A piece of the wall is in Missouri at Westminster College, where a Winston Churchill Memorial also resides. The structure is called “Breakthrough.” Every time I’ve seen it it moves me.

Secretary Clinton was in Berlin, representing the U.S. Pres. Obama made a surprise video address to commemorate the fall of the Berlin wall.

TM-DC podcast
Interview with “Jane Roe” and All You Need to Know About Stupak

Listen now!

Like this wasn’t predictable?

As soon as Stupak got wings, Ben Nelson took flight. He no doubt grabbed Sen. Casey on his way.

A key Senate centrist is “highly unlikely” to support any heath bill without an abortion provision similar to the House’s Stupak amendment.

“Senator Nelson is strongly pro-life and was pleased the Stupak amendment passed with such strong support,” said Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson. “He believes that no federal money—including subsidies or tax credits–should be used to buy insurance coverage for abortion.”

“This is a very important issue to Senator Nelson and it is highly unlikely he would support a bill that doesn’t clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion,” Thompson said. …

Calling Mr. Nelson a “centrist” is equal to calling Joe Lieberman liberal.

While Massachusetts A.G. Martha Coakley, running for Ted Kennedy’s seat, so gets it. She’s also the only Democrat courageous enough to say that the Hyde amendment should be changed to represent current law.

Attorney General Martha Coakley said this morning that she would have voted against the landmark health care bill approved by the House over the weekend because it includes a provision restricting federal funding for providers of abortion services. [...]

… “The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone,” she said. “I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.” …

DebCoop has a must read at Open Left, taking McCaskill to task and proving her wrong.

Listen to the podcast.

…and remember, according to various conversations and emails received, the Senate will need 60 votes to get Stupak-esque language into the Senate bill, with the senators on the committee being pro-women (aka pro-choice). If the House letter sent to Pelosi is any indication, it’s a good bet that those involved in the conference on the House side will gladly accept the Senate bill, which will come sans Stupak. That is unless Democrats really want to scuttle health care legislation, something none of us can afford.

updated

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment — enough to block passage. “There’s going to be a firestorm here,” DeGette said. “Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We’re not going to let this into law.” … – Washington Post

I’ve been talking to people inside the fight all morning and I’ll have a podcast up as soon as I can with an interview with “Jane Roe”, a friend that knows the ins and outs of legislation and the process, who agreed to talk to me anonymously. It’s the most important broadcast of the day.

To all those emailing me about leaving the Democratic Party because of the Pelosi’s House blowing it over the Stupak amendment, we need you to hold on and fight back. As an example, see the boycott John Aravosis has begun, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give,” denying the DNC any money at all until they make good on pledges made. TM.com joins John and Joe, on behalf of women fighting for full civil rights and against the further encroachment on them.

Griswold and Roe hardly matter if there is no access through which to exercise your rights.

Greg Sargent foreshadows the battle that is just beginning, offering up the “working draft” of a letter to Pelosi laying down the gauntlet. Full letter is here.

As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

Not even George W. Bush and the Republican Congress tried to do what the Democratic majority under Speaker Pelosi, the first woman in history to hold that position, did this weekend. That’s how bad the betrayal is.

I’m hearing that Pres. Obama evidently made pledges to certain House members that the Stupak amendment would not be in the final bill. He needs to keep that promise. But in the end, it’s up to us to make sure that with or without the President, women do not lose their full civil rights under the law.

Oh, and by the way, Sen. Claire McCaskill doesn’t know what she’s talking about (brief thoughts here, with more to come on the podcast). And since she’s so close to the President there is reason to worry.

None of us are taking any chances.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.” – The Hill

Stuck in this mess with you.

Paul Krugman weighs in on the meaning of NY-23 today. It’s the exact point I made last week when I wrote that Sarah Palin was now the GOP establishment, which he takes further to diagnosis as political paranoia coming from the right. America is being take away from them! Man the barricades! Translated it means that the powerful emotion coming from the right, represented by Palin’s pack, Glenn Beck and Rush, could fuel a 2010 onslaught that could win, but wouldn’t be at all good for the country.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

… The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.

When you add Speaker Pelosi’s breathtakingly total mishandling of her own Democratic caucus on the Stupak amendment, which has women absolutely furious at the revolting incompetence of the Democratic majority, you’ve got a perfect storm for a midterm collapse.

Amy Sullivan weighed in over the weekend on what on Stupak and Pelosi’s handling of the health care fight, and even if her rationale towards the pro-(selective) life contingent is bankrupt, she does get a few things right.

Don’t the Democrats control Congress? How did Nancy Pelosi get to the point where she didn’t have enough votes in her own caucus to pass health reform unless she paved the way for language that, as Jon Cohn puts it, “mak[es] it more likely that millions of American women will no longer be able to purchase insurance that covers abortion services”?

The right revs up, as the Democratic base becomes more demoralized. Bad omens rising.

The latest TM-DC podcast is up.

Listen now!

Last Friday I listened to Sect. Hillary Clinton give a speech at the first “No Limits” conference. This is Ann Lewis’ group made up of, well, the political arm of what’s left of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, though that’s my interpretation, not the official line. Clinton was subdued and substantively serious. At one point she addressed our involvement around the world: Why do we involve ourselves in conflicts that “are insoluable?” Her answer was simple: “It’s imperative for us to keep our eyes on where we want to lead the world,” as we “create space for good things to happen” around the world. If that doesn’t describe Afghanistan, nothing does, though to say most progressives haven’t embraced that one is an understatement.

It covers last week’s election, as well as my analysis of Clinton’s speech. Let’s just say she might have been subdued, but something happened at the end… Well, you’ll have to listen to find out. (…issues beyond health care, if you need a break from that one.)

President Obama deliberating on his Afghanistan strategy now has Fort Hood as a backdrop.

Jeffrey Goldberg doesn’t waste a moment digging down, deep and dumb on what it all means in “When Muslims Commit Violence,” which should read When Analysis Gets Stuck On Stupid.

It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell “Allahu Akbar” while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did. This is the second time this year American soldiers on American soil have been gunned down by a Muslim who was reportedly unhappy with America’s wars in the Middle East (the first took place in Arkansas, to modest levels of notice). And, of course, this would not be the first instance of an American Muslim soldier killing fellow soldiers over his disagreements with American foreign policy; in 2003, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two officers and wounded fourteen others when he rolled a grenade into a tent in a homicidal protest against American policy.

Shorter Jeffrey: It’s not at all about Muslims, except when it is.

It’s much simpler and certainly less incendiary. Some people are not equipped to hear soldiers’ horrific war stories without being severely affected themselves. Major Hasan was obviously one of them, as I talk about on the podcast.

All this as the dateline for more troops comes into focus. Next March, according to McClatchy, 34,000 could be the number:

President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

As it now stands, the administration’s plan calls for sending three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. and a Marine brigade, for a total of as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops. …

Go back to Clinton’s words last Friday at the top of this post. Repeat them to yourself, add humanitarian obligation and the importance of women around the world to stabilizing nations, and it’s all you need to know.

expanded from cross-post at Huffington Post

The first female Speaker of the House makes history by passing a health care bill that not only doesn’t have a robust public option, but also sells out women’s civil rights. The Republicans acted reprehensibly today, heckling women lawmakers like the chamber was a frat house. Then there were the 39 Democrats who voted against any health care reform. But the worst of it was, in the end, the Stupak amendment passed, 240 yeas, 194 nays, 1 present, with the names of Dems who voted for it totaling 64; the health care bill passing 220 yeas, 215 nays. Now it’s up to the Senate and the conference, because if the Stupak amendment is in the final bill it will be a setback of monumental proportions for women.

Yesterday, long before Mr. Stupak beat Speaker Pelosi, the insult coming down was foreshadowed. Driving in DC I heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi on C-SPAN, in response to a question from a reporter about a rumor circulating that she was angry about the Stupak amendment making it to the floor for a vote, brag that she was actually part of making in manifest. The New York Times has the quote:

“I was part of recommending that it come to the floor,” she said. “Both sides are whipping, the pro-choice side and others who want to support the amendment. But no, that was my recommendation to allow a vote on that amendment.”

That stomach churning moment yielded a nightmare manifestation from the first female Speaker of the House in history, and a Democratic Party that is getting further and further away from where we need to go on women’s civil right in the 21st century. The Times catches a critical element, which I believed made Pelosi blink. Two words: Catholic bishops:

The representatives of the nation’s bishops made clear they would fight the bill if there were not restrictions on abortion. In an extraordinary effort over the last 10 days, the bishops conference told priests across the country to talk about the legislation in church, mobilizing parishioners to contact Congress and to pray for the success of anti-abortion amendments.

But let’s be honest. It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn’t stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our President personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the President seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.

This means that any woman opting to join the exchanges would not have access to full women’s health care and abortion coverage. Segue to Ezra Klein:

Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate “abortion plans” is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

Of course, this discussion on health care doesn’t impact wealthier women or women with access and means. Something I never forget.

… .. It was back in the late 1970s and I was living on the New Jersey coast, just outside New York, before I hit Broadway. My boyfriend and I were very careful about sex, never forgetting to use contraception. In fact, we both protected ourselves so we wouldn’t become one of the small minority where protection doesn’t work. It happened anyway. It’s a very personal story, but lets just say what I went through never leaves my consciousness.

After what I experienced so long ago, to this day I think of poor women who don’t have the support or means to take care of themselves. What might have happened if my boyfriend hadn’t supported my decision, but also helped me pull it off. The desperation women must feel when they have so system on which they can rely, so they’re forced to endure a pregnancy and a child they cannot handle. I put myself in their place and I shudder at what might have been for me.

There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women’s civil rights.

Right now every woman who values her civil rights should understand how the gay community feels. Democrats just sold us out too.

Progressives in the House should have killed the bill.

Civil rights begin with autonomy over our own body. If we don’t have that we have nothing. So, to hear Rep. Clyburn talk about “privacy rights” after passing the House bill was laughable.

But at least Mr. Obama and Speaker Pelosi’s Democratic House got us closer to an “historic health care win.” That they did it on the backs of women’s civil rights isn’t mentioned, though some of us will never forget.

It’s up to the Senate now and the conference to strip Stupak out, with help from Pres. Obama, of course. He will help, right?

updated

“We got more than what we thought we’d get” – Rep. Bart Stupak (via C-SPAN)

That says it all, now doesn’t it?

Not quite:

Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate “abortion plans” is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers. – Ezra Klein

All of my life I waited for a female Democratic Speaker of the House, and it is under Nancy Pelosi that women’s rights have been bargained away. This epic failure under Speaker Pelosi is breathtaking. Ignoring the civil rights of women across this country, health care has passed the House 220 yeas, 215 nays.

After all the work she did over months, it comes to this: selling out women’s civil rights for a health care bill that doesn’t even have a robust public option. I watched Mrs. Pelosi from a room inside the Capitol the day she was sworn in excited as history was made. Never thought her leadership would be reduced to this monumental incompetence.

Democrats in the House should have killed this bill.

Let’s hope the Democrats in the Senate can’t stomach Pelosi’s poison, so that it fails in conference, because if this is included in a bill that becomes law I wouldn’t blame every single feminist, male and female, if they all registered independent.

Realizing that Rep. Stupak had the votes in committee to kill the bill outright, it always seemed clear to me he never had any intention of allowing that to happen, so instead he played the leadership like a rock star with a virgin.

The Democrats who voted for Stupak: Altmire, Baca, Barrow, Berry, Bishop (GA), Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Cardoza, Carney, Chandler, Childers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus, Ellsworth, Etheridge, Gordon (TN), Griffith, Hill, Holden, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee, Langevin, Lipinski, Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey, Ortiz, Perriello, Peterson, Pomeroy, Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Ross, Ryan (OH), Salazar, Shuler, Skelton, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak, Tanner, Taylor, Teague, Wilson (OH)

So, why is this woman smiling?

It’s up to Harry Reid and the Senate now. Ice cold comfort as things stand tonight.

Oh, and of course Pres. Obama. We all know how hard he’ll work to get Stupak’s amendment stripped, right?

via Huffington Post

Pres. Obama opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn’t stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our President personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the President seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats poised to help him do it.

Anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new so-called “exchange” the legislation would create, three Democratic sources told CNN. The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger, known as “Hyde” language. … – Anti-abortion Democrats get chance to amend health care proposal

This means that any woman opting to join the exchanges would not have access to full women’s health care, including abortion. Without employer based health care, women are left wanting.

But let’s face it, Speaker Pelosi is under a lot of pressure.

As House Democratic leaders were assembling their health care bill last month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi left Washington on a political fund-raising tour.

Accompanying her on the US Airways flight to her first stop, Cleveland on Oct. 2, was a prominent health care lobbyist, Frederick H. Graefe, who represents hospitals, medical equipment companies, a few drug companies and others in the industry. …

Of course, this discussion on health care doesn’t impact wealthier women or women with access and means. Something I never forget.

… .. It was back in the late 1970s and I was living on the New Jersey coast, just outside New York, before I hit Broadway. My boyfriend and I were very careful about sex, never forgetting to use contraception. In fact, we both protected ourselves so we wouldn’t become one of the small minority where protection doesn’t work. It happened anyway. Panicked, there wasn’t a moment that I didn’t know what I had to do. The trouble was there were no doctors in the area we could find to help. I also had to orchestrate it so no one knew, as the stigma was unbelievable at the time, which meant on our day off of a grueling performance schedule, making sure I was back at work and ready to dance up a storm by Tuesday night. We had to travel across state lines to get the abortion performed, which ended up being an out-patient experience, back at home and in bed to rest up so I’d be ready to perform the Can-Can on Tuesday, high kicks and jumping full splits and all. Everyone asked where we were going on our day off, then why I wasn’t feeling well on Tuesday, with that lasting most of the week, including not being at a clean-up rehearsal, as I was lead performer and choreographer of the show. Stomach flu. I was queasy all week, but the show went on. No one questioned. What ensued afterward was a nightmare, complete with hemorrhaging as I walked through a mall, a rush phone call, meds, just horrific. But in the end we kept it quiet and it was worth it. There was absolutely no way I could have had a child, having decided from a very early age that being child free was the bottom line of a life I intended to spend changing the world however I could, through artistry and politics, whatever the cost. Of course, as in all decisions in life there were other factors, but those will remain mine alone.

To this day I think of poor women who don’t have the support or means to take care of themselves. What might have happened if my boyfriend hadn’t supported my decision, but also helped me pull it off. The desperation women must feel when they have so system on which they can rely, so they’re forced to endure a pregnancy and a child they cannot handle. I put myself in their place and I shudder at what might have been for me.

There is no health care bill worth supporting that sells out women’s rights. That it’s happening under Pres. Obama doesn’t surprise me, because I never expected him to champion our civil rights, but that Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House, but next, in the Senate, may likely go along is a bridge too far for me. It’s one reason I refused to get exercised about health care in the first place. I always believed it would come down to this, especially after Obama put Hyde in the budget, then the stimulus action, but also because Obama didn’t lift a finger to get health care passed by the August recess, which not even a dying Ted Kennedy could inspire. A man who had worked decades to see this dream manifest, just as he’d helped candidate Obama, deeming he was the man on which we could pin all of our future hopes.

Right now every woman who values her civil rights should understand how the gay community feels. Because the Democrats look poised to sell us out too.

If I was in the House I’d vote to kill the Stupak-Ellsworth amendment. But if it passes and it’s in the final legislation, I’d vote to kill the bill.

Civil rights begin with autonomy over our own body. If we don’t have that we have nothing.

But at least Mr. Obama and the Democrats will be closer to their “historic health care win.” That they did it on the backs of women’s civil rights will be a footnote, though some of us will never forget.

While I was busy at work outside my office today, which also included listening to a speech by Sect. Hillary Clinton (some interesting tidbits on that later), Jerome Corsi uploaded a swiftboating screed on to WND, adding another chapter to his venomous book of lies. But even though it’s been debunked, as of a few minutes ago it is at the top of WND as “Breaking News.”

Except, of course, Mr. Hasan did not. Via Jason Linkins:

“[Hasan] has no role on the task force, other than the fact that he attended these meetings as an audience member, as did hundreds of others.” Hasan’s name appears on the list of participants only because he provided the HSPI with an RSVP, indicating his attendance. Cilluffo told me, “We always record RSVPs and publish them as a matter of transparency, and will continue to do so.”

That didn’t stop Mr. Corsi, one of the people who concocted the lies about John Kerry, which helped bring down his candidacy. This is Corsi’s opening paragraph:

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday’s massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama’s transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

Since Linkins’ updated his post that Hasan had “no role on the task force” except as “an audience member,” WND added a quaintly vague “editor’s note” at the bottom of Corsi’s screed. It is the most opaquely vague word grouping that could have possibly been conjured up, simultaneously going to great lengths to ignore the truth. That’s because the right will go to any lengths to smear any Democrat using whatever means necessary.

Good morning. How’s your job security? Unemployment reached 10.2% today, which surprises no one. Meanwhile, we’re at a health care tipping point. What’s on the line?

Women’s civil rights, for one:

A compromise measure crafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, an antiabortion Democrat from Indiana, would require federal health officials operating the public insurance plan created in the House bill to hire a private contractor to pay abortion providers, thus avoiding direct federal payments. That language is acceptable to Democrats who support abortion rights, but not to many Democrats who oppose abortion, and House leaders were still working Thursday night to craft language that would win back a dozen or so of the 40 Democrats whose votes may be on the line.

As the hours ticked away, Democrats scrutinized the House bill for other potential landmines that could haunt them on the campaign trail next year. Immigration, and the prospect that Republicans will identify a loophole that could be construed as benefiting people who live in the United States illegally, is one area that is receiving a great deal of attention.

Immigration, for another:

… “Yes, you have someone here illegally, that’s a bad thing,” said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Tex.). “But they are here. And someone’s hiring them, by the way, and paying them. And they want to be responsible for their health care. We’re going to have a provision that disallows them from purchasing a private plan.”

The lawmakers made their case in a meeting with Obama on Thursday afternoon, but they said they received no commitment. Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said that the Hispanic caucus has 20 votes riding on the issue and that if the language changes, “I guess they won’t have those 20 votes.” She said of Obama, “He listened to us, and he knows where we stand.”

Speaker Pelosi needs 218 votes, meaning she can afford to lose 40; there are 20 in the Hispanic caucus, plus 52 Blue Dogs. Math bites, so even though the vote is to be held this weekend, who knows if in the end enough votes will manifest. The Republicans could end up being a block no vote, as Michael Steele laid down the law.

So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you,” Steele continued.

Pres. Obama is going to the Hill on Saturday, taking today to visit Walter Reed. …and we haven’t even gotten to where all this stands in the Senate.

The health care delay that’s been done by the Democrats has cost everyone. After the election this week the divide among Democrats, one side knowing action is needed, with the other side reticent to move to fast unless they can get more compromises, you can bet everyone is feeling opportunity slipping and the inherent consequences for 2010 if they do.

LATE NIGHT UPDATE (11:24 pm): Reports that Hasan had died in the shooting were incorrect, with Hassan still alive and in stable condition. The AP is also reporting that over 6 months ago, Malik Nadal Hasan came under suspicion because of postings on the web:

At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

The sinking feeling I’ve got, and I’m sure I’m not alone, is that there is a tremendous possibility of a backlash against American Muslims, because of the actions of one very sick man. Reports across the wires say he was very upset about deployment to Iraq, considering it “his worst nightmare.”

Via Cilizza, the Washington Post has put together an aggregator of Twitter feeds that’s helpful for those following the story.

The LA Times, for those not familiar with base protocol on weapons:

Army officials said they did not know whether the handguns used in the assault were military-issued service weapons or personal weapons. The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are standard throughout all bases, service officials said. The only personnel allowed to openly display weapons on the base are military police, Banks said. Service weapons are checked daily and are usually only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or maintenance. Personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. The military police keep a record of all of the weapons on a base, Army officials said.

_____________

Via ABC News, with reader Joyce (who lives close to Fort Hood) commenting in the thread I uploaded earlier “In the News,” where you’ll also find the video of the initial Fort Hood briefing.

Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base in a murderous rampage that officials believe was carried out by an Army officer. Gunman kills at least 7 and wounds 12 at Fort Hood. The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, told Fox News that military sources informed her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.

Already there is churning due to the soldier’s name who is the suspected gunman. Twitter abuzz on #tcot, but also with the trending topic of the major’s name. Everyone should take a very deep breath. It is, however, being reported by some military friends that Hasan was in the medical corp; with @CBSRadioNews reporting he’s a licensed psychiatrist.

Prayers go out to the extended Army family at Fort Hood.

UPDATE IV (7:43 pm): Finally, someone addressed the gun issue, because I’ve been wondering since this happened how “2 civilian handguns,” as it’s been described, could cause this carnage. Seriously, do the math. Rep. John Carter said that he’s now hearing that there might have also been a semi-automatic weapon involved.

UPDATE III: More info via an email from a friend: …Major Malik Nadal Hasan’s cousin on TV tonight, saying that he grew up in this country, was a Muslim, and since entering the military was “constantly harassed” for his Middle East heritage. Evidently, this pressure had him trying to get out of the military.

* UPDATE II: The headline above has been changed to 13 killed, as one of the 31 wounded has died. The earlier report that another wounded had died was mistaken by news sources and has been changed in the heading.

UPDATE: Reader Joyce just posted this “In the News”: “A local television station is saying that the shooter who was killed recently reported that “Allah” had been keyed onto his car. He reported it as a hate crime, and was, reportedly, very upset.”

via ABC

No exaggeration there at all, I’m sure.

Pres. Obama showed up at the press briefing today touting the endorsement of the House bill by the AARP, at the same time that the CBO absolutely eviscerated the Republican’s “plan.” Meanwhile, you’ve got dueling protests on the left and right, with people arrested at Sen. Joe Lieberman’s office. Pelosi’s office too.

It was hyperbole as usual on Sean Hannity’s show, with Jon Voight joining Michelle Bachman trumpeting the “kill the bill” rally on Capitol Hill. Some color:

“Madam Speaker, throw out this bill,” bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“Oh come on, tell them how you really feel,” Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.

“Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” the crowd replied.

“That’s exactly what you’re going to tell them,” said Bachmann, who was the clear favorite of the assembled masses.

“She has more cojones than a lot of guys,” said Barbara McGrath, who traveled from Troy, Ohio, to participate.

Needless to say, after Tuesday’s outcome there are conflicting energies headed straight into each other. You’ve got some Blue Dogs and other conservative Dems second guessing themselves as they see independents tilting hard towards Republicans right now. While Democratic leaders and progressives obviously sense that the last thing that will help that situation is failing to get health care reform passed. Thus Obama’s presence in the briefing, reading a statement and looking a bit grim, I must say.

From the right there is excitement and what they interpret as a real opening.

It’s a perfect storm.

From the time I started writing this piece this morning to the time it was posted, Time magazine had changed the tone and title from “Hillary’s Moment” to “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record on the Job.” Things shift quickly for team Obama, especially when you’re chief diplomat is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Somewhere between Obama’s foreign policy promise and concrete markers to progress not having yet been achieved, Clinton’s role as Secretary, the actual relevancy of her position, is unfolding. In the digital age, shuttle diplomacy doesn’t mean the same thing as it did in Kissinger’s time. But yet, having a star Secretary backing up a president’s super star status in two of the most troubled spots of the world is a fortuitous break, especially when these regions also happen to be the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. Provided the Secretary is more than just a presidential mouthpiece.

… A visit to a Sufi mosque that had been bombed by Sunni extremists, for example, sent a powerful message to Pakistan’s moderate Islamic majority. “We saw her praying there,” an academic named Shala Aziz told me, “and, for the first time, I’m thinking, The Americans have hearts.” … Press accounts either emphasized the embarrassment of a Secretary of State’s getting pummeled or fixed on Clinton’s undiplomatic bluntness. But they missed the point: her candor, her willingness to listen to and acknowledge criticism, had begun to undermine the prevailing Pakistani image of the U.S. as arrogant and bossy, more interested in having the Pakistani military fight its war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban than in having a true strategic partnership. The contrast was especially sharp after George W. Bush’s eight years of unqualified support for the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf. “In the past, when the Americans came, they would talk to the generals and go home,” said Farahnaz Ispahani, a government spokeswoman and Member of Parliament. “Clinton’s willingness to meet with everyone, hostile or not, has made a big impression — and because she’s Hillary Clinton, with a real history of affinity for this country, it means so much more.” [...] – Hillary’s Moment

This last trip proved that between Obama’s directives and Clinton’s delivery there are fault lines. Nothing made this more evident than the Secretary’s statement over Netanyahu’s “unprecedented” proposal on settlements, which was taken in the Arab world as nothing less than a reversal of Obama’s new Middle East policy of no settlements. Obama’s vision, when met with Clinton’s delivery, just didn’t sound as good as it had appeared in Obama’s head. Then came Clinton’s bluntness over Pakistan’s inability to root out Al Qaeda, with Clinton’s closeness to Pakistan another attribute that few others can tout. It’s not a coincidence that it’s foundation lies in a Pakistani woman that was killed because of what she represented, including the bluntness that presidential hopeful Benazir Bhutto exhibited, especially when it came to her criticism of the Saudis, whom she blamed directly for funding the madrassas that titled Pakistan toward the jihadis.

Earlier in the day, President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, had presented the Secretary with an album of photos from her first visit to Pakistan, in 1995, and a framed photo of Bhutto and her two sons with Clinton and daughter Chelsea. “It did bring tears to my eyes,” Clinton said at the state dinner in her honor at the presidential palace, “because I so admired your wife. She gave her life …” She faltered then, choking up, but quickly pulled herself together, talking about the “reasons why we do what we do — to provide opportunities for all.”

Clinton’s religious piety more appreciated in Pakistan than in her own party. From Joe Klein:

During her three days in Pakistan, she ran a gauntlet of town-hall meetings and media interviews that may have been unprecedented, to use the word of the week, for a U.S. Secretary of State. The trip, planned by Holbrooke and Pakistan specialist Vali Nasr, offered an unusually subtle itinerary for a U.S. diplomatic mission. A visit to a Sufi mosque that had been bombed by Sunni extremists, for example, sent a powerful message to Pakistan’s moderate Islamic majority. “We saw her praying there,” an academic named Shala Aziz told me, “and, for the first time, I’m thinking, The Americans have hearts.”

But the biggest difference between the boss and his chief diplomat is that Clinton simply isn’t very good at pulling her punches, which happens to be Obama’s signature stock and trade. So, as close as their relationship has become, the implementation of policy message hasn’t manifested. Their differences a plus in crafting a wider and broader foreign policy strategy, while also revealing stylistic fissures on leadership qualities that do not match.

The biggest missing piece in the Obama – Clinton foreign policy melding evident in Afghanistan. Where Clinton’s “women’s rights are human rights” is missing in action, which can only mean the boss isn’t sure about sending that message in a place that looks like it’s about to explode. Even as Clinton made clear in the Congo and beyond that this is where we must go in the 21st century. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan where it’s needed to clarify our purpose most, Pres. Obama, who once talked about women’s rights and their importance to the country, isn’t talking about it anymore.

Klein’s piece comes on the heels of yet another piece on Afghan women pleading that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. Michelle Goldberg writing about Afghanistan’s heroic Malalai Joya, named “the bravest woman in Afghanistan” by the BBC, which is saying a lot considering their plight. Joya says: “My message on behalf of my people to [the] great American people is that democracy never comes by barrel of gun, by cluster bomb, by war.”

Agreed, absolutely. But as much as I don’t believe in sending more troops, these pleas still do not address what would happen if we pulled out both our troops and our money. Or do people really believe we’re going to send billions without some measure of force on the ground? Do these individuals think if we leave there won’t be an onslaught of Uzbeks, Indians, Pakistanis, et al. all vying for a piece of Afghanistan? What would the country look like then? How fast would they ask the U.S. for help or blame the country’s collapse on our lack of vision? But more fundamentally, there is actually no way whatsoever we can leave Afghanistan now.

As an aside, I have no idea if the rumor printed in the UK Times about Obama giving Karzai an ultimatum on corruption is true, threatening to pull all U.S. troops out if it’s not stemmed. But certainly Pres. Obama knows that Karzai is by no means the only source of corruption, with private contractors likely an even bigger obstacle, as aid dollars flow from an unmonitored, overflowing spigot. As no one will take the ultimatum remotely seriously, least of all Mr. Karzai, dissipating Obama’s power among watching world leaders who may be corrupt, but aren’t amateurs. Because if you’re going to deliver on an ultimatum you must be prepared to pull the trigger. If you don’t you’re done.

But getting back on point, Clinton’s message about women was prescient in 1995, when she went to China and stood up and spoke out. It’s even more important today, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which reverberates around the world all the way to the Congo.

Pres. Obama is the boss, but at some point he shouldn’t just send Clinton around the world, allowing her to be his foreign policy spokesperson. He should listen to her and actually consider following her lead, especially where women’s human rights and foreign policy converge. But dare I say also in the Middle East, as no one knows the minds of the Israelis more than the former senator from the great state of New York.

If Obama and Clinton, who have yet to figure out how to use their differences as strengths, can work this out, there is no landscape they can’t impact. Lost potential will be the result if they don’t.