On the November 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, discussing reports that President-elect Barack Obama will name Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin falsely suggested that former President Bill Clinton has not disclosed "the paid speeches that he gives around the world." In fact, the sources and amounts of Bill Clinton's speaking fees are disclosed annually in Hillary Clinton's Senate disclosure forms.

Goodwin asserted:

GOODWIN: I think the issue of Bill Clinton still isn't resolved. And, you know, this is something Obama raised on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton's disclosure of the contributors to his presidential library and to his foundation and to the paid speeches that he gives around the world. I mean, Bill Clinton has raised $500 million. We generally do not know where that money has come from.

Contrary to Goodwin's suggestion, Bill Clinton is required to disclose all speaking fees of $200 or more, according to Hillary Clinton's 2008 Senate disclosure form. Should Hillary Clinton remain in the Senate, Bill Clinton's 2008 speaking fees would be included in her 2009 Senate disclosure forms. Should Hillary Clinton become secretary of state, executive branch financial disclosure rules would require her, just as the Senate does, to disclose speaking fees earned by Bill Clinton of $200 or more.

During the same segment, echoing smears of the Clintons that Media Matters for America has previously documented, Politico senior editor Beth Frerking said of Obama's reported decision to appoint Sen. Clinton secretary of state, "I think the other thing that we have to think about is the old adage of 'keep your friends close and your rivals even closer,' " and Wall Street Journal editorial page assistant editor James Freeman stated, "You'd like someone you have confidence that they're going to be working for you and not for themselves, and I think that's the big question with the Clintons."

From the November 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

KITTY PILGRIM (guest host): Well, you know, certainly in an international profile, Hillary Clinton is well-recognized and well-known around the world and would be a very good and logical choice for secretary of state. Beth, thoughts on this appointment?

FRERKING: Well, you know, I think one of her most effective times during the campaign, if you'll remember, was the 3 a.m. ad, you know, "Would he be ready for crises around the world?" And that was something that got her a lot of attention and, I think, a lot of support in places early on, you know, during the primaries. I think it is a place that she has strength. And I think the other thing that we have to think about is the old adage of "keep your friends close and your rivals even closer." There are -- you know, there are some people who are saying that the drama that might happen here would be not good for him, but I think he's -- as Robert said, he's pulling people in that he might not see eye-to-eye with on everything, and she does have a lot of respect in terms of her international experience.

PILGRIM: Michael, where does this put her in terms of her political aspirations, though, if she takes this?

GOODWIN: Well, I think they're probably dead, at least for eight years. But I -- before we even get there, I think the issue of Bill Clinton still isn't resolved. And, you know, this is something Obama raised on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton's disclosure of the contributors to his presidential library and to his foundation and to the paid speeches that he gives around the world.

I mean, Bill Clinton has raised $500 million. We generally do not know where that money has come from. Now, Obama's people supposedly are vetting this, but if Obama's people are just going to become part of the secret, I don't think that reassures the public. So, whatever they find out and whatever deals they make with Bill Clinton about avoiding conflicts of interest going forward, I think the public has to be in on the secret now, too.

PILGRIM: Right. This has gone so far, though, it's almost -- it's going to be very hard to turn this around, isn't it, James?

FREEMAN: But it could -- you can't turn it around now. And honestly, I don't see the upside for either Obama or Hillary. She doesn't get to be her own boss anymore, and he hires someone who likes to be her own boss. The Bill Clinton baggage comes with her. I really -- I don't see how it's a winner for either one.

ROBERT ZIMMERMAN (Democratic strategist): I think the reason it's a winner, not just regarding Senator Hillary Clinton but the other names that are being discussed for prominent positions in the administration --

FREEMAN: A lot of Clinton administration names. People are saying, "I voted for change. If I wanted the Clintons, I would have voted for her."

ZIMMERMAN: And that is -- and Eric Holder represents tremendous change from John Ashcroft, and Hillary Clinton represents a dramatic change from Condoleezza Rice. If you're looking for change on policy, that comes from the president, and having a team around him that have the leadership and the stature to implement that policy is really what it's all about.

[...]

FRERKING: As someone said earlier, this is about leadership, and I think if it works and he is able to contain her somewhat, that really says something about his leadership. You know, maybe some people would call it a hail-Mary pass -- I don't think you can say that because she has experience. But the fact is, is he's taking a risk and if it works, he wins bigger.

PILGRIM: James?

FREEMAN: Well, I think that's right. I mean, you don't want to be hoping it works out. You'd like someone you have confidence that they're going to be working for you and not for themselves, and I think that's the big question with the Clintons. But Eric Holder, another Clinton administration refugee or veteran -- whatever we want to call him, it's not just the Marc Rich issue. He started this series of memos that -- very controversial -- basically trying to strip away the rights of defendants if they happen to work at a corporation. I know this is something that got Lou pretty angry during these years when those powers were being exercised, and it's going to be interesting to see how that plays as well in the confirmation process.

Google introduced SearchWiki, a search results customization feature, to the public this week. Naturally, there are comparisons being made with Wikia Search, one of the original roll-your-own search machines.

So we ask: Which is best?

Google’s broad implementation of editing options is of course going to grab more eyes, and thus more interest, than Wikia Search. But let’s do a quick shootout among technical competitors, shall we? A little mano-a-mano for fans and opponents alike to consider, eh?

Google SearchWiki - Google has a substantial leg up here. SearchWiki has had a largely seamless introduction, and the edit options are almost too easy to learn.

Wikia Search  - It isn’t necessarily unattractive, but it’s considerably more complex. Which makes it a bit slower to operate.

Google SearchWiki - Simply put, you have promotion and removal buttons to begin with, as well as a comment option to the right of the URL and ‘Similar Pages’ label.

If you choose to raise a link’s profile, it will be carried to the top of the results page. Removal will drop a link to the bottom of the page. Changes can be reversed, too, so nothing is definite.

Unfortunately, there is no quick option to rearrange a page as you like. Promos jump to the top. That’s the only path to take. Which you can familiarize yourself with, but it can still be tedious, particularly if you’re mapping your ideal Top 10-20 set of results for certain keywords.

Wikia Search - Apart from working with considerably less speed, there’s hardly anything to gripe about insofar as the engine’s toolset.

Hover your cursor over a search result and you’re shown a menu by which to edit, annotate, spotlight, comment, or delete whatever you see. You can star results from with a 1-5 rating, and you can even add a result if it’s missing from view.

Google SearchWiki - Some might say SearchWiki is way ahead of Wikia in this department, but that’s not necessarily the case. We refer you to our “tedious” remark about having to customize a page’s results within the strict push-to-top and drop-to-bottom framework. It’s acceptable or annoying, depending on your level of patience and love for Mother Google.

Wikia  - Give it a minute or two of your time, and you’ll find this one surprises with just how intuitive and powerful it can be - without becoming too detail-heavy. The abundance of tags at the top of the roster is welcome, and the Facebook-esque pop-up menu along the bottom of the window is nice to have. On-the-fly language specification is also something to appreciate.

…it depends! It’s thoroughly difficult to be objective about these things, so we’ll leave it up to you to determine which engine is best. Google will command the discussions simply for its size and influence, so there’s no use thinking Wikia Search has a shot in a wide open one-on-one.

Yet Wikia is without doubt the more capable of the two when it comes to search results customization and annotation. There are just more stuff that a real power user would need. And let’s face it, the only search engine users that will bother combing results for their personal best-of list(s) are the power users among us. The ones that aren’t happy with how algorithms alone make keywords sing.

If you want to lend an engine a helping hand without care about brand loyalty and page count volume, Wikia Search is the place to go.

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Wikia Search Actually Launches Private Beta
The Daily Poll: Your Impressions of Wikia
Confirmed: Wikia Search to Launch on Monday
Google Launches SearchWiki
Wikia Showing that Social Search Can Work
Search Wikia Makes Categorization Software Open Source
Wikia Search - Miles Behind the Competition

Gail Collins / New York Times:
Time for Him to Go  —  Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning.  —  Seriously.  We have an economy that's crashing and a vacuum at the top.  Bush — who is currently on a trip to Peru to meet with Asian leaders who no longer care what he thinks …

It’s time to just admit it: Google is better than you. Better at searching the web, better at advertising, better at email, better at…creating festive art by methodically changing the color of every square on a spreadsheet.

Yup, someone at Google has taken the time to turn an ordinary spreadsheet into a work of wintry art. And then make a video of it (below). And then share the template with all Google Docs users to create their own snowcapped doodlings.

Well, two can play that game. Presenting…a Mashable masterpiece: the Google Spreadsheets snowman! Where do I collect my prize?

[via Lifehacker]

---
Related Articles at Mashable | All That's New on the Web:

Google Spreadsheets Get a Real Menu
Google Spreadsheets Adds More Advanced Features
Google Docs Won’t Save Anything; I’m Going to Lunch
Google Presentations is Live
Google Releases Docs Uploader
Forget Excel: 14 Online Spreadsheet Applications
Offline Google Docs Access Deployed