My opinion of Gov. Bill Richardson has just grown by leaps and bounds. He has appointed veteran criminal defense lawyer Charlie Daniels (a real criminal defense lawyer, by the way, who truly believes in and has been passionate about defending the rights of the accused his entire career) to be a Justice on the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Charlie, whom I've known for 15 years or more (along with his wife Randi McGinn, a stellar criminal defense lawyer in her own right), will be sworn in on November 9.

Here's the announcement from the Governor's office (no link, I received it by e-mail.)

TPM reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) will vote no on the AG nomination of Michael Mukasey.

Will Mukasey be defeated in committee? Depends I think on Schumer and Feinstein. Frankly, I have little confidence they will vote against Mukasey. And if they do and Mukasey is defeated in committee? What then? Normally, that would be that. But Harry Reid has been pretty lousy lately so it is possible he will give Mukasey a floor vote where he would almost certainly be confirmed.

Unlike, Ezra, and possibly Atrios, I think it is clear that the Clinton campaign is playing the gender card to some extent. But I think the real question is is she playing it unfairly. As Ezra notes, no reasonable person can doubt that as a woman (as Obama does in different, and, imo, more profound, ways as a African American), Clinton faces unfair challenges as a candidate. Indeed, the entire Hillary Clinton image, as conjured up by Limbaugh and Republicans for 15 years has been wrapped up in her being a bitch; a castrating "devil woman." She is constrained in how she can respond to negative attacks because of this.

That said, this ridiculous "doubletalk" broadside from Edwards, and particularly absurdly from the vacillating Barack Obama, fueled by the absurd Pumpkinhead Russert, is more a function of her being a frontrunner than a woman.

But Hillary opponents beware, I think Hillary's play of the gender card will win this absurd political argument. I was surprised to see Obama jump into the fray. Edwards was doing the dirty work for him. Yet again, Obama makes a political mistake. In my opinion of course.

Via Cosbo, John Edwards continues to pound Hillary Clinton on her "doubletalk" while doing no talking himself on the issue. Where do you stand on the issue Senator Edwards? Are you for or against dirvers licenses for undocumented aliens? What do you think of the Spitzer Plan? At this point, even a little doubletalk on the issue from you would be welcome.

On a related note, I agree with Kos that challenges to the Democratic frontrunner on the issues is not only more than welcome, it is tardy. But make it on the issues. Alleged "doubletalk" is NOT a substantive issue. Here are some examples of issues that I think are substantive:

Why is Senator Clinton not pressing her colleagues to end the Iraq War by not funding it? Why does she continue to falsely claim the Senate needs 60 votes to not fund the Iraq Debacle?

Why did Senator Clinton vote for Kyl-Lieberman? Does she not agree with Senator Dodd that the Bush Administration can not be trusted?

Will Senator Clinton lead on a filibuster of the FISA telco amnesty? Not just vote for filibuster, will she LEAD it?

To name a few examples.

I wrote this piece for the Guardian America's online Comment if Free on the Rightroots. A highlight:

While the liberal blogosphere, or netroots, has had a very rocky transition due to Democrats gaining the majority in Congress, its conservative counterpart, the rightroots, has had a similarly difficult time transitioning from supporting a Republican party in control of Congress to trying to discover a new agenda. Truth be told, the rightroots has been flailing, trying to discover the new kerning scandal while doing the usual cheerleading for President Bush's Iraq debacle. It reached a nadir when senator Mitch McConnell's office sent them on the noxious attack against 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family on the S-Chip issue.

First, let me make clear my view that Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment was a huge mistake, both on policy and politics. Senator Chris Dodd got it right at the debate:

So what to do now? Pretend that Kyl Lieberman provides a LEGAL basis for Bush to attack Iran? Absolutely not. And yet, Senator Barack Obama, in a crass and harmful political stunt, is doing exactly that:

Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran . . . Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."

This is simply a false statement from the Obama campaign. Obama apparently is willing to pretend the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment authorizes the President to attack Iran, when it does not, in order to extract politcal gain as a result of Senator Clinton's huge mistake. That is despicable. More.

How about another open thread today as I have court all morning and yesterday's is filling up.

To get you started (but feel free to pick other topics):

• Hollywood writers say they will strike. TalkLeft has some readers who are Hollywood writers. We fully support you. Let us know how we can help. The Writers' Guild Site is here.

• Iran: Hillary and 29 Senators write a letter, Obama goes his own way and introduces legislation. Thoughts on the difference between the two approaches? Will either restrain our unitary executive?

• "American Gangster" is a hit.

• Resurrect the DREAM Act (but don't count on the Democrats to do it.)

• Chris Dodd writes about the questions the candidates should have been asked during the debate.

• Arianna on Rudy's Testosterone Binge

MTV actor Vincent Margera (known as Don Vito to viewers of "Viva La Bam" )is on a suicide watch in a Denver area jail after being convicted at trial yesterday of sexual assault on a child for fondling the breasts and buttocks of two teens at an autograph signing event at a skate park.

The charges carry a possible life sentence. If he gets any prison time, it will be the Sex Offender Treatment Board (a parole board)that decides how much time he does, not the Judge.

According to a 2006 Colorado Department of Corrections report, since 1998, 976 sex offenders have received indeterminate sentences. Only three have been granted parole, according to the report.

Margera collapsed when the verdict came in.

When the verdict was announced, Margera, 51, fell on the floor, saying: “Just kill me now. I can’t spend my (expletive) life in prison. I didn’t do anything.”

If he gets probation, it will be for at least ten years and up to life. If he goes to prison and somehow gets paroled, his parole will last for life.

Our sexual assault laws are over the top. Groping should not carry a possible sentence of life in prison. The nation’s hysteria over child sex offenders needs to be ratcheted down a few notches.

No one supports child sex abuse. But the punishment should fit the crime. This one doesn’t.

I was reviewing the comments to my earlier post, the Final Word on the Pile-On, and was struck by how many people are opposed to one candidate or another because they aren't sufficiently left or progressive.

Which reminded me of what I wrote last month about my ideal candidate, following which I noted that no candidate is going to match my positions on issues or even focus on those I care most about.

That would require a candidate who vows as President to impose a moratorium on executions, close Guantanamo, try accused terrorists under the Code of Military Justice or in federal courts, insist Congress abolish mandatory minimum sentences, put a lockbox on my social security benefits and provide mandatory health care, including affordable and compassionate nursing home care, for the elderly.

And of course, a candidate who as President would end the war in Iraq and promise not to get us into other wars preemptively or under false pretenses.

There just is no such candidate who has a chance of winning in this presidential election.

More...

[Cross-posted earlier today at Firedoglake.com]

Finally, a little relief is at hand for the vastly disparate and draconian crack cocaine sentences meted out by federal courts. New federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses went into effect today.

Starting today, many offenders sentenced in federal court for crack will receive a sentence about 16 months less than they would have yesterday.

By way of background, through mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the Feds have punished crack crimes far more severely than those involving powder cocaine. The U.S. Sentencing Commission followed suit by enacting guidelines that matched the mandatory minimums.

A crime involving five grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory sentence of five years in prison, and 50 grams carries a 10-year penalty. However, it takes 500 and 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same five and 10 year sentences.

More....

Huffington Post reports:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani now faces a looming government investigation into his handling of the radios used by firefighters on 9/11.

The investigation, which will examine how the FDNY ended up using faulty equipment during the terrorist attacks and why Giuliani gave a no-bid contract to Motorola for that equipment, has been endorsed by New York City Councilman Eric Gioia, chair of the city's oversight and investigations committee.

Background on this is here.

Alliance for Justice has an analysis up (pdf) of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey's written answers to the questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It includes the question, answer and AFJ's analysis.

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar said yesterday he might oppose Mukasey. Details on that here.

Crooks and Liars says Bush is playing the 9/11 card to force the Mukasey nomination and provides the video of Bush's latest comments.