For a long time I have been adamantly opposed to cover songs. I generally thought that the originals were by far superior (especially after I heard a terrible cover of a Beatles song at a Gap years ago, which also made me boycott the Gap for awhile...I'd like to say that I boycotted them for more profound reasons, like I opposed their use of child labor, but sometimes I am small person). Anyhow, my perspective on covers has changed somewhat. Here is my list of top five covers that I actually think are better than the originals (in no particular order):

1. I Fought the Law - covered by The Clash. Originally performed by Sonny Curtis and the Crickets...The Dead Kennedy's also do a serviceable cover of this song. You just can't beat the intro drum solo...it makes me want to fight the law and lose.

2. Hang on to Your Ego - covered by Frank Black, who used to be of the Pixies. Originally performed by The Beach Boys...don't get my wrong, I love the Beach Boys version too, but there's something about the driving beat of Black's version that signals some sort of urgency that the original doesn't.

3. Ring of Fire - covered by Social Distortion. Originally performed by Johnny Cash. I'm sure that I'll get a lot of guff over this one...did I just use the word "guff?" But, Social D just amps this song up, and I love Mike Ness' voice.

4. California Sun - covered by The Ramones. Originally performed by the Rivieras. Plain and simple - The Ramones play rock and roll the way it should always be played, loud and fast. 

5. Physical - covered by Nine Inch Nails. Originally performed by Adam Ant. This is the only one that I don't think is better than the original, but it is so different that it is equally as good. Where Ant's is kind of seductive and subtly threatening, Trent Reznor's version actually makes you feel his awkward repulsion at a very visceral level. Man, whenever I listened to this song as a kid, it made me want to punch a hole through something.

Feel free to debate.

Unrelated: On behalf of of our staff and readers, I want to wish Chief Source Marathon Relay Team captain Michael Maney good luck this weekend. He is traveling to Atlanta for the ING Georgia Marathon. This event is part of his ongoing conditioning for his first Iron Man this summer. Maney works extremely hard at his conditioning and training. It is inspiring. Good luck sir.

So, I was reading parts of the army's new field training manual the other day (by the way, this is not a good way to start a conversation at a party, unless you plan on eating lots of shrimp cocktail...by yourself...in the corner...but I digress), and I was really struck by the emphasis on "stability operations." In effect, these operations are meant to compliment overt offensive and defensive military action (in fact, stability operations are given equal importance), and their target is to promote the well-being of the population embroiled in the conflict. Not only must soldiers be responsible for seeking out and eliminating enemies and securing defensive positions, but they must also provide civil security, governmental support, assistance for economic development, and infrastructure support, among other things. This seems to be a drastic shift away from previous emphases on "winning the information battlefield," although certainly gathering and controlling information is still crucial. However, with a new round of sectarian violence apparently erupting today, I wonder if it is a matter of too little, too late in terms of developing a new approach to handling counterinsurgency. The problem seems to be that it is not just a matter of "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people as part of the new doctrine of stability operations. To borrow a line from Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, what may be required is the ability to create new hearts and minds. In a country where the people have no experience with democratic self-rule, democratic hearts and minds must be created (this is not to say that the Iraqi people are incapable of democratic rule) in order to develop the necessary formal and informal institutions that provide social stability. With the five-year anniversary of this war having just passed, I wonder if another five years will be enough to accomplish such a feat.

Unfortunately it was bound to happen: A student at Butler University asked Chelsea Clinton if the Monica Lewinsky scandal hurt her mother's reputation. She responded, "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business."

Good for Chelsea for making this kid look like an idiot for asking such a lame question. On the other hand, why did she act surprised? I thought for sure her handlers would have prepped her to anticipate this question at some point, especially on a college campus tour (you should hear some of the asinine, inappropriate questions my students ask me!).

I had the opportunity to plan and work two of Chelsea's events at UA and was very impressed by her poise and sincerity. I really admire what she is doing for her mom.

The Republican Party is in the midst of a full scale civil war here in Summit County. Long time chairman Alex Arshinkoff is being challenged by term limited State Senator Kevin Coughlin. There is bad blood amongst the Summit County Republicans. Supporters of Kevin say that Alex is a chairman who strong arms fellow Republicans and is weak when it comes to winning elections. Supporters of Alex say Kevin is lacks the character to run their party, doesn't have the central committee votes to oust Alex, and will be shunned from the Republican Party when this is all said and done. Both sides are very dramatic in their explanations. It all puts a smile on my Democrat face.

Today at 2:00 pm, the New Summit County Republicans, lead by Coughlin, will reveal their selection to challenge Arshinkoff for the chairmanship and the real fight will begin. There has been speculation that Coughlin would name himself to run, but I heard from a contact that Coughlin won't even be at the press conference because the State Senate is in session. Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court Judge Kim Hoover (a dude) has been the name that has been floated the most. The word on the streets late Monday is that it is going to be a "surprise candidate." Regardless, it is going to be fun for us Democrats to watch the fight get started. Republican and Coughlin supporter Ben Keeler will have it up at politics.ohio.com this afternoon.

The scorched earth tactics of team Clinton on the Democratic Party continue. Over the weekend (one of my favorite Democrats) James Cavrville said of Bill Richardson: "Mr. Richardson's endorsement [of Obama] came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate." The clip shows Richardson's response.

Who was Judas Iscariot? When I have questions of faith, I turn to Wikipedia: According to the account given in the Gospel of John, he carried the disciples' money bag and betrayed Jesus for a bribe of "thirty pieces of silver" by identifying him with a kiss - "the kiss of Judas" - to arresting soldiers of the High Priest Caiaphas, who then turned Jesus over to Pontius Pilate's soldiers.

WOW! Clearly Carville, who is on the Clinton payroll and serves as an official campaign surrogate, did some research after the Richardson endorsement and prepared this talking point as a response. The severity of the analogy shows how important the Richardson endorsement was within the Democratic Party. It also shows that team Clinton thought they had it wrapped up. Since Richardson endorsed someone else, they send James Carville out to trash him. It is just scorched earth politics. If we can't have Richardson, then we'll burn him and move on.

Unrelated: In Summit County GOP news, Kevin Coughlin is expected to announce his candidate to be the next chairman of the Summit County Republican Party tomorrow. Ben has a great post up on some of the some of the bad blood Alex Arshinkoff has generated within the Republican Party. This is going to be a brutal local battle and really fun for us Democrats to watch.

What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.

Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.

This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.

But that impression was a deliberate deception.

And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.

Just remember this: her lies about NAFTA were the only way she won Ohio. The video listed here shows another aspect of her NAFTA lie. Fortunately this liar will not be the nominee, but it is never old news to discuss the depths of her "win-at-all-costs" efforts to destroy Barack Obama. The problem is, obviously, that the waters have been muddied for Obama versus McCain.

After two tragic deaths in Ohio yesterday due to cars submerged in flood waters, I got to thinking about what I would do in a similar situation. I remember years ago when I was still living at my parents house, coming home late at night and crossing a "river" of flood water going through the middle of the street; when I told my Dad about it the next morning, I received a lecture about the dangers of such a stunt, but I never really got the facts on what to do to avoid it.

So, I googled "what to do if your car is submerged" and lucky for me there was a whole host of how-to's; lucky for you, I'm going to share them with you!

1. A car sinks into the water by accident once every four hours, and it just takes 2 feet of water to wash away your car, so be prepared and practice your exit plan! Try to remain as calm as possible, assess the situation, and move ahead. Breathe slowly and conserve air- a coolheaded person can easily hold their breath for up to 45 seconds under pressure.

2. Here the websites' tips differed slightly. Some said to remove your seatbelt immediately, but others said to keep it on for leverage while you open the windows or doors.

3. Because of the engine, the car will float for a short time-- get out now if you can. If the car is sinking more rapidly, pressure requires that you wait to open the doors or windows until the car completely fills with water. If the keys are still in the ignition, the electric windows will work for several minutes. It might also be worth it to purchase a $5 window punch to keep in the car for emergency situations.

4. After the window or door is open, swim out of the car head first. If you are disoriented, look for bubbles and swim in the direction they are moving. If there are other adults in the car, they should follow suit; children should be released from their seatbelts at the same time as you release yours (this could take some practice). During flash floods and strong currents, try to get to higher ground if you can, or hang on to a stable structure like bridge supports.

5. Seek medical attention immediately. The adrenaline in your blood may make you unable to detect medical injuries.

Hopefully this information will never come in handy.

According to an Obama advisor, and a million other news stories, Gov. Bill Richardson will endorse Sen. Obama this morning at a campaign event in Oregon. I definitely did not see this coming. I had long ago dismissed this endorsement after reading yet another story about Bill Clinton's private meetings with Richardson, who served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration.

I am not sure that this endorsement will have a significant impact on the PA primary, but it certainly can't hurt Obama who, as everyone knows, has struggled with the Hispanic voters. In a statement released this morning, Richardson said of Obama "I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world. As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

I feel fortunate that, while I was an undergrad, I never worried that someone might enter my classroom and open fire on the students. Clearly, this is a concern on campuses across the U.S. This week, Oklahama's State Reps reacted by passing legislation that would permit people with specialized firearm training to carry concealed weapons on Oklahoma's college campuses. The Rep who introduced the legislation, deemed it a commonsense step to expand Oklahoma's concealed weapons law to combat campus violence. The idea of such a bill raises many questions for me. First, I wonder whether legislation like this could deter would-be mass murderers from opening fire on their classmates for fear that their plan would be thwarted by an armed classmate. If a person has such a plan, will he or she care that someone may be armed? If a person reaches such a point of desperation, it seems that he or she isn't planning to leave the scene alive. Will it matter that someone else may kill them? Will we soon hear stories of drunken students opening fire on one another at keggers? Or will these armed students be able to limit the number of victims by shooting the perpetrator before he unloads a second or third round?

On a similar note, this week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on D.C.'s ban on handguns (D.C. v. Heller). The crux of the debate concerns whether the 2nd amendment provides for gun ownership as an individual right or a collective one - subject to possibly strict government regulation. The Supreme Court last visited this issue in 1939. The Supreme Court's ruling, which could be released in late June, could settle this dispute which has been unresolved since the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1791. For the past 31 years, D.C.'s handgun ban has prevented most citizens from owning and keeping handguns. Among major U.S. cities, Chicago is the only other city with such a ban. Last year, a federal appeals court held that the ban was unconstitutional. The court's ruling marked the first time an appeals court had found a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. A recent CNN poll reflects that 65% of Americans believe the 2nd Am. guarantees each person the right to own a gun, while 31% said no. Stay tuned - this ruling could completely overhaul cities' attempts to limit gun possession. If I were a betting woman, I would say that D.C. will no longer have such a ban.

Think about this:

NYT's Adam Nagourney: "Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama's lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum."

It is clear that Senator Clinton's path to the nomination is becoming less and less likely. The role she will likely play is prolonging the process as is detailed in Rush Limbaugh's daily discussions of Operation Chaos. I'd like to hear from supporters of Senator Clinton on this site what scenario could play out that would lead to her being the nominee when you take Michigan and Florida out of the picture?

Oh, I'm squirming in my seat! Just got the news that Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars writer) is pitching the return of Beverly Hills, 90210 to the CW! Just a few details have leaked out, but the pilot appears to have a 60-something recovering alcoholic calling on her son to help her through the rough times; high school principal son moves back to the Hills with his Olympic athlete wife and two teenage kids. Sounds like the kids and their crew will fit the typical high school angst prototypes, but will be much more ethnically diverse this time around. Haven't heard whether the Peach Pit will play a role, but expect to see some old school cameos pop up now and again. In fact, brother and sister Max and Daphne Silver will be main characters--

Quick trivia question: Which original character do we expect them to be related to? Find out in the comments section...

It's gonna be totally rad!