At that news conference, KXLY reporter John Langeler had the guts to ask a question that was on everyone's mind; "With all due respect, the snow fell last Saturday [five days before the news conference], where have you guys been?"

Once again, this time around, on a Thursday afternoon days after the bloated Spokane River started rip-roaring right past city hall, the city and the Mayor seemed oblivious. Only after a Peaceful Valley neighbor went on the news to complain she was getting absolutely no help from the city with sandbagging, and only after the city clarified its position on how it would provide no sandbagging assistance four times on Wednesday, finally on Thursday the city decided it better step in and step up to help.

"It wasn't until today [Thursday] we realized that we better get sand and bags so they can protect their personal property," Verner said. Really? Then why did the city put out press releases earlier this week warning about flooding in Peaceful Valley? Shouldn't that have given them a clue there was the potential for problems?

The Governor, even 400 miles away in Olympia, saw the potential for problem and came here on Tuesday to declare an emergency (granted, this was more because of the situation on Highway 206 leading to the top of Mt. Spokane), but the Governor made it clear one of the main reasons for doing this was to take preventative steps, to put the National Guard on standby incase things got really bad.

Mayor Verner looks at the Spokane River in Peaceful Valley.

Things are bad in some areas, but not as bad as some had feared, thank goodness. Still, in those areas where the river is spilling over its banks, and has been threatening to do so all week long, the neighbors need help and should have received help or the offer for help several days ago.

The number one thing government is supposed to do is to protect and help its people in times of dire need. It’s supposed to step up and be visible to, at the very least, show it’s trying to do SOMETHING. That's called leadership. Lead by example. Even if there's nothing the city can do as a government (and I'm not conceding that point), the Mayor and even the City Council should have put on their boots and gone down and helped those folks, or made a public plea, calling on the city as a whole to volunteer and protect the homes that needed it. Again, something... anything... would have been better than a series of press releases.

We didn't see that earlier this year during the snow storm and we didn't see it now during the flooding. Will we see it the next time around? Mayor Verner better hope so. Otherwise, that old saying about how Spokane Mayors never get re-elected, might turn out to be true again.

What do you think?

Last night, however, he once again went overboard. He called President Bush and members of his administration murderers, and ended his 'special comment' by telling the President to 'shut the hell up.'

If you can stomach to sit through the verbal diarrhea, I have posted it here.

Part One:

Part Two:

No matter what you think of the President, or his decisions, Olbermann's rant is completely out of line. First of all, notice the video that MSNBC rolled over the tirade. It was video of Bush with John McCain- an intential innuendo to suggest Senator McCain and the President are locked at the hip.

Second, perhaps Keith Olbermann needs to remember what President Clinton and many of the other Democrats said in the lead-up to the war. That Iraq was a threat, that it had nuclear weapons, and that we needed to do something about it. Clinton even bombed parts of Iraq in the 1990's to "rid Saddam Hussein of his capability to produce weapons of mass destruction." So, in that sense, is President Clinton a murderer? The answer is no. The President makes the best decision he can based on the facts he has.

Third, Olbermann goes after President Bush for saying he won't play golf while the war is going on, saying American military families don't want to see the Commander In Chief playing golf while soldiers are dying overseas. But it was this same Olbermann who complained that President Bush WAS golfing in the months after Sept. 11th. Michael Moore (probably a close friend of Olbermann's), even centered his movie 'Farenheit 9/11' around it. Now, when the President says he's not going to do it anymore, he's taken to task again.

Fourth, no matter who the President is, it is disrespectful to tell him to 'shut the hell up.' Has Olbermann lost his manners?

Fifth, and finally, how can MSNBC keep this guy on the air? He is the face of their political coverage. I thought that coverage was supposed to be fair to both sides? Does Olbermann really sound like he's interested in both sides?

This is a man so full of himself, he compares his work and his style to Edward R. Murrow. It is time for NBC News to do something about his obnoxious tirades.

What do you think?

Senator Obama, while on a campaign stop this past weekend, claimed he had been to that many states.

How someone can make a mistake of saying there are 57 states, I'll never know... but lets just agree it was a mistake. The Obama campaign says he was tired and misspoke. But can you imagine if John McCain made such a statement? Democrats across the country would be pouncing, claiming that it shows McCain is too old, or too senile to be president. Obama says something embarrassing and it takes bloggers to get the blooper out.

The hypocrisy is alive and well.

What do you think?

John Edwards, the former trial lawyer, wants to be Attorney General. Edwards has proven he has little appeal on the national stage. He didn't help John Kerry in 2004, and he got smoked in the Vice-Presidential debate with Dick Cheney.

Edwards has already said he doesn't want to be VP this time around. But he does want a role in the next Democrat administration. And Attorney General may be something he jumps at, should Obama win.

What do you think?

"If we were a country, [our economy] would be just a little smaller than Thailand. We would be larger than Colombia, Venezuela. We are held back because our state and federal government still believe our economies are driven by wheat farms and timber logging."

While the mayor's office said the mayor was just expression frustration after the state opposed transportation projects and gun-control legislation he wanted, the mayor did say "I am serious when I say we ought to talk about independence"

"We have rural legislators making decisions on things like the viaduct and whether we can keep our city safe," Nickels said.

This is rich. Of all areas complaining about the amount of control they have over the state, it SHOULDN'T be the Seattle area. Has Seattle forgotten it controls nearly half of the state legislature? Has the Seattle-area forgotten it has more members of the congressional delegation than all other parts of the state, COMBINED?

What’s more? Mr. Nickels, who could also be called Mr. Global Warming for his insistence that everyone change their life to save the planet, admitted at this conference that he has 'no clue' what his public bus number is because he doesn't take the bus. Two other Puget Sound area mayors knew their bus numbers.

Am I the only one who says, "Yes! Please by all means, Seattle... break away from the state and become your own country!?"

This is the first thing I have ever agreed with Mayor Nickels on, but it's a biggie! So please, Seattle... become your own country. Get rid of electricity because of global warming, build for freeways that you'll tear down in years, build more sports stadiums using taxpayer dollars, and declare the mayor King Nickels. The People's Republic of Seattle. Sounds good to me.

What do you think?

Senator Clinton, likewise, was defending herself from an exaggerated story about her 1996 trip to Bosnia when she claimed she landed under 'sniper fire,' even though video proves her story false.

Advantage: Clinton (but only because she was questioned less on her controversy)

When the two were asked about the situation in Iraq, Senator Clinton used much more caution about a timetable for removing troops and the advice of Generals. Senator Obama, however, said it really wouldn't matter what the Generals would tell him, he would 'set the agenda as Commander-in-Chief.'

Advantage: Clinton (you have to rely on the advice of Generals to set that agenda, especially when you don't have military experience, like Sen. Obama)

When it came down to the Iran situation, both candidates were asked if they would treat an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel as an attack on the United States. Senator Obama didn't say yes, but said there would be 'consequences.' Senator Clinton was much stronger, saying it would be considered an attack on the U.S. and that there'd be 'massive retaliation.' Clinton also took a swipe at Obama, saying she wouldn't meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejahad, unlike Senator Obama.

Advantage: Clinton (Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, and not explaining what 'consequences' is was a mistake on Obama's part)

On taxes, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama said they'd raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 per year- even if the economy was still in trouble. Clinton also made 'an absolute commitment to raise no middle income taxes.' Senator Obama agreed, saying he would offset the payroll tax for middle income Americans making $75,000 a year or less. Obama said he'd raise the Capital Gains tax, despite being given facts by moderator Charles Gibson that raises in the tax don't result in more revenue for the government. Clinton wouldn't commit either way, other than to say she wouldn't raise it above 20%. Clinton said she "didn't want to take another penny of tax dollars from anyone" but that she "wanted to make smart investments."

The biggest difference on taxes came when the two sparred on Social Security taxes. Right now, Social Security taxes are collected on a worker's income up to $97,000. Any income after that $97,000 is exempt from the payroll tax. Despite earlier saying he wouldn't raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year, Obama said he'd consider raising the payroll tax on the gap between that that $97,000 and $250,000. Clinton said it was a bad idea.

Advantage: Again, Clinton (Obama caught in trap of raising taxes, but not raising taxes. Which is it?)

On guns, both said they respected the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but both wanted tougher laws. Obama was again confronted with a questionnaire he wrote in 1996 saying he would support banning handguns. Obama says his hand-writing wasn't on that questionnaire. Senator Clinton didn't answer whether she supported a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and didn't answer whether she favored licensing handguns. She said it was up to individual jurisdictions.

Advantage: Neutral (Neither took a very strong stance either way)

On former presidents, Senator Clinton said it would 'take a lot of careful consideration' on how to use President Bush once he leaves office. Senator Obama said he would rely on all of the former presidents for advice, but said he'd probably rely on former President George H.W. Bush for the most advice, because of his foreign policy.

Advantage: Obama (Clinton saying she wouldn't know how to use Pres. Bush was tacky and inappropriate. Obama's response was much more classy and keeps with his theme)

Overall Advantage: Clinton won the debate on points, but Obama, as he has done so often, sounded polished. I do think it was a good night for Mrs. Clinton.

What do you think?

Rice, who enjoys the highest approval rating of any person in government right now, has repeatedly said she's not interested in the job. But a senior Republican strategist says she is positioning herself very prominently behind the scenes.

The selection of Rice would seem to help McCain offseat either a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton presidency. It would also tie him even further to the Iraq war, but as many have pointed out, he's already tied to it.

What do you think? Would Rice be a good choice for McCain?

On Sunday night for Game 2, it just got worse as only 4,705 fans turned up. Some entire sections of the Arena were empty.

Two numbers, two nights, two embarrassments if you are a sports fan in Spokane.

On Saturday night, the Spokane Shock arena football team opened the season and were welcomed with open arms to a sold-out Spokane Arena crowd of more than 10,500.

More people turned out for the regular-season Shock game, than BOTH Spokane Chiefs playoff games combined.

It used to be this city supported a winner. Gonzaga sells out every game. The Chiefs always did well, especially on Saturday nights and in the playoffs, and the Shock have always drawn well since they started in 2006.

While the Chiefs have had their troubles in the past, the past two years they have produced some great hockey.

But this town apparently doesn't think so. It doesn’t matter if you are a huge hockey fan, the Spokane Chiefs deserve a LOT more support than they are getting. It is unacceptable in an area as large as Spokane, to only see 4,500 fans turn out for its hockey team's run through the playoffs.

The Chiefs were here before the Shock. They were good before Gonzaga even thought about being good. They deserve a city with fans that offer better support than what Spokane is giving them now. Shame on Spokane sports fans.

Sunday night, the Chiefs tied up their series with Vancouver 1-1. The next three games are in Vancouver, and if the Chiefs win one of those games, they'll be back home Monday, April 14th and Tuesday, April 15th for games six and possibly seven. Let’s hope this bandwagon town decides to jump on board and support the team, before the ice melts at the Spokane Arena.

What do you think?

Last Friday night, after a match-up with the Houston Rockets (in which the Sonics lost 76-66), six Sonics players were supposed to go into the locker room after the game, remove their shoes, and walk through the tunnel to hand them to hundreds of fans who waited for a post-game souvenir.

But it didn't happen that way.

The six players took several minutes to return- getting a shower and getting dressed- before deciding to do their duty.

The first player out- Robert Swift, who only played eight games for the Sonics this year. He walked out, tossed his shoes at a fan, and then walked back into the tunnel stone-faced.

Minutes later, while fans tried to figure out what was going on, Sonics management ran into the locker room and reminded the players of the promotion.

Finally, four other players came out of the tunnel and handed their shoes to fans. The fifth and final player, tried to leave the Arena without participating in the event, and was stopped by a marketing staff member. An irritated Earl Watson apparently then said, "Don't yell at me unless you're my parent."

You can try and blame the players for this, but they are just following the lead of their careless owner, Mr. Clay Bennett.

When the Oklahoma City businessman bought the team, he proclaimed he was going to do everything in his power to keep the NBA in Seattle. Just a few years later, he wants to bolt to Oklahoma City, and the NBA is applauding his efforts. The only way he wanted to keep the team here was by making taxpayers foot the bill for a new arena- something he knew wouldn't happen.

The Sonics are 17-58 and headed toward their worst season in the team's 41-year history.

So, the question for the NBA and Mr. Bennett is, why would we want to keep the Sonics here? So we can have more terrible basketball? So we can finance another arena and watch you laugh all the way to the bank? So we can watch players and Sonics marketing staff basically tell fans to buzz off? So we can pay hundreds of dollars just to attend one game?

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the Sonics leave to the Sooner State, the better. This team, its management and its players are a disgrace to the Northwest and to the city of Seattle.

What do you think?

According to the Politico newspaper, Speaker Pelosi said she doesn't want to hear 'glorification of what happened recently in Basra'- despite early indications it may have been a success. The Iraqi government issued a curfew, sent in troops to battle Shiite militias, and it appears has come out on top. The bloodshed, for the most part, ended, and according to CNN's Nick Robertson, people are starting to get back to some sort of normalcy there. Some of the credit has been given to General Petraeus and the troop surge.

But Pelosi wants to hear nothing of it. According to the Politico article, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

First, there is no indication it was 'dictated from Iran.'

But even if it was, there is an irony. This is the same Nancy Pelosi that wants to pull troops out of Iraq, and by doing so, may hand over power to Iran.

It's also the same Nancy Pelosi that met face to face with the dictators of the Middle East, including Syrian President Bashar Assad (above).

“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.

The Speaker is right when she says we have to know the real ground truths of what is happening. But she crosses the line "warning" one of America's top generals to basically tell the story she wants to hear. There's no indication Gen. David Petraeus has ever- EVER- glossed over what's happening in Iraq. If you've ever listened to him, you'd know he's a pretty straight shooter. And since when did Speaker Pelosi become the source for truth in Iraq? From all I could find on her website, she's been there once- in January 2007. Forgive me if I trust Gen. Petraeus' assessment more than hers.

But Pelosi's "warnings" didn't stop there. Pelosi went on to complain about the price of gas.

“Our troops in Iraq are paying about $3.25 a gallon for gas in Iraq, comparable to what we pay here, while the Iraqis are paying $1.36 a gallon,” Pelosi said. “This is a raw deal for the American taxpayer.”

Perhaps it is. But can you imagine if the prices were reversed? Then the complaints would be we're stealing oil, and ripping off the very people we're supposed to be helping. Obviously, it's a lose-lose situation.

Count me in the camp that thinks the Speaker's comments are deplorable. I can't ever remember a situation where a Speaker- or any other member of congress, for that matter- has sent such a demeaning warning to a senior member of the military putting his life on the line in a war-torn country. Her comments reek of the unbelievably demeaning advertisement the New York Times let the group MoveOn.org print in the paper last year.

No matter what you think of President Bush or the Iraq war, you have to believe General David Petraeus has been a positive- a bright spot in what may be a hopeless situation. He has led his army and his country with honor. Even Senator Hillary Clinton called Petraeus "a very good soldier.... an extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military.”

He doesn't deserve to be reprimanded by the person third in line to the presidency before he even opens his mouth.

What do you think?

Wright has also called the U.S. the 'K.K.K. of A,' claimed the U.S. created the AIDS virus, and Wright gave a 'lifetime achievement award' to a well-known racist- Louis Farrakhan. And the church has instituted what's called a 'black values system.'

Obama has called Wright a 'good friend' a 'mentor' and a 'spiritual advisor.' In fact, Obama says the ideas for many of the speeches and even the book he wrote, came from Wright's sermons. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama condemned the controversial comments made by Wright, but refused to disown him.

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me."

Instead, Obama turned the tables on the country.

"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities."

Not only that, Obama went on to say "Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety." He couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of black churches in this country have been critical to our growth as a nation. Above all, they led the civil rights movement by example.

And isn't it Senator Obama who has lectured the country on the future... the politics of hope... the need for change... the need for unity? What's so unifying about Obama's church? What's so hopeful about re-opening racial wounds?

The fact of the matter is this controversy has little to do with America's racial past. It wouldn't matter if Obama's pastor were white, black, Hispanic or Chinese. His sermons were, above all, anti-American, divisive, inappropriate and filled with hate. The Senator has turned this into a race issue when it's really a reflection on the company he keeps.

Imagine for a moment, that Sen. John McCain or even Sen. Hillary Clinton attended a church where the pastor said these types of things. They couldn't just condemn the comments. And even if they did, their candidacy would be over overnight. Some have pointed to a controversial pastor that endorsed Senator John McCain- the Rev. John Haggee. The comparison is silly. There's a big difference between someone endorsing you and attending a church for 20 years.

This pastor married the Obamas. He baptized their children. The Obama's gave the church $20,000 in 2006. Even Obama admits he sat through some very controversial sermons. Which leads me to just two possibilities: (1) Obama agrees with what the pastor said in church or (2) he's too afraid to stand up to him. If it’s the first, I don't think he should be president. And if it's the latter, can we really trust then that Obama would be able to stand up for America's best interests in the world? To think the Obamas take their daughters to this church, and they are sitting there listening to this pastor. What kind of message does that send to them?

After listening to this pastor, perhaps we now know why Mrs. Obama said "for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country."

In his speech on Tuesday, Obama missed a great opportunity to prove he was the candidate of change... to prove he was the candidate of hope & unity.

To me, simply condemning these kinds of comments isn't good enough. And turning them into a report card on race relations is offensive- just like Rev. Wright.

What do you think?

UPDATE: After Don Imus makes controversial comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Senator Obama says:

"She got a lot of criticism from the newspapers for not getting the streets plowed fast enough, which means her honeymoon period with the press is already over. If you ask me, she did just fine. As she correctly said, 'Folks, It's just snow,'" the column wrote, giving the Mayor a lilac for her effort.

She did just fine? While she has rebounded lately, by nearly all accounts the mayor and city hall did terribly handling the snow emergency. We didn't hear from her until nearly a week after the snow fell. And maybe the streets were plowed in front of the offices of 'Spokane-Coeur d'Alene Living,' but they weren't in the rest of the city. Why else would Spokane Public Schools have to cancel classes for four days? Perhaps the folks at Spokane-Coeur d'Alene living should read over the hundreds of emails we received from the people of Spokane, complaining about the snow plowing effort.

The magazine has the audacity to pat the mayor on the back and then sentences later give a lilac to another local TV station for telling neighbors to help their other neighbors dig out of the snow.

Does anyone else find this funny? On the one hand, the magazine rips the people of Spokane with 'folks, it's just snow,' and then in the next sentence basically says 'well thank goodness people helped other people out of the snow.'

Message to the mayor and Spokane-CDA Living- IT WASN'T JUST SNOW. If you've lived in this city long enough, you'd know this was a winter we'll be talking about for a long, long, long time. It wasn't just snow.

Sorry Spokane-CDA Living, this time you get a big lemon from me. But hey, it's just a lemon.

What do you think?

The longer the race goes on, the more money it costs the Democrats, and the more damage it has the potential to cause.

Right now, Barack Obama has won more states, but Hillary Clinton has won the bigger states.

Barack Obama has more elected delegates; Hillary Clinton has more super delegates.

So the question is- should either candidate get out now? Which one? Why?

For the second year in a row, Ferris High School won the boy's championship. They've gone undefeated for two years now! And what's their reward? Travel 400 miles to play in the Tacoma Dome before a hostile crowd. Plus, make parents here in Spokane foot the bill for part of the travel.

For the second year in a row, the Lewis and Clark Tigers are the favorite to win the girl's championship. What's their reward for doing so well? They too, have to travel across the state to play for the trophy in the Tacoma Dome. And their parents, too, will pay for part of the trip.

The Moses Lake Chiefs, who are making their first appearance in the girl's basketball championship, will most likely be in the same spot next year because they have such a solid team. To Tacoma- times two.

On the girl's side, it's all Eastern Washington- all in Western Washington.

On the boy's side, it's half Eastern Washington- with the home court advantage going to the only Western Washington team- Federal Way.

This isn't the first time this has happened. Last year, it was another case of 3/4 teams from Eastern Washington- having to travel, pay and play in hostile Western Washington for the title- Ferris, University and Lewis and Clark.

The WIAA insists the tournaments must be held in the Seattle area, because... well you know, anywhere outside Seattle, doesn't exist.

The simple remedy for this? Make the six tournaments rotate- 4A, 3A, 2A, 1A, 2B, 1B. If the WIAA was interested in fairness, it would do this in three cities- Spokane, Yakima and Tacoma.

One year, Tacoma gets the 4A and 3A, Spokane gets the 2A and 1A, and Yakima gets the 2B and 1B. The next year, the cities switch. So every three years, players will have the chance to compete for a title in a city somewhat closer to their home school.

It would also give an economic boost to those three cities, every year. There'd be no problem with scheduling, because the Tacoma Dome, Spokane Arena and Sun Dome (Yakima) would always know they were going to host a tournament the last week in February and the first week of March.

It shouldn't be about money, it should be about giving the student athletes the best chance to excel. Its about being fair to the parents who have to pay for part of the bill to send their kids across the state.

There has to be a better way. Don't you agree?