Next it'll be the Illuminati. Yeah, there are a bunch of freeloaders who get together at Davos, and they have each other's cell numbers. They include, mostly, the wealthy or powerful or influential, as well as idiot papparazzi like Robert Scoble. No real business gets done in the spotlight. Remember your shock when you first heard that Marilyn Monroe may have done more for JFK than sing him Happy Birthday in a translucent dress? Famous people know each other. Big yip.

At least Marxists defined power by how you made your money, and that made sense. What economic role does the Pope have? Be good and I'll give you a Renaissance statue? Bill Clinton is a very popular ex-president who has raised huge amounts of money for AIDS and so on -- more than otherwise, because our government doesn't want to give money to promiscuous Africans. Seriously. He makes a lot of money, for now and for the first time in his life, based on giving lectures and writing books. Suddenly, he's become corrupt and racist for the purposes of the campaign, to damage his wife. I suspect he'll become popular again after all this is over.

Really, I don't want to defend Marx, but he had more of a brain on his shoulders than our present lefty -- what does that mean anymore -- "intellectuals," who are mostly just flacks.

You need to think about that. I remember them both in '92. They were the most open people in there for a very long time. And they never got a rest, there was one Swift Boat operation after another, and nothing ever came up with crap. THIS is why Karl Rove advised Obama to "be tough" on the publishing of the tax returns, and this information. "Why are you withholding," they said. This is why. This filth of a press corps. Given the publication of her schedule, are they seeing if she actually had anything to do with policy, as she maintains? No. Straight to the sleaze. I can see the Post tomorrow morning. "Was she watching?"

Excuse me, I think I'll go take a bath. Fire all the worthless jerks.

I've got to say, some people do go a long way to get around reality. If you're keeping yourself warm in Montreal by the light of your light bulbs at all, the effect is marginal. You want a living room atmosphere, a large room, high ceilings, etc.

I have spent the night in an igloo which was, of course, the well-known shape and not high enough to stand up in, and it was deliciously heated by two candles, as long as you closed the door with snow and had a ground sheet -- caribou fur is best -- and a very fancy Arctic sleeping bag. IF you had enough electricity to light a bulb, you could stay warm enough until the walls melted and the igloo fell on your head.

Is there any heat effect from incandescents? Yes. Appreciable, if you live in a large modern house? Don't be ridiculous. An old man who tried to heat his apartment through a Montreal winter using light bulbs wouldn't live through the first January.

The Obama campaign appears clean only at the top. It's actually recycled the full complement of GOP lies about the Clintons, plus a bunch of goody-two-shoes, jilted leftist rhetoric about how corporatist she is. In fact, the Obama campaign has been helped by the press enormously. The most recent example is the production of the White House logs, which devolved instantly into trying to figure out where Hillary was when Monica and Bill were doing the deed. Before that, the Obama campaign points to Drudge -- yes, that Drudge -- and instantly accepts Drudge's accusation that the Kenyan picture comes from Hillary. That's called a smear, Joe. Looks an awful lot like you're trying to jump ship while you might get a job in the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, who's the man telling the truth, just like 2000? Paul Krugman. What's his technique? Comparing their policy statements. Guess what? On the economy, McCain's the Cro-Magnon, Obama's a lot better, but Hillary's the one who should have the claim to the progressive banner, if people were paying attention to actual politics. If they had in 2000, instead of listening then to idiots like Ralph Nader and/or Maureen Dowd, we wouldn't have had Bush.

What I'm commenting on is the instant acceptance by the Nation, and the HuffPo, and a large constituency here, of the assumption that because he has a winning personality, that his policies are progressive. They're not, time and again. Notice the recent endorsement of Obama by Casey. Big victory! Really? Why do you think that Obama's endorsements come so heavily from the Blue Dogs? Could it be that he's in their pocket? Could it be that, when he gets elected, all the people expecting the second coming of FDR will find a Calvin Coolidge in blackface?