So our favorite idiot is at it again, this time railing against GE for doing business with Iran. But according to Howie Kurtz, the root of his latest "outrage" has nothing to do with Iran, and everything to do with Keith Olbermann.

Ailes called Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.

Now Ailes is a moron. Nothing is better for book sales or ratings than to have Bill O'Reilly "unleashed" on anything. Beyond being an endless source of amusement, O'Reilly's targets have seen their books top the best seller lists (Al Franken), shoot up in the ratings (Keith Olbermann), and enjoy sustained readership (Daily Kos). In fact, I have a whole section in my upcoming book, Taking on the System, on how fantastic it is for credibility purposes to have O'Reilly attack you. It's gold.

So Ailes thought he was threatening Zucker, when in reality, he was tantalizing him with the promise of future ratings boosts. It was money in the bank.

Asked about O'Reilly's motivation, [GE Spokesman Gary] Sheffer said that executives at Murdoch's News Corp. "tell us if the attacks on O'Reilly end, the attacks on GE will end. They've had conversations with our news executives saying, 'If you stop, we'll stop.' " An NBC spokeswoman confirmed the calls.

NBC doesn't want O'Reilly to stop. It's hilarious that Fox thinks that O'Reilly is a threat people actually fear.

OR-Sen: Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley narrowly defeated Steve Novick yesterday to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. This race inspired a lot of passion over the last several months on behalf of both candidates, and I credit both men for running impressive campaigns.

Best to Speaker Merkley as he takes on Republican Sen. Gordon Smith in the fall. There's some very good news on the polling fron; a DSCC poll shows Smith leading Merkley by just three points, 45% to 42%. Better yet, Smith's approvals are abominable; he receives just 29% job approval, with 55% disapproving.

That's a big window of opportunity for Merkley, if the polling is correct.

NC-Sen: Reinforcing all the other North Carolina polling of the last couple weeks, SUSA's latest shows Sen. Elizabeth Dole leading Democrat Kay Hagan by just four points, 50% to 46%.

All the polls can't be wrong; Dole is in a box of trouble this cycle. She knows it, too, as the former NRSC chairwoman is suddenly going to her opponent on bended knee, begging for her to refuse national money for her race.

TX-Sen: Republican Senator John Cornyn, the target of a new VoteVets ad urging him to vote for the 21st Century GI Bill, has lashed out at the veterans' organization, and VoteVets has responded:

In today's edition of Roll Call, Cornyn's spokesman responded to an ad launched by VoteVets.org calling on Cornyn to vote for a new GI Bill by saying, "The anti-war crowd is determined to use our men and women in uniform for their political advantage, even if our national security is jeopardized in the process."

In response, Brandon Friedman, an Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran from Dallas, and Vice Chair of VoteVets.org said, "Senator Cornyn's response to veterans is ignorant, insulting, and beneath his office.  The GI Bill has nothing to do with the decision to go to war, or the course in Iraq, nor would it jeopardize security.  The GI Bill was a sacred promise enacted by President Roosevelt, and all we are asking for is that America not default on that promise."

Friedman added, "Further, to accuse veterans of using ourselves as a political football is pernicious and absurd. Apparently, veterans do not have the right to ask Senator Cornyn to do the right thing, or else we'll be smeared.  At least we now know what Senator Cornyn thinks of those of us who served this nation in combat."

I am really at a loss as to explain how lobbying for the GI Bill endangers our national security.

CO-Sen: kos wrote earlier about the latest Rasmussen polling, which shows Democrat Mark Udall leading his Republican opponent, Bob Schaffer, by six points, 47% to 41%.

Frankly, after Schaffer's recent misadventures (both his "Mt. Macaca moment", and his unpleasant ties to Jack Abramoff and the Northern Marianas scandal, I'd almost hoped for more. But this certainly isn't bad, and things are only going to get worse for Schaffer.

AK-Sen: Kossacks clammyc and thereisnospoon will be interviewing Senate candidate Mark Begich at 5 PM Eastern today on BlogTalkRadio, in the lastest instalment of an excellent series of candidate interviews. If you're able to tune in, please do.

NH-Sen: Jeanne Shaheen's first ad is up:

Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker:

As a positive (re)introduction spot, I feel it hits all those notes it's meant to about reminding us what we had, and by (John Sununu's) absence, what we can do without.

KY-Sen: Bruce Lunsford has won his primary handily over Greg Fischer, and heads into the general election against Mitch McConnell. The most recent round of polling showed McConnell under 50% against Lunsford, leading 48% to 36%. It's going to be an incredibly difficult battle for Lunsford (who I don't like very much to begin with), but hopefully he can make McConnell sweat a little, and keep him from utilizing his legendary fundraising prowess to aid other Republican Senate candidates.

House Races

OR-05: Despite last week's scandal involving allegations of cocaine use, mistresses and abortions (quite a trifecta there for conservatives), Mike Erickson has won his primary in Oregon's 5th, and will face off against Democrat Kurt Schrader in the race to succeed Democratic Rep. Darlene Hooley. I'd call this race "lean Dem" at this point.

MO-06: In one of the hottest races in the country, Republican incumbent Sam Graves holds a holds a 10-point lead over Democrat Kay Barnes, 49% to 39%, according to SUSA. The good news is that Graves is under 50%, which leaves a good opening for Barnes here. The DCCC will be deeply invested in this race, so hopefully they can use their tremendous cash advantage to help Barnes close this gap.

CO-04: Despite the solidly Republican bent of this district, surprisingly close races are getting to be a Musgrave Ritual. The internal polls of Democratic candidate Betsy Markey show her leading her Republican opponent, the odious Marilyn Musgrave, by seven points, 43% to 36%.

The best response the Musgrave campaign could give? Their own internals show Musgrave leading 47% to 42%.

Frankly, with nearly six months before election day, I would not be trumpeting a poll that shows me leading an opponent with inferior name recognition by just five points. If I were the incumbent.

But then, Musgrave is maybe not the wisest Rep in DC.

NH-02: Jennifer Horn, candidate for the Republican nomination against freshman Democrat Paul Hodes, sports an impressive new endorsement: Jackie Mason's.

As Blue Hampshire's Dean Barker notes in a must-read piece, this is a tremendous victory for hilarity, if not for civility. This is the man whose endorsement Horn welcomes:

Giuliani Drops Comedian Over Remarks
By DON TERRY
Published: September 28, 1989

Rudolph W. Giuliani said yesterday that the comedian Jackie Mason would no longer have a role in his mayoral campaign, after a newspaper quoted Mr. Mason as making racially charged remarks about blacks and Jews.

...''There is a sick Jewish problem of voting for a black man no matter how unfit he is for the job,'' Mr. Mason said. ''All you have to do is to be black and don't curse the Jews directly and the Jew will vote for a black in a second. Jews are sick with complexes.''

He went on: ''The Jews are constantly giving millions of dollars to the black people. Have you ever heard of a black person giving a quarter to a Jew? I never heard a black person say we have to help the poor Jews.''

Man, you've got to be a real piece of work if Rudy Giuliani kicked you off his campaign twenty years ago. And this is just one of many such statements.

From Dean:

Absolutely, positively, the dumbest decision to trumpet an endorsement I have ever seen, inside or outside of  New Hampshire.  I've got no words for the magnitude of stoopid needed to think this was a wise campaign decision.

NY-13: The New York Times has a good article on the battle for the nomination to succeed Vito Fossella in this Staten Island-based district:

Shortly after Mr. Fossella announced his decision Tuesday, two Democrats from Staten Island said they were interested in the seat: Councilman Michael E. McMahon, who has represented northern Staten Island since 2002, and Michael Cusick, a state assemblyman who represents an area in the center of the island.

"I am having earnest discussions with the other folks who are interested and the county leaders in Staten Island and Brooklyn," Mr. McMahon said Tuesday. "I’m hopeful that we can come to a decision very quickly. Because of the short time frame, it’s important that we unite around a candidate rather than having a primary fight."

Similarly, Mr. Cusick said that "ultimately, the goal is to win in November" and that "it would be preferable not to have a primary and for the Democrats to work things out."

There is still Mr. Harrison, who ran against Mr. Fossella two years ago and did better than any previous challenger, winning 43 percent of the vote. Despite being overlooked by Democratic leaders in Brooklyn and on Staten Island, Mr. Harrison issued a statement after Mr. Fossella’s decision became public. "I have not been running against Vito Fossella," he said. "I have been running for Congress and I will continue to do so."

On the Republican side, Staten Island DA Daniel Donovan and State Sen. Andrew Lanza are the frontrunners. The excellent NY13 blog has a good breakdown of all the rumored and declared candidates in both parties, and is eminently worth reading.

Race tracker wiki: OR-Sen TX-Sen AK-Sen KY-Sen NC-Sen NH-Sen OR-05 MO-06 CO-04 NH-02 NY-13

SurveyUSA. 5/16-18. Likely voters. MoE 2.5% (No trend lines)

This is an open seat vacated by one-term Republican gubernatorial failure Matt Blunt. Jay Nixon's strength is not just good for Missouri (obviously), but has potential national implications.

The more I think about it, the best presidential picks are "chemistry" picks, those that put two nominees together who like each other and work well with each other (like Gore or Cheney). Veep nominees that attempt to compensate for a weakness only serve to highlight that weakness (like Lieberman or Bentsen). And very few veep nominees can deliver geography (like Bentsen or Edwards). But when the two candidates like each other and work well together in purpose and message, it's pretty powerful.

And on that front, while she's not my favorite veep pick (which is still Richardson), I think that Sen. Claire McCaskill would qualify brilliantly. She may be perhaps Obama's most loyal and hard-working surrogate, and she'd nicely complement Obama's message of change. And if you see them together, they are a great team.

Normally, I'd flat out oppose it, given that she'd cost us a Senate seat. But the Missouri Governor is sworn in before the President of the United States, meaning that if McCaskill was our vice presidential nominee, her replacement would be chosen by Gov. Jay Nixon.

Race tracker wiki: MO-Gov

The rules are the rules, so unlike the Clinton people, I won't try to change them in the middle of the contest. But I'm really confused as to why on Earth the DNC would create a system that gives a non-state like Puerto Rico more delegates to the party convention than more than half of our states?

That's 27 states that have fewer delegates than Puerto Rico does, even though Puerto Rico is not a state. Even if apportioned by population, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Alabama are larger than Puerto Rico. And, to top it all off, Puerto Rico doesn't even have Democratic and Republican parties on the island running for and holding political offices.

Now I'm not opposed to the territories have delegates, even though I honestly can't see the logic behind it. Then again, I can't see the logic behind commonwealth status either, as notions of colonialism seem to me quaint and obsolete.  

But if you're going to give them representation, it makes little sense to give them more representation at a national convention than over half the United States of America.

It's clear this mess of a nomination process the Democrats devised is in desperate need of a top-bottom overhaul. Throw this one on that list.  If Puerto Rico becomes a state (something I wholeheartedly support if the people of Puerto Rico want it), then by all means, let them have their due representation. Obviously.

Until then, there's no reason why in future nominating contests, any state in our union should take a back seat to a territory.

• Every day, Lieberman makes it harder for Democrats to keep him in their caucus.

  How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

  Keep it up Joe, keep it up. And how delicious is it to see Obama upending the Beltway's foreign policy and media establishments by running on a platform of tough diplomacy, rather than a "my dick is bigger than yours"

• Anyone notice that the GOP is in trouble?

  Politics is cyclical. The Republican brand is not what it was in 1994, due in large part to the unpopularity of President Bush. Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said his party would reverse its losing streak in November by proving that it, not the Democratic Party, is the agent of change.

  Stranger things have happened, but it will be a feat worth watching. Congressional Republicans are in a pickle right now largely because they have faithfully supported a president who has one of the lowest job-approval
  ratings in history. Are they going to renounce him?

  No. They won't.

• Those previously nose-picking Mississippi Democrats are gearing up for more victories.

  For the first time in years, the Mississippi Democratic Party is enthusiastic about winning major elections.

  One reason for the enthusiasm is the recent victory of Travis Childers. Tuesday Childers was sworn in as the newest member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The former Prentiss County Democrat beat Southhaven Republican Mayor Greg Davis in a special election for the state's first district congressional seat.

  The GOP response:

  But Republicans disagree. They say Childers won by pretending to be one of them.

  "Every belief he espoused were those that we share and not those of the party that he carries their label," said Mississippi Republican Party Executive Director Brad White.

  Wow. Republicans now believe in pulling out of Iraq, supporting SCHIP, targeting price-gouging Big Oil, protecting social security, and opposing free trade deals? Who knew they had all become Democrats?

• Today's "talking points" for blog trolls at the McCain website are the same as yesterday's. I wonder if they'll mix them up?
• It's tough being a lobbyist.

  More than a few Republican lobbyists in Washington are scratching their heads these days, asking: So this is the thanks we get?

  It was a small band of loyal lobbyists who stood by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last August when his campaign went broke and his White House aspirations seemed doomed.

  They raised money for him under impossible odds and kept him company in budget hotels during his darkest days.

  Now they are under siege as McCain purges active lobbyists from his campaign team in a quest to wrest the reformist title from Democrat Barack Obama, his likely opponent in this fall's general election.

  This lobbyist, however, has a point:

  "If it was OK to have these people working for you in February, why is it not OK today?" asked one Republican lobbyist who counts a friend among the new McCain outcast class.

• Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck lie about immigration, repeatedly, on the air. Shocking!
• Man, those damn Negroes are so savage, with their riots and whatnot.
• Appalachian whites are different than whites elsewhere, no matter how much the media can't grasp that simple fact.

(From the diaries -- kos)

She's at it again. The Clinton campaign's favorite loose cannon, Geraldine Ferraro, had a talk with her buddies at Fox News and complains that part of Hillary's problem is those black columnists.

Archpundit has a recording from Rep. Mark Kirk:

In the last two months I think we’ve seen Barack Obama has unified the Kerry-Dukakis Coalition.
I think we hit Republican bottom in 2006 and I don’t know about you, but I feel stronger now.  I feel that the country was pretty shocked by what they saw about Senator Obama lately.  Our job is to move the focus beyond just him to other things the Democratic Party stands for.

I hope you begin to decide to work on Election Day. This will be a huge one. Dan Seals will have millions of dollars from Washington coming in, wants to join up with Nancy Pelosi, wants to back the Obama agenda.

Kirk is one of the few Republican House members to represent a House district that John Kerry won in 2004. One of six, to be exact. And despite representing a district that Kerry won 53-47, despite representing an Illinois district, the home state of our nominee, Kirk is going around talking about opposing the "Obama agenda" and Nancy Pelosi.

It's an interesting tactic in another way -- Kirk has survived by pretending to be a moderate. Yet as this recording shows, he's a wingnut at heart, and he's clearly out of touch with a district that will overwhelmingly support Obama this fall.

Dan Seals is going to win this seat.

On the web:
Dan Seals for Congress
Blue Majority ActBlue Page

Update: It wasn't clear, but I don't think this was meant for public consumption. In fact, it sounds like something you'd say at a Republican fundraiser. No way in hell he says this sort of thing publicly. But it got out.

Race tracker wiki: IL-10

Rasmussen. 5/19. Likely voters. MoE 4% (4/10 results)

Obama's recent gains follow the national trend -- Obama seems to be up a good five points in every new poll, as Obama's "Return of Wright" problems fade away. His biggest problem in such polls is the Democratic vote, which continues to be weak as Clinton supporters continue to hold out against Obama. In the crosstabs of this poll (subscription only), Clinton wins the female vote 48-40, while Obama loses it 47-41. And while Clinton gets 72 percent of the Democratic vote, Obama is getting just 57 percent. Some of that may be the racist vote, but I suspect that percentage is tiny. Mostly, it's Clinton supporters either wishing revenge on Obama for beating Clinton, or purposefully deceiving the pollsters to make their candidate look better in the head-to-head matchups (Clinton wins 47-41).

Either way, those people will ultimately have to choose between staying in Iraq for 100 years or getting out, and between a hard-right anti-choice Supreme Court or one that will, at the very least, hold its current ground (the most likely retirements on the court are currently two of its most liberal members).

Ultimately, most of the party will come together, and when it does, Obama's numbers will continue rising across the board. Enough to win Florida? I'd be surprised, but the state can certainly be competitive.

It's disappointing, truly, to see someone who works for the Democratic convention be so obtuse and blatantly dishonest as Aaron Myers (email: MyersA@demconvention.com).

Markos has implied that this forthcoming list of "General Pool" blogs will not have access to the state delegations at the Convention.  That’s incorrect.  At previous Democratic Conventions and again in Denver, state delegates spend much of their day meeting outside of the convention hall.  All bloggers and other members of the media will be aware of state gatherings.  They’ll have the same access to provide the same level of coverage.  And "General Pool" bloggers will be able to walk around and gather information on the convention floor via "floor passes."  Any credentialed blogger will have unparalleled access to their state delegation  -- and to this Convention as a whole.  It’s that simple.

Here's what I actually wrote:

The state blogger corps were a special program and a particularly coveted one since it allows those bloggers to sit with their delegations on the convention floor. Regular bloggers can't do that. They may "have access" to the state delegations, but they won't be sitting with them.

So first of all, I never implied lack of access. In fact, I explicitly stated that they'd have it. But second of all, the question isn't one of access. It's one of sitting with the delegation in the floor of the convention, being with them as events unfold and being able to capture the full flavor of the moment. That's different than being able to run out and talk to someone. It's a point that Aaron repeatedly pretended not to grasp as we desperately tried to resolve this issue quietly behind the scenes.

So that post by Aaron is not surprising. It's that level of dishonesty and obtuseness that has allowed what should've been a minor inconvenience, and one easily fixed, into a far bigger deal.

There's no justification for snubbing the Albany Project, Blue Jersey, Cotton Mouth, Left in Alabama, and Michigan Liberal. That they continue pretending that there's no problem at hand, and that regular blogger credentials are the same as the State Blogger Corps credentials betrays a lack of respect for bloggers and a gross insult to our intelligence.

It's high time the convention planners stepped in and fixed things.

Update: Aaron also says:

We didn’t hand off this project to state party officials, as was rumored.

The rumor wasn't that it was "handed off", but that some state parties exercised veto power over the selections. I'd like to see Aaron deny that was the case, since the evidence to that effect is steadily mounting.

Rasmussen Pres Sen. 5/19. Likely voters. MoE 4% (4/16 results)

How's this for craven hypocrisy; the party that brought you "Call Me, Harold" in 2006, is now begging for Democrats to keep national money out of Senate races.

Leading the way, of course, is the very selfsame Senator who chaired the NRSC in 2006, when that odious RNC ad ran.

One of U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's top campaign advisors says he has asked the state and national Republican parties, as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to steer clear of advertising in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race.

And he's calling on Jerry Meek, chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party, to do likewise with his Democratic counterparts.

"You can agree to not run advertising targeting Senator Dole during the 2008 election cycle as well as encourage your Senate nominee and national parties to abstain from third party advertisements," Mark Stephens, Dole's chief campaign strategist, said in a letter today to Meek.

So, let me get this straight; former NRSC chairwoman Elizabeth Dole, whose very job description put her in charge of steering national money to Senate races around the country in 2006, and running NRSC ads in those states...the same Elizabeth Dole who spent millions of NRSC dollars attacking Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown...is now asking that the national parties stay out of her race?

Where does she get the gall?

Is it because the DSCC's been a fundraising juggernaut this cycle? Because the cash-strapped NRSC would be bringing a knife to a political gun fight for these candidates?

Nah. It's got to be in the name of civility, of course.

Strange, but when I think of Senate races, national party ads, and civility, my mind goes to this:

Dole isn't alone, naturally. Maine's Susan Collins has asked for the same:

"One of the biggest sources of negative ads are the national parties. We [Susan Collins' campaign] would make Congressman Allen this offer - if he will tell the Democratic Party not to run any television or radio ads in this campaign, we would make the same demand of the Republican Party. An arrangement such as that would be a huge step toward ensuring that the campaigns control the tone and the content of the television ads in this campaign."

As Senate Guru notes, Collins had no problem taking national money in her 2002 race. Neither did Dole, when she faced Erskine Bowles. Of course, the NRSC was positively flush back in those halcyon days.

From the Guru (props to him for picking up this story):

The only, I repeat - only, reason that Dole and Collins made these politically theatrical comments to their Democratic challengers is that the DSCC has $20 million more than the NRSC to spend on their candidates.

And, you know, it's just not fair that anybody has more money to play with than Republicans! They're supposed to be the rich ones!

Hilarious.

And pathetic.

Race tracker wiki: NC-Sen ME-Sen

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

The Inspector General for the Justice Department released the long awaited report on torture (available here yesterday. The report details a high level of concern from FBI field agents that was appropriate passed up the chain of command.

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents complained repeatedly, beginning in 2002, about the harsh interrogation tactics that military and C.I.A. interrogators were using in questioning terrorism suspects, like making them do dog tricks and parade in the nude in front of female soldiers, but their complaints appear to have had little effect, according to an exhaustive report released Tuesday by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

The report describes major and repeated clashes between F.B.I. agents and their counterparts over the rough methods being used on detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq — some of which, according to the inspector general, may have violated the Defense Department’s own policies at the time.

It also provides new insight into the intense debates at senior levels of the Justice Department, the Defense Department and the National Security Council over what should and should not be allowed — a debate in which the Defense Department prevailed.

The inspector general found that in a few instances, F.B.I. agents participated in interrogations using pressure tactics that would not have been permitted inside the United States. But the "vast majority" of agents followed the bureau’s legal guidelines and "separated themselves" from harsh treatment.

On a conference call yesterday afternoon, ACLU legal advisor and former FBI agent Mike German said that those agents "can be very proud" of their actions, but that the FBI leadership failed in refusing to participate in abusive interrogations, an in not providing clear direction to field agents and in acting aggressively to end the abuse.

The report clearly shows that FBI concerns went up the chain of command all the way to the White House, specifically detailing a conversation that then AG Ashcroft had with then national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, specifically about the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker. Last week the DoD was forced to drop charges against him.

An alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 conspiracy attempted suicide rather than face a Guantanamo Bay military commission and now suffers from such mental impairment that he can't adequately help in his own defense, his civilian lawyer says.

The contention suggests one possible reason the Defense Department last week dismissed charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, who faced a potential death penalty if convicted in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At the time, the administrator of the military commissions, Susan Crawford, gave no explanation. Mr. Qahtani remains under indefinite detention, and prosecutors may seek to file amended charges.

In 2002 Mr. Qahtani suffered a severe and prolonged interrogation that a Pentagon review later labeled "abusive and degrading." Some military investigators and prosecutors feared that the coercive treatment had ruined a potential case against Mr. Qahtani, under legal and ethical rules.

What this report most clearly presents is that the "bad apple" theory of Abu Ghraib and of detainee abuse and torture is bunk. This is not about a bunch of low level soldiers and agents getting out of control. It's about policy and actions not only condoned, but decided, at the highest levels of government. The FBI field agents tried to do the right thing. Their leaders stonewalled them, all the way up the chain of command to the White House. The Pentagon even tried to stonewall this report, which was originally completed in October of last year, but held up as the DoD fought to get portions classified.

In the effort to further shine a bright light on the stain of torture, the ACLU is launching its refurbished Blog of Rights with week-long Torture and America Symposium. The ACLU and Glenn Greenwald, who provided the inaugural post today, invited me (my post is here) Eunomia/American Conservative’s Daniel Larison (post here), Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake, Nicole Belle of Crooks & Liars, Digby of Hullabaloo, author Paul Verhaeghen, and ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Chris Anders to participate.

So this is what Joe Lieberman has been spending his time on (well, the time he's not spending following around his buddy McCain, correcting his brain farts). He's, believe it or not, monitoring YouTube. From the YouTube blog:

Last week, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) contacted us to voice his concerns about seeing videos from several Islamic terrorist organizations on YouTube. We appreciated our dialogue with Senator Lieberman and his staff and wanted to explain to the YouTube community how we responded to his concerns....

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy. [emphasis mine]

Note that that letter was sent by Lieberman in his capacity as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, committed to fighting the uploading of Web videos by people who might be terrorists and curtailing their legal speech.

In the meantime, there's the real world that Sen. Lieberman's committee is supposed to be paying attention to:

Greg Alderete has more than a passing interest in homeland security. A retired lieutenant colonel in the Army, he has devoted most of his life to it.

So when he realized he had driven a van onto a runway tarmac at Sea-Tac airport — and that no one had asked his name, checked his ID or searched his vehicle — well, he just about lost it."I was appalled," Alderete says. "If you go in the airport's front door, they take away your tube of toothpaste. But the back door? That's the weakest security of any critical facility I've ever seen."

He's talking about the corporate jet area, on the airport's south tip. Business and government bigwigs fly in and out of there.

Alderete and Chris Clodfelter, a former senior master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, arrived there Thursday, May 8, to pick up a two-star general flying in from Portland.

What happened floored them. When they said they were picking up an Army official, the gate opened and they were invited to drive onto the airfield.

"We were sitting there, the engine idling, nobody around, when all of a sudden I realized: We're out on the goddamn runway," Alderete recalled. "We're in a gassed-up, seven-passenger van, and no one really knows who we are. We have an unobstructed path to the main runways, the commercial gates, the whole place. It was unbelievable."

No one asked their names or screened them or the van. Both were in civilian clothes.

"Within 30 seconds we could have been flooring it down the runway," Clodfelter says. "They couldn't have stopped us."

"With a van full of weapons we could have shut down the entire aviation system," Alderete said.

The federal Transportation Safety Administration has reviewed this incident and concluded that it's not a problem, that security at Sea-Tac, and presumably every other airport in the country with a corporate jet area--the one that politicians and people like presidents use, is just fine.

Maybe Joe could spend a little less time surfing for YouTubes and writing letters and a little more time conducting oversight over the Keystone Kops that appear to be in charge of our nation's security? Just a thought.

Well, this has been another interesting week.

Unfortunately, the big news was the sudden hospitalization of Ted Kennedy (my senator for seven years in the 70's) with a seizure caused by a brain tumor. I'm not eulogizing the guy... he'll do what he needs to medically, but he's still very much around, and there's still more tests pending to determine the exact nature of the (aggressive) tumor he has. Serious news, however it turns out, and our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family. And you can bet Ted Kennedy will be noting the health care he gets compared to everyone else, and (to the best he can) doing something about it.

On the Democratic side, another series of primaries brings us ever closer to resolution of the epic battle between two extraordinary and talented candidates. Obama will be the party nominee; that's not in doubt (and hasn't been since February). Clinton's political journey continues as well, as her staff, donors and chances melt away. Whether or not you think she was beaten by a superior candidate, there's little doubt she was beaten by a superior campaign.

Most Clinton supporters will vote for the Dem nominee.  They still need to be treated with respect, as does she, and I hope that steps in that direction are taken by everyone here (my retired teacher mom is big Clinton supporter, but I have to say she did love this picture of 101 year old Myrtle Strong Enemy of the Crow Nation). At the same time, I do note that the occasional dire warnings that I see in the comments or on the internets or in my email comparing Obama to Mondale or McGovern (we're doomed!) come across as rather silly. McGovern supporters (I was one, back in the day) seemed convinced he'd win despite the data that said otherwise. Those who say Obama will be another McGovern, and say they're convinced he'd lose just as badly, say so despite the data that says otherwise.

But the real interest continues to be on the Republican side. Sensing that McCain was in trouble, Bush clumsily tried to insert himself in the race last week with a speech from Israel accusing Obama (by implication) and Democrats of appeasement, then was forced to back off by the fierce reaction, going so far as to blame the media. This week, Round I was awarded to Obama. It didn't help that President George (27%) Bush simply bound McCain closer to him with that move.

Okay, so that didn't work out so well for Bush-McCain. Well, neither did the issue of McCain's lobbyists. From Charlie Black to the five lobbyists that were fired, to the ones that weren't (and are still there), McCain was doing damage control. About the best they could do was "well, real voters don't care about this stuff", which is along the lines of "voters don't know Shi'a from Sunni (and neither do I)" and "voters don't know who runs Iran (and neither do I)". In November McCain will find out the answer to all of those points is "Ah, but many of them do." And it's going to come as a shock to his campaign, who are as clueless as their candidate about this.

Obama jumped on the lobbyist issue yesterday. "During a speech at a high school here, Obama said voters should be concerned that ‘after nearly three decades in Washington, John McCain can't see or won't acknowledge what's obvious to all of us here today -- that lobbyists aren't just part of the system in Washington, they're part of the problem.’"

The reason the McCain effort is in trouble is these guys haven't grasped where the ground has changed. Foreign policy scare tactics don't work for Republicans. "He's a liberal" scare tactics don't work, either. Whether it's the economy, health care or the war, folks just hate where the country is right now. And as his lobbyist problem illustrates, John McCain is no more a change candidate than George Bush is a great President. Oh, sure, you can find right wing idiots who say otherwise (this from Investor's Business Daily):

The Presidency: It takes little courage — or brains — to join the mob vilifying President Bush. But the Democrats (and Republicans, too) depicting him as villain will one day regret it.

but the days that the whack jobs set the agenda is coming to an end. That's the whole point of change. If we wanted more Republican governance, we'd vote for McCain. But as the special elections, issues polling, direction of the country and the party ID numbers show, the American people don't want more Republican governance, and they don't want more of the Bush policies McCain supports. By November, it will be so clear that even the McCain campaign will be able to figure it out.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Guts, Leadership and Brass Knuckles:

The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so. The Administration distorted and misrepresented the intelligence in its attempt to link Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have.

In addition, the Downing Street Minutes also confirm what has long been obvious – that the timing of the war was linked to the 2002 Congressional elections, and that the Administration’s planning for post-war Iraq was incompetent in all its aspects. The current continuing crisis is a direct result of that incompetence. ...

President Bush constantly talks about the 'progress' that is being made in Iraq against the insurgency, but he’s looking for good news with a microscope. All anyone can see is 'Mission Mis-accomplished' and the continuing losses of American lives, the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture scandal, and the ominous decline in our nation's moral authority in the world community.

We know the Administration had been planning to invade Iraq for many months before the invasion actually began. We know the Administration twisted the intelligence to make the facts fit their plan. We know that the Administration never really intended to give the U.N. weapons inspectors a reasonable chance to succeed. The Downing Street Minutes demonstrate that the Administration knew their case for war was paper thin, and that in order to go into war with the support of our allies, we had to demonstrate some willingness to go along with the UN inspection process. But the Administration continued to misuse its intelligence, distort the facts and pay only lip-service to the UN’s role in disarming Iraq.

We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence. The Downing Street Minutes provide even more proof that this is exactly what happened on Iraq. The Administration's dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started.

---Sen. Ted Kennedy, June, 2005

Pardon my French, but fuck cancer. Send get-well wishes to our fellow Kossack here.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh] RIGHTNOW [Gong]

As a consequence of last week's California Supreme Court ruling overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage, county clerks are saying the phones are ringing off the hook. Thousands of weddings appear to be in the offing. This being California, a number of those will be celebrity affairs. Among the people who have announced plans to tie the knot is 71-year-old George Takei, best known for his performances as Lt. Hikaru Sulu, the helmsman of the USS Enterprise, in the original Star Trek television series and six Star Trek movies. He'll be marrying his business manager and long-time companion of 21 years, Brad Altman.

Takei told Reuters:

"There's no tradition in terms of same-sex marriage. We are designing and shaping our own wedding in our own way, so it's going to be singular and unique," added Takei, who first made his wedding plans known on his website during the weekend. ...

"As an American, I was delighted that we're getting closer and closer to more truly being faithful to the Constitution," said Takei.

Referring there to his boyhood experience as one of thousands of Japanese-Americans sent to U.S. internment camps during World War II, Takei said he was "keenly mindful of the subtle and not so subtle discrimination that the law can impose."

Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman writes at The American Prospect:

The Backlash That Wasn't

^{The The California Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be important in November -- here's why.}

What a difference four years makes. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in late 2003 that gay couples had the same right to marry as straight couples, the nation had a collective fainting spell, and constitutional amendments affirming the super-straightness of state after state popped up like dandelions. Republican politicians tripped over each other to predict the demise of American civilization if the marriage equality outbreak were not contained, and Democrats tugged at their collars and tried to explain their nuanced and complicated positions on the issue.

Yet last week when the Supreme Court of the largest state in the union issued a similar ruling, making California the second state with full marriage rights for all citizens, the political reaction was remarkably subdued. Yes, there will be a constitutional amendment on California's ballot this November, and the campaign there will be hard-fought. But on the national level, there were no raised voices, no cries of anguish, no calls to man the ramparts -- at least none to which anyone paid much attention. All soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain could muster was a spokesperson reading from the old script, mumbling that the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

If you didn't know all that much about McCain you might think his muted response reflects a moderation on gay issues uncharacteristic among Republicans. But you'd be wrong.

The Overnight News Digest has been posted and includes Efforts to close Guantanamo at standstill: Gates