Obama benefits from this decision.  Although he formerly supported groups promoting a collectivist interpretation — nullification, really — of the Second Amendment, as a presidential candidate he has prudently endorsed the "individual right" interpretation.  Had the court held otherwise, emboldened gun-control enthusiasts would have thrust this issue, with its myriad cultural overtones, into the campaign, forcing Obama either to irritate his liberal base or alienate many socially conservative Democratic men.

In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court did Barack Obama a favor by taking one of the GOP's ugliest wedge issues off the table for this election:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

Whatever your feelings about the merits of the ruling, or on the 2nd Amendment in general, it is undeniable that the battle over gun ownership rights in this country has been a loser for the Democratic Party.  When our electoral chances are dependent on gun-loving states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan staying in our column in November, allowing ourselves to be outflanked year after year on the gun issue is a non-starter.

It's completely fair and necessary to bring up the hideous amount of gun deaths that occur in America each year.  It's fair and necessary to suggest that these deaths could possibly have been avoided by greater gun regulation.  Just yesterday in my home state of Kentucky, a plastics plant employee went on a rampage at work, killing 5 co-workers and himself with a handgun he retrieved on his lunch break.

I also think it's fair and necessary, however, to consider how much the fight over gun regulation in this country has cost the progressive movement.  It's certainly a good bet that had the Democratic Party not become synonymous with gun control by the end of the 1990's, George W. Bush would not have been able to win Ohio in 2000, thus losing the electoral college to Al Gore regardless of the shenanigans in Florida. 

I think if you're going to tally up the bloodshed caused by gun deaths in America, you also have to consider the amount of deaths caused here by a lack of universal health care.  And you have to consider all those blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan who, but for the love of their guns and fear of liberals who will take them away, would be voting down-the-line Democrat election after election. 

We could already have universal health care in place by now.  Instead, the progressive movement has spent much of its political energy the last couple decades lecturing law-abiding gun owners about the blood on their hands.  Whether that criticism was fair or not, I think it's indisputable that there were better ways to seek progressive change for the greater benefit of us all.

Regardless, today's decision on the 2nd amendment was a boon to the Democratic Party.  Much the way Bush was able to point to Roe vs. Wade as "settled law" when accused of threatening to overturn abortion rights back in 2000, Obama can point to D.C. vs. Heller as having "settled" the debate over the 2nd Amendment the next time McCain demagogues him on guns.

Came across this little tidbit in a piece on Hollywood's political donations today:

McCain's boldface backers include producer Jerry Bruckheimer and "Saturday Night Live" executive producer Lorne Michaels.

Now I know why that show isn't funny anymore.

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein.  "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." 

Karl Rove, addressing a country club yesterday, making a snide comment about the political phenomenon passing Rove and his era by.

This is the sober truth.  Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation.  And we’re not entering any such world.

Bill Kristol is the chief media proponent of our current world of many enemies and lots of war.  He is the prince of the neoconservative movement, son of founder Irving Kristol, and one of the principal "intellectual architects" of the Iraq War.  As is well documented, the neoconservative wing of the GOP, which Kristol presides over, was birthed by onetime Democrats turned off by the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party in the 1970's.  These former Democrats flocked to the GOP en masse following the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and never looked back. 

As I said, this movement was founded as a hawkish response to the Democratic Party's antiwar wing during the Vietnam War.  Bill Kristol turned 18 on December 23, 1970—right at the apex of the Vietnam War.  Despite the golden opportunity of  military enlistment, Kristol declined to serve, instead thundering off to Harvard to fight the "war of ideas".  This war addict has no problem lecturing the mothers of America on the "sober truth" of our country's need for "young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation".  No matter that he declined to be one of them. 

Cleverly, Kristol gives himself, and every other pontificating chickenhawk, a big out in his next paragraph:

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army.  In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not.  The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice.  If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

Got that?  Our country's very survival depends upon "young men and women willing to risk their lives".  But Bill also sees nothing wrong with those young men and women who don't care to enlist in the wars he claims central to our very survival.  People, you know, like Bill. 

Also, the claim that Alex "won't be criticized by John McCain" for not enlisting in the military is bullshit.  I seem to recall John McCain doing that very thing to Barack Obama a few weeks ago, stating the following: 

I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

Personally, I will not accept from Bill Kristol, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on the wars he demands we wage, or towards the mothers he demands shut up about the sons and daughters their country is sending off to die for no good reason.

One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil.

"This alone means that Hillary won't be the V.P. choice," wrote one.

According to two close Clinton confidantes, the Senator and Solis Doyle have not spoken since her firing months ago.  And there is a sense that bad blood lingers between the two.  Some officials in Clinton's orbit were disappointed, if not angered, by the fact that Solis Doyle had been in touch with the Obama campaign about possibly coming on board. Solis Doyle, meanwhile, is rumored to have felt particularly scapegoated by her firing.

Said one individual with knowledge of the Clinton campaign's political leanings: "It would be pretty awkward if Hillary Clinton were picked as vice president and Patti was there to be her chief of staff."

Jason Horowitz over at the New York Observer hears it less delicately:

A former bundler to Hillary Clinton just called in to tell me that Barack Obama's selection of Patti Solis Doyle as chief of staff to the campaign's eventual vice presidential nominee is the "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics."

"Either one of two things happen," said the bundler.  "Hillary is selected as vice president and they fire Patti, or Hillary is not going to be the vice president."

The bundler said that Clinton loyalists were livid over the pick.

"You don't hire Patti Solis Doyle for her operational expertise," said the bundler.  "You don't do that.  This is someone who failed dramatically at her job.  You only bring her on to fuck someone else."

Good God, do I love politics.

Since the end of February, I have heard from many female Clinton supporters that if Barack Obama became the party's nominee, they would either sit out the general election, or vote for John McCain. 

Many of their reasons centered on sincere feelings of dismissal and misogyny by the media, and the Obama campaign.  While I tend to agree with these women on the media's role, yet never have gotten a concrete example from them of Obama's role in this misogyny, I always come back with this: why, if you are such a loyal Hillary supporter, would you consider voting for someone whose policy positions are totally antithetical to hers?  More to the point, why, as a self-described feminist, would you vote for someone so anti-woman?

Sen. John McCain, in his long and well-boasted of "experience" in government, has amassed the following record on women's issues: 

—A Zero percent rating from Planned Parenthood.

—Voted against funding to prevent unintended teenage pregnancies.

—Voted against Title X, the family planning program which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.

—Voted against requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

—Opposed the legislating of equal pay for women.

—Opposed permitting women to fly combat missions in the military.

—Says he would have voted for the failed South Dakota ban on abortion, which would have outlawed the procedure even in the case of rape or incest.

—Supports the overturning of Roe vs. Wade ("I have been pro-life my entire public career.  I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.")


Yesterday, Froma Harrop, a prominent Hillary Clinton advocate, lifelong liberal Democrat, and the 14th most-circulated columnist in America, provided a rather strange and disingenuous defense of McCain on the choice issue.

Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?  The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The question of course, isn't "would" he, but rather, hasn't he already?  John McCain, in his illustrious Senate career, has voted for the following doctrinaire "foes of Roe v. Wade": Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  All but Bork made it to the High Court.  History notwithstanding, Harrop isn't too worried.

The answer is unclear but probably "no."  While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue. 

In a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, McCain said, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

Harrop has written many articles over the years which I have enjoyed and found insightful, even when she was boosting full-time for Hillary Clinton.  I have never seen her elevate a career politician's "statements" over their actions and actual votes.  That is, until that last couple of paragraphs you just read.

George W. Bush turned that statement against him in the 2000 race for the GOP nomination.  The National Right to Life Committee ran ads denouncing McCain — one reason he lost the important South Carolina primary to Bush.

Right, and McCain was then locked in a bitter primary battle with Bush where the Texan had the entire right-flank of the party covered.  The only way for McCain to have a shot was to move left and pick off as many moderate, pro-choice Republicans as he could.  That was back when politicians believed there were still a lot of moderate, pro-choice Republicans to be found.  Bush's thumping of McCain in 2000 put an end to that assumption.

Addressing conservative South Carolinians last year, McCain said that Roe should be overturned.  Primary politics or a change of mind?  The former is my guess — and also that in his current pursuit of Hillary Democrats we may see a softening of that position.

Once again, this staunch liberal Democrat sees McCain tell his party's voters that he's pro-life—as is reflected in the entirety of his Senate career—and chooses not to believe him.

McCain played a central role in the Gang of 14 — the seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who joined hands to find common ground on court appointments.  For his efforts at compromise, McCain took a pummeling from the right wing.  Note that Obama, the self-styled foe of division, declined to join the bipartisan group.

This one really takes the cake.  The "Gang of 14" is directly responsible for the judicial "compromise" that eventually enabled the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito—two of the most reactionary, anti-woman justices in our country's history—to the Supreme Court.  Harrop has a lot of nerve, and a cluelessness of recent political history, to actually praise McCain for this "compromise", while trashing Obama for standing his progressive ground and voting against both men.  Sad and strange to say, I've heard a lot of this talk from other self-styled feminists who backed Hillary.

And if a President McCain did put forth a controversial candidate, the Democratic majority in the Senate — sure to grow after the upcoming election — would put a quick end to the idea.

I'm sorry, what?  Another ridiculous notion I've heard bandied around: that while many Clinton loyalists won't support the Democratic nominee for president, it won't matter, because we'll have a strong Democratic Congress in 2008 who can block McCain's judicial program.  Never mind that it's hard to see how the Democratic Congress "grows" in step with a McCain victory in November.  How long can the holding action Harrop prescribes for the Democrats actually last? 

Justice Paul Stevens, the oldest member of the pro-choice majority bloc of the Supreme Court, is 88 years old.  When he departs the bench, that five-vote majority becomes a four-vote minority, and Roe gets overturned the minute the anti-choice forces send up one of their beloved "test cases".  How long is Stevens supposed to hang on?  Through the end of the first McCain term, and he's 92?  Through the end of the second, and he's 96?

And once Stevens departs (most likely during one of those terms), and President McCain starts sending right-wing neanderthals up for a confirmation vote, how long can the Democratic Senate block Supreme Court nominee after Supreme Court nominee?  It's not like after the first one gets shot down—no guarantee there, even in a majority Dem Senate—McCain's just going to throw up his hands and say, "OK, fine.  I'm throwing my reactionary judicial philosophy out the window.  Here's a candidate that will make all of the Democrats happy: Hillary Clinton!"

No, he's going to continue to send up deeply conservative judicial nominees, and work to shame the "do-nothing Senate" in the press, until all the pundits and media mavens start lecturing the public on constitutional principle, and advise and consent, and vacancies, and a president's prerogative, blah blah blah, and eventually McCain sends a nominee up with no record, no prior position on anything, nothing to attack, and the Democrats cave. 

That's how it works.  That's how it worked with Roberts.  That's how it will go down in a McCain administration.  Harrop knows this, I believe, but is willfully misleading her fellow Clinton supporters, for what reason I cannot tell.  She continues in this vein of thinly veiled deception:

Obama is no doubt pro-choice, but on the issue, he's hardly been a profile in courage.  As an Illinois state senator, he famously voted "present" on anti-choice legislation.  Voting "present" is a tactic used to express disapproval without actually taking a stand.

In February, Bonnie Grabenhofer, the president of the Illinois National Organization for Women (and a Clinton supporter) wrote: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. ... Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."

For someone representing Obama's very liberal Chicago district, there was zero danger in voting "no" on an anti-abortion bill.  He almost certainly voted "present" as political cover should he run for higher office and need to appeal to a wider base of voters.

He "almost certainly" did not.  Harrop is being viciously selective in who she's quoting from the Illinois pro-choice community, for good reason.  If she was willing to be honest with her readers, and had quoted Planned Parenthood Chicago President Steve Trombley or Planned Parenthood Illinois President Pam Sutherland, folks would hear the real reason for Obama's present votes on anti-choice legislation:

On Monday, Planned Parenthood Chicago President Steve Trombley defended Obama, saying the "present" votes were part of a strategy devised by his group to protect vulnerable Democrats, and that Obama was always prepared to vote against the anti-abortion rights bills.

"We feel an obligation to defend Barack's record related to abortion issues in Illinois," Trumbley said.  "Barack Obama has a 100 percent voting record from Planned Parenthood."

Pam Sutherland, the President of Illinois Planned Parenthood, explained that her organization had approached Obama to participate in the "present" votes strategy.

"Sen. Obama was key to that "present" vote strategy," Sutherland said.  "We specifically asked him to vote "present" because he was so respected among his fellow Democrats."

Sutherland said the goal was to get a few prominent members of the Democratic caucus to adopt their strategy so more cautious Democrats would follow suit.

"What's good about this strategy is it actually worked," Sutherland said.

So, to recap: Froma Harrop admits that McCain has a lifelong anti-choice record, in both his words, and votes, yet "guesses" it isn't a problem, because she thinks he doesn't really mean it.  Obama's record, in both words and votes, is 100% pro-choice, yet Harrop feels his position is nothing but political maneuvering for higher office, and discounts it. 

If this is how pro-woman Democrats are to be rewarded for their commitment to reproductive rights, perhaps Roe is in even greater danger than I thought.

John McCain hit back at Barack Obama's stinging suggestion that the Arizona Senator's campaign is really about enacting "Bush's third term", with this statement yesterday:

"Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third term.  It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second."

Pundits have evaluated this line of attack a few different ways.  Perhaps McCain is trying to link in the public's mind the high gas prices of the Carter era, with the current gas price issue and the current Democratic nominee.  Perhaps McCain would like to tie what the Right views as Carter's foreign policy "naiveté" with Barack Obama's own foreign policy inexperience.  Perhaps McCain would like to remind Americans that Carter was also a political unknown who emerged on the national scene at a time of great American dissatisfaction with their government, and also ran on a message of integrity and hope. 

Critics of this line of attack have made the point that to really possess a cogent memory of Carter's administration, you'd likely have to be over 50 by now.  The reference points just aren't as clear to many voters some 30 years later.

All of these points are valid, but they miss what I believe is the central effect McCain hopes to achieve by linking Obama to Carter: to cleave Jewish voters from the Democratic Party in November.

It is the latest salvo of the same strategy that links Obama to Louis Farrakhan, because Obama's former pastor is friends with the noted anti-Semite.  The same strategy that frames Obama as somehow "anti-Israel", because that same pastor is critical of Israeli settlement policy (full disclosure: so am I.  So is George W. Bush).  The same strategy that mass-emails anonymous lies that Obama is a secret Muslim, that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. but in the Middle East, that Obama's real middle name is Mohammed (what genius thinks he would replace that one with "Hussein", I wonder?)

While the majority of Jewish Americans have consistently voted Democratic since the FDR administration, it is no secret that Jimmy Carter is possibly the least popular Democratic politician among the majority of American Jews, particularly those with strong support for the settlement policies of the state of Israel.  This sentiment arises from the following: a critical perception of the 1978 Camp David accords as too friendly to the Arab side; suspicion of Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski as "anti-Israel"; the controversial title and subject of Carter's post-presidential book "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid"; the recent talks between Carter and the terrorist group-turned political party Hamas over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is the nerve that McCain was trying to strike today with his "Carter's second term" attack on Obama.  The pundits seem to think it was a bust, but don't even know why he used it.  Be prepared to see it trotted out again, and again.

Update: I should add that when the current President of the United States took to the floor of the Israeli Knesset recently and compared the current Democratic nominee to Neville Chamberlain, that bit of theatre played into the strategy I've described above as well.

Laura Bush, being interviewed on ABC, in response to a question about Michelle Obama's patriotism, and Michelle's prior statement that "for the first time" in her adult life, she's proud of her country:

"I think she probably meant 'I'm more proud', you know, it's what she really meant.  You have to be really careful in what you say, because everything that you say is looked at, and in many cases misconstrued."

Yet another effortless performance by the First Lady to remind us who the classy one in the family is.  Thanks for avoiding the bait, Laura.