(gasp) Common sense in the Ivy League

I've been watching this story develop over the past week, and I've resisted the temptation to blog about it until now.

Here's the short of it:

An art student at Yale University gave an interview to the student newspaper wherein she admitted "creating" her senior project out of the product of several miscarriages she suffered. The student, Aliza Shvartz, told the student press that she artificially inseminated herself with the help of a certain number of unknown sperm donors and a needleless syringe. She maintained that she then induced miscarriages by consuming herbal treatments specifically meant to cause miscarriages; she then smeared the resulting product (yes, I mean blood and tissue) over sheets of plastic, which she wrapped around a cube. "The cube was to be suspended from the ceiling of the exhibition hall, and videos of her undergoing the alleged self-induced miscarriages were to be projected on the cube and the walls," according to the Associated Press.

Pro-life groups expressed immediate outrage, not just for the blatant disregard for the pregnancies Shvartz allegedly conceived, but also for Shvartz' own mental health. Interestingly, there was no such immediate reaction from pro-choice groups (at least, not that I saw); they waited to hammer the project until Yale officials responded to the criticism with a statement that Shvartz' project was simply a work of "creative fiction" and that her claims to have conceived and aborted multiple fetuses was part of her "performance art." At THAT point, NARAL came out and said that the exhibit was "offensive and insensitive to the women who have suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage."

So Yale disputed the reality of Shvartz' exhibit, and Shvartz shot back that not only was it real, but it was in fact sanctioned by university officials. This ramping-up of rhetoric on Shvartz' part seems to have served only to harden Yale's position; the university upped the ante and is refusing to display her "artwork" until she admits, in writing, that the whole thing is fake.

No word from Shvartz, who was supposed to have been honored at a reception on Friday.

Let's step back for a moment and consider just a couple of the disturbing aspects of this story:

• Let's begin with the idea that the definition of "art," as defined by Yale officials, includes plastic sheeting smeared with blood -- however it is collected -- and suspended from the ceiling. A university official said that the project was "designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body." Um, riiight. Look, I understand that art is subjective. But shouldn't the university draw the exploration line at the point where someone inflicts bodily harm on themselves or others? If Shvartz wanted to produce this "art," Yale should have encouraged her to do it AFTER she picked up her Ivy League degree. I'm sure there would be plenty of studios that would be happy to host an exhibition for her ... right?
• I found it interesting that NARAL apparently believes that Shvartz' claim to have induced abortions is "offensive and insensitive" only in the abstract. Had she actually done it, NARAL would have been in the position of having to defend her choice to do so. Kind of throws a whole new light on "choice," doesn't it?

Here are some links for more on this story:

• Yale Officials Conclude Student's Shocking Claim of 'Abortion Art' Was 'Creative Fiction'
• Yale Student Insists Abortion Art Project Is Real, Despite University's Claims of 'Creative Fiction'
• Yale to Cancel Controversial 'Abortion Art' Exhibit Unless Student Admits It's Fiction
• Yale Pulls Student's 'Abortion Art' Project From Exhibit Opening
• The Yale Daily News, which originally broke the story

The postal service delivers ... ammonium nitrate

Authorities in South Carolina this weekend busted an 18-year-old they said was intent on attacking his high school in a Columbine-style attack.

The young man was caught when his parents opened a box he had shipped to their home. Curious about its weight, they opened it -- and were stunned to find ammonium nitrate. Their further investigation revealed papers in his room that detailed his plans

Ammonium nitrate, as you probably know, was the operative explosive that Timothy McVeigh used in his 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Google ammonium nitrate for sale, and the search engine will return "about 95,400 results." Consider that we're talking about a product that accounts for 98 percent of U.S. industrial explosives sales, is readily available and has been used in highly destructive attacks. Now ask yourself this: How was the young man in South Carolina caught?

His parents called the cops.

How's that for homeland security?

One final note: The young man was arrested Saturday, as survivors marked the 13th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and a day before the ninth anniversary of the Columbine massacre.

Pennsylvania showdown ... and celebrity endorsements

It's April 22 ... FINALLY!!

The presidential primaries return today with the big showdown in Pennsylvania. The feeling I have this morning is not unlike what I felt when I learned the writers' strike was over: After weeks of reruns, it's finally showtime again.

Pennsylvanians will be going to the polls all day, so to occupy your time between now and when our anxious anchors begin breathlessly reporting exit polls bathed in six weeks' worth of pent-up adrenaline, I offer you a little game.

Bored with presidential endorsements by all the usual suspects? See if you can list the top 10 celebrity endorsements from this presidential cycle. Feel free to guess in comments ... I'll post the list tonight as results come in.

Candidates laying the smack down

I've always been a big advocate of better voter turnout in America. Nothing irritates me more than hearing someone say that they didn't vote because they didn't have time, it wasn't convenient, they couldn't get around to it, blah blah blah. Voting is a sacred responsibility for Americans, and I've written about it before.

So I don't know whether to cheer or jeer the latest outreach by our presidential candidates to American voters: their taped appearances yesterday on WWE Monday Night Raw.

Yes, Vince McMahon's wrestling kingdom has apparently reached the point that when he beckons the candidates, they will come running. (Or is it that that is what our political system has come to?) In any event, when a race is this tight, the candidates are unwilling to leave any stone unturned.

So when candidates are around, pandering can't be far behind. Pandering is par for the political course, but some candidates just do it better than others. And that was true on Monday night.

Predictably, Hillary Clinton's pandering was the worst disguised, and her performance was downright awful;

Hi. I'm Hillary Clinton. But tonight, in honor of the WWE, you can call me 'Hill-Rod' ...

I've been knocked down, but I've always gotten back up. And I know how to take a hit for the American people ...

And if things get a little tough, I may even have to deliver the 'people's elbow.'

OK, props for referencing the people's elbow, a signature move of The Rock, a/k/a Dwayne Johnson, one of the most popular wrestlers in the history of McMahon's expansive stable. But "Hill-rod?" She deserves the elbow for that. Her parting shot: "When it comes to standing up for the American people, though, I am ready to rumble." Blech.

And I'm not even going to get into discussing that scarf she had around her neck. Talk about your safety hazards.

John McCain, perhaps also predictably, was just plain goofy in his Ric Flair impression:

"Ta be the man, ya have ta beat the man," he growled. "Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on ya?"

McCain gets wrestling style points for the growl, the fist pump that accompanied it, the obligatory reference to himself in the third person and the name he created for his fans. But I have to subtract a point for the way he pronounced Obama's name: "BAR-ock Obama." Why?

So that leaves us with Obama. Perhaps because he's younger and more at home (?) with a WWE/RAW-type audience, Obama nailed his appearance, also invoking Johnson's Rock character by adopting his signature line -- and it required only the most minor revision:

"To the special interests who've been setting the agenda in Washington for too long, and to all the forces of division and distraction that have stopped us from making progress for the American people, I've got one question: Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" he said with a grin.

That is awesome. Obama's self-satisfactory smile indicated that he knew it, too ... Self-confidence: Always key in wrestling.

See the candidates' tapes here.

On a final note, wrestling fans are famous for their creative signs, inexpensively produced on flashy neon posterboard and displayed prominently throughout broadcasts. The candidates' message-makers could learn a thing or two about breaking a thought down into two -- or three, four or five -- carefully selected words.

Man, I just spent 30 minutes discussing WWE-RAW on my political blog. I've become more Jim Ross than Gloria Borger.

I'm going to have to go lie down.

Larry King halftime

I've been watching the rerun of Hillary Clinton's appearance tonight on Larry King Live. She was the guest for the show's first half, and it's just wrapped up.

I have to say, she was solid. She was measured and convincing, not strident the way she is on the stump. King actually posed some decent questions, and he pressed her when she didn't answer directly, but overall, her performance was a good one.

I'm not sure why she turns into some other candidate on the stump; maybe she feels that yelling will bridge the presentation gap she has with Barack Obama (note to Hillary: It doesn't). But I bet her campaign staff has been scratching its collective head trying to figure out how to get that Hillary out on the stump.

Hey, Tony Show is a CNN contributor now. That's interesting! He is looking healthier (you'll remember that has been fighting cancer over the past few years). Tony looks like he's had a hair transplant, but other than that, he's looking like himself again. That's good to see.

Honor and voting in the Keystone State

So you've seen the post referencing that Philadelphia Inquirer article about the uncertainty surrounding the role of women in tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary. But aside from the premise of the article, did anything in it strike you as strange?

Need a minute to see it again? Find it here.

How about this:

Before hearing former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stump for Clinton at Bryn Mawr College, Sophia Papavizas, 18, a freshman from Arlington, Va., said she was feeling "a change of heart." She voted for Obama in her home-state primary in February, but might switch to Clinton.

Um, so, Sophia plans to vote twice during the primary season -- once in Virginia, once in Pennsylvania?

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spar over votes of Michiganders and Floridians being counted once, Sophia's will apparently count -- both times.

It's a logical leap of faith, but I'll make it for the purposes of this question: Let's assume that our friend Sophia met all registration requirements in both the Commonwealth and the Keystone State.

What does that say, then, about the registration requirements in the Commonwealth and the Keystone State?

What does it say about our patchwork primary system in general?

This question percolates every four years in my native state of Florida, where the proliferation of the availability of the absentee ballot enables a significant number of -- ahem, our Northern friends -- to vote in the presidential election in their home states and again in the Sunshine State. But since the state of Florida has a hard time keeping track of foster children, no one really expects elections officials to be able to take on this behemoth.

The honor system ... Who says it's outdated?

Girls' night in PA?

Political experts anticipate that the Democratic women of Pennsylvania will swing tomorrow's long-awaited primary, and conventional wisdom would hold that that would be good news for Hillary Clinton.

But this is no conventional primary (right, Howard Dean?).

In this revealing report from the Philadelphia Inquirer, women talk frankly about why all bets are off in the Keystone State. Two examples: One, a 53-year-old mother with a perfect Republican voting record, will vote for Barack Obama; another, a 19-year-old African American college freshman from West Philadelphia whose five brothers will vote for Barack Obama, will cast her vote for Clinton.

What is driving this uncertainty?

Many women said they found the candidates were more similar than not on issues, leaving their final choices to more subjective assessments of character and leadership ...

Many said that if Clinton were running against a white male, they would feel more compelled to support her as the first woman to run for president. But with Obama as her opponent, they said, their votes will be historic either way they go.

To set the statistical stage, one politico said he expects women to cast 60 percent of tomorrow's votes, up from the usual 56 or 57 percent turnout. But the clearest indication that this race is still up in the air: a staggering 47 percent of women still have not made up their minds.

The degree of vote switching, coupled with the number of undecided voters, is unusually high in this primary and opens up possibilities for both campaigns, said Celinda Lake and Kellyanne Conway, the pollsters who conducted Lifetime Networks' poll of women voters this month.

"This cycle is so different," Conway said. "They're undecided not because they're not paying attention - but because they are paying attention."

Sunday night TV

Last night made me want to give up TV.

CNN was rerunning the "Compassion Forum." Yes, I'm a political junkie, but not even I can stand to watch something again that is now a week old. We've had the ABC debate since then, and that superseded whatever oxygen the Compassion Forum had left in the room. Come on, CNN. Are you serious? You don't have anyone who can tell us anything about what's going on in Pennsylvania 36 hours before the primary?

So I was left with a dilemma, because Fox News Channel was running "Hannity's America." As a matter of general course, I avoid Hannity because -- well, let's just say that I appreciate at least some balance in my political news. Of course, I had already ditched the show once this weekend, when it originally aired. But since Headline News was overrun with Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears news, I felt I had no choice.

So Hannity it was. I tried to play devil's advocate, telling myself that it would be good for me to see the show, if for nothing else than to be exposed to it. But by the second commercial break, I could hardly stand it anymore. What gives? I thought. Is Sean Hannity afraid of Barack Obama? He did talk with Karl Rove long enough to Rove to mention Hillary Clinton's name a couple of times -- pretty obviously a token mention, as far as I could tell -- but then they both got back on message, which was more rehashing of those remarks from California, that pastor you've heard all about, that anti-war activist Hannity suckered George Stephanopoulos into mentioning during the ABC debate and that event in Washington in October 1995.

(I won't mention any of these things by name, because as far as I'm concerned, they've all been covered enough. I refuse to be a part of furthering the discussion about any of these things; the more we talk about these, the less we're talking about the real issues.)

I survived "Hannity's America" only to be greeted by "Strategy Room," live with Bret Baier. Gov. Ed Rendell appeared in a focus group (more on those later) on Hillary Clinton's behalf, and he made some statement about how voters are "drinking the Kool-Aid" when it comes to Obama. Frank Luntz said something to the effect of, "You're telling them that they're being suckered." And Rendell, sensing danger, quickly replied, "I just meant because they don't look past the words."

Maybe it's just me, but that statement from Rendell about the Kool-Aid sounded more than a bit condescending. One might even say it was -- dare I say it? -- elitist!

Back to focus groups ... FNC's focus group segment with Frank Luntz gets my vote for the most useless feature this campaign season. Aside from the leading questions that Luntz uses to bait the participants, the participants seem confused and even befuddled at times when he's interviewing them. And then there are those aggravating little dials that people are supposed to turn up or down to reflect their response to a debate, a commercial being screened or whatever else Luntz puts in front of their faces. Talk about your unreliable feedback. Ugh. Every time I see these things, I have these fantasies of sneaking into one of those focus groups and just twisting that dial back and forth, back and forth, just to see what it would do to the results. Ha ha. :)

Arrgh. Is it morning yet?

P.S. As far as obnoxious FNC personalities, let's make it an even three: Greg Gutfeld and his ridiculous "Red Eye" program take the cake. For an example of his forward-thinking, groundbreaking and eloquent political analysis, click here ... then please tell me how someone like this can get picked up by a national cable news network. The good news is that not many people see "Red Eye;" the bad news is that at least a few people still do.

No endorsement from Gordon Brown

Speaking of Brown, he met privately with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Thursday after having met with John McCain a few weeks back. Wouldn’t you have loved to be a fly on the wall for those talks? I’d love to get Brown’s take on each of the candidates; his perspective would be interesting, given that he followed Tony Blair and had to deal with Iraq, much as Bush’s successor will have to do. I wonder, which one of them would he want answering the phone at 3 a.m. ... especially since he might be on the other end of the line?

Brown didn't give much of a hint with his answer to a reporter's question on this point at a White House press availability this week ... or did he?

It is for Americans to decide who their President is going to be. I was delighted to meet the three presidential candidates who remain in the field. What I was convinced of after talking to each of them, and talking about the issues that concern them and concern the world, is that the relationship between America and Britain will remain strong, remain steadfast; it will be one that will be able to rise to the challenges of the future. And I look forward to continuing my discussions with all three of them over the next few months.

Brown said he will be talking "with all three of them over the next few months." If his comments are any indication, Brown doesn't have any insider information that Clinton intends to drop out anytime soon.

OPEC and oil prices

So, you saw in the "From the Column -- More About Gas Prices" post below that the cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is up 51 cents over this time last year, and a gallon of diesel is up $1.18 over the same period.

That is unbelievable.

Here's something else it is: Inexcusable. It's inexcusable for the world -- especially the United States -- to be held over a barrel (sorry) by OPEC. They are doing this to us because they can, and because we put up with it. The question shouldn't be, "How do we get OPEC to increase production?" The question should be, "How long are we going to put up with this?"

The failure of leadership that has put us in this position is the fault of politicians of both parties, along with the president and the Congress (which, I might add, has been led by both parties during Bush's administration). Yes, Bush and the Republicans are responsible for instituting and defending multi-billion tax breaks for Big Oil. But so are Pelosi, Reid & Co. responsible for blocking efforts to cope with the crude crisis -- efforts that would include drilling, at least temporarily, in the much-ballyhooed Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and tapping this country's strategic oil reserves. If Bush and the Republicans are the lap dogs of Big Oil, so are Democrats held hostage by unreasonable environmental advocacy groups.

So what are we going to do about it? It's time to tap the reserves, drill in ANWAR, drill in the Gulf of Mexico, do whatever we can to tell OPEC that we'll be happy to buy as much oil from them as we can get for the equivalent of, say, $40 a barrel (maybe $45 if we're feeling generous), a respectable increase from the $31 a barrel oil cost when Bush took office in 2001. We'll make up the difference with domestic supply. In the meantime, let's put every available scientist (and reassign a bunch more) on developing an alternative to oil-based gasoline. Auburn University is a leader in this area with its research into switchgrass. It's not hard to imagine the gains we could make if we emphasized this area of research as a national priority.

My guess is that it wouldn't take long for OPEC to re-evaluate supply and demand -- as in, a lot more supply and a lot less demand -- and next month's Monthly Oil Report would read a lot differently.

Incidentally, it was all but forgotten in the excitement about the Pope's visit to the United States this week, but British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was also in Washington on Wednesday to meet with President Bush. According to the Montreal Gazette, Brown planned "to discuss collective action to bring down oil prices."

What does that mean? Brown said this in a press availability at the White House on Thursday:

We agreed to work, and President Bush has just referred to this, for an early world trade deal that will give new confidence to the international economy at this time. An enhanced dialogue between oil consumers and oil producers, with rising output from the oil-producing countries, should help stabilize and then cut the price of oil, now at over $110 a barrel.

Um, yeah, except OPEC doesn't intend to increase production, what with those obscene profits being what they are and all.

So, we're on our own.

From the column: Iraqi information minister

If you read the post below about gas prices, you will need a good laugh. Never fear. Ask yourself, "What would MSS do?"

MSS is Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf -- better known in Western circles as "Baghdad Bob." He made a name for himself by holding press conferences in the runup to the invasion of Iraq wherein he would make statements that were directly contrary to obvious reality. As coalition soldiers invaded Iraq and American soldiers were taking over Baghdad, MSS continued to declare things like, "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad!" and his insistence that American soldiers were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city gates.

Ummmmm ... no.

If he was still giving news conferences, he would likely say something along the lines of, "Gasoline does not cost $3.39 a gallon! That is a fabrication of the American infidels! Gasoline is very affordable at just 40 cents a gallon! Gasoline has never cost more than 40 cents a gallon!"

MSS came to be known as "Comical Ali" -- a takeoff on the very not-funny nickname of "Chemical Ali," an Iraqi official charged with the development of chemical weapons in the Saddam Hussein regime -- and developed a fan following on the Internet. For a good laugh, check out either of two fan sites (the appropriately named "We-love-the-Iraqi-information-minister.com and something called Croque Fan).

Why love MSS? One fan writes:

"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakable, in fact, no matter the evidence ... His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources ... He stands superior to truth."

MSS is living in the United Arab Emirates with his family. A bio of him says he studied journalism.

Wait ... does ABC need a correspondent in the UAE? I have just the guy for them ...

From the column: More about gas prices

I found a great web site this week that provides all kinds of information about oil and gas prices.

For everything you ever wanted to know about the price points of petroleum products but were petrified to pursue (pretty peppy prose, eh?), check out "This Week in Petroleum," a project of the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration.

Although its title conjures up images of bespectacled, pocket protector-wearing bean counters, the site is written in a conversational style, and the data is laid out in an approachable and easily understandable way.

For example, this week's report says that "while gasoline prices have risen above $3 per gallon mostly due to high crude oil prices, increasing gasoline demand will likely take retail gasoline prices to $3.50 per gallon and above, even if year-over-year gasoline demand is negative."

I said it was approachable and easily understandable. I didn't say it was pleasant to hear.

A glance at comparison charts on the site shows that the average retail price (ARP) for a gallon of regular gasoline is just under $3.39 this week, up 5.7 cents from last week and a staggering 51.3 cents from this time last year. Similarly, the ARP for a gallon of diesel fuel is just under $4.06, up 10.4 cents from last week and -- get this -- a nauseating $1.18 from this time last year.

Something has to be done about this. Check back for more on that point later today.

Someone get Howard an aspirin

Pennsylvania or no Pennsylvania, Howard Dean has had about enough of the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. According to CNN:

An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”

So, Michigan and Florida are in the corner for having their primaries too early ... Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota apparently have theirs scheduled too late ... the majority of the contests fell in between and found themselves well timed by luck alone. So, here's my question: For scheduling purposes, when is the time for a presidential primary "just right?"

Watch out, Howard. We might start calling you Goldilocks.

'Shared prosperity'

When Hillary Clinton said what she did last night about getting "back to shared prosperity," I thought that it was a slip of the tongue for which Clinton would surely suffer GOP slings and arrows in the general election.

I've since looked into Clinton's use of the phrase, and it seems that while the latter is almost certainly true, the former is anything but.

Far from running from the idea of a "shared prosperity," Clinton has abided there for nearly a year. After Clinton's remarks in New Hampshire in May 2007, the Associated Press noted this:

Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined a broad economic vision on Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

It's been a continuing theme throughout her campaign. She has publicized the plan through countless online outlets, most recently pitching it in the Wall Street Journal:

Shared prosperity means providing greater economic security and opportunity for middleclass families.

American families don't need new government bureaucracies; they need new tools to help them climb the economic ladder. This begins with health care, because rising costs erode workers' savings, make insurance less affordable, put businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and threaten our fiscal future.

Not everyone thinks The Plan is a good idea. Dr. Gary Wolfram, a political economy professor at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Mich., writes this about Clinton's grand plan:

Candidates for president of the United States are being judged on their “plans” for the economy, health care, retirement, housing, etc.

However, in 1920 the renowned Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises published “Socialism,” in which he pointed out that central planning cannot result in a prosperous economy ...

The failure of planned societies such as the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, socialist India and those in sub-Saharan Africa -- and the new prosperity of Estonia, China and India as they move to market reforms -- should have made it rather obvious that Mises was correct. Yet Clinton assures us that she "will have a long-term economic plan that creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and allows everyone to share in our economic growth."

It will find that a corporate income tax above the rest of the world will result in a depressed level of the capital that is essential for economic growth. It will find that a K-12 education system based on government monopoly of production and provision leads to poverty for the underclass. And it will find that as the rest of the world realizes the wisdom of Mises and Hayek, it will be increasingly difficult to compete in a global market economy.

Read the rest here.

Interested in Mises or libertarian political theory? You have to visit the Ludwig von Mises Institute, headquartered right here in Auburn, Alabama. Click here.

The last question

Charlie Gibson displays his ignorance by saying that the nomination could come down to superdelegates. Actually, Clinton has made it clear that she intends to go after pledged delegates, too, because they are not bound to vote for the person to whom they are "pledged."

"We need a fighter back in the White House," Clinton says, adding that she'll take back the tax giveaways to corporations, and give it back to the middle class, they feel invisible. "We will get back to shared prosperity," she says. Whoa -- dollars to doughnuts, we'll be hearing that quote a lot more this fall: It could end up being her "$87 billion" sound bite. Right-leaning moderates already wonder whether she's too liberal; channeling Marx isn't going to do her any favors.

Obama says he's speaking for people who are disillusioned, that people don't want spin and PR, but an honest conversation. Change doesn't happen from the top down, but from the bottom up, he says. He hits Clinton on the PAC money and special interest money that he isn't taking (insinuating that, of course, she is) and notes that people are participating because his message is resonating. If we are going to deliver on health care and other issues, Obama says, "it's vital that we form a new political coalition in this country," and that's what his campaign is all about.

No surprises; a couple of birdies here and there to even out the occasional bogey by both competitors, but overall, they both shot par.

The First Amendment

Will this question be about the polygamous cult?

Using former presidents

How would you use President Bush?

Hillary says she appreciated Bush using her husband and Bush I in the fundraising efforts after Katrina. When they are all together, representing our country, that sends a strong message, but how to use George W. "will take some careful thought on my part," she says. (Didn't she just compliment him on some policy initiative earlier in this debate?)

A "council" of presidents is a good idea, Obama says, and adds that he would be more likely to seek counsel from Bush I than Bush II, giving the exit from the Cold War as an example of why. I missed the rest because my three-year-old is whining about Chap-Stick.

Gas prices

Hillary says "market manipulation" is going on, and that she would tap the Strategic Oil Reserves for the time being to drive down prices, and then she said something about the gas tax that I missed because my girls were asking me a question about Band-Aids. Hillary seems to have hit her stride here in these last five minutes.

Jimmy Carter is brought up, but it's in the context of America's dependence on foreign oil. Carter said that the country's dependence on foreign oil will come to an end "here and now" -- in 1979. Obama says that is why people are cynical.

Affirmative action

What does Obama think about affirmative action?

I'm not sure I'm following Obama here. He says he still believes in it as a means of overcoming historic and potentially current discrimination, but it can't be applied without looking at the entire person. That was a better answer as a summary.

"Here's how I would prefer to think about it," Hillary begins. Now she's talking about Head Start. "We have to look at what we're trying to achieve here somewhat differently," she says. This is one of the best answers I've heard her give on anything. She's even tying in health care. "Let's affirmatively invest in our young people," she says. That was a great sound bite.

Second Amendment

Gibson notes that today is the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. We'll tie that to the discussion about guns here in the presidential debate. Good job, Charlie Gibson, for making sure that that crazy gunman lives on in infamy.

Back to business.

What can the feds do to combat the crime wave in Philly? Hillary goes first. Um, wait -- I didn't see a cheesy transition with anything from the Constitution about the crime wave in Philly -- or the cops program, or any "public relations" program. She supports reinstituting the assault weapons ban. Now we're talking about mental health issues. She says we can balance gun owners' rights to own and use their guns with making sure that we keep those guns out of the hands of the wrong people; current policy "doesn't respect the common sense of the American people," she says.

Obama is asked about the D.C. weapons ban; is it constitutional? As a general principle, Obama says he believes that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms, but that local governments can constrict it, much as zoning ordinances are constrictions on the right to own property. Good example. (Hey, Barack; how about a constriction on the right to privacy -- for the unborn???? ANYWAY ...) Obama says he's never favored an all-out ban on handguns. "Mentally deranged?" Of course those folks shouldn't have guns ... but how to institute that policy? Therein lies the rub, as they say. That's where the rubber meets the road.

Clinton is asked about the D.C. ban: "You know, George," blah blah blah. She doesn't answer the question. It's a simple yes or no; does she support the ban or not? "What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to bear arms." She says that "a total ban with no exceptions might not be, but I don't think that should blow open a hole in the idea that local government can't make rules governing ownership." She can't even answer the question about whether she supports registration of handguns. She can't answer a simple, direct question. Thank goodness I never had to diagram a Hillary Clinton response when I was in grammar school.