I am on record as saying the Media is basically irrelevant on how the American People perceive the Iraq Debacle. That Beltway Dems do not fully appreciate this is true but I think they listen to them a lot less than they used to. But is this true for the 2008 election? Let's hope so, because otherwise, we are hostage to this type of mindset, as digby documents:

If anyone thought that it would be possible to re-run the flip-flop campaign against the Massachusetts politician in the race this time, think again:

STODDARD: You know, I really think this is not a big deal. I think that he is entitled to his quirky tastes. I think that he is a habitual flip-flopper, and has religious conversions on everything that comes out of his mouth, and he changes his mind so much now that people don’t even notice.

. . . The reporter who made those comments, A.B.Stoddard, is often on MSNBC these days. . . . Call me crazy but this sounds like a person we can depend on to keep us apprised of all the latest beltway CW. Mitt's flip-flopping is not going to be an issue.

More...

The Judge was hard on Paris Hilton today, sentencing her to 45 days in the L.A. County Jail for violating probation by driving while her license was suspended.

Hilton had been serving 36 months of probation after pleading no contest to a charge of alcohol-related reckless driving related to her Sept. 7 arrest in Hollywood. She also had been fined $1,500.

Paris' defense was a little weak -- she said her aides hadn't told her about the driving restriction.

Still, 45 days is stiff.

Her mother's reaction:

Hilton appeared stunned by the ruling and began to cry. Hilton's mother also began to show her displeasure visibly, shaking her head -- and had be warned by a court official to stop....

....Her mother, Kathy, told the prosecutor after the judge's decision: "You're pathetic."

Did Paris get a stiffer sentence because she's a celebrity?

Having spent all day in a county jail visiting clients denied bond in federal cases, I can tell you it's no walk in the park. And I bet the LA County Jail is a nightmare by comparison.

More...

A computer guy explains the danger of proposed legislation that would require computer technicians to report to the authorities any child pornography or other evidence of child abuse they encounter while servicing a customer's computer:

Potentially incriminating material can end up on a computer in any number of ways that have nothing to do with a deliberate request for questionable content. Even worse, the range of expertise among computer technicians varies enough that you could conclusively say that not all such technicians have the skills to distinguish between deliberately accessed content and that which may have found its way onto a system through other means (spam, malware, another user, etc.). It's a recipe for disaster when you consider how being accused of child porn/abuse usually turns into a guilty-until-proven-innocent scenario of the sort that can destroy lives and families.

Teachers, social workers, and health care professionals are typically mandatory reporters of child abuse. But computer technicians?

The Atlanta police officers who killed Kathryn Johnston failed to learn from the department's earlier mistakes.

Two months and a day before Kathryn Johnston, there was Frances Thompson. The 80-year-old Thompson was in her bedroom the afternoon of Sept. 20, when she heard a terrible crash and shouting. Startled and confused, she grabbed a pistol and was immediately confronted by three Atlanta narcotics officers.

"They had masks covering their face. I thought I was being robbed," she recalled. "They pointed those big guns at me." ... No drugs were found. And her pistol was a toy cap gun. ...

The two incidents share striking similarities: Two elderly women living alone with guns; police battering in a door; faulty reports from street-level dealers helping narcotics officers; and police parsing the truth, if not outright lying.

It may be that the officers had no incentive to learn. In their corrupt department, truth and public safety were less important than arrest quotas.

[F]ederal investigators say Atlanta narcotics officers hoped to satisfy goals for making arrests and serving warrants set by police commanders. "They believed that these ends justified their illegal 'Fluffing' or falsifying of search warrants," according to those plea documents.

This is the strongest and best statement yet from John Edwards on ending the Iraq Debacle:

We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement - but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise.

Edwards has joined my preferred candidate Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), and there can be no doubt that Dodd's co-sponsorship of Reid-Feingold has had an effect on the entire slate of candidates, in supporting Reid-Feingold. Rep. Kucinich also has been strong on this issue.

We now need Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden to step up along with Governor Richardson. Let's concentrate on ending the Debacle by NOT funding it on a date certain. This is the ONLY way to end the Iraq Debacle.

Poor, poor Monica Goodling.

A former U.S. Justice Department official and central figure in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys tearfully told a colleague two months ago her government career probably was over as the matter was about to erupt into a political storm, according to closed-door congressional testimony.

Monica Goodling, at the time an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sobbed for 45 minutes in the office of career Justice Department official David Margolis on March 8 as she related her fears that she would have to quit, according to congressional aides briefed on Margolis's private testimony to House and Senate investigators....

Margolis testified in private that he tried to console Goodling and listened to her discuss her personal life, a congressional aide said. He recalled telling a colleague that he was concerned about Goodling's emotional state, the aide said.

Of course, if Goodling hadn't tried to turn the Justice Department into the president's private law firm so that investigations of Republican political corruption could be squelched, she would have had less cause to weep ... as would the rest of us.

This diary at Daily Kos highlights a Broder answer in his chat today that exemplifies what shallow unthinking empty vessel he is:

Chaska, Minn.: As a political pundit how do you calibrate your perceptions on mainstream America? The reason I ask this is based on your recent columns. My guess is your views (as a lot of the Beltway punditry) is very skewed. Poll after poll validates that American values align with progressive positions on such issues as the Iraq war, abortion, Social Security and even health care. . . . So why keep insisting on bipartisan compromises when those views don't reflect the wishes of a large majority of Americans? . . .

BRODER: . . . This first letter from Minnesota challenges the conventional wisdom by asserting that the country overwhelmingly supports the liberal agenda, both at home and abroad. I have to disagree. I think the country is closely balanced, with a controlling group in the center that rejects extreme positions and seeks practical solutions drawn from the agendas of both liberals and conservatives. Most Americans I meet are not ideologues of any sort; they are practical people seeking practical solutions to real challenges.

Broder seems so incapable of thinking that he can only argue by label. To wit, the Democrats hold one extreme position and the Republicans another. Of course the question challenged that very assumption and instead of addressing the point, Broder is only capable of falling back into his shallow mindset.

Not pretty:

Like any close reader of The Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch has his opinions.

“I’m sometimes frustrated by the long stories,” he said, adding that he rarely gets around to finishing some articles.

The editorial pages? He likes them but would like to see more political coverage in the news pages. “I might put more emphasis on Washington,” he said.

Oy. And Murdoch seems intent on getting it:

Update [2007-5-4 21:57:3 by Big Tent Democrat]: I want to clarify that I do not mean to say that mahablog believes the one benchmark mentioned in the proposed bill she is touting is the end of the road, but rather a step in the "ratcheting up the pressure" process. I thought I was clear on that point but I want to make sure I am not misstating mahablog's position. I do not believe that changes my analysis of the situation. Indeed, I think John Edwards has the best response to that argument.

Being called naive by someone who believes this tickles me no end:

Monday I published a post about building a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate to vote against the war.

Bulding a veto-proof majority??? It takes 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto. Let's just take the Senate. Can anyone name the 17 Republicans who are gonna vote to end the war please (Lieberman never will, so IF you can hold the 50 Dems, you need 17 Republican Senators.) And you call me naive? Puhleeeaze. It is no wonder that someone who believes a veto proof majority to end the war can be built thinks this:

One thing I like about these Democratic leaders is they’re very subtle and canny. We have to keep in mind, of course, that we’re dealing with a hostage situation here, and we have to protect our soldiers from this maniac.

Suuuure. That House Supplemental is working out like a charm for ending the war. Honestly, sometimes our side can be as stubborn in clinging to ideas that have been proven not to work as the Right.

I forgot to do an open thread earlier this week, and I'll be at the jail most of the day, so here's a place for you to weigh in.

Glenn Greenwald points to the latest deep thinking from the Wingnuts:

After having created "The Victory Caucus" two months ago only to stand by helplessly as it died a rapid and painful death, right-wing bloggers have now joined forces with former Senator Bill Frist to create a new Victory website, the purpose of which is to set forth their foreign policy principles for the Iraq war. The name of the site is "We Win. They Lose."

Their advice is good. No, really. They seem to have borrowed it from Prof Reynolds:

Glenn Reynolds

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Yes.

2. Have you changed your position? No. . . .

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now? Win.

Or Al Davis. Course, the Raiders were the worst team in the NFL last year.

Politico reports that the latest proposal Congressional Dems are floating is the short term funding approach:

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) outlined a new plan for an Iraq funding bill in private meetings Thursday afternoon, congressional aides said. The plan would split the now vetoed supplemental spending bill into two bills, one that would provide two months of funding for the Iraq War and another that would fund the agricultural programs contained in the earlier bill, aides said.

This will make some happy and I admit I have no objection to it. But no one seems to be talking about setting a date certain when the Iraq Debacle will NOT be funded. It does not have to be in any legislation. It need only be announced Democratic policy. You know my drill on this.

The other development is the Byrd-Clinton deauthorization proposal:

In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she and Senator Robert Byrd will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.