Joel Rogers argues in The Nation that Wisconsin's progressive voters should vote for John Edwards:

Where Edwards diverges from Kerry is in addressing a series of issues of distinctive concern to progressives--inequalities of race and class, abusive corporate power, neoliberal globalization, ghetto poverty and prison, and the importance of worker and community organization outside the state. And what makes him distinctive is not just that he regularly touches these third-rail issues but is effectively running on them.

He is unabashedly pro-union. He regularly challenges white audiences to confront "the white problem" of continued racial injustice. His "two Americas" stump speech is all about class. He appreciates and notes the sheer pervasiveness of corporate crime--from tax evasion to union avoidance, predatory lending to environmental degradation, unsafe working conditions to subsidy abuse. He is sharply critical of the "Washington Consensus" on international trade and finance. He talks about the growth of poverty and dead-end jobs. And he's the only candidate who does this in engaging language ordinary voters understand.

Vincent Jones, writing for US Liberals, argues that the Dems should nominate an African-American in the veep slot in 2004. On the Bush side, he talks about Colin Powell possibly taking Dick Cheney's place, but he doesn't list any names for the Democratic ticket. We wonder who he had in mind?

The White House has been too white for too long. It's time for a change, no doubt about it. We'd welcome some diversity on the ticket.

by TChris

The general manager of CNN acknowledges that "his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's 'scream' after the Iowa caucuses." No kidding. But it wasn't just CNN.

Instead, the cable and broadcast news networks aired Dean's Iowa exclamation 633 times -- and that doesn't include local news or talk shows -- in the four days after it was made, according to the Hotline, a Washington-based newsletter.

The repetition may have contributed to Dean's declining support. But it's not just a problem for Dean. Witness the overplayed footage of Janet Jackson's breast (suitably fogged for our protection). David Bauder has an interesting take on the phenomenon of excessive coverage (or uncoverage, in Jackson's case) of news events that don't quite warrant all the fuss.

by TChris

Before sending troops to Iraq, the Bush administration explained

that it was necessary to topple Saddam because he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, was trying to build a nuclear weapon and represented a grave danger in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

In the absence of any such weapons, the President today said the administration and others thought that Saddam had weapons, but offered a different justification for the war:

"But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network," Bush said.

The difference has not gone unnoticed by Democratic front-runner John Kerry.

"This is a far cry from what the president and his administration told the American people through 2002," Kerry said. "Back then President Bush repeatedly told the American people that Saddam Hussein has got chemical weapons."

"They told us they could deploy these weapons within 45 minutes to injure our troops," the four-term senator from Massachusetts added. "It was on that basis that he sent Americans' sons and daughters off to war."

Unless voters have short memories, are easily deceived, or just don't care, the President's growing credibility gap will play a significant role come November.

Mohammed Ismail Agha was 15 when he was sent from Afganistan to Guantanamo. Here is his story:

[Agha] said he and a friend had left their farming community in search of work when Afghan militiamen stopped them. "They said, 'Come and join us,' but we told them we are poor people, jobless, and we don't want to join the militia, we want to earn money," Agha said. "Then they said, 'You are Taliban.' "

Agha said he was handed over to U.S. soldiers, who first took him to the southern city of Kandahar and then to Bagram, where he was held in solitary confinement. He lost track of his friend, Mohammed Wali, in Kandahar and has not seen him since.

He said U.S. forces interrogated him at Bagram Air Base, north of the capital, Kabul, about whether he was a Taliban supporter. Yet once he reached Cuba, there were few questions.

It turns out, Agha is not bitter about his experience:

"At first I was unhappy with the U.S. forces. They stole 14 months of my life," Agha said. "But they gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons. "For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Besides teaching him to read and write English, the military provided books in his native Pashto language and a Quran, Islam's sacred book.

Still, his family did not hear from him for ten months --that's how long it took to for them to receive a letter from him through the Red Cross--they did not know if he was dead or alive. Agha did not get a trial. He was not afforded a lawyer. No charges were ever brought against him.

Surely, if as he says, he was barely questioned after reaching Guantanamo, it should not have taken the U.S. military over a year to send him home. The young Mr. Agha is far more forgiving than we would be if he were our son.

[link via Left i on the News]

Jeanne at Body and Soul has many insightful comments on Bush's performance on Meet the Press today. Our favorite:

The funniest moment was Bush saying that what troubled him about Vietnam was that "we had politicians making military decisions." Gosh, glad that didn't happen this time around.

Calpundit:

On Meet the Press this morning President Bush said he'd be delighted to turn over all his service records from his time in the Texas Air National Guard. Good news! But just as Russert was moving on to the next question, he added, "We did so in 2000, by the way." So the bottom line is: he doesn't plan to release anything he hasn't already released.

The transcript is here.

Dennis Kucinich on the drug war--this is definitely worth watching. Pass it on.

by TChris

While some complain that "junk science" promotes frivolous lawsuits, a British court has recognized the far greater harm that results when prosecutors rely upon bad science to obtain a criminal conviction. Overturning the convictions of Angela Cannings for the murder of her two babies, the court ruled that substituting theory for fact caused Cannings' conviction to rest "almost entirely on a tidy presumption of guilt, rather than on solid evidence."

The popular theory at issue: "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is a murder, unless proven otherwise."

The hypothesis, which is widely quoted, became known in Britain as "Meadow's law." But those assumptions are now being re-examined.

Cannings' first child died after thirteen weeks. Her second child died after seven weeks. As is often the case, doctors could not explain the deaths. Her third child, who was closely monitored, experienced breathing problems but survived after being rushed to a hospital. She is now eight years old.

Cannings' son Matthew was born in 1999. When Matthew was four months old, an alarm alerted Cannings to the fact that he was not breathing properly. Cannings called her husband, then "sat in shock until he rushed home and called an ambulance." Matthew died. Cannings' daughter was removed from her home and Cannings was charged with murdering Matthew and another child. The evidence consisted of "a suspicious pattern of deaths" and Cannings' decision to call her husband, not an ambulance, when she discovered that Matthew wasn't breathing properly.

The prosecution's expert witness, relying on the theory that three deaths is proof of murder unless the parents prove otherwise, told the jury that his clinical diagnosis "would be this was characteristic of smothering."

But he had never seen the babies or interviewed the parents and, as the appellate court pointed out, there was a dearth of evidence: no cause of death could be determined; there was no sign the babies had been injured; and there was no history of parental violence or abuse. In fact, relatives and friends described Mrs. Cannings as a loving mother.

Although other experts advanced other opinions, Cannings was found guilty. Thankfully, after Cannings spent twenty months in prison, the appellate court ruled that a suspicious pattern of deaths isn't enough to prove that a murder was committed. The court said:

"Unless we are sure of guilt, the dreadful possibility always remains that a mother, already brutally scarred by the unexplained death or deaths of her babies, may find herself in prison for life for killing them, when she should not be there at all. In our community, and in any civilized community, that is abhorrent."

The decision prompted the British attorney general to announce "a thorough review of 258 criminal cases similar to Ms. Canning's case," although not all of those cases will likely be revisited. As tragic and emotional as the death of a child always is, mere suspicion must never supplant proof in a criminal prosecution. This case is an important reminder of that bedrock principle.

Governor Arnold has made some decisions on the abysmal California prison situation:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the U.S. attorney here Friday to investigate allegations that officials at Folsom State Prison orchestrated a riot two years ago and then conspired to cover it up. Facing a wave of troubles in all corners of California's far-flung penal system — the nation's largest — he moved on several other fronts as well.

The governor said he was reversing an earlier decision to greatly reduce the state's lone correctional watchdog agency and would instead restore its funding and give it new law enforcement powers, including the authority to issue subpoenas and seek search warrants.

In a third move, administration officials announced plans to phase out the use of steel-mesh cages to confine unruly juveniles in the California Youth Authority. The cages, used only in California, were singled out recently as dehumanizing by experts who studied the juvenile system.

A federal appeals court has ruled the DEA cannot prevent the sale of hemp products :

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco said the Drug Enforcement Administration cannot regulate hemp in food because such "non-psychoactive hemp products" are not included in its list of dangerous drugs.

The ruling is a twist in an ongoing battle between drug regulators and an increasing number of entrepreneurs and farmers producing a growing variety of hemp food products, including bread, granola, waffles, pretzels and chips. The industry marketed the hemp products as one the latest nutritional marvels, rich in protein, vitamin E and two essential fatty acids.

Albany defense lawyer Terry Kindlon writes in:

Let's hope the first thing John Kerry does after he's elected President is appoint Eliot Spitzer of New York his Attorney General, to restore dignity and intelligence to the office. We've all been so distracted by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz , Perle and the other Chickenhawks killing thousands of innocent people that John Ashcroft has come close to getting away with murder.

US v Rice, in the District of Virginia, is the latest example: In 2002, Ashcroft had a press conference and personally announced he was going to seek the death penalty against Darrell Rice. In 2004, on the eve of trial, the government has admitted it never had enough reliable evidence to even take Rice to trial, much less give him the needle . The way their press release is worded we're supposed to be impressed that DOJ has acted ethically and appropriately--and their point is well taken--it is impressive that they've acted ethically and appropriately. Case dismissed.

Anyway, DOJ's message seems to be, "Sorry for your trouble, Darrell, now scram." Do you think Ashcroft will be blaming the CIA for his lack of intelligence?

by TChris

Demonstrating the political savvy that comes from a successful career in Washington, John Kerry has "gingerly opened the way to debating a one-year gap in the public record of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard."

"I don't know what the facts are with respect to the president's service," the decorated veteran said on a Tucson tarmac. "I know issues were raised previously. It's not up to me to talk about them or question them at this point. . . . It's up to the president and the military to answer those questions."

At first glance, this statement might seem bland and evasive. But notice how he drives the story forward without risking a backlash. He makes no accusations, but in the end he puts the ball squarely in Bush's court, saying it is "up to the president" to resolve the matter.

Bush claims that he satisfied his service requirement, but has not produced the documents that would settle the question. Other Democrats have revived the issue, including DNC Chairman Terence McAuliffe, who accused Bush of being "AWOL." But Kerry, whose own war record is a strength, "is uniquely positioned to make this issue stick." The issue could prove to be yet another embarrassment to the President. In any event, the issue invites attention to the respective war records of Bush and Kerry -- a comparison the Bush camp would prefer not to invite.

Update: On Sunday, President Bush defended his military record, criticized Democrats for making an issue of his National Guard service, and promised to release his service records -- "if we still have them." When asked why no evidence supported his claim that he reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972, Bush said: "There may be no evidence, but I did report."