Howard Wolfson reacts testily to a pretty banal Obama comment on Clinton. Jason Zengerle notes:
The sort of hair-trigger response demonstrated by Wolfson serves only to strengthen Obama’s original point about Clinton being something of a divisive figure. Indeed, Wolfson’s response even serves to make that point stronger than Obama did – since it shows that Clinton’s divisiveness is, sometimes, a problem of her own making.
You think?
Some people seem to think that because gay couples have the right in a free country to live together, the legal protections of civil marriage are unnecessary. They don’t understand the legal power that homophobic families can have over sons and daughters – even adult ones in long-standing relationships. In Indiana, a couple who lived together for 25 years saw their lives turned upside down when one of them had an aneurysm and a stroke. His parents, who disapproved of his relationship, swooped in and barred his spouse from custody. The story is here. Money quote:
Conrad traveled to the Atlanta hospital to be with Atkins but was soon denied access by the family. Hospital staff defied the family’s wishes and let Conrad visit Atkins during off-hours.
Atkins eventually was moved to a nursing facility in Carmel, where Conrad would arrive after regular visiting hours so the Atkinses would not see him.He filed his guardianship request in June 2005. That November, the Atkinses moved Patrick into their home and have since refused to let Conrad visit. They also have refused his phone calls.
Atkins is in no mental state to defy his own parents. The law is on their side. Without marriage, it always will be. If a heterosexual who had lived with her spouse for two and half decades was barred from even seeing her husband after a stroke, no one would doubt the law needed to be changed. It is just as evil when it is done to a gay couple. Yes, there are some contracts that can be drawn up to provide more protection than Conrad is getting. But in states which have passed marriage and civil union bans for gay couples, those protections are vulnerable to legal challenge from other kin. Gay couples are human beings. To have our families ripped apart and have no legal recourse is institutionalized cruelty – designed for no other purpose than to stigmatize and marginalize a small minority. We need and deserve full equality now. Nothing short of civil marriage will ever suffice.
Here’s a BBC news report from last night that bears a somewhat uncanny resemblance to a Monty Python sketch. Alas, the Beeb does not seem to be in on the joke.
Fab, innit? James explains some of the features here. Mad props to E. Reed and Ben Bradley who sweated bullets to get the transition flawless. Thanks. The blogs are under the "Voices" button on the toolbar. Don’t forget the World Through Your Windows.
The jury is now deliberating. I was not at the trial and the jurors have the last word. But the Padilla case, as the Christian Science Monitor’s editorial today explains, is more than about one terror suspect and one trial. It’s about the meaning of America, and the lengths to which we will destroy our system of government in order to save it. The Monitor’s three-part series on the travesty of justice behind this prosecution is well worth a read. The final part is here. Parts One and Two are here and here. Money quote:
In the court of public opinion, Padilla stands convicted. His name is almost synonymous with dirty bomber. Yet, when it came time to put Padilla on trial, the government’s case in Miami included no mention of a dirty bomb…
Although they seek a life sentence, prosecutors introduced no evidence of personal involvement by Padilla in planning or carrying out any specific terrorist plot or violent act.
There is a reason the government’s case is so thin, legal analysts say. If prosecutors brought the dirty-bomb plot or other alleged illegal actions by Padilla into the Miami case, it would open the door for courtroom scrutiny of the government’s use of coercive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects, including Padilla. And that would have taken jurors deep into the shadowy underside of America’s war on terror – a journey in Padilla’s case that wends its way from his cell on an isolated wing of the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., through covert CIA interrogation sites overseas to an alleged torture chamber in Morocco.
This is a part of the war on terror the Bush administration would rather keep quiet. But details are emerging. What they reveal is the aggressive – and at times, ruthless – pursuit of intelligence information, and the selective public release of some of that intelligence when it serves the administration’s goals.
What they reveal are war crimes against an American citizen by the American government. What they reveal is a government that claims the power to torture its own citizens in order to protect them.
Hard to disagree with this sentence about the latest sectarian massacre in Iraq:
This kind of thing will continue for a while no matter what – it’s just too easy to make bombs, and too hard to root out the people who do it, and once started it tends to feed on itself.
But we should continue to send too few US soldiers to police a civil war we cannot stop. I think that’s the pro-surge argument. It’s a remarkably weak one.
It doesn’t look too good for the GOP right now.
David Brooks cites reality: many Republicans hate Bush.
"As the White House enters a critical domestic phase of the war on terror – with a heightened threat environment and the coming report from Gen. David Petraeus on progress in Iraq – Mr. Cheney may be called on to play a more public role. That may seem counterintuitive. If Mr. Cheney’s approval ratings are so abysmal, why increase his visibility? The answer is simple: because his low poll numbers are the result of his low profile," – Stephen Hayes, Wall Street Journal.
A reader writes:
Few people are as frustrated about Hillary’s poll-driven, triangulating politics as I am. She’s a very polished, oh-so-careful pol. But let’s get real.
Who among the Republicans is a more dependable straight-talker than she is? Romney, who flips and flops at the speed of light? Rudy, the multiple adulterer who loves to pal around with crooks? McCain who in the last year has stunningly drained every drop of his once quite measurable credibility? And there’s Fred Thompson. Sitting here at my computer in Denver, I’ve had a more notable Senate career than he has. And what about the Democrats? Obama and Edwards maybe, but how do they score on experience, intelligence, and the kind of workaholism that continues to amaze this once workaholic?
Hillary has her lesser nature, as do we all. But she is heads and shoulders beyond the rest of the pack in experience, sky-high intelligence, energy, and a dedication to work that no one in the field can match.
She will be competent and work like a dog. She will give it her very best, and with her smarts and savvy, I don’t think she will make major mistakes. A misstep or two, but no bombing Iran with no plan for what to do the next morning.
So give her a break. She’s not the ideal candidate, but she will do and then some. And compared to Bush, she will be marvelous.
