I can refer to you by your chosen name, are you simply that discourteous as to misstate mine?

Are you suggesting that Edwards ultimate strategy is to negotiate a cabinet position with Obama? I think he would vehemently disagree with this conclusion.

(...)

He's also walking into a SC primary that puts him squarely in a local and southern environment, just like Obama was in his element in Iowa as an Illinois senator. He has just as good a chance at winning SC, than Hillary or Obama.

(...)

And to conclude, I still think his best strategy is to knock off Obama. He's arguing for the same pedestal, and Obama is winning that spot for now. If indeed the Dems will vote for populist change over the establishment, then he has nothing to fear going up against Hillary. But he will lose if its just between him and Obama.

I am sure Edwards would disagree with his "ultimate strategy" being a Cabinet post. I am equally sure he knows he can not emerge from this primary field as the nominee. He lacks the resources, and while I agree with him on much, the idea of running as a "change" candidate will only work for him if there is no other change candidate running who's a fresher face. This time 'round, there is.

And his supposed home field advantage in SC is not likely to offer much. I suspect he will not win there. I don't place bets, so I won't offer, meaning it's a guess. Still, afterwards, let's return here (for viewing only, they will have closed posting) and see who called it. Care to?

And I don't think he's going to "knock off" Obama. I just don't see it happening. Look at the trend lines (aka tracking polls) and who's on the upswing. Have a look in at TPM Election Central for the most recent poll results, including tracking. Edwards, while gaining in absolute numbers to a very small degree, is losing ground to Obama, including in SC. Out of that, how do you get "knock off Obama"? From here, it does not compute.

They are both fine candidates. Edwards simply does not currently have either the resources or the support to carry the day. I prefer them both to Clinton, and even her to any Republican.

And I suspect that Edwards won't get the #2 simply because Democrats do truly love to shoot their wounded. I personally would like it if he were on the ticket, I just don't think it likely. May I be wrong here...

Acquire some basic courtesy (see the proper name thing) and you and I are not that far apart on some things, although I do think I'm closer to reading the proverbial tea leaves.

Who's responding to being called out on carelessness? And in ways that clearly illustrate that discourtesy is not "accidental", no less?

If you can't take being called on your carelessness and your rudeness, maybe you need to do something about both.

Thus endeth the lesson, moron.

My own suspicion is that the line to dynamite any pipeline taking water south and west from the Great Lakes will begin forming long before the welds have cooled. And the line will be longer than the pipeline itself.

Human beings are a wonderfully creative and adaptive species. We can learn to live without just about anything...with the possible exception of water.

There is a future lesson here for the rest of the world also, and it's quite simple. There are too many people, and most of them are in the wrong places. And life is going to get a lot worse for most of them in the coming decades, mostly through actions of our own. Coastal inundation doesn't just flood cities, it turns fresh water brackish or saline. Glaciers melting turn off the taps at the bottom of the hill. Lakes drying, well, that one's pretty obvious.

Gonna get ugly, and in not too long a time.

Has anyone taken the time to determine, even roughly, what sort of stimulus well-aimed public works projects might provide?

By "well-aimed public works projects" I refer to the development of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro and tidal generation of electricity, high-speed intercity rail lines, light (mostly) surface commuter rail in urban areas, and the like?

These are the sorts of things that, by their nature, would create numerous high-value-additive jobs in multiple sectors, and would not the resultant income streams provide at least as much disposable income as temporary middle-class tax cuts? To say nothing of the additional revenue gained from both payroll and sales taxes on the labor, good, and services involved?

And I'm not even figuring in the benefit of a newer, renewable, more effective energy infrastructure, nor the resultant operations and maintenance jobs once things are up and operating.

I just think it's worth asking. These kinds of things tend to spur plenty of spinoff development in the bargain, and they are also not the kinds of projects easily outsourced.