Since 2004, I've been writing about how vets won't put dogs down using the chemicals prisons use to execute inmates.

A new study, Anesthetizing the Public Conscience: Lethal Injection and Animal Euthanasia, is out comparing the two -- and witnesses are testifying in an Ohio death penalty case to exactly that: you wouldn't do a dog this way.

First, the Ohio case:

An anesthesiologist testified Monday that Ohio's lethal injection procedure isn't appropriate for dogs or cats, let alone humans. Dr. Mark Heath's testimony on behalf of two murder defendants came in a Lorain County hearing on the constitutionality of state's method for putting prisoners to death.

Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University, says it's possible to perform lethal injection of prisoners in a humane manner, but that Ohio's method falls below the standard for euthanizing household pets.

The problems in a nutshell:[More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

WaPo:

Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin

By Anne E. Kornblut

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

When can we expect retractions and apologies from the Obama News Network? Oh by the way, from the Obama blogs? what a disgraceful episode.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

For a campaign that has been declared over, and a candidate who has been declared dead, Hillary Clinton sure gets alot of attention from the Obama News Network (NBC), not to mention the Obama blog network (you know who I mean). I watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann for the first 15 30 minutes. After 10 minutes of bashing Clinton for firing Mark Penn (it seemed like that he was doing, to be honest, Olbermann was pretty incoherent), then 5 minutes of attacking Clinton on comparing her Iraq position with Obama's. Then 10 minutes of telling us that Clinton has no chance (begging the question, then why spend the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?

Olbermann wanted to attack Clinton on the Bachtel story, but it seems NBC got the memo that they were wrong (Olbermann graciously "gave that one" to Clinton) then attacked Clinton for an argument she did not make (but should) - that the Media LIED about the Bachtel story. Yes Keith, your Obama News Network spent the day LYING about Hillary Clinton's statement on Trina Bachtel.

More . . .

Tony Rezko's lawyer Joe Duffy seems to be off to a great start in cross-examining the Government's star witness, Stuart Levine, according to the Chicago Tribune live-blog.

Read through the whole day's events. Most of it addressed Levine's copious drug use and poor memory.

Levine has been on the stand for more than a week testifying for the Government, detailing his life of crime and bringing Tony Rezko and other former Levine associates into it whenever he could.

After all, he's singing for his supper. And so long as he stays on tune, even if Rezko is acquitted, Levine gets one heck of a deal: Check out his plea agreement (pdf). It might be the longest one I've ever seen, 58 pages, particularly as to the factual recitation of the crimes Levine admits, but more significant are the numbers. Levine's guideline range before his snitch bonus is a level 43, category I, or mandatory life in prison, no parole -- there is no parole in the federal system. On a life sentence, the only way you come out is in a pine box.

The plea agreement provides for a Rule 11[c][1][c] agreed-upon sentence of 67 months. (See paragraph 22 on page 53.) Should the judge not agree and want to give him more, he gets to take his plea back.

From life in prison to 67 months, and all he has to do is tell the truth -- the Government's truth -- that Rezko was a crook too.

Levine sounds like a disgusting, pathetic, broken man. The Government, in propping him up to bring down Rezko, is stooping to his morally bankrupt level.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

It appears that, via Digby, NBC's Andrea Mitchell has a credibility problem:

Mitchell: Well, it turns out it's not true. After reading about the story in the Washington Post, hospital officials demanded that the Clinton campaign stop using that anecdote. They say there is no indication that this woman was denied medical care, that in fact, she did have insurance.

It turns out the hospital and NBC have a credibility problem - the woman WAS denied medical services, but not by the hospital that chose to accuse itself:

At an earlier time . . . Bachtel lacked health insurance and ran up unpaid bills when treated at a clinic near her home in Middleport. When she returned for treatment when pregnant, the clinic demanded $100 per visit to help retire the outstanding debt, Casto said. Because Bachtel could not afford the fees and found it difficult to travel, her aunt said, she postponed receiving treatment.

NEVER believe the Media. Hopefully, "progressive" blogs will learn their lesson. Just so you know, Andrea Mitchell and Howard Fineman are on TV attacking Hillary's credibility while they have completely gotten the story wrong. The Media is a joke.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Shakes calls out Josh Marshall:

Hillary Sexism Watch: Castrating B*tch Edition

Part Seventy-Six in an Ongoing Series. (Previous parts linked at end of post.)

Are you f[ra]king kidding me, Josh Marshall? Because I quite honestly can't believe that a person who identifies as a progressive and has two brain cells still knocking together doesn't understand why it's problematic, to put it charitably, to frame Hillary Clinton pushing her male chief strategist from power as "gelding" him.

There are no more fewer progressives in the "progressive" blogosphere than previously thought. I hope Shakes is not holding her breath waiting for her blogging "buds" to step up and criticize Josh Marshall? Never will happen. Don't wonder too much why defending David Shuster by misstating what Hillary Clinton had said was such an important cause for TPM.

By Big Tent Democrat

Update [2008-4-7 18:38:43 by Big Tent Democrat]: Meteor Blades updates. And I must update, kudos to daily kos and John Cole for covering the story. Way to go. One additional point - Bachtel was denied medical help because she did not have $100 to pay down a debt she incurred when she was uninsured.

Via No Quarter:

As No Quarter reports, in fact the story told to Hillary Clinton by Ohio Deputy Sheriff Brian Holman did not implicate the hospital that decided to inject itself into the story. It told a story, a real story, about our health care crisis. But since some Obama blogs were more intent on demonizing Hillary Clinton than shining light on the health care issue, this important story was buried under an avalanche of Hillary Hate. Shame on them. This is the worst manifestation I have yet seen of the sickness that has infected the Left blogs. My original post on this subject here. More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I found this passage from Jon Chait amusing:

The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Um, noooo. A lead can be large but surmountable and it can be small but insurmountable. An insurmountable lead is not, by definition, large, in my understanding of the English language (admittedly my second language.) And when a contest is to reach a certain number of delegates, the only MATHEMATICALLY insurmountable advantage is when one of the candidates reaches the magic number (2025 or 2214 total delegates being the one ones that matter here, not the majority of the pledged delegates) More . . .

Hillary Clinton today on the Olympics:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent. Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

What's Obama's position? He's conflicted.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I gotta say I disagree with Matt Yglesias on this:

In a History News Network poll, 61 percent of historians say that George W. Bush has been the worst president ever. . . . I . . . take the view that Bush is probably correct to think that history will remember him kindly.

Um, I don't. I think history will NOT be kind to the worst President in history, George W. Bush.

By Shut the Freud Up Productions, hat tip to KatieBird at The Confluence.

For Hillary supporters watching this, you know what to do.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers joins the Obama supporter chorus - the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee is a certainty. (I also believe this to be so, but I have a bit more humility than to assume my believing something makes it so.)

But like Meteor Blades and Markos before him, Bowers does not make the logical leap - that since Obama will be the nominee, he must and should start thinking about November and move to unify the Party and to secure his being viewed as the legitimate nominee by the near half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton.

As I wrote yesterday, the most important thing Obama must do is accept a valid result, preferably through revotes, in Florida and Michigan. Until I read anything from these "not in doubt" Obama supporters, like Bowers, Kos and MB, urging Obama to act on Florida and Michigan, and to act to unify the Party, it seems to me they are acting as if the contest is actually in doubt.