great stuff...of course the the current version goes...she ain't going nowhere.

It's sort of laughable that they're all so eager to game the system so that people's votes don't count, so their candidate doesn't get beaten in more significant states, so that they can skirt the issues surrounding the seating of delegates from MI and FL, so that they can get past the fact that we don't have a nominee until the delegates actually call in their totals at the convention.

He has gotten down in the trenches to fight for the city of Newark and transform it from the hopelessly stagnant, mob-corrupted metropolis it's been for so long. He said himself that you can't just mouth platitudes about unity, transcending race, and change--he advocated and gave specific examples of grassroots organizing that confronted the problems head on. I also liked how he didn't just focus on individuals' responsibility, but also emphasized that the government must overhaul policy with progressive reforms and programs that have been proven to be far more effective in reducing crime and poverty, such as alternative drug programs instead of imprisonment.

Anyway, my contribution:

I think I heard him say on the show awhile back that his mother (a hardcore Republican also) voted for her...sometimes mama does know best!

SEE, she really is a uniter!!!

The statement specifies: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors...distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

Hence Senior Lecturers are designated by that particular title, but are still included on the faculty list under the general heading of "Professors". On the other hand, Lecturers are not similarly regarded as professors and they are listed separately under the general heading of "Lecturers in Law".

Obama, was indeed a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004 and he would rightfully come under the heading of "Professor" for that period.

However, Obama was a Lecturer from 1992-96, which would mean that he was neither "regarded as a professor" nor named within the faculty list of "Professors" during that time.

Why then, does the U of C statement refer to Obama as a professor for the full duration of his teaching: "From 1992 until..2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School".

This is only true insofar as the term professor is being used in an entirely unofficial capacity. Students may refer to all teaching personnel as professor. But clearly U of C administrators know better; they have parsed the distinction and massaged the language so that it doesn't contradict Mr. Obama's account of his time at U of C.

Should read what Rendell said to Larry King about
Obama's phone call to him.

Like you, I find this statement from U of C both revealing and confusing: "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." (emphasis added). To me, that is pure gild on the lily.

In my experience, institutions of higher learning don't just "invite" their teaching personnel to "join" the faculty, in any capacity. An administrative official doesn't single-handedly appoint somebody, especially to a "tenure-track position". There is typically some form of application process, i.e. one might be invited to apply to join the faculty, whereupon one's application comes into the hands of a search committee, inclusive of several faculty members.

I know of exceptions; such as a so-called "Target of Opportunity"; an affirmative-action related instance, whereby administrative officials have specific funds, and the authority, to more-or-less appoint a particularly gifted individual without undergoing the typical, drawn-out, search committee hiring process.  

*Irrespective of the application process, under certain extraordinary circumstances, an institution has the discretion to alter the terms of a tenure-track position. For instance, an individual who has several previous years of outstanding teaching, research, and service can be 'hired with tenure'.

It has been delivered after a certain story about Obama has threatened his campaign.

Anyway, the story is about Gene Sperling getting really grilled by border security when he arrived. Pretty tame stuff.

At the end of the article, though, it quotes Sperling as telling the Canadians that Clinton is determined to open up NAFTA for reform and if that doesn't work, she's willing to SCRAP it. Pretty dingdang emphatic. I don't think I've heard her say that on the trail, but if Sperling is telling this openly to our northern neighbors it must not be empty rhetoric.

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 28, 11:41 PM ET

GREENSBURG, Pa. - Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Amazing guy.  Way to go.  Obama just insulted every living Democratic President.  For what?  The Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Iran contra, and a half-ass job in Iraq?

BTW, the responses were 3:1 voting for Clinton.

it reminds me of the last primary when Obama folks blanketed Ohio with signs in one neighborhood. He won sign contest that night ! Same thing in blogosphere, there are more Obamas people online and if there was a contest, he'd win it.  But its not the real world. ;-)

Since it's an open thread, thought I'd share one of my current favs, Iris Dement, singing "Let The Mystery Be" -- just for the joy of it

He got that from one of the JFK speech writers they hired. They did spend big.

Maybe it was Oprah seed money that got him going.

as it turned out, 95% of those assets consisted of loans receivable, not tangible assets (land, bldgs, cash, investments, etc.). as well, it turned out that a fair chunk of those loans receivable were "non-performing". that is, payments were not being received from the borrowers. if this status is maintained long enough, they are written off as worthless.

put a whole new perspective on that wonderful looking balance sheet.

this is the analogy i would draw to sen. obama's current position: looks great, less filling.

his wins have been, for the most part, in states that most likely won't vote democrat in the fall. many of those wins are also in caucus states, not done in the GE. his popular vote margin is 80% or so from IL, his home state. he has failed to capture the hearts of the core democrats, relying on "dem's for a day" and newly minted voters.

on the surface, he's a killer. when his wins are picked apart, for content, not so much.

if you think about it, this is consistent with his entire campaign: not much there, supported by hollow victories.

With all this talk of electability and November, I'm thinking that for best electoral results that swing states should primary first.

That led to the question:
What would this season's primary results look like if you ordered the primaries by putting the states with the closest elections first - probably by taking the last four presidential elections - 2 D, 2 R and averaging the numbers.  Naturally, the most lopsided states would vote last.

So where do I find the primary/caucus results for this round AND the vote totals for the last four presidential elections?  

Let's talk..1940 to 2008 Link
POTUS - Federal Outlays (FO) vs Revenues (REV)

Franklin D Roosevelt 1933-1945 (Dem) More FO (due to war debt)
Harry S Truman 1945-1953 (Dem) Close to Balanced
Dwight D Eisenhower 1953-1961 (Rep) Close to Balanced
John F Kennedy 1961-1963 (Dem) Close to Balanced
Lyndon B Johnson 1963-1969 (Dem) Close to Balanced
Richard M Nixon 1969-1974 (Rep) Close to Balanced
Gerald R Ford 1974-1977 (Rep) Begins more FO than REV
James E Carter 1977-1981 (Dem) Continues more FO than REV
Ronald W Reagan 1981-1989 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
George H W Bush 1989-1993 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
William J Clinton 1993-2001(Dem) Wide range in Rev over FO
George W Bush 2001-2009 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
?
How would it be if ...
John McCain  Wide range in FO over REV

Or
Dem.... ? Can we get back "Close to Balanced"?

We have a better chance with a Dem!! GET out of Iraq.