Michael Tomasky, soon to be the Editor-in-Chief of American Prospect, has some advice for the Democratic candidates on how to deal with their Ralph Nader problem:

So here's a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity. Say he's a madman for thinking of running again. Blast him especially hard on foreign policy, saying that if it were up to the Greens, America would give no aid to Israel and it would cease to exist, and if it were up to the Greens, America would not have even defended itself against a barbarous attack by going into Afghanistan. Have at him, and hard, from the right. Then nail him from the left on certain social issues, on abortion rights and other things that he's often pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant. Cause an uproar. Be dramatic. Don't balance it with praise about what he's done for consumers. To the contrary, talk about how much he's damaging consumers today by not caring who's in charge of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission.

We think it's sound advice. So does Eric Alterman.

Update: Hessiod at Counterspin has more news, of which he says:

Yet more evidence that many 2000 Nader Voters [especially in a State like Michigan] were more ANTI-GORE than Pro-Nader. Anyone who thinks that sucking up to the Green party will convince them to do the right thing and work with the Democrats to topple Bush next fall...are smoking the same thing many of the Green Party voters are smoking.

Update: Here's the other side, from Kerim at Keywords.

For the record, we don't hate the Greens. But we do think Nader cost Gore the election. We also agree with the commenter who said Clinton and Gore were both bad on criminal justice issues. We've written articles about it. They were awful. But there's no comparison between them and Bush and Ashcroft. We have long been saying we don't want to end up with a Democratic candidate who is nothing more than Bush Lite after you've scratched the surface--we want the party to take a left turn. But we'll support whichever Dem gets the nomination because it will be a vast improvement over Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

A gag order has been issued in the Kobe Bryant case. It covers the attorneys, witnesses, law enforcement officers, court staff, the accuser and Bryant.

MSNBC's Keith Olberman is reporting that the University of Northern Colorado has confirmed that the accuser was hospitalized in February due to her being a danger to herself. The Washington Post follows up here.

We will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight discussing Kobe Bryant around 9:30 to 9:40 PM or so EST. (always subject to cancellation for breaking news.) We'll be debating the issue of whether the accuser's name in a rape case should be kept secret, and whether the radio talk show host was right or wrong to publish her name on the Internet.

Update: OnLine Journalism Review has just posted a thoughtful article by Mark Glaser on this issue, and the Releasing Name of Bryant's Accuser Stirs Debate on Online Standards .

Jonathan Shapiro, a onetime newspaper reporter and a former federal prosecutor in Washington and Los Angeles, writes an impressive op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times explaining why mug shot photos incriminate the accused and should not be freely available.

In Attorney General Opinion No. 03-205 issued last week, Lockyer allows police, district attorneys and sheriffs to release mug shots of defendants at their discretion, giving clear license to a practice that the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the federal Justice Department and almost all other law enforcement offices frown upon.

Mug shots are more than just embarrassing photos. They are potentially prejudicial pieces of evidence. ...Lockyer must know that the state bar prohibits attorneys from making statements or releasing information that might unduly color the opinions of potential jurors. Prosecutors are specifically bound to refrain from leaking information that could violate a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.

Go read the whole thing.

(update: link now working)

Remember this case? It seems like another lifetime that we were dissecting every nuance in it daily. But, there is news today. The Judge has agreed to allow the defense to examine the bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn child.

Noah Levitt writes a comprehensive article in Findlaw on the Liberia situation. He argues that the U.S. should step up to the plate and save Liberia.

In this column, I will use a legal concept drawn from contract law to explain the basis for the U.S.'s responsibility toward Liberia. The concept is "detrimental reliance." A contract is an exchange of promises. When one party breaks its promise, and the other has relied on that promise and suffers as a consequence, the latter party is said to have "detrimentally relied."

Liberia detrimentally relied on a number of promises and representations - explicit and implicit - made by the U.S. over the past century and a half. Historically, the United States has acted in such a way as to represent that it will provide for Liberia's economic well being and security. But over history, it has often let Liberia down - at no time more conspicuously than now.

Comments, anyone?

The last thing the jury saw and heard before deciding whether to sentence to Christopher Trotter to life or death for the brutal murder of a pregnant woman was a 90 minute video tape of his father. The jurors looked very solemn as they left the courtroom--they returned hours later with with a life verdict. A very moving story.

[thanks to Rev. Mr. George W. Brooks, Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House, Chicago, for the link]

MSNBC just announced that Jack Kemp is throwing his hat in the ring to run for Governor of California....no details yet.

Calpundit also sends us to Josh Marshall who reports that the issue of the Bush administration's credibility is about to explode on two fronts:

First is the SOTU Address and the misrepresentation of the Iraq-uranium connection, to which you can now add inter-agency strife caused by Tenet playing the blame game:

Until or unless the President steps in to provide leadership, the long-awaited showdown between the "neoconservatives" and the "pragmatists" will soon reach crisis proportions…this, due to CIA director George Tenet's extraordinary decision to name the President's staffers responsible for misleading, or false, pre-Iraq war intel, Administration sources confirm today. [Source: Nelson Report, we don't have a link for it.]

But now there is another problem--

The UPI reports that the 9/11 report to be released tomorrow shows no evidence that Saddam was either involved in the 9/11 attacks or supported Al Qaeda.

"The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida," said a government official who has seen the report.

Josh has much more on these issues, here and here.

Via Kevin at Calpundit:

Hey, remember that judge who asked a Lebanese-American woman if she was a terrorist when she appeared in court to fight a pair of parking tickets? Rob Dougherty brings us the good news that he's accepted a lifetime ban from the bench.

Received from Rob Kampia, of the Marijuana Policy Project:

Wednesday, July 23, the U.S. House of Representatives surprised the nation by voting 152-273 on an amendment that would have prevented the DEA and the U.S. Justice Department from spending any more money to raid and prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers. This is the first time in the history of the country that the full House or Senate has voted on legislation to end the federal government's war on medical marijuana.

Today's vote was closer than anyone had expected, in large part because of the letters that members and allies of the Marijuana Policy Project have been faxing to their U.S. representatives. MPP -- in conjunction with the American Liberty Foundation, Americans for Safe Access, Change the Climate, Drug Policy Alliance, Drug Reform Coordination Network, and the Libertarian Party -- generated tens of thousands of faxes, e-mails, and phone calls to Capitol Hill in the past few days, showing U.S. House members for the first time the collective strength of the medical marijuana grassroots movement.

I want to publicly thank U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), and Sam Farr (D-CA) for sponsoring the amendment and giving strong speeches on the House floor yesterday in support of today's vote.

From MPP's website:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted today to allow the Bush administration's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to continue raiding and arresting seriously ill medical marijuana patients and caregivers in states that allow the medical use of marijuana. Nevertheless, patients and advocates were cheered by the growth in the number of congressional allies since the last House vote on medical marijuana in 1998 -- and by the fact that more than two thirds of House Democrats voted to protect patients. The overall vote was 152 in favor, 273 opposed, and 10 not voting.

Here's some info on the MPP:

Journalist David Neiwert of Orcinus investigates actor Mel Gibson today, asking whether his cozying up to conservative political pundits as part of a Washington power play to garner pre-release support for his new movie about the crucifixion called "Passion" is indicative that there is truth to the rumors that the film and Gibson are anti-semitic. No one knows what's in the movie for sure, but there are major concerns that it blames the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ.

Here's the guest list for his latest screening in Washington:

Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas and Kate O'Beirne; conservative essayist Michael Novak; President Bush's abortive nominee for labor secretary, Linda Chavez; staff director Mark Rodgers of the Senate Republican conference chaired by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former Republican House member Mark Siljander of Michigan; and White House staffer David Kuo, deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Neiwert explores Gibson in depth. He reprints part of a 1995 Playboy interview with Gibson which is fascinating and appalling--the man is anti-feminist, does not believe in evolution or Darwin, does not think men and women are equal, and reveals several other beliefs we find bizarre. And he uses plenty of profanity to express these views. Why should you read it? As Neiwert says,

Barry Scheck flew into Indianopolis today to ask a federal judge to order a DNA test on Darnell Williams, who is set for execution.

The former prosecutor on the case, now in private practice joined in the motion. Scheck is seeking clemency from the Governor, and wants to establish that Williams was not the shooter. Some of the jurors who returned the death verdict have joined in the request.

The Innocence Project, of which Scheck is co-founder, has agreed to pay the considerable cost of the testing.

If Williams was not the shooter, but instead along for the robbery that preceded the murder, the Governor might commute his death sentence to life in prison.

Update: The New York Times Thursday has this report.