Eric Schmitz's blog

Mark Morford:

Thank you, Dubya, for setting the stage for Obama and Hillary. Because the truth is, even as recently as eight years ago, if you'd have asked if we as a nation would be anywhere near ready for a female or black president, it would have felt incredibly premature, a good 20 years off before we could entertain such an idea. But so potent has been the recoil against everything you stood for — the misogyny, homophobia, classism, fear of "the other," of foreigners and minorities and alternative beliefs — that we are ready to be inspired and reinvigorated sooner than anyone thought possible.

Read the rest here.

If you liked that DNC ad, you'll love this:

New DNC ad:

Bowers:

We did not declare our independence from the British because they were failing to keep us safe. Instead, we declared independence from the British because they were denying us our rights. In other words, democracy, liberty and justice were the overriding concerns in forming the nation, not security. Declaring our independence in order to secure our liberty actually put us at great risk, considering that a higher percentage of Americans died in the War of Independence than in any other war in our nation's history. The country was formed quite squarely by putting our liberty on a higher priority level than our security.

Kos:

With a new party head soon to be nominated, Howard Dean's days at the head of the DNC are likely numbered. It's not a bad thing -- presidential candidates and Democratic presidents get to run the committee for obvious (and logical) reasons. And Dean will soon have a full four-year term under his belt. I'm sure he's desperate for a change of scenery. It's not the most relaxing job in the world.

But it does give us a reason to reflect on Dean's tenure in charge of the party.

Read the rest...

Let me get this straight: Senator Obama offers to work toward an agreement with the eventual Republican nominee to accept public financing for the general election.

Meanwhile, Senator McCain secures a loan in January to bail out his moribund primary campaign, either offering his expected public funding as collateral in case his campaign fails, in which case he cannot legally avoid the associated spending limits, or offering no collateral at all, in which case he has received an improper loan. Now he wants out of public financing. In short, McCain is abusing the system, and is on the verge of breaking the law that bears his own name.

Yet Senator Obama is excoriated by McCain's campaign, with the help of the press, for "failing to keep a commitment," because he will not reiterate a "promise," which he never made unconditionally, to opt into public funding for the general election? Typical Republican behavior: do something highly unethical, then rationalize it while at the same time accusing the other of exactly the same unethical behavior.

If we're talking about a test of commitment here, let's talk about commitment to the rule of law. And Barack Obama has that all over John McCain.

I'm with this dude Demosthenes. There is no way on Gods' green earth that Huckleberry didn't know this story about McCain and the lobbyist was about to hit.

And who would ever have thought that, after all these years, the Keating Five would be back in the news? I mean, the Keating Freaking Five???

"Don't look now but here come the Eighties!" (Styx, Cornerstone)

I promised Baron Hill (okay, I promised his staff) that I would give him props for showing strength and backbone on FISA, and he has done so with this statement today:

I am adamantly opposed to giving telecomm companies retroactive immunity. (Bloomington, Town Hall Meeting, 16 February 2008)

He uses the more commonly-used term "immunity" where I say "amnesty" (because "immunity" implies a trade-off to provide testimony), but we're talking about the same thing.

Democrats in the House stood up for the US Constitution this past week, despite the disappointing performance by the Senate. And they finally passed the contempt charges against Meirs and Bolton, to boot. Very pleasant surprises, in a time when those are few and far between.

Props to Evan Bayh on this one, although it really should have been a no-brainer. Bill passed 51-45, and Lugar went the right way on this one too. What sickens me is that there was one single vote against this, let alone 45 (including one Democrat).

With very few exceptions, Republicans support torture.

Evan Bayh thinks it's fine and dandy for prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in court. (Not that we're going to ever know what is or is not legal in any case. FISA exclusivity fails 57-41, 60 needed for a "majority.")

And Evan Bayh wants to make sure nobody ever knows whether anything illegal was done in the first place, whether or not it is legal now, not that we'll know that either. (Telco amnesty stays in: 31-67.)

[Update: Hmmm, looks like he would simply rather nobody be investigated at all for anything that may or may not have been legal then but it doesn't really matter now anyway. (Substitution of the government as defendant instead of the telcos fails 30-68.)]

So now we're down to the House as the last bastion against the shredding of our Constitution. We're lookin' at you, Congressman Hill.