Sunday pops |

Sunday pops

The chicanery continues: The same powerful Wall Street lawyer who defended Dick Grasso’s “futures” payment plan before Mr. Grasso resigned as head of the New York Stock Exchange is helping prepare a report on how the organization should revamp its corporate governance practices, The New York Times reports. His name is Martin Lipton. What conflict of interest isn’t recognized by the Big Board?

Who said it• “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” George Bush• Sure, in words not dissimilar. Even Bill Clinton said the same general thing. But reports this exact quote was spoken by none other than Teddy Kennedy on Sept. 27, 2002 . Sen. Teddy of late has taken to lambasting the president for supposedly “misleading” the country. If Bush did, so did Kennedy.

Leading Hillary indicator: also reports that a database search shows that Hillary Clinton has said she will not seek the Democrats’ nomination for president in 2004 a total of 138 times since 2001. The numbers aren’t crunched so specifically as to indicate how many times Mrs. Clinton volunteered her disinterest versus how many times she was responding to wanting, liberal ink-stained wretches. If it’s the former, it’s a good indication she will run. If it’s the latter, it’s a good indication The New York Times will call on Democrats to draft Hillary in Boston.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.