MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: April 13, 2008

« April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008 | Main | April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008 »

April 18, 2008

Happy Passover, Jimmy Carter

The hysterical reaction in Congress to Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East, where he met with a Hamas leader today, is precisely the sort of thing I hope the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group J Street speaks out against. This week Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) said she wants to revoke Carter's passport. And Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals Act (CARTER) Act to cut all federal funding to the Carter Center at Emory University. That's the organization that pours resources into humanitarian projects like eradicating the Guinea worm parasite in Africa and was lauded in Carter's 2002 Nobel Peace Prize citation.

New York Democratic representative Gary Ackerman came out against the CARTER Act, but, in the process, managed to be just as petty and juvenile as his Republican colleagues. As the New York Sun reported today:

"The man is entitled his idiotic, moronic, nonsensical, anti-commonsensical, foolish opinions. And all that being said, he is still entitled to have them. I don’t think we should be cutting off funding for any ex presidents to do things. We didn’t cut off Richard Nixon,” he said. Mr. Ackerman added that if Mr. Carter came to his home for the Passover Seder, he would ask him to read the part of the simple son, the boy who does not know enough to even ask a question about the story of the Jewish exodus from ancient Egypt.

Shouldn't the Democratic leadership be bothered by this kind of rhetoric directed against a former president of their own party? More important, would Ackerman slap his offensive "simple son" label on Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft or Zbigniew Brzezinski or Lee Hamilton or Shlomo Ben-Ami, all of whom have called for engagement with Hamas. And what about the 64 percent of actual Israelis who favor direct talks with Hamas?

—Justin Elliott

The Delightful Ernie Chambers Leaves the Nebraska Unicameral

The national treasure that is Ernie Chambers is leaving the Nebraska unicameral state legislature after 38 years.

Capitol regulars cried in the halls and fellow state senators gushed with praise for Ernie Chambers' service as the self-proclaimed "defender of the downtrodden."

But the Omaha senator wasn't in any mood to reminisce on Thursday, his last day on the legislative floor he prowled for 38 years. He was a reluctant, mostly absent, observer of his own legislative funeral and mostly spent the day like he has thousands of others since first being elected in 1970 — working....

Chambers logged more years as a state senator than anyone in Nebraska history. And while term limits won't officially push the muscled 70-year-old and state's only black senator out of his cluttered Capitol office until the end of the year, he's done making, and mostly stopping, laws for the state.

"He has just been a stalwart in making sure people get justice and that justice is administered fairly," said Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln, one of the 14 other senators who won't return next year because of term limits.

"Nobody's paid in the lobby to speak out on behalf of people on death row, for black youth, for poor kids," said Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha. "Ultimately, the downtrodden will be defended by our conscience, and Ernie is a man of conscience, a man of determination."

A hellraiser in Mother Jones' own tradition, Chambers was able to inspire solemn reverence even in ever-snarky bloggers like this one. He'll be missed.

In Open Letter, Journalists Slam ABC Debate

Below, an open letter from more than 40 journalists lamenting the petty, nearly substance-free debate ABC hosted on Wednesday night in Philadelphia.

We the undersigned deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap-shot sound bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate—who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves—have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Bérubé, Crooked Timber, Penn. State University
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Michael Cohen, The New America Foundation
Lark Corbeil, Public News Service
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Adam Doster, In These Times
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Gerald Dworkin, UC Davis
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber,George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Chris Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Charlie Kireker, Air America Media
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, The Reality Based Community, UCLA
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future
Katha Pollit, The Nation
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Rinku Sen, ColorLines Magazine
Matthew Shugart, UC San Diego
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
Kai Wright, The Root
Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic Monthly

Sen. Ron Wyden Makes Health Care Reform Funny

The truly funny and risky political ad is a rare beast. This one, from Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, is about as close as they come. Wyden is trying to promote the "portability" of his universal health care plan (they're not just for presidential candidates!), which in human-speak means the ability to keep your health care coverage when you switch jobs, go back to school, or start your own business. Check it out:

Iraq War a "Major Debacle," Says Pentagon Institute

Just last week, following the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on Capitol Hill, President Bush held a White House press conference at which he remained as optimistic as ever about U.S. prospects in Iraq. From the official White House transcript:

The immediate goal of the surge was to bring down the sectarian violence that threatened to overwhelm the government in Baghdad, restore basic security to Iraqi communities, and drive the terrorists out of their safe havens. As General Petraeus told Congress, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress in all these areas. While there is more to be done, sectarian violence is down dramatically. Civilian deaths and military deaths are also down. Many neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. And cooperation from Iraqis is stronger than ever—more tips from residents, more Iraqis joining their security forces, and a growing movement against al Qaeda called the "Sons of Iraq."

Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq's future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there's much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq—from oil production to inflation—are now pointed in the right direction.

This is the sort of presidential spin to which we've grown accustomed. And, yes, Iraq's security situation has improved of late, notwithstanding the recent battles in Baghdad and Basra and a renewed series of Al Qaeda bombings. But as rosy a picture as President Bush would like to paint, a growing number of strategic thinkers in the Pentagon are reaching far different conclusions. Among them is Joseph J. Collins, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations, currently a professor of national security strategy at the National War College. Collins is the author of a study (.pdf) released yesterday by the National Institute for Strategic Studies (and first reported by McClatchy), which, in direct contradiction of the President's recent remarks, calls the Iraq War as a "major debacle" and describes its outcome as "in doubt."

More after the jump...

An excerpt:

Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths—mostly at the hands of other Iraqis—may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons...

The war's political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen. Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees... Our Armed Forces—especially the Army and Marin Corps—have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.

As this case study is being written, despite impressive progress in security during the surge, the outcome of the war is in doubt. Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after the rapid withdrawal of that army... No one has calculated the psychopolitical impact of a perceived defeat on the U.S. reputation for power or the future of the overall war on terror. For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a "must win," but for many others, despite the obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a "can't win."

The report goes on to criticize Donald Rumsfeld for insisting on a smaller invasion force and "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk." It also calls out Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, Bush's wartime national security advisors, claiming that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect."

Rising Food Costs Roiling Developing Nations Worldwide

If you haven't already, please read this NYT article about how spiking food prices is leading to hunger and civil unrest across the globe. Here's a snippet.

Saint Louis Meriska’s children ate two spoonfuls of rice apiece as their only meal recently and then went without any food the following day. His eyes downcast, his own stomach empty, the unemployed father said forlornly, "They look at me and say, 'Papa, I'm hungry,' and I have to look away. It's humiliating and it makes you angry."

That anger is palpable across the globe. The food crisis is not only being felt among the poor but is also eroding the gains of the working and middle classes, sowing volatile levels of discontent and putting new pressures on fragile governments.

In Cairo, the military is being put to work baking bread as rising food prices threaten to become the spark that ignites wider anger at a repressive government. In Burkina Faso and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, food riots are breaking out as never before. In reasonably prosperous Malaysia, the ruling coalition was nearly ousted by voters who cited food and fuel price increases as their main concerns.

And here are a couple takes on what is fueling the problem.

Second Mistrial for Alleged Terrorist Group

Jurors from the first trial of the Miami-area men accused of plotting to blow up the Sears tower probably weren't surprised to hear that the evidence has now produced a second hung jury. A juror from the first trial, librarian Delorise Thompkins, said, "When you see the evidence, there's not a lot there—no plans, no papers, no pictures, no nothing connecting them to Osama bin Laden."

As we've written before, the defendants had no explosives and no concrete plans. What they did have was a well-paid government informant posing who coaxed them into doing surveillance on federal buildings...and gave them the equipment to do it. The men were then arrested for providing "material support" to a terrorist group, even though they had never made contact with a real terrorist and the idea of blowing up buildings originated from the informant himself.

The tenuous connection between the men and al Qaeda led to one of the defendants being acquitted in the first trial.

Despite being acquitted, and despite the second mistrial for his alleged co-conspirators, the man, Lyglenson Lemorin, is being tried for "material support" by another government agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Although Lemorin is a permanent legal resident of the Unites States and has lived here for 20 years, he remains in detention for possible deportation to his native Haiti.

As for Lemorin's co-defendants, the government will announce April 23 whether it intends to go forward with a third trial. We'll keep you posted on what happens.

April 17, 2008

McCain Strategist Vouched For "Convicted Felon, Disbarred Lawyer, And Failed Brothel Owner"

John McCain, a longtime crusader against the corrupting influence of lobbyists in American politics, certainly has not shunned their help when it comes to his run for the presidency. The deeper into the campaign season we get, the more we seem to be learning about his not insignificant connections to the very influence peddlers he's so often railed against. Today, we get another piece of the puzzle, thanks to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, who reports that Charlie Black, one of McCain's chief political strategists and himself a longtime Washington lobbyist, is the author of a pair of letters to federal officials in defense of Wayne Drizin, "a convicted felon, disbarred lawyer, and failed brothel owner with long business connections to the controversial Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi."

According to Stein:

The letters, obtained by The Huffington Post, were sent to a U.S. district court judge and the U.S. Justice Department's inspector general's office. They are scrupulously detailed and, at times, personal notes, praising Drizin and alleging that a conspiracy of zealous federal investigators was to blame for his legal woes.

At the time, Black was a consultant for e-Smart Technologies, a biometric security technology company that Drizin helped start. Drizin was mired in legal battles over his past convictions. The Republican insider and lobbying powerhouse went to bat on the founder's behalf.

Black's letters, however, were ultimately an exercise in poor judgment. After Drizin had a falling out with e-Smart, Black wrote that same judge a year later asking that his previous advocacy be expunged from the judicial record, an unusual move for such a high-powered figure.

But the episode, mainly because of Black's close proximity to McCain, remains politically relevant. In a separate interview on the matter with Aram Roston, author of "The Man Who Pushed America To War," Black claimed he had not realized the extent of Drizin's controversial past -- an assertion Drizin's lawyer denies.

To critics, Black's actions show the extreme lengths he would go for a business associate -- including calling on the Justice Department to investigate a U.S. attorney for framing Drizin -- only to reverse course as soon as the business relationship turned sour.

Moreover, the episode draws a spotlight back to Black's history of associations with questionable characters and firms, including the private contractor Blackwater USA and even Drizin's old business partner, Ahmad Chalabi.

Click here for more.

GAO: U.S. Lacks Coherent Strategy in Pakistan's Tribal Areas

The GAO has released a new report (.pdf) that takes federal agencies to task for not coordinating their counter-terrorism efforts in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA)—the mountainous, fiercely independent border region where Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding and where Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have begun to rebuild their operational strength. The report, titled "Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas," is the first in a series that the GAO plans to release in the coming months, documenting American missteps in the region and suggesting fixes that might jump start a more focused strategy.

An excerpt from today's release:

The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA. Since 2002, the United States relied principally on the Pakistan military to address U.S. national security goals. Of the approximately $5.8 billion the United States provided for efforts in the FATA and border region from 2002 through 2007, about 96 percent reimbursed Pakistan for military operations there. According to the Department of State, Pakistan deployed 120,000 military and paramilitary forces in the FATA and helped kill and capture hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives; these efforts cost the lives of approximately 1,400 members of Pakistan's security forces. However, GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and has succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's FATA.

No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed... Neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress. As a result, since 2002, the U.S. embassy in Pakistan has had no Washington-supported, comprehensive plan to combat terrorism and close the terrorist safe haven in the FATA. In 2006, the embassy, in conjunction with Defense, State, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and in cooperation with the government of Pakistan, began an effort to focus more attention on other key elements of national power, such as development assistance and public diplomacy, to address U.S. goals in the FATA. However, this does not yet constitute a comprehensive plan.

Given the lack of an overall strategy, the GAO goes on to recommend that the White House, the National Counter-Terrorism Center, USAID, the various intelligence services, and the departments of State and Defense ""work to develop a comprehensive plan using all elements of national power to combat the terrorist threat and close the associated safe haven in Pakistan's FATA region."

Now, is it just me or does this seem a bit late? Going on seven years since the attacks on New York and Washington... and after all of the subsequent debate over the U.S. government's disjointed approach to dealing with Al Qaeda in the run up to 9/11, the stove-piping of intelligence information, and the overall lack of communication between various parts of the executive branch... it seems we still can't get our federal agencies to play nice.

But fret not, for Congress is on the case. Earlier today, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced a hearing to be held May 7, where members will examine the GAO's findings and "discuss actions that a new U.S. administration can take to reconstitute our foreign policy in this region, to refocus our efforts on eliminating terrorist threats there, and to rebuild our relationship with the Pakistani people."

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from soldiersmediacenter.

Clinton Bashes Obama's Weathermen Connection, But What About Her Own?

"I wish you could conduct a campaign on policy and policy differentiation," Howard Wolfson, Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign communications director, said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday morning. He added that Clinton "would like nothing more."

This was moments after Wolfson and Phil Singer, another top Clinton aide, had hammered Barack Obama for having held a fundraiser during his first state senate campaign in Illinois at the home of William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization, which was responsible for several bombings in the early 1970s. Ayers was never arrested for his activities. But in 2001, he did say, "I don't regret setting bombs." The issue had come up during the previous night's debate. Responding to a question about Ayers, Obama had said, "the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense." Wolfson, this morning after, insisted that Obama had "to be more forthcoming about that issue" and state clearly whether it had been "appropriate" to attend a fundraiser at Ayers' home.

When it came time for questions for Wolfson, I asked an obvious one: Did Hillary Clinton believe that it had been appropriate in 2001 for President Bill Clinton to have pardoned two members of the Weather Underground as he left office? The two recipients of Clinton's munificence were Linda Evans, who was sentenced to five years in prison for her participation in a string of 1980s bombings, and Susan Rosenberg, who was charged with participating in a bank robbery that left one guard and two police officers dead. And, I continued, has Senator Clinton ever criticized this decision? Has she ever said anything publicly about it? Rosenberg, I noted, had been apprehended with 740 pounds of explosives in her possession.

Wolfson replied, "I am not aware of Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg...hosting a political event for Senator Clinton."

I interrupted to note that I had not asked whether they had. I had asked whether Clinton had supported or opposed her husband's pardons for these two women. (I resisted the urge to throw in Marc Rich.)

Wolfson responded that while I have the right to ask questions the way I see fit, he has the right to answer them in the manner he chooses--and then I can evaluate his reply. (Given that the Clinton aides do take many questions from all comers, I could not argue with him on that.) Wolfson went on to accuse the Obama campaign of trying to conflate the pardons and the Ayers issues. And indeed it is. The Obama campaign did disseminate email about the Weather Underground radicals pardoned by Bill Clinton. Wolfson then maintained the critical difference here is that Ayers had been a "key supporter" of Obama.

I tried again: the question is whether Senator Clinton believes the pardons for Rosenberg and Evans were appropriate. Wolfson replied "I am not an expert on the pardons....I don't know what she said" about them.

Could he find out and get back to us? Yes, he said.

During the call, Wolfson said, "voters deserve as much information about the candidates as possible." And Clinton's view of the Weather Underground pardons, given her campaign's effort to pump up the volume of the Ayers matter, certainly meets that standard.

By the way, Wolfson added that neither Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg had ever hosted an event for Senator Clinton--just in case any of the reporters had missed that point. He added that Clinton had not raised the issue at the debate on Wednesday night. True, but now her campaign had--and it was signalling it would keep doing so, as part of an effort to tie Obama to a "terrorist." The ploy was a clear one. In this instance, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Even The Pope Can't Shame Court on Death Penalty

The pope came to town yesterday to speak to the nation's Catholic faithful, including some 9,000 people on the White House lawn in a crowd that included the president and 146 Catholic members of Congress. Conspicuously missing were the very prominent Catholic Supreme Court justices, who were too busy at the courthouse paving the way for states to kill a few more prison inmates, in a decision that won't be washed away by a lifetime of Hail Marys.

Today's Supreme Court not only has a conservative majority, but a Catholic one. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts are all relatively devout Catholics, yet while the pope was exhorting Americans to be nicer to people, every last one of them voted to continue lethal injection, regardless of how painful it might be or how much their church opposes it. These are the very same guys who we are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe v. Wade.

No word on whether the justices will meet later with the Pontiff, but we can only hope that His Excellence might remind the brethren of how little tolerance he has for "cafeteria Catholics." After all, if they're going to let faith guide their decisions, they should at least be consistent about it. The rest of American Catholics seem to be figuring that out. According to the latest polls, nearly half of all American Catholics now oppose the death penalty, up from only 20 percent in 1994. In fact, this year, U.S. bishops used Holy Week to kick off the American bishops' latest campaign to end the death penalty. Perhaps when the justices do see the Pope, it ought to be for confession.

April 16, 2008

The Smallness of Our Politics on Display at the ABC Debate

The Reverend Wright controversy, the flag pin controversy, and the William Ayers controversy were all dying or dead. Now, they're back in the headlines.

In lieu of questions on education, the environment, trade, health care, or almost any other serious issue, the moderators of Wednesday's Democratic presidential primary debate on ABC chose to reinvigorate what Barack Obama called "manufactured" issues.

"Manufactured" issues are ones the media and the blogosphere believe should be a big deal, and treat as such, even if there is little evidence that voters really care about them. They are less frequently about a controversial position on a serious topic, since no mainstream presidential candidate ever dares to take one of those, than they are guilt-by-association situations that say little or nothing about the candidate him or herself.

William Ayers is a perfect example of this. Ayers was part of a domestic terror group from the '60s and '70s called the Weather Underground or the Weathermen. Obama knows Ayers and his wife, also a member of the Weather Underground, because they ran in the same Chicago political circles in the 1990s. Ayers hosted the event in which Obama was unveiled as a state senate candidate, and gave money to Obama's state senate reelection campaign in 2001. The men are not friends, though they have been described in the past as friendly. Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, declines to disavow his past, leaving Obama open to headlines like "Obama worked with terrorist."

In Obama's response to questions about Ayers in the debate today, he pointed out the absurdity of the guilt-by-association game that so often captures the daily coverage of presidential politics.

…the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense...

The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

There's no evidence that voters treat issues like the Ayers controversy with the importance that reporters do. There is no national polling to suggest the Reverend Wright controversy has affected Obama's standing in the eyes of the American people, and its safe to say that the Ayers situation is likely too uninteresting or too complicated or too fundamentally silly to cause many Pennsylvanians to switch their vote. But it looks, smells, and feels damaging (and the Clinton campaign will harp on whenever given the opportunity, as Senator Clinton did in the debate and her press team did on the networks afterward) so members of the press will cover it. But they will likely go from covering the non-story to covering the public's lack of serious response to the non-story, betraying their own inanity in the process.

In the end, the moderators' dissection of the "manufactured" issues of the campaign are unlikely to create a fundamental shift in the race. Most of the sniper fire (with the exception of one question about actual sniper fire) was directed at Obama, but for all his ducking and weaving he never really got hit. To use a different metaphor, there was no knockout blow that is going to send Pennsylvania voters and undecided superdelegates scurrying to Clinton. The big loser was the press, who was represented to millions of viewers by two moderators who insulted the public's interest in serious issues and who appeared to relish the worst campaign season has to offer. Is that guilt-by-association? So be it.

[Ed. Note: For a minute-by-minute liveblog of the debate, with only a moderate amount of snark, click here.]

Italy's CIA Rendition Trial Back On -- For Now

What timing. In the same week that Italy elected the flamboyant Silvio Berlusconi to serve as its prime minister again, so too comes the news that the long-delayed trial of those officials accused of being involved in the CIA's 2003 extraordinary rendition of Egyptian cleric Abu Omar from Milan to Egypt is back on. Armando Spataro is the Milan prosecutor pursuing the case, which has faced multiple obstacles getting to the courtroom, and staying there. Among the hitches faced, charges that the case threatened state secrecy, the geopolitical complications of the fact the US refuses to turn over for trial the almost two dozen CIA officials named by prosecutors as having carried out the botched and highly troubling rendition, and the fact that among those Spataro contends had knowledge of the CIA snatch were top official in the Italian military intelligence service, Sismi.

Tonight, Spataro emails reporters following the case that the prosecution is celebrating a rare moment of victory (I tweaked the English a bit):

Following previous messages, I can communicate this good news about the April 16th hearing:

1) the judge rejected all the preliminary requests ... to conduct the trial behind closed doors; to transer the trial to another court; and to declare inadmissable the confession of Gen. Pignero (who died on September 2006) on the SISMI role etc.

3) the lawyers of [Sismi director] Gen. Pollari asked to call as witnesses [incoming and former prime minister] mr. BERLUSCONI and [outgoing prime minister] Mr. PRODI on the secret state matter. The prosecutors were not opposed to this request;

4) the prosecutors asked to admit more than 100 [documents] and more than 80 witnesses. They also requested the testimony of mr. Dick Marty (Council of Europe) and Claudio Fava (European Parliament). The lawyers of the defendants were opposed on this point and also on the admission of the Abu Omar written memorandum (given to the prosecutors by his lawyers) on the kidnapping and on the tortures he suffered.

So at the next hearing the judge will read his decision on what evidence can be admitted. Then immediately, in the same hearing, the prosecutors will start with their first witnesses: Ghali Nabila (Abu Omar's wife) and Mr. Bruno Megale, the Senior Police Officer who lead, with the two Milan prosecutors, the investigations. ...

"The prosecutors think today was an important step," Spataro concludes, after noting the next hearing in the case is scheduled for May 16. For a detailed account of the Abu Omar case, see this Peter Bergen exclusive. You can read my 2007 interview with Spataro on the eve of the trial here.

A Very Serious, Very Thoughtful Debate Live Blog

We've decided to try to hold off on the snark for this, the 1052nd Democratic presidential debate. Instead, we'll deliver a debate live blog of the kind that has never been written with such detail or such care. Joining me in the Mother Jones debate coverage center (read: my living room) is Mr. G, a proud member of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

The main topic of campaign discussion for the past week has been the "bitter" controversy, which I wrote about earlier this week. Everyone's hoping the moderators steer away from the "bitter" stuff (and Hillary's alleged screw the Reagan Democrats comment), but that doesn't seem likely. George Stephanopoulos told Sean Hannity that "electability" issues like the "elitism" controversy and the Jeremiah Wright situation will be a prime focus of the debate. If Stephanopoulos keeps his word, Mr. G (a diehard Yankees fan) and I (a proud member of Red Sox nation) will be itching to switch to ESPN2 (You want to see bitter, watch a Sox-Yankees game with a divided crowd).

8:05: Both candidates spent their fairly uninspiring boilerplate opening statements talking about issues—health care, the economy, government responsiveness. It will be interesting to see how much time the moderators choose to spend asking them about those issues.

8:07: Gibson asks the "dream ticket" question: "Will you take the losing candidate as your vice president?". It's pretty disappointing that ABC led with such a totally unoriginal question that neither candidate is likely to answer in full. But Clinton's answer was very gracious and hit all the right notes.

8:11: Here's the "bitter" question. Let's see how Obama responds.

8:16: Clinton articulated her criticism of the "bitter" controversy very well. Obama seemed a little uncertain.

8:18: Clinton and Obama both say that the other can win.

8:20: Obama's second try at responding to the "bitter" stuff is brilliant. He's attacking the politics of soundbites. This is the clip that will be played all day tomorrow. "This is what passes for our politics."

8:22: Jeremiah Wright. We still haven't heard about issues. Clinton's playing really rough here. But Obama's response to Stephanopoulos' follow-up: "If it's not this, it would be something else," was very clever.

8:30: Clinton has to respond to the "sniper fire" issue. She takes responsibility for it, and apologizes, which is the right move. And Obama was smart to try to play it down. It works well with his argument about trying to ignore gaffes.

8:38: We still haven't heard anything about a policy issue. But now we do know that Barack Obama doesn't hate the American flag. Thank god for that. (Note: holding off on the snark is getting tough with these kind of questions).

8:41: ABC is asking about the Weathermen now. Did Sean Hannity and Matt Drudge write these debate questions? Hillary is really silly to harp on this in her response—her husband did pardon two of the Weathermen. Obama was smart to mention that fact and to mention the issues—which the moderators still haven't brought up.

8:52: Hey! An issues-based question! I love the GOP frame on this: do you have a "real plan" in Iraq. Is John McCain ever asked this question? But Hillary's response is perfect: civilian control of the military. The President is elected to make decisions. Both candidates' responses were very good - Hillary's allusion to MacArthur was particularly apt. This is how Democrats should talk about national security—strategy vs. tactics.

8:59: The candidates are asked about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Neither one mentions the fact that the NIE said Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

9:07: Both candidates are asked about taxes. Clinton seemed to promise not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000. Obama said his upper limit would be somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000. When asked about capital gains, Hillary says taxes are only part of the picture. She attacks Obama for his desire to raise the cap on the payroll tax. He points out that only around 6 percent of the population makes more than the cap. [Update from JS: Gibson kept insisting that lowering the capital gains tax brings in more federal revenue. Wrong!]

9:30: Jonathan Stein here, I'm your relief live-blogger. Both Clinton and Obama support reasonable limitations on gun ownership that are consistent with the 2nd amendment. Generally speaking, that means they don't support an all-out ban on handguns, but they also don't want automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Beyond that, the moderators are having a hard time getting any specifics. And you know what? Screw 'em. They've earned no love tonight.

9:36: What is Hillary Clinton going to do about gas prices? Investigate them! She believes there is market manipulation going on, particularly by energy traders. I don't know who they are, but they sound ominous. Obama is also on board with investigations of manipulation and price gouging. Also, he says we should raise fuel efficiency standards on cars because the only real way to reduce prices is to reduce demand. Also, a windfall profits taxes. Also, an Apollo project to create alternative energy technologies. He has lots of ideas.

9:39: Is this debate being held on the set of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? What's with the circular stadium seating that surrounds the speakers? There was a question in there about how they would use GWB in their administration. Neither was terribly excited about the prospect, though they didn't rule it out. I missed the substance of that response because I was typing about stadium seating.

9:44: Earlier in the debate, Charlie Gibson got all worked up defending the folks who make between $97,000 and $250,000 — if Obama raises the cap on payroll taxes in order to add money to Social Security, those folks will get hit with new taxes. Obama argues that this is a very well-to-do minority; CG thinks they're middle class. He's wrong. And he's been wrong. Charles Gibson doesn't seem to know the middle class very well.

9:46: Charlie Gibson calls his own debate "fascinating."

9:48: Gibson has a special question lined up for the finish. It's actually pretty disappointing: how will you convince superdelegates at the convention that they should give you the nod. It's an opportunity for the candidates to list all the reasons why they are the better candidate — essentially, it's an license to say anything at all. Clinton: fighter, lifetime of experience, bringing everyone back into the American family. Obama: Democrats and Republican are disillusioned, politics that lift the country up, change does not happen from the top down, PACs/lobbyists/special interests. You know, the usual.

9:51: Debate over. Usually these debates go one-and-a-half hours or two hours. Rarely do they go one hour and 51 minutes. But this one did. Thanks for hanging out these 111 minutes.

9:57: I'm back! Olbermann and Chuck Todd are slamming the moderators of the debate on MSNBC. Nothing on trade and nothing on FISA, they say. Light on policy and heavy on nonsense like the Weathermen. Todd predicts Obama supporters will be TOed tomorrow, but that it's fair to argue that Obama deserves this. Clinton got tough questions when she was the frontrunner; Obama ought to get the same. Olbermann isn't really buying it: he's calling the moderators out for "tabloid" questions.

10:29: Trolling around the cable news channels, I'm finding talking heads listing topics that weren't raised in today's debate: education, the environment, veterans issues. Howard Wolfson, however, is claiming on MSNBC that the Weathermen question was a fair and necessary one. He's really hammering it. Wolfson, by the way, is the Porsche 911 of PR flacks. He can go zero to spin in 2.5 seconds.

How Many Calories In a Big Mac? NYC Residents Soon To Know

It looks like residents of New York City will no longer be able to delude themselves about the potential damage a Big Mac will do to their waistlines. A federal judge today upheld New York City's requirement that fast-food joints disclose calorie information on their menus. The city's restaurants had sued over the measure, arguing that somehow providing the information violated their free speech rights, and if not that, the city's regulation was preempted by federal law, which doesn't require any such thing. Judge Richard Hollwell was having none of that, and found that while the calorie listings (Double Whopper w/cheese: 990 calories) might not end the obesity epidemic, it might help a few people lose a few pounds, which was, he thought, a worthy public goal. The decision paves the way for other cities to follow suit.

High Court Rules in Favor of Lethal Injection, But Throws the Debate Wide Open

The Supreme Court this morning ruled that lethal injection is not "cruel and unusual punishment," at least not in Kentucky, that is. The case under review, Baze v. Rees, originated from the appeals of two death row inmates in Kentucky and will likely end the nation's de-facto death penalty moratorium by establishing the standard with which states can determine whether their lethal injection protocol violates the Constitution.

But despite the Court's 7-2 decision, there are strong indications that the debate surrounding lethal injection is nowhere near over and in fact the case may be a springboard for new challenges to capital punishment. The Court's opinion was badly splintered with no opinion garnering more than three votes, which means that while the majority of justices agreed that Kentucky's procedure was not unconstitutional, they did not agree on the reasons why. Justice John Paul Stevens, although he voted with the majority, issued his own opinion stating,

Instead of ending the controversy, I am now convinced that this case will generate debate not only about the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol, and specifically about the justification for the use of the paralytic agent, pancuronium bromide, but also about the justification for the death penalty itself.

As Justice Stevens noted, pancuronium bromide, the second drug administered during lethal injection's three-drug procedure, is likely to remain at the center of the firestorm.

A chemical that induces paralysis, pancuronium bromide can mask the signs of a painfully botched execution. In fact, its risks are so grave that 42 states ban its use for animal euthanasia. In his report released earlier this month, Ty Alper, associate director of UC Berkeley's Death Penalty Clinic, notes that nearly 98% of all lethal injections which used pancuronium brodmide to kill a human being took place in states where the law says it's inhumane to use the same or similar drugs to kill an animal.

Even the justices who signed on to the main opinion upholding lethal injection seem to understand the risks of the drugs currently used, and the potential for improvement. Justice Roberts, writing for the plurality, made clear that if alternative methods are proposed that are “feasible, readily implemented, and in fact substantially reduce” the risk of harm, a state would be violating the Constitution by not switching to them.

But the thing is, no hard evidence about such an alternative was presented in Kentucky's Baze v. Rees, so the justices could not choose a better procedure for Kentucky's death chamber. However, evidence that those alternatives exist abounds in other cases that originated in different states. For example, experts on both sides of the debate in Tennessee conceded as much, citing death by barbiturate as an effective and humane option. But the justices couldn't consider Tennessee's evidence because they were limited to Kentucky's. Commenting on today's opinion, Alper said, "In states where evidence of these procedures is introduced, unlike in the Baze case, it is reasonable to assume that the state's refusal to adopt those procedures will not be tolerated." In other words, lethal injection challenges will not cease with today's ruling and the debate about how to execute people, or whether to execute them at all, will certainly continue in states beyond Kentucky.

—Celia Perry

Preserving White House Emails… Eventually

The missing White House email scandal raises one very obvious set of questions. Namely: Where'd they go and what did they say? Those questions will hopefully be addressed as Congress investigates the controversy, but the inquiries won't answer another, perhaps equally important question: How can this be prevented from happening again?

The solution may lie in a new piece of House legislation, a summary of which was circulated at an unexpectedly pre-empted Oversight hearing that had been scheduled for today. Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), chair of the Information Policy, Census, and National Archives subcommittee has sponsored the Electronic Communications Preservation Act, which modernizes the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act and "directs the Archivist [of the United States] to issue regulations requiring agencies to preserve electronic communication in an electronic format."

The bill comes on the heels of two recent reports--one by the Government Accountability Office and another by the non-profit government watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington--each of which found that federal agencies, lacking uniform guidelines for preserving electronic records, have regularly resorted to "print and file" systems, resulting in significant losses of official documents.

The hearing itself was postponed at the last minute because of a series of votes on the House floor, but in prepared testimony (which remains unofficial and subject to change until the rescheduled hearing is conducted) one open-government advocate suggests that the bill doesn't go far enough. Addressing the portion of the bill which updates the Federal Records Act, Patrice McDermott, director of openthegovernment.org noted that the National Archives and Record Administration "has been talking since at least 1996 about working 'with agencies on the design of recordkeeping systems for creating and maintaining records of values.'"

"[T]he agencies," she wrote, "have done nothing. NARA and the agencies don't need another 18 months to 'establish mandatory minimum functional requirements...' Nor do the agencies need three more years--beyond the 18 months--to comply with a requirement to implement the regulations and an electronic records management system." The bill summary notes that the Archivist will have "18 months to promulgate the regulations," and that agencies "will have no more than four years following the enactment of the Act to comply."

The Romney Flip Flop Is Back!

Happy days are here again!

Three months after Mitt Romney said Washington experience does not translate into economic wisdom, the former Republican presidential contender was on television Tuesday touting the economic credentials of John McCain in part on the strength of his congressional tenure.

The change comes as Romney tries to boost his former rival's chances of winning the White House -- and after he acknowledged he would be interested in serving on the GOP ticket if McCain asked...

"I can tell you that for a person who's spent over 25 years in Washington, D.C., working on economic policies from the days of (Ronald) Reagan and throughout the current time, Sen. McCain is very well aware of the spending programs in Washington, which ones need to be cut back, which ones need to be grown. He understands also how to relieve the pressure on the American taxpayer," Romney told CNN just hours before McCain delivered an economic address in Pittsburgh...

"This is an individual who, well, if you take Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's experience and multiply it by 10, you still haven't caught up with Sen. McCain when it comes to experience on the economy," he said.

Yet questioning McCain's economic credentials was the centerpiece of Romney's recent Florida primary campaign. It continued through their Feb. 5 Super Tuesday showdown, which McCain won and forced Romney from the race.

For example, on Jan. 25 in Pensacola, Fla., Romney mocked McCain for equating his Senate tenure and committee chairmanship with Romney's prior work in the private sector as a venture capitalist and outside the Beltway as governor of Massachusetts.

"Now he's engaging in 'Washington talk,'" Romney said of McCain, jabbing as the senator's self-professed "straight-talk" manta. "'Washington talk' says that somehow, because you've been in Washington, and you've been on a committee, that you somehow know about how the jobs of this country have been created."

Warning Warning Warning: Nader at 8-10% in Michigan

The Clinton campaign woke up with a big case of the I-told-you-so's.

A Michigan poll from Lansing-based polling outfit EPIC-MRA shows 78 percent of Michigan voters think the country is on the wrong track, 42 percent think the economy is the most important issue in the election, 75 of the country has a negative estimation of how the President has performed, and oh yeah, eight to ten percent plan to vote for Nader.

The polls shows these general election match-up results:

McCain 46%, Clinton 37%, Nader 10%

Obama 43%, McCain 41%, Nader 8%

Michigan is a battleground in November, and the Dems can't afford to lose eight to ten percent to Nader. In 2000, Nader took two percent in Michigan. In 2004, it was one percent. It's possible that voter dissatisfaction with the Democrats, who do not plan on using the results of the Michigan primary, will push McCain over the edge. Especially if homestater Mitt Romney is his VP pick.

Michigan's 17 electoral votes aren't a foregone conclusion, of course. Obama beats McCain in the poll, and a lot of angry Democrats will "come home" to the Democratic nominee before election day. But if the Democrats aren't going to heed the Clinton campaign's (admittedly self-serving) advice to hold a do-over in Michigan, the nominee is going to have to do a lot of make-up work there.

Freedom's Watch Broke Law, Dems Tell FEC

Conservative advocacy group Freedom's Watch illegally ran advertising in coordination with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Democratic officials charge in a lawsuit they plan to file today with the Federal Election Commission, the Washington Post reports:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fundraising and campaign arm for House Democrats, alleges that the script for a television ad purchased by Freedom's Watch, an independent conservative political committee, can be traced to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Federal election laws prohibit the independent group from coordinating its efforts with the NRCC, the campaign arm of House Republicans, or any political candidate.

The Democratic officials said the advertising script carried an electronic identifier that shows it originated in the Republican committee.

"Freedom's Watch is coming to the NRCC's rescue. The problem is that they're doing it illegally," said DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, adding that the group's "own document clearly shows that the script of their ad came from the NRCC." ...

Patrick McCarthy, the media consultant who wrote the Cazayoux ad for Freedom's Watch, said an innocent mistake caused the document to appear as if it came from the NRCC. McCarthy, who did consulting work for the NRCC for six years, said he pulled up an old ad template from his NRCC days and wrote the Louisiana ad script over it, then saved the file and sent it to the TV stations.

"It's absurd on the face of it. They're grasping at straws if they're saying recycling an old Word document is illegal," said McCarthy, who now works at Designated Market Media.

Confusion over where the NRCC ends and Freedom's Watch begins is not surprising. Freedom's Watch recently announced that it had hired veteran former NRCC operative Carl Forti as its executive vice president to oversee the group's 2008 issue advocacy efforts. Similarly, Freedom's Watch's vice president for communications Ed Patru is a former NRCC communications officer.

As Mother Jones recently reported, it's not only Democrats who have a gripe with Freedom's Watch. Conservative think tankers and Republican activists have also been grumbling about fumbling and lack of direction by the group, which is largely funded by Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Freedom's Watch is "late to the game and they need to recognize that," one conservative think tank hand said. "Freedom's Watch is not entirely ineffective, but they are not well organized or maximizing their impact."

Whether the ad campaign Freedom's Watch is running in a Louisiana special Congressional election was coordinated illegally with the NRCC or was, as its consultant McCarthy says, an innocent mistake, is for the FEC to determine. But it could show that with a new high-powered Republican operative team in place, Freedom's Watch is determined to challenge such insider criticism and play rapid catch up in the 2008 election race.

Tehran "Anti-Vice" Chief Caught With Six Naked Prostitutes

Move over Eliot Spitzer... and let us now puzzle over yet another humiliation of a public figure: General Reza Zarei, chief of police in Tehran and (until now) the figurehead for the Iranian regime's crackdown on feminine "immodesty." Zarei was reportedly arrested in an underground brothel in the company of six naked prostitutes. For now, the fallen police chief sits in an Iranian jail, pending further investigation. It's unclear how his arrest might impact Tehran's enforcement of its anti-vice laws, which forbid women from showing their hair or wearing make-up in public and have subjected young people to floggings for the crime of dancing together at house parties. One can only wonder at how the clerics might punish General Zarei.