Because of Barack Obama's large lead, he's in a position to agree to a generous settlement of the matter of Michigan and Florida: delegations that represent the will of those states' voters can be seated, with the same penalty that was assessed by the Republicans.

If this is done, Obama would retain an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, and a major talking point for both Clinton and for McCain is off the table.

Details after the jump.

Yesterday Rachel Maddow said this on Countdown:

I feel like I‘ve become kind of a semi-pro listener to the news, where I‘m always listening for Democratic candidates and even their surrogates to say John McCain.  Every time I hear them say it, a little bell goes off in my mind, because that‘s what I think Democrats—anybody who has an interest in John McCain not becoming president, whether or not you support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader or anybody else in the race, Mike Gravel as the Libertarian, if you want John McCain to not win, you have to start hitting him now, because the default position of the press toward John McCain is so positive that unless other candidates are actively and specifically going after him all the time, his free ride takes him right to the White House.

But too many Kossacks spend all their energy attacking Hillary Clinton instead, even though she's already lost.  Vastly more recommended diaries attack Clinton than attack McCain.  And surrogates for both campaigns are fighting each other in destructive terms (mostly from the Clinton side, since they are desperate).

more ...

We have a big problem, in that we are disenfranchising two large states. It was the party officials who violated the rules, not the voters, and we need some fair way for Democrats in Michigan and Florida to be represented.

The two cases are different: in Michigan, voters could not choose Obama (or John Edwards), while in Florida they could.

So here's my attempt to play Solomon.  More on the flip.

It's a great speech, no question about it.

But fast-forward the YouTube clip to 9:00 and listen.  You hear this:

... a night that years from now,
when we've made the changes we believe in,
when more families can afford to see a doctor ...

Wait a minute!  We're supposed to be satified with ourselves when more families can afford to see a doctor?  This, when in every country in the industrialized world other than us, every family can afford to see a doctor?

Obama, you can do better than this.  We need to see all of our leading candidates pushing for health care for all.  I'm not going to argue about candidates' programs, since the details are irrelevant; in this country, Congress makes the laws; presidents only get to submit initial proposals.  But we need to be very clear on what the goal is. Whether by single-payer means or by other means, we need to make sure that all Americans can see a doctor when they need to.

I like John Edwards, and I've given him money (I've also given to Dodd, but to no one else).  But today he released a plan to help New Englanders New Hampshire primary voters with their home heating costs this winter that is misguided in a number of ways. Unfortunately, while it has its good points, the main thrust of it is just pandering, and it's bad policy to boot.  Even candidates I like and end up voting for tend to pander to Iowans and New Hampshire residents, but certain kinds of pandering are just destructive.

Americans need to be told that high oil prices are not just a temporary aberration caused by a nefarious plot by Big Oil.  High oil prices are not going away, and temporary measures like emptying the strategic petroleum reserve are not prudent policy, and would damage the country in the long run.  Squeezing the oil companies goes only so far when oil is $100/barrel.

Dan Froomkin's latest column treats us to a little history from the Constitutional Convention and the Watergate era:

"In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

The same reasoning applies to the Vice President, and it seems clear that Libby was acting at Cheney's direction when he leaked Plame's name, and that he was protecting Cheney when he lied about it.

More...

The new "war czar" position appears to undercut the principle of civilian control of the military.  The new position puts a military officer, who in theory reports through the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense, in a position to give orders both the DoD and to the State Department (according to ABC, he will have the power to direct the DoD, State, and other agencies).  Apparently Bush has a new Mini-Me.

This principle is taken so seriously in the United States (or, at least, used to be) that the Defense Secretary cannot be a military man who has served in the last ten years.

This position is subject to Congressional confirmation.  Congress should question not only the person nominated, but the very concept of the position.  Harry Truman had the correct sign on his desk: "the buck stops here".  Bush should not be handing much of the government over to a general.

UPDATE: Poindexter is not a precedent, see the flip.

It now seems certain that the final bill Congress sends to George Bush will contain language calling for a timetable for troop withdrawal.  Bush has pledged to veto such a bill.  So then what?

Here's my take: congressional leaders should go public with the message that Congress and the President are deadlocked, and the will of the people should govern.  Here's how it could work out.

Update:

It appears some commenters don't understand that Congress does not have to override the veto.  If there's a veto, Congress must pass another bill.  Republicans presume that Democrats will cave, and a Blue Dog/Republican coalition will write a "blank check" bill.  Congress should not allow this to happen.

The Justice Department is now facing a massive conflict of interest: it needs to investigate itself.  It seems clear that multiple Justice Department officials, and probably Gonzales himself, lied to Congress over the attorney purge matter.  But as Josh Marshall pointed out, a cloud also hangs over the heads of the US Attorneys who were not fired: what did they agree to do?

Congress cannot prosecute someone for perjury or contempt on its own.  If it cites someone for contempt, it is still up to a US Attorney and a grand jury to bring a criminal case, as we saw with the Libby matter.  The problem is that any senior attorney working for Gonzales' Justice Department is tainted.  Only an independent party, perhaps a prosecutor that served under previous administrations, would have any credibility. We need a Fitzgerald.  Hell, a Starr would serve them right, but I'm interested in justice, not persecution.

Gonzales will, of course, resist.  How should we make him comply?
Calling John Conyers.  more ...

It's been discouraging to watch the Senate try to get its act together to pass the most simple, obvious and toothless nonbinding resolutions. The Republicans are unified, and they have enough votes to tie the Senate in knots.

But what is often missed is that the war cannot continue without funding, and lots of it, and George Bush will soon need a supplemental appropriation to pay for it.  That supplemental appropriation can't make progress in the Senate until 60 senators say that it can.

What this means is that 41 Democrats, if they hang together, can hold the supplemental appropriation hostage until the Senate as a whole agrees to whatever conditions they demand.  More ...

The Washington insiders have been presenting the House Intelligence Committee chair contest as a choice between Jane Harman and Alcee Hastings, and has made it clear who their favored candidate is: Harman is sensible and experienced, they say, while Hastings is allegedly criminal and corrupt.  Furthermore they tend to suggest that only some kind of catty female emotional dispute is preventing Speaker Pelosi from doing the right thing and naming Harman.

As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, it was never a two-person contest, and as of today we know that Hastings will not be named.  It seems clear that Harman will not be named either.  Fortunately we have an ideal candidate for the job, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).  I'll explain why on the flip.

The Republican National Committee has created its own al-Qaeda recruitment video.  I am not kidding.  They've produced a commercial designed to do exactly what al-Qaeda seeks to do: spread terror, pump up the glory and power of the jihadi movement, and try to effect the kind of political change that, evidently, the terrorist leadership favors.

We can't just sit back and take this.  We need to have Democratic candidates denouncing this.  We need letters to the editor in every newspaper in the country.  It's time to throw this crap in their faces.  This is no time for a response that whines that this kind of attack on the Democrats is unfair.  That would be a weak response.  Rather, the line needs to be that this commercial gives aid and comfort to the enemy.  It follows the form of a terrorist recruitment video.  It will be shown internationally, and could be used in the English-speaking UK for that purpose, with new credibility since it comes from an American source.

Thirty years ago, when I was an 18 year old high school senior, I was arrested for breaking and entering.  Two 17 year old friends of mine climbed up a fire escape to go through an open window to get into a college dorm where he'd heard there was a party, despite my screaming at them that they were going to get in trouble.  A security guard heard this and decided they were burglars and I was the lookout. No theft was intended, the only crime was stupidity. As the only one over 18, only I was charged. The prosecutor who got the case agreed that it was bogus and the whole thing was later expunged from the record, but I had to go before a judge.  

Neverthess, it is possible that somewhere, there exists a notebook with my name in it, ready to be found should I ever decide to enter politics.

I wrote to Bob Iger of ABC concerning the 9/11 propaganda piece they plan to show, via ThinkProgress's web site.  I didn't use their text; rather, I quoted Jennifer Nix's excellent questions, crediting her and saying I'd like an answer too.

Today, someone named Alex Wallau from ABC sent a reply, quoting my email.  And he wrote (wait for it):

John Podhoretz is chuckling over the comments by DailyKos user CheChe, and asking who it is.  This guy hardly has any comments, so clearly word is getting around among the wingnuts to look at the guy with the sensitive daughter who is pulling our chains. Three of his comments got plenty of fours (including this whopper); making a troll into a trusted user is not going to be a good move.

I'm not in the habit of reading the Corner (yuk) but I followed a link from Talking Points Memo and saw the item.

I'm also not in the habit of troll-hunting, but if this guy is a plant he should be removed.  And Kossacks need to work on their bullshit detectors.

There are an alarming number of people in the various Alito threads suggesting that people lie, when calling wavering senators, and claim to be constituents.

First off, this is wrong.  Second, even for those of you who think the ends justify the means, you will be caught, and thereby bring discredit on the cause (there's caller ID, and 800 numbers have unblockable caller ID).

If the wingnuts can credibly claim that DailyKos is telling people to lie (which, of course, it isn't), it will damage our reputation.  So tell the freaking truth; leave the lying for the other guys.

UPDATE: fixed a typo. I'm not saying not to call, just tell the truth.

I have given hundreds of dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, as part of the couple of thousand that I have given to Democratic candidates in the last year.  Like many of you, I've received tons of fund-raising letters from Democratic senators, and one of the main points stressed by those letters was the importance of stopping right-wing judges.

Well, this is it.  This is the battle that Democrats have been keeping their powder dry for.  Either the Democrats will fight, or they will not.  Either they will filibuster, or they will roll over.

If they roll over, there will not be one more dime from me.  In fact, I urge all of you to boycott the DSCC if the Democrats don't give their all to stop Alito.  You can still send notations to individual Democrats who know how to fight.  But a price must be paid for failure.

Evidently the US Post Office treats God the same way it treats Santa Claus.  Check it out:

Addressing a Letter to Santa Claus or God.

Surely Bill O'Reilly will have something to say about this outrageous disrespect.  Do you think he knows? Or do you think he can't tell the difference?