“How’s it been? Like a living hell.” – Rep. Bart Stupak

Poor Bart Supak.

Yeah, women whose privacy rights are targeted by a religious zealot tend to take that very personally.

However, Mr. Stupak must be positively thrilled that he gets to play the martyr. It’s the starring role of his political lifetime.

And just in case you thought this was a principled stand, it’s not. Via Reality Check, when Mr. Stupak was confronted with a White House letter reportedly “representing 59,000 nuns that was sent to lawmakers urging them to pass the health care bill,” his response was a shrug:

The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.” (emphasis added)

Bart Stupak, serving the patriarchy through Congress.

Clear enough for you now?

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” – Democratic Party Platform of 2008

Congress today thinks its supposed to do the Executive Branch’s bidding instead of doing the work of checking the Executive Branch, making laws, while also making certain bad legislation that compromises what’s needed, as well as people’s rights, gets stopped before it goes out the Capitol doors.

Political party power now rules over what We the People expect, deserve, and voted our elected legislators and the president in to do.

Then…

Democrats produced a bad bill.

Republicans didn’t produce anything.

Democrats compromised on what the public wanted.

Republicans didn’t care what you said.

Democrats dillied, dallied and made deals.

Republicans obstructed, obfuscated and obstinately wouldn’t join in.

Democrats delighted when it was done, even though they sacrificed women’s rights to do it, while the men in charge just shrugged, and one won’t quit whining, as if the consequences will ever hit the boys.

Presidents either earn the respect of people through merit or they wrangle support through sympathy. In the health care debate, it’s the latter not the former for Pres. Obama. But in the end Democrats feel they have no choice but to rescue Obama’s presidency, while throwing out the public option that would have lowered the deficit further, insured more people, and actually been democratically equitable, because it wasn’t forcing Americans into a monopoly system, while making full reproductive health care harder for women. The choices the Democratic majority and Pres. Obama made solidified that they would produce a bad bill. How it got this way is even worse.

For the first seven months of Obama’s presidency, Barack Obama sat back and watched Congress painstakingly construct health care legislation, with all the never ending meetings, maneuvering, and Republican massaging getting nowhere. By August, the champion of health care was dead, with Sarah Palin taking center stage with “death panels,” while Barack Obama was just waking up trying to figure out what had happened.

During the whole of 2009, Obama called one health care deadline date after another, only to see each one pass into history, as did the Virginia and New Jersery governorships from Democratic hands, as well as the Lion of the Senate’s seat in Congress.

By the New Year, the people paying attention were in full mutiny. They now don’t care who’s in charge of Congress, or what party you’re in, if you’re in they want you out.

By March of this year, Pres. Obama had reduced himself to begging Congress to save his presidency by passing a badly flawed bill that throws citizens into a monopoly system without competition. Pres. Obama and Congress also demanding the majority voting block of the country, women, sacrifice for their ineptitude to do their job, serving up a health care bill with language that codifies the Hyde Amendment well beyond its yearly budget inclusion, going further than anything the Republicans ever tried under a right-wing Congress and George W. Bush. That’s quite a feat.

The bill that Democrats are close to passing is nothing near to what the American public wants, which begins with a public option. But that goal was left in the dust of deals made by Pres. Obama and Democrats beholden to corporate interests.

Meanwhile, Republicans are already plotting the repeal.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich did his part after a ride on Air Force One, some presidential whispering in his ear, finally getting the attention he has so craved. It was a political move made in part to save Barack Obama, which is sad commentary when you’re in the majority and have all the power, but especially because it’s not Congress’ job to “save” a president. Kucinich gave reasons:

“One of the things that has bothered me is the attempt to try to de-legitimize his presidency. That hurts the nation when that happens,” Kucinich reasoned in a news conference Wednesday. “We have to be very careful,” he continued, that “President Obama’s presidency not be destroyed by this debate. . . . Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there’s something much bigger at stake here for America.” – Kucinich’s health-care vote could be Obama’s lucky charm

Mr. Kucinich’s claim that a democratic process would have “de-legitimized” Obama’s presidency is not only laughable, but an outlandish statement even for him. Pres. Obama has a 48% approval rating amidst economic challenges and after a horrible first year. A defeat on a bill that isn’t good legislation would not “de-legitimize” him no matter how hard Mr. Kucinich huffs and puffs. Would it ruin his chance of a second term? That might be the spin of the traditional media and the elite left, but what guarantees passing the current health care bill will result in rewards? And no one has said who exactly is going to beat Pres. Obama, even if that question should be treated as relevant by Congress.

It’s simply not Congress’ job to save anyone’s presidency. It’s their job to represent the people, period.

The fact still remains that the Democrats, with the presidency and the majority, ended up producing a bad bill with only Democratic votes to pass it, something they could have done last summer.

So much time was wasted while the American public long ago tired of the lack of focus on jobs and the economy, which Democrats say the health care bill will aid, but not nearly as much as if they’d chosen the public option, which the majority of the American people prefer.

It’s not exactly stellar leadership on anyone’s part. But we haven’t had a real Congress for decades. We simply have political parties inside the Capitol dome who either protect the presidency, if the person is of the same party, or stop the president, if not.

The reason people hate Congress is because they’re doing the work of the Executive Branch, not the people. Party over sound policy is causing a revolt.

But even a bad health care bill offered up by Congress, if passed into law and signed by Pres. Obama, will make history, because it’s never been done before.

As for the people, we got lost in this a long time ago. The day Pres. Obama made a deal with insurance and pharmaceutical companies, deciding that no matter if the people wanted the public option he didn’t; putting himself and his presidency first, above women and the people’s desires, which the Democrats in Congress helped him do.

Take Action: Demand LGBT Employment Rights Today: The Bilerico Project is leading a new media call to action today with Daily Kos, Open Left, Towleroad, Pam’s House Blend, Joe My God, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Daily Gotham, Culture Kitchen, Taylor Marsh, Page One Q, and Dan Savage, among others. We’re asking our readers to contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ask that she move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017) to a floor vote.

This is about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I’m proud to participate in some small way with the others, because I simply cannot imagine getting harassed in the workplace just because of who I am as a human being. It’s un-American.

We’re better than this.

Bilerico has the details, but here’s the bottom line:

A clue to the inaction: Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly told Democrats that she would not move controversial bills. Meanwhile, the House Committee has stated its readiness to move, but is waiting for a signal from Speaker Pelosi.

That signal has not come. Meanwhile, LGBT Americans continue to suffer discrimination and harassment with no recourse.

President Obama famously said in a campaign speech that “Power concedes nothing without a fight.”

We demand that LGBT people receive the same job rights as other people: to be able to get and keep a job based only on relevant factors, like job performance, and not on irrelevant criteria, like sexual orientation or gender identity.

There is a majority in both Houses of Congress in favor of ENDA. Now is the time to move it.

In 30 states across America, there is no law against firing someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and the same is true in 38 states for gender identity.

Will you join with us in asking that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people be protected from job discrimination?

Click here to contact Speaker Pelosi.

Please call Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-4965. Ask that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 3017, move to a vote. Please be polite, but firm.

After you call, please tell us how the call went by clicking here. If you get a busy signal or hang up, let us know that too.

If you want more information on Speaker Pelosi’s position, you can find it here

The Bilerico Project is leading this call to action today with:

Towleroad,
Pam’s House Blend,
Joe My God,
Michelangelo Signorile,
Daily Kos,
Open Left,
David Mixner,
Daily Gotham,
Culture Kitchen,
Good As You,
Taylor Marsh,
PageOneQ,
Dan Savage
Americablog, and others.

We’re asking our anyone who can to contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ask that she move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017) to a floor vote. Again, Bilerico has the details.

Thanks to everyone who can jump in and help.

People don’t get fired for being straight.

–updated–

She’s chatting right now over at Crooks & Liars, with Digby, Howie Klein and John Amato. I’ve already been over there. Join in. Here’s Connie’s Act Blue Page for those who can contribute.

Connie Saltonstall has been endorsed by NOW, with endorsements of EMILY’s List reportedly to be next.

I have no idea of her chances, with Stupak pretty dug in with his district, but it’s not your average year, as digby said today. What’s very important is holding people like Bart Stupak accountable for going against Democratic priorities and the majority of women who elect Democrats. That goes double after what he has done on health care where women are concerned.

Give ‘im hell, Connie.

“Our Congressman has let us down. Bart Stupak has threatened to block healthcare reform unless the Amendment that bears his name is included in the final bill. I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed healthcare reform because of those views is reprehensible. [...] Michigan and the First District are facing enormous challenges and we cannot afford to sacrifice solutions for individual agendas. Stupak is co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus and is putting their interests above those of his district. No federal funds have been used for abortions since 1977, and that provision will stay in effect without his amendment. In my opinion, Bart Stupak has shown that he is willing to block important legislation to support his own agenda at the expense of those he was elected to represent.” – Connie Saltonstall

Robert Kagan writes today: This administration pays lip-service to “multilateralism,” but it is a multilateralism of accommodating autocratic rivals, not of solidifying relations with longtime democratic allies. Sarah Palin said it first, though it took her fewer words to do it, while primarily stressing the “reset button on our relations with Israel,” using “world’s worst regimes” to attack Obama’s diplomacy. Sarah’s alliterations better than Bob’s. Do conservatives know it’s your enemies that require the most diplomacy? There’s no evidence of it.

From Biden to Netanyahu to Clinton and Obama, what we currently have going on with Israeli-US relations is a dangerous game of “Who is more pro Israel?” Never mind that the root of the issue should be what policy will get us to the negotiating table to move Palestinians closer to getting a state, which would move Israel closer to a safer reality.

With the AIPAC conference coming up, no one is surprised about all this hot air. It’s the usual suspects plus one, with Sarah Palin the latest political character in this diplomatic one-upsmanship. In them mix add Michael Oren, who is denouncing the fact that he was “flagrantly misquoted.” While a “senior administration official” is saying V.P. Biden never told Netanyahu squat about Israel endangering our troops. Yep, it’s the same old, same old rhetorical death match.

Sarah Palin, while channeling Clinton’s message on “push the reset button,” was careful not to criticize Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, because she knows behind Hillary stands a lot of women, aiming her rhetoric at Pres. Obama instead. You know, just in case she gets a chance to take him on in 2012. From Ben Smith:

The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons. The Burmese military junta’s representative is allowed to travel to our nation’s capital. The President’s envoy for Sudan talks about giving that genocidal regime “gold stars,” while the President shakes hands with Venezuela’s tyrannical leader. In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

Last October, Secretary of State Clinton recognized Israel’s desire for peace in the Middle East and praised Israel’s “unprecedented” concessions for agreeing to halt settlement construction in the West Bank, a concession that did NOT include halting construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem. Even last week after planned construction was announced, Vice President Biden still expressed “appreciation” for the “significant” steps taken by the Israeli government to address this minor issue. Now, however, we see the Obama Administration has decided to escalate, make unilateral demands of Israel, and threaten the very foundation of the US-Israel relationship. This is quickly leading to the worst crisis in US-Israel relations in decades, and yet this did not have to happen. More importantly, it needs to stop before it spirals out of control. Vice President Biden should rein in the overheated Obama Administration rhetoric and chill the political spin masters’ fire as they visit the Sunday media shows to criticize Israel.

Once again, the Obama Administration is missing the boat on a very, very important issue. They need to go back to the basics and acknowledge Palestinian leaders have not progressed any peace process since President Obama was elected. As Israel makes concessions (and is still criticized by the Obama Administration), Arab leaders are just sitting back waiting for the White House to further pressure Israel. The Obama Administration needs to open its eyes and recognize that it is only Iran and her terrorist allies that benefit from this manufactured Israeli controversy. Vice President Biden was actually right when he said last week, before the construction announcement, that “one necessary precondition for progress is that the rest of the world knows…there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security.” Right now, thanks to the Obama Administration, there is a chasm. It’s time for President Obama to push the reset button on our relations with our ally Israel.

As to substance of what Sarah is saying, it’s timed perfectly for AIPAC, with Palin one of their crowd, which is as expected. It is a foreign policy and national security statement made through an aide, which was written for her, giving the impression of prowess on the issue she has not illustrated herself. We shall see if she gets face time on Fox News to comment on the issue during AIPAC’s conference coming up.

Meanwhile, the JTA has a report quoting Israel’s ambassador to Washington Michael Oren, who is flatly denying the quotes attributed to him. Emphasis added below.

“I was flagrantly misquoted about remarks I made in a confidential briefing this past Saturday,” Oren said in a statement. “Recent events do not — I repeat — do not represent the lowest point in the relations between Israel and the United States. Though we differ on certain issues, our discussions are being conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation as befitting long-standing relations between allies. I am confident that we will overcome these differences shortly.”

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic also got a denial through a “senior administration official who accompanied Biden on his trip to Israel,” that Biden ever told Netanyahu that his actions and those of Israel’s were endangering American troops in the Middle East. Here’s the statement via Goldberg, again, emphasis is added:

“The assertion I read in the newspaper suggested that the Vice President said something to the effect that Israeli actions are endangering American soldiers. He never said that, and there’s no basis to assert that he did. It’s nothing he said and I don’t know how it was inferred.

What he did say in a meeting with the prime minister and his senior advisers and his own team was that the U.S. is doing a number of things in our national security interest, and in Israel’s national security interest, and they include a strong effort to build a coalition against Iran’s nuclear program; deploying 200,000 troops in conflict areas in the region; standing against efforts to delegitimize Israel in various international bodies, sometimes virtually alone; acting decisively against terrorists in very significant ways; and building probably the strongest defense cooperation relationship with Israel that we’ve seen, including on missile defense. And he said that the extent to which Israel aggressively pursues peace makes these efforts easier.”

It may be the 21st century, with Pres. Obama holding much promise when he came into office, but we’re not getting beyond what Pres. Bill Clinton attained back during his second term. Though there are hints, including today on “Morning Joe,” that Pres. Obama may lay down his own plan, taking up where Clinton left off.

cross-posted on Huffington Post

The final push for passage of health care legislation has brought out the worst in many Democrats. It’s been a depressing spectacle to watch, with the latest NBC News/WSJ poll a testament; especially for those who want health care reform, but find little reform in the current bill to trumpet mainly because there is no competition like a public option built into it, but also because the language against full reproductive health care makes it more difficult for women to get something that’s so important to them. Democrats seem to be lining up against women over the bill.

On Monday, Speaker Pelosi convened a small, select new media roundtable to talk about the final health care push. It wasn’t reported by the men who attended, except by one via Twitter, but there was not one single woman in attendance, which I confirmed. It was an embarrassing moment for the first female Speaker of the House who is pushing a health care bill that marginalizes women’s reproductive care.

Today, The Hill is reporting that Speaker Pelosi is convening an all female meeting of House members. The topic for discussion was reported as “to be determined.” One can only guess what this is about.

Then, MoveOn.org released an ad targeting Democrats on patriotism, shown above, channeling Liz Cheney and right-wing tactics to threaten them if they vote against the current health care bill. MoveOn’s message: Vote for this health care bill or you’re un-American!

The believe it or not aspect of all this is that Democrats are blithely willing to bargain women’s rights away by codifying the Hyde Amendment instead of challenging it or making the health care bill at least neutral in this area. Whether it’s Stupak-Pitts or the Senate Nelson language currently in the bill, the result is the same. A George Washington University Study lays it out:

One of the great challenges in insurance reform is the unintended consequences of regulation. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment is intended to reach only a specific part of the market. But the cumulative effect of the provision, in combination with existing federal laws governing Medicaid and federal employee health benefits (as well as the law of certain states) inevitably can be expected to move the entire health benefits industry away from its current inclusive coverage norms and toward a new norm of exclusion. The provisions of the legislation, as well as the technical challenges that arise in benefits administration, militate against the creation of a supplemental coverage market. Thus, if the result of national health reform is to move millions of women into a market that operates subject to the exclusion, then it is fair to predict that the entire market for coverage ultimately will be affected as a product tipping point is reached and virtually no supplemental market appears.

Shorter: As time goes by it will be too cumbersome and no longer cost effective for insurance carriers to offer full reproductive services to women, or a rider to procure what you need, which will further curtail these services. That’s the point of the Stupak-Pitts-Nelson anti women coalition. The current health care bill that Democrats are pushing actually limiting rights women have won through the courts over years.

Then came the legislative game moves of “deem and pass,” which Pelosi and Slaughter were once against but now they’re for, having lost a case on the issue, but are now considering using this tactic to get the Senate bill passed in the House. A former staff director of the House Rules Committee doesn’t think what either party does in this regard is good policy, which Karen Tumulty of Time magazine already reported on the self-executing rule, aka the “Slaughter rule.”

For political reasons, elite Democrats from Robert Reich to Donna Brazile are circling the wagons making all sorts of declarations about the current legislation, while threatening Democrats with primary challenges who are considering voting against the bill.

Taking the health care fight even further, CNN reported yesterday that Senior Obama campaign official Steve Hildebrand is considering challenging a female House member in South Dakota, Herseth Sandlin, based on her vote on the health care bill, which is expected to be a no.

There isn’t a Democrat, progressive or liberal who is against health care reform, real reform, that is, one that offers competition via a public option, but also doesn’t codify the Hyde Amendment in health care language that takes women backwards from the rights we’ve already won through the courts.

What most people I’m hearing from don’t want is the current legislation being forced through Congress. As for Pres. Obama and the current Democratic Party supporting women’s rights, well, in the current bill being considered, they go a long way to prove they do not.

It doesn’t have to be this way, as we all want real health care reform, starting with a public option, something that actually is worth all the pressure now being exerted to get passed.

The other reality we all have to face is that after remaining coy on women’s reproductive rights, Pres. Obama has now finally shown his hand. He’s willing to sell women out to get any health care bill that offers him a “win,” regardless of whether it’s actually good policy, which without a public option it is not.

Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t listening to the majority of the American people or women protesting loudly against what they’re doing. Women are once again being asked to take one for the team, but this one is for all time, reversing what we’ve already won. Democratic elites and their institutional partners who depend on big cash to survive have decided that to save Pres. Obama’s presidency and Democratic face it’s the current bill or bust.

However, come November, as polls stand today, it looks like Democrats are blindly heading toward bust. They can’t say they weren’t warned.

Originally posted on Huffington Post
Expanded essay of “The Elizabeth Edwards Tragedy”

Can there be any doubt that John Edwards isn’t worth all of carnage he’s exacted on Ms. Hunter and the soon-to-be ex Mrs. Edwards? Now we get Rielle Hunter’s side of things, via Lisa DePaulo in GQ. Elizabeth Edwards had her say and then some, while remaining in denial until the end, ruining her life and reputation through her own choices. The National Enquirer now being considered for a Pulitzer Prize, which I hope they get, because traditional and new media collectively failed to see the salient facts in this story, which now includes a report alleging that John Edwards may be indicted. We’ll see if the Enquirer turns out to be right on this as well.

The choices of Mrs. Edwards made long ago doomed her, covering for her husband to keep his presidential hopes alive. Putting her own credibility on the line for something that she had to know would eventually unravel; fighting a physical assault while living a lie. Writing a book to find a pathway through, she forgot that the only way to get out is by accepting and facing the truth; the embarrassment of negotiating a ban of Rielle Hunter’s name on Oprah. John Edwards admitted the affair and continued to lie about the extent of it. The alliance of a child ignored. Mrs. Edwards’ coming completely unglued during the falsely laid presidential campaign now in print for all to see, as her friends rally around her, saying it’s true, but who can blame her? The book from the aide came next, who kept the secret and put his life on the line; the sex tape details, and on and on.

After “Game Change” broke the story on Elizabeth Edwards, followed by friends writing that the behavior depicted was true, there still hasn’t been very much talk about Mrs. Edwards’ culpability in the whole presidential campaign charade and what it says about her own character. Many people are understandably sympathetic towards her, but also give her a pass on her own behavior, because of the horrendous tragedies she’s faced, the unspeakable loss of her son, then the debilitating unfairness of being struck with incurable cancer. The unfairness is choking. Let’s hope she finds peace once she’s divorced, though Ms. Hunter’s article today won’t bring it. And there is still much reckoning for the covering and lying Elizabeth Edwards did for her husband, which cannot be excused even by her incredible challenges, which I so respect and for which I have much sympathy.

See, I watched my mother fight for well over ten years with the worst kind of lymphoma you can imagine. Operation after operation, in the midst of learning how to make a living, with my father’s death revealing she didn’t even know where he kept the checkbook, let alone the state of their finances. When she finally got work, we used to celebrate when she’d get a nickel raise, which came every several months. My mother was a woman who had to learn to make a living in life with no skills, a young daughter of never ending dreams and ambitions to raise, with no road map on how she’d help get it done; the only goal in her heart was for me to fly high.

After one of her last operations, she came out of it with her entire head in a cast, only one eye showing, the surgeon having to break bones to rip the cancer from her body, for the umpteenth time. We worked together, me helping her learn to talk well all over again. But never once in all these torturous years did my mother lose her dignity, her faith, or ever think of taking advantage of someone else, though she and I had very rough times due to other horrific realities we never would face together before she died, but stalked us every day.

I’ve never written about this because it’s wrenching to the point of distraction for me to recall, as her death was as violent as you can imagine, more so than I can retell; the whole thing practically paralyzes me to this day to even recall, as the horror haunts me still, a wrenching choice the difference in saving my own soul. I tell this tale finally to say that there is no excuse for selling out people because of burdens you face. Many others have fought like my mother, who until the end, against all odds, kept her dignity and never acted out in a manner unbecoming of the person she was when she was well. In the end she raised a daughter who remains undaunted through the amazing ride of successes, failures, rises, falls, highs, and backbreaking lows, while facing life faithfully fearless, because of the woman who came before her who gave her a life.

People battle horrific illnesses everyday and never stoop to taking people hostage over it. Let alone letting the actual monster in the maelstrom off the hook.

It’s all the woman’s fault when things you know about and hide end up spiraling out of control. It’s another thing Rielle Hunter and Elizabeth Edwards have in common. They didn’t protect themselves first, putting the man who seduced them both into believing he was worth more, convincing them to put him before their own lives and reputation.

Mrs. Edwards was initially a victim of John’s ego, the realization of what he’d done a moment to escape for her own self-preservation. But somewhere in this mess she decided that keeping John was worth more than keeping her self-respect; and that she could retain love that was long gone. What she did for love is the worst example I’ve seen of an abused wife who can’t let go of her abuser. A tragic tale of ego and self-destruction over which, after the initial betrayal was known, Elizabeth Edwards could have controlled, especially if she’d come clean herself about what the knowledge of Mr. Edwards’ betrayal had done to her and how she’d acted out during the presidential season.

As for Rielle Hunter, there is no doubt she targeted, sought out, and conquered John Edwards, whose ego is so gargantuan that he put its nurturing above all other things, including his country, his supporters, his children and family; so the fact that he didn’t protect his own loyal wife who was fighting terminal cancer should hardly some as a shock.

If only Elizabeth Edwards’ book had been about that; about John Edwards’ lying, depraved duplicity, her own cowardice in refusing to stand up to him, instead of the story she chose to tell, however important. If only Mrs. Edwards would unleash is all about her husband in divorce court she may be vindicated and finally set free; however, there are children involved whose interest someone should champion.

No man is worth one-half the grief of this sorry saga. That Elizabeth Edwards continued to sell her own soul for his affections, which she lost anyway, offers a very public example of what can happen when a woman puts herself behind the man, which in the end gets you nothing; your ego in command leading to your own self-destruction. For once this kind of man knows you’ll do anything for him, you just become his whipping post, but you also end up responsible for the damage done to other people’s lives. Rielle Hunter landed a man who is disgraced, her own part in the story nothing that will be an example for her child once she grows up.

As for John Edwards, at least his daughter with Ms. Hunter will know she had a father; someone who is a completely different man than the one who ran for president, because that person never existed in the first place. The enablers around him protecting his fantasy persona.

Elizabeth Edwards was a primary player in this modern Shakespearean tragedy where no one has been spared, with Rielle Hunter the victor of a man not worth the sacrifices.

TM NOTE: Comments are closed, as parts of this cross-post from Huffington Post have already been discussed.

–bumped–

Mr. Hiatt’s love note op-ed today trying to bolster Prime Minister Netanyahu is one for the books.

Coming just before the AIPCAC conference, it continues the drum beat from the elite right who refuse to accept that the Israeli settlement issue is a major challenge to Pres. Obama and his entire administration as he endeavors to move beyond what Pres. Clinton accomplished during his presidency. It also takes suspension from disbelief, as it contends Mr. Netanyahu is an innocent. From Hiatt’s perch:

… The dispute’s dramatic escalation since then seems to have come at the direct impetus of Mr. Obama. Officials said he outlined points for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to make in a searing, 45-minute phone call to Mr. Netanyahu on Friday. On Sunday senior Obama adviser David Axelrod heaped on more vitriol, saying in a television appearance that the settlement announcement had been an “affront” and an “insult” that had “undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region.”

Mr. Obama and his advisers appear determined to prove that they will not be pushed around by Israel. The public scoldings also send a message to Palestinian and Arab leaders who have been demanding assurances that the United States will use its leverage in the new peace negotiations. And the administration hopes to extract immediate concessions from Mr. Netanyahu: It has demanded that he reverse the Jerusalem settlement decision, release Palestinian prisoners, agree to cover sensitive “final status” issues in the indirect talks and investigate the errant settlement announcement. [...]

FP’s new Middle East Channel, to which I’ve already referred, featured a startling article over the weekend that is required reading, especially by the hard hawk AIPAC right. It is the first report of a CENTCOM commander inserting himself in a political issue in this region so directly. Gen. David Petraeus evidently mincing no words, reporting a reality that should make AIPAC’S poodles return to their dog house.

Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.” [...]

… But Petraeus wasn’t finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command — or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus’s reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region’s most troublesome conflict.

The author of the piece, Mark Perry, later made a correction, saying the Petraeus briefing on expanding his portfolio was given only to JCS Chairman Mullen, not the White House. Read the updates.

There is reality, then there is the AIPAC reality, which never changes. It’s the latter contingent that is endangering not only U.S. standing in the region, but also our troops, as well as laying the ground work for another war if they don’t alter course.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

I hate to be a skunk at Speaker Pelosi’s health care party, but the Democratic House push to pass the current Senate bill is not going over very well. They’re losing the message war. So, Robert Gibbs can protest about a “legislative process game,” as he did not long ago in his press briefing, but he should remember that this “game” is being offered by Democrats this time, which they didn’t like when it was used by Republicans. Additionally, Ezra Klein completely misses the nut of it. There is nothing whatsoever unconstitutional about “deem and pass,” but that doesn’t mean Democrats are winning the messaging on this subject, which is how a party sinks or swims. But, evidently, everyone thinks this is all about Obama, with nothing else mattering. I think there are more important issues at stake, like jeopardizing real health care reform on the altar of faux reform for the sake of getting a “win.”

Steve Benen, who writes that David Dreier didn’t have trouble using the self-executing rule when he was part of the majority, doesn’t go on to explain in the link he cites that a former staff director of the House Rules Committee doesn’t think what either party does in this regard is good policy.

From Karen Tumulty’s piece on the self-executing rule:

Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party’s bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

[...] The special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted. Moreover, appropriators were unhappy with the earmark provisions included in the bill. This forced Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to pull the rule after 20 minutes of debate, followed by a five-hour recess and Republican Conference meeting before the House reconvened and the rule again was called up and narrowly adopted, 216-207.

The perils of forsaking bipartisanship and deliberation on such an important institutional issue forced the majority leadership to resort to procedural politics in hyper-drive. Even then their souped-up procedural machine nearly blew its engine. It may be time to reinvent the Model T, with the “T” standing for the tried and true “tradition” of deliberative lawmaking.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was on with Andrea Mitchell also whining about people making this all about a legislative process game, to quote Gibbs. She’s on very shaky ground.

The problem for Democrats is that what Speaker Pelosi is doing for Pres. Obama is not something the majority of Americans want.

If Democrats were going to all lengths to pass a bill that was popular and in line with what the public wanted this would be closer to a moral imperative to do it for We the People. However, the majority of Americans want a public option, which Democrats are not championing. Democrats are also not championing a Medicare buy-in, which is also popular with the people.

What Democrats are doing is going to extreme legislative process games to deem, then dump an unpopular bill on We the People, because Speaker Pelosi can’t get the votes to pass the current bill in the House.

Since I’m one of those people who wants real health care reform, which includes a public option and no Stupak language, it’s unimpressive to watch the current Democratic gamesmanship, which will not do what’s needed to bring real reform.

That Democrats have been caught and can’t explain what they’re doing in any way that passes the smell test is just the latest embarrassment for the stubborn leadership of the Democratic elite who refuse to follow the people, who showed the way a long time ago.

“Isn’t that funny? You know, when I first met him, the first week of our relationship, I said to him, ‘For some reason I cannot call you John, it doesn’t come out. Could I call you Johnny?’ And he said, ‘That’s my name.’ And I didn’t know that, but that’s his actual birth name.” – Hello, America, My Name Is Rielle Hunter, by Lisa DePaulo

The photos are something else. The quotes match them. They’re all there to see and read in Lisa DePaulo’s interview with Rielle Hunter, which will appear in the April edition of GQ. The name and the woman Elizabeth Edwards wouldn’t even let Oprah utter or cite, like that would keep this story bottled tightly, confirming the denial Mrs. Edwards revealed. And there’s art.

There is also a larger narrative than we’ve heard before. Ms. Hunter talks about the Edwardses’ marriage as “dysfunctional and toxic and awful” for “many, many years,” saying Mrs. Edwards was in “denial.” That the relationship was “abusive.” The word “emasculated” also used to describe what she’d never do to “Johnny.” The undercurrent in her quotes obvious. Then there is the throw away line about astrology. DePaulo, in the end, getting a very good glimpse into the woman who has been defined so far by everyone else.

Flash to that one momentous day March when the Edwardses doubled down and assured a larger tragedy.

That day in March ‘07, when he and Elizabeth stood before the cameras and announced that her cancer had returned and was incurable but they were staying in the race—at that point, the two of you had been together for thirteen months. Where were you, and what were you thinking?
I was in New Jersey. [laughs] Andrew Young says that he was planning a tryst for my birthday. In frickin’ Iowa. One hundred percent fiction. I was in Jersey, no plans for a birthday tryst at all, and Johnny… I believe he was in Iowa, and he left to go back, for Elizabeth. And my surprise was that they stayed in the race. I was shocked. I really viewed it as reckless. And what’s interesting is that she wanted to stay in. That’s the key. He wanted to get out, and she wanted to stay in.

He wanted to get out because she was sick? Or because of you?
He wanted to get out because of everything. The last three months of his life had been hell. And he just… he was on the fence about announcing, interestingly, in New Orleans. She actually pushed him to announce as well. Of course, she didn’t have all the facts. She was in denial about a lot of facts. And I say she was in denial because, you know, their relationship has been dysfunctional and toxic and awful for many, many years. And she was aware of, um, problems and chose to ignore them.

By problems, do you mean other women before you?
In part, yes.

Rielle Hunter on relationships:

“I feel comfortable talking now, because Johnny went public and made a statement admitting paternity. I didn’t feel like I could ever speak until he did that. Because had I spoken, I would have emasculated him. And I could not emasculate him. Also, it is not my desire to teach my daughter that when Mommy’s upset with Daddy, you take matters into your own hands and fix Daddy’s mistakes. Which I view as one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships.”

Fixing the man’s mistakes, Hunter says, is one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships. How about staying in denial that the man has made one, then ignoring it, thinking it won’t come back to haunt everyone. She could almost be talking to Elizabeth Edwards here.

The words if only are embedded in this soap opera. Not just if only Hunter hadn’t been so selfish, or if only John Edwards had cared enough about his supporters and his family to at least be cautious when sleeping around; but also if only Elizabeth Edwards had refused to cover up John’s affair, then trudged forward with his presidential campaign, making their family the anchor of who he was as a candidate. If only…

When you think how badly the traditional news media, along with new media, especially on the Democratic side, blew this story it says something larger about the state of reportage, especially the cozy, protective nature of the press. Haggling for access at every moment, there is no independence anymore, as well as no appetite for a really good story; one that has actually turned out to be important, as it revealed another level of rot at the center of our politics.

The more the political apparatus protects the politician at the center of the myth being spun, the farther away We the People get to a representative government by mere mortal men and women. As in all things, follow the money.

And whatever you think of Rielle Hunter, she finally gets to say her piece. What’s at the bottom for Ms. Hunter is an ordinary tale of lightning striking, as she tells it, “I fell in love with him. Head over heels in love. I was a goner.”

“I mean, just for starters, I never ‘hit on’ Johnny. I’m not a predator, I’m not a gold digger, I’m not the stalker. I didn’t have any power in that way in our relationship. He held all the power.”

Obviously, Ms. Hunter had plenty of her own power, even as she saw a victim in John Edwards, which is a stunning depiction at this point to weave.

“… Most of his mistakes or errors in judgment were because of his fear of the wrath of Elizabeth. He’s allowed himself to be pushed into a lot of things that he wouldn’t normally do because of Elizabeth’s story line. And the spin that she wants to put out there. He was emasculated. And you know, the wrath of Elizabeth is a mighty wrath.”

There is a lot more to Mr. Edwards’ story than we yet know.

“[Elizabeth] was in denial about a lot of facts. And I say she was in denial because, you know, their relationship has been dysfunctional and toxic and awful for many, many years. And she was aware of, um, problems and chose to ignore them. … [...] “And, well, first of all, infidelity doesn’t happen in healthy marriages. The break in the marriage happens before the infidelity. And that break happened, you know, two and a half decades before I got there. So the home was wrecked already. I was not the Home Wrecker.”

That the National Enquirer is being considered for a Pulitzer is obviously earth shattering as media stories go, but whether they win it or not history has been written on this one.

You’d think after Newsweek blew the Lewinski story, with Matt Drudge breaking it because of their reluctance, that news organizations would be less reticent to report a story they’ve uncovered, telling what they know and can prove to the public.

Instead, the media colludes to protect our politicians, making the myth campaign gurus concoct more important than telling the people the truth. It’s rotting our democratic republic, and souring the people on our system.

–updated–

Speaker Pelosi held what is being called “a small roundtable with bloggers today.” Greg Sargent has a good report on it. One problem. He doesn’t mention that there were no women in attendance. Brian Beutler doesn’t mention it in his reporting either. Matthew Yglesias at least names (some of) the men in attendance. I’ve confirmed it was indeed an all-male meeting.

Chris Bowers at least tweeted there were no women present. According to Bowers, Pelosi said “she kept the public option alive as long as she could.” That it’s “important not to dwell on public option and abortion. Better to focus on the good things in the bill.” Pelosi contended that she “endorses single payer, says she is for the public option. Says she was told there weren’t the votes in the senate.”

So, Speaker Pelosi holds a final push roundtable on health care, cherry-picking the attendance, but no women show up.

Evidently, the men attending, minus Bowers, didn’t notice it; either that or they decided to do Speaker Pelosi a favor by not reporting it. After all, it is rather embarrassing for her.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org hits a new low. Taking a page from Liz Cheney, they use the “patriotism” charge against people and legislators who simply want a public option, as well as to continue to stand up for women’s rights. Stay classy, MoveOn.

Let’s play a game, pass the public option buck… on the backs of women.

Nancy Pelosi has already allowed Bart Stupak to become the Henry Hyde of health care. As I’ve been writing for months now, Democrats with a majority and the presidency have chosen to make women’s full reproductive health care a bargaining chip, further solidifying that when it comes to compromises, women’s self-determination is always the easy bet, because no one is willing to take a stand for us. All of this on top of Speaker Pelosi’s craven collapse on the public option, even as Senate Democrats are daring her to include it in what she passes to the Senate. It makes no sense. The majority of Americans support the public option, so Pelosi would have plenty of cover.

If pointing fingers was an art, the current Democratic majority would win for creativity.

Speaker Pelosi will blame the Senate that the public option isn’t included; Sen. Durbin will blame Pelosi; and Pres. Obama will blame Congress.

That’s your Democratic party in action.

As for Mrs. Pelosi’s weird little Twitter event with the boys, any wonder why women aren’t present? I tweeted it here and here, then simply got disgusted. (This paragraph has been updated.)

Meanwhile, you’ve got unions and MoveOn.org threatening to target Democrats who won’t vote for the health care bill in Congress. So, you can add these groups into the mix of so called “progressives” willing to sell women out so we can give Pres. Obama his “historic win.”

The damage the current health care bill does is to further codify Hyde, as I’ve said innumerable times, further allowing weak and unprincipled Democrats to use women’s self-determination as a bargaining chip. Read this research if you’re unconvinced. Currently, states can assist poor women with reproductive aid, which the Senate bill would curtail. The disingenuous “conscience clause” is nothing more than an excuse for people to further limit women’s reproductive options under cloak of someone’s “conscience.”

Imagine that someone’s “conscience” thought separate but equal was actually correct. Would we protect that, too? Of course not, it’s just women who must compromise. Always. When will it stop? When abortion is turned back to the states completely, with Democrats now aiding that move backwards, without a single progressive standing up to say no, enough.

Why is it that it’s always the right-wing who “stands on principle” against women, without anyone on the left willing to do the same.

So, once again it’s Democrats arguing among themselves to hurt women’s reproductive choices. It hardly matters to Obama, Pelosi and the Democratic majority that women’s reproductive access becomes more difficult in the process.

I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again. The bill Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama are calling “historic” is a very bad bill. Some are arguing that women will get benefits through the bill, down the line because Democrats are delaying the benefits of the bill until Obama’s safely re-elected president; arguing that these “benefits” make the bill important to middle and lower income women. Is that a trade off for having women’s self-determination further limited? Democrats are arguing it is, while maintaining feminists are wrong to stand against this bill. Many of these Democrats men. Isn’t it just like a “progressive” man to tell women what constitutes what’s good for women and what defines a “good” feminist.

It’s a bad bill. It’s doubly so for women.

This is the tale of the demise of the Supreme Court’s reputation, but also it’s rise as a political beast. It started well before the latest Clarence and “Ginny” Thomas incident.

The LA Times reported on Sunday that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has created Liberty Central Inc., a non-profit, “non-partisan,” Tea Party-linked lobbying group that was inspired because of Pres. Obama’s “hard-left agenda.” There is nothing illegal about it, with Virginia (Ginny) Thomas having been a conservative activist, including being tied to the Heritage Foundation and Dick Armey, for quite some time.

Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.” “She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully,” the bio says. [...] As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors. …

The outrage over the Thomas situation denies a depressing, but very real situation.

First, let’s disabuse ourselves of the canard that the Supreme Court is above politics. The Court has been used as a political tool since William H. Rehnquist decided to use his power for political ends. It’s an arcane bit of history, which revolves around the three-judge panel whose jurisdiction is independent counsel investigations.

Once upon a time, before Pres. Bill Clinton set the right’s hair on fire, the presiding judge of the three-judge panel was a man by the name of Judge George A. MacKinnon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. MacKinnon was a conservative, but he also had a creed: “Attorneys with strong ties within the Washington Beltway–of either party–were generally excluded from consideration,” to quote Ken Gormley. Any judge that was mixed up in national politics “or anywhere near its orbit” was just too risky to be on the panel. Judge Rehnquist would change this and history with it, because the Arkansans coming to Washington seemed like a good target for conservatives. They had plenty of home spun enemies, so it wouldn’t be hard to make new ones in the snake pit of Washington, D.C.

In the fall of 1992, just weeks before Governor Bill Clinton defeated President George H. W. Bush in the November elections, Chief Justice Rehnquist made a quiet move that would forever reshape history. He replaced the elderly Judge MacKinnon with Judge David B. Sentelle, a fifty-on-year-old federal appeals judge in Washington known for his strong Southern, conservative Republican roots. Rehnquist also added Judge Joseph T. Sneed… who was even more conservative than Sentelle. – Ken Gormley, “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton v. Starr” (p. 152-153)

On its face this sounds quite innocuous, but what lies beneath tells the tale.

It was Judge Sentelle who would eventually fire the very respected independent counsel Robert Fiske, which coincidentally happened after a lunch meeting between Sentelle, Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth. Ken Starr would be named to replace MacKinnon, much to everyone’s stunned disbelief. Five former ABA presidents denounced this little conservative lunch tête-à-tête, with three-dozen senators protesting Starr’s appointment, demanding he resign because of the circumstances of his appointment. We all know that didn’t happen. As an aside, Jesse Helms had sponsored Sentelle for his appointments to the federal district and court of appeals, with Sentelle also having once been a local Republican Party chairman, all of which Ken Gormley also details in his book.

Anyway, the point of this little detour is to remember that whatever outrage there is over the Judge Thomas’ possible or potential and eventual “conflict of interest” is going to fall on deaf ears. The Supreme Court has been a political animal since Judge Rehnquist used it as his personal stalking horse against Pres. Bill Clinton. So unless the legal community get pushy all of this will continue to pull the Supreme Court into disrespect and mediocrity.

After Judge Alito’s petulant silent protest of Pres. Obama during the SOTU this year, I think it’s time everyone come to grips with the reality. That is if Bush v. Gore didn’t already drill it home.

The Supreme Court of yore is no more.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said the crisis appeared to be orchestrated by the U.S. administration, as Netanyahu apologized to U.S. Vice President Biden and believed that the crisis was behind the two allies. – Haaretz

Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to want to continue to tweak their friend. But the notion that we orchestrated the crisis is complete fantasy floated by someone wanting to make even more trouble. The latest provocation from Israel makes their bravado about Iran seem hallow. I don’t see anyone else working overtime to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and get stronger sanctions imposed.

The Washington Post today asks: Are America and Israel drifting apart? They have several people answering the question, never mind it’s a silly question. Hey, but it’s the Post op-ed page, so what do you want? They include opinions by Elliott Abrams, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Danielle Pletka, and Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. Here’s how Mr. Abrams begins:

The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration. Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans.

This is the theme of the AIPAC conference, which will convene this time next week.

Then, of course, there’s Sect. Clinton taking it to PM Netanyahu.

Daniel Levy, who also writes for the new Middle East Channel over at FP, wrote in the Guardian on Friday something he’s said on many occasions over the last yeat. That Netanyahu “may be our last, best chance for a two-state peace deal.” Here’s a snippet of Daniel’s piece:

Mainstream Israeli commentators were apparently shocked to discover the power of the settler momentum. Pundits such as Ari Shavit, known for their staunch nationalism and vilification of human rights groups working in the territories, had a rude awakening. In Ha’aretz he described “the settlements in the West Bank that serve the centrifuges in Natanz [Iran]. If sane Israel does not wake up, it will be defeated by the metastasising of the occupation and the lack of the central government’s ability to stop it.”

And that, in a nutshell, is why Benjamin Netanyahu may be our last, best chance for a two-state peace deal.

The extremism and excesses of his government may finally open enough eyes and lead to enough local and international action to roll back this settler behemoth. More moderate Israeli governments, even those perhaps sincerely committed to a variation on the de-occupation, two-state solution theme, have definitively failed to halt the settlements march. When Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were negotiating on paper potential Israeli withdrawals, the settlements and the occupation were being expanded and entrenched on the ground. Even when Ariel Sharon was removing 7,500 settlers from Gaza, he was adding a greater number to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But under Netanyahu, what you see is what you get.

Laura Rozen has some of the best coverage on this around, which regular readers around here know.

MJ Rosenberg writes on the “US-Israeli Crackup,” also taking a strong, firm shot at AIPAC.

It is now clear to me that Netanyahu and company are only pretending to be worried about the “existential threat” posed by Iran. If they were really worried, they would not have forced a confrontation over settlements at the time they claim to need America to help them deter Iranian nukes.

Obviously, that issue is a fake or they would not have told Obama to go to hell when he will be President for another 3 or 7 years.

The other thing is my fear that Obama will back down as the Democratic party’s top donors start screaming. AIPAC is coming to Washington in a week or so for the annual grovelfest (see the grovelfest video). It is hard to imagine Democrats standing up to the lobby and its subsidiary among House Democrats (see Hoyer, Steny — and the NY, FL and LA delegations).

Matt Duss over at the Wonk Room recently called out Abe Foxman’s Huffington Post rant, saying Mr. Foxman “deployed one of the most serious weapons in the Israel-debate-policeman’s arsenal,” which was dead on.

While much of this is understandable, there needs to be some stepping back so that there are no long-term deleterious results from this contretemps. The vice president’s comments in his Tel Aviv University address softening the U.S. response was helpful. Less helpful were his comments that Israel’s announcement on building in East Jerusalem was endangering American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the kind of rhetoric that does exactly what Mr. Biden has studiously avoided doing, linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to America’s larger Middle East challenges, and it unnecessarily calls into question Israel’s role as an ally and the impact on American interests. The Mearsheimer and Walts of this world will delight in this kind of criticism of Israel.

ka-BOOM!

Take that you who dare to want to hold Israel accountable for making moves that endanger regional stability.

Rachel Tabachnick at Talk2Action covers the strong evangelical ties between Netanyahu and Rev. Hagee.

In 1998 Netanyahu had traveled to the U.S. to meet with President Bill Clinton concerning peace efforts. However, before meeting with Clinton, Netanyahu spoke to hundreds of Christian Zionists assembled by Jerry Falwell and John Hagee at the Mayflower Hotel. In a blatant snub of Clinton and the peace efforts, John Hagee led the crowd in chants of “not one inch,” referring to no withdrawal from the West Bank settlements. With little fanfare and almost no press coverage, Netanyahu and Hagee have pulled the same stunt again. …

Max Blumenthal has the videos of Netanyahu – Hagee, 2010.

Lots in the news this Sunday. You all take it from here.

Take a deep breath.

A U.S. commander has now publicly stated we may need combat troops in Iraq past the August 31 deadline, something Tom Ricks predicted weeks ago. (Though, to add, Marc Lynch isn’t worried.)

Wonder what Iraqi “victory” cheerleaders Jon Meacham and Thomas Friedman will say about that.

From “Victory at Last,” with Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, going all out to rehabilitate Pres. George W. Bush, something that is becoming all the rage these days.

Bush’s rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood—now, almost seven hellish years later—that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.

The book end to Meacham being Thomas Friedman.

Former President George W. Bush’s gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.

Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. …

Whoa there, cowboys.

Now we’re praising Bush’s “gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy”, declaring “victory at last”?

I never noticed any regional craving for democracy, leaving aside that it’s not our decision to make that they “need” it; and the last time I looked Bush’s “gut instinct” is why we’re back in Afghanistan. Because after declaring “victory” there once before, we left to preemptively invade Iraq, only to have Afghanistan start to collapse again; a country we’re now taping back together, without much help from Pres. Karzai who rigged his re-election.

And by all means, let’s leave the cost justifications of our misadventure in Iraq to historians, Thomas. We wouldn’t want to make a real time assessment of the allocation of blood and treasure that might jettison you from Mr. Meacham’s cheering section aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which can now evidently be found in the traditional media’s game room where they’re replaying the Iraqi version of Risk.

Read the back and forth between Tom Ricks and Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East (and former CNAS senior fellow) on the subject. I’ll just leave you with one rejoinder from Ricks:

Kahl’s a smart guy, and also knows his music. I disagree with him. Why? Because I think a lot of Iraqis are just waiting for the Americans to get out of the way so they can start fighting again. And because I think the incentives that have led to violence in the past are still there. That is, none of the basic questions facing Iraq have been answered.

It matches the flash I saw in Richard Haas’ eyes when he responded on “Morning Joe” this past week that declaring any type of victory for ourselves in Iraq is at best premature.