Courtesy of Al Hunt:

[S]ome Clintonistas persist in the whiny complaint that it was all about sexism. . . . Clinton herself complained of the "deeply offensive" sexual discrimination she faced particularly in the media . . .

Here's my question, is discussing the pervasive sexism in the Media now whining? Really? You sure you want to put it that way Al Hunt?

This is the "it's only sexism" version of the malign acceptance of sexism. I wonder if it too is acceptable. Sadly, it probably is.

Speaking for me only

Gas is $4.00 across the country. Driving to Aspen this weekend, I paid $4.27 a gallon. I knew better than to wait to refill until reaching Aspen, where everything costs more. Sure enough, one station in town was charging $4.65.

It's going to keep rising. I think we'll see $5.00 across the country in July. The New York Times says rural residents are being hit the hardest.

Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.

Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes. People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.

The Democrats need to reach out these rural voters on the gas issue. They make up 26% of the voting public. [More...]

Here's a late night open thread for those of you with something to say.

The Bush administration's extraordinarily unsuccessful attempt to engineer a series of show trials at Guantanamo is about to accelerate.

The Pentagon has declared the Guantanamo war crimes trials a national priority and will more than double the number of military lawyers assigned to them ... . [A]bout 108 uniformed military lawyers [will] be added to the prosecution and defense teams in the next three months.

You think this has nothing to do with the upcoming election? Then why, after warehousing "enemy combatants" (or whatever the administration is calling them today) for the last six years without a single trial, have trials (perhaps including death penalty trials) become a sudden priority?

Pressed for details on the timing, [Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas] Hartmann said, "I don't know that it always wasn't the No. 1 priority but I know that it was formally declared the No. 1 priority in the last two or three weeks" by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Is the administration orchestrating an election year reminder of 9/11 in a sudden rush to judgment at Guantanamo? (more ...)

Right wing bloggers are talking about a post on TalkLeft in which I supposedly called Keith Olbermann "a shameless hack." Unfortunately, they didn't read correctly and I didn't call Olbermann that. TalkLeft and I do not engage in name-calling.

I checked the link, and Big Tent Democrat had added an update to one of my April posts, using his initials BTD to clearly indicate it was written by him, calling Olbermann a "“the most shameless ridiculous hack on TV.”

Since it was my post, and the right wing blogs are attributing it to me rather than BTD or even TalkLeft, I deleted BTD's update from my post.

So if you are looking for me calling KO "a shameless hack" you aren't going to find it because I never said it.

The Washington Post today reports on some crack defendants who were able to leave prison early due to the recent retroactive sentencing guideline reductions. They seem to be coping pretty well, considering the changed world they've returned to after a decade or more behind bars.

More than 7,000 crack cocaine offenders ... have received reduced sentences since March, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission put retroactive sentence guidelines into effect to offset what the commission felt were overly harsh punishments for crack cocaine related crimes, and it is an open question whether they will succeed or return to a life behind bars.

....Nearly 90 percent of those who received the tough sentences for crack cocaine were black men and women. Most users and dealers of powder cocaine are white and Latino.

There were 19,500 federal inmates serving sentences for crack when the reduction went into effect in March. Many aren't eligible for the reduction for a variety of technical reasons. For others, mandatory minimum sentencing laws which trump the guidelines will prevent them from getting a reduced sentence. The Government files objections to scores of requests, arguing either that the reduction doesn't apply to a particular defendant or the court should exercise its discretion and deny the relief.

The recent reduction is but a first baby step towards what's needed to reintroduce fairness into our federal criminal justice system. [More...]

A columnist for the Wichita Eagle compares recent homicide prosecutions and reasonably concludes that the haphazard application of the death penalty makes it unfair in any particular case, no matter how ugly the facts.

With all of the variants, including where and how a murder occurs, who gets killed and the makeup of the jury, the death penalty forces society into the ridiculous practice of comparing tragedies and assigning a sliding scale of value to victims' lives.

Is killing a child as heinous as killing a law officer, or more so? Should we kill rapists? Does the victim's race or the killer's race matter? All of these factors, which we like to pretend don't matter, give the death penalty a capriciousness that ought to make us sick. ...

Our state hasn't executed anyone since 1965, and we simply can't execute anyone anymore without inviting a million moral and ethical questions about the system's fairness.

NYTimes Editorial:

From a letter Herman Perry wrote to his younger brother shortly before his military execution in 1945:

"I did wrong myself please don't make the same mistake its very easy to get in trouble but hell to get out of . . . "

Good advice. Perry's story, by the way, is fascinating.

This is the kind of accident that can happen to anyone, particularly if the driver is inexperienced:

Thornton ... skidded past a stop sign on a poorly lit road and collided with an SUV ....

The two unbelted occupants of the SUV died. William Thornton, a 17 year old black resident of Sumter County, Florida, "had no drugs or alcohol in his system, and no criminal record." Without investigating the case, his lawyer advised Thornton to plead guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide.

A judge sentenced Thornton to 30 years in prison. That's right. Thirty years for the unintended consequences of careless driving. (more ....)

Your turn again.

Joe Gandleman responds to my posts on Obama's VP selection thusly:

YET ANOTHER SUGGESTION OF ENTITLEMENT: . . . Question: if the person who gets the Vice Presidential slot is the one who got the next largest number of votes, then why bother with Veep selections? Or hasn’t it been that the Presidential nominee balances political needs and then makes a decision. There is no entitlement to the V.P. slot.

Of course there is no entitlement to the VP slot. What Joe forgets is there is no entitlement to VOTES either. What Joe and other people commenting on my posts seem not to get is that I am not making an argument that Hillary is entitled to anything - I am making an argument that Obama would be wise to CHOOSE Clinton, as it will help his chances in November. I do wish people would actually address my post instead of dreaming up arguments to refute that I never made.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Since February, I have been concerned that with all the advantages Barack Obama he could still lose the general election largely because the Republicans have nominated the only Republican in the country who can possibly win, John McCain.

This is a Democratic year and significant increases in our existing majorities in House and the Senate are virtually assured. So how can the Presidency not be a sure thing? Three principal reasons.

One, Barack Obama is vulnerable to a vicious Republican attackon who he is and his inexperience. He is a first term Senator who burst on the scene 4 years ago. His image with the American People is vulnerable to a negative attack. The good news is this is definitely a Change election and the new is in vogue. In 1992, Bill Clinton faced similar vulnerabilities and effectively neutralized them. Given Obama's enormous financial advantage, there should be no problem on this point, unless someone bungles the job.

More . . .