From the NY Times today:

Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

What a concept! That you can actually start acting to solve some of the world's problems before you get elected. Instead of a gas tax holiday, how about a cease-fire in the oil wars?

There's more...

My friend Ira had his photo in the NY Times today, with his old friends.

There's more...

Frank Rich writes this morning in the NY Times about Hillary's Tuzla fib:

A new bottom-up media culture is challenging any candidate’s control of a message.

Of all the moments at which Hillary has been hurt by her own staff's disregard of the new rules of war, this latest flap is the most ironic.

There's more...

Frank Rich has my vote (alone with the always right-on Bob Herbert)as best NY Times op-ed columnist lately. (I still admire Paul Krugman despite his singularly unquestioning commitment to Hillary Clinton's cause lately.)

In his latest piece (just up) Rich looks at Clinton's political handlers and  analyzes why she's been losing ground against Obama.

One of the things I love about Al Gore (and find lacking in the current crop of presidential candidates) is his wonkish visionary interest in future tech. We really need leaders who can see farther than eight years ahead.

This paper from 1998 was futuristic enough that it still isn't dated. It takes a long-term look at our transportation infrastructure options, beginning with fuel sources, and considers what sort of green people movers would be possible.

There's more...

What we have witnessed over the past week -- Obama's larger-than-expected triumph in Iowa and his surge going into New Hampshire -- doubtless owes much to the mood of the nation and our collective thirst for something new and different, as Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and others have suggested in recent pieces.

But I note something else: Obama also played all his cards to perfection.

At least the progressive Brits do, as a raft of Guardian articles show.

Follow me over the fold for their lead article by Gary Younge who reflects on how Obama has transformed Democratic Party politics.

Note the fact that he just conceded defeat, on a referendum on which he had pinned immense personal hopes -- with less than a 1% vote difference.

A dictator -- or our current administration in Washington for that matter -- would just have tweaked the results a bit to get a win.

With Karl Rove a private citizen, one has to wonder what he's up to now.

There's been a lot of speculation that it might involve nefarious schemes to derail the strongest Democratic candidate - who Rove believes is Clinton, whatever he says.

So how would they do that?

Follow me...

NY Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert writes today about turning the campaign silly season toward substance. In the process, he identifies Edwards as the straightest talking of the bunch.

Whatever you think of their politics, John and Elizabeth Edwards are giving the country a world-class lesson in courage and candor.

More over the fold.

I believe this NY Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem reinforces my suspicion that Clinton and Obama have a deal to make him her Veep candidate.

We could double our chances by working for one of these candidates, not against the other. For now, I’ve figured out how to answer reporters when they ask if I’m supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

I just say yes.

From an AP story comes news of this inspired characterization of the "surge":

As Rice testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., likened Bush's plan to a "hail Maliki pass",  jokingly combining Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's name with the football "Hail Mary" desperation pass.

That's priceless, Congressman Berman. Let's give it all the legs we can.

Greg Palast has an interesting take on the Baker commission report. He notes that the Saudis are already funding the Sunni insurgents, and if we leave they will step that up further, while Iran funds the Shites. In such a proxy war, it's clear which side the Consiglieri of the House of Bush is on.

The full article is here.

Follow me over the fold for the money quotes.

So, Hillary -- and maybe Barack -- are running.

Kos is already calling it for Obama. I think he's in denial about Hillary, who kossacks seem to detest. I seem to recall he pronounced Kerry dead, and said Edwards would not be the Veep candidate, no way. We are all fallible at this stage.

I may as well say it. I think a Hillary / Obama ticket is a distinct possibility.

OK, flame away, kossacks. But follow me over the fold for the reasons...

Bob Herbert in today's New York times says that Iraq is the flashpoint, but not the root cause, of voter dissatisfaction. If he's right, we may do well tomorrow. Or if we don't, it may make the dissatisfaction greater, and what follows may be truly historic.

His op-ed is behind the Times Select firewall unfortunately, so I've blockquoted his bottom-line paragraph (below the fold).

I blogged Sunday on Juan Cole's piece last week on the reasons governments want to torture people. Here's further confirmation of his theory that it's to manufacture bad intelligence, to justify their "war on terror".

This time confirmation comes from the dead -- from the most courageous Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist slain Saturday, in her posthumously filed final report on torture.

Informed Comment today has a great take on the Bush adminstration's motives for doing torture, especially in Iraq. Bottom line: torture is useful because it produces bad intelligence -- which is the goal!

Extended excerpts below the fold.

In the immortal words of Louie Renauld:

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Anyone outside the bubble of the progressive blogosphere would see Hillary's triangulation vis. a vis. the health care industry, and their eagerness to place bets on her, for what it is -- evidence of her political maturity and their estimatation of her potential electorial success -- and hence good news for Democrats. But no, it's a betrayal of all our cherished ideals, a Hostile Takeover of the Health Care Debate, and blah blah blah.

The subtext is so obvious -- this community deeply fears Hillary. That fear is misplaced -- leave it to our enemies. Follow me over the flip to discuss why.