This morning I heard on C-SPAN radio about 10 minutes of an Anne Korin speech (Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, and Chair of Set America Free), delivered live to the National Conservative Student Conference in DC.  In the space of a few minutes, filled with a fast-paced presentation of data on global oil production and US oil consumption, I learned that she favors quick adoption by the US of plug-in hybrids, combined with flex-fuels combustion engines, as the most immediate path to extricating ourselves from our current national security pickle.

She sure made sense to me -- but then, I'm a sucker for arguments set up with a marshaling of seemingly relevant facts (that why I'm a Biden supporter, by the way - but that's another topic).  She made so much sense that I'm about to sit down and watch the video on C-SPAN's site (Korin appears about one hour in on the morning session).  

I did a quick search online looking for any critiques of her analysis -- nothing so far.  I'm curious what the progressive blogosphere thinks of her work.  Anyone?  I did learn she teamed up with James Woolsey on a National Review article last September: "Turning Oil Into Salt," and that apparently Woolsey is now advising McCain.  I also found a KCRW radio show she appeared on last November (in a segment titled, "Is America's Thirst for Expensive Oil Fueling Dictators?")

Thanks for any comments.

~ Rob

When a friend tonight mentioned the wagging tongues were suggesting  that if either Clinton or Obama won the nomination, party unity would require the other would have to be on the ticket.

I was surprised.  I thought the CW was that two relatively inexperienced candidates (especially in foreign affairs) on the ticket would be easy pickings for the Republicans - both would want foreign affairs experience or military background for their VP - Wesley Clark, for example, for Hillary, I'd heard mentioned.  He instantly shot back - for Obama's VP, how about Colin Powell?

Now there's a unity ticket!  A lot of interesting angles to that.  I wonder what you all think.  Has it been discussed already, does anyone know?

~

In a few threads here at at Huff in the last couple months many people named Rachel Maddow as their first choice replacement for Tucker Carlson should MSNBC decide to class up its act.  In fact, Rachel was the name most-often suggested.  I made the point a couple times that one factor MSNBC would clearly be considering was finding someone that would strengthen their election coverage specials.  Rachel would fit that bill nicely, I said. (It's pretty obvious Tucker does not.)

What joy, then, to see Rachel seated at the 'grown-ups' table last night, right alongside Howard Fineman.  A quick search turns up a couple extensive threads about her appearance last night, especially the contrast she strikes with Matthews - check out Crooks & Liars and DemocraticUnderground.com (I'd insert the links if I knew how - I'm a newbie to the diaries.)

As for the on-air discussion itself, I'll just say there was a wholly remarkable moment towards the end, when Chris was on a tear about partisan egos being the root of all our problems - barked at Fineman, who was given no opportunity to do anything but smile.  A truly embarrassing moment.  When Chris finally ran out of breath, though, Rachel smartly and gracefully trimmed his sails, and Keith then (happily, I'm sure) took us out to a commercial.  (Clip online at http://www.maddowfans.com/blog/?p=171 )

From Fayetteville Arkansas' Telecommunications Board Chair Richard Drake comes this much-shared cry of frustration (Arkansas Times, 12/16/07).  Where you have them, while you still have them, please use, support and protect your public, educational, and government access channels. ~ Rob McCausland.

I was watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer "interview" fellow CNN talking head Glenn Beck this week about Democratic front runners in Iowa, and I thought - not for the first time - how did things get so bad that Glenn Beck gets taken seriously? Either as a guest or an interviewer?

I get this feeling every few years, as I watch the self-satisfied interviewers on public affairs programs, who seem more impressed with the fact that they are on television than the fact that they have an audience which is eager for information about candidates and the issues.