The Dish

Tish Durkin’s 2001 Atlantic article explains what makes Clintonian politics so intellectually exhausting:

…wandering through the campaign of Hillary Clinton—and through the time of Bill Clinton—resembles nothing more than wandering through an intimidatingly huge, bright, overstocked American supermarket, the kind that gives Third World immigrants palpitations from the varieties of mayonnaise alone. In World o’ Clinton as in Food King there is, of course, much that is undeniably good: Choice! Abundance! Comfort! And yet in both places there is a sense that something is not entirely as it seems; that all those labels and colors and bargains cannot be quite real; that one’s whites aren’t really getting so much whiter, or one’s brights so much brighter, as everyone seems to be insisting. What are pressingly referred to as "the issues" not only are test-marketed but also come in convenient, individually wrapped form, like Kraft Singles. Or, perhaps, one might think of them as "issue-ettes": they are to real issues as towelettes are to real wash towels—better than nothing, no doubt, but only barely related to the thing that is truly wanted. […]

I, for one, do not blame the Clintons for pulling American politics into the gutter (it’s been there before—if, indeed, it has ever been out). But I will never forgive them for turning American politics into a Costco. Politics should have clear, or at least visible, edges, where the views of Candidate A end and those of Candidate B begin. Instead, in the world that the Clintons certainly found but then proceeded to perfect, Candidates A and B take the big questions, saw off the more dangerous edges so as not to cut themselves, and then whack each other in the head with big, steady planks on which every normal person would have to agree (Prosperity with a purpose! Working families! Save social security! Whose rally is this, anyway?). This is no way to have a lively conversation about anything, let alone a fight about the future of the country.

Who created this? Take the test. My score was 83 percent.

A reader writes:

I know you feel quite strongly that if McCain were to become President that the US would stop the heinous practice of torturing detainees. I disagree, and submit two arguments to bolster my assertion:

1. McCain gets a lot of credit for the anti-torture bill. But when Bush eviscerated it with a signing statement McCain uttered nary a peep of dissent. Cynics, like me, argue that like many of McCain’s so- called "maverick" positions, his stand on torture is something he’s willing to pay lip-service to prop up the idea that he’s his own man. But underneath that he doesn’t care to push the issue for fear of alienating the torture-loving base. I think his willingness to backtrack on a number of positions (see Falwell and Roberston for another example), shows that there simply is no mettle to the man.

2. He hasn’t uttered a word about the recent admission that the government has waterboarded, won’t investigate whether or not it’s a crime, and will do it again. Face the facts Andrew, he might say he cares, and in his own cowardly heart he might really care, but he has neither the will nor the inclination to stand up and be heard when it’s most important. As long as he scores points he’s quite happy to lose the battle.

The full text of his speech defending religiously-based, communitarian law against the secular liberal state can be read here. It strikes me as the point at which Christianists and Islamists intersect. Although the lovely English term "a complete wally" seems equally appropriate. Ruth Gledhill sees the theocon overlap:

A few days ago, the Archbishop argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law – as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

The most persuasive half-defense of Williams can be read here. I don’t think it’s possible to defend a kinder, gentler sharia against the secular rule of law. But then I’m a secularist.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska, the last state to use electrocution, ruled the practice unconstitutional yesterday. From Justice William Connolly’s opinion:

We recognize the temptation to make the prisoner suffer, just as the prisoner made an innocent victim suffer. But it is the hallmark of a civilized society that we punish cruelty without practicing it.  Condemend prisoners must not be tortured to death, regardless of their crimes.  And the evidence clearly proves that unconsciousness and death are not instantaneous for many condemned prisoners.  These prisoners will, when electrocuted, consciously suffer the torture that high voltage electric current inflicts on the human body.  The evidence shows that electrocution inflicts intense pain and agonizing suffering. Therefore, electrocution as a method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Nebraska Constitution.

His environmentalism is proof:

Self-proclaimed conservative purists attack McCain for his vote to block drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. It was for this affront that Romney labeled McCain as being outside the conservative mainstream. Once again, it was McCain who was true to conservative principles and Romney who was off-base. Barry Goldwater, the founder of the modern conservative movement, devoted an entire lengthy chapter in his book "The Conscience of a Majority" to "Saving the Earth". Russell Kirk, one of conservatism’s leading scholars, wrote: "the modern spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands . . . is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors."

Chris Crain tells us to be leery of exit polls:

While gay voters in places like New York and San Francisco may feel the luxury of looking past gay issues in the Democratic primary, those issues hit much closer to home in those states that lack any state or local anti-discrimination laws and where anti-gay bias is a more common occurrence.

I certainly don’t feel that luxury. I know what life is like for gays who live in my native South, and I’ve seen firsthand how the issue can rip apart families and friendships. And laws like the Defense of Marriage Act have a direct impact on my life, since my partner and I cannot live together in the U.S. because of it. It makes a real difference to me that Barack Obama favors full repeal of DOMA and Hillary only half, and because she has consistently tried to defend the nefarious law signed by her husband in 1996.

Exit polling of gays is rarely done outside of New York and California because the sample is presumed too small. As a result, we get a skewed look at what GLB voters really think about these candidates.