And you may want to check them out.

The first is at the Seattle P-I, and it's on the subject of Democratic free-traders from my home state of Washington. For those of you not familiar with Washington politics, or the major issues of importance there, I'd encourage you to check it out. Last year, a contact of mine in DC stunned me with the suggestion that someone should go after Maria Cantwell for having voted for free trade agreements. If you read the piece, you may get a feel for why I thought that was a pretty stupid suggestion, and one which if employed probably would have just strengthened Cantwell (not the person making the suggestion's point, but then he wasn't from Washington and I think may never even have been there, so it's hardly surprising he was so off base on this).

The second is on next year's Senate races, at The American. I think people who read this blog rigorously probably have a sense of how I think some of the main Senate races are going to shake out, but there is a mention of one in particular in there that I don't think I've ever blogged about. In any event, check it out!

> Read more & share

Over at Reason, Brian Doherty is urging Congress to call Bush's bluff with regard to AG nominee Mukasey. Go take a look at what he (briefly) has to say.

While (as I said yesterday) I'm not convinced that were I in the Senate, I'd be concerned enough about Mukasey's responses on the subject of waterboarding to vote against him, I will say this: after having watched the President's remarks at Heritage again yesterday, I'd be tempted to do it, or just not vote, purely for the reason that Doherty implies. Bush is behaving like everyone's big, mean Daddy right now, and also happens to be leveling threats that sound to me an awful lot like "well, if you don't want that AG, you're not going to get any AG," which frankly is unacceptable in the context of American democracy. I think it's pretty clear from Bush's comments that we've now gone past the point of a president merely using the bully pulpit and trying to hard sell Congress on something they may not be prepared to buy, and have now reached the point where the President is actually, well, dictating and threatening. The problem is, no matter what one may think of his underlying case, or the merits of Mukasey, we live in a country where there's supposed to be balance between the different limbs of government, and where no single one does get to dictate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised Bush is trying it. All executives are prone to attempt to expand their power, and to order the other branches of government around (and I totally get the temptation given who's running the show on Capitol Hill and how idiotic a lot of what they do is). In addition, this administration has succeeded in expanding its powers, and so why would Bush not think he can act this way? That doesn't actually excuse his behavior, though, and so capricious as it might seem, I'd be tempted were I in the Senate to vote against Mukasey or not vote, and m...

> Read more & share

So, in the aftermath of the Democratic debate the other night, where Hillary Clinton pretty much bombed out, the issue of sexism in politics has come to the fore.

For those who haven't seen, Hillary Clinton's campaign has been going on the defensive with the "Piling On A Woman"/"All The Boys Are Mean And Sexist" thing, and not a few political pundits and newsmakers have been backing her up. And I'm getting irritated.

The dominant opinion in the political punditry world seems to be that Hillary Clinton is getting beaten up by the boys purely because of her genitalia and it's not fair and the boys need to stop it. I beg to differ. Hillary Clinton is getting beaten up by the boys because a) she's the frontrunner, by a mile, and that's what likely losers do to change their fortunes-- they attack the person with the most votes and b) Hillary refuses to take firm positions and takes the words "nuance" and "vague" to a whole new level. Otherwise bluntly put, this is not about her being a woman. This is about her being a frontrunner with significant flaws. And I, for one, am offended that few in the media seem capable of recognizing this.

Yesterday, on MSNBC, there were a stunning array of comments made on this subject ranging from the seeming implication by a representative of NOW (see the "Playing the gender card" link) that it's so important to send a message to our daughters that women can succeed in politics that maybe everyone should be nice to Hillary (coupled with the also implicit suggestion that because women inherently bring different life experience to jobs, Hillary being a woman is a qualification in itself), to the suggestion made by a guest on Hardball (link when I can find it) that even the mere questioning of Hillary's leadership experience by Rudy Giuliani amounts to...

> Read more & share