The backstory, if you are unfamiliar with it, is told in Mara Leveritt's wonderful book, later made into an HBO movie, Devil's Knot.  It is the story of "Satanic Panic" - boys accused of murder in part because of their proto-Gothic lifestyles, railroaded by a lazy and incompetent, and dishonest prosecution, and sentenced - one to death, one to life without parole, and one to 40 years without parole.  Reading the tale, one is amazed that a jury could even consider such weighty sentences on such scant evidence and with so little worthwhile investigation on the part of the state.  I oppose the death penalty on ethical grounds even in cases where guilt is as completely assured as is possible.  But I am outraged that the death penalty can be given out by a kangaroo court - which is what happend in West Memphis Arkansas a decade and a half ago. And that result would have stood had it not been for good luck on the part of the defendants, which may take even longer to eventually bring their exoneration and release. The update follows:

Black people, you have a cancer. It's an ugly tumorous growth that preys on the body politic, making it weak and sickly.  It is a cancer of your own making, and in the end it could destroy us all.

But don't worry. I, Whitey Republican, am going to cut that sucker right outta ya!

[...]there is a cancer on Black America.

Well, we are about to cut it out. The occasion of Obama's inevitable nomination makes the long needed operation imminent. And while we operate on blacks, we will finally have that conversation on race that Bill Clinton so craved yet saw within 25 minutes of the convening of the conference that no honest dialogue could be had since any white getting too close to the truth would be deemed a racist.

As this diarist pointed out, there are more similarities than differences between Obama and Clinton on universal healthcare, and there are differences which will have an impact on the outcome for people in our country.

But before we go into why I differ with that diarist in calling Obama's plan "wrong", let me just point out the obvious: both are "wrong", in a sense.  Single-payer is the solution that is needed in the U.S. today.  Both candidates are realists enough to know that we are not at a point, politically speaking, where that option is attainable, nor are we very likely to get there soon enough to justify putting off action for that day.  In fact, putting off action might just keep us from reaching that point. And so could doing it in a politically risky way - since that could poison the UH well and lead to another embarrassing defeat like the one we experienced in '94. We don't need another 14 year setback right now.

I don't have a clue how important Florida will be going into Super Tuesday. Despite it having no delegates, a big win for Hillary can be spun to her advantage, and a poor showing for her can be spun against her.  The former seems far more likely, with the only question how she does in the nearly-non-existant expectations game.

She's polling over 50% to Obama's ~25% and Edwards ~12%. That leaves 18% ~11% (oops) undecided, and poll numbers based on an electorate that may or may not turn out for their prospective candidate in the absence of Democratic GOTV, and knowing that they are going to the Convention without any promise of delegates.

Will Obama's big outcome and endoresments help him make it close in Florida? Will Edwards partisans take their energy to the polls without the need for much GOTV?

Ok, first:  I'm not going to ask anyone to change candidates.  I hope this thinking plays into your final decision on polling day, but I'm not asking anyone to jump ship. Clinton boosters have their reasons, I'm sure.  Those who have followed her career more closely than I probably see in her advocacy for women and children, and in her voting record, something very important - more important than "change" - at least the types of change that interest me most.

Edwards partisans - bless you. I was a Deaniac 4 years ago, and I watched the establishment candidate waltz in and take without effort what all of us tried so hard to give to our grassroots man. I had no interest at all in helping someone else beat Kerry. Howard Dean or bust... I did eventually switch to Clark when Dean was no longer viable, and then to Edwards... but my heart was out of it and I didn't give a dime  or a minute to either of those other candidates.  Maybe a bad move on my part... I don't know.

clammyc asks a good, serious question... and I can only give it a good serious reply in diary form. Too much for comments.  Here goes - Why Support Obama:

To begin with, I'd love to convince someone here, but that's not a big issue.  We'll have a lot more luck convincing ordinary voters to come pull the lever for a well-spoken, inspiring progressive over the alternatives (including the "stay home" alternative), than we can hope to have convincing partisan, progressive activists to give up a choice they've already considered and found reason to commit to.

But I do want to explain the case that convinced me for Obama - and maybe this perspective will sway some of the undecideds left here on dkos, and maybe it won't.

... Because whoever wins will be in a world of hurt come January 2009.

Let's see.

On inagauration day, one of our own will take full and utter responsibility for getting us out of one hell of a mess in Iraq (and let's hope it's still only Iraq by then).  That's not just getting our troops safely home.  It's also leaving a situation behind that will not devolve into utter chaos, ethnic cleansing, or Talibanesque radical rule. They'll have to do it with partisans, pundits, and constituents breathing down their necks.  They'll have to do it with History breathing down their necks. And they will have to question themselves over every life lost in the process: how much are they responsible for it?

And then...

One thing I've never thought of Kos (the guy, not the site) as being was gullible.  When I first saw the diary linking to HuffPo, I giggled - they took a statement about what options Barack Obama opted against in favor of doing community organizing - which included "trial lawyer" - and turned it into an right-wing assault on trial lawyers generally and John Edwards specifically.  I giggled - I didn't expect that diary to get rec'd up, and it didn't.

Then, I saw the front page about 30 minutes later, with a Kos by-line, with the only difference being a link to a WaPo article.

While random anti-Obama diarists make me giggle - with Kos, I tend to expect some "there" to be there...  So, I searched Google News & every other resource I could think of, but could not find the original text of the speech, one that includes a quote of Obama bashing trial lawyers.  

So, can anybody find that?  And if not, isn't someone owed an apology?

In 2003, I was a Deniac, recently converted with all the zeal and fire that goes with that, from political apathetic to hard-core supporter.  I gave money (that I couldn't afford).  I went to meetups.  I walked precincts. I started 2 of my own blogs (one of which now still functions off and on). The reason for my catharsis was the war - the horrible way in which it was sold, the costs in human suffering that it brought, and the feeling that I, as a tax-paying American, was enabling it. No, that's not the whole story... Because the real catharsis came when a man named Howard Dean - truly or falsely - convinced me that together, the millions who felt as I did, actually could have an impact.  Previously, I believed - truly or falsely - that I was completely powerless to change U.S. policy.

Krugman is the guy who gets the big headlines & diaries here.  I just want to quickly share thoughts of some others here, including progressive economists who aren't so fired up about the mandate side of the question.

Richard Eskow has a thoughtful piece, very on topic here. I quote from his discussions with economist David Cutler, Obama's senior health advisor..

"You can enroll them," Cutler replied, "and then forcibly collect the premiums. That’s one way to solve the problem. But it’s not necessary to do that."

"A better approach is to do everything possible to make it affordable and available. When it is, almost everyone will have it."

There are a couple of concerns about that approach. One is the problem of "adverse selection." Sicker people – or people with a greater likelihood of becoming sick – will enroll. That will drive plan costs up, making it prohibitively expensive.

(Continued..)

Ok - I've sat here quietly as hit diary after hit diary have scroolled down the list - some making it to "recommended" status, some not. I've commented in a couple - usually those attacking Obama, but I've disapproved quietly of most all of them.

I'm not sure why I feel moved to diary a response to this one. Maybe I see it as just a bit more dangerous than the rest, or maybe I'm just tired of the civil war atmosphere.  But, anyway... here goes.

First, let me go ahead tell you about how I see unions myself.  

I live in as state (Tennessee) that belongs on the endangered species list because of the pro-corporate state laws and general attitude of the population.  I work in a non-union industry, with all the worker's disadvantages that one would expect from that status.  At least once a month I think to myself that what my company really needs, simply because the abuses I see here make my blood boil and nothing would make me feel better than to see employees empowered to fight back.  My wife is a nurse, works two jobs, neither of which is organized.  There are virtually no opportunities to do her job in this part of the country as a union employee. She personally suffers the abuses of her employers (well, at least one of them). I continue below the flip.

I'm cross-posting this from back home, because I think it really is important to start thinking and/or acting on two fronts in response to the USSC decision today.

Although I didn't order them this way in my post, the first and most important is something that is doable - at least if we can get a veto-proof majority or hold it until there is a new President.  That is to amend the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act to provide exemptions for women's health.  If nothing else, it should be amended to provide exemptions for women's life or possible permanent disability.  This is something that we can call and write our legislators about tomorrow.

The other may be far-fetched, but it's something that is also needed:  a Constitutional amendment making explicit that people have a right to seek needed medical treatment.

Of course, many will wish to see a Constitutional amendment making abortion an explicit right.  I don't disagree.  I just see something that we should do even if we cannot do that, even if we do nothing else.  The post is entitled A Large Fraction?... below the fold...

The number one concern on the voters' minds during the Democratic Tsunami of 2006 was corruption, according to the exit polls. And that's good, because corruption in government is among the most insiduous anti-democratic forces to be reckoned with.  Now that Democrats are in charge in Congress, we need to see that our representatives there are fully on board with us and with the voters where it concerns this issue of paramount importance.

I see the election of leadership in the House as the first big test on whether the Democrats will bring needed change, and hold out an example that will help us keep our moral authority, and the voters' attention.  And the move toward Congressman Murtha for Majority Leader is a first step in the wrong direction.

More on the flip.

I appreciate this diary. It expresses my own feelings about Ford to a degree.  In fact, it may be the real reason he lost.  I don't know. Personally, I held my nose and voted for him.  On the other hand, maybe if he had inspired me to part with $25 that I felt was better invested in my family than in his asshole candidacy, that would have helped him.

It's true that he irked a lot of people with the Memphis Meltdown. He probably lost a lot of votes there. Petulance is unappealing in someone who asks to represent your state in the Senate, and it probably moved some undecided voters from his column to Corker's. Hell, it's one of the reasons we despise GW.

But the reason I think he really lost, above and beyond his obvious sense of entitlement, is twofold:

1)He failed to offer a compelling alternative
2)He was dishonest, particularly with regard to his own positions

More on the flip.

Principled folks have said they cannot support Ford because he is anti-gay and pro-torture, among other things. This is just a quick reminder that failure to support Harold Ford is equivalent to support for Bob Corker, who is also anti-gay and pro-torture, among other things.  Ford will vote for a Senate Leader who will oppose the anti-gay and pro-torture platform of those currently in power, among other things.  Let's get him in office.  Then, let's spend the next few years recruiting our very own Ned Lamont.

Sorry everybody.  This is very silly.  But it would be so nice to get the word out, because then I won't feel someone has dragged their fingernails down the chalkboard every time I spend any time reading comments here.

"Keep(ing) your powder dry" does not mean the same thing as "choosing your battles," or "saving your ammunition from this fight for a later one" or anything like that.

To keep your powder dry means to keep it from getting wet so you can use it to shoot someone. It's an ironic statement of Oliver Cromwell, made on the eve of battle, and in full context it means that we're going to need faith in God, but also a supply of dry gunpowder.

Uhh...
That's all.
Sorry I mentioned it, really.

Ok, a front page piece in the Chattanooga Times Free Press today gives a surprisingly fair reading of Corker's attacks on Ford as a liberal, and Ford's actual position.  Great.  But, deep inside, where the column is continued on page A6, is a quote from Ford that has rather disquieted me in my support for him. Here it is:

Liberals in Washington think I'm too conservative because I love Jesus and I'm head of the faith-based caucus, and I like the military.  I support spending on them.

Dear Mr. Bolten,

It was with great interest and disappointment that I read your September 5 replyto Senate Democrats' September 4 communication to President Bush.   I had hoped that you would acknowledge the failures of the overall strategy and specific tactics the President and Pentagon have adopted so far in Iraq, and reassure not only Harry Reid, but also the American people that the Administration was committed to repairing the worsening situation there.