It has now become apparent to just about everyone that Barack Obama is a conventional politician who will run a conventional general election campaign. Unlike some, I am not surprised. Pols are pols and do what they do.

What I am more interested in is how we, as Democrats, progressives and pseudo activists, should react to this. I have stated clearly that I will be no mere cheerleader and I think I have been true to my word. By the same token, I will, without question, support and vote for Barack Obama as the best choice I have for President in this election.

Some see this as an inconsistency. I think it is not and I will try to illuminate my view on the flip.

Gail Collins is clever today:

[J]ust as [Hillary Clinton] was engrossed in her multiple concessions, [Obama's] campaign started using the same political shape-shifting that Obama had decried in the Clintons. . . . The Democrats could not care less. They want a winner, and most of them are prepared to forgive quite a lot of inconsistency in order to get one. A liberal opponent of the Senate wiretapping bill virtually wept with joy when Barack deserted the cause and voted with the law-and-order folk.

. . . You’d like to think that after 17 months of angst over its presidential nomination, the Democrats would not wind up with the exact same candidate they started out with, except for a different gender and a higher quotient of panache.

. . . . Take a lesson from the residents of Unity, Hillary fans. Everybody has to do their part. . . . Sometimes it’s trying to figure out how to get through a killer presidential campaign without losing every single quality that made people want to vote for you in the first place. And sometimes, it simply involves a lot of nodding.

Heh.

The Crosby Stills & Nash concert in Denver last night was terrific. More on that later, but first, two C,S & N songs relevant to today's unity announcement:

If you can't be with the one you love

love the one you're with

More...

It figures that accountability would be a hang-up in the Bush administration's attempt to convince European leaders that their citizens' privacy interests are outweighed by the American government's desire to know everything about everyone everywhere.

The United States and the European Union are nearing completion of an agreement allowing law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information — like credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet browsing habits — about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

A predictable stumbling point:

whether European citizens should be able to sue the United States government over its handling of their personal data, the report said.

Lawsuits? Accountability? Not a chance. [more ...]

Remember Steven Hatfill? He's the scientist who was declared a "person of interest" during the FBI's investigation of a series of anthrax incidents. In Hatfill's case, "person of interest" means "our profiler thinks he did it but we can't prove it so let's publicize the allegation and see if he panics." As TalkLeft reported here, Hatfill sued before the FBI got around to announcing its public regret over the mess it made of Hatfill's life.

That report was in September 2003. The litigation has finally ended.

The Justice Department has agreed to pay former Army scientist Steven Hatfill almost $6 million to settle his claims that the government violated his privacy rights during its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

It's a structured settlement. [more ...]

Mississippi lawyer Dickie Scruggs, brother-in-law of Trent Lott, was sentenced to five years in federal prison today for conspiring to bribe a judge:

Scruggs, a former Navy pilot, is tall, slender and appeared composed as he entered the courthouse. But he caved when Biggers brought up his family. His wife, Diane, has been gravely ill.

At the mention of her and his daughter, Claire, Scruggs began to shake as he stood before the judge. His attorney, John Keker of San Francisco, put an arm around Scruggs, whose knees buckled before another attorney slid a chair forward so he could sit down.

Scruggs was contrite. [More...]

The unity train took off today with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's joint appearance in New Hampshire.

Some Hillary supporters are on board. Others are not.

Your thoughts? Mine are simply this: I wasn't impressed by the joint appearance, but I'm voting for the Democratic nominee and since that's Barack Obama, I'm voting for him.

I assume, like me, this afternoon turned a little hectic for Jeralyn and TChris. I was out of the loop and have no idea what is going on. Let us know here. This is an Open Thread.

Sandy Levinson raises this interesting issue:

One of the valuable points made in Saul Cornell's book on the Second Amendment is that self-defense was treated as a "common-law" right and not a "constitutional right" at the time of the Framing. So, as a matter of sheer historical accuracy, Scalia was probably wrong in suggesting that the Second Amendment had anything to do with safeguarding a right of self-defense. But, of course, there are other amendments to the Constitution, including the Ninth Amendment, which reminds us that there are rights beyond the ones enumerated in the first eight amendments.

. . . It is sad that supporters of gun rights are stuck with Scalia's opinion instead of one that truly engages with the materials of American constitutionial history and theory and provides a much more plausible backing for the decision.

Read the whole thing.

Patrick Waller was convicted of a 1992 kidnapping and robbery. Why?

Three of the four people abducted picked Waller in a photo lineup. The fourth later picked him out of a live lineup, [Mike] Ware said. Waller maintained his innocence and presented an alibi at trial but was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

This is another case of mistaken identification leading to a wrongful conviction. After more than 15 years in prison, new evidence proves Waller's innocence.

DNA testing conducted last year excluded Waller as the contributor of DNA found at the crime scene .... The DNA testing proved a match to another man who Ware said has confessed to the crime and implicated an accomplice, who also confessed.

[more ...]

What sense can we make of the national polls? Newsweek says Obama by 15. LATimes says Obama by 12. Gallup tracker says it is tied. Ras says Obama by 4. And today, the Time poll says Obama by 4. What can we believe?

Let me assure you of one thing we can believe, Obama will not win this election by double digits. Period. But let's see if we can makes some sense of the numbers. Setting aside voter screens and other polling anomalies, let's look at the ranges each candidate scores in these polls. Obama ranges from a low of 42 to a high of 51. Much of the divergence is likely due to the inclusion or exclusion of leaners. RCP's average has Obama at 47 which seems about right.

More . . .

Politico writes:

Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. But since securing the Democratic presidential nomination, when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric. Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands and make striking departures from customary politics. Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes that will ensure his campaign a cash edge and minimize damaging blowback on several highly sensitive issues.

Pols are pols and do what they do. That's why as citizens and activists we must act for issues, not pols: