Friday, April 27, 2007

Is the "Dieting" Al Gore Preparing to Enter '08 Race? Bloomberg Urges Him to Run

Like bookmakers watch the Vegas odds, political pundits have been closely following former VP Al Gore's weight as a barometer into his presidential ambitions. The theory is, if he sheds the weight he enters the race. On "The Chris Matthews Show," former CBS anchor Dan Rather said "Al Gore is thinking seriously about running. He's beginning to lose weight." Matthews replied, "I hear he's made a commitment to a friend for a crash course to lose 40 pounds right away." Said Rather, "Well, the prosecution rests, your honor." Gore has recently said that his desire to lose weight came after he saw himself at the Oscars and concluded that he was overweight. But as I've been saying on this blog for a year and a half now, Gore will be running, and the sudden emphasis on losing weight is a clear indication of his intention.

The prospect of a Gore candidacy is continuing to garner the attention of prominent politicians. Earlier in the week at the opening ceremony of the Tribeca Film Festival, New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged The Goracle to run. "I hope Al Gore enters the race. I think it would be good for the country." And a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gorefaring better than front-runner Hillary Clinton in key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. "Mayor Rudoph Giuliani remains the front-runner, but he and the entire Democratic field should wonder if Al Gore will become an inconvenient truth in the 2008 presidential race and go for the biggest Oscar of them all," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Gore's been playing it real coy while doing everything humanly possible to set his campaign table...from his Nobel Peace Prize nomination and Oscar award to his many engaging TV appearances and fiery anti-Bush political speeches. Factor in his four terms in the House, two in the Senate, eight as VP, his Vietnam service and his positions on the Iraq war and global warming--both of which resonate highly with the majority of voters right now--and he clearly becomes the Democrats' most electable choice for president. And he knows it.

Given the colossal foreign and domestic policy failures of the Bushevik Monarchy, this is the opportunity of a lifetime for Gore to capture the big prize. He's already gone through the vetting process in 2000 and he's skeleton-free. He's the only Democrat who can enter the race at virtually the last minute, with massive funds behind him, and shoot right to the head of the pack. And let's not forget the most important thing from 2000: he's already won the popular vote once before, and, as many believe, the election. Mark my words, Al Gore will not only run, but he will be re-elected.

On another subject......we could use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. As you may know, Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've finalized a scholarship with NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; and grants with Columbia University, American Film Institute, NY Women in Film and Television, the Independent Feature Project, and the Nantucket Film Festival. Other initiatives will follow. Please visit our website to learn more about our mission and to make a donation. Every little contribution helps preserve Adrienne's legacy, and to help create something positive out of this horrible tragedy. Thank you.

Adrienne's film "Waitress" will hit theatres May 2nd. Early reviews have been terrific. A link to the trailer is below. Enjoy.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for your post on Al Gore possibly entering the Democratic presidential race. If ever a candidate were owed another shot by his party and country, this guy is such a candidate. He literally was robbed of the presidency nearly eight years ago by Bush flunkies in Florida and a subservient Supreme Court.

Of the current field of Democratic candidates, only John Edwards has a chance to appeal to voters in the South and border states, and the silly haircut incident already has diminished him.

Senator Clinton is unelectable and I still believe she will stumble in the nominating process. We owe the Clintons nothing. I voted for her husband twice. We do not owe the Clinton family another seat at the ball.

Anyway, I hope Mr. Gore runs.

Rick Gunter

Anonymous said...

If Gore got in the race, that would really tie the Repugs panties up in a knot, wouldn't it?
You can see them having spasms now just thinking about it. I like it.

Anonymous said...

Waiting for Gore feels like Waiting for Godot.
Let's hope Al Gore really goes for it so that we can work like hell to make him President.

Anonymous said...

Gore is really our only hope. But, his being coy is not presidential. He's got to be more decisive than his hesitancy indicates. However, he is the only Dem who has a chance, I believe, after watching the first debate. Edwards, whom I like, appeared deflated although I liked what he said. Hillary showed emotional immature when she brazenly snubbed Edwards when he tried to shake her hand. Omaba is slowly sliding into the middle (and petty of me, but I wish he'd stopped sounding so henpecked); and the others have never had a chance. I do wish all of them, including Gore, had a little more Mike Gravel in their character.

Anonymous said...

Gore sucks!!

He's a Global Warming Alarmist Hypocrite


Of course, what democrat is NOT a Global Warming Alarmmist Hypocrite?

8 democratic candidates fly from Washington DC to South Carolina and take 8 private planes! Hypocrites!!

Al Gore's utility bills are 20x the average american, he has 3 houses, benefits financially from one of the worst polluting zinc mines in the country!! He lost in 2000 and he'll lose in 2008 (when he runs)

Let's see him kiss his ugly wife on national television. That was wonderful last time.

oh, but his polluting is OK, because he invests in the fraudulent "Carbon Credit" system, which has zero accountability, and is already proving to be a scam!

Let 'em run, he won't win.

Anonymous said...

forgot one more point: Al Gore also invests in the evil oil industry.

If it's soooo bad...why is he investing in it?

Al Gore, put YOUR money and YOUR lifestyle where YOUR hypocritical mouth is

practice what YOU preach Al Gore!!

Anonymous said...

11:31 Peter Marshall, a famous and effective minister in Washington DC said "Just because you don't believe in Hell doesn't mean you're not going there." To paraphrase, just because you don't believe in global warming doesn't mean that you and your children won't be harmed. And, really, your tired old rants about Dems being hypocrits and about Gore in particular are getting tiresome. After every new blog by Andy you manage to make your same old tired, uninformed arguments. Get some new material.

Terri said...

I have been hoping for months that Gore would enter the Presidential race. I would be behind him 100% with as much time and money as I could muster.

If he doesn't, I will vote for Hillary. But I really don't want to.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the word...

We wait with worm on tongue...
Dry powder...


Christopher said...

Small, medium or large, any size Al Gore is just what the country needs to rescue us from the Hillarymonster and Drag Queen Ru-Dee Guiliani!

Please, pleeeeeeease enter the 2008 presidential race, Mr. Gore!

Anonymous said...

10:25 WE WON THE WAR> We got rid of Saddam and the Iraqi people were then free to form their own government. THey were to meet us with dances and kisses in gratitude. We stayed on as victors to help them. Unfortunately the country broke into a civil war which we are now monitoring but are not involved in. THERE IS NO COUNTRY OR SIDE TO SURRENDER TO. NO ONE FACTION RULES IRAQ. WE WON, THEY ARE FREE TO DO AS THEY CHOOSE AND WE SHOULD GET OUT AND QUIT ALLOWING OUR BOYS AND GIRLS TO DIE. AL GORE WOULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN US INTO SUCH A MESS AND HE'S THE ONE WHO CAN GET US OUT AS WELL AS HELP THE IRAQIS DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE.

Anonymous said...

Al Gore DID help get us into such a mess. Remember he was the Vice President during the 1990's when Al Qaeda attacked us 6-8 times without US response? Bill Clinton and Al Gore allowed Al Qaeda to practice on live targets, and sharpen their skills.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore showed Al Qaeda that the United States was a 'paper tiger' in Mogadishu

There is currently plenty of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Whether they are here because we are there is a moot point. Would you prefer Al Qaeda to make a base in Iraq and attack us before we respond to them being in Iraq today ? We can't leave now, that is where the fight is.

Anonymous said...

11:03 Your comments boggle the mind.

Clinton responded to Al Qaeda by increasing our intelligence and increasing cooperation with international intelligence agencies. That's why we were warned in August before 9/11 that we were about to be attacked. Don't you remember that? Bush ignored it.

"There is currently plenty of Al Qaeda" all over the world. Remember the cell in London? They are an international organization, not a country (geographic location) with bases and places we can bomb.

We are not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. We are non-combatants in the middle of another country's civil war. And, while we're engaged in that futile use of our resources Al Qaeda is free to roam the world bombing Spain, England and any other country. Our stategy in Iraq does nothing to protect us from terrorists. Fighting terrorism requires another kind of strategy - not walking around with a target on our back and being diverted by trying to monitor an internal fight in Iraq.

Christopher said...

The president on 9/11: a Repug
The NY governor on 9/11: a Repug
The NYC mayor on 9/11: a Repug.

Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Al Gore Save Mars!!

Martians drive too many SUV's!!

From The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

Anonymous said...

wow, the previous post is a little inconvenient for Al Gore's Global Warming Fraud

either martians are polluting Mars as much as we are polluting Earth....or, it's quite possible that since the Sun is a common denominator AND the sun is getting hotter, then the Democrats global warming alarmism is just a scam.

is this why Democrats don't practice what they preach on Global Warming??

Anonymous said...

9:23 You Republicans are certainly not critical thinkers. You are willing to accept this unreferenced theory about Mars in the "Sunday TImes" (what TIMES?) in an article with no byline quoting Jonathan Leake - whoever he is. Yet, the countless, authorized, authenticated documents proving global warming are dissmissed as Dem. propaganda. No wonder our country is in such trouble. Not only that, have you considered that since we live in one universe, perhaps we humans on earth are also polluting Mars?

Anonymous said...

You seem pretty smart, are you a teacher at a government school?

Please explain, with all your critical thinking skills, how "we humans on earth are also polluting Mars".

This should be fascinating. I, for one, believe that the common denominator between the global warming of planets Earth and Mars is the Sun. You seem to think that the common denominator is humans polluting Earth.

How does our pollution reach a planet over 35 Million miles away in such a concentrated form that it actually affects the entire planet of Mars? Please use your critical thinking to explain this one.

Anonymous said...

Notice how the GOP posters always go backwards and blame Clinton and now Gore for everything? Very soon they'll be saying that Jr. Bush was never president and the last six plus years have never existed. They must either be paid a substantial amount to spew their nonsense or be off their medications. Sad little morons.

Gore for President!

Anonymous said...

anonymous 2:27,
Please stop thinking, you are hurting your brain.

Anonymous said...

You know...there is a reason that we often go back to Clinton /Gore. Seems everything Bush has had to deal with was a major screwup on the previous admins part. Hello?
Some one stated that Clinton responded to al queada?..Really?..Who gives a crap about sharing Intell when you let the guy escape when a preditor armed with a missile had him in it's sites, and clinton weaseled usual.
Mr Blogger stated that Gore is skeleton free?...I'm laughing so hard, darn near fell out of my chair. Ask Maria Hsai about AL psssst...she's serving his sentence, How about Mr Chernomyrdin about how AL hid secret russian arms deal to iran from Congress. And, as for AL's inconvienient lie, that is crumbling as we speak.

Also, another "anonymous" questioned the receeding Ice cap on's a fact, try google.

Anonymous said...

9:55 Not only are Republicans not critical thinkers they have no sense of humour. "We're polluting Mars" was an obvious joke - just not the Comic Book kind.

3:20 No matter what you say; no matter what you think; no matter how you delude yourself; no matter how much you wish:

Bush got intelligence in August that we were going to be attacked and he did nothing to stop 9/11; and,

Bush killed the wrong man and invaded the wrong country; and

Bush's vow to get Bin Laden "DEAD OR ALIVE" is a resounding failure and the result is a threat to our safety.

(I can't believe you had the nerve to condemn Clinton and write: "Who gives a crap about sharing Intell when you let the guy escape ... ")

Anonymous said...

Republicans seem to forget on whose
watch 9-11 happened. They don't want to admit it was bush, so they still drag out the old 'Clinton' excuse.
Clinton never said he was the 'decider', the 'decision maker'. He never waited 4-5 days to get to a disaster area to see the destruction. bush was busy holding a guitar for a photo-op and partying(as usual). He didn't say "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!"
He never said 'mission accomplished'. He never said he'd get Osama dead or alive. Osama is now Osama Bin FORGOTTEN.(because of bush)
He never sent over 3,000 troops to their death and with over 500,000 Iraqi people dead, not counting how many wounded.He didn't look under the furniture laughing about where Bin Laden was.He didn't talk and act stupid and drunk in front of Putin. bushs' behavior was an embarressment to this country.(He couldn't even find the right door to make an exit).
He didn't bankrupt our country, he left it with a surplus.He didn't piss our allies off by running his big mouth, as bush has.He wasn't on vacation all the time as bush is. It won't be long and bush will be on a permanent vacation.YAAYY!
Walter Reed wasn't a scandal on his watch. There weren't all these 'missing' emails.(Karl Rove)
He didn't spy on people(wiretapping) or read their emails.
He didn't throw habeus corpus out the window. He never said the Constitution was just a piece of paper. bush treats it like toilet paper.
There's many more instances like the above,they would know if they had COMMON SENSE, which the GOP/Republicans are in short supply of.
This and a LOT more has happened since bush took up residence in the White House.

Republican's/GOP are losers and a bunch of morons.

Anonymous said...

Bush does have to take some blame for 9/11 , since he had 8 months to capture/kill OBL. This would NOT have prevented 9/11 because all the 9/11 islamic murderers came into the country during the Clinton Administration.

The 9/11 Commission Report documents at least 4 different opportunities to kill OBL during the Clinton administration. Clinton and Sandy Berger prevented the CIA from killing OBL for reasons like, there 'might' be collateral damage and 'we don't do assassinations'.

Bill Clinton even turned down an offer to take OBL, when Sudan offered him to us on a silver platter.

Sandy Berger recently pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying documents that he stole from the National Archives. Top secret stuff that was stuffed in his pants and socks. This was right before the 9/11 Commission interviewed Clinton and Berger. My guess is that you don't care what he has hiding; nor who he was protecting, because he's a democrat.

Bill Clinton never visited the World Trade Center after Khalid Sheik Mohammed's (KSM - Al Qaeda #3, currently enjoying sunny Guantanamo) nephew organized the 1993 bombing.

Bill Clinton DID have 4 shills arrested following the WTC93 attack, but he never cared about the dots connecting Ramzi Yousef directly to KSM. BTW, Yousef came into the US with an Iraqi passport.

Bill Clinton surrended in Somolia in October 1993, resulting in OBL declaring the United States a "paper tiger"

In January 1995, Ramzi Yousef's apartment in Manila exploded while he was mixing chemicals for "Project Bojinka", which was a plan to hijack 11 or 12 commercial airliners and fly them into the pentagon and other buildings (sound familiar??). Clinton had 5 more years in his administration to act on this information...but didn't

In April 1995, Clinton covered up reports of Terry Nichols associating with several middle eastern-looking men before the Oklahoma City bombing. It was too convenient to catch Nichols and McVeigh, and be done with it.

In November 1995, Clinton's response to the bombing in Riyadh, which killed 5 Americans, was to request to talk to the 4 saudis who were arrested after the act. Saudi Arabia denied clinton's request for discussion and beheaded the 4. Clinton fell back in line and did nothing more.

March 8, 1996 Bill Clinton refused offeres to take OBL because "he had not (yet) committed any crimes against the united states". Clinton could have prevented 9/11 right here...but didn't.

June 25, 1996 Clinton did nothing as the Khobar Towers were bombed, killing 19 Americans.

July 17, 1996 - Al Gore and Bill Clinton discredited 270 independent eye witnesses that saw one or more ground-to-air missiles strike TWA Flight 800, killing all 230 people on board. Clinton ignored military experts that declared the airplane was in range of shoulder-fired missiles. Information discovered in 1999 showed that it was extremely possible that the flight was shot down by shoulder fired missiles.

Feb 1998 - OBL declares war against the united states. Clinton's response was to have Monica give him a blowjob.

May 1, 1998 - Sandy Berger blocks a proposed plan to take military action against OBL and other terrorists. Berger and Clinton did not want to catch OBL because they feared he would come to a US court and be aquitted. They could have prevented 9/11 by killing him right here.

August 7, 1998 - As OBL organized and executes simultaneous bombings in Kenya and Tanzania killing 200 people, Bill Clinton was most likely raping an intern because he wasn't doing anything to fight terrorism.

August 17-20, 1998 - Bill Clinton admits lying under oath regarding an 'inappropriate relationship' with Monica...and 3 days later orders 13 cruise missiles to strike a Sudanese Aspirin Factory. It didn't do anything to prevent 9/11, but OBL had a headache he couldn't relieve for weeks!

October 1998, Bill Clinton signed into law, the Iraqi Liberation Act

December 1998, Clinton attacks Iraq under Operation Desert Fox. "The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors."

March 1999, Bill Clinton starts bombing Yugoslavia WITHOUT UN approval.

June 1999 - Sandy Berger blocks another proposal to kill OBL in the Tarnak Farms (Afghanistan) terrorist camp. Berger blocked it because "the presence of 7-11 families, which could mean 60-65 casualties". Well, he saved the families of OBL's friends, but he didn't prevent 9/11.

November 10, 1999 – Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, states, "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

December 4, 1999 - Sandy Berger blocks another proposal to kill OBL. Richard Clarke sent Berger a memo suggesting the strike. In the margin next to Clark'es suggestion, Berger simply wrote "no".

August 2000, Sandy Berger blocks another proposal to kill OBL. He was targeted by an ARMED PREDATOR drone. Berger wanted "more than verified location". Again, this could have prevented 9/11

October 12, 2000, OBL kills 17 in the USS Cole Bombing. Clinton had no time to react, but his only response was a promise "to find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Again, no response from Clinton.

In Summary: Yes, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's all Bush's fault. Bush had 8 months to react, and he didn't.

Anonymous said...

BRAVO 10:43 I can't believe 10:07 wrote the old trash-Clinton excuse after the proof you wrote of Bush's failures.


(The only possible difference would be if the conspiracy theory is true. If it is Bush is still to blame.)

Anonymous said...

Your last statement said it all 10:07:

In Summary: Yes, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's all Bush's fault. Bush had 8 months to react, and he didn't

Anonymous said...

11:27 and 12:17,
I have to admit, you sure don't let facts stand in the way of your belief system. I believe you are either children or public school teachers.

If you are children, please stay in school, question your teachers, and research things for yourself, learn something new each day.

If you are adults, you have my sympathy. My only advice is to keep your union membership (if you are employeed), you won't make it out there on your own.

"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." -Francois Guisot (1787-1874)

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929)

Yours truly,
10:07 am

Anonymous said...

Bush had 8 months?..Oh really? He didn't even have his cabinet in place yet.
The bush haters bring up the august 6th PDB, thinking it is a smoking gun. Wrong again, seeing it gives no definite timeline for impending attacks. Secondly, that PDB only gave less than one month to prepare.
For your information, it was assumed that if any attack was to occur it would have originated outside the US, and therefore, the FAA had heightened security alerts in airports overseas.
I swear...For some of you, it seems "History" for you began on 9-11-2000, when in fact the war started 30 years earlier.
Was it any wonder why our intel was way out of date? Go back to Clinton, they guy who gutted our intel, and made "The wall" to where intel could not be shared from one agency to another.
You wackos need to do your research before poppin off

Anonymous said...

Oh, the truth of Bush and his imcompetent runnning of the government is SO, SO hard for the GOPbots to handle.

GOPpies, when will you take responsibility for your choices? Clinton, et al, were done the day Bush took office. Period. If he couldn't put a cabinet together and go to work within 8 months, he should have been up for review and correction. But instead it was more important to clear brush and vacation in Crawford. Those little things just cannot be denied any longer. Wait! Is that the GOP dream going down in flames we see? Roll over in your grave, Ronnie!

Anonymous said...

I side with 10:43, sooo tired of the Republican/GOP spin it makes me want to throw up.

Anonymous said...

2:48 Most people know or at least can deduce that terrorists don't give "time and place and method" of their attacks. Maybe that was Bush's trouble in August before 9/ll. He was so "new" in office he thought he was supposed to, and was really entitled to, get his personal invitation to the event from the terrorists. A President aka The Decider has got his pride. And, heh, how can you "decide" if you don't know where or when?

And by the way, Tenant is saying that August information said the attack would be INSIDE THE USA.

Anonymous said...

Did Al Qaeda exist before Bush was President? What did Clinton do to prevent Al Qaeda from practicing on American targets?

By your argument, "Clinton, et al, were done the day Bush took office. Period.", it will be the next President's fault if an attack happens early into the next administration, right?

I think you believe that anything that happened up until 9/11 is Bush's fault, and everything that happens after Bush's term is also Bush's fault. Do you live in a vacuum with all your thought processing?

Anonymous said...

Hardly, a creative argument 7:11 PM.

Just more blame the other guy talk and, more importantly, HISTORY!

Why do Republicans insist that they are blameless in this mess? It doesn't take much to lie an deny, 2 year olds do that.

The rest of the world is tired of excuses.

Anonymous said...

4:39 Does Al Qaeda exist, even stronger than before 9/ll, after 3000 soldiers are dead and 500 billion spent?

Does Bin Ladin exist after five years of Bush swearing to get him Dead or Alive?

Didn't Bush say, after his failure to capture Bin Laden, that the capture wasn't that important anyway?

Anonymous said...

Any discussion of the president's veto of the Democrats surrender bill must begin with the realization of one simple, basic, incontrovertible fact. The Democrat leadership of this country awakes every single day with one desire on their mind: They want a day of bad news from Iraq. Those Democrat leaders who actually pray are praying for our defeat in Iraq. Every bit of bad news from Iraq brings smiles to Democrat faces. Every bit of good news brings sadness.

Democrats are totally invested in our defeat in Iraq. They believe that their chances of taking the White House and keeping the congress in the 2008 elections is to nurture the idea that many American voters have that what they call the "Iraq War", but what is really the Iraqi front in the war against terrorism, is absolutely lost and is only being further pursued by George Bush to achieve some nefarious anti-American and ungodly goals. Democrats know that Americans love winners, and that Americans want to win. If Americans begin to believe that that the achievement of our goals in Iraq is, in fact, possible; that a victory can be won, they will turn against the Democrat's ... and there goes the Democrat majority and a Democrat in the White Hous

Anonymous said...


(NYPOST) May 2, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Jet-setting Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is a fussy frequent flier who used three different planes in a single day during a recent campaign swing through South Carolina.

The former first lady even grounded one aircraft - a chartered Gulfstream II - in Columbia, S.C., last Friday, demanding a swankier Gulfstream III replacement for a flight out west.

"She didn't like the configuration of the cabin," an aviation source familiar with Clinton's travel told The Post.

And that was after the Gulfstream II pilot dropped Sen. Clinton off at the bustling commercial terminal rather than the secluded area for private planes, sources told The Post.

The Gulfstream III charter had to be scrambled from Westchester County to swoop into South Carolina and carry Clinton off to San Diego for the start of a two-day fund-raising trip to California, flight records show.

Clinton's campaign did not immediately comment yesterday.

Clinton's jet-capades began when she hopped aboard a Gulfstream II on Thursday afternoon that ferried her from Washington to Orangeburg for the first Democratic presidential debate at South Carolina State University.

That same plane brought her back to Washington that night, arriving just after 11:30 p.m., and then was sent back, with no passengers, 46 minutes later to await Clinton's arrival back in South Carolina the next afternoon.

On Friday, she used a Hawker 800 private jet owned by the New York investment firm Gilder Gagnon Howe for a morning flight to Greenville, S.C., from Washington, after an 8 a.m. address at a New York teachers' association gathering.

From Greenville, Clinton hopped back aboard the Gulfstream II for the 25-minute flight to Columbia before swapping it for the Gulfstream III.

Clinton soared across California in the Gulfstream III over the weekend, hopping from San Diego to San Jose, then over to Reno, Nev., and back to Van Nuys, Calif., before heading home to Westchester County - arriving early Monday morning.

It's not clear how much the charters cost.

Presidential campaigns can pay as much as $9,000 for a charter flight, but get a break when borrowing a corporate jet - like Clinton did with the Hawker 800.

That's because ethics laws allow candidates to pay the aircraft's owner only the equivalent of first-class airfare.

Clinton, who has warned against global warming from the stump and hyped the need for alternative energy such as ethanol, burned through thousands of gallons of jet fuel swooping along the campaign trail - and it's not clear why she sent an empty plane to wait for her in South Carolina then flew a different jet from Washington the next day.

Clinton kept her feet on terra firma yesterday, but was basking in the glow of megastar Bono, the U2 frontman and global activist who joined with Clinton to push for improved educational opportunities for kids in impoverished countries.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) agreed yesterday to participate in a June 3 Democratic debate in New Hampshire.

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and second-tier candidates Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had already signed on.

Anonymous said...

Neal -- I'm stunned and in awe of your ability to read the minds of the Democrats -- apparently all of them. You "know" their every waking thought and undoubtedly their sleeping dreams. Now, I'd like to know if you've been blessed with supernatural abilities by God; or do you have an arrangement "From God's mouth to your ears." And if you are truly so powerful in your mystical/God-like abilities, please take your rightful place and Save The World. Or, could it be you've stopped taking your meds?

Anonymous said...

thank you. no, no, and no.

Is there anything else ?


Anonymous said...

I'd rather be called stupid by a surrendecrat, then be considered someone like you.


Anonymous said...

4:00 Whatever--

Anonymous said...

The costs of the war in Iraq-In Dollars.
The #124-BILLION spending bill that bush vetoes includes about $78-BILLION for Iraq, with the rest earmarked for the war in Afghanistan, veterans health care and other government programs.
The combined spending requests would push the total for Iraq to $564-BILLION since the war began in March 2003, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
What COULD that kind of money buy?

A college education-tuition, fees, room and board at a public university-for about half of the nations's 17 million teenagers of high school age.

Preschool for every 3-and 4-year-old in the country for the next 8 years.

A year's stay in an assisted lving facility for about half of the 35 million Americans age 65 or older.

bush and his economic adivsors defend the growing cost as the price of national security.
"It's worth it," bush said last May, when the tab was in the $320-BILLION range. "I wouldn't have spent it if it wasn't worth it."
For war opponents, the escalating cost is a growing source of irritation. A Web site showing a running tally of the war's cost,, attracts about 250,000 visitors a month, according to the National Priorities Project, the site's sponsor.
As wars go, Iraq is cheap.
World War II cost more than $5 TRILLION in today's dollars. World War I and Vietnam each cost about $650 BILLION in today's dollars, but spending on those wars took a much bigger share of the economy when they were fought.

Now the real cost of the war-in lives:

3,351: Confirmed U.S. military deaths as of May 1.
25,090: Confirmed U.S. military wounded as of May 1.
63,000: Iraqi civilian deaths. One controversial study in 2004 contended there were as many as 655,000.
1.9 million Iraqis are refugees in their own country.
2 million Iraqis have left the country.

Sources:Associated Press and McClutchy Newspapers

Anonymous said...

9/11 is TOTALLY Bush's fault, AND SO IS THIS:

Dow: Best winning streak since '55
Blue-chip gauge hits another record, capping best stretch of gains in 52 years; earnings, buyouts, factory orders all help.

By David Ellis and Alexandra Twin, staff writers
May 2 2007: 5:48 PM EDT

NEW YORK ( -- The Dow Jones industrial average hit another record high Wednesday, capping its longest winning stretch in almost 52 years as investors welcomed strong earnings, lower oil prices, media merger news and a strong reading on manufacturing.

The Dow (up 75.74 to 13,211.88, Charts) rose 0.6 percent to close at an all-time high for the fifth time in the last six sessions. The Dow also hit an intraday record high of 13,256.33 during the session before retreating near the close.

The blue-chip indicator has now risen in 21 of the last 24 sessions for a gain of 7.4 percent. That's the best streak since the summer of 1955. Back then, the Dow climbed about 10 percent, rising in 22 of 25 sessions.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite (up 26.31 to 2,557.84, Charts) gained over 1 percent and closed at a fresh 6-year high. The broader S&P 500 (up 9.62 to 1,495.92, Charts) index rose nearly 0.7 percent and ended at a fresh 6-1/2 year high.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:05,

Democrats hate news that is good for America. Stop it.

Anonymous said...

9:05 and 3:24 -- If you two had read or listened to an analysis of what the stock market news really means, you wouldn't be so cocky. More than one report said that this is indeed good news for the very rich and they are the cause of the rise. You see, the rich are selling low and buying the same stocks right back which results in the picture of the stock market you admire. However, as for its reflecting anything good, prosperous are even encouraging for most Americans and thus the country, that is not what's happening. More workers are sturggling, wages are low, everything else is high and many are going bankrupt. It's more of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. What's good about that?

Anonymous said...

anonymous 6:06,
Your response is SO PREDICTABLE for a liberal. The old "only the rich are getting richer" line.

Lies, lies, and more lies...

Are you jealous of people more successful than you ? It seems so. Don't feel bad, other people just make better decisions than you do.

I'm not rich, yet I'm doing wonderfully well in my investments.

"You see, the rich are selling low and buying the same stocks right back" <-- This actually makes zero sense. PersonA buys stock, sells it low, then buys it right back?

You have got to be one of the musicians or teachers that frequents this blog. Do you mind stating your occupation (if you have one)?

Anonymous said...

Nothing confuses a republican more than the truth.

Anonymous said...

Not only the truth confounds a republican, but also, anything that takes intelligence and a higher education.

Anonymous said...

This is OT, but did anyone see this?
Do the republicans think they'll be immune? This will not cross party lines let me tell you, everyone will be in the mix.

Hey if talking about what stocks they have,(goody for them)then I guess I can post this here also. What does their stock portfolios have to do with what's going on here?

Anonymous said...

7:35 I read and heard the same reports you reject as lies. The investor sells when the stock is low thus getting a break on his income tax. Then he buys the same stock at the low price and waits for it to make money again.

Anonymous said...

7:35 I"m an old time reader of this blog and usually don't write. But I just have to comment that I'm sure you're the "Larry" who used to spend most of his working day writing to this blog. After a while he stopped using his name but he was still recognizable by his repeated old slurs about teachers, the NEA, the poor, the lazy, and his accusations that the Dems are liars who are jealous of the rich Republicans. He was also very opinionated with little foundation in facts. If you're not Larry you're his Doppleganger.

Anonymous said...

this is kinda ot...but waitress is getting smash reviews from all over the country...its too bad that it was released the same weekend as spidey 3

but somewhere up in heaven, i hope shelly is looking down and seeing the praise heaped upon her film.

we are going to miss her.

Anonymous said...

Al Gore is good, but this blog sucks!

who cares about Al Gore's Fat ? What's Ostroy going to write about next, the Dixie Chicks? Paris Hilton?

Anonymous said...

The OstroyReport already writes about the Dixie Chicks.

Anonymous said...

1:01 Obviously Ostroy will not write anything that pleases you; and, in that your displeasure evokes a snide part of your nature, it would be the better part of wisdom if you didn't read his articles anymore.

I have learned never to watch FOX NEWS for the same reason.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell me what the Democrats running the House and the Senate have accomplished? Besides raising the minimum wage for everyone except Nancy Pelosi's friends in the Tuna industry, I'm at a loss. Please help.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Gore decides to run (and I hope hw will!), I think he'd knock all the "first-tier" Dem presidential contenders into the "second tier" and would bring such prestige to the race (Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Oscar winner) that he'd be a juggernaut. I'd also like to see him run, and win, as vindication of the shabby manner in which he was treated by the Supreme Court in 2000. He could undeniably and unmistakably show everyone in 2009 that if he'd been elected in 2000, this country wouldn't be in the mess it's now in.

Anonymous said...

Someone cited the Sunday Times about Lori Fenton's study.

The Sunday Times says:

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth".

So that study doesn't help in any way global warming's skeptics.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for pointing that out, 11:59. Just because Mars is also warming doesn't mean there ARE any common denominators. For those of you who would like informed information about global warming, please stop reading the papers.

Try the 4th report of the IPCC. Peer-reviewed journals such as Ecology and Conservation Biology will also have reliable data.

And, just make everyone mad at this post, may I point out that this snide backbiting isn't really getting you anywhere? Any dialog will work better if the insults are left out of it.

Everyone could give independent thought a bit of a try. They might even like it.