US Blamed For Ambush On Iranians In Iraq

BAGHDAD — Iran angrily blamed the United States on Friday after at least three of its diplomats were wounded in a Baghdad shooting, saying the Americans are encouraging attacks on Iranians in Iraq.

The United States defended the actions of Iraqi security forces, but said Americans were not involved in the incident and that the U.S. "condemns any attack on guests or visitors of any country."

The shooting _ which may have been by Iraqi soldiers during an argument at a checkpoint _ comes amid unprecedented strains between Iran and the Iraqi leadership, which has long been close to Tehran.

With the U.S. and an emboldened Tehran jostling for power and influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast, Iranian officials have complained in recent weeks that Iraq's Shiite-dominated leadership is bowing too much to Washington. The tensions have been fueled in part by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdowns in the past two months against Shiite militiamen. The U.S. accuses Iran of backing the militiamen, a claim Tehran denies.

The shooting occurred Thursday as the Iranians' convoy approached a bridge leading to a Shiite shrine in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Kazimiyah.

An Interior Ministry official said Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint on the bridge exchanged fire with the convoy's guards during an argument that broke out when most of the Iranians failed to produce identification cards. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press.

A different account came from an Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Qassim Atta, who said "unknown gunmen" were behind the attack.

Iranian Embassy spokesman Manoucher Taslimi said he did not know who the gunmen were.

There were varying reports on how many were wounded.

Taslimi said two Iranian diplomats, another Iranian and an Iraqi administrative employee were wounded and were now in stable condition. The Iraqi ministry official said five people were wounded.

Lt. David Russell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the Iraqi army had found four wounded Iranians in a vehicle with an Iraqi driver.

Reports indicate Iraqi security forces "handled the situation appropriately and with a high degree of professionalism," Russell said in an e-mailed statement.

In Tehran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini criticized the United States, saying its harsh rhetoric against Iran fuels attacks on Iranians. U.S. statements "encourage inhuman behavior by occupiers and terrorist groups active in Iraq," he said.

"Responsibility for providing security to diplomats as well as diplomatic and international bodies in Iraq rests with the occupiers. The suspicious behavior of U.S. forces in security issues has brought increasing insecurity in Iraq," he said in a statement. Hosseini said Iran will pursue the case with the Iraqi government.

The U.S. military said in a statement that the Americans were "in no way involved in this attack" and that it "condemns any attack on guests or visitors of any country."

The United States accuses Iran of financing and arming so-called "Special Groups," Shiite militant cells involved in attacks on American troops.

The U.S.-Iranian dispute over the militants has pulled in al-Maliki's government, whose Shiite members have strong ties to Iran. In March, al-Maliki launched a crackdown on Shiite militants in Basra; the operation flared into several weeks of fighting across southern Iraq and in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad.

When an Iraqi delegation visited Iran to seek its support in the crackdown, they were scolded by Iranian officials, according to several Iraqi officials in the delegation. The Iranians accused the Iraqis of being tools of Washington and allowing U.S. troops to set up a permanent presence on Iran's doorstep.

Al-Maliki has followed the crackdowns against Shiite militiamen in Basra and Sadr City with a sweep launched Thursday in the northern city of Mosul aimed at rooting out Sunni al-Qaida in Iraq militants.

On Friday, al-Maliki offered amnesty and cash to fighters in Mosul who surrender their weapons. He said he would give 10 days for armed groups to hand over medium and heavy weapons for monetary compensation, as well as amnesty for those "duped" into taking up arms against the government _ so long as they did not "have blood on their hands."

Al-Maliki had made a similar offer to Shiite militias in Basra, but few surrendered weapons.

Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, has been the most prominent urban stronghold of the terror network in recent months after its grip was broken in cities of the western province on Anbar.

Like the Shiite militiamen in Basra, al-Qaida's Sunni militants are believed to have infiltrated many levels of life in Mosul, Iraq's third largest city with some 2 million people. Al-Maliki warned on Thursday that many city employees were paying protection money to al-Qaida in Iraq.

The director of the provincial governor's office, police Capt. Ahmed Abdullah, was arrested Thursday, said Duraid Kashmola, the governor of Ninevah province, where Mosul is the capital. He would not say whether the arrest was part of the sweep or whether Abdullah was suspected of al-Qaida ties.

In Mosul on Friday, police and army checkpoints were deployed at major roads as U.S.-backed Iraqi forces conducted house-to-house searches and raids for suspects. There have been no clashes since the operation officially began on Thursday, or in the days of raids proceeding it.

Iraqi troops were also chasing suspected al-Qaida fighters who fled the northern city to areas on the outskirts ahead of the sweep. In past major crackdowns, many al-Qaida in Iraq members have managed to scatter after public warnings that an assault was imminent.

Brig. Gen. Khalid Abdul-Sattar, the provincial police spokesman, said more than 800 people have been arrested in and around Mosul over the past five days. He said it was unknown how many al-Qaida figures remain.

___

Associated Press writer Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.

James P. Rubin: Talking with Our Enemies: McCain Should Admit The Truth and Stop Attacking the Messenger

There they go again. The old John McCain would just admit he changed his position and move on. But the new John McCain campaign is incapable of that. Instead, they are reverting to an attack on the messenger.

The question and answer I released yesterday was a full question and a full answer. Nothing was left out of the question or the answer. Nothing is taken out of context. But in order to avoid further controversy and distraction, I have dug out what I believe to be all of the discussion on Hamas during our interview. The full interview is in a DVD being shipped to me. But a British journalist transcribed what she said was all of the discussion of Hamas. Here it is:

McCain: They are the government, sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations have such antipathy towards Hamas - it is because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse to but practise, so...but it's a new reality in the middle east, I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah never gave them that.

Rubin: Should the US be dealing with the new reality through normal diplomatic contact to get the job done for the United States?

McCain: I think the US should take a step back and see what they do when they form the government, see what their policies are and see the ways in which we can engage with them and if there aren't any then there may be a hiatus but I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the US acts."

Then I go on to ask him about his statement that the only thing worse than using force against Iran is an Iranian nuclear weapon. That's another story altogether.

As you can see, there is no conditionality in any of his answers. Nowhere does he say what Senator Clinton and Senator Obama say: that is, Hamas has to renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and accept the previous agreements of the Palestinian authority before we could deal with them. Instead, Senator McCain is talking about engagement with Hamas and how it could come about.

I remember at the time being struck by how unusual his response was for an American politician. European politicians say that sort of thing all the time. And that's why I dug out the question and answer after McCain declared that Hamas is rooting for Barack Obama and that he would be their nightmare.

The reality is that in Davos Senator McCain was expressing the views of the realist camp in the Republican Party. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a close friend of the Senator, has said directly that we should engage with Hamas in an interview with National Public Radio last year. In Davos, we saw the charming maverick that the Washington Press Corps are so fond of. But last week we saw the other McCain, the one who would attack Senator Obama in a crude and unacceptable way. When called on it, instead of admitting that he changed his mind, the McCain campaign is determined to continue the politics of personal destruction.

There is a war going on in Iraq. This fall's election will be a virtual referendum on the war. That is a real issue. Instead of debating that, President Bush and Senator McCain are determined to attack the character of their political opponents. As a Democrat, I am tired of having our patriotism attacked. Yesterday, the Democratic Party leaders were unified in denouncing these kinds of attacks. Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Joe Biden and the Majority Leader Harry Reid all spoke in unison to defend Senator Obama.

So I say to the McCain campaign, just admit the truth, either he made a mistake or he changed his mind, then let us return to debating the issues as Americans.

Related:
McCain Said He'd Talk To "Rogue Regime" Hamas [VIDEO]

Ted Kennedy Hospitalized

From Reuters:

Kennedy, 76, was taken to the hospital early in the morning, CNN said, citing an unidentified prominent state party member

The source said Kennedy was to be transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The long-serving Massachusetts senator is a leading liberal voice in the United States who has actively campaigned for Barack Obama in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Kennedy had preventive surgery in Boston in October to unclog a partially blocked carotid artery in his neck.

The blockage was discovered during a routine check of Kennedy's back and spine, doctors said. A blocked carotid artery can lead to a stroke and death, they said

Check back for updates.

Nancy Pelosi Visits Iraq

BAGHDAD — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a top Democratic critic of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, expressed confidence during a visit to Iraq on Saturday that expected provincial elections will promote national reconciliation.

Pelosi, who led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Baghdad, spoke after the group met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

She welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation and a bill paving the way for provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials.

She said the visit was to "pay our respects to our troops and at the same time learn more about what the situation is on the ground here."

Pelosi was hopeful about the upcoming elections after meeting with Iraq's Sunni parliamentary speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.

"We're assured sure the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconcilation we all want it to have," she said.

Pelosi's visit comes a day after she led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding.

Pelosi, who also traveled to Iraq in January 2007 shortly after the Democrats assumed congressional control, has been a sharp critic of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and has pressed for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country this year.

She also has called for the Iraqi government to contribute more financially to the reconstruction of the country.

President Bush's Iraq war funding request failed in the House Thursday as anti-war Democrats and Republicans unhappy about added domestic funding formed an unlikely coalition to kill, for now, $163 billion to support U.S. troops overseas.

The Republican revolt was spurred by Democratic tactics in advancing the must-pass measure, as well as their efforts to add money for the unemployed and an expansion of troop education benefits to the bill.

The practical effect of the move, however, is likely to be minimal. While it kills the war funding component of the bill for now, the Senate is sure to revive it next week.

Al-Maliki met with Pelosi after returning to the Iraqi capital from Mosul, where he oversaw the start of a new crackdown against al-Qaida in Iraq militants in the northern city.

Nearly 1,000 people have been detained since the operations against Sunni insurgents in Mosul began on May 10, Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani said during a news conference.

He said a total of 1,068 people were detained but 94 had been released.

The prime minister also sought to draw Saddam Hussein-era troops to the government's side, inviting them to rejoin the Iraqi security services and promising to facilitate their return. During the Saddam era, Mosul's Sunni Arab population was a major source of officers for the military _ and many have remained bitter over their removal after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Al-Maliki "has invited all former security and army employees to rejoin the military and security services," al-Bolani told reporters in Mosul. He said the Interior and Defense ministries would take steps to facilitate their return.

"This step is considered a positive one toward building our country in the framework of national reconciliation," he added.

The government crackdown against Sunni insurgents follows similar operations targeting Shiite militants in Baghdad's Sadr City district and the southern city of Basra.

On Friday, al-Maliki offered amnesty and cash to fighters in Mosul who surrender their weapons. He said he would give 10 days for armed groups to hand over medium and heavy weapons for monetary compensation, as well as amnesty for those "duped" into taking up arms against the government _ as long as they did not "have blood on their hands."

Al-Bolani said no one has surrendered any weapons yet and warned they had "no other choice" but to comply or face being targeted by security forces in the coming days.

Al-Maliki made a similar offer to Shiite militias in Basra during the sweep there, but few surrendered weapons.

Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, has been the most prominent urban stronghold of the terror network in recent months after its hold was broken in parts of the capital as well as cities of the western province of Anbar.

Yassin Majid, an al-Maliki adviser, said most of the leading insurgents had fled to the outskirts of Mosul or to a neighboring country amid the operations. He did not name the neighboring country.

"Operations will continue and the Iraqi army will not leave Mosul until security and stability have been accomplished," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview, adding that about $1 million had been allocated for civil services in the city.

Also Saturday, a female suicide bomber blew herself up near an office for a U.S.-allied Sunni group, then a suicide car bomber struck an Iraqi police patrol heading to the scene in the Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

Police said at least 15 people were wounded in the attacks, including two children.

___

Associated Press Writer Hamid Ahmed contributed to this report.

Greg Mitchell: Epidemic Continues: Iraq Vet with PTSD Kills Self, Brother

The epidemic of suicides among veterans of the Iraq war with PTSD has become so common that I sat down to write about two news ones today and end up writing about an even more recent, and shocking, one. It involves a decorated vet who wrote about his PTSD for the Marine Corps Gazette-- and this week killed himself and his brother after a long police chase in Arizona.

Police have discovered no motive for the killings, nor why the brothers earlier in the week may have planned to commit suicide by driving into the Grand Canyon -- Thelma and Louise style.

Staff Sgt. Travis Twiggs, 36, who enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1993 and held the combat action ribbon -- and met President Bush a few weeks ago -- wrote a lengthy article in the January issue of the Marine Corps Gazette detailing his efforts to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder. He loved his country so much he named his son America, The Arizona Republic reports today.

His brother was Willard J. Twiggs, age 38.

"All this violent behavior, him killing his brother, that was not my husband. If the PTSD would have been handled in a correct manner, none of this would have happened," Kellee Twiggs, the wife of Staff Sgt. Travis Twiggs, said. She said he began changing after his second tour of duty in Iraq, and worsened after he returned from his third stint there, when he lost two good friends from his platoon.

"He went and saw a physician's assistant who said that was the severest case of PTSD she'd seen in her life," Kellee Twiggs said, according to published reports. Twiggs had been absent without leave since May 5.

Travis Twiggs was given medications for mood elevation and sleeping to get him calmed down before beginning therapy. But again he was sent back to Iraq "and he was very, very different, angry, agitated, isolated and so forth," upon his return, Kellee Twiggs said, according to the Associated Press. "He was just doing crazy things."

She said her husband was treated in the psychiatric ward of Bethesda Naval Medical Center and then sent to a Veterans Affairs Department facility for four months. But she said she couldn't understand why he was not sent to a specialized PTSD clinic in New Jersey.

"They let him out. He was OK for a while and then it all started over again," she said, according to AP, adding that Travis Twiggs was with the Wounded Warrior Regiment and accompanied a group to Washington a few weeks ago where he met President Bush at the White House.

In his Marine Corps Gazette article, written after his fourth tour, he wrote: "All of my symptoms were back, and now I was in the process of destroying my family," he wrote. "My only regrets are how I let my command down after they had put so much trust in me and how I let my family down by pushing them away."

Most recently, Twiggs was assigned to the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico, Va. Tom Ricks, The Washington Post's military reporter, notes today online that he had touted Twiggs' Marine Corps Gazette article about PTSD when it came out.

The AP describes Twiggs' final hours this way:

"On Wednesday, Twiggs and his brother led law enforcement agents on a chase across more than 80 miles of Interstate 8 after speeding away from a Border Patrol checkpoint in southwestern Arizona.

"After officers with the Tohono O'odham Police Department placed spike strips on the interstate, the car continued for about a mile. Police and Border Patrol agents heard two shots from the disabled car and later found both men slumped forward and dead in a vehicle they had carjacked Monday night within Grand Canyon National Park.

"They are believed to have crashed their car at the canyon's edge and walked away from the scene, witnesses said, hours before the carjacking at gunpoint. Park spokeswoman Shannan Marcak said that investigators believe, based on how the car was hung up on a tree, the men may had tried to drive off the road and into the canyon."
*
Greg Mitchell's new book includes several chapters on vet suicides and related issues. It is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway.

Obama picks up Maryland Democratic superdelegate (AP)

AP - WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of a Maryland superdelegate Saturday, inching closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination.
Read more [Democrats]

Democrats call upon GOP to support new GI Bill (AP)

AP - A Democratic congressman on Saturday urged Republicans to "step up to the plate" to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Read more [Democrats]

GOP' Needs New Slogan

As HuffPost's Jason Linkins reported earlier this week, the GOP's brand new slogan, "Change You Deserve", is also the registered advertising slogan of Effexor XR, an antidepressant drug.

Seeing as the GOP has scheduled a special meeting for next week to discuss their political slide, they may also want to consider coming up with a new slogan, especially as some in the party are questioning the wisdom of the current slogan. The New York Times reports:

Some lawmakers and Republican strategists have also asked why the leadership did not drop or refine its "Change You Deserve" message after it learned that it was also the slogan of an antidepressant drug, creating an easy punch line for Democrats.

Any ideas what the GOP could use for a new slogan? Please send them along.

Barry Yourgrau: Mike Huckabee: Minister and Street Thug

So Mike Huckabee makes a wisecrack at the NRA convention about Obama frantically trying to get away from a gun being pointed at him.

This is what passes for a Christian man of peace today in this charming country we find ourselves in. Spy magazine ran a marvelous caption years ago, I recall, under a picture of Kissinger: "Henry Kissinger, Socialite and War Criminal." Now we have Mike Huckabee: Christian Minister and Street Thug.

Huckabee should not just apologize, he should be forced to turn in his collar.

But alas as someone else pointed out, Christians are often the ones who don't seem hip that theirs is supposedly a religion of peace.

Why would anyone who isn't a corporate baron, a religious nut or a bug-eyed Xenophobe vote Republican? I can't think.

I've just come back from a couple weeks in Italy. Bella paese. I was in Rome when the new mayor was elected: a former young Fascist street fighter. Berlusconi is not only back running the country, he is doing so in partnership with an anti-immigrant party that's positively rabid.

Huckabee's spout-off today has a touch of that strain of Italy. Il Duce's street fighters would get a kick out of it.

But Jesus (pardon me, my blood is still boiling) -- Jesus would vomit.

........................................

Also at Smirkingchimp.com

Gay-rights repeal bid advances (Portsmouth Herald)

AUGUSTA, Maine — A day after California's Supreme Court ruled that gay couples in that state can marry, an initiative to repeal Maine's gay rights law and reaffirm a law against gay marriages continued to move forward Friday.
Read more [Gay News]

Anti-gay rights initiative advances (Bangor Daily News)

AUGUSTA, Maine - A day after California’s Supreme Court ruled that gay couples in that state can marry, an initiative to repeal Maine’s gay rights law and reaffirm a law against gay marriages moved forward Friday.
Read more [Gay News]

Iraq Veterans Describe Atrocities to Lawmakers

Excerpt: Antiwar veterans of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan took their case to Capitol Hill Thursday, baring their souls with stories of killings of innocent civilians, torture and wrongful detentions.

FEC standoff ends as nominee Hans von Spakovsky withdraws

Democrats had objected to the Bush nominee's Justice tenure overseeing voting rights matters.

President Bush's contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission removed his name from consideration Friday, potentially ending a stalemate that had paralyzed the agency.

Barack Obama blasts back at President Bush, John McCain

A day after the president's 'appeasement' comments, Obama accuses the Republicans of strengthening America's enemies in the Middle East and using 'fear-mongering' to silence critics.

In a day of intense verbal sparring, Sen. Barack Obama angrily accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain on Friday of strengthening America's enemies in the Middle East and relying on "fear-mongering" to silence critics of their policies.

On Independence Day, Israeli Arabs Reminded of Their Place

Excerpt: It has been a week of adulation from world leaders, ostentatious displays of military prowess, and street parties. Heads of state have rubbed shoulders with celebrities to pay homage to the Jewish state on its 60th birthday, while a million Israelis reportedly headed off to the country's forests to enjoy the national pastime: a barbecue....

World's Deadliest Weapon

Excerpt: On the 60th anniversary of the establishment, within the Mandate for Palestine, of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state, President Bush told Israel's legislature, that "Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations."

Soldier Refuses Iraq Tour, Citing 'Stomach-Churning Horrors'

Excerpt: A US Army soldier who served as a military journalist in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Philippines announced Thursday his intent to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.

Trying to mend fences with the NRA, McCain attacks Democrats

Many 'gunnies' at the group's conference remain suspicious that he will not advance their agenda; some predict the Republican will not win an endorsement.

Sen. John McCain, working to mend a frayed relationship with some of the Republican Party's most dedicated foot soldiers, went to the National Rifle Assn.'s annual conference here Friday to assure wary members he is a friend of the 2nd Amendment.

In NRA speech, Mike Huckabee makes crack about Barack Obama as target

Huckabee later apologizes for the ad-lib, which followed a sharp noise offstage. He'd said the noise was Obama ducking for cover from someone aiming a gun.

Republican Mike Huckabee responded to a sharp offstage sound during his speech to the National Rifle Assn. by suggesting that it was Barack Obama diving to the floor because someone had aimed a gun at him.

Gates's Hope to Reform the Pentagon Is Barking at the Moon

Excerpt: In a recent speech, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pleaded with the armed services to emphasize preparing for war against guerrillas instead of spending so much money and effort getting ready for conventional wars...

Saturday: 14 Iraqis Killed, 22 Wounded

Excerpt: At least 14 Iraqis were killed and 22 more were wounded during light violence. A female suicide bomber attacked a Sunni checkpoint in Baquba, while eight bodies were unearthed near Basra. No Coalition deaths were reported.

Art Levine: Missouri ID Bill to Block Nuns, Elderly from Voting Defeated

A GOP-pushed effort, aided by Republican voter-fraud scam artist Thor Hearne, to pass the country's most draconian photo ID bill has been stopped today in the Missouri Senate. Republicans, despite proclaiming the menace of voter fraud, didn't have enough votes to bring it to the floor for a vote. An angry outpouring from senior citizens, nuns, the disabled and others who would be blocked from voting under the proposed constitutional amendment, led by a broad-based progressive coalition that included the AARP, swamped Republican legislators with over 4,000 phone calls and an outcry from local newspapers.

Julie Terbrock, the legislative director for Missouri ACORN and a member of the Missourians for Fair Elections coalition, points out, "The legislators felt the heat from average people in their district, including senior citizens, and it became too much for them to take."

The defeat of the measure, which would have blocked at least 240,000 Missourians from voting, also enhances Obama's chances at winning the state -- and the presidency -- because he'll have an opportunity to compete in could be a fair election.

But the real winner today is voting rights. As Missourians for Fair Elections Reported:

JEFFERSON CITY, MO - In a victory for all voters, Missouri lawmakers ended this year's legislative session without a final vote on legislation that could have prevented up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed change would have altered Missouri's constitution, allowing for strict citizenship and government-issued photo ID requirements that would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible, law-abiding citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot.

"I am relieved that I will be able to vote this fall," said Lillie Lewis, a St. Louis city resident, "I've been voting in every election since I can remember, but if I needed my birth certificate, that would be the end of that. I hope this is the last we hear of this nonsense." Lillie Lewis was born in Mississippi, but the state sent her a letter stating they have no record of her birth.

Birdell Owen, a Missouri resident who was displaced by hurricane Katrina, also voiced her relief. "I should be able to participate in my democracy," she said, "even if Louisiana can't get me a copy of my birth certificate. I'm glad Missouri politicians had the sense to protect my right to vote."

As the bill began to move, a broad coalition of groups and voters across the state worked to educate citizens and legislators about the negative impact of such policy changes on real voters. Missourians for Fair Elections reports over 4,200 calls were made to lawmakers in the past two weeks urging them to not consider this legislation. Catholic organizations, such as the Franciscan Sisters of Saint Mary, and the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas issued statements voicing deep concerns with the legislation. The AARP, League of Women Voters, labor organizations, disability advocates, community organizations and progressive leaders worked around the clock for the past two weeks to make sure the concerns of Missouri voters were heard.

In 2006, despite serious opposition from voting rights experts, election officials and voters, the Missouri legislature passed an overly-restrictive photo ID measure that was later found unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court because it amounted to a poll tax and Missouri's current identification requirements are sufficient. This year's proposed legislation would have altered the constitution in an attempt to allow restrictive voting laws to pass constitutional muster. Such restrictive laws include government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship requirements to register to vote and to vote.

Kathleen Weinschenk, of Columbia, Missouri, has been fighting to protect her right to vote, and that of others, since 2006. She has cerebral palsy, and doesn't drive because of her disability. Without a birth certificate from Arkansas, she cannot get a Missouri photo ID. Kathleen is elated that the constitution will not be changed to prohibit her from voting. "Today, freedom rings," she said.

Progressives everywhere should take heart from this victory, learn from its success, but realize that at least 25 other states have similar bills pending that would either require strict photo ID or proof of citizenship to vote.

And in Arizona, senior citizens like Shirley Preiss, a 97-year-old Kentucky-born woman, still isn't allowed to vote because she can' t produce a birth certificate. You can hear her and her 78-year-old son Joe Nemnich tell their story at the D'Antoni and Levine show with co-host Tom D'Antoni.

Read more [The Huffington Post]

Huffpollstrology: Candidates' Horoscopes, Polls And More For May 17

Polls have come to dominate the media's horse race coverage of political campaigns. Pundits and reporters constantly use them to tell us who's hot and who's not -- but skip over the fact that plummeting response rates and variables like undecided voters and margins of error and often render these polls useless as anything other than lightweight diversions on par with horoscopes and political betting lines. Our HuffPollstrology chart helps keep you up to date on the latest poll results, along with the latest horoscope predictions, and the latest online political betting lines - and will hopefully help the polling junkies in the media keep polls in the proper perspective.

(Oregon)

Pluto has been slowly passing through a key financial sector for years. It's likely that you're near the end of a long, complicated and drawn-out saga. What you hear today could energise you for the last few steps. Your involvement in a large, group project could take shape. It's even possible that you might be required to dress for a special role!

(Oregon)

In the quest to win someone over, you could spend more time than usual thinking about where to eat. Someone wearing an item that reminds you of the sea or of fish is likely to tease you - but might also come up with a helpful suggestion. Your patience could be sorely stretched though. Irritation with someone who talks, walks or drives too fast could lead to an altercation.

Someone born, most likely, in the first few days of March, June or December may be teasing you. Some might argue that they're leading you on a merry dance. This might not be wholly unpleasant - though a recurrent property issues (and renovation) might require more decision-making than you feel able to do presently. Leo or Aquarius friends could provide excellent support.

Your financial affairs could look especially rosy at this time, dear Leo. Some benefits are definitely coming your way, though everything is not quite as promising as it seems and you could well find yourself with less than you were hoping for. Think of whatever gain may be coming as something extra, but don't count on it. This way, whatever comes your way will be a more of a welcome bonus rather than an irritating disappointment.

ou should be happier than usual with what you see in your mirror, dear Virgo, because your inner beauty is more visible than usual on your face. You could also be feeling especially sociable, and both old and new friends should find your company especially congenial. Romance blossoms, though there is a slight tendency today to see partners through rose-colored glasses. Hang on to your common sense, but not too much. Days like this don't come around that often!

A female friend whom you haven't seen for a while could surprise you with a phone call or short visit. A lot of interesting news and useful information could be exchanged, benefiting both of you. You may make a number of short journeys throughout the day, dear Scorpio, as you have a lot that needs to be done. A small increase in income could also be in the works. In the evening: Rent a romantic movie.

Sources:

Democratic Nomination Poll: American Research Group Poll

ARG completed 600 telephone interviews from May 14-15 among a random sample of likely Democratic primary voters living in Oregon (600 Democrats). The margin of error was +/- 4 percent.

General Election Poll: Gallup Daily Tracking Poll

The general election results are based on combined data from May 11-15, 2008. For results based on this sample of 3.466 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is +/-2 percentage points.

Horoscopes: horoscopes.co.uk and astrology.msn.com

Weather: Weather.com

Betting Lines: Intrade Prediction Markets

US Planning Big New Prison In Afghanistan

The Pentagon is moving forward with plans to build a new, 40-acre detention complex on the main American military base in Afghanistan, officials said, in a stark acknowledgment that the United States is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come.

The proposed detention center would replace the cavernous, makeshift American prison on the Bagram military base north of Kabul, which is now typically packed with about 630 prisoners, compared with the 270 held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

GOP Southerners Fear Obama Wave

The sharp surge in black turnout that Senator Barack Obama has helped to generate in recent primaries and Congressional races could signal a threat this fall to the longtime Republican dominance of the South, according to politicians and voting experts.

Should Mr. Obama become the Democratic nominee, he would still have to struggle for white swing voters in the South and in border states like West Virginia, where he lost decisively to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Tuesday's presidential primary. In West Virginia, where more than three-fourths of white voters chose Mrs. Clinton, 20 percent of the white voters said the race of the candidate mattered in their choice.

Analysis: Obama reacts fast to Bush on diplomacy

WASHINGTON — In President Bush's hint that Barack Obama wants to appease terrorists, Democrats heard troubling echoes of 2004, when Republicans portrayed John Kerry as irresolute and weak on national security.

Determined to end the similarities there, Obama and his allies counterattacked Friday with a multi-pronged response that was as fast and fierce as Kerry's response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads was slow and uncertain.

And while the Democrats' first-day responses focused on Bush's speech this week in Israel, Friday's reactions mainly targeted John McCain, the GOP presidential candidate who seemed largely on the sidelines at first.

Obama, appearing unusually feisty and at times sarcastic, led the countercharge himself. Campaigning in South Dakota, he departed from planned remarks to rebuke Bush and McCain, and then called a news conference for a second dose.

"I was offended by what is a continuation of a strategy from this White House, now mimicked by Senator McCain, that replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering," the Illinois senator said.

Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli parliament, he said, wasn't about policy.

"It was about politics, about trying to scare the American people," Obama said. "And that's what will not work in this election because the American people can look back at the track record of George Bush, supported by John McCain," and conclude that the nation was misled about the Iraq war's justification, cost, length and benefit to America.

For four years, Democrats have regretted Kerry's halting response to the so-called Swiftboat ads, aired by Bush supporters at a crucial time in their 2004 presidential contest. The ads portrayed Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, as dishonest and "unfit for command."

Many politicians, including McCain, condemned the ads, and some stations quit airing them. But the $25 million campaign triggered conversations on talk radio, TV programs and front porches nationwide. Swiftboat became part of the political vernacular.

The ads not only undermined Kerry's personal image. They helped divert attention from the Iraq war, whose unpopularity was growing, and they shifted the debate on national security to a broader, more personalized framework that benefited Bush.

Democratic strategists say Bush is trying to give McCain a blueprint for the same tactic, and they are determined to respond more promptly and forcefully.

"Like Bush, McCain knows that he needs to make the election less about the past conduct of the war," said Stephanie Cutter, who was Kerry's 2004 campaign spokeswoman. "He'll go after Obama's trustworthiness, just like Bush went after Kerry's."

But Obama, she said, has shown that he "can give as good as he gets by making McCain responsible for Bush's failures and calling him out for his politically expedient flip-flopping."

The Democratic counterattack against McCain began in earnest early Friday, with a Washington Post op-ed piece touching on Hamas, a Palestinian militant group that the United States considers a terrorist organization. Former Clinton administration State Department official James Rubin wrote that McCain, responding to a TV interview question two years ago about whether U.S. diplomats should work with the Hamas government in Gaza, said:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another," despite their unpalatable record. Rubin said McCain is "guilty of hypocrisy" and is "smearing" Obama.

The McCain campaign accused Rubin of airing an incomplete portion of the interview but focused its response Friday on Iran, not Hamas.

Campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama "has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad _ who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America's enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons."

McCain used similar words himself in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.

"It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests" with Iran, he said.

Obama has said he would pursue talks with Iran without insisting on "preconditions" that would likely prompt Iranian leaders to spurn the request.

Bush started the brouhaha, which dominated Friday's campaign news, with Thursday's speech to Israel's Knesset. After mentioning the president of Iran, he said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is _ the false comfort of appeasement.'"

It's unclear whether the 2008 campaign will feature attacks comparable to the Swiftboat ads. But if it does, the response is almost certain to be quicker and angrier than anything seen four years ago.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Charles Babington covers the presidential campaign for The Associated Press.

FEC nominee withdraws name

WASHINGTON — President Bush's contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission removed his name from consideration Friday, potentially ending a lengthy stalemate that had paralyzed the work of the agency.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination, saying it was time for the protracted deadlock to end.

Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said.

Democrats have objected to von Spakovsky's tenure at Justice, where he oversaw voting rights matters. The standoff has held up other Senate confirmations to the six-member FEC, which is without a quorum and has been unable to conduct business.

In a letter to Bush, von Spakovsky said the long-stalled process has been extremely hard on his family. "And quite frankly, we do not have the financial resources to continue to wait until this matter is resolved," he wrote.

He added: "The agency that is tasked with policing our campaign finance system needs to be operational during a presidential election year. The opposition to my nomination (however unfair) is preventing that from happening."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., welcomed von Spakovsky's withdrawal. Democrats have charged that von Spakovsky tried to suppress voter participation through new restrictions such as voter identification laws and voter roll purges.

"Democrats stood united in their opposition to von Spakovsky because of his long and well-documented history of working to suppress the rights of minorities and the elderly to vote," Reid said. "He was not qualified to hold any position of trust in our government."

Senate Republicans, however, argued that a recent Supreme court ruling upholding a strict Indiana voter identification law vindicated von Spakovsky's stance on the issue.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky blamed Democrats for obstructing what he called "a highly qualified nominee to the FEC."

"Once again, liberal interest groups did their best to manufacture controversy and, once again, Senate Democrats played along," McConnell said in a statement.

Bush sent the Senate a new slate of FEC nominees this month, retaining von Spakovsky but withdrawing the nomination of FEC Chairman David Mason.

Mason had clashed in the past with presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

The Senate could vote on the remaining four nominees awaiting confirmation or wait until Bush nominates a replacement for von Spakovsky. The commission consists of six members _ three from each party. It takes four votes on the commission to act, meaning that even with a 3-2 advantage, Democrats would need one Republican to avoid a deadlock.

The FEC has unfinished business before it, including final action on regulations governing candidate air travel as well as new rules on lobbyist fundraisers and joint advertising by national parties and federal candidates.

Also pending is action on McCain's decision to bypass public matching funds during the primary. Mason had informed McCain that he needed commission approval before withdrawing. Without a quorum, the FEC was unable to act. Mason also said McCain needed to explain the terms of a loan he obtained before he won the early primaries.

Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the most important action by the FEC is a "non-controversial and ministerial act" _ approving requests for public financing by presidential candidates. McCain is expected to ask for the $84 million available this year for the general election.

"It would be a terrible situation for a candidate wanting to get public financing to not be able to get it," Hasen said.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

John Ridley: Obama's Struggle With Typical Liberal Hypocrisy

From the beginning it's been fairly clear a big chunk of supposedly liberal America hasn't been ready for Barack Obama. Their unease obvious in the shock and awe of Joe Biden, and in Newsweek's inane, aloud wonderings of whether or not Obama was "black enough." "Black enough" for the liberals being people of color in the Sharpton/Jackson mold; Old Schoolers devoutly wed to the regressive ideology of loud haranguing and low expectations. Obama -- early on in a Pound Cake-esque fashion urging people of color to do better and questioning race-based affirmative action -- was clearly not "black enough" for the Liberal Plantation.

Any doubt that Obama was from the jump fighting not only for the presidency, but also against Lefty hypocrisy was shattered into a million pieces by Geraldine Ferraro's "lucky" black man remark. Those pieces then again refined by Clinton's talk of "hard-working Americans, white Americans."

Clearly much of the liberal Left has long seen...oh, your average non-hard-working black, as nothing more than a piece of a loyal voting bloc. Keep us anesthetized, they feel, with promises of hand outs and government mollycoddling and we will mindlessly check the "D" box on Election Day.

Conservatives are, of course, not a hair less bigoted in their hearts (nor are Independents or anyone else for that matter). But unlike Democrats, Republicans have found a way to play nicely with the ideologically aligned, regardless of the color of their skin.

That, perhaps, is part of the problem; Obama is more his own man than merely a Democratic tool. That he refused to put up a show, and then capitulate, makes him all the more frustrating to those on the Left used to their people of color playing by pre-prescribed rules.

In that regard it's too bad Obama's not an anti-war Republican. His "Yes We Can" message of hope, his Morning in America redux, would have worked much better had it not be drowned out by the typical gloom and doom drum beat of the liberal machine. And all that clack about him being elitist? Well, the Right's managed to sneak in a "down to earth" Ivy League president two cycles running. As both sides make a grab for the middle, imagine what the Right could have done with the likes of Obama.

Which is not to say that Obama won't still be elected president. At this point I think there's nothing that he can't do. Though, if so, he will do it despite the best efforts of the typical hypocrisy of the Left.

Michael A. Siegel: Bush's Knessup

George W. Bush's approval numbers are quickly approaching his neck size. He so badly wants to keep his presidency relevant. Nobody is certain why, but he found a sure fire way to do so: Inject himself into the presidential campaign in an address before the Israeli parliament marking the commemoration of the state's 60th anniversary.

White House press secretary Dana Perino barely earned her salary with a laughable denial of any implied swipe at Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy platform, as there is no mistaking what her boss was trying to do when he went right to the heart of Isreali security concerns mocking those who "believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

First, lets dispense with the nonsense: Senator Obama has never said that he would negotiate with terrorists.

What he has said is that he supported direct and unconditional talks with the leaders of Iran and North Korea. This was last July and in the past year he has expanded his argument maintaining that talks should be predicated on a "carrot and stick approach" that exerts pressure through a concerted measure of diplomacy backed by the force and support of international alliances.

Iran, the most contentious player in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is a case in point.

Senator Obama advocates and has repeatedly pushed for crippling Iran's infrastructure through heavy international sanctions, including mandates that companies based in Russia and France divest from their multi-million dollar Iranian operations.

Iran has no capability to convert its oil supply into refined fuel and without gasoline, they can't do much.

It's a smart, tough, and effective means of managing a relationship that pales in contrast to the panicked talk of regime change channeled by an administration through indirect communication via the media that almost put US troops in the crosshairs of further attacks last August in a region that will remain on the brink of destabilization for years because of actions launched under our current president.

There is of course one significant problem that Senator Obama's approach faces. In the past eight years the US has so isolated itself through a "Doctrine of Preemption" no one will listen to us.

James Wright: The New GI Bill: It's a Win-Win Proposition

When I was a youngster in the Midwest in the years after World War II, many people still called Memorial Day "Decoration Day," acknowledging its roots as a national day of mourning for the Union soldiers who had died in the Civil War. After World War I, the day became a time to honor all those who had died in uniform. For the past several years, however, it has been an occasion to remember the men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to think of our obligations to those who are still serving overseas or recovering at home.

Although national support for the wars is as limited today as it was for Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s, most people acknowledge that the policies that have taken us into the Middle East are not the fault of the men and women in the military. Yet few Americans realize that the young people who are serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan will not receive the kind of assistance that their grandfathers received when they returned from World War II. Educational benefits for the current generation of volunteers, whether they served in the regular military or in the Reserves or National Guard, are seriously inadequate. The original GI Bill covered the full cost of a veteran's education, but today the maximum assistance covers only 60 to 70 percent of average "tuition not room or board" at a public four-year university. In the coming days, Congress will consider a new GI Bill (S 22), sponsored by Sen. James H. Webb, a Democrat of Virginia, that will provide the support veterans deserve.

The idea of providing returning veterans with benefits as both a reward for their service and as a means of enabling them to reintegrate into civilian life dates to the early history of this country. Revolutionary War soldiers received military pensions, land grants, and other forms of care, depending on their service and its location. After the Civil War, Union soldiers (but not, until much later, their Confederate counterparts) received pensions. In anticipation of the large numbers of returning American troops from World War I, the government developed a comprehensive package of veterans benefits that included disability payments, pensions, rehabilitation, and vocational training.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, faced with the prospect of some 15 million returning military personnel from World War II, signed the GI Bill, in 1944.

Formally known as the Serviceman's Readjustment Act, the GI Bill provided tuition, room, and board, as well incidental expenses for books, to any veteran who attended a four-year college or university, a two-year college, or a trade school. The bill, which applied to both women and men and provided benefits regardless of race, was initially opposed by some of the leading educators of the day, who worried that the bill would open up their institutions to unqualified applicants.

Open up the academy is exactly what the bill did, although the veterans proved to be more than qualified. In the first year alone, one million of them used the benefit to attend college. Within a decade, eight million had attended college or vocational school. Colleges and universities across the country saw great expansions of their student bodies and increasing numbers of veterans in their classes. In 1947, at my own institution, Dartmouth College, 60 percent of the members of the incoming class were veterans.

The bill was largely responsible for the development of a new middle class, and it not only helped the returning veterans but also expanded American higher education. The "greatest generation" may well have made its greatest contributions as educated, resourceful, and creative civilians in the 60 years following the end of World War II. Before that, only one in 16 Americans had a college degree, compared with one in 5 by 1970.

Yet despite the overwhelming historical success of educational benefits for veterans, such support for those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan has, unfortunately, proved to be an unnecessarily complicated matter. Remarkably, Congress allowed the legislation for the new GI bill to sit for a year with no action on it. The three major arguments of those opposed: the expense of adding another entitlement program; Pentagon concerns that re-enlistments might suffer if too many people left the military to pursue higher education; and reservations by some in Congress about providing federal tuition dollars to wealthy institutions.

The estimated cost of the Webb bill is $45-billion in the first 10 years. We spend that much in less than six months in Iraq. Veterans' benefits are a cost of war, and support for them should not be held hostage to re-enlistment targets. While re-enlistments might indeed decline, a new GI Bill could also encourage more young people to sign up for military service.

Indeed, one of the military's greatest problems right now is declining enlistment. A more generous GI Bill would only improve the numbers and quality of enlistees. Access to higher education will give enlisted personnel the opportunity to successfully reintegrate into civilian life and will provide our country with another generation of well-educated citizens.

A few months ago, I spent some time visiting with Senator Webb and two of his Republican counterparts, John W. Warner, of Virginia, and Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, discussing the GI Bill. We spent the most time on that third sticking point: the reluctance to give taxpayer dollars to elite, wealthy, private institutions. There is a perception among many people in Congress that colleges like Dartmouth are holding on to endowment dollars while raising tuition at rates beyond those of inflation. That perception is ill-founded, and the GI Bill should not be held up waiting on the resolution of that debate.

The three senators and I discussed a plan under which the GI Bill would provide for tuition payments up to the level of the most expensive public university in the state in which the veteran enrolls. For those who enroll in private institutions or as nonresidents at public institutions where the tuition charge is greater, then the institution and the government will split the difference. That is the good compromise that Senators Webb and Warner introduced last month in the revised legislation.

As I write, the new GI Bill enjoys support from 57 Senators and 275 members of the House. It has been endorsed by virtually every veterans' group and by major higher-education associations. Passage should be assured, but it is not. President Bush has threatened to veto any attempt to add the bill to his $108-billion funding request.

Our campuses are quieter than they were in the Vietnam era, so it might be easier for some people to forget the sacrifices of our Americans in the military. Now is a good time to remember them and to recall the responsibility we share to those who represent us. American colleges and universities should help meet that responsibility by urging Congress and the president to support legislation that will give veterans the educational opportunities that they have more than earned. Maybe this Memorial Day, as we mourn those whose sacrifice is forever, we can thank and invest in those who have survived and now wish to move on with their lives.

James Wright, president of Dartmouth College, served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1957 to 1960. He worked with the American Council on Education to create a national higher-education counseling program for severely wounded U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

David Quigg: HRC's Choice: Seward or Chase?

William H. Seward or Salmon P. Chase?

This -- in addition to being the most arcane, nerdy question I've ever typed -- is the crucial choice Senator Clinton now faces. Seward and Chase shared the indignity of losing their party's nomination to a relatively inexperienced opponent. That opponent, a guy from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln, nonetheless won the presidency and invited both Seward and Chase to join his cabinet.

Both accepted.

Seward shined.

Chase, as best as I can tell, proved to be kind of a schmuck about the whole thing.

Now before my use of Ph.D.-level jargon like "schmuck" and "as best as I can tell" dazzles you into thinking I am some sort of history scholar, I do have a confession. Until a couple of days ago, all I knew about Seward was "Seward's Folly," his craaaaaaaaaazy 1867 decision to buy Alaska from Russia for all of $7.2 million. As for Salmon Chase, I'd literally never heard of him. Now I know lots. Right down to the trivia.

Like his uncle's name.

Philander.

Philander Chase.

Seriously.

NOTE TO PREGNANT READERS: Philander -- like Salmon, frankly -- is a name that deserves a resurgence. It could start with your unborn son.

NOTE TO NON-PREGNANT READERS: Out of respect for your time, I now will get to the actual point of this post.

I've just devoured an amazing book, Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I read it because of Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan cited the book in a column called "Obama-Clinton, a hate-filled dream ticket."

Since I'm repulsed by the "dream ticket" gimmick, I read Sullivan especially skeptically. So my alarms blared when Sullivan invoked Goodwin's book as a kind of Honest Abe Seal of Approval for an Obama-Clinton ticket. I'd heard a tiny bit about the book before and was pretty sure that Lincoln hadn't given any of his rivals the VP slot. I confirmed this by reading a summary of the book online.

I felt good and smug -- a trait I despise in myself and try to smack down whenever I notice it. As penance, I resolved to read the book, trusting that Goodwin had written something at least mildly interesting and re-opening my mind to the possibility Sullivan might have a legitimate point. As it turns out, he doesn't.

But I'm willing to forgive that since he led me to Team of Rivals. Let me tell you something I may be the last person in America to realize: Lincoln rocks. (I won't try to say something more subtle or insightful about Lincoln in this post. For now, just know that he rocks. I'll be reading more about him and expect to do more posts about what his leadership can teach us. At this preliminary stage, I can report that Lincoln offers lessons about everything from Iraq to sending e-mail that you won't live to regret.)

For now, let's get back to William Seward and Salmon Chase and why they're relevant to Senator Clinton at this wrenching moment. The first reason Seward and Chase matter is because they feel Clinton's pain. And we should, too. Sometimes we need the distance of history to remind ourselves of something I learned covering politics as a reporter: losing a bid for public office can be cataclysmically painful.

Goodwin, writing in 2005 before the words had any Clintonian significance, describes an "aura of inevitability" surrounding Seward's quest to become the Republican nominee in 1860. Drawn by that aura, thousands thronged his Auburn, NY estate to celebrate the certain news that their hometown guy had been picked. But instead came the convention's inexplicable result: Lincoln, a third-tier candidate, would be the nominee.

Goodwin describes the aftershocks for the "angry, hurt, and humiliated" front-runner:

Team of Rivals is, among other things, the story of how Seward rallied back. He campaigned for Lincoln, served devotedly as secretary of state through the calamity of the Civil War, became one of the president's dearest friends, and proved so indispensable and loyal to the Union cause that he was targeted in what was meant to be a synchronized triple assassination of Lincoln, Seward, and Vice President Andrew Johnson. On the night Lincoln was shot, another would-be assassin put Seward's son in a coma and slashed the secretary of state's face so savagely that the doctor who saved his life said he'd "looked like an exsanguinated corpse."

The Salmon Chase we meet on the pages of Goodwin's book could never quite do what Seward did, could never truly shake off the pain of losing to Lincoln in 1860. He campaigned for Lincoln. He served ably in the wartime cabinet. But as the 1864 election approached, Treasury Secretary Chase was engaged in a stealth campaign to take his boss's place as the Republican nominee. It failed. Lincoln kept him on anyway. But when Chase persisted in his pattern of behavior, sending Lincoln what was essentially his fourth tantrum-fueled, attention-seeking resignation letter in as many years, the president shocked him by accepting the resignation.

Godwin quotes what Lincoln is said to have told a confidante afterward:

Senator Clinton can choose to be Chase, who made his third and fourth failed runs for the presidency in 1868 and 1872. Or she can be Seward.

Lincoln, with his extraordinary gift for gauging the emotions and motives of powerful men, may have realized that even Seward wasn't fully ready to be Seward in 1860. Whatever Lincoln's rationale, all of us -- Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, their supporters, and the rest of America -- should note that Lincoln did not pick any of the men he'd beaten to serve as vice president.

There is, put simply, no Honest Abe Seal of Approval for an Obama-Clinton ticket. But there is, in Seward, a precedent for how Senator Clinton might perform a sort of alchemy on her disappointment, on her certainty that she'd make the better commander-in-chief. She can start, as Seward started, by hitting the trail in vigorous support of the victorious rival. Here, in Goodwin's words, is what greeted the defeated candidate when he put his party ahead of his grief and his bitterness.

Goodwin writes of an admirer on the campaign trail who told Seward, "you are doing more for Lincoln's election than any hundred men in the United States."

Seward's reply: "Well, I ought to."

Exactly.

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [32] -- Democrats Throw Bush A Few Elbows

Borah Peak, at 12,662 feet high, is the highest point in Idaho.

[That may sound like a strange place to begin this column, but please bear with me.]

It was named for Senator William Borah, known as "the Lion from Idaho." He had an impressive political career, even running for president at age 71, the first Idahoan ever to do so (of any age). Borah was a progressive, and clashed with his party over his often left-wing stances. He was even friendly toward Russian communists, while he was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was also a Republican.

But we speak of Borah today not for his lofty namesake peak, but because he also set the mark for senatorial shame from Idaho. Not even Larry Craig, the sitting (with a wide stance, no doubt) senator from Idaho is a bigger black eye for the state, in one respect. William Borah actually fathered a child with Teddy Roosevelt's daughter -- while they were both married to other people. Top that, Senator Craig!

Sexual escapades aside, Borah is currently being vilified (by a member of his own party, I should point out) for reportedly saying, after Hitler had started invading other countries, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer loves to quote this line, as an example of "appeasement" and everything that's wrong with it.

Which is why we're talking about William Borah. Because President Bush has been using the line. And a few others. Bush wants warn the world of the dangers of any politician (cough... Barack Obama... cough, cough) reckless enough to talk with anyone Bush has labeled an enemy.

Here is the entire (lengthy) passage from Bush's speech, from the official White House transcript, so you can see the full context.

We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's [sic] leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction. (Applause.)

We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve. (Applause.)

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

He gave this speech, complete with Hitler reference, in a speech to the Knesset, Israel's governing body. This isn't the first time he's dragged Hitler into a political speech, as I pointed out last November. But it is the first time he's used the Hitler argument in Israel, to the best of my knowledge.

So we will call this the "Knesset Corollary" to Godwin's Law (more precisely, to the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy). Properly stated: "Bringing up Hitler in an argument on a blog comment thread is one thing, but bringing up Hitler to bolster your argument in front of the Knesset is a whole different ballgame."

The most ironic thing in this whole sorry episode is what Bush said in Israel before he gave this speech:

"Mr. President, and Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for inviting me to speak at the Knesset tomorrow. I hear it's a place of many a sharp elbow. (Laughter.) I'm looking forward to giving my speech. (Laughter.) I'm not going to be throwing any elbows."

Maybe he just hadn't read what his speechwriters told him to say at this point, I don't know.

Maybe he was just ignorant of the entire history of diplomacy in the world. Who knows, with Bush?

But this long introduction has a purpose. And that is to point out that this time, Democrats threw some elbows right back. For once, Democrats needed no prompting to come out with both barrels blazing. Note to Democratic candidates for office: this is the correct way to react when someone questions your sanity or patriotism. Strongly denouncing such idiotic statements is the one way to make the other side think twice about making them in the future.

And Democrats did so this time around. Democratic voters should be proud.

Because there were so many good responses to Bush's idiocy from Democrats this week, for the first time in this column's history, I have no better talking points this week than the ones already spoken by many prominent Democrats. So we turn over the entire rest of the column to these responses.

The sentimental choice for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, who showed up in the House to vote one day, and the next day gave birth to a baby. Congratulations, Congresswoman Gillibrand!

Two other strong contenders for MIDOTW were John Edwards and "all the superdelegates who have been getting off the fence and making their endorsement known." Almost 600 superdelegates (out of 800 total) have now done so. But I couldn't quite hand them this week's award, because I'm still miffed at Edwards and the supers for taking their own sweet time to get to this point.

Which is why the MIDOTW award goes to none other than Joe Biden this week. Biden's response to President Bush's Knesset speech was the best of anyone's. Sure, he actually (gasp!) used profanity, but there are times when you've just got to call a cowpie, you know, "a cowpie." This is one of them, and Biden knew it.

"This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset...and make this kind of ridiculous statement," Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

"He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something."

He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we "need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them."

C'mon, Joe... tell us what you really think!

Heh heh.

Later, Biden tried to walk back his choice of language a bit, but he still blasted Bush while doing so:

In a conference call with reporters later in the afternoon, Biden said his initial word choice was "not very eloquent" and said he should have just stuck with the word "malarkey." Biden said he "reacted viscerally" when asked about Bush's speech after stepping off an elevator.

However, Biden again did not mince words when discussing Bush's remarks, accusing the president of engaging in "long-distance swiftboating" with his speech in Israel. Biden also cited numerous examples of the Bush Administration reaching out to unfriendly regimes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, arguing that Bush's insinuation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was "truly delusional ... and truly disgraceful."

Biden even told Bush to "get a life."

"This is the same president, who talks about appeasement, the same one who asks me to get on a plane and talk to Qaddafi," Biden said. "The same president who made a deal with Qaddafi. He writes letters, 'Dear Mr. Chairman' to Kim Jong Il.

"He oughta get a life here ... Under George W. Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom has been on the march ... They're a lot closer to the bomb... He calls Maliki our guy ... Whose policy produced that? Whose watch was that? ... Iran's proxy Hezbollah is on the ascendancy. Don't take my word for it, look at NIE ... Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda is stronger now.

"We should take zero backseat to this pres, talking about appeasement. ... Under him, Israel is less safe."

So this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Senator Biden. A special statuette of Biden chucking a cowpie at Bush will be struck for this week only, to honor Biden properly. Well done, Joe!

[Congratulate Senator Biden on his Senate contact page to let him know you appreciate what he said.]

I would have awarded Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week to Joe Lieberman, for his brown-nosing response to Bush:

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naive thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that -- if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers -- they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America's friends and America's enemies, and not confuse the two."

Alas, Lieberman is no longer a Democrat and therefore ineligible for the MDDOTW.

Instead, a group award is given to all remaining uncommitted Democratic superdelegates (with the exception of those from states who have not yet held primaries). It is time to get off the fence. There's no excuse anymore for waffling.

So to the more than 200 super-timid superdelegates in our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week group -- stand up and be counted, already!

Which brings us to the Talking Points part of the program.

In another first, since there were so many good talking points coming out of the mouths of Democrats in the past day or so, this column will run to an unprecedented eight items this week, instead of the usual lucky seven.

(Sniff)... I'm just so proud of you guys this week!

OK, enough of that. Onward to Democratic leaders showing me (instead of the other way 'round) how to do talking points right.

[Click on the person's name to see the article where the quote came from.]

Volume 32 (5/16/08)

   Senator Barack Obama

"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in a statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

The Illinois senator added: "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

From a separate article, also worth reading:

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days," Obama told about 2,000 voters at a town hall-style meeting in a livestock barn.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

During his swing through South Dakota, the Democratic front-runner said he had intended to focus on rural issues, but felt compelled to respond to the criticism from Bush and McCain.

"They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," said Obama. "But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

   Senator Hillary Clinton

"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," Clinton said. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address."

When a reporter reminded the New York senator that she too has criticized Sen. Obama for his statements on meeting with Iranian leaders, Clinton said, "I have differences with Sen. Obama on certain foreign policy matters, but I think we are united in our opposition to the Bush policies and to the continuation of those policies by Sen. McCain."

Clinton continued, "I disagree that any president would ever meet with a leader of a country which we have such deep and profound differences as Iran, for example. However I believe there should be diplomatic engagement, which President Bush has resisted from the very beginning. So I think that I have more in common with Sen. Obama and the Democratic position in our understanding of what we have to do to re-engage with the world."

   Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

[This one's even got video footage, if you want to watch.]

"You know, we have a protocol, sort of, a custom, informally, around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil," Pelosi told reporters this morning. "One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil.

"I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel, and I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks, who aspires to leadership in our country."

Asked if she was referring to McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, the California Democrat repeated: "Any serious person. Any serious person."

   Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

"The engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation's history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round," the Nevada Democrat said. "More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

"President Bush's own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations -- at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders -- can both show strength and produce results," Reid continued. "He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel's national security interests."

Reid called on Bush "to explain the inconsistency between his Administration's actions and his words."

   Senator John Kerry

In a separate statement, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said that Bush "is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset."

   DNC Chairman Howard Dean

"Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible."

   Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin

The White House insists that Bush wasn't referring specifically to Obama, an argument that Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) called "baloney."

"There is no escaping what the president is doing," said Durbin, who supports Obama. "It is an attack on Sen. Obama's position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy."

Durbin called Bush's remarks "unfair and really unfortunate."

   Representative Rahm Emanuel

"The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?"

I saved Rahm for last, because he's also head of the House Democratic campaign committee, and he put the icing on the cake this week by visiting the Republican campaign committee and not being too smug when he told them that they're in a ditch, and they might want to think about not digging it any deeper.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Caroline Presno: Election Mania

Voters are on an emotional rollercoaster with their candidates -- from the euphoria of incremental delegate gains one week to the dysphoria of gaffes and momentum shifts the next. Millions of voters are headed for a mood crash -- and we're not even out of primary season!

After an important election, one that really grips the country, I see an interesting trend in my clients during their therapy sessions -- if there were actual diagnoses for this trend, we might use terms like "election mania" or "post-election disorder."

Of course, this diagnosis only applies to those who have emotionally invested in their candidate and are wrapped up in the electoral process. One of the criteria for "election mania" is an insatiable appetite for political punditry to the extent that it affects social and occupational functioning i.e. you pick a fight with your spouse because he agrees with Pat Buchanan or you stay up way past your bedtime on a primary night to hear every word Tim Russert has to say.

The day after, I can always expect clients who backed the winning candidate to show me their victory like proud kids show parents their report card. However, for those on the losing team, I can expect to see an exacerbation of their current mental health diagnosis.

Depression and anxiety are the most prevalent. At its core, depression is about hopelessness and helplessness and anxiety is dread of an unknown future. After voters pour their trust and expectations into a candidate and that candidate doesn't make it, hope for the future can seem lost to them . . . and they worry.

Female supporters of Hillary Clinton are particularly vulnerable at this time with her campaign winding down. Not only did they view her as opening new policy doors, they saw her as rising up to smash the ceiling for women. From a mental health perspective, it's a good thing that it's a wind down rather than being an abrupt shock.

So what is the mood stabilizer for election mania? Here are a few suggestions:

--Developing insight into the condition is key. Recognize the impact the race is having on you emotionally. If you have a hard time with this try keeping an election diary so you have a place for your thoughts and feelings.

--Don't drop out of the political process if your candidate doesn't win. One of the best cures for hopelessness and helplessness is to get out there and keep doing.

--Maintain some objectivity. It's okay to pour your heart into this election -- it shows your passion. However, you also need to create a bit a distance so that you don't see things though a distorted lense.

--Distract yourself. Yes, that means watch a movie one night rather than Hardball with Chris Matthews.

--Focus on some of the positive gains your candidate has made i.e. changing the national dialogue, bringing important issues to the forefront.

--Recognize that history and the political process are often cyclical -- your turn will come around.

--Don't fall into the logical fallacy of catastrophe -- If x doesn't happen, then y is the end of it all. It's not the end . . . it's the beginning of a bumpy ride. Fasten up!