In the long-, middle-, and sometimes even short-run, switching to environmentally-sound approaches is often lucrative ... if externalities are accounted for. Unfortunately, much of Corporate America is currently built on taking advantage of existing externalities and creating more. Changing that culture is going to take some serious and sustained effort, even if Obama and lots of other Dems win this November.

By presenting the debate as one between globalizers and anti-globalizers (instead of what it really is: a debate over the rules that govern globalization) globalization's cheerleaders are radicalizing and doing considerably more damage to the economic system they admire so much. [more emphasis added]

It seems likely to me that many globalization's cheerleaders -- especially those who benefit most from it -- misrepresent their opponents deliberately. It is, after all, easier than responding to the actual issues.

But it's really more than a "debate over the rules that govern globalization". It's also a debate over who makes the rules, and how. For such an important process, globalization is a process largely directed by relatively few people, with extremely little public oversight.

I'm betting that congress reconsiders fast track authority on about 1 Feb. 2009 and that a certian Ex-Freshman Senator from Illinois is given the authority back. I'm a little disapointed with Peolsi and Reed for playing this kind of cheap, Republican political game. I'd like to be able to think better of them.

I admit that it may be wishful thinking on my part, but I could see Obama telling Pelosi and Reed, "Thanks, but no thanks."

If your product isn't good enough for a real word-of-mouth reaction, no problem -- just pay people to fake it!

... the "You kids get the hell off of my yard" dream ticket.

I think it's worth noting that Lamont supports Obama. In fact, Lamont is Obama's campaign co-chair in Connecticut.

... are you really going to believe historians about this? Most of them are liberal professors -- which is redundant, because universities in the US only allow liberals to be professors -- so they probably changed all the references just to back up Barak Hussein Obamessiah's filthy anti-semitic lies.

And even if by some miracle the current story has any truth in it, this is a "mistake" much worse than repeatedly mixing up Sunnis and Shiites. (Obviously, that simple little mistake just shows what a regular guy McCain is!)

... is flaccid.

It's amusing that so many of the Admin's apologists keep making references to how the "liberal press" will make the most of this when the whole idea of the "liberal press" is one of the things McClellan evidently disparages in the book. Careful media observers will note that most coverage is of the controversy of McClellan writing a "tell-all" (ha! as if), while the coverage of what he actually says is secondary at best.

(His exposure of media syncophany to the Bush Admin is -- of course -- ignored or dismissed.)

I highly recommend following Glenn's link to the column by the McClatchy journalism team.

Is it self-aggrandizing to take credit when credit is due and no-one else will give you credit? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, they did their jobs and they got the story ... even if most people either didn't hear it or ignored it.

Hopefully the Shorenstein Center will do a study similar to this ... but not quite so front-loaded. Also, they'll hopefully be smart enough to keep Ferraro -- and anyone else involved in either campaign -- at a distance while they do it.

For the goddess' sake, don't let her pay for it, or have anything else to do with it.

Nice try, but Reid said he and Pelosi "... are going to urge our folks next week to make a decision very quickly ...". They didn't say they were going to urge a particular decision. Supers can choose whomever they want, as has been repeatedly and tiresomely pointed out by the Clinton campaign.

Sure, sure, they could be secretly urging decisions in favor of Obama -- as if they could really keep that secret -- but given the long-term trends of SDs who have already announced, it's hardly necessary.

So the Left has finally wised up and tried for humor?

"Finally"? Various parts of the left have been using humor for a long time. Sometimes some of the people doing so can make a living at it and/or get a big audience, sometimes they can't. But they've always been there.

Abbie Hoffman and the Yippees, Lenny Bruce before them ... etc, etc.

Ferraro: "First, whether either the Clinton or Obama campaign engaged in sexism and racism; second, whether the media treated Clinton fairly or unfairly; and third whether certain members of the media crossed an ethical line when they changed the definition of journalist from reporter and commentator to strategist and promoter of a candidate."

Fair enough, let's look at the media bias ... if we can include the early part of the process when Hillary was often being treated as the presumptive nominee and the more recent stretch of time as much of the media continues to act as stenographers for the creative math of the Hillary campaign, including but not limited to that campaign's convenient change of heart regarding Florida and Michigan.

Is it sexism or racism behind those things, some weird corporate-media agenda, or just incompetence?

But I did something unusual the other day, just for the hell of it. It was something I hadn't done in years. And because I hadn't done it in so long, it felt new and weird and exciting.

I sat down with my legal pad, and I wrote him a letter.

A letter? That is teh hotness.

... in the number of votes she received from people whose votes she thinks should count.

I agree, but I'll be shocked if she does anything more than suspend her campaign. She's jockying for some kind of deal, whether it's the VP spot (ugh) or something else, and she'll hang on to those delegates as long as she possibly can.