The media-manufactured meme of a supposed Obama flip-flop on Iraq has distracted us from the real problem with Obama's Iraq policy: its consistent ambiguity.

In a sensible, strongly-worded, but practical commentary in The Nation today, Tom Hayden, who has supported Obama since endorsing him back in January, lays out the problems that have always existed with Barack Obama's Iraq policy.  And he provides useful suggestions for progressive supporters of Obama to keep the pressure on him on this, and presumably other, issues.

Read the whole thing, but the highlights are below...

SlyDi's recent diary about the national impact of the Midwest floods, has moved me to post a diary that I've been meaning to write for a number of days. SlyDi points out, among other things, that over the decades our nation has slowly destroyed what was once the greatest rail system in the world. And we're now paying the price for it.  The Midwest floods only highlight this self-inflicted crisis that will become more and more apparent...especially as gas prices continue to soar.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the trucking interests that it largely represents have been busily trying to write another sad chapter in this saga for the last several years.  ODOT has been working to build a huge, new highway through Oklahoma City. This ten-lane monstrosity is conveniently routed in such a way as to require the destruction of the old Union Station railyard, which might otherwise serve as a hub for rail transportation locally and throughout the state.

But now, thanks to the efforts of a group of citizen activists, the destruction has been put on hold.      

In the wake of the publication of the Yoo memorandum, there has been a lot of attention again on this administration's war crimes. And it's needed.  Although the Bush Administration has apparently earned the contempt of the vast majority of the American people, we have yet to fully grapple with the crimes of this administration, let alone to call for the punishment of those responsible for them.

Troutfishing's excellent diary yesterday reminds us that the real war criminals include not just minor functionaries and crude hacks like John Yoo, but the highest levels of this administration including the President himself.  The MSM seems, very gingerly, to be reporting this now. And it's very important that progressives not let this story die.

But unfortunately we have another task before us which, for at least some progressives, will be far more difficult.  

Endorsements are often an overvalued commodity in presidential campaigns.  We hear about dozens of them, but only a handful have any real political impact.  Clearly, for example, the Oprah Winfrey and Ted Kennedy endorsements provided crucial (if momentary) help for Obama's campaign. Similarly the Villaraigosa endorsement was of great help to Clinton.

But some of the stories from this campaign involve endorsements that haven't happened. There are three that really stand out:  Al Gore, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards.  Although I don't at this point expect that he will endorse anyone while the primary campaign is still ongoing, Al Gore's political clout remains entirely intact, due to his extremely unusual political profile.  But Richardson and Edwards are a different story.  I think they've seriously misplayed their hands. Both were in positions to have a major influence on this election and to boost their careers and issues. Both hesitated. Both have rendered themselves irrelevant.

Reading Jonathan Chait's scathing piece in The New Republic (hat tip to nevadadem) led me to think a little about what the Clinton camp seems willing to do to attempt to secure the presidential nomination.

As Chait makes clear, the only way Clinton can win the nomination is to get delegates (super and otherwise) who are in the Obama camp or headed to the Obama camp to abandon Obama for Clinton. There simply are not enough pledged delegates left for her to win at the polls.  And the only way to do this, as Clinton clearly understands, is to mortally wound Barack Obama, to make him such damaged goods that the party simply cannot afford to nominate him.  Hence the invidious comparisons with John McCain. Hence the Ken Starr line. Hence the NAFTA and Rezko nonsense.  

All of this led me to ask: what political price will Hillary Clinton pay for attacking her party's likely presidential nominee?

10. It's Cold/Hot There. How can you have a fair election when it's 4° outside? Or 75°?

9. Caucuses And Primaries Are Poor Measures of Preference. Neither a caucus (like Hawaii) nor a primary (like Wisconsin) really tells you who voters favor. You need a system with both caucuses and primaries. Like Texas (Warning: This is a limited-time rationalization. This argument may no longer be valid on March 5).

8. Neither Wisconsin Nor Hawaii Are Really BIG States.  You know. Like New York. And California.

Al Giordano has been doing some of the finest reporting on this primary campaign anywhere over on The Field, the campaign blog hosted by Rural Votes.  The folks at Rural Votes stole Giordano from his usual gig reporting on Latin America at NarcoNews. For many of us political junkies, The Field has become one of the go-to sites for campaign news.

Al has just announced that they've been unable to raise enough money to keep The Field going.  This is terrible news for those of us who value his reporting.

There may, however, still be time to raise enough money to keep the blog going.  Giordano hasn't given a goal, but if you're a potential angel contact Rural Votes' Deb Kozikowski at ombudskoz@ruralvotes.com with an offer!

Over on THE FIELD, Al Giordano's primary blog, the proprietor has just suggested that his more famous namesake will soon be endorsing Barack Obama.

For those of you who haven't been following it, THE FIELD has been among the most compelling reads on this year's primary race.  Giordano has been doing some great reporting. And he's not afraid of making bold predictions.  Some have been right--he called the Iowa results and the South Carolina Democratic delegate count--some have been wrong--he blew the New Hampshire Democratic Primary.  But his predictions about endorsements have generally been on the mark. He called Kerry. He called Kennedy. He called Sebelius.  

And now he's hinting like crazy that Al Gore is going to be on the campaign trail soon for Obama.

Over on The Field, Al Giordano has announced that John Kerry will endorse Obama, but that Obama is timing the announcement to take maximum political advantage of the situation.

Giordano says that, in the wake of Iowa, a bunch of national Democrats are leaping to get on board the Obama bandwagon. Obviously any endorsement will count for more while there's still a race on. Obama (and the endorsers) want each major endorsement to get its own place in the news cycle. In the case of the Kerry endorsement, the timing also has to do with fundraising:

On the other hand, part of the delay may be that, with John Kerry’s coming Obama endorsement (you heard it here first on The Field), the Obama campaign may want to simultaneously send out a fund appeal to his three-million-strong fundraising list from 2004. And that takes a bit longer to stamp and lick all those envelopes than simply calling a press conference.

Since a fair bit of attention was given to the letter in which fifty prominent historians endorsed Barack Obama, I figured I'd draw Kossacks' attention to this essay by Jeremy Cameron Young that just appeared at History News Network: "A Historian Against Obama."  Mr. Young is a graduate student at Indiana University and the editor of the website Progressive Historians.

Young's essay is thoughtful.  Though I don't agree with everything he says, I'm certainly more sympathetic to his argument than I am to that of the Historians for Obama.  I've pasted the key paragraphs after the jump.

I've got to admit that most of my college football energy is spent rooting for the Oklahoma Sooners.  But once a year, my thoughts turn to my alma mater, Harvard.  

One of the many few great things about Harvard football is that it's a successful season if we beat Yale...so there's really no reason to pay attention to any of the rest of it.  As it turns out, this season Harvard and Yale were both undefeated in the Ivy League going into today's game at the Yale Bowl, so this was for all the marbles (if one considers an Ivy League football championship to be "all the marbles"). Though Yale, playing at home and with a better record, was pretty heavily favored, Harvard kicked their behinds, 37-6.  

In the 1960s and early 1970s, one of the most pressing political questions was "Why Are We in Vietnam?," which famously became the title of a novel/meditation/rant by Norman Mailer. But today's equivalent question--"Why Are We in Iraq?"--is not only unanswered, it's often unasked, especially inside the Beltway.

In an interesting and important exchange with Bob Guldin in the September 27 issue of The New York Review of Books, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Powers focuses on the failure of Congress, even since January, to ask the hard questions about why the Bush Administration attacked Iraq.

It's worth reading the whole thing, but Powers's conclusion is particularly important:  

Given the White House's outrageous, but by now unsurprising, disregard for both law and responsibility, the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence was almost to be expected.

But how to react to this injustice?

Why, with dozens of dKos diaries!

Currently half of the eight recommended diaries are about the commutation.  But we can do better than that!  

Use this diary to discuss how important it is to have even more diaries about Scooter Libby!

ABC News is reporting that, in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that Democrats will not block funding for President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq:

Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that.

Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?

Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder.

I'm appalled, but not surprised.

As Pres. Gerald Ford's casket heads to the National Cathedral and dignitaries gather to hear the eulogies, I figured I'd start a live-blogging thread covering the event.

Political funerals are political events. This is particularly true in authoritarian regimes. And since the Bush presidency has authoritarian pretensions, I think we'd be well served to pay attention to the particular nonsense that we will likely hear from our President today.  Our current situation contains so many echoes of Ford, his administration, and his times, from the painful extrication from Vietnam, to questions of presidential power post-Watergate (with a Democratic Congress, of course), to the personnel (most notably Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld).  

Pay attention, too, to what the punditocracy says.  Expect lots of fond memories of bipartisanship past and the wonders of the nonstop DC circle jerk.  I'm following on CNN, but no doubt interesting insider baseball is being played on all the news networks.

Put your thoughts on things as they progress in this thread.

CNN is hosting a party of thirty major bloggers from "left" and right at Tryst, a Washington, D.C., internet cafe. CNN is congratulating itself for its own hipness, which also involves them saying nice things about bloggers.  It's all very amusing.

More information about the E-Lection Blog Party is available here.

I figured the least dKos could do is live blog it.  So if you're tired of pacing and/or biting your fingernails, you can blog some more about blogging...but this time it'll be about blogging on TV!

Is torture acceptible?

It's extraordinary that this nation, a supposed democracy, is debating this issue, but we have been for a number of years now.

But finally it came before Congress.  And Congress responded with a loud "yes."  Both houses, both parties made their views clear.

If torture were truly unacceptable, one wouldn't accept it. One would do everything in one's power to stop it. The Democrats had the power to stop it. But they chose not to even try. The message is clear. They may not like torture (though I suspect some of them do).  But they accept it as the price of doing business.

Advocates for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians often build their arguments around a sharp distinction between marriage as a civil institution and marriage as a religious institution.  This distinction is of course important. And usually, advocates of equal marriage rights cash it out as follows: whatever the state does, churches will be free to limit their marriage rites to heterosexual couples if they so choose.

This is, of course correct, and worth pointing out. But by leaving the argument there, advocates of equal marriage rights are missing one of the most powerful arguments against the constitutional amendment that is being considered today, as well as other attempts by state and federal governments to ban gay and lesbian marriage:  a growing number of churches recognize same sex unions. Progressives can -- and should -- argue that efforts to ban  same sex marriage at least implicitly interfere with the religious liberties of  adherents of these churches.