Yucca Mountain News Clips
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
---------------------------

KOLO
November 20, 2007

"Preferred" Yucca Rail Route Avoids Reno

Joe Harrington

Monday evening Nevadans spoke out about the proposed Yucca mountain nuclear repository. In order to get a license for the facility, the Department of Energy is required to gather comments -- A public hearing was held at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center.

"We have studied this thoroughly it's probably the most thoroughly studied piece of real estate in the world," Allen Benson of the United States Department of Energy said.

That piece of real estate is in a rural area of Nye County. And documents relating to the spent nuclear fuel storage facility planned for site were up for discussion.

Members of the public looked at a preferred rail route for transporting nuclear or radioactive materials to Yucca Mountain. Trains carrying the material would run through Caliente, and across the state to Yucca -- Not traveling through Reno.

The DOE says the schedule of trains would be a secret except to first responders. But some worry there could be an attack.

"You could have a some kind of an attack planned there, and I don't like to think about that but it could happen," Marge Sill of Reno said.

According to the DOE, trucks carrying the material may travel on highways in the Truckee Meadows.

In addition to the transportation plan, members of the public were asked to consider the impacts of the underground storage facility itself.

Critics its too costly, and there's potential for an accident.

Others say the science at Yucca is sound.

"The majority of scientists both private and public who studied that environment believe it is the safest and the best location in the United States of America for it, let's go," Gary Duarte of Sparks said.

Nye County Commissioner Gary Hollis says back home, people seem to give more attention to issues like roads and animal control, than the Yucca Mountain facility. He says it may even create job and prove beneficial.

"I will be a shot in the arm for Nye County, you gotta understand... the Nevada Test Site is in Nye County also and ever since 1950, Nye County hasn't been getting much economic development from Nevada Test Site," Hollis said.

But according to the Nevada Attorney General's Web site, the state of Nevada does support the Yucca Mountain project. One of the reasons given is that train and truck transportation routes would near more than one hundred million people.

A train route through Reno is still on the table. But Walker River Paiute Tribe lands are needed for that plan. A DOE official says the tribe isn't in support.

--Written comments can be submitted to the DOE until January 10, 2008. Visit http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov for more information.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 20, 2007

Erin Neff: Is Mitt a good fit?

Mitt Romney smiled when he was asked Friday if Americans would find him odd because he belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I'm odd," he joked, "but not because of my religion."

At times during his 45-minute meeting with the Review-Journal's editorial board, Romney seemed like a presidential candidate who could not only wrest the Republican nomination from a more liberal candidate, but also like someone who could successfully appeal to independents.

He'd lobby hard for immigration reform that would actually create a system whereby employers would know they're hiring a legitimately documented worker and be fined if they put illegal immigrants on the payroll. He has a health care plan that he says would help states cover most uninsured Americans.

Then the oddities surfaced.

He's against the heavy hand of excessive federal regulation, but supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

He's all for a line-item veto to rein in excessive spending and opposes new taxes, but he would implement a "middle class" tax relief plan that would drain $32 billion from the treasury.

Romney no doubt knows the economy. Not only does he have 25 years of experience in the private sector, he's run the Olympics and governed a state while working with a Democratic-dominated legislature.

But he still has no idea, really, what the middle class even is.

His tax plan would allow households with annual incomes of $200,000 or less to save tax-free -- no taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains.

"It's a recognition that middle-income Americans need relief, and that our economy needs capital," Romney said. "Most people in that income bracket and less are not saving that much."

This is classic Reagan economics. Take $32 billion out of the government's hands and let it trickle down to make the economy robust.

On the other side of the aisle, many Democrats believe taxes should be raised on those earning $200,000 or more. That's roughly 5 percent of the population.

Democrats call these people "the rich."

If your issue is Iraq, Romney sounds critical of the Bush administration. He rattled off a litany of problems in the years after Saddam Hussein fell. We were "underprepared, underplanned, understaffed, undermanaged."

Makes sense for a guy who believes in staying the Bush course. The surge is working. No timeline for withdrawal.

Romney also did the apologist thing. In answer to a question about how he can justify his position on Iraq when a majority of Americans view it differently, Romney said the president needs to be the "educator in chief."

"I think without question the administration was surprised that things were not going as well as they thought they would following the collapse of Saddam Hussein," Romney said. "I don't imagine we'd have had the arrival on the aircraft carrier or that the secretary of defense would say we just have a few dead-enders to sweep up."

In other words, "mission accomplished" didn't properly prepare Americans for the bad news.

The real threat is having Iraq turn into a safe haven for al-Qaida, he argued.

Like Afghanistan is again? Like Pakistan has always been?

Odd, indeed.

Romney did finally give the editorial board a classic "sound science"-type answer on the Yucca Mountain Project, but took it far enough to make the pro-dump folks in Lincoln and Nye counties stay with him.

"We do need to invest a substantially greater amount in looking for ways to reprocess nuclear fuel," he said. "At the same time, we do not have the federal government impose on the people of Nevada a solution that does not work for Nevada." Romney said he "would not take action that would in any way put at risk the safety or security of the people of Nevada or their economy."

He said that as governor of Massachusetts, he spoke with former Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn often about the issue. When asked if he'd shut the dump down, Romney offered a "state's rights" answer with a curious twist.

"I'll wait to see what the results of the study are and what the people of Nevada are going to say," Romney said. "There are ways to make people think that something is a good idea. One is to compensate them."

He noted there's a long tradition in Western states of crafting deals among themselves, particularly when it comes to water use.

What the heck. Sen. John McCain's for the dump and former Gov. Robert List, who is now a pro-dump lobbyist, has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Romney has to get his pro-Yucca bona fides in somehow. The compensation angle may be odd, but it suits Romney to a T.

--Contact Erin Neff at eneff@reviewjournal.com or (702) 387-2906.

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 20, 2007

Yucca rail route still possible in area

Susan Voyles
Reno Gazette-Journal

The U.S. Department of Energy has identified a route through Caliente in eastern Nevada as its preferred rail route to Yucca Mountain, but a route through Mina and central Nevada that could bring close to 2,000 nuclear casks aboard trains through Reno and Sparks is still alive.

Described as the “non-preferred” alternative, detailed studies on the Mina route are included in a draft environmental study because the work was done before the Walker Indian tribe withdrew permission in April for a rail line to cross its lands to Yucca Mountain, Joseph River, project manager for the study, said at a public hearing Monday in Reno attended by more than 50 people.

No trains would come through Reno as part of the Caliente route, but officials said some shipments would go through Las Vegas. The state is adamantly opposed to that, said Robert Halstead, a Nevada nuclear energy office consultant.

Winning approval of an alternative route around Las Vegas would require a huge effort.

“There’s a lot of potential for Northern Nevada and Southern Nevada to be in conflict on this routing issue,” he said. “The state is trying to find a way, based on an objective safety analysis.”

A final decision on the environmental report ­— and on which rail route to take — is expected by June. Construction of the railroad would begin in 2010 or 2011 if Congress appropriates the money, DOE officials said.

Nevada’s preference is that nuclear waste remain in storage at power plants instead of being transported to Yucca Mountain, in Southern Nevada.

River said the Mina route would bring 1,963 nuclear casks on trains through downtown Reno and Sparks. But based on the way railroads ship goods, state officials expects up to 4,400 casks — or 45 percent of the total rail cargo — would go through downtown Reno and Sparks if the Mina route were chosen.

The open railroad trench through downtown Reno and the Sparks railroad yard where there is “virtually no security whatsoever” makes the area unique, said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Office of Nuclear Projects.

---------------------------

KLAS-TV
November 20, 2007

Coal Becomes New Political Battleground

Jonathan Humbert

It powers the lights on your porch, the neon of the Strip and the cool air in your house every summer. But coal power has now become a political issue, and your pocketbook is caught in between.

Well, it's much more hidden than some would like. And from the power in your socket to the power in Washington D.C., coal is the new political battleground. And both parties have different ideas of what is right -- and what is realistic.

It is both essential and expendable, reliable and yet destructive. But the coal we use has more to it than we can see -- from the towers of steam and smoke to the columns and corridors of power in Washington.

Republican Senator John Ensign is a major supporter of coal power and making it as clean as they can. "We are the Saudi Arabia of coal -- that's the United States," he said.

But he considers himself a realist, batting away the hope for solar farms stretching from Carson City to Clark County.

"We are going to become the leader in solar power, there's no question about that. But solar power cannot meet all of our needs," said Ensign.

Simply put, supporters say coal is here, it's now and it's the cheapest way to go.

"The power companies are making a huge mistake," said Harry Reid.

Others like Senate Majority Leader Reid say the concept of clean coal is a myth. "There isn't any, it doesn't exist. There's cleaner coal technology. Some plants burn not as dirty as others, but they're all dirty."

But this ongoing fight is now split down party lines. Democrats think coal is antiquated and deadly. Republicans push cleaner technology, and are quick to point out the United States has plenty of coal for the future -- no need for foreign sources.

"I want to become less dependent on Venezuela, on Saudi Arabia, on Iraq, on Iran -- those countries who are not necessarily friendly to the United States," said Ensign.

But Senator Reid laughs that criticism off, saying that environmental protection goes beyond political parties.

"Why do you think the 'ultra liberal' states of Kansas and Oklahoma said no coal?" asked Reid.

And as the parties play politics, neither side has the solution on how to get the power without the problems.

The Senate continues to debate a major bill that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. That bill will come up for a vote in a matter of weeks in the same committee that heard the Yucca Mountain debate earlier this month.

Nevada Power continues to push for a new coal power plant in White Pine County about 250 miles from Las Vegas.

While science is always advancing, the story begins in the past, with a coal plant right in our own backyard.

Professor Robert Boehm is a leading advocate of solar power. But he also is a realist behind the center for energy research at UNLV. "Coal is laying out there by the gazillions of tons. There's lots of it. I would say we don't have 100-percent buy in on how big a problem CO2 really is."

And that problem is the key concern behind the scientific fight over coal power.

Roberto Denis of Nevada Power says the company is always caught in a multibillion dollar highwire act. "It is substantially cleaner than it was 30 years ago. We need to balance the cost to the consumer, the reliability and the environmental impacts."

But 45 minutes away from Las Vegas lies the Reid Gardner Power Plant -- considered a relic by environmentalists and essential by Nevada Power. But locked away inside the coal that runs the plant lies mercury, sulfur and potential for pollution.

Carbon dioxide -- Co2 -- is the major pollutant. But Denis says Reid Gardner and old coal are part of the past.

"As opposed to being hysterical about abandoning and what impact it has, we really should be looking for solutions," he said.

Denis says that comes in the form of cleaner coal that burns more efficiently. It also includes a new plant in White Pine County that would capture the Co2 and ship it elsewhere.

But water is another worry. The Interior Department says plants use thousands of gallons of water a minute. After it works its way through the plant, it becomes tough to use, packed with toxic chemicals.

The new plant in Ely is supposed to use less water by allowing cold air to cool the turbines. Both sides agree cleaner coal is an imperfect stepping stone along the path to cleaner air.

"We're really talking about trading in our 1970s Impala for a 2007 Prius," said Denis.

And Professor Boehm says that analogy applies, but even the best technology can only go so far. "Because there's still the issue of CO2 related to it. And the only way you can get around that one, is by sequestering it."

While Nevada won't be weaned off coal anytime soon, the controversial black rock could begin burning at a new plant -- clean or otherwise -- in just 48 months.

---------------------------

Reuters
November 20, 2007

Calif. lawmaker cancels nuclear power ballot move

By Bernie Woodall

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore on Tuesday vowed to continue his efforts to repeal a state law banning new nuclear power plants, one day after he canceled an effort to gather signatures to put the question to state voters in mid-2008.

DeVore said he will introduce a bill in January allowing nuclear power, which will be modified from a bill killed by legislative committee this year. If that measure fails again in 2008, he will resurrect the ballot initiative attempt.

DeVore, a Republican from Irvine County, claims opponents of nuclear power are ignoring the fact that it does not emit greenhouse gases that cause global warming and that the state won't meet its ambitious renewable power generation goals and greenhouse gas emission reductions without it.

While DeVore says the technology is safe and is slowly growing in popularity in California, his opponents, including Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, disagree.

"Nuclear power is the most dangerous technology on earth, with risks of meltdowns, terrorist attack, proliferation, and leaking long-lived wastes." said Hirsch. "This humiliating reversal for a proposed initiative to revive it in California is a great victory for common sense. Now the state can focus on safe and sensible renewable solutions to global warming."

DeVore said the ballot initiative did not get enough support this year but will get more as time goes by. The pulled initiative would have set a vote in June 2008 to reverse a 1976 California law that banned construction of new nuclear power plants until "there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel," according to the California Energy Commission.

A proposed Yucca Mountain national repository in Nevada for nuclear waste is becoming less likely as opposition grows, much of it in Nevada where politicians have lined up against it. Nuclear power builders say technology is being developed to allow safe storage of nuclear waste on plant sites, but that concept is hotly contested by opponents and it is unknown if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will allow it.

California has four existing nuclear reactors at two plants that received state approval before the 1976 ban.  Continued...

U.S. nuclear power builders say by the end of 2009 they will file for 32 new nuclear power reactors, most of them on existing plant sites in the U.S. Southeast and Texas.

Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club in San Francisco said, "California has much cheaper, safer and quicker solutions to our electricity needs. We should be moving forward with 21st century clean energy technologies instead of pouring more money down the nuclear rat hole."

Wall Street investors have yet to commit to financing nuclear reactor construction. A builder of a proposed new plant in Maryland estimated costs of up to $5 billion, which it said may rise if construction costs continue to soar.

DeVore says he will eventually win his battle to allow new plants and that opposition to the plants will erode, even if it takes years.

"I have physics and economics on my side," DeVore said.

--(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; editing by Jim Marshall)

---------------------------

KRNV-TV
November 19, 2007

DOE to hold Reno public hearing on Yucca Mountain project

The U.S. Department of Energy is holding a meeting in Reno to discuss two draft documents regarding the Yucca Mountain project.  These documents are a significant step in moving forward with the nuclear waste site and transportation of nuclear waste to Southern Nevada.  The department is currently in the middle of a 90 day public comment hearing on the documents which ends, Jan. 10, 2008.

The public is invited to a hearing Monday from 4- 7 p.m. at the Reno Sparks Convention Center at 4590 S. Virginia Street.  Or, you can see the documents and make comments at www. Ocrwm.doe.gov.

---------------------------

Nevada Appeal
November 19, 2007

Comments sought today on Yucca in Reno

The U.S. Department of Energy is holding a public meeting today seeking comments on two Draft National Environmental Policy Act documents related to the Yucca Mountain Project. The 90-day comment ends Jan. 10.

The first document, the Draft Repository SEIS, is a supplement to the Yucca Mountain Final EIS that DOE issued in 2002. The Draft Repository SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the Yucca Mountain repository under the repository design and operational plans that have been developed since the Yucca Mountain Final EIS was issued.

The second document relates to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in Nevada and contains two parts. The first part, the Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, considers the potential environmental impacts of transport along the Mina corridor, which was analyzed in response to public comments. It also updates the information and analysis for other Nevada rail corridors evaluated in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. The second part, the Draft Rail Alignment EIS, evaluates the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating a railroad along specific alignments for both the Mina and Caliente corridors, although Caliente is the Department’s preferred corridor.

According, to the Department of Energy, these documents represent two major milestones on the path to DOE’s submittal of an application for construction authorization to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30, 2008. Yucca Mountain was approved by the Congress and the President as the site for the nation’s first permanent spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste geologic repository in 2002.

To view the documents go online to: www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ and look under the "What's new" section.

The meeting is from 4-7 p.m. today at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center, 4590 S. Virginia St.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 18, 2007

NEVADA CAUCUS: Nevada a microcosm of fight for West

States in region that were once solidly Republican now in political flux

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

The Nevada caucuses were born out of resentment.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., looked at Iowa and thought, why do they get all the attention?

Why does that little state, overwhelmingly white and rural, get such a big say in determining America's choices in presidential elections?

Why couldn't another state share the job?

He wasn't the only one thinking that way. More than a year ago, the Democratic National Committee under the leadership of Chairman Howard Dean, who seeks to broaden the party's geographical reach into traditionally Republican states, also was looking to diversify the party's nominating process.

There were other candidates as the party sought a Western state to add to the mix. But Reid happens to be the most powerful Democrat in the U.S. Senate, and he helped make the case for Nevada. The DNC was convinced.

Nevada Democrats, it decreed, would vote in January, after Iowa but before New Hampshire.

Nevada Republicans saw that their opponents were poised to lavish the state with attention, and some feared for the party's future in a state that's closely divided between the two parties.

So, earlier this year, rank-and-file Nevada Republican activists took it upon themselves to schedule their own caucuses for the same date as the Democrats.

Since then, the picture has become cloudier. The nominating calendar has been mired in confusion, and Nevada has had trouble guarding its claim to early-state status.

With other states trying to horn in on the same territory and candidates unable to ignore Iowa and New Hampshire's demands for their traditional primacy, the Nevada caucuses have been aptly termed an awkward stepchild. Being a big deal in picking the president, it turned out, wasn't as simple as marking a calendar.

Nonetheless, Nevada political leaders hope the stepchild will one day grow up. Cinderella, after all, was a stepchild whose beauty wasn't immediately apparent.

There are many obstacles. But if the Nevada caucuses reach their potential, the effects could be far-reaching -- nothing less than changing the American political landscape.

NEVADA DEMOCRATS, NEVADA REPUBLICANS

The first question about the Nevada caucuses is what effect they might have on the Democratic and Republican nominations.

It's a question both of timing and sensibility. The caucuses are timed so that Nevada Democrats and Republicans have a chance to make a high-profile statement early on in the nominating process.

But what do Nevada Democrats and Nevada Republicans want? Is it any different than what partisans want in Iowa or New Hampshire?

You'd hardly confuse a Nevada Democrat with, say, a Massachusetts Democrat. The party's 2006 gubernatorial nominee, state Sen. Dina Titus, owns a gun and opposes driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but she's considered liberal by Nevada standards.

Jill Derby, chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, said party members here are "more independent." They tend to favor gun rights and resist government intrusion, she said. The vast expanses of public land make natural-resources issues immediate.

Nevada Republicans are distinctive, too, said Eric Herzik, political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno. The national Republican Party appears split between religious conservatives whose priorities are issues like abortion and gay marriage and fiscal or state's-rights conservatives whose highest priority is keeping government limited. Republicans here fall solidly into the latter camp.

Unlike Republicans in many Southern states, Nevada Republicans don't look to churches as an organizing force.

Herzik pointed out the current Republican governor, Jim Gibbons, is a nonchurchgoing, pro-choice politician who campaigned almost entirely on a promise not to increase taxes.

By campaigning in Nevada, the candidates, including the eventual nominees, will come into contact with these singular Nevada voters. The parties hope they will have learned something in the process.

NEVADA AND ITS ISSUES IN THE SPOTLIGHT

One thing they will have learned is the ins and outs of the Yucca Mountain issue.

Iowa voters famously demand that candidates go into detail about farm subsidies and ethanol. If Nevada has such an issue, it's the proposed nuclear waste repository about 100 miles from Las Vegas.

All the candidates who have come here have been asked what they think about the dump, which most Nevadans and Nevada officials oppose.

Some have sought to curry favor by trumpeting their opposition. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., got hearings on the issue in the Senate. The other Democratic candidates also oppose Yucca.

No Republican candidate has taken a stance against Yucca. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., openly supports the project. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have danced around the topic, while former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson has refused to answer.

What previously was seen as a one-state issue now is in the national spotlight.

Nevadans also share with other Westerners concerns about water, land, and the building of new infrastructure, said Democratic guru Billy Vassiliadis, who supports Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Nevada's service economy sets it apart from the manufacturing and industrial concerns that predominate elsewhere. The issue of immigration, while a hot button across the country, is closer to home here.

The Nevada caucus "is good for the West," Vassiliadis said. "Early on in the presidential campaign, instead of just farm subsidies and tariffs, candidates are going to have to talk about public lands and infrastructure."

ORGANIZING FOR 2008

There's another type of infrastructure that concerns the campaigns -- the type of infrastructure that wins a caucus.

Particularly on the Democratic side, Nevada has felt the effects of multiple candidates trying to organize voters statewide.

Obama has seven campaign offices around Nevada. The major Democratic campaigns have upwards of 50 staffers apiece.

The state Democratic Party, which four years ago was run by two part-time staffers, now has about 30 employees.

For months, the party and campaign staffs have been fanning out across the state, working to persuade people to get involved in the political process and to vote for a Democrat.

There are now nearly 9,000 more Democrats than Republicans on the voter rolls. A year ago, it was the reverse.

Without an early caucus, it's unlikely Democrats would become this active until mid-2008.

The party hopes that once a nominee is chosen, those staffers and volunteers and newly registered Democrats can start working toward November.

Pete Ernaut, a Reno Republican consultant and lobbyist, saw this happening and warned fellow party members that if Democrats were the only ones doing this, Republicans wouldn't be able to compete.

That's the main reason Republicans decided they would also have an early caucus.

"The caucuses bring a much higher focus and more resources at the grass-roots level," Ernaut said. "All these campaigns come in and either have paid staff or organized volunteers. After the nomination's decided, they all coalesce into one team behind the nominee."

Nevada, a state that voted twice for Bill Clinton and twice for George W. Bush, was hotly contested in 2004 and will be again in 2008. Both parties want to be ready for battle.

THE WEST IN TRANSITION

The fight for Nevada in 2008 is a microcosm of a bigger fight on the horizon: the battle for the West.

Both parties hope that giving a Western state more say in the presidential process will make them more relevant in the West, which many argue is the key region to winning national elections.

Increasingly, the Northeast and upper Midwest belong to the Democrats, while the South and lower Midwest are Republican. The West Coast states are increasingly Democratic as well.

But the Intermountain West, which overlaps all or part of 11 states from the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range on the west, is in a period of political flux.

Once solidly Republican and predominantly rural, states such as Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are gaining population, becoming more urban and diverse, and giving hope to Democrats.

Both parties believe they have a shot at the electoral votes in the region, and both parties want to make inroads with the Hispanic population that is concentrated in the Southwest and not firmly in either party's column.

"The national (Democratic) party is looking at the Intermountain West as the place for growth and potential for the party," Derby said. "Six years ago, of the eight states in our region, you had eight Republican governors. Now there are five Democrats."

It's no accident, Derby said, that the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 will be held in Denver.

Ernaut said the West's independent-minded voters are something of a last frontier for the polarized country.

"Both parties have realized that the future of presidential politics lies in the West," said Ernaut, who is chair of the Nevada Republican caucus effort. "The campaigns in the last few presidential cycles have been unbelievably close. If you're a strategist for either party, you have to create a game plan (to win by) a very small margin. And there's not that many true swing states left."

A YOUNG CAUCUS

If Nevada were Iowa, the effects on national politics could be profound. The parties might choose different nominees. The issues of America's fastest-growing region would get more attention. The state's political parties would be gearing up for one of the most important battlegrounds of the general election.

But if one thing has become abundantly clear since that DNC decision in 2006, it's that Nevada is not Iowa.

To Republicans, Nevada's early caucus seems not to have registered in their party's consciousness. Only a couple of candidates have even a few staffers here. None of them have been here more than five times to date. They've seemed more interested in collecting checks from the moneyed interests in Las Vegas than winning over the state's voters.

For their part, the Democratic candidates, flush with cash and goaded by their party leaders, have set up shop here, opening offices and hiring staff. The major candidates have visited at least 11 times apiece, some of them 20 times.

With the blessing of the DNC, Las Vegas played host to a national debate last week.

Even that unprecedented attention, however, is nothing compared to New Hampshire and especially Iowa.

The candidates have held literally hundreds of events in Iowa, often spending four or five days at a time in the state, traveling to the small towns at its farthest corners.

Meanwhile, Nevada isn't the only state to see the benefits of being an early state in the presidential nominating process. The weeks before Feb. 5, when both parties say the contests should start, have been crashed by other wannabes.

The nominating calendar, then, is not as simple as 1-2-3. It's a fractured mess of states vying for attention.

It looks now like Nevada will be the Democrats' third contest, after Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevada Democrats are satisfied with that and point out that it puts them in position to be a tiebreaker.

The Republicans' situation is worse. Wyoming Republicans moved up to Jan. 5. In Michigan, Republicans didn't agree to boycott the Jan. 15 contest as the Democrats did. And South Carolina Republicans moved to Jan. 19, stealing part of Nevada's thunder.

On Feb. 5, more than 20 contests will be held, including the one in California. Many pundits and operatives are calling for wholesale reform of the nominating system to end the pileup it has become.

Between all the maneuvering and Iowa's untarnished belle-of-the-ball status, Nevada has started to feel like the Chopped Liver Caucus.

"Nevada is not going to be a make-or-break state for any candidate on either side," said Jennifer Duffy, analyst for the Cook Political Report, a Washington newsletter.

"For the Democrats, it either helps a candidate build momentum or gives new life to a candidate who's been lagging behind," Duffy said. "For the Republicans, it will probably have very little effect, because they don't seem to be paying much attention to it."

Nevada boosters are frustrated that the hand-wringing about what the caucus is worth threatens to drown out the caucus itself.

"Tradition isn't built overnight," Ernaut said. "The media and presidential politics are still centered in the East and change won't come quickly. But it will, and when it does we're going to be in the right position."

Derby agreed: Give it time.

"When we got into this, we didn't expect to get the same amount of attention as Iowa and New Hampshire, because they have the tradition," she said. "But we think we're being taken seriously.

"I think we have to prove ourselves this time around, and we're well on our way to doing that," she said. "January 19 will tell the tale."

--Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@ reviewjournal.com or (702) 387-2919.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 18, 2007

With debate, Nevada gets its 15 minutes

Media coverage gives the nation a better sense of who we are

By Jeff German and Steve Kanigher
Las Vegas Sun

You knew there would be a few cheap shots and cliched one-liners about the gambling, the gangsters and the other things that long have made Las Vegas such an easy target, wrapped around endless variations on the city's famous "What happens here ... " marketing slogan - and there were.

But Las Vegas' moment in the spotlight as the host of Thursday night's nationally televised Democratic presidential debate produced many more flattering references than put-downs in media coverage, helping the city to further polish its self-image and national reputation.

There were picturesque visuals of the Strip. Commentators spoke admiringly of Las Vegas' growth and the relative prosperity fueled by it. Readers and viewers were told that the challenges confronting Nevadans - energy costs, burgeoning infrastructure demands, education, immigration, alarming foreclosure rates - are largely the issues of the heartland and the rest of the country.

And, on a simplistic but hardly insignificant level, the pre-debate TV shots of sun-kissed palms and political analysts going about their business outside in shirt sleeves had to look attractive to those living in parts of the country where winter coats already are out of the closet.

"It's part of the maturation process that Las Vegas has gone through," Democratic strategist Dan Hart said. "I think we've turned the corner from just a resort destination to a real community in the eyes of the nation."

Although national publicity is nothing new to Las Vegas, much of it in the past has been the kind that city leaders would have just as soon avoided.

Significantly, the coverage spawned by the two-hour debate at UNLV's Cox Pavilion wrapped up a week that started with Las Vegas already in the national media glare - over the preliminary hearing in the O.J. Simpson criminal case.

Fair or not, the Simpson episode - which resulted in the former football star and two co-defendants ordered to stand trial on kidnapping, robbery and other charges stemming from the Palace Station raid during which Simpson allegedly forcibly reclaimed some of his sports memorabilia - seemed to reinforce, among some, the city's image as a place that still ranks high on the sleaze scale.

The Simpson matter drew glancing attention from some of the national media in town for the debate, but the focus remained on the Democratic showdown itself and Las Vegas' role in hosting it.

By week's end, that left Las Vegas basking in what, for it, was a rarer variety of national media attention - being treated as a big-time city with typical urban concerns, and as a deserving, legitimate player in national politics via its first-ever presidential debate and early Jan. 19 caucus.

Vince Alberta, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said the debate and its accompanying media attention moved Las Vegas beyond the country's initial perceptions of the city.

"It provided a different look at what we have to offer," he said. "I think that's very powerful and very beneficial to all the interests in this community."

The debate's moderator, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, pointed out Nevada's "starring role" in the presidential primary process, telling millions of television viewers that the seven Democratic candidates invited had come to spar in one of the nation's "fastest growing" and "most prosperous" states.

In the run-up to the debate, there still were skeptics about Nevada's arrival on the national political scene.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins, for one, wasn't very impressed with the state's new-found political prominence.

"This is a great honor, which appears to have done Nevada no good whatsoever," Collins wrote in a column that ran the morning of the debate.

"All Nevada wants out of the deal, as far as I can tell, is to stop the government from putting used radioactive waste into Yucca Mountain ... At least they aren't demanding that we make gasoline out of used poker chips."

In a story in Thursday's Washington Post, national political reporter Shailagh Murray said that leading up to the debate, Nevada had struggled to draw attention from the presidential candidates. "Despite booming growth that has turned Nevada into a Florida of the desert," Murray wrote, "its political culture remains strictly small-town, with a handful of power brokers, union bosses and niche national concerns - such as whether to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain - dominating the conversation."

Even CNN, which aired and co-sponsored the debate, couldn't stop itself from playing to the city's long-standing reputation, promoting the debate as "Sin City Showdown" or "High Stakes Vegas Rumble."

Despite such slights, Las Vegas and Nevada fared well in the national debate coverage, typified by a segment earlier in the week for "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS.

"Its famous ad campaign encourages the notion that this is the city where it's OK to misbehave, because 'what happens here, stays here,'" correspondent Ray Suarez reported.

"It's a city unlike any other, yet when the gamblers head home, the people who live and work here face the same everyday challenges people all across America do - social and economic concerns, how to live and at what cost."

The country learned through the media last week that Las Vegas, like other cities, is grappling with a high foreclosure rate and a rising immigration problem.

Stories also noted that, although organized labor is on the decline across the country, it is thriving in Las Vegas and influential in Nevada politics. There also were frequent references to Southern Nevada's increasing Hispanic population and the candidates' efforts to court the potentially critical constituency.

In a pre-debate segment on CNN, political analyst Bill Schneider described Las Vegas as a place where dreams can still be fulfilled, a vision that draws 5,000 new residents each month.

"Who are these people?" Schneider asked. "They're young people with families taking new jobs in the booming service sector. They're retirees, veterans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans."

Schneider also noted that Nevada, of all places, is a bellwether state that has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1912, except for 1976.

In the end, a simple question asked during the debate may have done the most to lend legitimacy to the state in the eyes of the nation.

The subject? Yucca Mountain and what to do about possibly storing the nation's deadly nuclear waste there.

After nearly 25 years, the state's David vs. Goliath battle to block the federal government and the high-powered nuclear industry from storing the waste 90 miles outside Las Vegas had finally risen to the level of presidential politics - on a national stage.

In Las Vegas, they call it beating the odds.

--Jeff German is the Sun's senior investigative reporter. He can be reached at 259-4067 or at german@lasvegassun.com. Steve Kanigher can be reached at 259-4075 or at steve@lasvegassun.com

---------------------------

Nevada Appeal
November 18, 2007

Democrats' anti-Yucca Mountain stances complicated by records

Kathleen Hennessey
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS - The leading Democratic presidential candidates are united on the government's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan: They'd scrap it.

Their vigorous opposition to the project reflects Nevada's importance as one of a handful of states that will lead off voting in January for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Few local issues are as unpopular with Nevadans as the waste dump.

The Democrats have just one problem - their records keep getting in the way. Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has created suspicion in some corners of the anti-Yucca lobby because she's refused to rule out expansion of nuclear power as a solution to the nation's energy woes and has received campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. Barack Obama, whose home state of Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other, also has received substantial contributions from the industry and wants to leave nuclear power on the table.

John Edwards, when he was a North Carolina senator, voted twice to open the dump and once against it. Bill Richardson once ran the Energy Department, which is building the dump, and voted for it when he was a New Mexico congressman.

The dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was supposed to open in 1998, but scientific controversies, lawsuits and money shortages have delayed it. Its opening is now projected for no earlier than 2020 and its cost has climbed to an estimated $77 billion.

The issue has been almost invisible on the Republican side of the race despite GOP plans to hold their presidential caucuses in Nevada on Jan. 19, the same day as Democrats.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not given a clear answer on his position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said he will not rule out continuing work at Yucca Mountain, and Arizona Sen. John McCain has stuck to his support for the dump. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson voted in favor of the project while in Congress, but has not commented recently.

The GOP has generally been more willing than Democrats to increase the nation's share of electricity generated from nuclear power. The lack of a waste disposal site is a key obstacle to expansion.

Here's a look at the top Democrats' records on Yucca Mountain:

HILLARY Clinton

The New York senator recently used her seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee to call the first oversight hearing on the dump since Democrats took control of Congress.

Clinton voted against a 2002 attempt to override Nevada's rejection of the facility. She's promised to cut funding for the project if elected

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not given a clear answer on his position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said he will not rule out continuing work at Yucca Mountain, and Arizona Sen. John McCain has stuck to his support for the dump. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson voted in favor of the project while in Congress, but has not commented recently.

The GOP has generally been more willing than Democrats to increase the nation's share of electricity generated from nuclear power. The lack of a waste disposal site is a key obstacle to expansion.

Here's a look at the top Democrats' records on Yucca Mountain:

HILLARY Clinton

The New York senator recently used her seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee to call the first oversight hearing on the dump since Democrats took control of Congress.

Clinton voted against a 2002 attempt to override Nevada's rejection of the facility. She's promised to cut funding for the project if elected president.

At a South Carolina town hall in February, Clinton expressed concerns about waste disposal but noted that "nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution."

Clinton has accepted thousands in contributions from the nuclear industry, including nearly $80,000 in this election from employees and a PAC of NRG Energy Inc., the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident.

Critics see a contradiction in Clinton's opposition to a facility to store nuclear waste, but not to expansion of nuclear power, which would generate more waste.

Clinton has said she does not believe the debate over the project is a referendum on nuclear energy.

She also has to struggle with her husband's record. She has described former President Bill Clinton as putting the project on life-support.

"You know, when my husband was president he vetoed a measure to try to push this forward, contrary to a lot of the questions that were being raised," Clinton told reporters recently. "That was toward the end of his administration and when the Bush administration came in, it revived it and gave it new life and kept it going."

The bill President Clinton vetoed would have opened an interim nuclear repository in Nevada, but did not slow the development of the permanent site.

"I would say that the project was advancing more during the Clinton years financially than at any other time," said former Nevada Gov. Bob List, a Republican, now a consultant for the Nuclear Energy Institute and an advocate for the repository. "They poured billions into it and didn't slow it down one bit."

BARACK Obama

He has said he's opposed to Yucca Mountain, and has called for the facility's closure.

Illinois' nuclear industry, which has thousands of tons of waste at its facilities awaiting opening of Yucca Mountain, has long backed Obama. Executives and employees of Exelon Corp., the Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns since 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

Obama has said he believes nuclear energy should remain on the table.

Obama also raised eyebrows when he chose Federico Pena, who was energy secretary before Richardson, as his surrogate on the issue. At his departure from the Energy Department, Pena took credit for "meeting milestones" toward opening the site.

JOHN Edwards

The former 2004 vice presidential nominee's has a mixed record on the issue.

After he was selected as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's running mate, Edwards announced he would defer to Kerry's anti-Yucca position and promised Nevada Sen. Harry Reid he would fight the project.

The former North Carolina senator has said he was trying to protect his constituents by supporting the dump in Nevada.

"We had an issue in North Carolina where they were going to start storing nuclear waste in North Carolina unless we had some other place for the nuclear waste," Edwards said on his first stop in Nevada as a presidential candidate. But looking at the project from a "national perspective" it doesn't work, he added.

Edwards now says faulty science was used to support the Yucca Mountain project, and he doesn't believe nuclear energy is a safe energy source.

BILL Richardson

Richardson, the New Mexico governor, has the most tangled record on nuclear waste disposal.

As a New Mexico congressman, he voted in favor of the 1987 measure that designated Yucca Mountain as the sole dump site to be studied by the federal government.

Richardson had not raised the issue on the stump or in statements until it was cited in news stories. He now says he's always opposed the project, which he believes would be unsafe.

"Nevada should say no, I've always said no," Richardson told reporters during an early campaign stop in the state.

Richardson explains his House vote as support for other funding items in the bill. He has said he voted against the project "five or six" other times, though his campaign could cite only two.

Richardson's claims of constant opposition also are not supported by his tenure as head of the Department of Energy.

Under Richardson, Yucca Mountain continued to receive funding, meet deadlines for key research and findings, and notably, passed a critical "viability assessment" that moved it closer to the designation in 2002 by President Bush and Congress as the nation's nuclear dump.

At the release of the 1998 report, Richardson acknowledged scientific concerns but added that "overall there is no reason to disqualify the site."

Bob Loux, head of the state Nuclear Projects Agency and the state's chief anti-Yucca administrator, noted that as energy secretary Richardson "was not in a position to kill Yucca."

"I just didn't see any evidence of any effort to slow the project down," Loux said.

Richardson did lobby against efforts to open a temporary waste storage site in Nevada.

He now says he believes the dump would be unsafe and wants to convert the site to a national laboratory.

--On the Net
Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste
U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/

---------------------------

Denver Post
November 18, 2007

Dems try to raise their odds

Candidates tour Nevada but often fail to relate to issues of the West

By Susan Greene
The Denver Post

LAS VEGAS — "What happens here, stays here."

Western Democrats hope the slogan that has boosted business on the Las Vegas Strip doesn't ring true in the race for the American presidency.

Nevada's caucuses on Jan. 19 position the state as a likely third in the national lineup and relevant for the first time in presidential politics.

The early slot on the primary calendar has prompted candidates - mostly Democrats - not only to show up, but finally to speak out on water shortages, growth, mining, wilderness protection and other challenges facing the Interior West.

"We are on message about the things the voters of the West care about," party chairman Howard Dean said Tuesday in Denver.

But, if the candidates' performances two days later were any indication, that message is hardly resounding.

In the first presidential debate ever in Nevada, Democrats addressed the dangers of Chinese toys, possible war with Iran and immigration, but touched only on one specifically Western issue - a proposed nuclear waste dump here, which the pack of seven all oppose.

Democrats' motivation to win the region is obvious this election cycle. But questions remain about how seriously they are taking Western issues and whether their interest will fade in the 10 months between Nevada's caucuses and the election in November 2008.

"On one hand, it's a major deal that they're coming here at all," said Reggie Luck, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, computer specialist who volunteered at the debate on campus Thursday. "On the other hand, I wonder if it's just lip service before they pack up tomorrow and head for the airport."

No longer a flyover

Nevada - and most of the Interior West - long has been a political flyover, ignored in presidential races because of its relatively low population and traditionally late caucuses. Candidates have overlooked it because "there simply weren't enough people to care about," said Alan Stephens, former chief of staff for Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano who now runs the Phoenix-based think tank Western Progress.

But a string of recent Democratic gubernatorial, congressional and legislative wins - and a 2005 memo by former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart to Dean advising how Democrats might capture the region - is credited largely for the party's decision to hold next year's national convention in Denver rather than New York. Dean hopes the move will help Democrats carry Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona in 2008.

Why that matters stems from simple arithmetic.

Republican George W. Bush won all four states in 2004. If each were to back a Democrat next year, that party's nominee would snag 29 electoral votes and could afford to lose one of the traditional must-win states in the East or Midwest.

Top-tier candidates realize that winning the West means shifting their focus from trade policies, manufacturing jobs and other topics driven by the party's longstanding Eastern and Midwestern agenda.

Learning to talk Western

Galvanizing voters here, they're learning, means addressing the role the federal government plays in the West as a resource manager and landlord. It means understanding the tensions between farmers and urban water users, environmentalists and the ATV crowd, and land owners and the companies mining and drilling beneath them. Talking Western means knowing the names of obscure desert critters threatened to near extinction. It means discussing fire prevention in national forests and snowmobiles in national parks. And it means striking difficult balances everywhere in the region.

"The West is crying out for help. We've got massive natural-resources issues that aren't getting solved," said Peter Binney, who manages water for the sprawling city of Aurora. "The next president is going to have to make a very conscious decision to be either a Henry Ford or a Nero on Western issues. The question for the candidates is, will he or she be truly committed to reinventing the role of the federal government in the West?"

Nowhere has that role been more contentious than in Nevada, where the feds own almost 90 percent of the land. Once described in a Defense Department training manual as "a damn good place to dump used razor blades," the state long has been Washington's preferred spot to practice war games and test its nuclear weapons. For almost 30 years, officials here have butted heads with the Energy Department over plans to bury the nation's high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. Most recently, Las Vegas finds itself at the mercy of the federal government in securing enough water to quench its hemorrhaging growth.

These are the issues that have dominated dozens of Democratic campaign stops leading up to Thursday's debate. Locals have questioned the candidates on everything from coal-fired power plants proposed here to UFO sightings at Nevada's secret Area 51 air base.

"Congressman, do you want to take a ride into the desert?" Buzz Sanders, a self-proclaimed "extraterrestrial energyzoa" hypothesizer, called out to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, with no response.

Much to Nevadans' surprise, many of the Democrats have ventured into the desert - not to see aliens, but to lure votes, even in traditionally Republican territory north of Clark County. This year, for the first time since 1992, statewide voter registration here flipped to a Democratic majority.

Clinton office in Pahrump

In August, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew 2,500 locals at a roller skating rink in Pahrump, home of the famed Chicken Ranch brothel. During the long drive from Vegas, she reportedly commented that the barren expanses between the two towns could someday be built up with solar farms. Clinton since has opened a campaign office in the town of 44,000 residents.

Also in August, Sen. Barack Obama drew a crowd of 900 in Elko, a Republican stronghold where he raised eyebrows by opening a regional field office.

"I don't think Elko has seen that many Democrats in 50 years," said Obama adviser Billy Vassiliadis, the Las Vegas Democratic powerbroker and adman whose company came up with the "What happens here, stays here" pitch.

Obama and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have called for national water policies, and most of their challengers have spoken generally of the need for water solutions in the parched intermountain West.

"Water has gone overlooked at the presidential level since Hoover built the Hoover Dam," said Southern Nevada Water Authority chief Pat Mulroy. "Now we have millions of people in danger of losing a water supply. It's the skunk in the room that everybody's got to address."

Almost all the Democratic candidates touring Nevada have called for more solar and wind farms. Most have courted powerful labor unions in Las Vegas. Former Sen. John Edwards pledged to ensure the Bureau of Land Management protects federal land instead of exploiting it. And Obama, a former law professor, has waxed philosophic about the 1872 mining law.

"It used to be, we were like a big black hole on the map and had absolutely no bearing on who got the nomination. And now we've got an infusion of ideas and conversation about Western issues that never took place before," said Reno-based Bob Fulkerson of Nevada's Progressive Leadership Alliance.

History, geography missteps

But there have been missteps along the way.

Richardson, the only Westerner in the group, says he's the only candidate who understands the region's values and issues. He voted for the so-called "Screw Nevada" bill choosing Yucca Mountain as the proposed site for the national nuclear waste dump, and the former energy secretary has raised some ire here by claiming he has opposed the project his whole life.

Clinton frustrated even her supporters in the region with a recent campaign treatise entitled "How Hillary Will Win the West." The memo showed a lack of understanding about Western differences when it lumped the coastal states of Oregon, Washington and California with Nevada and Colorado in a region.

Hence the need for groups such as Project New West, a Denver-based consortium of Democratic strategists who help frame the Western identity - and geography - for campaigns working in the eight- state intermountain region.

"Politicians need to understand that we view ourselves in connection with the land," said executive director Jill Hanauer.

The Democratic Party's legislative leader, U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, previewed Thursday's debate here as an "opportunity for candidates to speak to Western voters."

But after the CNN-sponsored debate, some in the audience complained the network's moderators didn't meet the party's regional hype.

"I was disappointed that they didn't get specific about more Western issues," said Colorado House Majority Leader Alice Madden.

If not last week, and if not in Vegas, some are left wondering, when is a real Western debate going to happen?

"Finally, we're not invisible," Vassiliadis said. "While the candidates keep coming, we've got to pound them, pound them hard on the issues that matter to us as a region."

--Related

Michigan primary ruling doesn't faze N.H.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — With Michigan's plan for a Jan. 15 presidential primary in limbo, New Hampshire's secretary of state says he's still got plenty of time to set a date that ensures his state maintains its first-in-the-nation primary tradition.

"Let Michigan do whatever it wants to do, and we'll deal with it," Secretary of State Bill Gardner said Saturday at St. Anselm College.

Wearing a "Protect Our Primary" sticker, Gardner seemed unfazed by a Michigan court ruling Friday that turned down a law that would have let that state hold a Jan. 15 primary.

With time running short, attention is focusing on a date for New Hampshire's primary, which will kick off a quick series of primaries across the country.

Edwards scolds fuel industry

LOS ANGELES — On a day when a U.N. panel warned of growing peril from climate change, John Edwards accused the oil and gas industry Saturday of deploying hundreds of lobbyists to Washington to resist efforts to free the nation from its dependence on fossil fuels.

"We're not just turning a blind eye to the crisis of global warming. We're also missing an opportunity to lead the world and reclaim the spirit of American ingenuity that has driven great advances and helped us overcome great challenges in the past," the Democratic presidential candidate said, according to excerpts from a speech he was set to deliver at a climate conference in Los Angeles.

Romney would cut funds for "sanctuary" states

HENDERSON, NEV. — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Saturday promised to cut federal funding for cities and states that he considers tolerant of illegal immigration, though he was unsure how deep cuts would be.

The former Massachusetts governor repeated his plans to deny funding to sanctuary cities, states that issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and states that let the children of illegal immigrants receive in-state tuition discounts at universities.

"They are practices that, if you will, extend this sanctuary state of mind we have," Romney told more than 200 people at a library. "I like immigration - legal immigration."

---------------------------

Hagerstown Morning Herald
November 18, 2007

Escaping our four-way energy bind

By Robert Gary

It would take Harry Houdini's skills to get us out of the four-way bind we are in on energy policy. It's obvious to all but the flat-earthers that fossil fuel burning is altering the climate of the planet in ways that we cannot tolerate.

Forget about the effects on other nations if you like, the U.S. could not tolerate the loss of half of Florida, half of New York City, and whatever's left of New Orleans and other cities on the Gulf Coast. So we need about the same amount of energy, but with less fossil fuel. That's the first bind.

Nuclear is the obvious solution. Maybe a renaissance in nuclear power, maybe 30 more reactors, new ones this time, with gravity feed emergency water - no need to pump it in, because the whole reactor works like a toilet. If you have a loss of coolant, you can just flush a big bunch of new water into the reactor core and, voila, the fuel bundles are fully covered.

You close some valves, switch over to natural core cooling mode and the decay heat will work itself down - assuming that you've got the control rods fully in place so the free neutron intensity is too low for fission to continue.

The problem on the nuclear side is not so much reactor safety as what to do with the spent fuel. Storage on site is a very bad idea. It creates a target for terrorists - and a pretty easy target too, in at least two ways that I'm not going to spell out here.

If the stuff isn't stored on site, how about in Yucca Mountain? That's a great idea except for two things: 1. Harry Reid, who doesn't want it in Yucca Mountain, and 2. His best argument, which is that transporting it across the U.S. from the 100 places where it now is would create a huge number of very easy targets for terrorists and if they just hit one train car or one truck, they could do immeasurable damage partly as a result of our decision to put the spent fuel in harm's way, on the roads or on the rails. That's the second bind.

So how about wind and solar? They are viable, or would be if we spent the kind of money on them that we spend defending the interests of Big Oil around the world, but they are inherently weak and therefore land intensive.

A lot of ground would have to be covered with solar collectors and wind farms to get much yield from these sources. Geothermal is a richer source and technically feasible right now. The richest green source of all is conservation.

This could involve more use of telecommuting via remote, high-bandwidth offices in the suburbs, for example in Frederick and Hagerstown and Thurmont serving big agencies and corporations in Baltimore and Washington. Less driving, more teleconferencing. The result? Lower gas prices for everybody, because fewer people would be competing for the same supply of gasoline. Ethanol is viable in Brazil, but in the U.S., even the smartest researchers and economists cannot say with conviction at this time that it saves more energy than it costs to produce and transport. The stuff cannot be piped like oil and gas; it has to be trucked to its distribution hubs. The renewables, to summarize, are problematic, and they are not here now, so that's the third bind.

The solutions that would work are highly capital intensive. Massive exploitation of the Athabasca tar sands in Canada would work to reduce our dependence on overseas oil, although it would not solve the carbon release problem (global warming).

We would have to make a long-term deal with the Canadians so that huge investments in surface mining and retorts for separating sand from bitumen could be built with the assurance of getting an adequate return on capital.

The other solution that would work would be a national energy spine, probably down the median strip of Interstate 80, which runs right across the country. This would allow power to be wheeled from the East Coast to the West Coast and vice versa so that peak loads on both coasts would be partially supplied by the grids on the other coast.

This would mean less need for power plants on a national basis. But it's not cheap to get gigawatts of power safely across 3,000 miles with high- energy efficiency. It might require superconductors. So capital intensity is the fourth bind.

Harry Houdini knew how to get out of two sets of chains and two sets of handcuffs. Quadruple binds were not a problem for him. But they are for us.

Robert Gary is a Hagerstown resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 17, 2007

Diamonds and pearls don't lose their luster

UNLV student who asked debate question shrugs off criticism

By David McGrath Schwartz
Las Vegas Sun

She asked Hillary Clinton, diamonds or pearls?

And now Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, a 22-year-old UNLV student, is being derided for her lightweight question to close Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate.

"My phone hasn't stopped ringing," she said Friday.

One student confronted her immediately after the debate: "You gave our university a bad reputation."

It wasn't as if she didn't have smarter, substantive questions to ask the candidates. Her first choice dealt with storing nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain, an issue she had researched extensively. But CNN told her to ask the other question, which she had offered for fun, as a way to close the otherwise contentious debate with some levity.

Parra-Sandoval found herself in that position after CNN asked a UNLV professor for names of students to pose questions at the debate. Parra-Sandoval, who as a 6-year-old was sneaked into the United States by her mother and who was naturalized last year, volunteered. She loves discussing public policy and politics as a member of the Political Science Honor Society at UNLV.

She proposed a question about paying for children's health care. CNN rejected it.

The network asked her to come up with other questions - including a fun one.

So she did. One dealt with pulling out of Iraq. The other was on Yucca Mountain.

She racked her brain for a third question. The fun one. CNN was waiting. Then her eyes fell on her MySpace page - and saw a backdrop of pearls.

Bingo.

Bridget Sharp, a CNN producer, instructed her to memorize both the Yucca Mountain and diamonds-or-pearls questions.

Almost two hours into the debate Thursday, a CNN staffer asked her to get ready to ask the fun question. This would be her moment, and she thought she'd be allowed to ask the Yucca Mountain question too, she said.

But no sooner did she pose the question that caused Clinton to laugh - and to answer "both" - than moderator Wolf Blitzer announced the end of the debate. Some of the male candidates, hoping for a piece of the action, were left muttering "diamonds" as the cameras pulled back.

"I feel like I was used a little," Parra-Sandoval said Friday.

A CNN spokesperson said, "With less than a minute to go after a two-hour contentious debate, it seemed like a nice way to close the evening."

For all the discussion launched by her question, Parra-Sandoval said she has no regrets about participating.

She said she developed "some tough skin" while serving as an intern for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

When senators faced criticism, "they still stood there, still debated, still spoke to people. It didn't get them down. So why should it affect me?"

Parra-Sandoval had yet to see herself on TV on Friday afternoon. Her take on the debate? She was impressed by Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Joe Biden.

"They answered the questions very thoroughly," she said. She's still undecided, though, on whom she will caucus for come Jan. 19.

OK, Maria, back at you: pearls or diamonds?

"I prefer pearls because I already have diamonds - my parents."

--David McGrath Schwartz can be reached at 259-2327 or at david.schwartz@lasvegassun.com.

---------------------------

Deseret News
November 17, 2007

Nuclear plant fight focuses on waste-storage woes

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News

WASHINGTON — While talk of building new nuclear power plants has only started in Utah, companies in other states have actually filed license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for new plants.

But as the industry prepares for what it hopes is a long-awaited "nuclear renaissance," the battle over what to do with nuclear waste lingers.

In 1998, the federal government was scheduled to take the used nuclear fuel from reactors and move it to Nevada's Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Now, almost a decade later, the Energy Department says the "best-achievable schedule" to open the site is in 2017.

While work on Yucca continues, the Energy Department is also working on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, known as GNEP, part of which involves research into reprocessing or recycling spent nuclear fuel to be used again in reactors but without generating dangerous nuclear by-products.

"GNEP is completely compatible with our near-term effort to license and open the waste repository at Yucca Mountain," Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of Nuclear Energy told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday.

But Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the committee's top Republican, said the government needs to do something sooner rather than later. He pointed out that the government has estimated it will owe $7 billion to nuclear companies for failing to take the waste if Yucca opens in 2017 and $11 billion if it opens in 2020, or about $1.3 billion a year.

"We must have a path forward, not 50 years from now, but now," Domenici said. "We are left with only one choice — focus on an integrated spent fuel strategy that will address our liability question immediately, and implement a recycling strategy that will avoid the political and economic nightmare that would result from attempts to site a second repository."

In addition to moving the government to talks on reprocessing, the delay in opening Yucca Mountain forced Utah to fight its own battle over nuclear waste with the planned temporary storage site at the Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County. Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of companies looking for a place to store waste until Yucca opens, got a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for temporary storage on the Goshute reservation. But more than a year ago, the government voided the lease and did not give a right of way to land needed for a transportation hub, stopping the project.

While the PFS project is on hold, unless a court would rule otherwise, Nevada still is fighting the Yucca project.

---------------------------

PR Newswire
November 17, 2007

'Nuclear Neighbor' Responds to Democratic Candidates Pledge to Kill Yucca Mountain Project

Thousands of vulnerable communities located near temporary nuclear waste sites at risk

RED WING, Minn., Nov. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A small Indian community located near a nuclear waste site in Minnesota responded with frustration today to Democratic presidential candidates who stated opposition to the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain during a nationally televised presidential debate from Las Vegas last night.

The Prairie Island Indian Community is among the closest communities in the country to a temporary nuclear waste site, located just 600 yards from 24 large containment units of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Prairie Island is one of thousands of communities in 39 different states located in close proximity to temporary nuclear waste facilities. According to the Department of Energy, there are presently 125 temporary nuclear waste storage sites scattered across the United States. More than 169 million Americans live within 75 miles of these "temporary" storage facilities.

"It's irresponsible to call for the termination of Yucca Mountain without offering a realistic alternative to solving the nation's nuclear waste problem," said Prairie Island Tribal Council President, Audrey Bennett. "Leaving nuclear waste next to vulnerable communities and pushing this burden off on future generations is not good leadership and it provides little comfort to the millions of Americans who are currently living near nuclear waste sites."

The federal government has an obligation under the National Nuclear Waste Storage Act and subsequent acts of Congress to solve the waste disposal problem and move the nation's nuclear waste to a safe and secure facility.

"It's been 25 years since Congress mandated the federal government to solve this problem but nuclear waste continues to gather in our backyards," added Bennett. "Yucca Mountain is a remote, militarily-secure site designed to permanently store the nation's high-level nuclear waste, and it's a safer alternative to leaving nuclear waste under varying levels of security at multiple locations, near communities, rivers, and other natural resources all across our country."

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the Yucca Mountain project, several new nuclear power plants are on the drawing board. "Until or unless the federal government solves its nuclear waste problem, it is simply irresponsible to allow the construction of new nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States," added Bennett.

To date, American ratepayers have contributed more than $28 billion to the national Nuclear Waste Fund, which is to pay for a national storage site. This includes $470 million from Minnesotans.

Prairie Island is located in southeastern Minnesota along the banks of the Mississippi River, approximately 50 miles from the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Twin nuclear reactors and two dozen large cement nuclear waste storage casks sit just 600 yards from Prairie Island tribal homes. As many as 35 additional casks will be added in the coming years. The only evacuation route off the Prairie Island is frequently blocked by passing trains. The tribe has been fighting to have the nuclear waste removed since 1994 when the state of Minnesota first allowed Xcel Energy to store the waste near its reservation.

---------------------------

KLAS-TV
November 16, 2007

Democratic Debate: Nevada Voters Ask The Questions

Mark Sayre
I-Team Reporter

For the first time in Nevada history, a nationally-televised presidential debate took place in Las Vegas.

See the most frequently used words during the debate. What words did the candidates toss out most?

The top seven major Democratic presidential candidates -- Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- squared off Thursday evening in a debate at UNLV.

Read the full transcript of the UNLV Democratic Presidential Debate courtesy of CNN.

The democratic debate tops off months of stumping in the Silver State showing the importance of the west, especially the January caucuses.

Nevada voters brought up issues important across the country: the war in Iraq, immigration and healthcare.

Did the candidates touch on the issues that matter to you? Let us know.

Healthcare became a heated topic as current frontrunner Hillary Clinton battled Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Obama and former Senator John Edwards repeated their attacks that Clinton won't answer the tough questions. But Clinton shot back saying her opponents are playing into the Republicans' hands with their criticism of her.

The I-Team looks closely at the role Nevadans played in this unprecedented debate.

Nevada made touches to this debate even before it began with Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley greeting the candidates and Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid prominently featured in the front row.

Nevada was referenced only in passing early on.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "I am not playing -- as some people say -- the gender card here in Las Vegas. I am just trying to play the winning card."

And then the first bona fide Nevada question was asked about Yucca Mountain.

Sen. Barack Obama: As I have said I don't think it is fair to bring it to Nevada since we are producing it."

Gov. Bill Richardson: "What you do with the waste is you don't put it in Yucca Mountain. All my life, as secretary of energy, as a congressman, I opposed the site for environmental reasons."

One of the most poignant moments of the debate came when Catherine Jackson introduced her son, Christopher, who has served three tours of duty in Iraq.

Jackson is concerned about a war with Iran. "And if President Bush starts another unnecessary war, there will be a chance that he will likely be recalled for war."

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "That's why what I have tried to do is oppose a rush to war..."

Sen. Barack Obama: "Hillary and I have disagreed on this. I said I would meet not just with our friends but with our enemies."

Khalid Khan, a member of the local Islamic Society, asked about racial profiling. "What you are going to do to protect Americans from this kind of harassment?"

Sen. John Edwards: "The racial profiling that you are describing has to be stopped. And it will be stopped when I am president of the United States."

And Judy Bagley -- who identified herself as a casino cashier -- asked a question about social security drawing this response.

Sen. Barack Obama: "Well, first of all Judy, thanks for the question and thanks for all the great work you do on behalf of the culinary workers. A great union here..."

These seven democrats will meet again in Los Angeles in December.

Some of these candidates are staying in Las Vegas for a few days attending more events.

You can check out their schedules and keep up to date on all the campaign happenings on our The Nevada Vote '08 section.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
November 16, 2007

FACEOFF IN THE SILVER STATE: Clinton strikes back

Rivals accused of tactics out of 'Republican playbook'

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

As expected, Sen. Hillary Clinton's rivals once again came out swinging at Thursday night's Democratic debate, but this time, Clinton swung back.

The New York senator didn't waste any time in a Democratic presidential candidates' debate that clearly was set up to be all about her. On the first question, after Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois made a case that Clinton doesn't give "straight answers to tough questions," she fired back.

"He talks a lot about stepping up and taking responsibility and taking strong positions," she said. "But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that." Clinton charged that Obama's health care plan isn't truly universal because it doesn't require people to buy insurance.

Next it was former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina's turn.

"She says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt -- corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted for a very small, very powerful, very well-financed group."

Clinton claimed she had been "personally attacked" and accused Edwards of "throwing mud ... right out of the Republican playbook."

She added, "When Senator Edwards ran (for president) in 2004, he wasn't for universal health care. I'm glad he is now."

Hyped as the single most anticipated night of the long presidential campaign thus far, Thursday marked the first time in history a presidential debate was held in Nevada.

Perhaps appropriately, given the location, the event was high-stakes. The candidates, particularly Clinton, Obama and Edwards, each had something to prove.

Panelist John Roberts of CNN confronted Edwards with issues on which he's changed position. "You were for the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository before you were against it," he said. "You were for the Iraq war before you were against it. ... If it is fair for you to change your position, is it not fair for her to change hers?"

Edwards said it was one thing "for people to learn from their experience and grow and mature and change." What Clinton has been doing, he charged, was trying to take more than one position on the same issue simultaneously.

Later in the debate, Edwards claimed, "There's nothing personal about this," saying it ought to be an issue that "Senator Clinton defends the system, takes money from lobbyists."

Tellingly, the audience booed him. "No, wait a minute," he implored the crowd.

CHANGING THE TONE

Edwards was trying to capitalize on moments in the previous debate, two weeks ago in Philadelphia, when Clinton appeared to get caught trying to have it both ways.

Philadelphia was seen as a turning point in a Democratic contest that for months had appeared static.

Clinton's rivals repeatedly took her to task for not giving decisive answers to questions, and they finally got through to her in the final minutes of the debate, when she talked circles around a question about whether states should allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut voiced strong objections to the idea, and Edwards pounced on her evasiveness. Obama professed to be "confused" about where Clinton stood.

The previously imperturbable Clinton, who preferred to deflect criticism with a laugh or to smooth things over by calling for unity among Democrats, was unmistakably shaken.

The question for Thursday, then, was whether Clinton would continue to bleed, signaling that her perceived inevitability was collapsing, or whether she would find a way to regain the upper hand.

For the first time Thursday night, Clinton descended from her pedestal to find fault with her opponents. Whether that was a sign of strength or weakness will be debated as the night's events are hashed out in the coming weeks.

A logical place to start was with the driver's license issue, which moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN referred to as "the issue that apparently tripped up Senator Clinton earlier." Did Obama support the idea?

"The problem we have here is not driver's licenses," Obama said. "Undocumented workers do not come here to drive. They're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger." He called it a "wedge issue" intended by Republicans to distract from the larger, federal matter of immigration reform, a strikingly similar qualification to Clinton's answer two weeks ago.

After Blitzer pressed him on it twice, Obama said: "I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the same level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it."

Blitzer said, "This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer. Either you support it or you oppose it."

It wasn't that simple for Edwards, either. He said that in the absence of federal action, he wouldn't support the idea, "but I don't accept the proposition that we're not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. ... And anyone who's on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver's license."

Dodd repeated his contention that licenses send the wrong signal to those who would come to America illegally.

Clinton, whose campaign earlier this week issued a clarification of her tortured position, conveniently just after the proposal was withdrawn in New York, said simply, "No."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio objected to the term "illegal immigrants," saying, "There are no illegal human beings."

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said that he enacted driver's licenses for illegals four years ago in his state and that it had improved public safety by making drivers better trained and more likely to have insurance.

Edwards again went after Clinton on the issue of trade. He said universal health care didn't pass early in the administration of her husband but the "total disaster" of the North American Free Trade Agreement did because big corporate interests opposed the former but backed the latter. In both cases, the results were against the best interests of Americans, he said.

"We will not change this country if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats," he said.

Clinton returned to her laugh-it-off tactic when asked, "was Ross Perot right" to oppose NAFTA?

"All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts," she chuckled. But when pressed, she said, "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for a trade timeout."

Nevada and Nevadans

CNN's Roberts in particular had clearly done his homework on Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste dump about 100 miles from Las Vegas that the state and most of its residents oppose.

He reminded Obama that Illinois gets nearly half its energy from nuclear power, which produces waste that has to be stored somewhere.

"The question is, if not in your backyard, whose?" Roberts asked.

"I don't think it's fair to send it to Nevada because we're producing it," Obama said. He said he would pursue research into a new solution "based on sound science," the catchphrase President Bush has repeated as his administration has continued to press the project forward, even amid scientific doubts.

Richardson, a former secretary of energy, claimed, "All my life, as secretary of energy, as a congressman, I opposed the site." But Richardson in Congress voted for a bill that designated Yucca as the place for the waste storage, and as energy secretary did not stop the project.

Asked about it after the debate, Richardson flatly denied that he had ever voted Yucca forward or otherwise helped it along.

The focus on Nevada and its issues intensified in the second portion of the debate, when handpicked Nevada Democrats, seated in front of the stage, got to ask candidates questions directly.

Their concerns reinforced that Nevadans, while they might have different perspectives than Iowans and New Hampshire residents, share the worries of America as a whole.

A military mom accompanied by her son, who had been thrice deployed to Iraq, wanted assurances that a war with Iran wasn't in the offing.

An Arab-American man said that despite being a citizen, he is frequently stopped in airports, something he said was harassment and a violation of his civil liberties.

A Hispanic UNLV graduate student wanted to know whether the candidates saw a connection between illegal immigration and terrorism, a connection he portrayed as erroneous and damaging.

A casino cashier wanted to know that Social Security and Medicare would be there for her three children and eight grandchildren.

A woman wanted to know about appointments to the Supreme Court.

And the debate ended on a light note, as a UNLV student asked Clinton: "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"

Clinton's answer: "Now, I know I'm sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both."

THE END RESULT

UNLV political scientist David Damore saw no clear winner in Thursday's debate.

"So in that sense, Hillary wins because she's up, and she didn't stumble," he said.

Damore thought Clinton made a good recovery from the previous performance. He said the night's big loser was Edwards.

"The candidate who needed to break through was Edwards, and he didn't seem to get much going tonight," he said.

"This is just my view, but Edwards still comes across like a used-car salesman. Maybe it's the trial lawyer in him coming through."

Obama did a much better job establishing himself as a strong alternative to the front-running Clinton, he said.

With few exceptions, Damore said, all of the candidates did "the typical politician thing of talking around the issues."

Asked how he thought Nevada came across during the debate, Damore said he was impressed by the quality of the questions from the crowd.

"You could tell they were all very nervous," he said of the audience members picked to ask questions.

Interestingly, Damore said, most of the questions directly concerning Nevada came from "the CNN people." The audience stuck to broader themes, which stands to reason, Damore said.

"Nationally, the questions that are important to Democrats are the (same) ones that are registering on polls here. There's not that big a distinction."

Fellow UNLV political scientist Ken Fernandez said he came out of the debate the same way he went in: as an undecided Democrat.

"I thought they all did well. There were no major faux pas," the assistant political science professor said.

Especially strong were the candidates with the least political support, namely Sen. Joe Biden, Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson, Fernandez said. "They proved they have a right to be in this race and they have something to contribute."

Both Damore and Fernandez criticized the questions chosen to begin the debate, which seemed like an obvious attempt by CNN to bait the candidates into ganging up on Clinton.

"They were looking for some entertainment," Fernandez said of the network that sponsored the debate.

"I'm just kind of glad it's over," UNLV's Damore said. "Now we get our parking lot back."

--Review-Journal writer Henry Brean contributed to this report. Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@reviewjournal.com or (702) 387-2919.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 16, 2007

Nevada takes center stage

By Michael J. Mishak
Las Vegas Sun

The latest stage in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination effectively ended in a draw Thursday night as Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards came out aggressively against front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But Clinton, joking that she was wearing an asbestos pantsuit to protect her from attacks at the Las Vegas debate, responded effectively, reestablishing control over the terms of the discussion and recovering from her stumble during last month's debate in Philadelphia.

A clear winner, however, was Nevada, whose issues - and Democratic caucus - entered the national spotlight. Just as important, the debate brought the national media to learn about the Nevada caucus and meet local activists and policymakers in a state largely off the political radar.

The proposed nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, renewable energy and immigration were given wide airings. The word "Culinary" was uttered and it referred to a union member.

But first, all eyes were on Clinton in an event CNN had promoted with all manner of Vegas cliches as the political conflict of the year.

Indeed, anchor Campbell Brown got right to the point, asking Obama about what Edwards had deemed Clinton's "politics of parsing."

"Sen. Clinton is a capable politician and has run a terrific campaign but what the American people are looking for now is straight answers to tough questions," Obama said. "That is not what we've seen from Sen. Clinton. What I'm absolutely convinced of is we need a new kind of politics."

Clinton promptly attacked Obama on his health care plan, which she said fails to cover 15 million Americans. "That's the population of Nevada, South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire," she said, naming the four early-voting states.

And then: "You know, we can have a different politics, but let's not forget the people who we're against are not going to be giving up without a fight. The Republicans are not going to leave the White House voluntarily."

Edwards then launched into a core theme of his campaign: He attacked Clinton for defending a corrupt system.

"We will not change this country if we replace a bunch of corporate Republicans with a bunch of corporate Democrats," he said. Both Obama and Clinton have raked in millions from wealthy business donors, though Edwards has wealthy backers of his own.

Clinton responded: "I respect all of my colleagues on this stage. We're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the best person we can. I don't mind taking hits on my record on the issues but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, nominated again for a Nobel Peace Prize for his long history as an international mediator, played peacemaker: "Let's stop this mudslinging. Let's stop this going after each other on character and trust. Let us debate the issues that affect the American people and let us be positive," he said to applause.

From there, much of the aggressive tension drained from the room and the debate became a much more staid affair.

A number of Nevadans were chosen to ask questions. An Iraq war veteran and his mother asked what the candidates would do to prevent war with Iran. (The crowd gave the veteran a standing ovation, the only one of the night.)

Other Nevadans asked about military pay, racial profiling, immigration, Social Security and Medicare.

The CNN debate moderators gave a nod to local issues by asking Obama about nuclear energy, which he favors as part of a broader energy plan, and what he would do with the waste that results.

Obama opposes continuing construction at Yucca Mountain.

"If not in your back yard, whose?" came a question.

Obama said he would invest in technology to safely dispose of the waste.

What if no technology solution can be found?

"Don't keep assuming we can't do it," Obama replied. "I'm running for president because I think we can do it. I reject the notion that we can't meet our energy challenges. We shouldn't be pessimistic about the future of America."

The candidates also tangled about whether driver's licenses should be given to illegal immigrants, a question that tripped up Clinton in Philadelphia when she wouldn't say for sure whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now defunct plan to do so.

Obama said he favored the policy when he was an Illinois state senator, but then gave a nuanced answer that drew catcalls from the crowd.

Clinton gave a succinct "no" when asked whether she favored the proposal.

Nevadans may be familiar with this issue: Gov. Jim Gibbons attacked his challenger in last year's election, state Sen. Dina Titus, by incorrectly claiming in a widely aired advertising campaign that she favored such a policy.

One issue that never arose, perhaps the most pressing, was a long-term problem the state faces: water.

--Michael J. Mishak can be reached at 259-2347 or at michael.mishak@lasvegassun.com.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 16, 2007

Opinions swayed but open to being swayed again

By David McGrath Schwartz
Las Vegas Sun

Many in the TV-watching audience rooted for their candidates, holding up signs and passing out campaign-emblazoned coffee mugs. But there were some at the Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner on the Strip who were still struggling to make up their minds.

They thought the debate might help them sort out the candidates.

They nodded, agreeing with some of the candidates' rhetoric, and on occasion even applauded.

And they were waiting to hear which candidates would say the right things, hit the right issues, survive the latest attacks. In Nevada, about 20 percent of the voters are, like these people, undecided.

After the debate, a few of them gathered outside the Paris Las Vegas banquet room that on Thursday night was converted into a debate-watching center. They turned away from the TV screens before the pundits weighed in, partisans declared winners and campaigns spun what everyone just saw to their own advantage.

At least in this small group, some were surprised by Joe Biden's performance. They shrugged off the "mudslinging" at Hillary Clinton as child's play compared with what the Democratic nominee will face in the general election. And they seemed to agree that their top priority, right now, is selecting the candidate who will give Democrats the best chance to retake the White House.

These are their reflections as they discussed the debate.

Barbara Gramenos, 66, a retired G.E. worker: I was amazed at the depth John Edwards showed. That was one of his drawbacks going into the debate. He has really seemed to grow.

Traci Lawrence, 40, marketing: I was impressed with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Edwards. I was also surprisingly impressed with Joe Biden. He made very good points.

Stuart Webster, 66, retired Yucca Mountain engineer: Obama strikes me as a deep thinker. But I don't know if this works in campaigns now, where people expect one-word answers, five-word solutions.

Daniel Gonzalez, 21, UNLV political science student: I'd be happy with any of the top three candidates. Even after the debate, though, it's way too early to tell.

George Guthrie, 82, retired business consultant: They're all so damn good. It's hard to tell. I like that they talked about defending the Constitution. That's what they take oaths to do. I liked the optimism that Obama talked about.

Webster: I was a little disappointed in Chris Dodd. He's so qualified, but he doesn't stand up more.

Lawrence: When it comes to Hillary Clinton, it was again clear that she is a great debater. But her votes bother me.

Nick Manganaris, 66, retired schoolteacher: But the form of the debate doesn't accommodate the function of the debate. Candidates were asked different questions - they were phrased differently. Hillary Clinton faced a lot more questions. I walked away thinking she showed much greater depth. She can think on her feet.

Lawrence: She can. But I feel that she's looking to Republican voters so she can win the general election. And she gets away from her core values.

Gramenos: Obama came across well. I like his message of uniting people. He's not asking people to go crazy with applause.

Paul Lawrence, 47, limousine driver (Traci Lawrence's husband): I just want to say: Support our troops, remove the Republicans. That should be the focus.

The Sun: Was Edwards mudslinging?

Paul Lawrence: It gives them ammunition to use in the general. It's what Republicans are going to use.

Webster: But it's also going to be very mild compared to the general election. If you can't take this, how are you going to respond to the Republicans?

Traci Lawrence: I'm still going to have to evaluate the candidates before making up my mind. My No. 1 concern is, can they win. No. 2 is, who is the best candidate.

--David McGrath Schwartz can be reached at 259-2327 or at david.schwartz@lasvegassun.com.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
November 15, 2007

Vignettes from the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas

By Kathleen Hennessey
Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards ran into many of the challenges with the Nevada caucus when he stopped in Thursday at a New York-style deli for a bagel and cream cheese.

The former vice presidential candidate's campaign invited plenty of supporters to fill the seats at Bagelmania, just off the Las Vegas Strip. But the shop's owner said she's apolitical. A cashier was a Republican. One of the servers said he doesn't vote.

"I vote for the best person, " said Jerry Sevier, a 71-year-old cashier, shortly after ringing up Edwards. "A Republican."

Nevada is new to the presidential primary game, with this year's caucus weeks earlier than usual and likely to play a role in naming the nominee. But campaign and party officials face a challenge in finding voters ready to commit to the caucus.

Fewer than 10,000 Democrats caucused in 2004, and party officials are aiming for more than four times that Jan. 19.

Edwards' stop illustrated some of the hurdles.

"I have to remain on neutral ground here because I have a restaurant, I have a lot of customers that come in and cross all boundaries. I have to be diplomatic," said shop owner Nancy Horn, in typical Las Vegas fashion, putting commerce before politics.

One of her servers spoke little English and said he didn't vote, though he happily shook the candidate's hand.

Outside the deli, Sharyn Graham, a 41-year-old apartment manager, described herself as very interested in the presidential race. She's an Edwards fan because she believes he cares about working-class people. But asked if she would caucus, she shook her heard no.

"I don't think so. I never make plans like that so far ahead," she said.

---

Across the street from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus where the debate was taking place in the Cox Pavilion, hundreds of supporters turned out to rally for their candidates.

Passing cars honked at the people chanting and carrying signs along the street bordering the UNLV campus. Some were led by organizers with bull horns. Others wore matching T-shirts. One man wore only a barrel.

Of the estimated 500 people in the crowd two hours before the debate began, the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were best represented. Together they dwarfed their Republican counterparts, who appeared to be only represented by a group of eight young people, who carried signs reading, "Keep Nevada Red."

As the debate's start-time approached and the sun sank, the chants dimmed and the crowd quickly thinned as supporters gathered their signs and headed home.

---

Andres Mantilla, a Las Vegas resident and Edward's staffer said he arrived about 2:30 a.m. Thursday with four other campaign workers to stake out a prime spot to display waist-high, three-dimensional red signs spelling out Edwards' name.

"This was the big day so it was worth it," he said.

There was no indication the candidate drove by their location.

---

Tim Veit, a spokesman for the group Firefighters for Dodd, led about 100 others wearing bright yellow shirts.

He said Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut has consistently championed issues important to firefighters, who he said were the first line of homeland security but were struggling with shrinking staff levels.

"Just because the funding is gone, doesn't mean the responsibility is gone."

---

A boisterous Cindy Engleman chanted loudly for Clinton. The Las Vegas resident and educator said she was an Obama supporter but has since been swayed by Clinton's experience in the White House as first lady. No. 1, she said she doesn't agree with the No Child Left Behind law and thinks Clinton's approach is better on education as well as on the environment, women's issues and health care.

"It takes a village to educate a child," she said before she went back to chanting.

---

LAS VEGAS - Two key union endorsements in Nevada are still up for grabs and the campaigns are jockeying hard outside the debate arena to earn them.

Clinton raised eyebrows this week when she released a list of more than 200 nurses who had agreed to endorse her bid. The move appeared to send a message to the nurses' union - the Service Employees International Union - which has not yet picked its candidate in Nevada.

Edwards, who has won the SEIU's backing in New Hampshire and Iowa, accused Clinton of meddling with the union's endorsement process.

"SEIU has not decided who they're going to support in Nevada yet," he said. "But I have no intention of interfering in any way with the internal process of a good strong union that deserves to be able to make their own decisions."

The Clinton campaign had no comment.

SEIU and the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union are expected to provide critical organization muscle in the caucus. Both unions are expected to pick a candidate in December.

---

LAS VEGAS - Some observers and party officials predicted the debate's Las Vegas location would inject Western issues into the campaign. And while Yucca Mountain and immigration won brief mention, other issues like mining, water and public lands went untouched.

Asked why that might be, Sen. Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas and a member of Obama's Nevada steering committee said "because the big question still is about the war."

Horsford said the candidates did deal with a key Western theme - security - Social Security and economic security.

---

LAS VEGAS - Republicans weren't invited to the debate, but that didn't stop them from weighing in. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney issued a statement on what he called the Democrats' tax and spend philosophy.

"The only place you can lose more money than in the casinos of Las Vegas will be in that debate tonight."

Nevada Republican Party Chairman Sue Lowden had similar thoughts.

"Despite their efforts to put on a show tonight in Las Vegas, nothing can change the fact that the Democrat rhetoric of higher taxes and massive government growth are in stark contrast to the values of Nevada voters," she said in a statement.

---

LAS VEGAS - Some of the lighter and less scripted moments of Thursday's debate came when the professional questioners handed the microphones to the amateurs.

In the second half of the debate, average citizens bought the room to its feet, ferreted out Clinton's taste in bling and wished Bill Richardson a happy birthday.

Catherine Jackson, the mother of soldier who served three tours of duty in Iraq, was chosen to ask a question about a possible war with Iran. Before Jackson could query the candidates, the crowd showered her and her son, Christopher, with a spontaneous standing ovation.

Another questioner, Jeannie Jackson, asked about contractors in Iraq - and threw in a nod to the New Mexico governor's birthday. Richardson turned 60 Thursday.

The debate ended with the 2007 version of the infamous "boxers or briefs" questions put to President Clinton in 1994.

"Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" UNLV student Maria Parra Sandoval asked Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton happily hedged.

"I prefer both."

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 16, 2007

Yucca Mountain question asked

With the debate half over, John Roberts asked the Yucca Mountain question. He singled out Barack Obama, whose state relies on nuclear power for nearly half of its electricity. Obama has opposed temporary storage of nuclear waste in Illinois.

"If not in your backyard, whose?" Roberts asked.

"As I've said I don't think it is fair to send it to Nevada," he said. Instead, new technology must be developed to safely deal with the waste, he added.

Pressed by Blitzer about where he would send the waste in the meantime, Obama launched into a speech about how America can overcome its challenges with the right leadership.

"Right now it is on site, but that is not the optimal situation," he said. "But don't keep on assuming we can't do something. I'm running for president because I think we can do it. I reject the notion that we can’t meet our energy challenges."

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
November 16, 2007

Local audience finds no clear cut winner

Guy Clifton
Reno Gazette-Journal

Northern Nevadans who watched the Democratic presidential debate today differed on which candidate fared the best, but most agreed there were less personal attacks and more focus on issues than in previous debates.

“I thought it was a good debate,” said Lynn Brosy, who hosted a party for a group of Bill Richardson supporters. “All the candidates had a chance to be part of the discussion, so I like that. I think they did less mudslinging.”

The 90-minute debate looked as if it would have plenty of mudslinging at the beginning, with

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards criticizing frontrunner Hillary Clinton, but the initial exchanges where short-lived.

“After that first four minutes, it seemed to settle down and focus more on the issues,” said Brent Busboom, a Reno High School teacher who joined about 100 people at watch party sponsored by the Obama campaign.

Clinton drew laughs from the crowd when she said she was wearing asbestos pants, and when she responded to a question about her “playing the gender card,” against criticism by saying, “They’re not attacking me because I’m a woman. They’re attacking me because I’m ahead.”

Clinton has a wide lead in national polls. A CNN poll of Nevada voters showed her with support of 51 percent of voters, well ahead of second-place Obama, who had 23 percent, and Edwards at 11 percent.

The seven Democratic candidates used most of their barbs on the Bush administration, blasting everything from the war in Iraq to dangerous toys being imported from China.

The Las Vegas debate, designed to include questions of importance to Nevada voters, touched on Yucca Mountain but not many other specifically Nevada issues such as mining and water.

“I think a lot of it like illegal immigration, Social Security and health care are Nevada issues just like they are national issues,” Brosy said.

Stephane Rector, an Obama supporter, said she felt her candidate did the best but also was impressed with Richardson, the New Mexico governor who has spent more time campaigning in Nevada than any other Democrat.

“I thought he had a lot of good moments,” she said.

Dorothy Nash Holmes, also an Obama supporter, said all the candidates handled themselves well, but she was staying with Obama.

“Obama is the first candidate I’ve been excited about in 15 years,” the former Washoe County district attorney said.

Ralph Stephens of Reno said he was impressed with U.S. Sen. Joe Biden’s performance.

“Obama and particularly Biden came off very strong,” he said. “I think Biden had the most credibility. His competencey, his character, he showed more charisma. I think that’s very positive.”

Several debate watchers said Edwards had a poorer performance than in some of the past debates.

“That surprised me,” Brosy said. “He seemed weaker than he has in the past.”

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
November 16, 2007

Chief engineer defends Yucca design

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The Yucca Mountain chief engineer on Wednesday defended the Energy Department's level of design for the radioactive waste site, saying the project does not need to map "the last nut or bolt" in order to show whether it is safe.

Critics have seized on comments by DOE officials that designs for the proposed Nevada repository for used nuclear fuel will be 35 to 40 percent complete when DOE applies for a construction license next summer.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has asked the Senate environment committee to prevent DOE from filing an application "that does not contain final designs for all the proposed Yucca Mountain facilities."

Speaking to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission advisory board on Wednesday, DOE official Paul Harrington said the department is forming blueprints to a level where the repository's safety can be judged, and it would not add anything to go farther at this time.

Harrington, director of the Office of Chief Engineer on the Nevada project, said DOE has not detailed "all the warehouses, the administration building, the parking lots, the heavy equipment maintenance facility, but 100 percent design represents that."

Many parts of the site and the details of how they might be built "have no bearing on identification of what the facility is or what its operating basis for a safety case is," Harrington said in response to a question on the matter.

NRC officials also have expressed surprise at DOE's comments about Yucca blueprints, and have asked for an explanation. Harrington said officials from the agencies will discuss the issue at a management meeting next month.

Cortez Masto asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to take action on the design matter.

Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has not said how she plans to respond.

---------------------------

Atlantic Monthly
November 16, 2007

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

Marc Ambinder

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."

Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.

In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?

Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central has a CNN spoxperson giving a slightly different story...

---------------------------

Carpetbagger Report
November 16, 2007

Diamonds, pearls, and planted questions?

The very last question in last night’s debate for Democratic presidential candidates was probably the dumbest of the year.

MALVEAUX: Maria, would you stand, please? Give us your full name.

Q: Maria — (inaudible) — and I’m a UNLV student. And my question is for Senator Clinton. This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (Laughter.)

CLINTON: Now, I know I’m sometimes accused of not being able to make a choice. I want both. (Laughter.)

MALVEAUX: Do we get to ask any of the other candidates or, I suppose, just Senator Clinton? (Cross talk.)

Q: It’s the only thing shiny up there.

MALVEAUX: Okay, thank you so much.

BLITZER: All right, so on that note, diamonds and pearls, I want to thank all of the Democratic presidential candidates for joining us….

Now, as regular readers know, I’m not a prude when it comes to frivolous questions. Sometimes, off-the-wall inquiries can force candidates to be creative on the fly, and think quickly on their feet.

But this was just dumb. Worse, it was insulting — the first credible woman presidential candidate in U.S. history is fielding a question about her preferences in jewelry? Please.

What viewers at home did not know, however, is that Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked about this wanted to pose an entirely different question — but CNN “encouraged” her to go with the “diamonds or pearl” question.

Marc Ambinder reports on Luisa’s comments in response to criticism she received after the event. Apparently, she wanted to ask about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but CNN pushed her in a different direction.

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.” […]

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

It’s probably worth noting that CNN has played fast-and-loose before. Remember this one from 2003?

A college student who asked the Democratic presidential candidates at a debate whether they preferred the PC or Mac format for their computers says the question was planted by CNN.

The news network acknowledged Tuesday that a producer went “too far” in telling Brown University student Alexandra Trustman what to ask.

Josh Marshall concludes, “Can we just close down CNN?”

---------------------------

Los Angeles Times
November 16, 2007

After sleeping on it ...

Scott Martelle

LAS VEGAS -- Well, when we doused the lights last night, the general sense here was that Hillary Clinton -- wearing her "asbestos" pantsuit -- had managed to right her slightly listing ship during Thursday's Democratic debate at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.  And after a short night's sleep, we don't see much reason to change that early assessment.

In what may have been the night's signature theme, John Edwards got in the first harsh criticism of Clinton after moderator Wolf Blitzer asked him about his pre-debate slap that she was engaged in the "politics of parsing." Responded Edwards:

"The most important issue is she says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt; corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted for a very small, very powerful, very well-financed group."

You can't really call it a trap, because Clinton didn't ask the question.  But she obviously was ready for it:

"I respect all of my colleagues on this stage. And, you know, we're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the very best person we can to win. And I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.... [F]or him to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America telling people what we're going to do when we get the chance to go back to the White House."

Bill Richardson picked up the theme and that set the undercurrent for the debate. Even Edwards came back and said none of the harshness was personal, simply the politics of pointing out the differences among the candidates. To be sure, there was some bickering and a few more rocks thrown, but none of them were the kind of pace-shifting moments that could make or break a campaign. And how could they, after the chief rock-thrower essentially told voters not to take them seriously?

In broad terms, Clinton showed that the last debate was the aberration, and that she's resumed her firm grasp of the reins on that front-running horse.  And no, she hasn't been targeted by the others because she's a woman, a theme that emerged after the last debate. "They're attacking me because I'm ahead," Clinton said.

Overall, Clinton did what she needed to do.  Barack Obama again gave a rather lackluster performance, marked by a few sharp moments.  Edwards, as we pointed out, self-negated and did nothing to help himself climb out of his swing spot as either being the bottom of the top tier or the top of the bottom tier.  Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson came off as amiable, capable candidates but, again, no fires were lit.  Dennis Kucinich, in his best moment, didn't know when to stop, capping a compelling soliloquy with the kind of comment that energizes the progressives but alienates the core of the party:

"The president of the United States is called upon to make the right decision at the right time.  And you've seen here tonight people who voted for the war, voted to fund the war, now they have a different position. People voted for the Patriot Act. Now they have a different position. People voted for China trade. Now they have a different position. People who voted for Yucca Mountain. Now they had a different position. Just imagine what it will be like to have a president of the United States who's right the first time. Just imagine.... [W]hat are you going to do about this president, and for that matter the vice president, because they're out of control, and Congress isn't doing anything. It's called impeachment, and you don't wait. You do it now. You don't wait."

But in what may become the debate's biggest echo, Obama booted the question that everyone in the English-speaking world knew was coming -- whether he supported issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. That's the question that Clinton fumbled in the last debate, and that Obama's campaign had been using as a bludgeon ever since, accusing Clinton of being incapable of delivering a straight answer to a simple question.  Obama's answer Thursday?  Well, you navigate these currents:

"When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention. And -- but I have t