"The war is indeed a grotesque waste of resources, which will place huge long-run burdens on the American public. But it's just wrong to blame the war for our current economic mess: in the short run, wartime spending actually stimulates the economy. Remember, the lowest unemployment rate America has experienced over the last half-century came at the height of the Vietnam War."

-Paul Krugman

The war is likely not the sole source of all our economic ills ... but if it's effect is so stimulative, why the hell are we in such a fix?

We've paid for the war with debt and cut taxes to be stimulative.  The taxes were supposed to stimulate the economy to a degree that tax revenues actually increase.  But no credible economist believes this to be true and it hasn't happened.  So, the deficit is fueled by both a shortfall in tax revenues to pay for traditional spending and borrowing to finance the war.  A double stimulus -- and we are still slipping into a recession?

Oil prices go up with uncertainty.  It's higher cost goes into about every good produced and delivered.  Some postulate that interest rates are pressured up by increased deficit spending although historical data fails to produce clear support.  But, uncertainty demands higher returns on investment -- i.e. higher interest rates.  Higher interest rates triggered the rate resets that started the mortgage collapse.  The mortgage market itself exploded in growth due to efforts to satisfy demand for high yield, quality debt (debt with less uncertainty) by "creatively" creating more of it.  A lot is explained by an uncertain world and the war that helped make it more so.

It's clear that Richardson would like this thing to be over tuesday, and it's also clear that he particularly finds the narrative being pushed on Obama that Obama as president might not keep your children safe... I've said it before and I'll say it again Richardson/Gore/Edwards will play referee and expect to see some discussion and perhaps private/public pressure on Hillary Clinton regardless of whether she wins Texas & Ohio.  Richardsons definition for who is the nominee:

PLEDGED DELEGATE LEADER AFTER TUESDAY

"The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those fine senators has gone on too long and I think tuesday is going to be an important day.... I just think the D-Day is tuesday.  We have to have a positive campaign after tuesday.  Whoever has the most delegates after tuesday, a clear lead, should in my judgement, be the nominee....It looks like the tone of our campaign is heading much to negative.  I want to see us, after tuesday, basically come together and see where we are and move on to the general election....  No because I think it's very tight in Ohio it's very tight in Texas you can't count Senator Clinton out, she's a fighter but obviously senator obama has huge national momentum.  I believe though after tuesday if there is a clear indication of a solid lead in delegate count, by voters, not superdelegates, by the way I think there are too many superdelegates 800 of them they should reduce that number for the next election... I think after tuesday, we as a party, nationally, voters, leaders, have got to see whether it makes sense to continue a very divisive primary between now and Pennsylvania... this campaign is getting much too negative... I'm just worried that the tone of this campaign has gotten excessively negative and it might hurt us in November... look at those ads you played today, those ads could be campaign fodder for John McCain in the fall, I happen to disagree with that ad that say Senator Obama is not ready, he is ready, he has great judgement, an internationalist background at the same time I think his campaing has gotten a little negative to so I'm not playing favorites.  What I want to see is us be united in November and my concern is as we head into Pennsylvania is there's a large gap between tuesday and Pennsylvania that this just continues, this negativity, personal attacks, qualifications on who controls you, whether you're ready or not, those are not helpful ads."

Saw no one had posted about this over here, not surprised.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said."

Head on over to first read to get the rest of it--->
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/arch ive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Only place I can find it right now:
http://hillaryclinton.com/video/142.aspx

It's 3 AM and the world is exploding blah lava hellfire death and disease!

Wondering if anybody else saw Barack choke up when talking about the bracelet given to him from a mother in Wisconsin 'All gave some...He gave all,'.  As an Obama supporter, I was inspired by the emotion he showed. It's time to prove that democrats are the truly patriotic party and that Repubs hijacking all the flagwaving and allegiance pledging is simply bs.

I also think it's a time for fellow Obama supporters to acknowledge the sexism displayed by the MSM surrounding Hillary's showing of emotion.  It's disgusting, and as soon as I saw Barack choke up, it poisoned what would've been a very powerful and proud moment for me as his supporter, knowing exactly what the reaction will be the next time Hillary shows even the least bit of emotion.

Nancy Pelosi recently weighed in on the role of super delegates and on whether MI and FL results as stand should count.  It now appears Bill Richardson is voicing his opinion on super delegates.  "I just think there are too many superdelegates and I don't think party bosses and elected officials should have the say they're given today".  He goes on to say that he believes they should follow the will of the people.  I guess now we get to figure out whether the will of the people is a popular vote count, which seems more possible for Hillary to win, or a pledged delegate count which seems likely to hold for Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekin review/17broder.html