The Next President?

[Trumpetmaster]

I eat at the Panera Bread quite often, they have excellent panini's. I've never tried the Jones soda, but they are right there on the counter, so it's hard to miss them. I don't know if it's a local thing or if they all carry them.

We have several Starbuck's in town (doesn't every town?), but I only frequent the one in Barnes & Noble. That was the first place I ever saw Sobe's. I was drinking Arizona Green Tea for a while, and was looking in the cooler for it when I saw the Sobes. Again, I can't say whether or not they are commonly carried there.

The Arizona Tea, like most of the bottled tea products, is more high-fructose corn syrup than anything. I gave them up when I decided to cut my sugar consumption (A goal I've not entirely been successful at achieving ). Now it's unsweetened tea mostly. I select the restaurants I frequent by the quality of the tea, one more reason I like Panera Bread.

V/R
Shapley

The funny thing is I was in Panera Bread last night picking up gift cards.

I love the French Onion Soup in the Bread Bowl.
That's a meal in itself!!!

Regards,
TM

[Shapley]

I've never tried their soup-in-a-bread-bowl. I see people eating them all the time, but I've not tried one.

We have a deli chain here called McAllister's (I think I spelled that correctly) famous for their sweet tea (which I've never had). The offer the bread bowls, and I had chicken and dumplings in one. It was very good, but way too filling. They have decent unsweetened tea, but the Panera Bread tea is better, IMHO.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

Victor David Hansen

” Does running for President allow a candidate to freelance at a time of war by talking to our enemies and triangulating against the president? Why is Gov. Richardson talking to North Koreans, or Sen. Kerry trying to talk to the Iranians, or Sen. Bayh to the Syrians? Wouldn’t that be like a Tom DeLay talking to Milosevic to undermine Clinton during the Kosovo bombing? Or Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban as Clinton sent cruise missiles against them?

Perhaps in the interest of fairness, readers can cite past examples where Republican Senators and Presidential candidates went abroad, undercut Democratic foreign policy at a time of war, and made statements that were welcomed by our enemies. I know Senators of both parties talked to Saddam in 1989-90 and often nearly empathized with him, but we were not yet at war with him.

Nota bene: Senator Nelson just returned from talking in Mr. Assad’s Syria—the serial murderer of Lebanese reformers, the clearinghouse for Hezbollah, the refuge for the killers of Americans in Iraq—with assurances that Syria wishes to be a stabilizing factor in the region.

Sen. Kerry in Cairo just praised Hosni Mubarak, lauding him by chastising President Bush’s failure to listen to this voice of reason and his criticisms of the United States. And why not listen to such advice, since this autocrat has been the recipient of billions in American aid, while squelching all reform for some thirty years in the bargain?

No doubt Kerry also lectured Mubarak about once hyping the WMD threat (“Mubarak lied, thousands died?”). Remember, the Egyptian strongman, as part of his reservations about Iraq, had warned our generals that American troops would be targeted with gasses of all sorts by Saddam.

Kerry also called for new talks with Iran—a rogue state presently in the middle of uranium enrichment, supplying IEDs to the militias in Iraq, promising to wipe out Israel, and hosting a Holocaust denial love fest in Teheran. Surely if the senator once denigrated our own soldiers as terrorizing Iraqis he can at least say that Iranians do the same?”

What is it about Democrats and dealing with our enemies in order to defeat Republicans?

Kennedy offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

Why do they hate us?

[Trumpetmaster]

I've never tried their soup-in-a-bread-bowl. I see people eating them all the time, but I've not tried one.

We have a deli chain here called McAllister's (I think I spelled that correctly) famous for their sweet tea (which I've never had). The offer the bread bowls, and I had chicken and dumplings in one. It was very good, but way too filling. They have decent unsweetened tea, but the Panera Bread tea is better, IMHO.

V/R
Shapley

Shapley,
I was in Panera over the weekend... did not see the drinks.. might be regional...
The breadbowl is a Sourdough breadbowl!
It is very good!!!
Trust me on this one....

TM

[Shapley]

I'll give the soup a try soon. Thanks.

[Haggis@wk]

WSJ

”Only for so long will Mr. Obama's sparkling personality help him avoid troubling questions about his ideological record. The fact that he originally opposed the war in Iraq would help him with primary voters, but it's unclear how many Democrats want to plump for someone who, according to National Journal, has a more liberal voting record than Hillary Clinton. Last year Mr. Obama had a perfect 100% voting record from both the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO.

His record as a state legislator is even more liberal. In 1996, he spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and Mr. Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999 he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders. Is anyone naive enough to believe Mrs. Clinton wouldn't use those positions as evidence that he couldn't win?”

I think this is right although Shos will probably like him more for his liberal position. I suspect the bulk of Americans would find it hard to support a man who appears soft on sex offenders.

He needs, as Hillary did, to spend more time pretending to be a moderate in order to put himself anywhere near being in the running in 2012, if a Republican wins in 2008, or 2016 if the Democrats take the White House.

[Shapley]

Hillary's chances depend on her remaining out of a catfight in the primary. Her 'moderate' image will suffer if she gets too vicious. Look for her to let one of the 'also rans' sling the mud at Obama for her in the primary. I would not be surprised if she has already picked one out to do so, perhaps with the promise of a vice-presidential spot for their efforts.

[Shapley]

Apparently, distaste for Presidents who take a hard-line position on the Middle East isn't limited to this country.

[OperaTenor]

Apparently, distaste for Presidents who take a hard-line position on the Middle East isn't limited to this country.

Yeah, you'd think GWB would get that message through his thick head.

[shostakovich]

I'll give the soup a try soon. Thanks.

I recommend the broccoli cheese soup in the bread bowl.

[shostakovich]

Today I sent a letter to Newsweek. I hope it gets published. Colin Powell's name came up in the news as opposing troop increases. I've often thought he would be a good president. In my letter I briefly listed his qualifications and then pointed out what he has going for him that other candidates don't. It's the fact that he's smart enough not to want to be president.

As for troop increases, they will do no good. The potential targets of violence in Iraq are the entire population. The bad guys can never run out of victims. No matter the size of the American and cooperating Iraqi militaries, they can never protect EVERYBODY. The violence will continue.

Interestingly my reason for troop increase as folly was aided by Pat Buchanan's book Where the Right Went Wrong. It's so well written and researched I've begun to suspect collaboration with a very good ghost writer. This evening, on Scarborough Country, guest Pat Buchanan was the only person to advocate Bush's call for troop increases. It's not that he believes it will help, but that he believes the president believes and should have his way. I'm going to recommend his own book to him.
Shos

[Haggis@wk]

I know, I know, it not (completely) serious, but it IS funny.

”FAQ - The Democratic Candidates!
Posted by Dean Barnett | 10:00 AM

1) Where you been?

I had a whirlwind weekend trip to Californian. Just got back last night. Whenever I’m out West, I always wonder how these people endure football starting at 10:00 a.m. on Sundays and the night games ending by 8:30. Doesn’t this bother them?

2) I’m relieved. I thought you may have gone fishing with Andrew Sullivan. Now on to the topic at hand. Will the race for the Democratic nomination be thrown into tumult by Evan Bayh dropping out?

Who?

3) Evan Bayh. The Senator from Indiana.

Oh yeah. Believe it or not, the dynamics of the race will not be significantly affected. Also in the “believe it or not” category, I have a personal friend who told me this summer that she was an enthusiastic and early supporter of Evan Bayh and had already made plans with his people to throw him a fundraiser. While I try to be respectful of the political views of others, I dissolved into laughter upon hearing this news. She is an intelligent, thoughtful woman and yet for some reason she had decided that Evan Bayh should lead our country. Life is strange.

4) What makes someone like Evan Bayh arrive at the conclusion that he should be president?

God only knows. You might as well ask why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or why Carl Levin chooses to wear his hair in that ludicrous comb-over fashion. There are some mysteries of nature that will forever be hidden from us.

5) So with Bayh gone, who’s left?

In the top tier you have (assuming they’re all running) Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Clark and Gore. In the bottom tier, you have Biden, Richardson, Vilsack and Warner if he re-enters. In the delusional tier you have Kerry and Kucinich.

6) That’s pretty harsh on Kucinich isn’t it, lumping him in with Kerry?

True. Sorry Dennis.

7) It’s been kind of a big month, with Obama going about 80% of the way to tossing his hat in the ring and Edwards making it official.

True enough. And I’ll give you another piece of news to file in the “for what it’s worth” folder: Some smart people who know about these things are suggesting Hillary might not run if Obama enters because she’ll feel she can’t win and doesn’t want to diminish her standing as the country’s First Harridan.

8) Really? The Republic is saved! (ed. I have NO IDEA where the emoticon came from. I didn't put it there and I can't get rid of it...the computer gods are angry)

It’s just what I’ve heard from a few people, and I don’t give it much credence. Besides, on the list of top-tier Democratic contenders, we could do worse than Hillary.

9) No way.

Way. Al Gore is practically mentally ill. And I offer that not as a personal insult but as a caring clinical diagnosis. He’s angry, bitter and weird. Of all the people seeking the presidency, he’s the only one who truly scares me because he so clearly lacks the demeanor for the job. He combines the worst features of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.

10) How about Edwards?

Edwards is a good politician but a less-good man. His cynical use of Mary Cheney in his debate with the Vice President tells you everything you need to know about his character. He’s running as a populist (are there any populists who aren’t zillionaires?), but the good news on that topic is I’m sure he doesn’t believe a single word that emanates from his mouth. When the pressure is on, Edwards is always revealed as an empty suit. The guy had six uneventful years as Senator and other than that spent his adult life chasing ambulances. They say Obama’s résumé is slight, but compared to Edwards’ it isn’t.

11) What about Obama?

Well, obviously he has “it.” But he’s never run a competitive campaign, and this time he’ll be running against the Clinton machine which has an opposition research operation unparalleled in the business. He’ll also have to offer more than bromides during 20 months on the trail.

12) So he’s not the favorite?

No, he is. But they’re all long shots. Even the favorite has to have a lot of things go right for him to win. The same goes for the Republican candidates.

13) What about Hillary?

The country doesn’t like her. The nutroots hate her. I just don’t see it working out for her. It’s kind of strange; in spite of it all, she’s the strongest candidate in the Democratic field and she probably doesn’t have a chance.

13) You feeling bad for a Clinton? Now I’ve seen everything. What about Wes Clark?

A bit like Gore – an odd duck. Not certifiable like Gore, but a strange man. A relentlessly ambitious individual, Clark’s former colleagues are almost as unanimous regarding him as John Kerry’s. They detest him. He’s also politically tone-deaf, doing things like accepting the sickening sweaty embrace of Michael Moore. There also seems to be no reason behind his campaign other than his endless ambition. What is his agenda? All the other candidates could more easily answer that question than Clark.

14) So they all have their weaknesses. Big deal. All politicians have their weaknesses.

It’s not so much that the Democratic presidential candidates all have their weaknesses. It’s that they’re all so conspicuously lacking any identifiable strengths. It really says something that the front-runner is the front-runner because he a) Gives a good speech; and b) Is a “fresh face” which is political talk for an unknown quantity. All the known quantities except for Hillary are lacking in strengths.

15) Hillary has strengths?

Of course. She’s very bright. She runs a great organization. She has experience in the White House. And, of course, her cookie recipe in Parade Magazine was top-notch.

16) It sounds like there might be room for one of the bottom tier guys to move up.

Perhaps. Not Richardson, because he’s damaged goods from the “drafted by the Oakland A’s” thing. That would have sunk his campaign if it happened in-season, and it will surely be resurrected in-season if he makes any progress. But Vilsack, Warner and Biden will all have a chance to move up.

17) But will they?

If the comedy gods are kind, Biden will. Now that would be fun.

[Shapley]

(ed. I have NO IDEA where the emoticon came from. I didn't put it there and I can't get rid of it...the computer gods are angry)

You have to put a space between the '8' and the ')', otherwise the computer reads it as an emoticon.

[Haggis@wk]

(ed. I have NO IDEA where the emoticon came from. I didn't put it there and I can't get rid of it...the computer gods are angry)

You have to put a space between the '8' and the ')', otherwise the computer reads it as an emoticon.

..........Oh..........showoff

[barfle]

8 )

[Trumpetmaster]

so thats how it's done........

[Haggis@wk]

Scientists find stem cell source in amniotic fluid

"
Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb.

The announcement may make it easier to sidestep the controversy over destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone."

I'm still not convinced there's anything to this but if this pans out, Nancy Pelosi's gonna be soooooo p**sed!

U.S. News & World Report

The Democrats' agenda, known as the Six for '06, encompasses six politically appealing bills. Those measures would hike the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, increase federal funds for embryonic stem cell research

She's just lost one of her issues that she thought would put Bush in a corner and force him to veto this again. Now, if true, this has mooted the whole issue.

And by the way. No one ever looked there before? com'on, this smells to high heaven.

[jamiebk]

Scientists find stem cell source in amniotic fluid

"
Scientists reported Sunday they had found a plentiful source of stem cells in the fluid that cushions babies in the womb.

The announcement may make it easier to sidestep the controversy over destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

They reported they were able to extract the stem cells without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone."

I'm still not convinced there's anything to this but if this pans out, Nancy Pelosi's gonna be soooooo p**sed!

U.S. News & World Report

The Democrats' agenda, known as the Six for '06, encompasses six politically appealing bills. Those measures would hike the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, increase federal funds for embryonic stem cell research

She's just lost one of her issues that she thought would put Bush in a corner and force him to veto this again. Now, if true, this has mooted the whole issue.

And by the way. No one ever looked there before? com'on, this smells to high heaven.

Haggis....that is just absurd. Why would anyone be "p**sed" about finding a way to harvest these cells without destroying embryos and getting into ethical issues? Scientists did not set out to create such an issue, in fact, they would rather solve it. The idea here is to advance research. Geezz man, there is a lot more to this than finding "ammo" against Bush (besides, you don't have to look far and there is plenty around) your slant is typically myoptic.

[Haggis@wk]

Jamie,
By "p**sed" I meant there is no longer a political component for a confrontation between the Democrat majority and Bush which Pelosi has been promising since last July. As to myopia, she is on record for months that she was relishing a confrontation.

Press Release

"“This research has the biblical power to cure. How can we turn away from that? Let’s all pray the President will have a change of heart and a change of mind. But if not, let’s work very hard to make sure that Members of Congress represent their constituents and override a presidential veto.”

first 100 hours the House

” Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.”

more

”One thing is sure: The new leaders of the House and Senate plan to pass the bill within weeks of gaveling open the 110th Congress in January in an attempt to either get Bush to sign it or force a presidential veto early in the lame-duck years of his presidency.

House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has queued up the bill for passage in the first 100 hours of business. The Senate could act on it before the first month is out.

"We are going to move it fairly quickly," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the next Senate majority leader.”

If you haven't seen the Democratic feeding frenzy on how they were going to force Bush into a corner on this issue then you haven't been paying attention.

Now, one of two things are going to happen. This issue falls to the wayside and another issue with the potential of embarrassing the president will be moved forward. Or the bill will pass and Bush will sign it. I’m not ready to guess which outcome is the more likely.

Hey, I’ve said all along that there has been damn little science that says these cells will do anything for us. The only success so far has been a Korean doctor prosecuted for making up evidence that they work.

Until I see someone with credibility that says they’ve make ANY kind of breakthrough I’ll consider this to be as effective as Headon or Selma’s soup….strike that, Selma’s soup’s definitively in the lead for now.

[barfle]

Hey, I’ve said all along that there has been damn little science that says these cells will do anything for us. The only success so far has been a Korean doctor prosecuted for making up evidence that they work.

That's why it's called research.