I have been known to write many a trivial diary. But this is hands down my most trivial - it is about John Tierney, the least impactful NYTimes columnist I could ever remember.

The irony is Tierney, the say nothing worth noticing columnist pens a farewell column urging the new Dem Congress to do nothing:

I'm afraid the election results still haven't registered in Washington. Democrats and Republicans keep making noises about working together to accomplish great things. But that's not what Americans voted for. They voted for gridlock.

They gave Congress a Seinfeld mandate to do nothing. The Democrats offered no bold new ideas, and they were rewarded with victory. Voters would like them to mop up the messes made by Republicans, but that's it. Find a way out of Iraq, and then avoid any more excellent adventures dreamed up by neoconservatives.

Um, great column John . . . But was Tierney the worst columnist of the past two years? I  would have to say yes.

Scott Lemieux continues his struggle to debate abortion and the right to choose with Amy Sullivan.

I think Scott does not want to deal with the obvious -- Sullivan is dishonest about the pro-choice position (she argues that the pro-choice movement does not want to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancy because we all just LOVE abortions) for the simplest of reasons - she is anti-choice, she wants abortions outlawed.

She does not have the courage to say it - which makes mean think less of her than folks who take the perfectly respectable position of opposing all abortions and the right to choose.

It is pretty simple for me - I support Roe v. Wade, which has been the Constitutional law of the land for 33 years and is supported by a majority of Americans. Those who want to restrict the right to choose do dances around Roe but the fact is Roe is their obstacle. Late term abortions almost always involve questions of a woman's health and are a red herring issue. Parental notification is a thornier issue, but the judicial bypass procedure does provide, at least in theory, a solution to that problem.

But Sullivan and anti-choicers will not be satisfied until abortions are outlawed. They are not for birth control - heck they oppose it. This is why I find the debate on the right to choose so sterile. The positions are irreconciliable. The issue is talked out. If Presidents appoint Justices that are confirmed by the Senate that overturn Roe, then the politics will be extemely interesting and intense. For now, the discussion is sterile - you believe in the right to choose or you do not. What's to discuss?

Rudy's running in 2008.

The former mayor filed papers to create the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc., creating a panel that would allow him to raise money for a White House run and travel the country.

How many scandals does he think he can overcome? As I wrote in 2004, "Guiliani, Could You Just Gag?"

Atrios points to this story:

Suddenly, everyone wants Olbermann. Last week, he and political veteran Chris Matthews teamed up to anchor MSNBC's midterm election coverage.

The result? Abrams called it "a major turning point for this network.'' Ratings were up across the board and the coveted 25-to-54 age demographic increased 111 percent from the 2002 midterm election.

What's next? Expect to see Olbermann in even more mainstream settings. The one thing he is resisting, however, is pressure to produce more "Special Comments.'' He has to feel them, he says. "Otherwise I will turn into a cartoon of myself.''

On Election night, I watched MSNBC exclusively because I really enjoyed the team of Matthews and Olberman together. I thought they brought out the best in each other.

Matthews benefitted from being away from the DC Gasbags and being able to air his own original thoughts without concern for the silly points of reference of his DC cocktail party cohorts. Olberman toned down his sometime over the top rhetoric.

Of course, Olberman is the new MSNBC star, but a Chris Matthews, unbound from his smallminded DC cohorts is an interesting watch. I hope to see that team again in the future.

What should they be? Argue for your views here.

Grits for Breakfast has the scoop on the memo that went out to federal judges asking them to consider sealing the records of those who cooperated with the government to get leniency in their own cases. The full memo is here (pdf).

What's behind the request? Their fear the snitches will turn up on the internet site Who's a Rat.

Among the items perceived as appropriate for sealing: Plea agreements of the cooperators. The Judicial Conference says they look forward to working closely with the Department of Justice in this matter.

Neil Young is releasing his Live at the Fillmore East show cd, recorded March 9 and 10, 1970.

Tomorrow we will get our first glimpse of his hidden library, a single-disc live recording of Neil Young and Crazy Horse, recorded about a year and half after they got together and recorded their first album, “Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere.” It is blaring, primitive and in parts very, very good.

Ann Althouse was there, I wasn't. So I've put it on my Amazon wishlist.

In outlining her legislative agenda today, Hillary Clinton said she's open to thoughts about a 2008 presidential run.

"I will look at the possibilities, but I ... haven't really had the time to talk to people about it," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the Association for a Better New York. "It's been a busy election season that worked out well, so I will think about it. I'm open to thoughts."

She also re-affirmed her centrist position.

"We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center," she said.

Taking a look back at when she went public with her decision to run for the Senate in 2000: June, 1999: She announced her exploratory committee would form in July.

November 11, 1999 (Adam Nagourney, New York Times, available on Lexis.com),

Paul Craig Roberts has a provocative article in Counterpunch today (scroll down) about whether the Dems will do anything about the Bush Administration's destruction of the Bill of Rights and freedom in the name of the war on terror.

He asks:

Do Pelosi and the incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have the intellect and character to deliver the leadership required for Americans to remain a free people? Instead of bemoaning the damage Bush has done to civil liberty, Democrats are up in arms over one child in five being raised in poverty. The more important question is whether children are being raised as a free people protected by civil liberties from arbitrary government power.

What is the most unfair, draconian law passed during the Reagan Administration that is still law today? The one that makes the the penalties for crack cocaine offenses 100 times more severe than those for powder cocaine.

Eric Sterling has an op-ed in the LA Times today on the topic. Tomorrow, the U.S. Sentencing Commission will hold hearings on the disparate penalties.

ONE OF OUR MOST infamous contemporary laws is the 100-1 difference in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Under federal drug laws, prison sentences are usually tied to the quantity of drugs the defendant trafficked. For example, selling 5,000 grams of powder cocaine (about a briefcase full) gets a mandatory 10-year prison sentence, but so does selling only 50 grams of crack cocaine (the weight of a candy bar).

Working for the House Judiciary Committee in 1986, I wrote the House bill that was the basis for that law. We made some terrible mistakes.

Sterling observes:

Michael Skakel, convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley for which he is serving a 20 year to life sentence, lost his bid for Supreme Court review.

The principal issue was the expiration of the Statute of Limitiations at the time Skakel was charged. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson represented Skakel, the nephew of Ethel Kennedy, in the appeal.

At the time of Moxley's killing, Connecticut had a five-year statute of limitations on murder cases that did not involve the death penalty. One year later, in 1976, the state legislature removed the five-year deadline in such cases.

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld Skakel's conviction, overturning its earlier holding that the new law did not apply to crimes committed before its enactment. The legislature intended to remove the deadline for prosecution for all crimes, like Moxley's killing, for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired, the state court said.

On Sunday, Contessa of MSNBC and I discussed whether the Dems can deliver on their promises in Congress and on Russ Feingold's statement he won't run for President in 2008.