Update [2007-10-3 17:4:47 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jane gets it.

Via Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum, Here is my problem:

A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties.

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton

. . . Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow and former Congressional Budget Office defense and foreign policy analyst, supporter

Michael O'Hanlon? The Iraq Debacle supporter, surge supporter, and serial dissembler on his support for the war? Why would Senator Clinton want the support of someone who has diametrically opposed views from hers on the most important foreign policy issue of the day? Indeed, why in heavens is O'Hanlon supporting her?

Can you imagine a campaign against a Republican who can cite Hillary Clinton advisor Michale O'Hanlon on how Hillary is wrong about the Iraq War and the Surge? This makes no sense. Hillary should immediately renounce O'Hanlon's support and frankly, it is hard to fathom why he is supporting her. They completely disagree on the most important issue of the day. Blatant careerism I suppose.

Via mcjoan.

In a recent post, I excoriated Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for her statement on not funding the Iraq Debacle. But as mcjoan notes, one has to wonder who is calling the shots in the House. After all, Pelosi voted against the war and championed John Murtha for the #2 slot in the House leadership. The question to ask - is Steny Hoyer the actual Dem leader in the House?

Internal tensions erupted yesterday among House Dem leaders over Rep. David Obey's threat to block war funding without withdrawal timetables and his suggestion of a war tax, The Hill reports. . . . “It’s hard to believe you could pick a worse time to do something to divide the caucus than the day Democrats and Republicans come together on both an Iraq bill and in sending the children’s health bill to the president,” a Democratic leadership aide told the paper. “The timing of this announcement made no sense.”

I'm told, however, that there's a bit more to these tensions than meet the eye. House insiders say they think that this anonymous dumping on Obey came from the office of House Dem leader Steny Hoyer. Hoyer is a big proponent of the new House Iraq bill being sponsored by Dem Rep. Neil Abercrombie that was voted on yesterday and passed overwhelmingly. Because this measure lacks a binding withdrawal timetable, others in leadership -- like Pelosi -- are cool to the idea, insiders point out.

. . . "The dumping on Obey likely came from Hoyer, who was much more enthusiastic about the moderate -- read: toothless -- Ambercrombie legislation than the rest of leadership is," a House insider tells me.

Steny Hoyer, like Rahm Emanuel, has been awful on Iraq and obviously he seeks to torpedo the not funding without a timeline idea. It looks like he and Rahm Emanuel are the problem.

After President Bush vetoed S-CHIP, White House spokeperson Dana Perino said:

"They made their political point, and what the president said is, 'Look, send me the bill, I will veto it, and then we will get about the business of trying to find some common ground and reach an agreement on a way forward,'" Perino said.

My suggestion to the Democratic leaders of Congress is send him the same bill. The policy and politics on this issue, as I believe they are on the Iraq issue, all point to this as being the best move. A Democracy Corps poll supports my view:

As President Bush vetoed the bipartisan S-CHIP bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, a memo by Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner shows health care emerging as a top economic concern and voters rejecting the President’s veto by almost a two-to-one margin, preferring the expansion of S-CHIP.

A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll finds Hillary Clinton increasing her lead over Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates:

For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.

....Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

As to her electability factor,

A clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008.

Interesting note: Edwards is seen as more electable than Obama:

More...

A California Judge has ruled that O.J. Simpson must turn over whatever sports memorabilia he was trying to recover in Las Vegas as well as his Rolex watch to Fred Goldman.

According to O.J.'s lawyer, O.J. paid $150.00 for the watch, making it likely to be a fake rather than a real Rolex Submariner.

Translation: If it turns up on eBay, take a pass.

Minor point: No one's answered my question, what if the watch were real and he purchased it with his money from his pension fund which is exempt from the Goldman's judgment? Could he keep it then?

Alabama Judge Herman Thomas, accused among other things of spanking prisoners has resigned.

The allegations:

Authorities are investigating allegations that now-suspended Mobile County Circuit Judge Herman Thomas periodically removed prisoners from Mobile County Metro Jail and spanked them in a room at the courthouse, according to courthouse sources involved in the inquiry.

Once inside the room, according to the sources, the judge would ask the young men to drop their pants and prepare to be spanked with what they described as a wooden or fraternity-like paddle.

The resignation may end his upcoming ethics trial, but an investigation by the District Attorney's office in Mobile continues.

Joining the Idiot Liberals, and separating himself from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) promised to not forward any bill from his committee that funds the Iraq War without a date certain to end it:

"I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President's request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

-- "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

-- "Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments."

-- "Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region."

"But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.

"As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

Not funding after a date certain. Good idea Congressman.  Welcome to the fight. We "Idiot Liberals" have been waiting on you for the past seven months.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in two drug cases, Gall v. United States and Kimbrough v. United States.

The Kimbrough case will bring the disparate penalties for crack and powder into full focus. U.S. News today has some numbers on the sentencing disparity. The Gall case will define the circumstances under which a judge can sentence below strict federal sentencing guidelines.

In a nutshell, Gall's guidelines were 30 to 37 months for minor participation of limited duration in an ecstasy conspiracy. The Judge deviated from the Guidelines to a sentence of probation, the Government appealed and the 6th Circuit reversed the trial court.

The question in Gall (pdf):

More....

I have not read Justice Clarence Thomas' new memoir, "My Grandfather's Son." I do not know if I will. But one thing seems clear, Justice Thomas' book has reawakened the Anita Hill controversy. Perhaps that was not a wise thing for Justice Thomas to do. Hill responds to Thomas in the NYTimes:

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

Strange that Justice Thomas would repick this fight. Anita Hill has been reawakened.

I speak for me only as usual and I am a supporter of the Chris Dodd candidacy for the PResidency.

Chris Dodd's campaign is based on one major issue - that the leadership we will want in our next President is demonstrated by the leadership a candidate shows now on the major issues of the day. The biggest issue is, of course, Iraq, and Chris Dodd is fighting to insure a Democratic Congress does not fund the Iraq War without a date certain for ending the war. This fight is attracting notice in Iowa:

Yepsen: 1st-tier Dems' timidity on Iraq may create opening

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd is the longest of long-shot candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. But he doesn't seem too agitated about that. He's an experienced politician. He knows how the caucus game often breaks late. Because of his 33 years of experience in Congress, he also knows something about U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq.

He does get agitated about that, particularly when the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination appear to be in no big hurry to get out. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all declined in last week's debate to say they'd have U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term - in 2013. "I was stunned, literally stunned" to hear them say that, Dodd said in an interview for last weekend's Iowa Press program on Iowa Public Television."It was breathtaking to me that the so-called three leading candidates would not make that commitment. That's six years from today." . . .MORE

Ed Kilgore and Matt Yglesias discuss Iraq polling. Ed writes:

Pollsters need to figure out ways to (a) test the Iraq issues actually facing Congress; (b) include in questions a few basic facts about troop withdrawals (i.e., that Bush is only talking about withdrawing "surged" troops) and funding levels (i.e., how much money buys what strategy) . . .

This seems right and as a public service I write the actual question facing the Congress:

Given President Bush's declared statements and views, not funding the Iraq War after a date certain is the only way Congress can end US combat involvement in Iraq. Do you favor or disfavor the Congress exercising its Constitutional power over spending in order to end US combat involvement in Iraq?

I betcha you get 60-65% approval of not funding.

See also Bob Fertik's polling results.

Yes, the Senate Democrats failed us again as they approved another $150 billion for the Iraq War and for Afghanistan:

The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.

The developments underscored the difficulty facing Democrats in the Iraq debate: They lack the votes to pass legislation ordering troops home and are divided on whether to cut money for combat, despite a mandate by supporters to end the war.

Memo to Senate Dems: What's so tough about following your mandate? So what if you lose, at least take a stand on the major issue you were elected on. It's really quite simple. Set a timetable now for all troops to be gone from Iraq or vote to cut off the funding.