Bancrofts Said Divided as Journal Deadline Looms

"Mr. Murdoch has said that he has no intention of raising his offer and that he is prepared to walk away if the family does not approve the bid by today’s deadline."
I'm crossing my fingers.....

Edwards: Screw Compromise!

A day after the CNN/YouTube democratic debate, as CNN continues to heartily pat itself on the back for being *hip to what the kids are into these days*, and as the frontrunners trade jabs over each other's performances, the viewers are likely still congealing their opinions as to who best responded to their questions.

For me, the highlight of the night was a defiant declaration from John Edwards to screw compromise! Citing the evils of partisanship that undoubtedly keep many things from getting done in the federal government, one man asked the candidates which republican they would choose as a running mate. Joe Biden took a stab at it first, giving a solid response of Chuck Hagel. Not bad. But then Edwards stepped in, refusing to name any of his republican counterparts. "Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't," Edwards said. "I think the people who are powerful in Washington-- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies-- they are not going to negotiate... The only way they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

To me, this response showed the capability of a true a leader-- the capability to confidently dismiss the canned response about the virtues of compromise expected by everyone from Anderson Cooper to the man who asked the question. He had the courage to say something that probably few viewers expected; he sounded like someone who could see the forest for the trees.

As it turns out, I was far from the only one left with this impression. According to an email from the Edwards campaign, CNN says "viewers rated that moment the highest of all the candidates." That phrasing is a little odd to me, but obviously the general idea comes through: Edwards struck a nerve when he said he wouldn't compromise.

Edwards also had, in my opinion, the best 30-second clip. Its use of tragic imagery from the past four years combined with ironic music was very evocative of the frustration many Americans are experiencing. Most of the other videos were simply boring or just plain cheesy. Here is the clip he chose to run:

All right, I know this is old news by now, but I can't contain myself any longer-- I'm pretty excited about the Spice Girls reunion tour.

In case you've forgotten how phenomenal they are, here's their big single "Wannabe":

powered by ODEO
Sure, they've always been totally fake, and Victoria Beckham looks more like a Frankenstein-ish Silicone Spice than Posh Spice these days, but the girls sure take me back to happier days: days when female singing groups could be based on personalities-- even a "sporty" personality embodied by an ugly chick in warmups and no makeup; days when "Girl Power" wasn't about going into rehab, or posing in sick, sexual knife scenes with friends. Can you imagine Lindsay Lohan kicking it with the Spice Girls? Their act seems so innocent in comparison to hers-- but maybe it could work out, if one of the girls wanted to spice things up with Lindsay.

Congress tries to do good while doing well... but still looks pretty bad

Are Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats living up to the public's expectations? Hardly. Their approval ratings cannot even reach a paltry 30 percent, according to an article in yesterday's Washington Post, putting the legislative branch in as sorry a state as the notorious Mr. Bush. As for Ms. Speaker, she does not fare much better; her approval rating stood at 36 percent last month.

Yet the Post goes on to give a quite positive analysis of Pelosi's leadership: She skillfully orchestrated a "100-hour agenda" that managed to push through the House the Democratic leadership's "six goals for '06" by Jan. 18. All the while, her leadership has created a more unified party, the Post says.

So why has the public turned sour on the Democrats already? As it is pointed out, only one of the Democrats' initiatives has actually made it into law-- a raise in the minimum wage. All others have met their demise in the Senate, with the exception of an expansion in federal funding for stem cell research, which the president vetoed.

But in my opinion, the accomplishments of Pelosi and house Democrats should not be overshadowed by their low approval ratings. It is true that both Congress' failure to reform immigration policy and its stunted reprisals to Mr. Bush's ongoing Iraq war are enough to merit strong recrimination from the public. However, it must be noted that the Congress has made some important steps in moving forward legislative change that would have never happened under Republican rule. They are small steps, certainly, but that is the way democracy is supposed to work: It is meant to be a slow and deliberative process. The different branches of government, as well as the different parties, should cancel out each other's excesses, which is what they are trying to do. Now if only sparing the lives of hundreds more American soldiers weren't considered an excess.