by Chris Bodenner
Cillizza notes:
Politics magazine is out with the results of their 2008 campaign poll of political insiders. The choice for the best ad of the presidential race? "3 a.m." of course — the Hillary Clinton commercial that was the brainchild of chief strategist Mark Penn. The firm that conducted the Internet poll of 475 current Politics subscribers? Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates — the polling firm founded by (you guessed it) Mark Penn.
By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
I think everyone misses an obvious point, one underscored by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s opposition to Obama’s request for a suspension of the military tribunals. As long as Guantanamo remains open and as long as the terror suspects are treated as more than common thugs, they gain a larger-than-life reputation on the streets in the Arab world. The apparent fear of U.S. citizens to bring them to justice through our penal system plays into the hands of the terrorists. When the public outcry is "We can’t bring those Al Qaeda supermen here!", we give Osama bin Laden a gift: the gift of validating his narrative.
If we bring these men into the justice system and treat them as the common criminals they are, we reduce their standing in the eyes of their peers, in the eyes of the international community — and in the eyes of America. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner, the better. And if they want to house them in Brushy Mountain State Prison near my hometown, all the better. We need to say by our actions that we will not be cowed by the myth that they are somehow extraordinary.
by Chris Bodenner
Noting the retirement of Rev. Walter Fauntroy, DC’s first congressional delegate, the Washington Times writes:
Amid the focus on Barack Obama being the first black president, there has been a change, subtle and largely unnoticed by most, regarding black politics in the Democratic Party. Black Democrats – and the great majority of blacks are Democrats – have almost entirely moved away from pulpit politics and are now firmly rooted in traditional politics with only a marginal influence by pastors.
by Patrick Appel
Greenwald, like me, is mostly pleased so far:
Barack Obama will have spent his first several days in office issuing a series of executive orders which, some quibbling and important caveats aside, meet or actually exceed even the most optimistic expectations of civil libertarians — everything from ordering the closing of Guantanamo to suspending military commissions to compelling CIA interrogators to adhere to the Army Field Manual to banning CIA "black sites" and, perhaps most encouragingly (in my view): severely restricting his own power and the power of former Presidents to withhold documents on the basis of secrecy, which has been the prime corrosive agent of the Bush era. As a result, establishment and right-wing figures who have been assuring everyone that Obama would scorn "the Left" (meaning: those who believe in Constitutional safeguards) and would continue most of Bush’s "counter-Terrorism" policies are growing increasingly nervous about this flurry of unexpected activity.
by Patrick Appel
Andrew Exum counsels:
Understand that in the same way in which Hizballah does not like aid programs taking place in southern Lebanon without at least their tacit — and public — approval, Hamas does not want competitors in this arena either. This explains some of the fighting which has taken place between Hamas and Fatah in the past few days.
In the aftermath of the war, Fatah and Hamas are already fighting over who will distribute humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Hamas is preventing Fatah activists from playing a role in the rebuilding of Gaza, and recently hijacked 12 trucks full of aid donated by the Jordanian government, meant for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
So this is the fight to watch next. Pay close attention to who rebuilds Gaza — and how Hamas will seek to get credit for every bit of aid that is delivered to the people. That fight will help determine the long-term strategic effects of this latest spasm of violence.
by Chris Bodenner
Inaugural shots from The Big Picture and behind-the-scenes with Time‘s Callie Shell. And this from a reader who was woken up before dawn on 7th Street in DC on Inauguration Day.
by Patrick Appel
I’ve made Jim Geraghty angry:
I urged the Republicans to argue against closing Gitmo, pointing out that the public opposes that policy change and that every alternative location brings new problems, problems that Gitmo opponents never want to acknowledge. …this again just illustrates what this debate has become — the close-Gitmo crowd doesn’t want to bother thinking about the thorny issues of what do you do with the captured terrorists once you’ve closed that detention center; they just want to feel good about themselves.
But Gitmo – like Abu Ghraib and Bagram – has become a symbol of torture. You cannot argue against closing Gitmo without running into that stubborn fact. And, yes, the closure will be mostly symbolic. The real challenge is how we try detainees – especially those whose cases are tainted by torture. But the whole point of housing detainees at Gitmo was to put them outside of the American legal system, a practice that was struck down by the Supreme Court when it ruled that detainees have habeus rights. Here’s what Cernig at Newshoggers wrote at the time of the ruling:
Some very bad people are likely to walk free along with the innocent because the Bush administration tried to walk around domestic and international principles of law, creating an entirely spurious new designation of “unlawful combatant” so that they could either hide detainees from due process indefinitely or, failing that, conduct kangaroo courts.
If they’d just stuck with the existing definitions, all the Gitmo detainees against whom they could build a real case under the actual rules of law, without torture and without rigging the courts, would have been tried…already. If found guilty, the death penalty would have been warranted in some cases. I would personally have had no problem with that.
I understand why politicians like Brownback are opposed to housing detainees in their districts: it is always politically expedient to take a hard line – even a dumb hard line – against terrorists and "terrorists." Here’s RedState yesterday reacting to news that Murtha offered to house detainees: "I’m sure the people of his district are ready to greet Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with open arms and casseroles." Very grown up. Murtha tries to solve the problem and gets attacked for it by the far right. Housing detainees in the US might not be the politically safe thing to do, but it is the only ethical and lawful action. I don’t see why American prisons are incapable of handing Gitmo detainees – they house domestic terrorists already. And how housing detainees in maximum security prisons impacts the American citizens residing nearby is beyond me.
Here’s a question for Jim: What do we gain by keeping detainees at Gitmo? I understand that Republicans might find some political advantage in opposing Gitmo’s closure, but don’t see a logical reason for keeping it open. Trying detainees won’t appear legitimate unless we bring them under the American system, and if we do that some very bad men will go free. But that is Bush’s failing, not Obama’s. This was inevitable the minute the Bush administration decided to authorize torture.
By Patrick Appel
Ryan Avent warns:
I don’t think warming will mean the end of humanity, but it will be serious enough that major geo-political change will take place, leading to all manner of unpredictable, and often catastrophic, outcomes. And as we approach critical thresholds, I think you’ll begin to see some scientists and activists grow radicalized by our inaction. When people see that the political leaders aren’t going to take the necessary steps, they’re going to start blowing up coal plants. I’m not kidding.
(Hat tip: John Schwenkler)
by Patrick Appel
Felix Salmon fisks Henry Blodget’s plan to fix the NYT. Salmon:
More than anything else, Blodget’s plan would be an admission of defeat. All of his ideas destroy brand value and the iconic New York Times franchise: the really smart thing to do would be to build that up instead. Is that possible as a publicly-listed company? Maybe not: and if it’s not, then the Sulzbergers should find a way to go private, or non-profit, or something along those lines. But a slash-and-burn approach where you fire your most important reporters for lack of "productivity" and make it as hard as possible for your most loyal and valuable readers to read your content? That’s just idiotic.
I’m with Felix.
The Dish 
