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."

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Democratic leaders did not appreciate Hugh Chavez's little show:

Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations. "You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said.

Good show and smart show by Leader Pelosi and Congressman Rangel.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

At Daily Kos, on a few occasions, certain issues have caused dustups and have lead Markos to prohibit posts on ceratin subjects. Inevitably, on those occasions, a number of diaries will appear decrying the "censorship" and the "assaults on freedom of speech" and the "First Amendment violations." While not quite as obtuse as that, Andrew Sullivan comes close, in his defense of the "even handed" Brendon Nyhan:

Last Wednesday, controversy broke out when I slammed two liberal blogs . . . In an email Friday morning, Sam Rosenfeld, the magazine's online editor, asked that I focus my blogging on conservative targets. He specifically objected to two posts criticizing liberals (here and here) that I wrote after the Atrios controversy. I refused and terminated the relationship.

Let's assume Nyhan is telling the truth here (and he is not for the most part, but leave that aside for a second). How does this comment from Sully make any sense?

As readers know, I've been following the case of Duane Chapman, aka Dog the Bounty Hunter, and his arrest in Hawaii last week on an extradition warrant from Mexico stemming from his capture of convicted rapist Andrew Luster there a few years ago. He posted bail the following day and now awaits further proceedings.

Last night, A&E aired a special show featuring Dog and his wife Beth. A&E reports today (received by e-mail, no link yet):

Tuesday night's special on A&E Network, Dog: The Family Speaks reached 1.5 million A18-34 viewers and 2.9 million A18-49 viewers, making it the top A&E telecast in the history of the network for both demos. The special also delivered 2.6 million A25-54 viewers.

Why the interest? Is it all about Dog, or is there some politics mixed in? One of those involved in marketing the special added these thoughts in an e-mail:

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

David Broder is angry. Not at the President of course. Not at Republicans. But at those nasty foul mouthed bloggers":

Now, however, you can see the independence party forming -- on both sides of the aisle. They are mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society -- the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left and the doctrinaire religious extremists on the right who would convert their faith into a whipping post for their opponents.

You see, Broder has taken a whipping the past week for his inanities and yearns for the return of the rightful respect that he, as Dean of the Washington Press Corps richly deserves.

On NPR yesterday, former President Bill Clinton opposed torture of terror detainees.

In an interview with National Public Radio aired on Thursday, Clinton said any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review. "You don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture," Clinton said.

Clinton warned against circumventing international standards on prisoner treatment, citing U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, criticism of treatment at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists and a secret CIA prison system outside the United States.

Clinton also critized Bush's program: