Logo TV tonight had the LGBT presidential debate:

Logo and Human Rights Campaign Foundation present this historic and first-ever live televised U.S. Presidential candidate forum on issues of importance to the LGBT community, with the leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidates including Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson....

I was able to see most of it. Obama went first and in my view, didn't impress. Especially when he said gay marriage should be left up to individual churches to decide. Edwards did a credible job. He came so close to endorsing gay marriage and then backed off. Too bad. Still, a positive step for him, he's clearly on as he says "a journey." I missed Gravel. Dodd wasn't there after all. Kucinich, not suprisingly, had the best and most heartfelt answers.

Richardson blew it big time. He was asked whether being gay is a matter of choice or whether you're born that way and he immediately responded "choice." Figuring he misunderstood the question, the panelists, including Melissa Etheridge and Margaret Carlson, gave him another chance. He still didn't get it and framed his answer in terms of equality, saying it didn't matter. Can someone please educate him?

More...

Let's face it. Rudy Giuliani is running on the deaths of over 3,000 Americans killed by the evil Osama bin Laden. If not for Osama bin Laden, Rudy Giuliani would be long gone from our public consciousness. But Rudy can't just point to 3,000 murdered Americans and say he should be President. And he provides more - lies. Via Drum, Wayne Barrett documents the many despicable lies Rudy tells to promote his candidacy:

As United States Attorney, I investigated the Leon Klinghoffer murder by Yasir Arafat," he told the Jewish audience, referring to the infamous 1985 slaying of a wheelchair-bound, 69-year-old New York businessman aboard the Achille Lauro, an Italian ship hijacked off the coast of Egypt by Palestinian extremists. . . . "I went over their cases." On the contrary, Victoria Toensing, the deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department in Washington who filed a criminal complaint in the Lauro investigation, says that no one in Giuliani's office "was involved at all." Jay Fischer, the Klinghoffer family attorney who spearheaded a 12-year lawsuit against the PLO, says he "never had any contact" with Giuliani or his office. . . . [Arnold] Burns, who was also the finance chair of Giuliani's mayoral campaign, was the deputy U.S. attorney general in 1985 and oversaw the probe. "I know of nothing Rudy did in any shape or form on the Klinghoffer case," he says.

Who would lie about something like that? Rudy Giuliani would. More.

Chris Bowers insists that the Netroots really do matter - but now about issues now - but about the 2008 election:

No matter the trend, and no matter the cause, I still think that this holds an important lesson for the progressive blogosphere: we still have the ability to drive the conversation on the 2008 Democratic primary. It was through the combined efforts of the progressive blogosphere that Clinton ended up going on record defending lobbyists. Once that happened, her comment received extensive news coverage, and has now been used as an avenue of attack by both the Obama and Edwards campaigns. During it all, we discussed the incident with our large, primary voting readerships.

Terrific!! The Netroots drove conversation on a "phony issue," as Matt Stoller concedes. Woo hoo! Hey Chris and Matt, how about driving a little conversation on ending the Iraq Debacle?

Oh BTW, the Netroots really did not drive the phony dispute on lobbying - it was MSM reporter Matt Bai who took over the "Netroots" Debate with this nonsense and created the MSM headlines the next day. Can the Netroots stop trying to pat itself on the back for a while and actually try to drive the conversation about something that actually matters? Like, say ending the Iraq Debacle?

More

Via Kevin Drum:

Tuesday night Sanchez said she could not support the [anti-Iraq Debacle] protesters because the $145 billion in Iraq war funding was in the same bill that would provide money to build the C-17 aircraft in California. "I never voted for this war," she said. But "I'm not going to vote against $2.1 billion for C-17 production, which is in California. That is just not going to happen."

Rep. Sanchez, you just said you were going to vote for the war, so that a California company will get a defense contract. 395 Californians have died in Iraq. Loretta Sanchez can put a price on their lives - 2 billion dollars. Not to mention the damage to the interests of the nation.

But I have a solution for Rep. Sanchez, maybe she has not thought about it - how about NOT putting Iraq appropriations in the bill?

What a disgusting thing to say. I have much more respect for Republicans who support the war than for this drivel from Sanchez. Outrageous.

A TPM Reader cracks wise:

Reading about Mitt's claim that his five sons are serving the nation by driving the Winnebago through Iowa, I was put in mind of the once-famous Sulllivan Brothers, five Iowa boys who were all in the navy during WWII, were all serving on the same ship, and were all killed at the same time. I hadn't thought of the Sullivan Brothers in years. After their deaths, the military put in a rule that blood relatives could not all serve in the same unit. So the Romney boys should not all be riding around in the same Winnebago.

Heh.

Via Newshounds' Ellen, reason number 257,000 why the DLC has become irrelevant:

Alan Colmes said, “I think Barack Obama had a great point when he said that those who voted for the war in Iraq and then had to apologize for that vote should probably be the last people to criticize he who was right about the war in Iraq all along.”

Ford’s responded, “Well, I don’t know who’s been right about this war all along.”

“Oh, sure you do,” Colmes said. Then, sounding flabbergasted, he added, “You don’t know who’s been right about the war all along?”

Harold Ford does not know who got it right on Iraq. Perhaps that explains this statement:

Bush's contempt for Congress:

Bush got angry over a question about whether embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be held accountable. Members of Congress from both parties have called Gonzales' credibility and leadership of the Justice Department into question after congressional testimony on a number of issues. "Why would I hold somebody accountable who's done nothing wrong?" the president said, then turning the issue back on the Democratic-led Congress. "Matter of fact, I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter rather than being the investigative body," he added.

But of course, Dear Leader. As you wish.

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline praises McCain calling the Kelo decision "Marxist":

John McCain has done a service to the conservative cause by injecting the issue of private property rights into the presidential campaign. McCain's starting point was the Kelo decision ... McCain called this decision "disastrous" and contrary to our Constitution and our system. He found it more in line with the teachings of Karl Marx.

I guess that makes his Powerline cohort John Hinderaker a Marxist:

The principal threats to property rights lie elsewhere. In particular, regulatory actions often severely limit what an owner can do with his property. Unlike urban development projects, such regulations are often adopted in forums that are remote from, and unresponsive to, the political process. And what an owner generally hopes for in such situations is to be covered by the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of compensation for the loss of use of his property, which is automatic in the case of a condemnation. So it is a good thing that the Kelo decision has focused attention on the erosion of property rights; but, despite the critical consensus that has formed among conservatives, it is far from clear that the case was wrongly decided.

McCain of course is pandering, demagogic and wrong. But it is surprising to see one Powerline writer praising McCain's description, as that essentially labels his colleague a Marxist.

In his interview with Alan Colmes, Gen. David Petraeus said:

[T]he attacks that have the most strategic significance, the -- again, the car-bombings, the suicide vest attacks and so forth that cause such significant damage to the psychological fabric of Iraqi society and as well as just sheer physical damage, those are conducted by al Qaeda Iraq. And they are very clearly linked to the so-called AQSL, the al Qaeda senior leadership, located in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border tribal areas, without question. I mean, we -- you have seen released on a number of occasions communications between them. And I can assure you that that does go on.

If this is so, is it not then essential to US interests in Iraq that the United States attack Al Qaida in Pakistan? Barack Obama has stated, and was criticized by Mitt Romney for it, that as President, he would attack Al Qaida in Pakistan, hopefully with the cooperation of the Pakistani government, but if necessary, without it. If Petraeus is correct that Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan is controlling Al Qaida in Iraq, then why isn't Petraeus urging stronger measures against Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan to help the effort in Iraq?

It's a court day for me and an open thread day for you. I'll be back tonight.

Law Prof Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy says there's lots of good stuff up at:

• Capital Defense Weekly
• Crime and Consequences
• Corrections Sentencing
• Grits for Breakfast
• White Collar Crime Prof

For news, check out the easy-on-your-eyes Hinesight Report and Prison Legal News.

Avedon Carol as Sideshow has her always excellent blog-roundup.

In the politics department, the New York Times reports on how much money John Edwards receives from lawyers. Lawyers have always been his biggest group of contributors, but Hillary and Obama are catching up. There's a chart showing how much each has received from lawyers and showing all sources for John Edwards (but not the others') contributions.

Unlike most of the readership of this blog, and Democrats everywhere, I think George Herbert Walker Bush was a good President. Unlike many of you, I supported Desert Storm and thought Bush 41 did a masterful job of managing the situation, including, especially including, the decision not to continue the war to Baghdad, a much maligned decision at the time, most notably criticized by today's Neocons. So, I must say, I do feel his pain:

There are times in the life of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president of the United States and father of the 43rd, that people, perfect strangers, come up to him and say the harshest things — words intended to comfort but words that wind up only causing pain. “I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base here,” they might say, according to Ron Kaufman, a longtime adviser to Mr. Bush, who has witnessed any number of such encounters — perhaps at a political fund-raiser, or a restaurant dinner, a chance meeting on the streets of Houston or Kennebunkport, Me. They are, he says, just one way the presidency of the son has taken a toll on the father. “It wears on his heart,” Mr. Kaufman said, “and his soul.”

No kidding. To have being the father of the worst President in history as your principal legacy has to be hard to take after a having lived a distinguished public life.

Via Instapundit and Hugh Hewitt, Gen. Petraeus is interviewed by Alan Colmes, who no kidding, does a great job. A very sincere thanks to Hewitt for providing it. The most interesting parts, based on the unofficial transcript provided by a Hewitt reader:

COLMES: The surge strategy has been referred to by some as the Petraeus Doctrine and when you and Ambassador Ryan Crocker report to Congress on September 15, it would be unlikely for you to report that your own strategy isn't working, right?

PETRAEUS: Well, I have vowed that I will provide a forthright and comprehensive assessment and I'm not going to pull punches, and I have all along, frankly, reported setbacks as well as successes and we intend to do that when we go back and it will not be an unblemished report.

The interim benchmark report was not an unblemished report. It's more of a mixed bag. There has been progress in certain areas. Certainly there has been tactical progress. There has been progress again in this sort of local reconciliation but there has not been comparable progress at the national political level here in Iraq. . . .MORE