(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

From the extreme Right Wing Republican site Red State:

Democrats have been increasingly distracted by an effort to discredit our President. In the process of carrying out this parochial assault, they have egregiously demeaned our great Republic. This has largely been ensconced in and driven by domestic political motivation but found a complimentary partner in the global socialist agenda.

. . .To make a bad situation worse, a New York neighborhood mostly inhabited by Democrats [that's Harlem to you and me, in case you weren't keeping up with the race baiting Republicans] hosts the "after party" for Chavez and cheers his anti American remarks.

. . . Appropriately, this specious attempt to advance parochial politics, disguised in the name of debate and Constitutional liberties has come full circle and roosted on their doorstep. It is an action that is un-American since it demeans our values, underestimates our intelligence and obscures or primary goal in a time of war, to keep our citizens safe.

Memo to wingnuts, "socialism" is passe as a boogeyman. It's "Islamofascism" we're aligned with now. You need a few lessons in the New McCarthyism.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Talking about race is always difficult. Talking about race issues in the Democratic Party is paradoxically more difficult as we Democrats have a hard time facing up to the problems in our midst. We're not racists we think. We fight racism. And we do. But we have race issues all the same. How to talk about them? How to do it constructively? The Clinton lunch contretemps gave us examples of good and bad ways to do it. Today, Matt Stoller discusses the Maryland Senate race and I'm not sure if I agree with Matt's approach:

I'm watching Maryland politics with tremendous interest. On the heels of Al Wynn's stolen election, I see Michael Steele attempting to run a campaign entirely based on African-American resentment of Democratic fecklessness and institutional racism. Gregory Kane at BlackAmericaWeb sums up this attitude.

Update: Chirac says the rumor is not confirmed. Time Magazine cites Saudi reports here. CNN provides update here. [hat tip Raw Story.]

*******
Via TL reader Scribe:

A French newspaper is reporting bin Laden died of typhus. The French report is said to be based on information from French intelligence services. This seems a bit tricky, and you'll see why, below. This story bears watching. Here's my translation of the text off the MDR/ARD website:

Media Report: Bin Laden has died from typhus

A French newspaper has made public new rumors about the terror chief Osama Bin Laden. According to information from intelligence agency sources, the al Qaida head has died from typhus. The newspaper "L'Est Republicain" refers to documents from the French foreign secret services, in which they have analyzed/evaluated information out of Saudi Arabia. The French government wants to make clear it is not confirming the report. The [French] Defense Ministry announced instead an investigation into how the newspaper got its hands on the report.

last updated: 23 Sept. 2006, 1:36 PM their time (7:36 AM ET)
Source: MDR Info

Following the Judges ruling on classified information Thursday in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's criminal case, on Friday his lawyers filed a pleading entitled PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM Concerning Admissibility of Documents on Consolidated CIPA Section 5 Notice (pdf). In it, Team Libby says:

• Libby will testify in his defense at his trial
• Libby will introduce a powerpoint presentation at his trial
• Libby will seek to introduce his notes made during pertinent times
• Libby will seek to introduce classified documents, including documents pertaining to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger, which he asserts fall under four exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The AP reports on Libby's motion here.

It's probably no surprise that Libby will testify, but just a few weeks ago, when Fitz filed his opposition to Libby's motion to introduce a memory expert at trial (pdf version here), Fitz wrote (page 17, footnote 11):

Notably, defendant has not committed to testifying on his own behalf, and declines to identify which events or conversations he will claim he got right and which he innocently got wrong.

Updated Transcript here.

**********
Fox News' Chris Wallace thought he could pull a fast one of Bill Clinton during an interview that was supposed to be about Clinton's Global Initiative, which today announced the creation of a $1 billion renewable energy fund. Two questions into the interview, Wallace asked Clinton about his not having caught Osama bin Laden during his Presidency. Wallace got creamed.

Crooks and Liars has the transcript. You Tube has the video. Jane at Firedoglake weighs in. Here's the transcript:

In hope of avoiding having to return to Mexcio, Duane Chapman, aka Dog the Bounty Hunter, will seek to offer an apology to Mexico, pay a fine, make a donation to charity and forfeit his bond money, according to his lawyer, Brook Hart of Honolulu.

I'm betting Brook, who is a top notch criminal defense lawyer, will pull it off.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Reading my posts (here, here and here) that touch on Barack Obama you might get the impression I do not like him. To the contrary, I see in Barack Obama a potentially transforming politician. Noam Scheiber gets it:

I like John Edwards. I think he's a well-intentioned guy with good ideas and considerable charms. But he's no Barack Obama. Spend a little time with each of them and you quickly realize there's no comparison between the two men's intellects--Obama is much smarter and has a much more sophisticated view of politics. Edwards is charismatic, but Obama is far more so. (Just compare their performances at the 2004 Democratic convention.) And, unlike Edwards, Obama spent years grappling with public policy issues before he got to the U.S. Senate--first as a community organizer in Chicago, then as a constitutional lawyer and state senator. Except for the last, none of that is a knock on Edwards. Obama is easily more intelligent, sophisticated, and charismatic than 99 percent of the politicians I've come across. (Bill Clinton is the only one I can think of who combines all three talents in similar proportions.)

I concur. Edwards is terrific. Obama is one in a generation. That is why it frustrates me so when he makes the mistakes that he does. I scold him because I love him . .

Republican and former Ambassador Mel Sembler co-hosted a fundraiser for Joe Lieberman . Who's Mel Sembler? Besides being the Chair of Scooter Libby's defense trust, remember Straight? If not, Lindsay at Majikthise (and writing more at Firedoglake) and Jesus' General have the scoop. Lindsay's father, Professor Barry Beyerstein, wrote a searing report on Straight after being invited to visit its facilities.

And don't forget to check out Sembler's lawsuit to recover a p*nis pump.

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards talks to the Sun about the quality of today's drugs:

HELLRAISER Keith Richards says he has finally given up drugs -- because they don't give him Satisfaction any more. The Rolling Stones guitarist complained dealers and chemists have reduced the power of his favourite narcotics. And he doesn't like modern drugs like ecstasy because they "mess with the brain". Former heroin addict Keith, 62, moaned: "I really think the quality's gone down.

"All they do is try and take the high out of everything.

"I don't like the way they're working on the brain area instead of just through the blood system. "That's why I don't take any of them any more. "And you're talking to a person who knows his drugs."

While I'm still unpacking boxes from my move, and TChris is on the road, here's some space for you to discuss whatever's on your mind.

The test site for Scoop should be done today and I hope to be playing with it this weekend so that it can go live next week and we can be done with the comment problems on TalkLeft.

Thanks again for your patience...

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Dan Bartlett: "We proposed a more direct approach to bringing clarification. This one is more of the scenic route, but it gets us there."

[I]t's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. If they do, America's standing in the world will continue to suffer, as will the fight against terrorism.

This very well may be McCain's Waterloo with the Beltway. Hiatt has put the Dean, David Broder, between a rock and a hard place. He loves the "Maverick" but if Hiatt calls something a Bush Rubberstamp what is Broder left to do?

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Matt Yglesias wrote a curious post that had me scratching my head. So I spent some time thinking about it. First the essence of the post and on the flip my thoughts:

I've always been puzzled by the realignment theory of American elections. I never really studied US history or US politics at the college level, so I've never been in a position to claim to be able to assess the arguments offered pro and con for this account of things. It's clear that American political journalists act as if the political science underlying realignment theory is strong and sound. I've also always felt, based on my philosophical background, that the theory looked like a slightly absurd superstition. But who was really to say? Then I saw that one of Steve Teles' recommended books for aspiring journalists is David Mayhew's Electoral Realignments: A Critique of an American Genre of which Teles remarks:

"American political journalists continue to talk as if "realignment" was still a meaningful phenomenon. Mayhew shows in this cool and clinical book that it's not, and what is more, probably never was. He also makes some very suggestive comments on what might substitute for realignment as a large-scale explanation for political change."