At last check the temp here in Chicago was two degrees Fahrenheit, thirty below wind chill, which makes it a tad warmer than Richard Perle’s heart. (By the way if you missed him on The Daily Show the other day, that man has some serious bags under his eyes. “That’s were keeps the souls he takes to hell with him.”)

But that’s the report I woke up to. Top local news story, it’s cold. Later on I heard this story:

In a series of complex transactions hidden from state regulators, Peoples Gas transferred or sold natural gas intended to heat Chicagoans' homes to a venture of its parent company and Enron Corp., internal documents show.

As a result, the utility was forced to replenish gas supplies at high prices on the open market, contributing to record heating bills for customers during the brutally cold winter of 2000-2001.

Brrrrr!!!

BUSH KNEW!

Why wasn't this the headline to yesterday's article in The New York Times about the 9/11 commission? Buried in the twelfth paragraph on page A20 is this little tidbit:

The Bush administration officials confirmed news reports last year that a White House intelligence summary presented to Bush shortly before the attacks suggested that terrorists might be planning an attack using passenger planes.

In fact, the article reads as though it was prepped in a cut-and-paste frenzy, with this little paragraph left in by mistake(?) Why isn't the press pressing administration officials, specifically Condo "no one could have imagined this scenario" Rice to respond? This is unbelievable that not one journalist, and I use that term for lack of a more descriptive one, is questioning President PantyWaist about his knowledge, pre-9/11, of potential terrorist attacks—this admission apparently made by his administration. Isn't it somebody's job to ask the hard questions?

I'm nutty!

Disorder	Rating
Paranoid:	Low
Schizoid:	Low
Schizotypal:	Low
Antisocial:	Low
Borderline:	Low
Histrionic:	Low
Narcissistic:	Low
Avoidant:	Low
Dependent:	Low
Obsessive-Compulsive:	Low
-- Personality Disorder Test - Take It! --

After several abortive attempts I’ve concluded that I cannot write intelligently about the primaries. So I won’t try. Ezra over at Pandagon has a post that hits on some of the points that I’ve been chewing on over the last week. This paragraph in particular deserved a second look.

I've been thinking a lot about a Kerry candidacy lately. I've always said he'd be the best president of the bunch, but he's the worst campaigner. I no longer think he's the worst, but I'm not convinced that he's particularly good. Regardless, I'm very comfortable with his positions, his character, his intelligence and his understanding of what the presidency requires. I believe he's mentally prepared for the presidency, I think he understands the historical importance of the moment and is determined not to squander it. I've always believed that about him, he's someone whose dreams were larger than he was, but in the aftermath of Iowa he began to grow. I can see John Kerry as president, moreover, I can see him as a successful one.

My feelings on every candidate are still decidedly mixed. And when it looked like Dean was going to be our man I started preparing myself to support him, despite my misgivings. Getting back on the wagon for Kerry feels a little like trying on an outgrown tee shirt. But it’s not hard to visualize him as president. Casa Warren never really stopped being Kerry friendly, due in no small part to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement. We are unabashed Massachusetts Liberals in spirit if not in body.

My problem this entire time is that I’m more likely to compare candidates to Bush than I am to compare them to each other. Go figure. As to the question, “Can Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards beat Bush?” I’m tired of hearing it. Whoever wins the nomination, if he loses to Bush it won’t be entirely on his own. It will be because we decided that beating Bush wasn’t enough.

I know where I stand.