Author: Books Alive

Clicking links this morning turns up a neat evaluation of HRC by Arianna Huffington in the Los Angeles Times. (Not sure if it’s on the HuffPost…)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-huffington7dec07,0,3661250.story?track=mostv
iewed-storylevel

She makes a clever play on words, e.g. vane and vain.

Just received an e-mail from Progressive Patriots Fund that Russ will be on tonight to give his reaction to the Baker Study group report.

Keith is not letting up!

Ted Koppel will have a 2-hour program on Iran this Sunday, Nov 19, from 9-11pm. He’s given this chunk of time by the network to go into depth.

The Arizona Republic online at http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1114elect-cd51114-ON.html has the story.

Rep-elect Mitchell’s lead has been extended to more than 6,000. He is in Washington for orientation, so the concession will be welcome news to him as well as all in the Pond.

C-Span had the reporter on Washington Journal this morning who has the byline on their exclusive report of the efforts put in by the DCCC. Many here are dismissive of him, but this story provides pages of valuable background information.

Rahm may not acknowledge all the contributions of the netroots, but since Russ and a few others have done so already, I’m happy to provide the link:

 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611120215nov12,1,2323509.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Rahm is doing an excellent job of running through the nationwide victories now on C-Span. He’ll be followed by Harry Reid and Schumer, then Pelosi. How sweet it is.

Paul Orgel, on Washington Journal, held up today’s issue of the WSJ and a column on the many groups set to monitor tomorrow’s election results. I’ve wondered who will answer those toll-free phones; this story reports that if the situation requires that a lawyer is needed to resolve a problem, one will be dispatched. The Online WSJ provides this free report:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116278270779014105-PJMrlM1t7zRIqWHShcq_O3zA1tg_20071105.html

Watched the entire Florida governor’s debate on MSNBC last night. The candidates and Chris Matthews went round and round over the implications of a paper audit trail.

The assumption was that the voter would walk away with a printout of his vote as cast, and that this would lead to something nefarious such as taking money from a candidate or having the choice “held against” the voters, such as from an employer.

Who defined the paper audit trail in this manner? It looks to me as if a false illustration has been used, ignoring the type of paper audit trail that I experienced here in Cook County.

The ballot I completed two weeks ago was cast on a touch screen, and included a paper audit which printed out as an electronic calculator does, on a continuous roll that is contained within the machine. The voter has already reviewed his/her choices on the screen, made any corrections, then reviews the pages of the paper trail as they print out one by one. This provides yet another chance to correct any errors. The voter doesn’t take home any evidence with which to accept a bribe or to be “blackmailed” in any way.
 

C-Span has a link to this site http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt

in which the GAO warnings are being taken out into the country to anyone who will host the speaker, who explains just how dire is the prospect. I’ve seen him testify before Congress, but I suspect he knows that won’t be sufficient, so is going directly to the people.

Long article, important topic.