- at least -- for a direct voteon its government.

Sunday, January 6, 2008; B06

SOME AUTOCRATIC governments claim they can't risk democratic electionsbecause their leading opponents are religious extremists, separatists orirresponsible demagogues. Not so the rulers of Hong Kong. The typicalopposition member of the city's legislature is a strait-laced lawyer in athree-piece suit; the most radical proposal of the opposition candidate forchief executive last year was the introduction of a minimum wage. Theopposition has never proposed revising the terms under which Hong Kongreverted to Chinese sovereignty a decade ago -- it's asked only that that"basic law," which called for the introduction of full democracy in theformer British colony, be respected.

That's why it's inexcusable, as well as disappointing, that China'sCommunist leadership continues to deny Hong Kong its democratic rights. OnDec. 29 Beijing decreed that the next election for the executive, in 2012,would not be by universal suffrage. It said a direct vote could take placein 2017 -- but only if Beijing first approves the system to be devised forit, which it says should include the pre-approval of all candidates. Fulldemocracy for the Hong Kong legislature, which currently chooses only halfits seats by a popular vote, would be delayed until at least 2020.

Donald Tsang, Hong Kong's current chief executive, tried to make this bitterpill more palatable to his 7 million constituents by arguing that China hadat least established a timetable for democracy, something it has previouslyrefused to do. But only last month, Mr. Tsang, who was chosen by Beijing,delivered an official report acknowledging that a majority in Hong Kongfavored the introduction of full democracy in 2012. And opposition leadersquickly pointed out that the supposed timetable is full of loopholes thatwould allow the decision on the 2017 election to be changed at any time.

In its essence, the timetable represents a decision by Chinese President HuJintao to postpone any significant step toward democracy in Hong Kong pastthe end of his own term in 2013. It will be up to Mr. Hu's successor todecide whether Hong Kong is permitted real democracy by the time of the 20thanniversary of mainland rule. Mr. Hu will be remembered as a leader who hadthe opportunity to pioneer democracy in Hong Kong under almost idealeconomic and political conditions -- and chose not to act. If future HongKong oppositionists are more aggressive and less considerate of Beijing,China's current leadership should get the blame.



=

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; B01

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I havebelatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me isto urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeachPresident Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thoughtthat my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression ofpersonal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. Thepolitical scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship,especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on thepart of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisanimpeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

more . . . . .



=

Dallas Morning News

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/columnists/wslater/stories/01_06_07polbehindlines.13b3f413.html

NH debates show Democrats, GOP are worlds apart

09:23 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Back-to-back presidential debates took place on the samestage Saturday night, but they might as well have been on different planets.

Say, Venus and Mars.

On war and peace, on taxes and health care and the environment, Republicanand Democratic White House hopefuls offered very different prescriptions forthe country's problems - and sometimes didn't even agree on what thoseproblems are.

The campaign has been dominated in recent days by talk of voters across theboard wanting "change" and the ideas that the victories by Mike Huckabee andBarack Obama in Iowa's caucuses represent an embrace of a new kind ofpolitics, led by outsider candidates.

That may still be true, but it's clear that the parties, as represented bytheir potential nominees, still exist in the red-blue divide that has shapedthe decade.

more . . . . .



=

Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/06/edwards_rebukes_clinton_in_democratic_debate/

Edwards rebukes Clinton in Democratic debate
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent | January 5, 2008

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton, attemptingto slow Barack Obama's surging campaign, went on the attack on Saturday anddrew a sharp rebuke from John Edwards for defending the status quo.

In a combative debate three days before a too-close-to-call New Hampshireprimary, Clinton questioned Obama's health-care plan and cast doubt on hisability to deliver on his calls for change in Washington.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, upbraided the New York senator forcriticizing Obama and noted her third-place finish in Iowa on Thursday, whenObama captured the first big prize of the presidential campaign and Edwardsfinished second.

"I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she wasahead," Edwards said. "Every time he speaks out for change, every time Ifight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- everysingle time."

New Hampshire is the next battleground in the state-by-state fight to pick asuccessor to President George W Bush, and Clinton, seeking to become thefirst female president, faces a potential do-or-die struggle to revitalizeher struggling campaign.

more . . . . .


=


[Send your comments about articles to Rays.List@Comcast.net]
#####