We haven't had one of these for a while in the blogosphere, but our bloggers' lunch with Bill Clinton seems to have brought out the worst in a lot of people.

Tonight, it's Ann Althouse and her second attack on Jessica of Feministing. Jessica responds here. Read all the comments, too. And this post at Salon. I'm firmly with Jessica on this one.

Jessica's sin, according to Althouse: She is posing in the picture, you can see she has breasts, and she resembles a rather famous intern who became rather famously involved with Bill Clinton.

I was there. I think Jessica turned sideways because we were packed in like sardines. At one point I was right on top of Chris Bowers -- he had to ask me to move forward -- when I did, I probably bumped into Jessica. But even if Jessica did turn to show a flattering pose, so what? Why is Ann being so catty about it? I sat across from Jessica at the roundtable. She did absolutely nothing to call attention to herself. She was sitting directly opposite President Clinton. She did nothing flirtatious, nothing to try and grab his attention, she was just like all of us, engrossed in the conversation.

Now, on to the next blogfight which is taking place in the comments at Steve Gilliards' NewsBlog, to his post asking why there weren't any minority bloggers at the lunch. In his post, Steve, a journalist, says he wouldn't have gone even if he had been invited. Reporters don't do these kind of events. Fair enough, I'm not an impartial journalist and don't have that training, so I'll take him at his word. Liza at Culture Kitchen (whom I really like and have sincere respect for, we spent an evening together at a club in Amsterdam) is even more upset about the lack of minority bloggers. She wrote Peter Daou about it and received this response. I'll agree. There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional. I will bet that when there's another such event, and there will be, whether it's by President Clinton or another Democrat, there will be a greater effort to include a more diverse group of bloggers.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

How ironic. One of the main forces of Left blog detraction of the past few years, The New Republic, has joined the shrill partisan forces:

This November, control of Congress hinges upon the reelection of Republican moderates--especially those in the Northeast, such as Chafee and Connecticut Representative Christopher Shays. Inevitably, these dwindling, endangered few present their survival as an essential cause for all those who care about decency and goodwill. "I feel a moral obligation to make sure I do everything I can to make sure moderates have a place in this party," pleads Shays.

We don't want moderate Republicans to disappear, right? Surely we don't want Congress to descend irrevocably into bitter partisanship, do we? Actually, yes, we do. This November, it's time for voters to wipe out the remnants of the GOP's moderate wing--and without regrets.

Hello? Rather shrill of them no? More on the other side.

Robert Parry at Consortium News writes that Karl Rove and Richard Armitage have a long standing friendship. They worked together to secure the nomination of Colin Powell as Secretary of State. Parry writes:

The significance of this detail is that it undermines the current "conventional wisdom" among Washington pundits that Armitage acted alone - and innocently - in July 2003 when he disclosed Plame's covert identity to right-wing columnist Robert Novak, who then got Rove to serve as a secondary source confirming the information from Armitage.

This new revelation that Armitage and Rove worked together behind the scenes also lends credence to Novak's version of his contacts with Armitage and other administration officials, both as Novak sketched out those meetings in 2003 and then filled in the details in a column on Sept. 14, 2006.

Consider this in the context of the disparate versions provided by Robert Novak and Richard Armitage of Armitage's role in the leaks investigation. It also relates to the timing of Armitage's leak to Novak -- Novak said he first got a call from Armitage in June, 2003, before Joseph Wilson's July 6 op-ed:

Senators Richard Durbin and Edward Kennedy are calling for a new investigation into Bush judicial nominee William Haynes. Durbin and Kennedy sent this letter today to Sen. Arlen Specter asking for new hearings on Haynes in light of allegations he pressured military lawyers to support the Administration's military commissions bill. Here is the text of the letter, which I received by e-mail:

September 15, 2006

Dear Chairman Specter,

We recently learned of allegations that, in meeting earlier this week, the White House and Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes pressured senior judge advocates general into signing a letter on the Administration's proposed revisions to the War Crimes Act and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It is alleged that the JAGs were kept in this meeting for several hours, until they agreed to sign the letter. That letter was subsequently used to suggest that the JAGs supported the Administration's proposals.

Good news from the Pew Research Center -- the public is strongly favoring Democrats in the November elections and a mood of anti-incumbancy and anti-Bush rules the day.

As the congressional midterm campaign begins in earnest, the mood of the electorate is sharply drawn. Voters are disappointed with Congress and disapproving of President Bush. Anti-incumbent sentiment, while a bit lower than a few months ago, is far more extensive than in the previous two midterms and remains close to 1994 levels. Moreover, there are indications that voters are viewing the election through the prism of national issues and concerns. Many more voters see their vote as being against the president than at a comparable point in 1994, and a solid majority says party control of Congress will be a factor in their voting decision.

FigureVoters are expressing strong and consistent anti-Republican attitudes. The GOP lags well behind the Democratic Party on nearly all major issues, including the economy, Iraq, education, health care, the environment and the budget deficit. And the Republicans have lost ground in recent years even on such traditional strengths as terrorism and improving the nation's morality.

Update: Great editorial from the New York Times on how fear-mongering has reached Congress -- scared to death of the November elections, they are in a stampede to throw due process out the window. Analysis here.

********
Via Raw Story, Bloomberg News reports the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected President Bush 's plan for trying terror suspects in military tribunals today and passed its own bill instead, with greater protections for the rights of the terror suspects.

Update: Washington Post (Ney will use alcoholism as an excuse); CNN (deal involves plea to two charges.)

******
Original post: 9/14

Via TPM Muckraker, the tentacles of the Jack Abramoff investigation continue to grow. A blog at the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney has reached a plea agreement with the Justice Department and will plead guilty to a criminal charge, possibly Friday.

This is progress. The Supreme Court has announced that beginning next month, it will post transcripts of oral arguments the same day they are argued. They will be available free on the court's website.

I hope televised oral arguments are next. While I am not in favor of televising criminal trials or pre-trial hearings without the consent of the defendant, I think appellate hearings consisting solely of legal arguments should be available to all. They are a tremendous educational tool.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Since, unlike Jeralyn, I am not a blog leader ("Pres. Bill Clinton sat down with leaders of the lefty blogging community in his Harlem offices 9/12 and TalkLeft 's Jeralyn Merritt noted those in attendance . . . [not me] . . .") I don't get to ask President Bill Clinton questions. And to add insult to injury, Jeralyn has already thrown me overboard, offering my guest blogging gig to Clinton (yes I am sulking over here). All that said, I asked myself what I would have liked to discuss with Clinton. I thought of this issue most of all - 'does Clinton think his Third Way/New Democrat approach, that worked so well for him (did it work for the Dem Party?) in the 90s (of course since he is the best politician of his generation it is not clear that using of other approaches would not have worked for him) is the right political approach in today's hyperpartisan age of Bush Republicanism?'.

Anyone who has read my posts here knows by now I tremendously admire the work of the late Richard Hofstadter (an admiration shared by The Mahablog) and believe that our current Democrat political rock star - the new Bill Clinton - Barack Obama (a tremendously talented politician in his own right) has much to learn from him, as well as FDR. I think blurring the differences between the parties is bad politics, and that we Democrats must highlight the differences between Democrat amd Republican. I wonder what Clinton thinks and on the flip are some of the thoughts I would present for his consideration.

Senate Minority leader Harry Reid held a blogger conference call today. McJoan at Daily Kos has the details. Shorter version: Sen. Arlen Specter's warrantless NSA electronic surveillance bill will not pass. The Democrats will prevent it. McJoan says:

"...given the already expressed bipartisan opposition to the Specter legislation in the Senate, it seems that a filibuster will be unnecessary."

Blogger Glenn Greenwald asked Reid directly:

Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

by TChris

Although the president wants you to be afraid -- very afraid -- it's time to replace fear with courage.

It's time to suck it up, America. You can't just go around being terrified all the time. It's time to stop sniveling in a corner and get The Right Stuff -- the courage to have principles and STAND for something. Truth. Justice. Freedom. Education. Jobs. Honest Elections. The Ten Commandments. And commercial-free TV!

If you nonetheless insist on being afraid, here are ten things that are scarier than terrorists.

Oh, no! My pal Duane Chapman, also known as Dog the Bounty Hunter, was arrested by U.S. Marshals today on an extradition warrant out of Mexico for his actions in apprehending since convicted multiple date-rapist Max Factor heir Andrew Luster.

In 2003, Chapman traveled to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to retrieve Max Factor cosmetics heir Andrew Luster, who was wanted in the U.S. on rape charges. Luster is now in jail, serving a 124-year term. The Chapmans were jailed in Mexico for a brief time for the incident three years ago. Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico.

Dog's wife, Beth Chapman, said 12 armed marshals "came through the door" at 6:00AM this morning. She said they took their daughter's boyfriend down at gunpoint. Dog was sleeping at the time. TMZ spoke with Nicky Credic from the U.S. Marshals Office. She said, "The arrest warrant was signed by a U.S. magistrate in Hawaii on September 13. The warrant was based on a formal request based on a diplomatic note from the government of Mexico."

Free Dog! He did a great public service in apprehending the fugitive Andrew Luster. The Mexican authorities had it in for him. See this 2003 CNN article.

More on Dog here.